2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.02.017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Non-destructive assessment of cattle forage selection: A test of skim grazing in fescue grassland

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Despite its similar forage quality as other associated species in this grassland, rough fescue is an important resource for winter grazing and may supply disproportionately more grazing opportunities than other grasses when snow cover is present (Willms and Rode 1997). Previous work indicates that rough fescue is not the most preferred species in summer or fall when other grass species are available, including Kentucky bluegrass, a common invasive species in fescue grasslands (Moisey et al 2005). The importance of rough fescue for winter grazing may be due to its strongly tufted growth form and tall stature, making it easier to detect by grazing animals under snow than rhizomatous grasses or shorter tufted species.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Despite its similar forage quality as other associated species in this grassland, rough fescue is an important resource for winter grazing and may supply disproportionately more grazing opportunities than other grasses when snow cover is present (Willms and Rode 1997). Previous work indicates that rough fescue is not the most preferred species in summer or fall when other grass species are available, including Kentucky bluegrass, a common invasive species in fescue grasslands (Moisey et al 2005). The importance of rough fescue for winter grazing may be due to its strongly tufted growth form and tall stature, making it easier to detect by grazing animals under snow than rhizomatous grasses or shorter tufted species.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…As the defoliation treatments in this study were imposed on both F. campestris and P. pratensis when growing in mixtures, our test of defoliation on competitive dynamics between these species assumes similar levels of defoliation. Previous work in mature grasslands indicates that F. campestris is initially selected by cattle over P. pratensis during the critical spring green‐up period at low stocking rates, a preference that disappears at moderate stocking (Moisey et al ). However, the opposite was found during autumn where P. pratensis was selected over F. campestris (Moisey et al ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous work in mature grasslands indicates that F. campestris is initially selected by cattle over P. pratensis during the critical spring green‐up period at low stocking rates, a preference that disappears at moderate stocking (Moisey et al ). However, the opposite was found during autumn where P. pratensis was selected over F. campestris (Moisey et al ). These results highlight that selection by herbivores for either F. campestris or P. pratensis may further alter competitive pressure on F. campestris seedlings, depending on whether the native bunchgrass or P. pratensis is defoliated, and to what extent.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Invasions of smooth brome may have other indirect effects. For example, low preference of native ungulates and cattle for smooth brome leads to overgrazing of uninfested areas and creates additional invasion foci (Frank and McNaughton 1992;Austin et al 1994;Trammell and Butler 1995;Moisey et al 2005).…”
Section: Economic Importancementioning
confidence: 99%