Studies on the Productive Potential and Conservation Strategy of Major Range Grasses in the Degrading Range Lands of Cholistan Desert

STUDIES ON THE PRODUCTIVE POTENTIAL AND CONSERVATION STRATEGY OF MAJOR RANGE GRASSES IN THE DEGRADING RANGE LANDS OF CHOLISTAN DESERT

MUHAMMAD RAFAY M.sc (Hons.) FORESTRY

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

FORESTRY

DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY, RANGE MANAGEMENT AND WILDLIFE

FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE FAISALABAD PAKISTAN 2012 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the contents of the thesis “Studies on the productive potential and conservation strategy on the major range grasses in degrading rangelands of Cholistan desert” are the product of my own research and no part has been copied from any published source (except the references, standard mathematical or genetic models/ equations/ formulae/ protocols etc). I further declare that this work has not been submitted for award of any other degree/ diploma. The University may take action if the information provided is found inaccurate at any stage. In case of any fault, the scholar will be proceeded against as per HEC plagiarism policy.

MUHMMAD RAFAY

2001-ag-1152

The Controller of Examination,

University of Agriculture,

Faisalabad.

We, the Supervisory Committee, certify that the contents and form of the thesis submitted by Mr. Muhammad Rafay (Reg. No. 2001-ag-1152) have been found satisfactory and recommend that it be processed for evaluation by External Examiner(s) for the award of degree.

SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE

1. Chairman ------

(Prof. Dr. Rashid Ahmad Khan)

2. Member ------

(Dr. Shahid Yaqoob)

3. Member ------

(Prof. Dr. Munir Ahmad)

DEDICATION To My Affable Father A symbol of success for me, Always behave me like a friend Whose mature, valuable, guidance, Financial assistance, enabled me to perceive and pursue higher ideas in life My Adorable Mother A minerate of love, affection, and kindness Who enlightened me A learning spirit I am learning much From her lap till now. My Svelte Brothers and Sisters Whose prayers, sympathies, Stress my way towards success Whatever am I Due to the efforts of All my family I am for them They are for me I have a great gratitude and pride for them Whose hands always rose in prayers for me

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Though only my name appears on the cover of this dissertation, a great many people have contributed to its production. I owe my gratitude to all those people who have made this dissertation possible and because of whom my doctoral experience has been one that I will cherish forever.

Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Prof. Dr. Rashid A Khan, Professor, Dept. of Forestry, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad for the continuous support of my Ph.D. study and research, for his patience, motivation, enthusiasm, and immense knowledge. His guidance helped me in all the time of research and writing of this thesis. I could not have imagined having a better advisor and mentor for my Ph.D. study. His insightful comments and constructive criticisms at different stages of my research were thought provoking and they helped me focus my ideas. I am grateful to him for holding me to a high research standard and enforcing strict validations for each research result, and thus teaching me how to do research.

Dr. Shahid Yaqoob and Prof. Dr. Munir Ahmad deserve special thanks as my thesis committee members. I have no words to explain my obligation to for their help during all the research work. From the core of my heart, I am thankful to Late Dr. Muhammad Arshad, Director, Cholistan Institute of Desert Studies, Bahawalpur for his valuable contribution during sampling. To say that his time with us was far too short will be an understatement. The reality is that all who loved and knew him will sorely miss him. He was a remarkable man and great scientist, we all are very fortunate for having known him. He is kind, honest and a man of great honor, strength & integrity. May God rest his soul in peace (Ameen).

I have lucky enough to have the support of many good friends. Life would not have been the same without my classmates. Many friends have helped me stay sane through these difficult years. I thank my friends for their stimulating discussions, for the sleepless nights we were working together before deadlines, and for all the fun, we have had in the last four years. Especially, I need to express my gratitude and deep appreciation to Muhammad Abdullah, whose friendship, hospitality, knowledge, and wisdom have supported, enlightened, and entertained me over the many years of our friendship. He has consistently helped me keep perspective on what is important in life and shown me how to deal with reality. Imran Sattar, Muhammad Aslam farooqi and Sohail Akhtar also deserve special thanks for their love, patience and understanding, and the assurance that the taxpayers wanted me to get back to work. Most importantly, none of this would have been possible without the love and patience of my family. My deepest gratitude goes to my family for their unflagging love and support throughout my life; this dissertation is simply impossible without them. I am indebted to my father for his care and love. I cannot ask for more from my mother, as she is simply perfect. I have no suitable word that can fully describe her everlasting love to me.

Last, but not any acknowledgement could never adequately express my obligation to loving sisters and sweet brothers for their moral inspiration and guidance, who always motivated me to carry myself through the noble ideas of life. I am thankful to them who shared my happiness, and made me happy.

MUHAMMAD RAFAY

LIST OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE NO. LIST OF FIGURES 5 LIST OF TABLES 6 LIST OF PLATES 7 LIST OF APPENDICES 7 ABBREVIATIONS 8 ABSTRACT 10 1 INTRODUCTION 11 1.1 BACKGROUND 11 1.2 OBJECTIVES 14 1.2.1 GENERAL OBJECTIVE 14 1.2.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 14 1.3 REFERENCES 15 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 18 2.1 FLORISTIC COMPOSITION 18 2.2 PHYTOSOCIOLOGY 19 2.2.1 PLANT COMMUNITIES 19 2.2.2 MULTIVARIATE STUDY 23 2.3 BIOMASS PRODUCTION 25 2.4 CARRYING CAPACITY 27 2.5 PALATABILITY CLASSIFICATION 29 2.6 NUTRITIONAL EVALUATION OF GRASSES 30 2.6.1 PROXIMATE ANALYSIS 30 2.6.2 FIBER CONSTITUENTS 33 2.6.3 MINERAL COMPOSITION 35 2.6.3.1 MACRO-MINERALS 36 2.6.3.1 MICRO-MINERALS 38 2.7 REFERENCES 41 3 STUDY AREA 61 3.1 GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION 61 3.2 CLIMATE 61

3.3 EDAPHALOGY 61 3.4 VEGETATION 62 3.5 FAUNA 63 3.6 WATER RESOURCES 63 3.7 REFERENCES 64 4 MATERIALS AND METHODS 67 4.1 RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY 67 4.2 FLORISTIC COMPOSITION 67 4.2.1 LIFE FORM 67 4..2.2 PHENOLOGY 69 4.2.3 ECONOMIC USE CLASSIFICATION 69 4.3 PHYTOSOCIOLOGICAL STUDY 69 4.3.1 SITE SELECTION AND VEGETATION SAMPLING 69 4.3.2 PHYTOSOCIOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES 70 4.3.2.1 IMPORTANCE VALUE 71 4.3.2.2 COMMUNITY STRUCTURE 72 4.3.3 MULTIVARIATE STUDY 72 4.3.4 GPS DATA 73 4.4 PHYSIO-CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SOIL 73 4.4.1 SOIL TEXTURE 73 4.4.2 SATURATION PERCENTAGE 73 4.4.3 pH AND ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY 73 4.4.4 MOISTURE CONTENT AND ORGANIC MATTER 73 4.4.5 SODIUM (Na) AND POTASSIUM (K) 74 4.4.6 AVAILABLE PHOSPHORUS 74 4.5 BIOMASS PRODUCTION OF RANGE GRASSES 74 4.6 CARRYING CAPACITY 74 4.7 PALATABILITY CLASSIFICATION 75 4.8 NUTRITIONAL EVALUATION OF SELECTED 75 GRASSES 4.8.1 PROCUREMENT OF SAMPLES 75 4.8.2 PROXIMATE ANALYSIS 75

4.8.3 FIBER CONSTITUENTS 76 4.8.4 MINERAL COMPOSITION 76 4.8.5 DATA ANALYSIS 76 4.9 REFERENCES 77 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 80 5.1 FLORISTIC COMPOSITION AND DIVERSITY 80 5.1.1 RESULTS 80 5.1.2 DISCUSSION 83 5.1.3 PHENOLOGY 85 5.1.3.1 RESULTS 85 5.1.3.2 DISCUSSION 87 5.1.4 ECONOMIC USE CLASSIFICATION 92 5.1.4.1 RESULTS 92 5.1.4.2 DISCUSSION 93 5.2 PHYTOSOCIOLOGY 94 5.2.1 COMMUNITY STRUCTURE 94 5.2.2 RESULTS 94 5.2.3 DISCUSSION 104 5.2.4 MULTIVARIATE STUDY 107 5.2.4.1 RESULTS 107 5.2.4.2 DISCUSSION 113 5.3 BIOMASS PRODUCTION OF GRASSES 116 5.3.1 RESULTS 116 5.3.2 DRY SEASON BIOMASS PRODUCTION 116 5.3.3 WET SEASON BIOMASS PRODUCTION 116 5.3.4 DISCUSSION 118 5.4 CARRYING CAPACITY 121 5.4.1 RESULTS 121 5.4.2 DRY SEASON CARRYING CAPACITY 121 5.4.3 WET SEASON CARRYING CAPACITY 121 5.4.4 DISCUSSION 122 5.5 PALATABILITY CLASSIFICATION 126

5.5.1 RESULTS 126 5.5.2 DISCUSSION 128 5.6 NUTRIONAL EVALUATION OF SELECTED 131 GRASS SPECIES 5.6.1 PROXIMATE ANALYSIS 131 5.6.1.1 RESULTS 131 5.6.1.2 DISCUSSION 133 5.6.2 FIBER CONSTITUENTS 135 5.6.2.1 RESULTS 135 5.6.2.2 DISCUSSION 137 5.6.3 MINERAL COMPOSITION 139 5.6.3.1 RESULTS 139 5.6.3.2 DISCUSSION 142 5.7 REFERENCES 149 6 SUMMARY AND CONSERVATION STRATEGY 171 6.1 SUMMARY 171 6.2 CONSERVATION STRATEGEY 173 6.2.1 IN-SITU CONSERVATION STRATEGY 173 6.2.2 EX-SITU CONSERVATION STRATEGY 176 6.3 REFERENCES 179

LIST OF FIGURES

FIG. NO. TITLE PAGE NO. 4.1 MAP OF CHOLISTAN DESERT SHOWING STUDY SITES 68

4.2 LAYOUT OF PHYTOSOCIOLOGICAL STUDY 70

5.1 LIFE FORM SPECTRUM OF GRASS SPECIES 80

5.2 ABUNDANCE OF GRASS SPECIES IN CHOLISTAN DESERT 81

5.3 LIFE SPAN OF GRASS SPECIES 81

5.4 PHENOLOGICAL PATTERNS OF GRASS SPECIES 87

5.5 ECONOMIC USE CLASSIFICATIONS OF RANGE GRASSES 92

5.6 DENDOGRAM SHOWING DIFFERENT VEGETATION GROUPS 110

5.7 DCA ORDINATION OF STANDS, USING SPECIES DATA OF 20 STANDS 111

5.8 CORELATION OF VEGETATION GROUPS WITH ENVIROMENTAL 112 VARIABLES 5.9 SEASONAL MEAN DRY BIOMASS AT THREE RANGE HABITATS 117

5.10 SESAONAL TOTAL BIOMASS PRODUCTION AT THREE HABITATS 117

5.11 SESONAL CARRYING CAPACITY AT THREE RANGE HABITATS 122

5.12 PALATABILITY CLASSES OF GRASS SPECIES 126

5.13 CLASSIFICATION OF GRASSES ON THE BASIS PARTS USED AND 127 ANIMAL PREFRENCES

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE NO. 3.1 MEAN METROLOGICAL DATA OF CHOLISTAN DESERT 62

5.1 FLORISTIC LIST OF GRASS SPECIES 82

5.2 GENERA FOR POACEAE IN CHOLISTAN DESERT 83

5.3 PHENOLOGICAL PATTERNS OF GRASS SPECIES 86

5.4 COMMUNITY STRUCTURES OF GRASS SPECIES ON THE BASIS 100 OF PHYTOSOCIOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES 5.5 PHYSIO-CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SOIL 103

5.6 MEAN IMPORTANCE VALUES OF PLANT SPECIES IN 108 THREE ASOCIATIONS 5.7 SUMMARY OF DETRENTED CORRESPONDENCE ANALYSIS 111

5.8 SUMMARY OF CANONICAL CORRESPONDENCE ANALYSIS 112

5.9 SEASONAL BIOMASS PRODUCTION (kg/ha) & GRAZING STATUS 118

5.10 SEASONAL CARRYING CAPACITY FROM THREE RANGE HABBITAS 122 IN CHOLISTAN DESERT 5.11 PROXIMATE COMPOSITION OF SELECTED GRASSES 132

5.12 FIBER CONSTITUENTS OF SELECTED GRASSES 136

5.13 MACRO-MINERAL COMPOSITION OF SELECTED GRASSES 140

5.14 MICRO-MINERAL COMPOSITION OF SELECTED GRASSES 142

LIST OF PLATES

PLATE NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

3.1 SEVERAL ASPECTS OF CHOLISTAN DESERT 66 4.1 RESEARCHER COLLECTS DATA AT THE STUDY SITES 79 5.1 MAJOR GRASS SPECIES OF CHOLISTAN DESERT 89 5.2 LANDSCAPES OF CHOLISTAN DESERT 114 5.3 OVER GRAZING IN CHOLISTAN DESERT 125 6.1 MAJOR THREATS TO CHOLISTAN DESERT 180

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE NO. NO. I. NAME AND GEOGRAPHICAL ASPECTS OF STUDY SITES 181

II. LIFE FORM ALONG WITH LIFE SPAN AND ECOLOGICAL 182 AVAILABILITY OF GRASSES III. CLASSIFICATION OF GRASSES ON THE BASIS OF ECONOMIC 183 USES IV. LEVEL OF FORAGE VALUE OF GRASS SPECIES 184

V. PALATABILITY CLASSES OF GRASS SPECIES 185

VI. PARTS OF GRASS SPECIES USED BY GRAZING ANIMALS 186

VII PREFERENCE OF GRASS SPECIES BY GRAZING ANIMALS 187

VIII PALATABILITY CLASSIFICATIONS OF GRASS SPECIES BASED 188 ON DEGREE OF PALATABILITY, ANIMAL PREFERENCES AND PART USED BY ANIMALS.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADF Acid Detergent Fiber ADL Acid Detergent Lignin ANOVA Analysis of Variance AOAC Association of Official Analytical Chemist ARC Agriculture Research Council AUM Animal unit per month AUY Animal unit per year Ca Calcium CA Cluster analysis CCA Canonical correspondence analysis CDA Cholistan Development Authority CF Crude fiber CP Crude protein Cu Copper DCA Detrended correspondence analysis DCP Digestible Crude Protein DM Dry Matter EE Ether Extract FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Fe Iron GDP Gross Development Product GOP Government of Pakistan ha hectare IVDMD In-vitro Dry Matter Digestibility IVI Importance Value Index IUCN International Union for conservation of nature K Potassium KPK Khyber Pakhtoon Khwan LSD Latin square design ME Metabolizable Energy Mg Magnesium

Mn Manganese MVSP Multivariate Statical Package N Nitrogen Na Sodium NCA National commission on Agriculture NDF Neutral Detergent Fiber OM Organic Matter PCRWR Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources SE Standard error SEM Standard Error of Mean T tone TIV Total Importance Values TLU Tropical Livestock Unit YAE Yak Adult Equivalent Zn Zinc

ABSTRACT This base line as well as comprehensive study about the productive potential of grasses in Cholistan desert was conducted for two consecutive years from 2009 to 2010. The aim of this study was to study the floristic composition, vegetation structure, biomass production, carrying capacity, palatability and nutritional evaluation of grass species. Based on our findings, total 27 grass species consisting of 16 genera, belonging to family Poaceae were identified. The documented grasses comprised of 13 annuals species and 14 perennials species whereas therophyte was dominant life form including 16 grass species followed by hemicrytophytes with 09 species and phanerophytes with 02 species. Abundance of grasses showed that 06 grass species were found very common, 14 were common and 07 species were rare. In current study, two phenological seasons were recognized from the Cholistan desert. First season started from February and ended in May while second phenological season was from August to December. Maximum grass species were found to be flowering during the second spell as compare to first one. Further, based on economic use classification it was observed that all 27 grasses were being used as fodder/forage while 05 species were used as medicine in the investigated area. Based on phytosociological study, twenty grass communities were identified from selected range sites. However, multivariate analysis has produce three major vegetation groups i.e. interdunal, sandunal and clayey saline group. The soil texture of sandunal group was sandy, interdunal group was sandy loam whereas clayey saline group was clayey. Moreover, it was observed that fluctuations in rainfall pattern influenced the biomass productivity of range grasses in the study area. There was high biomass production in wet season (8068 Kg/ha) as compared to dry season (5595 Kg/ha). Following the biomass productivity of grasses, overall carrying capacity of rangelands of Cholistan desert was 24.20 ha/AU/year during dry season and 17.25 ha/AU/year in wet season. However, stocking rate varied from 0.041 AU/ha/year in dry season to 0.057AU/ha/year in wet season. In this study, degree of palatability showed that all the identified grass species were palatable. Out of which 18 grass species were highly palatable while 07 were moderately palatable and 02 were less palatable species. Among 27 palatable grass species 25 species (92.6%) were used by goats, 26 species (96.3%) were used by sheep and cattle, and camel were using only 07 grass species (25.9 %). It was noted that flower and fruit parts of grasses were grazed in 14 species (51.8 %) and 08 species (29.8 %) respectively, whereas in 26 species (96.3%) leaves were used and in 23 species (85.1%) stem parts were grazed. Similarly, nutritional evaluation consisting of chemical, structural, and mineral analysis of major range grasses was conducted. Results showed that grasses were good source of dry matter and crude protein but deficient in other nutrients and remained fail to meet the animal requirements for optimum livestock production in Cholistan rangelands. Overall, this study showed that the investigated rangeland is less productive and needs proper management and rehabilitation through ecological approaches. There is a need that Government should give complete protection to this rangeland and provide alternate resource of energy to lessen the burden on this area. It is recommended that low stocking rate during growing seasons and moderate stocking rate during dry spell by proper livestock management technique improve range biomass, species diversity, and rangeland carrying capacity. This all would be possible with the participation of local people/pastoralist and Government to make the resources sustainable.

INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1

1.1. BACKGROUND Rangelands are vibrant systems that are classified into different categories based on ecological criteria. It is not easy but necessary task to evaluate the productive potential of any rangeland. The capacity of the rangelands to meet the demands placed on them depends on different factors such as integrity of soils, vegetation cover, available potential forage species and ecological processes that are on their actual conditions (Hussain, 1992). Categorizing the rangelands as excellent, good and poor is an essential step in defining the rangeland condition and sustainability. The threshold level of rangeland health is defined as the boundary between ecological status of a rangeland ecosystem that once crossed, is not easily reversible and which ultimately results in the loss of productivity and sustainability. The rangeland assessment system must therefore present insight about a rangeland’s vulnerability to shift across the threshold of rangeland health. A one-time evaluation of rangeland characteristics is only a picture of the current situation at the time of measurement. Without previous measurement with which the current measurement can be compared, the ability to interpret the effect of land utilization is limited (Todd et al., 1998).

Rangelands cover approximately 50 percent of the Earth’s land mass and supporting about 15% of its population (CSREES, 2009). Similarly, in Pakistan, rangelands are distributed over 45 million hectares or 65% of the total land area (Anonymous, 2006). Out of which 11 million hectares are falls in desert regions where climatic conditions are hyper arid and receive less than 60 mm annual rainfall (UNEP, 1998). These rangelands are characterized by less fertile soil and face degradation due to overgrazing while vegetation is sparse and nutritionally low grade with abundance of unpalatable species (Durrani et al., 2005). In addition, lack of clean water and low precipitation are also key factors responsible for the aridity of this region (Naz et al., 2011). Due to their very low productivity, it is not possible to utilize such areas (rangelands) for sustainable and productive farming (Farooq et al., 2008; NCA, 2011).

Rangelands provide variety of ecosystem services including food, fiber, wildlife habitat, water, recreation, aesthetic values, cultural heritage, and ecological and socioeconomic benefits (Holechek, 2007; Wallace et al., 2008). In Pakistan, livestock is a chief source of earnings in arid, semiarid, irrigated and rain fed areas. Rangelands of Pakistan are supporting

11 nearly 30 million herds of livestock, which contribute 400 million dollars to Pakistan’s annual export income (Anonymous, 2006). Moreover, sheep and goats obtain about 60 %, horses, donkeys, and camels receive 40% whereas cattle and buffaloes receive 5% of their feed from these rangelands (FSMP, 2003). According to the latest livestock survey, total number of animal heads from all resources was raised from 143 million in 2006 to 154.7 million head (GOP, 2008). In addition to providing grazing, the rangelands play their important role in building national health by providing meat and milk to overcome the problem of mal-nutrition (Quraishi et al., 1993). On the other hand, cultivated area for fodder production has decreased, that reduced the supply of cultivated green fodder. Consequently, fodder production is the major limiting factor for livestock production. During previous decades, 11.6% decrease in fodder area has been reported (GOP, 2008). In spite of this, the past policies have been made in favored of cash crops than livestock production, resulting in the exploitation of land having economically low production potentials (Afzal, 2007). Furthermore, highly productive rangelands are continuously converting into croplands leaving poorer lands for livestock production without considering about the conservation status of soil (Pratt et al., 1997).

The perspective in which the world’s rangelands are viewed is rapidly changing. Conflicts in natural resource management are increasing, and there is constant stress that what rangelands can provide and multiple objectives that people have for them. In Pakistan, livestock are an integral part of farming system and a key source of livelihood of millions of people. The livestock population in Pakistan is rapidly increasing and livestock heads has long been exceeded beyond the carrying capacity of existing rangelands. Ultimately over-grazing has become a key problem, which leads to soil compaction, removal of vegetation cover, and their later destruction through water and wind erosion, which finally cause the reduction of rangeland productivity (Anonymous, 2008). As a result highly palatable grasses, shrubs, legumes, herbaceous vegetation, and trees that once covered the entire rangelands have been thinning out, destroyed, and gradually replaced by unpalatable, thorny, and toxic vegetation. Afore said misuses of natural resources that results in inadequate forage supply thus subjecting heavy losses to livestock and ultimately put the food security of Pakistan at risk (Alvi and Sharif, 1995).

All the above-mentioned problems are the outcome of deterioration and degradation of rangelands. Many developing countries have more than 50 percent of their rangelands degraded

(World Bank, 1992). According to Chrisholm and Dumsday (1987), rangeland degradation may be defined as the loss of potential utility or the reduction, change or loss of features of rangeland ecosystem, which cannot be, changed. It showed the possibility of the recovery of degraded rangeland. According to ecological point of view, degradation can be treated as retrogression of an ecosystem and revival of degraded rangeland as secondary succession (Numata, 1969; Narjisee, 2000). Once rangeland has been degraded, it may be possible to restore it to a level of utility, or maybe not to its original condition, but better than it was in its damaged state (Ludwig and Tongway, 2000; Thurow, 2000). Rangeland degradation process mostly occurs in arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid areas resulting from several factors including climatic variations and human activities. It is gradually increasing in all over the world (Barrow, 1991; Kassas, 1995). The rangelands of Cholistan desert are also facing serious problems of degradation due to many reasons such as over grazing, short period of production, prolong drought, soil erosion, and non-availability of palatable forage species. The existing plant species are only productive during the monsoon season, consequently all range animal species are poor in growth and produce extremely low yield of milk and meat. The problem of range degradation is widespread, however planned research activities yielded positively elsewhere except in developing countries like Pakistan (Hassan and Ahmad, 2001; Ahmad et al., 2006).

Cholistan desert is being one of the largest rangelands of Pakistan and can support 140,000 animal units for 5 months in a year. However, informatory the livestock population of Cholistan is increasing day by day and has approached to 150,000 animal units. This increase in the stocking rate has caused great pressure on the already over-grazed rangeland. Increase in livestock population and cutting of vegetation by the local pastoralists for construction of thatched houses, fuel wood and cloth washing has seriously damaged the plant cover of the area (Iqbal et al., 2000). Presence of archaeological ruins in Cholistan desert indicates that availability of water in this area was higher a few centuries before. Continues reduction in vegetation cover has considerably increased its surface temperature. As a result, high temperature has increases the evaporation rate of limited rainfall during the last decades and ultimately reduced the effective rainfall accessible for range and groundwater recharge, which is recognized as self-reinforcing feature for desertification.

The vegetation of Cholistan rangelands is comprised of a wide variety of grasses that occupy the entire territory. These grasses are well adapted to acute seasonal temperatures, moisture fluctuations, and different edaphic restraints of this rangeland (Arshad et al., 2009). However, overgrazing, extreme climatic conditions, illegal harvesting has affected the potential of this natural recourse. Erratic rainfall also influences grass species, which in spite of its high sprouting potentials, does not fulfill the requirements of livestock dependent on them and therefore, mostly grasses are present in the form of over-grazed stubbles (Ashraf et al., 2006). Although, rangelands of Cholistan are depicting poor situation but in fact, it still have high potential for improvement and development. Native grasses can play their dynamic role to restore and rehabilitate damaged rangelands of Cholistan desert. Grasses are most important component of range ecosystem as they provide abundant biomass for livestock grazing, highly palatable, nutritious, quickly digestible and act as soil binder compared to any other range vegetation (Quraishi, et al., 1993). Therefore, present study was designed to have insight about grasses in order to conserve them. Studies on the floristic composition, vegetation structure, biomass, carrying capacity and nutritional evaluation of grass species with their conservation strategy are main components of this thesis, that were studied for the wellbeing of Cholistan desert.

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1.2.1 GENERAL OBJECTIVE

To study the productivity potential and to devise the conservation strategy of grasses in the rangelands of Cholistan desert

1.2.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

The particular objectives of this study were to

 Analyze the floristic composition of grasses  Investigate the vegetation structure of range grasses  Estimate the grasses productivity and carrying capacity  Determine the palatability, parts used and animal preferences of grasses  Evaluate the nutritional status of major grass species  Develop the conservation strategy for the grasses of Cholistan rangelands

1.3 REFERENCES

Afzal, M. 2007. Livestock Development Policy, Livestock and Dairy Development Board, Ministry of Food, Agricultural and Livestock, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. Ahmad, M., F.A. Raza, J. Masud and I. Ali. 2006. Ecological assessment of production potential for rangeland vegetation in Southern Attock, Pakistan. J. Agri. Soc. Sci., 2(4): 212-215. Alvi, A.S. and M. Sharif. 1995. Arid zone agriculture and research in Pakistan. Prog. Farm., 15(2): 5-12. Anonymous. 2006. Economic Survey, Government of Pakistan, Finance Division, Islamabad, Pakistan. Anonymous. 2008. ICARDA. Integrated Watershed Development for Food Security and Sustainable Improvement of Livelihood in Barani, Pakistan. Technical report of International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, p. 86. Arshad, M., I. Hussain, M.Y. Ashraf, S. Noureen and M. Mukhtar. 2009. Study on agro morphological variation in germplasm of Lasiurus scindicus from Cholistan desert, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 41(3): 1331-1337. Ashraf, M., M. Hameed, M. Arshad, M.Y. Ashraf and K. Akhtar. 2006. Salt tolerance of some potential forage grasses from Cholistan desert of Pakistan. In: Khan M.A. and D.J. Weber, (eds.), Eco-physiology of High Salinity Tolerant Plants. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 31-54. Barrow, C.J. 1991. Land degradation: Development and breakdown of terrestrial Environments. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. CSREES. 2009. Rangelands and Grasslands. Available online at http://romulo2.rssing. com/chan-3143267/latest.php (Accessed April 3, 2011). Durrani, M.J., F. Hussain and S. Rehman. 2005. Ecological characteristics of plants of Harboi rangeland, Kalat, Balochistan. J. Trop. Subtrop. Bot., 13: 130-138. Farooq, U., N.A. Shah, M.N. Akmal, W. Akhtar, A. Akram and A.B. Rind. 2008. Socioeconomic, Institutional and Policy Constraints to Livestock Productivity in Tharparkar Desert of Pakistan, ALP Project Report, Social Sciences Institute, National Agricultural Research Center, Islamabad. FSMP. 2003. Forest Sector Master Plan: National perspective. Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Cooperatives, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, Pakistan.

GOP (Govt. of Pakistan). 2008. Economic Survey of Pakistan. Finance Division, Economic Advisor’s Wing, Islamabad. Hassan, M.U. and F. Ahmad. 2001. The relative susceptibility of different varieties/lines of gram (Cicer arientum L.) to dhora (Callosobruchus chinensis L.). Pak. Entomol., 23(1- 2): 53-56. Holechek, J. 2007. National Security and Rangelands. Rangelands., 29: 33-38. Hussain, S.S. 1992. Pakistan Manual of Plant Ecology. National Book Foundation, Islamabad, Pakistan, p. 376. Iqbal, M., U. Farooq, A. Bashir, N.A. Khan and S.Z. Malik. 2000. A Baseline Survey for the Development of Livestock Sector in Cholistan, Joint Publication of AERU, AARI, Faisalabad, Kassas, M. 1995: Desertification: A General-Review. J. Arid Environ., 30: 115-128. Ludwig, J.A. and D.J. Tongway. 2000. Viewing rangelands as landscape systems. In: Arnalds, o. and S. Archer, (eds.), Rangeland Desertification. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 39-52. Narjisse, H. 2000. Rangelands issues and trends in developing countries. In: Arnalds, O. and S. Archer, (eds.), Rangeland Desertification. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 181-195. National Commission on Agriculture. 2011. Report of the National Commission on Agriculture, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. Naz, N. 2011. Adaptive Components of Salt Tolerance in Some Grasses of Cholistan Desert, Pakistan. PhD Thesis. University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. Numata, M. 1969. Progressive and retrogressive gradient of grassland vegetation measured by degree of succession, ecological judgment of grassland condition and trend (IV). Vegetatio., 19: 96-127. Pratt, D.J, F.L. Gall and C.D. Haan. 1997. Investing in Pastoralism. The International Bank of Reconstruction and Development. The World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA. Quraishi, M.A.A., G.S. Khan and M.S. Yaqoob. 1993. Range Management of Pakistan, pp. 4- 229.

Thurow, T.L. 2000. Hydrologic effects on rangeland degradation and restoration processes. In: Arnalds, O. and S. Archer, (eds.), Rangeland Desertification. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 53-66. Todd, S.W., C. Seymour, D.F. Joubert and M.T. Hoffmann. 1998. Communal rangelands and biodiversity: Insights from Paulshoek, Namaqualand. In: De-Bruyn, T. and P.F. Scogings, (eds.), Communal Rangelands in Southern Africa: A synthesis of knowledge. Department of Livestock and Pasture Science, University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa, pp. 177-189. UNCED. 1992. Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Combating Desertification and Drought. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Chapter 12, June 3-14, 1992, Rio de-Janeiro, Brazil. UNEP. 1998. Mountain Environment and Natural Resources Information System. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), UNEP Environment Assessment Programme for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok. Wallace, G., D. Theobald, T. Ernst and K. King. 2008. Assessing the ecological and social benefits of private land conservation in Colorado. Conserv. Biol., 22: 284-296. World Bank. 1992. World Development Report.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE CHAPTER 2

2.1 FLORISTIC COMPOSITION

Studies on the floristic or botanical composition are basic for the applied sciences such as rangeland conservation and management (Jankju et al., 2011). The structuring blocks of any vegetation types are individual plants. Individuals of plant species together form a species population; groups of plant species growing together are called plant communities (Kent and Coker, 1992). A plant community is therefore described as a grouping of plants, at a certain scale, sharing a common environment and distinguished by a particular floristic composition (Westfall et al., 1997). Plants communities have almost similar ecological requirements for light, water, temperature, and soil nutrients (Kent and Coker, 1992). The major distinctions between plants communities and in their physiognomy are its life form spectrum.

Creating floristic inventory of any area by plant taxonomists is a frequent practice all over the world to get base line information about plants. A flora is a compiled checklist of plant species growing in any geographic area (Belaynesh, 2006). Through these observations, significant information is recorded which could be used as reference for future studies. Since the world ecological conditions are extremely variable, hence a vast range of floras is available ranging from field to research floras. Reasonably healthy floras provide an opportunity that can be used for suitable identification of all our plant wealth so that its utilization could be taken up on a systematic and scientific basis. The identification of local plants along with the site description is very necessary because it can provide complete list of particular species of the local area along with growing season, occurrence, species hardness, distinct species, searching new species and the effect of climatic conditions (Ali, 2008).

Natural vegetation in arid and semi-arid region is consisting of three basic characteristics such as soil biological crusts, annuals, and perennials (Karnieli et al., 2002). Field observations recommend that the seasonal phenological cycle of natural desert vegetation can be split into three features that are similar to the above three ground characteristics and in a way that is not generally considered, either in farming areas or in moist regions. Phenology and climate are related in term of day length, temperature and rainfall. Plants show seasonality in

18 the life form and phenological phase (Marqueus et al., 2004). Perennial plants of deserts have to adapt themselves to water scarcity (Gutterman, 2000). Adaptation in desert plants may be physiological, morphological, or behavioral in nature and affects the concentration of pigment or may be the leaf structure (Evenari et al., 1982; Danin, 1991). Full photosynthetic activity and sprouting of perennial species take place only after water reaches their deep root system. Therefore, their phenological cycle initiates a few months after that of the biological soil crusts and annuals (Xi and Ping, 2003).

A very small work has been done on the floristic study of Cholistan desert however, many studies have been reported from inside and outside of the country. Arshad and Rao (1994) has recorded the floristic composition and compiled a systematic list of flora of Cholistan Desert. Qureshi and Bhatti (2010) studied the floristic composition from Nara Desert, Pakistan. They have identified 145 plant species belonging to 104 genera and 43 families. Rashid et al. (2011) recorded the status of plant communities and association with certain habitat in the rangelands of Malan Jaba Sawat, Pakistan. A preliminary floristic assessment of Thar Desert, Pakistan has been done by Chaudhary and Chuttar (1966). Rajput et al. (1991) reported 40 plant species belonging to 23 families from Thar Desert, which are being used as medicinal plants for various diseases. A research work has been conducted by Bhatti et al. (2001) on the floristic assessment of Nara desert, a north eastern part of greater Thar Desert, Pakistan. In the same way, the floristic composition of Gorakh hill (Khirthar range) has been reported by Parveen and Hussain (2007). They recorded 74 species belonging to 62 genera and 34 families. Ansari et al. (1993) published a floristic list of district Khairpur. Some other workers who contributed in this regard were Carvalho da Costa et al., (2007) who recorded 133 plant species belonging to 47 families. They classified them as cryptophytes (2.3%), chamaephytes (15.8%), hemicryptophytes (12.8%), phanerophytes (26.3%) and therophytes (42.9%) based on physiognomic and life form. Likewise, Devineau and Fournier (2007) assessed the richness and composition of herbaceous vegetation of Western Africa.

2.2 PHYTOSOCIOLOGY

2.2.1 PLANT COMMUNITIES

All the living organisms of this universe depend on plants for food, shelter, and fuel. Even when we are using the things that have been obtained from animal sources, indirectly

19 plants are used, because all animals eventually depend on plants for their liveliness. It means that all the ecosystems of this earth are also dependent on plants. Resultantly, the safety of the world of plants and the conservation of biodiversity (a wide series of animals and plants), ecosystems communities, and biological processes are of very important (Miller et al., 2000). Plants are the natural component of our earth landscape and no plant species occurs everywhere in the world, each species is being distributed according to its own specific characteristics that comprise its particular environmental conditions. These species with similar ecological character extend into the similar plant formations and at the broader scale these leads to the development of major biomes of the world (Perez and Frangi, 2000).

Phytosociology is a process by which plant communities are recognized and defined. The identification of plant communities is important baseline information for the formulation of an ecological management plan. Individual plant communities have the same species composition, vegetation structure, palatability and therefore the same inherent potential and management requirements. Once the plant communities have been identified, further research can be conducted on vegetation composition, plant production, grazing capacity, browsing capacity, diversity, and conservation of the vegetation. Managers need to optimize utilization when devising a management plan, and therefore classification of the vegetation into plant communities or habitat types is essential (Van Rooyen, 2002). Phytosociology is a sub discipline of plant ecology that explains the co-occurrence of plant species within the communities (Ewald, 2003). Phytosociological studies visualize the existing vegetation structure, species diversity, soil plant relationship; generate data on seasonal and temporal variation in available nutrients. There has been always a dire need to investigate and interpret the plant communities on different exposure and gather the first hand information of the vegetation. The concept of structure is used in all biological research as a complementary concept to function, which is related to physiological processes and structure (Mueller- Dumbois and Ellenberg, 1974).

Primary producers are the most essential component in almost all ecosystems. Thus knowing which plant species grow in a particular area and why its elemental knowledge required for any decisions related to resource management and conservation. In the developed world, national inventories of plant species are almost complete, while many developing countries are struggling to complete even basic inventories of high priority areas.

Pre occupied with day-to-day issues of survival, policy makers usually pay very little attention to supporting basic research. Yet basic research provides the much-needed information to solve environmental problems such as desertification and restoration of disturbed land (Krishnmurthy, 2003). Biogeographically studies concerned with distribution of particular taxa help in interpreting the vegetation history in a specific area, while interrelations between vegetation and the environment explain the small-scale patterns encountered as well as contribute to the understanding of the functioning of a particular ecosystem (Jafferies, 1997).

Rangeland condition is the health and status of the range which can be assess on the basis of vegetation composition on an area, ground cover and soil status. The perceptions of ‘range condition’ imply that a desired vegetation cover in terms of quantity and composition exists for each particular land system (Pratt and Gwynne, 1977). Amaha (2006) reported that rangeland condition is a conception that covers the levels of particular indicators such as species composition, vegetation cover, forage production, soil condition and management at a particular location aimed at livestock production on sustainable basis. Determining the botanical composition of a rangeland is a key step to understand the forage value of individual species and their reaction to biotic and abiotic factors, which might be explained in terms of the species types, total yield, and density of basal cover (Trollope et al., 1990; Van der Westhuizen et al., 1999; Friedel et al., 2000).

The concept of vegetation composition changing along environmental gradients begin in contrast with community-unity theory, which declared that plant communities are natural units of co-evolved species populations forming, discrete, recognizable and homogeneous units (Austin, 1985). The distribution of plants is affected by a wide variety of environmental and biotic factors; however, the ultimate deterministic pattern of vegetation distributions according to Brown, (1994) is the variation in the physical environment. Austin (1980) and Austin and Cunningham (1981) separated environmental gradients into three types indirect (altitude), direct (pH) and resource gradients (nitrogen). These environmental gradients interact and determine the resource availability for plants. These interactions are responsible for species, populations, and community characteristics to change along environmental gradients (Whittaker, 1970). The health and ecological conditions of a plant or animal community or site is normally not easy to quantify, and beneficial or ‘keystone’ species are normally considered

as indicators of ecosystem health (Breckenridge et al., 1995). Health assessment of deserts has many challenges because of their diversity in composition and structure, the harsh environments along with extreme temperature, topography, and our inadequate knowledge of how they collectively function (Noss, 1990; NRC, 1994).

Vegetation communities are the outcome of ecological conditions, habitat, and existing vegetation structure. Phytosociological study provides data about definition and recognitions of diverse vegetation types and plant communities, mapping of vegetation communities and identification of relationship between plant species distribution and environmental controls (Kent and Coker, 1992). The Cholistan rangeland is rich in vegetation resources. However, soil is a key factor responsible factor for distribution of vegetation in Cholistan desert (Arshad et al., 2008). Likewise, Chaudhry et al. (2006) concluded that soil heterogeneity was the major determining factor for development of plant communities while climatic conditions do not vary much in Cholistan desert. Various land form units and associated plant communities in Cholistan were recognized on the basis of soil topography by Arshad and Akbar (2002). Rao et al. (1989) have explored the grass flora of Cholistan desert and identified eleven different plant communities. Chaudhry et al. (1997) sampled the vegetation of Cholistan by using the 5x5 meter quadrates laid along a transect line in three different types of habitat viz. sand dunes; inter dune flats and clayey saline patches. He further reported that maximum plant communities were found on interdunal areas. Naeem et al. (2000) has reported different vegetation communities based on nature of plant cover, frequency, density, water regimes, species composition, degree of desertification and edaphic condition from Cholistan desert.

Frooq et al. (2010) have done a phytosociological survey of Push Zarat Area and recognized five distinctive plant communities based on highest importance value. Similar study was carried by Perveen and Hussain (2007) on the biodiversity and phytosociological attributes of Gorakh hill (Pakistan). Phytosociological assessment of vegetation of Nara Desert (Pakistan) was conducted by the Qureshi (2008). He has recorded different vegetation parameters like density, frequency, and cover. On the basis of Importance Value Index (IVI), five plant communities were delineated form five different habitat. Various workers have also presented quantitative phytosociological work from different areas of Pakistan such as Hussain et al. (1981), Dasti and Malik (2000), Malik et al. (2001), Durrani and Hussain (2005), Khan and Shaukat (2005) and Malik (2005).

2.2.2 MULTIVARIATE STUDY

Community ecology has posed fundamental challenge to the commonly used statistical methods of univariate analysis of variance. The variables relegated to be nuisance in ANOVA, for example, could be important variables in community ecology. Multivariate statistical methods have comparative advantages over univariate methods (Gauch, 1982). In this method we can handle bulky data of species and environmental variables by reducing the number of dimensions through the use of redundancy of information (McGarigal et al., 2000). Multivariate methods are categorized into two parts: classification and ordination. Classification methods like, cluster analysis (CA) use species and sample scores to group sample plots and species by using different of similarity or dissimilarity measures (Sneath and Sokal, 1973). Whereas, ordination arranges or orders species or sample units along certain gradient, in other words, it locates species in multidimensional space where it is most abundant (Palmer, 2005).

A lot of plant community ecology has been concerned in describing the distribution of species along environmental gradients (Munchin, 1987). In an attempt to describe this distribution, vegetation responses to the spatial variations of environmental factors such as elevation, moisture, or exposure must be measured. Gradient analysis is one of the techniques whereby this variation may be measured (Austin et al., 1984), and includes direct and indirect approaches. Indirect gradient analysis displays community samples along axes of variation in composition (Ter Braak and Prentice, 1988). The disadvantage of indirect gradient analysis is that the axes derived from the ordination technique may be hard to interpret or are sometimes uninterruptable (Hill, 1973). If the environmental variables are easily distinguishable, the direct approach is probably more helpful than the traditional indirect approach (Palmer, 1991). The advantage of direct gradient analysis is that it allows for the study of the variation in the community composition that can be explained by a specific set of environmental variables. In order to use direct gradient analysis the dominant environmental variables need to be identified before sampling (Ter Braak and Prentice, 1988). Once these have been recognized, sampling procedure can be started along the environmental gradient.

Two of the most commonly used ordination techniques in community ecology are Detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) and Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) (Ter

Braak, 1986). DCA is indirect gradient analysis technique where the species distribution is not constrained by underlying environmental variables. The purpose of DCA is to assess the presence of pattern in the species distribution. DCA is powerful especially when the presence of pattern is uncertain (Sagers and Lyon, 1997). The distribution of samples on DCA graph is on axis driven from species score. If there are patterns in the data then CCA is used to correspond them with environmental variables or if there are known gradient they can be used in the interpretation of the result. Whereas, CCA detects patterns and directly constrain the species abundance data by the underlying environmental variables (Ter Braak, 1986).

There are four aspects of data matrix in multivariate methods, which are used in the interpretation of the result. These are outliers, redundancy, noise and relationships (Gauch, 1982). Outliers exhibit a species composition that is not attributed to the environment they are found compared to other samples. Redundancy, as a very important aspect of a data matrix, occurs when samples possess similar species composition or different species occupy similar position in a sample. Redundancy is an opposite of noise in that it put species in their respective samples based on environmental information. Using redundancy, we can infer the occurrence of one species based on another that carries similar information in its distribution and the same for environmental variables. Multivariate methods use redundancy in large data matrix to produce understandable summary. The last aspect of multivariate data matrix is relationship. There are many relationships among species-site-environment, which can be elucidated by multivariate techniques. One problem of having bulk of variables is inter-co relatedness of variables sometimes confuses the interpretation of results (Taggart, 1994). However, as long as correlation is not equal to one (as between the same variables) there is some variation in each variable that explain variability in the vegetation data (Pirzada et al., 2009).

Many studies from different parts of the country described the multivariate analysis as a useful technique to study vegetation ecology. Ahmad, (2011) conducted a study along Lahore- Islamabad motorway (M-2) and the data was subjected to Canonical Correspondence Analysis to explore the vegetation structure and its relationships to the selected edaphic factors. Ahmed and Jabeen (2009) employed CCA and determined the relationship of soil with vegetation in Ayub National Park Pakistan. Ahmed (2009) used multivariate methods to estimate the environmental aspects around roadside vegetation in Havalian city. Akbar et al. (2009) applied

CCA on environmental and floristic data to find out the determinants of floristic composition of roadside vegetation in north England. Ahmad et al. (2009) carried out a study on the classification and correlation of herbaceous species with edaphic factors in Margalla Hills National Park, Islamabad.

Similarly several studies about multivariate uses has been reported from other parts of the world like Daiyuan et al. (1998) employed CCA to estimate the importance of edaphic factors in explaining the species variation assemblage and to identify the ecological preferences of plant species in Xinjiang, China. Likewise, Jonathan and Cynthia (2002) assessed the vegetation of riparian forest, Missouri, USA by using CCA to correlate the woody vegetation with various environmental gradients like soil pH, moisture, elevation, and particle size. Arbelaez and Duivenvoorden (2004) studied the pattern of plant species composition in Amazonian sand stone, Columbia and used CCA technique to separate the habitat effect and spatial configurations of the plateaus on the species patterns. Similarly, in Denmark, forest species were analyzed by using CCA to measure the relative amount of variation in species composition attributable to physical and environmental variables (Graae et al., 2004).

2.3 BIOMASS PRODUCTION

Biomass productivity is defined as the dry matter per unit area (Alemayehu, 2006). Plants biomass is produced by a process called photosynthesis in which energy from the sun converts the carbon dioxide and water to carbohydrates and oxygen. In many floristic studies, this measurement is generally done based on unit area, which may be square meter or square centimeter. Measurements on biomass production are highly valuable for range managers as it gives a quantitative assessment of dry matter production over a period. Generally, biomass production is measured to find out the amount of available forage for ruminants, to assess the rangeland condition and to evaluate the effects of management on vegetation (Van gills,1984; Amaha, 2006). Measurements taken over time period e.g. seasons allow rangeland managers to calculate the total amount of forage available in the different seasons and this information is compulsory in estimating the carrying capacity of an area (Mannetje, 2000). Biomass measurements also provide insights about consumption of forages by livestock through taking measurements before and after grazing where one is grazed and the other is serving as control. In addition, plant biomass production is often directly correlated to animal production while

the additional parameters are helpful to quantify the species population and the successional changes, and finally to evaluate the rangeland health (Ahmed, 2006).

Forage yield in the rangeland may be described in terms of quality and biomass production of the dominant grass species (Peden, 2005). Quality is influenced by factors such as type and amount of nutrients, fiber content, unpalatable chemical substances and percentage moisture, and varies with species. Palatable species occur naturally in rangeland that is well managed and decrease with poor management such as overgrazing (Morris and Kotze, 2006). The biomass production of natural grassland systems varies considerably according to the available moisture (Noellemeyer et al., 2006). Biomass production is lower in the sand and clay dominated rangelands and is related to soil organic matter (O’Farrell et al., 2007). Acceptable grasses lose their vigor because of repeated removal of leaves and the constant draining on their nutrient reserves (Malan and Van Niekerk, 2005). When the plant is unable to replenish the stored resources, it will fail to produce new leaves and will eventually reduce photosynthetic power (Morris and Kotze 2006). As the desirable plants become weaker and die off, the number of roots in the upper layer of the soil decrease, and this reduces the competitive ability of grasses (Sisay and Baars, 2002). Defoliation removes plant biomass, which changes the light regime in a plant stand (Van Essan et al., 2002).

Livestock production in the rangelands of desert regions depends entirely on rangeland forages whose quality and productivity varies tremendously, with wet or rainy season being characterized by high abundance of herbage as compared to scarce feeds during dry seasons (Otsyina et al., 1997). Rangeland quality largely dictates animal productivity response and thus it becomes vital to match sustainable feed resources from rangelands without deterioration of the ecosystems through appropriate rangeland management schemes. In most sub-tropical regions, ruminant production is mostly limited by lack of fodder availability in the dry season (Rubanza, 1999). Arshadullah et al. (2006) estimated the biomass production of various grasses and concluded that maximum dry biomass was obtained from Pennisetum purpureum (Elephant grass) followed by Pennisetum purpureum (Mott grass) Eragrostis superba, Panicum maximum, Bothriochloa pertusa and Cenchrus ciliaris cultivars. Forage yield of all the grasses was higher in wet season compared to dry season due to prolong growing season.

Environmental conditions also play a key role in biomass production of grass species (Tainton, 1996). Many grasses are adapted to a wide range of temperatures but grow more luxuriantly within the optimal range, for example Paspalum notatum grows well at temperature range of 25oC to 30oC. Perennial grasses produce more foliage than annual grasses and thus provide more of forage yield (Paynter et al., 2001). Michael et al. (1993) find out that date, location, past grazing history and phenological development were significant in shaping the vegetation and height-weight relationship can be improved as biomass predictor when using the three phenological classes. Austin et al., (1994) working in North America, found that Bromus tectorm was the most preferred species in spring and fall. Dactylis glomerata and Agropyron cristatum was also preferred, while three wildrye, vinall and magnar basin wildrye (Elymus cincerus) were least preferred. Goyal and Sinha (1996) reported that over grazing replaced palatable grasses by unpalatable species and decreased forage production due to intense livestock grazing.

2.4 CARRYING CAPACITY

Carrying capacity is the most important tool in range management (Walker, 1995) and stocking rate is one of the elements of rangeland capacity (Afzal et al., 1999). According to Roe (1997), if stocking rate is not close to the exact level, then, despite of other grazing management practices, applied objectives will not be fulfilled. Thus, a major problem facing range management is the range disequilibrium (Conference on Sustainable Range Management, 2004).

Range managers always seek to maximize revenues by maintaining livestock densities at economic carrying capacity (Irwin et al., 1994). However, Caughley (1979) has defined carrying capacity as the density of animals, held constant by harvesting that provides maximum sustained yield, as measured in weight of animals or net revenue. DelCurto’s et al. (2005) reported that cows with easy access to off-stream water and trace mineral salt gained 11.5 kg more weight than the cows without their calves showing a similar response of gaining 0.14kg/d more than calves with the stream as their only water source. The livestock in his study increased uniform distributions across the pasture while relieving grazing pressure on riparian areas and having an increase in weight gains. This shows how management of livestock to reduce ecological impacts can prove to be economically beneficial.

There should be awareness among people to minimize rangeland deterioration by regulating the number of livestock based on carrying capacity of rangelands. The animal numbers that can safely be permitted to graze without the degradation of rangeland is not simple to be in operational. The different factors that influence carrying capacity are steepness, slope, status of rangeland fertility and distance to water sources should be considered for range management purposes. The local information for rotating grazing practices is also very important for successful range management system. The estimation of vegetation composition over a period of time is necessary for expansion of range management system (Miller, 1997).

Additionally, Walker (1995) stated that stocking rate is one of the major problem of grazing management, if stocking rate go beyond carrying capacity, palatable plants are put at a competitive disadvantage to non-palatable plants, which usually results in a change of whole plant community composition along with a reduction in overall plant production. Grazing of both wild and domestic animals exert negative pressure on the productive potential of rangelands by the defoliation of range plants through eating and physical damage, by their movements and by their digestive processes (Heady and Child, 1994). Toderich and Tsukatani (2005) determined the carrying capacity of Registan desert (Afghanistan). They measured biomass yields ranged from 80 kg/ha to 800 kg/ha associated with different rainfall zones and range conditions with standard production value of 500 kg/ha. They also estimated carrying capacity by range condition, precipitation zone and for annual and seasonal carrying capacity. Carrying capacity varied from 5.2 ha/ILU to 83/ILU ha on annual basis, however they suggested that carrying capacity is more influenced by the duration of dry period rather than the animal numbers.

Grazing in the grasslands has played a major role in changing the botanical composition, which, however, varies with the type of grass cover and its palatability. Overgrazing represents the most obvious impact on the native biodiversity of grasslands. As overgrazing causes retrogression, stimulates growth of weeds and loss of diversity. In Assam rangeland, overgrazing reduces the tall grass cover to tufted grass type to Chrysopogon aciculatus and Imperata cyclindrica (Olsen and Larsen, 2003). Livestock has high influence on the biodiversity through removal and trampling of biomass, modification in species composition through selective grazing and changed inter-plant competition. Selective and intensive grazing will inevitably change biodiversity. Overgrazing and under grazing both have

equal negative effects, but overgrazing by ruminants is increasingly problematical (Khan, 1996). Over-grazing has resulted in land erosion, reduction in plant diversity and formation of boggy areas (Sher and Hussain, 2009).

The Cholistan rangelands are also under severe threat of degradation due to overgrazing and extreme climatic conditions. Due to continuous grazing, the desirable palatable species are disappearing at an alarming rate and relatively unpalatable species are dominating and spreading the entire desert. The extent of problem can be seen from the fact that highly desirable grass species have vanished from most part of the Cholistan rangelands (Arshad et al., 1999; Akhtar and Arshad, 2006). Likewise, Chaudhry et al. (2000) have reported that carrying capacity of Thal rangeland was low because of deterioration and degradation of range area due to heavy grazing. Their study revealed that the Thal rangeland has a small potential of supporting only 0.177 animal units (AU) per hectare per growing season on a re-seeded and protected pasture. Paynter et al. (2001) found out that higher biomass productivity of Thalassia testudinum (Turtle grass) resulted from a combination of moderate environmental characteristics and an intermediate sediment size. Muir and Alage (2001) reported that since forage production of various ranges receiving different amounts of rainfall had not been measured, it was not easy to calculate best stocking rates in South-Mozambique based on range productivity.

2.5 PALATABILITY CLASSIFICATION

Many scientists have described the term “Palatability” in several ways. However, the renowned British range scientist, Stapledon (1947), gave the most reliable definition, he defined palatability as "an appeal, sufficient to hold animals to the grazing of particular species for days or even weeks on end and a standard of tastiness that will attract animals to particular plants species when the range for selection is comparatively wide. However, “Preference” means selection of any plant species by the animal as a feed. Many factors affect the palatability, animals factors include age, preferences for plant species, period of pregnancy, general health, and hunger, while plant factors include growth stage, seasonal availability, phenology, morphological and chemical nature, relative abundance of associated species, accessibility to range sites and suitable climatic conditions (Wahid, 1990; Kababia et al., 1992; Grunwaldt et al., 1994; Nyamangara and Ndlovu, 1995).

Range scientists have reported several studies on palatability and animal preferences of livestock toward vegetation. Khan (1996) stated that it has been commonly observed that sheep usually have preference of forbs and grasses higher than the shrubs; while goats favor shrubs. Suss and Schwab (2007) stated that overlap of dietary levels between goats and sheep are greater in dry season due to limited availability of forage. Black and Kenney (1984) reported that sheep commonly prefer fresh feed than the dried feed because of taste, feel, or smell. Flowers and fruits were seasonally important in the diet of animal (Pfister and Malechek, 1986). In East Africa sheep’s feed generally comprised of more than 50 % grasses in all seasons, whereas shrub component of their diet tends to enhance during dry seasons (Migongo- Bake and Hansen, 1987). Vallentine (1990) find out that the goats consumed grasses (25%), forbs (5%), and browse (70%) during different seasons. Several studies concluded that overgrazing decreased species diversity and palatable cover (Liu et al., 1996; Holechek et al., 1998; Makulbekova, 1996; Rasool et al., 2005; Hussain and Durrani, 2008). Many other studies on the assessment of palatability, suggested that the rangeland sustainability is influenced by several factors such as rainfall, grazing system, edaphic conditions and seasonal availability of forage (Mwalyosi, 1992; Farooq, 2003; Durrani et al., 2005).

2.6. NUTRITIONAL EVALUATION OF GRASSES

The nutritional value of forage is a wide-ranging term used to cover the all-nutritional aspects of forage in relation to its overall value to the consuming animals. However, the term is used in the more restrictive sense of forage quality including protein content, digestibility, or simply palatability. A nutritional value includes consideration of both the chemical compositions of dietary constituent and as well as their capability for supporting the physiological functions of the consuming animals (Huston and Pinchak, 1993). Many analytical procedures have been proposed, however, because of several limitations only a few are routinely used by laboratories to assess the nutritive value, which will help in the selection of forages for their propagation for better livestock feeding and health (Malik and Chughtai, 1979; Shenk and Barnes, 1985).

2.6.1. PROXIMATE ANALYSIS

The nutritional quality of grasses in natural rangelands is very important for maintaining the health of grazing animals (Jones & Wilson, 1987). Most of the rangelands in

30 arid regions have less productivity due to low soil moisture and rainfall (Medina, 1987; Walker and Knoop, 1987). This might be results in seasonal shortage and low nutritional value of available grasses that can limit animal production (Bergström and Skarpe, 1999). Grass chemical composition can be used as an index of overall diet quality, although chemical composition of grass varies among species (Norton, 1982). Additionally, grass nutritional quality differs with space and time (Norton, 1982; Wilson, 1982; Jones and Wilson, 1987). Generally, if grasses are not of adequate quality to overcome deficiencies in these dietary parameters, range managers are forced to utilize expensive supplements to lessen the nutrient deficiencies and maintain livestock production because low grass quality has a great negative effect on animal performance (Bransby, 1981; Freer, 1981). Several factors can affect nutritional quality of grasses and, ultimately, animal production. Soil quality (Donaldson et al., 1984; Snyman 1998, 2002), water availability, (Wilson, 1982; Milchunas et al., 1995), grazing (McNaughton, 1992) and fire, (Trollope, 1982) and have been identified as the major factors affecting nutritional quality of grass in rangelands.

Range animal productivity depends upon the amount and nutritive quality of vegetation available to grazing animals. The nutritional demands of livestock vary with age and physiological functions of the grazing animal such as growth maintenance, gestation, fattening, lactation etc. Plant material is divisible into fibrous and non-fibrous fractions. Chemical composition varies from plant to plant, and within different parts of the same plant (Driehuis et al., 1997). It also varies within plants from different geographic locations, climate, ages, and edaphic conditions. Most of rangelands of Pakistan have insufficient forage of low palatability due to over-stocking. Many studies have assessed the nutritional value of forage in natural rangelands (Malik and Khan, 1967, 1971; Vallentine, 1990; Islam et al., 2003; Nasrullah et al., 2003).

Natural grazing land includes annual and perennial species of grasses, forbs, and trees. Grasses are directly related to the quantity and quality on offer (Ramirez et al., 2004). While there are many quality characteristics that influence the intake of grasses by livestock, the most useful are digestibility and crude protein; hence, where available, these figures are provided for individual species. Poor nutrition is one of the major limitations to livestock production (Osuji et. al., 1993). This tends to minimize the nutritional quality of available fodder. As a result, ruminants are incapable to meet their energy, protein, and mineral necessities (Sambya, 1990).

The quality of feeds is characterized by two attributes: 1) the nutrition value of feed that encompasses a quantity of energy, protein and other nutrition materials, mineral materials (macro and microelements), amino acids, fatty acids, vitamins, the activity of enzymes, the general quantity, and flavor features 2) the hygienic quality of feeds. Despite of differences in yield and quality, one should identify species with a natural higher fodder quality and or somehow improve the fodder quality of low species (Van Niekerk, 1997).

The quality of range grasses is linked with phenology and season. There are several parts in each year when the nutritional value of vegetation is became high or low. Generally, plants have highest nutritional values in their growing season. However, it may be significant differences in nutritional quality between early and late growing season within the growing season (Martin-Prevel et al., 1987). Range grasses are an important element of livestock production systems. For example, grasses grow well, particularly in arid and semi-arid climates and stand as a superb source of energy during dormant season (Van Soest, 1994). Studies have indicated that the quality of forage varies with the soil, season, rainfall, chemical nature, and age of the plants that affects palatability and health of grazing animals (Fierro and Bryant, 1990; Robles and Boza, 1993; Saleem, 1997). Holecheck et al. (1998) reported that high crude protein in actively growing forage compared to dormant stage. Since the health of livestock depends on the nutritional value of available forage, it therefore becomes necessary for the stockmen and range managers to understand the nutritional dynamics of forage to sustain adequate growth and reproduction of animals (Ganskopp and Bohner, 2001).

Grasses have key role in providing the feeding resources to livestock. The crude protein contents in forages serve as a reliable measure of nutritional quality (Ganskopp and Bohner, 2001). Crude protein level of 7.5 % is considered as a satisfactory forage quality threshold because it falls within the range of values recommended for maintenance of beef cattle (NRC, 2000). However, crude protein concentration in plants is mainly influenced by the quantity of available nitrogen in the soil and the state of maturity of plant. Similarly, Ramirez et al. (2002, 2003, 2005) reported that crude protein contents in cultivated grasses and native grasses markedly decline as the plant increase in maturity because of the gradual increase in cell wall and decrease in cytoplasm.

DM content of the grass increased with advancing plant age Gupta and Sagar (1987). In

32 another study, Sanderson et al. (1989) reported that concentration of DM increased with age. Likewise, Sultan et al. (2007) conducted a research in the moist region of Malakand division and determine the chemical composition of ten locally available range grasses. The mean percentage values for dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), crude ash, crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), hemi-cellulose and lignin at early bloom stage were 33.1, 30.5, 7.3, 7.7, 54.7, 24.5, 30.0 and 4.0, respectively while mean percentage at mature stage were 43.5, 41.3, 7.1, 5.6, 62.0, 29.5, 31.5and 4.7 respectively. Indigenous grass species are main feed resource for grazing animals because they are well adapted to climatic conditions, drought resistant, have an extensive root system, supply reliable forage production, enhance soil fertility and require low input costs (Ramirez et al., 2009).

Grasses generally have lower crude protein, phosphorus and lignin concentrations, higher total fiber, and cellulose concentrations than forbs and shrubs. At comparable growth stages, cool-season grasses are higher in crude protein, phosphorus, and digestibility and lower in fiber than warm-season grasses. Plant fiber is digested more slowly than the cell contents. The high cellulose (digestible portion of fiber) concentration and high cellulose to lignin (indigestible portion of fiber) ratio makes grasses best suited to large ruminants such as cattle or horse , that have low nutrient requirements per unit body weight. Leaves of grasses are nutritionally superior to stems. For this reason, short grasses are nutritionally superior to mid and tall grasses particularly during dormancy. Grasses are usually the component of the forage resource available in the sufficient quantity unless overgrazing has been severe and their high availability makes them important to large ruminants that have a total forage requirement (Holechek, 1983)

2.6.2. FIBER CONSTITUENTS

Plant fibers represent the cell wall and vascular system. Chemically, fibers can be characterized as consisting of cellulose, hemi cellulose, lignin, pectin, cutin and silica (Shenk and Barnes, 1985). Another important point is that the efficiency of herbage as a nutrient source for the herbivores is clearly a function of non-structural constituent and the extent to which the potential nutrients of the cell wall can be released by fermentation (Jones and Wilson, 1987). The plant cell wall has the following functions protection of protoplast, skeletal support and rigidity storage of energy and nutrients (Colvin, 1981). The structure of cellulose

is characterized by long chain of (1-4) - B-linked glucosyl residues (Kato, 1981). Hemi cellulose are initially in the form of a variable hydrogel, sometimes added by apposition and sometime have an oriented structure which changes during extension, growth and mechanical extension of' the wall (Colvin, 1981). Lignin is derived from sugars produced by photosynthesis. Lignin is an essential component of coarse fiber and can have positive functions in the rumen in contrast to its dominant role in lowering digestibility (Vart Soest and Robertson, 1990). Lignin has a number of functions; the most important are in the structural integrity of plants and probably to act as a shield for cellulose and hemi cellulose from microbial and enzymatic attack (Morrison, 1974).

Detergent procedures have been developed to separate fiber into several fractions i.e. Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF) and Acid Detergent Fiber (ADF). ADF and lignin are determined by sulfuric acid extraction of NDF (Goering and Van Soest, 1970). The NDF method has been criticized for not recovering pectin, which has been regarded by some as part of’ the cell wall matrix. However, pectin was unique in being completely and rapidly fermentable and therefore not a part of the cross-linked lignified matrix (Vain Soest and Robertson, 1990). The Neutral Detergent Soluble (NDS) consists of most part of cell contents including lipids, sugars, starches, and proteins all having an average digestibility of 98 % (Van Soest, 1978; Van Soest and Robertson, 1990). NDF cellulose and hemi cellulose from vegetative stem were digested faster than from reproductive stems (Sanderson et al., 1989).

The relations among polysaccharides and other components are more important to their function and ultimate use of the cell wall, than the absolute classification of individual polysaccharide (Hatifield, 1989). During the early stage of' development of forage plant, cell wall's elasticity and plasticity were critical for controlled expansion of the wall (Priston, 1979; Labavitch, 1981). The interactions that occur during this time are different from those occurring at secondary wall formation (Selvenderan, 1983). During grass growth, increase in both P-coumaric acid and lignin concentration occurs, resulting in increased esterifies cross linkages between lignin and cell wall carbohydrates (Hartley, 1972; Mueller-Harvey et al., 1986). One of the main functions of lignin is to physically prevent the accessibility of' digestive enzymes (Van Soest, 1978). Non-core lignin is comprised primarily of ester linked P- couinaric acid and ferulic acid (Hartley, 1972). The cennamic acids of non- core lignin is synthesized by the shikimic acid pathway and serves as a precursor for core lignin biosynthesis

(Jung and Vogel, 1986). Total core lignin concentration increases in forages with physiological maturity for both leaf and stem tissue (Nordkvist and Aman, 1986). Core lignin is in greater concentration in sterns as compared to leaf' tissue (Morrison, 1974). Water stress caused a very minor decline in core lignin content (Wilson, 1983) while shading marginally declined core lignin concentration in both tropical grasses and legumes (Wilson and Wong, 1982). Soil fertility can also influence forage lignin concentration (Brown et al., 1984).

In tropical grasses the contents of structural constituents increase gradually with maturity. The cell wall contents of tropical grasses decreased with increasing temperature, while that of temperate grasses increased. Concentration of NDF ranged from less than 40 % to more than 65 % in perennial grasses across harvest dates whereas concentration of ADF ranged from 20 % to more than 38 % across the harvest dates (Cherney et al., 1993). Although NDF increased with age, the digestible portion of the NDF decreased (Sanderson et al., 1989). Stems are proportionately higher in lignin than other parts of the plant. Hence, all increase in stem increases whole plant lignin (Cherny et al., 1993). ADF was high in stem than in sheath and blade. NDF and ADF tended to be lesser in inflorescence than other morphological components. Stem has higher cellulose and lignin than in leaf blade with leaf sheath being intermediate between the two (Cherney et al., 1990). NDF cellulose and hemi-cellulose from vegetative stem were digested faster than from reproductive stem (Sanderson et al., 1989). High temperature locations produced more stems in switch grass. Soils with lower moisture holding capacity produced stems with higher NDF and lignin contents (Bohn, 1990).

2.6.3 MINERAL COMPOSITION

Range managers are highly concerned for getting complete knowledge about the mineral contents of their forages to assure efficient growth, reproduction and strong immune system of their animals. Mineral are required for both plants and animals in critical amounts and balance, and deficiency reduces the efficiency of vegetation and livestock dependent on them. Plant analysis can provide information about the actual amount of mineral nutrients taken up by the plant. Increased plant growth resulting from increased supply of the deficient elements, is usually accompanied by its increased uptake. This increase in turn is reflected in a changed concentration of the element in the plant dry matter (Khan et al., 2004). Plants take up minerals readily during early growth, but as growth accelerates, dry matter accumulates more

rapidly, than minerals are taken up and the contents of most minerals therefore fall with advancing maturity (Jones and Wilson, 1987).

Mineral composition in range forages is depend upon many factors including edaphic factors, stage of plant growth, climatic conditions and fertilization practices. The type of soil may influence the composition of the pasture especially its mineral contents. Sandy soils generally permit specific minerals to leach more easily from the growing surface than heavy clay soils. Soil acidity also influences the accessibility of soil minerals for uptake by roots and successive translocation to plant tissue Jones et al. (1983). The ability of forage minerals to meet grazing livestock mineral requirements depends upon the concentration of minerals in the plant. Adequate levels of individual mineral nutrient could not be easily determined, because they are influenced by so many factors such as physio-chemical properties of the soil, water supply, climate (light intensity and temperature), plant species and stage of development. Deficiencies of minerals can often be caused by unfavorable nutrient ratios in the soil, affecting uptake and translocation and possibly leading to nutrient interaction in the plant (Martin Prevel et al., 1987).

2.6.3.1 MACRO-MINERALS COMPOSITION

Phosphorus is generally deficient in the soils of rangelands located in arid and semi-arid regions and ultimately in the forages growing on them. This deficiency may be great enough to hamper growth of plants. Phosphorus is also widely deficient in forages of desert regions because of the low soil contents (Schmidt and Snyman, 2002). This is aggravated by the predominance of forage species particularly grasses that has low P content (Sprague, 1979). Deficiencies of P are most prevalent when forage is low in P and high in Ca. The mean P concentration of forages is 0.29 % of the dry matter (Minson, 1990). The P content in plants becomes higher in wet weather (Georgievskii, 1982). Soil P was most consistently related to forage production (Jones et al., 1983). The average concentration of P in pasture plant is 0.025 to 0.03 %. Impairment of the reproductive function is a reflection of overall metabolic imbalances due to a lower feed intake and an insufficient supply of P (Georgievskii, 1982). Phosphorus deficiency depressed voluntary intake of cattle by 29%. The DM and energy in mixed diet is not affected by low P concentration (Minson, 1990). Increasing the pH from 6-7 in the presence of Ca will decrease P concentration in the soil solution (Russel, 1973).

Potassium (K) is a necessary mineral for plant growth (Rehm and Schmitt, 1997). In the absence of calcium, potassium begins to leak from the roots particularly at low pH (Kinzel, 1983). Potassium deficiency is usually more serious in legumes than in grasses (Humphreys, 1984). A high supply of lime with insufficient supply of K causes restriction on K intake, leading to limited growth (Kenzel, 1983). Potassium makes active several enzyme systems in the plant (Humphreys, 1984). The K content decreases from 3.25% at 3rd week of age to 2.05% at 8th week of age in plants (Gohl, 1981). Potassium deficient pastures are generally grass dominant and K application markedly increased the legume content (Jones, 1966).

The Mg content in the tropical grasses varied from 0.04% to 0.9% of the DM with a mean of 0.36%. Fall in the Mg content was recorded in the leaves and stem fraction of plant with the maturity of fodder. Mg is present in equal proportion in leaf and stem fractions (Skerman and Riveros, 1990). Magnesium deficiencies appear more likely in animals grazing temperate than tropical pastures (Jones and Wilson, 1987). The highest Mg concentration in range plants is observed in the early growth phase. If the soil is deficient in Mg, plant content decreases especially in the vegetative organs (Mengel and. Kirkby, 2001). In green grasses the concentration of Mg changes with the vegetative phase, parallel to the content of proteins. The muscles of the heart, nervous tissue, and activation of many enzymes require Mg. The absorption of Mg is also depressed by high level of crude protein in the diet (Georgievskii, 1982). Potassium interferes with Mg uptake by plants (Blowey, 1990). The availability of Mg in the grasses varies between both species and cultivars. The mean Mg concentration in 930 forage samples was 0.23 % with higher concentration for tropical grasses (0.36 %) than temperate grasses (0.18 %) and legumes (0.27 %). Pasture herbs generally contain higher concentration of Mg than grasses or legumes. At low temperature and water logged soil conditions the uptake of Mg is generally low (Minson, 1990).

The concentration of Ca in grasses throughout the year varied from 0.14 to 1.46 % of the dry matter with a mean of 0.4 %. The percentage of Ca in the leaf fraction is twice than in the steal fraction. With increasing maturity there is a decrease in both leaf and stem fraction (Skerrman and Riveros, 1990). The optimum level of Ca in plants is 0.4 - 0.6% and level above 1.0 % are considered as high (Georgievskii, 1982). The mean Ca concentration of 1263 forage samples is 0.9 % of the dry matter with a range of (0, 1-4 %). Temperate forages contain more Ca than those of the tropical forages. Cultivars frequently differ in Ca concentration. The leaf

37 fraction has a higher Ca concentration than the stem fraction. The concentration of leaf fraction varies with soils. Calcium rises in leaf and falls in stems with maturity. As forage mature, the increase in stem proportion results in low Ca concentrations. In other studies, no change in Ca concentration occurred with increasing maturity. The Ca concentration of forages also depends on the quantity of exchangeable Ca in the soil and the level of nitrogen and potassium (Minson, 1990).

The requirement of sodium for animals is even though arguable yet its adequate recommended range is from 1-4 g/kg (Underwood, 1981; Littledike and Goff, 1987). McDowell et al. (1993) suggested that the most common mineral deficiency for grazing animals in the world is of sodium. Deficiency of this mineral in plants has been reported from several regions of the world (Pastrana et al., 1991; Areghoere, 2002; Khan et al., 2007). 2.6.3.2 MICRO-MINERAL COMPOSITION The Copper concentration of tropical grasses varied from 3 to 100 ppm in the dry matter with a mean of 15 ppm (Skerman and Riveros, 1990). The Cu contents showed an increase from 8.2 to 9.3 ppm from 3rd to 4th week, then a gradual decrease to 6.1 ppm at 6th week of age and finally a gradual increase to 6.8 ppm at 8th week of age (Gohl, 1981). The vegetative parts of the plants contain more Cu than the reproductive parts (Georgievskii, 1982). The mean Cu concentration in forage samples was 6.1 ppm of DM. Cu level in the stem falls with maturity, while the leaf content remains constant. With forage maturity, there is a decrease in Cu content. Increasing soil temperature from 12 to 20°C raised the Cu concentration in plants. Irrigation and water logging had little effect on Cu concentration (Minson, 1990). Some species avoid Cu toxicity by excluding the metal. Some species accumulate the metal to very high concentration, while other occupies on intermediate position (Wool House, 1983). High level of Cu in the soil causes iron deficiency (West, 1938). A more mature pasture with lower protein content and hence lower sulfur level makes its Cu more easily absorbed (Blowey, 1990).

Zn deficiency is often occurs on sandy soils with low organic matter and on high pH and calcaric soils (Dahnke et al., 1992). In the body, highest concentration of Zn is found in the skin, wool, hair, and horns. Its deficiency impairs protein metabolism and voluntary intake reduced up to 39 %. High levels of Ca in the ration probably suppress the absorption of Zn.

Zinc is relatively non-toxic to ruminants. Animals exhibit a relatively high tolerance to Zn, controlling the effects of Cu accumulation by the use of Zn (Mills, 1974). The Zn concentration in forages varies from 7 ppm to above 100 ppm of DM with a mean of 36 ppm. Temperate forages tend to contain slightly less Zn than tropical forages. Grasses contain slightly less Zn than legumes (Bowen, 1969). Zn deficiency rarely occurs in ruminant fed forage (Hawf and Schmid, 1967; Kovacevic et al., 1991). Leaf blade contains more zinc than leaf sheath and the stem of grasses, Zn concentration in forage is not affected consistently by forage maturity or change in climate but is increased by the application of fertilizer zinc and nitrogen and a decrease in soil pH (Minson, 1990). The absorption of Zn was strongly inhibited by Cu, weakly by Co and not at all by Mn and ferrous (Chaudhary and Loneragan, 1972).

Plants differ much in their manganese requirements and only 20 ppm is considered enough for normal plant growth. Mn levels in plants vary between species and soil properties more than those of other nutrients. Plants usually absorb Mn from the soil in the form of Mn2+ (Mengel and. Kirkby, 2001). Acid soils have generally very high Mn availability (Humphreys, 1984). The Mn content shows a gradual increase with plant maturity (Gohl, 1981). The leguminous grasses contain less Mn than cereal grasses (Georgievskii, 1982). Grasses and legumes grown on the same site generally contain similar concentration of Mn. There appears to be no consistent relationship between the Mn content of the leaf and stem fraction, however, some species have more Mn in stem than leaf. Manganese concentration remained relatively constant as the forage matured. Among the trace elements, Mn is second only to ferrous in abundance in the earth’s crust. The availability of Mn is depressed by draining the soil. Low Mn concentrations in forage usually occur only on neutral or alkaline soils (Minson, 1990). High concentration of ferrous depressed Mn absorption by plants (Charlry and Richard, 1983). Higher solubility of Mn may be caused by acidic or anaerobic conditions. Iron and Mn are more soluble in acidic media (Kinzel, 1983).

Mn toxicity occurs most frequently on extremely acidic and water logged soils (Wool House, 1983). Ruminants require a diet containing 10-20 mg Mn/kg DM. Manganese concentration in plant species is negatively correlated to soil pH, water logging and high temperatures (Miner et al., 1997). Diets containing manganese level of 10 mg/kg DM appear adequate for growth but 20 to 25 mg/kg DM may be needed to permit optimal skeletal development and reproduction. Mn fed in large quantities has no adverse effects on growth of

cattle and sheep until Mn concentration in the diet exceed 1000 to 2000 mg/kg DM (Minson, 1990).

Fe deficiency is a most common limiting factor for plants grown on high-pH, calcareous and poorly drained soils (McDowell, 1985). Deficiency of iron also causes anemia during birth of animals (Malhotra, 1998). Too much accumulation of iron in the heart, lungs liver, pancreas, and other tissues cause haemosiderosis (Murray et al., 2000). The Fe value above 50 ppm in range plants is considered as an optimum level for livestock (Khan et al., 2005). Indigenous grasses offer a much greater challenge in developing mineral supplementation (Hardt et al., 1991). A wide range of variation of mineral composition within the same species was observed among morphological characters (Tan and Yolcu, 2001). The Fe values of several grasses change diversely during vegetation period (Juraitis, 1998). Selective grazing behavior of livestock at different seasons, as well as soil intake, influence elemental balances on native rangeland (Healy, 1974). Fe availability may also be influenced by the concentrations of other minerals in the forage (Lessard et al., 1970).

2.7 REFERENCES Afzal, J., M.A. Ullah and M. Anwar. 2007. Assessing carrying capacity of Pabbi Hills Kharian Range. J. Anim. Plant Sci., 17(1-2): 27-29. Ahmad, S.S. 2009. Ordination and classification of herbaceous vegetation in Margalla Hills National Park, Islamabad, Pakistan. Biol. Diver. Conser., 2(2): 38-44. Ahmad, S.S. and T. Jabeen. 2009. Multivariate analysis of environmental and vegetation data of Ayub National Park, Rawalpindi. Soil Environ., 28(2): 106-112. Ahmad, S.S., S. Fazal, E.E. Valeem, Z.I. Khan, G. Sarwar and Z. Iqbal. 2009. Evaluation of ecological aspects of roadside vegetation around Havalian city using multivariate techniques. Pak. J. Bot., 41(1): 53-60. Ahmad, S.S. 2011. Canonical correspondence analysis of the relationships of roadside vegetation to its edaphic factors: A case study of Lahore-Islamabad motorway (M-2). Pak. J. Bot., 43(3): 1673-1677. Ahmed, H. 2006. Assessment and evaluation of utilization practices of natural pastures and other forages in Basona Worana Wereda of North Shoa Zone. An MSc Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Haramaya University, Ethiopia, p. 174. Akbar, K.F., W.H.G. Hale and A.D.D. Headley. 2009. Floristic composition and environmental determinants of roadside vegetation in North England. Polish J. Ecol., 57(1): 73- 88. Akhter, R. and M. Arshad. 2006. Arid Rangelands in Cholistan Desert (Pakistan). Scheresse., 17: 1-18. Alemayehu, M. 2006. Range Management for East Africa: Concepts and Practices, Sponsored by RPSUD and Printed by A.A.U Printed Press. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Ali, S.I. 2008. The significance of flora with special reference to Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 40(30): 967-971. Amaha, K. 2006.Characterzation of rangeland resources and dynamics of the pastoral Production system in the Somali region of Eastern Ethiopia. A PhD Thesis Presented to the University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa, p. 232. Ansari, K.A., A.R. Malik and A.Q. Mahar. 1993. Floristic list of district Khairpur. Ann. J. Res. Sci. Sindh., 1: 11-18.

Arbelaez, M.V. and J.F. Duivenvoorden. 2004. Plant species compositional patterns on Amazonian sand-stone outcrops in Colombia. J. Veg. Sci., 15(2): 181-188. Aregheore, E.M. 2002. Kiribati: Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profiles. The University of the South Pacific, School of Agriculture, Alafua Campus, Apia, Samoa. Available online at www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Counprof/southpacific /kiribati.htm(Accessed on December 25, 2011). Arshad, M. and A.R. Rao. 1994. Flora of Cholistan desert (Systematic list of trees, shrubs and herbs). J. Eco. Tax. Bot., 18(3): 615-625. Arshad, M., A.R. Rao and G. Akbar. 1999. Masters of disaster in Cholistan desert, Pakistan- Pattern of nomadic migration. UNEP Desert. Cont. Bull., 35: 33-38. Arshad, M. and G. Akbar.2002. Benchmark of plant communities of Cholistan desert, Pakistan. J. Biol. Sci., 5(10): 1110-1113. Arshad, M., Anwar-ul-Hussan, M.Y. Ashraf, S. Noureen and M. Moazzam. 2008. Edaphic factors and distribution of vegetation in the Cholistan desert, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 40: 1923-1931. Arshad, M. and A.R. Rao. 1994. The ecological destruction of Cholistan desert and its eco- regeneration. Desert. Cont. Bull., 24: 32-34. Arshadullah, M., R. Abdul and S. Rashid. 2006. Performance of various forage grasses under spring and Monsoon seasons at Pothowar Plateau (Pakistan). Int. J. Agri. Biol., 8(3): 398-401. Austin, D.D., R. Steven, K.R. Jorgensen and P.J. Urness. 1994. Preferences of mule deer for 16 grasses found on intermountain winter ranges. J. Range Manag., 47: 308-311. Austin, M.P, R.B. Cunningham and P.M. Fleming. 1984. New approaches to direct gradient analysis using environmental scalars and statistical curve-fitting procedures. Vegetatio., 55: 11-27. Austin, M.P. and R.B. Cunningham. 1981. Observational analysis of environmental gradients. Proc. Ecol. Soc. Aust., 11: 109-119. Austin, M.P. 1980. Searching for a model for use in vegetation analysis. Vegetatio., 42: 11-21. Austin, M.P. 1985. Continuum concept, ordination methods and niche theory. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 16: 39-61.

Belaynesh, D. 2006. Floristic composition and diversity of the vegetation, soil seed bank flora and condition of the rangelands of the Jijiga zone, Somali Regional State, Ethiopia. An MSc Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University, p. 144. Bergstrom, R. and C. Skarpe. 1999. The abundance of large wild herbivores in semi-arid savanna in relation to seasons, pans and livestock. Afr. J. Ecol., 37: 12-26. Bhatti, G.R., R. Qureshi and M. Shah. 2001. Ethno-botany of Qadan Wari of Nara desert. Pak. J. Bot., 33: 801-812. Black, J.L. and P.A. Kenney. 1984. Factors affecting diet selection by sheep. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 35: 551-563. Bohn, P.J. 1990. Investigation into the effect of phenolic acids on forage digestion. Sci. Eng., 50: 4282-4283. Bolwey, R.W. 1990. A veterinary book for dairy farmers. Farming press books, 4 friars Courtyard 30-32 Princes Street, pswich, UK. Bowen, J.E. 1969. Absorption of copper, zinc and manganese by sugar cane tissue. Plant Physiol., 44: 255-261. Bransby, D.I. 1981. The value of veld and pasture as animal feed. In: Tainton, N.M. (ed.), Veld and pasture management in South Africa. Shuter and Shooter, Pietemaritzburg, pp. 173-224. Breckenridge, R.P., W.G. Kepner and Mouat. 1995. A process for selecting indicators for monitoring conditions of rangeland health. Environ. Monit. Assess., 36: 45-60. Brown, D.G. 1994. Predicting vegetation types at tree line using topography and biophysical disturbance variables. J. Veg. Sci., 5: 641-656. Brown, P.H., R.D. Graham and D.G.D. Nicholas. 1984. The effect of manganese and nitrate supply on the level of phenolic and lignin in young wheat plant. Plant Soil., 81: 437-440. Carvalho-da-Costa., F., S. De-Araujo and L.W. Lima-Verde. 2007. Flora and life form spectrum in an area of deciduous thorn woodland (Caatinga) in North Eastern, Brazil. J. Arid Environ., 68(2): 237-247.

Caughley, G. 1979. What is this thing called carrying capacity? In: Boyce, M.S. and L.D. Hayden-Wing, (eds.), North American Elk: Ecology, behavior and management. Laramie, University of Wyoming, pp. 2-8. Charley, J.L. and B.N. Richards. 1983. Nutrient allocation in plant communities. Physiological plant ecology. In: Pirson, A. and M.H. Gottingen, (eds.), Zimmermann and Harvard Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology. New Series, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Chaudhary, A.A., A. Hussain, M. Hameed and R. Ahmad. 1997. Biodiversity in Cholistan desert, Punjab, Pakistan. In: Mufti, S.A., C.A. Woods and S.A. Hassan, (eds.), Biodiversity of Pakistan. Pakistan Museum of Natural History, Islamabad Garden A, Shakarparian, Islamabad. Chaudhary, F.M. and J.F. Loneragan. 1972. Zinc absorption by wheat-seedlings. II. Inhibition by hydrogen ions and micronutrient cations. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Am., 36: 327- 331. Chaudhri, I.I. and M.S. Chuttar. 1966. The vegetation and range flora of Thar desert. Pakistan Forestry Department Hyderabad. Chaudhry, A.A., M. Afzal, M. Mushtaque and B.A. Awan. 2000. Accessing carrying capacity and vegetation cover of Rakh Dagar Kotli (Thal). Pak. J. Forest., 50(1-2): 37- 42. Chaudhry, M.S., G. Sarwar and A. Majeed. 2006. Natural plant communities in view of response variables and ecological indices from Lal Suhanra biosphere reserve, Pakistan. Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 9(9): 1628-1638. Chemey, D.J.R., D.R. Mertens and J.E. Moore. 1990. Intake and digestibility by withers as influenced by forage morphology at three levels of forage offering. J. Anim. Sci., 68: 4387-4399. Cherney, D.J.R., J.H. Cherney and R.F. Lucey. 1993. In-vitro digestion kinetics and quality of perennial grasses as influenced by forage maturity. J. Dairy Sci., 76: 790-797. Colvin, J.R. 1981. Ultra-structure of plant cell wall-biophysical view point. In: Tanner, W. and F.A. Loawus, (eds.), Plant Carbohydrates. Encyclopedia of plant physiology, Spriger-Verlag, Berlin. Conference on Sustainable Range Management. 2004. Proceedings of the Conference on Sustainable Range Management, January 5-8, 2004, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Cossins, N.J. and M. Upton. 1988. Options for Improvement of the Borana Pastoral System. Agric. Syst., 27: 251-278. Dahnke, W.C., C. Fanning and A. Cattanach. 1992. Fertilizing soybean. Available online at www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/soilfert/sf719w.htm (Accessed on March 10, 2011). Daiyauan, P., A. Bouchard, P. Legendre and G. Domon. 1998. The influence of edaphic factors on the spatial structure of inland halophytic communities: A case study in Xinjiang, China. J. Veg. Sci., 9(6): 797-804. Danin, A .1991. Plant adaptation in desert dunes. J. Arid Environ., 21: 193-212. Dasti, A.A. and S.A. Malik. 2000. A transect of vegetation and soils on the Indus Valley Slope, Pakistan. Pak. J. Plant Sci., 4: 73-84. DelCurto, T., M. Porath, C.T. Parsons and J.A. Morrison. 2005. Management strategies for sustainable beef cattle grazing on forested rangelands in the Pacific Northwest. J. Rangel. Ecol. Manage., 58: 119-127. Devineau, J.L. and A. Fournier. 2007. Integrating environmental and sociological approaches to assess the ecology and diversity of herbaceous species in a Sudan type Savanna (Bondoukuy, Western Burkina Faso). Flora., 202(5): 350-370. Donaldson, C.H., G. Rootman and D. Grossman. 1984. Long term nitrogen and phosphorus application on veld. J. Grassl. Soc. South Afr., 1: 27-32. Driehuis, F., P.G. Wikselaar, Van, A.M. Vuuren and S.F. Spoelstra. 1997. Effect of a bacterial inoculants on rate of fermentation and chemical composition of high dry matter grass silages. J. Agric. Sci., 128: 323-329. Durrani, M.J. and F. Hussain. 2005 . Ethno ecological profile of plants of Harboi rangeland, Kalat, Pakistan. Int. J. Biol. Biotech., 2(1): 15-22. Evenari, M., L. Shanan and N. Tadmor. 1982. The Negev. The challenge for a desert. Oxford University Press, London. Ewald, J .2003. A critique for phytosociology. J. Veg. Sci., 14(2): 291- 296. Farooq, M.U. 2003. Some suitable and sustainable strategies for improving rangeland productivity in Pakistan. Pak. J. Forest., 53: 193-199.

Farooq, S., A.Z. Khan, M. Yousaf and H. Fazal. 2010. Phytosociological study of Push Ziarat area (Shawal) in the South Waziristan, Pakistan. Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res., 16(1): 47-55. Fierro, L.C. and F.C. Bryant. 1990. Nutrition of herded sheep in the andes of Southern Peru. Small Rumi. Res., 3: 117 -134. Freer, M. 1981. The control of food intake by grazing animals. In: Morely, R.H.W. (ed.), Grazing Animals. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 105-124. Friedel, M., H. Laycock and W.A. Bastin. 2000. Assessing rangeland condition and trend. In: Mannetje, L. and R.M. Jones, (eds.), Field and Laboratory Methods for Grassland and Animal Production Research. Wallingford, UK, pp. 227-262. Ganskopp, D. and D. Bohnert. 2001. Nutritional dynamics of 7 northern Great basin grasses. J. Range Manage., 54: 640-647. Gauch, H.G. 1982. Multivariate Analysis in Community Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. Georgivevskii, V.I. 1982. Biochemical regions Mineral composition of feeds. In: Georgievskin, V.I., B.N. Annenkov and V.I. Samokhin, (eds.), Mineral Nutrition of Animals. Butterworths, London. Goering, H.K and P.J. Van-Soest. 1970. Forange Fiber Analyses (Apparatus, reagents procedures, and some applications). USAA-ARS Agriculture Hand Bulletin, 379. United State Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Gohl, B. 1981. Tropical feeds. Feed information summaries and nutritive values. FAO, Animal Health and Production Series No. 12, Rome, Italy. Goyal, S.P. and B. Sinha. 1996. Rangeland in a sustainable biosphere. Proceeding of 15th International Rangeland Congress, Salt Lake City, Utah, pp. 181-182. Graae, B.J., R.H. Okland, Peterson and B. Fritzboger. 2004. Influence of historical, geographical and environmental variables on understory composition and richness in Danish forests. J. Veg. Sci., 15: 465-475. Grunwaldt, E.G., A.R. Pedrani and A.I. Vich. 1994. Goat grazing in arid piedmont of Argentina. Small Rumi. Res., 13: 211-216.

Gupta, P.C. and V. Sagar. 1987. Assessing the Feeding Value of Tropical Forages by Direct and Indirect Methods. Technical Bulletin, Department of Animal Nutrition, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, India. Gutterman, Y. 2000. Environmental factors and survival strategies of annual plant species in the Negev Desert, Israe. Plant Spec. Biol., 15: 113-125. Hardt, P.F., W.R. Ocumpaugh and L.W. Greene. 1991. Forage mineral concentration, animal performance and mineral status of heifers grazing cereal pastures fertilized with sulfur. J. Anim. Sci., 69: 2300-2310. Hartley, R.D. 1972. P-Coumaric and ferulic acid components of cell walls of rye grass and their relationship with lignin and digestibility. J. Sci. Food Agric., 23: 1347-1355. Hatifield, R.D. 1989. Structural polysaccharides in forages and their degradability. Agron. J., 81: 39-46. Hawf, L.R. and W.E. Schmid. 1967. Uptake and transportation of zinc by intact plant. Plant Soil., 27: 249-260. Heady, H.F. and R.D. Child. 1994. Rangeland Ecology and Management. Boulder, Westview Press, USA. Healy, W. 1974. Ingested soil as a source of elements to grazing animals. In: Boekstra, W., J. Suttle, H. Ganther and W. Mertz, (eds.), Trace Element Metabolism in Animals- 2. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Trace Element Metabolism in Animals. University Park Press, Baltimore, p. 775. Hill, M.O. 1973. Reciprocal averaging: An eigenvector method of ordination. J. Ecol., 61: 237- 245. Holechek, J.L., R.D. Pieper and C.H. Herba. 1998. Range Management: Principles and Practices. 3rd Edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 07458. Holechek, J.L. 1983. Comparative contribution of grasses, forbs, and shrubs to the nutrition of range ungulates. Allen Press Soc. Range Manage., 6: 261-263. Humphreys, L.R. 1984. Tropical pastures and fodder crops. Longman Group U.K. Ltd. Longman House, Burnt Mill, Harlow Essex CM 20 2JE. England. Hussain, F. and M.J. Durrani. 2008. Forage productivity of arid temperate Harboi rangeland, Kalat, Pakistan. Pak J. Bot., 39(5): 1455-1470.

Hussain, F., I. Hag and H.H. Naqvi. 1981. Phytosociological study on some saline areas of Peshawar Valley. J. Sci. Tech., 5: 65-68. Huston, J.E. and W.E. Pinchak. 1993. Range animal nutrition. In: Heitschmidt, R.K. and J.W. Stuth, (eds.), Grazing Management: An Ecological Perspective. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon, USA. Irwin, L.L., J.G. Cook, R.A. Riggs, and J.M. Skovlin. 1994. Effects of long-term grazing by big game and livestock in the Blue Mountains forest ecosystems. United State Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW- GTR-325, Portland, Oregon. Islam, M.R., C.K. Saha, N.R. Sharkar, M. Jahilil and M. Hasanuzzamam. 2003. Effect of variety on proportion of botanical fraction and nutritive value of different Napier grass (Pennisetum puporeum) and relationship between botanical fraction and nutritive value. Asian-Australian J. Anim. Sci., 16: 177-188. Jankju, M., F. Mellati and A. Bozorgmehr. 2011. Flora, life form and chorology of winter and rural range plants in the Northern Khorasan Province. Iran J. Rangel. Sci., 1(4): 35-40. Jefferies, M. 1997. Biodiversity and Conservation (Routledge, London and New York). Jonathan, L. and L.S. Cynthia. 2002. Correspondences analysis of functional group in a riparian landscape. Plant Ecol., 164: 171-183. Jones, D.I.H. and A.U. Wilson. 1987. Nutritive quality of forages. In: Hacker, J.B. and J.H. Ternouth, (eds.), The Nutrition of Herbivores. Academic Press, New York. Jones, D.H. and A.D. Wilson. 1987. Nutritive quality of forage. In: Hacker, J.B. and J.H. Ternouth, (eds.), The Nutrition of Herbivores. Academic Press, Sydney. Pp. 65- 89. Jones, M.B., W.A. Williams and C.E. Vaughn. 1983. Soil characteristics related to production on sub clover-grass range. J. Range Manage., 36: 444-446. Jones, J. 1966. Nutrient requirements of improved pasture on podzolic soils developed in phyllite at North Deep Creek. Proceed. Trop. Grassl. Soc. Aust., 6: 23-30. Jung, H.G. and K.P. Vogel. 1986. Influence of lignin on digestibility of forage cell wall material. J. Anim. Sci., 62: 1703-1712.

Juraitis, V. 1998. The changes in the nutritious matter and the chemical composition of perennial leguminous grasses during vegetation. Veterinarija-IR- Zootechnika.V5.ISSN, 1392-2130. Kababia, D., S. Landan, A. Perevolostsky, Y. Vecht, L. Eliasof and S. Zeltzer. 1992. The feeding behaviour of milking goats in woody rangeland in the Judean Mountains. Hasssadch., 72: 1536-1540. Karnieli, A., A. Gabai, I. Choku, E. Zaay and M. Shachak .2002. Temporal dynamics of soil and vegetation spectral responses in a semi-arid environment. Int. J. Remote Sens., 23: 4073-4087. Kato, K.1981. Ultra-structure of plant cell wall. Biochemical view point. ln: Tanner, W. and F.A. Loawus, (eds.), Plant Carbohydrates. II. Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology, Spriger-Verlag, Berlin. Kent, M. and P. Coker. 1992. Vegetation Description and Analysis. Chichister: Wiley and Sons Ltd. Khan, D. and S.S. Shaukat. 2005. Above ground standing phytomass of some grass-dominated communities of Karachi: Winter aspect. Int. J. Bio. Biotech., 2(1): 85-92. Khan, I.I. 1996. Biodiversity depletion with respect to human and livestock population in Indian Desert. In: West, N.I. (ed.), Rangelands in a Sustainable Biosphere. Proceedings of the Fifth International Rangeland Congress, 23-28 July, 1995, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, pp. 286-287. Khan, Z.I., A. Hussain, M. Ashraf, E.E. Valeem, M.Y. Ashraf and M.S. Ahmad. 2004. Soil and forage minerals (trace elements) status of a grazing pasture in the semi-arid region of Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 36(4): 851-856. Khan, Z.I., A. Hussain, M. Ashraf, M.Y. Ashraf, L.R. McDowell and B. Huchzermeyer. 2007. Copper nutrition of goats grazing native and improved pasture with seasonal variation in a semiarid region of Pakistan. Small Rumi. Res., 67: 138-148. Khan, Z.I., M. Ashraf, A. Hussain and L.R. McDowell. 2005. Seasonal variation of trace elements in a semiarid veld pasture. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal., 37: 1471- 1484.

Kinzel, H. 1983. Influence of limestone silicates and soil pH on vegetation. III. Physiological plant ecology. In: Lange, O.L., P.S. Nobel, C.B. Osmond and H. Zieglers, (eds.), Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology. Spriger-Verlag, Berlin. Kovacevic, V., V. Vukadinovic and I. Komljenovic. 1991. Tipovi kloroze soje uslijed debalansa ishrane na tlima istočne Hrvatske (The types of soybean chlorosis induced by nutritional debalances on soils of eastern Croatia). Znan. Prak. Poljopr. Tehnol., 21: 15-23. Krishnmurthy, K.V. 2003. Textbook of Biodiversity. pp. 276. Labavitch, J.M. 1981. Cell wall turn-over in plant development. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol., 32: 385-406. Lessard, J., M. Hidiroglou, R. Carson and J. Wauthy. 1970. Copper, molybdenum and sulfur contents of forage crops at Kapuskasing, Ontario. Can. J. Plant Sci., 50: 685-691. Littledike, E.T. and J. Goff. 1987. Interactions of Ca, P, Mg and Vitamin D that influences their status in domestic meat animals. J. Anim. Sci., 65: 1727-1743. Liu, D., J. Yun, X. Hao and S. Meng. 1996. Grassland deterioration and control measures in arid and semi-arid region in China. In: West, N.E. (ed.), Rangelands in a Sustainable Biosphere. Proceedings of the Fifth International Rangeland Congress, 23-28 July, 1995, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, pp. 320-321. Makulbekova, G.B. 1996. The ecological evaluation of the present condition of rangeland vegetation of Kazakhistan deserts. In: West, N.E. (ed.), Rangelands in a Sustainable Biosphere. Proceedings of the Fifth International Rangeland Congress, 23-28 July, 1995, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, pp. 338-339. Malan, P.W. and Van-Niekerk. 2005. The extent of grass species composition in Braklaagte, Zeerust District, North-West Province, South Africa. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci., 22(3): 177-184. Malhotra, V.K.1998. Biochemistry for Students. 10th Edition. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publisher, Private Ltd, New Delhi, India. Malik, M.Y. and M.1.D. Chughtai. 1979. Chemical Composition and Nutritive Value of Indigenous Feedstuffs. Pakistan Association for the Advancement of Science, Lahore.

Malik, M.N. and A.A. Khan. 1967. Nutritive value of grasses of Kala Chitta Forests. Pak. J. Forest., 17: 529 538. Malik, M.N. and A.A. Khan. 1971. The chemical composition of grasses related to some edaphic factors of reserved rakhs of Thal. Pak. J. Forest., 21: 287-294. Malik, Z.H. 2005. Comparative Study on the Vegetation of Ganga Chotti and Bedori Hills District Bagh, Azad Jammu and Kashmir with Special Reference to Range Conditions. Ph.D Thesis, University of Peshawar. Malik, Z.H., N.Z. Malik, S. Bashir and M.S. Gorsi. 2001. Phytosociological studies on the vegetation of Dao Khun Hills. J. Sci. Tech., 25: 35-41. Mannetje, L. 2000. Measuring biomass of vegetation. In:Mannetje, L. and R.M. Jones, (eds.), Field and Laboratory Methods for Grassland and Animal Production Research. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 151-177. Marqueus, M.C.M., J.J. Roper and A.P.B. Salvaggio. 2004. Phenological pattern among plant life form in a sub-tropical forest in Southern Brazil. J. Plant Ecol., 173(2): 203- 213. Martin-Prevel, P., J. Gagnard and P. Gautier. 1987. Plant Analysis: As a Guide to the Nutrient Requirements of Temperate and Tropical Crops. Lavoisier Publishing Inc. 175, 5th Avenue, New York. McDowell, L.R. 1985. In: Nutrition of Grazing Ruminants in Warm Climates. Academic Press New York, p. 443. McDowell, L.R., J.H. Conrad and F.G. Hembry. 1993. Minerals for Grazing Ruminants in Tropical Regions. University of Florida, Gainesville. McGarigal, K., S. Cushman and S. Stafford. 2000. Multivariate Statistics for Wildlife and Ecology Research. MA, USA. McNaughton, S.J. 1992. Laboratory simulated grazing: Interactive effects of defoliation and canopy closure on Serengeti grasses. Ecol., 73: 170-182. Medina, E. 1987. Requirements, conservation and cycles of nutrients in the herbaceous layer. In: Walker, B.H. (ed.), Determinants of Tropical Savannas. IRL Press Limited, UK, pp. 39-65. Mengel, K. and E.A. Kirkby. 2001. Principles of Plant Nutrition. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London. ISBN 0-7923-7150-X.

Michael, J.E., R. Elderkin and J.K. Lewis. 1993. Seasonal height-weight dynamics of western wheat grass. J. Range Manage., 46: 147-151. Migongo-Bake, W. and R.M. Hensen. 1987. Seasonal diets of camels, cattle, sheep and goats in a common range in Eastern Africa. J. Range Manage., 40: 76-79. Milchunas, D.G., A.S. Varnamkhasti, W.K. Lauenroth and H. Goetz. 1995. Forage quality in relation to long-term grazing history, current-year defoliation and water resource. Oecologia., 101: 366-374. Miller, D. 1997. Rangelands and Range management. Newsletter, ICIMOD, No. 27, Spring 1997. Miller, R.F., T.J. Svejcar and J.A. Rose. 2000. Impacts of Western Juniper of plant community composition and structure. J. Range Manag., 53: 574-585. Mills, C.F. 1974. Trace element interactions: Effect of dietary composition on development of imbalance and toxicity. In: Hoekstra, W.E., J.W. Sutte, H.E. Ganther and W. Mertz, (eds.), Trace Element metabolism in Animals-2. University Park Press, Baltimore, pp. 79-89. Miner, G.S., R. Gutierrez and L.D. King. 1997. Soil factors affecting plant concentrations of cadmium, copper, and zinc on sludge-amended soils. J. Environ. Qual., 26: 989- 994. Minson, D.J. 1990. The Chemical composition and Nutritive value of tropical grasses. In: Skerman, P.J. and F. Riveros, (eds.), Tropical Grasses. FAO Plant Production and Protection Series No. 23, FAO, Rome. Morris, C. and D. Kotze. 2006. Introduction to Veld care (1). Agricultural research council, University of Kwazulu, Natal. Morrison, I.M. 1974. Structural investigations on the lignin carbohydrate complexes of Lolium perenne. Biochem. J., 139: 197-204. Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Mueller-Harvey, I.R.D., P.J. Hartley, Harris and E.H. Curzon. 1986. Linkage of P-Coumaroyl and feruloyl groups to cell wall polysac rides of barley straw. Carbohy. Res., 148: 71-85.

Muir, J.P. and A. Alage. 2001. Seasonal herbage production from two range types in southern Mozambique. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci., 18(1): 37-41. Munchin, P.R. 1987. Simulation of multidimensional community patterns: Towards a comprehensive model. Vegetation., 71: 145-156. Murray, R.K., D.K. Granner, P.A. Mayes and V.W. Rodwell. 2000. Harper’s Biochemistry, 25th Edition, McGraw-Hill, Health Profession Division, USA Mwalyosi, R.B.B. 1992. Influence of livestock grazing on range condition in South West Masailand, Northern Tanzania. J. Appl. Ecol., 29: 581-588. Naeem, M., S.D. Baber, M.Y. Ashraf and A.R. Rao. 2000. Status of flora in Lal Sohanra (Cholistan) forest preserves Pakistan. J. Biol. Sci., 3: 1838-1846. Nasrullah, N., M. Akashi and R.O. Kawamura. 2003. Nutritive evaluation of forage plants in South Sulaweshi, Indonesia. Asia-Australia J. Anim. Sci., 16: 693-701. Noellemeyer, E., A.R. Quiroga and D. Estelrich. 2006. Soil quality in three range soils of the semi-arid pampa of Argentina. J. Arid Environ., 65: 142-155. Nordkvist, E. and P. Aman. 1986. Changes during growth in anatomical and chemical composition and in-vitro degradability of Lucerne. J. Food Sci. Agric., 37: 1-7. Norton, B.W. 1982. Differences between species in forage quality. In: Hacker, J.B. (ed.), Nutritional Limits to Animal Production from Pastures. Common wealth Agriculture Bureaux, Farnham Royal, UK, pp. 89-109. Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Conserv. Biol., 4: 355-364. NRC. 1994. Rangeland Health: New Methods to Classify, Inventory, and Monitor Rangelands. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. NRC. 2000. Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals, Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. 7th Edition. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Nyamangara, M.E. and L.R. Ndlovu. 1995. Feeding behaviour, feed intake, chemicals and botanical composition of the diet of indigenous goats raised on natural vegetation in a semiarid region of Zimbabwe. J. Agri. Sci., 124: 455-461.

O’Farrell, P.J., J.S. Donaldson and M.T. Hoffman. 2007. The influence of ecosystem goods and services on livestock management practices on the Bokkeveld plateau, South Africa. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 122: 312-324. Odoh, S.O. and H. Adamu-Noma. 2000. A survey of browse species in Benue North Agricultural Zone, Benue State, Nigeria. Olsen, C.S. and H.O. Larsen. 2003. Alpine medicinal plant trade and mountain livelihood strategies. Geog. J., 169(3): 243-254. Osuji, P.O., I.V. Nsahlai and H. Khalili. 1993. Feed Evaluation. ILCA Manual 5. International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, p. 40. Otsyina, R.M., I. Issae and D. Asenga. 1997. Traditional grassland and fodder management systems in Tanzania and potential for improvement. In: Proceedings of the International Grassland Congress, March, 1997, Saskatoon, Ottawa, Canada, Palmer, A.R. 1991. The potential vegetation of the upper Orange River, South Africa: Concentration analysis and its application to rangeland assessment. Coenoses., 6(3): 131-138. Palmer, M. 2005. Ordination Methods for Ecologists. Avalible online at http://ordination.okstate.edu/ (Accessed on February 22, 2012). Parveen, A. and M.I. Hussain. 2007. Plant biodiversity and phytosociological attributes of Gorakh Hill (Khirthar Ragne). Pak. J. Bot., 38(3): 691-698. Pastrana, R., L.R. McDowell, J.H. Conrad and N.S. Wilkinson. 1991. Mineral status of sheep in the Paramo region of Colombia. II. Trace Minerals. Small Rumin. Res., 5: 23-34. Paynter, C.K., J. Cortes and M. Engels. 2001. Biomass, productivity and density of the sea grass Thalassia testudinum at three sites in Cahuita National Park, Costa Rica. Rev. Biol. Trop., 49: 265-272. Peden, M.I. 2005. Tackling the most avoided issue: Communal rangeland management in Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci., 22(3): 167-175. Perez, C.A. and J.L. Frangi. 2000. Grassland biomass dynamics along altitudinal gradient in the Pampa. J. Range Manage., 53: 518-528. Pfister, J.A. and J.C. Malechek. 1986. Dietary selection by goats and sheep in deciduous woodland of North Eastern Brazil. J. Range Manage., 39: 24-28.

Pirzada, H., S.S. Ahmad, A. Rashid and T. Shah. 2009. Multivariate Analysis of selected roadside plants (Dalbergia sisso & Cannabis sativa) for lead pollution monitoring. Pak. J. Bot., 41(4): 1729-1736. Pratt, D.J. and M.D. Gwynne. 1977. Range Management and Ecology in East Africa, Frieger Publishing Company, Huntington, New York, p. 391. Priston, R.D. 1979. Polysaccharides confirmation and cell wall functions. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol., 30: 55-78. Qureshi, R. and G.R. Bhatti. 2010. Diversity of micro-habitats and their plant resources in Nara desert, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 40(3): 979-992. Qureshi, R. 2008. Vegetation assessment of Sawan wari of Nara desert, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 40 (5): 1885-1895. Rajput, M.T., B. Ahmed, S.S. Tahir and N.M. Bhatti. 1991. A study of medicinal plants of Thar Desert. Sindh Uni. Res. J., 23(1): 15-26. Ramirez, R.G., G.F.W. Haenlein, C.G. Garcia-Castill and M.A. Nunez-Gonzalez. 2004. Protein, lignin and mineral contents and in situ dry matter digestibility of native Mexican grasses consumed by range goats. Small Rumi. Res., 52: 261-269. Ramirez, R.G., H.G. Rodriguez, R.M. Rodriguez, A.C. Soto, A.J. Reyes, G.J.G. Dessommes and M.G. Cervantes. 2009. Chemical composition and dry matter digestion of some native and cultivated grasses in Mexico. Czech J. Anim. Sci., 54: 150-162. Ramirez, R.G., H. Gonzalez-Rodriguez and G. Garcia-Dessommes. 2002. Chemical composition and rumen digestion of forage from klein grass (Panicum coloratum). Interciencia., 27: 705-709. Ramirez, R.G., H. Gonzalez-Rodriguez and G. Garcia-Dessommes. 2003. Nutrient digestion of common Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon L.) Pers. growing in northeastern Mexico. J. Appl. Anim. Res., 23: 93-102. Ramirez, R.G., H. Gonzalez-Rodriguez, G. Garcia-Dessommes and R. Morales-Rodriguez. 2005. Seasonal trends in the chemical composition and digestion of Dichanthium annulatum (Forssk.) Stapf. J. Appl. Anim. Res., 28: 35-40. Rao, A.R., M. Arshad and M. Shafiq. 1989. Perennial Grass Germplasm of Cholistan Desert and its Phytosociology. Cholistan Institute of Desert Studies, Islamia University, Bahawalpur, Pakistan, p. 160.

Rashid, A., M.F. Sawati, H. Sher and M.N. Al-Yemeni. 2011. Phyto-ecological evaluation with detail floristic appraisal of the vegetation around Malam Jabba, Swat, Pakistan. Asian Pacific J. Trop. Biomed., 2011: 461-467. Rasool, E., A. Rehman and Ihsanullah. 2005. Livestock feed resources: A case study in Asghra- Wazulum Valley, Baluchistan. Available at http://cnrit.edu/conf/isnh/postonline/ post 0110 (June 24, 2011). Rehm, G. and M. Schmitt. 1997. Potassium for crop production. Available online at www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystem/DC6794.html (Accessed on march 8, 2011). Robles, C.A.B. and L.J. Boza. 1993. Native forage flora of south-eastern Spain. II. Nutritive value. Pastos., 29: 47-60. Roe, E.M. 1997. Viewpoint: On rangeland carrying capacity. J. Range Manage., 50(5): 467-472. Rubanza, C.D.K. 1999. The Effect of Leucaena leucocephala (Leucaena) leaf meal supplementation on the growth performance of cattle grazing traditionally conserved forages (Ngitiri). MSc. Thesis. Department of Animal Science and Production, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania, p. 134. Russel, E.W. 1973. Soil conditions and plant growth. Longman London. Sagers, L.C. and J. Lyon. 1997. Gradient analysis in a riparian landscape: Contrasts among forest layers. Forest. Ecol. Manage., 96: 13-26. Saleem, M. 1997. Range management activities in the Integrated Range Livestock Development Project. Project Report: Pak/88/071. Sanderson, M.A., J.S. Hornstein and W.F. Wedin. 1989. Alfalfa morphological stages and its relation to in situ digestibility of detergent fiber fraction of stems. Crop Sci., 29: 13-15. Schmidt, A.G and D.D. Snyman 2002. Nutritional and mineral deficiencies and supplementary feeding. In: Bothma, J. and P. Du, (ed.), Game Ranch Management. Van Schalk, Pretoria, South Africa, pp. 267-276. Selvenderan, R.R. 1983. Chemistry of plant cell walls. In: Birch, G.G. and K.J. Parker, (eds.), Dietary Fiber. Applied Science Publication, London, pp. 95-147.

Shenk, J.S. and R.F. Barnes.1985. Forage analysis and its application. In: Heath, M.E., R.F. Barnes and D.S. Metcalfe, (eds.), Forages: The Science of Grassland Agriculture. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA. Sher, H. and F. Hussain. 2009. Ethnobotanical evaluation of some plant resources in Northern part of Pakistan. Afr. J. Biotechnol., 8(17): 4066-4076. Simbaya, J. 1998. Development and field evaluation of dry-season feed supplementation packages for smallholder farms. Livestock and Pest Research Centre (LPRC), National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research (NISIR) Annual report, Chilanga, Zambia. Sisay, A. and R.M.T. Baars. 2002. Grass composition and rangeland condition of the major grazing areas in the mid Rift Valley, Ethiopia. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci., 19: 161-166. Skerman, P.J. and F. Riveros. 1990. Tropical grasses. FAO Plant Production and Protection Series, No. 23, FAO, Rome. Sneath, P.H.A. and R.R. Sokal. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy: The principle and practice of numerical classification. San Francisco: Freeman, p. 573. Snyman, H.A. 1998. Dynamics and sustainable utilization of rangeland ecosystems in semi-arid climates of southern Africa. J. Arid Environ., 39: 645-666. Snyman, H.A. 2002. Short-term response of rangeland botanical composition and productivity to fertilization (N and P) in a semi-arid climate of South Africa. J. Arid Environ., 50: 167-183. Sprague, H.B. 1979. Management of Rangelands and other Grazing Lands of the Tropics and Subtropics for Support of Livestock Production. Technical series Bulletin No. 23, Agriculture Technology for Developing countries, Office of Agriculture Development support Bureau, Agency for International Development, Washington D.C. Stapledon, R.G. 1947. The palatability and nutritive value of herbage plants. J. Minis. Agric., 53: 427-431. Sultan, J.I., I.U. Rahim, H. Nawaz and M. Yaqoob. 2007. Nutritive value of marginal land grasses of Northern Grasslands of Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 39: 1071-1082.

Suss, K. and A. Schwab. 2007. Sheep versus donkey grazing or mixed treatment: results from a 4-year field experiment in Armerio-Festucetum trachyphyllae sand vegetation. Phytocoenol., 37: 135-160. Taggart, J.B. 1994. Ordination as an aid in determining priorities for plany community protection. Biol. Conserv., 68: 135-141. Tainton, N.M. 1986. A system for assessing range condition in South Africa. In: Joss, P.J., P.W. Lynch and O.B. Williams, (eds.), Rangelands: A Resource Under Siege. Proceedings of the 2nd International Rangeland Congress, Australian Academy of Sciences, Canberra, pp. 524 Tainton, N.M. 1996. Veld and pasture management in South Africa. Shuter and Shooter, Pietermaritzburg. Tan, M. and H. Yolcu. 2001. The nutrition value of some wild plants as a forage crops. Türkiye 4. Field Crops Congress, pp. 199-204. Ter-Braak, C.J.F. 1986. Canonical correspondence analysis: A new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecol., 67: 1167-1179. Ter-Braak, C.J.F. and I.C. Prentice. 1988. A theory of gradient analysis. Advances in Ecological Research. Volume 18, Academic Press, London. Toderich, K. and Tsukatani. 2005. Water/Pasture Assessment of Registan Desert (Kandahar and Helmand Provinces). Discussion Paper No. 606. Kyoto Institute of Economic Research, Kyoto University, Kyoto Japan. Availible online at http://www.kier.kyoto-u.ac.jp/index.html (Accessed on November 5, 2011). Trollope, W.S.W., L.A. Trollope and O.J.H. Bosch .1990. Veld and pasture management terminology in South Africa. J. Grassl. Soc. South Afr., 7(1): 52-61. Trollope, W.S.W. 1982. Ecological effects of fire in South African savannas. In: Huntley, B.J. and B.H. Walker, (eds.), Ecology of Tropical Savannas. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 292-306. Underwood, E.J. 1981. The mineral nutrition of livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough, England, p. 10. Vallentine, J.F. 1990. Grazing Management. Academic Press. San Diego, CA, pp. 294-320.

Vander–Westhuizen., H.C. Van-Rensburg and W.L.J. Snyman. 1999. The quantification of rangeland condition in semi-arid grassland of Southern Africa. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci., 16: 9-21. Van-Essen, L.D., J.P. Bothma, N. Van-Rooyen, and W.S.W. Trollope. 2002. Assessment of the woody vegetation of 01 Choro Oioura, Masai Mara, Kenya. Afr. J. Ecol., 40: 76- 83. Van-Gils, H. 1984. Rangelands of the world; Unifying vegetation features. In: Siderius, W. (ed.), Proceedings of the workshop on land evaluation for extensive grazing (LEEG). International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement (ILRI), Wageningen, The Netherlands. Van-Niekerk, W.A. 1997. Intake and partial digestibility of a number of forage crops by sheep and the use of a few quality parameters to predict intake. Ph.D Thesis University of Pretoria, South Africa. Van-Rooyen, N. 2002. Veld management in the savannas. In: Bothma, J. and P. Du, (ed.), Game Ranch Management. Fourth Edition, Pretoria: JL. Van Schaik. Van-Soest, P.J. and J.B. Robertson. 1990. Methods of Dietary Fiber, NDF and Non-starch polysaccharides. Symposium paper ADSA, June 1990, Cornell University Department of Animal Science, Ithaca. N.Y. Van-Soest, P.J. 1978. Evaluation of forages and feed stuffs in the laboratory. Paper presented at the 6th International Veterinary Congress, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Van-Soest, P.J. 1994. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. 2nd Edition. Ithaca, New York, US: Comstock Publishing Associates and Cornell University Press. Wahid, A. 1990. Dietary composition and nutritional status of sheep and goats grazing in two rangeland types in Balochistan, Pakistan. Ph.D Thesis, Oregon State University. Walker, B.H. and W.T. Knoop. 1987. The responses of the herbaceous layer in a dystrophic Burkea African savanna to increased levels of nitrogen, phosphate and potassium. J. Grassl. Soc. South Afr., 4: 31-34. Walker, J.W. 1995. Viewpoint: Grazing management and research now and in the next millennium. J. Range Manage., 48(4): 350-357.

Walsmsley, D.V., A.L. Sergeant and M.M. Dooker. 1978. Effect of fertilizer on growth and composition of elephant grass (Pennisetum purporeum) in Tobago, West Indies. Trop. Agric., 55: 329-334. Wazir, S.M., A.A. Dasti, S. Saima, J. Shah and F. Hussain. 2008. Multivariate analysis of vegetation of Chapursan Valley: An alpine meadow in Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 40(2): 615-626 West, E.S. 1938. Zinc cured mottle leaf in citrus induced by excess phosphate. J. Coun. Sci. Indust. Res. Aus., 11: 182-184. Westsfall, R.H., G.K. Theron and N. Rooyen. 1997. Objective classification and analysis of vegetation data. Plant Ecol., 132: 137-154. Whittaker, R.H. 1970. Communities and Ecosystems. Macmillan, New York. Wilson, J.R. and C.C. Wong. 1982. Effect of shade on some factors influencing nutritive quality of green panic and Siratro pastures. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 33: 939-949. Wilson, J.R. 1983. Effect of water stress on in vitro digestibility and chemical composition of herbage of tropical pasture species. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 34: 77-90. Wilson, J.R. 1982. Environmental and nutritional factors affecting herbage quality. In: Hacker, J.B. (ed.), Nutritional Limits to Animal Production from Pastures. Commonwealth Agriculture Bureaux, Farnham Royal, UK, pp. 111-131. Wool-House, H.W. 1983. Toxicity and tolerance in the responses of plants to metal III Physiological plant ecology. In: Lange, O.L.P.S. Nobel, C. B'Osmond and H. Zieglers, (eds.), Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology. Spriger-Verlag, Berlin. Xi-an, C and X.H. Ping. 2003. Ecological function of herbaceous layer in forest ecosystem. J. Trop. SubTrop. Bot., 11(1): 67-74.

STUDY AREA CHAPTER 3

3.1 GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION

The current study was carried out in the Cholistan desert that is located in South-West of Punjab province (Pakistan). This desert is an extension of Great Indian Desert and lies between latitudes 27º 42' and 29º 45' North and longitudes 69 º 52' and 75 º 24' east (Baig et al., 1980). The total land area of Cholistan desert is about 2.6 million hectares (FAO, 1993), and has a length of about 480 km and width differ from 32 to 192 km (Khan, 1987). Based on parent material, topography, soil and vegetation, the whole desert can be separated into two geomorphic regions. Lesser Cholistan or northern region bordered by canal irrigated areas and covers about 7,770 km2 and Greater Cholistan or southern region is comprised of 18,130 km2 (Chaudhry, 1992).

3.2 CLIMATE

Cholistan is one of the hottest deserts in Pakistan. The climate of the study area is hot arid with rainfall being the major factor influencing the life of local people as well as livestock. Temperatures are high in summer and mild in winter with no frost. In summer, temperature may reach to more than 51ºC and in winter it drops down below freezing point (Hammed, 2002; Arshad et al., 2008). May and June are the hottest months with mean temperature 34oC. Average annual rainfall varies from 100 mm to 200 mm. Most of the rainfall is received during monsoon (July-September) but winter rains (January-March) are also often (Arshad et al., 2006). Due to scanty and unpredictable rainfall along with long spells of droughts, water is a limited resource in Cholistan desert. Aridity is the most striking characteristic of the area with dry and wet years occurring in clusters (Akhter and Arshad, 2006).

3.3 EDAPHOLOGY

The major chunk of land comprising of sandy and clay patches in Cholistan desert. The Lesser Cholistan consists of large saline compact areas (‘Dahars’) alternating with low sandy ridges. Sand dunes are stabilized, semi-stabilized or shifting, while the valleys are mostly covered with sand. The soils of desert are categorized as either saline or saline sodic; with pH varied from 8.2 to 8.5 and 8.9 to 9.7 respectively. The Greater Cholistan is a wind sorted sandy

desert and consist of river terraces, large sand dunes and a lesser amount of interdunal areas (Baig et al., 1980; Akbar et al., 1996; Naureen et al., 2008; Arshad et al., 2002, 2008).

TABLE 3.1 MEAN METROLOGICAL DATA OF CHOLISTAN DESERT FROM 2001-2010

Months Mean annual temperature oC Humidity Wind Evaporation Rainfall speed Minimum Maximum Mean % KPH Mm January 6.47 21.93 14.32 48.92 5.00 71.7 7.5 February 9.70 25.90 17.76 42.27 6.00 92 12.5 March 15.98 32.83 24.40 38.09 7.34 192 5.2 April 21.51 39.24 30.77 28.86 8.34 276.4 2 May 26.72 43.15 34.93 25.92 10.94 362.6 13.2 June 29.15 43.14 35.86 28.67 13.02 490 17.2 July 29.30 40.27 34.80 48.80 12.24 431.2 44.6 August 27.85 38.90 33.37 52.85 11.17 336.6 70 September 25.56 38.66 31.80 48.28 9.25 292.9 14.6 October 19.87 36.51 28.23 40.54 6.01 253 0.2 November 12.41 30.15 21.19 42.84 4.70 167 - December 7.58 24.40 15.99 45.95 4.40 110.7 3.7 Source: Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources Bahawalpur

3.4 VEGETATION

The vegetation of Cholistan desert comprises of wide variety of xerophytic species. These drought tolerant species are well adapted to severe seasonal temperature, moisture instability and large variety of edaphic conditions. The soil physio-chemical composition is playing a significant role in vegetation distribution in the area (Chaudhary, 1992; Arshad and Akbar, 2002). Fortunately, a wide range of nutritious species of grasses, shrubs and trees occupy the entire desert. Even if these plant species are slow growing but respond very well under favorable climatic conditions and provide abundant biomass for livestock consumption. Significant genera of grasses include Cenchrus, Panicum and Lasiurus while important genera of browses include Calligonum, Haloxylon, Prosopis, Zizyphus and Acacia. Each site is represented by typical plant species based on availability of soil moisture, salinity and plant characteristics (Naz, 2011).

3.5. FAUNA

Once, Cholistan Desert was wealthy with all kinds of wildlife, including magnificent mammals like rhinoceros, lions, leopards and a number of beautiful game birds. There is strong evidence that hunting of deer (pahar), leopard, lion, deers and wild boars were common in the desert. Leopard and lion had vanished from the desert by the start of 19th century. Black chinkyra, black buck (kala hiran), nilgai and bustards are the endangered species now, however, large herds are found across the border. Likely, wild ass has been encountered near Pakistan– India boundary line but its number is also declining fast. Desert cat has almost disappeared, however hare and other rodents are still found. Among birds, some species of Quail, Partridges and Sand Grouse are met in good number (Ahmad et al., 2005).

3.6 WATER RESOURCES

The people of Cholistan desert depends upon rainwater because the ground water lies at the depth of 80-120 ft., which is extremely brackish and cannot be even used for livestock. Scarcity of water is one of the most severe constraints on human and ruminant populations; water is available to livestock only during the wet season in manmade ponds locally called as tobas. Rainwater collected in these tobas play a key role in providing water to livestock in the wet season and it dictate the movement of livestock from one place to another (CDA, 2006). There are around 1500 water points (tobas) in the entire desert out of which just 500 are in running condition. Most of the tobas are not constructed at proper places because their present localities have not been identified on scientific basis. Maximum rainwater received in the tobas is wasted due to high temperature, infiltration rates and heavy storms in summer season. Siltation in tobas is also one of the serious problems, which rapidly reduce their storage capacities, especially during monsoon season (PCRWR, 2004).

3.7 REFERENCES

Ahmad, F., A. Zulfiqar and F. Sameera. 2005. Historical and archaeological perspectives of soil degradation in Cholistan. Sociedade Natureza Uberlandia., 1: 864-870. Akbar, G., T.N. Khan and M. Arshad. 1996. Cholistan desert Pakistan. Rangelands., 18: 124- 128. Akhter, R. and M. Arshad. 2006. Arid rangelands in Cholistan desert (Pakistan). Scheresse., 17: 1-18. Anonymous. 1993. Pakistan–Cholistan Area Development Project. Report No. 59/53 ADB- PAK58 (Final version). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Arshad, M., A.U. Hassan, M.Y.Ashraf, S. Noureen and M. Moazzam. 2008. Edaphic factors and distribution of vegetation in the Cholistan desert, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 40(5): 1923- 1931. Arshad, M. and G. Akbar. 2002. Benchmark of plant communities of Cholistan desert, Pakistan. J. Biol. Sci., 5(10): 1110-1113. Arshad, M., M. Ashraf and N. Arif. 2006. Morphological variability of Prosopis cineraria (L.) Druce, from the Cholistan desert, Pakistan. Gen. Res. Crop Environ., 53(8): 1589-1596. Arshad, M., Anwar-ul-Hussan, M.Y. Ashraf, S. Noureen and M. Moazzam. 2008. Edaphic factors and distribution of vegetation in the Cholistan desert, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 40: 1923-1931. Arshad, M., Salah-ud-Din and A.R. Rao. 2002. Phytosociological assessment of natural reserve of National Park Lal-suhanra (Punjab, Pakistan). Asian J. Plant Sci., 1: 174-175. Baig, M.S., M. Akram and M.A. Hassan. 1980. Possibilities for range development in Cholistan desert as reflected by its physiography and soils. Pak. J. For., 30: 61-71. Chaudhry, S.A. 1992. The Cholistan desert. A tokten Consultancy Report. Cholistan Institute of Desert Studies, Islamia University, Bahawalpur, pp. 34. CDA. 2006. Annual report on livestock census in Cholistan. Cholistan Development Authority, Bahawalpur, Pakistan. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1993. Cholistan Area Development Project. Report No. 59/53 ADB-PAK 58 (Final version), Rome, FAO.

Hameed, M., A.A. Chaudhry, M.A. Man and A.H. Gill. 2002. Diversity of plant species in Lal- suhanra National Park, Bahawalpur, Pakistan. J. Biol. Sci., 2: 267-274. Naz, N. 2011. Adaptive components of salt tolerance in some grasses of Cholistan desert, Pakistan. Ph.D Thesis, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. Noureen, S., M. Arshad, K. Mahmood and M.Y. Ashraf. 2008. Improvement in fertility of nutritionally poor sandy soils of Cholistan desert, Pakistan by Calligonum polygonoides Linn. Pak. J. Bot., 40: 265-274. PCRWR. 2004. Pre-project socio-economic analysis of 25 selected settlements in Cholistan desert. Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR). Publication No. 130. Rao, A.R. and M. Arshad. 1991. Perennial grasses of Cholistan desert and their distribution. In: Proceedings of national seminar on 'people's participation in the management of resources in arid lands. November 11-13, 1991. Islamia University, Bahawalpur, Pakistan, pp. 6-11.

PLATE 3.1 (A, B, C, D) SHOWING SEVERAL ASPECTS OF CHOLISTAN DESERT

(a) Pastoralist (b) Manmade houses (Gopas)

MATERIAL AND METHODS CHAPTER 4

4.1. RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY

Several reconnaissance surveys of Cholistan desert were conducted on a Suzuki jeep (Sierra 4x4) during 2009-2010. The study area was divided into three distinct habitats (interdunal, sandunal and clayey saline) on the basis of soil topography and different formation types. Identification of sites was made on the basis of visual homogeneity of vegetation and physiography. Based on the purpose of the study, various botanical assessment approaches were used as referred by Whalley and Hardy (2000). Techniques described by Gabriel and Talbot (1984) for similarities in soils, topography and causes of degradation were also consulted. The indigenous knowledge of the local pastoralists and rangeland managers was also considered as additional tools to assess the genetic diversity of grasses. Priority was given to grass species being title of the study and also for their shorter lifespan under arid and semiarid conditions. All the study sites were subjected to various degrees of disturbance due to both natural and anthropogenic activity.

4.2 FLORISTIC COMPOSITION

Complete specimens of each species were collected in triplicate, dried, preserved, and mounted on standard herbarium sheets. Grasses were identified with the help of available literature (Arshad and Rao, 1994; Ali and Qiaser, 1995-2004). The determined specimens were also matched in the National Herbarium, NARC Islamabad and Cholistan institute of desert studies, Islamia University Bahawalpur. A complete floristic list along with families and local name was compiled as given by Ali et al., (1999). The information about the life span and abundance of grasses was recorded on the spot during field observation.

4.2.1 LIFE FORM

The plant species were classified into different classes of life form as followed by Raunkiaer (1934).

Life Form % = Number of species falling in a particular life form classes × 100 Total number of all the species for that community/stand

FIGURE 4.1 MAP OF CHOLISTAN DESERT SHOWING STUDY SITES

MAP OF CHOLISTAN DESERT

LEGENDS

SAMPLING SITES

Life form spectrum of the grasses was prepared as following: (a) PHANEROPHYTES

Species that have perennating buds emerging at least 25 cm above from aerial parts of the plants.

(b) CHAMAEPHYTES

The perennial shoots or buds that lies on the surface of the ground up to 25cm.

The perennial buds that are locating from a surface of the ground, where soil and leave protect them. The perennial buds lie at ground level and dying back at the onset of unfavorable conditions.

(d) GEOPHYTES The perennial buds lie below the ground level or submerged in water.

(e) THEROPHYTES

Annual seed bearing species that complete their life cycle from seed to seed during favorable season of the year. Their life span can be as short as few weeks. These are the characteristics of desert region.

4.2.2 PHENOLOGY

The phenological observations were recorded every month for 2 consecutive years from January to December 2009 and 2010. The data was averaged by adding the total plants in each month and the plants were classified into the following stages:

1. Seedling (vegetative young and pre- flowering)

2. Flowering (only flowers seen)

3. Fruiting (mature where both flowering and fruiting can be seen)

4. Dormant (life span completed or fruiting completed)

4.2.3 ECONOMIC USE CLASSIFICATION

In this study, identified grasses were classified on the basis of local economic values such as medicinal and fodder uses. The information regarding the economic uses was gathered by direct observations on the spot and through interviewing the pastoralist and local peoples in the investigated area.

4.3 PHYTOSOCIOLOGICAL STUDY

4.3.1 SITE SELECTION AND VEGETATION SAMPLING

The study area was divided into 20 different study sites on the basis of initial reconnaissance surveys. Identification and selection of study sites were based on the altitude,

physiognomy, aspect, degradation stage and floristic composition of the area. This sampling was carried out soon after monsoon during 2009. Data on quantitative phytosociological attributes such as frequency, density and cover were recorded by using the line intercept and quadrate methods as applied by Cottam and Curtis (1956) and Phillips (1959). These methods have been extensively used for the evaluation of desert rangelands (Mitchell, 2005). Five transects of each 100 meter in length, were used and quadrates (1×1 m2) were placed with an interval of 10 meter on each transect as shown in figure 4.2.

FIGURE 4.2 LAYOUT OF PHYTOSOCIOLOGICAL STUDY

100 m

1x1m2 at interval of 10 m 100 m 100 m 100 m

100 m

4.3.2 PHYTOSOCIOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES

Phytosociological attributes are considered necessary for the complete analysis of vegetation (Hussain, 1989). Following parameters were calculated:

A. FREQUENCY

Frequency is the percentage of quadrates in which a species was recorded. It was calculated with following formula:

Frequency = Number of quadrates in which species occurs × 100 Total number of quadrates

B. DENSITY Density is defined as the number of plants of individual species per unit area. It was measured by using the following formula:

Density = Number of plants of a certain species × 100 Total area sampled C. COVER Cover is the proportion of the total area occupied by the species. It was calculated by the following formula:

Cover = Total area covered by a species × 100 Total area sampled

4.3.2.1 IMPORTANCE VALUE Relative frequency, relative density, and relative cover each indicate a different aspect of the importance of a species in a community. Thus, the additions of relative values provide a good estimate of the importance of species. This sum is called the importance value.

A. RELATIVE DENSITY

Relative density is the study of numerical strength of individual species in relation to the total number of individuals of all the species and can be calculated as:

Relative density = Number of individual of the species ×100 Number of individual of all the species B. RELATIVE FREQUENCY

The degree of dispersion of individual species in an area in relation to the number of all the species occurred.

Relative frequency = Number of occurrence of the species ×100 Number of occurrence of all the species

C. RELATIVE COVER Relative cover is the coverage value of a species with respect to the sum of coverage of the rest of the species in the area.

Relative cover = Total basal area of the species × 100 Total basal area of all the species

The importance value of particular species was calculated following the methods described by Curtis and McIntosh (1951) and Stephenson (1986). Importance value = Relative density + Relative Frequency + Relative Cover

4.3.2.2 COMMUNITY STRUCTURE

The species within range sites were arranged on the basis of importance values and named after the leading species with the highest importance value. The closely approaching species were considered as co or sub-dominants of the community. Total importance value (TIV) was calculated by adding the value of three dominant plant species in a community, while the remaining plants were added separately.

4.3.3 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS

A computer software Multivariate statistical package (MVSP 3.2) was used to carry out the classification and ordination of phytosociological data (Kovach, 1985-2002). The classification was accomplished by the hierarchical clustering method (Sneath and Sokal, 1973; Gauch 1982). Secondly, ordination procedure of multivariate statistical methods was used for the development of ecological condition assessment methodologies (Manly, 1995). Detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) and Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) were used to study the patterns in species distribution and correlate the patterns with environmental variables respectively (McCune and Mefford 1999). Importance Value Index (IVI) was used as species abundance input data (Baruch, 2005). IVI was calculated from direct summation of results obtained from relative cover, relative density and relative frequency. Environmental variables used for CCA were soil features. These soil variables were pH, moisture (M), organic matter (OM), electrical conductivity (EC), sodium (Na), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K).

4.3.4 GPS DATA

GPS readings such as elevation, latitude, and longitude were collected at each study site with the help of handheld GPS meter (Garnaier).

4.4 PHYSIO-CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SOIL

Soil samples were collected from 0-30 cm depth in labeled polythene bags from investigated sites and transferred to the Soil Testing Laboratory (Bahawalpur) for its physio- chemical analyses. Soil physical and chemical properties were determined by the methods described in AOAC (1984) and unless otherwise mentioned below.

4.4.1 SOIL TEXTURE

The soil texture was determined by Bouyoucos Hydrometer Method.

4.4.2 SATURATION PERCENTAGE (SP)

A known weight of saturated soil paste was oven-dried at 105°C to a constant weight and saturation percentage was determined (Method 27) by using the following formula

Saturation percentage = Loss in weight after oven drying (g) × 100 Total weight of soil after oven drying (g) 4.4.3 pH AND ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY A pH meter (Jenway 3020) was used to determine the pH values and electric conductivity (EC) was determined using Consort-K520, digital conductivity meter.

4.4.4 MOISTURE CONTENT AND ORGANIC MATTER

10 g of fresh soil was oven dried at 110 °C ±2 for 48 h and dry weight was recorded. The moisture content was expressed as a percentage of dry weight. The oven-dried samples were placed in a muffle furnace at 550oC ± 2 for 2 hours and the loss on ignition (weight) was noted. Total organic matter was expressed as a percentage of the oven dry soil.

Soil Moisture (%) = (Fresh weight of soil sample - Dry weight of soil sample) × 100 (Dry weight of soil sample) Organic Matter (%) = (Oven dry sample weight - Sample loss on ignition (weight) ×100 (Oven dry sample weight)

4.4.5 SODIUM (Na) AND POTASSIUM (K)

The sodium (Na) and potassium (K) of soil samples was measured by Flame Photometer (Corning M-410, UK).

4.4.6. AVAILABLE PHOSPHORUS

Available P was determined by taking 2.50 g soil and adding 0.50 M NaHCO3 solution adjusted to pH 8.5 (with the help of 50 % w/w NaOH) following the methods of Watanabe and Olsen (1965) and Page et al., (1982).

4.5 BIOMASS PRODUCTION OF RANGE GRASSES

For the measurement of standing phytomass production of grasses, 1×1 m2 square quadrate was systematically placed at regular interval of 10 m on each 100-meter line transect. The data was collected during the wet season (August) and dry season (April). The vegetation found inside each quadrate was clipped, and the undesirable ones were discarded. The samples were packed in the labeled bags and fresh biomass was calculated at the spot. Further, the oven dry weight was calculated after drying the samples at 65 oC for 72 hours in the laboratory. The total phytomass of grasses in the study area was obtained by summing up the dry matter production from all the study sites, then averaged and converted in to kg/ha (Bonham, 1989). Grazing status at each range site was noted by direct observations in the field and further confirmed by graziers and nomadic people of particular area.

4.6 CARRYING CAPACITY A straight forward approach to determine the number of animals the management unit can support over a period of time is to divide the total forage biomass (i.e., forage supply) by the total amount of forage consumed by a grazing animal during the grazing period (i.e., forage demand) (Workman & MacPherson, 1973). Calculations based on long-term average forage production provide an appraisal of carrying capacity, whereas existing forage levels give an estimate of shorter term stocking rates. Carrying capacity was calculated on the basis of 40 % allowable grazing material. The one animal unit (AU) was taken as, a cow having 350 kg weight, demanding 7 kg dry matter forage per day, 2555 kg/year (Bonham, 1989). Carrying capacity was measured by using following formula. Carrying capacity (ha/AU/y) = Animal forage requirement kg /year Forage production kg /ha

4.7 PALATABILITY CLASSIFICATION OF GRASSES

Palatability of range grasses was recorded by daily observing the grazing livestock such as cattle, camels, goats, and sheep for two consecutive years (2009 & 2010). These observations were taken fortnightly and field observations were confirmed from information gathered from pastoralists/local herders as described by Hussain and Durrani (2009).

A. PALATABILITY CLASS

Grass species were classified into four following palatability classes:

(a) Highly Palatable (HP): Species, which were preferred the most by livestock.

(b) Moderately Palatable (MP): Species with average preference by the livestock

(d) Non Palatable (NP): Not grazed by ruminants at any stage; possibly toxic or harmful.

B. PLANT PARTS USED BY ANIMALS

The palatable species were than classified by the parts grazed (leaves, shoots, flowers and seeds parts) by the animals.

C. ANIMAL PREFERENCES

The palatable species were further classified by animal preferences (camel, cattle, goats & sheep).

4.8 NUTRITONAL EVALUATION OF SELECTED GRASS SPECIES

4.8.1 PROCUREMENT OF SAMPLES

The samples of grass species consisting of leaves, flowers, and tender branches were collected during the monsoon season. These samples were dried in the air and stored in polythene bags for further analysis in the laboratory. Each sample was analyzed three times to get the authenticity of results.

4.8.2 PROXIMATE ANALYSIS

Dry Matter (DM), Crude Protein (CP), Crude Fiber (CF), Ether Extract (EE) and Ash of the samples were determined according to AOAC (1994). Nitrogen Free Extract was determined by using following formula 75

NFE % = 100 – (% Crude protein + % Crude fiber + % Ether extract + % Ash)

4.8.3 FIBER CONSTITUENTS

The cell wall contents neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and lignin were determined by the methods of Van Soest et al. (1991). Hemicellulose was calculated by the difference of NDF and ADF.

4.8.4 MINERAL COMPOSITION

The air-dried samples were further dried in a forced draught oven at 60°C and were analyzed for macro minerals (Ca, P, K, Mg and Na) and micro minerals (Cu, Zn, Mn and Fe). The concentration of minerals was determined after wet digestion in nitric acid and per chloric acid. Phosphorus (P) was determined by the spectrophotometer, while the concentration of sodium (Na) and potassium (K) was determined with flame photometer (Jenway PFP7). Concentration of Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg), Manganese (Mn), Iron (Fe), Copper (Cu) and Zinc (Zn) were determined with atomic absorption spectrophotometer (Fritz and Schenk, 1979).

4.8.5 DATA ANALYSIS

The data obtained were subjected to analysis of variance while least significance was used to estimate difference between treatments mean by using the computer software Statistica 3.1 (Steel et al., 1997).

4.9 REFERENCES

AOAC. 1984. Official Methods of Analysis. 14th Edition, Washington, D.C. AOAC .1994. Official Method of Analysis. 12th Edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). Washington, D.C., USA. Ali, S.I. and M. Qaisar. 1995-2004. Flora of Pakistan. Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, Islamabad. Ali, S.I., E. Nasir and M. Qaisar. 1999. Flora of Pakistan. University of Karachi, Karachi. Arshad, M. and A.R. Rao. 1994. Flora of Cholistan desert (Systematic list of trees, shrubs and grasses). J. Econ. Tax. Bot., 18(3): 615-625. Baruch, Z. 2005. Vegetation-environment relationships and classification of the seasonal savannas in Venezuela. Flora., 200: 49-64. Bonham, C.D. 1989. Measurements for terrestrial vegetation. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, pp. 127-197. Cottam, G. and J.T. Curtis. 1956. Use of distance measures in phytosociological sampling. Ecol., 37: 451-460. Curtis, J.T. and R.R. McIntosh. 1951. The interrelations of certain analytic and synthetic phytosociological characters. Ecol., 31: 434-455. Fritz, J.S. and G.H. Schenk. 1979. Quantitative Analytical Chemistry. 4th Edition, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts. Gauch, H. and G. Jr. 1982. Noise reduction by eigenvector ordinations. Ecol., 63(6): 1643-1649. Gabriel, H.W. and S.S. Talbot. 1984. Glossary of landscape and vegetation ecology for Alaska. Alaska Technical Report 10, Bureau of Land Management, US Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. Hussain, F. 1989. Field and Laboratory Manual of Plant Ecology. University Grants Commission, Islamabad, pp. 18-112. Hussain, F. and M.J. Durrani. 2009. Seasonal availability, palatability and animal preferences of forge plants in Harboi arid rangeland, Kalat, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 41(2): 539-554. Kovach, W. 1985-2002. Institute of Earth Studies, University college of Wales, Aberystwyth, (Shareware)-MVSP Version 3.2, 1985-2002 Kovach Computing Services Availible online at http://www.kovcomp.com/MVPs/downl2.html.

Manly, B.F.J. 1995. Cluster Analysis. Multivariate Statistical Methods. A primer Second Edition, Department of Mathematics and Statistics. University of Otago, New Zealand. pp. 128-145. McCune, B. and M.J. Mefford. 1995. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data Version 4. MJM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OR. Mitchell, K. 2005. Quantitative Analysis by the Point-centered Quarter Method. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Hobart and William Smith Colleges Geneva, NewYork. Muller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, p. 547. Page, A.L., R.H. Miller and D.R. Keeney. 1982. Methods of Soil Analysis, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Phillips, E.A. 1959. Methods of Vegetation Study. Holt and Co. Inc. N.Y, p. 107. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The Life Forms of Plants and Statistical Plants Geography. Clarendon Press, Oxford, p. 623. Steel, G.D., J.H. Torrie and D.A. Dickey. 1997. Principles and Procedures of Statistical and Biometrical approach. 3rd Edition. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York. p. 182. Sneath, P.H.A. and R.R. Sokal. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy: The principle and practice of numerical classification. San Francisco: Freeman, p. 573. Stephenson, S.L. 1986. Changes in a former chestnut-dominated forest after a half century of succession. Am. Midl. Nature., 116: 173-179. Van-Soest, P.J., J.D. Robertson and B.A. Lewis. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharide in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci., 74: 3583-3597. Watanabe, F.S. and S.R. Olsen. 1965. Test of an aerobic acid method for determining

phosphorus in water and NaHCO3 extracts. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 29: 677-678. Whalley, R.D.B. and M.B. Hardy. 2000. Measuring botanical composition of grasslands. In: Mannetje, L. and R.M. Jones, (eds.), Field and Laboratory Methods for Grassland and Animal Production Research. CAB international, Wallingford, UK, pp. 67-102. Workman, J.P. and D.W. MacPherson. 1973. Calculating yearlong carrying capacity: An algebraic approach. J. Range Manage., 26: 274-277

PLATE 4.1 RESEARCHER COLLECTS DATA AT THE STUDY SITES

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS CHAPTER 5

5.1 FLORISTIC COMPOSITION

5.1.1 RESULTS

In current study, 27 grass species comprising of 16 genera and belonging to family Poaceae were identified from the investigated area as shown in table 5.1. Floristic analysis reflects that the genus Eragrostis as being the most representative with 05 species (18.5%) followed in descending order by Aristida and Cenchrus with 04 species (14.8%) each and Panicum with 02 species (7.4 %) while the remaining 12 genera comprised of 01 species per genera collectively representing 44.4% of the Poaceae family. The complete list of genera is presented in table 5.2. Moreover, therophyte was the dominant life form consisting of 16 grass species (59.2%) followed by hemicryptophytes with 09 species (33.3%) and phanerophytes with 02 species (7.4%) as shown in figure 5.1. Out of total identified grass species, 06 species (22%) were found to be very common, 14 species (52 %) were common and only 07species (26%) were observed rare as presented in the figure 5.2. Their life trend was comprised of 13 annuals grass species (48 %) and 14 perennials grass species (52%) as shown in figure 5.3. See the appendix II for the life form spectrum, life trend and abundance of grass species.

FIGURE 5.1 LIFE FORM SPECTRUM OF GRASS SPECIES

Phanerophytes 7.4% Hemicryptophytes 33.3%

Therophytes 59.2%

FIGURE 5.2 ABUNDANCE OF GRASS SPECIES IN CHOLISTAN DESERT

0 V.Common Common Rare Percentage 22 52 26

FIGURE 5.3 LIFE SPAN OF GRASS SPECIES

46 Perennials Annuals Percentage 52 48

TABLE 5.1 FLORISTIC LIST OF GRASS SPECIES FROM CHOLISTAN DESERT

Sr. No. Vascular name Local name Family

1 Aeluropus lagopoides ( Linn) Trin .ex.Thw Kalar ghaa Poaceae

2 Aristida adscensionis L. Lumb Poaceae

3 Aristida funiculata Trin. & Rupr. Lumb Poaceae

4 Aristida hystricula (Edgew) Lumb Poaceae

5 Aristida mutabilis Trin. & Rupr. Lumb Poaceae 6 Cenchrus biflorus (Roxb) Bhurrat Poaceae

7 Cenchrus ciliaris (linn.) Dhaman Poaceae 8 Cenchrus prieurii (Kunth.) A Marie Dhaman Poaceae

9 Cenchrus setigerous Vahl. Dhaman Poaceae 10 Cymbopogon jwarancusa (Jones.) schult Khavi Poaceae 11 Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Khabbar Poaceae

12 Enneapogon desvauxii P.Beauv. Dhui Poaceae 13 Eragrostis barrelieri Dav. Makni Poaceae

14 Eragrostis ciliaris (Linn.) R. Br Makni Poaceae

15 Eragrostis japonica (Thumb.) Trin. Makni Poaceae

16 Eragrostis minor Makni Poaceae 17 Eragrostis spp. Makni Poaceae 18 Lasiurus scindicus Henrard Sewen Poaceae 19 Leptothrium senegalense (kunth) W.D Clayton Madhani Poaceae 20 Ochthochloa compressa (Forsskal.) Hilu Gandeel Poaceae 21 Panicum turgidum Forssk Bansi Poaceae 22 Panicum antidotale Retz. Morrot Poaceae 23 Pennisetum divisum (J.Gmel.). Henrard Morrot Poaceae 24 Saccharum bengalence Retz Sarkanda Poaceae 25 Sporobolus iocladus (Nees. Ex. Trin.) Nees. Swag Poaceae 26 Stipagrostis plumosa (Linn.) Munro.ex T. Anders Lumb Poaceae 27 Tragus racemosus (Linn.) All Swanri Poaceae

TABLE 5.2 GENERA FOR POACEAE IN CHOLISTAN DESERT Sr. No Genera No. of species Percentage (%) 1 Eragrostis 5 18.5 2 Aristida 4 14.8 3 Cenchrus 4 14.8 4 Panicum 2 7.4 5 Aeluropus 1 3.7 6 Cymbopogon 1 3.7 7 Cynodon 1 3.7 8 Enneapogon 1 3.7 9 Lasiurus 1 3.7 10 Leptothrium 1 3.7 11 Ochthochloa 1 3.7 12 Pennisetum 1 3.7 13 Saccharum 1 3.7 14 Sporobolus 1 3.7 15 Stipagrostis 1 3.7 16 Tragus 1 3.7 Total 27 100

5.1.2 DISCUSSION The information about floristic composition of an area is said to be perquisite for any phytogeographical and ecological studies and its management activities. Floristic composition reflects the diversity of vegetation of an area and can be affected by many factors such as overgrazing, soil deterioration, deforestation and dependence of local people/pastoralists on plants. The identification of local plants along with the description of any area is essential as it can provide particulars of a species found in local area i.e. its growing season, species hardness, any new species establishing in the area and the effect of over-grazing and climatic conditions like drought on vegetation (Ali, 2008).

Current study provides a complete floristic list of grass species that is introductory data on the vegetative cover of Cholistan rangelands. Based on our findings, 27 grass species were identified from the investigated area. Life form spectrum of grasses showed that therophyte was the most dominant species followed by hemicryptophytes and phanerophytes. The dominance of

therophyte over other plant life forms in the investigated area is because of many reasons such as extreme climatic conditions, overgrazing and human influences, which agrees with the findings of Barik and Mirsa (1998). They reported that therophytes could tolerate adverse ecological conditions such as dry and cold climate in many regions of the world. Our findings are in line with the floristic studies conducted by Durrani et al. (2010), who reported that the therophytes were dominant in disturbed and degraded vegetation. Likewise, Qureshi et al. (2011) reported that dominance of therophytes is in response of severe climatic condition and anthropogenic pressure on flora. Similarly, Arshad and Akbar (2002) has reported that the therophyte was the dominant life form among the grasses of Cholistan desert. Thakur et al. (2012) reported that higher therophytes are indicators of the extent of animals and man influences on the habitat. According to Asri (2003), therophytes are the indicators of dry conditions. The high percentage of therophytes in present study is also credited to human and animal activities. Kapoor and Singh (1990) concluded that the therophytic species was dominant in the highly grazed sites whereas the moderately grazed and less disturbed site showed a shift towards hemicryptophytic flora.

In Cholistan desert, rainfall is the most important factor, which is responsible for the growth and development of plants (Arshad et al., 2008). In our study, the dominance of perennials grass species over annuals is in line with the findings of Qureshi et al. (2011) who observed that the presence more perennial plants is an evident of low rainfall. Similarly, Ashraf et al. (2009) has also revealed that the perennials had more contribution than annuals in feeding livestock of arid rangelands. In present study, it was found that a lot of grass species has becomes common to rare and they were mostly observed in small patches or scattered form. Similar observations regarding the abundance of grass species has been given in the findings of Arshad et al. (2001) and Akhtar and Arshad (2006), who have reported that maximum forage species were continuously declining in Cholistan desert. Similarly, Qureshi and Ahmmad (2010) observed that the anthropogenic activities appeared to be a continuous threat in Nara desert and as a result, native species are diminishing at an alarming rate therefore, a large number of species were found to be becoming rare. Our findings on floristic composition are also in line with other reports given by Qureshi (2004, 2008), Durrani and Razaq (2010), Devineau and Fournier (2007) and Saeed et al. (2012).

5.1.3 PHENOLOGY

5.1.3.1 RESULTS In current study, two phenological seasons were observed in Cholistan desert. First season was started from February to May while second season was from August to December as presented in the table 5.3 and figure 5.4. May to July and December to January were almost dormant periods. In first phenological season, 06 perennial grass species consisting of Cenchrus ciliaris, Cymbopogon jwarancusa, Cynodon dactylon, Lasiurus scindicus, Ochthochloa compressa and Stipagrostis plumosa were recognized. In these species, seedling stage was in February, flowering in March and fruiting in April while May was the dormant month. In second phenological phase, 13 annuals and 14 perennials grass species were noted. Annual species such as Aristida hystricula, Aristida adscensionis, Aristida mutabilis, Aristida

funiculata, Cenchrus biflorus, Cenchrus prieurii, Enneapogon desvauxii, Eragrostis barrelieri, Eragrostis ciliaris, Eragrostis japonica, Eragrostis minor, Eragrostis spp and Tragus racemosus were following the second phenological phase from August to November. In these species, maximum seedlings were in August, flowering in September and fruiting in October while in November all the species started to become dormant or dead. All the perennial species including Aeluropus lagopoides, Cenchrus setigerous, Panicum turgidum, Panicum antidotale, Pennisetum divisum Saccharum bengalence, Cenchrus ciliaris, Cymbopogon jwarancusa, Cynodon dactylon, Leptothrium senegalense, Lasiurus scindicus, Ochthochloa compressa, Sporobolus iocladus and Stipagrostis plumosa were also observed in second phenological season that was from September to December. In this phase, seedling stage was in September, flowering in October, fruiting in November and December was dormant period. Further, there were 06 perennial species such as Cenchrus ciliaris, Cymbopogon jwarancusa, Cynodon dactylon, Lasiurus scindicus, Ochthochloa compressa and Stipagrostis plumosa, which were observed in both phenological seasons i.e. from September to December and from February to May. In this category, the peak seedling stage was in February and September, flowering was in March and October, fruiting was in April and November whereas May and December were the dormant months.

TABLE 5.3 PHENOLOGICAL PATTERNS OF GRASS SPECIES

Sr. No. Grass species Seedling Flowering Fruiting Dormant

1 Aeluropus lagopoides (L.) Sep Oct Nov Dec

2 Aristida adscensionis Linn. Aug Sep Oct Nov

3 Aristida funiculata Trin. & Rupr. Aug Sep Oct Nov

4 Aristida hystricula Edgew. Aug Sep Oct Nov

5 Aristida mutabilis Trin & Rupr. Aug Sep Oct Nov

6 Cenchrus biflorus Roxb. Aug Sep Oct Nov

7 Cenchrus ciliaris Linn. Sep/Feb Oct/March Nov/April Dec/May

8 Cenchrus prieurii (Kunth.) Maire. Aug Sep Oct Nov

9 Cenchrus setigerous Vahl. Sep Oct Nov Dec

10 Cymbopogon jwarancusa (Jones.) Schult Sep/Feb Oct/March Nov/April Dec/May 11 Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers Sep/Feb Oct/March Nov/April Dec/May

12 Enneapogon desvauxii P. Beauv. Aug Sep Oct Nov

13 Eragrostis barrelieri Dav. Aug Sep Oct Nov

14 Eragrostis ciliaris (Linn.) R. Br. Aug Sep Oct Nov

15 Eragrostis japonica (Thumb.) Trin. Aug Sep Oct Nov

16 Eragrostis minor Aug Sep Oct Nov

17 Eragrostis spp. Aug Sep Oct Nov

18 Lasiurus scindicus Henrard. Sep/Feb Oct/March Nov/April Dec/May

19 Leptothrium senegalense (Kunth.) W. D. Calayton. Aug Sep Oct Nov

20 Ochthochloa compressa (Forsskal.) Sep/Feb Oct/March Nov/April Dec/May

21 Panicum turgidum (Forsskal.) Sep Oct Nov Dec

22 Panicum antidotale Retz. Sep Oct Nov Dec

23 Pennisetum divisum (J. Gmel) Henrard. Sep Oct Nov Dec

24 Saccharum bengalence Retz Sep Oct Nov Dec

25 Sporobolus iocladus (Nees. Ex. Trin.) Nees. Sep Oct Nov Dec

26 Stipagrostis plumosa (Linn.) Munro ex. T. Anderss. Sep/Feb Oct/March Nov/April Dec/May

27 Tragus racemosus (Linn.) All Aug Sep Oct Nov

Key Feb=February, Aug=August, Sep=September, Oct=October Nov=November, Dec=December

FIGURE 5.4 PHENOLOGICAL PATTERNS OF GRASS SPECIES

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 August to September to April to May November December First season Second season Both season No of species 6 14 13 6

5.1.3.2 DISCUSSION

The life cycle of plant species consist of seedling stage, flowering stage, fruiting stage and dormant stage. The study on the occurrences of these events is called phenology. These phenological events can be recorded diagrammatically month wise and season wise and provide valuable information. This diagram is called a phenogram. Studies on phenological changes of grasses are very important for protection of grass genetic resources and range management as well as for a better understanding of the biological adaptations in the community. The phenological study of vegetation is a visual observation phenomenon that changes with time in resonance with climate (Badeck et al., 2004). The present study envisages the relationship between climate and phenological changes of grass species of Cholistan desert. These types of studies are necessary for scheduling regeneration and the conservation practices in the rangelands (Gutterman, 1994).

In Cholistan desert, temperature and rainfall have been singled out as the two most significant abiotic factors, influencing the phenological events. Other important factors include the availability of soil moisture (Fisher, 1994). Short period of growth along with seasonal flowering are major features of plants of desert regions (Struck, 1994). In present study, there were two phenological seasons recognized from investigated rangeland. First season was from February to May followed by second from August to December. The most of grasses were observed to be found in second spell. It was observed that the most of grasses start growing as

they get the favorable conditions in the Cholistan desert. In second phenological season (Aug- Dec) due to rainfall, lot of moisture becomes available to initiate the phenological cycle of grasses. Similar, observations were recorded by Noy Meir (1973) and Beatley (1974), who reported that the phenological patterns in desert plants are mainly related with the distribution of rainfall and temperature. In first spell, grasses were observed to complete their phenological cycle from February to May and this cycle was directly related with winter rainfall that mostly occurs from January to March (Akbar et al., 1996; Akhtar and Arshad, 2006). It was observed that grasses went to dormant stage due to extreme temperature and no rainfall from May to July. With the onset of monsoon (July to September) in the study area, the grasses again get favorable conditions and started to grow (Akbar et al., 1996; Akhtar and Arshad, 2006). The second phenological session was from August to December, which was directly dependent of above mentioned monsoon showers. As the second season, proceed in desert, most of grasses started to become dormant (December to January) due to shortage of moisture and extreme low temperature. In the investigated area, there were few grasses, which were found in both phenological seasons. These grass species have not any specific phenological period. These observations are reveals with the findings of Navarro et al. (1993) and Cabezudo et al. (1993). They suggested that there are some species growing under the same climatic conditions may vary widely in the management of their phenophases.

Our phenological observations showed that the maximum number of grass species initiate their germination and growth during and after monsoon season because of sufficient moisture in the soil and suitable temperature for plant growth. On the other hand, it is concluded that in addition to low rainfall, over grazing and movement of pastoral people may be other reasons for quick dormancy in grass species. Similar studies have been previously reported by Morellato and leitaho-filho (1982), Morellato (1995) and Nafeesa (2007).

Studies on floristic composition and phenological pattern of grasses provide a preliminary data of Cholistan desert. Although recent study is an effort to record the floristic composition and diversity of grass flora of whole desert, yet it was a valuable glimpse of the area. It is suggested that influx of migratory herds be controlled because they enter the area with the germination of grass seedling and remain there until drying up. This wild grazing badly affects the flowering and seed setting stages thus minimizing seed production with time that may lead to extinction of more palatable species.

PLATE 5.1 MAJOR GRASS SPECIES OF CHOLISTAN DESERT

Aristida hystricula Edgew. Aeluropus lagopoides (L.)

Sporobolus iocladus (Nees. Ex. Trin.) Nees. Panicum turgidum (Forsskal.)

Ochthochloa compressa (Forsskal.) Lasiurus scindicus (Henrard.)

Cenchrus ciliaris Linn. Saccharum bengalence Retz

Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers Eragrostis barrelieri Dav.

Cymbopogon jwarancusa (Jones.) Schul Stipagrostis plumosa (Linn.) Munro ex. T. Anderss

5.1.4 ECONOMIC USE CLASSIFICATION OF GRASSES 5.1.4.1 RESULTS There were 27 grass species and almost all were usable. These grasses were mainly classified into two categories i.e. a) grass species having forage value and b) grass species having medicinal value based on local economic uses. Forage value was further classified as high forage value, medium forage value and low forage value. The identified grass species have total 32 local uses, 27 as forage and 05 as medicinal (figure 5.5a). Out of total grasses, 18 species (66.6%) have high forage value, 07 species (25.9%) have medium forage value and 02 species (7.4%) have low forage value (figure 5.5b). However, 05 grass species were noted to have medicinal value as shown in figure 5.5. These species were Cymbopogon jwarancusa (Jones.) Schult, Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers, Panicum antidotale Retz, Sporobolus iocladus (Nees. Ex. Trin.) Nees and Lasiurus scindicus Henrard.

FIGURE 5.5 (a, b) ECONOMIC USE CLASSIFICATIONS OF RANGE GRASSES

70.00%

Medicinal 60.00% value, 15.60% 50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00% High Medium forage Low forage value forage value value Forage value, High Medium Low 84.40% forage forage forage value value value Percentage 66.60% 30% 7.40%

a b

5.1.4.2 DISCUSSION Plant and human population have direct interaction. Each of the local tribe, through its culture has classified the plants, develop attitude and learns the uses of plants. There is a close relationship between the man and plants. It is the utility of plant species that make them important for particular area. The findings of this study showed that all the 27 grass species have forage value that proved that if properly managed Cholistan desert could be a useful rangeland for feeding livestock, although having extreme climatic conditions and other poor characteristics. Some related studies in the similar areas have attestified that these grass species possess fodder or forage value such as Ullah et al. (2006), Akhtar and Arshad (2006), Arshad et al. (2009), and Hussain and Durrani (2009).

The next most important use of grasses was their medicinal usage. Local people of Cholistan desert have always used medicinal plants for their common health problems by traditional methods. Indigenous knowledge of local people about medicinal plant is directly linked to their culture and history. There were five important species that were being used by local people for different medicinal purposes. Cymbopogon jwarancusa is an aromatic grass which is locally used for the treatment of burning, cough, cholera, vomiting, thirst, unconsciousness fever and blood and skin diseases. Cynodon dactylon is used for the treatment of thirst, biliousness, leprosy, scabies, skin diseases, dysentery and extracted juice of this plant is used for hysteria and epilepsy. Sporobolus iocladus after crushing is added to a cup of tea to cure malaria. Panicum antidotale and Lasiurus scindicus are also used for controlling the high fever (Hameed et al., 2011). Similar study have been reported by Arshad et al. (2003) and Ahmmad et al. (2011) that showed the wealth of medicinal plant resources of Cholistan desert and their utilization by the local people.

5.2 PHYTOSOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF GRASSES

5.2.1 COMMUNITY STRUCTURE

5.2.2 RESULTS

In present study, twenty different grass communities were identified on the basis of importance value index as presented in table 5.4. Each community has different vegetation structure and soil physio-chemical properties as shown in table 5.5. These communities are described one by one as below.

1) Ochthochloa compressa–Cenchrus ciliaris–Lasiurus Scindicus (OCL)

This community was recognized in first study site named as Khavetal. Based on soil topography, the site was classified as interdunal. It was comprised of 13 species including five grasses, two herbs and six shrubs. Total importance value contributed by grasses was 202.65, herbs 3.27 and shrubs 94.17. Ochthochloa compressa (IV=91.45), Cenchrus ciliaris (IV=53.57) and Lasiurus scindicus (IV=32.38) were the dominant members of this community. Total importance value contributed by three dominant grass species of the community was 177.39 while total importance value by remaining species was 122.61. Soil texture of this community was sandy loam with pH 7.9, electrical conductivity (EC) 2.3 dS m-1, organic matter (OM) 0.39%, moisture (M) 0.74%, and saturation 28%. However, concentration of sodium (Na) was 29.5 ppm, phosphorus (P) 5.33 ppm and potassium (K) 47 ppm.

2) Ochthochloa compressa –Lasiurus scindicus –Stipagrostis plumosa (OLS)

This community was recognized in second study site Thandi khoe. Based on soil topography, this study site was classified as interdunal area. Present community was comprised of 15 species that included six grasses, three herbs, five shrubs and one tree. Total importance value contributed by grasses was 166.50, herbs 9.78, shrubs 98.91 and trees 24.81. Ochthochloa compressa (IV =98.93), Lasiurus scindicus (IV=37.74) and Stipagrostis plumosa (IV=22.69) were the dominant members of this community. Total importance value contributed by three dominant species was 159.36 while total importance value by remaining species was 140.64. The soil of this community was sandy loam with EC 2.5 dS m-1, pH 8.15, organic matter (OM) 0.38%, moisture 0.69 %, and saturation 25%, whereas, sodium (Na) was 32.2, phosphorous (P) 5.29 ppm and potassium (K) 46 ppm.

3) Cymbopogon jwarancusa – Ochthochloa compressa – Aristida hystricula (COA)

This community was identified in third study site Mansora Chocki. Based on soil topography, present study site was classified as clayey saline area. It was comprised of 13 species, which included five grasses, two herbs, four shrubs and two trees. Total importance values contributed by grasses, herbs, shrubs and trees were 174.65, 3.94, 107.5 and 13.91 respectively. Cymbopogon jwarancusa (IV=78.31), Ochthochloa compressa (IV=53.33) and Aristida hystricula (IV=28.85) were the dominant members of this community. Total importance value contributed by three dominant species of this community was 160.49 while total importance value by remaining species was 139.51. The soil of this community was clayey with EC 10.9 dS m-1, pH 8.6, organic matter (OM) 0.21%, moisture (M) 0.77% and saturation 61%, whereas sodium was 62.1%, phosphorous (P) 3.9 ppm and potassium (K) 29.6 ppm.

4) Stipagrostis plumosa –Panicum turgidum–Cenchrus biflorus (SPC)

This community was recognized in fourth study site named as Khirser. Based on soil topography, the study site was classified as sandunal. It was comprised of 14 species that included six grasses, three herbs and five shrubs. Total importance values contributed by grasses, herbs and shrubs were 192.94, 20.16 and 86.91 respectively. Stipagrostis plumosa (IV =79.32), Panicum turgidum (IV=56.46) and Cenchrus biflorus (IV=20.34) were the dominant members of this community. Total importance value contributed by three dominant grass species of the community was 156.12 while total importance value by remaining species was 143.88. The soil texture in this community was sandy with EC 1.85 dS m-1, pH 8.03, organic matter (OM) 0.26%, moisture (M) 0.39%, and saturation 19%, whereas sodium (Na) was 15.98 ppm, phosphorous (P) 2.29 ppm and potassium (K) 24.8 ppm.

5) Lasiurus scindicus –Panicum turgidum –Ochthochloa compressa (LPO)

This community was recognized in fifth study site called Moujgarh. Based on topography this site was classified as interdunal habitat. It was comprised of 19 species including seven grasses, four herbs, six shrubs and two trees. Total importance values contributed by grasses, herbs, shrubs and trees were 150.34, 37.48, 107.09 and 5.09 respectively. Lasiurus scindicus (IV =64.12), Panicum turgidum (IV=32.19) and Ochthochloa compressa (IV=23.70) were the dominant members of this community. Importance value contributed by three dominant grasses was 120 while the importance value by remaining species

was 180. The soil of this community was sandy loam with EC 2.63 dS m-1, pH 8.18. Whereas, concentration of organic matter (OM) was 0.43%, moisture (M) 0.70%, saturation 29%, sodium (Na) 27.6 ppm, phosphorous (P) 5.8 ppm and potassium (K) 70 ppm.

6) Ochthochloa compressa –Panicum turgidum –Lasiurus scindicus (OPL)

This community was identified in sixth study site called Dingarh. Based on topography, the site was classified as interdunal habitat. Present community was comprised of 20 species including seven grasses, six herb, six shrubs and one tree. Total importance value contributed by grasses was 178.23, herbs 23.46, shrubs 94.17 and tree 14.18. Ochthochloa compressa (IV =81.31), Panicum turgidum (IV=50.34) and Lasiurus scindicus (IV=20.25) were the dominant species of this community. Importance value contributed by three dominant species of this community was 151.8 while importance value by remaining species was 148.2. The soil of this community was sandy loam with EC 2.9 dS m-1, pH 8.32, organic matter (OM) 0.31%, moisture (M) 0.68%, saturation 29%, whereas, sodium (Na) was 28.4 ppm, phosphorous (P) 4 ppm and potassium (K) 56 ppm.

7) Lasiurus scindicus–Cenchrus ciliaris–Stipagrostis plumosa (LCS)

This community was recognized in seventh study site named as Chah nagra. On the basis of topography, this site was classified as interdunal habitat. It was comprised of 18 species that included 6 grasses, four herbs and eight shrubs. Total importance value contributed by grasses was 156.12, herbs 25.15 and shrubs 118.73. Lasiurus scindicus (IV=75.78), Cenchrus ciliaris (IV=37.73) and Stipagrostis plumosa (IV=31.05) were the dominant members of this community. Total importance value contributed by three dominant grass species was 144.56 while total importance value by remaining species was 155.44. The soil of this community was sandy loam with EC 2.5 dS m-1, pH 8.2, organic matter (OM) 0.36%, moisture (M) 0.65%, and saturation 27.5 %, whereas, sodium (Na) was 22.5 ppm, phosphorous (P) 4.71 ppm and potassium (K) 61 ppm.

8) Panicum turgidum –Stipagrostis plumosa –Cenchrus ciliaris (PSC)

This community was recognized in eighth study site named as Khanser. Based on topography of soil, present study site was classified as sandunal. The present community was comprised of 16 species that included six grasses, two herbs, six shrubs and two trees. Total

importance value contributed by grasses was 173, herbs 64.37, shrubs 57.45 and trees 5.18. Panicum turgidum (IV =75.47), Stipagrostis plumosa (IV=37.36) and Cenchrus ciliaris (IV=26.66) were the dominant members of the community. Total importance value contributed by three dominant grass species of this community was 139.48 while total importance value by remaining species was 160.52. The soil of this community was sandy with EC 1.75 dS m-1 and pH 8.09. Whereas, organic matter (OM) was 0.28%, moisture (M) 0.44%, saturation 18%, sodium (Na) 14.95 ppm, phosphorous (P) 2.94 ppm and potassium (K) 22.8 ppm.

9) Ochthochloa compressa–Pennisetum divisum–Lasiurus scindicus (OPL)

This community was identified in ninth study site called as Jindewala toba. Based on soil topography, this study site was classified as interdunal. It was comprised of 21 species, which included nine grasses, six herbs and six shrubs. Importance value contributed by grasses was 201.48, herbs 53.88 and shrubs 44.64. Ochthochloa compressa (IV =71.39), Pennisetum divisum (IV=40.40) and Lasiurus scindicus (IV=37.51) were the dominant members of this community. Total importance value contributed by three dominant grass species was 149.3 while total importance value by remaining species was 150.7. The soil of this community was sandy loam with EC 2.3 dS m-1, pH 8.21, organic matter (OM) 0.25%, moisture (M) 0.71%, and saturation 23%, whereas sodium (Na) was 27.8 ppm phosphorous (P) 4.5 ppm and potassium (K) 56 ppm.

10) Panicum turgidum –Lasiurus scindicus –Cenchrus ciliaris (PLC)

This community was recognized in tenth study site named as Qila derawer. Based on soil topography, the site was classified as sandunal habitat. Present community was comprised of 17 species that included eight grasses, two herbs and seven shrubs. Total importance value contributed by grasses was 183.58, herbs 24.5 and shrubs 91.92. Panicum turgidum (IV=72.98), Lasiurus scindicus (IV=52.11) and Cenchrus ciliaris (IV=23.90) were the dominant members of this community. Total importance value contributed by three dominant grasses was 148.99 while total importance value by remaining species was 151.1. The soil of this community was sandy with EC 1.83 dS m-1 and pH 7.7. Whereas organic matter (OM) was 0.29%, moisture (M) 0.48%, saturation 17%, sodium (Na) 14.23 ppm, phosphorous (P) 2.2 ppm and potassium (K) 24 ppm.

11) Cenchrus biflorus–Lasiurus scindicus–Stipagrostis plumosa (CLS)

This community was recognized in eleventh study site called Toba Sawan wala. Based on soil topography, study site was classified as interdunal. It was comprised of 16 species, which included eleven grasses, one herb and four shrubs. Total importance value contributed by grasses was 218.79, herbs 25.39 and shrubs 55.82. Cenchrus biflorus (IV=74.11), Lasiurus scindicus (IV=45.41) and Stipagrostis plumosa (IV=34.85) were the dominant members of this community. Total importance value contributed by three dominant grass species was 154.38 while total importance value by remaining species was 145.62. The soil of this community was sandy loam with EC (2.91) dS m-1 and pH (8.13). Organic matter (OM) percentage was 0.35%, moisture 0.57%, saturation 29%, sodium (Na) 35.4 ppm, phosphorous (P) 4.51 ppm and potassium (K) 51 ppm.

12) Cymbopogon jwarancusa –Aeluropus lagopoides –Sporobolus iocladus (CAS)

This community was recognized in twelfth study site called as Kora khu. Based on soil topography, study site was classified as clayey saline area. Present community was comprised of 16 species, which included six grasses, two herbs, seven shrubs and one tree. Total importance value contributed by grasses was 188.4, herbs 5.73, shrubs 96.19 and trees 9.68. Cymbopogon jwarancusa (IV =73.69), Aeluropus lagopoides (IV=53.67) and Sporobolus iocladus (IV=26.14) were the dominant members of the community. Total importance value contributed by three dominant grass species was 153.5 while total importance value by remaining species was 146.5. The soil of this community was clayey with EC 12.8 dS m-1, pH 8.6, organic matter (OM) 0.21%, moisture 0.79%, and saturation 65%, whereas sodium (Na) was 89.3 ppm phosphorous (P) 3.33 ppm and potassium (K) 32 ppm.

13) Lasiurus scindicus –Ochthochloa compressa –Cenchrus setigerous (LOC)

This community was recognized in thirteenth study site Chahbariwala toba. Based on soil topography, study site was classified as interdunal area. It was comprised of 17 species that included nine grasses, one herb and seven shrubs. Total importance value contributed by grasses was 182.86, herbs 23.04 and shrubs 94.10. Lasiurus scindicus (IV=71.86), Ochthochloa compressa (IV =50.88) and Cenchrus setigerous (IV=30.68) were the dominant members of this community. Total importance value contributed by three dominant grass species of the community was 153.42 while total importance value by remaining species was 146.58. The soil

in this community was sandy loam with EC 2.78 dS m-1, pH 7.8, organic matter (OM) percentage 0.38%, moisture (M) 0.59%, and saturation 25%, whereas sodium (Na) was 26.4 ppm, phosphorous (P) 4.6 ppm and potassium (K) 63 ppm.

14) Lasiurus scindicus –Stipagrostis plumosa –Ochthochloa compressa (LSO) This community was recognized in fourteenth study site named as Dhori. Based on soil topography, this study site was classified as interdunal area. The community was comprised of 18 species which included seven grasses, six herbs and five shrubs. Total importance value contributed by grasses was 179.32, herbs 51.96 and shrubs 68.72. Lasiurus scindicus (IV=73.28), Stipagrostis plumosa (IV =47.49) and Ochthochloa compressa (IV=39.79) were the dominant members of this community. Total importance value contributed by three dominant grass species of the community was 160.56 while total importance value by remaining species was 139.44. The soil in this community was sandy loam with EC 2.69 dS m-1, pH 8.23, organic matter (OM) 0.41%, moisture (M) 0.66%, and saturation 28%, whereas sodium (Na) was 28.5 ppm, phosphorous (P) 5.29 ppm and potassium (K) 69 ppm.

15) Lasiurus scindicus– Cenchrus biflorus–Ochthochloa compressa (LCO)

This community was recognized in fifteenth study site named as Khokhrawala toba. Based on soil topography, study site was classified as interdunal area. It was comprised of 15 species, which included nine grasses, one herb and five shrubs. Total importance value contributed by grasses was 191.01, herbs 34.24 and shrubs 74.75. Lasiurus scindicus (IV=73.31), Cenchrus biflorus (IV=55.03) and Ochthochloa compressa (IV=20.15) were the dominant members of this community. Total importance value contributed by three dominant grass species was 148.49 while total importance value by remaining species was 151.51. The soil of this community was sandy loam with EC 2.62 dS m-1, pH 8.29, organic matter (OM) 0.34%, moisture (M) 0.68%, and saturation 29%, whereas sodium (Na) was 27.9 ppm, phosphorous (P) 3.78 ppm and potassium (K) 57 ppm.

TABLE 5.4 COMMUNITY STRUCTURE OF GRASS SPECIES ON THE BASIS OF PHYTOSOCIOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES

Sites Grass Communities Number of species in each community IVI contributed by

Grasses Herbs Shrubs Trees Grasses herbs Shrubs Trees Three dominants

S1 Ochthochloa compressa–Cenchrus ciliaris–Lasiurus Scindicus 5 2 6 0 202.65 3.27 94.17 0 177.39

S2 Ochthochloa compressa –Lasiurus scindicus –Stipagrostis plumosa 6 3 5 1 166.50 9.78 98.91 24.81 159.36

S3 Cymbopogon jwarancusa – Ochthochloa compressa – Aristida hystricula 5 2 4 2 174.65 3.94 107.50 13.91 160.49

S4 Stipagrostis plumosa –Panicum turgidum–Cenchrus biflorus 6 3 5 0 192.94 20.16 86.91 0 156.12

S5 Lasiurus scindicus –Panicum turgidum –Ochthochloa compressa 7 4 6 2 150.34 37.48 107.09 5.09 120

S6 Ochthochloa compressa –Panicum turgidum –Lasiurus scindicus 7 6 6 1 178.23 23.46 84.13 14.18 151.8

S7 Lasiurus scindicus–Cenchrus ciliaris–Stipagrostis plumosa 6 4 8 0 156.12 25.15 118.73 0 144.56

S8 Panicum turgidum –Stipagrostis plumosa –Cenchrus ciliaris 6 2 6 2 173 64.37 57.45 5.18 139.48

S9 Ochthochloa compressa–Pennisetum divisum–Lasiurus scindicus 9 6 6 0 201.48 53.88 44.64 0 149.3

S10 Panicum turgidum –Lasiurus scindicus –Cenchrus ciliaris 8 2 7 0 183.58 24.5 91.92 0 148.99

S11 Cenchrus biflorus–Lasiurus scindicus–Stipagrostis plumosa 11 1 4 0 218.79 25.39 55.82 0 154.38

S12 Cymbopogon jwarancusa –Aeluropus lagopoides –Sporobolus iocladus 6 2 7 1 188.4 5.73 96.19 9.68 153.5

S13 Lasiurus scindicus –Ochthochloa compressa –Cenchrus setigerous 9 1 7 0 182.86 23.04 94.10 0 153.42

S14 Lasiurus scindicus –Stipagrostis plumosa –Ochthochloa compressa 7 6 5 0 179.32 51.96 68.72 0 160.56

S15 Lasiurus scindicus– Cenchrus biflorus–Ochthochloa compressa 9 1 5 0 191.01 34.24 74.75 0 148.49

S16 Cenchrus biflorus– Cymbopogon jwarancusa –Ochthochloa compressa 7 3 7 0 203.96 30.69 65.34 0 164.78

S17 Sporobolus iocladus –Aeluropus lagopoides –Ochthochloa compressa 6 2 5 1 179.34 5.48 111.69 3.49 150.79

S18 Pennisetum divisum– Cenchrus biflorus–Lasiurus scindicus 7 3 6 0 191.97 10.99 97.05 0 158.27

S19 Aeluropus lagopoides –Sporobolus iocladus– Cymbopogon jwarancusa 7 1 4 2 188.06 3.81 97.06 11.07 152.37

S20 Stipagrostis plumosa–Panicum turgidum –Cenchrus ciliaris 8 1 6 0 188.11 11.22 100.67 0 143.44

100

16) Cenchrus biflorus– Cymbopogon jwarancusa –Ochthochloa compressa (CCO)

This community was recognized in sixteenth study site called as Bari wala. Based on soil topography, study site was classified as interdunal area. It was comprised of 17 species that included seven grasses, three herb and seven shrubs. Total importance values contributed by grasses, herbs and shrubs were 203.96, 30.69 and 65.34 respectively. Cenchrus biflorus (IV=73.00), Cymbopogon jwarancusa (IV=56.16) and Ochthochloa compressa (IV =35.62) were the dominant members of this community. Total importance value contributed by three dominant grass species was 164.78 while total importance value by remaining species was 135.22. The soil of this community was sandy loam with EC 3.57 dS m-1and pH 8.38. Whereas, Organic matter (OM) was 0.36%, moisture (M) 0.53%, saturation 45%, sodium (Na) 37.5 ppm, phosphorous (P) 4.82 ppm and potassium (K) 64 ppm.

17) Sporobolus iocladus –Aeluropus lagopoides –Ochthochloa compressa (SAO)

This community was identified in seventeenth study site named as Chanan pir. On the basis of soil topography, present study site was classified as clay saline area. Present community was comprised of 14 species, which included six grasses, two herbs, five shrubs and one tree. Total importance values contributed by grasses, herbs, shrub and trees were 179.34, 5.48, 111.69 and 3.49 respectively. Sporobolus iocladus (IV=70.14) Aeluropus lagopoides (IV=50.31) and Ochthochloa compressa (IV =30.34) were the dominant members of this community. Total importance value contributed by three dominant grass species was 150.79 while total importance value by remaining species was 149.21. The soil of this community was clayey with EC 11.9 dS m-1 and pH 8.62. Whereas organic matter (OM) was 0.23%, moisture (M) 0.93%, saturation 64%, sodium (Na) 76.4 ppm, phosphorous (P) 3.35 ppm and Potassium (K) 31.2 ppm.

18) Pennisetum divisum– Cenchrus biflorus–Lasiurus scindicus (PCL)

This community was identified in eighteenth study site named Chanan Pir. Based on soil topography, study site was classified as interdunal area. It was comprised of 16 species, which included seven grasses, three herbs and six shrubs. Total importance value contributed by grasses was 191.97, herbs 10.99 and shrubs 97.05. Pennisetum divisum (IV=78.96), Cenchrus biflorus (IV =55.28) and Lasiurus scindicus (IV=24.04) were the dominant members of this

101

community. Total importance value contributed by three dominant grass species of the community was 158.27 while total importance value by remaining species was 141.73. The soil of this community was sandy loam with EC 3.68 dS m-1 and pH 8.1 while organic matter (OM) percentage was 0.40%, moisture (M) 0.58%, saturation 43%, sodium (Na) 36.3ppm phosphorous (P) 5 ppm and potassium (K) 61.7 ppm.

19) Aeluropus lagopoides –Sporobolus iocladus– Cymbopogon jwarancusa (ASC)

This community was recognized in nineteenth study site Qila derawer. Based on topography of soil, study site was classified as clay saline area. It was comprised of 14 species that included seven grasses, one herb, four shrubs and two trees. Total importance value contributed by grasses was 188.06, herbs 3.81, shrubs 97.06 and trees 11.07. Aeluropus lagopoides (IV=70.29) Sporobolus iocladus (IV=51.39) and Cymbopogon jwarancusa (IV =30.69) were the dominant members of this community. Total importance value contributed by three dominant grass species of the community was 152.37 while total importance value by remaining species was 147.63. The soil of this community was clayey with EC 12.4 dS m-1 and pH 8.5. Whereas, organic matter (OM) was 0.2%, moisture (M) 0.88%, saturation 62%, sodium (Na) 90.2 ppm, phosphorous (P) 2.9 ppm and potassium (K) 35 ppm.

20) Stipagrostis plumosa–Panicum turgidum –Cenchrus ciliaris (SPC)

This community was recognized in twentieth study site named as Khavetal. Based on soil topography, this study site was classified as sandunal area. Present community was comprised of 15 species included eight grasses, one herb and six shrubs and two trees. Total importance values contributed by grasses, herb and shrubs were 188.11, 11.22 and 100.67 respectively. Stipagrostis plumosa (IV =80.39), Panicum turgidum (IV=32.19) and Cenchrus ciliaris (IV=30.86) were the dominant members of this community. Total importance value contributed by three dominant grass species of this community was 143.44 while total importance value by remaining species was 156.56. The soil texture of present community was sandy with EC 0.96 dSm-1 and pH 7.9 while organic matter (OM) was 0.25%, moisture (M) 0.36%, saturation 18%, sodium (Na) 13.94 ppm, phosphorous (P) 2.3 ppm and potassium (K) 26.8 ppm.

102

TABLE 5.5 PHYSIO-CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SOIL OF GRASS COMMUNITIES

Site Grass community Texture Ec pH Moisture Saturation OM Na P K No. ds/m % % % ppm ppm ppm 1 Ochthochloa compressa–Cenchrus ciliaris–Lasiurus Scindicus Sandy loam 2.3 7.9 0.74 28 0.39 29.5 5.33 47 2 Ochthochloa compressa –Lasiurus scindicus –Stipagrostis plumosa Sandy loam 2.5 8.15 0.69 25 0.38 32.2 5.29 46 3 Cymbopogon jwarancusa – Ochthochloa compressa – Aristida hystricula Clayey 10.9 8.6 0.77 61 0.21 62.1 3.9 29.6 4 Stipagrostis plumosa –Panicum turgidum–Cenchrus biflorus Sandy 1.85 8.03 0.39 19 0.26 15.98 2.29 24.8 5 Lasiurus scindicus –Panicum turgidum –Ochthochloa compressa Sandy loam 2.63 8.18 0.7 29 0.43 27.6 5.8 70 6 Ochthochloa compressa –Panicum turgidum –Lasiurus scindicus Sandy loam 2.9 8.32 0.68 29 0.31 28.4 4 56 7 Lasiurus scindicus–Cenchrus ciliaris–Stipagrostis plumose Sandy loam 2.5 8.12 0.65 27.5 0.36 22.5 4.71 61 8 Panicum turgidum –Stipagrostis plumosa –Cenchrus ciliaris Sandy 1.75 8.09 0.44 18 0.28 14.95 2.94 22.8 9 Ochthochloa compressa–Pennisetum divisum–Lasiurus scindicus Sandy loam 2.3 8.21 0.71 23 0.25 27.8 4.5 56 10 Panicum turgidum –Lasiurus scindicus –Cenchrus ciliaris Sandy 1.83 7.7 0.48 17 0.29 14.23 2.2 24 11 Cenchrus biflorus–Lasiurus scindicus–Stipagrostis plumosa Sandy loam 2.91 8.13 0.57 29 0.35 35.4 4.51 51 12 Cymbopogon jwarancusa –Aeluropus lagopoides –Sporobolus iocladus Clayey 12.8 8.36 0.79 65 0.2 89.3 3.33 32 13 Lasiurus scindicus –Ochthochloa compressa –Cenchrus setigerous Sandy loam 2.78 7.8 0.59 25 0.38 26.4 4.6 63 14 Lasiurus scindicus –Stipagrostis plumosa –Ochthochloa compressa Sandy loam 2.69 8.23 0.66 28 0.41 28.5 5.29 69 15 Lasiurus scindicus– Cenchrus biflorus–Ochthochloa compressa Sandy loam 2.62 8.29 0.68 29 0.34 27.9 3.78 57 16 Cenchrus biflorus– Cymbopogon jwarancusa –Ochthochloa compressa Sandy loam 3.57 8.38 0.53 45 0.36 37.5 4.82 64 17 Sporobolus iocladus –Aeluropus lagopoides –Ochthochloa compressa Clayey 11.9 8.62 0.93 64 0.23 76.4 3.35 31.2 18 Pennisetum divisum– Cenchrus biflorus–Lasiurus scindicus Sandy loam 3.68 8.1 0.58 43 0.4 36.3 5 61.7 19 Aeluropus lagopoides –Sporobolus iocladus– Cymbopogon jwarancusa Clayey 12.4 8.5 0.88 62 0.2 90.2 2.9 35 20 Stipagrostis plumosa-Panicum turgidum -Cenchrus ciliaris Sandy 0.96 7.9 0.36 18 0.25 13.94 2.3 26.8

103

5.2.3 DISCUSSION

Community is a group of species population that lives mutually in the same habitat whereas habitat is a particular set of biological, physical and chemical conditions that enclose an individual, a species or a community. European ecologists have developed a system for classification and description of this part of ecology is called as “phytosociology” (Kent and Coker, 1992; Rogel et al., 2001; Silvestri et al., 2005). Combination of plant species which are living together in a habitat and held together by same ecological tolerances, form a community. All these species not have same importance, only few over topping species which by their growth and bulk amend the habitat and control the growth of other species present in a community; these species are named as dominants (Gaston, 2000). Phytosociology is the study of community structure and its formation. This study is essential to understand the functions of community. The characters of phytosociology such as frequency, density and cover are influenced by anthropogenic, climatic and biotic stresses (Singh and Singh, 2010). Community structure reflects the outcome of the habitat, ecological conditions and existing types of vegetation (Westfall et al., 1996; Malik et al., 2007).

In current study, the results of phytosociological parameters (density, frequency, and cover) from three distinctive habitats (interdunal, sandunal, clayey) of Cholistan desert are in accordance with the work of some earlier ecologist (Austin and Heyligers,1989; Sanderson et al., 2002; Hussain, 2003; Ahmmad et al., 2006), who supported the criteria for describing plant communities of various rangelands of the world. The relative values for each species were summed up to represent importance value index (IVI) in a particular site (Curtis, 1959; Stephenson, 1986). Every species was ranked according to their importance values and the species with the highest importance value in the stand was considered as the dominant species by following the methods of Malik (2005). The criterion of the classification fixed in the present study is also strongly supported by the findings of Hussain (2003). In this study, twenty different grass communities were identified from investigated range sites.

The vegetation of Cholistan survives by possessing adaptations to typical desert like conditions. Based on typical vegetation structure and edaphic features three habitats were identified i.e. sandunal, interdunal and clayey in the investigated area. In our findings, it was observed that clayey habitat has very low species diversity because of high level of Ec, pH and

104

sodium in the soil. According to Arshad et al. (2008) several edaphic factors such as soil pH, Ec, moisture and sodium are responsible for determination of vegetation pattern in clayey/saline habitats of Cholistan desert. Similarly, A rshad and Akbar (2002) reported that soils of clayey habitat were brackish in color, extremely saline in nature and very poor in fertility with pH ranged f rom 8-9. Clayey/saline habi tats parti cul arl y i n the deserts are characteri zed by speci f i c plant communities (Khan, 1990). In present study, halophytic grass species were the leading dominants such as Cymbopogon jwarancusa, Sporobolus iocladus and Aeluropus lagopoides in the clayey/saline sites (Naz et al., 2009). The distribution of halophytic grass species is mostly associated with inter-specific and intra-specific competition, management and grazing (Marc et al., 2003). Moreover, it was observed that the species variation with in habitat and from site to site was highly influenced by soil physical and chemical properties (Lenssen et al., 2004).

Results showed that interdunal habitat have high species diversity as compared to other sites. Interdunal habitat is a low-lying sandy flat area encircled by sand dunes. Based on soil physio-chemical analysis soil nutrients (P, K) and organic matter level was high at interdunal. In this habitat Ochthochloa compressa, Lasiurus scindicus, Cenchrus biflorus and Pennisetum divisum were leading dominant species. Similar to our findings, Arshad and Rao (1995) have also reported that maximum plant communities were found on interdunal habitat in Cholistan desert. Further, it was observed that sandunal habitat was consisting of unstabilized moving sand dunes. Results of soil analysis showed that texture of this habitat was sandy with poor soil condition. Therefore, vegetation diversity was also low in these sites. However, dominant species in this habitat were Stipagrostis plumosa, Cenchrus ciliaris and Panicum turgidum.

Our findings were almost in line with some earlier researchers like Rao et al. (1989), Arshad and Akbar (2002) who has studied the vegetation pattern of Cholistan desert. Similarly, Hameed et al. (2011) has studied the vegetation cover of Cholistan desert and found that sand dunes were dominated by Stipagrostis plumosa, Panicum turgidum and Cenchrus ciliaris communities, interdunal plains by Ochthochloa compressa, Lasiurus scindicus, Cenchrus ciliaris and Panicum turgidum communities, whereas clay-saline habitat was dominated by Aeluropus lagopoides, Sporobolus iocladus and Cymbopogon jwarancusa communities. The communities established in present study were reflecting the degrading stages of vegetational units as identified by, Durrani et al. (1996) Cierjack and Hensen (2003), Allen et al. (2003),

105

Malik (2005), Parveen and Hussain (2007), Li et al. (2008), Arshad et al. (2002), Saima et al. (2010) and Durrani et al. (2010).

Although, soil is an important factor responsible for distribution of plant species and formation of community structure in Cholistan desert. However species variation in grasses from site to site may be influence by some other factors like precipitation, human interference and grazing pressure (Allen, 2004). All these factors decide the category of grass species in which the species fall (Ahmad et al., 2007). Phytosociological data in present study showed that the Cholistan desert have high species diversity. Observations based on floristic composition of grass species was a qualitative character and it alone cannot give the complete picture of range productivity. Thus, the quantitative study of vegetation resources was necessary for assessing the productive potential of Cholistan rangeland. The communities established in present study actually reflected various remnants. Similar studies on soil-vegetation relationship of arid regions have been documented in other part of world such as in Austrialia (Bui and Henderson, 2003), China (Liu et al., 2003), Egypt (Abd El-Ghani and El-Sawaf, 2005), USA (Gul et al., 2001; Omer, 2004), Italy (Silvestri et al., 2005) and Iran (Jafari et al., 2004).

106

5.2.4 MUTLIVARIATE ANALYSIS

5.2.4.1 RESULTS

CLASSIFICATION

Cluster analysis was used to classify the vegetation of Cholistan rangelands into uniform groups or associations based on importance value index of each species. The results of cluster analysis were presented in the form of dendrogram (figure 5.6). The cluster analysis has divided the whole vegetation into three groups or associations i.e. interdunal group, second sandunal group and third clayey saline group, which are described as below.

GROUP A (INTERDUNAL ASOCIATION)

This group was comprised of twelve stands as shown in figure 5.6. In this group dominant grass species were consisting of Lasiurus scindicus, Ochthochloa compressa, Cenchrus biflorus and Pennisetum divisum with mean important values 49.8, 42.7, 32.6 and 30.30 respectively as shown in table 5.6. It was large size group comprising of total 38 plant species. Overall this association was comprised of twelve grass communities such as Ochthochloa compressa-Cenchrus ciliaris-Lasiurus Scindicus, Ochthochloa compressa- Lasiurus scindicus-Stipagrostis plumosa, Lasiurus scindicus-Panicum turgidum-Ochthochloa compressa, Ochthochloa compressa-Panicum turgidum-Lasiurus scindicus, Ochthochloa compressa-Pennisetum divisum-Lasiurus scindicus, Cenchrus biflorus-Lasiurus scindicus- Stipagrostis plumosa, Lasiurus scindicus-Ochthochloa compressa-Cenchrus setigerous, Lasiurus scindicus-Stipagrostis plumosa-Ochthochloa compressa, Lasiurus scindicus-Cenchrus biflorus-Ochthochloa compressa, Cenchrus biflorus-Cymbopogon jwarancusa-Ochthochloa compressa, Pennisetum divisum-Cenchrus biflorus-Lasiurus scindicus. Based on soil analysis mean values for Ec was 2.78 dSm-1, pH 8.15, moisture 0.65%, organic matter 0.36%, and saturation 30%, whereas sodium was 30 ppm, phosphorus 4.8 ppm and potassium 58.48 ppm.

GROUP B (SANDUNAL ASSOCIATION)

This group occupied four study sites i.e. S4, S8, S10 and S20. In this group, the dominant grass species with mean IVI values were as Stipagrostis plumosa (55.8), Panicum turgidum (34.6) and Cenchrus ciliaris (30.4) as shown in table 5.6. This association was consisting of twenty five species and four communities such as Stipagrostis plumosa-Panicum

107

turgidum-Cenchrus ciliaris, Stipagrostis plumosa-Panicum turgidum-Cenchrus biflorus, Panicum turgidum-Stipagrostis plumosa-Cenchrus ciliaris and Panicum turgidum-Lasiurus scindicus-Cenchrus ciliaris. Mean values of the soil physical and chemical characteristics for this association were E.c 1.60 dSm-1, pH 7.93, moisture 0.42%, organic matter 0.27%, saturation (18%), whereas sodium 14.78 ppm, phosphorus 2.43 ppm and potassium 24.60 ppm.

GROUP C (CLAYEY SALINE ASOCIATION)

This group was consisting of four sites (S3, S12, S17 & S19) as sown in the figure 5.6. The dominant grass species in this group included Cymbopogon jwarancusa, Aeluropus lagopoides and Sporobolus iocladus, with mean important values 50.6, 43.6 and 39.3 respectively as presented in table 5.6. This clayey saline group comprised of twenty three species and four grass communities such as Cymbopogon jwarancusa-Sporobolus iocladus- Aristida hystricula, Cymbopogon jwarancusa- Aeluropus lagopoides-Sporobolus iocladus, Sporobolus iocladus-Aeluropus lagopoides-Ochthochloa compressa and Aeluropus lagopoides- Sporobolus iocladus-Cymbopogon jwarancusa. These communities were also considered as indicators of clay saline habitat. The mean values of soil features were as Ec 12 dSm-1, pH 8.52, moisture 0.84%, saturation 63% and sodium 79.5ppm whereas organic matter was 0.21%, phosphorus 3.37 ppm and potassium 31.95 ppm.

TABLE 5.6 MEAN IMPORTANCE VALUES OF PLANT SPECIES IN THREE ASOCIATIONS

Sr. No. Species name A B C 1. Aeluropus lagopoides 0.0 0.0 43.6 2. Aerva javanica 3.4 1.4 0.0 3. Aristida adscensionis 2.4 1.6 0.0 4. Aristida hystricula 0.6 0.0 20.1 5. Calligonum polygonoides 10.0 19.7 0.0 6. Calotropis procera 1.4 1.2 1.0 7. Capparis decidua 3.7 3.9 6.7 8. Cenchrus biflorus 32.6 10.1 0.4 9. Cenchrus ciliaris 4.1 30.4 1.1 10. Cenchrus setigerous 4.3 0.0 0.0 11. Chrozophora plicata 0.2 0.0 0.0 12. Citrulus colocynthis 0.5 0.0 0.0 13. Corchorus depressus 0.9 0.0 0.0 14. Crotalaria burhia 3.2 4.1 0.0

108

15. Cymbopogon jwarancusa 8.3 11.7 50.6 16. Cyprus rotundas 0.0 0.0 3.7 17. Dipterygium glaucum 17.8 26.5 0.0 18. Eragrostis barrelieri 0.9 0.0 0.0 19. Eragrostis ciliaris 1.7 5.9 0.0 20. Euphorbia prostrata 0.3 0.0 0.7 21. Fagonia cretica 0.7 0.6 2.4 22. Haloxylon recurvum 3.1 17.5 38.6 23. Haloxylon salicornicum 19.2 26 9.8 24. Lasiurus scindicus 49.8 21.0 0.0 25. Leptadenia pyrotechnica 1.5 2.3 0.0 26. Limeum indicum 0.5 0.0 1.6 27. Mollugu cerviana 2.7 0.4 0.0 28. Ochthochloa compressa 42.7 17.9 21.4 29. Panicum antidotale 0.1 0.0 0.0 30. Panicum turgidum 17.9 34.6 0.0 31. Pennisetum divisum 30.3 0.0 0.0 32. Polygala crioptera 0.1 0.3 0.0 33. Prosopis cineraria 3.7 0.8 3.5 34. Pulicaria crispa 0.0 0.0 0.4 35. Salsola baryosma 10.1 3.8 17.2 36. Sesuvium sesuvioides 0.2 0.0 0.0 37. Sporobolus iocladus 0.0 0.0 39.3 38. Stipagrostis plumosa 17.4 55.8 2.5 39. Suaeda fruticosa 0.2 0.0 27.4 40. Tamarix aphylla 0.3 0.0 6.0 41. Tephrosia spp. 0.0 0.0 0.8 42. Tribulus longipetalus 3.3 2.3 1.3 43. Zizyphus mauritiana 0.0 0.5 0.0

Key:

A = Interdunal group

B = Sandunal group

C = Clayey saline group

109

FIGURE 5.6 DENDOGRAM SHOWING DIFFERENT VEGETATION GROUPS

WPGMA S19 S17 GROUP C S12 S3 S20 S10 GROUP B S8 S4 S18 S16 S15 S11 S13 S14 GROUP A S7 S5 S9 S6 S2 S1 24000 20000 16000 12000 8000 4000 0

Squared Euclidean

ORDINATION

Ordination is defined as a method of ordering data sets from vegetation samples in relation to one another and their associated environmental influences. In present study ordination techniques such as Detrended Correspondence analysis and Canonical correspondence analysis were applied to the floristic data in order to provide evidence for possible gradients in and between communities and to detect habitat gradients that may be associated with vegetation analyses and also to show floristic relationships between plant communities (Hill, 1979).

DETRENTED CORRESPONDENCE ANALYSIS

Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA) has divided the vegetation of the study area into three major groups along the axis as shown in figure 5.7. The DCA has produced similar groups as from classification of vegetation such as interdunal association (Group A), sandunal association (Group B) and clayey saline association (Group C). The summary of results has been described as below.

110

TABLE 5.7 SUMMARY OF DETRENTED CORRESPONDENCE ANALYSIS

Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3

Eigen values 0.647 0.216 0.089

Percentage 31.893 10.667 4.374

Cum. Percentage 31.893 42.560 46.933

FIGURE 5.7 DCA ORDINATION OF STANDS, USING SPECIES DATA OF 20 STANDS

3.7

3.0

Group A 2.2

Axis 2 s2 s13 s7 s1 s9 s18

s15 s6 s16 1.5 s5 s14 s17 s11 s12 s19 s3 Group C 0.7 s4 s10 s8 Group B s20

0.0 0.0 0.7 1.5 2.2 3.0 3.7 Axis 1

CANONICAL CORRESPONDENCE ANALYSIS (CCA)

For vegetation-soil correlation, another multivariate technique CCA was applied. Figure 5.8 showed that electrical conductivity, sodium, moisture and pH were playing some significant role in the distribution of vegetation association C. Whereas potassium, phosphorus and organic matter were showing strong relationship with vegetation association A. Environmental variables were playing non-significant role in grouping of vegetation association B. There is a continues decreased in the eigen values of the first three CCA axes presented a well-structured data set as

111 shown in table 5.8. The species-environment correlations are higher for the first three canonical axes, explaining 80 % of the cumulative variances.

FIGURE 5.8 CORELATION OF VEGETATION GROUPS WITH ENVIROMENTAL VARIABLES

CCA case scores 5.25

Group B 4.20

3.15s4 s8 s20 2.10 s10 Axis 2 Axis 1.05

s12 s19 s17 -4.20 -3.15 -2.10 -1.05 s2 1.05 2.10 3.15 pH 4.20 5.25 s7s9s1 Ec s6 s16 s13 -1.05 s3 Na s14 s15 s18 OM s11 -2.10 s5 Moi

K P -3.15 Group A Group C -4.20 Axis 1 Vector scaling: 4.43

TABLE 5.8 SUMMARY OF CANONICAL CORRESPONDENCE ANALYSIS Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3

Eigenvalues 0.620 0.219 0.130

Percentage 30.680 10.841 6.417

Cum. Percentage 30.680 41.522 47.939

Cum.Constr.Percentage 51.370 69.522 80.266 Spec.-env. Correlations 0.985 0.892 0.893

112

5.2.4.2 DISCUSSION

It is a well-known fact that different plant species have different salt tolerance level. There is not much information available concerning the plant species studied and their distribution in Cholistan desert. The association of particular communities to certain habitat types was indicating the influence of physical and chemical properties of the soils. Classification has divided the overall vegetation into three groups i.e. sandunal, interdunal and clayey saline. The result showed that there is a significant relationship between soil characteristics and plant species. Clayey saline association (Group C) was characterized by high sodium, EC and pH levels. On the other hand communities of interdunal (Group A) and sandunal (Group B) indicated low salinity levels, better organic matter and high concentration of phosphorous and potassium. Our cluster analysis results are in line with those reported previously by Dasti and Agnew (1991), Li (1993), Wu et al. (1994), Burke (2001), Enright et al. (2005) and Nezerkova and Hejeman (2006).

Studies on phytosociology and soil assist us in understanding the structure formation of plant communities (Monier et al., 2003; Naqinezhad et al., 2008). Such relationships are necessary because usually when we relate each other to underlying factors, a good picture of the relationships results. The distribution of vegetation is highly affected by the changes in the soil characteristics (Kabir et al., 2010). In present study, classification and ordination results, together with the environmental correlations provide a clear picture of the relationships among vegetation communities and their place in the landscape. The sequences of natural vegetation communities can be summarized in terms of several inter related edaphic factors (McDonald et al., 1996). The vegetational groups produced from classification have separated clearly in the DCA ordination planes along axes. This appeared to be a good correspondence among the results of clusters analysis and ordination.

The current study examined the environmental correlation of species distribution in different groups (interdunal, sandunal and clay saline). Both ordination techniques, DCA and CCA assess the soil–vegetation relationships. The results of CCA analysis showed well the relative positions of species and sites along the most important ecological gradients. Both ordination techniques clearly indicated that soil pH, electric conductivity, moisture, organic matter, sodium (Na), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) are the most important soil factors

113

responsible for the distribution of the vegetation pattern in the rangelands of Cholistan desert. Based on our findings the most dominant species in sandunal association (Group B) were Stipagrostis plumosa, Panicum turgidum and Cenchrus ciliaris. Environmental factors were playing non-significant role in distribution of these species along axis. In interdunal association (Group A), major dominant species were Lasiurus scindicus, Pennisetum divisum, Cenchrus biflorus and Ochthochloa compressa. Organic matter, potassium and phosphorus were responsible soil factors for distribution of these species. However, Cymbopogon jwarancusa, Aeluropus lagopoides and Sporobolus iocladus were the dominant species of clayey saline association (Group C). These species were strongly correlated with soil variables such as moisture, Ec, pH and sodium. Our results are in agreement with the findings of Naz et al. (2009) for the Cholistan desert, Sharma and Shankar (1990, 1991) for the Thar Desert in India, Kumar (1992) for sandy plains vegetation and He et al. (2006) for Alxa plateau China.

PLATE 5.2 (A,B,C) LANDSCAPES OF CHOLITSAN DESERT

(a) SANDUNAL HABITAT

114

(b) INTERDUNAL HABITAT

115

5.3 BIOMASS PRODUCTION OF GRASSES

Biomass availability of grass species was recorded in twenty range sites for two seasons (dry season and wet season) as presented in table 5.9 and figure 5.9 & 5.10.

5.3.1 RESULTS

5.3.2 DRY SEASON

The grass biomass yield and grazing status of 20 sites during dry season is presented in table 5.9. Based on biomass yield of 20 sites, maximum dry biomass production was recorded from Chahbariwala toba (384 kg/ha) and lowest from Qila derawer (207 kg/ha). In the investigated area, three range habitats have been recognized sandunal, interdunal and clayey saline. In dry season, contribution of interdunal range sites was 3654 kg/ha followed by sandunal range sites 1036 kg/ha and clayey range sites 905 kg/ha. Mean maximum biomass production during dry season was recorded from interdunal range sites (304.5kg/ha) followed by sandunal (259 kg/ha) and clay saline sites (226.2 kg/ha). Mean biomass production of all twenty sites during dry season was 263.2 kg/ha. From interdunal sites maximum dry biomass production was recorded from Chahbari wala toba (384 kg/ha) and lowest was recorded from Bari wala (234 kg/ha). Among clay saline sites maximum biomass production was recorded in Kora khu (258 kg/ha) followed by Chanan pir (228 kg/ha), Mansoora (212 kg/ha) and Qila derawer (207 kg/ha). Maximum dry biomass production among sandunal sites was recorded in Khanser (300 kg/ha) followed by Khirsar (269 kg/ha), Qila derawer (253 kg/ha) and Qemma wala toba (214 kg/ha). In current study, 13 (65%) study sites were observed in overgrazed form followed by 06 (30%) sites that were moderately grazed and 1 (5%) study site was slightly grazed as shown in table 5.9.

5.3.3 WET SEASON

During wet season grasses, biomass yield and grazing status of 20 sites are shown in table 5.9. Based on biomass yield of 20 sites, maximum dry biomass production was recorded from Dhori (543 kg/ha) and lowest from Chanan pir (236 kg/ha). Based on three range habitats, contribution of interdunal range sites was 5438 kg/ha followed by sandunal range sites 1419 kg/ha and clay range sites 1211 kg/ha. While mean maximum biomass production was recorded in interdunal range sites (453.16 kg/ha) followed by sandunal (354.75 kg/ha) and clay saline

116

sites (302.75 kg/ha). The mean biomass production from all twenty sites during wet season (370.22 kg/ha) was much higher than that of dry season (263.2 kg/ha). Maximum dry biomass production of grasses among interdunal sites was recorded in Dhori (543 kg/ha) and minimum was recorded from Toba Sawan wala (376 kg/ha). Maximum dry biomass production among sandunal sites was recorded in Qemma wala toba (380kg/ha) followed by Fort derawer (356 kg/ha), khanser (347 kg/ha) and khirsar (336 kg/ha). Among clay saline sites maximum biomass production was recorded in Kora khu (338 kg/ha) followed by Qila derawer (329 kg/ha), Mansoora (308 kg/ha) and Chanan pir (236 kg/ha). In present study, 10 (50%) stands were observed to be moderately grazed followed by overgrazed stands (30%) and then slightly grazed stands (20%) as shown in table 5.9.

FIGURE 5.9 SEASONAL MEAN DRY BIOMASS YIRLD (kg/ha) AT THREE RANGE HABITATS

kg/ha Interdunal Sandunal Clayey

Interdunal Sandunal Clayey Dry season 304.5 259 226.2 Wet season 453.16 354.7 302.7

FIGURE 5.10 TOTAL BIOMASS PRODUCTION (Kg/ha) AT THREE HABITATS

kg/ha

Interdunal Sandunal Clayey

Interdunal Sandunal Clayey Dry season biomass 3654 1036 905 Wet season biomass 5438 1419 1211

117

TABLE 5.9 SEASONAL BIOMASS PRODUCTION (kg/ha) & GRAZING STATUS

Sr. No. Name of Site Topography Dry Season Grazing Status Wet season Grazing status Fresh Dry Fresh Dry 1 Mouj garh Interdunal 537 274 Overgrazed 730 455 Moderately grazed 2 Dingarh Interdunal 610 310 Moderately grazed 900 491 Slightly grazed 3 Chahnagra Interdunal 425 259 Overgrazed 793 381 Moderately grazed 4 Jinde wala toba Interdunal 599 308 Moderately grazed 756 401 Moderately grazed 5 Chabari wala toba Interdunal 663 384 Moderately grazed 756 433 Moderately grazed 6 Dhori Interdunal 568 280 Moderately grazed 980 543 Slightly grazed 7 Khokarawala toba Interdunal 463 296 Overgrazed 856 457 Moderately grazed 8 Bari wala Interdunal 403 234 Overgrazed 755 389 Moderately grazed 9 Toba sawan wala Interdunal 675 373 Moderately grazed 704 376 Overgrazed 10 Khavetal Interdunal 669 356 Slightly grazed 877 563 Slightly grazed 11 Thandi khoe Interdunal 650 282 Moderately grazed 932 536 Slightly grazed 12 Chanan pir Interdunal 572 298 Overgrazed 731 413 Moderately grazed 13 Kora khu Clayey 464 258 Overgrazed 587 338 Overgrazed 14 Chanan pir Clayey 338 228 Overgrazed 521.5 236 Overgrazed 15 Qila derawer Clayey 422 207 Overgrazed 617 329 Moderately grazed

16 Mansoora Clayey 489 212 Overgrazed 601 308 Moderately grazed 17 Qemawala Toba Sandunal 397 214 Overgrazed 790 380 Overgrazed 18 Qila derawer Sandunal 458 253 Overgrazed 715 356 Moderately grazed 19 Khirser Sandunal 542 269 Overgrazed 778 336 Overgrazed 20 Khanser Sandunal 652 300 Overgrazed 690 347 Overgrazed

5.3.4 DISCUSSION

Biomass means “Volume or Weight per unit area” and biomass production means amount of dry matter produce by plants (Mannetije, 2000). According to Bonham (1989) composition of vegetation based on dry weight is best indicators of species importance within a floral community. Biomass production is influenced by major factors like temperature, microbial activity, moisture content, photosynthesis and available nutrients. Biomass measurements are of great importance to rangeland managers as it present a quantitative evaluation of production of dry matter over a period of time (Scholes and Baker, 1993). Measurements of biomass in all seasons are very helpful for range managers to know about the forage availability in the different seasons and this information is compulsory for estimating the

118

carrying capacity of any area. Measuring the biomass also provides insights about forage utilization by grazing animals (Alemayehu, 2006).

Cholistan desert has hot and arid climate with low precipitation so the microbial activity is fewer, causing less release of essential nutrients reducing plant growth. Most of the population in Cholistan desert is migratory. In dry season, people depart from their villages in seek of better grazing and migrate into irrigated areas in the periphery of the desert. In the wet season with onset of monsoon when forage is rich, they come back to their villages and leave their livestock free to graze in the whole desert (FAO, 1987; Umrani, 1996; Bhutto et al., 1993). Less biomass production of grass species in current study might be due to their short growth period, low erratic rainfall and severe climatic conditions in the rangelands of Cholistan desert (Arshad and Rao, 1994). Vegetation degradation and low forage production might also be due to severe deforestation, over grazing and soil erosion (Gillman and Wright, 2006).

The current study showed that the wet season have higher fresh and dry biomass production across the three-range habitats. High forage production during wet season was due to high rainfall in wet season as compare to dry season. In present study the biomass production at interdunal sites was 19.6 % high during wet season as compare to dry season. Similarly, at sandunal range sites, the biomass production during wet season was 15.6 % higher than the dry season. Same case was with the clayey range sites in which biomass production during wet season was 14.53 % higher than the dry season. The present study was important for understanding the seasonal changes, production and off take of biomass from different range types of Cholistan desert.

Further based on our results it was concluded that in wet season maximum sites were moderately grazed whereas in dry season maximum range sites were highly grazed. It was due to better forage production during wet season that was ultimately dependent on availability of moisture (Arshad and Rao, 1993; Arshad et al., 1999). Our findings concluded that the grass biomass productivity besides other factors was highly dependent upon rainfall. My results are in line with findings of Shanmugavel and Ramarathinam (1993). They find out that biomass production was less in dry season than in wet season. Same observations were observed in present study, as there was a decline in grass production during dry months. The decrease of dry biomass during dry season was because of long dry spell with less rainfall and high temperature.

119

Our findings are in agreement with those of Taj et al. (2006). They reported that biomass production in Cholistan desert is mostly limited by water. However, relationship between rainfall and biomass production is not regularly observed (Akbar and Arshad, 2000). Depletion of available nutrients, timing, duration, intensity of rainfall and changes in biomass distribution patterns may also negatively affect the grass productivity in Cholistan desert (Arshad et al., 2006). Similar, findings have been reported by some earlier scientists (Charley, 1972; Webb et al., 1978; Ahmad et al., 2009; Nordenstahl et al., 2011).

Grass species are slow growing in Cholistan desert due to extreme climatic conditions but respond very well to the suitable climatic conditions and provide plenty of biomass for utilization of livestock (Rao and Arshad, 1991; Arshad et al., 2006). The availability of water is key environmental factor which influence the survival, production of range vegetation, germination, wealth and successive growth (Arshad et al., 2007; Noreen et al., 2008). Water availability plays a vital role in the function and structure of several rangeland ecosystems (Ahrestani et al., 2011). Our findings are in agreement with the results of Mohammad (1989), Farooq (2003), Durrani et al. (2005) and Hussain and Durrani (2007).

120

5.4 CARRYING CAPACITY

5.4.1 RESULTS

Evaluation of carrying capacity is a vital part of rangeland inventory and monitoring studies because it is the most important management tool to ensure the sustainable use of natural resources (Scoones, 1992; Ahmad et al., 2006). Carrying capacity provides the number of grazing animals as a management unit that is able to support rangeland vegetation and soil resources without depletion (Quraishi et al., 1993). Since, the Cholistan desert is a degrading range area, so the studies on the productive potential of its rangelands are essential in order to make a plan for its sustainable development. The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of seasonal changes on grazing capacity from three different range habitats of Cholistan desert. In present study, carrying capacity was calculated in both dry and wet season based on grass biomass production.

5.4.2 DRY SEASON

The average carrying capacity in dry season was calculated as 24.2 ha/AU/y. The highest carrying capacity was reported from interdunal habitat (20.98 ha/AU/y) followed by sandunal habitat (24.66 ha/AU/y) and clay saline habitat (28.2 ha/AU/y) as shown in table 5.10 and figure 5.11. Interdunal areas showed good potential for biomass production and hence highest stocking rate as compared to other two range sites. Based on results stocking rate during dry season was calculated as 0.041 AU/ha/year. The total land area of Cholistan desert is 2.6 million hectare, out of which 1300000 ha is considered as rangelands. Based on this, Cholistan rangelands can support total number of animal units for cow was 63193, 315968 sheep, 210645 goats and 35107 camels during dry season.

5.4.3 WET SEASON

The average carrying capacity during wet season was recorded 17.25 ha/AU/y. The average carrying capacity during wet season was varied from 14.1 ha/AU/y in interdunal area to 18 ha/AU/y in sandunal area and 21.1 ha/AU/y in clay saline area as shown in table 5.10 and figure 5.11. Interdunal areas showed good potential for biomass production and hence highest stocking rate as compared to other two range sites. In wet season, stocking rate was calculated

121

as 0.057 AU/ha/year. Moreover in this season, Cholistan rangelands can support 91178 animal units of cow, 455890 sheep, 303926 goats and 50654 camels. TABLE 5.10 SEASONAL CARRYING CAPACITY FROM THREE RANGE HABBITAS IN CHOLISTAN DESERT

RANGE HABITAT DRY SEASON WET SEASON Biomass Available biomass CC Biomass Available biomass CC Kg/ha Kg/ha ha/AU/y kg/ha Kg/ha ha/AU/y INTERDUNAL 304.5 121.8 20.98 453.16 181.2 14.1 SANDUNAL 259 103.6 24.66 354.7 141.9 18 CLAYEY 226.2 90.48 28.2 302.7 121 21.1 AVERAGE 263.23 105.2 24.2 370.18 148.07 17.25

FIGURE 5.11 SESONAL CARRYING CAPACITY AT THREE RANGE HABITATS

20 10 ha/AU/y 0 Interdunal Sandunal Clayey

Interdunal Sandunal Clayey Dry season 20.98 24.66 28.2 Wet season 14.1 18 21.1

5.4.4 DISCUSSION Carrying capacity is defined as natural capacity of rangeland to feed livestock or animal population at given technological level (Tiffen and Mortimore, 2002). Carrying capacity or grazing capacity are similar terms used when discussing about stocking rates. The present study deals with seasonal carrying capacity of Cholistan desert at three range habitats. The livestock rearing in Cholistan desert is mostly nomadic type and is seriously constrained by low carrying capacity of these rangelands and frequent droughts. Livestock graze freely throughout the year,

122

which is the main reason of low productive potential of Cholistan rangelands (Arshad et al., 2008). In addition to rainfall, many others factors influence carrying capacity such as overgrazing, expansion of herd sizes, prolong drought, poor soil and lack of rangeland development programs. Cholistan desert is under severe threat of degradation because of these factors (O’Reagain et al., 2009). This fact get more importance when we observed that biomass production is going down, desirable grass species were disappearing at an alarming rate and unpalatable species are dominating the area. The palatable grass species such as Aristida mutabilis, Aristida funiculata, Cenchrus prieurii, Enneapogon desvauxii, Eragrostis japonica and Tragus racemosus have disappeared from majority part of Cholistan desert.

During the short wet season, grasses grow and mature rapidly, producing abundant biomass, but with the onset of dry season both quantity and quality of the biomass starts declining and ultimately become unable to fulfill the minimum requirement of grazing animals. Previous records showed that the range carrying capacity is not in balance with livestock feed requirements (Gammon, 1984). Hersom (2010) reported that dry matter intake of grazing ruminants is affected by several factors such as animal body weight, stage of production, forage quantity, quality and availability, and ecological conditions. According to the USA suggestions, range usage level is 30 to 40% of key species with 100 to 200 mm annual rainfall for desert regions (Holechek, 1999). It may reach up to 50% utilization of range during high productive year or wet season and reduced during dry season. Results (table 5.10) showed that the Cholistan rangelands provide 148.07 Kg/ha available biomass during wet season. On the other hand stocking rate of 0.057 AU/ha/y was estimated during wet season when the biomass production was at peak level. Accordingly, Wahid (1990) estimated 0.89 AUM'S stocking rate in Tomagh and Zarchi rangeland where climate is dry temperate with overgrazing and severe deforestation that leads to less biomass production.

Grasses are the dominant vegetation of Cholistan desert that are playing a key role for feeding ruminants. These grasses are naturally palatable and important for livestock feeding (Mohammad, 1989; Quraishi et al., 1993). The rangelands of Cholistan supported fewer animals in dry season as compared to wet season as shown in table 5.10. The grass species as well as carrying capacity gradually increased as the monsoon season advanced from summer. In current study maximum carrying capacity was recorded from interdunal range types during wet season. Our findings showed that the maximum livestock can graze in Cholistan desert during wet

123 season due to high biomass production as compared to dry season. Furthermore, it is concluded that interdunal habitat of Cholistan rangeland has also maximum biomass production and high carrying capacity than other two habitats during both season. Likewise, Qureshi and Bhatti (2010) studied the vegetation on different habitat of Nara desert Pakistan and estimated maximum biomass production and carrying capacity from interdunal habitat.

In present study, average carrying capacity obtained in wet season is relatively higher than the carrying capacity estimated during dry season. Similar findings are reported by Hussain (2009). He conducted a research on seasonal changes at different range types in district Chakwal and find out that there was maximum biomass production and carrying capacity during wet season. The main reason of high carrying capacity during wet season is rainfall. Precipitation is the most important factor which dictates the pattern of vegetation in Cholistan desert. Similar findings on productive potential and carrying capacity on different range lands in Pakistan are reported by several scientist (Chaudry et al., 2000; Iqbal et al., 2000; Arshadullah et al., 2007; Afzal et al., 2007; Farooq et al., 2008; Quershi, 2008; Haq et al., 2011). Some studies have been conducted by several researchers in other parts of the world (Coppock, 1994; Ayana, 1999; Alsakhan, 1997; Lemma, 2001; Alemayehu, 2004; Yvan and Tessema, 2005; Behzad and Badripour, 2007).

124

PLATE 5.3 (A,B) SHOWING OVER GRAZING IN CHOLISTAN DESERT

(A) Grasses mostly found in stubble form due to overgrazing

(B) Sheep grazing grass stubbles

125

5.5 PALATABILITY CLASIFICATION

5.5.1 RESULTS

PALATABILITY CLASS ES

In the study area, total 27 grass species were recorded out of which 18 species (66.6%) were found highly palatable, 07 species (25.9%) were moderately palatable, 02 species (7.4 %) were less palatable and there was not any non-palatable species as shown in the figure 5.12. Based on results, the highly palatable species were consisting of Aeluropus lagopoides, Aristida mutabilis, Cenchrus ciliaris, Cenchrus prieurii, Cenchrus setigerous, Cynodon dactylon, Enneapogon desvauxii, Eragrostis barrelieri, Eragrostis ciliaris, Eragrostis japonica, Eragrostis minor, Eragrostis spp., Lasiurus scindicus, Ochthochloa compressa, Panicum turgidum, Pennisetum divisum, Stipagrostis plumosa and Tragus racemosus. Whereas moderately palatable species were Aristida adscensionis, Aristida funiculata, Aristida hystricula, Cenchrus biflorus, Leptothrium senegalense, Panicum antidotale, Sporobolus iocladus and less palatable species were Cymbopogon jwarancusa and Saccharum bengalence.

FIGURE 5.12 PALATABILITY CLASSES OF GRASS SPECIES

Less palatable 7.4 %

Moderateley palatable 25.9%

Highly palatable 66.6%

126

PREFERENCES BY GRAZING ANIMALS

This classification was based on the preferences of grasses by grazing animals. Among 27 palatable grasses 25 species (92.6%) were used by goats, 26 species (96.3%) were used by sheep and cattle whereas camels were using only 07 grass species (25.9%) as presented in figure 5.13a.

PARTS USED BY ANIMALS

Parts use classification of grasses was based on the kind of parts grazed by livestock. In present study it was observed that flower and fruit parts of grass species were grazed in 14 species (51.8%) and 08 species (29.6%) respectively, whereas in 26 grass species (96.3%) leaves were used and in 23 grass species (85.1%) stem parts were grazed as shown in figure 5.13b.

FIGURE 5.13 CLASSIFICATION OF GRASSES ON THE BASIS OF PARTS USED AND ANIMAL PREFRENCES

A B

ANIMAL PREFRENCES PARTS USED BY ANIMALS

Camel Stem 25.9% 85% Fruit 29.6% Goats Flower 92.6% Cattle 51.8% 96.3%

Sheep 96.3% Leaves 96.3%

127

5.5.2 DISCUSSION

Palatability refers to plant quality or plant characteristics that stimulate the livestock to graze or it is defined as plant attributes that determine its acceptability by animals. Plants characteristics such as chemical composition, growth stage and kind of plants affect the acceptability and may stimulate selective responses by animals or may prevent from grazing (Heady, 1964). The chemical composition of a plant, including its mineral, protein, and energy content, can be analyzed to provide an indicator of its nutritional value. However, this does not describe the overall palatability of each plant species. Palatability is influenced by complex factors including seasonal conditions, stock type and condition, land type, and other plants available to grazing stock at the time. Given this complexity, the palatability of a grass can only be truly verified by direct observation of grazing stock. Hardison et al. (1954) divided the factors that influence species selection, into two groups: plant characteristics and animal characteristics. However, Heady (1964) identified the five factors that can influence selection of plants by animals that are palatability, associated species, climate, soil and topography, type of animal and physiological status of the animal.

Cattle, goats, sheep and camels in the form of mixed herds freely graze rangelands of Cholistan desert. The grazing season start from the onset of monsoon and lasts up to the end of October (Akhtar and Arshad 2006). Due to conventional grazing system, there is no management practice in the investigated area. During early spring and monsoon, many perennials and annuals grass species are frequently found. In present study, all the identified species were found palatable out of which 18 grass species were highly palatable followed by 07 grass species moderately palatable and 02 grass species were less palatable. There was no unpalatable grass species in the study area. However, ruminants rapidly graze them within a short period even before they could reach maturity. Palatability of plants depends on nutritional needs of animals. It declined as needs are met (Provenza, 1996). It was observed that the plants preferences and feed selection of livestock shifted with the progress of season from spring to monsoon (Inam-ur-Rahim et al., 2008). The separation of grass species into highly palatable, moderately palatable, less palatable and non-palatable in current study was according to the findings of Kenney and Black (1984), Fourie et al. (1985), Laca et al. (2001), Sultan et al. (2007), Guru et al. (2008); Sultan et al. (2008), Ali et al. (2009), Arshadullah et al. (2009), and Chaudhry et al. (2010). Our findings are also in agreement with the results of Hussain and

128

Chughtai (1984) and Saleem (1993) who reported that Cymbopogon jwarancusa is very common on the rangelands of Baluchistan due to its low palatability. In our case, Cymbopogon jwarancusa and Saccharum bengalence were of low palatability and that is the reason why they spread sufficiently as compared to the preferred species.

The second important component of palatability classification was animal preferences. Preference or first choice refers to selection of range vegetation by the ruminants as a feed. It has been normally observed that sheep usually prefer grasses and forbs more than shrubs; while goats prefer shrub (Huston, 1978; Grunwaldt et al., 1994; Wilson et al., 1995; Khan, 1996). In present study it was observed that all the grass species owing, the most palatable, nutritious, became the first choice of ruminants, and were heavily grazed by cattle, goat and sheep. Camels usually prefer grass species such as Cenchrus setigerous, Cenchrus prieurii, Leptothrium senegalense, Ochthochloa compressa, Panicum turgidum, Panicum antidotale and Sporobolus iocladus during the time when sufficient rain and fodder is available (Ali et al., 2009).

The livestock used to select grasses in the Cholistan rangelands that contributed a major part in their diet selection especially in monsoon season. While from November onwards, animals were forced to consume low quality forage due to non-availability of good quality forage. In current study, it was observed Aeluropus lagopoides, Aristida mutabilis, Cenchrus ciliaris, Cenchrus prieurii, Cenchrus setigerous, Cynodon dactylon, Lasiurus scindicus, Ochthochloa compressa, Panicum turgidum, Pennisetum divisum, Stipagrostis plumosa and Tragus racemosus were the preferred grass species that become stunted and deformed in response to over grazing. Akhtar and Arshad (2006) also reported that the livestock prefer most of these grasses while Cymbopogon jwarancusa is less preferred in the rangelands of Cholistan desert. Similarly, Wahid (1990) also find out some of these grasses to be preferred by ruminants in other rangelands. Sheep gain higher digestible energy by selecting nutritious diet than goats. Sheep have a preference to utilize high cellulose forage. Grasses generally have high cellulose concentration in their leaves and stem than forbs and shrubs which enhance their palatability (Holechek et al., 1998). However, in the absence of grasses, they browse on shrubs and trees (Kayani et al., 2007). Our findings are in agreement with those of Liu et al. (1996), Hickman et al. (1996), Batanouny (1996), Makulbekova (1996) and Hussain and Durrani (2009).

129

Third important component of degree of palatability was plant parts used by livestock. Fruits and flowers are seasonally essential and play an important role in the diet of animal as they might have high level of proteins than leaves (Pfister and Malecheck, 1986). Nyamangara & Ndlouv, (1995) also observed that grazing animal preferred floral parts over vegetative parts at different phenological stages. It was observed during our study that grasses like Lasiurus scindicus, Panicum turgidum and Panicum antidotale were preferred at fruiting stage while Ochthochloa compressa, Cenchrus ciliaris, Cenchrus setigerous and Cynodon dactylon were preferred at flowering. Similarly, leaves and shoot parts of Aeluropus lagopoides, Aristida adscensionis, Aristida hystricula, Cenchrus biflorus, Eragrostis minor and Eragrostis ciliaris were preferred by grazing animals (Holechek et al., 1998). Similarly, Hussain and Mustafa (1995) reported that grazing animals prefer floral and fruiting parts in the pastures of Hunza valley, Pakistan. The present findings are also in agreement with those of Omer et al. (2006), Akhtar and Arshad (2006) and Hussain and Durrani (2009b).

130

5.6 NUTRIONAL EVALUATION OF SELECTED GRASS SPECIES

The nutritional evaluation of major range grasses from Cholistan desert was based on proximate, fibers and mineral analysis.

5.6.1 PROXIMATE ANALYSIS

5.6.1.1 RESULTS

Results of proximate analysis of major range grasses of Cholistan desert are presented in table 5.11. The concentration of dry matter, crude fat, crude fiber, crude protein, crude ash and nitrogen free extract was significantly varied among the selected range grasses.

DRY MATTER (DM)

The dry matter contents in grass species was ranged from 95.15% (Ochthochloa compressa) to 96.50% (Lasiurus scindicus) and the average was 95.48%. The DM values for other grasses were Cymbopogon jwarancusa 95.30%, Sporobolus iocladus 95.33%, Stipagrostis plumosa 95.33%, Panicum antidotale 95.40 %, Pennisetum divisum 95.20%, Cenchrus ciliaris 96% and Panicum turgidum 96.20%.

CRUDE FAT OR ETHER EXTRACT (EE)

The crude fat in grass species was ranged from 1% (Sporobolus iocladus) to 2.51% (Panicum antidotale). The mean value of all grasses was 1.91 %. The EE values for other grasses were Aeluropus lagopoides 2.40%, Cenchrus ciliaris 1.50%, Cymbopogon jwarancusa 2.40%, Lasiurus scindicus 1.16%, Ochthochloa compressa 1.49%, Panicum turgidum 2.49%, Pennisetum divisum 2.50% and Stipagrostis plumosa 1.60%.

CRUDE FIBER (CF)

The highest percentage of crude fiber was recorded in Pennisetum divisum (58.53%) and lowest was in Cenchrus ciliaris 30.89%. However, CF values for other grasses were Aeluropus lagopoides 44%, Cymbopogon jwarancusa 35.15%, Lasiurus scindicus 55.18%, Ochthochloa compressa 39.56%, Panicum antidotale 43.21%, Panicum turgidum 45.47%, Sporobolus iocladus 46% and Stipagrostis plumosa 37.20%.

131

CRUDE ASH

The ash contents in grasses were varied from 4.62% (Pennisetum divisum) to 20.69% (Cenchrus ciliaris) and the mean value was 10.54%. Whereas, crude ash values for other grasses were Aeluropus lagopoides 9.60%, Cymbopogon jwarancusa 9.81%, Lasiurus scindicus 10.28%, Ochthochloa compressa 9.93%, Panicum antidotale 7.17%, Panicum turgidum 9.15%, Sporobolus iocladus 14.94% and Stipagrostis plumosa 9.20%.

TABLE 5.11 PROXIMATE COMPOSITION OF SELECTED GRASSES

Sr. No. Species name DM EE CF CA CP NFE 1 Aeluropus lagopoides 95.40abc 2.40a 44.00d 9.60cd 5.63c 38.37f 2 Cenchrus ciliaris 96.00ab 1.50b 30.89h 20.69a 4.37e 42.78c 3 Cymbopogon jwarancusa 95.30bc 2.40a 35.15g 9.81cd 4.38e 48.26a 4 Lasiurus scindicus 96.50abc 1.16bc 55.18b 10.28c 4.38e 29.00h 5 Ochthochloa compressa 95.15c 1.49b 39.56e 9.93c 8.27a 40.76de 6 Panicum antidotale 95.40bc 2.51a 43.21d 7.17e 5.47cd 41.64cd 7 Panicum turgidum 96.20a 2.49a 45.47c 9.15d 3.20f 39.69ef 8 Pennisetum divisum 95.20bc 2.50a 58.53a 4.62f 4.90de 29.45h 9 Sporobolus iocladus 95.33bc 1.00c 46.00c 14.94b 4.98de 32.96g 10 Stipagrostis plumosa 95.33bc 1.60b 37.20f 9.20d 7.50b 44.50b Mean 95.48 1.91 43.52 10.54 5.31 38.74 SEM 0.28 0.16 0.35 0.24 0.22 0.55 Key: Mean with same superscripts abc in the same column within the grass species does not differ significantly at p>0.05. SEM = Standard Error of mean; Mean values based on three replicates.DM=Dry Matter, EE=Ether Extract, CF=Crude Fiber, CA=Crude Ash, CP=Crude Protein, NFE=Nitrogen Free Extract. * Values on dry matter basis

CRUDE PROTEIN

The mean value for crude protein of all grasses was 5.31 %. The high percentage of crude protein was recorded in Ochthochloa compressa (8.27%) and the lowest was in Cenchrus ciliaris (4.37%). The mean CP value for other grasses were Aeluropus lagopoides 5.63%, Cymbopogon jwarancusa 4.38%, Lasiurus scindicus 4.38%, Pennisetum divisum 4.90%, Panicum antidotale 5.47%, Panicum turgidum 3.20%, Sporobolus iocladus 4.98% and Stipagrostis plumosa 7.50%.

132

NITROGEN FREE EXTRACT (NFE)

The maximum percentage of nitrogen free extract was recorded in Cymbopogon jwarancusa (48.26%) and the lowest was in Lasiurus scindicus (29%). The mean NFE values for other grasses were Aeluropus lagopoides 38.37%, Cenchrus ciliaris 42.78%, Ochthochloa compressa 40.76%, Panicum antidotale 41.64%, Panicum turgidum 36.69%, Pennisetum divisum 29.45%, Sporobolus iocladus 32.96% and Stipagrostis plumosa 44.50%.

5.6.1.2 DISCUSSION

Grasses are the main source of energy and nutrition during wetter months of the year; however, mineral contents in grasses become deficient for normal maintenance of health and growth of ruminants during dry season (Moe, 1994). The majority of grass species in Cholistan desert starts germination, flowering and seed setting in the wet season, while in the dry season the residue of nearly all grasses become indigestible and lignified. Although these grasses grow readily, remain green and are important source of feed for grazing animals but their nutritional composition was not known until now. Therefore, this study was planned to fulfill the previous gap. The results of proximate composition of range grasses are discussed one by one as followed.

DRY MATTER (DM)

Dry matter is the actual amount of feed material leaving water and volatile acids and bases if present. The DM contents of these grasses are used for feeding livestock in the study area. Generally, grasses had more dry matter than shrubs. In present study, the mean value of all ten grasses was 95.48%, showed that the grasses of Cholistan desert have high dry matter production. Findings of present study indicated that the grasses of Cholistan desert constitute a major, reasonable and dependable source of dry matter. Our results are in agreement with some earlier researchers who have reported high dry matter production in various forages (Vallentine, 1990; Ashraf et al., 1995; Kramberger and Klemencic, 2003; Groberek, 2004).

ETHER EXTRACT (EE)

Ether extract is the lipid fraction, which is a major form of energy storage in the plant. This energy is derived from the plants, and is used for body maintenance and production in livestock. In the present study, the mean value for ether extract of all grasses was 1.91%. The

133

low concentration of ether extract or crude fat is a characteristic of forages of arid regions (Adu and Adamu 1982; Aregherore, 2001). Our results are similar to the findings of Shakeri and Fazaeli (2004) but lower as reported by Hussain and Durrani (2009a).

ASH CONTENTS

Ash contents play an important role in promoting the balanced growth of animals. In present study, results showed that the grasses have optimum level of crude ash. Similar to our findings, Kilcher (1981) also reported ash contents of different forages. The ash content of grasses in present study can be compared with that of forages analyzed by Groenewald et al. (1967), but was much higher than the values reported by Sauer (1983), Smith et al. (1980) and Underwood and Suttle (1999).

CRUDE PROTEIN (CP)

Results (table 5.11) showed that the mean value for crude protein of all investigated grass species was 5.31%. The ruminant requirements for crude protein in the daily diet range from 7-20% depending upon sex, species and physiological status (Milford and Haydock, 1965; Huston et al., 1981). The results of protein contents in present study are in consistent with the values recorded by Mero and Uden (1998) and those reported by Matizha et al., (1997) in the tropical region. Crude protein contents in these grass species growing under natural conditions were below the expected value. Plant age and environmental conditions may affect the nutritive value of grasses (El Shatnawi et al., 2004). Tuna et al. (2004) has reported that the protein contents of grasses were between 3.85-7.80 % which was nearly to our results but lower than values reported by Kearl (1982) who suggested that 11 - 13% level of crude protein in the diet is sufficient for maintenance and growth requirements of sheep and goats. Our findings are also in accordance with those of Distel et al. (2005), Sultan et al. (2007) and Hussain and Durrani (2009a), who has analyzed the crude protein in several grass species.

CRUDE FIBER (CF)

Grasses generally had greater crude fiber contents than any other forage plants (Holechek et al., 1998). Although a high crude fiber usually shows a high level of lignification and thus reduced the amount of available energy (Nordfeldt et al., 1961). In our findings, the highest percentage of crude fiber was observed in Pennisetum divisum (58.53%) and lowest was

134 in Cenchrus ciliaris (30.89%). Mature plants usually contained high CF than young plants. Seasonal variations affect the crude fiber contents (Azim et al., 1989). The range of crude fiber in the present study was greater when compared to other grass species as reported by Ashraf et al. (1995).

NITROGEN FREE EXTRACT (NFE)

The grasses have generally higher NFE value than other forages. The highest percentage of nitrogen free extract was recorded in Cymbopogon jwarancusa (48.26%) and the lowest was in Lasiurus scindicus (29%) while the mean value for all grass was 38.74 %. The NFE values were ranged higher in the present case as compared to those reported by Liu (1993) for other pasture plants of arid land. Our findings are similar to the results of Cook and Stubbendieck (1986) and Naseem et al. (2006) who have also reported NFE in various grass species.

5.6.2 FIBER CONSTITUENTS

The fiber constituents of grasses of Cholistan rangeland are presented in table 5.12. The concentration of cell wall constituents among selected grasses was varying significantly

5.6.2.1 RESULTS

NEUTRAL DETERGENT FIBER (NDF)

The neutral detergent fiber contents in the grass species was varied from 64% (Aeluropus lagopoides) to 74% (Pennisetum divisum). However, NDF values for other grasses were Cenchrus ciliaris 73%, Cymbopogon jwarancusa 70%, Lasiurus scindicus 72%, Ochthochloa compressa 72%, Panicum antidotale 69%, Panicum turgidum 65%, Sporobolus iocladus 66% and Stipagrostis plumosa 73%. The mean value of all ten grasses for NDF was 69.8%.

ACID DETERGENT FIBER (ADF)

The ADF contents of grasses ranged from 33% (Panicum turgidum) to 50% (Pennisetum divisum) among selected species and their mean was 40.8%. However, ADF contents in other grasses was Aeluropus lagopoides 41%, Cenchrus ciliaris 37%, Cymbopogon jwarancusa 43%, Lasiurus scindicus 41%, Ochthochloa compressa 39%, Panicum antidotale 42%, Sporobolus iocladus 37% and Stipagrostis plumosa 45%.

135

HEMI-CELLULOSE

The percentage of hemi-cellulose contents in the grasses of Cholistan rangeland were varied between 38% in Cenchrus ciliaris to 23% in Aeluropus lagopoides and the mean was 29.2%. Whereas hemicellulose contents in remaining grasses was Cymbopogon jwarancusa 27%, Lasiurus scindicus 31%, Ochthochloa compressa 33%, Panicum antidotale 27%, Panicum turgidum 32%, Pennisetum divisum 24%, Sporobolus iocladus 29% and Stipagrostis plumosa 28%.

LIGNIN

The lignin contents of Cholistan rangeland grasses were varied between 4.4% in Sporobolus iocladus to 5.9% in Lasiurus scindicus with mean value 5.09%. However, lignin contents in other grasses was Aeluropus lagopoides 4.6%, Cenchrus ciliaris 5.6%, Cymbopogon jwarancusa 4.8%, Ochthochloa compressa 4.9%, Panicum antidotale 4.8%, Panicum turgidum 4.6%, Pennisetum divisum 5.8% and Stipagrostis plumosa 5.5%.

TABLE 5.12. FIBER CONSTITUENTS OF SELECTED GRASSES

Sr.No Species name NDF ADF Hemi cellulose Lignin 1 Aeluropus lagopoides 64e 41cd 23g 4.6cd 2 Cenchrus ciliaris 73ab 37e 38a 5.6ab 3 Cymbopogon jwarancusa 70bc 43bc 27ef 4.8c 4 Lasiurus scindicus 72abc 41cd 31bcd 5.9a 5 Ochthochloa compressa 72abc 39de 33b 4.9c 6 Panicum antidotale 69cd 42bcd 27ef 4.8c 7 Panicum turgidum 65e 33f 32bc 4.6cd 8 Pennisetum divisum 74a 50a 24fg 5.8ab 9 Sporobolus iocladus 66de 37e 29cde 4.4d 10 Stipagrostis plumosa 73ab 45b 28de 5.5b Mean 69.8 40.8 29.2 5.09 SEM 1.2 1.1972 1.1547 0.1065 Key: Mean with same superscripts in the same column within the grass species does not differ significantly at p>0.05. SEM = Standard Error of mean; mean values based on three replicates. NDF = Neutral-detergent fiber; ADF = Acid-detergent fiber.* Values on dry matter basis

136

5.6.2.2 DISCUSSION

Grasses are the one of the key sources of roughage used in animal nutrition and contain considerable amounts of cell wall carbohydrates. Cell wall carbohydrates can be quantified by the determination of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF), which comprised of two main components such as hemi-cellulose and lignin (Van Soest et al., 1991). The detail discussion of fibers in the analyzed grasses of Cholistan desert is provided as below.

NEUTRAL DETERGENT FIBER (NDF)

The information about NDF digestibility in forage is important for efficient livestock feeding due to its direct effect on animal performance and variability in rumen degradation (Oba and Allen, 1999). Cholistan desert have hot arid climate and low soil moisture which influence the plant growth and effect its nutritional status. In present study, NDF contents ranged from 64% (Aeluropus lagopoides) to 74% (Pennisetum divisum). The results of the present study are similar to those of Bohn, (1990) who reported that soil with lower moisture produced more stems with higher NDF and lignin contents. Likely, Inam-ur-Rahim (2002) reported that the free grazing and marginal rangeland grasses revealed the characterize components depending on their anatomical structure and growing pattern. Neutral detergent fiber is the most important determinant for overall quality and digestibility of forage (Linn, 2004). Higher the NDF percentage, the lower the crude protein, fats, starches and sugars. High level of NDF also lowers the voluntary dry matter intake of ruminants. Our findings are almost in line with those of Van Soest and Jones (1968), Cherney et al. (1990), Kandil and El Shaer (1990), Andrighetto et al. (1993), Hussain and Durrani (2009c). They have reported NDF contents in different range plants.

ACID DETERGENT FIBER (ADF)

In current study, ADF contents of grasses ranged from 33% (Panicum turgidum) to 50% (Pennisetum divisum). Higher ADF contents in analyzed grasses are might be due to extreme climatic conditions of the study area (Van Soest, 1994). Similar trend was observed by Ghadaki et al. (1975), who reported that, an increase in fiber constituents depend upon plant growth and environmental conditions. Tuna et al. (2004) investigated that grasses have low protein content but higher NDF and ADF that are close to our findings. Our findings are also supported by those of Cherney et al. (1993), Bourquin et al. (1994), Ashraf et al. (1995), Kramberger and

137

Klemencic (2003) and Sultan et al. (2007), who have reported ADF contents in different grasses.

HEMI-CELLULOSE

The hemi-cellulose concentration was varied between 23 to 38% and the mean was 29.2%. The highest hemi-cellulose value was observed for Cenchrus ciliaris and the lowest for Aeluropus lagopoides. Grasses generally have higher hemicelluloses contents than other forages (Foroughbakhch et al., 2012). Livestock preferred grasses as they can efficiently use cellulose and hemi-cellulose because the micro-organisms in their digestive system are capable of digesting them (Holecheck et al., 1998). Present findings are similar to those reported by Fariani (1996), Hussain and Durrani (2009b) and Inam-ur-Rahim (2002).

LIGNIN

Lignin is usually considered as a major factor that limits the digestibility, but it does not affect all feed components. Non-cell wall components are not influenced by lignin, but they often can be highly correlated (Jancik et al., 2010). In current study, lignin concentration was in the range of 4.4 to 5.9% and the mean was 5.09%. The highest value was observed for Lasiurus scindicus and lowest value was for Sporobolus iocladus. Our findings are in line with those of Robles and Boza (1993) who found lower lignin contents in grasses than shrubs. Similarly, Azim et al. (1989) also reported that lignin contents increase with age and cause a corresponding decrease in the nutritive value. Lignin digestibility of plants is quite unpredictable and variable by ruminants. It was observed in present study that non/less palatable species such as Cymbopogon jwarancusa and Saccharum bengalence grow vigorously with better distribution and plant cover. It was suggested that rapid growth of cell wall components, rapid lignification and quick reduction in CP might permit the unpalatable plants to avoid from grazing (Hussain and Durrani, 2007, 2008; Sultan et al., 2007). NDF, ADF and lignin are negatively related with digestibility. Crude protein and readily digested carbohydrates start decreasing with the maturity of plant and on the other hand, lignin, fiber, and cellulose increase (Stoddart et al., 1975). The majority of grasses in dry regions have low nutritional status because of high lignin and hemi-cellulose contents. Our findings are in line with Brown et al. (1984) and Ammar et al. (1999) who have reported lignin concentration in various forage plants.

138

5.6.3 MINERAL COMPOSITION

5.6.3.1 RESULTS

MACRO-MINERALS

Results of Macro-minerals of selected grass species are presented in table 5.13. The concentration of these minerals was varying significantly among the analyzed grass species. The results of macro minerals are presented as below.

CALCIUM (Ca)

Calcium concentration in Cholistan rangeland grasses was ranged from 0.37% (Stipagrostis plumosa) to 0.85% (Sporobolus iocladus) and the mean value of all the grasses was 0.53%. However, calcium contents in other grasses was Aeluropus lagopoides 0.49%, Cenchrus ciliaris 0.45%, Cymbopogon jwarancusa 0.79%, Lasiurus scindicus 0.65%, Ochthochloa compressa 0.38%, Panicum antidotale 0.38%, Panicum turgidum 0.45% and Pennisetum divisum 0.5%.

PHOSPHORUS (P)

The highest phosphorus concentration was recorded in Sporobolus iocladus (0.28%) while the lowest in Panicum turgidum and Panicum antidotale (0.11%) and the mean value of all the grasses was 0.17%. P concentration in other grass was estimated as Aeluropus lagopoides 0.17 %, Cenchrus ciliaris 0.15%, Cymbopogon jwarancusa 0.23%, Lasiurus scindicus 0.193%, Ochthochloa compressa 0.15%, Pennisetum divisum 0.14% and Stipagrostis plumosa 0.14%.

MAGNESIUM (Mg)

Magnesium concentration in grass species was ranged from 0.019% (Cenchrus ciliaris) to 0.045% (Sporobolus iocladus). Whereas, Mg concentration in other grasses was Aeluropus lagopoides 0.026%, Cymbopogon jwarancusa 0.033%, Lasiurus scindicus 0.037%, Ochthochloa compressa 0.024%, Panicum antidotale 0.025%, Panicum turgidum 0.024%, Pennisetum divisum 0.023% and Stipagrostis plumosa 0.044%. The mean value of all grasses was 0.029%.

139

TABLE 5.13 MACRO-MINERAL COMPOSITION OF SELECTED GRASSES

Sr. No Species name Ca P Mg K Na % % % % % 1 Aeluropus lagopoides 0.49de 0.17c 0.026d 0.78cd 0.7a 2 Cenchrus ciliaris 0.45e 0.15cd 0.019e 0.86ab 0.19c 3 Cymbopogon jwarancusa 0.79a 0.23b 0.033c 0.91a 0.33bc 4 Lasiurus scindicus 0.65c 0.193c 0.037b 0.66f 0.18c 5 Ochthochloa compressa 0.38f 0.15cd 0.024d 0.817bc 0.23c 6 Panicum antidotale 0.38f 0.11d 0.025d 0.73de 0.21c 7 Pennisetum divisum 0.5d 0.14cd 0.023d 0.81bc 0.2c 8 Panicum turgidum 0.45e 0.11d 0.024d 0.77cd 0.33bc 9 Sporobolus iocladus 0.85a 0.28a 0.045a 0.54g 0.5b 10 Stipagrostis plumosa 0.37f 0.14cd 0.044a 0.71ef 0.17c Mean 0.5313 0.17 0.029 0.76 0.304 SEM 0.0149 0.0182 1.154 0.0171 0.0598 Key: Mean with same superscripts in the same column within the grass species does not differ significantly at p>0.05.SEM = Standard Error of mean. .* Values on dry matter basis

POTASSIUM (K)

Potassium concentration in range grasses was varied from 0.91 % in Cymbopogon jwarancusa to 0.54 % in Sporobolus iocladus and the mean value for all grasses was 0.76%. However, potassium concentration in other grasses was calculated as Aeluropus lagopoides 0.78%, Cenchrus ciliaris 0.86%, Lasiurus scindicus 0.66%, Ochthochloa compressa 0.817%, Panicum antidotale 0.73%, Panicum turgidum 0.77%, Pennisetum divisum 0.81% and Stipagrostis plumosa 0.71%.

SODIUM (Na)

Sodium concentration in Cholistan rangeland grasses was ranged from 0.17% in Stipagrostis plumosa to 0.7 % in Aeluropus lagopoides. Whereas Na concentration in remaining grasses was Cenchrus ciliaris 0.19%, Cymbopogon jwarancusa 0.33%, Lasiurus scindicus 0.18%, Ochthochloa compressa 0.23%, Panicum antidotale 0.21%, Panicum turgidum 0.33%,

140

Pennisetum divisum 0.2% and Sporobolus iocladus 0.5%. The mean value of all grass species was 0.30%.

MICRO-MINERALS

Results of Micro-minerals of selected grass species is presented in table 5.14. Results showed that the minerals concentration in all grasses was significantly different.

MANGANESE (Mn) Manganese concentration in grasses was varied from 4.4 ppm in Panicum turgidum to 2.82 ppm in Cenchrus ciliaris. However, Mn contents in other grasses was estimated as Aeluropus lagopoides 3.19 ppm, Cymbopogon jwarancusa 4.15 ppm, Lasiurus scindicus 2.92 ppm, Ochthochloa compressa 3.36 ppm, Panicum antidotale 3.2 ppm, Pennisetum divisum 3.3 ppm, Sporobolus iocladus 3 ppm and Stipagrostis plumosa 3.7 ppm. The mean value for all grasses was 3.40 ppm.

COPPER (Cu)

Copper concentration in Cholistan range grasses was ranged from 0.93 ppm (Stipagrostis plumosa) to 1.91 ppm (Pennisetum divisum). Whereas concentration of Cu in other grasses was Aeluropus lagopoides 1.02 ppm, Cenchrus ciliaris 1.04 ppm, Cymbopogon jwarancusa 1.16 ppm, Lasiurus scindicus 1.24 ppm, Ochthochloa compressa 1.05 ppm, Panicum antidotale 1.1 ppm, Panicum turgidum 1.86 ppm and Sporobolus iocladus 0.98 ppm. The mean value for all range grasses was 1.23 ppm.

ZINC (Zn)

Zinc concentration in range grasses was varied from 0.98 ppm (Aeluropus lagopoides) to 3.42 ppm (Cymbopogon jwarancusa). However, Zn concentration in other range grasses was Cenchrus ciliaris 1.91 ppm, Lasiurus scindicus 1.76 ppm, Ochthochloa compressa 1.17 ppm, Panicum antidotale 1.09 ppm, Panicum turgidum 2.31 ppm, Pennisetum divisum 1.97 ppm, Sporobolus iocladus 1.05 ppm and Stipagrostis plumosa 3.16 ppm. The mean of all grasses for zinc concentration was 1.88 ppm.

141

TABLE 5.14 MICRO-MINERAL COMPOSITION OF SELECTED GRASSES

Sr. No Species name Mn Cu Zn Fe ppm ppm ppm Ppm 1 Aeluropus lagopoides 3.19bc 1.02def 0.98j 3.91d 2 Cenchrus ciliaris 2.82c 1.04def 1.91e 3.96d 3 Cymbopogon jwarancusa 4.15ab 1.16bc 3.42a 5.64c 4 Lasiurus scindicus 2.92c 1.24b 1.76f 5.56c 5 Ochthochloa compressa 3.36abc 1.05cde 1.17g 5.83b 6 Panicum antidotale 3.2bc 1.1cd 1.09h 4.06d 7 Pennisetum divisum 3.3bc 1.91a 1.97d 5.53c 8 Panicum turgidum 4.4a 1.86a 2.31c 5.52c 9 Sporobolus iocladus 3.00c 0.98ef 1.05i 6.64a 10 Stipagrostis plumosa 3.7abc 0.93f 3.16b 5.89b Mean 3.404 1.23 1.88 5.2543 SEM 0.3727 0.0391 0.013 0.0522 Key: Mean with same superscripts abc in the same column within the grass species does not differ significantly at p>0.05.SEM = Standard Error of mean.* Values on dry matter basis

FERROUS (Fe)

Ferrous concentration in range grasses was ranged from 3.91 ppm (Aeluropus lagopoides) to 6.64 ppm (Sporobolus iocladus). However, Fe concentration in other grasses was Cenchrus ciliaris 3.96 ppm, Cymbopogon jwarancusa 5.64 ppm, Lasiurus scindicus 5.56 ppm, Ochthochloa compressa 5.83 ppm, Panicum antidotale 4.06 ppm, Panicum turgidum 5.52 ppm, Pennisetum divisum 5.53 ppm and Stipagrostis plumosa 5.89 ppm. The mean for ferrous concentration of all grasses was 5.25 ppm.

5.6.3.2 DISCUSSION

McDowell (1992) stated that minerals play a unique role in animal nutrition because they are essential for the utilization of energy and protein biosynthesis of the essential nutrients. The quality of forage is controlled mainly by its mineral composition. Forage often do not satisfy mineral requirement of grazing cattle, so adequate intake of forage by the grazing ruminant is essential to meet mineral requirements (McDowell, 1996). It was found that in most subtropical pastures mineral deficiencies severely inhibit ruminant livestock production.

142

Gomide (1978) reported that the mineral composition of forage varies according to many factors including soil, differences among species, varieties of plants and seasons of the years. Even though a long history of livestock grazing in the rangelands of Cholistan desert, mineral concentrations of many prominent forages of the region have not been measured. Therefore, this study was planned to evaluate the minerals composition of grasses from Cholistan rangelands and the results are discussed one by one as below.

MACRO-MINERALS

PHOSPHORUS (P)

Phosphorous is necessary for strengthening the skeleton, teeth, improving blood plasma, assimilation of carbohydrates, fats protein synthesis and also for enzyme activation. Its deficiency causes poor growth and development of animals. Phosphorous is the most limiting mineral to productivity of grazing animals throughout the world because of low availability to range plants and loss through soil erosion (Vallentine, 1990; Holechek et al., 1998; Akhtar et al., 2007).

Phosphorus, a macro-mineral, is often limiting factor in range plants. Phosphorous deficiency is most likely to occur when ruminant graze on natural native forage (Ahmad et al., 2008). The mean phosphorous contents among grasses in our findings were ranged from 0.11 ppm (Panicum turgidum and Panicum antidotale) to 0.28 ppm (Sporobolus iocladus) whereas mean value was 0.17%. Sheep and goats require a minimum of 0.16 to 0.37% phosphorous (Anonymous, 1985). NRC, (2001), recommended phosphorous requirement for grazing animals ranged from 0.3 to 0.40 % of the diet DM. Our results showed that the phosphorous content in all investigated grass species were lower than the recommended level as reported by Anonymous (1985) and NRC (2001). The low values of P across the all evaluated grasses might be due to its poor concentration in the soil (McDowell, 2003). Similarly, Sprague (1979) reported that phosphorus deficiency is common in the soils of arid and semi-arid rangelands and ultimately in the plants grown in these areas. Our findings are in agreement with those reported by McDowell et al. (1984), Minson (1990), Younas and Yaqoob (2005), Akhtar el al. (2007) and Hussain and Durrani (2008), who have observed P deficiency in different forages.

143

CALCIUM (Ca)

Calcium is necessary for skeleton formation, normal blood clotting, rhythmic heart action, neuromuscular excitability, enzyme activation, and permeability of membranes. An insufficient intake of calcium may cause slow growth, weakened bones, low milk production and convulsion in severe deficiencies (Mc Dowell, 1996).

In current study, Ca contents in grass species were varied between 0.37% (Stipagrostis plumosa) to 0.85% (Sporobolus iocladus). Ca contents in forages are recommended from 0.40 to 0.60% and its level above 1.0% is considered high (Georgievskii, 1982), however, Minison (1990) reported the Ca level ranged from 0.31 to 1.98% and the mean as 0.63%. Likewise, Ca level in the diet of livestock to fulfill the normal maintenance and production requirements should remain within the range of 0.17 to 0.42% (Anonymous, 1975). Our findings showed that calcium concentration in investigated grasses was adequate (Anonymous, 1975; Georgievskii, 1982; Minson, 1990). This might be due the uptake of Calcium by plant would be dependent on the pH rather than Ca concentration of soil. The Ca contents in the investigated range grasses is supported by the findings of Khan et al. (2006a) who reported that the arid pastures have high Ca contents. Results are almost in line with those of Tajeda et al. (1985), George et al . (2001), Acar et al. (2009), Khan et al. (2010), Inam-Ur-Rahim et al. (2008) and Basaran et al. (2011) who have reported calcium contents in different forages.

POTASSIUM (K)

Potassium is the third most abundant mineral element in the animal body and is the principal cation of intracellular fluid; it is also a constituent of extra cellular fluid where it influences muscle activity. Potassium is essential for life, being required for a variety of body functions including osmotic balance, acid-base equilibrium, several enzyme systems and water balance (McDowell, 1985).

Among grasses, the mean K value was ranged in between 0.54 to 0.91% whereas mean value for all grasses was 0.76%. Our results showed that K concentration in all the evaluated grasses is much lower than the recommended value of 2.75% as reported by Minson (I990). Similarly, Khan et al. (2004) also reported potassium deficiency in several grasses. However clinical signs of K deficiency disappeared after proper management of potassium (Smith et al.,

144

1980; McDowell and Valle, 2000). In many regions of the world, on maturity, a significant deficiency in forages potassium level occurred. The major reason for lack of exclusive potassium deficiency may be due to the deficiencies of other nutrients in forages (McDowell and Valle, 2000). Our findings are in agreement with those of McDowell (1996), Khan (2003) and Sultan et al. (2009).

SODIUM (Na)

Sodium is an essential element that serves in the body fluids. A prolonged deficiency of sodium causes loss of appetite, decreased growth, unthrifty appearance, reduced milk production and loss of weight ( Soetan et al., 2010).

Sodium concentration in the grasses of Cholistan rangeland was ranged from 0.7 % (Aeluropus lagopoides) to 0.17% (Stipagrostis plumosa), whereas mean value was 0.3%. NRC (1996) recommended critical concentration of Na 0.06% in range forages. Likewise, standard concentration of Na in dry matter required for animals nutrition ranges between 0.09 and 0.21% (Common Wealth Agricultural Bureau, 1980). Our results showed that the Na concentrations in all grasses were well above the levels recommended for optimum animal production. Our outcomes are also in line with those reported by Church (1988) and Nasrullah et al. (2004).

MAGNESIUM (Mg)

Magnesium is especially important for cellular and nervous system functioning among all animals. The dietary requirements of magnesium in livestock differ with the species and breed of animals, age, growth rate and with biological availability in the diet. Dietary Mg requirements are influenced by several other factors, including the protein content of the diet and the Mg status of the animal (Inam-ur-Rahim et al., 2008). High dietary levels of Ca and P reduce Mg absorption. Minimum magnesium requirements of sheep and cattle for growth can generally be met by pastures or rations containing 0.10%. The dietary availability of pasture Mg is generally assumed to be about 33% (McDowell et al., 1983).

In current study magnesium concentration in the grasses of Cholistan desert was ranged 0.019% (Cenchrus ciliaris) to 0.045% (Sporobolus iocladus). Our results showed that the Mg concentration in the grasses was much lower than the critical value of 0.1-0.20% as recommended by NRC (1996). Similarly, Mg values were also lower than those reported by

145

Skerman and Riveros (1990), who reported that the magnesium contents in tropical grasses were ranged from 0.04 to 0.90% with a mean of 0.36%. This low Mg contents in investigated grasses might be due to its low concentration in soil. Georgieviskii (1982) reported that the Mg deficiency was most frequent on acid and sandy soil. Our findings are also supported by some previous reports by Cuesta et al. (1993), Tona (2011), Inam-ur-Rahim et al. (2008), Sultan et al. (2008) and Tajeda et al. (1987).

MICRO-MINERALS

MANGANESE (Mn)

Manganese is also an essential mineral element that wanted in the body for healthy bone structure, reproduction and the normal functioning of the nervous system. The minimum dietary for manganese requirements of ruminants are not precisely known but likely range between 20 to 40 ppm. General clinical signs of Mn deficiency are degenerative reproductive failure in sexes, bone malformations and crippling, ataxia, depigmentation, deterioration of the central nervous system, impaired growth and skeletal abnormalities (McDowell, 1997).

In present study, manganese concentration in grass species was varied from 2.82 ppm (Cenchrus ciliaris) to 4.4 ppm (Panicum turgidum). The mean value of all grasses was 3.40 ppm. The Mn concentration in the investigated grass species were very low than the critical level of 20 mg/kg to meet the livestock requirements as reported by McDowell (1985) and also from Ensminger and Olantine (1978), who reported that ruminants required a diet containing 10 to 20 ppm manganese. The lower levels of manganese in the investigated grasses might be due to high soil pH and effect of interaction with other minerals at local level rather than inherent deficiency. Likewise, Georgievskii (1982) has reported that the increase in soil pH above 6.0 results in decrease of available Mn contents. Our results are in agreement with those of Perveen (1988), Minson (1990), Khan et al. (2006b) and Sultan et al. (2008).

COPPER (Cu)

The requirements of Cu for grazing animals are influenced by the interactions between other dietary components, especially Molybdenum and Selenium. Deficiency of Cu is the most severe mineral limitation to grazing livestock throughout extensive regions of the tropics (Church, 1988; NRC, 1996).

146

Ruminants need 4.5 to 5 ppm copper but 8 to 25 ppm copper is toxic level (Anonymous, 1981, 1985), while NRC (2001) recommended dietary requirement for livestock is 10 ppm. In our findings, copper concentration in range grasses was ranged from 0.93 ppm (Stipagrostis plumosa) to 1.91 ppm (Pennisetum divisum) and the mean value was 1.23 ppm. Our results showed that the copper contents in evaluated grasses were lower than the recommended values (Anonymous, 1985, 2005; NRC, 2001). Cu concentrations in investigated grasses were found to be very low to fulfill the demand of grazing animals. Livestock that depend upon these grasses as their solo feed, could be deficient of copper (Manyayu et al., 2003). Copper contents in evaluated grass species were higher than the other forages reported by Kalmbacher and Martin (1981), however lower than those of Mero and Uden (1990), who stated that copper concentration of tropical grasses was ranged from 3 to 10 ppm on dry matter basis. Our results are in agreement with the findings of Gohl (1981), Akhtar et al. (2007), Shah et al. (1986), Tudsri and Kaewkunya (2002) and Khan et al. (2006b) who have reported deficiency of Cu in several forage plants.

FERROUS (Fe)

Iron plays a vital role in animal metabolism, mainly confined to the process of cellular respiration, as a component of hemoglobin, myoglobin and cytochrome and in certain enzymes. Fe requirements of ruminants have not been well recognized. Although, it is known that young animals have more iron requirements than adults. For adult ruminant, the Fe requirement is estimated to range between 20-50 ppm, while the requirement for young animal is thought to be 100 ppm. Signs of a lack of Fe, in addition to anemia and related blood changes, include lower weight gains, listlessness and decrease resistance against infection (Ramirez et al., 2009).

In present study, ferrous concentration in range grasses was ranged from 3.91 ppm (Aeluropus lagopoides) to 6.64 ppm (Sporobolus iocladus) and the mean value for ferrous concentration of all grasses was 5.25 ppm. Based on our results it is concluded that the all evaluated grasses have Fe contents in low quantity to meet the normal requirements of 20-60 ppm of animals (Anonymous, 1980; McDowell, 1992; Ramirez et al., 2009). Our results are in line with findings of Ganskoop and Bohnert (2001), who recorded ferrous deficiency in indigenous grasses. The deficiency of ferrous contents in the investigated grass species of

147

Cholistan desert might be due to poor quality of soil. Likely, McDowell (2003) and Ramirez et al. (2004) has also stated iron deficiency in various forages.

ZINC (Zn)

Zinc is an activator of many enzymes in nucleic acid, protein synthesis and carbohydrates metabolism. Its deficiency may affects with reproductive capacity of animals (Hussain and Durrani, 2008). In present study, Zinc concentration in grasses was ranged from 0.98 ppm (Aeluropus lagopoides) to 3.42 ppm (Cymbopogon jwarancusa). The mean of all grasses for zinc concentration was 1.88 ppm. It has been recommended that an intake of 35 to 50 ppm Zinc is essential to fulfill livestock diet requirements (Anonymous, 1985). In our case, all the investigated grasses have Zn concentration well below the recommended level. Zinc contents in investigated grasses of Cholistan desert are also lower than other forage species as investigated by Reuter et al. (1986), Hussain and Durrani (2008) and Khan et al. (2009). The low Zn values in the evaluated grasses might be due to low Molybdenum concentration in the soil (Inam-ur-Rahim, 2002). Similarly, Minson (1982) reported that the nature of minerals and its balanced concentration varies with plant species, stage of growth and availability of minerals in the soil. The mean values of Zn concentration were lower in all grasses; however, Zn supplementation to the rations of livestock may improve livestock performance in the study area (Ensminger and Olantine, 1987). Zinc concentration in range grasses might not be affected by grass maturity or change in climate, however affected with the application of fertilizer (Holecheck et al., 1998, 2004; Sultan et al., 2008).

148

5.7 REFERENCES

Abd-El-Ghani, M.M. and N.A. El-Sawaf. 2005. The coastal roadside vegetation and environmental gradients in the arid lands of Egypt. Commun. Ecol., 6: 143-154. Acar, Z., I. Ayan, O. Asci, U. Basaran and H. Mut. 2009. Biodiversity in morphological properties and nutritional values of forage grass species. J. Environ. Biol., 30(4): 583- 589. Adu, I.F and A.M. Adamu. 1982. The nutritive value and utilization of three tropical grass hays by sheep. Trop. Grassl., 16(1): 29-33. Afzal, M.J., Arshad-Ullah and M. Anwar. 2007. Assessing carrying capacity of Pabbi Hills Kharian range. J. Anim. Plant Sci., 17(1-2): 27-29. Ahmad, K., M. Ashraf, Z. Khan and E.E. Valeem. 2008. Evaluation of macro-mineral concentrations of forages in relation to ruminant’s requirements: A Case study in Soon valley, Punjab, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 40: 295-299. Ahmad, K., M. Hussain, M. Ashraf, M. Luqman, M.Y. Ashraf and Z.I. Khan. 2007. Indigenous vegetation of Soon Valley at the risk of extinction. Pak. J. Bot. 39(3): 679-690. Ahmad, M., F.A. Raza, J. Masud and I. Ali. 2006. Ecological assessment of production potential for rangeland vegetation in Southern Attock, Pakistan. J. Agri. Soc. Sci., 2(4): 212-215. Ahmad, M.F., K. Alam and S .Ahmad. 2011. An Ethnobotanical and Ethnopharmacological approach to Medicinal Plants of Cholistan Desert and its joining area. The Studies on Medicinal Plants of Cholistan Desert Pakistan, LAP Lambert Academic Publishing. Ahmad, S., M. Islam, G. Bano, S. Aslam and S. Koukab. 2009. Seasonal variation in current season and dead biomass of Chrysopogon aucheri (Boiss) Stapf. and Cymbopogon jawarancusa (Jones) Schult in highland Baluchistan, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 41(2): 519- 527. Ahmad. M., T. Husain, A.H. Sheikh, S.S. Hussain and M.F. Siddiqui. 2006. Phytosociology and structure of Himalayan forests from different climatic zones of Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 38(2): 361-383. Ahrestani, F.S., I.M.A. Heitkönig and H.H.T. Prins. 2011. Herbaceous production in South India: Limiting factors and implications for large herbivores. Plant Soil., 349: 319-330. Akbar, G. and M. Arshad. 2000. Developing sustainable strategies for Cholistan desert: Opportunities and perspectives. Sci. Vision., 5: 77-85.

149

Akbar, G., T.N. Khan and M. Arshad. 1996. Cholistan desert Pakistan. Rangelands., 18: 124- 128. Akhtar, M.Z., A. Khan, M. Sarwar and A. Javaid. 2007. Influence of soil and forage minerals on buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) haemoglobinaria. Asian-Australian J. Anim. Sci., 20: 393-399. Akhter, R. and M. Arshad. 2006. Arid rangelands in Cholistan desert (Pakistan). Scheresse., 17: 1-18. Alemayehu, M. 2004. Rangeland biodiversity: Concepts, approaches and the way forward. Addis Abad, Ethiopia, pp. 87-106. Alemayehu, M. 2006. Range Management for East Africa: Concepts and Practices, Sponsored by RPSUD and Printed by A.A.U Printed Press. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Ali, I., M.S. Chaudhry and U. Farooq. 2009. Camel rearing in Cholistan desert of Pakistan. Pak. Vet. J., 29: 85-92. Ali, S.I. 2008. The significance of flora with special reference to Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 40(30): 967-971. Allen, L., J.D. Johnson and K. Vujnovic. 2003. Small Patch Communities of Fidler-Greywillow Wild land Provincial Park. A Report Prepared for Parks and Protected Areas, Alberta Community Development, Edmonton, Alberta. Allen, L., J.D. Johnson and K. Vujnovic. 2004. Small Patch Communities of Colin-Cornwall Lakes. Wildland Provincial Park. A Report Prepared for Parks and Protected Areas, Alberta Community Development, Edmonton, Alberta. Alsakhan, M.O. 1997. Present state of rangeland and forest of Saudi Arabia: importance of their conservation and development. In: Proceeding of Renewable Natural Resources and the Importance of Protecting and Developing them. Department of Range and Forest, Ministry of Agriculture and Water, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, pp. 29-77. Ammar, H.S., O. Lopez, Bochi-Brum, R. Garcia and M.J. Ranilla. 1999. Composition and in vitro digestibility of leaves and stems of grasses and legumes harvested from permanent mountain meadows at different stages of maturity. J. Anim. Feed Sci., 8: 599-610. Andrighetto, I., G. Cozzi, P. Berzaghi and M. Zancan. 1993. Avoidance of degradation of alpine pasture through grazing management investigation of change in vegetation nutrition characteristics as a consequence of sheep grazing at different period of growing season. Land Degrad. Rehab., 4: 37-43.

150

Anonymous. 1975. Nutrient requirements of domestic animals-Nutrient requirement of sheep. (5th Revised Edition), National Research Council, National Academy of Science, Washington, D.C. Anonymous. 1985. Nutrient requirements of domestic animals. Number 5. Nutrient requirements of sheep. National Research Council, National Academy of Science, Washington, D.C. Anonymous. 2005. Mineral Tolerance of Animals, 2nd Edition, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Aregherore, E.M. 2001. Nutritive Value and utilization of three grass species by cross bred Anglo-Nubian goats in Samoa. Asia-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 14(10): 1389-1393. Arshad-Ullah, M., J. Afzal and M. Anwar. 2007. Determining range vegetation cover and composition of Pabbi Hills Kharian Range, District Gujarat. J. Appl. Sci., 7(16): 2321- 2326. Arshad, M. and A.R. Rao. 1993. Plant Genetic Resources of Cholistan Desert and their Utilization. Proceeding of International Scientific Conference on Takhliman Desert, Xinjaning Institute of Biology, China, p. 81. Arshad, M. and A.R. Rao. 1994. Flora of Cholistan desert (Systematic list of trees, shrubs and herbs). J. Econ. Tax. Bot., 18(3): 615-625. Arshad, M. and A.R. Rao. 1995. Phytogeographical divisions of Cholistan desert. In: Proceedings of the Sixth all Pakistan Geographical Conference, December 26-29, 1993, Department of Geography, Islamia University, Bahawalpur, pp. 55-61. Arshad, M. and G. Akbar. 2002. Benchmark of plant communities of Cholistan desert. Pak. Jo. Biol. Sci., 5: 1110-1113. Arshad, M., A.R. Rao, G. Akbar and M.A. Khan. 1999. Floral wealth and its adaptations in Cholistan Desert, Pakistan. In: Dobrovolkskiy, G.V. and G.S. Kust, (eds.), Desertification and Soil Degradation. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference. Institute of Soil Science, Moscow State University, Moscow, pp. 195-199. Arshad, M., Anwar-ul-Hussan, M.Y. Ashraf, S. Noureen and M. Moazzam. 2008. Edaphic factors and distribution of vegetation in the Cholistan desert, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 40: 1923-1931.

151

Arshad, M., G. Akbar and S. Rashid. 2003. Wealth of medicinal plants of Cholistan desert, Pakistan: Conservational strategies. Hamdard Med., 105: 25-34. Arshad, M., M. Ashraf and N. Arif. 2005. Morphological variability of Prosopis cineraria (L.) druce, from the Cholistan desert, Pakistan. Genetic Resource Crop Evol., 53: 1589-1596. Arshad, M., M. Ashraf and N. Arif. 2006. Morphological variability of Prosopis cineraria (L.) Druce, from the Cholistan desert, Pakistan. Genetic Resource Crop Evol., 53: 1589- 1596. Arshad, M., M.Y. Ashraf, M. Ahmad and F. Zaman. 2007. Morpho-genetic variability potential of Cenchrus ciliarus L., from Cholistan desert, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 39: 1481-1488. Arshad, M., Salah-ud-Din and A.R. Rao. 2002. Phytosociological assessment of natural reserve of National Park Lal-suhanra (Punjab, Pakistan). Asian J. Plant Sci., 1: 174-175. Arshad, M., A.R. Rao and G. Akbar. 2001. Sustainability patterns of livestock in the Cholistan desert, Pakistan. United Nation Development program in Islamic republic of Iran, pp.185-192. Arshadullah, M., M. Anwar and A. Azim. 2009. Evaluation of various exotic grasses in semi- arid conditions of Pabbi Hills ,Kharian Range. J. Anim. Plant Sci., 19: 85-89. Ashraf, M.Y.S.S., A. Amal, Morsy, A. Hosny, Mossallam, H. Ahmed and Abd-Al-Latif. 2009. Vegetation analysis along Alamain- Wadi El-Natrun Desert Road. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci., 3(1): 167-176. Ashraf, Y., A.H. Gillani and S.A. Nagra. 1995. Effect of harvesting interval and varieties on the chemical composition of indigenous fodder: Proximate Composition. J. Agric. Res., 33: 31-43. Austin, M.P. and P.C. Heyligers. 1989. Vegetation survey design for conservation: Gradsect sampling of forest in north-eastern New South Wales. In: Margules, C.R.J. (ed.), Australian Developments in Conservation Evaluation. Biol. Conser., 50(1-4): 13-32. Asri, Y. 2003. Plant Diversity in Touran Biosphere Reservoir. Publishing research institute of forests and rangelands, Tehran, Iran. No. 305, p. 306. Ayana, A. 1999. Range condition and traditional grazing management in Borana. MSc. Thesis, Alemaya University of Agriculture, Alemaya, Ethiopia, pp. 213-216. Azim, A., Z. Naseer and A. Ali. 1989. Nutritional evaluation of maize fodder at two different vegetative stages. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 2: 27-34.

152

Badeck, F.W., A. Bondeau, K. Bottcher, D. Doktor, W. Lucht, J. Schaber and S. Sitch. 2004. Responses of spring phenology to climate change. New Phytol., 162: 295-309. Barik, K.L. and B.N. Mirsa. 1998. Biological spectrum of grass land ecosystem of South Orissa. Ecoprint., 5(1): 73-77. Basaran, U., H.M. Ozlem and D. Ayan. 2011. Variability in forage quality of Turkish grass pea (lathyrus sativus l.) landraces. Turkish J. Field Crops., 16(1): 9-10. Batanouny, K.H. 1996. Biodiversity in the rangelands of the Arab countries. In: West, N.E. (ed.), Rangelands in a Sustainable Biosphere. Proceedings of the Fifth International Rangeland Congress, 23-28 July, 1995, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, pp. 39-40. Beatley, J.C. 1974. Phenological events and their environments triggers in Mojave Desert ecosystems. Ecol., 55: 856-863. Behzad, T. and H. Badripour. 2007. Grazing Management and Mobility Circumstances with Regard to Protection from Early Grazing. Office of Rangeland (Daftare Omoor Marta). R. a. W. R. S. J. Organization of Forest, Marate & Abkhizdari Keshvar, Institute of Rehabilitation and Improvement (Gorooh Eslah and Ehya). Bhutto, M.A., M.A. Khan and G. Ahmad. 1993. Livestock breeds of Pakistan. Livestock Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. Bohn, P.J. 1990. Investigation in to effect of phenolic acids on forage digestibility dissertation. Sci. Eng., 50: 4282-4283. Bonham, C.D. 1989. Measurement for terrestrial vegetation. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Bourquin, L.D., E.C. Tibgemeyer, J.V. Milgen and J.C. Fahey-Jr. 1994. Forage level and particle size effects on orchard grass digestion by steers: II. Ruminal digestion kinetics of cell wall components. J. Animal Sci., 72: 759-767. Brown, P.H., R.D. Graham and D.G.D. Nicholas. 1984. The effect of manganese and nitrate supply on the level of phenolics and lignin in young wheat plant. Plant Soil., 81: 437- 440. Bui, E.N. and B.L. Henderson. 2003. Vegetation indicators of salinity in northern Queensland. Aust. Ecol., 28: 539-552. Burke, A. 2001. Classification and ordination of plant communities of the Naukluft Mountains, Namibia. J. Veg. Sci., 12: 53-60.

153

Cabezudo, B., P. Latorre, A.V. Navarro and J.M. Nieto-Caldera. 1993. Estudio fenomorfologico en la vegetacion del sur de Espana. II. Alcornocales Mesomediterráneos (Montes de Málga,Málaga). Acta Bot. Malacitana., 18: 179-188. Charley, J.L. 1972. The role of shrubs in nutrient cycling. In: McKell, C.M., J.P. Blaisdell and J.R. Goodwin, (eds.), Wildland Shrubs, their Biology and Utilization. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. Washington, D.C., pp. 182-203. Chaudhry, A.A., M. Afzal, M. Mushtaque and B.A. Awan. 2000. Accessing carrying capacity and vegetation cover of Rakh Dagar Kotli (Thal). Pak. J. Forest., 50(1-2): 37-42. Chaudhry, A.A., M.S. Haider, J. Ahsan and S. Fazal. 2010. Determining carrying capacity of untreated and treated areas of Mari Reserve Forest (Pothwar Tract) after reseeding with Cenchrus ciliaris. J. Anim. Plant Sci., 20: 103-106. Cherney, D.J.R., J.H. Cherney and R.F. Lucey. 1993. In Vitro digestion kinetics and quality of perennial grasses as influenced by forage maturity. J. Dairy Sci., 76: 790-797. Cherney, D.J.R., D.R. Mertens and J.E. Moore. 1990. Intake and digestibility by withers as influenced by forage morphology at three levels of forage offering. J. Anim. Sci., 68(12): 4387-4399. Church, D.C. 1988. The ruminant animal digestive physiology and nutrition. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffts, New Jersey. Cierjack, A. and I. Hensen, 2003. Variation of stand structure and regeneration of Mediterranean holm oak along a grazing intensity gradient. Vegetation., 173: 215-223. Common Wealth Agricultural Bureau. 1980. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Technical Review, England, CAB, p. 351. Cook, C.W. and J. Stubbendieck. 1986. Range Research, Basic Problems and Techniques. Society for Range Management, Colorado. Coppock, D.L. 1994. The Borona Plateau of Southern Ethiopia: Synthesis of Pastoral Research, Development and Change. International livestock Center for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Cuesta, P.A., L.R. McDowell, W.E. Kunkle, F. Bullock, A. Drew, N.S. Wilkinson and F.G. Martin. 1993. Seasonal variation of soil and forage mineral concentrations in north Florida. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal., 24: 335-347.

154

Curtis, J.T. 1959. The Vegetation of Wisconsin. An Ordination of Plant communities, University Wisconsin, p. 657. Dasti, A. and A.D.Q. Agnew. 1994. The vegetation of Cholistan and Thar deserts, Pakistan. J. Arid Environ., 27: 193-208. Devineau, J.L. and A. Fournier. 2007. Integrating environmental and sociological approaches to assess the ecology and diversity of herbaceous species in a Sudan Type Savanna (Bondoukuy,Western Burkina Faso). Flora., 202(5): 350-370. Distel, R.A., N.G. Didone and A.S. Moretto. 2005. Variations in chemical composition associated with tissue aging in palatable and unpalatable grasses native to central Argentina. J. Arid Environ., 62: 351-357. Durrani, M.J., S.A. Shahwani and F. Hussain. 1996. Phytosociological studies of Iskalku rangelands, District Kalat. J. Sci. Technol., 20: 29-33. Durrani, M.J., A. Razaq., S.G. Muhammad and F. Hussain. 2010. Floristic diversity, ecological, characteristics and ethnobotonical profile of plants of Aghberg rangelands, Balochistan, Pakistan. Pak. J. Plant Sci., 16(1): 29-36. Durrani, M.J., F. Hussain and S. Rehman. 2005. Ecological characteristics of plants of Harboi rangeland, Kalat, Balochistan. J. Trop. Subtrop. Bot., 13: 130-138. El-Shatnawi, M.K., H.M. Saoub and N.I. Haddad. 2004. Growth and chemical composition of wild oat (Avena fatua) under Mediterranean conditions. Grass Forage Sci., 59: 100-103. Enright, N.J., B.P. Millera and R. Akhter. 2005. Desert vegetation and vegetation-environment relationships in Kirthar National Park, Sindh, Pakistan. J. Arid Environ., 61: 397-418. Ensminger, M.E. and C.G. Olantine. 1978. Feeds and Nutrition-complete. Ensminger Publishing Company 3699, East Sierra Avenue, Clovis California, 93612. Ensminger, M.E. and C.G. Olantine. 1987. Feeds and Nutrition-Complete. Clovis, CA: Ensminger Publishing Company. FAO. 1987. Pakistan’s Experience in Rangeland Rehabilitation and Improvement. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, p. 70. Fariani, A. 1996. The evaluation of nutritive value of forages by in situ and in vitro techniques. Ph.D Thesis, Shimane University. Farooq, M.U. 2003. Some suitable and sustainable strategies for improving rangeland productivity in Pakistan. Pak. J. Forest., 53: 193-199.

155

Farooq, U., N.A. Shah, M.N. Akmal, W. Akhtar, A. Akram and A.B. Rind. 2008. Socioeconomic, Institutional and Policy Constraints to Livestock Productivity in Thal Desert of Pakistan. Fisher, M. 1994. Another look at the variability of desert climates, using examples from Oman. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogra. Let., 4: 79-87. Foroughbakhch, R., J.L. Hernandez-Pinero and A. Carrillo-Parra. 2012. Nutrient profile, floristic compositions and preference index of shrubs and herbs consumed by goats in semiarid region of Northeastern Mexico. J. Anim. Vet. Adv., 11(9): 1299-1305. Fourie, J.H., D.P.J. Opperman and B.R. Roberts. 1985. Evaluation of the grazing potential of grass species in Tarchonanthus veld of the Northern Cape. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci., 2(4): 13-17. Gammon, M.D. 1984. Principles of grazing management. Agritex Notes, Zimbabwe, Mimeo. Ganskoop, D. and R. Bohnert. 2001. Nutritional dynamics of 7 northern great basin grasses. J. Range Manage., 54: 640-647. Gaston, K.J. 2000. Global palterns in biodiversity. Nat., 405: 220-227. George, M., G. Nader, N. Mcdougald, M. Connor and B. Frost. 2001. ANR Publication 8022. Annual rangeland forage quality. California Rangelands Research and Information Center. Georgievskii, V.I. 1982. Biochemical regions, mineral composition of feeds. In: Georgievskii, V.1., B.N. Annenkov and V.1. Samokhin, (eds.), Mineral Nutrition of Animals. Butterworths, London. Ghadaki, M.B., P.J. Van-Soest, R.E. Mcdowell and B. Malekpour. 1975. Evaluation and mapping of tropical African rangelands. Proceedings of the Seminar. International Livestock Centre for Africa. Gillman, L.N. and S.D. Wright. 2006. The influence of productivity on the species richness of plants: A critical assessment. Ecol., 87: 1234-1243. Gohl, B. 1981. Tropical feeds. Feed information summaries and nutritive values. FAO, Animal Health and Production Series No. 12, FA6, Rome, Italy. Gomide, J.A. 1978. Mineral composition of grasses and tropical legume forage. In: Conard, J.H. and McDwell, (eds.), Latin American Symposium on Mineral Nutrition Research with Grazing Ruminants. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, pp. 32-40.

156

Groberek, J., R. Niznikowski, E. Pfeffer, J. Rawa and M. Marciniec. 2004. The estimation of nutritive value of pasture grass on wasteland used in sheep production. Arch. Tierz., 47: 153-159. Groenewald, J.W., D.M. Joubert and H. Tolken. 1967. The chemical composition of South African fodder plants. Proc. South Afr. Soc. Anim. Prod., 6: 117-128. Grunwaldt, E.G., A.R. Pedrani and A.I. Vich. 1994. Goat grazing in arid piedmont of Argentina. Small Rumi. Res., 13: 211-216. Gul, B., D.J. Weber and M.A. Khan. 2001. Growth, ionic and osmotic relations of an Allenrolfea occidentalis population in an inland salt playa of the Great Basin Desert. J. Arid Environ., 48: 445-460. Guru, M., G. Abebe, A. Goetsch, F. Hundessa, A. Ebro and B. Shelima. 2008. On-farm performance of Arsi-Bale goats in Ethiopia receiving different concentrate supplements. Livestock Res. Rur. Devel., 20(12): ISSN0121-3784. Gutterman, Y. 1994. Strategies of seed dispersal and germination in plants inhabiting deserts. Bot. Rev., 60(4): 373-425 Hameed, M., M. Ashraf, F. Al-Quriany, T. Nawaz, M.S.A. Ahmad, A. Younis and N. Naz. 2011. Medicinal flora of the Cholistan desert: A review. Pak. J. Bot., 43: 39-50. Haq, S.U., S.N. Mirza, S.M. Nizami, A. K.chaudhry, I.A. Khan and R. Qureshi. 2011. Vegetation analysis and winter season carrying capacity of sub-tropical, sub-humid rangelands of Dhrabi watershed, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 43(3): 1669-1672. Hardison, W.A., J.T. Reid, C.M. Martin and P.G. Woolfolk. 1954. Degree of herbage selection by grazing cattle. J. Dairy Sci., 37: 89-102. He, M.Z., J.G. Zheng, X.R. Li and Y.L. Qian. 2006. Environmental factors affecting vegetation composition in the Alxa Plateau, China. J. Arid Environ., 69(3): 473-489. Heady, H.F. 1964. Palatability of herbage and animal preference. J. Range Manage., 17: 76-82. Hersom, M. 2010. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Avaible online at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu (Accessed on march 23, 2012) Hickman, K., D. Hartnett and R. Cochran. 1996. Effects of grazing systems and stocking rates on plant diversity in Kansas tall grass prairie. In: West, N.E. (ed.), Rangelands in a

157

Sustainable Biosphere. Proceedings of the Fifth International Rangeland Congress, 23- 28 July, 1995, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, pp. 228-229. Hill, M.O. 1979. Twinspan: A fortran program for arranging multivariate data in an ordered two way table of classification of individuals and attributes. Ithaca, NY, Cornell University. Holechek, J.L., H. Gomez, F. Molinar and D. Galt. 1999. Grazing studies: What weve learned. Rangelands., 21: 12-26. Holechek, J.L., R.D. Pieper and C.H. Herba. 1998. Range Management. Principles and Practices. 3rd Edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 07458. Holechek, J.L., R.D. Pieper and C.H. Herbel. 2004. Range Management: Principles and Practices 5th Edition. Pearson Education, Inc., New Jersey. Holechek, J.L., R.D. Pieper and C.H. Herbel. 1996. Range Management: Principles and practices. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, USA. Hussain, A. 2009. Study of seasonal biomass productivity and nutritional quality of major forage species in subtropical sub humid rangelands of district Chakwal. Ph.D Thesis. Pir Mehar Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi. Hussain, F. and M.J. Duranni. 2009c. Nutritional evaluation of some forage plants from Harboi Rangeland, Kalat, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 41(3): 1137-1154. Hussain, F. and G. Mustafa. 1995. Ecological studies on some pasture plants in relation to animal use found in Nasirabad Valley, Hunza, Pakistan. Pak. J. Plant. Sci., 1: 255-262. Hussain, F. and L. Badshah. 1998. Vegetation structure of Pirghar Hills, South Waziristan, Pakistan. J. Trop. Subtrop. Bot., 6(3): 187-195. Hussain, F. and M.J. Durrani. 2007. Forage productivity of arid temperate Harboi rangeland, Kalat, Pakistan. Pak J. Bot., 39(5): 1455-1470. Hussain, F. and M.J. Durrani. 2008. Mineral composition of some range grasses and shrubs from Harboi rangeland Kalat, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 40(6): 2513-2523. Hussain, F. and M.J. Durrani. 2009a. Nutrition composition of some range grasses and shrubs from Harboi rangeland Kalat, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 41(3): 1137-1154. Hussain, F. and S.R. Chaghtai. 1984. The effect of overgrazing on the development of herbaceous vegetation in Zangilora, Quetta, Balochistan, Pakistan. Pak. Area Study J., 91: 29 - 38.

158

Hussain, F. and M.J. Durrani .2009b. Seasonal availability, palatability and animal preferences of forage plants in Harboi arid Range land, Kalat, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 41(2): 539-554. Hussain, M. 2003. Exploitation of Forage Legume Diversity Endemic to Soon Valley in the Salt Range of the Punjab. Annual Technical report submitted to PARC, Islamabad, Pakistan, pp. 18-21. Huston, J.E. 1978. Symposium: Dairy goats. Forage utilization and nutrient requirements of the goats. J. Dairy. Sci., 61: 988-993. Huston, J.E., B.S. Rector and L.B. Merril. 1981. Nutritional value of range plants in the Edwards Plateau region of Texas. Report B-1375. College Station, TX: Texas A and M University System, Texas Agricultural Experimental Station, USA. Inam-ur-Rahim, J.I. Sultan, M. Yaqoob, H. Nawaz, I. Javed and M. Hameed. 2008. Mineral profile, palatability and digestibility of marginal landgrasses of Trans-himalayan grasslands of Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 40: 237-248. Inam-ur-Rahim. 2002. Identification, Yield, Palatability and Nutritional Evaluation of Consumable Forage Species at Various Elevations and Aspects in Chagharzai Valley of Malakand Division in Trans-Himalayan Range, Ph.D Dissertation, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Iqbal, M., U. Farooq, A. Bashir, N.A. Khan and S.Z. Malik. 2000. A Baseline Survey for the Development of Livestock Sector in Cholistan. Joint Publication of AERU, AARI, Faisalabad, Pakistan. ALP Project Report, Social Sciences Institute, National Agricultural Research Center, Islamabad. Jafari, M., M.A.Z. Chahouki, A. Tavili and H. Azarnivand. 2004. Effective environmental factors in the distribution of vegetation types in Poshtkouh rangelands of Yazd Province (Iran). J. Arid Environ., 56: 627-641. Jancik, F., V. Koukolova and P. Homolka. 2010. Ruminal degradability of dry matter and neutral detergent fiber of grasses. Czech J. Anim. Sci., 55 (9): 359-371. Kabir, M., M. Zafariqbal, Z.R. Farooqi and M. Shafiq. 2010. Vegetation pattern and soil characteristics of the polluted industrial area of Karachi. Pak .J. Bot., 42(1): 661-678. Kalmbacher, R.S. and F.G. Martin. 1981. Mineral content in creeping blue stem as affected by time of cutting. J. Range Manage., 34: 406-408.

159

Kandil, H.M. and H.M. El-Shaer. 1990. Comparison between goats and sheep in utilization of high fibrous shrubs with energy feeds. In: Proceedings of the International Goat Production Symposium, October 22-26, Tallahassee, USA, pp. 75-79. Kapoor, K.S. and R. Singh. 1990. Life forms and biological spectrum of the temperate grasslands with varying biotic pressure in Shimla hills, Himachal Pradesh. Range Manag. Agrofor., 11(2): 109-114. Kayani, S.A., A. Masood, A.K.K. Achakzai and S. Anbreen. 2007. Distribution of secondary metabolites in plants of Quetta-Balochistan. Pak. J. Bot., 39: 1179-1179. Kearl, L.C. 1982. Nutrient requirements of ruminant in developing countries. Utah Agricultural Experimental Station, Logan, Utah, USA. Kenney, P.A. and J.L. Black. 1984. Factors affecting diet selection by sheep. I. Potential intake rate and acceptability of feed. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 35: 55-63. Kent, M. and P. Coker. 1992. Vegetation Description and Analysis. Chichister: Wiley and Sons Ltd. Khan, M.A. 1990. The relationship of seed bank to vegetation in a saline desert community. In: Sen, D.N. and S. Mohammad, (eds.), Marvel of Seeds. Proceeding of International Seed Symposium, Jodhpur, India, pp. 87-92. Khan, I.I. 1996. Biodiversity depletion with respect to Human and livestock population in Indian Desert. In: West, N.E. (ed.), Rangelands in a Sustainable Biosphere. Proceedings of the Fifth International Rangeland Congress, 23-28 July, 1995, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, pp. 286-287. Khan, Z.I., M. Ashraf, K. Ahmad, N. Ahmad, M. Danish and E.E. Valeem. 2009. Evaluation of mineral composition of forages for grazing ruminants in Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 41(5): 2465-2476. Khan, Z.I., A. Hussain, M. Ashraf and L.R. McDowell. 2006a. Mineral status of soil and forages in South Westren Punjab, Pakistan. Asian-Australian J. Anim. Sci., 19: 1139- 1145. Khan, Z.I., M. Ashraf and E.E. Valeem. 2006b. Forage mineral status evaluation: The influence of pasture. Pak. J. Bot., 38: 1043-1057.

160

Khan, Z.I. 2003. Effect of seasonal variation on the availability of macro-and micro, nutrients to animals (sheep and goats) through forage from soil. Ph.D Dissertation. University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Khan, Z.I., A. Hussain, M. Ashraf, M.Y. Ashraf, E.E. Valeem and M.S. Akhtar. 2004. Seasonal variation in soil and forage mineral concentrations in a semiarid region of Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 36: 635-640. Khan, Z.I., M. Ashraf, K. Ahmad and E.E. Valeem. 2010. Periodic evaluation of Potassium transfer from soil and forage to small ruminants on an experimental station in Southern Punjab, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 42(2): 1353-1360. Kilcher, M.R. 1981. Plant development, stage of maturity and nutrient composition. J. Range Manage., 34: 363-364. Kramberger, B. and S. Klemencic. 2003. Effect of harvest date on the chemical composition and nutrient value of Ceratium holosteoides. Grass Forage Sci., 58: 12-16. Kumar, S. 1992. Comparing classification and different ordinations of vegetation in the Thar desert of India with implications in resource management. Trop. Ecol., 33: 110-131. Laca, E.A., L.A. Shipley and E.D. Reid. 2001. Structural anti-quality characteristics of range and pasture plants. J. Range Manage., 54: 413-419. Lemma, Z. 2001. Revegetation of degraded rangelands in middle Awash of Afar region with Cenchrus ciliaris and Chloris gayana. M.Sc. thesis, Alemaya University, Alemaya, Ethiopia, pp. 134-145. Lenssen, J.P.M., F.B.J. Menting and P.W.H. Vander. 2004. Do competition and selective herbivory cause replacement of Phragmites australis by tall forbs. Aquat. Bot., 78: 217- 232. Li, W.Q., L. Xiao-jing, M.A. Khan and B. Gul. 2008. Relationship between soil characteristics and halophytic vegetation in coastal region of north china. Pak. J. Bot., 40(3): 1081- 1090. Li, X.D. 1993. Canonical analysis and the principal components analysis of plant community with its environmental factors in the Yellow River Delta. Acta Bot. Sin., 35: 139-143. Linn, J. 2004. Forage fiber analysis-what does it, mean? In: Nutrition management guides. University of Minnesota and Paul Winshiti, Hubbard Daily Services, USA.

161

Liu, D., J. Yun, X. Hao and S. Meng. 1996. Grassland deterioration and control measures in arid and semi-arid region in China. In: West, N.E. (ed.), Rangelands in a Sustainable Biosphere. Proceedings of the Fifth International Rangeland Congress, 23-28 July, 1995, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, pp. 320-321. Liu, X.J., W.Q. Li and Y.M. Yang. 2003. Studies on the nutrient characteristics of soil and halophyte in coastal saline soil of Hebei Province. Eco. Res., 11(2): 76-77. Liu, Y.Z. 1993. Study on the dynamic features of nutritive substances in inner Mongolia Steppe. Grassl. China., 4: 16-20. Makulbekova, G.B. 1996. The ecological evaluation of the present condition of rangeland vegetation of Kazakhistan deserts. Rangelands in a Sustainable Biosphere. Proceedings of the Fifth International Rangeland Congress, 23-28 July, 1995, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, Malik, Z.H. 2005. Comparative study on the vegetation of Ganga Chotti and Bedori hills District Bagh, Azad Jammu and Kashmir with Special Reference to Range Conditions. Ph.D Thesis, University of Peshawar. Malik, N.Z., M. Arshad and S.N. Mirza. 2007. Phytosociological attributes of different plant communities of Pir Chinasi Hills of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 4: 569-574. Manyayu, J.G., C. Chakoma, S. Sibanda, C. Mutisi and I.C. Chakoma. 2003. The intake and palatability of four different types of Napier grass (Pennisetum purporeum) silage fed to sheep. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 16: 823-829. Marc, T., V. Jean-Paul, O. Annie, G. Jean-Claude and L. Jean-Claude. 2003. Vegetation dynamics and plant species interactions under grazed and un-grazed conditions in a western European salt marsh. Acta Oecol., 24: 103-111. Matizha, W., N.T. Ngongoni and J.H. Topps. 1997 Effect of supplementing veld hay with tropical legumes Desmodium uncinatum, Stylosanthes guianensis and Macroptilium atropurpureum on intake, digestibility, outflow rates, nitrogen retention and live weight gain in lambs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 69: 187-193. McDonald, D.J., R.M. Cowling and C. Boucher. 1996. Vegetation-environment relationships on a species-rich coastal mountain range in the fynbos biom (South Africa). Vegetatio., 123: 165-182.

162

McDowell, L.R. 1985. Nutrition of Grazing Ruminants in Warm Climates. Academic Press New York, pp. 443. McDowell, L.R. 1992. Free choice mineral supplementation and methods for mineral evaluation. In: Nutrition of Grazing Ruminants in Warm Climates, Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, pp. 383-407. McDowell, L.R. 1996. Feeding minerals to cattle on pasture. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 60: 247- 271. McDowell, L.R. 1997. Minerals for Grazing Ruminants in Tropical Regions. Extension Bulletin, Animal Science Department, Centre for Tropical Agriculture University, Florida. McDowell, L.R. 2003. Minerals in Animal and Human Nutrition. 2nd Edition, Elsevier, The Netherlands, pp. 256-315. McDowell, L.R. and G. Valle. 2000. Macro minerals in forages. In: Givens, D.I., E. Oven, R.F.E. Oxford and H.M. Umed, (eds.), Forage Evaluation in Ruminant Nutrition. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, p. 373. McDowell, L.R., J.M. Conrad and G.L. Ellis. 1984. Mineral deficiencies and imbalances and their diagnosis, In: Gilchrist, F.M.C. and R.I. Mackie, (eds.), Symosium on Herbivore Nutrition in Sub Tropics and Tropics. University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa, pp. 67-88. McDowell, L.R., J.M. Conrad, G.L. Ellis and J.K. Loosli. 1983. Minerals for grazing ruminants in tropical regions. Extension Bulletin, Animal Science Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. McDowell, L.R. 2003. Minerals in animals and human nutrition. 2nd Edition. Elsevier Science, BV Amsterdam, Netherlands, p. 144. Mero, R.N. and P. Uden. 1998. Promising tropical grasses and legumes as feed resource in central Tanzania. Effects of feeding level on digestibility and voluntary intake of four grasses by sheep. Anim. Feed Sci.Technol., 70(1-2): 79-95. Milford, R. and K.P. Haydock. 1965. The nutritive value of protein in sub-tropical pasture species grown in Southeast Queens land. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb., 5: 13-27. Minson, D.J. 1990a. Forages in ruminant nutrition. Academic press, Inc. San Diego, California.

163

Minson, D.J. 1982. The digestibility and voluntary intake by sheep of six tropical grasses. Austafian J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb., 12: 21-27. Minson, D.J. 1990. The chemical composition and nutritive value of tropical grasses. In: Skerman, P.J. and F. Riveros, (eds.), Tropical Grasses. FAO Plant Production and Protection Series, No: 23, FAO, Rome. Moe, S.R. 1994. The importance of aquatic vegetation for the management of the barashinga Cervus duvauceli in Nepal. Biol. Conserv., 70: 33-37. Mohammad, N. 1989. Rangeland Management in Pakistan. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal, pp. 32-46. Monier, M., A.B.D. El-Ghani and W.A. Amwe. 2003. Soil-vegetation relationships in a costal desert plain of Southern Sinai, Egypt. J. Arid Environ., 55: 607-628. Moore, K.J. and H.G. Jung. 2001. Lignin and fiber digestion. J. Range Manage., 54: 420-430. Morellato, L.P.C .1995. As estacoes da anon a floresta. pp. 37-41. Morellato, L.P.C and H.F. Leitao-Filho. 1992. Padroes de fruiticacao e dipersao na serra do japi. In: Morellato, L.P.C (ed.), Historia natural da serra do japi: Ecologia e preservacao de unma area florestal no sudeste do Brasil. Editoria da UNICAMP-FAPESP. Campinas, pp. 112-139. Nafessa, Z. 2007. Vegetative structure and diversity of moist temperate rangelands of Pir- Chinasi hills, District Muzafarabad. Ph.D Thesis. Arid Agriculture University, Pakistan. Naqinezhad, A., H. Behnam and A. Farideh. 2008. Vegetation–environment relationships in the alderwood communities of Caspian lowlands, N. Iran (toward an ecological classification), In Press, Corrected Proof. Naseem, R., K. Mahmud and M. Arshad. 2006. Chemical composition and antibacterial activity of Crotalaria burhia, from Cholistan Desert, Pakistan. Hamdard Med., 49(4): 49-52. Nasrullah., M. Niimi, R. Akashi and O. Kawamura. 2004. Nutritive evaluation of forage plants grown in South Sulawesi, Indonesia II. Mineral Composition. Asian-Aust, J. Anim. Sci., 7: 63-67. Navarro, T., J.M. Nieto-Caldera, A.V. Perez-LaTorre and B. Cabezudo. 1993. Estudios fenomorfológicos en la vegetación del sur de España. III. Comportamiento estacional de una comunidadde badlands (Tabernas, Almería. España). Acta Bot. Malacitana., 18: 189-198.

164

Naz, N., M. Hameed, M. Ashraf, R. Ahmad and M. Arshad. 2009. Eco-morphic variation for salt tolerance in some grasses from Cholistan Desert, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 41: 1707- 1714. Nezerkova, H.P. and M. Hejcman. 2006. A Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) of the vegetation-environment relationships in Sudanese savannah, Senegal. South Afr. J. Bot., 72: 256-262. Nordenstahl, M., P.E. Gundel, M.P. Clavijo and E.G. Jobbagy. 2011. Forage production in natural and afforested grasslands of the Pampas: Ecological complementarity and management opportunities. Agro-Forest. Syst., 83: 201-211. Nordfeldt, S., W. Cagell and M. Nordkvist. 1961. Smalt barshets forosok med renar ojebyn 1957-1960. Statens husgursforsok bulletin, 151, p. 14. Noureen, S., M. Arshad, K. Mahmood and M.Y. Ashraf. 2008. Improvement in fertility of nutritionally poor sandy soils of Cholistan desert, Pakistan by Calligonum polygonoides Linn. Pak. J. Bot., 40: 265-274. Noy-Meir, I. 1973. Desert ecosystems: Environment and producers. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 4: 25-52. NRC. 2001. Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals, Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. 7th Edition. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Washington, USA. NRC.1996. Nutrient Requirement of Beef cattle (7th Revised Edition). National Research Council, Washington, D.C, National Academy Press. Nyamangara, M.E. and L.R. Ndlovu. 1995. Feeding behaviour, feed intake, chemicals and botanical composition of the diet of indigenous goats raised on natural vegetation in a semiarid region of Zimbabwe. J. Agri. Sci., 124: 455-461. O’Reagain, P.J., J.J. Bushell, C.H. Holloway and A. Reid. 2009. Managing for rainfall variability: Effect of grazing strategy on cattle production in a dry tropical savanna. Anim. Prod. Sci., 49: 85-99. Oba, M. and M.S. Allen. 1999. Evaluation of the importance of the digestibility of neutral detergent fiber from forage: Effects on dry matter intake and milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci., 82: 589-596.

165

Omer, L.S. 2004. Small-scale resource heterogeneity among halophytic plant species in an upper salt marsh community. Aquat. Bot., 78: 337-348. Omer, R.M., A.J. Hester, I.J. Gordon, M.D. Swaine and S.M. Raffique. 2006. Seasonal changes in pasture biomass, production and off take under transhumance system in Northern Pakistan. J. Arid Environ., 67: 641-660. Parveen, A. and M.I. Hussain. 2007. Plant biodiversity and phytosociological attributes of Gorakh Hill (Khirthar Rage). Pak. J. Bot., 38(3): 691-698. Perveen, S. 1998. Nutritive evaluation of some fodder tree leaves through In vitro digestibility techniques. Technical Paper, NWFP Agricultural University, Peshawar. Pfister, J.A. and J.C. Malechek. 1986. Dietary selection by goats and sheep in a deciduous woodland of North Eastern Brazil. J. Range Manage., 39: 24-28. Provenza, F.D. 1995. Postingestive feedback as an elemental determinant of food reference and intake in ruminants. J. Range Manage., 48: 2-17. Quraishi, M.A.A., S.K. Ghulam and S.M. Mian. 1993. Range Management in Pakistan. Department of Forestry, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, p. 229. Qureshi, R. 2004. Floristic and Ethnobotanical Study of Desert Nara Region, Sindh. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Botany, Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur. Volume II, p. 300. Qureshi, R. 2008. Vegetation assessment of sawan wari of Nara Desert, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 40(5): 1885-1895. Qureshi, R. and M. Ahmad. 2010. Some notes on the vegetation of Achhro Thar (White desert) of Nara region, Sindh, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 42(5): 2985-2994. Qureshi, M., G.R. Bhatti and G. Shabbir. 2011. Floristic inventory of Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University Research Farm at Koont and its Surrounding Areas. Pak. J. Bot., 43(3): 1679-1684. Ramirez R.G., G.F.W. Haenlein, C.G. Garcia-Castill, M.A. Nunez-Gonzalez. 2004. Protein, lignin and mineral contents and in situ dry matter digestibility of native Mexican grasses consumed by range goats. Small Rumi. Res., 52: 261-269. Ramirez, R.G., H. Gonzalez-Rodriguez, R. Morales-Rodriguezc, A. Cerrillo-Soto, A.J. Reyes, G.J. Garcia-Dessommes and M. Guerrero-Cervantes. 2009. Chemical composition and dry matter digestion. Czech J. Anim. Sci., 54: 150-162.

166

Rao, A.R. and M. Arshad. 1991. Perennial grasses of Cholistan desert and their distribution. In: Proceedings of national seminar on people's participation in the management of resources in arid lands. November 11-13, 1991. Islamia University, Bahawalpur, Pakistan, pp. 6-11. Rao, A.R., M. Arshad and M. Shafiq. 1989. Perennial Grass Germplasm of Cholistan Desert and its Phytosociology. Cholistan Institute of Desert Studies, Islamia University, Bahawalpur, Pakistan, p. 160. Reuter, D.J. and J.B. Robinson. 1986. Plant Analysis (An Interpretation Manual). Inkata Press, Melbourne, Sydney, pp. 27-30. Robles, C.A.B. and L.J. Boza. 1993. Native forage flora of south-eastern Spain. II. Nutritive value. Pastos., 29: 47-60. Rogel, J.A., R.O. Silla and F.A. Ariza. 2001. Edaphic characterization and soil ionic composition influencing plant zonation in a semiarid Mediterranean salt marsh. Geoderma., 99: 81-98. Saeed, S., R. Qureshi, M. Arshad-Ullah and M. Nasir. 2012. Herbaceous flora of Chotran area, Rawalpindi in Pakistan. Agric. Sci. Res. J., 2(6): 312-317. Saima, S., A.A. Dasti, Q. Abbas and F. Hussain. 2010. Floristic diversity during monsoon in Ayubia National Park, District Abbottabad, Pakistan. Pak. J. Plant Sci., 16 (1): 43-50. Saleem, M. 1993. Ecology of Chrysopogon aucheri and Cymbopogon jwarancusa III. Morphology and defoliation response. Pak. J. For., 43: 106-118. Sanderson, M.A., F. Taupe, B. Tracy and M. Wachendorf. 2002. Plant species diversity relationship in grassland of the north eastern USA and northern Germany. Multi- function grasslands: quality forages, animal products and landscapes. In: Proceeding of the 17th General meeting of the European grassland Federation, 17-30 May, 2002, La Rochelle, France, pp. 842-843. Sauer, J.J.C. 1983. A comparison between Acacia and Combretum leaves utilized by giraffe. South Afr. J. Anim. Sci., 13: 43-44. Scholes, R.J. and M.J. Baker. 1993. Nutrient cycling in semi-arid grasslands and savannas: Its influence on pattern, productivity and stability. Grassl. World., 21: 484-487. Scoones, I. 1992. Land degradation and livestock production in Zimbabwe’s communal areas. Land Degrad. Rehab., 3: 99-113.

167

Shah, S.M., W. Mohammed and M.M. Iqbal. 1986. Micro-nutrient status of the soils of the Frontier Regions. Pak. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 29(4): 288-290. Shakeri, P and H. Fazaeli. 2004. A survey of nutritive value of Graminea range species in Kerman province, Iran. Proceedings of the Fourth International Iran and Russia Conference, pp. 1044-1047. Shanmugavel, P. and D.R. Ramarathinam. 1993. Biomass and primary productivity of Tephrosia in semi-arid vegetation at Perungudi District Madurai. Indian Forest., 119: 326-333. Sharma, S.K. and V. Shankar. 1990. Gradient analysis of the vegetation of Kailana in the Thar Desert, India. Trop. Ecol., 31: 104-111. Sharma, S.K. and V. Shankar. 1991. Classification and ordination of vegetation of the Kailana catchments in the Indian Thar Desert II. Woody vegetation. Trop. Ecol., 32: 269-286. Silvestri, S., A. Defina and M. Marani. 2005. Tidal regime, salinity and salt marsh plant zonation. Estua. Coast Shelf Sci., 62: 119-130. Singh, E. and M.P. Singh. 2010. Biodiversity and phytosociological analysis of plants around the municipal drains in Jaunpur. Int. J. Biol. Life Sci., 6: 77-82. Skerman, P.J. and F. Riveros. 1990. Tropical grasses. FAO Plant Production and Protection Series, No. 23, FAO, Rome. Smith, O.B., O.B. Kasali, S.A. Adeyanju and A.A. Adegbola. 1980. Mineral nutrition in tropical livestock, 1. Potassium deficiency in bovine. J. Anim. Sci., 51: 396-400. Soetan, K.O., C.O. Olaiya and O.E. Oyewole. 2010. The importance of mineral elements for humans, domestic animals and plants: A review. Afr. J. Food Sci., 4(5): 200-222. Sprague, H.B. 1979. Management of rangelands and other grazing lands of the tropics and subtropics for support of livestock production. Technical series Bulletin No. 23, Agriculture Technology for Developing countries, Office of Agriculture Development support Bureau, Agency for International Development, Washington D.C. Stephenson, S.L. 1986. An ecological study of Balsam fir communities in West Virginia. Bull. Torry Bot. Club., 133: 373-381. Stoddart, L.A., A.D Smith and T.W. Box. 1975. Range Management. New York, MC Grew- Hill, p. 532.

168

Struck, M. 1994. Flowering phenology in the arid water rainfall region of southern Africa. Bothalia., 24(1): 77-99. Sultan, J.I., I.U. Rahim, H. Nawaz and M. Yaqoob. 2008. Mineral composition, palatability and digestibility of free rangeland grasses of Northern grasslands of Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 40(5): 2059-2070. Sultan, J.I., Inam-ur-Rahim, H. Nawaz and M. Yaqoob. 2007. Nutritive value of marginal land grasses of Northern grasslands of Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 39: 1071-1082. Sultan, J.I., Inam-ur-Rahim, H. Nawaz and M. Yaqoob. 2009. Nutritional evaluation of herbs as fodder source for ruminants. Pak. J. Bot., 41(6): 2765-2776. Sultan, J.I., Inam-ur-Rahim, H. Nawaz, M. Yaqoob and H. Hameed. 2008. Nutritive value of free rangeland grasses of northern grasslands of Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 40: 249-258. Taj, N.K., M. Shahbaz, A. Razzaq, S. Ajmal and M. Khalid. 2006. Biomass potential of perennial grass species in Cholistan desert, Pakistan. J. Agri. Soc. Sci., 2(3): 189-191. Tajeda, R., L.R. Mcdowell, F.G. Martin and J.H. Conrad. 1985. Mineral element analyses of various tropical forages in Guatemala and their relationship to soil concentrations. Nut. Rep. Int., 32: 313-324. Tejada, R., L.R. McDowell, F.G. Martin and J.H. Conrad. 1987. Evaluation of cattle trace mineral status in specific regions of Guatemala. Trop. Agric., 64: 55-60. Thakur, K., V.K. Santvan and J. Verma. 2012. Floristic composition and life form spectrum of Bandli wild life sanctuary, District Mandi (Himachal Pradesh), India. Plant Arch., 12: 57-62. Tiffen, M. and M. Mortimore. 2002. Questioning desertification in dryland Sub-Saharan Africa. Nat. Resou. Forum., 26: 218-233. Tona, G. 2011. Chemical composition and nutrient digestibility of Panicum maximum and Piliostigma thonningii leaves fed to West African dwarf rams as dry season feed. Ozean J. Appl. Sci., 4(3): 189-195. Tudsri, S. and C. Kaewkunya. 2002. Effect of Leucaena row spacing and cutting intensity on growth of Leucaena and three associated grasses in Thailand. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 15: 986-991. Tuna, C., L.C. Tuna and F. Koç. 2004. Determination of nutritional value of some legume and grasses. Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 7: 1750-1753.

169

Ullah, M.A., A. Razzaq and R. Saleem. 2006. Performance of various forage grasses under spring and monsoon seasons at Pothowar Plateau. Int. J. Agri. Bio., 8(3): 398-401. Umrani, A.P., P.R. English and D. Younie. 1996. A mathematical modeling approach for sustainable rangeland utilization in Sindh. Modern Agric. Pak., 7: 4-16. Underwood, E.J. and N.F. Suttle. 1999. In: The Mineral Nutrition of Livestock 3rd Edition. CABI Publishing, CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK. Vallentine, J.F. 1990. Grazing management. Academic Press. San Diego, CA, pp. 294-320. Vanrooyen, N. 2002. Habitat evaluation. In: Bothma, J. and P. Du, (ed.), Game Ranch Management. 4th Edition. Pretoria, J.L. Van Schaik. Van-Soest, P.J., J.B. Robertson and B.A. Lewis. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci., 74: 3583-3597. Wahid, A. 1990. Dietary composition and nutritional status of sheep and goats grazing two rangeland types in Balochistan, Pakistan. Ph.D Thesis. Oregon State University. Webb, W., S. Szarek, W. Lauenroth, R. Kinerson and M. Smith. 1978. Primary productivity and water use in native forest, grassland and desert ecosystems. Ecol., 59: 1239-1247. Westfall, R.H., G.K. Theron and N. Rooyen. 1997. Objective Classification and analysis of vegetation data. Plant Ecol., 132: 137-154. Wilson, A.D., J.H. Leigh, N.L. Hindley and W.E. Mulham. 1995. Comparison of the diets of goats and sheep on a Easuarina cristata-Heterodendrram oleifolium woodland community in Western New South Wales. Aust. J. Exp. Agri. Anim. Husb., 15: 45-53. Wu, Z.F., S. Zhao and X. Zhang. 1994. Studies on interrelation between salt vegetation and soil salinity in the Yellow River delta. Acta Phytoecol. Sin., 18(2): 184-193. Younas, M and M. Yaqoob. 2005. Feed resources of livestock in the Punjab, Pakistan. Availible online at http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd17/2/youn17018.htm (Accessed on December 15, 2011). Yvan, O. and Z. Tessema. 2005. An assessment of grazing lands potentialities in Ordola surroundings (Erer districts) of Shinile Zone. Handicap International, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia, pp. 75.

170

SUMMARY AND CONSERVATION STRATEGY CHAPTER 6

The rangelands of Cholistan Desert has their own importance and specific characteristics with respect to plant resources that are confronted with multiple stresses like prolonged droughts, high temperature, low humidity, increased salinity, enhanced grazing pressure and vegetation cutting for firewood and other uses. Because of these and other hazards, the potential of these rangelands is continuously decreasing especially the diversity of grasses is under severe threat. Therefore, this study was planned to investigate the productivity potential of grasses and to devise a conservation strategy based on findings. Present study was conducted during 2009-2010 in Cholistan desert with the aim to studying the floristic composition, vegetation structure, biomass production, carrying capacity, palatability and nutritional evaluation of grass species.

The results of this study are summarized below  The study revealed that 27 grass species comprised of 16 genera were identified. The documented grasses were comprised of 13 annuals species and 14 perennials species. Therophyte was the dominant life form followed by hemicryptophyte and phanerophyte. This was well in accordance of climate of area. Abundance of grasses showed that 06 grass species were found to be very common, 14 were common and 07 species were rare.  Two phenological seasons were recognized from the Cholistan desert. First season started from February and ended in May while second phenological season was from August to December. It was observed that maximum grasses were found to be following the second spell because of monsoon rain.  Based on economic use classification it was observed that all 27 grasses were being used as forage/fodder while 05 species were used as medicine in the investigated area.  Twenty grass communities were identified from selected range sites based on phytosociological study. However, multivariate analysis has produce three major vegetation groups i.e. interdunal, sandunal and clayey saline group.  The physio-chemical analysis of soil showed that distribution of vegetation in Cholistan desert was governed by soil pH, Ec, moisture, organic matter sodium, potassium and phosphorus.

171

 There was high dry biomass production in wet season as compared to dry season. Grasses were the major source for livestock feed that support animal productivity in the wet season. However, in the dry season, these grasses can hardly maintain the animal feed requirements as most of the feed resources at this time of the year are low in quantity. Thus, the rainfall appeared to be a most important factor influencing the biomass production of grasses as compared to any other factor such as soil, overgrazing and harsh climatic conditions that influence the plant growth and ultimately leading to poor biomass production.  Grazing status of range sites showed that maximum sites during dry season were found to be overgrazed while in wet season maximum were moderately grazed. On the other hand, sites having high biomass production during wet season were also observed to be moderately grazed.  Following the biomass productivity of grasses, overall carrying capacity of rangelands of Cholistan desert was 24.2 ha/AU/y during dry season and 17.25 ha/AU/y in wet season. However, stocking rate varied from 0.041 AU/ha/y in dry season to 0.057AU/ha/y in wet season. Result showed that biomass production of grasses was very low that lead to poor carrying capacity.  In this study, degree of palatability showed that all the identified grass species were palatable. Out of which 18 grass species were highly palatable while 07 were moderately palatable and 02 were less palatable species. Among 27 palatable grass species 25 species (92.6%) were used by goats, 26 species (96.3%) were used by sheep and cattle, and camel were using only 07 grass species (25.9 %). It was noted that flower and fruit parts of grasses were grazed in 14 species (51.8 %) and 08 species (29.6 %) respectively, whereas in 26 species (96.3%) leaves were used and in 23 species (85.1%) stem parts were grazed.  Nutritional evaluation consisting of chemical, structural, and mineral analysis of major range grasses was conducted. Results showed that all the selected grass species were deficient in their nutrients and remained fail to meet the animal requirements for optimum livestock production in Cholistan rangelands.

172

6.2 CONSERVATION STRATEGY

The word conservation is defined by the World Conservation Strategy (IUCN 1980) as “the management of human use of the biosphere, so that it may yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations”.

Human impact on the earth and its resources has increased at an unprecedented rate with every decade in the last two centuries and during every year in the most recent decades (Anonymous, 1991). During the last 100 years, species are under extreme threat to extinction because of human activities. It has been estimated that if this trend continues, about 60,000 plant species will become threatened and may slide towards extinction during our lifetime (Ali, 2000). Hence, it is necessary to identify important components of biodiversity and identify priorities, which may need to adopt special conservation measures. Cholistan desert being one of the largest deserts of Pakistan is continuously losing its productive potential. Thus, it is a dire need of the day that immediate measures should be taken for restoration and rehabilitation of degrading rangelands of this area and uplifting the socioeconomic conditions of local people. On the other hand, vegetation of Cholistan is also under severe threats of degradation and deterioration that ultimately result in the poor livestock production. Human impact on land results in the reduction of renewable resources of Cholistan. Almost 100 plant species in Cholistan desert have become endangered (Arshad et al., 2009). Hence, it is essential to point out the important prospects of biodiversity of Cholistan desert and identify priorities, which need some special attention for conservative measures.

Based on our results about vegetation studies, observations and survey made during field study, the following conservative measures are suggested to reduce the degradation process in the rangelands of Cholistan desert and to reduce the threats faced by the grass flora. The conservation strategy is principally divided into two categories.

6.2.1 IN-SITU CONSERVATION STRATEGIES These conservative measures are further sub categorized as follows: SPECIES-SPECIFIC CONSERVATION STRATEGIES (a) Grass species such as Aristida mutabilis, Cenchrus prieurii, Panicum antidotale, Enneapogon desvauxii, Eragrostis spp, Saccharum bengalence and Tragus racemosus have

173

extremely small population size and are habitat specific. Their habitats are extremely fragile and threatened. Therefore, active measures (population management, habitat restoration) must be adapted on urgent basis to conserve these grasses within their habitats.

(b) The preferences of livestock differ by species, by parts and by phenological stage of plants. There is a great need to allow mixture of livestock so that grazing pressure on preferred grass species should be reduced. Rotational grazing particularly during non-flowering season might give a chance to vegetation to produce foliage and seeds

(c) Based on our observations, it is concluded that the rangelands of Cholistan are heavily grazed, which is negatively affecting its biomass production especially during dry season. Overgrazing not only cause soil deterioration, but it is also responsible for the removal of palatable grass species and open the ways for destructive erosion which is observed everywhere in the investigated parts of the rangeland. Grazing and over-exploitation by local people and seasonal visitors has also caused degradation of palatable range flora. Moreover, it is suggested that proper stocking rate during the growing season along with introduction of high yielding livestock breeds can help to cut down the grazing pressure and thus regarded as compulsory measures to improve productivity.

(d) Deforestation is a direct and major cause for habitat destruction and devastates flora and fauna in all over the Cholistan desert. Therefore, it is necessary to provide the local people with alternative energy resource in order to lower down the deforestation rate.

(e) Uprooting of plant species should be strictly banned as it kill the plant forever.

(f) Permanent monitoring system should be established in order to measure the fluctuations in the conservation status of local vegetation.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

(a) In order to minimize biodiversity loss in the Cholistan desert, management of plant resources may not be only focused but economic alternatives and opportunities be provided to local people, which will help to uplift their socioeconomic conditions and will discourage them for over-exploitation of plant resources.

(b) Due to over exploitation of natural vegetation most of the habitats and plant resources has reached close to extinction. Therefore, there is an urgent need to promote the ethics of

174 conservation and improvement of vegetation to be managed for future generation.

(c) During present study, it has been observed that the vegetation of Cholistan desert is under massive biotic pressure of grazing, browsing and illegal cutting. These anthropogenic activities have been remained to be a continuous threat for indigenous plant species of Cholistan desert. Based on our findings it is recommended that species with lower IVI values should be provided immediate measures for their proper conservation and those with high IVI values need monitoring to preserve their diversity. The resul ts of current multivariate study provide strong clue about the importance of future management of the vegetation and its associated environmental settings.

(d) Based on results, the selected grass species have been considered as deficient and nutritionally poor. It might be due to harsh climatic conditions, over grazing, poor soil and exploitation of nutritious grasses for various purposes. The data presented in current study provide an indication of existing nutritional status of major grass species. Therefore, it is suggested that besides improving the fertility of soil and vegetation of rangeland, the ruminant also require some supplementary source of minerals particularly when forage quantity and quality is reduced below the required level. In view of the nutritive value of grasses, artificial reseeding using nutritious species is needed in grazing reserves where they would supply the required nutritional requirements and readily provide vitamins and mineral elements to local livestock, particularly in the dry season.

(e) Present study has indicated that grasses of Cholistan desert are very important from economic point of view but their over exploitation is degrading them gradually. High forage value of these grasses has regarded this area to be a valuable rangeland. In order to conserve them, immediate management measures should be taken, such as artificial reseeding, complete ban on illegal harvesting and planned grazing system etc. Moreover, it is suggested that the grass having medicinal values should be explored on scientific basis.

(f) Shifting sand dune is a widespread phenomenon in the whole desert particularly near human habitations. The sand dunes can be stabilized by means of planting native vegetation. This practice will preserve the shifting sand dunes, however, by fixing barriers in parallel strips starting from the crest to the flat of the dunes will also protect the seedlings from burial or exposure by the blowing of sand. The two species commonly used for making “brush-wood

175

barriers” (small windbreaks) are Crotalaria burhia and Zizyphus nummularia. The indigenous trees may be very successful in the stabilization of sand dunes. The other trees include Prosopis cineraria, Zizyphus jujuba and Zizyphus mauritiana. These species are well adapted to the harsh environment of the desert and are highly drought resistant. Besides this, these species can also provide fodder and fuel wood for the desert people. Grasses like Lasiurus sindicus and Panicum turgidum and shrubs like Calligonum polygonoides, Cassia italica and Zizyphus nummularia are also useful to provide protection against erosion.

6.2.2 EX-SITU CONSERVATION STRATEGIES

SPECIES-SPECIFIC CONSERVATION STRATEGIES

(a) All the critically endangered grass species such as Aristida mutabilis, Enneapogon desvauxii, Tragus racemosus and Panicum antidotale should be planted and conserve in the botanical gardens.

(b) Seed Bank should be established in order to preserve the germplasm.

(c) Construction of Biodiversity Park where native flora and fauna of Cholistan desert should be protected in the natural state.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

(a) Developmental activities should be planned on sustainable basis in order to reduce loss of biodiversity.

(b) According to the author's observations based on study estimates, most of the population of Cholistan desert uses firewood for domestic purposes. Hence, it is extremely necessary to provide alternate energy resources, in order to minimize pressure on the range resources.

(c) In order to reduce erosion, reforestation campaigns should be started using Pakistan army throughout the Cholistan especially in lesser Cholistan. This will not only reduce wind erosion but will also provide sufficient amount of firewood for the locals in future.

(d) In Cholistan desert, resources are freely utilized by everybody in wild. There is no legislation or effective policy for sustainable use of the plant sources in the valley. A rangeland authoritative body is needed to be established to implement the policy regarding plant resource use.

176

(e) Training of local community in modern techniques for livestock farming.

(f) Public should be educated and awareness may be created to make them realize about the devastating effects after the loss of biodiversity loss. For this purpose seminars in local language, film shows and distribution of literature should be arranged by the government and NGOs. Efforts should be made to make the public realize that unsustainable use of plant wealth either in the form of cutting/chopping, grazing or medicinal plant collection may be beneficial for few days but extremely harmful for future and the loss is irreversible.

(g) Assessment should be carried out on the remaining "Data Deficient” species subsequently, further fieldwork is necessary in order to have comprehensive evaluation and implementation.

(h) The continuous monitoring of status of biodiversity of the Cholistan desert is the need of the hours to maintain its ecological role. In this regard, efforts for their conservation should also be taken into account.

(i) The quantitative loss of vegetation should be evaluated to prevent further degradation of this rangeland. This will not only be helpful for future planning but will also contribute in stopping/checking the process of desertification.

(j) There are several institutions such as Cholistan Development Authority (CDA) and Pakistan Council for Water Recourses (PCRWR) working on pastoral resource conservation in Cholistan desert. Both of these organizations perceive lack of any national policy on rangelands. This should be considered the immediate step to overcome this problem. So there is an urgent need of comprehensive national range policy which shall be implementing immediately.

(k) The bad distribution of water points (Tobas) also results overgrazing in those areas around the water points thus degrading the resources. Therefore, there is a dire need to not only construct new water points (Tobas) but also manage the old ones.

(l) Provision of social facilities including health centers and schools, which help in reducing impoverishment of the pastoralist communities.

(m) The l ocal peoples of Cholistan desert use to have large number of animal, which i s highl y risky. To reduce the threat of unexpected animal death due to disease and feed shortage, provide the facilities to peoples i.e. improved health care for their animals and good marketi ng opportunities in their localities or nearby areas should be created to save the

177 peoples from loss. They should be educated to keep less number of livestock so that pressure on the rangel and may be decreased. (n) The rangel and can be used as game reserve f or i ncome regenerati on that can be used f or its development. (o) The rangelands of Cholistan desert have good potential for ecotourism due to its historical background, soil, topography, unique flora and fauna. Therefore, government should take necessary measures to introduce ecotourism and devel op an additional source of income. (p) Wild burning of “ Khar” (Heloxylon recurvum) should be immediately stopped through Cholistan development authority because this species is a food for camel and a good hiding pl ace for soil fauna. CONCLUSION The key factors responsible for desertification in Cholistan desert are extreme cl i mati c conditions, prolong droughts, overgrazi ng, deforestation, poor practi ces of farming and soil erosion. Poverty together with quickly increasing population exacerbates these problems. These ci rcumstances has strengthened the land degradation process and ultimatel y provide l osses to the productive potential of the rangeland and leading to more frequent famines, poor soico- economic conditions, increased pastoral and social unrest in the affected areas of the Cholistan desert. On the other hand rangelands of Cholistan desert has ample flora which is supporting a huge population of humans and livestock. Besides, there are sufficient native species which have remarkabl e medi ci nal and other mul ti f ari ous uses. Peopl e of Chol i stan desert have two basi c requi rements (i.e. fodder and fuel wood) which they extract with as per their necessity whereas, development activities are causing more pressure on natural resource base resulting in ecological destruction of the desert ecosystem and enhancing desertification. Theref ore, conservation and rehabilitation measures are immediately required to protect the microhabitats as well as biological diversity.

178

6.3 REFERENCES

Arshad, M., N. Sarwar, M.Y.Ashraf,M. Hameed, N. Naz, M. Ahmad. 2009. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on “COMPATIBLE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE" (ISCCC).

Ali, S.l., 2000. Impact of Environmental degradation on Biodiversity. In; Proceedings of Pakistan academy science. 37(1):pp.93-97.

Anonynous, 1991. The Pakistan national conservation strategy GOP/JRC_IUCN Pakistan.

IUCN, 1980. World Conservation Strategy. International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland.

179

PLATE 6.1(A,B,C,D) SHOWING MAJOR THREATS TO CHOLISTAN DESERT

(a) Soil erosion (b) Illegal cutting

180

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I. NAME AND GEOGRAPHICAL ASPECTS OF STUDY SITES

Sr. No. Name of Site Coordinates Elevation Topography

1 Khavetal N:29o 09.165' E:072o00.806' 372 ft Interdunal 2 Thandi khoe N:29 o10.374' E:072o09.437' 400 ft Interdunal 3 Mansoora N:29 o 23.476' E:071o39.585' 406 ft Clayey 4 Khirser N:29 o 05.052' E:072o09.934' 392 ft Sandunal 5 Mouj garh N:29 o 01.169' E:072o08.678 401 ft Interdunal 6 Dingarh N:29 o 03.864' E:072o04.880' 377 ft Interdunal 7 Chah nagra N:29 o 00.265' E:071o49.399' 372 ft Interdunal 8 Khanser N:28 o 56.891' E:071o49.329' 343 ft Sandunal 9 Jinde wala toba N:28 o59.356' E:071o53.135' 347 ft Interdunal 10 Qila derawer N:28 o 34.326' E:071o11.999' 323 ft Sandunal 11 Toba sawan wala N:28 º57.848' E:072º06.691' 410 ft Interdunal 12 Kora khu N:28 º54.652' E:071º40.800' 313 ft Clayey 13 Chah bari wala toba N:28 º52.232' E:071º42.781' 342 ft Interdunal 14 Dhori N:28 º44.192' E:071º46.441' 351 ft Interdunal 15 Khokharawala toba N:28 º55.450' E:071º47.209' 355 ft Interdunal 16 Bari wala N:28 º51.425' E:071º43.728' 374 ft Interdunal 17 Channan pir N:28 º50.672' E:071º25.324' 324 ft Clayey 18 Channan pir N:28 º47.292' E:071º21.299' 301 ft Interdunal 19 Qila derawer N:28 º42.346' E071º17.862 310 ft Clayey 20 Qemma wala Toba N:28 º34.919' E:071º11.999' 459 ft Sandunal

181

APPENDIX II. LIFE FORM ALONG WITH LIFE SPAN AND ECOLOGICAL AVAILABILITY OF GRASSES

Sr. No. Name of grass species Life form Life span Availability

1 Aeluropus lagopoides (L.) Hemicryptophyte Perennial Common

2 Aristida adscensionis Linn. Therophyte Annual Common

3 Aristida funiculata Trin. & Rupr. Therophyte Annual Common

4 Aristida hystricula Edgew. Hemicryptophyte Annual Common

5 Aristida mutabilis Trin & Rupr. Therophyte Annual Rare

6 Cenchrus biflorus Roxb. Hemicryptophyte Annual Common

7 Cenchrus ciliaris Linn. Therophyte Perennial V. common

8 Cenchrus prieurii (Kunth.) Maire. Hemicryptophyte Annual Rare

9 Cenchrus setigerus Vahl. Hemicryptophyte Perennial Common

10 Cymbopogon jwarancusa (Jones.) Schult Hemicryptophyte Perennial V. common

11 Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers Hemicryptophyte Perennial common

12 Enneapogon desvauxii P. Beauv Therophyte Annual Rare

13 Eragrostis barrelieri Dav. Therophyte Annual Common

14 Eragrostis ciliaris (Linn.) R. Br. Therophyte Annual Common

15 Eragrostis japonica (Thumb.) Trin. Therophyte Annual Common

16 Eragrostis minor Therophyte Annual Common

17 Eragrostis spp. Therophyte Annual Rare

18 Lasiurus scindicus Henrard. Phanerophyte Perennial V. common

19 Leptothrium senegalense (Kunth.) W. D. Calayton. Therophyte Annual Common

20 Ochthochloa compressa (Forsskal.) Hemicryptophyte Perennial V. common

21 Panicum turgidum Forsskal Phanerophyte Perennial Common

22 Panicum antidotale Retz. Hemicryptophyte Perennial Rare

23 Pennisetum divisum (J. Gmel) Henrard. Hemicryptophyte Perennial V. common

24 Saccharum bengalence Retz Hemicryptophyte Perennial Rare

25 Sporobolus iocladus (Nees. Ex. Trin.) Nees. Hemicryptophyte Perennial Common

26 Stipagrostis plumosa (Linn.) Munro ex. T. Anderson Therophyte Perennial V. common

27 Tragus racemosus (Linn.) All Therophyte Annual Rare

182

APPENDIX III. CLASSIFICTAION OF GRASSES BASED ON ECONOMIC USES Sr. No. GRASS SPECIES Medicinal value Forage value 1 Aeluropus lagopoides( Linn) Trin .ex.Thw - + 2 Aristida adscensionis L. - + 3 Aristida funiculata Trin.&Rupr. - + 4 Aristida hystricula (Edgew) - + 5 Aristida mutabilis Trin.&Rupr. - + 6 Cenchrus biflorus (Roxb) - + 7 Cenchrus ciliaris (linn.) - + 8 Cenchrus prieurii ( Kunth. )A Marie - + 9 Cenchrus setigerous Vahl. - + 10 Cymbopogon jwarancusa (Jones.)schult + + 11 Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. + + 12 Enneapogon desvauxii P.Beauv. - + 13 Eragrostis barrelieri Dav. - + 14 Eragrostis ciliaris (Linn.) R. Br - + 15 Eragrostis japonica (Thumb.) Trin. - + 16 Eragrostis minor - + 17 Eragrostis spp. - + 18 Lasiurus scindicus Henrard + + 19 Leptothrium senegalense (kunth)W.DClayton - + 20 Ochthochloa compressa (Forsskal.)Hilu - + 21 Panicum turgidum Forssk - + 22 Panicum antidotale Retz. + + 23 Pennisetum divisum (J.Gmel.). Henrard - + 24 Saccharum bengalence Retz - + 25 Sporobolus iocladus (Nees. Ex. Trin.) Nees. + + 26 Stipagrostis plumosa (Linn.)Munro.ex T. Anderson - + 27 Tragus racemosus (Linn.)All - +

183

APPENDIX IV. LEVEL OF FORAGE VALUE OF GRASS SPECIES

Sr. No. GRASS SPECIES FORAGE VALUE High Medium Low 1 Aeluropus lagopoides( Linn) Trin .ex.Thw + - - 2 Aristida adscensionis L. + - - 3 Aristida funiculata Trin.&Rupr. - + - 4 Aristida hystricula (Edgew) - + - 5 Aristida mutabilis Trin.&Rupr. - + - 6 Cenchrus biflorus (Roxb) + - - 7 Cenchrus ciliaris (linn.) + - - 8 Cenchrus prieurii ( Kunth. )A Marie + - - 9 Cenchrus setigerous Vahl. + - - 10 Cymbopogon jwarancusa (Jones.)schult - - + 11 Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. + - - 12 Enneapogon desvauxii P.Beauv. + - - 13 Eragrostis barrelieri Dav. + - - 14 Eragrostis ciliaris (Linn.) R. Br + - - 15 Eragrostis japonica (Thumb.) Trin. + - - 16 Eragrostis minor + - - 17 Eragrostis spp. + - - 18 Lasiurus scindicus Henrard + - - 19 Leptothrium senegalense (kunth)W.DClayton - + - 20 Ochthochloa compressa (Forsskal.)Hilu - + - 21 Panicum turgidum Forssk + - - 22 Panicum antidotale Retz. - + - 23 Pennisetum divisum (J.Gmel.). Henrard + - - 24 Saccharum bengalence Retz - - + 25 Sporobolus iocladus (Nees. Ex. Trin.) Nees. - + - 26 Stipagrostis plumosa (Linn.)Munro.ex T. Anderson + - - 27 Tragus racemosus (Linn.)All + - -

184

APPENDIX V. PALATABILITY CLASSES OF GRASS SPECIES

Sr. No. GRASS SPECIES PALATABILITY CLASS HP MP LP NP 1 Aeluropus lagopoides( Linn) Trin .ex.Thw + - - - 2 Aristida adscensionis L. - + - - 3 Aristida funiculata Trin.&Rupr. - + - - 4 Aristida hystricula (Edgew) - + - - 5 Aristida mutabilis Trin.&Rupr. + - - - 6 Cenchrus biflorus (Roxb) - + - - 7 Cenchrus ciliaris (linn.) + - - - 8 Cenchrus prieurii ( Kunth. )A Marie + - - - 9 Cenchrus setigerous Vahl. + - - - 10 Cymbopogon jwarancusa (Jones.)schult - - + - 11 Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. + - - - 12 Enneapogon desvauxii P.Beauv. + - - - 13 Eragrostis barrelieri Dav. + - - - 14 Eragrostis ciliaris (Linn.) R. Br + - - - 15 Eragrostis japonica (Thumb.) Trin. + - - - 16 Eragrostis minor + - - - 17 Eragrostis spp. + - - - 18 Lasiurus scindicus Henrard + - - - 19 Leptothrium senegalense (kunth)W.DClayton - + - - 20 Ochthochloa compressa (Forsskal.)Hilu + - - - 21 Panicum turgidum Forssk + - - - 22 Panicum antidotale Retz. - + - - 23 Pennisetum divisum (J.Gmel.). Henrard + - - - 24 Saccharum bengalence Retz - - + - 25 Sporobolus iocladus (Nees. Ex. Trin.) Nees. - + - - 26 Stipagrostis plumosa (Linn.)Munro.ex T. Anderson + - - - 27 Tragus racemosus (Linn.)All + - - - Key: HP=Highly palatable, MP= Moderately palatable, LP=Less palatable, NP=Non-palatable

185

APPENDIX VI. PARTS OF GRASS SPECIES USED BY GRAZING ANIMALS

Sr. No. GRASS SPECIES PARTS USED Leaves Shoot Flowers Fruits 1 Aeluropus lagopoides( Linn) Trin .ex.Thw + + + - 2 Aristida adscensionis L. + + + + 3 Aristida funiculata Trin.&Rupr. + + - - 4 Aristida hystricula (Edgew) - + - - 5 Aristida mutabilis Trin.&Rupr. + + - - 6 Cenchrus biflorus (Roxb) + + + - 7 Cenchrus ciliaris (linn.) + + + + 8 Cenchrus prieurii ( Kunth. )A Marie + + + - 9 Cenchrus setigerous Vahl. + + + + 10 Cymbopogon jwarancusa (Jones.)schult + + - - 11 Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. + + + - 12 Enneapogon desvauxii P.Beauv. + + + - 13 Eragrostis barrelieri Dav. + + - - 14 Eragrostis ciliaris (Linn.) R. Br + + - - 15 Eragrostis japonica (Thumb.) Trin. + + - - 16 Eragrostis minor0 + + - - 17 Eragrostis spp. + + - - 18 Lasiurus scindicus Henrard + + + + 19 Leptothrium senegalense (kunth)W.DClayton + + - - 20 Ochthochloa compressa (Forsskal.)Hilu + + + - 21 Panicum turgidum Forssk + - + + 22 Panicum antidotale Retz. + - + + 23 Pennisetum divisum (J.Gmel.). Henrard + + + - 24 Saccharum bengalence Retz + - - - 25 Sporobolus iocladus (Nees. Ex. Trin.) Nees. + - - + 26 Stipagrostis plumosa (Linn.)Munro.ex T. Anderson + + - + 27 Tragus racemosus (Linn.)All + + + -

186

APPENDIX VII. PREFERENCE OF GRASS SPECIES BY GRAZING ANIMALS

Sr. No. GRASS SPECIES GRAZING ANIMALS CATTLE GOAT SHEEP CAMEL 1 Aeluropus lagopoides( Linn) Trin .ex.Thw + + + - 2 Aristida adscensionis L. + + + - 3 Aristida funiculata Trin.&Rupr. - + + - 4 Aristida hystricula (Edgew) + + + - 5 Aristida mutabilis Trin.&Rupr. + + + - 6 Cenchrus biflorus (Roxb) + + + - 7 Cenchrus ciliaris (linn.) + + + - 8 Cenchrus prieurii ( Kunth. )A Marie + + + + 9 Cenchrus setigerous Vahl. + + + + 10 Cymbopogon jwarancusa (Jones.)schult + - + - 11 Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. + + + - 12 Enneapogon desvauxii P.Beauv. + + + - 13 Eragrostis barrelieri Dav. + + + - 14 Eragrostis ciliaris (Linn.) R. Br + + + - 15 Eragrostis japonica (Thumb.) Trin. + + + - 16 Eragrostis minor + + + - 17 Eragrostis spp. + + + - 18 Lasiurus scindicus Henrard + + + - 19 Leptothrium senegalense (kunth)W.DClayton + + + + 20 Ochthochloa compressa (Forsskal.)Hilu + + + + 21 Panicum turgidum Forssk + + + + 22 Panicum antidotale Retz. + + + + 23 Pennisetum divisum (J.Gmel.). Henrard + + + + 24 Saccharum bengalence Retz + - - - 25 Sporobolus iocladus (Nees. Ex. Trin.) Nees. + + + - 26 Stipagrostis plumosa (Linn.)Munro.ex T. Anderson + + + - 27 Tragus racemosus (Linn.)All + + + -

187

APPENDIXVIII. PALATABILITY CLASSIFICATIONS OF GRASS SPECIES ON THE BASIS OF DEGREE OF PALATABILITY, ANIMAL PREFERENCES AND PART USED BY ANIMALS.

Number of species Percentage

Palatability class

Highly palatable 18 66.6

Moderately palatable 7 25.9

Less palatable 2 7.4

Non palatable 0 0

Animal preferences

Cattle 26 96.3

Goat 25 92.6

Sheep 26 96.3

Camel 7 25.9

Parts used

Leaves 26 96.3

Stem 23 85.1

Flower 14 51.8

Fruit 8 29.6

188