Issue Date
2003-09-01Keywords
Koeleria macranthaSelaginella
Selaginella densa
irrigated conditions
Koeleria
plant-water relations
vegetation cover
drought tolerance
Saskatchewan
yields
forbs
Poaceae
Bouteloua gracilis
leaf water potential
precipitation
xylem water potential
range management
plant competition
canopy
water stress
Bouteloua gracilis
cryptogams
Koeleria cristata
leaf xylem water potentials
microphytic crust
Northern Mixed Prairie
Selaginella densa
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Colberg, T. J., & Romo, J. T. (2003). Clubmoss effects on plant water status and standing crop. Journal of Range Management, 56(5), 489-495.Publisher
Society for Range ManagementJournal
Journal of Range ManagementAdditional Links
https://rangelands.org/Abstract
Clubmoss (Selaginella densa Rydb.), a low growing, vascular cryptogam forms carpet-like mats that cover up to 80% of the ground in the Northern Mixed Prairie. Many range managers believe clubmoss competes with grasses for water or intercepts precipitation and negatively affects plant water relations and productivity. The objective of these studies was to test the hypothesis that precipitation has greater effects on leaf xylem water potentials (Leafxwp) and plant productivity than clubmoss. Studies examined the effects of clubmoss on Leafxwp of Junegrass (Koeleria cristata Pers.) and blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis [HBK.] Lag.), and productivity of forbs and graminoids by: 1) irrigating or reducing precipitation relative to natural precipitation; 2) removing clubmoss relative to clubmoss present, and; 3) irrigating with 0.0 to 25 mm of water when clubmoss was present or removed. Leafxwp of Junegrass and blue grama were unaffected by clubmoss through the growing season (P = 0.33), but Leafxwp were lowest (P or = 0.05) when precipitation was reduced relative to the control and when irrigating. Standing crop of forbs was similar in the control and clubmoss removal treatment (P = 0.22) and among precipitation treatments (P = 0.13), averaging 28 g m-2 (SE = 2.2). Graminoid standing crop was unaffected by clubmoss (P = 0.35) and was greatest (P = 0.02) when irrigated (74 g m-2), intermediate in the control (53 g m-2), and least (36 g m-2) with reduced precipitation (SE = 8.7). Clubmoss did not affect (P = 0.70) total standing crop; total standing crop declined from 102 g m-2 when irrigated to 76 g m-2 in the control, and 69 g m-2 (SE = 9.0) with reduced precipitation. Clubmoss had no influence (P = 0.06) on Leafxwp when irrigated with 0 to 25 mm of water. The decline in Leafxwp from 1 to 7 days after irrigation was the product of the interacting effects of the amount of water applied and days after irrigation (P = 0.03). More than 10 mm of irrigation water were required to impart a significant increase (P < 0.05) in Leafxwp. The hypothesis that clubmoss reduces productivity of associated plants in the Northern Mixed Prairie by increasing water stress is rejected. Similarly clubmoss does not reduce plant water stress or increase production. Precipitation amounts overshadow any effects clubmoss has on Leafxwp and plant production. Range managers in the Northern Mixed Prairie may want to consider maximizing the effectiveness of precipitation in this water-limited environment instead of focusing on reducing or attempting to eliminate clubmoss.Type
textArticle
Language
enISSN
0022-409Xae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.2307/4003841