RSS 1.0Rangeland Ecology & Management, Volume 73 (2020)
ABOUT THE COLLECTIONS
Welcome to the Rangeland Ecology & Management archives. The journal Rangeland Ecology & Management (RE&M; v58, 2005-present) is the successor to the Journal of Range Management (JRM; v. 1-57, 1948-2004.) The archives provide public access, in a "rolling window" agreement with the Society for Range Management, to both titles (JRM and RE&M), from v.1 up to five years from the present year.
The most recent years of RE&M are available through membership in the Society for Range Management (SRM). Membership in SRM is a means to access current information and dialogue on rangeland management.
Your institution may also have access to current issues through library or institutional subscriptions.
Print ISSN: 0022-409x
Online ISSN: 1550-7424
QUESTIONS?
Contact the University Libraries Journal Team with questions about these journals.
Collections in this community
Recent Submissions
-
Ground Cover—What Are the Critical Criteria and Why Does It Matter?This publication is the result of concerns expressed regarding the definition and subsequent use of ground cover in rangeland monitoring. We reviewed 20 monitoring publications. All publications reviewed contained a definition of ground cover and/or direction on how to monitor ground cover. The majority of these publications also defined bare ground. In all cases, bare ground was defined as the opposite of ground cover. We identified critical criteria of ground cover based on the role it plays in soil conservation as it relates to water and wind erosion. Critical criteria identified included standing and nonstanding live vegetation, standing and nonstanding dead vegetation including litter, and rock. We compared these critical criteria to the 20 monitoring publications reviewed. We found 19 of these publications included the criteria standing live vegetation or similar words and standing dead vegetation or similar words in their definition and/or use of ground cover. The one source where standing live or dead vegetation or similar words were not included was “Indicators of Rangeland Health and Functionality in the Intermountain West.” This publication was produced by the US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ground cover was limited to basal vegetation, litter, moss/lichen, or rock. We also found inconsistencies in the definition and subsequent use of ground cover in Forest Service Handbook 2209.21–Rangeland Ecosystem Analysis and Monitoring Handbook, Intermountain Region. We contend a large volume of literature supports the inclusion of critical criteria as identified in this report as ground cover. These criteria are essential components contributing to resistance of water and wind erosion important to soil conservation. This review demonstrates the importance of accurately defining and subsequently including critical criteria in rangeland attributes including ground cover. This paper addresses standardizing terms and calculations used in determining ground cover. © 2020
-
Can Mowing Substitute for Fire in Semiarid Grassland?Accumulating data indicate the importance of fire in rangeland systems. Mowing is a common management technique sometimes considered a surrogate for fire. However, direct comparisons of fire and mowing effects are limited. Our objective was to determine whether mowing can substitute for fire in rangeland by comparing effects on plant biomass, composition, cover, soil nutrients, and forage quality. Three disturbance treatments (nontreated control, spring mowing with clipping removal, and spring fire) were randomly assigned to 21 plots (5 × 5 m) each on silty and claypan ecological sites in a completely randomized design, with seven replications per site. Current-yr biomass was similar among control, mowed, and burned treatments (1 003, 974, 1 022 ± 64 kg ● ha− 1). Mowing shifted functional group composition by reducing C<inf>3</inf> perennial grass 12% and increasing forbs 8%. Non-native species were a larger component of mowed (12%) than control (6%) or burned plots (4%). Fire increased bare ground 35%, reduced litter 32%, and eliminated previous yrs’ growth the first growing season. Plant-available soil N and S more than doubled with fire, and there was a trend for more P in burned plots. Mowing effects were limited to a trend for less soil Fe. Mowing affected 42% of the forage quality variables with a 2% average improvement across all variables. Fire affected 84% of the variables, with a 12% average improvement. Mowing increased forage P and K, whereas fire increased forage concentrations of N, K, P, S, Mg, Fe, Mn, and Cu. Total digestible nutrients increased 1.1% with mowing and 2.1% with fire. In vitro dry matter disappearance increased 2.2% with mowing and 6.7% with fire. Burned plots had greater in vitro fermentation than controls or mowed plots. Although mowing can be a useful management tool, it is not a substitute for the ecological effects of rangeland fire. © 2019
-
Fall Water Effects on Growing Season Soil Water Content and Plant ProductivityUnderstanding fall precipitation effects on rangelands could improve forage production forecasting and inform predictions of potential climate change effects. We used a rainout shelter and water addition to test effects of seasonal precipitation on soil water and annual net primary production of C<inf>3</inf> perennial grass, C<inf>4</inf> perennial grass, annual grasses, forbs, and all plants combined. Treatments were 1) drought during September−October and April−May (DD); 2) drought plus irrigation during September−October and drought during April−May (WD); 3) year-long ambient conditions (WW); and 4) ambient plus irrigation during September−October (W + W). Treatments created conditions ranking among the driest and wettest September−October periods since 1937. Fall water effects on soil water were not detectable by May at 15 cm and 30 cm. Effects persisted into July at 60 cm and 90 cm, depths below the primary root zone. With spring drought, annual net primary production was 344 kg ha−1 greater when the previous fall was wet rather than dry. No differences were detected between fall water treatments when spring was wet and fall was about 184% (1 938 ± 117 kg ha−1) or 391% of the median (1 903 ± 117 kg ha−1). Fall water increased C<inf>3</inf> perennial grass when spring was also wet and had no effect under spring drought, when forage production concerns are greatest. Fall water did not affect C<inf>4</inf> perennial grass, and extremely wet fall conditions reduced forb production about 50%. The greatest effect of fall water was increased annual grass production. Even record high levels of fall water had minor effects on biomass, functional group composition, and soil water that were short-lived and overwhelmed by the influence of spring precipitation. Movement of fall water to deep soil by the growing season suggests plants that would most benefit from fall precipitation are those that could use it during fall (winter annuals), or deep-rooted species (shrubs). © 2019
-
Trampling and Cover Effects on Soil Compaction and Seedling Establishment in Reseeded Pasturelands Over TimeA field study in Randall County, Texas, was conducted to determine how soil bulk density and plant cover change over time in response to deferment following a high-density, high-intensity, short-term grazing/trampling event. Green Sprangletop (Leptocloa dubia Kunth.) and Kleingrass (Panicum coloratum L.) were broadcasted at 4.5 kg ha−1 pure live seed (PLS) on former cropland that had a partial stand of WW-Spar Bluestem (Bothriochloa ischaemum L.). A high-density, high-intensity trampling event was achieved with twenty-four 408-kg Bos taurus heifers occupying four 0.10-ha plots (97 920 kg live weight ha−1) for 10 h, with four adjacent 0.10-ha control plots left untrampled. Canopy and basal cover were determined by plant functional group using the Daubenmire method after rainfall events of > 0.254 cm, and a 5.08 × 7.62 cm core was collected to determine soil bulk density. Strips of supplemental plant material were applied in March to test the effects of 100% soil cover on seedling recruitment. Trampled treatments had 30% less vegetative cover (P < 0.01) and average soil bulk densities that were 0.20 g cm−³ higher (P < 0.01) than untrampled plots post trampling. Bulk density decreased with deferral until there were no significant differences between treatments (240 d). However, WW-Spar basal cover increased in both treatments, with no differences between treatments. Trampling did not affect seedling recruitment, but supplemental cover increased seedling density on three of five subsequent sampling dates (P < 0.05). Canopy cover of warm season perennial grasses in trampled treatments surpassed that of the untrampled treatments during the early growing season of 2016 (P < 0.01) but were no different after mid-June. Hydrologic function can be maintained with high stock densities by providing adequate deferment to reestablish sufficient cover and allow natural processes to restore porosity. © 2020
-
Critique of Larson et al. (2019), Differences in Stubble Height Estimates Resulting from Systematic and Random Sample DesignsLarsen et al. (2019) found stubble heights measured at a systematic interval resulted in higher variability and lower stubble heights than samples collected at random. As the authors do not suggest an environmental mechanism for these outcomes, their conclusions likely reflect differences in the number of plants evaluated at each plot and the low number of independent observers rather than the sample design. © 2020
-
Effects of Defoliation, Litter, and Moss on Bromus arvensis in a Northern Mixed-Grass PrairieExotic winter annual grasses (Bromus spp.) are a problem in North American rangelands. Defoliation, litter, and mosses are thought to regulate invasive annual Bromus species. We conducted a field experiment that tested effects of mechanical mowing and fungicide applications on Bromus arvensis, other and total graminoids, forbs, litter, and moss. Treatments caused litter biomass and moss cover to vary, which enabled testing whether litter and mosses explain variation in B. arvensis biomass. Two yr after cessation of experimental treatments, mowing treatments caused persistent reductions in B. arvensis, total graminoid, and litter biomasses but had no effect on other graminoid and forb biomasses. We detected a positive relationship between litter and B. arvensis. Fungicide applications increased moss cover and other and total graminoid biomasses, thereby suggesting mosses and several graminoids were released from the suppressive effects of biota (e.g., lichen, pathogenic fungi) susceptible to the fungicide. We found no relationship, however, between moss cover and B. arvensis. In temperate and semiarid ecosystems, mowing during flowering and before seed drop coupled with removal of clippings is likely to help control invasive bromes and fungicide additions may increase grass production. © 2020
-
Weed-Suppressive Bacteria Fail to Control Bromus tectorum Under Field ConditionsThe exotic winter annual grass Bromus tectorum L. (downy brome or cheatgrass) infests millions of hectares of western rangelands. Weed-suppressive bacteria (ACK55 and D7 strains of Pseudomonas fluorescens Migula 1895) have been shown to reduce B. tectorum populations in eastern Washington. Unfortunately, outside of Washington, little is known about the efficacy of these or other weed-suppressive bacteria. We used Petri-plate and plant-soil bioassays to test effects of ACK55 and D7 on B. tectorum from Montana and Wyoming. We also tested effects of ACK55 on B. tectorum at six field sites in Montana and one in Wyoming. P. fluorescens reduced B. tectorum germination and root and shoot lengths in Petri-plates but had no effect on plants during growth chamber plant-soil bioassays or field experiments. Bromus arvensis L. (field brome or Japanese brome), a species similar to B. tectorum, was prevalent at two of our sites, and ACK55 was ineffective against B. arvensis as well. Our findings contribute to a growing body of evidence that the ACK55 and D7 strains of P. fluorescens are not reliable tools for controlling B. tectorum in the Northern Great Plains, Central Rocky Mountains, and elsewhere. © 2019
-
Weed-Suppressive Bacteria Applied as a Spray or Seed Mixture Did Not Control Bromus tectorumWe conducted two case studies testing effectiveness of a soil-borne bacteria, Pseudomonas fluorescens strain D7, in controlling Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) when mixed with native seeds sown after a fire and when sprayed on a native community with high abundances of B. tectorum. Each case study area (162 ha) compared treatments with D7 present and absent and was replicated four times (20.3 ha each) in a completely randomized design. Response variables (foliar cover, aboveground biomass, and density of B. tectorum; density of sown native plants) were measured pretreatment for the sprayed area and each year for 3 yr after treatment at both study areas and were evaluated as a repeated measures analysis. Foliar cover, biomass, and density of B. tectorum with sprayed or seed mixture applications did not differ between D7-treated and untreated areas at any time within the study (F<inf>1,6</inf> ≤ 1.42; P ≥ 0.28). D7 as a seed mixture did not significantly impact densities of native seedlings (F<inf>1,6</inf> = 1.27; P = 0.30) at any time during the study. Results contrasted with previous D7 studies that showed effective control of B. tectorum within 3 yr of treatment. Since bioherbicidal methods are being commonly applied, we believe that reporting negative results is important for future meta-analytical studies that provide managers with information on the likelihood for weed-suppressive bacteria to effectively control weeds. © 2019
