EFFECTS OF MULTI-SPECIES GRAZING ON LEAFY
SPURGE (Euphorbia esula L.)
INFESTED RANGELAND USING ROTATIONAL GRAZING
(A Four-Year Summary)
1Luke W. Samuel, 1Kevin K. Sedivec, 2Timothy
C. Faller,
2Jack
D. Dahl, and 3Lyndon L. Johnson
1Animal
and Range Sciences Dept., North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105.
2Hettinger
Research Extension Center, Hettinger, ND 58639.
3USDA,
Forest Service, Watford City, ND 58854.
Introduction
Leafy
spurge is a plant widely dispersed across the northern hemisphere, including
the United States and Canada, with a distribution center in the Caucasus Region
of Asia (Croizat 1945 in Noble and MacIntyre 1979). This plant is found on every continent except Australia (Lacey et
al. 1985). Leafy spurge is believed to
have been introduced into mainland North America before 1872 (Callihan et al.
1991). Leafy spurge now infests
thirty-nine states in the United States including every northern state and
every Canadian province except Newfoundland (Lacey et al. 1985). One million hectares (two and a half million
acres) in North America are infested by leafy spurge (Noble et al. 1979 in
Noble and MacIntyre 1979), with an estimated 400,000 hectares (one million
acres) in North Dakota (N.D. Dept. of Agriculture 1996).
Traditional
approaches for controlling leafy spurge, e.g. herbicides, are becoming cost
prohibitive as this noxious weed continues to spread. Many forms of biological and cultural controls have come into
practice over the past twenty years.
Grazing sheep on leafy spurge infested rangeland is one such cultural
control. Cattle do not graze leafy
spurge and often avoid leafy spurge-infested communities, creating
opportunities for multi-species grazing with sheep. Multi-species grazing is the concurrent use of rangeland by more
than one kind of animal, and this approach utilizes more than one class of
vegetation (Merrill et al. 1966).
Cattle and sheep grazing has the potential to reduce leafy spurge
density, increase plant species richness, and improve the economic viability of
a cattle operation on leafy spurge infested rangelands.
Research Objectives
The
objectives of the study were to determine if simultaneous grazing of leafy
spurge infested rangeland with cattle and sheep employing a twice-over-rotational
grazing system in conjunction with biological control will (1) reduce leafy
spurge density compared to season-long
grazing and (2) enhance livestock grazing efficiency compared to
season-long grazing.
Study Area
and Design
This
project was conducted on leafy spurge infested rangeland in western North
Dakota from 1998 through 2001. The
study area is located approximately ten kilometers (six miles) north of
Sentinel Butte or 240 kilometers (150 miles) west of Bismarck, North
Dakota. Two tracts of rangeland of 257
and 160 hectares (635 and 395 acres) comprise the replicated multi-species
grazing trial in the Badlands vegetative region of North Dakota. Vegetation in this region is typical of northern
mixed grass prairie and is classified as a wheatgrass-grama-needlegrass (Agropyron, Bouteloua, Stipa) plant
community (Barker and Whitman 1989).
Leafy spurge infested approximately forty to fifty percent of the land
on these two study sites.
This
trial was designed to test the effects of twice-over rotation (TOR) and
season-long (SL) grazing on leafy spurge infested rangeland using multi-species
grazing with cattle and sheep in combination with a biological control program. Each of two tracts of land were blocked into
four cells with one cell randomly selected as SL treatment. The remaining three cells in each replicate
were grazed using TOR grazing treatment.
Two 0.40 hectare (one acre) exclosures were developed on each replicate
by stratifying each treatment and randomly selecting points for
development. The four exclosures,
containing forty to fifty percent leafy spurge, were excluded from grazing and
classified as biological control treatments.
Fifty
permanent 100-meter line transects were systematically located in leafy spurge
communities (26 transects) and native range (devoid of leafy spurge) vegetation
sites (24 transects) throughout the replicates to monitor changes in leafy
spurge stem density and plant species richness. Barbour et al. (1999) defined density as the number of plants
rooted within each quadrat. Species
richness is simply the number of species per unit area; diversity is a
combination of richness and evenness, i.e., species richness weighted by
species evenness (Barbour et al. 1999).
Peet (1974 in Ludwig and Reynolds 1988) termed this "the dual
concept of diversity," i.e., diversity combines species richness and
relative species abundance.
Four
transects were located in each cell of the TOR grazing treatments, eight transects
in each SL treatment, and two in each of the biological control cells (0.40
hectare exclosures). In addition, two
permanent line transects designed to monitor effects of leafy spurge on
rangeland without grazing, biological, or other management were located in
areas dominated by leafy spurge adjacent to each replicate.
Leafy
spurge density and graminoid species frequency is collected every five meters
using a 0.10 square meter frame and forb and shrub density and frequency is
collected every five meters using a 0.25 square meter frame on the 100-meter
line transects.
Livestock
performance and production data is collected for cattle and sheep for
determination of average daily weight gain and gain per area. Livestock are weighed at the beginning and
end of each grazing season.
Treatment
and year effects for leafy spurge stem density, and livestock performance were
analyzed using a general linear model (GLM) (SPSS 1999). A mean separation was performed when
significant (P<0.05) differences were found using Tukey’s Honesty
Significant Difference (SPSS 1999).
Grazing Treatments and Grazing Plan
Cattle
grazed each treatment from 1 June through 15 September while stocked in
accordance with the recommended carrying capacity of the land as outlined in USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service technical guidelines (1984). Sheep grazed from 15 May through 15 September while stocked at forty percent
of the original carrying capacity without adjustments to cattle numbers.
Carrying
capacity of the TOR grazing treatment is 142.4 animal unit months (AUMs) and
73.6 AUMs on replicates #1 and #2, respectively. Stocking rates of the TOR grazing treatments were 0.28 AUMs/acre
for both replicates #1 and #2. Type of
cattle grazed is Angus-Hereford cross cow/calf pairs with cows weighing
approximately 545 kilograms (1200 pounds).
Thirty-six cow/calf pairs grazed replicate #1 and 18 cow/calf pairs
grazed replicate #2. Since sheep will
be stocked at forty percent of carrying capacity, sheep were grazed at 57.5
AUMs (replicate #1) and 33 AUMs (replicate #2) on the TOR grazing
treatments. Type of sheep was mature
white-faced ewes of which 86 head grazed on replicate #1 and 45 head grazed on
replicate #2.
Carrying
capacity of the SL grazing treatment was 39.6 and 33.9 AUMs on replicates #1
and #2, respectively. Stocking rates of
the SL grazing treatments were 0.31 and 0.32 AUMs/acre on replicates #1 and #2,
respectively. Type of cattle grazed is
Angus-Hereford cross cow/calf pairs with cows weighing approximately 545
kilograms (1200 pounds). Ten cow/calf
pairs grazed replicate #1 while 8 cow/calf pairs grazed replicate #2. Since sheep were stocked at forty percent
of carrying capacity, sheep were grazed at 16 AUMs (replicate #1) and 15 AUMs
(replicate #2) on the SL grazing treatments.
Type of sheep grazed was mature white-faced ewes, with 23 head on
replicate #1 and 20 head on replicate #2.
Livestock
graze the SL treatment continuously throughout the grazing season. Livestock graze the TOR grazing treatment as
one herd and rotate simultaneously. The
entire herd of cattle and sheep graze one cell at a time, grazing forty percent
of the available carrying capacity of the cell in the first rotation and sixty
percent of available carrying capacity in the second rotation.
Results and
Discussion
After
four grazing seasons, leafy spurge stem densities were significantly
(P<0.05) reduced on both grazing treatments and bio-control treatment on
lowland and upland leafy spurge sites (Table 1 and 2). There were no (P>0.05) differences
between the SL,TOR or non grazed bio-control leafy spurge treatments. The lowland sites on the TOR grazing
treatment had the greatest decrease in leafy spurge stem densities at 80%. The SL treatment achieved the best control on
upland sites with a decrease of 72%.
Table 1. Leafy spurge stem densities at lowland sites
on the bio-control only, season long (SL) and twice-over-rotation (TOR) grazing
treatments in 1998 and 2001.
Treatment1 |
19982 |
20012 |
% Decrease from 1998 to 2001 |
# Stems/ 0.10 m2 |
Bio-Control |
13.9 + 1.3ax |
3.1 + 0.6ay |
78% |
Season-long |
18.4 + 1.1ax |
6.7 + 1.2ay |
63% |
Twice-over |
18.2 + 0.8ax |
3.5 + 0.6ay |
80% |
1 Treatments with
the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) (a, b, and
c).
2 Years with
the same letter within each treatment are not significantly different (P<0.05) (x, y, and z).
Table 2. Leafy
spurge stem densities at upland sites on the bio-control only, season long (SL)
and twice-over-rotation (TOR) grazing treatments in 1998 and 2001.
Treatment1 |
19982 |
20012 |
% Decrease from 1998 to 2001 |
# Stems/ 0.10 m2 |
Bio-Control |
8.8 + 0.8ax |
3.3 + 0.6ay |
63% |
Season-long |
9.7 + 0.8ax |
2.7 + 0.4az |
72% |
Twice-over |
9.1 + 0.6ax |
3.0 + 0.3ay |
67% |
1 Treatments
with the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) (a, b,
and c).
2 Years with the
same letter within each treatment are not significantly different (P<0.05) (x, y, and z).
Cow average daily gain (ADG) was not (P>0.05) different between
TOR and SL treatments during the four
years of the study. However, cow ADG
was lower (P<0.05) in 1999 compared to 1998, 2000 and 2001 on the TOR and SL
treatments. Calf ADG also did not differ (P>0.05) between TOR and SL
treatments for all four years. However,
Calf ADG was lower (P<0.05) in 1998 then in 2000 on the SL treatment (Table
3).
There was no (P>0.05) difference in ewe ADG between TOR and SL
treatments over the four years of the study.
Ewe ADG was higher (P<0.05) on SL and TOR treatments in 1999 compared
to 1998, 2000 and 2001. Ewe ADG on the
TOR was also higher in 2001 than in 1998 (Table 4).
Table 3. Cow and calf average daily gains (ADG) for the season long (SL)
and twice-over-rotation (TOR) treatments from 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.
Treatment |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
|
|
lb/day |
|
|
Season-long Cows |
1.13 + .12ax |
0.01 + .14ay |
1.21 + .13ax |
1.02 + .20ax |
Calves |
2.23 + .08axy |
2.28 + .08axy |
2.43 + .06ax |
2.72 + .07axz |
|
|
|
|
|
Twice-over Cows |
0.80 + .08ax |
0.07 + .07ay |
0.78 + .10ax |
1.15 + .20ax |
Calves |
1.99 + .05ax |
2.19 + .07axy |
2.22 + .04ay |
2.46 + .05az |
1 Treatments
with the same letter, for the same class of livestock, are not significantly
different (P>0.05)
(a, b, and c).
2 Years with
the same letter, for the same class of livestock, within each treatment are not
significantly different (P>0.05)
(x, y, and z).
Table
4. Ewe average daily gains (ADG)
for season long (SL) and twice-over-rotation (TOR) treatments during the 1998,
1999, and 2000 grazing seasons.
Treatment1 |
19982 |
19992 |
20002 |
20012 |
|
lb/day |
Season long |
0.21 + .01ax |
0.35 + .02ay |
0.26 + .02az |
0.24 + .02axz |
Twice-over |
0.20 + .003ax |
0.36 + .009ay |
0.25 + .01axz |
0.25 + .008az |
1 Treatments
with the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) (a, b,
and c).
2 Years with
the same letter within each treatment are not significantly different (P<0.05) (x, y, and z).
Summary
The preliminary results from
this trial are encouraging. The
addition of sheep to a cattle only grazing operation was shown to effectively
reduce leafy spurge stem densities. To
date, both the SL and TOR treatments have performed well in the control of leafy spurge over the four years of the
study, with both SL and TOR grazing treatments significantly reducing leafy
spurge stem densities. However, the
leafy spurge stem densities in the non grazed bio control exclosures were also reduced,
and was not different than the reduction seen in the grazing treatments. This could be due to the fact that the
bio-control exclosures were located inside the grazing study and comprised only
0.4% of the total area of the study, with the bio-control agents benefiting
from the grazing treatments.
Bio-control and grazing were both proven to be effective in reducing
leafy spurge stem densities. However,
the use of sheep as a long term management tool of leafy spurge without bio-control
is still a proven method of control (Dahl et al. 2001) that allows producers to
utilize available resources while providing added income. The use of bio-control does not provide the
additional income that can accompany the production of sheep, but costs and
labor factors may prevent the use of sheep as a control method. Multi-species
grazing and bio-control both provide effective control of leafy spurge, and a
land owner can implement a project using one or both techniques that best meets
their needs.
Overall, cattle and sheep grazing
simultaneously did not adversely affect the ADG of cows, calves, or ewes using
either grazing treatment. Multi-species
grazing is a good alternative for leafy spurge control while allowing for an
increased carrying capacity of the land with no adverse affects on livestock
performance.
Literature Cited
Barbour, M.G., J.H. Burk, W.D. Pitts, F.S. Gillam, and M.W.
Schwartz. 1999.
Terrestrial plant ecology. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., Menlo
Park, Calif.
Barker, W.T. and W.C. Whitman. 1989. Vegetation of the northern Great
Plains.
NDSU Research Rpt. No. 111. Fargo.
Callihan, R.H., J.P. McCaffrey, and V.J. Parker-Clark. 1991. Leafy spurge:
biology and management. Univ. of Idaho College of Ag.,
Cooperative Ext.
System Ag. Exp. Sta. Current Information Series 877.
Dahl, J.D., K.K. Sedivec, T.C. Faller, D. Stecher, J.F. Karn, P.E.
Nyren, and L. Samuel.
2001. Effects of multi-species grazing and single species grazing on
leafy spurge infested
rangeland (A five-year summary).
N.D. State Univ. Ext. Service Sheep Day publication.
Lacey, C.A., P.K. Fay, R.G. Lym, C.G. Messersmith, B. Maxwell, and
H.R. Alley. 1985.
The distribution, biology and control of leafy spurge. Montana
State Univ. Cooperative Ext.
Service Circular 309, in cooperation with NDSU and the Univ. of
Wyoming.
Ludwig, J.A. and J.F. Reynolds. 1988. Statistical ecology: a
primer on methods
and computing. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.
Merrill, L.B., P.O. Reardon, and C.L.Leinweber. 1966. Cattle, sheep, goats... mix’em up for
higher gains. Texas Agr. Prog. 12:13-14.
Noble, D.L. and D.C. MacIntyre. 1979. Management program for leafy
spurge.
Rangelands 1:247.
North Dakota Dept. of Agriculture. 1996. Weed control survey by
county. N. D. Dept.
of Ag., State Capitol Building, Bismarck.
SPSS. 1999. Statistical producers for Social Science. Marketing dept. SPSS. Inc. Chicago, Ill.