Study

Effect of mowing date and removal or return of cuttings on upland bluestem range in the northern Flint Hills, Kansas, USA

  • Published source details Owensby C.E. & Anderson K.L. (1969) Effect of clipping date on loamy upland bluestem range. Journal of Range Management, 22, 351-354

Summary

The effects on herbage yield and botanical composition of different mowing dates, and subsequent removal or return of cuttings, on a loamy upland bluestem range were studied in the northern Flint Hills near the city of Manhattan, Kansas (central USA).

The experiment was conducted from 1962 to 1967. Three 5 x 40 ft (1.52 x 12.19 m) plots were established. Plots were divided into two subplots, one with clippings removed, the other with clippings returned after weighing. Herbage was mown at 3 inches (7.6 cm) on one of six dates, repeated each year (1 June, 1 July, 1 August, 1 September, 1 October). Regrowth was harvested on 1 November.
 
In 1967, two 2.5 m line transect samples were taken in each subplot to estimate basal cover. No plant cover data was taken prior to this, as it was assumed fairly uniform throughout at commencement.

Herbage yield was greatest (averaged over the 6 years) under annual 1 August mowing. Removing clippings consistently reduced yields compared to those plots where they were returned, and ‘increaser species’ (i.e. species which increase in typically over-grazed conditions) were favoured by removing clippings. In 1966 when precipitation was below average, yields decreased regardless of mow date.
 
Under August mowing, basal cover of desirable species was lower than under other dates. Desirable species such as a dominant perennial grass, big bluestem Andropogon gerardi decreased (basal cover reduction) under June, July and August mowing (when actively growing). Little bluestem A.scoparius (another characteristic species) increased under July mowing but decreased under August mowing.
 
Plots mown early in the season regrew quickly compared with those mown later. Quantity of herbage removed (equivalent to nutrient removal) was greatest in plots harvested from August to November.
 
 
Note: If using or referring to this published study, please read and quote the original paper, this can be viewed at:

Output references

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust