Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:13:35.955Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mixed - Brush Canopy Cover - Rainfall Interrelationships with Native Grass Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

C. J. Scifres ,
J. L. Mutz ,
R. E. Whitson  and
D. L. Drawe
C. J. Scifres
Affiliation:
Dep. Range Sci. and Agric. Econ., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843
J. L. Mutz
Affiliation:
Dep. Range Sci. and Agric. Econ., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843
R. E. Whitson
Affiliation:
Dep. Range Sci. and Agric. Econ., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843
D. L. Drawe
Affiliation:
Rob and Bessie Welder Wildlife Foundation, Sinton, TX 78387
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Annual production of native grasses on the Texas Coastal Prairie was decreased by 90, 66, and 67 kg/ha in 1978, 1979, and 1981, respectively, for each 1% increase in mixed-brush canopy cover in the range, from 12 to 57%. Differences in regression coefficients among years were not significant (P$0.05), although rainfall varied from 84% of the 26-yr average (91.5 cm) in 1978 to 150% of the annual average in 1981. Grass production during the growing season (May through October) only was decreased by 58, 113, and 78 kg/ha in 1978, 1979, and 1981, respectively, for each unit percentage increase in brush canopy cover. A greater proportion of the annual rainfall occurred during the growing season of 1979 than during the drier spring and summer of 1978. Native grasses typical of brush-free Coastal Prairie occupy the interstitial areas among the mixed-brush mottes, but bunch cutgrass (Leersia monandra Swartz) is the only grass that persists from the canopy edge to 1.5 m inward from the brush driplines. Little or no herbaceous vegetation grows in the centers of the mottes.

Keywords

Coastal Prairiecompetitionrange improvementgrass productionrange ecology
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , January 1983 , pp. 1 - 4
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 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

1. Beasom, S. L. and Scifres, C. J. 1977. Population reactions of selected game species to aerial herbicide application in south Texas. J. Range Manage. 30:138–142.Google Scholar
2. Drawe, D. L., Chamrad, A. D., and Box, T. W. 1978. Plant communities of the Welder Wildlife Refuge. Welder Wildl. Found. Contrib. No. 5, Series B. (Rev.). 38.Google Scholar
3. Grelen, H. E. and Lohrey, R. E. 1978. Herbage yield related to basal area and rainfall in a thinned longleaf plantation. So. Forest. Exp. Stn. Res. Note 50-232. 4.Google Scholar
4. Halls, L. K. and Schuster, J. L. 1965. Tree-herbage relations in pine - hardwood forests of Texas. J. For. 63:282–283.Google Scholar
5. Jameson, D. A. 1967. The relationship of tree overstory and herbaceous understory vegetation. J. Range Manage. 20:247–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Klingman, D. L., Miles, S. R., and Mott, G. O. 1943. The cage method for determining consumption and yield of pasture herbage. Agron. J. 9:739–746.Google Scholar
7. Mutz, J. L., Scifres, C. J., Drawe, D. L., Box, T. W., and Whitson, R. E. 1978. Range vegetation after mechanical brush treatment on the Coastal Prairie. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 1191. 16.Google Scholar
8. Parker, K. W. and Martin, S. C. 1952. The mesquite problem on Southern Arizona ranges. U.S. Dep. Agric. Circ. No. 908. 70.Google Scholar
9. Reynolds, M. G. and Tschirley, F. H. 1957. Mesquite control on Southwestern rangeland. U.S. Dep. Agric. Leaflet No. 421. 8.Google Scholar
10. Scifres, C. J. 1980. Brush Management. Principles and Practices for Texas and the Southwest. Texas A&M Univ. Press, College Station. 360.Google Scholar
11. Scifres, C. J., Durham, G. P., and Mutz, J. L. 1977. Range forage production and consumption following aerial spraying of mixed brush. Weed Sci. 25:48–54.Google Scholar
12. Scifres, C. J. and Polk, D. B. Jr. 1974. Vegetation response following spraying a light infestation of honey mesquite. J. Range Manage. 27:462–465.Google Scholar
13. Smith, H. N. and Rechinthin, C. A. 1964. Grassland restoration. The Texas brush problem. U.S. Dep. Agric., Soil Cons. Serv. Unnumbered publication. Temple, TX. 33.Google Scholar
14. Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York. 481.Google Scholar
15. Whitson, R. E., Beasom,***, S. L. and Scifres, C. J. 1977. Economic evaluation of cattle and white-tailed deer response to aerial spraying of mixed brush. J. Range Manage. 30:214–217.Google Scholar
16. Whitson, R. E., Hamilton, W. T., and Scifres, C. J. 1979. Techniques and considerations for economic analysis of brush control alternatives. Dep. Range Sci. Tech. Rep. No. 79-1. 30 pp. (mimeo).Google Scholar