Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:49:24.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Field measurements of grassland poaching

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Patricia A. Davies  and
A. Armstrong
Patricia A. Davies
Affiliation:
Field Drainage Experimental Unit, Trumpington, Cambridge
A. Armstrong
Affiliation:
Field Drainage Experimental Unit, Trumpington, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Poaching damage to a new grass ley was measured over a period of time using a surface profile meter. Individual profiles obtained on different drainage treatments in the ley showed little change over 3 years of measurements. Poaching could be denned visually as a depression greater than 4 cm depth on this site. Degree of poaching was adequately described by the standard deviation of the soil surface. Typically, standard deviations along a poached, undrained transect were twice those of an unpoached, drained one. In this experiment drainage with pipes alone at 12 m spacing controlled poaching as well as mole drainage at 2 m with pipes at 40 m spacing even though watertable levels were usually not lower than those of the undrained control.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 106 , Issue 1 , February 1986 , pp. 67 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Armstrong, A. C. (1984). The hydrology and water quality of a drained clay catchment, Cockle Park, Northumberland. Catchment Experiments in Fluvial Geomorphology (ed. Burt, T. P. and Walling, D. E.), pp. 153–168. Norwich: Geo Books.Google Scholar
Armstrong, A. C. & Davies, P. A. (1984). The Cockle Park drainage experiment – progress report for the year 1981/82. Land and Water Service Report RD/FE/18. London: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.Google Scholar
Goodman, D. & Rowse, H. R. (1984). A combined penetrometer and surface relief meter for studying drill coulter performance. Journal of Soil Science 35, 497–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. O. (1982). A Sample Survey of Grassland in England and Wales 1970–72. Hurley: Grassland Research Institute.Google Scholar
Kellett, A. J. (1978). Poaching of grassland and the role of drainage. Technical Bulletin 78/1. Cambridge: Field Drainage Experimental Unit.Google Scholar
Kuipers, H. (1957). A relief meter for soil cultivation studies. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 5, 255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patto, P. M., Clement, C. R. & Forbes, T. J. (1978). Grassland poaching in England and Wales. Permanent Grassland Studies 2. Hurley: Permanent Pasture Group, Grassland Research Institute.Google Scholar
Reid, I. & Parkinson, R. J. (1984). The wetting and drying of a grazed and ungrazed clay soil. Journal of Soil Science 35, 607–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steichen, J. M. (1984). Infiltration and random roughness of a tilled and untilled clay pan soil. Soil and Tillage Research 4, 251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinhardt, R. & Trafford, B. D. (1974). Some effects of sub-surface drainage and ploughing on the structure and compactability of a clay soil. Journal of Soil Science 25, 138–152.Google Scholar
Van Ouwerkerk, C., Pot, M. & Boersma, K. (1982). Electronic micro relief meter for seedbed characterization. Soil and Tillage Research 2, 81–90.Google Scholar