{"title":"Grasses and Grassland Farming","authors":"L. Hamilton, H. W. Staten","doi":"10.2307/3894090","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3894090","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16918,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Range Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81629380","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The study of Plant Communities: An Introduction to Plant Ecology , The study of Plant Communities: An Introduction to Plant Ecology , مرکز فناوری اطلاعات و اطلاع رسانی کشاورزی
植物群落研究:植物生态学导论，植物群落研究:植物生态学导论，مرکز فناوری اطلاعات www.اطلاع رسانی کشاورزی
{"title":"The Study of Plant Communities: An Introduction to Plant Ecology","authors":"A. W. Sampson, H. J. Oosting","doi":"10.2307/3894710","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3894710","url":null,"abstract":"The study of Plant Communities: An Introduction to Plant Ecology , The study of Plant Communities: An Introduction to Plant Ecology , مرکز فناوری اطلاعات و اطلاع رسانی کشاورزی","PeriodicalId":16918,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Range Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83973441","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-01-01DOI: 10.2458/AZU_JRM_V57I1_BAILEY
D. Bailey, Martina R. Keil, L. Rittenhouse
{"title":"Research observation: Daily movement patterns of hill climbing and bottom dwelling cowsfull access","authors":"D. Bailey, Martina R. Keil, L. Rittenhouse","doi":"10.2458/AZU_JRM_V57I1_BAILEY","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2458/AZU_JRM_V57I1_BAILEY","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16918,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Range Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76465116","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article is an attempt to review and synthesize the present state of knowledge on the Sahel rangelands in a concise way. Ecological conditions, land use practices, livestock numbers, and livestock production systems are briefly analysed. Range types, dynamics, production, development strategy, and outlook are also reviewed. The conclusion that emerges is that the Sahel should be kept as breeding ground and included in a livestock production stratification strategy which should also involve the higher potential zones further south in the Sudanian and Guinean ecological zones. Such a development stategy implies the improvement of the conditions of range utilization in the Sahel, in particular a better definition of basic resources ownership (range and water) as well as of the marketing and prices policies. The word Suhel is an arabic term which means Shoreline; it has been used for centuries to mean the southern fringe of the Sahara desert; i.e., the shoreline of the desert. It became world known during the dramatic drought that occurred in the region in 1970-73. The Sahel extends over an area of some 2.5 million km2 stretching over 5,500 km from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea, in a strip SOme 450 km wide, between the 14” to 18” of latitude N to the west and the 12”- 16” latitude N to the east. The Sahelian belt thus crosses the African continent almost parallel to the equator. The isohyets run also roughly parallel in the W-E direction with a slight dip of 4% (1.8O) to the S-E, so that a given isohyet is about 220 km further south in the Nile Valley as compared to the ocean coast. The Sahel includes parts of the following 8 countries: Mauritania, Senegal, Mali, Upper Volta, Niger, Chad, Nigeria, and Sudan.
{"title":"The rangelands of the Sahel.","authors":"Pierre Hiernaux, H. N. Houérou","doi":"10.2307/3898226","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3898226","url":null,"abstract":"This article is an attempt to review and synthesize the present state of knowledge on the Sahel rangelands in a concise way. Ecological conditions, land use practices, livestock numbers, and livestock production systems are briefly analysed. Range types, dynamics, production, development strategy, and outlook are also reviewed. The conclusion that emerges is that the Sahel should be kept as breeding ground and included in a livestock production stratification strategy which should also involve the higher potential zones further south in the Sudanian and Guinean ecological zones. Such a development stategy implies the improvement of the conditions of range utilization in the Sahel, in particular a better definition of basic resources ownership (range and water) as well as of the marketing and prices policies. The word Suhel is an arabic term which means Shoreline; it has been used for centuries to mean the southern fringe of the Sahara desert; i.e., the shoreline of the desert. It became world known during the dramatic drought that occurred in the region in 1970-73. The Sahel extends over an area of some 2.5 million km2 stretching over 5,500 km from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea, in a strip SOme 450 km wide, between the 14” to 18” of latitude N to the west and the 12”- 16” latitude N to the east. The Sahelian belt thus crosses the African continent almost parallel to the equator. The isohyets run also roughly parallel in the W-E direction with a slight dip of 4% (1.8O) to the S-E, so that a given isohyet is about 220 km further south in the Nile Valley as compared to the ocean coast. The Sahel includes parts of the following 8 countries: Mauritania, Senegal, Mali, Upper Volta, Niger, Chad, Nigeria, and Sudan.","PeriodicalId":16918,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Range Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74307013","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Se llev6 a cabo el estudio en un pastizal tipo pino ponderosa cerca de Flagstaff, Arizona, E.U.A. Las ganancias de1 ganado bovino fueron relacionadas directamente con el consume de forraje digestible y el consume ordinario. El consume de forraje digestible explica el 80% de las ganancias y el consume ordinario explica el75.3%. Se concluy6 que la mejor evaluacih de 10s pastizales es el consume de forraje digestible.
{"title":"Estimating Cattle Gains from Consumption of Digestible Forage on Ponderosa Pine Range (La Estimacion de Ganancias del Ganado Bovino por el Consumo de Forraje Digestible)","authors":"H. Pearson","doi":"10.2307/3896655","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3896655","url":null,"abstract":"Se llev6 a cabo el estudio en un pastizal tipo pino ponderosa cerca de Flagstaff, Arizona, E.U.A. Las ganancias de1 ganado bovino fueron relacionadas directamente con el consume de forraje digestible y el consume ordinario. El consume de forraje digestible explica el 80% de las ganancias y el consume ordinario explica el75.3%. Se concluy6 que la mejor evaluacih de 10s pastizales es el consume de forraje digestible.","PeriodicalId":16918,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Range Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72626722","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Supplementation studies were conducted with yearling steers on a silty range site in central North Dakota, where yearly precipitation averaged 380 to 410 mm. The studies were conducted for 3 summers on both fertilized (45 kg N/ha) and unfertilized native pastures. Animal performance was compared to seasonal changes in the chemical composition of pasture samples collected with esophageal-fistulated steers. Chemical composition differences between diet samples from the fertilized and unfertilized pastures were inconsistent, but generally protein was higher and acid detergent fiber lower on the fertilized pasture. Supplementation with barley in the early summer resulted in little benefit, but supplementation with barley in the late summer, especially when pasture digestibility (in vitro) dropped to 50 to 52%, was beneficial on both the fertilized and unfertilized pastures. However, the response was not consistent between years. Barley supplementation appeared to be economically viable, but the feasibility of this practice will vary from year to year, depending on the price of barley relative to the price of steers. The results of protein supplementation were more erratic, possibly because of differences in precipitation patterns and hence plant growth between years. Native rangelands in the Northern Great Plains support good summer weight gains on yearling steers. Therefore, little consideration has been given to use of supplements which might produce still greater and more efficient gains. Rogler and Lorenz (1965) have shown that beef cattle carrying capacity of the Northern Great Plains mixed grass prairie can be approximately doubled with appropriate nitrogen fertilization. However, fertilization was shown to favor the growth of cool-season midgrasses, particularly western wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii), with an associated reduction in the stand of blue grama (Boutelouagracilis), a warm-season shortgrass (Lorenz and Rogler 1972). This shift in species composition alters the seasonal growth pattern and may affect the nutritional value of the grazing animal’s diet. There is limited information available on the chemical composition of native forages in the Northern Great Plains, especially with respect to changes during the grazing season. Information available on the value of supplementing yearling steers grazing native forage is also limited. However, Raleigh (1970) reported positive results from a supplementation scheme developed for use in eastern Oregon. Both crude protein (CP) and energy were supplemented as required to complement the diet of yearling steers grazing crested wheatgrass (Agropyron desertorum). A beneficial effect from energy supplementation of steers grazing spring native range in eastern Colorado has been reported by Denham (1977). These results suggested that CP and/or energy supplementation might also be beneficial to grazing steers in the Northern Plains. Thus the objectives of this study were: (I) to determine the chemiAuth
{"title":"Supplementation of Yearling Steers Grazing Fertilized and Unfertilized Northern Plains Rangeland","authors":"J. Karn, R. Lorenz","doi":"10.2307/3897979","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3897979","url":null,"abstract":"Supplementation studies were conducted with yearling steers on a silty range site in central North Dakota, where yearly precipitation averaged 380 to 410 mm. The studies were conducted for 3 summers on both fertilized (45 kg N/ha) and unfertilized native pastures. Animal performance was compared to seasonal changes in the chemical composition of pasture samples collected with esophageal-fistulated steers. Chemical composition differences between diet samples from the fertilized and unfertilized pastures were inconsistent, but generally protein was higher and acid detergent fiber lower on the fertilized pasture. Supplementation with barley in the early summer resulted in little benefit, but supplementation with barley in the late summer, especially when pasture digestibility (in vitro) dropped to 50 to 52%, was beneficial on both the fertilized and unfertilized pastures. However, the response was not consistent between years. Barley supplementation appeared to be economically viable, but the feasibility of this practice will vary from year to year, depending on the price of barley relative to the price of steers. The results of protein supplementation were more erratic, possibly because of differences in precipitation patterns and hence plant growth between years. Native rangelands in the Northern Great Plains support good summer weight gains on yearling steers. Therefore, little consideration has been given to use of supplements which might produce still greater and more efficient gains. Rogler and Lorenz (1965) have shown that beef cattle carrying capacity of the Northern Great Plains mixed grass prairie can be approximately doubled with appropriate nitrogen fertilization. However, fertilization was shown to favor the growth of cool-season midgrasses, particularly western wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii), with an associated reduction in the stand of blue grama (Boutelouagracilis), a warm-season shortgrass (Lorenz and Rogler 1972). This shift in species composition alters the seasonal growth pattern and may affect the nutritional value of the grazing animal’s diet. There is limited information available on the chemical composition of native forages in the Northern Great Plains, especially with respect to changes during the grazing season. Information available on the value of supplementing yearling steers grazing native forage is also limited. However, Raleigh (1970) reported positive results from a supplementation scheme developed for use in eastern Oregon. Both crude protein (CP) and energy were supplemented as required to complement the diet of yearling steers grazing crested wheatgrass (Agropyron desertorum). A beneficial effect from energy supplementation of steers grazing spring native range in eastern Colorado has been reported by Denham (1977). These results suggested that CP and/or energy supplementation might also be beneficial to grazing steers in the Northern Plains. Thus the objectives of this study were: (I) to determine the chemiAuth","PeriodicalId":16918,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Range Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90581184","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
R. Hart, J. W. W. join, D. H. Clark, C. Kaltenbach, J. Hager, M. B. Marshall
{"title":"Beef Cattle Performance on Crested Wheatgrass Plus Native Range vs. Native Range Alone","authors":"R. Hart, J. W. W. join, D. H. Clark, C. Kaltenbach, J. Hager, M. B. Marshall","doi":"10.2307/3897978","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3897978","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16918,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Range Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74888465","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Influence of Rootplowing and Seeding on Composition and Forage Production of Native Grasses (La Influencia del Arado Desenraizador Sobre la Produccion y Composicion de los Zacates Nativos)","authors":"G. W. Mathis, M. Kothmann, W. J. Waldrip","doi":"10.2307/3896064","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3896064","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16918,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Range Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91461074","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper is not intended to give the pros or cons of conventional sampling methods (generators of numbers). Rather, our intent is to emphasize the importance of the credibility and integrity of the generated number, by what ever methodology selected, and point out some problems that can be encountered when numbers are poorly generated or analyzed. As generators of numbers we are responsible for the end-products of data analysis for the decision maker. In response to a 1977 Presidential directive to the Council on Environmental Quality, CEQ, an Interagency Task Force was developed to review present federal environmental monitoring and data collection programs and to recommend effective improvements. The Federal Government depends upon the analyses that result from such programs to direct sound policy and decisions. These directives affect the public health and welfare and result in large annual expenditures of funds by all levels of government and the private sector. During the past few years, several major federal environmental and data collection programs were found to be inadequate. Although concern about the reliability of analytical results has always existed, this concern has come more into focus because of the growing interest and activity in environmental pollution control, with its heavy reliance on analytical results for enforcement, regulation, and litigation. This concern primarily is due to the inherent limitations in the conduct and analysis of observed measurements. Certainly, since there are no absolutes in analytical results, in terms of a particular protocol, some indication of value or reliability of the results is needed. Consistent with environmental pollution control, range management deals with precious resources and cannot be ignored when implementing monitoring and data collection programs. Vegetation data, as do other natural resource data, relate thecondition of a system at a particular place and time. It is not possible to perform verifying remeasurement because of the inherent special and temporal variability of the system. Additionally, if a sample is collected and analyzed, the nature of the sample is often changed in the measurement process (i.e. clipping, water quality dynamics, etc.). Because of the impossibility of verifying past measurements, quality assurance can only rest on documented application ofproven methodology by qualifiedpersonnel following accepted guidelines
{"title":"Analytical Reliability in the Decision Making Process-The Numbers Game","authors":"R. Mcquisten, K. Gebhardt","doi":"10.2307/3898000","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3898000","url":null,"abstract":"This paper is not intended to give the pros or cons of conventional sampling methods (generators of numbers). Rather, our intent is to emphasize the importance of the credibility and integrity of the generated number, by what ever methodology selected, and point out some problems that can be encountered when numbers are poorly generated or analyzed. As generators of numbers we are responsible for the end-products of data analysis for the decision maker. In response to a 1977 Presidential directive to the Council on Environmental Quality, CEQ, an Interagency Task Force was developed to review present federal environmental monitoring and data collection programs and to recommend effective improvements. The Federal Government depends upon the analyses that result from such programs to direct sound policy and decisions. These directives affect the public health and welfare and result in large annual expenditures of funds by all levels of government and the private sector. During the past few years, several major federal environmental and data collection programs were found to be inadequate. Although concern about the reliability of analytical results has always existed, this concern has come more into focus because of the growing interest and activity in environmental pollution control, with its heavy reliance on analytical results for enforcement, regulation, and litigation. This concern primarily is due to the inherent limitations in the conduct and analysis of observed measurements. Certainly, since there are no absolutes in analytical results, in terms of a particular protocol, some indication of value or reliability of the results is needed. Consistent with environmental pollution control, range management deals with precious resources and cannot be ignored when implementing monitoring and data collection programs. Vegetation data, as do other natural resource data, relate thecondition of a system at a particular place and time. It is not possible to perform verifying remeasurement because of the inherent special and temporal variability of the system. Additionally, if a sample is collected and analyzed, the nature of the sample is often changed in the measurement process (i.e. clipping, water quality dynamics, etc.). Because of the impossibility of verifying past measurements, quality assurance can only rest on documented application ofproven methodology by qualifiedpersonnel following accepted guidelines","PeriodicalId":16918,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Range Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79376664","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Bryan D. Gross, J. Holechek, D. Hallford, R. Pieper
A study was conducted to test the restrictive efficiency of 5 antelope pass structures upon cattle and sheep. Cattle and sheep were placed under 3 stress situations, female water, female young, and male-female, to test fence restrictive ability of individual antelope pass structures. No single structure restricted all classes and types of livestock. Depending upon livestock class and type, proper selection and use of antelope pass structure will restrict livestock movement without severely restricting antelope movement. An 81.3-cm (32 in) net-wire fence most effectively restricted sheep, but cattle were most effectively restricted by a 2.4-m X 1.5-m (8 ft X 5 ft) horizontal grill. It appears that a horizontal grill within a fence line with certain modifications and placement constraints will effectively restrict sheep and cattle but permit antelope passage. Fencing has been a standard livestock management practice since cattle and sheep were first introduced on western ranges. The use of fences to divide rangelands into manageable areas can achieve important livestock management objectives. May (1968) summarized a number of key advantages of fencing western ranges. These include more uniform distribution of animals, protection of overgrazed or treated areas, segregation of livestock classes or types, increased forage production and reduction in handling of livestock. Certain fence designs, however, have the important disadvantage of restricting movement of some wild ungulate species. Wildlife managers recognize fencing as a major management problem associated with the pronghorn antelope. Certain fences can restrict pronghorn movements to obtain food and/ or water, or to escape harsh weather (Yoakum 1978, 1980). Russell (1951) included net-wire fences as an important factor contributing to reductions in pronghorn numbers throughout the West. Newman (1966) found that Wyoming antelope numbers decreased substantially when animals were restricted by livestock fences. Antelope that were not allowed free movement over a largearea were in poor condition and showed signs of starvation. Other studies noted similar results (Mapston 1972, Russell 1951). A variety of structures are presently employed on western ranges depending upon the operation, livestock type, and class. Sheep operators prefer net-wire fencing; operations involving cattle may require use of barbed wire for restrictive purposes. Mapston (1972) suggested that both net-wire and certain barbed wire fences can cause serious problems for antelope by restricting both movement and feed selection, Bear ( 1969) found that sheep fences, I. 1 m (44 in) in height will restrict nearly all antelope, while net-wire structures 8 I .3 cm (32 in) high will restrict only fawns. On cattle ranges where barbed-wire fences are common, antelope were less restricted but often injured during passage, which resulted in permanent crippling or death (Spillett 1965). In all cases it appears that standard livestock fence
研究了5种羚羊通道结构对牛羊的限制效率。将牛羊分别置于母水、母幼和公母3种应激情境下，测试羚羊个体通道结构的围栏限制能力。没有单一的结构限制所有类别和类型的牲畜。根据牲畜的类别和类型，正确选择和使用羚羊通道结构，可以限制牲畜的活动，但不会严重限制羚羊的活动。81.3厘米(32英寸)的铁丝网最有效地限制了羊，但牛最有效地限制在2.4米× 1.5米(8英尺× 5英尺)的水平格栅上。在围栏线内设置水平格栅，经过一定的修改和放置限制，将有效地限制牛羊，但允许羚羊通过。自从牛羊首次被引入西部牧场以来，围栏一直是标准的牲畜管理实践。使用围栏将牧场划分为可管理的区域可以实现重要的牲畜管理目标。May(1968)总结了西部牧场围栏的一些关键优势。这些措施包括更均匀地分布动物、保护过度放牧或处理过的地区、隔离牲畜类别或类型、增加饲料产量和减少处理牲畜。然而，某些围栏设计具有限制某些野生有蹄类动物活动的重要缺点。野生动物管理人员认识到围栏是与叉角羚相关的一个主要管理问题。某些栅栏可以限制叉角羚获取食物和/或水或躲避恶劣天气的活动(Yoakum 1978, 1980)。Russell(1951)认为，铁丝网围栏是导致整个西部叉角羚数量减少的一个重要因素。Newman(1966)发现，当动物被牲畜围栏限制时，怀俄明羚羊的数量大幅减少。不允许在大范围内自由活动的羚羊状况不佳，并显示出饥饿的迹象。其他研究也指出了类似的结果(Mapston 1972, Russell 1951)。目前在西部牧场，根据操作、牲畜类型和等级，采用了多种结构。牧羊人更喜欢铁丝网围栏;涉及牛的操作可能需要使用带刺铁丝用于限制性目的。Mapston(1972)认为，铁丝网和某些有刺铁丝网的栅栏都可能对羚羊造成严重的问题，因为它们限制了羚羊的活动和饲料选择。Bear(1969)发现，1米(44英寸)高的羊围栏几乎限制了所有的羚羊，而8厘米(32英寸)高的铁丝网结构只限制了小鹿。在有带刺铁丝围栏的牧区，羚羊受到的限制较少，但在迁徙过程中经常受伤，导致永久性残疾或死亡(Spillett 1965)。在所有情况下，似乎标准的牲畜围栏作者是研究生研究助理，助理教授。副教授和教授。动物与牧场科学系。新墨西哥州立大学，拉斯克鲁塞斯88003。本报告发表于拉斯克鲁塞斯新墨西哥州立大学农业实验站期刊第836篇。这项研究的资金由土地管理局提供。1981年4月27日收稿。22对羚羊有一些负面影响。在回顾了几项研究后，Yoakum(1978, 1980)建议采取措施减少围栏造成的死亡率。这些措施包括尽量减少建造铁丝网围栏，使用底部光滑的铁丝网围栏，至少高出地面41厘米(16英寸)，柱子之间没有停留物，提供特殊的通道结构，如铺设板或羚羊跳跃，沿着人迹罕至的道路和/或迁徙路线，并保持大面积。开发一种结构来解决羚羊/围栏问题已经成为一个重要的研究目标，但没有找到明确的答案。Spillett等人(1967)从实地观察和实验中得出结论，任何用于羚羊通道的垂直结构的最大高度不应超过8.3厘米(32英寸)。Kerr(1968)记录了在铁丝网围栏和编织铁丝网被倒刺铁丝网取代的地区频繁使用8 - 0.3厘米的通道。Spillett等人(1967)建议，在需要垂直结构来限制牲畜的地方，只使用光滑的金属丝来减少对羚羊的伤害。几项研究表明，羚羊在水平改良的围栏上通行更为频繁(Bear 1969, Spillett 1965, Pate 1969, Mapston 1970)。对羚羊利用看守作为通行手段的观察有很多(Mapston et al. 1970, Spillett and Zobell 1967, Pate 1969, Spillett 1965, Zobell 1968b)。这些观察结果表明，羚羊通常跳跃1.8米和2米。 当结构宽度不小于1.8米(6英尺)时，1米(6英尺和7英尺)的护牛栏。Mapston(1968)和Pate(1969)发现，这些水平装置甚至在允许1个月大的小鹿通过的程度上有效。Bear(1969年)、Newman(1966年)和Mapston(1968年)的研究已经证实，当实验水平通道存在时，羚羊在有铁丝网围篱的牧场内外的运动。这些研究表明，牲畜围栏限制羚羊的相关问题可以通过使用低垂直通道或最好是水平围栏装置来解决。由于研究和观察表明羚羊可以通过通道，这种通道结构在限制牲畜运动方面的有效性成为一个问题。有限数量的研究处理了这个问题(Cole 1956, Spillett et al. 1967)，但结果不是结论性的。Bear(1969)发现，尽管一些垂直结构充分限制了牲畜，但这些结构与羚羊通道的推荐结构不同。Mapston等人(1970)得出结论，1.8米(6英尺)的水平格栅将有助于限制大多数牲畜的活动，而不会限制羚羊。然而，绵羊并不总是受到任何结构的有效限制。开发限制牲畜(但不包括羚羊)的结构的问题需要进一步调查。本研究的目的是测试5种羚羊对绵羊和牛的限制性效率。材料与方法选择4个垂直面板结构(图1)和1个水平格栅结构(图2)进行家畜试验。采用81.3~cm (32 in)的垂直网丝围栏作为对照。这种结构通常被用作绵羊的标准牲畜围栏。《牧场管理杂志》第36期，1983年1月
{"title":"Effectiveness of Antelope Pass Structures in Restriction of Livestock","authors":"Bryan D. Gross, J. Holechek, D. Hallford, R. Pieper","doi":"10.2307/3897974","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3897974","url":null,"abstract":"A study was conducted to test the restrictive efficiency of 5 antelope pass structures upon cattle and sheep. Cattle and sheep were placed under 3 stress situations, female water, female young, and male-female, to test fence restrictive ability of individual antelope pass structures. No single structure restricted all classes and types of livestock. Depending upon livestock class and type, proper selection and use of antelope pass structure will restrict livestock movement without severely restricting antelope movement. An 81.3-cm (32 in) net-wire fence most effectively restricted sheep, but cattle were most effectively restricted by a 2.4-m X 1.5-m (8 ft X 5 ft) horizontal grill. It appears that a horizontal grill within a fence line with certain modifications and placement constraints will effectively restrict sheep and cattle but permit antelope passage. Fencing has been a standard livestock management practice since cattle and sheep were first introduced on western ranges. The use of fences to divide rangelands into manageable areas can achieve important livestock management objectives. May (1968) summarized a number of key advantages of fencing western ranges. These include more uniform distribution of animals, protection of overgrazed or treated areas, segregation of livestock classes or types, increased forage production and reduction in handling of livestock. Certain fence designs, however, have the important disadvantage of restricting movement of some wild ungulate species. Wildlife managers recognize fencing as a major management problem associated with the pronghorn antelope. Certain fences can restrict pronghorn movements to obtain food and/ or water, or to escape harsh weather (Yoakum 1978, 1980). Russell (1951) included net-wire fences as an important factor contributing to reductions in pronghorn numbers throughout the West. Newman (1966) found that Wyoming antelope numbers decreased substantially when animals were restricted by livestock fences. Antelope that were not allowed free movement over a largearea were in poor condition and showed signs of starvation. Other studies noted similar results (Mapston 1972, Russell 1951). A variety of structures are presently employed on western ranges depending upon the operation, livestock type, and class. Sheep operators prefer net-wire fencing; operations involving cattle may require use of barbed wire for restrictive purposes. Mapston (1972) suggested that both net-wire and certain barbed wire fences can cause serious problems for antelope by restricting both movement and feed selection, Bear ( 1969) found that sheep fences, I. 1 m (44 in) in height will restrict nearly all antelope, while net-wire structures 8 I .3 cm (32 in) high will restrict only fawns. On cattle ranges where barbed-wire fences are common, antelope were less restricted but often injured during passage, which resulted in permanent crippling or death (Spillett 1965). In all cases it appears that standard livestock fence","PeriodicalId":16918,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Range Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76020478","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：