摘要
Grazing exclusion (GE) is the most effective rangeland restoration technique which facilitates species diversity and forage quality. This study aimed at assessing short-term impact of GE and continuously grazed rangeland on relative frequency, dry matter yield and nutritive value of dominant grasses in an area invaded by Euryops floribundus. A plot of 2.5 ha was measured and the boundaries demarcated using tape measure and steal pins, the plot was further divided into two subplots of 1ha each which were 5 m apart. One subplot was fenced and protected from grazing livestock, while one subplot was grazed continuously and not fenced. Three parallel belt transects of 100 m × 2 m with 3 m apart were laid out in both subplots. Woody plants occurring within the transects were identified and recorded to determine density. In each subplot, a 0.25 m<sup>2</sup> quadrant measuring was thrown randomly to take detailed records on plant species, relative frequency of species and herbage biomass. Four dominant species at the two sites were harvested to determine the nutritive value. Results indicate that grazing exclusion (GE) facilitates grass species diversity, subsequently sixteen and thirteen grasses species were recorded in the GE and uncontrolled grazed (UG) sites, respectively. Eragrostis chloromelas (21.7%), and Themeda triandra (13.2%) had high relative frequencies in the GE site. Highest biomass production was recorded in the GE site (1400 kg·ha<sup>-1</sup>) compared to UG site (1102 kg·ha<sup>-1</sup>). Crude protein content was relatively lower at UG site (5.4% - 5.8%) as compared to GE site (7.2% - 7.8%). It was concluded that, GE showed a positive impact on a relative frequency (%), dry matter yield and crude protein content. UG creates a conducive environment for Euryops recruitment. Further studies are required to examine the impact of GE in long-term trial setup.
Grazing exclusion (GE) is the most effective rangeland restoration technique which facilitates species diversity and forage quality. This study aimed at assessing short-term impact of GE and continuously grazed rangeland on relative frequency, dry matter yield and nutritive value of dominant grasses in an area invaded by Euryops floribundus. A plot of 2.5 ha was measured and the boundaries demarcated using tape measure and steal pins, the plot was further divided into two subplots of 1ha each which were 5 m apart. One subplot was fenced and protected from grazing livestock, while one subplot was grazed continuously and not fenced. Three parallel belt transects of 100 m × 2 m with 3 m apart were laid out in both subplots. Woody plants occurring within the transects were identified and recorded to determine density. In each subplot, a 0.25 m<sup>2</sup> quadrant measuring was thrown randomly to take detailed records on plant species, relative frequency of species and herbage biomass. Four dominant species at the two sites were harvested to determine the nutritive value. Results indicate that grazing exclusion (GE) facilitates grass species diversity, subsequently sixteen and thirteen grasses species were recorded in the GE and uncontrolled grazed (UG) sites, respectively. Eragrostis chloromelas (21.7%), and Themeda triandra (13.2%) had high relative frequencies in the GE site. Highest biomass production was recorded in the GE site (1400 kg·ha<sup>-1</sup>) compared to UG site (1102 kg·ha<sup>-1</sup>). Crude protein content was relatively lower at UG site (5.4% - 5.8%) as compared to GE site (7.2% - 7.8%). It was concluded that, GE showed a positive impact on a relative frequency (%), dry matter yield and crude protein content. UG creates a conducive environment for Euryops recruitment. Further studies are required to examine the impact of GE in long-term trial setup.
作者
Sive Tokozwayo
Eric Cofie Timpong-Jones
Keletso Mopipi
Masibonge Gxasheka
Unathi Gulwa
Siza Mthi
Mthunzi Mndela
Mzwethu Dastile
Azile Dumani
Sive Tokozwayo;Eric Cofie Timpong-Jones;Keletso Mopipi;Masibonge Gxasheka;Unathi Gulwa;Siza Mthi;Mthunzi Mndela;Mzwethu Dastile;Azile Dumani(Department of Rural Development & Agrarian Reform, Dö,hne Agricultural Development Institute, Stutterheim, South Africa;Livestock and Poultry Research Center, School of Agriculture, College of Basic and Applied Sciences, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana;Department of Range and Forage Resources, Botswana University of Agriculture & Natural Resources, Gaborone, Botswana;Department of Plant Production, Soil Science & Agricultural Engineering, University of Limpopo, Polokwane, South Africa;Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform, Queenstown, South Africa;Department of Livestock & Pasture, University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa;Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform, Cradock, South Africa)