Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T20:50:58.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interactions between landscape defined management zones and grazing management systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2017

E. M. Pena-Yewtukhiw ,
D. Mata-Padrino  and
J. H. Grove
E. M. Pena-Yewtukhiw*
Affiliation:
Division of Plant and Soil Sciences, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia
D. Mata-Padrino
Affiliation:
Division of Plant and Soil Sciences, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia
J. H. Grove
Affiliation:
Research and Education Center and Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Kentucky, Princeton, Kentucky
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Yield and landscape are commonly used to guide management zone delineation. However, production system choice and management can interact with landscape attributes and weather. The objective of this study was to evaluate forage yield and soil properties in three landscape defined (elevation based) management zones, and under two different grazing systems. Changes in soil properties (soil strength, bulk density, moisture, bioavailable nutrients) and forage productivity (biomass), as related to grazing management and management zone, were measured. Bulk density, moisture, and forage biomass were greater at higher elevation. Soil strength decreased as elevation increased, and was greater near-surface after winter grazing ended. The response of landscape delineated management zones varied with extreme weather conditions and treatment. Lower zones were more sensitive to weather extremes than higher elevations, directly affecting biomass accumulation. In conclusion, we observed interactions between the grazing treatments and the management zones.

Keywords

Forage biomass productionmanagement zonesgrazing system by management zone interactionpenetration resistancewinter grazing
Type
Precision Pasture
Information
Advances in Animal Biosciences , Volume 8 , Special Issue 2: Papers presented at the 11th European Conference on Precision Agriculture (ECPA 2017), John McIntyre Centre, Edinburgh, UK, July 16–20 2017 , July 2017 , pp. 787 - 791
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

Baker, B and Nestor, R 1979. Bull. 670. West Virginia University Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. Morgantown WV, 22 p.Google Scholar
Boyer, DG, Wright, RJ, Feldhake, CM and Bligh, DP 1996. Soil Spatial Variability Relationships in a Steeply Sloping Acid Soil Environment. Soil Science 161, 278–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dexter, AR 2004. Soil physical quality Part I. Theory, effects of soil texture, density and organic matter, and effects on root growth. Geoderma 120, 201–214.Google Scholar
Douglas, JT 1994. Responses of perennial forage crops to soil compaction. Development in Agricultural Engineering 11, 343–364.Google Scholar
Drewry, JJ, Littlejohn, RO, Paton, RJ, Singleton, PL, Monaghan, RM and Smith, LC 2004. Dairy pasture responses to soil physical properties. Australian Journal of Soil Research 42, 99–105.Google Scholar
Gifford, GF and Hawkins, RH 1978. Hydrologic impact of grazing on infiltration: a critical review. Water Resources Research 14, 305–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamza, MA and Anderson, WK 2005. Soil compaction in cropping systems; A review of the nature, causes and possible solutions. Soil & Tillage Research 82, 121–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaynes, DB and Colvin, TS 1997. Spatiotemporal variability of corn and soybean yield. Agronomy Journal 89, 30–37.Google Scholar
Lamb, JA, Dowdy, RH, Anderson, JL and Rehm, GW 1997. Spatial and temporal stability of corn grain yields. Journal of Production Agriculture 10, 410–414.Google Scholar
Patton, B, Dong, X, Nyren, P and Nyren, A 2007. Effects of grazing intensity, precipitation, and temperature on forage production. Rangeland Ecology and Management 60, 656–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pebesma, EJ and Wesseling, CG 1998. GSTAT: a program for geostatistical modelling, prediction and simulation. Computers Geosciences 24, 17–31.Google Scholar
Pena-Yewtukhiw, EM and Grove, JH 2004. Spatial/temporal probabilistic distribution of soil moisture in a well-drained Paleudalf as influenced by landscape. Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Precision Agriculture. Minneapolis, Minnesota. (CD-ROM), July 25–28.Google Scholar
Pena-Yewtukhiw, EM, Grove, JH and Thompson, JA 2003. Role of topography in the probability of response of no-till corn yield response to in-row fertilization. p. 51–58, Proc. Southern Plant Nutrient Management Conf. (CD-ROM), Olive Branch, Mississippi. Oct.7-8.Google Scholar
Pena-Yewtukhiw, EM and Grove, JH 2009. Rotation and the temporal stability of landscape defined management zones: A time series analysis. Precision Agriculture’09. JV Stafford (Ed). Wageningen Academic Press, The Netherlands, 567-574.Google Scholar
Rayburn, EB and Rayburn, SB 1998. A standardized plate meter for estimating pasture mass in on-farm research trials. Agronomy Journal 90, 241.Google Scholar
SAS Institute 2005. SAS user’s guide. Cary, NC USA.Google Scholar
Stevens, Water Monitoring System 2005. POGO Manual. Stevens Water Monitoring System Inc. Portland, Oregon, USA.Google Scholar
Thompson, JA, Pena-Yewtukhiw, EM and Grove, JH 2006. Soil-landscape modeling across a physiographic region: topographic patterns and model transportability. Geoderma 133, 57–70.Google Scholar
Yamoah, EE, Varvel, GE, Francis, CA and Waltman, WJ 1998. Weather and management impact on crop yield variability in rotations. Journal of Production Agriculture 11, 219–225.Google Scholar