Last update: November 17, 2010 03:35:08 PM E-mail Print

 

YEARLONG REST IN GRAZING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 

 

P C V du Toit

National Department of Agriculture

Grootfontein Agricultural Development Institute

Private Bag X 529, Middelburg EC, 5900

 


INTRODUCTION

This article deals with the very important principle of season long rest or year long, also called rotational resting in grazing management systems.  An ideal opportunity to test whether rotational resting is effective in the Karoo, presented itself when the owner of a farm where holistic management was practiced, offered his farm to be experimented on.  The trials were laid out in areas where it was perceived that the veld has degraded.  Alternative names for the holistic management system are: the wagon wheel grazing system and the Savory grazing method, which is a form of rotational grazing management.  The period of grazing in holistic systems varies from 2 to 4 (7) days per paddock, with a recovery period varying from 96 to 120 days per paddock.  The recovery period depends on the number of paddocks per cell and the number of days a specific paddock is being grazed.  In this system, no paddock or cell receives a full year's rest to enable the plants to recover vigour, set seed and for the seedlings to become established.  The climate is usually unfavourable for most of these processes to take place and/or the period of "rest" is too short and frequently occurs during unfavourable climatic conditions.  It was generally felt that if the rotational rest period had effective results in this particular holistic system, it could be applied to great advantage in any other of the rotational grazing management systems.

Hypothesis

The hypothesis that needed testing was: "To establish whether benefits will accrue to any grazing management system by incorporating a year long rest period".  As far as is known, this hypothesis is in direct opposition to the reasoning of the holistic managers, who claim that their veld gets sufficient rest during the year, for all the necessary plant processes to take place.  The hypothesis was tested on the farm Trakaskuilen, with the full cooperation of the owner.

PREAMBLE

In this arid part of South Africa, the Beaufort West District, ca. 220 mm rainfall per annum, we have two components, each with its own special set of requirements needed for survival - plants and animals.  It is universally accepted that plants should be utilized to provide an income.  When we farm with animals, the plants are grazed and they then provide an income via the animal, in the form of meat and fibre.

In connection with grazing there are three approaches that can be followed.

Continuous grazing

Continuous grazing is practiced most often by nature conservation and some members of the farming community; no portion of the vegetation is afforded rest from grazing for any length of time.  However, grazing usually takes place at fairly low, uneconomical stocking rates.

Rotational grazing

In the case of conventional rotational grazing (as was advocated by the Department of Agriculture in the past), the land is fenced into two or more (usually 4, 6 or 8) paddocks and these paddocks are provided for grazing in rotation.  One camp is grazed while the others are "rested".  This rest may vary from 14 to 42 (or 98) days.  In this case the rest period is called a recovery rest.  The rest is more or less successful in recovering some of the vigour of the plants, depending on the time of year and the prevailing climate.  Applied stocking rates usually approach the norm laid down by the Department of Agriculture.

In the case of holistic "rotational grazing", the land is fenced into 8, 16 to 32 paddocks per cell and these paddocks are provided for grazing in rotation.  While one paddock is grazed, the others get from 30 to 120 days rest, based on 2 to 7 days' grazing per paddock.  Stocking rates often exceed the grazing capacity norm, due to the fact that holistic managers claim improved animal production at stocking rates higher than those advocated by the Department of Agriculture for the area.

Rotational resting

Rotational resting is seldom applied because the term rotational resting, is usually misunderstood.  For rotational resting to really benefit the plants, the period must be long enough for the plants to recover vigour, flower, set seed and for the seed to mature.  Some of the previous season's seed should germinate and at least some of these seedlings should become fully established.  This rest will of necessity usually last for a full year, and the climate must be favourable.  This resting will also benefit the animals, in that an abundance of nutritious forage is produced during the year of rest.  Part of this material is carried over to the next season and becomes available for grazing after the year's rest.  The converse is applied most often.  Many believe that they practice rotational resting, when in fact the rest period is too short.  The period between two grazing events is called a regrowth, or a recovery period.  It is usually too short for the plants to fully recover vigour and most often too short for the plants to flower and set seed, because the climate is also often unfavourable at this time.  Such a rest period should be referred to as a recovery period, it is not rotational rest.

The rotational rest period is usually referred to as resting a quarter or a third of the paddocks on the farm.  In the case of the Nama Karoo subshrubs, because they continue growing and do not really become dormant during the winter, resting from July until June will aid in the recovery of their carbohydrate reserves and vigour lost during severe grazing bouts during the rotation.  As can be seen, a rotational rest period lasts for a full year, in the case of the grasses which undergo a dormant period from July to June, i.e. usually from the first frost until the grasses start growing out again.

METHOD

The trial was carried out in the Beaufort West District on the farm Trakaskuilen, 32° 57'S, 22° 33'E, altitude 700-900 m, in the Great Karoo Variation of the Karroid Broken Veld (Acocks 1988).  Mean annual rainfall is 226.8 mm falling mainly in summer, with 22% in spring, 34% in summer, 33% in autumn and 11% in winter.  The mean January temperature is 18° C and the mean July temperature is 11.5° C.  A frost free period of 240 days occurs from mid-September to mid-May.

Two paddocks in fairly large homogeneous areas were fenced off to completely exclude grazing by sheep.  The fenced-off area is known as the grazing exclosure.  Superficially and visually, the area outside of the fenced-off area compared to the fenced-off area in all respects (refer to tables 1 to 4).  Botanical surveys were conducted inside and outside of the exclosures, at the start of the experiment and again one year later (after the year of rest).  The vegetation was surveyed according to the ecological index method (Vorster 1982), but the grazing index values (Du Toit et al. 1995) were used in the computations of the veld condition index scores.  The paddock is surveyed, recording the canopy spread cover of the plants and by means of a line transect and descending point and 200 points are recorded.  With the descending point method of vegetation survey (Roux 1963), recording the canopy spread cover of the plants, the plants with the most widely spreading crowns stand the best chance of being recorded.  As the sizes of the plants diminish, their chances of being recorded get progressively lower.
 

RESULTS

Number of species

The number of species recorded:

1993

1994

Rocky Hill, listed = 41

recorded

recorded

Inside, Table 1

Outside, Table 2

1316

1716

Watercourse, listed = 30

recorded

recorded

Inside, Table 3

Outside, Table 4

 711

1011

 

Fairly palatable species were recorded during the 1994 survey in addition to those species recorded during the original survey inside the grazing exclosure.  These species included: Cynodon incompletus (soetkweek), Drosanthemum lique (skaapvygie), Eriocephalus ericoides (gewone kapokbos), Felicia muricata (bloublommetjie), Hermannia desertorum (pleisterbos) and Pentzia globosa (vaalkaroo).  These plants were recorded simply because they had the opportunity to grow out and for their canopies to enlarge, they were therefore in a position to be recorded.

 

Canopy spread cover

 

The cover recorded is directly related to the size of the plants, and it is expressed as the percentage of strikes on the canopy spread cover:

 

The canopy spread cover:

1993

1994

Rocky Hill,

recorded

recorded

Inside, Table 1

Outside, Table 2

23.5

27.5

30.0

25.0

Watercourse

recorded

recorded

Inside, Table 3

Outside, Table 4

21.5

24.5

46.5

35.5

 

 

Veld condition index score

 

The veld condition index score is the recorded number of a particular species multiplied by the grazing index value attached to that particular species and summed for all the species recorded:

 

The veld condition score:

1993

1994

Rocky Hill

recorded

recorded

Inside, Table 1

Outside, Table 2

118.2

134.3

150.0

122.5

Watercourse

recorded

recorded

Inside, Table 3

Outside, Table 4

99.9

118.5

240.3

159.8

 

At the start, the grazing exclosure plots were in a slightly poorer condition than the plots outside, but in only one year, the rest benefitted the plants to such an extent that the exclosure plots were in a much better position.

 

DISCUSSION

 

What are the consequences of not applying year long rotational resting?

 

Plants differ in their palatability to the grazing animal, palatable, less palatable and unpalatable (Variously referred to as acceptable or preferred forage species etc.).  Grazing is normally concentrated on the most palatable plants in the plant community.  These plants are grazed down and become small cushions, spiny to the outside, often growing inwardly, producing little forage to the outside.  This forage is unavailable to the grazing animal.  Grazing is then transferred and the grazers concentrate on the less palatable plants, which are usually also less nutritious, although they still produce sufficient bulk.  As a consequence, animal production suffers as meat and fibre production declines.  It is not uncommon to see the progeny of these animals themselves becoming smaller, less fertile and prone to disease.

 

What benefits accrue when year long rotational resting is applied?

 

Healthy, vigorously growing plants are able to withstand grazing better than small plants and additionally provide more nutritious bulk to the grazing animal.  This is evident from higher lambing percentages, which is expressed as the number of lambs weaned per ewes mated, higher carcass mass at an earlier age, these lambs can be taken off the veld at an earlier age, thereby reducing the stocking rate on the veld benefitting the veld even more, higher fibre mass of the more expensive lines, etc.

 

Referring to health; the so-called health of a paddock is measured by the number and size of the "good" plants in the paddock, i.e. those plants that will be grazed in preference to other plants which provide the same bulk production.

 

How do we establish the health of a paddock?

 

The paddock is surveyed according to the method of Roux (1963). The plants with the most spreading crowns stand the best chance of being recorded.  As the size of the plants diminish, their chance of being recorded get progressively lower.  It follows that the health of a paddock depends on the number of palatable plants that get recorded.  In agricultural terms the health is therefore the ratios of palatable to less palatable to unpalatable plants and these ratios are commonly expressed as indices of veld condition (refer to the veld condition score table above).

 

Rotational rest provides all the plants with the opportunity to grow out and become vigorous.  They become lush and their crowns spread out wider.  The wider the crowns and the greater the number of plants, the higher the percentage cover (refer to the cover table above).  Cover is important for raindrop interception, improving infiltration and in combating surface soil erosion.  This is the first indication that the health of the paddock is improving.  In this regard it is important to note that the eye is very deceptive.

 

The second indication of better health, is the veld condition score being attributed to the paddock.  This veld condition score is based on the number of plants (per species) multiplied by the grazing index value of the particular species.  The grazing value of the plants is determined by their potential size, leafiness, softness, spinyness, forage value during the growing season, forage value during the dormant season, etc.  The higher the veld condition score, the better the health of the veld (refer to the veld condition score table above).

 

This health is coupled to the grazing capacity of the veld.  The better the health, i.e. the higher the veld condition score, the higher the grazing capacity.

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

From the above it is clear that the palatable / less palatable species groups improved the most during the season of rest.  Their respective crowns developed to such an extent in the absence of only one year of grazing, that many were in a position to be recorded during the follow up survey.

The improvement in cover and subsequently in the veld condition score, improved the grazing capacity dramatically.  On the hill site the grazing capacity improved from 39 to 31 ha/LSU, while in the watercourse it improved from 46 to 19 ha/LSU.  The grazing capacity norm in the area, determined by the Department of Agriculture, is 36 ha/LSU.

Grazing capacity

The grazing capacity of the surveyed sites, in ha/LSU is:

The computed grazing capacity

1993

1994

Rocky Hill

computed

computed

Inside, Table 1

Outside, Table 2

3935

3138

Watercourse

computed

computed

Inside, Table 3

Outside, Table 4

4639

1929

 

It must be borne in mind that not only did the canopy spread cover of those species listed above improve, but so did the canopy spread cover of many of the previously recorded and unrecorded species.  There is therefore a vast improvement in the bulk of forage available to the grazing animal.

 

Improvement in veld condition

 

The overall improvement in all aspects of the veld, and indeed the vast improvement in the grazing capacity, must be seen as an important economic incentive to farmers to rotationally rest their veld.

 

 

REFERENCES

Acocks JPH 1988.  Veld Types of South Africa.  Memoirs of the botanical survey of South Africa no. 57.  Government Printer, Pretoria.

Du Toit PCV, Botha WvanD, Blom CD, Becker HR, Olivier DJ, Meyer EM & Barnard GZJ.  1995.  Estimating grazing index values for Karoo plants.  Technical Communication nr. 239.

Roux PW.  1963.  The descending point method of vegetation survey: A point sampling method for the measurement of semi-open and Karoo vegetation in South Africa.  South African Journal of Agricultural Science 6:273-288.

Vorster M.  1982.  The development of the ecological index method for assessing veld condition in the Karoo.  Proceedings of the Grassland Society of southern Africa 17:84-89.

 

 

Table 1     Rocky hill exclusion plots, the botanical species composition, and the number of strikes on canopy spread cover recorded inside the exclosure plot during the surveys of 1993 and 1994.  In all the tables a percentage and score count, indicates that those species were recorded during the survey, in many instances, indicated by a zero, their canopy spread covers were too small for them to be recorded, but the species richness of the plots can be deduced

 

                                       1993               1994

Botanical composition      GIV  Strike   % Score   Strike   % Score

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aristida congesta          1.3        0.0   0.0              0.0

Aristida diffusa           5.1  13.0  6.5  33.1  13.0  6.5  33.1

Chrysocoma ciliata         1.5   1.0  0.5   0.8   3.0  1.5   2.2

Digitaria argyrograpta     7.3        0.0   0.0   3.0  1.5  10.9

Digitaria eriantha         8.9   3.0  1.5  13.4              0.0

Drosanthemum hispidum      7.0        0.0   0.0              0.0

Drosanthemum lique         6.3        0.0   0.0   1.0  0.5   3.1

Eberlanzia ferox           2.9   7.0  3.5  10.2   4.0  2.0   5.8

Ehrharta calycina          6.4   2.0  1.0   6.4              0.0

Eragrostis obtusa          4.0        0.0   0.0   1.0  0.5   2.0

Eriocephalus ericoides     5.0        0.0   0.0  20.0 10.0  50.0

Euphorbia sp               1.0        0.0   0.0              0.0

Euphorbia stellispina      1.1        0.0   0.0              0.0

Felicia muricata           6.5        0.0   0.0   1.0  0.5   3.2

Helichrysum dregeanum      6.3        0.0   0.0              0.0

Helichrysum lucilioides    5.2        0.0   0.0              0.0

Helichrysum oxybelium      1.6        0.0   0.0              0.0

Hermannia desertorum       5.9        0.0   0.0   2.0  1.0   5.9

Hermannia gracilis         6.0        0.0   0.0   1.0  0.5   3.0

Hermannia linifolia        6.0        0.0   0.0              0.0

Hirpicium alienatum        4.7  10.0  5.0  23.5   1.0  0.5   2.4

Lycium cinerium            2.0        0.0   0.0              0.0

Lycium oxycarpum           1.0        0.0   0.0              0.0

Maytenus heterophylla      4.0        0.0   0.0              0.0

Microloma massonii         4.3        0.0   0.0              0.0

Nenax microphylla          7.0   2.0  1.0   7.0   2.0  1.0   7.0

Osteospermum calendulaceum 1.0        0.0   0.0              0.0

Pegolettia retrofracta     5.6        0.0   0.0              0.0

Pentzia incana             5.7   3.0  1.5   8.6   2.0  1.0   5.7

Protasparagus burkei       1.0   1.0  0.5   0.5              0.0

Protasparagus suaveolens   1.0        0.0   0.0              0.0

Pteronia adenocarpa        3.9   1.0  0.5   1.9              0.0

Pteronia glauca            3.2        0.0   0.0   2.0  1.0   3.2

Pteronia staehelinoides    4.0        0.0   0.0              0.0

Rhigozum obovatum          6.6   2.0  1.0   6.6   1.0  0.5   3.3

Rhus undulata              3.2        0.0   0.0              0.0

Ruschia grisea             4.0        0.0   0.0              0.0

Sarcocaulon patersonii     1.4        0.0   0.0              0.0

Selago triquetra           4.5        0.0   0.0   1.0  0.5   2.2

Sericocoma avolans         5.6   1.0  0.5   2.8              0.0

Thesium lineatum           3.4        0.0   0.0              0.0

Trichodiadema pomeridianum 6.5        0.0   0.0              0.0

Walafrida geniculata       7.0   1.0  0.5   3.5   2.0  1.0   7.0

Zygophyllum microphyllum   4.0        0.0   0.0              0.0

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Cover score/Site score                23.5/118.2          30/150.2

ha/LSU                                     39.26             30.89

---------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 2    Rocky hill exclusion plots, the botanical species composition, and the number of strikes on canopy spread cover recorded outside of the exclosure plot during the surveys of 1993 and 1994

 

                                       1993              1994

Botanical composition      GIV  Strike   % Score  Strike   % Score

 

Aristida congesta          1.3        0.0   0.0        0.0   0.0

Aristida diffusa           5.1  10.0  5.0  25.5  12.0  6.0  30.6

Chrysocoma ciliata         1.5   1.0  0.5   0.8        0.0   0.0

Digitaria argyrograpta     7.3        0.0   0.0   2.0  1.0   7.3

Digitaria eriantha         8.9   4.0  2.0  17.8        0.0   0.0

Drosanthemum hispidum      7.0        0.0   0.0   1.0  0.5   3.5

Drosanthemum lique         6.3        0.0   0.0        0.0   0.0

Eberlanzia ferox           2.9   5.0  2.5   7.2   4.0  2.0   5.8

Ehrharta calycina          6.4        0.0   0.0        0.0   0.0

Eragrostis obtusa          4.0        0.0   0.0   1.0  0.5   2.0

Eriocephalus ericoides     5.0   5.0  2.5  12.5   3.0  1.5   7.5

Euphorbia sp               1.1        0.0   0.0        0.0   0.0

Euphorbia stellispina      1.0        0.0   0.0        0.0   0.0

Felicia muricata           6.5        0.0   0.0        0.0   0.0

Helichrysum dregeanum      6.3        0.0   0.0        0.0   0.0

Helichrysum lucilioides    5.2        0.0   0.0        0.0   0.0

Helichrysum oxybelium      1.6        0.0   0.0        0.0   0.0

Hermannia desertorum       5.9   4.0  2.0  11.8   3.0  1.5   8.9

Hermannia linifolia        6.0        0.0   0.0        0.0   0.0

Hirpicium alienatum        4.7        0.0   0.0        0.0   0.0

Lycium cinerium            2.0   3.0  1.5   3.0   2.0  1.0   2.0

Lycium oxycarpum           1.8   1.0  0.5   0.9   1.0  0.5   0.9

Maytenus heterophylla      4.0        0.0   0.0        0.0   0.0

Microloma massonii         4.3        0.0   0.0        0.0   0.0

Nenax microphylla          7.0        0.0   0.0        0.0   0.0

Osteospermum calendulaceum 1.0        0.0   0.0        0.0   0.0

Pegolettia retrofracta     5.6        0.0   0.0        0.0   0.0

Pentzia incana             5.7   5.0  2.5  14.2  10.0  5.0  28.5

Protasparagus burkei       1.0        0.0   0.0        0.0   0.0

Protasparagus suaveolens   1.0        0.0   0.0        0.0   0.0

Pteronia adenocarpa        3.9   1.0  0.5   1.9        0.0   0.0

Pteronia glauca            3.2   3.0  1.5   4.8   3.0  1.5   4.8

Pteronia staehelinoides    4.0   1.0  0.5   2.0   1.0  0.5   2.0

Rhigozum obovatum          6.6   7.0  3.5  23.1   4.0  2.0  13.2

Rhus undulata              3.2   1.0  0.5   1.6   1.0  0.5   1.6

Ruschia grisea             4.0   1.0  0.5   2.0        0.0   0.0

Sarcocaulon patersonii     1.4        0.0   0.0        0.0   0.0

Sericocoma avolans         5.6        0.0   0.0        0.0   0.0

Sutera halimifolia         4.5              0.0   1.0  0.5   2.2

Thesium lineatum           3.4   3.0  1.5   5.1   1.0  0.5   1.7

Trichodiadema pomeridianum 6.5        0.0   0.0        0.0   0.0

Walafrida geniculata       7.0        0.0   0.0        0.0   0.0

Zygophyllum microphyllum   4.0        0.0   0.0        0.0   0.0

 

Cover score/Site score                27.5/134.3          25/122.5

ha/LSU                                     34.56             37.89

 


Table 3     Dry Watercourse exclusion plots, the botanical species composition, and the number of strikes on canopy spread cover recorded inside the exclosure plot during the surveys of 1993 and 1994

                                       1993              1994

Botanical composition      GIV  Strike   % Score  Strike   % Score

 

Aptosimum indivisum        2.7        0.0   0.0              0.0

Aristida congesta          1.3        0.0   0.0              0.0

Aristida diffusa           5.1        0.0   0.0              0.0

Chrysocoma ciliata         1.5   1.0  0.5   0.8   3.0  1.5   2.2

Cynodon incompletus        4.1        0.0   0.0   2.0  1.0   4.1

Delosperma multiflora      7.0        0.0   0.0              0.0

Digitaria eriantha         8.9        0.0   0.0              0.0

Drosanthemum hispidum      7.0   3.0  1.5  10.5  17.0  8.5  59.5

Drosanthemum lique         6.3        0.0   0.0              0.0

Eberlanzia ferox           2.9        0.0   0.0              0.0

Ehrharta calycina          6.4        0.0   0.0              0.0

Enneapogon desvauxii       1.0        0.0   0.0              0.0

Eragrostis obtusa          4.0        0.0   0.0              0.0

Felicia muricata           6.5        0.0   0.0   1.0  0.5   3.2

Fingerhuthia africana      6.6        0.0   0.0              0.0

Hermannia grandiflora      6.2        0.0   0.0              0.0

Hermannia vestita          2.3        0.0   0.0              0.0

Hirpicium alienatum        4.7        0.0   0.0              0.0

Lycium cinerium            3.0   9.0  4.5  13.5   8.0  4.0  12.0

Pentzia globosa            5.1        0.0   0.0   3.0  1.5   7.6

Pentzia incana             5.7  14.0  7.0  39.9  35.0 17.5  99.7

Pentzia spinescens         4.8  13.0  6.5  31.2  17.0  8.5  40.8

Protasparagus africanus    1.0   1.0  0.5   0.5              0.0

Protasparagus suaveolens   1.0        0.0   0.0   1.0  0.5   0.5

Psilocaulon absimile       2.1        0.0   0.0              0.0

Rosenia humilis            3.5   2.0  1.0   3.5   6.0  3.0  10.5

Selago albida              5.7        0.0   0.0              0.0

Sporobolus fimbriatus      9.5        0.0   0.0              0.0

Trichodiadema pomeridianum 6.5        0.0   0.0              0.0

Walafrida geniculata       7.0        0.0   0.0              0.0

 

Cover score/Site score                21.5/99.85        46.5/240.3

ha/LSU                                     46.48             19.31

 
 

Table 4     Dry Watercourse exclusion plots, the botanical species composition, and the number of strikes on canopy spread cover recorded outside of the exclosure plot during the surveys of 1993 and 1994

                                      1993              1994

Botanical composition      GIV  Strike   % Score  Strike   % Score

 

Aptosimum indivisum        2.7        0.0   0.0              0.0

Aristida congesta          1.3        0.0   0.0              0.0

Aristida diffusa           5.1        0.0   0.0              0.0

Chrysocoma ciliata         1.5   2.0  1.0   1.5   8.0  4.0   6.0

Cynodon incompletus        4.1        0.0   0.0              0.0

Delosperma multiflora      7.0   1.0  0.5   3.5   1.0  0.5   3.5

Digitaria eriantha         8.9        0.0   0.0              0.0

Drosanthemum hispidum      7.0   3.0  1.5  10.5   8.0  4.0  28.0

Drosanthemum lique         6.3        0.0   0.0              0.0

Eberlanzia ferox           2.7        0.0   0.0   2.0  1.0   2.7

Ehrharta calycina          6.4        0.0   0.0              0.0

Enneapogon desvauxii       1.0        0.0   0.0              0.0

Eragrostis obtusa          4.0   1.0  0.5   2.0   1.0  0.5   2.0

Felicia muricata           6.5   1.0  0.5   3.2              0.0

Fingerhuthia africana      6.6        0.0   0.0              0.0

Hermannia grandiflora      6.2        0.0   0.0              0.0

Hermannia vestita          2.3        0.0   0.0              0.0

Hirpicium alienatum        5.0        0.0   0.0   1.0  0.5   2.5

Lycium cinerium            3.0   5.0  2.5   7.5   9.0  4.5  13.5

Pentzia globosa            5.1   1.0  0.5   2.5              0.0

Pentzia incana             5.7  22.0 11.0  62.7  24.0 12.0  68.4

Pentzia spinescens         4.5   7.0  3.5  15.7  12.0  6.0  27.0

Protasparagus africanus    1.0        0.0   0.0   2.0  1.0   1.0

Protasparagus suaveolens   1.0   1.0  0.5   0.5              0.0

Psilocaulon absimile       2.1        0.0   0.0              0.0

Rosenia humilis            3.5   5.0  2.5   8.8   3.0  1.5   5.2

Selago albida              5.7        0.0   0.0              0.0

Sporobolus fimbriatus      9.5        0.0   0.0              0.0

Trichodiadema pomeridianum 6.5        0.0   0.0              0.0

Walafrida geniculata       7.0        0.0   0.0              0.0

 

Cover score/Site score                24.5/118.5        35.5/159.8

ha/LSU                                     39.16             29.03

 

Published

Karoo Agric Vol 4 (1)