Abstract
Abstract. The article presents the results of R&D and new units for the restoration of degraded mountain areas. The purpose of the study is the accelerated restoration of the natural phytocenosis and the implementation of measures to improve meadows using these aggregates. The object of the study is the technologies and units developed by the authors for the following operations: cutting bumps, raking stones, sowing grass mixtures with the simultaneous application of mineral fertilizers. The research objectives included: determining the initial floristic composition of a degraded mountain meadow; assessment of the impact of events and agricultural practices on the change in the floristic composition of the grass stand, its productivity and energy intensity; identification of the effectiveness of the application of the developed units when sowing herbs in turf and targeted application of mineral fertilizers. The novelty of the technical solution lies in the fact that new resource-saving methods have been developed to improve mountain fodder land using small-sized universal units. . The tests were carried out at a mountain hospital located on the southeastern exposition of the Dargavskiy depression of the North Ossetia-Alania, at an altitude of 1650 m above sea level with a slope of 10°, in six plots, with a recorded area of 360 m2. Three options in triplicate. The first option is natural seeding, and the second is grass seeding by the aggregate, the third option is grass seeding and low doses of N60P45K20 fertilizers. The plots are located across the slope randomized. It was found that at a concentration of 17.2 MJ of energy in 1 kg of dry matter of feed, the total collection in the control plot was 29.7 GJ, and in the seeded experimental field – 85.3 GJ; the crop of the aboveground fodder mass, when sowing grasses, in the first year of observations amounted to 21.8 c/ha of dry weight, which is 3 times higher than in the control. During the growing season of the third year of observations, the yield in the sown area was 39.2 c/ha of dry weight against 19.3 c/ha in the control.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
