Spatial monitoring technologies for coupling the soil plant water animal nexus

Abstract

Systems-level studies aimed at determining how soil properties are linked to plant production and ultimately animal response spatially are lacking. This study aims to identify if grazing pressure is linked to soil properties, terrain attributes, and above-ground plant accumulation and nutritive value in a silvopastoral (or integrated tree-livestock) system. Overall, cattle prefer grazing native grasses (2.81 vs. 1.24 h ha−1 AU−1) and udic (dry) landscape positions compared to aquic (wet) areas (2.07 vs. 1.60 h ha−1 AU−1). Greater grazing frequency occurs in udic soils with greater phosphorus and potassium contents and with accumulated forage with less lignin (P ≤ 0.05), which correspond to reduced elevation and greater tree height and diameter (shade) during summer mob grazing. Combining spatial monitoring technologies (both soil and animal) with forage allowance can optimize grazing systems management and sustainability spatially and temporally.

Relationships among apparent electrical conductivity and plant and terrain data in an agroforestry system in the Ozark Highlands

“…During Summer 2018 and 2019, 4‐m 2 cattle exclosures, three for each of the 2017–2019 forage species‐fertility treatment combinations, were placed in alley centers to exclude forage areas from cattle grazing (Figure 1; Ashworth et al., 2022; Jiang et al., 2021; Niyigena et al., 2021). Two, 0.25‐m 2 forage total biomass subsamples were collected from each cattle exclosure on multiple occasions in 2018 and 2019 (Ashworth et al., 2022; Jiang et al., 2021; Niyigena et al., 2021). In 2018, forage biomass samples were collected on May 25 and June 4, 15, and 29.…”

“…On December 9, 2020, the diameter at breast height (DBH) of the trees were measured at 137 cm above the soil surface (Ashworth et al., 2022; Jiang et al., 2021). Additionally, a hand‐held clinometer (SS011096010; Suunto; Vantaa, Finland) was used 12.2 m from each tree trunk to measure the angle to the highest point on each tree on 15 March 2021.…”

“…In 2019, forage samples were collected on June 4 and 20 and July 3 ( n = 54 per timepoint). Forage samples were obtained by hand clipping aboveground biomass 6 cm above the soil surface (Ashworth et al., 2022; Jiang et al., 2021; Niyigena et al., 2021). Afterward, forage samples were geo‐referenced, weighed, oven‐dried at 70°C for 48 h, and reweighed for moisture content and dry matter determinations (Ashworth et al., 2022; Jiang et al., 2021; Niyigena et al., 2021).…”

“…The PRP EC a ranged from 1.8 to 18.0 mS m −1 and averaged 5.9 mS m −1 , while the HCP EC a ranged from 3.1 to 25.8 mS m −1 and averaged 9.9 mS m −1 (Figure 4). For both the PRP and HCP EC a , maximum EC a occurred within the local drainageway or areas of potential groundwater movement (Ashworth et al, 2022;Ylagan, 2022), which was characterized by the trail of elevated EC a that started in the northwest corner, peaked in the center (Rows 5 to 7), extended eastward, and dissipated toward the bottom middle of the site (Figures 1 and 4). The minimum EC a for both the PRP and HCP occurred within the areas of shallower depth to bedrock, increased coarse fragment abundance, and areas of erosion rather than deposition (Ylagan, 2022), which were characterized by reduced EC a occurring in the western/southwestern portion of the site (Figure 4).…”

Relationships Among Apparent Electrical Conductivity and Plant and Terrain Data in an Agroforestry System in the Ozark Highlands

“…On 9 December 2020, the diameter at breast height (DBH) of the trees were measured at 137 cm above the soil surface (Ashworth et al, 2022;Jiang et al, 2021). Additionally, a hand-held clinometer (SS011096010; Suunto; Vantaa, Finland) was used 12.2 m from each tree trunk to measure the angle to the highest point on each tree on 15 March 2021.…”