To Plant or Not to Plant, That is the Question (When converting non-native cool season grass dominated fields to early succession plant communities)

BenAllgood

5 year old buck +
From the Abstract: "Revegetation following Seedbank produced a plant community that provided habitat for many wildlife species equal to or better than Planted and was 3.7 times less expensive than Planted. © 2021 The Wildlife Society."

TWS Journals

ABSTRACT
Restoration of early successional plant communities dominated by nonnative plant species is a central focus of many state and federal agencies to improve habitat for wildlife associated with these communities. Restoration efforts largely have concentrated on controlling nonnative species followed by planting native grasses and forbs. However, there are numerous establishment problems associated with planting that warrant evaluation of alternative approaches for restoration. We conducted a field experiment to compare vegetation composition and structure as related to habitat for focal wildlife among plant communities established by planting (Planted) native grasses and forbs and revegetation from the seedbank (Seedbank) without planting following control of tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus) at 15 replicated sites in Tennessee and Alabama, USA. Planted and Seedbank treatments produced similar plant communities. Vegetation structure providing cover for nesting and brooding northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) was similar between Seedbank and Planted treatments except native grass cover was greatest in Planted, and we recorded greater openness at ground level in Seedbank than Planted or tall fescue control (Control). Abundance of northern bobwhite food plants and selected white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) forage were similar between Planted and Seedbank treatments, but nutritional carrying capacity for deer was greatest in Seedbank. Despite similarities in food abundance, and even though all forbs included in the planting mixtures were food plants, the majority of food plants in Planted were from the seedbank. The compositional and structural characteristics deemed most influential in previous studies to selection of breeding sites by dickcissel (Spiza americana), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), Henslow's sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii), and northern bobwhite were similar in Planted and Seedbank. Tall fescue Control was most similar to characteristics of eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna) breeding sites. Revegetation following Seedbank produced a plant community that provided habitat for many wildlife species equal to or better than Planted and was 3.7 times less expensive than Planted. © 2021 The Wildlife Society.
 
May work on nonfarm ground but anything that has been pounded into oblivion with chemicals for 10 plus years dosnt stand a chance of regeneration from a nonexistent sandbank.
 
May work on nonfarm ground but anything that has been pounded into oblivion with chemicals for 10 plus years dosnt stand a chance of regeneration from a nonexistent sandbank.
Definitely depends on the seedbank. This study was trying to answer the question of whether or not planting was necessary on grounds that had been converted to non-native cool season grasses years ago for hay/pasture (fescue in this study).
 
Ben,

From a QDM standpoint, I think the answer is both. At last that is what we are doing. We are using timber management techniques and controlled burns to provide the natural regeneration part. That is the BIG part and covers 90% from a food/cover perspective. The problem is that nature is cyclic. In are area Summer is a bit more of a stress period in most years than winter, but both stress deer. Deer will certainly survive with just the native foods, but during these stress periods, the quality of native foods decline significantly. Our strategy for food plots is to even out the dips that nature leaves, not replace native foods.

That is why I always argue that any crops left in a field after the stress period is over is not contributing to my objective. Food that does not end up in the belly of a deer is not contributing to QDM (although it has lots of other wildlife benefits). It doesn't matter whether deer are eating my food plots because they are "easy" (a concentrated source of quality food), or eating similar quality native foods during periods of low stress. This supports the approach of focusing on soil health, planting more acreage using T&M techniques and being tolerant of most weeds.

Those TV show farm quality high input monocultures look great, but for QDM, they are a poor choice in my opinion.

Thanks,

Jack
 
Ben,

From a QDM standpoint, I think the answer is both. At last that is what we are doing. We are using timber management techniques and controlled burns to provide the natural regeneration part. That is the BIG part and covers 90% from a food/cover perspective. The problem is that nature is cyclic. In are area Summer is a bit more of a stress period in most years than winter, but both stress deer. Deer will certainly survive with just the native foods, but during these stress periods, the quality of native foods decline significantly. Our strategy for food plots is to even out the dips that nature leaves, not replace native foods.

That is why I always argue that any crops left in a field after the stress period is over is not contributing to my objective. Food that does not end up in the belly of a deer is not contributing to QDM (although it has lots of other wildlife benefits). It doesn't matter whether deer are eating my food plots because they are "easy" (a concentrated source of quality food), or eating similar quality native foods during periods of low stress. This supports the approach of focusing on soil health, planting more acreage using T&M techniques and being tolerant of most weeds.

Those TV show farm quality high input monocultures look great, but for QDM, they are a poor choice in my opinion.

Thanks,

Jack
I changed the title to better reflect the nature of the study.
 
I changed the title to better reflect the nature of the study.
Yes, that better addresses the specific study, but I think this can be generalized as well. Clearly, the seed bank plays a huge role, and how the land was managed prior to focusing on wildlife makes a big difference. However, the study is a good example of the general principle: Deer have evolved along with their environment. There are some habitat types like early succession that are more supportive to deer than others (like old growth). Approaches that use nature as the primary driver and then use planting to support the gaps are the best in the long run.

Thanks,

Jack
 
Definitely depends on the seedbank. This study was trying to answer the question of whether or not planting was necessary on grounds that had been converted to non-native cool season grasses years ago for hay/pasture (fescue in this study).

Well in my "study", or actuality.. We did just that.

We converted a 5 acre fescue (hay) field into part food plot, part early successional growth. I have far more deer feeding in my plots than the ES area, via both camera and in person "studies"...

- I can see and shoot them easier :emoji_slight_smile:
- And I guarantee you the cost is more than 3.7 times more for the food plots :emoji_grin:
 
Well in my "study", or actuality.. We did just that.

We converted a 5 acre fescue (hay) field into part food plot, part early successional growth. I have far more deer feeding in my plots than the ES area, via both camera and in person "studies"...

- I can see and shoot them easier :emoji_slight_smile:
- And I guarantee you the cost is more than 3.7 times more for the food plots :emoji_grin:
This thread was titled all wrong I guess. This study was asking the question if planting was necessary or not in converting fescue fields to early successional plant communities that were beneficial to wildlife.
 
I have done exactly this. I have about 25 acres of what was fescue pasture. In my case, it isnt really an easy thing to do. Bush hog everything to the ground in the early winter, and the fescue will be about the only thing green come late Feb. Spray with gly. I would say it kills about 60% of the fescue. Do it again the following year - and you get most of it, but dont think some wont keep coming back - there is also fescue seed in the seed bank. In my case, the first year or two after doing this was a good mix of native forbs and grass - but within a couple of years, almost a pure stand of little bluestem - which nothing uses - nothing. There are no quail in my area, and what few turkeys we have, prefer to nest in areas with at least some woody vegetation and vines. Deer walk through it, but they dont bed in it and nothing eats it.

I have found the best for my ground, is to pull a heavy disk through it once every other year after bush hogging in late winter - expose some dirt - but dont turn over every square inch. I want to thin the bluestem - not destroy it. This leaves a mix of grass and forbs. The results of this are heavy spring, summer, and early fall use by deer, pollinators, birds, etc. We dont have rabbits, either - but if we did, I am sure they would benefit.

All within the same area, are a pure stand of little bluestem, the area where succession is disrupted with the disk, and pure wheat food plots. In general, the disrupted area sees greatest deer use throughout the spring, summer, and early fall. The wheat sees by far the greatest amount of use in mid fall through early spring. The little bluestem sees no use by anything.

I would agree that the native growth in the disrupted area has less labor and $ input than the wheat planted area, but more than the pure bluestem area. That area is bush hogged once every two years in late winter, and then disked one pass a few weeks later - and that is pretty much it. My wheat food plots next to it are sprayed with gly in June after the wheat heads are mature to keep the wheat field clean of weeds. I usually then bush hog the wheat in late July and spray gly again end of Aug and then top sow wheat a few weeks later. So I have one time of bush hogging and two sprayings and one trip of seeding every year. But, without the wheat, the native vegetative has almost zero use in the winter. The wheat sees a lot of use in July when everything from deer, hogs, and a wide variety of birds are eating the wheat seed. Both the disrupted native area and the planted wheat compliment each other. I leave the pure bluestem stand just for the heck of it.
 
This study was asking the question if planting was necessary or not in converting fescue fields to early successional plant communities that were beneficial to wildlife.

Yes, that was the way I understood it as well. My answers remain unchanged, as I did exactly that in a side by side comparison. Planting is not necessary at all, but it's not as good of a draw IMO. When side by side with a food plot for draw, the food plot wins out.

That being said, there was a tremendous seed back underneath our fescue with stiff golden rod, common + butterfly milkweed, partridge pea, ironweed, ragweed and foxtail all becoming present once again. It was a hay field for easily 10 years, after a milo / corn row crop. All this creates tremendous habitat, something a food plot can not always do - depending on the time of year.
 
Yes, that was the way I understood it as well. My answers remain unchanged, as I did exactly that. Planting is not necessary at all, but it's not as good of a draw IMO. When side by side with a food plot, the food plot wins out.
Yeah, I don't doubt the foodplot wins out in the food draw category. I'd even think cover from the right kind of foodplot mix could win out in many cases. But, that's not what the study was about.
 
Yeah, I don't doubt the foodplot wins out in the food draw category. I'd even think cover from the right kind of foodplot mix could win out in many cases. But, that's not what the study was about.

I realize that. Did you read my second paragraph above? Reseeding was not necessary.
 
I realize that. Did you read my second paragraph above? Reseeding was not necessary.
Ok. 10-4. I was just having trouble with how establishing food plots had anything to do with the best way to establish early successional natives.
 
Yes, I think when we combined the title with the objectives most have on the forum there was some confusion. There are several purposes for "planting" when it comes to converting from fescue to natives. One approach is to kill the fescue best you can and then plant NWSG or some mix of them and forbs. A second type planting might be to plant many of the deer crops we plant. A mi of buckwheat and Crimson clover may be appropriate for my area. While this is clearly food plot-ish, it can be done to simply help keep fescue from reestablishing as well as to keep the soil covered. With this approach, you simply let that plot go native. The plot gets "weedy" (from a food plot perspective) over time and eventually early successional natives take over. Depending on what the seed bank holds, and what chemicals were used to kill the fescue and the impact on other weeds, This approach may help keep some specific noxious weeds from dominating.

Now, I'm not specifically trying to establish NWSG, but I doing something similar but without converting from fescue. Our timber management plan creates what I call "wildlife openings". With these, I limed and established a perennial clover base. I then planted soft mast trees spaced out through the small plot. This is a permaculture component for me. I then slowly let the field go native. I started mowing once per year an then once every two years. Finally, I only bushhog them when woody plants are on the verge of being too large for my equipment. I use a bushhog to keep them in early succession because of the permaculture component that can't handle fire. In other small openings, we don't plant the soft mast trees and then use fire to keep them in early succession.

On my place broomsedge bluestem is the primary NWSG in my seed bank. This dominates our clear-cuts in the early years.

Thanks,

Jack
 
Interesting



It is amazing how nature will try and correct a problem and bring the natives back to a good balance. I see it when state mowing crews miss or leave areas along the highway and within a year I can see Indian grass patches.
One positive I see with the planting theory is a good cover of native grass/plants earlier to help compete with invasive even though the seed bank has a great base ready to go. The negative would be labor and expense.
The QDM term is fine if deer is the only thing someone is trying to work with. I like the QWM idea better, with all wildlife being looked at and to benefit from the restoration of native grass/plant pastures.

Working with native grasses and realizing the benefits to wildlife and even more to the soil itself is a very good project.
 
Interesting



It is amazing how nature will try and correct a problem and bring the natives back to a good balance. I see it when state mowing crews miss or leave areas along the highway and within a year I can see Indian grass patches.
One positive I see with the planting theory is a good cover of native grass/plants earlier to help compete with invasive even though the seed bank has a great base ready to go. The negative would be labor and expense.
The QDM term is fine if deer is the only thing someone is trying to work with. I like the QWM idea better, with all wildlife being looked at and to benefit from the restoration of native grass/plant pastures.

Working with native grasses and realizing the benefits to wildlife and even more to the soil itself is a very good project.

We manage for wildlife, but anything we do that advantages one or more species disadvantages some other species. I think at some point, we need to identify the primary species (could be several) that we are managing to promote. For most here, I would speculate that deer is primary. That is true for us with turkey a close second. We have tertiary species like quail, song birds, small game, and such. Some activities benefit many species, but there are always some that we disadvantage. I think that might be why QWM never really caught on.

Thanks,

Jack
 
We manage for wildlife, but anything we do that advantages one or more species disadvantages some other species. I think at some point, we need to identify the primary species (could be several) that we are managing to promote. For most here, I would speculate that deer is primary. That is true for us with turkey a close second. We have tertiary species like quail, song birds, small game, and such. Some activities benefit many species, but there are always some that we disadvantage. I think that might be why QWM never really caught on.

Thanks,

Jack

If deer is your personal main focus, then of course that is fine. For me it is not, it might have been when we first bought our properties. I get just as much fun now messing around with ducks/bees/wildflowers/bugs/fruit trees as I do with any of the hunting. If what I am doing for all wildlife improves the deer hunting for my kids (and I'm sure it does)...that’s fine too.
 
If deer is your personal main focus, then of course that is fine. For me it is not, it might have been when we first bought our properties. I get just as much fun now messing around with ducks/bees/wildflowers/bugs/fruit trees as I do with any of the hunting. If what I am doing for all wildlife improves the deer hunting for my kids (and I'm sure it does)...that’s fine too.
Those are all great a well! Our objects are a balance between come competing things. One is introducing new kids and even adults to hunting. This, of course, means we harvest more young bucks than we would if deer were our only objective. We are also trying to balance timber income with QDM objectives. It is all about finding the balance that works best for you. Few have a single objective.
 
How did QDM get brought into this topic?
 
How did QDM get brought into this topic?
Because establishing native early successional plants can be an important technique for the habitat management component of QDM.
 
Top