IMPACT OF GRAZING INTENSITY ON THE VIGOR AND WEIGHT OF Festuca humilior AND Calamagrostis vicunarum
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21704/rea.v23i1.2167Keywords:
weat puna, tussock grassland, volume, dominance, utilization levelAbstract
The tussock grasslands of Festuca humilior (Nees & Meyen) and Calamagrostis vicunarum (Weddell) have a significant extension in the Central Andes and are considered a recognized vegetation association for its ecological-economic value. The objective of this research was to estimate the cumulative impact of the level of use of the key grasses F. humilior and C. vicunarum on height, vigor and weight of the plant. The study was carried out in a humid grassland of regular condition located 4 186 masl in the Puna ecoregion. The variables evaluated were: plant height, basal and canopy diameter and plant weight. The experiment lasted two years during which individual plants of each species were cut every four months. The vigor was estimated from the volume (cm3) and the weight of the plant (gMS/plant) from the regression of the weight and the volume of the plant. Height (cm) was the length from the soil surface to the flag leaf. The experimental design was a randomized block design with a 2x3 factorial arrangement, two species and three height removal levels: zero, 40 and 80%. The height, vigor and weight of F. humilior and 1 vicunarum were reduced in response to increasing use level, but the changes were more marked in Festuca than in Calamagrostis. While the decrease in the evaluated variables was constant for F. humilior as the level of use increased, Calamagrostis also decreased, but to a lesser extent, remaining almost constant when biomass removal levels changed from moderate to heavy, suggesting that this species is more grazing tolerant. The results found help to explain why in fields dominated by F. humilior and sub-dominated by C. vicunarum subjected to intense grazing, dominance relationships change in favor of C. vicunarum, a species of lower forage value than F. humilior.
Downloads
References
Bestelmeyer B.T. 2006. Threshold concepts and their use in rangeland management and restoration: the good, the bad and the insidious. Restoration Ecology, 14(3): 325-329. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2006.00140.x.
Briske D.D. 1991. Developmental morphology and physiology of grasses. En: Heitschmidt R.K. & Stuth J.W. (Ed.) Grazing Management: An Ecological Perspective. Timber Press. Portland, Oregon.
Bueno L.S. & Florez A. 1986. Estudio autoecológico de las principales especies forrajeras nativas de los pastizales de la puna peruana. En: Fierro L.C. & Farfan R. Investigaciones sobre pastos y forrajes de Texas Tech University en el Perú. The United States Agency For Inter1ational Development (USAID) & Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Promoción Agropecuaria (INIPA), Perú. Volumen III. 1-13. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNABC797.pdf.
Castro de la Cruz J.K. 2019. Momento de cosecha y capacidad de germinación de semillas de tres gramíneas altoandinas (Festuca dolichophylla, Festuca humilior y Calamagrostis vicunarum). Tesis para optar el grado de Magister Scientiae en Producción Animal. Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina. Perú. https://hdl.handle.net/20500.12996/3925.
Derner J.D., Boutton T.W. & Briske D.D. 2006. Grazing and ecosystem carbon storage in the North American Great Plains. Plant and Soil, 280: 77-90. DOI: 10.1007/s11104-005-2554-3.
Dorrough J., Asch J. & McInterie S. 2004. Plant responses to livestock grazing frecuency in an Australian temperate grassland. Ecography, 27: 798- 810. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.04004.x.
Flores E.R. 2016. Cambio climático: Pastizales altoandinos y seguridad alimentaria. Revista de Glaciares y Ecosistemas de Montaña, 2: 73-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.36580/rgem.i1.73-80. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336593118_Cambio_Climatico_Pastizales_Altoandinos_y_Seguridad_Alimentaria.
Flores E.R., Cruz J.C., Ñaupari V. 2005. Utilización de praderas cultivadas en secano y praderas naturales para la producción lechera. Boletín técnico. Proyecto Incagro – convenio UNA la Molina. Ministerio de agricultura. bit.ly/rEA-UNALM-17.
Florez A. & Bryant F.C. 1985. Plant phenology and nutritional content of key grasses in the Andes of Peru. Forage and Pasture Research of Texas Tech University in Peru. Volumen II. 21- 28.
Kothmann M. 2009. Grazing Methods: A Viewpoint. Rangelands, 31(5): 5-10. https://doi.org/10.2111/1551-501X-31.5.5.
McNaughton S.J. 1985. Ecology of a grazing ecosystem: The Serengeti. Ecological Monographs, 55(3): 259-294. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2307/1942578.
Rolando R.L, Turín C., Ramírez D.A., Mares V., Monerris J. & Quiroz R. 2017. Key ecosystem services and ecological intensification of agriculture in the tropical high–Andean Puna as affected by land-use and climate changes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 236: 221-233. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/80557.
Trillo F., Nuñez J., Aguirre L., Barrantes C. & Flores E. 2020. Comparación de indicadores autoecológicos en dinámica de crecimiento de Festuca dolichophylla (Presl, 1830) y Festuca humilior (Nees & Meyen, 1841). Revista de Investigaciones Veterinarias del Perú, 31(3): e18743. http://www.scielo.org.pe/scielo.php?pid=S1609-91172020000300032&script=sci_arttext. http://www.scielo.org.pe/pdf/rivep/v31n3/1609-9117-rivep-31-03-e18743.pdf.
Wilcox B.P., Bryant F.C. & Fraga B.F. 1987. An evaluation of range condition on one range site in the Andes of central Peru. Journal of Range Management, 40(1): 41- 45. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3899359. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3899359. http://hdl.handle.net/10150/645278.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Edson E. Tito, Lucrecia Aguirre, Enrique R. Flores
![Creative Commons License](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc/4.0/88x31.png)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.