Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T18:08:56.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grazing intensity effects on weed populations in annual and perennial pasture systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

K. Neil Harker ,
Vern S. Baron ,
David S. Chanasyk ,
M. Anne Naeth  and
F. Craig Stevenson
Vern S. Baron
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lacombe Research Centre, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, AB, Canada T4L 1W1
David S. Chanasyk
Affiliation:
Renewable Resources Department, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2P5
M. Anne Naeth
Affiliation:
Renewable Resources Department, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2P5
F. Craig Stevenson
Affiliation:
206A Dunlop Street, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 2B7
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Few studies report animal grazing effects on weed populations. A study was conducted to assess weed populations in annual and perennial forage grasses grazed at various intensities by cattle over a 4-yr period. The perennial forages were Bromus inermis and Bromus riparius, and the annual forages were winter Triticosecale and a mixture of Hordeum vulgare and winter Triticosecale. With few exceptions, results from the two annual pastures could be adequately described as a group, as could the results from the two perennial pastures. The two most prevalent weed species were Capsella bursa-pastoris and Taraxacum officinale; other species encountered over the course of the study were analyzed as a group. Tillage (seedbed preparation) in the annual system supported a proliferation of annual weeds in the spring. In the perennial pasture system, a lack of tillage and spring MCPA allowed T. officinale to increase as the study progressed, especially at the highest grazing intensity. In the perennial pastures, each unit increase in grazing intensity led to 51 more C. bursa-pastoris m−2 and 4 more T. officinale m−2. At lower levels of grazing intensity, C. bursa-pastoris and other species were most abundant in the annual pastures. Weed population shifts in response to grazing pressure in the annual pasture systems were restricted because of annual tillage and MCPA. Therefore, pasture managers may subject annual pastures to heavy grazing pressure with less negative weed population consequences than perennial pastures where herbicides are not applied.

Keywords

MCPACapsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. CAPBP, shepherdspurseTaraxacum officinale Weber in Wiggers TAROF, dandelionBromus inermis Leyss. ‘Carlton’, smooth bromegrassBromus riparius Rhem. ‘Paddock’, meadow bromegrassHordeum vulgare L. ‘AC Lacombe’, barley× Triticosecale Wittm. ‘Pika’, winter triticaleCropping systemdiversityselection pressureCAPBPTAROF
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , April 2000 , pp. 231 - 238
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

Anderson, W. P. 1987. Weed science as it relates to crop production. Pages 99–113 In Christie, B. R., ed. Handbook of Plant Science in Agriculture. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Archer, S. and Smeins, F. E. 1991. Ecosystem level processes. Pages 109–139 In Heitschmidt, R. K. and Stuth, J. W., eds. Grazing Management: An Ecological Perspective. Portland, OR: Timber Press.Google Scholar
Baron, V. S., Nadja, H. G., Salmon, D. F., Pearen, J. R., and Dick, A. C. 1993. Cropping systems for spring and winter cereals under simulated pasture: yield and yield distribution. Can. J. Plant Sci. 73:703–712.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1994. Rotation affects downy brome (Bromus tectorum) in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 8:728–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bransby, D. I., Matches, A. G., and Krause, G. F. 1977. Disk meter for rapid estimation of herbage yield in grazing trials. Agron. J. 69:393–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlisle, R. J., Watson, V. H., and Cole, A. W. 1980. Canopy and chemistry of pasture weeds. Weed Sci. 28:139–142.Google Scholar
Cords, H. P. 1973. Weeds and alfalfa hay quality. Weed Sci. 21:400–401.Google Scholar
Cosgrove, D. R. and Barrett, M. 1987. Effects of weed control in established alfalfa (Medicago sativa) on forage yield and quality. Weed Sci. 35:564–567.Google Scholar
Dekker, J. 1997. Weed diversity and weed management. Weed Sci. 45:357–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryden, R. D., Bailey, L. D., and Grant, C. A. 1983. Crop rotations at the Brandon Research Station: 1893–1982. Pages 198–210 In Proceedings of the Annual Manitoba Society of Soil Science Meeting. Winnipeg, MB: University of Manitoba.Google Scholar
Dutt, T. E., Harvey, R. G., and Fawcett, R. S. 1982. Feed quality of hay containing perennial broadleaf weeds. Agon. J. 74:673–676.Google Scholar
Entz, M. H., Bullied, W. J., and Katepa-Mupondwa, F. 1995. Rotational benefits of forage crops in Canadian prairie cropping systems. J. Prod. Agric. 8:521–529.Google Scholar
Forney, D. R., Foy, C. L., and Wolf, D. D. 1985. Weed suppression in no-till alfalfa (Medicago sativa) by prior cropping of summer-annual forage grasses. Weed Sci. 33:490–497.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. The grazing animal. Pages 435–456 In Harper, J. L., ed. Population Biology of Plants. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Harvey, R. G. and McNevin, G. R. 1990. Combining cultural practices and herbicides to control wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.). Weed Technol. 4:433–439.Google Scholar
Jennrich, R. I. and Schluchter, M. D. 1986. Unbalanced repeated-measures models with structured covariance matrices. Biometrics 42:805–820.Google Scholar
Leroux, G. D. and Harvey, R. G. 1985. Herbicide for sod-seeding establishment of alfalfa (Medicago sativa) in quackgrass (Agropyron repens) infested alfalfa swards. Weed Sci. 33:222–228.Google Scholar
Lyon, D. J. and Baltensperger, D. D. 1995. Cropping systems control winter annual grass weeds in winter wheat. J. Prod. Agric. 8:535–539.Google Scholar
Malik, N. and Waddington, J. 1989. Weed control strategies for forage legumes. Weed Technol. 3:288–296.Google Scholar
Marten, G. C., Sheaffer, C. C., and Wyse, D. L. 1987. Forage nutritive value and palatability of perennial weeds. Agron. J. 79:980–986.Google Scholar
Pike, D. R. and Stritzke, J. F. 1984. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa)-cheat (Bromus secalinus) competition. Weed Sci. 32:751–756.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1992. The MIXED Procedure. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Technical Report, p. 229.Google Scholar
Scheaffer, C. C. and Wyse, D. L. 1982. Common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) control in alfalfa. (Medicago sativa) Weed Sci. 30:216–220.Google Scholar
Schreiber, M. M. 1967. Effect of density and control of Canada thistle on production and utilization of alfalfa pasture. Weeds 15:138–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spandl, E., Kells, J. J., and Hesterman, O. B. 1997. Weed invasion in established alfalfa (Medicago sativa) seeded with perennial forage grasses. Weed Technol. 11:556–560.Google Scholar
Staniforth, D. W. and Wiese, A. F. 1985. Weed biology and its relationship to weed control in limited-tillage systems. Pages 15–25 In Wiese, A. F., ed. Weed Control in Limited Tillage Systems. Monograph Series #2. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. 1991. Agriculture Statistics. Catalogue No. 21-603E. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. 33 p.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L. S. 1996. Using Multivariate Statistics. 3rd ed. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers, p. 82.Google Scholar
Thrasher, F. P., Cooper, C. S., and Hodgson, J. M. 1963. Competition of forage species with Canada thistle as affected by irrigation and nitrogen levels. Weeds 11:136–138.Google Scholar
Van Keuren, R. W., Watson, V. H., and Triplett, G. B. Jr. 1985. Pasture and meadow renovation. Pages 140–174 In Wiese, A. F., ed. Weed Control in Limited Tillage Systems. Monograph Series #2. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar