## 3 Results
### Community Height, Coverage, and Density  
The variations of plant height, vegetation coverage, and plant density in relation to the enclosure duration are given as bar charts in Figure 3. A comparison between the height of the plants inside and outside the enclosure showed that plants inside the enclosure were significantly higher than plants outside the enclosure. In the third year of the enclosure (F3), for example, plants inside were 189.50% higher than plants outside. After 9 years of the enclosure (F9), plants inside reached a height which was 4.5 times that of the plants outside the enclosure (Figure 3a). Overall, plant height inside the enclosure showed a slight decreasing trend until the fifth year and then a more prominent increasing trend, although statistical significance was not attached. The plant height inside the enclosure maximized in year F9, which was 32.26%, 47.17%, and 13.11% higher than previous years, respectively.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Species**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Enclosure Year**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**F3**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**F5**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**F7**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**F9**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **Inside** & **Outside** & **Inside** & **Outside** & **Inside** & **Outside** & **Inside** & **Outside** \\ \hline _Leymus chintensis_ & 14.80 & 12.38 & 20.40 & 10.39 & 24.84 & 9.41 & 30.87 & 3.55 \\ _Stipa bicaalensis_ & 5.44 & 3.23 & 6.38 & 3.69 & 6.88 & 1.44 & 7.39 & 2.79 \\ _Heterotypus altaicuc_ & 1.01 & 0.17 & 0.27 & 0.81 & 0.76 & - & 0.48 & - \\ _Thalictrum petaloideum_ & 1.82 & 0.99 & 0.69 & 2.70 & 0.31 & 0.07 & 0.78 & 0.66 \\ _Melissilus ruthenica_ & 5.64 & 2.23 & 0.49 & 0.96 & 0.03 & 1.25 & - & 1.34 \\ _Buplerum sorzemerifolium_ & 1.86 & 0.68 & 0.73 & 1.44 & 0.96 & - & 0.77 & 0.47 \\ _Artemisia frigida_ & 1.14 & 1.61 & 1.07 & 1.18 & 0.25 & 0.45 & 0.11 & 1.66 \\ _Potentilla bifurca_ & 0.92 & 1.00 & 0.27 & 2.08 & 1.26 & 2.47 & 1.30 & 1.93 \\ _Artemisia lucinitate_ & 7.99 & 9.34 & 7.86 & 7.12 & 8.98 & 0.68 & 7.34 & 5.26 \\ _Serrutula komarovii_ & 7.21 & 3.54 & 4.98 & 5.02 & 3.73 & 0.91 & 6.18 & 2.17 \\ _Galium vermum_ & 1.90 & 1.25 & 4.22 & 1.51 & 2.40 & - & 2.10 & - \\ _Carex peldiformis_ & 11.56 & 10.70 & 6.28 & 9.72 & 11.12 & 0.27 & 12.71 & 3.00 \\ _Adaponlor stanethina_ & 2.54 & 1.95 & 4.32 & 2.13 & 3.08 & 0.31 & 3.90 & 1.28 \\ _Carex duriuscula_ & 2.01 & 9.67 & 9.60 & 10.78 & 4.59 & 46.06 & 0.63 & 20.89 \\ _Palstilla turzaminovii_ & 6.47 & 3.99 & 6.69 & 11.35 & 2.82 & 0.16 & 2.93 & 4.69 \\ _Cleistogenes squurasa_ & 1.64 & 5.27 & 3.44 & 2.68 & 0.45 & 4.19 & 0.48 & 11.31 \\ _Adnathreum sibricum_ & 2.15 & - & 1.29 & 1.02 & 1.84 & 2.44 & 5.13 & 4.39 \\ _Iris ventricosa_ & 2.13 & 1.73 & 0.29 & 1.08 & 2.41 & 0.30 & - & - \\ _Thalictrum squurasum_ & 1.81 & 1.02 & 5.27 & 3.30 & 8.01 & 0.06 & 3.66 & - \\ _Koeleria cristata_ & - & 1.84 & - & 3.44 & 1.26 & 0.19 & - & 3.54 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: The importance values of major plant species inside and outside the enclosure, %.  
Figure 3: _Cont_.  
The enclosure also had a significant effect on the vegetation cover of the plant community. The plant coverage inside the enclosure was observed to be higher than that outside the enclosure by a margin of 115%, 25%, 50%, and 14% in years F3, F5, F7, and F9, respectively. As the duration of the enclosure increased, the coverage showed a temporal trend of first increasing and then decreasing, and the maximum coverage value was observed in year F7 (Figure 3b).  
No significant effect of the enclosure was found on plant density (Figure 3c), although density inside the enclosure was significantly lower than that outside the enclosure in year F7.