There are numerous practices and ways to improve the productiveness of rangeland including grazing systems, deferment, fertilization, mechanical treatments and others. Two methods that have shown promise from research at the Newell Field Station are summarized in this paper

Nichols, J. T.

English

Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange

South Dakota State UniversityOpen PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access InstitutionalRepository and Information ExchangeSouth Dakota Sheep Field Day Research Reports,1967 Animal Science Reports1967Increasing Range ProductivityJ. T. NicholsSouth Dakota State UniversityFollow this and additional works at: http://openprairie.sdstate.edu/sd_sheepday_1967This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Reports at Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access InstitutionalRepository and Information Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Dakota Sheep Field Day Research Reports, 1967 by an authorizedadministrator of Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. For more information, pleasecontact michael.biondo@sdstate.edu.Recommended CitationNichols, J. T., "Increasing Range Productivity" (1967). South Dakota Sheep Field Day Research Reports, 1967 . Paper 9.http://openprairie.sdstate.edu/sd_sheepday_1967/9South Dakota State Univers ity Brookings , South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station Introduction Increasing Range Productivity J .  T .  Nichols 1 N ewell Field Station Grazing by domestic livestock and wi ldlife is still the largest agricul­tural use of land in America . Over one bi llion acres are devoted to use by grazing animals . In South Dakota , over 50 percent of our state is in grass land , constituting one of our mos t abundant and important resources . A survey conducted in 196 2 by the USDA has indicated that grazing land in the United States is producing about half its potential . Where South Dakota ranks in relation to the national average is not known , but the factors that have contributed to decreased range productivity in other parts of the Nation have had their effect on South Dakota ranges as well . It  has been estimated that in the Northern Great Plains about 10 percent of the ranges are in ex­cellent condition , 20 percent in good , 40 percent in fair , and 30 percent in poor range condition . I t  is the 70 percent fair and poor condition ranges that are the least productive and offer the greatest opportunity for increased range productivity . This is not to say that good and excellent condition ranges cannot be made more productive , but that they are producing closer to their potential than ranges in lower condition classes . Increased range production through range improvement practices offers one of the greatest potentials for increased production of animal products from our ranges . There are numerous practices and ways to improve the product iveness of rangeland including grazing systems , deferment , fert ilization , mechanical treatments and others . Two methods that have shown promise from res earch at the Newell Field Station are summarized in this paper . The Use of Clover to Increas e Forage Production on Native Ranges Mixed stands of legumes and grasses are known to produce more forage than when grasses are grown alone . Legumes provide an additional s ource of nitrogen , and essential plant nutrient , for use by the grass plants . This beneficial relationship of grass-legume mixtures has been used most extensively for hay production , irrigated pastures , and introduced early-spring pasture s . The same principle can be applied to native ranges . I t  is generally agreed that native legumes were much more abundant in native grasslands than they are today . Grazing pressure has generally reduced their abundance . !Ass istant Professor of Range Management . 47 - 2 -Seeding nat ive legumes into rangeland has met with very limited success due to the scarcity of seed and difficulty of es tab lishment . Presently , seeding of clovers and pasture-type alfalfas may offer a more promising approach to increasing range productivity with legumes . Prior to 1962 , several years of below normal precipitat ion and continued heavy use depleted many of the ranges on heavier clay soils in western South Dakota . In many cases an almost denuded condition exis ted with very little evidence of perennial grass cover . Several methods of range renovation were tried in the spring of 1962 , on a deteriorated Dense Clay Range Site . O f  these methods , the seeding of clover into existing western wheatgrass range appears to be the most promis ing . M adrid sweetclover was seeded at a rate of 2 . 5  pounds of pure live seed per acre . Since the initial seeding , the clover stand has maintained itself by natural reseeding . Range recovery was very rapid when precipitat ion increased in 1962 and success ive years , and when deferment from grazing permitted the perennial grasses ( western wheatgrass and green needlegrass )  to recover . Seeding of clover stimulated the re covery and production beyond what could be expected under deferment alone . · · Table I compares the forage production from a Dense Clay Range Site that was s eeded to clover with range which was not . The average total product ion over five years was increased nearly 2 . 5  times by the clover . Range whi ch was s eeded to clover produced an average of 1 804 pounds per acre compared to 740 pounds per acre on range without clover . This res ulted in an average increase of 1064 pounds of forage per acre , per year . The increased total forage production was due only in part to the clover forage . The beneficial effect of the nitrogen supplied by the clover and used · by the grass plants increased the average production of grass 549 pounds per acre ( Table I I ) .  Range whi ch was seeded to clover produced a three -year average of 1379 pounds per acre of perennial grass compared to 8 30 pounds per acre when clover was absent . Table I .  Forage product ion ( perennial grass and clover ) from western wheat ­grass range seeded to sweetclover compared to untreated native range , 196 3-196 7 .  Pounds o f  oven-dry forage per acre . With. clover Without clover Increase ( lb . /A . ) 196 3  30 32 511 2 5 21 1964 949 6 9 8  2 5 1  196 5 1833  106 3  770 1966 950  444 5 06 1967 2257 ·. 9 8 3  1274 Ave . . .  1804 740 1064 48 ,. - 3 -Table I I . Effe ci: of clover on the production of perennial gras s , 196 5-196 7 . Pounds of oven-dry forage per acre . With clover Without clover Increase ( lb . /A . ) 1965 1425 106 3  361 1966 6 2 5  444 181 1967 208 8 9 8 3  1105 Ave . 1379 830 549 Competition from clover has not been detrimental to the stand of nat ive grasses . The density of wes tern wheatgrass and green needlegrass is j ust as great or greater when growing with clover as when growing alone . Plants which are grown on soils containing high leve ls of soi l  nitrogen produce forages that are higher in prote in than plants which are grown on nitrogen deficient soils . Thus svi ls of high fert ility not only produce more forage , but also improve the forage quality . Wes tern wheatgY'as s growing in associat ion with sweet clover maintained a higher crude protein content , than when growing without clover ( Fig . l ) . When averaged over 16 collection dates from May to December ,  the grass prote in content was in creased by approximately 2 percent when growing with clover . Sweetclover was cons istent ly higher in protein than the grasses even into early winter after mos t of the leaves had fallen . The mixed stand of grass and clover would provide adequate levels of protein for a grazing animal over a longer period of time not only be cause of a higher percent protein of the clover ,  but also because of the higher prote in level of the associated grasses . Areas which appear to be the best adapted to seeding clover into existing vegetat ion are those clas sified as Dense Clay Range Sites . The vegetation is primarily western wheatgrass with some green needlegras s and associated forbs . These sites do not deteriorate into short gras s sods when overgrazed but are occupied by annual weeds , and a reduced stand of perennial gras ses as range condition declines .  The ' soils are fine textured and deve lop a friable surface one to two inches thick in the spring due to freezing and thawing breaking up the structure during the winteD .  This friable soils surface provides a good media for clover seed germinat ion . Ripping t o  Improve Spotty Western Wheatgrass Range Ranges with a general aspect of grass vegetat ion intermixed wi th nearly barren areas are common in western South Dakot a .  These barren are as support very few productive range plants but are occupied primari ly by dwarfed , low growing weeds . Such range is often called panspot , s cabland , s lick spot or hardpan range . Differences in physical and chemical soil characteristics 49 a •rt (1) +J 0 M j'.l.. (1) 'O ::t M u ..., @ u M (1) p... 30 \ \ 2 8  -r \ 26 2 2  20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 -. -I. ' \ \ \ \ \ \ ., \ \, \ ' '\. '\ "'-· \ .  ' ' ... '· -� ...  Wes tern wheatgras s alone \ \ \ \ - 4 -. Sweetclover \ \ \ ' " \ \ / _,.· . �  , . - - .. ··-- ·_. __..-'\., ·," · ., Wes tern wheatgras s · '· ·. growing with ' ' clover ',, · .  1r · - - · - r - - ---t-- - - · --r- ---- --i- �=== ·-+· -M ay June July Aug . Sept . Oct . Samp ling date s  N ov . Oec .  Fig . 1 .  Comp aris on of crude prote in content in sweetc lover , wes tern wheatgrass growing with sweet clover , and western wheat grass growing alone from May to December , 1966 . 50 - 5 -between the vegetated and barren areas accounts for the spotty appearance . The barren areas have s oils whi ch are compacted and sealed at the surface , and therefore nearly imperme able to water . Conditions are very adverse for p lant estab lishment and s urvival . In many cases select ive grazing has helped to perpetuate this spotty condition . New tender shoots and plants which attempt to coloni ze thes e  areas are constantly grazed , making establi shement difficult . Production of range forage could be incre ased if corrective measure s  were taken to revege tate these barren areas , which in many ins tances account for over so· percent of an area . Western wheatgrass with its ability to establish in new areas by means of rhi zomes or underground stems , is especially well adapted to re-vegetating these areas when s oi l  conditions are improved . In September of 1963 an area of typical spotty western wheatgrass range was ripped us ing an 8-inch shoe on a Noble frame . The area was ripped to a depth of 12-14 inche s , spaced approximately 6 feet apart . A portion of the area was fenced to exclude livestock grazing . Favorab le growing conditions have prevai led since the initiation of the study , which is in contrast to the droughty conditions that prevailed from 1969-1961 prior to the initiation of the treatments . Table I I I  summarizes the response of western wheatgras s to ripping and deferment from grazing from 1965 to 1967 . Results are presented only for western wheatgrass s ince it is the most abundant and important forage plant on the s tudy are a .  Ripping has increased the dens ity , we ight , he ight and per­cent of western wheatgrass plants producing seedstalks over the non-treated area . By 1967 the ripped area which was protected from grazing had a dens ity of 424 p lants per square meter compared to 206 for the non-ripped area . The incre ased dens ity is one of the most important improvements brought about by ripping , indicating that new p lants are establish ing in the previously barren areas . An improvement in vigor is a lso evident in that the he ight of plants and percent of plants producing seeds talks is greated where ripped . The com­binat ion of more vigorous plants and greater dens ity has increased the weight of forage from 266 on the non-ripped area to 740 pounds per acre on the ripped area . Ripping and protection from grazing has e ssentially increased the pro­ductiveness of this range type by 2 . 8  time s . Deferment from grazing is essent ial for any renovation treatment such as ripping to be e ffect ive . Comparing the response of western wheatgrass to rip­p ing treatments when protected from grazing with its response when not protected indicates that a much greater response can be expected when deferment follows treatment ( Table I I I ) .  Deferment is recotr.mended at least during the first growing seas on and if pos s ible grazed only during the dormant season the following year . 51 - 6 -Table I I I . Effect of ripping and protection from grazing on spotty western wheatgrass type range . All measurements are for western wheatgrass .  Density Plants per sq . meter l/ 196 5  1966 1967 2/  Weight ( lb . /A . }-1965 1966 1967 Height of plants ( in . ) 196 5 1966 196 7 Percent of plants producing seedstalks 196 5 1966 196 7 Not grazed Inside exclosure Ripped non-ripped 294 108 437 136 424 206 560 108 421 64 740 266 11 . 5  8 . 1  7 . 3  6 . 0  10 . 6  9 . 0 18 . 9  o . o  3 . 7 o . o  3 . 1 o . o  l/ One square meter = 39 . �" x 39 . 4tt . Grazed Outside · exclosures Ripped non-ripped 40 21 121 15 183 40 54 18 * * * 8 . 2  6 . 3  * * 25 . 6  2 . 4  * * {: 21  Used for relative comparison of treatments and not necessarily a production or yield value . * Data not collected because of grazing . 52 

Increasing Range Productivity

https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&amp;context=sd_sheepday_1967

Increasing Range Productivity

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange