PANEL DISCUSSION: ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT OF PRAIRIE DOGS

Questions and answers: Monte G. Garrett, Kathleen A. Fagerstone, Greg L. Schenbec

EC92-124 Nebraska Handbook of Range Management

Every Nebraskans should be interested in rangeland. The plants, soil, and water are the foundation of Nebraska\u27s economy and quality of life. Rangeland is one of Nebraska\u27s most important and valuable natural resources because it: • produces forage for livestock and wild game; • provides a varied habitat for many wildlife species; • protects the soil from wind and water erosion; • preserves a germplasm bank for many plant species that may become important for yet unknown uses; • purifies and enhances the environment by cleasing the air, filtering the runoff to streams, increasing the intake of precipitation, and aiding groundwater recharge; • perseveres in adversity and renews itself when the opportunity is provided by those who use and sometimes abuse it; and • pleases those who have learned to appreciate the beauty and aesthetic qualities of rangeland. These are called the Seven P\u27s of Rangeland. Range plants must be the right kind and kept productive for best use of this resource. Most people enjoy wildlife, hunting, camping, clean water, fishing, and eating beef. Range supplies us with those items, so we must management it wisely

Reducing Smooth Sumac Dominance in Native Tallgrass Prairie

Smooth sumac (Rhus glabra L.) is a resprouting shrub native to the tallgrass prairie region that increases in density without an active disturbance regime. Our objective was to use prescribed fire and herbicides to decrease smooth sumac density as a strategy to improve a degraded tall grass prairie remnant. In two separate experiments repeated in space and time, we used prescribed fire in combination with herbicides at various rates and two application methods to develop an effective management scheme for reducing smooth sumac. We used a randomized complete block design with 13 herbicide treatments and a control with three replicates in burned and non-burned areas. Results were similar in both experiments in which herbicide treatment and burning were the significant main effects. All herbicide treatments reduced smooth sumac stem density compared to the control, but no distinct advantage was detected regarding specific herbicide, application rate, or whether the herbicide was applied as a broadcast spray or with a hand-held wick. We expected burning to make the plant more susceptible to herbicides, but burning increased stem density. In this tallgrass prairie remnant, we determined that herbicides were the most effective management tool in reducing smooth sumac stem density

G97-1319 Management of Smooth Sumac on Grasslands

The herbicide 2,4-D LV4 ester provides excellent low-cost smooth sumac control. Prescribed burning before herbicide application does not substantially improve sumac control, but may ease herbicide application and provide other benefits. Smooth sumac (Rhus glabra L.) is a native deciduous shrub that forms dense thickets from widely spreading roots. It is found in the Sandhills, mixed-grass, and tallgrass areas throughout Nebraska. Introduced cool-season grasses, such as Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.), invade the thickets, and production of desirable forage species is reduced below the dense canopies. Trees and other shrubs readily establish in aging sumac thickets, accelerating the conversion of grassland to woodland. Small amounts of smooth sumac may be desirable because it provides wildlife habitat and food and has attractive fall foliage

Seedbed Effects on Grass Establishment on Abandoned Nebraska Sandhills Cropland

Perennial grass establishment on abandoned cropland in the Nebraska Sandhills difficult due to low soil fertility, organic matter, and water holding capacity and high potential erodibility. Establishment is further complicated by unpredictable precipitation and weed competition. Two warm-season grasses: sand bluestem [Andropogon gerardii var. paucipilus (Nash) Fern.] and switchgrass (Panicam virgatum L.); and 2 cool-season grasses: smooth brome (Bromus inermis Leyss.) and intermediate wheat-grass [Thinopyrum intermedium (Host) Barkw. & D.R. Dewey subsp. were evaluated with spring-seeded field trials. Seedbed preparation [untilled, disced, and dead oat (Avena sativa L.) cover (DOC)] effect on seeded grass and nonseeded species densities was evaluated in 1985 and 1986 at 2 locations on Valentine sands (Aquic Ustipsamment). In 1985 1 site was irrigated. Both sites were dryland in 1986. Stand failure (\u3c 5 seedlings/m2) occurred on the dryland rite in 1985 due to low, erratic precipitation. Stands evaluated in June 1986 on plots established with irrigation in 1985 had 38, 46, and 61 plants/m2 for the untilled, disced, and DOC seedbeds, respectively. The disced or DOC seedbeds were required for successful (\u3e plants/m2) dryland seedings in 1986 at both locations. Irrigation the establishment year minimized risk of stand failure and allowed the use of my seedbed preparation or grass species studied. Sand bluestem was the only species to establish both years. However, if a dryland seedling of a cool-season species is desired, intermediate wheatgrass appeared more adapted than smooth brome

Review of \u3ci\u3e Restoring Prairie Wetlands: An Ecological Approach\u3c/i\u3e by Susan M. Galatowitsch and Arnold G. van der Valko

For reasons of national policy, environmental need, and funding availability, wetlands have become one of the most active areas for ecological restoration. But, as this timely and useful book points out, such projects too often have consisted of plugging the drain tile or ditch and letting nature do the rest. This approach has resulted in failure more often than recognized. Failure is obvious when a restored wetland remains dry because the regional water table has dropped, more subtle when natural plant communities fail to regenerate spontaneously, or nearly invisible when predation exceeds waterfowl production. Lack of planning and basic understanding of the ecosystem has often resulted in restoring wetlands in the wrong places or establishing the wrong kind of wetlands in otherwise suitable sites. Later, lack of objective evaluation standards lets the assumption of success go unchallenged