Cited by 11Pasture and Agricultural SystemsRangeland Management and Livestock EcologyRangeland and Wildlife Management

Herbage mass thresholds rather than plant phenology are a more useful cue for grazing management decisions in the mid-north region of South Australia

Kahn, Lewis P., Earl, Judi M., Nicholls, Millie·2010·The Rangeland Journal

Abstract

Research was conducted in the mid-north of South Australia over the period 2000–05 to evaluate the effects of different grazing management cues on composition and production of a grassland. The management cues were based on calendar, plant phenology or herbage mass thresholds using grazing exclusion as a control. There were five grazing treatments: (i) regional practice (RP), where sheep grazed continuously for the period April–December; (ii) autumn rest, where sheep grazing was restricted to June–December; (iii) spring rest, where sheep grazing was restricted to April–August; (iv) high density and short duration (HDSD), where herbage mass thresholds determined when grazing occurred and for what duration; and (v) nil (NIL) grazing by domestic herbivores. Mean annual estimates of herbage mass were highest for NIL and HDSD and inclusion of the estimate of herbage consumption by sheep resulted in greatest primary plant production in HDSD. The contribution of perennial grasses to herbage mass declined with RP and seasonal grazing treatments. Frequency of perennial grasses was unaffected by grazing treatment but the number of perennial grass plants increased over time in RP and seasonal treatments. HDSD allowed maintenance of basal cover whereas bare ground increased with RP and seasonal treatments. Litter accumulated in NIL but this was associated with a decline in perennial basal cover. Seasonal grazing treatments did not provide an advantage over RP and there appeared to be no…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1071/rj10003

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kahn, L. P., Earl, J. M., & Nicholls, M.
Affiliations
  • Government of New South Wales (AU)
  • BMid-North Grasslands Working Group, PO Box 12, Brinkworth, SA 5464, Australia.
Corresponding author
Kahn, Lewis P.
Venue
The Rangeland Journal
Published
2010-11-26
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
379-388
ISSN
  • 1036-9872 (ISSN-L)
  • 1834-7541
OpenAlex
W2004799861
Cited by
11
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The Rangeland Journal (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Australian Wool Innovation
  • Australian Government
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Pasture and Agricultural Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Rangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
grazing management, plant phenology, sheep grazing, perennial grasses, grassland production, basal cover, litter accumulation, stocking rate, grazing exclusion, rangeland management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review