Forage Production of Bromegrass Under Intensive Management with Applications to Vegetated Treatment Areas in the Northern Great Plains
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The genus Bromus contains several perennial species that are highly important for forage and soil conservation in temperate regions worldwide. This research investigated: I) the potential of meadow bromegrass (Bromus riparius Rehmann) for forage in the northern Great Plains (NGP), USA, and 2) a new use for smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermis Leyss.) as a forage crop and a filter for trapping soil nutrients and bacteria on Vegetated Treatment Areas (VTA) in the NGP. Meadow bromegrass is an important forage crop in Canada and the Intermountain west, USA. Hybrids between meadow and smooth brome have been produced in Canada. Objectives of this study were to evaluate meadow, smooth, and hybrid bromegrasses for morphology and forage production in eastern SD. Thirteen populations (7 meadow, 5 hybrid, and 1 smooth bromegrass) were evaluated for forage production for 3 yrs (2005-2007) at Brookings, SD. Initial growth harvested at anthesis (i.e., mid June) was greater for smooth (6.75 Mg ha-1) than for meadow or hybrid brome (5.4 Mg ha-1) in 2005, but production at anthesis during 2006 and 2007 was similar for meadow and smooth bromegrass. Regrowth harvested during July and October 2005 and November 2006 was greater for meadow than smooth or hybrid bromegrass. Meadow bromegrass showed greater potential of high quality for multiple harvests during a growing season forage in the NGP than did smooth or hybrid bromegrass. Beef cattle (Bos taurus L.) feedlots pose serious environmental challenges associated with nutrient runoff. Smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermis Leyss.) is a perennial rhizomatous grass that is widely used for forage production in the USA and Canada. The objective of this research was to determine the best management system for producing forage from a vegetated treatment area (VTA) while maintaining the capacity of the VT A to remove nutrients from feedlot effluent. Four harvest management treatments ( 1-, 2-, and 3-harvests per year and an un-harvested control) were applied during spring 2005 and evaluated over a 3-yr period in a smooth brome sward on a VTA near Howard, SD. Forage production during 2006 ranged from 4.5 Mg ha-1 to 8.5 Mg ha- 1 for 1- and 3-harvest systems, respectively. Nutrient removal by the bromegrass was 83 kg ha- 1 N and 8 kg ha- 1 P for the I-harvest treatment and 193 kg ha- 1 N and 22 kg ha- 1 P for the 3-harvest treatment. These results indicated that high amounts of forage could be produced from VTAs and that smooth brome was an effective procurer of N and P. Beef cattle feedlots pose serious environmental challenges associated with nutrient runoff. There is a concern regarding the environmental impact of grazing cattle manure entering streams. Waters that receive pasture runoff can also contain high concentrations of fecal pollution indicator organisms, such as fecal coliform bacteria (FC) that signal the possible presence of pathogenic microorganisms. Pathogenic bacteria, such as Escherichia coli 0157:H7 and some protozoans can cause waterborne zoonotic infectious disease of public health concern found on watersheds with intensive and extensive cattle production systems. The objective of this study was to determine the fecal colifom (FC) concentrations in surface runoff from cattle manure after rainfall events in a VTA landscape tied to confined livestock feeding operations near Howard and Montrose, SD. The grass filtration greatly decreased the indicator bacteria numbers to levels (200 fecal coliforms/100 ml) acceptable for domestic use of the water in many cases. Since cattle were present all year around fecal coliforms were always present. The results indicated that water contamination occurred when a source of fecal bacteria was present.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».