Effect of stock density on ground cover on a southwest Montana foothills rangeland
by John Jesse Hansen
A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of Master of Science in Range Science
Montana State University
© Copyright by John Jesse Hansen (1987)
Abstract:
Stock density was a factor in the grazing process under which many of our native grasslands evolved.
As such, stock density is worthy of investigation. Stock density has been little researched until recently
and information concerning this factor is limited.
In 1986 a study was initiated at MSU's Red Bluff Research Ranch in southwest Montana to investigate
the effect of stock density on ground cover of a native foothills grassland. Three levels of stock density
were utilized: 0, 37, and 74 cow-calf pairs/ha, at two periods in the grazing season, spring and
mid-summer. Grazing time per replicate pasture was 24 hours.
Cover responses of total dense clubmoss, live dense clubmoss, and bare ground, as estimated by line
intercept, did not change significantly in response to the treatments. Lack of change in these cover
classes may be attributed to insufficient time for animal-site interaction.
Cover of other vegetation and litter changed significantly in response to grazing but not in response to
stock density. Dung cover yielded a significant change for the mid-summer, 74 cow-calf pairs/ha
treatment. This change in dung cover was attributed to random dung deposition. EFFECT OF STOCK DENSITY ON GROUND COVER ON A
SOUTHWEST MONTANA FOOTHILLS RANGELAND
by
John J e s s e
Ha n s e n
; j
A t h e s i s submi t t ed in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t
of the requirements f or the degree
*
of
Mas t e r
of Science
in
Ra n g e S c i e n c e
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSI TY
B o z e ma n , Mo n t a n a
July
1987
WlAiN LIB.
A/37f
(L o p •
5^ii
APPROVAL
of a t h e s i s
submitted
John J e s s e
by
Ha n s e n
T h i s t h e s i s h a s b e e n r e a d by e a c h me mb e r o f t h e t h e s i s
c o m m i t t e e a n d h a s b e e n f o u n d t o be s a t i s f a c t o r y r e g a r d i n g
content, English usage, format, c i t a t i o n s , b ib lio g r a p h ic
s t y l e , and c o n s i s t e n c y , and i s r e a d y f o r s u b m i s s i o n t o t h e
College of Graduate St udi es .
Date'
— ------ '
^
Appr ove d f o r
Date
t h e Ma j o r
Depar t ment
H e a d 7 Ma j o r
Appr ove d f o r
Date
^
Chairperson, Jrra l u a t e C o mmi t t e e
% -/I ' S '7
~
the
College
Depar t ment
of Graduate
Graduate
Studies
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE
In p r e s e n t i n g
the
requirements
University,
ble
to
from
in p a r t i a l
a master's
degree
the
rules
thesis
provided
that
Library
of
are
the
at
shall
Montana
ma ke
Library.
allowable
accurate
fulfillment
it
Brief
without
of
State'
availa­
quota­
special
acknowledgment of source
ma de.
Permission
t i o n of t h i s
or
thesis
that
under
this
permission,
is
for
I agree
borrowers
tions
this
in
his
opinion
of
scholarly
this
thesis
my w r i t t e n
Signatu
Da t e
for
thesis
absence,
either,
purposes.
extensive
quotation
from
or
ma y b e g r a n t e d
b y my m a j o r
by t h e
Libraries
the
De a n o f
proposed
use
of t he
permission.
gain
shall
professor,
when,
material
Any c o p y i n g o r u s e o f t h e
for financial
reproduc­
in the
is
material
n o t be a l l o w e d
for
in
without
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Th e a u t h o r
the
m e mb e r s
Dr .
J.E.
would
of his
Taylor,
constructive
like
to express
graduate
his
committee,
Dr.
a n d Dr . J . W,. B a u d e r , f o r
criticism
during
the
appreciation
B.W.
their
course of
Sindelar,
advice
his
to
and
graduate
progr am.
Acknowledgment
assistance
his
with
assistance
is
data
with
the
also
due
analysis,
logistics
Dr .
and t o
of the
R. E.
Mr .
Lund,
E. L.
study.
for
his
Ayers
for
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pa g e
LI ST OF TABLES. ................ .................... .......................................................... ..
vii
LI ST OF FI GURES........................ ...................... ....................... ......................... ..
viii
ABSTRACT. ...............................
x
INTRODUCTION........................................................... ......................................
I
LITERATURE REVIEW............. ..............
5
H i s t o r i c a l Grazing C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . . . — . . . . . . . . . .
S t o c k D e n s i t y . . . . ...................................................
L i v e s t o c k I m p a c t M e c h a n i s m s . . . . . . . . . .......................
5
7
10
STUDY S I T E . . . . ........ ................................. ............ ................. ............................
13
METHODS........... ........................
18
T r e a t m e n t s ..........................
Gr o u n d C o v e r E s t i m a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ ..
S t a t i s t i c a l M e t h o d s ............................
i ... .
RESULTS.............................
Total
Li ve
Bar e
Other
Dung
De n s e C l u b m o s s ................................................... ..
De n s e C l u b m o s s . . . ........... ...................................................
G r o u n d .......................................
V e g e t a t i o n And L i t t e r C o v e r ............. .........................
C o v e r . ..................................
DI SCUSSI ON..................
Gr o u n d C o v e r R e s p o n s e ..............................................
L i v e s t o c k I m p a c t M e c h a n i s m s ....................................
O b s e r v a t i o n s ....................................
R o l e Of S t o c k D e n s i t y .......................................................................
SUMMARY
18
20
24
26
26
27
28
29
30
32
32
34
40
46
52
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS- C o n t i n u e d
Page
REFERENCES CI TED........... ................................................... .................................
54
APPENDI CES. ............................................... .................... ...................................... ..
61
A p p e n d i x A........................ ..................................................... ................. .
A p p e n d i x B........... ................................................................................... ..
62
64
vii
LI ST OF TABLES
Table
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Pa g e
c o m p o s i t i o n {%)
by
weight
met er s q u a r e c l i p p i n g p l o t s . . . . . .
13
T o t a l d e n s e c l u b m o s s a d j u s t e d mean c o v e r {%)
a n d d i f f e r e n c e s f o r e a c h t r e a t m e n t r e p l i c a t e . . . ...........
26
Li v e d e n s e c l u b mo s s a d j u s t e d
mean c o v e r (%)
and
d i f f e r e n c e s f o r e a c h t r e a t m e n t r e p l i c a t e . . . ...........
27
B a r e g r o u n d mean c o v e r (%) a n d d i f f e r e n c e s
for
e a c h t r e a t m e n t r e p l i c a t e ............
................... ..
28
V e g e t a t i o n ( o t h e r t h a n d e n s e c l u b m o s s ) and l i t t e r
mean c o v e r (%) a n d d i f f e r e n c e s f o r
e a c h t r e a t m e n t r e p l i c a t e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................
29
Dung mean c o v e r (%) a n d d i f f e r e n c e s f o r
e a c h t r e a t m e n t r e p I i c a t e ......................................................................
30
Partial
62
Study s i t e s p e c i e s
e s t i m a t e d from t en
species
list
for
study s i t e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
viii
LI ST OF FIGURES
Figure
Pa g e
1.
Map o f s t u d y s i t e
l o c a t i o n .................................. ..
14
2.
Gener al view of
s t u d y s i t e . . . . ................................
15
3.
T y p i c a l g r o u n d c o v e r on s t u d y s i t e a f t e r g r a z i n g
t r e a t m e n t ......................................................................... ......................... ..
15
4.
Stock
74 c o w - c a l f p a i r s / h a . . . .
18
5.
D i a g r a m o f p a s t u r e a r r a n g e m e n t , p a s t u r e n u mb e r ,
a n d t r e a t m e n t a s s i g n m e n t . . . . . ............. .........................................
19
6.
Close-up
21
7.
Damage t o d e n s e c l u b m o s s d u e t o s h e a r i n g
o f t r a m p l i n g ............................................................ . . ;
density treatment
of
v i e w o f d e n s e c l u b m o s s ............. ................................. ..
action
.............
36
S i t e i n p a s t u r e 12 t h a t r e c e i v e d
extreme
t r a m p l i n g . . . . . . . ........... ................................ .............
36
I l l u s t r a t i o n o f t r e a d i n g d a ma g e t o
d e n s e c l u b m o s s ...........................
.37
10.
De n s e c l u b m o s s
38
11.
T y p i c a l dung c o v e r and d i s t r i b u t i o n a f t e r a
74 c o w - c a l f p a i r / h a t r e a t m e n t ..................................
38
Da r k g r e e n v e g e t a t i o n d e n o t i n g a
u r i n e b u r n s p o t ............................. ................................................... ..
39
C l o s e - u p view of t h e u r i n e bur n s p o t in
F i g u r e 1 2 . ................ ....................................................................... ..
40
8.
9.
12.
13.
14.
15.
X
killed
by dung c o v e r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Damage t o b i g s a g e b r u s h d u e t o
t r a m p T i n g . . . . . . . . . . .......................
rubbing
and
Wo l f p l a n t s a n d o t h e r f o r a g e p r e s e n t p r i o r t o
E74 t r e a t m e n t .................................... .............................................. ..
41
43
LI ST OF F I GURES - C o n t i n u e d
Figure
16.
Pa g e
Vi e w i l l u s t r a t i n g u t i l i z a t i o n o f w o l f p l a n t s a nd
o t h e r f o r a g e d u e t o t r e a t m e n t ............................. ...................... ..
43
Wo l f p l a n t s a n d o t h e r f o r a g e p r e s e n t p r i o r
t o E37 t r e a t m e n t .................................................................................. ..
44
Vi e w i l l u s t r a t i n g u t i l i z a t i o n o f w o l f p l a n t s a n d
o t h e r f o r a g e d u e t o E37 t r e a t m e n t ............................. ..
44
19.
Micro-topographical
46
20.
Pasture
10 p r i o r
21.
Pasture
10 f o u r
22.
Pasture
10 39 d a y s
after
23.
Pasture
10 70 d a y s
a f t e r , t r e a t m e n t ...................................
24.
Pasture
10 o n e y e a r
25.
Study s i t e s o i l
17.
18.
alteration
by t r a m p l i n g . . . . . . . .
t o t r e a t m e n t ......................
days a f t e r
48
t r e a t m e n t ......................................
t r e a t m e n t . . . ..............................
and 3 1 d a y s
after
treatment....
p e d o n d e s c r i p t i o n ..............................................
49
49
50
50
64
ABSTRACT
S t o c k d e n s i t y wa s a f a c t o r i n t h e g r a z i n g p r o c e s s
u n d e r w h i c h ma n y o f o u r n a t i v e g r a s s l a n d s e v o l v e d .
As
such, s to ck d e n s i t y is worthy of i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
Stock
d e n s i t y has been l i t t l e r e s e a r c h e d u n t i l r e c e n t l y and i n ­
formation concerning th is fa ctor is limited.
I n 1 9 8 6 a s t u d y w a s i n i t i a t e d a t MSU1s Re d B l u f f
R e s e a r c h Ra n c h i n s o u t h w e s t Mo n t a n a t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e e f ­
f e c t o f s t o c k d e n s i t y on g r o u n d c o v e r o f a n a t i v e f o o t h i l l s
grassland.
T h r e e l e v e l s o f s t o c k d e n s i t y w e r e u t i l i z e d : 0,
3 7 , a n d 74 c o w - c a l f p a i r s / h a , a t t w o p e r i o d s i n t h e g r a z i n g
s e a s o n , s p r i n g and mi d - s u mme r .
Grazing t i me per r e p l i c a t e
p a s t u r e wa s 24 h o u r s .
Cover r e s p o n s e s of t o t a l d e n s e c l u b m o s s , l i v e d e ns e
c l u b m o s s , and b a r e g r o u n d , a s e s t i m a t e d by l i n e i n t e r c e p t ,
did not change s i g n i f i c a n t l y in r e s p o n s e t o t h e t r e a t m e n t s .
Lack o f c h a n g e i n
t h e s e c o v e r c l a s s e s ma y b e a t t r i b u t e d t o
in s u f f ic ie n t time for anim al-site interaction.
Cover o f o t h e r v e g e t a t i o n and l i t t e r c h a n g e d s i g n i f i ­
c a n t l y in r e s p o n s e t o g r a z i n g but not in r e s p o n s e t o s t o c k
density.
Du n g c o v e r y i e l d e d a s i g n i f i c a n t c h a n g e f o r t h e
m i d - s u m m e r , 74 c o w - c a l f p a i r s / h a t r e a t m e n t .
This change in
d u n g c o v e r wa s a t t r i b u t e d t o r a n d o m d u n g d e p o s i t i o n .
I
INTRODUCTION
Grasslands
foothills
other
on
of
evolved
the
under
herbivores.
these
1985).
this
evolved
Plains
from
large
coevolution,
adaptive
and
bison
the
plants
traits
large herbivores
(Bison
b i s o n ),
a nd
had
a m e r i c a n a ),
wapiti
( Ce r v u s e l a p h u s ),
( Od o c o i I e u s
h e m i o n u s ),
and
a
s h e e p ( O v i s c a n a d e n s i s ).
i n Nor t h Ame r i c a ,
these
Due t o
native
n u mb e r a n d h a v e b e e n r e p l a c e d
ing
cattle
( Eq u u s
bison
large
and
Clark,
tions
by
wa s
and
bison grazing
the
and
the
Rocky
( Capr a
major
on
( Ovis
1806;
these
( Koc h
and
herbivore
observers
in
indicate
in
includ­
horses
Early
Sellers,
that
present
between
of
and t r a v e l e r s
1955;
1982).
bison
in
the
descriptions
in Br own and F e l t o n ,
Reighard
influence
o r i e n t a l i s ),
b e h a v i o r w e r e ma de by e x p l o r e r s
1800's
bighorn
livestock
grasslands
Mountains.
mu l e d e e r
a e g a g r u s ).
large
the
antelope
have d e c r e a s e d
by d o m e s t i c
sheep
goats
numbers
Appalachian
during
t a u r u s ),
c a b a 1 1 u s ),
Th e
very
( Bo s
been the
extent,
Eur opea n man's
herbivores
present
processes
pronghorn
limited
and
( Coughenour,
(A n t i l ocapr a
to
mount ai n
ungulates
to the type of herbivory present
Historically,
American
Great
herbivory
Thr ough
grasslands
in r e s p o n s e
northern
wer e
Lewis
Descrip­
present
on t h e n o r t h e r n G r e a t P l a i n s i n l a r g e n u m b e r s a n d t e n d e d t o
2
herd
in
small,
individuals.
density)
large,
tion
the
Large
during
grazing
present
under
coevolution
associated
animal
wild ungulates
density
during
closely
of
natural
ma y b e a s s u m e d t h a t
three
activity,
Interaction
processes
responsible
grasslands
of
Following
the
formation
of
the changes
Observations
to
initiation
grazing
primary
factor
of
in p l a n t
feces
and
maintenance
2.
urine.
of
the
livestock,
i m­
as
necessarily
roles
with
concept
communi t y r e s p o n s e s
apparently
species
became
and
for­
dominant.
lead
consideration
in a g r i c u l t u r e .
methodology
and t h e
Plant
in­
composition changes
research
a tool
changed to
communities
species
grazing
treatments
herb ivory,
in th e g r a s s l a n d e c o ­
domi nance.
secondary
of p l a n t
grazing
impacted
and t h e i r d i f f e r e n t
Plant
species
to
ma na ge me nt
considered
in h e r b i v o r e s
plants.
relegated
of
I.
domestic
reflect
merly
forma­
Nor t h Ame r i c a .
introduction
of
present
and
wildlife
and
The g r a s s l a n d s
terms
(stock
o f t h e s e me c ha ni s ms wer e p a r t of t h e
declined.
in
1 00
c o mmo n a mo n g
herbivores
deposition
systems
changed
area
a factor
mechani s ms :
large herbivores
with
about
The h i g h s t o c k
wa s
and
portance of n ative
teractions
unit
a trait
the native
basic
for
western
of
grasslands.
a n d 3.
and t i m i n g
is
grazing
grasslands
It
physical
per
( McNa ught on, 1984).
ma ny o f t h e n a t i v e
with
numbers
activity
of
ecosystem
groups
Early studies
deferment
and
of stocking
( Smi t h,
of
1895).
rest
rate
as
as a
Many
3
studies
have d e a l t
vegetation
a I.,
( Sarv i s ,
1 9 56;
stocking
with the
on a n i m a l
attention
( Woo I f o l k
Lewis
a I .,
Woodwar d,
Knapp,
and
Houston
has
and
and
Cook
also
a I.,
Hormay
and
and
has
et
and
a
Talbot,
Urick,
Lewis
et
Influence
of
et
1 953;
Houston
1972).
Smith,
amount
of
1797
in
1895;
Shiflet
and
Grazing
(Anderson,
and
much
a I .,
considerable
1944;
1961;
on
received
1962 ;
attention
Ke n n e d y ,
also
Co o k
a I .,
rate
1943;
1966).
1949;
received
speculative
Johnstone-Wal l ace
1961;
et
performance
1956;
1966;
methodology
research
Clarke
and H o u s t o n a nd Wo o d wa r d ,
rate
et
1941;
i n f l u e n c e of s t o c k i n g
He a d y ,
and
Heady,
1971).
Despite
to
all
the
research
g r a z i n g and g r a z i n g
been
little
on p l a n t
management,
considered
or
use
of
short
duration
resultant
higher
stock
densities
mo r e a t t e n t i o n
to
( Ko t h ma n n ,
grazing
and H e i t s c h m i d t ,
a I.,
1987;
tered
as
and
in the
the
sponse
Pierson
of Nor t h
described
and
is
by a ny o t h e r
et
a l .,
wh e n
that
that
stock
met hods
caused
a nd
stock
their
density
response
studies
1986;
has
density.
in g r a s s l a n d
S c a r n e c c h i a,
to date
Ame r i c an
is
Bu t o n l y f o u r
Wa r r e n
variable
density
a factor
1984).
literature
research
Stock
1986;
as
grazing
has
responses
one v a r i a b l e
investigated
Increased
to receive
and a n i m a l
( Wa l k e r
Heitschmidt
1987)
consider
et
wer e
encoun­
stock
density
investigating
grazing
re­
grasslands.
a unique v a ria b le
in t h a t
defined
and a s
variable,
it
such
is
not
lends
4
itself
to
investigation.
As a f a c t o r
s ome o f o u r n a t i v e g r a s s l a n d s ,
tion.
It
response
ma y b e a n i m p o r t a n t
of
native
it
the
evolution
is worthy of
factor
grasslands
in
to
investiga­
whe n c o n s i d e r i n g
grazing
of
domestic
the
live­
stock .
To b e t t e r
tive
grasslands,
gate
the
mount ai n
in
Understand e f f e c t s
effect
large
Montana
of
foothills
an a r e a
with
a study
containing
State
to
and
on
cover.
study
species
study
study
in g r a z i n g
effect
animal
of
wa s
which
and
cover
wa s
had
located
by
density
mechani s ms
stock
of dome s t i c
the
on
the
Station.
investigate
of
a
Sciences
Experiment
to
on
coevolved
Range
Objectives
impact
investi­
sponsored
influences
stock
to
site
wa s
Animal
grassland.
the
how s p e c i f i c
this
1986
ground
Mo n t a n a A g r i c u l t u r a l
of
a native
in
on
The
The
University
purpose
investigate
density
plant
herbivores.
d e n s i t y as a f a c t o r
stock
stock
initiated
grassland.
D e p a r t m e n t and t h e
The
wa s
o f s t o c k d e n s i t y on n a ­
live­
study
ground
influence
wer e
cover
ground
5
LITERATURE REVIEW
Hi s t o r i c a I
In
mu c h
herbivore
of
ma y
gain
present
the
a
nature
better
rangelands
The
bison
resembles
ence
Montana
a nd
Character!sties
the
bison
wa s
to
is
so
herb ivory
of
native
much
large
major
both
of
in
the
size
of
early
bison
ior
not
as
as
woul d
be
plentiful
by t r a p p e r s ,
and
attention
observations
are
the
animals
response
of
livestock.
that
forage
in
this
numbe r s
desired.
hunters,
large
By b e t t e r
these
herbivore
and
observations
of
h e r b i v o r y by d o m e s t i c
cattle
deserves
the
understanding
the
domestic
of
Records
are
the
p r i o r t o s e t t l e m e n t by E u r o p e a n ma n .
understanding
we
Grazing
most
prefer­
review.
and b e h a v ­
Mo s t
travelers,
of
the
and e x ­
plorers .
An e a r l y
1955),
related
traveler,
the
Peter
following
Ko c h
(in
Br own a nd F e l t o n ,
account:
" I n Ma r c h 1 8 7 0 , I t r a v e l e d f r o m M u s c l e s h e l I
t o F o r t B r o w n i n g on M i l k R i v e r ,
and f o r a
d i s t a n c e o f f o r t y m i l e s I d o n o t t h i n k we w e r e
out of easy r i f l e shot of b u f f a l o . . .
we
could
s e e m a n y m i l e s on e i t h e r s i d e ; b u t . . . t h e e y e
o n l y met h e r d a f t e r h e r d o f g r a z i n g and s l o w l y
moving b u f f a l o . . . . Thr ee days l a t e r I p a s s e d
o v e r t h e s a m e t r a i l on my r e t u r n t r i p , a n d t h e
v a s t h e r d s h a d d i s a p p e a r e d a s i f by m a g i c .
On l y
t wo o r t h r e e o l d b u l l s we r e s t i l l w a n d e r i n g o v e r
the prairie."
6
Lewis
and C l a r k
bison
during
the
stone
Rivers.
large
herds
(1806)
exploration
Nearly
of
encountered
every
bison.
of the
daily
they encountered
reading
journals
did
their
not
remain
Approximately
in
an
three
it
journal
we e ks
at
and Y e l l o w ­
Falls
of
l a r g e numbers of bison.
In
for
after
of
entry described
the
is apparent
area
numbers
Missouri
Upon a r r i v i n g
the M issouri,
large
a
that
great
their
Great
these
length
arrival
at
animals
of
time.
the
Great
F a l l s t h e h e r d s h a d mo v e d t o a n o t h e r a r e a , e x c e p t f o r a f e w
scattered
individuals.
Large
into
herds
numerous
density.
of
bison
small
Ge or ge
generally
herds
with
W. R e i g h a r d ,
a
associated
resultant
an e a r l y
buffalo
themselves
high
hunter,
th e f o l l o w i n g account of his o b s e r v a t i o n s of bison
Kansas
City
Star
for
No v e mb e r
30,
1930
(in
stock
Sellers,
gave
in th e
1982):
" I h a v e r e a d a f t e r m a n y w r i t e r s wh o d e s ­
c r i b e d a herd as ' b l a c k e n i n g t h e p l a i n s . '
They
never herded th a t c lo s e ly to g e th e r.
A grazing
h e r d , u n d i s t u r b e d , w o u l d be d i v i d e d i n t o s m a l l
groups,
each group c lo s e t o g e t h e r ,
and t h e r e
wo u l d be o r d i n a r i l y , a b o u t t w e n t y - f i v e o r t h i r t y
buffaloes to the acre.
Th e y d r i f t e d a l o n g , a b o u t
a s c l o s e l y t o g e t h e r a s c a t t l e c l u s t e r wh e n g r a z ­
i n g l o o s e l y on t h e r a n g e .
But l o o k i n g a t a
b u f f a l o herd from a k n ol l or h i l l , i t seemed to
be a l m o s t a s o l i d m a s s , w i t h t h e g r e e n s o d s h o w ­
i n g o n l y h e r e and t h e r e , b e t w e e n g r o u p s . "
The r o a m i n g a n d h e r d i n g
by r e c e n t
(1984)
observations
investigated
Theodore
Roosevelt
of
behavior of bison
bison
grazing
bison d is tr ib u tio n
National
Park.
Hi s
is
supported
behavior.
and h a b i t a t
observations
Norl and
use in
indi­
7
cate
that
the bison
and c h a n g e d
in th e park a s s o c i a t e d
grazing
Fr o m t h e
areas
previous
in small
herds
often.
descriptions
of bison grazing
behav­
i o r i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t h i g h s t o c k d e n s i t y wa s a v a r i a b l e
the
natural
ence
and
grazing
function
process
of
on s o me
stock
density,
free-ranging
bison
use,
productivity
of the
grasslands
on
density
Management
(1974) as
animals
and
research
variable,
Literature
is
area
of
often
failing
stock
density.
Those
stock
density,
but
stock
density,
grazing
nized
trials.
land
stock
rate,
to
However ,
at
by
the
any
density
grazing
studies
Society
not
a
literature
of
studies
is
little
and
stock
designed to
variable
this
a
study.
fo­
and
to derive
investigate
to derive
stocking
investigators
to
As
density
information
pertaining
Range
generally
information
research
of
time".
has r e c e i v e d
by v a r i a b l e
Recently several
as
of
b e tw e e n number of
instant
sufficient
complicated
density
conditions
Density
seldom r e p o r t i n g
with
influ­
u n k n o wn .
supply s u f f ic ie n t
are
me t hod.
to
The
maintainence,
"the r e l a t i o n s h i p
pertaining
on s t o c k i n g
is
defined
stock
cused
under
development,
Stock
Stock
grasslands.
in
rate
or
have r e c o g ­
in
grazing
variable
is
scarce.
J
8
The
tered
following
that
have
four
articles
stock
density
are
as
the
the
onl y ones
research
encoun­
variable.
Tl Xr ee s t u d i e s w e r e d o n e b y s p l i t t i n g a p a d d o c k i n a n e x i s t ­
ing
short
duration
wa s c o n d u c t e d
Wa l k e r
cattle
grazing
in c e n t r a l
and
trail
cell
Texas g r a s s l a n d .
(1986)
o f 4.2 and
Wa r r e n
to
three
Texas
et
with
increased
The g r a z i n g
an
stock
a I.
( 1 986)
strategy
utilized
stock
Heitschmidt
ground
for
on
in
a
this
stock d en si­
of
1.4,
soil
hydrologic
2.0,
and
in s ed im en t p r o d u c t i o n
4.2
increase
system with
compar ed
densities
variable
of
study
density
3.0
g r a s s l a n d . . They w e r e u n a b l e t o d e t e c t
due t o
other
12. 5 AU/ ha .
stock
differences
ties
The
reported
s t u d y wa s a s h o r t d u r a t i o n g r a z i n g
ties
Texas.
W a s h i n g t o n on s e e d e d p a s t u r e .
Heitschmidt
density
in
and
AU/ ha
on
a
significant
and i n f i l t r a t i o n
rate
density.
e t a I . ( 1987),
12.5
response
AU/ ha,
in comparing
noted
net primary productivity
greater
( ANPP) f o r
stock
densi­
total
above­
the
1 2 . 5 AU/ h a
t r e a t m e n t a s c o m p a r e d t o t h e 4 . 2 AU/ ha t r e a t m e n t o v e r t wo
years.
ANPP f o r
si deoats
was a l s o g r e a t e r f o r t h e
the
4. 2 AU/ ha
the
amount
density,
the
of
nor
authors
study
site
treatment
litter
did
wa s n o t
(BouteIoua
curtipendula)
12. 5 AU/ ha t r e a t m e n t
o v e r t wo y e a r s .
did
annual
suggested
grama
not
harvest
that
affected
show
Dur i ng t h i s
a
response
efficiency.
grazing
by s t o c k
compared to
stock
In a d d i t i o n ,
preference
density.
to
study,
on
their
9
Pierson
tion
of
with
Scarnecchia
intermediate
stock
pasture
for
and
in
of
2.6
treatment.
5. 2
on
rate
seeded
wa s
similar
compared
linearly
over
decrease
ence
time
greater
in t i l l e r
grazing
ence
5. 2 AU/ ha.
for
for
Me a n t i l l e r
both
the
between t r e a t m e n t s .
The f o l l o w i n g
are
studies
derived
generally
than th a t
found
ty grazing
differing
by
AU/ ha .
those
in grazi ng
It
rate
This
differ­
in whi ch s t o c k d e n s i t y
methodology.
other
s h o u l d be n o t e d
stocking
unequal
between t r e a t m e n t s .
density that
systems
to
of
T h e r e wa s no d i f f e r ­
reported
included a stock
than
that
rates
These
wa s g r e a t e r
high
intensi­
results
may b e
associated
with
densities.
investigating
distance
traveled
by
cattle,
a I . ( 1985) c ompa r e d a c o n t i n u o u s g r a z i n g
stock
grazing
the
differing
stock
While
with
from
systems.
confounded
Walker e t
studies
decreased
the
was a t t r i b u t e d
defoliated
be
with
5 . 2 . AU/ h a t r e a t m e n t .
in p e r c e n t of t i l l e r s
could
heights
treatments
height decrease
pressures
indicate
a
c r o p w a s r e d u c e d 64% f o r t h e 2 . 6 AU/ h a t r e a t m e n t
the
results
intermedium)
AU/ ha
Stocking
defolia­
standing
58% f o r
Their
(Agropyron
and
Wa s h i n g t o n .
investigated
that
to
each
wheatgrass
densities
central
(1987)
density
system
with
Th e y r e p o r t e d
of
0.17
stock
that
distance
wa s mo r e v a r i a b l e
strategy
than
the
AU/ ha
continuous
a
densities
cattle
under
to
short
of
the
grazing
short
duration
4.2
wal ked f a r t h e r
and
1 2. 5
and t r a v e l
duration
strategy.
method
grazing
10
Kirby
et
aI.
disappearance
partially
( 1 986)
on N o r t h
reported
Dakot a
a
short
strategy
AU/ ha
to
stock
d e n s i t y o f 2 . 1 AU/ h a .
similar
for
duration
both
to
two-fold
differ
results
rates;
ing
for
between
maybe
short
tinuous
short
al.
of
grazing
Grazi ng
(1983)
with
( SDG)
0.15
with
a
wa s
for
1 982 a n d mo r e
distribution
did
not
Interpretation
by t h e d i f f e r e n c e
a stock
of
f orb d i s a p p e a r a n c e
the
of
seem
these
in stocking
season-long
graz­
respectively.
to
ground n e s t s
grazing
density
wa s
wer e u n a b l e
simulated
duration
but
grazing,
been
disappearance
1. 2 AUM/ ha f o r
duration
forage
may h a v e
strategy
Graminoid
complicated
Koerth e t
in t r a m p l i n g
grazing
treatments.
0 . 6 7 AUM/ ha a n d
and
a stock
i n t h e SDG t r e a t m e n t
1983.
in
They c o m p a r e d a r e p e a t e d
with
treatments,
increased three-fold
than
rangeland th a t
due t o s t o c k d e n s i t y .
season long g r a z i n g
differences
density
with
a
detect
differences
whe n c o m p a r i n g c o n ­
of
0. 12
stock
steers/ha
density
of
and
1.2
steers/ha.
Livestock
Domest i c
in
three
a n d 3.
1985).
basic
livestock
ways:
deposition
of
I.
I m p a c t Me e ha n i s ms
influence
range
herb ivory,
feces
and
urine
2.
and
pasture
physical
( Bal ph
and
lands
activity,
Mal e c hec k,
11
Domestic
crease
soil
profile
and
livestock
compaction
in s ome s o i l s
break
soil
and
1 982 a n d
Brotherson
s h o wn t o
increase
Trampling
litter
onto
cover
Mal e c h e c k ,
in t h e
a I.,
the
the
surface
(Heitschmidt
1985;
rate
Be me n t ,
et
1969;
H e r b i v o r y by d o m e s t i c
of
( S a r v i s 5 1941;
Wood w a r d ,
seasonal
effect
1966).
of
(Weaver,
Booys e n
herbivory
a I.,
1 963;
standing
and
thus
dead p l a n t
contributes
Savory in
to
Bal ph and
influences
Many s t u d i e s
herb ivor y
on p l a n t
involving
amount ,
of herbage removal
on
1 9 5 0; A l b e r t s o n
et
species.
ma n y a s ­
h a v e d e mo n ­
species
c o mp o ­
C l a r k e e t a I . , 1943; a nd H o u s t o n and
Studies
timing
a I.,
i n s o me p l a n t
livestock
strated
sition
et
and Toma ne k5 1969).
ecosystem.
influence
soil
has been
19 8 7 ;
pects of the grassland
the
in­
also
of
aI
to
of the
(Anderson
Trampling
deposition
soil
s hown
1 972) and t o d i s r u p t
crusts
1983).
mortality
been
portions
(Bryant e t a I.,
et
the
has
upper
cryptogam ic
assists
material
trampling
and
plant
et
a I.,
frequency,
a nd
have d e m o n s t r a t e d
the
vigor
1953;
Caldwell,
and
productivity
Lewis e t a I.,
1984).
Additional
1956;
stud­
i e s h a v e s h o w n t h e e f f e c t o f h e r b i v o r y on s w a r d s t r u c t u r e
( Edwar ds
and
Hollis,
a n d M a z u r a k , 19 7 6 ) ,
1970),
and
a mo u n t
Deposition
urine
of
influences
nutrients
on
of
the
soil
surface
soil
waste
range
I
1982),
moisture
water
erosion
products
run-off
pasture
( Mc C a r t y
(Hanson e t
a I.,
( B l a c k b u r n , 1984).
in
concentration
and
content
the
form
of
feces
a nd
and r e d i s t r i b u t i o n
sites
(Peterson
et
of
a I.,
12
1956a
a n d b)
and can
terns
and s wa r d
structure
osition
of fe ces
ity
species
burn
and
and u r i n e
for
germination
(Stoddart
et
influenced
coliform
( Ka u f f ma n
1978)
a I.,
by
and
and
and
and
Water
suspended
Krueger,
species
1984).
of
quality
deposition
solids
content
De p ­
mortal­
by u r i n e
seed of p l a n t
a suitable
establishment
urine
plant
transporting
providing
197 5 ) .
feces
counts
and
s o me
pat­
1982).
influence
killing
1970),
utilization
and H o l l i s ,
may a l s o
composition,
(Billings,
pasture
( Edwar ds
( Ma r s h a n d C a m p l i n g ,
species
ment
influence
environ­
these
of
by
of
seeds
streams
is
increasing
the
stream
13
STUDY SI TE
The s t u d y
sity's
Re d B l u f f
Montana,
T. 3S
This
is
the
site
prairie
is
R. 1W
Ranch
on M o n t a n a S t a t e
at
El/2,SW1/4,
forage
foothills
species
Norris,
section
grassland
being
in
23
(A s t r a g a l u s
(Figure
(Figure
b luebunch
well
covered
with
vegetation
I).
The
and l i t t e r
I).
2) w i t h
wheatgrass
needleandthread
(Stipa
;
’
( Ko I e r i a p y r a m i d a t a ) a n d
a d s u r g e n s ) (Table
Univer­
southwest
spicatum),
Bar e g r o u n d e s t i m a t e s
T a b l e I.
located
Research
junegrass
mi I k v e t c h
wa s
a mount ai n
dominant
(Agropyron
face
site
c o m a t a ),
standing
soil
(Figure
sur­
3) .
r a n g e d f r o m <1% t o 22%.
Study s i t e s p ec ie s
c o m p o s i t i o n (%) b y w e i g h t
e s t i m a t e d f r o m 10 o n e m e t e r s q u a r e c l i p p i n g p l o t s .
Species
S t i p a c oma t a
Agropyron s p i c a t u m
Astragalus adsurgens
Festuca idahoensis
Koeleria pyramidata
Agropyron s m i t h i i
Lupine spp.
Increaser grasses
I n c r e a s e r f orbs
Shrubs
% Composi t i on
34.8
18.5
20.0
6.0
5.5
T
T
1.9
12.8
T
14
N
iW
Figure
I.
Map o f
study
site
location.
15
Figure
2.
Figure
3.
General
view o f
Typi cal ground
treatment.
study s i t e .
cover
on s t u d y
site
after
grazing
16
A native
plant,
dense clubmoss
( S e ! a g i n e I l a d e n s a ),
w a s p r e s e n t a s a m a j o r c o m p o n e n t o f t h e g r o u n d c o v e r on t h e
study
site
attention
and
subsequently
during
the
study.
ma n y g r a s s l a n d
areas
herds of n a t i v e
ungulates.
in p l a n t c o m m u n i t i e s
pean
man a n d h i s
lation.
ing
De n s e
activity
1965,
Vogel
historically
of
prio r to the
livestock
appears
livestock
and
large
is
amount
of
prevelant
on
maintained
large
A mo u n t o f d e n s e c l u b mo s s p r e ­
domestic
c l ubmos s
a
De n s e c l u b m o s s
that
sent
received
is
in fl u e n c e of Euro­
a matter
for
specu­
to
be
susceptible
to
(Clarke
et
a I .,
Smoliak,
1966,
and
VanDyne,
1943,
Va n Dy n e
and
graz­
Vogel,
1967).
Livestock
sporadic
for
not p resen t
rent
l ow
level
past
Average annual
majority
station
of
September.
a mount s
of
the
derived
gently
site
mi x e d
from
and
MT.)
June
precipitation.
water
source
is
is
and
is
its cur­
by t h e
( Appe ndi x
author
B).
Cherry Creek
with
as
Parent
metamdr-
a west-southwest'
1500 m e t e r s .
precipitation
precipitation
May
minor
livestock.
sloping
elevation
(Ennis,
been
A natural
classified
fine-loamy
is
has
use which a c c o u n ts f o r
loams,
alluvium
Study
recording
site
25 y e a r s .
silt
Topography
exposure.
this
o f u s e by d o m e s t i c
are
is
on
livestock
argiborols,
material
phi c s .
the
for
Soils
aridic,
grazing
at the
nearest
2 6 . 8 cm p e r y e a r
occurring
receive
the
between
greatest
weather
with
the
April
a nd
monthly
17
Annual
high
of
14
me a n t e m p e r a t u r e
is
degrees
me a n
Temperature
degrees
until
C.
c o mmo n I y
Aver age
the
( 4 6 %) .
The
year's
1180 k g / h a
A portion
free
35
period
cultural
and
of
De n s e c l u b m o s s
guide
of
-I
degrees
C.
degrees
C to
-33
96 d a y s
from
June
is
production,
Service
classification
wa s e s t i m a t e d
utilized
mountain
10-14
for
this
inch
estimated
as
p.z.
of
high
fair
rating
wa s
silty
by h a r v e s t
in
site.
1986,
dry matter.
of
the
the
cover
on o t h e r
north
end of
1- 6 and 13,
treatment,
portion
than
Conservation
site
included pastures
site
low
from
range condition
range
foothills
Current
This
ranges
frost
Soil
range condition,
wa s
a
C w i t h a me a n
September.
Us i n g
the
C and
6.4 d e g r e e s
the
appeared
to
such
as
plowing,
at
site
is
located
near
wa s
less
portions.
on t h i s
study
site,
which
have r e c e i v e d
s o me e a r l i e r
an
old
portion
a
time.
homest ead.
of the
study
Ib
METHODS
Tr e a t m e n t s
To d e t e r m i n e
effect
of
stock
density
on g r o u n d
cover,
t h r e e l e v e l s o f s t o c k d e n s i t y w e r e u t i l i z e d , 37 a n d 74 c o w calf
pairs/ha
pairs/ha
as t h e
for
control
cated three times,
ed t o
Figure
replicate
4.
Stock
the
grazing
(Figure
trials
4) .
Treatments
with gr azi ng t r e a t m e n t s
pastures
(Figure
and
0
cow-calf
wer e
repli­
randomly a s s i g n ­
5) .
density treatment
of
74 c o w - c a l f
pairs/ha.
19
13
14
15
Contro I
Control
Contro I
3
2
I
4
E37
E74
L37
L74
Figure
=
=
=
=
5.
stock
stock
pairs
approximately
This
placement
with
cattle
Mo s t
was
of t he
90
of
to
to
m
11
E37
E74
L37 E74
of
12
by u t i l i z i n g
pastures
to
their
pastures.
Th e z e r o
be
placed
grazed.
interference
Tempor ar y
battery
30
powered
electric
energizer.
wer e used t h r o u g h o u t t h e s t u d y .
periods
evaluate
n u mb e r ,
of 3 e x c l o s u r e s
minimized
a
pasture
o f .4 and .8 ha.
the
a mong
with
s a me c a t t l e
achieved
consisted
controls
utilized
evaluate
were
sizes
east
move me nt s
in ground cover.
ed
densities
on p a s t u r e
Two g r a z i n g
utilized
10
Di a gr a m o f p a s t u r e a r r a n g e m e n t ,
and t r e a t m e n t a s s i g n m e n t .
density treatment
fencing
E37 L74
9
E a r l y s u mme r 37 c o w - c a l f p a i r s / h a
E a r l y s u mme r 74 c o w - c a l f p a i r s / h a
Mi d - s u mme r 37 c o w - c a l f p a i r s / h a
Mi d - s u mme r 74 c o w - c a l f p a i r s / h a
Desired
cow/calf
8
7
L37 E74
L37 L74 L74
E37
6
5
during
effects
of
the
time
growing
of
A mid-spring treatmen t
treatment
effect
season
grazing
period
during
were
on c h a n g e s
wa s u t i l i z ­
moist
soil
and
20
vegetation
conditions
and
to evaluate treatment
a mi d - s u m m e r
effect
during
treatment
dry s o i l
was
used
and v e g e t a t i o n
conditions.
A 24 h o u r g r a z i n g
on a r e l a t i v e l y
of
grazing
available
period
nor mal
allowed
level
wa s u s e d t o
of forage
ma xi mum s t o c k
and a l l o w e d
regular
keep the
intake.
density
timing
for
of the
cattle
This
length
the
forage
cattle
mo v e s .
G r o u n d C o v e r E s t i m a t i on
Five
moss,
cover
live
vegetation
both
ed t o
dense
and
d e a d and
green
mo s s
wa s c o n s i d e r e d
or grey-brown.
dense
clubmoss
site.
Li ve
the
mortality.
dense
be
that
portion
clubmoss
dense
may
plant
clubmoss
color.
that
dense
the
plant
De ad
dense
club­
cover,
either
the
wa s g r e y
not
wer e c o n s i d e r e d
influence
would
Li ve
of
parts
attached
litter
total
or
important
and
live.
because
productivity
influence
of
wa s a t t a c h ­
6) .
d e n s e c l u b m o s s c o v e r wa s e s t i m a t e d
treatments
and o t h e r
of the p l a n t t h a t
plant
club-
consisted
portion
c o v e r wa s c o n s i d e r e d
still
dung,
(Figure
that
in
dense
cl ubmoss
material
plant
green-brown
clubmoss
dead
whether
and
to
total
ground,
Any d e n s e c l u b m o s s
of the
Total
Total
considered
wa s
not p a r t
bare
dense clubmoss
was
a rooted
sampl ed:
l i v e dense clubmoss
that
to
wer e
clubmoss,
litter.
a rooted
clubmoss
categories
of
the
to
ascertain
dense
clubmoss
21
Bar e
fluence
bare
tion
ground
of
treatments
ground
of
cover
cover
wa s
on t h i s
woul d
singular
or
estimated
cover
to
class.
be c o n s i d e r e d
aggregate
determine
an
the
in­
Any c h a n g e s
important
changes
in
in
indica­
other
cover
c lasses.
Dung c o v e r
change
type
in t h i s
wa s
wa s e s t i m a t e d
cover
considered
susceptibility
to
1 952 a n d R y e r s o n
et
class
to determine
the
due t o t r e a t m e n t s .
important
ma n u r e
a nd
al.,
1970).
in
view
nitrogen
This
of
dense
amount
This cover
c l u b mo s s ' s
applications
cover
class
of
( He a d y ,
also
may
22
influence
post-treatment
Vegetation
estimated
site
(other
due t o t h e i r
stability.
been
linked
estimates
than
other
dense clubmoss)
cover
and
classes.
litter
we r e
i m p o r t a n c e f o r f o r a g e p r o d u c t i o n a nd
Hydrologic
to
of
vegetation
characteristics
and
litter
of
a site
cover
have
(Blackburn,
1984).
Ground c o v e r s o f t o t a l
ground,
Thi s
in
and dung we r e e s t i m a t e d
me t h o d
wa s
estimating
chosen f o r
by
for
intercept
reliability
and
me t h o d .
and c o n s i s t e n c y
low-growing
plant
v e g e t a t i o n and l i t t e r
cover.
were d e r i v ­
subtraction.
Co o k a n d
intercept
cover
as
Stubbendieck
a mi n i mu m f o r
estimation.
were
located
located
avoid
in
biases
each
points.
wer e
2)
randomly
being
nearest
suggested
low-growing,
Two p e r m a n e n t l y
by e x c e s s
transect
replicate
Fifteen
sampled,
chosen.
located
point
30
of each
m transects
associated
Al I i n t e r c e p t s
meter
wer e
were
pasture
subdivisons
starting
line
plant
Transects
mo v e me n t
alternate
with the
mat-forming
pasture.
livestock
15 m o f
to
with
of
each
(meter
I or
recorded
to
centimeter.
Sampl i ng
(April,
(1986)
diagonally to the entrance
entrance
the
other
live clubmoss, bare
by a l i n e
its
mat-forming
Cover e s t i m a t e s
ed
clubmoss,
wa s c o n d u c t e d p r i o r t o t h e g r a z i n g t r e a t m e n t s
1986 = S I ) ,
f o u r we eks
(June,
1986 and S e p t e m b e r ,
ments,
respectively
after
the grazing
treatments
1 986 f o r e a r l y a nd l a t e t r e a t ­
= S2),and
the
following
spring
(April,
23
1 98 7 = S3) .
diate
The S2 s a m p l e
response
wa s
in ground cover
by t r a m p l i n g
and t r e a d i n g
s a m p l e wa s u t i l i z e d
impact
mechani s ms t o
live
and t o t a l
clubmoss
A portion
of the
mo s s
and
live
dense
sate
for
differences
or
desiccated
during
and
June,
ma d e i n
estimates
clubmoss
not
the
dense
moist
attributable
due
to
Post-treatment
and
clubmoss
plant
differences
estimates
effects.
the
were a l s o
estimates
for
1986 whe n t h e
clubmoss
state.
to
that
this
and
This
Th i s
wa s
factors
cover
wer e
Pre­
wer e
a moist
condition
lower
wa s
for
than
attributed
of
the
to
dense
live
dense
artificially
large
post-treatment
cover
for
derived
estimates
present
( S2)
in
a
of the
created
be a c c o u n t e d
in
time.
swelling
and
a n d L 74
E74 t r e a t m e n t s
unfolding
pre-treatment
Pre­
wa s
estimates
estimates
and s u b s e q u e n t
could not
in
and
compen­
conditions
ma d e a t
condition.
material.
differences
cover
to
L37,
The d r y a n d d e s i c c a t e d
spreading
Adjustment
dry
cover
E37
dense club-
clubmoss
dense clubmoss
yielded
between
in t he
treatments.
(SI) f o r c o n t r o l s ,
stage
of w ater
time
total
to
dormant
non-desiccated
absorption
over
T h e S3
of c o l l e c ­
adjusting
dense
clubmoss
and
required
the
and n o n - d o r m a n t
with dung.
for
when
cover
Ma y ,
covering
disruption
cover.
cover
E3 7 a n d E 7 4 t r e a t m e n t s
treatment
a ny i mme ­
mechanical
ma d e
1986.
assess
b e c o me a p p a r e n t
treatm ent cover estim ates
were
due t o
to
t o a l l o w t i m e f o r any e f f e c t
tive
treatments
utilized
due
of
by t h e
treatment
to
compensate
to
conditions
for
at
24
time
of
live
dense
during
sampling.
clubmoss
the
growing
multiplier
the
the
equal
estimate.
cover
wa s
cover
had
not
season
for
the
cover
to
x These
estimates
the pre-treatm ent
L74 t r e a t m e n t s .
pasture
of
the
changed
replicates.
control
for
and
total
wer e
the
1 986
then
June,
a nd
to set
live
dense
post-treat­
used
1986
A
to
adjust
post-treat­
( S 2 ) o f t h e E3 7 a n d E 74 t r e a t m e n t s a n d
estimates
(SI) of th e c o n t r o l s ,
The a d j u s t m e n t
wa s
total
significantly
September,
for
that
replicate
multipliers
upwar d
ma de
control
estimates
that
ment c o v e r e s t i m a t e s
licate
assumption
wa s c a l c u l a t e d f o r e a c h
pre-treatment
clubmoss
me n t
The
that
of
factor
its
utilized
l o c a t i o n a l Iy
L37 a n d
for
a rep­
corresponding
control.
Statistical
Statistical
variance
to
analyses
detect
were p a r t i t i o n e d
isolate
influences
stock
density
and
grazing
versus
consisted
differences
squares
( T ),
Me t h o d s
of
stock
( LSD) m e t h o d
method
of
me a n
detect
differences.
density
analysis
treatments.
Cochran,
( D) ,
time
of
1980)
to
of
grazing
grazing
interactions
grazing
( Gvs NG) .
Separation
a protected
(Snedecor
separation
wa s
and
Cochr an,
chosen
A significant
least
for
F-test
of
Sums
of
was a c c o m p l i s h e d u t i l i z i n g
difference
a mo n g
one-way
(Snedecor'and
x time
no
of
of
( DxT),
me a n s
significant
1 980).
Thi s
its
power
to
was
required
p rio r to t h i s
test
to hold the e x p e r i m e n t - w i s e e r r o r r a t e
t o a mi n i mu m.
Statistical
between
sample
analysis
I and s a m p l e
a n d s a m p l e 3 ( D2) f o r
pasture.
analysis
Type
of
wa s p e r f o r m e d on me a n d i f f e r e n c e s
all
I error
variance
and
2 ( D l ) 3 and b e t w e e n
cover c la s s e s
rates
were
in each
held
LSD t e s t s ,
unless
at
sample
I
replicate
P<.05
for
otherwise
all
indi­
cated.
Al I
statistical
analyses
were
micro-computer software s t a t i s t i c a l
3.2 ( I 984) .
LSD t e s t s
progr am.
performed
the
p r o g r a m MSUSTAT v e r s i o n
The p r o g r a m u s e d f o r a n a l y s i s
w a s AVMF3 a m u l t i - f a c t o r
using
o f v a r i a n c e and
analysis
of
variance
RESULTS
Total
Total
De n s e Cl u b mo s s
d e n s e c l ubmos s a d j u s t e d
differences
are
s hown
in
cover
s h o w e d no s i g n i f i c a n t
Table
2.
Table
Cont / 1
Cont/2
Cont/3
E37/ 1
E37/ 2
E37/ 3
E7 4 / 1
E74/ 2
E74/ 3
L37/ 1
L3 7 / 2
L37/ 3
174/1
L74/ 2
L74/ 3
Total
differences
dense
I/
SI
S2
S3
76.8
75.9
82. I
12.9
11.3
21.3
9.1
11.1
40.2
18.3
31.2
6.8
37.6
45.5
10.7
76.8
75.9
82. I
14.6
8.5
22.0
10. 1
10.9
3 9.9
18.0
29.4
6.8
35.2
38.3
10.1
72.0
71.6
79.8
12.3
8.3
24.7
8.2
10.3
38.4
17.7
29.4
6.9
35.1
38.1
11.1
and
clubmoss
due t o t r e a t m e n t .
T o t a l d e n s e c l u b m o s s a d j u s t e d me a n c o v e r (%)
d i f f e r e n c e s f o r each t r e a t m e n t r e p l i c a t e .
Mean C o v e r
Treatment/
Repli cate
2.
me a n c o v e r e s t i m a t e s
Difference
Dl
0.0
0.0
0.0
-1.7
2.8
-0.7
-1.0
0.2
0.3
0.3
1.8
0.0
2.4
7.2
■. 0 . 6
and
2/
D2
4.8
4.3
2.3
0.6
3.0
-3.4
0.9
0.8
1.8
0. 6
1.8
-0. I
2.5
7.4 .
-0.4
R e p r e s e n t s c o v e r e s t i m a t e s f o r s a m p l e p e r i o d s 1 ,2 , a n d
3.
2 / Dl a n d D2 r e p r e s e n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n S I a n d S 2 , a n d
SI a n d S3, r e s p e c t i v e l y .
I/
27
L i v e De n s e C l u b mo s s
Li ve d e ns e
Terences are
showed
no
Table
3.
shown
i n T a b l e 3.
significant
Partitioning
significant
c l u b . mo s s a d j u s t e d
of
treatment
estimates
and
dif-
Live dense cl ubmoss cover
differences
sums
of
due
to
squares
treatment.
yielded
no
differences.
L i v e d e n s e c I u b m o s s a d j u s t e d m e a n c o v e r 1%) a n d
d i f f e r e n c e s f o r each t r e a t m e n t r e p l i c a t e .
Mean C o v e r
Treatment/
Replicate
Cont / 1
Cont/2
Cont/3
E3 7 / 1
E37/ 2
E37/ 3
E7 4 / 1
E74/ 2
E74/ 3
L3 7 / 1
L37/ 2
L37/ 3
L74/ 1
L74/ 2
L74/ 3
cover
I/
Differences
SI
S2
S3
Dl
D2
21.0
28.0
34.8
7.0
4.4
12.2
4.6
6.8
17.6
9.5
10.2
4.5
16.2
18.8
4.2
21.0
28.0
34.8
8.1
2.3
9.3
3.8
5.0
12.7
9.8
11.6
4.4
13.3
13.2
3.9
19.4
24.6
30.3
7.2
3.0
12.7
4.0
5.0
14.9
7.9
11.4
3.8
12.0
15.9
3.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
-1.1
2.1
2.9
0.8
1.8
4.9
-0.3
-1.4
0.1
2.9
5.6
0.3
1.6
3.4
4.5
-0.2
1.4
-0.6
0.6
1.8
2.7
1.6
-1.2
0.7
4.2
2.9
0.3
2/
.
R e p r e s e n t s c o v e r e s t i m a t e s f o r s a mp l e p e r i o d s I , 2, and
3.
2 / Dl a n d D2 r e p r e s e n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n S I a n d S 2, a n d
SI a n d S 3 , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
17
28
B a r e Gr o u n d
Bar e
are
s h o wn
ground
i n T a b l e 4.
cant
differences
me n t
s u ms o f
Table 4.
adjusted
due
cover
Ba r e g r o u n d c o v e r
to
treatment.
squares yielded
Cont / 1
Cont/2
Cont/3
E3 7 / 1
E37/ 2
E37/ 3
E7 4 / 1
E74/ 2
E7 4 / 3
L37/ 1
L37/ 2
L37/ 3
174/1
L74/ 2
L74/ 3
17
2/
and
differences
s h o we d
no s i g n i f i ­
Partitioning
no s i g n i f i c a n t
of.treat­
differences.
B a r e g r o u n d mean c o v e r (%) a n d d i f f e r e n c e s
each t r e a t m e n t r e p l i c a t e .
Mean C o v e r
Treatment/
Rep I i c a t e
estimates
SI
S2
3.3 . 3.8
0.0
0.9
0.06
0.03
7.6
5.8
1.4
2.0
3.0
3.0
13.2
10.8
16. 1
9.2
7.9
4.2
9.7
7.2
9.2
8.1
12. I
3.7
6.0
5.7
6.6
7.6
5.8
3.8
I/
S3
5.6
2.5
0.0
11.4
3.8
4.5
21.8
21.9
9.0
8.6
6.6
12.3
9.7
10.2
7.5
for
Difference
Dl
-0.5
0.9
-0.03
-1.8
-0.6
0.0
-2.4
-6.9
-3.7
-2.5
-1.1
-8.4
-0.3
1.0
-2.0
2/
D2
-2.3
-1.6
-0.03
-5.6
-2.4
-1.5
-11.0
-12.7
-4.8
-1.4
1.5
-8.6
-4.0
-2.6
~6 • I
R e p r e s e n t s c o v e r e s t i m a t e s f o r s a mp l e p e r i o d s I , 2, and
3.
Dl a n d D2 r e p r e s e n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n SI a n d S 2 , a n d
SI a n d S 3 , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
29
Ot her
Adjusted
tion
(other
Table
5.
cant
due
cover
than
to
5.
and
estimates
dense
Differences
and
Cont / 1
Cont/2
Cont/3
E37/ 1
E37/ 2
E37/ 3
E7 4 / 1
E74/ 2
E74/ 3
137/1
L37/ 2
L37/ 3
L7 4 / 1
L74/ 2
L74/ 3
I/
2/
3/
and
Partioning
a significant
Cover
differences
cover
litter
for
are
wer e not
of
treatment
for
vegeta­
given
class
difference
SI
18.9
23.2
17.2
81.3
87.3
75. 7
80.1
79.7
55.6
74.5
59.9
89.5
56.7
46.9
85.5
S2
S3
s ums
GvsNG f o r
18.6
21.7
2 4 . 1 25.9
19.7
17.2
75.6
76.6
87.6
89.2
70. 4
7 4. 6
76.6
70.0
67.4
72.5
52.0
51.7
72.3 . 73.7
61.4
64.0
80.4
80.7
54.4
58.0
53.9
50.4
78.2
81.6
0.3
-0.9
0.0
4.7
-1.9
1. 1
3.5
7.2
3.9
2.2
-1.5
8.8
-1.3
-7.0
3.9
of
D2.
litter
Differences
Dl
in
signifi­
V e g e t a t i o n ( o t h e r t h a n d e n s e c l u b mo s s ) and
mean c o v e r (%) a n d d i f f e r e n c e s f o r e a c h
treatment replicate. I/
Mean C o v e r 2 /
Treatment/
Repli cate
Litter
c l u b moss)
in t h i s
treatment.
squares yielded
Table
V e g e t a t ion
3/
D2
-2.8a
-2.7a
-2.5a
5.7b
-0.3b
5. 3b
10.1b
12.3b
3.6b
0.8b
-4.1b
9.1b
2.3b
-3.5b
7.3b
D i f f e r e n c e s i f o l l o we d by a s i m i l a r l o w e r c a s e l e t t e r do
n o t d i f f e r a t P< . 0 5 a c c o r d i n g t o t h e LSD p r o c e d u r e .
R e p r e s e n t s c o v e r e s t i m a t e s f o r s a m p l e p e r i o d s I , 2 , a nd
3.
Dl a n d D2 r e p r e s e n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n SI a n d S2 , a n d
SI a n d S 3 , r e p e c t i v e l y .
30
Dung Co v e r
Dung a d j u s t e d
s h o wn
in
Table
mean c o v e r e s t i m a t e s
6.
Differences
a mo n g
and d i f f e r e n c e s
treatments
wer e
are
sig­
nificant.
Table
6.
Dung mean c o v e r (%) a n d d i f f e r e n c e s
treatment r e p l i c a t e . I/
Mean Co v e r 2 /
Treatment/
Rep I i c a t e
Cont / 1
Cont/2
Cont/3
£37/ I
£37/2
£37/3
£74/1
£74/2
£74/3
£37/I
L37/ 2
L37/ 3
£74/1
£74/2
£74/3
I/
2/
3/
SI
S2
S3
1.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.6
1.2
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.8
1. 2
2.5
0.7
0.0
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.3
3.2
for
each
Differences
3/
D2
Dl
0.2a
0. Oa
0. I a
- 1 . 2ab
- 0 . 3a b
- 0 . 4ab
-0.1a
-0.5a
-0.5a
0. Oa
0 . 8a
-0.4a
-0.8b
-1.2b
-2.5b
0.3a
0.0a
0.2a
-0.7a
-0.3a
-0.4a
0 . 0a
-0.4a
-0.6a
0 . 0a
0.0a
-0.4a
-0.8b
-1.3b
-3.2b
D i f f e r e n c e s f o l l o w e d by a s i m i l a r l o w e r c a s e l e t t e r do
n o t d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y a t P<. 05 a c c o r d i n g t o t h e t SD
procedure.
R e p r e s e n t s c o v e r e s t i m a t e s f o r s a m p l e p e r i o d s I , 2 , a nd
DT a n d D:I r e p r e s e n t d i f f e r e n c e s
SI a n d Si3, r e s p e c t i v e l y .
be t wee n
SI
and S 2 , and
31
LSD s e p a r a t i o n
increase
ent.
due t o t h e
Neither
plain this
but
for
indicates
either
that
the
controls.
indicates
the
wa s
that
change
differ­
nor ti m e of g r a z i n g could e x ­
test
for
of t r e a t m e n t
the
in dung c o v e r f o r
wa s n o t g r e a t
enough t o
s u ms o f
DxT i n t e r a c t i o n
D or T p a r t i t i o n i n g s .
change
cover
significantly
as p a r t i t i o n i n g
a significant
a n d L37 t r e a t m e n t s
the
density
difference,
yielded
means
L74 t r e a t m e n t
stock
squares
not
of
This
the
analysis
E37,
separate
it
E74,
from
32
DI SCUSSI ON
Gr o u n d C o v e r R e s p o n s e
Lack
clubmoss
ma y
be
significant
cover
of
dense
trampling
significant
is
this
study
for
proximately
d a ma g e d .
to
plant
studies
I
ma d e
whi ch
live
stock
and
Wi t h
dense
density
resilient
this
intense
quali­
to
with
ma k e
just
a
one
d e n s e c l u b mos s and t h e
major,
on
reason
study
site.
over
a period
of
of t r a m p l i n g
a time
lack
grazing
approximately
control
four years.
a stock
of
leading
control
Th e t i m e
at
for
Observations
wa s c o n d u c t e d
of t h i s
This
2
study
allowed
density
of
ap­
2 AU/ ha b e f o r e d e n s e c l u b m o s s wa s n o t i c e a b l y
Earlier
communi t y
took
tough
very
treatments.
literature
s u s e p t i b i Iity to trampling
of
be
between
wer e
1987) ,
years
the
high
material.
and p o s s i b l y
investigation
several
to
of
and
trampling.
time
response
was c o n d u c t e d
total
i n d e n s e c l u b mos s c o v e r
contact
km n o r t h e a s t
to
plant
have
intense
(Sindelar,
in
application
c l ubmos s
another,
significant
change
attributed
would
of
Lack o f
animals
one
change
application
to
with
partially
nature
ty,
of
place
to
dense
cIubmoss1
d a ma g e w e r e g a i n e d t h r o u g h
responses
over
references
to
a period
grazing
of year s
strategies.
and
thus
study
Thes e
allowed
33
collective
animal
upon d e n s e
to
grazing
tively
may
set
cover
influence
grazing
referring
activity
narrow
clubmoss
dense
c I u b mo s s
or
method,
high
cause
nitrogen
the
Lack o f
unexpected,
associated
cover
and
there
grazing
and
decrease
GvsNG a n a l y s i s ,
a non-significant
test
for
to
in bare
grazing
wa s
stock
not
for
clubmoss
cover.
wa s
1956
differ­
surprising
density.
to
Possible
estimation
and
treatment
the
(Klemmedson,
(I)
likely
a mo u n t o f
been
are
Insufficient
the
an
has
due t o
time.
rest
provide
commonly
differences
cover
rate,
ground cover
lack of s i g n i f i c a n t
in
to
lack of s i g n i f i c a n t
it
that
of
dense
for
error
dense
in d e n s e c l ubmos s
in c r e a s e d bare ground
Wi t h t h e
length
and p r o v i d e s
disruption
that
1965).
whi ch
stocking
increases
concentration,
greatest
under
activities
shading,
physical
susceptibili­
may b e a r e l a ­
include
amount
considering
the
treatment
to act
Grazi ng c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
change
with
that
conditions
significant
and Mee uwi g,
in
of
increases
maxi mum a m o u n t o f
ences
grazing
Manipulation
with
should
indicates
decrease.
environment t h a t
area
of
to dense clubmoss's
will
system
periods.
over the course of time
cI ubmoss.
Literature
ty
impacts
stock
( Z)
have
reasons
density
insufficient
time
is
the
most
reason.
Significant
differences
cover
i n t h e GvsNG a n a l y s i s
cover
is
most
likely
in t h e
in o t h e r
vegetation
were ex p ec te d .
litter
portion
and
litter
A decrease
of
this
in
cover
34
type.
of
Lack o f s i g n i f i c a n t
significant
capable
ed
of
ately
time
cover
change.
cover
after
over
differences
rapid
litter
a grazing
after
the
(1965)
Differences
be
attributed
plausible
To ma n e k
to
and
to
is
cover
by
animal
is
force.
that
Treading
causes
time,
or
I mp a c t
in
litter
in a cc o r d a n ce with
could not
grazing.
Th e
most
i n dung p l a c e m e n t .
p r o d u c e d no s t a t i s t i c a l l y
dense cl ubmoss
signifi­
cover,
d a ma g e
clubmoss
cover
damage
to
dense
clubmoss
wa s
activity
that
placement
this
causes
defined
relatively
little
discussion,
relatively
with
and
material,
little
greater
as
were
due
to
and t o dungi ng.
for
behavior
is
declined
Me c h a n i s ms
s u r f a c e and p l a n t
agitated
hoof
is
immedi­
cover
A decrease
random chance
defined,
activity
for
unchanged,
litter
areas
report­
dense
and t r e a d i n g
duced
( 1987)
type
in
trampling
tio n of the s o il
a I.
cover
changes
Observed
hoof
but
event.
and l i v e
observed.
ma l ' s
et
a
(1969).
density,
in t o t a l
Trampling
indicate
in dung c o v e r due t o t r e a t m e n t
treatments
minor
i n Dl a n d p r e s e n c e
remained
ungrazed
Livestock
cant changes
or
grazing
explanation
Al t hough
D2
treatment
versus
and
in
Heitschmidt
increased,
in grazed
Smol i ak
differences
than
an a n i m a l ' s
severe
as
an a n i ­
severe
disrup­
usually pro­
concern
nor mal
hoof
disruption
by
the
applied
activity
of the
soil
35
surface
and p l a n t
behavior
nor mal
with
material,
concern
by t h e
applied forces
Trampling
placed
of
associated
dense
and snow s t o r m
period
whe n
these
markedly
increased.
to sink f u r t h e r
to
(Figure
during
hoof
storm,
action
to
subsequently
receiving
and
dense
due
plants.
E3 7
the
tended
producing
portions
to
Soil
the
a
of
d a ma g e
to
the
dense
the
a shearing
together
plants
and
mill
application
replicate
A
hooves
c l u b mos s
concentrated
some
E 74
moisture
animals'
dense
group
and
wa y t h r o u g h
g r o u n d and t o p r o d u c e
damage
and d i s ­
t y p e of damage.
part
allowed
and
mo v e me n t .
uprooted
applied.
to
treading
occurred
L3 7 a n d 1 7 4 t r e a t m e n t s .
whe n d e n s e c l u b m o s s
subsequently
and a b r a s i o n
9).
and
increased
clubmoss
crushed
of
placement
pastures
clubmoss
of
and
cover
8).
Da ma g e
tion
were
Thi s
the
The c a t t l e
the
applied
into
dislodge
7).
(Fig u re
form
occurred
treatments
hoof
wi t h nor mal
showed t h e m a j o r i t y of t h i s
rain
action
for
c Tubmoss
spring
wa s
p r o d u c e d by u n - a g i t a t e d
animal
damage t ook t h e
portions
treatments
usually
under
nature,
and r e move d
This
type
of
wa s
a mo r e
these
conditions
apparently
disrupting
condition.
wa s
were
of dense
portions
material
below ground
Da mage
to
of a compression
a scuffing
removed
ground dense clubmoss plant
pastures
These t r e a t m e n t s
brittle
by more o f
in
in a d r y and d o r m a n t c o n d i ­
with p o r t i o n s
damage
primarily
clubmoss
action
of
the
plants
(Figure
above
w i t h o u t r e m o v i n g or
material.
36
Figure
7.
Damage t o d e n s e c l u b m o s s
of t r a mpl i ng.
Figure
8.
S i t e in p a st u r e
t r a mp l i n g .
12 t h a t
due t o
received
shearing
ext reme
action
37
Figure
9.
Illustration
clubmoss.
Covering
There
wa s
immediately
lack
tal
of
to
no e v i d e n c e
adjacent
sunlight
the
cover
effects
of
dung p i l e .
could
d a ma g e t o
i mmedi at el y under
or
to
of
the
the
dense
is
be s i g n i f i c a n t
can c o v e r
approximately
(Tainton,
1981),
whi ch
clubmoss
treated
with
over
(Figure
mortality
suggesting
mos t
detrimen­
ma y b e r e q u i r e d
concentration
a peri od of ye a r s .
may r e s u l t
with
in a
time
fecal
large
(Figure
area
11) .
to
ob­
adjacent
of dense clubmoss
0.04 h a / y e a r
dung o v e r
S3,
initially
nutrient
Susceptability
at
in death
pile
c l u b mos s
pile
Mo r e t i m e
increased
dung
dense
dung
smothering
to dense c lubmoss.
serve
treading
o f d e n s e c l u b m o s s by dung r e s u l t e d
o f d e n s e c l ubmos s
10).
of
to
dung
One cow
material
of
dense
38
Figure
11.
T y p i c a l dung c o v e r and d i s t r i b u t i o n
74 c o w - c a l f p a i r s / h a t r e a t m e n t .
after
a
39
In ma ny o f t h e
vegetation
All
dense
dead
center
patches
centers
vegetation
1954).
of
Dead d e n s e
to
clubmoss
adjacent
Figure
12.
form were
of t h e se
species
approximately
the
decompose
to
at
the
in
a
30
(Figure
13).
of
These
urine
center
faster
rate
of
Sindelar
vegetation
denoting
were
Mo s t
burn
with
a urine
of
patches
dead
(1987)
of
( Doak,
these
than
12) .
patches
on a n e a r b y s t u d y .
Da r k g r e e n
burn s p o t .
colored
of p l a n t s
(Figure
c m.
the
patches.
green
4 5 cm i n d i a m e t e r
description
clubmoss
of dark
noticeable
patches
approximately
match
patches
patches
a n d s ome o t h e r
were
appears
similar
growth
clubmoss
in the
these
dead
of rank
pastures,
dense
observed
40
Figure
13.
C l o s e - u p view o f t h e
F i g u r e 12.
urine
burn s pot
in
Observations
Various
cerning
observations
subjects
and
we r e
processes
o f g r o u n d c o v e r and d o m e s t i c
tive
lack of l i t e r a t u r e
volving
during
other
than
livestock.
pertaining
hypothesis
are
reported
for
the
the
to grazing
purposes
study
of
con­
interaction
Due t o
h i g h s t o c k d e n s i t y on n a t i v e r a n g e ,
observations
the
rela­
studies
in­
the following
speculation
and
formation.
Although
sents
ma de
a small
big
sagebrush
proportion
of
(Artem i s i a
the
tr identata) repre­
vegetation
on t h e
site,
it
41
wa s
severely
evidence
influenced
of
rubbing,
damage
trampling
to
spring
grazing
shedding
of
observed
rubbing
grazing
winter
of
sagebrush
on b i g
hair
by t h e
breaking
of
wa s
the
Figure
soil
14.
surface
which
Damage t o b i g
trampling.
the
coincided
cattle.
branches,
Cattle
during
attributed
(Figure
in
obvious
form
wa s o b s e r v e d
to
the
of
of
during
with
the
were
not
late
rubbing
scarring
ma i n s t er n, and b r e a k i n g o f t h e mai n s t e m ,
near
most
and h e r b i v o r y .
on b i g s a g e b r u s h
Da ma ge
Th e
sagebrush
treatments
treatments.
consisted
big
livestock.
and t r e a d i n g ,
R u b b i n g by c a t t l e
the
by
summer
activity
bark
on t h e
generally
14) .
sagebrush
due t o
rubbing
and
at
or
J
42
Trampling
degrees
single
in a l l
and t r e a d i n g
the
scattered
d a ma g e
replicate
was
pastures
big sagebrush
observed
to
containing
plants.
varying
other
than
Da ma g e d u e t o t r a m ­
p l i n g and t r e a d i n g p r i m a r i l y c o n s i s t e d
of broken
fine
and s c a r r e d
n e a r l y as
obvious
that
from
bark.
This
wa s n o t
as
rubbing.
He r b i v o r y o f b i g
spring
d a ma g e
st ems
grazing
ticularly
period.
heavy
attributed
sagebrush
wa s o n l y o b v i o u s
Replicate
utilization
of
pasture
big
during the
12 r e c e i v e d
sagebrush,
t o low f o r a g e a v a i l a b i l i t y
par­
which
and s e v e r e
wa s
weather
conditions.
site
Most o f t h e b l u e b u n c h w h e a t g r a s s
p l a n t s on t h e s t u d y
were " wo lf p l a n t s " .
of
peared
to
differ
receiving
due
treatments
wolf plant
to
Utilization
treatments.
with
utilization
tial
use of wo l f
than r e p l i c a t e
utilized
after
wheatgrass
progressed,
plants
by c a t t l e
preferred
plants
forage
appeared
suggesting
to
that
p l a n t s or t h a t
ability
preference.
wa s o v e r r i d i n g
preferences
grass,
indicated
standing
and n e e d l e a n d t h r e a d
selected.
l o w,
pastures
had
mo r e
15-18).
with
mo s t
Ini­
being
Us e o f b l u e b u n c h
as t h e g r a z i n g t r i a l
cattle
ma k e mo r e u s e o f t h e s e
ap­
pastures receiving
gone.
increase
either
pairs/ha
(Figures
wa s
wa s
plants
Replicate
74 c o w - c a l f
t h e 37 c o w - c a l f p a i r s / h a t r e a t m e n t
wolf
wer e
learning
to
limited forage a v a i l ­
Obser ved
mi I k v e t c h ,
were the f i r s t
initial
forage
prairie
june-
forage
species
43
Figure
16.
Vi e w i l l u s t r a t i n g u t i l i z a t i o n o f w o l f p l a n t s
a n d o t h e r f o r a g e d u e t o E74 t r e a t m e n t .
44
Figure
18.
Vi e w i l l u s t r a t i n g u t i l i z a t i o n o f w o l f p l a n t s
a n d o t h e r f o r a g e d u e t o E37 t r e a t m e n t .
45
T o wa r d t h e
ne w r e p l i c a t e
b luebunch
of
the
pasture,
wheatgrass
Wh e t h e r t h i s
stocking
end
apparent
density,
grazing
cattle
as
trials,
wer e s e l e c t i n g
readily
wolf p l a n t s
as o t h e r f o r a g e
modification
stocking
whe n e n t e r i n g
rate,
of p r e f e r e n ce
or
forage
a
of
species.
wa s d u e t o
availability
is
unknown.
In
observing
grazing
green
period,
regrowth
it
appeared
need l e g r a s s
attained
need!eandthread
and
to
Over a l l
regrowth of a ll
favorable
Soil
moisture
surface
grazing
treatment
became
more
with
pebbles
peared
zon.
to
Soil
enced
grazed
surface
during
grazed
the
have
with
on t h e
been
degree
wet
or
during
modification.
a nd
faster
than
than
mi I k v e t c h
other
forbs.
wa s e x c e l l e n t due
of
changed
at
from
into
time
conditions
soil
or
dry
upper
had
filling
litter.
soil
conditions
had
influ­
pastures
extreme
than p a st ur e s
(Figure
ap­
hori­
treatment
more
all
ground
erosion
Replicate
modification
conditions
sheet
of
in
bare
and o t h e r
the
modification.
soil
of
depressions
material
surface
markedly
Ar eas
ma ny s m a l l
conditions
moist
wheatgrass
Standing
faster
pastures.
incorporated
moist
the
conditions.
micro-topographic
dry
height
after
height
junegrass.
d e n s e c l u b mos s
moisture
during
grazable
forage species
replicate
left
species
bluebunch
micro-topography
uneven,
dislodged
Small
grazable
forage
that
prairie
appeared
to
attain
of
19) .
more
soil
grazed
Pastures
subtle
46
Figure
19.
Micro-topographical
alteration
Rol e o f S t o c k
The r o l e
not
well
gators
of
stock
understood
have
started
density
or
stock
density.
This
reflects
the
observations
of
wa s g a i n e d
Stock
(but
not
Sellers,
from the
densities
unlike
1982)
under yearlong
in
the
grazing
this
reporting
study
and
for
wh e n
study
bison
con­
density
informa­
available.
wer e
very
high
by R e i g h a r d
c ompar ed
or s e a s o n Iong c o n t i n u o u s
what
is
investi­
studies
of s to ck
literature
in t h i s
reported
I SOO' s )
and
process
Recently,
discussion
limited
utilized
those
the
investigated.
cerning
tion
Density
in
researching
by t r a m p l i n g .
to
those
grazing
(in
found
methods.
47
Many c o n t i n u o u s
grazing
AU/ ha
Use
or
less.
grazing
about
systems
0.2
of
stock
However,
stock
use s t ock
at
density
these
Many o f
achieve
stock
densities
ranging
high
densities
tempt
wa s
generally
stock
short
from
I
in
to
this
study,
responses that
m i g h t be due t o
stock
density.
densities
served
land
area,
cattle
ma k i n g
of
higher
nor mal
than
If
me nt s
into
any
resilience
dense
densities
of
concentrate
a short
of
animal
period
impacts
easier
c l u b mos s
sod
stock
a comparison
consisting
to
wer e
to
and
ma de
between
30AU/ha,
rate
would
associated
with
impacts
of tim e
be t h e
that
observe.
the
use
t wo
grazing
is
the
same.
concentration
stocking
rate
it
would
would d i f f e r ,
The
of
into
site
to
would a l l o w
recover.
Recovery
for
impacts
mor e t i m e
time
would
be
even
most
obvious
animal
impacts
a
period
of
concentration
treat­
stock
treatment.
of time
of
with
as compared to the
period
small
Finally,
h o u r s f o r t h e 30AU/ha t r e a t m e n t
This
asso­
and
respectively,
though
difference
any
density.
of the t r e a t m e n t s
stocking
an a t ­
Hi gh s t o c k
suggested
seem t h a t t h e n a t u r e
the
By
hasten
l A U / h a / m o n t h and . 3 0 / h a / 2 4 h r
I AU/ ha
of
me t hods
6 AU/ ha.
and
to
densities
grazing
site
with
stress
duration
study
also
to
rest^rotatioh
the
ciated
ma d e
the
stock
low
o f 0. 05
ma y b e m a s k e d b y i n f l u e n c e
rate.
very
and
densities,
stocking
choosing
densities
deferred-rotation
increases
AU/ ha.
influence
of
me t h o d s
into
for
of
24
I AU/ h a
a shorter
the
grazing
important
for
48
plants
to
regrow
A b i l i t y of p l a n t s
growing
period
plant
has
Recovery
a chance
time
20.
observed
the
carbohydrate
also
( Wa r r e n
Pasture
during
grazing
to recover
woul d
grazing,
allotted
would r e d u c e
compaction
Figure
wa s
Harvesting
short
replenish
to regrow a f t e r
conditions,
20-24).
from
and
be
et
important
10 p r i o r
to
study
first
for
1986).
treatment.
(Figures
material
of regrowth
from the
a!.,
given adequate
the
plant
reserves.
in
one
before
the
grazing
soils
to
event.
recover
49
i
50
I
Figure
24.
P a s t u r e 10,
treatment.
one y e a r
a n d 31 d a y s
after
51
Apparent
ments
will
subject
animal
1985;
initiated
and
further
research
et
et
a I.,
a I.,
Wi t h t h e
grazing
mechanistic
approach
advances
Further
research
density
treatments
vital
responses
a I.,
forage
response
(Warren
et
to
in
should
be
to
et
utilization
S c a r n e c c h i a,
a I.,
1986
investigation.
will
designed
Compa r i ng
and
plant-site-herbivore
research
applied
on s t o c k
one
a
graz­
density
ranging
from
and
needs to
low
of animal
of
interactions
approach w ill
research
understanding
grazing.
with
n o t e n a b l e us t o d e r i v e enough
to
lead to
methodology.
consider
very
behavior,
and h y d r o l o g i c r e s p o n s e s due t o
our
such as
Walker
and
Quantification
to
stud­
con­
19 7 1 ;
1987),
grazing
hypotheses
Pierson
A basic
further
soil,
formulate
a I.,
on t h i s
in a r e a s
and
research
another
1984).
densities.
et
a I.,
1987
information concerning
(Kothmann,
to
treat­
1987).
Future
ing s y s t e m t o
begin
et
plant-site
Heitschmidt
are
until
(Donaldson
Heitschmidt
(Heitschmidt
nity,
contrasting
and c o m p l e t e d .
we c a n
behavior
and
1987)
these
have been c o n d u c t e d and s t u d i e s
behavior,
cerning
between
be s p e c u l a t i v e
is
ies that
differences
high
plant
stock
grassland
mor e
stock
c o mmu ­
density
ecosystems
52
SUMMARY
Stock
whi ch
ma n y o f o u r
factor
of
played
most
little
this
density
wa s
native
researched
is
to
The
density
livestock
grasslands
evolved.
until
recently
study
a
maintenance,
unknown.
limited.
purpose
as
grazing
is
of n a t i v e g r a s s l a n d s
important
of the
in development,
grasslands
factor
part
Stock
to various
of
density
as
In
Ranch
stock
study
in
grazing
was
a study
levels
74 c o w - c a l f
season,
spring
wa s
pasture
wa s
been
response
to
it
is
variable.
investigate
of
stock
domestic
O bjectives of the study
of
stock
how a n i m a l
ground cover.
to
at
at
Re d B l u f f
investigate
a native
density
mi d- s umme r .
24 h o u r s .
investigate
initiated
Montana
pairs/ha,
and
the
influences
d e n s i t y on g r o u n d c o v e r o f
Three
has
t h e e f f e c t o f s t o c k d e n s i t y on g r o u n d
influence
in s o u t h w e s t
land.
and
1986
density
a research
c o v e r of a n a t i v e g r a s s l a n d and t o
i mp a c t mechani sms
this
and p r o d u c t i v i t y
understand
on a n a t i v e g r a s s l a n d .
were to i n v e s t i g a t e
The r o l e
grazing s tra te g ie s ,
this
factor
under
and i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g
To b e t t e r
stock
process
two
wer e
periods
Grazi ng
the
Research
effect
of
foothills
grass­
utilized:
0,
in
time
the
per
37,
grazing
replicate
53
Gr o u n d c o v e r
mos s ,
not
of t o t a l
and b a r e g r o u n d ,
change
as
dense
cIubmoss,
estimated
significantly
in
cover classes
time
factor,
the
time
for
animal-site
Cover
litter
in
of
response
change
crease
in
stock
for
dung
dung p i l e s
hot
(other
treatments.
providing
than
density.
cover
wa s
dense
in res ponse
did
La c k
to a
sufficient
and
to gr azi ng but
not
a signif­
The L74 t r e a t m e n t
attributed
in accordance with
clubmoss)
Dung c o v e r y i e l d e d
t h e 174 t r e a t m e n t .
to
random p l a c e me n t
in­
of
the
ma n n e r o f dung d e p o s i t i o n
ma de d u r i n g t h e
study provided points for
cattle.
Observations
speculation
concerning
tion,
plant
animal
impact
recovery
on t h e
forage
preference,
after
grazing,
soil
and o b s e r v a t i o n s
from
studies
conducted
that
stock
study.
density
A better
grazing
herbivore
will
a
enable
will
variable
us t o
allow
and
obtained
investigators
understanding
interactions.
interactions
resource.
by
is
forage
utiliza­
influence
of
surface.
Results
in
intercept,
interaction.
significantly
to
to
dense club-
c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d
treatments
vegetation
changed
icant
by
with
by l i n e
response
of change in t h e s e
live
of
all
better
in t h i s
s t u d y and
elsewhere
worthy
the
of
additional
factors
understand
management
of
involved
plant-site-
An e n h a n c e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g
better
indicate
of t h e s e
our range
54
REFERENCES CITED
REFERENCES CITED
Albertson,
F. W. ,
A. R i e g e l a n d J . L .
Launchbaugh, Jr.
1953. E f f e c t s
of d i f f e r e n t i n t e n s i t i e s of c l i p p ­
i n g on s h o r t g r a s s e s i n w e s t - c e n t r a l K a n s a s .
Ecol .
34:1-20.
Anderson,
D. C . , K. T. H a r p e r , a n d S. R. R u s h f o r t h .
1982.
Recovery of cry ptogam ic s o i l c r u s t s from grazing
on U t a h w i n t e r r a n g e s .
J. Ra n g e Ma n a g e . 3 5 : 3 5 5 - 3 5 9 .
Ba I ph , D. F. a n d J . C . M a l e c h e c k .
1985.
Cattle trampling
of c r e s t e d w h e atg r as s under s h o r t d u r a t i o n grazin g.
J . Ra n g e Ma n a g e . 3 8 : 2 2 6 - 2 2 7 .
B e m e n t , R. E.
1969.
Dy n a mi c s o f s t a n d i n g d e a d v e g e t a t i o n
on t h e s h o r t g r a s s p l a i n s .
p. 2 2 1 - 2 2 4 I n : R. L. Di x
and
R. G. B e i d e l ma n ( e d . ) T h e g r a s s l a n d e c o ­
system: a prelim inary synthesis.
Range S c i . Dept .
S c i . S e r i e s No. 2 , C o l o r a d o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,
Ft. Co l l i ns .
B i l l i n g s , W.D.
1978.
P l a n t s and t h e e c o s y s t e m , 3rd.
e d . Wa d s w o r t h P u b l i s h i n g Co mp a n y , I n c . B e l m o n t , CA.
177 p .
B l a c k b u r n , W. H. 1 9 8 4 .
I m p a c t s o f g r a z i n g i n t e n s i t y and
specialized grazing
s y s t e m s on w a t e r s h e d c h a r a c t e r i s ­
t i c s a n d r e s p o n s e s , p. 9 2 7 - 9 8 4 I n :
NRC/ NAS.
Develop­
ing s t r a t e g i e s f o r r a n g e I and ma n a g e me n t .
Westview
Press.
B o u l d e r and L o n d o n .
2 0 2 2 p.
B o o y s e n , P . V. ,
N. M. T a i n t o n ,
and
J . D.
Scott.
1963.
S h o o t - a p e x d e v e l o p m e n t in g r a s s e s and i t s i m p o r t ­
ance in
grassland
management.
Herb.
Abst.
33:
209-213.
Brother s o n , J.D.,
S. R. R u s h f o r t h ,
and
J . R. J o h an s o n .
19 8 3 .
E f fe ct s of long-term
grazing
on
cryptogram
c r u s t cover in
Na va j o
National
Mo n u me n t ,
Ar i z.
J. Ra nge Manage.
36:579-581.
B r o w n , M. H. a n d
W. R. F e l t o n .
1955.
years.
B r a mh a l I Ho u s e . New Y o r k .
The f r o n t i e r
2 7 2 p.
56
B r y a n t , H. T. , R. E. B l a s e r ,
f e c t o f t r a m p l i n g by
soil
compaction
of
64:331-334.
a n d J . R. P e t e r s on.
1 972.
Ef­
c a t t l e on
b l u e g r a s s y i e l d a nd
a Me a d o wv i I I e l o a m.
Ag r o n . J.
Caldwell,
M. M.
1984.
Plant requirements
for prudent
grazing.
In:
Developing s t r a t e g i e s
f o r rangerland
management.
NRC/ NAS.
Westview Pr ess.
B o u l d e r and London.
2022p.
C l a r k e , S . E . , E. W. T i s d a l e ,
a n d N. A. S k o g l u n d .
1943.
The
e f f e c t s of c l i ma t e
and
grazing
practices
on s h o r t grass p ra i ri e
vegetation.
Ca n . Dept . A g r . Tech. Bui .
46.
53 p.
Co o k , C. W. ,
I . A. S t o d d a r t ,
and
L. E. H a r r i s .
1953.
E f f e c t s of g r a z i n g i n t e n s i t y upon t h e n u t r i t i v e v a l u e
of range f o r a g e .
J . R a n g e Ma n a g e . 6 : 5 1 - 5 4 »
C o o k , C. W. a n d J . S t u b b e n d i e c k
(e d.).
1986.
research:
basic
p r o b l e m s and
techniques.
f o r Ra n g e M a n a g e m e n t .
D e n v e r , Co. 3 17 p.
Cook,
Range
Society
C. W. , K. T a y l o r ,
and
L. E. H a r r i s .
1962.
Th e
e f f e c t o f r a n g e c o n d i t i o n and i n t e n s i t y o f g r a z i n g
upon d a i l y i n t a k e and n u t r i t i v e
value
of
the
diet
on
d e s e rt range.
J . Ra n g e Ma n a g e .
15:1-6.
C o u g h e n o u r , M. B.
1985.
Graminoid responses to grazing
b y l a r g e h e r b i v o r e s : a d a p t a t i o n s , e x a p t a t i o n s , and
interacting processes.
Ann.
Mi ssouri
Bot.
Gard.
72:852-863.
Do a k ,
B.W.
1954.
The
presence
of r o o t - i n h i b i t i n g s u b ­
s t a n c e s i n c ow u r i n e
a nd
the
caus e of u r i n e burn.
J . A g r i c . Sc i . 4 4 : 1 3 3 - 1 3 9 .
Donaldson,
S.L.,
J.L.
A l b r i g h t , and
Space and c o n f l i c t in c a t t l e .
Sci.
81:352-354.
M. A.
Mo s s .
Proc. In d ia n a
1971.
Acad.
Hanson,
C. L. , A. R. Kuh I ma n ,
C. J.
E r i c k s o n , and
J . K.
Lewis.
1970.
G r a z i n g e f f e c t s on
runoff
and
v e g e t a t i o n on w e s t e r n S o u t h D a k o t a r a n g e l a n d .
J. Range Ma n a g e .
23:418-420.
H e a d y , H. F.
1952.
R e s e e d i n g , f e r t i l i z i n g , and r e n o v a t ­
i n g i n an u n g r a z e d mi x e d p r a i r e .
J . Range
Ma n a g e .
5:144-149.
57
H e a d y , H. F .
1961.
C o n tin u o u s vs. s p e c i a l i z e d g r a z ­
ing s y s t e m s : a r e v i e w
and
applications
to
the
C a l i f o r n i a a nn ual type.
J . Ra n g e Ma n a g e .
14:182-193.
H e i t s c h m i d t , R . K . , S. L. D o w h o w e r ,
a n d J . W. W a l k e r .
19 8 7 .
14 v s . 42 p a d d o c k r o t a t i o n a l g r a z i n g :
above­
g r o u n d b i o m a s s d y n a m i c s , f o r a g e p r o d u c t i o n , a nd h a r ­
vest efficiency.
J . Ra n g e Ma n a g e .
40:216-223.
H o r m a y , A. L. a n d
M.W. T a l b o t .
1961.
Rest-rotation...a
new m a n a g e m e n t s y s t e m f o r p e r e n n i a l b u n c h g r a s s
ranges.
U. S. De p . A g r . , F o r e s t S e r v . P r o d . R e s .
Re p . 5 1 . 4 3 p .
H o u s t o n , W. R. a n d J . J .
Urick.
1972.
Improving spring
pastures,
cow-calf
production,
and
stocking
rate
c a r r y o v e r i n t h e n o r t h e r n G r e a t P l a i n s . U. S. Dep. Agr .
T e c h . B u l l . No. 1 4 5 1 . 2 l p .
H o u s t o n , W.R. a n d R. R. Wo o d wa r d .
1 966.
Ef fe ct s of
stock­
i n g r a t e s on r a n g e v e g e t a t i o n a n d b e e f c a t t l e p r o d u c ­
t i o n in the n o r t h e r n Great P l a i n s .
U. S. De p . Ag r .
T e c h . B u l l . No. 1 3 5 7 . 5 8 p .
Johnstone-Wal lace,
D. B. a n d
K. K e n n e d y .
1 944.
Graz­
ing m a n a g e m e n t p r a c t i c e s and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o
the
behaviour
and
grazing
habits
of
cattle.
J. Agr . S c i .
34:190-197.
K a u f f m a n , J . B. a n d
W. C. K r u e g e r .
1984.
Livestock
i m p a c t s on
riparian
ecosystems
and
streamside
m a n a g e m e n t i mp l i c a t i o n s . . . a r e v i e w .
J . Ra n g e Ma n a g e .
37:430-438.
K i r b y , D. R. , M. F. P e s s i n ,
and
G. K. C l a m b e y .
1986.
Disappearance of forage under short
duration
a nd
sea so n long g r a z i n g .
J. Ra n g e Ma n a g e . 3 9 : 4 9 6 - 5 0 0 .
K l e m m e d s o n , J. O.
1 9 56.
Interrelations
of
vegetation,
s o i l s and r a n g e c o n d i t i o n s i n d u c e d by g r a z i n g .
J. Ra n g e Ma n a g e .
9:134-138.
K o e r t h , B . H . , W. M. W e b b , F . C . B r y a n t ,
and
F.S.
Guthery.
1983.
C a t t l e t r a m p l i n g of s i m u l a t e d ground
n e s t s u n d e r s h o r t d u r a t i o n and c o n t i n u o u s g r a z i n g .
J . Ra n g e Mana ge . 3 6 : 3 8 5 - 3 8 6 .
K o t h m a n n , M. M.
1984.
C o n c e p t s and
priciples under­
lying g ra z ingsystems :
a d iscu ssan t paper.
In:
Developing
strategies
for
rangeland
ma na ge me nt .
NRC/ NAS.
W e s t v i e w P r e s s . B o u l d e r a n d Lo n d o n .
2022p.
58
L e w i s , M. a n d
W. C l a r k .
1806.
History of the expedi­
t i o n u n d e r t h e c o mma n d o f c a p t a i n s L e w i s a n d C l a r k .
R e p r i n t o f B i d d l e e d i t i o n o f 1814.
A l l e r t o n Bo o k Co.
New Y o r k .
Three vo l u me s .
I 207p.
Lewis,
J . K . , G. M. V a n D y n e ,
L. R. Al b e e ,
and
F. W.
W h e t z a 1.
1 956.
I n t e n s i t y o f g r a z i n g , i t s e f f e c t on
l i v e s t o c k a n d f o r a g e p r o d u c t i o n . So. D a k . S t a t e C o l l .
Ag r . Exp. S t a t . B u l l . 4 5 9 .
44p.
M c C a r t y , M. K. a n d A. P. M a z u r a k .
1976.
Soil compaction
i n e a s t e r n N e b r a s k a a f t e r 25 y e a r s o f c a t t l e g r a z i n g
ma n a g e me n t a n d we e d c o n t r o l .
J . Ra n g e M a n a g e .
29:384-386.
McNaughton, S.J.
herds, plant
124:863-886.
1984.
Grazing lawns:
f o r m , and c o e v o l u t i o n .
M e e u w i g , R. O. 1 9 6 5 .
on i n f i l t r a t i o n
s u b a l p i n e range
■ 18:173-180.
animals
Am.
Nat.
in
E f f e c t s of seeding
and
grazing
capacity
and
soil
s t a b i l i t y of a
i n c e n t r a l Ut a h .
J . Ra n g e Ma n a g e .
MSUSTAT.
1984.
Version 3. 2.
An i n t e r a c t i v e
statistical
package.
D e v e l o p e d b y R. E. L u n d .
Mo n t . S t a t e
U n i v.
B o z e ma n , MT.
N o r l a n d , J.E.
1984.
H a b i t a t use and d i s t r i b u t i o n
bison in Theodore R o o s e v e lt N a ti o n al Park.
Thesis.
Mo n t a n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .
131p.
of
M. S.
P e t e r s o n , R. G. ,
H. L. L u c a s ,
and
W.W. W o o d h o u s e , J r .
1956a.
The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f e x c r e t a by
freely
graz­
i n g c a t t l e a n d i t s i n f l u e n c e on p a s t u r e f e r t i l i t y :
I. Excretal d istribution.
Agron. J . 48:440-444.
Peterson,
R. G. ,
W.W.
Wo odhous e J r . ,
and
H. L. L u c a s .
1956b.
Th e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f e x c r e t a b y f r e e l y g r a z ­
ing c a t t l e
a n d i t s i n f l u e n c e on p a s t u r e f e r t i l i t y :
II.
E f f e c t o f r e t u r n e d e x c r e t a on t h e
residual
concentration
of
s o me
fertilizer
elements.
Agr on. J . 4 8 : 4 4 4 - 4 4 9 .
P i e r s o n , F. B. a n d
D. L . S c a r n e c c h i a .
1987.
Defoliation
of i n t e r m e d i a t e wheat g r a s s
under
seasonal
and
short
duration
grazing.
J . Ra n g e Ma n a g e .
40:228-232.
59
Ryerson,
D. E . , J . E . T a y l o r ,
L. O. B a k e r ,
and
D.W.
Stroud.
1970.
C l u b mo s s
on
Mo n t a n a
rangelands;
distribution, control,range relationships.
Mo n t .
Agr . Exp. S t a .
B u l l . 645.
S a r v i s , J . T.
19 4 1 .
G r a z i n g i n v e s t i g a t i o n s on t h e n o r t h ­
ern Great Plains.
N. Da k . A g r . E x p t . S t a . Bu i . 3 08.
11 Op.
S e l l e r s , F.
1982.
Sharps f i r e a r m s .
Beinfeld Publish­
ing, Inc.
N o r t h H o l l y w o o d , CA.
3 5 8 p.
Sh i f l e t , T. N. a n d H. F. H e a d y .
1971.
Specialized
i ng s y s t e m s : t h e i r p l a c e i n r a n g e ma n a g e me n t .
Dep. Agr . S C S - T P - 1 5 2 .
13p.
graz­
U. S.
S i n d e l a r 9 B. W.
1987.
Plant
population
response
to
time
control grazing
in
southwestern
Mo n t a n a .
Abst . 40t h
Ann. M e e t i n g S o c . R a n g e M a n a g e .
S m i t h , J. G. 1 8 9 5 .
Forage c o n d i t i o n s of t he p r a i r i e
I n : U. S. De p t . Ag r . Ye a r b o o k o f Ag r . 3 0 9 - 3 2 4 .
region.
S m o l i a k , S. 1 9 6 5 .
A c o m p a r i s o n o f u n g r a z e d and l i g h t ­
ly grazed St i pa- Bout el oua p r a i r e in
southeastern
Alberta.
Ca n . J.. P l a n t S c i . 4 5 : 2 7 0 - 2 7 5 .
S n e d e c o r , G. W. a n d W. G.
c a l me t h o d s . 7 t h ed.
Ame s ,
I o wa .
Cochran.
1980.
S ta tis ti­
The I o wa S t a t e
Un i v . P r e s s .
S o c i e t y f o r Range Ma n a g e me n t .
1974.
A glossary
t e r m s used i n . r a n g e ma nage me nt .
2nd ed.
of
Stoddart,
L. A. ,
A. D. S m i t h ,
and
T. W. Bo x .
1975.
Range
management ,
3r d ed.
M c G r a w - H i l l Book Co.
New Y o r k .
5 3 2 p.
T a i n t o n , N. M.
1981.
Veld and p a s t u r e m a n a g e m e n t
South
Africa.
Shuter
and
Shooter
Lt d.
P i e t e r m a r i t z b u r g , S o u t h A f r i c a . 481 p.
in
T o m a n e k , G. W. 1 9 6 9 .
Dynamics
of
mulch l a y e r in g r a s s ­
land ecosystems.
p. 225-240 In:
R. L. D i x a n d
R. G.
B e i d e l m a n ( e d . ) The g r a s s l a n d e c o s y s t e m : a p r e l i m i n a r y
synthesis.
R a n g e S c i . D e p t . S c i . S e r i e s No . 2 ,
Colorado S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , For t Co l l i n s .
V a n D y n e , G. M. a n d
W. G. V o g e l . 1 9 6 7 .
Relationship
of S e l a g i n e l l a densa to s i t e ,
grazing,
and
climate.
Ecology 43: 438-444.
60
V o g e l , W. G. a n d
G. M. V a n D y n e .
1966.
Vegetation r e ­
sponses
t o g r a z i n g m a n a g e m e n t on a f o o t h i l l s h e e p
range.
J . Ra n g e Ma n a g e .
19:80-85.
Wa l k e r ,
J. W.
and
R.K.
Heitschmidt.
1 986.
Effect
of
v a r i o u s g r a z i n g s y s t e m s on t y p e a n d d e n s i t y o f c a t t l e
trails.
J . Ra n g e Ma n a g e .
39:428-431.
W a l k e r , J . W. , R. K. H e i t s c h m i d t ,
and
S. L. D o w h o w e r .
1 9 85.
Evaluation of
pedometers
for
measuring d i s ­
t a n c e t r a v e l e d by c a t t l e
on t wo g r a z i n g s y s t e m s .
J. Ra n g e
Ma n a g e . 3 8 : 9 0 - 9 3 .
W a r r e n , S . D. , W. H. B l a c k b u r n ,
and
C. A. T a y l o r , J r .
1 986.
Soil hydro logic response to
number
of p a s ­
t u r e s and s t o c k i n g d e n s i t y u n d e r i n t e n s i v e r o t a t i o n
grazing.
J . R a n g e Ma n a g e . 3 9 : 5 0 0 - 5 0 4 .
We a v e r , J.E.
1950.
E f f e c t s of d i f f e r e n t i n t e n s i t i e s
o f g r a z i n g on d e p t h a n d q u a n t i t y o f r o o t s o f g r a s s e s .
J . Ra n g e Ma n a g e .
3:100-113.
W o o l f o i k , E . J . a n d B. K n a p p , J r .
1949.
Wei ght and g a i n
o f r a n g e c a l v e s as a f f e c t e d by r a t e o f s t o c k i n g .
M o n t . S t a t e C o l l . Ag r . Ex p e r . S t a . Bu I. 4 6 3 . 2 6p.
61
APPENDICES
62
Appendi x A
Table
7.
Partial
species
Latin
Name
Grass
and g r a s s - 1 i k e :
Agr opyr on s m i t h i i
Agropyron s p i c a t u m
Aristida longeseta
Bouteloua g r a c i l i s
Br omus m a r g i n a t u s
Br omus t e c t o r u m
Car ex f i l i f o l i a
Festuca idahoensis
Koeleria pyramidata
Poa c o m p r e s s a
Poa p r a t e n s i s
Poa s a n d b e r g i i
S t i p a c o ma t a
Stipa viridula
Vulpia o c t o f I ora
list
for
study s i t e .
Common Name
western wheatgrass
bluebunch wheatgrass
r e d t h r e . e a wn
b l u e g r a ma
m o u n t a i n b r o me
cheatgras s
t hr ead l e a f sedge
Idaho f e s c u e
prairie junegrass
Ca n a d a b l u e g r a s s
Ke nt ucky b l u e g r a s s
Sandberg b l u e g r a s s
need!e-and-thread
gr e e n need I e g r a s s
six-weeks fescue
Forbs:
Ac hi I l e a mi I l e f o l i u m
Al y s s u m a l y s s o i d e s
Al y s s u m d e s e r t o r u m
Allium t e x t i l e
A n t e n n a r i a spp.
A r t e m i s i a d r a c u n c u l us
Artemisi a ludoviciana
Astragalus adsurgens
Astragalus c r a s s i carpus
Aster f a l c a t u s
Besseya wyomi nge ns i s
C e n t a u r e a macul osa
Cirsium undulatum
Delphinium b i c o l o r
Ga ur a c o c c i nea
Geum t r i f l o r u m
Glycyrrhiza lepidota
Grindelia squarrosa
western yarrow
p a l e a I y s sum
d e s e r t a lyssum
p r a i r e onion
pussytoes
green sagewort
c u d we e d s a g e w o r t
s t a n d i n g mi I k v e t c h
g r o u n d p l u m mi I k v e t c h
aster
Wyomi ng k i t t e n t a i I
s p o t t e d k n a p we e d
wavyleaf t h i s t l e
l ow l a r k s p u r
s c a r l e t gaura
prairiesmoke
A me r i c a n l i c o r i c e
c u r l y c u p gumweed
63
Table
7.
Latin
Name
Partial
species
list
for
study s i t e .
Continued
Common Name
Forbs c o n t .
H e l i a n t h u s annus
H e t e r o t h e c a v i I Tos a
Heucher a spp.
Lappula r edowski i
L i a t r is punctata
L o ma t i u m s p p .
Lupi nus s pp.
Mammi l l a r i a v i v i p a r a
Melilotus o f f i c i n a l i s
Microsteris gracilis
Oenothera n u t t a l l i i
O p u n t i a p o l y a c a n t ha
Oxytropis spp.
Pe ns t e mon s pp.
Phlox hoodi i
Plantago patagonica
P o t e n t i 11 a p e n s y l v a n i c a
S e l a g i n e l la densa
Si s ymbr i um a l t i s s i m u m
S o l i d a g o mi s s o u r i e n s i s
S p h a e r a l c e a c o c c i nea
Taraxacum o f f i c i n a l e
Tragopogon d ubi us
Viola n u t t a l l i i
Zigadenus venenosus
Shrubs
annual sunflower
h a i r y go I d a s t e r
alumroot
western s t i ck se ed
dotted gayfeather
biscuitroot
lupine
cushion cactus
yellow sweetclover
p i n k mi c r o s t e r i s
Nuttall evening primrose
pricklypear cactus
I o c o we e d
penst ernon
Hood p h l o x
woolly p l a n t a i n
prairie cinquefoiI
dense cl ubmoss
t ur nbl emus t ar d
Missouri g o ldenrod
s c a r l e t globe-mallow
common d a n d e l i o n
salsify
Nuttall violet
meadow d e a t h c a ma s
and h a l f - s h r u b s :
Ar t e mi s i a cana
Artemisia f r i g i d a
Artemisia t r i d e n t a t a
Chr ys ot hamnus n a u s e o s u s
Ro s a s p p .
X a n t h o c e p h a I urn s a r o t h r a e
s i l v e r sagebrush
f r i n g e d sagewort
big s agebr us h
rubber rabbitbrush
rose
broom s n a k e we e d
64
Appendi x B
Figure
25.
Study s i t e
Classification:
Remarks:
Aridic
soil
pedon d e s c r i p t i o n .
A r g i b o r o 11,
f i n e - l o a m y mi x e d
P r o f i l e moist with
coarse fragments generally
<10%. T e m p e r a t u r e a t 5 0 c m. 11 d e g r e e s C. A v e r a g e
p r e c i p i t a t i o n f o r t h i s a r e a i s 2 6 . 8 c m. S t o n e s on
t he s o i l s u r f a c e p r e s e n t . Ag g r e g a t e s p r e s e n t in
the C horizons th a t are hard, g ra n u la r shaped,
3 - 8 mm, o f u n k n o w n o r i g i n , a n d a p p a r e n t l y
cement ed.
Description:
Colors
are dry unless
otherwise
indicated.
A 0 - 1 2 c m.
D a r k g r a y b r o w n ( 1 0 YR 4 / 2 ) s i l t
l o a m , v e r y d a r k g r a y b r o w n ( 1 0 YR 3 / 2 ) wh e n
m o is t; s i n g l e - g r a i n to moderate very f i n e to
fine granular
s t r u c t u r e ; s l i g h t l y hard (dry),
v e r y f r i a b l e ( m o i s t ) , s l i g h t l y s t i c k y and n o n ­
p l a s t i c (wet);
ma n y v e r y f i n e a n d f i n e , c ommon
me d i u m r o o t s ; common v e r y f i n e v e r t i c a l l y
c o n t i n u o u s p o r e s ; n o n e f f e r v e s c e n t , pH = 7 . 0 ;
10% c o a r s e f r a g m e n t s ;
clear
s moot h
boundary;
krotovinas present.
Bt 1 2 - 2 2 c m.
Y e l l o w i g h b r o w n ( 1 0 YR 5 / 6 ) s i l t
l o a m , y e l l o w i s h b r o w n ( 1 0 YR 5 / 4 ) w h e n m o i s t ;
moderate
fine
sub a n g u l a r
blocky stucture;
s l i g h t l y hard (dry), very f r i a b l e (m oist),
s t i c k y a n d p l a s t i c ( w e t ) ; ma n y v e r y f i n e a n d
f i n e , c o mmo n m e d i u m r o o t s ; c o m m o n v e r y f i n e
v e r t i c a l l y continuous pores;
non e f f e r v e s c e n t ,
pH = 7 . 0 ; 5% c o a r s e f r a g m e n t s ;
c l e a r smooth
boundary.
Cl 2 2 - 4 2 c m.
Whi t e (2.5 Y 8 / 2 ) s i l t ,
light
g r a y (2.5 Y 7 / 2 ) when m o i s t ; m o d e r a t e f i n e
subangular block s t r u c t u r e ; s of t (dry), f r i a b l e
( m o i s t ) , s l i g h t l y s t i c k y and s l i g h t l y p l a s t i c
( w e t ) ; f e w f i n e a n d m e d i u m r o o t s ; c o mmo n v e r y
fine v ertically
continuous pores;
strong
e f f e r v e s c e n c e , pH = 8 . 0 ; <1% c o a r s e
fragments;
abrupt
s moot h b o u n d a r y .
65
Figure
25.
Study s i t e
soil
pedon d e s c r i p t i o n .
Continued
C2 4 2 - 7 0 c m.
V e r y p a l e b r o w n ( 1 0 YR 8 / 4 ) s i l t ,
v e r y p a l e b r o wn ( 1 0 YR 7. 4) whe n m o i s t ; m o d e r a t e
very f i n e to f i n e subangu I ar blocky;
soft
( d r y ) , f r i a b l e ( m o i s t ) , non s t i c k y and non
p l a s t i c ( w e t ) ; f e w f i n e r o o t s ; c ommon v e r y f i n e
v e r t i a l l y
continuous
pores;
moderate
e f f e r v e s c e n c e , pH = 8 . 0 ; < I % c o a r s e f r a g m e n t s ;
abrupt
s moot h b o u n d a r y .
CS 7 0 - 1 1 4 cm.
Ve r y p a l e b r o wn ( 1 0 YR 7 / 4 ) s i l t ,
l i g h t y e l l o w i s h b r o w n ( 1 0 YR 6 / 4 ) w h e n m o i s t ;
we a k v e r y f i n e t o f i n e s u b a n g u I a r b l o c k y b r e a k ­
ing t o s i n g l e g r a i n s t r u c t u r e ; s l i g h t l y ha r d
( d r y ) , l o o s e ( m o i s t ) , non s t i c k y a n d non p l a s t i c
( w e t ) ; w e a k e f f e r v e s c e n c e , pH = 8 . 0 ; <1% c o a r s e
fra a»ents. ,
_
^
mm##
■■t -v:- ^
IeiAstt
- V tW 1-K w V v
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES