Daily and Seasonal Forage Availability Under Rotational Grazing of a Mixed-Species Temperate Pasture

Kanneganti, V. R.; Walgenbach, R. P.; Massingill, L. J.

doi:10.1300/j064v12n02_05

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While fire often reduces the abundance of cool-season grasses (Bowles et al, 2003), during certain growth stages and moisture conditions burning can promote the growth of cool-season grasses such as Poa pratensis and Bromus imermis (Zedler and Loucks, 1969;Willson and Stubbendieck, 1997). Even when management does not change, grassland production varies by season and year (Kanneganti et al, 1998;Clapham et al, 2008). Our results reflect the complexity of grassland responses to disturbance as reported in the literature.…”

Section: Aboveground Net Primary Productionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Effects of Native Grass Restoration Management on Above- and Belowground Pasture Production and Forage Quality

Doll

Brink

Cates

et al. 2009

Journal of Sustainable Agriculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multifunctional agricultural landscapes and the ecosystem services they provide are gaining more attention. One example of this is the reintroduction of native species to cool-season grassland agroecosystems managed for livestock production. While such projects have potential ecological and agronomic benefits, there is little information on how restoration management affects pasture production and quality. The objective of this study was to determine how management to establish native warm-season grasses into temperate pastures affects forage production and quality. We tested this over three years (2004 through 2006) using a field experiment with combinations of disturbance (burning and grazing), soil amendments (ambient, nitrogen, and carbon), and native grass seeding times (fall and spring). We measured aboveground net primary production (ANPP), belowground net primary production (BNPP), and two forage quality parameters-neutral detergent fiber and in vitro neutral detergent fiber digestibility. For ANPP, there was a significant disturbance ´ soil amendment interaction effect in each year, but the nature of the interaction varied by year. In 2005, plots where nitrogen was applied had 513 lower BNPP than carbon and ambient plots. In 2006, burned plots had greater BNPP than grazed plots. For each level of disturbance, over 50% of the variability in the forage quality parameters was attributed to non-management variables, such as season. Our results showed no consistent effect of restoration management on pasture production or quality. They highlight the complexity of grassland agroecosystems and demonstrate the importance of evaluating the variability of treatment effects over time.

show abstract

Section: Aboveground Net Primary Productionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Effects of Native Grass Restoration Management on Above- and Belowground Pasture Production and Forage Quality

Doll

Brink

Cates

et al. 2009

Journal of Sustainable Agriculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At other times of year the dry temperate and foothill pastures represent key forage resources reducing the need for additional (stored or bought) feed. In the dry temperate range type, gradual accumulation of biomass between spring and autumn indicated under-use during the growing season (when the livestock were in the alpine pastures), as found in any system when pastures are rested from grazing (Kanneganti et al, 1998). The higher NPP within the dry temperate range type only during spring might reflect increased soil moisture at this time from snowmelt, allowing early new growth before the hot, dry summer and autumn.…”

Section: Wider Applicability Of Our Data Across Other Yearsmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…However, few studies have quantified the seasonal dynamics of these systems and none have been carried out in northern Pakistan, where transhumance is the main form of livestock management and is critical for the livelihoods of the people (AKRSP, 1997(AKRSP, , 2000Parvez, 2000;Ehlers and Kreutzmann, 2000). Results from other parts of the world have shown that vegetation quantity and quality can change significantly between different seasons and play a key role in determining herbivore performance (Albon and Langvatn, 1992;Willms et al, 1996;Kanneganti et al, 1998;Shinde et al, 1998). In the Northern Areas of Pakistan, livestock experience on average 40% feed deficiency during the 7-8 months of winter (Khan, 1991;Rahman, 2002;Rahman et al, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seasonal changes in pasture biomass, production and offtake under the transhumance system in northern Pakistan

Omer

Hester²,

Gordon³

et al. 2006

Journal of Arid Environments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Total yield, however, is not the only criterion for evaluating the potential benefits of increased biodiversity in grazing lands. Seasonal distribution of yield, amount and costs of inputs needed to achieve maximum yield (Ruz‐Jerez et al, 1991; Kanneganti et al, 1998), as well as nonagronomic benefits (e.g., improved wildlife habitat) from increased biodiversity must also be considered (Table 1)…”

Section: Plant Diversity and Ecosystem Functionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plant Species Diversity and Management of Temperate Forage and Grazing Land Ecosystems

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More than a century since Charles Darwin stated that diverse grasslands produce more herbage than monocultures, scientists still debate the relationship between species diversity and ecosystem function. Postulated benefits of diversity in experimental grasslands include greater and more stable primary production along with more efficient nutrient use. These benefits have been extrapolated to forage and grazing land systems with little supporting objective data. Most information on the potential benefits of increased plant diversity comes from studies of synthesized grasslands that have not included domestic grazing animals. We explore this debate relative to the management of temperate forage and grazing lands. Plant species diversity refers to the number of species (richness) and their relative abundance (evenness) within a defined area. Plant relations influence biodiversity responses through positive (e.g., facilitation, N2 fixation, hydraulic lift) and negative interactions (e.g., competitive exclusion, allelopathy). Early 20th century research on complex mixtures of forage species (limited to grasses and legumes) for pasture indicated equivocal results regarding benefits of species‐rich mixtures and typically recommended using the best adapted species in simple grass–legume mixtures. Recent research indicates potential herbage yield benefits from species‐rich mixtures for pastures. Limited animal productivity research on species‐rich mixtures indicates variable responses and much more research is needed. Grazing land productivity is a primary focus for biodiversity benefits because of the direct economic relevance to producers. However, taking a broader view of the multifunctionality of grazing lands to include environmental and aesthetic benefits to humans reveals a great scope for using biodiversity in grazing land management.

show abstract

Daily and Seasonal Forage Availability Under Rotational Grazing of a Mixed-Species Temperate Pasture

Cited by 6 publications

References 13 publications

Effects of Native Grass Restoration Management on Above- and Belowground Pasture Production and Forage Quality

Effects of Native Grass Restoration Management on Above- and Belowground Pasture Production and Forage Quality

Seasonal changes in pasture biomass, production and offtake under the transhumance system in northern Pakistan

Plant Species Diversity and Management of Temperate Forage and Grazing Land Ecosystems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About