Seeding success was evaluated on 62 ranches in Texas to compare relative success and costs of various treatments as affected by range site. Effects of precipitation and temperature were studied. Seeding during rootplow-rollerchop operations gave consistently better stands at a lower cost on all but the very shallow sites where seeding during treedozing treatments proved more economical. Relationships between site and factors affecting success differed distinctly between the wetter and drier portions of the study area. In the drier area, as soil depth decreased the amount of rainfall received close to the planting date aided seedling establishment more than did seedbed preparation. Cool temperatures favored seeding success on very shallow sites, but they were detrimental to seeding success on loamy bottomland sites. In the wetter area, degree of seedbed preparation was more important on all sites as long as sufficient rains for germination occurred within 90 days after planting. Mechanical brush control techniques that destroy most of the existing grass proved a hazardous undertaking, as half of the follow-up seedings were considered poor or total failures. This study separates those brush control practices and seeding techniques most likely to result in successful grassland restoration on west Texas brush-infested ranges from those less likely to provide successful seeded stands. This material was digitized as part of a cooperative project between the Society for Range Management and the University of Arizona Libraries. The Journal of Range Management archives are made available by the Society for Range Management and the University of Arizona Libraries. Contact firstname.lastname@example.org for further information. Migrated from OJS platform August 2020
Evaluation of Rangeland Seedings Following Mechanical Brush Control in Texas
Society for Range Management
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Stuth, J. W., & Dahl, B. E. (1972). Evaluation of rangeland seedlings following mechanical brush control in Texas. Journal of Range Management, 27(2), 146-149.
Journal of Range Management