Influence of streambank fencing on vegetation and soil of the Mixed prairie component in a complex corridor pasture
-
Published:2018-12-01
Issue:4
Volume:98
Page:678-687
-
ISSN:0008-4271
-
Container-title:Canadian Journal of Soil Science
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Can. J. Soil. Sci.
Author:
Miller J.J.1, Curtis T.1, Willms W.D.1, Chanasyk D.S.2
Affiliation:
1. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 5403-1st Avenue South, Lethbridge, AB T1J 4B1, Canada. 2. Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Room 751, General Services Building, Edmonton, AB T6G 2H1, Canada.
Abstract
A 5 yr (2011–2015) field study was conducted to test the hypothesis that streambank fencing had a significant effect on selected vegetation and soil properties of the Mixed prairie component of a complex corridor pasture. The grazing treatments [ungrazed (UG) – periodic grazing (PG)] inside the corridor pasture were 11 yr (2001–2012) of cattle exclusion (UG), followed by 3 yr (2013–2015) of periodic grazing (PG) when the riparian soil was dry. A control treatment outside the fencing was continuous grazing (CG). Selected vegetation and soil properties were measured over the growing season at 10 paired locations in each treatment (nonreplicated) pasture over 5 yr (2011–2015), and rangeland health was measured in 2011. The UG–PG treatment significantly (P ≤ 0.10) increased the total biomass by 2- to 5-fold in all 5 yr compared with CG treatment and improved the rangeland health score of the UG phase of the UG–PG (63%) treatment compared with the CG treatment (50%) in 2011. It also significantly reduced surface soil temperature by 2.2–5.2 °C, significantly increased volumetric water content of the surface soil by 7%–10% in 3 of 5 yr, and significantly increased surface soil CO2 efflux (instantaneous) by 17%–60% in all 5 yr. Overall, the UG–PG treatment improved rangeland health, increased total biomass, soil water, and soil CO2 efflux of the Mixed prairie, but decreased soil temperature compared with the CG treatment. Excessive dead biomass, greater fire risk, and an increase in noxious weeds caused by cattle exclusion suggested that periodic grazing may be the preferred option.
Publisher
Canadian Science Publishing
Reference46 articles.
1. Adams, B.W., Ehlert, G., Stone, C., Alexander, M., Lawrence, D., Willoughby, M., Moisey, D., Hincz, C., and Burkinshaw, A. 2004. Range health assessment for grassland, forest and tame pasture. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Pub. T/044. Public Lands and Forests Division, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 2. Adams, B.W., Poulin-Klein, L., and Moisey, D. 2005. Range plant communities and range health assessment guidelines for the mixedgrass natural subregion of Alberta. Alberta Sustainable Development, Rangeland Management Branch, Public Lands and Forests Division, Lethbridge, AB, Canada. 3. LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT IMPACTS ON STREAM WATER QUALITY: A REVIEW 4. Bailey, A.W. 1988. Understanding fire ecology for range management. Pages 529–557 in P.T. Tueller, ed. Vegetation science applications for rangeland analysis and management. Kluwer Academic Publ., Boston, MA, USA. 5. Bailey, A.W., McCartney, D., and Schellenberg, M.P. 2010. Management of Canadian prairie rangeland. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Ottawa, ON, Canada. [Online]. Available from http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/377159/publication.html [5 July 2018].
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|