Plant-soil-water relations in forestry and silvopastoral systems in Oregon

Carlson, David; Sharrow, Steven H.; Emmingham, William H.; Lavender, Denis P.

doi:10.1007/bf00705702

Cited by 18 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As is common with shrubs, clipping treatments were observed to increase the leaf to stem ratios of the browse produced in this study. Deerbrush is also a nitrogen-fixer, and nitrogen-fixing vegetation combined with livestock grazing may actually increase the nitrogen uptake of associated trees (Carlson et al, 1994). Thus the slowing of tree growth suggested in Figure 1 for the intermediate level of grazing may not be significant -more research is needed on the response of young trees to intermediate levels of shrub co-occupation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grazing in a California silvopastoral system: effects of defoliation season, intensity, and frequency on deerbrush, Ceanothus integerrimus Hook. & Arn.

Huntsinger

1996

Agroforest Syst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When understory species that suppress tree growth are preferred by livestock to tree species, selective herbivory has practical application for forest or woodland management as part of a silvopastoral agroforestry system. Results of two studies of the prescriptive application of selective grazing designed to suppress growth of a common understory shrub, deerbrush (Ceanothus integerrimus Hook. & Am.), to favor growth of conifer species are presented. Grazing for vegetation manipulation requires the same information needed to apply any chemical or mechanical method: knowledge of the effective timing, frequency, and intensity of application, and the selectivity of impact. The first study, a two-year series of grazing trials, examined the degree of cattle preference for deerbrush as compared to conifers, and response of deerbrush to grazing on a forest site. The second, a three-year study based on grazing trial results, used clipping to examine the specifics of deerbrush response to patterns of herbivory. Deerbrush was highly preferred by cattle in the grazing trials. Even at 90% utilization of the shrubs, no conifers were browsed. High degrees of utilization did not suppress shrub growth in the grazing trials. The clipping study found deerbrush significantly responsive to frequency and intensity of defoliation (P < 0.01), but not to season of use (P > 0.1). High intensity, frequent grazing is required to suppress the shrub. Intermediate prescriptions can be used to manage for various combinations of wildlife, timber, or forage-related objectives. These results and methods are applicable to any silvopastoral system where prescriptive grazing is used in conjunction with tree crops.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grazing in a California silvopastoral system: effects of defoliation season, intensity, and frequency on deerbrush, Ceanothus integerrimus Hook. & Arn.

Huntsinger

1996

Agroforest Syst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Potential evaporation during June through September averages 407 mm, while rainfall is only 91 mm. Douglas fir trees periodically experience moisture stress during this period (Carlson et al, 1994). The frost-free period averages 165-200 days.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Productivity of two Douglas fir/subclover/sheep agroforests compared to pasture and forest monocultures

et al. 1996

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resource sharing between tree and forage plant components in silvopastoral systems includes a complex set of facilitative and competitive interactions. To the extent that facilitation exceeds competition, agroforests are expected to outyield monocultures of their components. Pasture and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) tree production of young agroforests was compared to pasture and forest monocultures under both grid and cluster patterns of tree planting near Corvallis, Oregon, USA, during 1983USA, during -1987. The height and diameter growth of forest and agroforest trees was similar, regardless of tree planting pattern. Five-year average annual forage production was 6500, 5800, and 2800 kg ha ~ on pasture, agroforest, and forest plots, respectively. The total cumulative 1982-1987 above-ground phytomass yield of forage plus trees was similar for pasture and conventional grid forest monocultures. The total productivity of agroforests, however, was over 30% greater than either pasture or forest components grown in monoculture. Approximately 1.6 ha (0.96 ha forest + 0.64 ha pasture) of monocultures would be needed to equal the productivity of 1 ha of agroforest.

show abstract

“…Controlling competition between trees and forage plants is the main objective to manage grazing in terms of grazing capacity, distribution and season of grazing (Ainalis, Platis, & Meliadis 2010;Carlson, Sharrow, Emmingham, & Lavender 1994;Doescher, Tesch, & Alejandrocastro 1987). We developed a three phase methodology to assess the pressure of livestock in terms of (i) demand and supply, (ii) seasonal balance of pasture and (iii) impacts to soil and trees (Fig.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Livestock management in Natura 2000: A case study in a Quercus pyrenaica neglected coppice forest

Núñez

Hernando

Velázquez

et al. 2012

Journal for Nature Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plant-soil-water relations in forestry and silvopastoral systems in Oregon

Cited by 18 publications

References 16 publications

Grazing in a California silvopastoral system: effects of defoliation season, intensity, and frequency on deerbrush, Ceanothus integerrimus Hook. & Arn.

Grazing in a California silvopastoral system: effects of defoliation season, intensity, and frequency on deerbrush, Ceanothus integerrimus Hook. & Arn.

Productivity of two Douglas fir/subclover/sheep agroforests compared to pasture and forest monocultures

Livestock management in Natura 2000: A case study in a Quercus pyrenaica neglected coppice forest

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About