Human-wildlife conflict has emerged as the central vocabulary for cases requiring balance between resource demands of humans and wildlife. This phrase is problematic because, given traditional definitions of conflict, it positions wildlife as conscious human antagonists. We used content analysis of wildlife conservation publications and professional meeting presentations to explore the use of the phrase, human-wildlife conflict, and compared competing models explaining its usage. Of the 422 publications and presentations using human-wildlife conflict, only 1 reflected a traditional definition of conflict, >95% referred to reports of animal damage to entities human care about, and <4% referred to human-human conflict. Usage of human-wildlife conflict was related to species type (herbivores with human food, carnivores with human safety, meso-mammals with property), development level of the nation where the study occurred (less developed nations with human food and more developed nations with human safety and property damage), and whether the study occurred on private lands or protected areas (protected areas with human-human conflict and other areas with property damage). We argue that the phrase, human-wildlife conflict, is detrimental to coexistence between humans and wildlife, and suggest comic reframing to facilitate a more productive interpretation of human-wildlife relationships.

Native grasses, such as switchgrass (SG; L.), big bluestem (BB; Vitman), indiangrass (IG; Nash), and eastern gamagrass (EG; [L.] L.) may be capable of providing desirable summer forage for cattle as well as a source of biomass for renewable energy. To evaluate that potential, experiments were conducted at 2 locations in Tennessee comparing weaned beef () steers (268 ± 25 kg initial BW) during early-season grazing (Early; 30 d, typically corresponding to May, followed by postdormancy biomass harvest) and full-season grazing (Full, mean duration = 98 d). For Exp. 1, which compared SG, a blend of BB and IG (BBIG), and EG, ADG was greater ( < 0.05) for BBIG (1.02 kg/d) than SG (0.85 kg/d), and both were greater ( < 0.05) than EG (0.66 kg/d). Grazing days for SG and EG were similar (389 and 423 animal unit days [AUD]/ha, respectively) and exceeded ( < 0.05) that of BBIG (233 AUD/ha) during Full. In Exp. 2 (SG and BBIG only), rates of gain were comparable to that of Exp. 1, but AUD were 425 (SG) and 299 (BBIG) AUD/ha. Such rates of gain and grazing days indicate that these grasses can provide desirable summer forage for growing cattle. Early produced 211 to 324 kg BW gain/ha, depending on experiment and forage, followed by dormant-season harvests of 7.5 to 10.5 Mg/ha of biomass, indicating a potential for beef cattle forage and biomass production on the same land resource. Native grasses provided productive summer pasture and good rates of gain on growing cattle and could contribute to forage programs, especially where cool-season grasses currently predominate.

Abbreviations: BB, big bluestem; BB+IG, two-way blend of big bluestem and indiangrass; BH, biomass harvest; EB, early-boot harvest; EB+BH, early-boot plus biomass harvest; ESH, early-seedhead harvest; ESH+BH, early-seedhead plus biomass harvest; DAP, diammonium phosphate; IG, indiangrass; NWSG, native warm-season grasses; PLS, pure live seed; SG, switchgrass; SG+BB+IG, three-way mixture of switchgrass, big bluestem, and indiangrass.

T he development of renewable bioenergy resources has become increasingly important over the last three decades (Lynd et al., 1991; McLaughlin and Kszos, 2005; Sanderson et al., 1996). Switchgrass has often been a primary species investigated for bioenergy (Lynd et al., 1991; Sanderson et al., 1996), with a single late fall or early winter harvest resulting in the greatest sustainable biomass yield (Parrish and Fike, 2005). There is the potential to remove an early-season forage harvest in a biomass system, which may provide more options to producers from the same crop (Mosali et al., 2013; Sanderson and Adler, 2008). Research has indicated that an early-season forage harvest followed by a fall biomass harvest will result in a reduced biomass yield but will also result in an increase in total yield influenced by the forage harvest timing (McIntosh et al., 2015). Just as harvest timing influences yield, timing is a major factor influencing forage nutritive value (Ball et al., 2015). In hay production, nutritive value is an important consideration when using native warm-season grasses (NWSGs) in mixture and can be affected by plant maturity (Springer et al., 2001). As harvest is delayed from early to late seedhead production, nutritive value decreases dramatically, making it important to include plant maturity as one of the considerations for hay production instead of yield alone (Waramit et al., 2012). With proper management, switchgrass (SG) in monoculture can produce good nutritive values before maturity causes reduced values, usually after the vegetative stage at late boot when the head is emerging (Mitchell et al., 2001; Richner et al., 2014). Species mixtures that include SG provided good quality forage with increased yields, depending on the management system (

Native grasses, such as switchgrass (SG; L.), big bluestem (BB; Vitman), indiangrass (IG; Nash), and eastern gamagrass (EG; [L.] L.) may be capable of providing desirable summer forage for cattle as well as a source of biomass for renewable energy. To evaluate that potential, experiments were conducted at 2 locations in Tennessee comparing weaned beef () steers (268 ± 25 kg initial BW) during early-season grazing (Early; 30 d, typically corresponding to May, followed by postdormancy biomass harvest) and full-season grazing (Full, mean duration = 98 d). For Exp. 1, which compared SG, a blend of BB and IG (BBIG), and EG, ADG was greater ( < 0.05) for BBIG (1.02 kg/d) than SG (0.85 kg/d), and both were greater ( < 0.05) than EG (0.66 kg/d). Grazing days for SG and EG were similar (389 and 423 animal unit days [AUD]/ha, respectively) and exceeded ( < 0.05) that of BBIG (233 AUD/ha) during Full. In Exp. 2 (SG and BBIG only), rates of gain were comparable to that of Exp. 1, but AUD were 425 (SG) and 299 (BBIG) AUD/ha. Such rates of gain and grazing days indicate that these grasses can provide desirable summer forage for growing cattle. Early produced 211 to 324 kg BW gain/ha, depending on experiment and forage, followed by dormant-season harvests of 7.5 to 10.5 Mg/ha of biomass, indicating a potential for beef cattle forage and biomass production on the same land resource. Native grasses provided productive summer pasture and good rates of gain on growing cattle and could contribute to forage programs, especially where cool-season grasses currently predominate.

No abstract

No abstract