Effect of Fertilizer on Pinegrass in Southern British Columbia

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Allen Press and Society for Range Management are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Range Management. FREYMAN AND van RYSWYKan increase in actual forage production, as they are largely non-palatable to livestock.The Rhodes site was the lowest producing of the sites, although increases in production were observed at all rates of nitrogen fertilization. The perennial forb component also increased on this site but only to the 67-pound nitrogen treatment. Annual forbs were present in large numbers during the 1965 season, especially at the high levels of nitrogen application.It became apparent from the data that caution and good judgment must be exercised when fertilizing native rangelands in western North Dakota. Nitrogen fertilizer may be a valuable tool in range improvement when the factors of plant and soil response to the applied nitrogen are known and applied on a range site basis.

Influence of repeated fertilization and cattle grazing on forest ecosystems: Abundance and diversity of forest-floor small mammals

“…Thus, the first part of H 1 that (i) abundance of understory herbaceous vegetation would be increased in fertilized stands seemed to be supported. Similar results were reported for other fertilization applications to forest environments (Freyman and van Ryswyk, 1969;Riegel et al, 1991;Kellner and Redbo-Torstensson, 1995;VanderSchaaf et al, 2000;Turkington et al, 2001). Conversely, in other studies, cover of understory vegetation declined in response to nutrient additions in coastal coniferous forests (Prescott et al, 1993;Thomas et al, 1999).…”

“…Stand thinning reduces shade and delays canopy closure, and hence may increase forage yields and prolong the silvopasture potential (Hall, 1988;Lindgren et al, 2006). In addition, the quality and quantity of forage produced within forest rangeland may be enhanced by fertilization (Freyman and van Ryswyk, 1969;Wikeem et al, 1993b;Lindgren and Sullivan, 2012). From a forest ecosystem perspective, positive biomass responses of understory vegetation have been reported for stand thinning (Crouch, 1986;Sullivan et al, 2001;Lindgren et al, 2006) and fertilization ( VanderSchaaf et al, 2000;Turkington et al, 2001).…”

An overview of the forage resource and beef production on Crown land in British Columbia

“…Forage production can be further increased with N fertilization (Freyman and Van Ryswyk 1969). Indeed, Wikeem et al (1993) found that increasing N rates from 100 to 400kg N ha-' at 100-kg increments increased forage yields to more thar.…”

Response of forage yield and quality to thinning and fertilization of young forests: implications for silvopasture management

“…Enhanced forage yield associated with decreased tree density (Burner and Brauer 2003;Lindgren et al 2006) and fertilization (Freyman and van Ryswyk 1969;Wikeem et al 1993b) has been well-documented. Forage yield that is limited by light (i.e., overstory shading) can be dramatically enhanced by thinning, and this treatment effect will persist until such time as CC returns to that of unthinned conditions.…”

“…The impact of precommercial thinning (PCT) on understory forage productivity can be dramatic, as removing trees delays canopy closure, prolonging the period of forage production relative to unthinned stands (Pase 1958;Bedunah et al 1988; Moore and Deiter 1992;Peitz et al 2001;Lindgren et al 2006). Fertilization treatments are well-documented to enhance the productivity of either trees (Malkonen and Kukkola 1991;Tamm et al 1999;Kishchuk et al 2002;Albaugh et al 2004;Sword Sayer et al 2004;Brockley 2005;Lindgren et al 2007) or forage (Freyman and van Ryswyk 1969;Wikeem et al 1993b). However, the benefits may become less predictable if managing for both trees and forage.…”