|
|
|
© 2004 Plant Management Network. Using Herbicide and No-Till Planting to Establish Garrison Creeping Foxtail in Wet Meadows Guodong Han, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Huhhot, Inner Mongolia, Peoples Republic of China (formerly visiting scientist at USDA-ARS in Logan, UT); Blair L. Waldron, Michael D. Peel, Kevin B. Jensen, and R. Deane Harrison, USDA-ARS, Logan, UT 84322-6300 Corresponding author: Blair L. Waldron. blair.waldron@usu.edu Han, G., Waldron, B. L., Peel, M. D., Jensen, K. B., and Harrison, R. D. 2004. Using herbicide and no-till planting to establish garrison creeping foxtail in wet meadows. Online. Forage and Grazinglands doi:10.1094/FG-2004-0705-01-RS. Abstract Garrison creeping foxtail can increase the forage yield of wet meadows. However, tillage can be problematic on heavy-textured soils and thick sod mats often associated with wet meadows. This study examined the potential of establishing Garrison with the use of herbicides and no-till planting. Garrison was no-till drilled into a wet meadow using herbicide control of existing vegetation in the entire plot, herbicide application in bands with seed planted in the resulting strips, and no herbicide control of vegetation. Garrison establishment, forage yield and quality, and percent of forage yield comprised of Garrison were evaluated. Overall forage yield and Garrison establishment were highest when the entire plot was treated with herbicide; however, frequency of Garrison was negatively correlated (r = -0.86) with crude protein. Direct seeding resulted in very little Garrison establishment and was considered a failure. This study indicates that inexpensive herbicides can improve establishment of Garrison creeping foxtail and that Garrison can increase the productivity of wet meadows. Garrison Creeping Foxtail Wet meadows are a valuable source of grazing and forage for livestock and wildlife in the western U.S. (5,11). Wet meadows in the Intermountain West are often characterized by high elevation, short growing season, and heavy clay soils deficient in nitrogen. They are commonly managed for early spring and late autumn grazing or a single hay harvest followed by late autumn grazing. Intensive grazing pressure, high water tables, spring flooding, summer drought, and excess soil salinity often result in reduced productivity of grasses and forbs on these sites (4). Productivity can be enhanced with water management, weed control, fertilization, prescribed burning, and seeding improved forages (11). Garrison creeping foxtail (Alopecurus arundinaceus Poir.) was released in 1963 by the USDA-NRCS (formerly SCS) and recommended for improving the productivity and palatability of wet meadows in the northern and central Great Plains (2,10). Garrison is a long-lived perennial with vigorous rhizomes. It is adapted to a broad range of wetland soils and has high flooding tolerance. Garrison is one of the earliest maturing forage grasses, producing high yields that are comparable with other pasture grass species. There is limited information available about Garrison's comparative yield, quality, and effect on species composition in meadows by dominated wet grass, rush (Juncus spp.), and sedge (Carex spp.) (5). Establishment of Garrison can be difficult and costly due to the associated problems of using tillage on the heavy textured, frequently saturated meadow soils. Holzworth et al. (3) found that using glyphosate to control existing vegetation and no-till drilling were more successful than cultivation in establishing Garrison on a wet meadow. However, Reece et al. (5) reported that herbicide control of existing sedge-dominated vegetation prior to planting of Garrison was not economically feasible. Some producers in Utah have opted to feed Garrison hay and use livestock trampling of dispersed seed to get small patches of Garrison established. This takes many years to establish a stand, and has been only marginally successful. The overall purpose of this study was to show that the productivity of wet meadows can be increased by establishing Garrison creeping foxtail with low-cost chemical fallow methods. Specific objectives were (i) to evaluate establishment of Garrison creeping foxtail using combinations of herbicide treatments and no-till planting; and (ii) to evaluate the effect of Garrison creeping foxtail on forage yield and quality. Wet Meadow Research Site The experiment was conducted on a wet meadow 2 miles west of Hyde Park, Utah (41°47'N, 111°51'W, 4,442 ft above sea level). Average annual precipitation of three locations within a 10-mile radius of the site for 183 years is 18.2 inches with most received during the autumn, winter, and early spring (Utah Climate Center). The soil was a Salt Lake silty clay characterized by being deep with low permeability, high water table, and water holding capacity of 10 inches per 5 feet. The site was located in a low valley area of an ancient lake terrace with mild alkalinity, and dominated by excess subsoil water in the spring and dry conditions in the later part of the growing season. The meadow usually received two subsurface irrigation events in mid- to late-summer. Vegetation at the site was dominated by Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.), foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum L.), and sedge (Carex spp.). Complete species composition in the experimental area at the time the study was started is presented in Table 1. Table 1. Plant species composition in a wet meadow located near Hyde Park, Utah in 1998 prior to planting Garrison creeping foxtail.
Treatments All herbicide applications, as part of the three treatments described below, were tank mixes of 1 qt/acre of glyphosate (41%, 3 lb acid equivalent per gallon) combined with 1 qt/acre of 2,4-D amine (3.8 lb acid equivalent per gallon). Herbicides were applied early-May 1998 when all vegetation was actively growing and a follow up application was made late June 1998 to control surviving plants (escapes) and new flushes of annual and perennial weeds. Garrison creeping foxtail was no-till drilled in early November of 1998 into three treatments with a John Deere Flexiplanter equipped with depth bands set at 0.5 inches deep. The three treatments were as follows: (i) herbicide control of vegetation on the entire plot area and seeded at a rate of 6 lbs pure live seed (PLS) (not coated) per acre on 12-inch row spacing; (ii) band-spraying herbicides to control existing vegetation in strips 12 inches wide on 32-inch centers and seeded at a rate of 2 lbs PLS per acre into the center of the sprayed strips; and (iii) seeding Garrison directly, without any herbicide control of existing vegetation, at a rate of 6 lbs PLS per acre using 12-inch row spacing. Throughout this paper, the three treatments described above may be referred to as complete-herbicide, banded-herbicide, and direct-seeded, respectively. Treatments were laid out in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Plots were 25 ft wide and 150 ft long. During the establishment year (1999), grazing and deferred-grazing treatments were applied by dividing plots into two equal strips. Cattle were allowed to freely graze in the grazing strip during September and October of 1999. Cattle were excluded from grazing in the deferred-grazing treatment during this same period. Fences were removed and the entire experimental area was grazed after forage harvests in 2000 and 2001. Data Collection and Analysis Forage yield was determined by harvesting a 4-ft-wide strip the length of the plot with a flail harvester when Garrison reached anthesis and when the site was dry enough for equipment operation. Harvests were made on 7 June 2000 and 5 July 2001. Additionally, in 2001, the yield and quality of a one-time hay harvest were compared to utilization of Garrison at an earlier growth stage by harvesting a separate 4-ft wide strip on 30 May and again on 5 July. For all harvests, green weight was measured and subsamples were taken to determine dry matter yield and forage quality. Samples were dried at 140°F in a forced-air oven to constant weight, then weighed and double ground through a 0.0394-inch screen for quality analysis. The sample dry weight was used to convert green weights to dry weights. Forage nitrogen content was measured using the combustion method (1) with a LECO CNH-2000 Elemental Analyzer (LECO Corp., St. Joseph, MI). Crude protein was estimated by multiplying nitrogen content by the coefficient 6.25. Acid detergent fiber (ADF) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) were determined with an ANKOM-200 Fiber Analyzer (ANKOM Technol. Corp., Fairport, NY). The percent of harvested biomass comprised by Garrison creeping foxtail was determined by hand harvesting two sub-samples, 2 ft wide × 3 ft long, directly in the path of the flail harvester from each plot, each year. Garrison was separated from the rest of the sample and the resulting dry weights were determined. Establishment success or frequency of Garrison in the stand was evaluated just prior to harvest each year using the frequency grid described by Vogel et al. (12). A 30-×-30-inch quadrat containing 25 6-×-6-inch grids was placed on the plot directly in the path of the flail harvester. Each grid was scored for the absence or presence of Garrison and used to calculate the frequency at which Garrison was found in the stand. Four quadrats were scored in each plot. Dry matter yield, forage quality, percent Garrison composition, and Garrison frequency were analyzed across years, using the GLM procedure (6) as a strip-plot analysis. Years were treated as repeated measures using the split-block in time analysis described by Steele and Torrie (9). Thus all main effects and interactions were tested using their respective interaction with replication as the error term. Treatment and grazing management were considered fixed effects. Mean separations were made using Fisher's protected least significant difference at the 0.05 level of probability. Correlations among forage yield, forage quality, percent Garrison composition, and Garrison frequency were estimated using the CORR procedure (6). Success of Garrison Establishment Treatments had a significant effect (P = 0.002) on establishment of Garrison creeping foxtail into the wet meadow. During the first year of production, herbicide control of the entire plot resulted in the highest frequency of Garrison in the stand at 94% compared to 47% in the banded-herbicide treatment and 9% in the direct-seeded treatment (Fig. 1A). In 2001, the second year of production, Garrison comprised 100, 68, and 11% of the stand in the complete-herbicide, banded-herbicide, and direct-seeded treatments, respectively. Parallel results were observed for the percent of yield comprised by Garrison (Fig. 1B).
A treatment-by-year interaction was observed for percent forage yield comprised by Garrison (P = 0.006). This was mostly due to change from year to year in the banded-herbicide treatment, where Garrison frequency increased from 47 to 68% and the forage yield comprised by Garrison increasing from 29 to 48% from 2000 to 2001, respectively (Fig. 1). This change can be attributed to Garrison's ability to spread, via rhizomes, into the bare open area surrounding the seeded rows. Autumn grazing during the year of establishment had no significant impact on Garrison frequency or percent forage yield comprised by Garrison (Table 2). This suggests that Garrison was already sufficiently established by the autumn, but does not preclude the possibility of substantial negative impacts of earlier grazing during the establishment year. Table 2. Comparison of the effect of grazed versus deferred-grazing during the autumn of establishment (1999) of Garrison creeping foxtail on a wet meadow near Hyde Park, UT.
* Significantly different at 0.05 probability level. Forage Yield Averaged across years, there was a significant treatment effect (P = 0.048) on forage production. The complete-herbicide treatment yielded 18% more than banded-herbicide and 23% more than the direct-seeded treatment (Table 3). The higher proportion of Garrison in the complete-herbicide treatment, and its corresponding higher yield than the other treatments, supports reports by Stroh et al. (10) and Fairbourn (2) that Garrison creeping foxtail can improve yields of wet meadows. Since sedges were not dominant prior to seeding, or in the direct-seeded treatment, it is difficult to make a comparison to the report by Reece et al. (5) in which sedge-dominated meadows yielded similarly to meadows seeded to Garrison. Forage yield did not differ between banded-herbicide and direct-seeded treatments (Table 3). The 1-ft-wide strips of banded-herbicide resulted in substantial bare ground (Fig. 2). During the course of this study, these strips did not completely fill in with Garrison, or return to the grasses listed in Table 1. However, Garrison frequency increased from 2000 to 2001 in these areas and over the long-term will probably fill in the bare areas resulting in higher forage yield. Similar results by Holzworth et al. (3) reported that Garrison comprised 65% of the forage when planted in bands in a wet meadow, but overall yield was not higher than untreated control not containing Garrison. They suggested that Garrison would eventually spread and increase overall yield in the treated area, and in the interim improved forage quality of the sedge-dominated meadow. Table 3. Yield (dry weight) and crude protein of forage harvested from a wet meadow near Hyde Park, UT planted to Garrison creeping foxtail using three treatments.*
* Treatments are as follows: Complete-herbicide = spraying entire plot area with herbicide and then no-till drilling Garrison using 12-inch row spacing; Banded-herbicide = spraying 12-inch bands on 32-inch centers and no-till drilling one row of Garrison in the center of the band; and Direct-seeded = directly no-till drilling Garrison into the existing vegetation.
Fig. 2. Pictures showing Garrison establishment in a wet meadow near Hyde Park, UT. Garrison was established in 1998 using three treatments: the complete-herbicide treatment (A, left), in which the entire plot area was treated with herbicide and then Garrison was no-till drilled using 12-inch row spacing; the direct-seeded treatment (A, right), where Garrison was directly no-till drilled into the existing vegetation; and the banded-herbicide treatment (B) where herbicide was applied in 12-inch bands on 32-inch centers and Garrison was no-till drilled in the center of the band. Autumn grazing during establishment resulted in higher forage yields than deferred grazing in 2000 (Table 2). The reason for this is not obvious but may be that removal of ground cover in the autumn of 1999 stimulated earlier and more productive growth in the spring. Forage Quality Treatment significantly affected crude protein (CP) and was lowest with complete-herbicide and highest for direct-seeded (Table 3). A negative correlation (r = -0.86, P < 0.01) was found between percent Garrison composition and crude protein. Siemer and Rumburg (7) reported that Garrison crude protein declined from 21.9% in late May to about 12.5% in early July and was associated with a steep yield increase curve that had reached about 3.17 tons/acre by early July. A seasonal effect of reduced forage quality concurrent with the growth and production of seed heads is typical in most cool-season grasses. We observed that Garrison headed and matured earlier than the grasses associated with the wet meadow. This would account for the lower crude protein in Garrison-dominated plots (complete-herbicide) as compared to the direct-seeded treatment which contained very little Garrison. Therefore, we concur with Siemer and Rumburg (7) that Garrison-dominated meadows may be more productive; however, they may yield lower quality hay than some grass-dominated wet meadows. Acid detergent fiber (ADF) is often used as an indicator of relative digestibility (the lower the ADF the higher the digestibility) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) can be an indicator of relative intake (the lower the NDF, the higher the animal intake). Across years, there was no treatment affect on ADF and NDF with an average ADF value of 36.8% and average NDF of 62.2%. Siemer et al. (8) showed that immature sedges and rushes are often highly digestible, being equal to or better than orchardgrass and bluegrass, and superior to Garrison. Based on this report, we expected the complete-herbicide treatment, with nearly 100% of flowering Garrison, would have lower digestibility. However, it was no less digestible than the other treatments which contained larger percentages of immature bluegrass, rush, and sedge. This lack of variation between the treatments may have been due to larger quantities of less-digestible, mature foxtail barley in the banded-herbicide and direct-seeded treatments. Early Harvest of Garrison Forage Garrison is an early-maturing grass, and when grown under wet meadow conditions, often cannot be harvested mechanically at an optimum growth stage for high forage quality. However, it may be surmised that higher yield and quality could be obtained by utilizing an early grazing harvest and a late mechanical or grazing harvest within a season. We obtained data on utilizing multiple harvests only in 2001, and consider the results preliminary and interpret them with caution. By comparing the complete-herbicide treatment (almost 100% Garrison) with the direct-seeded treatment (very low frequency of Garrison), the results suggest Garrison loses its yield advantage over the unimproved wet meadow when management includes an early-season harvest followed by a mid-summer harvest of the regrowth (Table 4). However, as expected, the multiple harvests of Garrison resulted in higher quality forage when compared to a one-time harvest. Siemer and Rumberg (7) also reported that multiple harvests of less-mature Garrison resulted in higher quality, but at the expense of lower productivity than one-time harvests of mature Garrison. Table 4. Comparison of forage yield (dry weight) and crude protein of a single harvest versus two-harvest system of a wet meadow seeded to Garrison creeping foxtail near Hyde Park, UT. Garrison seeded in 1998 using three treatments.* Forage harvested in 2001.
* Treatments are as follows: Complete-herbicide = spraying entire plot area with herbicide and then no-till drilling Garrison using 12-inch row spacing; Banded-herbicide = spraying 12-inch bands on 32-inch centers and no-till drilling one row of Garrison in the center of the band; and Direct-seeded = directly no-till drilling Garrison into the existing vegetation. Conclusion We found that using a chemical-fallow operation (e.g. controlling vegetation throughout the summer with herbicides) prior to planting can be used to aid in the establishment of Garrison creeping foxtail on wet meadows. The summer fallow concept of repeated herbicide applications allowed us to control a second flush of weeds and new plant growth, further increasing potential of Garrison establishment. Completely killing all vegetation in the plot resulted in the highest frequency of Garrison and is preferable when high yield is the main objective. Banded herbicide control and reseeding the strips to Garrison resulted in successful establishment, but overall was not as productive as the solid seeding. However, Garrison can be difficult to establish and seeding into herbicide bands may be a preferred method because it opens only a part of the field to weed invasion in case Garrison fails to establish. Direct-seeding Garrison into existing stands of wet meadow species is not recommended. Removing existing vegetation with herbicides of entire planting areas, or in bands, followed by no-till drilling, should have significant benefits in costs, labor, machine wear, and even establishment success over using mechanical disturbance of the heavy, clay soils and sod mats often associated with wet meadows. In meadows where it is impossible to plow, this protocol of herbicide-summer fallow and no-till drilling should result in much higher Garrison establishment than the commonly used technique of trampling seed into the ground with livestock. Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the technical assistance of W. Howard Horton and Burke W. Davenport, and especially thank Denny Shupe for allowing this research to be conducted on his wet meadow. Literature Cited 1. AOAC International. 1999. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. Gaitherburg, MD. 2. Fairbourn, M. L. 1982. Water use by forage species. Agron. J. 74:62-66. 3. Holzworth, L. K., Bainter, E. L., Yaeger, R., Baumgartner, R., Riffle, F., and Majerus, M. 1991. Establishing ‘Garrison’ creeping foxtail in wet meadows. Pages 109-120 in: Proc. Third Intermountain Meadow Symp., Steamboat Springs, CO 1-3 Jul. 1991. E. G. Siemer, ed. Technical Bulletin LTB91-2. Colorado State Univ., Ft. Collins. 4. Hull, A. C., and Hull, M. K. 1974. Presettlement vegetation of Cache Valley, Utah and Idaho. J. Range Manage. 27:27-29. 5. Reece, P. E., Nichols, J. T., Brummer, J. E., Engel, R. K., and Eskridge, K. M. 1994. Harvest date and fertilizer effects on native and interseeded wetland meadows. J. Range Manage. 47:178-183. 6. SAS Institute Inc. 1999. SAS/STAT user’s guide. Version 8. SAS Inst., Cary, NC. 7. Siemer, E. G., and Rumburg, C. B. 1971. Seasonal changes in mountain meadow hay crop yield and nutrient percentages. Colorado State University, Ft. Collins. Progress Report 5. PR71-55. 8. Siemer, E. G., Gery, B., and Rumburg, C. B. 1975. Improved estimates of nutritive value of mountain meadow forage. Progress Report 5. PR75-5. Colorado State University, Ft. Collins. 9. Steele, R. G. B., and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York. 10. Stroh, J. R., McWilliams, J. L., and Thornburg, A. A. 1978. Garrison creeping foxtail. SCS USDA, SCS-TP-156. 11. Taylor, D. T., Seamands, W. J., Menkhaus, D. J., Jacobs, J. J., and Delaney, R. H. 1985. An economic analysis of N fertilization of intermountain hay meadows. Agron. J. 77:17-20. 12. Vogel, K. P., and Masters, R. A. 2001. Frequency grid -- simple tool for measuring grassland establishment. J. Range Manage. 54:653-655. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
