Download Rangelands and Pasturelands - Manitoba Forestry Association

MANITOBA ENVIROTHON
Rangelands and
Pasturelands
Theme Document 2013
Lindsey Andronak, Barbara Fuller and Mae Elsinger
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Preface
This document was written by Lindsey Andronak (University of Manitoba), Mae Elsinger (Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada), and Barbara Fuller (Education Committee, Manitoba Envirothon) for the Manitoba
Envirothon, a core program of THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association. The objective of the
document is to provide Manitoba Envirothon participants with information on the 2013 topic:
Sustainable Rangeland Management. Case studies are highlighted throughout the document in order to
present the concepts learned within a Manitoba context.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ellen Cobb-Friesen, Elaine Gauer, Glenn Peterson and Jane Thornton for
their expertise, guidance and support while preparing this document.
1
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Executive Summary
Rangeland contributes immensely to a sustainable agricultural economy. Rangeland provides forage and
habitat for domestic livestock and wildlife. Recently there has been increasing demands on the
rangeland for a multi-use concept. Multi use includes hunting, precious metals, fuel (gas, coal)
exploration and recreational uses such as; access to fishing, bird-watching, hiking, snowmobiling, crosscountry skiing, trail bike/ATV riding. Today, management methodologies vary greatly while attempting
to balance rangeland uses that result in maximized benefits to all.
Rangeland has seen major changes from the large bison herds on the prairies during the 1800s, to the
homesteading days during the early 1900s, to the multi-uses and management of today’s rangeland. It
is estimated that before settlement, there were 61.5 million hectares of native grassland in the
Canadian prairies, providing a home for specially adapted, diverse plant and animal life. Currently, there
are 20.0 million hectares of rangeland and pastureland grazed by livestock, with 10% of that total in
Manitoba. Prairie ecosystems thrive on the intermittent disturbance brought by frequent fire and the
irregular mosaic of vegetation carved out by the periodic passage of native grazers (bison, elk, mule
deer, white-tailed deer, and antelope). These disturbances and subsequent renewals have shaped the
life cycle of every native prairie organism.
As our knowledge of rangeland has increased, it became evident that what helps the rancher is often
good for wildlife. In this grazing-dependent ecosystem, many species of both plants and animals rely on
the presence of large grazing animals. Properly managed rangeland can provide a sustainable agriculture
economy and healthy rangelands for future generations.
2
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
2013 Learning Outcomes: Rangelands and Pasturelands .................................................................................................. 5
What is Rangeland and Pastureland? ............................................................................................................................................... 7
Importance of Rangelands and Pasturelands: Goods and Services ..................................................................................... 8
Who uses rangelands and for what purpose? ............................................................................................................................... 9
Settlement and Cultivation of Rangelands....................................................................................................................................10
Rangeland and Pastureland Ownership, Management and Rights ....................................................................................12
Rangeland and Pastureland on the Canadian Prairies ............................................................................................................15
Ecological Communities ........................................................................................................................................................................15
Wetlands and Riparian Areas .......................................................................................................................................................16
Uplands ...................................................................................................................................................................................................17
Forested Rangeland ...........................................................................................................................................................................18
Interactions among ecological communities ..........................................................................................................................19
Grasslands of Manitoba .........................................................................................................................................................................20
Tall Grass Prairie ................................................................................................................................................................................20
Northern Mixed Grass Prairie .......................................................................................................................................................22
Parkland/Northern Fescue ............................................................................................................................................................23
Ecoregions ...................................................................................................................................................................................................24
Aspen Parkland ...................................................................................................................................................................................24
Boreal Transition ................................................................................................................................................................................25
Lake Manitoba Plain ..........................................................................................................................................................................26
Interlake Plain ......................................................................................................................................................................................26
Mid Boreal Upland .............................................................................................................................................................................27
Ecological Processes of Rangeland and Pastureland ...............................................................................................................28
1.
Energy flow ................................................................................................................................................................................28
2.
Nutrient cycling ........................................................................................................................................................................28
3.
Water Cycling ............................................................................................................................................................................29
4.
Carbon Sequestration ............................................................................................................................................................30
5.
Plant Succession .......................................................................................................................................................................31
6.
Disturbance ................................................................................................................................................................................31
Rangeland and Pastureland Plant Identification .......................................................................................................................32
Growth Forms ......................................................................................................................................................................................34
Parts of Plants ......................................................................................................................................................................................34
Basic Glossary of Plant Parts ..............................................................................................................................................................37
3
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Invasive Plant Species ............................................................................................................................................................................39
Negative Plant Impacts on Animal Productivity ........................................................................................................................40
Sustainable Rangeland and Pastureland Management ...........................................................................................................41
What is Sustainable Management? .............................................................................................................................................41
Risks and Challenges for Sustainability ....................................................................................................................................42
Basic Rangeland and Pastureland Management Concepts ....................................................................................................43
Types and Classes of Livestock ....................................................................................................................................................43
Interactions between Wildlife and Livestock ........................................................................................................................44
Competition between Wildlife and Livestock for Food .....................................................................................................45
Pathogen Transmission between Wildlife and Livestock ................................................................................................45
Grazing Management Principles and Practices .....................................................................................................................46
Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs) ....................................................................................................................................48
Grazing Management Plans ............................................................................................................................................................48
Selected Types of Grazing Systems.............................................................................................................................................49
Strategies for Wetland and Riparian Area Management ..................................................................................................50
Sustainable Pastureland Mixes .....................................................................................................................................................50
Other Beneficial Management Practices ..................................................................................................................................51
Calculations related to Grazing Management Planning ..........................................................................................................52
Forage Production – How much forage does the land produce? ...................................................................................52
Available Forage Supply: How much feed do I have? .........................................................................................................53
How many animals can I feed? .....................................................................................................................................................53
What if I don’t have cows? What if I also have calves and yearlings? .........................................................................54
Stocking Rate, Carrying Capacity and Stocking Density ....................................................................................................55
Sample Grazing Calculations .........................................................................................................................................................56
Riparian, Rangeland and Pastureland Assessment ..................................................................................................................59
Riparian Health Assessment ...............................................................................................................................................................59
What is Range Condition? ...............................................................................................................................................................60
What is Rangeland Health? How is it different from Range Condition? .....................................................................62
Glossary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....65
Appendix A…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..80
Appendix B……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………..93
Appendix C…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………..97
4
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
2013 Learning Outcomes: Rangelands and Pasturelands
As a result of studying Rangelands and Pasturelands: Theme Document 2013, students will be able to:
What is Rangeland and Pastureland
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Define rangeland and pastureland
Describe the economic, social and environmental importance of rangeland and pastureland
List the ecological services and products provided by rangeland and pastureland
List the multiple users of rangelands and pastureland and describe their needs and wants
Describe the historical uses and development of Manitoba’s rangeland and pastureland by
humans, domestic livestock and wildlife
Describe the effect of historical uses and development on rangeland and pastureland plant
communities
Define public and private land as it relates to rangeland and pastureland and list some examples
Describe the rights of the private landowner of rangeland and pastureland
Describe the rights of the public on public rangeland and pastureland
Describe the amount and proportion of agricultural land in Manitoba and the other prairie
provinces that is rangeland and pastureland
Rangeland and Pastureland Ecology
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Define ecological site with respect to rangeland and pastureland
Describe different rangeland and pastureland ecological communities
Describe three types of grasslands found in Manitoba
Describe ways these different ecological communities interact on rangeland and pastureland
Describe the five ecoregions in Manitoba in which Manitoba’s rangelands and pasturelands can
be found
16. Describe ecological processes on rangeland and pastureland
Rangeland and Pastureland Plants
17. Identify some common native herbaceous and woody forage plants of Manitoba
18. Identify some common non-native forage species used in Manitoba pastureland
19. Identify some common invasive plant species encountered in Manitoba rangeland and
pastureland
20. Differentiate among plant growth forms
21. Identify parts of grass, grass-like plants, forbs, and woody species
22. Describe the effects of invasive plant species on rangeland and pastureland
23. Describe some possible negative effects of plants on animal productivity
Rangeland and Pastureland Management
5
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Define sustainable management of rangeland and pastureland
Describe some risks to the sustainability of rangeland and pastureland
Name different classes and types of livestock
Describe how different types and classes of livestock use rangelands and pasturelands.
Describe how livestock may interact with wildlife species
Describe basic rangeland and pastureland management concepts
Describe some Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs) for improving and sustaining rangeland
and pastureland
31. Perform calculations and conversions related to rangeland and pastureland management
concepts
Rangeland and Pastureland Assessment
32. Describe how a Riparian Health Assessment is conducted on rangeland and pastureland within
the Canadian Prairies
33. Describe the fundamental difference between Rangeland Health Assessment and Range
Condition Assessment
34. Describe how a Range Condition Assessment is conducted on rangeland and pastureland within
the Canadian Prairies
35. Describe how a Rangeland Health Assessment is conducted on rangeland and pastureland within
the Canadian Prairies, including how each component indicates the function of the rangeland or
pastureland.
36. Describe how the different Rangeland Health and Range Condition rating categories relate to
the sustainability of rangeland and pastureland.
37. Describe the appropriate management responses to the different Rangeland Health or Range
Condition rating categories for rangeland and pastureland.
6
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
What is Rangeland and Pastureland?
The definitions of rangeland and pastureland are complex. The Montana Envirothon Committee (this
year’s host) defines rangeland as “land on which the plant community is comprised of predominately
native or indigenous grasses, grass-like plants (e.g. sedges), forbs and/or shrubs. Rangeland includes
natural grasslands, savannas, shrublands, most deserts, tundra, alpine communities, coastal marshes
and wet meadows”. Montana defines pastureland as “grazing lands comprised of introduced or
domesticated native forage species that are used primarily for the production of livestock. They receive
periodic renovation and/or cultural treatments such as tillage, fertilization, mowing, weed control and
may be irrigated. They are not in rotation with crops”.
In Manitoba, three factors require adjustments to these definitions: 1) widespread introduction of nonnative species, 2) greater overlap of wild herbivores or livestock with tree-dominated plant
communities, and 3) the need for using certain cultural practices where historical practices are
inappropriate (i.e. replacing fire and bison grazing with herbicide application, mowing, timber harvest,
and targeted grazing to control weeds and brush
expansion). Thus, we will consider rangeland to be
any land which is not cultivated or irrigated and
provides food for animals who graze (eat
herbaceous, non-woody forages) or browse (eat
parts of woody plant species). This means that
Manitoba’s rangelands include forested and
grassland communities that are grazable as well as
communities that are invaded by exotic plants such
as Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, creeping
Figure 1 - Example of a Northern Mixed Grass
Prairie Rangeland in Southwestern Manitoba
bentgrass, white clover, Canada thistle and leafy
spurge (Figure 1). This would even include lands in
northern Manitoba that provide grazing, browsing, and habitat for wild ungulates such as caribou and
moose. As in Montana’s definition, Manitoba’s pasturelands include those grazing lands seeded with
tame or native forages that are regularly renovated and/or managed with fertilization, mowing and
herbicide application. Irrigation is an unlikely pastureland management tool in Manitoba.
7
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
What are Ecosystem Services and Products?
Ecosystem services and products are the transformation of
a set of natural assets (soil, plants and animals, air and
water) into things that we value. To learn how rangelands
and pasturelands do this, see the Ecological Processes
Section.
Examples of Rangeland Ecosystem Services and Products
adapted from Holechek et al, 2011
Services
 Climatic stability
 Water and air purification
 Nutrient cycling
 Biodiversity
 Human waste decomposition and detoxification
 Organic matter decomposition
 Ozone maintenance
 Pest and disease control
 Aesthetic value
 Outdoor recreation
Products
 Water
 Food (meat, fruit, vegetables, nuts)
 Fiber (leather, wool)
 Medicine
 Energy (fossil fuels, bio-fuels, hydro, solar, wind and
thermal power)
 Minerals (gold, iron, silver, lead)
 Wildlife
 Fish
 Timber, pulp and paper
Importance of
Rangelands and
Pasturelands: Goods and
Services
Rangelands provide an important
source of feed for ruminants
(cows, goats, sheep, deer,
moose, elk), which in turn are a
source of protein from meat and
milk for human populations.
Rangelands that still exist today
mainly occur on marginal land
that is not suitable for cultivated
agriculture, allowing rangelands
to assist in world food
production. Grazing animals
provide products such as wool
and leather which are used to
make textile products.
Rangelands provide habitat for
wildlife which provide
opportunities for hunting and
aesthetic viewing.
Rangelands with a forest
component may be used for timber or pulp and paper production.
Water is also an important rangeland product. From surface water in wetlands, streams and lakes to
groundwater, water in rangelands is used agriculturally, industrially and domestically.
Outdoor recreational activities abound in rangeland regions. They provide some of the last easily
accessible tracts of open spaces. Hiking, camping, picnicking, geocaching, horseback riding, hunting and
fishing are just a few of the many activities one may pursue. Many of the aforementioned activities also
8
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
have an economic value associated with them. For example, vacationing at a dude ranch where visitors
experience the life of a cowboy is a popular tourist activity in the mid-western United States and a
welcome source of “eco-tourism” income.
Who uses rangelands and for what purpose?
Presently, there are many users of rangelands, which frequently results in conflicts regarding how
rangelands should be managed. The primary users of rangelands are livestock producers who are
looking for an economic gain from land areas that are unsuitable for agricultural cultivation (Figure 2).
Many times, raising livestock is part of a family business that
allows producers to be their own boss while providing for
themselves and/or their family. Producers want versatility to
make choices on how to manage land and livestock. They
appreciate having wildlife on their land, provided their
negative interactions are minimal or absent (depredation of
hay supplies, diseases, predation by wolves, coyotes and
Figure 2 Cattle on a rangeland
cougars). To accomplish their goals, producers need
infrastructure (water sources, fencing options, wintering options), inputs (fertilizer, chemical, seed, fuel),
equipment (balers, seeders, windbreaks, tractors) and tools (budget planners, record books, pastureland
assessments, stocking rate calculators, information on various grazing systems and practices) available
to them so they can make choices on how to manage the landscape and their livestock. Producers also
want a good public reputation for healthy, environmentally sustainable, safe and ethical food
production.
Consumers want rangelands to provide them with safe and affordable food that is produced in an
ethical manner. They are concerned with safe and secure water supplies.
Conservationists want secure habitat for wildlife while sustaining or increasing their populations,
maintaining or increasing biodiversity of all animal and plant types, safeguarding genetic diversity and
retaining ecological integrity. They want to limit irreversible damage by industrial activity, recreational
traffic, overgrazing, or exotic species invasion.
Local residents, land users and visitors want an aesthetically pleasing, odour free landscape to look at or
live close to and local food sources that are safe and affordable and ethically produced. They also want
9
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
safe and secure water supplies and surface water control (drainage, water storage areas, flood
prevention).
Hunters want a variety and abundance and quality of game, aesthetically pleasing landscapes and legal
and physical accessibility.
Recreational users (hikers, ATV riders) want legal and
physical accessibility to aesthetically pleasing and
challenging landscapes with points of interest and
wildlife (Figure 3).
People with resource interests, such as forestry and
surface and subsurface mineral extraction, want legal
and physical accessibility and minimal inhibition by
Figure 3 Recreational users enjoying
rangeland
zoning and environmental regulations.
Canadian citizens and Indigenous peoples want to ensure environmental and historical heritage of
western grasslands and forest, harvesting of medicinally and culturally significant plants and animals,
protection and acknowledgement of historical locations (forts, cemeteries, buffalo jumps, teepee rings,
medicine wheels) and the ability the use the land for ceremonial practices and traditional uses.
Aboriginals want decision-making power and fair economic and environmental rewards for their treaty
lands.
Settlement and Cultivation of Rangelands
Before European settlement, both aboriginals and fur traders used western Canada’s rangelands for
food and animal products such as furs, hides and tools. Both users were nomadic and followed
populations of game. Aboriginals are believed to have used fire to manipulate vegetation both for
attracting herbivores for safety (by burning perimeters around their camps). Aboriginal needs were
entirely supplied by their surroundings. Although fur traders could manage in the same way, they were
better off with supplies and trade items from their company headquarters.
Although fur traders attempted to grow small gardens with hardy vegetables at some of their forts, the
first concerted effort to settle and cultivate rangeland in Manitoba was with the Red River Colony (also
known as the Selkirk Settlement) in the early 1800s. Since then economic pressures and settlement
10
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
policies have led to landscape-wide change of rangelands on the Prairies. Policies implemented from
1872 to 1930 such as the Dominion Lands Act (1872), have encouraged homesteaders to change over 50
million hectares of perennial native grassland to annual cultivation for crops. As a result, native
rangelands are among the most endangered landscapes in
the world.
While much of the converted land was suitable for annual
cropping because of its fertility and ease of tillage, too much
was marginal land (unsuitable for cultivation but more
suitable for grazing due to environmental limitations such as
Figure 4 Marginal land along the
Assiniboine River in Western Manitoba
steep topography, stoniness, salinity or low moisture holding
capacity) (Figure 4). As Canada’s population grew and
technology improved, more rangelands were put into
cultivation throughout the 20th century,
despite the mistakes realized after the drought
years of the “Dirty Thirties” where topsoil
eroded and food production diminished (Figure
5). Farming practices did improve with
conservation tillage, reduction of summer
fallow, and tree shelterbelt plantings, but too
many marginal lands, which are better suited
to perennial grasses and grazing, continued to
be developed.
Figure 5 - Farmstead during the Dirty Thirties
Knowledge about limitations and best practices for marginal land has improved since the tragedy of the
1930s. Conservation and rehabilitation programs by governments and external organizations such as
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (the federal Community Pastures Program and the Permanent Cover
Program), Ducks Unlimited, Nature Conservancy, Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation, and Manitoba
Crown Lands prevented cultivation on, and even remediated some marginal lands. However, where
private land use decisions are concerned, economic pressures exert a strong influence. The ongoing
change in responsibility for Community Pastures from federal government to provincial government
(Appendix A) poses some risk of marginal lands coming under private ownership. However, provincial
11
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
government and the cattle industry are working to ensure that this land remains in cattle production
and, thus, under perennial vegetation cover.
Although attitudes about marginal land and native rangelands are changing, there is still need for
improvement. Lands thought to be “wasteland” because they could not be put into crop production are
being recognized more for their meat production and provision of ecological goods and services. Native
rangeland species are known for having deeper roots which give them better ability to weather drought
or low nutrient conditions, and to improve soil conditions at greater depths. Recent research recognizes
that the productivity of native grasslands is at least comparable to seeded tame pasturelands.
Unfortunately, assumptions remain about the low forage production of native rangelands. With lower
margins of profitability in the grazing industry as compared to greater profits to be made in crops or
residential and urban development, it is understandable that the remaining rangelands and
pasturelands on the Prairies are at risk.
Rangeland and Pastureland Ownership, Management and Rights
Public rangelands are owned by the federal, provincial, or municipal government. Government
ownership is based on the desire to protect these lands from inappropriate land use or development
which may negatively impact environmental value. The overall management of these lands is based on
grazing management with livestock, and must also take into consideration factors such as soil health,
forestry, biodiversity, and water quality.
One example of public rangelands includes the Crown Lands administered by the Crown Lands Act of
Manitoba. These parcels of land are leased to farm owners, to be managed as part of their farm.
Because of this, preference is given to farms having livestock in close proximity to a particular Crown
parcel. There are approximately 607,028 hectares available for lease to livestock owners in the province.
They may be provincially or municipally owned. Crown land is scattered across the agricultural region of
Manitoba, with a significant amount of it being located in the Interlake, Southeast, and Northwest
regions of the province.
The largest risk to provincial Crown rangelands is that the leaseholder often places less emphasis on
management of these lands, despite the fact that they consider them as part of their farm. They may be
12
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
viewed as poorer lands, or lands not worth improving, as the title of ownership is with the Crown, and
not the individual.
Community Pastures are public rangelands, as well. They are managed as large rangeland units by a
federal pasture manager, for the benefit of many livestock producers. This differs from the Provincial
Crown Land system, where management is the responsibility of the individual, as part of a farming
operation. Community Pastures are administered under a federal-provincial agreement, with municipalprovincial agreements where municipal land is included in the pasture. Most of the land is provincially
owned, but there are some pastures where much of the land is owned by the municipality. As well,
there are some federally owned parcels in the pastures. There are approximately 182,100 hectares in 21
Community Pastures in Manitoba, including the Turtle Mountain Pasture, close to the Peace Gardens,
the Pasquia Pasture, in the Carrot River area of The Pas, and the Langford Pasture, southeast of
Neepawa. The smallest Community Pasture in Manitoba is Libau, near Selkirk, at 1413 hectares, while
the largest tract of Community Pasture land is almost 30,000 hectares with McCreary and Alonsa
Pastures side-by-side near the town of McCreary just east of Riding Mountain National Park.
The current federal government’s position on the Community Pastures is that it is no longer appropriate
for them to continue managing these lands as the original goals of the Community Pastures Program (to
return more than 145,000 hectares of poor-quality cultivated lands across the Prairies to grass cover,
significantly improving the ecological value of these lands and helping to increase the productivity of the
area) have already been achieved.
Private rangelands are owned by individuals; usually farmers, and are utilized for pastureland and hay
production. They are similar to public lands, in that they are usually located on Class 4, 5, and 6 soils,
and are capable of delivering many other environmental benefits besides grazing such as protecting
water quality or protecting soil health. They are different, however, in that management for the public
good is not the priority, but a bonus, as the profitability of the farm is usually the number one concern.
Public rangelands are protected from residential or urban development, whereas private rangeland
parcels are often perceived as being desirable pieces of land for residential development, being lower
value for crop production, but often having trees. Where development pressures are great; such as
around cities or recreational areas; private rangelands are often subdivided. Land use policies which do
not protect rangelands as strongly as cultivated lands from inappropriate residential development and
fragmentation create the single highest risk in Manitoba for rangelands.
13
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
The private landowner has many options. Most of the land is located in areas zoned for agricultural use,
and rangelands are quite capable of being profitable for pastureland and hay production, with proper
management. Most of the rangelands are managed accordingly. Of course, these lands provide other
benefits, such as environmental and recreational value for the farm family.
The right of the individual also covers development for intensive irrigation use if located in proximity to
available water rights.
Private rights also extend to selling or developing the land for recreational or residential use, according
to local planning policies, or idling the land (not using it), allowing bush cover to re-grow or invasive
plants to take over.
The rights of leaseholders on provincial Crown parcels include managing the land for livestock
production, much like on private lands, except that cultivation is usually not used, and the land cannot
be sold or exchanged. Any land use change needs to be approved by the Province (MAFRI). In
Community Pastures, the management is done by the federal government agency. Cattle producers
wishing to graze Community Pastures must apply to the program. Mineral extractors, timber harvesters,
and researchers need to possess a right of entry
permit to do their work on a Community Pasture.
The rights of the public on Crown parcels in
Manitoba include access for hunting or walking,
and with permission from the leaseholder, may
include access for ATV use. ATV use must follow
existing trails, and not destroy or alter any existing
fences or gates. Aboriginal communities have
access for traditional purposes of food and
medicinal collection on all Crown lands.
Figure 4 Concerns about biosecurity on Community
Pastures can restrict access
It is recommended that public ask permission of
the leaseholder or Community Pasture Manager
before going onto Crown rangelands or Community Pastures, as bio-security is an important issue with
the livestock industry, so there is a need to minimize the possible accidental introduction of animal
diseases or invasive weeds (Figure 6).
14
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
To learn more about the federal Community Pastures Program and how it is represented in Manitoba,
see Appendix A – Case Study: Community Pastures across the Prairies
Rangeland and Pastureland on the Canadian Prairies
It is estimated that before settlement, there were 61.5 million hectares of native grassland in the
Canadian prairies. Currently, there are 20.0 million hectares of rangeland and pastureland grazed by
livestock, some of which is forested. 51% of that area is in Alberta, 39% is in Saskatchewan, with the
remaining 10% in Manitoba (Table 1).
When compared to the area of agricultural land in each province, all rangelands (privately and public
managed) grazed by livestock represent 22%, 22% and 36% of total farm area in Manitoba,
Saskatchewan and Alberta, respectively. Tame pasturelands grazed by livestock account for 6%, 8% and
11% of total agricultural land in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, respectively.
Table 1 Distribution of Rangeland and Pastureland in the Prairie Provinces
MB
SK
AB
hectares
All Land (Grassland and Forest) Used for Agriculture*
7,505,492
25,766,998
21,777,521
All Rangeland and Pastureland Grazed by Livestock*
2,093,943
7,701,714
10,173,140
All Privately Managed Rangelands Grazed by Livestock**
All Privately Managed Tame Pastureland Grazed by
Livestock**
All Publicly Managed Rangelands Grazed by Livestock***
1,466,968
4,816,782
6,435,825
415,322
2,057,957
2,395,944
211,653
826,975
1,341,371
* Census 2011, Horton 1994, McCartney and Horton 1999, Bailey et al. 2010
** Census 2011
*** Horton 1994, McCartney and Horton 1999, Bailey et al. 2010
As mentioned in the rangelands definition, grassland and forest can be grazed and browsed by wildlife
and still be considered rangeland (for example, federal and provincial parks). Therefore, the above table
does not show all rangeland area across the prairies.
Ecological Communities
An ecological site is a kind of land with specific physical characteristics that differ from other sites in its
ability to produce distinctive kinds and amounts of vegetation and its response to management. Soil
chemistry and physical characteristics, topography, tree cover, and groundwater influences are the main
15
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
examples of how ecological sites can be distinguished from one another. For example, a plant
community on the south-facing slope of a river bank may have a certain species composition that is
different from the plant community on the north-facing slope. The south facing slope is drier (and most
likely warmer) because it faces the sun and therefore has grasses that tolerate that environmental
condition; the north facing slope is moister because it faces away from the sun and has grasses and
possibly shrubs and trees that prefer more moisture. A clayey soil will have different plant community
composition compared to a sandy soil even if the sandy soil is right next to it. Rangelands and
pasturelands contain different ecological communities that interact with each other. Key examples of
such communities include wetlands, riparian zones, upland grasslands, and forests.
Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Most of Manitoba’s prairie region is dotted with numerous shallow depressions, or sloughs. Sloughs are
recharged each spring from adjacent uplands and overflowing streams. Wetland drainage has a large
effect on existing vegetation. Wetlands that do not overflow, or closed drainage basins, tend to
accumulate salts and are associated with salt-tolerant vegetation. Overflowing depressions regularly
support freshwater vegetation. Both freshwater and saline wetlands display distinct vegetation zones as
the moisture gradient changes.
Variable water depth, grazing, mowing, and fire are among
several factors that can alter vegetation of wetlands.
Although wetlands can produce much forage, careful
management is necessary to sustain yield. Because soils are
often marginally saline, continuous and heavy grazing can
change the community composition to domination by foxtail
barley. Soils near and within wetlands are at risk of
Figure 5 Healthy Riparian Area in the
Parkland Ecoregion
compaction when they are wet, which will affect forage
production and composition, and upset water flow patterns.
Riparian areas or zones are strips of land adjacent to water bodies (Figure 7). They are green zones with
abundant moisture and productive soils characterized by water-loving or water-tolerant plants such as
willows and sedges. Modified landscapes, which can include rangelands with non-native species and/or
those that are poorly managed, tend to shed water more quickly than their unmodified counterparts.
Because of this, these may be more prone to erosion by water. For example, water that moves only two
16
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
times faster erodes land four times faster and carries 64 times more sediment. This means that riparian
areas are often the last defense between runoff (and whatever substances that runoff contains) and our
surface water.
Riparian areas perform eight major functions:
1. Sediment trapping by physically slowing the water
2. Water filtering (vegetation uses nutrients)
3. Aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat (ex. gravel spawning beds) – Riparian areas are important
for biodiversity. Although they occupy only 2-5% of the landscape over 80% of Manitoba wildlife
species use them for some part of their life cycle (even just for water or shade). They also help
to link natural areas and are an important aspect of primary production.
4. Food source for both wild and domestic herbivores
5. Soil creation – Flooding and deposition events reset the development of soils; root growth and
plant residue accumulation enhance soil-forming processes such as carbon sequestration,
oxidation and reduction, structural formation, and leaching of salts, carbonates, clays and
organic materials.
6. Floodwater and energy storage – Flooding is important as it recharges riparian areas, however it
can have negative effects on modified landscapes. If flooding is not permitted to occur naturally,
the energy of water tends to undercut the banks or down cut the streambed.
7. Erosion prevention – Vegetation stabilizes and protects the banks. Introduced species usually
have shallower root systems and are less effective at preventing erosion. Even when vegetation
is dead, it still acts like armour, which stabilizes the banks and protects them from ice scour.
8. Local groundwater recharge – Roots bring up moisture and keep water tables high. This is
particularly useful during times of drought. Roots also contribute to maintaining a spongy soil
structure, so that the soil can hold more water.
Uplands
When most people picture rangelands or
pasturelands, they think of the upland grassland
ecological community (Figure 8). Upland
pasturelands are relatively dry compared with
wetlands and riparian areas, and seeded to the
Figure 6 Tall Grass prairie upland
17
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
owner’s choice of forages. Forage species mixtures depend on livestock nutrition requirements, stand
life expectancy, availability and cost of seed, and adaptation of forage species to local climate and soils.
Upland native rangelands are composed of species that have adapted to survive with minimal water in
line with the average precipitation of the region. Moisture levels can vary greatly from year to year and
even throughout the growing season. Many rangeland plants have evolved strategies to maximize
extraction of available soil water such as the very deep root systems found in some shrubs or the
abundance of small roots of grasses found near the surface to capture rainfall as it soaks into the soil.
Some upland plants also have strategies to conserve moisture once it is absorbed such as waxy layers on
the stems and leaves, narrow leaves, and the ability to go dormant during the hottest and driest season
of the year. During wetter years, uplands capture and store water during precipitation events. Live plant
material and litter on the soil surface are important for infiltration (by slowing runoff), reducing
evaporative losses and reducing soil erosion due to wind and rain drop impact.
Forested Rangeland
Forests are not always considered rangeland even though they fit the definition of rangeland: in most
cases, they provide forage and shelter for livestock and wild herbivores. These herbivores are
dependent mainly on understory vegetation for sustenance and cover. Forested rangelands are common
throughout the agricultural extent of Manitoba. Although lower in forage productivity than grasslands,
forested rangelands provide substantial livestock grazing in addition to wildlife habitat and other
ecological goods and services. They have a wide range of appearances that range from scrubby aspen or
oak at the most southerly and westerly extents of their range, to tall and straight, large diameter aspen,
balsam poplar or conifer forests of the north and east. Open canopies provide the most forage for
livestock out of the forested types. Livestock graze the grasses, grass-likes and forbs in the herbaceous
understory, and browse the shrubs and shorter trees. Although cattle did not evolve in forested
environments, they can become well adapted to using them, despite their prey instincts causing them to
prefer open grassland where they can spot predators. Because of their shade and cool temperatures,
forested areas are very handy for shelter from sun and for sustained mid-summer grazing. In drought
years, forests are a saving grace because they often continue to provide a forage supply despite the dry
conditions on grasslands and in pasturelands.
18
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Interactions among ecological communities
On a landscape level, there is a mixture of ecological communities and they interact with one another
via the movement of resources (water, air, energy, nutrients) and resource-users (livestock, wildlife,
humans). Here are a few examples:
1. With few exceptions, riparian areas are linked to wetlands in a two-way relationship. As the
vegetation strip between uplands and open water, they are the last stop for water, soil particles and
nutrients that are washed from the uplands. The ability of riparian buffers to store and assimilate
these materials affects water quality and quantity in the water body. Conversely, the water quality
and quantity of the water body affects the amount and health of vegetation in the riparian buffer.
2. Uplands in healthy condition, with lots of vegetative and residue cover, reduce the flow of materials
into riparian areas and wetlands. Water carries nutrients and soil particles from uplands to riparian
and wetland areas. Wetlands and riparian areas have certain capacities to uptake and assimilate this
material. If too much is coming from the uplands at one time, like during spring melt or heavy
rainfall events, the riparian area may not be able to assimilate all these materials, and they will
escape into the wetland. This could cause water levels to rise, nutrient levels to increase which
could result in eutrophication, and water to become cloudy with soil or sediment which can impact
fish and invertebrates. Imagine two equal-sized buckets filled with the same amount of water. If one
was dumped down an upland hillside that had very short grass, bare soil, and no plant residue to
stop the flow, most of the water from the bucket will reach the bottom very quickly and will have
moved fast enough to pick up soil particles and nutrients. The water from the second bucket,
thrown down a hill that has lots of vegetation and residue cover will move slower because it has to
go around and filter through the plant stems and leaves. Some of the water will even infiltrate the
soil. The water that makes it to the bottom will have fewer soil particles and less nutrients .
3. Wild and domestic animals move among different ecological communities. If some communities are
preferred over others by a certain species, they could have greater impacts from use. Later in this
document you will learn how to prevent certain areas of the landscape from being over-used by
livestock while other areas are not being used effectively.
4. Forested rangeland and riparian areas often have more moisture than uplands during dry spells and
thus can be a last resort for forage supply. As an example, in the United States during the drought of
2012, some wetland preserves, normally closed to grazing, were allowed to be opened for hay and
19
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
forage, hopefully reducing overuse of uplands. This infrequent disturbance of the wetlands during a
time when soils are drier and less susceptible to damage is unlikely to produce lasting negative
impacts, and may even be beneficial for the ecosystem (as you will find out in the Ecological
Processes section).
5. Weather affects rangeland and pastureland water dynamics in a few ways. Wind redistributes snow
on rangelands during the winter. Wetlands and riparian areas, which are very often at a lower
elevation than uplands, can catch snow from uplands. Forest, tree lines, and taller upland vegetation
slow the speed of wind so that it isn’t as likely to pick up snow, while catching snow that is being
blown in from elsewhere. In summer, tree lines and forest may shade parts of adjacent uplands
from the sun and protect them from wind, which will prevent them from drying too quickly.
6. Healthy riparian, upland and forest vegetation and residue catch snow and slow the movement of
water across the landscape. When overland water flow during snowmelt or rainfall is slowed by
vegetation, it provides a chance for it to infiltrate into the soil. In addition to increasing forage
productivity, any extra water is stored in the soil, flows laterally through the top layers of the soil
towards wetlands, or percolates very deep into the water table. Ultimately, less water will go into
wetlands when a large proportion of the water is stored in upland soils and then released by
evaporation and transpiration of plants.
Grasslands of Manitoba
In Manitoba, there are three major types of grassland: Tall Grass prairie, Northern Mixed Grass prairie
and Parkland/Northern Fescue prairie.
Tall Grass Prairie
The Tall Grass prairie (Figure 9) once occupied a large region of the Great Plains, ranging from Texas, up
through central USA and the Red River Valley to the south end of
the Interlake area of Manitoba. It is a transition between
deciduous forest to the east where there is a lot of rainfall, and
Mixed Grass prairie and Short Grass prairie to the west where it is
very dry. The Tall Grass prairie has a warmer and moister climate
Figure 7- Tall Grass prairie
than the Northern/Parkland Fescue and Mixed Grass prairies. Tall
20
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Grass prairie has enough moisture for tree growth, which
presents problems with aspen invasion. This rangeland
C3 and C4 Plants
evolved under grazing pressure; thus it is highly resistant to
grazing. Both grazing and fire historically played a role of
maintaining the tall grass prairie and limiting tree
encroachment. Less than one percent of this historical
rangeland remains; the rest has been converted to cultivated
annual crop land or is urban or rural development. Most
remaining Tall Grass prairie in North America is on sandy soils
or shallow high lime soil which is not suitable for cultivation.
The Tall Grass prairie has deep, fertile soil (Chernozemic) and
the majority of grasses are warm season grasses (C4) such as
big bluestem and little bluestem (Figure 10). Cool season
C3 plant: A cool-season plant which
uses the pentose phosphate
pathway to break down carbon
dioxide during photosynthesis; so
named because its photosynthesis
involves 3-carbon compounds.
C4 plant: A warm-season plant
which uses the dicarboxylic acid
pathway to break down carbon
dioxide during photosynthesis; so
named because its photosynthesis
involves 4-carbon compounds.
Cool-Season vs. Warm-Season
a)
b)
c)
Figure 10 a) & b) Big bluestem c) Little bluestem
grasses (C3) on the Tall Grass prairie include June grass, awned
wheatgrass and porcupine grass. Forage quality declines from
mid-summer to the fall with the greatest quality early during
the growing season. Production ranges from 1500-3500 kg/ha,
yielding 2.0 – 4.8 animal unit months per hectare (AUM/ha) of
The underside of a plant's leaf is
studded with microscopic pores
called stomata; the plant uses
these tiny holes to "breathe." On
hot, dry days, however, plants need
to close their stomata partially or
even completely to avoid losing too
much water. In a C3 plant, as
oxygen concentration builds up
inside the leaf, the rate of
photorespiration increases. C4
plants, by contrast, are better able
to minimize photorespiration, so
they're better-suited to survival in
hot, sun-baked conditions.
grazing potential. In Manitoba, Tall Grass prairie historically
occurred throughout the south central area of the province in
the Red and Assiniboine River Valleys and up to the southern Interlake region. Now it is confined to
small uncultivated parcels within that zone, with the largest tracts being the Manitoba Tall Grass Prairie
Preserve near Tolstoi.
21
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Northern Mixed Grass Prairie
The Northern Mixed Grass prairie (Figure 11) is located in the Black to Dark Grey Chernozemic
transitional soil zone of the Northern Great Plains. Plants are primarily cool season (C3) varieties with
some warm season (C4) grasses, and production ranges from 1000-2000 kg/ha or 1.3-2.7 AUM/ha of
grazing capacity. On dry, sandy soils, production can be as low as 650 kg/ha (0.9 AUM/ha). Examples of
common plants include western wheatgrass, blue grama and needle and thread grass (Figure 12). Plant
growth, particularly for the C3 plants, slows down mid-summer. 65% of precipitation occurs in summer,
peaking in June. The Mixed Grass prairie is characterized by long, cold winters with short summers.
Wind is a significant factor on these open grasslands, with exposure effects and redistribution of snow in
winter. Major effects on vegetation are grazing, fire, drought, cultivation, and invasion of smooth brome
or Kentucky bluegrass. In Manitoba, Northern Mixed Grass prairie historically occupied southwestern
Manitoba with pockets throughout central Manitoba, but now less than 20 percent of its original extent
remains. Now it occurs in small to large areas throughout this region. Examples of the larger tracts
include Lauder Sandhills; slopes along the Souris, Assiniboine and Pembina Rivers; sandhills through the
Carberry and Neepawa area; and the grasslands near St. Lazare at the confluence of the Qu’Appelle and
Assiniboine Rivers.
Figure 8 Examples of Mixed Grass prairie
a)
b)
c)
d)
Figure 9 a) Western Wheatgrass b) & c) Blue Grama d) Needle and Thread Grass
22
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Parkland/Northern Fescue
The Parkland/Northern Fescue grassland (Figure 13) is located on Black and Dark Grey Chernozemic or
Dark Grey and Grey Luvisolic soils of the Canadian Prairies. Dominant
species include open stands of trembling
aspen and/or bur oak (Figure 14) and
shrubs on moister, more northerly sites
with grassland communities becoming
more frequent on drier sites towards the
south. Grassland plants are primarily cool
season (C3) varieties with their growth
slowing down in hot summer months.
Examples of grassland plants include
Figure 13 Northern Fescue
grassland traditionally known
as prairie wool due to its
appearance
Figure 14 Bur Oak
plains rough fescue and awned wheatgrass
(Figure 15). The climate is characterized by long, cold winters with
short summers. Wind is a significant factor in the southern part of this
grassland, as in the Mixed Grass prairie, but the importance
diminishes towards the north where there is greater tree cover. In Manitoba the Parkland/Northern
Fescue grasslands occur in a transition zone between Mixed Grass Prairie (to the south and west) and
aspen forest (to the north and east). As with the Tall Grass prairie, historical bison grazing and fires
(either caused by lightning or by Aboriginals) have
favoured grassland growth. After the settlement of
Europeans, fire was suppressed and bison exterminated,
which allowed for recent aspen forest encroachment.
The majority of this grassland type has been converted
into annual crops or introduced perennial forages as
Figure 10 Plains Rough Fescue and Awned
wheatgrass
these Black Chernozemic soils are fertile and highly
productive. The remaining 5 percent is on lands that are
less desirable for cultivation due to slope, salinity, sandiness or stoniness. In Manitoba,
Parkland/Northern Fescue grassland existed throughout west central Manitoba, but now it exists only in
small parcels. A pristine Fescue Prairie is hard to find in Manitoba, especially with the invasion of
Kentucky bluegrass, but some acceptable examples can be found along south-facing slopes of the upper
23
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Assiniboine, Birdtail, and Little Saskatchewan Rivers, and in some remote grassland meadows of Riding
Mountain National Park.
Ecoregions
Although rangelands can occur in all ecoregions of Manitoba (Figure 16), the focus of this document is
on the rangelands and pasturelands occurring throughout the agricultural extent of the province (Figure
17). This extent mainly intersects the following five ecoregions: Aspen Parkland, Boreal Transition, Lake
Figure 11 Ecoregions of Manitoba
Figure 12 Agricultural extent of Manitoba
Manitoba Plain, Interlake Plain, and Mid Boreal
Upland. Each of the three grasslands of Manitoba is found within one or more of these ecoregions.
Tame pastures, wetlands, riparian zones, and forested rangelands are scattered throughout agricultural
Manitoba and not exclusive to any of the five ecoregions described below.
Aspen Parkland
This ecoregion extends in a broad arc from southwestern Manitoba, northwestward through the middle
of Saskatchewan to its northern apex in central Alberta. The parkland is considered transitional between
the boreal forest to the north and the grasslands to the south. The climate is marked by short, warm
24
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
summers and long, cold winters with continuous snow cover. The mean annual temperature is
approximately 1.5°C. The mean summer temperature is 15°C and the mean winter temperature is 12.5°C. The mean annual precipitation ranges 400-500 mm. The ecoregion is classified as having a
transitional grassland ecoclimate. Most of the ecoregion is now farmland but in its native state, the
landscape was characterized by trembling aspen, oak groves, mixed tall shrubs, and intermittent fescue
grasslands. Open stands of trembling aspen and shrubs occur on most sites, and, bur oak and grassland
communities occupy increasingly drier sites on loamy Black Chernozemic soils. Poorly drained, Gleysolic
soils support willow and sedge species. The ecoregion also provides a major breeding habitat for
waterfowl and includes habitat for white-tailed deer, coyote, snowshoe hare, cottontail, red fox,
northern pocket gopher, Richardson's ground squirrel, elk, wolf and bird species like sharp-tailed grouse
and black-billed magpie. Major communities in Manitoba include Brandon, Virden, Dauphin, Russell and
Carberry. In Manitoba, Mixed Grass and Parkland/Northern Fescue grasslands can be found within the
Aspen Parkland ecoregion.
Boreal Transition
This ecoregion extends from southern Manitoba to central Alberta. In Manitoba it is represented by the
Turtle Mountains, the Pembina Hills, and the southern fringe of Riding Mountain National Park. The
ecoregion is characterized by warm summers and cold winters. The mean annual temperature is
approximately 1°C. The mean summer temperature is 14°C and the mean winter temperature is -13.5°C.
The mean annual precipitation ranges from 450 mm in the west to 550 mm in the east. The ecoregion is
classified as having a subhumid low boreal ecoclimate. As part of the dominantly deciduous boreal
forest, it is characterized by a mix of forest and farmland. It marks the southern limit of closed boreal
forest and northern advance of arable agriculture. A closed cover of tall, trembling aspen with secondary
quantities of balsam poplar and white birch, a thick understory of mixed herbs, and tall shrubs is the
predominant vegetation. White spruce and balsam fir are the climax species, but are not well
represented because of fires. However, with the reduction of fires these are becoming more common
across this forest type. Poorly drained sites are usually covered with sedges, willow, some black spruce,
and tamarack. Well- to imperfectly drained Gray Luvisols and Dark Gray Chernozemic soils are
predominant. Local areas of Black Chernozemic and peaty Gleysolic soils also occur. The region also
provides habitat for white-tailed deer, black bear, moose, beaver, coyote, wolf, elk, snowshoe hare, and
cottontail. It also provides critical habitat for large numbers of Neotropical migrant bird species, as well
25
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
as ruffed grouse and waterfowl. In Manitoba, Mixed Grass and Parkland/Northern Fescue grasslands can
be found within this ecoregion.
Lake Manitoba Plain
This ecoregion stretches northwestward from the International Boundary with the United States to
Dauphin Lake. It is one of the warmest and most humid regions in the Canadian prairies. The mean
annual temperature ranges from 2°C in the north to over 3°C along the Canada-United States border.
The mean summer temperature is 16°C and the mean winter temperature is -12.5°C. The mean annual
precipitation ranges from 450-700 mm. The ecoregion is transitional between areas of boreal forest to
the north and the aspen parkland to the southwest. It is a mosaic of trembling aspen/oak groves and
rough fescue grasslands. Trembling aspen and shrubs occur on moist sites, and bur oak and grass species
occupy increasingly drier sites on loamy to clayey, Black Chernozemic soils. Poorly drained, Gleysolic
soils support willow and sedge communities. Wildlife includes significant waterfowl, as well as whitetailed deer, coyote, rabbit, elk and ground squirrel. The major communities include Winnipeg, Portage la
Prairie, Emerson, and Dauphin. In Manitoba, this region contains grasslands that have a mixture of both
Tall Grass and Parkland/Northern Fescue species.
Interlake Plain
This ecoregion (Figure 18) extends northwestward from the southeastern
corner of Manitoba to the Saskatchewan boundary north of the Porcupine
Hills. The climate is marked by warm summers and cold winters. The mean
annual temperature is approximately 1°C. The mean summer temperature
is 15.5°C and the mean winter temperature is -14.5C. The mean annual
precipitation ranges from 425 mm in the northwest to 575 mm in the
southeast. It is part of the dominantly deciduous boreal forest that extends
Figure 13 Understory of
open oak forest (Interlake
Plain ecoregion)
from southeastern Manitoba to the Peace River in north-central Alberta. Its
native vegetative cover consists of a closed cover of tall to low trembling
aspen with secondary quantities of balsam poplar and white birch, an
understory of tall shrubs, and a ground cover of mixed herbs. White spruce and balsam fir are the climax
species but are not well represented. Open stands of tall jack pine occur on dry, sandy sites. Depressions
are water-filled or are covered with sedges, willow, some black spruce, and tamarack. Predominant soils
are Dark Gray Chernozems and Peaty Gleysols are usually associated with poorly drained depressions.
26
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
The ecoregion includes habitat for white-tailed deer, black bear, moose, beaver, coyote, snowshoe hare,
caribou, wolf and eastern cottontail, as well as for waterfowl and colonial water birds like cormorant,
gull, tern, heron, American white pelican, and grebe. The major communities include Swan River,
Gypsumville, Winnipegosis, Riverton, Steinbach, and Selkirk. In Manitoba, we can find grasslands
containing a mixture of both Tall Grass and Parkland/Northern Fescue species. In addition, the Manitoba
Tall Grass prairie occurs at the far south end of this region.
Mid Boreal Upland
This mid-boreal ecoregion (Figure 19) occurs from north-central Alberta to southwestern Manitoba. It
includes the Duck and Riding Mountains in Manitoba. The climate has
predominantly short, cool summers and cold winters. The mean annual
temperature is 0°C. The mean summer temperature is 14°C and the mean winter
temperature is -15°C. The mean annual precipitation ranges from 400-550 mm.
These uplands form part of the continuous mid-boreal mixed coniferous and
deciduous forest extending from northwestern Ontario to the foothills of the
Rocky Mountains. Medium to tall, closed stands of trembling aspen, balsam
Figure 14 Mid Boreal
Upland Ecoregion
poplar and white birch with white and black spruce, and balsam fir occurring in
late successional stages, are most abundant. Deciduous stands have a diverse
understory of shrubs and herbs; coniferous stands tend to promote feathermoss. Cold and poorly
drained fens and bogs are covered with tamarack and black spruce. Well-drained Gray Luvisolic soils are
dominant in the region. Significant inclusions are peaty-phase Gleysols that occupy poorly drained
depressions. Dystric Brunisols occur on droughty, sandy sites. Characteristic wildlife includes moose,
white-tailed deer, elk, black bear, wolf, lynx, snowshoe hare, beaver, and muskrat. Bird species include
common loon and red-tailed hawk. In Manitoba we find very small remnants of Parkland/Northern
Fescue grassland in this region, mainly on south facing slopes of hills and river valleys.
27
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Ecological Processes of Rangeland and Pastureland
1. Energy flow in rangelands and pasturelands is directly linked to the carbon cycle. It begins when
plants uptake solar energy and transform it, along with
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, into chemical
energy (a carbon-based molecule) through
photosynthesis. Herbivores consume these plants
(herbivory) and they are in turn, consumed by
carnivores (including humans), thus sending the carbon
based molecule with its stored energy up the food
chain (Figure 20). When any of these organisms die the
chemical energy continues to flow through the
decomposition chain. At each level, starting with the
plant, the carbon molecule’s energy is released through
the process of respiration, creating heat and physical or
metabolic activity. Eventually all of the energy is
Figure 15 Energy flow in rangeland and
pasturelands
dissipated. Respiration changes the carbon-based
energy storage molecule back into carbon dioxide which goes back into the atmosphere where it is
available to be captured by a new energy flow. Sustainable rangeland and pastureland management
practices increase plant leaf area (where photosynthesis takes place) and accelerate plant growth so
that more energy can be captured for the food chain. This has the potential to sustain or improve
food production for herbivores, carnivores and humans.
2.
Nutrient cycling –The source of
many chemicals, with the exception of
nitrogen, is the soil, where they cycle among
different molecular forms. Some of the forms
are more available to plants and other
organisms than other forms (Figure 21).
Nitrogen is found in the atmosphere, but it
must be fixed into a different form by
Figure 21 An example of chemical cycling in a
rangeland
free-living soil microorganisms or plant28
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
microorganism symbiotic relationships before it can be used by plants. Legumes are the most
common rangeland and pastureland plant with a symbiont that can fix nitrogen from the
atmosphere. A rangeland or pastureland that is sustainably managed will allow nitrogen fixers to
work efficiently to benefit plant growth. Alternatively, nitrogen and other nutrients can be added
into the system in the form of urine, feces or fertilizer. Plants uptake these nutrients and they are
transferred from trophic level to trophic level. Unlike energy, however, any nutrients lost through
feces, urine, mortality and decomposition are recycled back into the ecosystem. Nitrogen cycling is
more complex than phosphorus, as it may be lost to the atmosphere as nitrous oxide, a gas. This
may occur when the soil is saturated, or nitrogen fertilizer is applied to the soil surface, and not
fixed to the soil organic or clay particles.
3. Water Cycling (Figure 22) – see Aquatics resource for technical details. Sustainably managed
rangelands and pasturelands facilitate capture of
water, minimize surface runoff, and improve
downstream water quality. This is because
abundant vegetative biomass interrupts the flow of
water over the soil surface. If flow is interrupted,
then the alternative pathways for the water are
into the soil or into the air (Figure 23). It has been
shown that water is strongly linked to forage
productivity. Generally, the more water that is
Figure 22 Simplified water cycle
available to plants during the growing season, the
more growth they will have, and that growth is
connected to other ecological functions of rangelands and pasturelands.
29
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Figure 16 In one study, grassland cover prevented significant amounts of rainfall and soil from
leaving the ecosystem compared to bare soil. (Knight 1993)
4. Carbon Sequestration is strongly linked to the carbon cycle and energy flow mentioned above.
After plants and soil organisms die, their leaves, stems, roots and bodies release nutrients and
carbon into the soil through the process of decomposition. Forages on rangelands and pasturelands
have greater than 45% of plant weight below ground, so they have the potential to allocate more
energy to their root systems than annual crops. Some of the root-based carbon is lost to the
atmosphere as carbon dioxide through decomposition, but on an annual basis, 12-20% of rootbased carbon is decomposed into stable soil organic matter (SOM). This process is known as carbon
sequestration. Grass growth is greater and faster under sustainable management. This results in
more organic matter to be incorporated into the soil. Healthy plants have deeper roots so carbon
can be found deeper into soil where it is more secure. Trampling by livestock is needed to
incorporate above-ground plant material into the soil, but too much trampling can cause the release
of carbon already in the soil, and negatively affect other ecological functions by removing soil cover
and reducing live plant biomass. A grassland ecosystem has higher diversity than an annual cropping
system as there are more species of plants in one area and there is less bare soil during the spring
and fall seasons. Rangelands contain 10-30% of the world’s soil organic carbon and their potential to
sequester carbon may help to mitigate the greenhouse effect. However, this sequestration process
may not be permanent. If a rangeland or pastureland is tilled to reduce compaction (either to reseed
30
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
forage species or to convert the field into an annual cropping system) the SOM is moved around
becoming more available for decomposition by microbes and aerating it to accelerate
decomposition.
5. Plant Succession - Succession is the natural process of change that occurs in an area over time as
one community of living organisms replaces another one. Following disturbance, or when
continuous disturbance is stopped, an ecosystem generally progresses from a simpler level of
organization with a few dominant species to a more complex community or “climax” community.
Plant succession requires the introduction and establishment of new plant species into the
community. New species come as seed or reproductive propagules from outside of the site, or they
may already be waiting in the topsoil or sod layers of the ecosystem from before or during the
disturbance. Unfortunately these introductions can include invasive species which can take hold,
dominate the community, and drive the succession towards a different potential climax community.
Plant competition is another critical component of succession. This represents the battle within and
among plant populations for resources at the site. As the ecosystem becomes more complex,
nutrients, water and sunlight become more challenging to take up. If a plant species can no longer
handle the challenge, then another that can handle it will increase in population size. Every
ecological site has the potential to support a different climax plant community. Most rangelands in
Manitoba have the ability to recover following mild or moderate natural disturbances. An ecological
site that has experienced more severe disturbance, such as soil stripping for an oil well, requires
more extensive efforts to promote natural succession, and more time (perhaps a hundred or more
years) to return to the pre-disturbance state. The natural tendency in any plant community is to
move towards a higher successional stage. For example, if tame forages are planted on a
pastureland, nature attempts to add native species adapted to the site, in an effort to change it into
a more complex native rangeland.
6. Disturbance– Disturbance can be both natural and anthropogenic and have different levels of
severity that dictate how much change will occur. Past disturbance determines the present health,
condition and composition of rangeland ecosystems. Present disturbance shapes the future
composition and productivity of the community. Disturbance of plant communities includes grazing,
use of fertilizers or herbicides, mechanical treatment, prescribed burning (Figure 24), natural fire,
grasshoppers, drought and flood. Plants vary in their sensitivity to disturbance, depending on their
species as well as growth stage. Disturbance is not a bad thing because it refreshes ecosystems.
Without disturbance, all ecosystems will succeed towards a climax plant community, leaving many
31
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
plant communities unrepresented on the
landscape. The plant communities ‘left behind’
contain plant and animal species, and specific
ecological functions that will never exist again if
there is no disturbance. Using the Tolstoi Tall
Grass prairie, from Appendix C, as an example, if
the prairie were allowed to succeed without
disturbance, it would become a tree-dominated
landscape.
Figure 17 – Prescribed burn in Aspen Parkland
Sustainable rangeland and pastureland
management is about managing three aspects of disturbance: severity, frequency and timing. Using
grazing as an example, severity would be the amount of forage grazed at one time, frequency would
be how often the forage is grazed, and timing would be avoiding grazing when the forage species
are most sensitive and will have most damage.
Rangeland and Pastureland Plant Identification
Plant identification is a very specialized skill, but is important for knowing what species grow on a
rangeland or pastureland, what environmental and management conditions those species indicate, and
how those species respond to management pressures. Knowing these things allows people to make
changes that will help to optimize the ecological functions of rangelands and pasturelands.
Quite often certain species of forbs, shrubs and trees need to be studied very closely, sometimes even
under a microscope, to verify their identity from others. This is more so for grasses and grass-like plants,
which are among the most difficult vascular plants to learn because their flowers are very specialized
and diminutive. Fortunately there are numerous field guides and keys to assist with narrowing down
plant identity to the most common rangeland and pastureland plants.
People learn how to identify plants in several ways. One common method is to follow a dichotomous
key, which involves several steps where a person makes a choice between two pathways based on
characteristics of the plant they have in hand. The following is part of one grass identification key:
32
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Usually a key is accompanied by a guide that provides a full description of the plant once you have
worked out its species name. This is very handy for using the plant’s additional characteristics to verify
that you made the correct choice. It is not unusual for people to end up with the wrong species
identification because sometimes it is not obvious what the correct choice is between two limited
descriptions in one step of the key.
People also learn plants by memorizing pressed specimens, or photographs from an internet search, or
images and descriptions from a plant identification guide that specializes in the geographical location of
interest. They combine this study with real life encounters with these plants in order to build familiarity
with common rangeland and pastureland plants.
To start your rangeland and pastureland plant ID learning experience, a list of common rangeland plants
of different growth forms, on different landscapes, indicating certain management styles, and a list of
useful guides and keys to help you learn to identify these plants are provided in Appendix B. You will not
be required to memorize the identity of the plants listed in Appendix B, but will need to know how to
use a dichotomous key adapted from those used in the resources of the Appendix to identify them. You
will be required to memorize the general appearance of the representative plants listed in the
Grasslands of Manitoba section of this document, and be able to use a key to identify them.
33
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Growth Forms
Grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, shrubs and trees are different plant growth forms, each with
distinguishing characteristics. Grasses have hollow, jointed stems; fine, narrow leaves with parallel veins
and fibrous root systems. Grass-like plants are similar to grasses but their stems are non-jointed and
solid. Two subgroups of grass-like plants are sedges and rushes. Sedges have triangular stems (recall the
old adage “Sedges have edges.”) and have leaves on three sides of the stem. Rushes have cylindrical
stems with leaves on two sides (“Rushes are round.”). Forbs are non-woody plants with solid, nonjointed stems, broad leaves with either parallel or
netted veins, and commonly have tap root
systems. Shrubs have woody stems with some
branches emerging near the base and long, coarse
roots. Trees are similar to shrubs; however they
have a definite trunk that rises above the ground.
The above ground portion of grasses, grass-likes,
and forbs dies back during the winter season,
whereas both shrubs and trees have stems that
remain alive over the winter period.
Parts of Plants
Grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, shrubs and trees
Figure 18 Parts of a grass
all have two basic parts: the root and the shoot
(Figure 25). The shoot is made of the stem, leaves and flowers. The components of the shoot are
commonly used to identify these types of plants. This section and the glossary that follows it are a basic
introduction to the terms that name and describe plant parts. Field guides generally provide more
extensive glossaries.
The Root
The root anchors the plant to the ground, stores photosynthesized compounds, and takes up the water
and minerals that plants need to grow. There are two basic types of root systems: tap and fibrous.
The Stem
The stem supports the leaves, keeping them exposed to sunlight and air for photosynthesis. Most stems
are elongated, but some stems are very short, as in the dandelion. The stem consists of nodes and
34
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
internodes. The nodes are often bigger than the internodes. In grasses the nodes are solid even though
the internodes are hollow. The stem of a grass is a culm; and the stem of a tree is a trunk.
Leaves, branches and buds all form at the nodes. The arrangement of leaves and branches on the stem
may be opposite, alternate or whorled. Some plants branch only at or near the base of the stem while
others branch and rebranch from buds produced at upper nodes.
Branching at the base of the main stem may produce stolons or rhizomes. Both rhizomes and stolons
bear roots at the underside of the nodes. They (Figure 26 and 27) have nodes, internodes and scales.
Only stolons may have well-developed leaves. Roots borne at the nodes help to establish and spread the
plant and to produce new plants if stolons or rhizomes are broken.
Figure 26 Stolons grow above ground
Figure 27 Rhizomes grow below ground
The Leaf
The grass leaf consists of three principal parts: blade, sheath, and ligule. Other parts are collar and
auricle. The blade may be flat, V-shaped or folded, involute, filiform, or keeled. In some grasses, the
sheath is open — the margins do not come
together; in others, it is closed – the margins
overlap or are joined physically. Some
sheaths are flattened; others are rounded
(Figure 28). Because of their different
appearances, sheaths, leaves, and ligules are
Figure 28 Types of sheaths
important in identifying a grass. The ligule
prevents dirt and water from getting under the sheath. Some ligules are membranous or papery; some
are only a ring of hair. Some are so small as to seem absent. The collar is on the underside of the leaf at
the junction of sheath and blade. Some grasses have ear-like projections called auricles which are
attached, one on either side, at the base of the blade.
35
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
In grass-like plants, the leaf has a sheath, but may not have a blade. The sheath is usually closed. The
collar is indistinct and there are no auricles or ligule.
In forbs, shrubs and trees, the leaf generally consists of a blade and a petiole, though some are sessile.
Some leaves also have stipules, and some leaves have no petiole. The leaf may be simple or compound.
If it is compound, the divisions may be in a pinnate or palmate arrangement. The margin of the leaf may
be entire, toothed or lobed. Veins and lobes may also have a pinnate or palmate arrangement.
The Flower
The flower is the reproductive organ of plants. A fertile flower always contains pistils and/or stamens. In
grasses, the flower is in a spikelet which consists of a rachilla, one to several florets, and two glumes
(Figure 29). Each floret is composed of two specialized bracts which enclose the fertile organs of the
floret. In sedges, the flower is reduced to bristles and scales. In rushes and forbs and in many shrubs and
trees, the flower has sepals and/or petals, which may be showy.
Figure 29 Spikelet of a grass
Figure 30 Inflorescences of grass
A cluster of flowers is called an inflorescence (Figure 30). In grasses and grass-like plants, the
inflorescence has no leaves though it may have bracts or a spathe. There are three basic forms of grass
and grass-like inflorescences including spike, raceme, and panicle, and numerous forms of
inflorescences in forbs, shrubs and trees. They may grade from one form to another and may have
specialized forms.
36
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Basic Glossary of Plant Parts
alternate: having leaves or branches individually
staggered along stem
internode: section of stem between nodes
involute: rolled inward
auricle: small earlike lobe or appendages at the
base of a grass leaf
joint: easily visible bulge at node of grass culm
keeled: boat shaped
awn: a bristle from the top or outer end of a
glume or floret
leaflet: individual part of a compound leaf
ligule: membrane or ring of hairs that clasps the
grass stem on the inside of the leaf at the
junction of the sheath and blade
bipinnate: being divided pinnately twice
blade: broad part of the leaf
bract: a reduced or specialized leaf
lobed: having moderate or deep indentations
bristle: stiff hair
netted veined: having veins that cross to form a
network
bud: compact structure containing undeveloped
leaf, flower or branch
node: the point where the leaf joins the stem;
see also joint
closed sheath: sheath with overlapping or
joined margins, found in grass or grass-like
plants
open sheath: sheath with margins that do not
come together, found in grass or grass-like
plant
collar: the line joining the base of grass leaf with
the top of its sheath; found on the
underside of the leaf
opposite: having leaves or branches in pairs
across from each other on stem
compound: being divided into two or more
parts
palmate: having leaflets, lobes or veins which
radiate from one central point
crown: the base of a perennial plant, from
which new growth occurs in spring or
throughout the growing season
panicle: a grass inflorescence with a branched
rachis; may be compact and spike-like or
open.
culm: stem of a grass plant
parallel-veined: having veins that run parallel to
each other from base to tip of leaf
entire: without indentation or division
fibrous root system: root system with several to
numerous roots of about equal size
pedicel: stalk of a spikelet
petal: one of the inside ring of modified leaves
in a flower, often white or colored
filiform: threadlike
floret: tiny flower, usually part of a cluster as in
the spikelets of grasses
petiole: leaf stalk
pinnate: having leaflets; lobes or veins come off
of both sides of a common rachis, like a
feather
glume: bract at base of a spikelet, usually in
pairs
inflorescence: cluster of flowers
37
Manitoba Envirothon, 2013 Theme Document
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
pistil: the female reproductive structure of a
flower
toothed: having small indentations
trunk: woody stem of a tree
raceme: an inflorescence with flowers on
individual pedicels on the rachis.
whorled: having leaves in a ring around the
stem
rachilla: a secondary branch from the main axis
of a bipinnately compound leaf or an
inflorescence; the main axis of a spikelet
rachis: the main axis of a compound leaf or an
inflorescence
rhizome: stem that originates at the base of the
main stem and grow horizontally below the
ground surface
scale: any small, thin or flat structure
sepal: one of the outer rings of modified leaves
in a flower, usually green
sessile: without a petiole or pedicel
sheath: the part of a leaf that is attached at the
node and surrounds the stem like a tube
simple: not divided into parts
spathe: a sheath like bract surrounding a flower
spike: an inflorescence with sessile flowers on
the rachis
spikelet: the basic unit of a grass inflorescence,
containing one or more florets, and often
distinguished by a pair of glumes at its base
stipule: leaf-like appendage or spine at the base
of a petiole
stamen: the male reproductive structure in a
flower
stolon: stems that originate at the base of the
main stem and grow along the surface of
the ground
taproot system: root system with one large
major vertical root that branches into
smaller roots
38
Invasive Plant Species
Invasive plants are of particular concern on rangelands and pasturelands because they come into a plant community, dominate the composition,
and thereby alter the plant community’s ability to provide ecological benefits. They have 3 qualities, any of which may allow them to accomplish
a successful invasion:
1. Greater access to limited resources by competitive advantages such as massive seed production, creeping roots, large size, and capacity to
induce sickness or injury with spines, hairs, or poison
2. Superior defense mechanisms to withstand fire, flooding, drought, and herbivory
3. Absence of natural enemies (in the case of exotic invaders) such insects or diseases.
Those invaders of greatest concern are exotic species (those that come from a different part of the
world), such as leafy spurge, common tansy, Kentucky bluegrass, and downy brome. However, some
native plants can be just as invasive, such as wild licorice, trembling aspen, western snowberry, and
silverberry. Invasive plants often come in after a disturbance (such as where soil is exposed) or if
there is an imbalance in the ecosystem (such as fire suppression, overgrazing or undergrazing)
(Figure 31). For example, construction of a road through a grassland results in bare soil; liberated
nutrients, water and sunlight; and possibly introduction of exotic weed seeds on machinery. If
exotic invaders are not eradicated at early stages of establishment, they become difficult to remove
from the community, and are then considered “naturalized”. If this happens, the best course of
action is to maintain the population of the invader at low levels so that the plant community can
still provide its original products and services. The case study of the Tall Grass prairie at Tolstoi in
southern Manitoba (Appendix C) illustrates the struggle against both exotic and native invaders.
Figure 31 Invasive grasses Kentucky
bluegrass and foxtail barley take over a
disturbed area near a watering site
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Negative Plant Impacts on Animal Productivity
Have you ever eaten a food that has made you sick and now even the sight or the smell of that same food turns your stomach? Livestock can
experience the same problem, known as taste aversion, which can lead to selective grazing. In more extreme cases, consumption of certain
plants that are poisonous can result in death, abortion or reduced fertility.
Just as different kinds of forage can meet the nutritional requirements of specific kinds and classes of animal (forage quality), forage can also
contain anti-quality components. These components are generally one of three types; foreign materials (dust, mould), biophysical factors (plant
defense mechanisms used to reduce grazing pressure – spines, awns) and biochemical factors (fibre components such as lignin and silica,
alkaloids, glycosides, nitrates). Anti-quality components can reduce dry matter intake, limit dry matter digestibility and cause nutritional
imbalances and toxicity. They can also have a direct effect on animal performance by lowering production (weight gain, milk yield), lowering
reproductive efficiency and even causing mortalities.
Forage related animal disorders (usually associated with biochemical factors) fall into two categories; poisonous plant disorders and seasonal or
conditional disorders. Poisonous plant disorders are caused by plants that are poisonous to the animals that consume them. This is a more
common issue in rangelands as most poisonous plants can be found naturally, compared to seeded pasturelands, which would not be seeded
intentionally to poisonous species. However poisonous plants can still invade pasturelands. Mineral uptake patterns of forage plants are affected
by environmental factors, such as temperature and animals can be more sensitive to certain disorders at some stages than others. These two
factors can lead to seasonal or conditional disorders. One example is nitrate toxicity. Nitrates occur normally in forage plants. Drought, frost,
level of fertilization, forage type and maturity (younger plants) can increase nitrate levels in plants. Excess nitrates in ruminants can cross the
rumen wall and enter the blood, changing hemoglobin into methemoglobin, which cannot transport oxygen effectively. Symptoms include dark
brown blood, decreased production, difficulty breathing, convulsions and death.
Digestive consequences of forage consumption can lead to adaptive behaviours of grazing animals. If an animal eats a plant and has positive
digestive feedback, the animal will display a preference for that plant. If an animal eats a plant and has negative digestive feedback, the animal
40
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
will display an aversion to that plant. This is learning through consequences but herd animals can also learn from their peers and parents. These
behaviours can change the plant community.
The most commonly recommended management practices to reduce losses caused by anti-quality factors are:

change the animal type

select plant species for seeded pastureland that pose lower risk of conditional or antiquality factors

remove patches of toxic plants with mowing or hand pulling

avoid grazing areas with toxic plants during peak toxicity

avoid grazing areas with toxic plants when they are easy to pull out because soils are wet

make sure there is enough forage supply so that animals are not forced to eat toxic plants

administer nutritional or pharmaceutical products (can work for grass tetany or bloat)

fertilization/manure management

recognition of plants that contain toxins and symptoms of livestock poisoning or aversion
Sustainable Rangeland and Pastureland Management
What is Sustainable Management?
Sustainable management is managing pastureland and rangeland in a way that provides for current needs while ensuring the needs of future
users can also be met. These needs have economic, environmental, and sociocultural aspects. On rangelands used for timber and pulp and paper
production, uncontrolled or poorly planned animal grazing can have significant negative impact on forest renewal and long term growth.
41
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Risks and Challenges for Sustainability
When looking at the efforts of sustainable rangeland and pastureland management in the complex world, we encounter a number of risks and
challenges. Due to some of the challenges, rangeland management practices may be limited to less costly or less sustainable strategies. In
extreme cases, challenges may cause a landowner to choose to convert the land to other uses, such as residential land or cropland.
1. As the world’s population experiences an overall increase in income, there is an increase in the consumption of meat and meat products. For
example, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations predicts a 130% increase in meat and milk consumption from 2000 to
2030. Similar trends are expected in other Asian countries, Africa and Eastern Europe. This will create more pressure on the same (or
smaller) areas of land to produce more livestock. Unfortunately, rangeland is (and was) being converted into urban and agricultural land. The
flat landscape, minimal tree coverage and high soil fertility of Canadian prairie rangelands led Europeans to cultivate historical rangeland and
this practice is being continued today.
2.
Natural fires are being suppressed, leading to an increase of brush (Figure 32) or invasive
species. For example, there are 485,623 hectares of leafy spurge in Manitoba (Rural
Figure 32 Brush invading a cutline
through forested rangeland
Development Institute, 2010) resulting in a 40 million dollar economic loss. Invasive species
means a loss of habitat for native grassland species, which reduces biodiversity and leads to soil
degradation. Native grassland plants tend to have deep root systems that maintain soil moisture
and prevent erosion, whereas invasive species cannot perform these functions with their shallow
roots.
3. Rangeland is being lost due to increased competition with the biofuel industry for feed and land, especially marginal land, and direct
competition between livestock operations and food production.
4. Pressure from the public concerning human health, air and water quality, and animal welfare issues is yet another burden upon rangelands.
These issues create public stigma against red meat production and put added costs onto the producer. For example, food safety issues such
as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and E. coli outbreaks limit the sale of beef and thereby reduce income for the producer. On top
42
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
of that, legislation requires producers to spend money either directly (ear tags) or indirectly (market checkoffs) to improve the traceability of
a sick animal back to its original farm. Because of the additional costs, improvements in rangeland management may be limited to less costly
and less effective strategies.
5. Rangeland and pastureland livestock producers have to deal with increasing or fluctuating costs of inputs (such as fertilizer, fuel, and land
costs), which create economic uncertainty.
Basic Rangeland and Pastureland Management Concepts
Types and Classes of Livestock
The type of animal refers to its species (cattle, sheep, deer, etc.) while the class of the animal refers to its sex, age, and intactness of genitalia.
Table 2 lists several commonly encountered types and classes of domestic animals.
Table 2. Types, Classes, Age and Condition of Livestock
Type
Sex
Age or Condition
Calf
male or female
birth to weaning
Heifer
female
before first calf
Cow
female
after first calf
Steer
male
adult, castrated
Bull
male
adult, intact
Lamb
male or female
Weanling
Ewe
Wether
Ram
male or female
female
male
male
less than one year (or when the
first 2 permanent teeth erupt)
weaned (usually 6 to 9 months)
adult
adult, castrated
adult, intact
43
Cattle
Sheep
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Goat
Kid
male or female
less than one year
Weanling
male or female
weaned (usually 6 to 9 months)
Doeling
female
one to two years
Buckling
male
one to two years
Doe or Nanny female
adult
Wether
male
adult, castrated
Buck or Billy
male
adult, intact
Different types and classes of livestock use pastureland and rangeland differently. Due to the anatomy of a cow’s mouth, it cannot reach closer
than 5 cm from the soil. Their preferred grass height is 15 cm., higher or lower than that will consume more time and energy for the cow. If cows
have calves, they are less likely to graze in areas with forest or rough topography as they are looking after their calves. Yearlings and dry cows
(cows without calves) are less attached to the herd and will graze in the forested or rough areas. Cows also prefer not to eat around their own
paddies (feces) but are willing to graze near where a different type of animal has defecated. Sheep can bite closer to the ground. They are fairly
selective and prefer forbs, followed by grass, then woodier browse. Sheep tend to graze/browse from the bottom upward. Goats can selectively
grab plants and are able to avoid thorns and spines. They are very selective and prefer forbs, followed by browse, then grass. They find young,
tender leaves and twigs to be their favorite. Goats will also eat young trees. Goats tend to graze/browse from the top downward. Due to their
grazing and browsing habits, both sheep and goats are great for weed management.
Interactions between Wildlife and Livestock
Livestock and wildlife interactions are an important concern to private and public landowners. These interactions can be positive, negative or
neutral (livestock and wildlife simply coexist and share resources) or a combination. An example of a positive interaction is that in the Manitoba
Mixed Grass prairie, grassland birds such as Sprague’s pipit and three species of sparrow selected grazed pasturelands over ungrazed fields and
the grazed fields had more species for birds. An example of an interaction with both positive and negative components is that whitetail deer and
elk can use stored hay or stockpiled forage as an additional food resource to survive winters. This is a positive interaction for the deer, which will
likely have a higher survival rate, but it can be a negative interaction for the livestock and their producers if they no longer have an adequate
supply of feed for the winter period. Interactions become a concern to landowners when livestock and wildlife compete for forages, water, and
44
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
cover, when livestock damage the habitats of wild animals, or when predators injure or kill livestock. Interactions often occur when livestock
such as cattle, sheep and horses share diets and/or habitat with deer, elk, fish, migratory birds, rodents, and threatened or endangered species.
Wildlife and livestock can also transmit pathogens to each other and predation can lead to a serious loss for animals for a producer. Examples of
difficult interactions of wildlife and livestock in Manitoba are sheep and goats competing with deer, and wolves killing cattle.
Competition between Wildlife and Livestock for Food
If the food source is limited, wild ungulates and livestock will compete for the available grasses, forbs and shrubs. Grass availability is not
normally a problem in the spring and summer unless the number of acres of pastureland/meadow is not great enough, or if the grazing on those
areas is too heavy, as most wildlife species browse on forbs and shrubs and eat very little grass. Competition for available forbs may become a
problem in the fall and winter. This problem will occur if cattle move into shrubby areas when there is a lack of grass. There may also be a
problem if livestock move into shrub habitat to seek shelter or to escape from pests and begin browsing. However, in some cases wildlife can
seem to be competing for food with livestock when they are actually benefitting from livestock using that resource. A study in the United States
excluded cattle from elk habitat because wildlife scientists thought that cattle might be outcompeting the elk for the available food resources.
After a number of years, the elk started to jump the fence which separated the cattle from the elk and follow the cattle around their pastureland
system. The elk actually preferred grazing alongside the cattle. Further studies found that controlled livestock grazing does increase the quality
of forage available for the elk, especially during the winter. Basically, cattle graze with a higher intensity and at a different timing than elk, which
improves the vegetation in a way that it is better for the elk, compared to if the elk were grazing without cattle.
Pathogen Transmission between Wildlife and Livestock
When livestock and wildlife interact they can transmit pathogens which can lead to economic losses for livestock producers as well as decreases
in wildlife populations. One example is bovine tuberculosis (TB), a contagious bacterial infection. In Manitoba, bovine TB was common in the
Riding Mountain Area but improved management reduced its occurrence. Since 1991, 45 elk, 11 white-tailed deer and 7 herds of cattle have
tested positive for bovine TB.
45
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Grazing Management Principles and Practices
The following 4 principles can be used to select beneficial management practices (BMPs) for improving grazing management of rangelands and
pasturelands. They apply to all forest, grassland, riparian and wetland components of a grazing operation.
1. Balance animal forage demand with available forage supply (avoid taking too much vegetation by grazing)

Follow appropriate stocking rates to ensure that the amount of forage in a field will support the number of animals for the length of
time they are grazing.

Observe as the animals are grazing how much they are using. Leave enough vegetation to ensure sustainability of the forage
resource and to ensure that the ecosystem continues to allow ecological functions
2. Manage livestock distribution across the landscape

Use cross-fencing

Create trails through forested areas

Place salt, minerals and water sources away from riparian areas or favourite areas where cattle spend a disproportionate
amount of time

Use herding techniques to move animals into more remote areas of a field, even for short periods
3. Avoid grazing during vulnerable periods

Plants are weakened in spring because they have respired all winter and are using the last of their energy stores to grow stems,
leaves, and flowers. When stored energy levels are highest in summer to fall, a plant is better able to withstand and recover
from grazing. It is also dependent on goals of the producer. If the goal is to have some wildlife on the land, then the life cycle of
those animals needs to be considered. In spring the birds are nesting, so avoiding known nesting areas at those times would
minimize impacts. As another example, if the producer wishes to manage sustain or improve riparian health, then riparian areas
should be avoided when most vulnerable. If livestock graze a riparian area in early spring, soil is wetter and more susceptible to
compaction and plants are lush and more susceptible to damage. Late summer and fall grazing will minimize impacts.
46
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
4. Provide effective rest to forages before and after grazing for readiness and recovery

Rest (absence of grazing) allows vegetation to photosynthesize and recover from winter stress or from damage of grazing.
Longer rest means better recovery. The ideal rest period for rangeland and pastureland plants depends on weather, amount of
leaf area remaining after grazing, and limitations of the ecological site and plant community. For some native plant communities,
the ideal rest period is a few months long.

A planned rotational grazing system along with appropriate stocking rates, allows cattle to be in one field while other fields
remain empty. Eventually the cattle herd moves among the empty fields, but each field gets a chance to rest before and after
grazing. In a system with more and smaller fields, the rate at which the animals enter and exit the field is quicker, reducing the
time spent in that field.
A rotational grazing system with multiple fields and carefully measured stocking rates (numbers of animals) allows a producer the flexibility to
apply the Four Grazing Management Principles. For example, to avoid certain areas during sensitive periods, a producer could keep the livestock
in a different field until that period has passed. To manage livestock distribution so that a riparian area is not over-used a producer could fence
out that area and use it for a set period of time before removing the animals. By this same process, he or she would be addressing the principle
of effective rest by allowing that riparian area to have some ungrazed recovery time before and after the grazing period. As well, the principle of
supply and demand is addressed when the producer can move the livestock out of a field and into another when he or she sees that enough
vegetation has been grazed.
47
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs)
A beneficial management practice (BMP) is any method of managing production that has positive outcomes for the three aspects of
sustainability: economic, environmental, and sociocultural. For rangeland and pastureland, such BMPs include grazing management planning,
off-site watering, planned or managed grazing systems, brush control, various strategies for grazing riparian areas, using diverse species
mixtures for pastures, and grazing strategies to manage invasive species populations.
Grazing Management Plans
Need to ensure:

Stocking rates match carrying capacity – most important with regards to sustainability

Proper vegetation utilization levels

Even livestock distribution

Secure sources of water for livestock
(Figure 33)

Sufficient carry-over to sustain the
forage stand and to continue providing
ecological functions (remember
whatever vegetation is left at the end of
fall is all that will be available at the start
of spring)

Adequate rest periods for the vegetation
during the growing season

Considerations for livestock husbandry
and handling, such as calving,
Figure 19 An example of offsite watering in Mixed
mothering, shared fence lines with bulls, Grass Prairie
vaccination periods, peak risk of toxic
plants

Considerations related to readiness of forage to be grazed, or the need to avoid areas where wildlife, soils and vegetation could be at
risk of negative effects
48
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Selected Types of Grazing Systems (Figure 34)
1. Continuous or Season-long
Rest for
1 year
This is a very common system used in Manitoba, especially on mixed farms and on
Crown leases. In this type of grazing system, only one field is used for grazing during
the whole season
 Lower infrastructure cost
 Less control of where livestock graze
Season-long grazing
Deferred rotational grazing
 Less interaction of producer and livestock, which can result in less attention
to health problems, stress on livestock during handling, and risk of injury when
trying to move or handle frightened animals
 To be beneficial it needs effective use of distribution tools (off-site water,
Figure 34 Four types of grazing systems
Simple rotational grazing
(once-over)
Intensive rotational grazing
(two or more times over)
salt, minerals, herding) to prevent over-use of favoured areas.
 Increased biodiversity on a landscape scale, provided stocking rates are
appropriate, because of uneven grazing distribution
 Good individual animal weight gains because they have the opportunity to
choose the most nutritious forages
2. Rotational
Rotational grazing uses field divisions of similar types (‘like with like’) and allows for adequate rest/recovery periods. The length of the grazing
period in each field depends on its forage supply. Rotational grazing involves added costs to divide the fields and provide water for each field.
Tools for improving distribution (salt blocks, water, fencing) are still needed in some cases. There are many subcategories of rotational grazing.

Once-over – 3 to 6 fields, grazed only once during the season
49
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association

Twice-over – 3 to 5 fields where the objective is to graze quickly over all fields (average of 15 days each) to stimulate vegetation
growth, followed by a longer grazing period of 30-45 days each. With fields of uneven size, the proper technique is to use 1/3 of
available forage the first time and 2/3 of available forage the second time. Calculations for this will yield varying lengths of time for
each grazing period in each field.

Switchback – 2 fields, where the objective is to graze field A for 1 month, graze field B for 2 months, graze field A for 1 month and
switch the order next year.

Deferred – 3 to 6 fields where one field is rested for the entire year while the others are grazed; a different field is rested each year.

Rapid or high intensity low frequency – numerous small fields that the livestock graze for periods as small as half a day; fields are
usually used twice during the season and the rest periods between uses are very long.
In comparison to continuous grazing, rotational grazing has higher infrastructure cost, more control over where livestock graze, more familiarity
between animals and people, and potential to accommodate more livestock as forage production improves with rest and proper stocking rates.
Strategies for Wetland and Riparian Area Management
Healthy riparian and wetland areas are particularly susceptible to grazing damage because of lush vegetation, sloped land, and moist soil. If left
to their own devices, livestock will tend to linger in them because they are near a water source, provide shade, and provide nutritious and
palatable forages. Riparian and wetland areas can be grazed sustainably, keeping in mind the 4 principles of grazing management that are
presented previously in this document. These four principles will enable livestock producers to maintain vegetation on a healthy condition, to
minimize bank and shoreline impacts, and to manage time spent by livestock in the zone. Beneficial practices and tools to aid in applying the 4
principles of grazing management have also been presented earlier in this document and some specific to riparian area grazing can be found in
the factsheet on Riparian Grazing BMPs found in the Envirothon Resources.
Sustainable Pastureland Mixes
Native rangelands come with their own diverse mixtures of plant species adapted to climate and grazing impacts, but pasturelands are
composed of seeded species. They can be seeded to one (monoculture) or two key forage species (simple mixtures), but multispecies mixtures
50
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
(diverse mixtures) are better from a sustainability perspective. Compared to monocultures or simple mixtures, diverse species mixtures are more
sustainable. These mixtures are closer in similarity to natural rangelands. Because of the diversity in physical structures, functions and species
characteristics, multi-species forage, diverse species mixtures have increased biomass production, better forage quality, higher nutrient cycling
efficiency, higher drought tolerance and can better withstand invasive species and diseases. Using a mixture of warm season (C3) and cool
season (C4) grasses may ensure availability of high quality forage throughout the growing season, therefore increasing the number of potential
grazing days. It is very common in Manitoba for tame pasturelands to “shut down” growth in the hot months of July and August, because they
are dominated by cool season grasses, which cannot cope well with hot and dry weather (see figure 35 and the inset about C3 and C4 plants in
the Grassland Types section). Mixtures should also contain one or more legume species to reduce the need for fertilizer application and to
enable the nitrogen cycling function to work more efficiently. Diverse species mixtures are likely to increase the biodiversity of other co-existing
biological communities, such as wildlife and soil microorganisms, and thereby enhance the sustainability of the pastureland system.
Figure 35 Potential forage availability throughout the growing season
Other Beneficial Management Practices
In addition to those practices already presented, there are BMPs that address specific issues such as invasive species, brush management, and
grazing in riparian areas. Some examples are posted in the Envirothon Resources.
•
Riparian BMPs for Invasive Species
51
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
•
Grazing BMPs for Invasive Species
•
Aspen Management BMPs
Calculations related to Grazing Management Planning
Forage Production – How much forage does the land produce?
Published information about forage supply or livestock carrying capacity for the land to be grazed (soil, vegetation type, region) is often not
available. In Manitoba, appropriate stocking rates are most commonly determined by trial and error or by referring to the experience of farm
production advisors or neighboring producers. However, the surest way to determine the forage supply for
a specific rangeland or pastureland is to measure annual forage production by preventing the forage from
being grazed by using a range cage (Figure 36). At a predetermined time of year, either at peak biomass
production or at the end of the growing season, forage that has grown inside the cage is clipped and
weighed after drying in an oven or in a well-ventilated, warm location. Forage should be clipped in the
Figure 36 A range cage
middle of the cage, from a wire frame of fixed size (0.25 m2 or 1 m2) to avoid the edge effect. The general
rule is to use a minimum of one range cage per field and clip once per year, however more cages provide
an average and high-low range for potential forage production. Cages should be moved to a new spot every year. It should be noted that annual
forage production varies from year to year, based mainly on precipitation and temperature, so this needs to be taken into consideration when
determining forage supply and carrying capacity. Forage production may also vary from field to field because of different plant communities and
different ecological site potentials.
The units for useable forage production will be a dry mass (weight of clippings) over an area (area from which those clippings were cut),
commonly grams per square metre (remember if the forage came from a 0.25 m2 frame then it needs to be multiplied by 4 to get g/m2). This
unit is then converted into kilograms per hectare as the total area of rangelands is most commonly measured in hectares.
How to convert g/m2 to kg/ha
52
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
or multiply g/m2 by 10 to get kg/ha
Each distinct field or ecological site will have its own value for total forage production.
Available Forage Supply: How much feed do I have?
If 100% of the useable forage production was grazed, the health of the rangeland and long term productivity would decline because there would
not be enough vegetation to sustain ecological functions (nutrient and water cycling and energy capture and flow). Total production includes
biomass that is needed for the plant to regrow, reproduce and overwinter. Therefore, a Safe Use Factor is used to calculate the amount of
useable forage production which can be without diminishing the overall health of the ecosystem.
Available Forage Supply = Useable Forage Production X Safe Use Factor
The Safe Use Factor for native plant communities is generally 50 percent (otherwise known as “take half – leave half”). However, on fragile lands
or lands that need significant improvement in health, range management practitioners suggest a more restrictive, smaller Safe Use Factor, such
as 25 to 35%. The Safe Use Factor for tame pastureland is generally higher at 70 percent because tame pastureland can generally withstand
greater grazing pressure.
How many animals can I feed?
An animal unit (AU) is the forage intake relative to a standard animal. The standard animal for this definition is a 455 kg (1000 lb.) mature cow.
This cow would need 12 kg of forage a day (animal unit day, AUD) or 366 kg of forage per month (animal unit month, AUM) on a dry matter
basis. (To convert AUD to AUM, simply multiply by 30 or 31 days, depending on the month.) Using this information, and the Available Forage
53
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Supply (determined previously), you can calculate the carrying capacity; the amount of animal unit days (AUD) or animal unit months (AUM) that
the rangeland or pastureland can accommodate.
AUM/ha = available forage (kg/ha) ÷ amount in kg of forage needed to feed one AU for one month.
Carrying capacity is also sometimes expressed as ha/AUM. In that case, the calculation would be:
ha/AUM = amount (kg) of forage needed to feed one AU for one month ÷ available forage (kg/ha).
What if I don’t have cows? What if I also have calves and yearlings?
The animal unit equivalent (AUE) is an adjustment made to account for type, class and size of animal. To make the adjustment, take AUM,
AUM/ha, AUD or AUD/ha and divide by the AUE factor from Table 3 below. If using ha/AUM or ha/AUD, then you need to multiply by the AUE
factor.
For example:
Number of goat months per hectare = AUM/ha ÷ AUE/goat
Number of hectares per goat month = ha/AUM x AUE/goat
Table 3 - Animal Unit Equivalents (AUE) for selected animals
Cattle
AUE
mature cows without a calf
1.0
cow with a calf
1.3
weaned calf to yearling
0.75
steers and heifers (1-2 years)
1.0
54
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
mature bulls
Sheep
1.3
weaned lamb to yearlings
mature ewe with or without lamb
mature ram
Goats
0.12
0.2
0.25
weaned kid to yearling
doe with or without kid
mature buck
Horses and Mules
0.1
0.17
0.2
mature horse (1200 lbs.)
mature mule
Wildlife
1 to 1.25
1 to 1.25
deer
antelope, mature
bison, mature
0.17
0.20
1.00
Stocking Rate, Carrying Capacity and Stocking Density
Stocking rate is either the actual amount of AU for a specified amount of time (AUM, AUD) or the actual amount of AU on an area of land for a
specified amount of time (AUM/ha, ha/AUM, AUD/ha, ha/AUD). This is important because over that certain amount of time a certain amount of
forage will be used. Carrying capacity is the same as stocking rate, except it measures the potential amount of AU, rather than the actual
number. Stocking density is the amount of AUs on an area of land at an instant in time (AU/ha, ha/AU). For example, in a high intensity
rotational grazing system where fields are small, there is a high density of animals (AU/ha). If those animals are in that field for a specific amount
of time, then we start measuring how much forage they are taking (AUM/ha).
55
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Sample Grazing Calculations
By this time you have figured out how many animals of various kinds the range or pasture can feed in one month or one day. However, grazing
periods for one field are rarely exactly one month long, and a grazing season for an entire rangeland or pastureland can be as much as five
months (150 days). Also, fields are different sizes. To know how many animals a field or an entire pastureland can sustain, you need to know the
time in months or days, and the number of acres that each carrying capacity value applies to. The following examples will show you how to put
these numbers to work.
1. A client owns a ranch with a total carrying capacity of 3000 AUM that is 6000 ha in size and has six months growth. The ranch is divided into
15 equal paddocks.
a) How many animal units can the ranch support (herd size)?
= 500 AU
b) What is the carrying capacity?
= 0.5 AUM/ha
c) What is the stocking density in each paddock?
= 400 ha per paddock;
= 1.25 AU/ha
2. A client has 1480 AUM of forage available in his pasture. He has 150 mature cows without calves grazing for 6 months. Does the client have
a forage deficit or surplus? How much?
Forage supply: 1480 AUM
Forage demand: 150 cows X 1 AUE/cow X 6 months = 900 AUM
Balance: 1480 AUM – 900 AUM = 580 AUM
56
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
3. A client has a 30 ha range, dominated by native upland grasses. Ten range cages are set up to determine its production.
a) How much forage did this rangeland produce this year?
Dry weight of
Average weight = 84.4 g m-2
forage clipping
Cage (g/m2)
Average productivity =
= 844 kg/ha
1
54.6
Total production = 844 kg/ha 30 ha = 25,317 kg
2
131.5
3
81.3
b) Assuming this is an average production year, what is the annual carrying capacity in AUM (assuming proper use
4
50.1
factor on native rangelands of 50%)?
5
49.8
25,317 kg 0.5 = 12665.9 kg (forgot decimal place)
6
63.9
= 34.6 AUM
⁄
7
95.4
8
120.8
c) How many yearlings can be put on this pastureland for four months?
9
101.4
10
95.0
= 11.5 yearlings
d) What will be the stocking rate per hectare?
= 1.15 AUM/ha
e) What is the stock density of this pasture?
= 0.29 AU/ha
f) If the range is divided equally into four paddocks which will be grazed for one month at a time, what will be the stocking rate and stock density
of each paddock?
Rate – no change 1.15 AUM/ha
Density
= 1.15 AU/ha
57
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
4. The managers of the Rolling Hills Ranch, located in the Northern Mixed Grass prairie, have decided to dramatically alter their livestock
operation by switching from a traditional, year-round, cow-calf operation to a seasonal grazing operation. To make sure their sustainable
grazing management continues as they make these changes, the owners have hired you as a range consultant.
Land holdings: 9,725 hectares
Previous grazing management: 600 head of cows-calf pairs (1.3 AUE) grazed pastures from May 15-November 1, fed hay and supplement
during other months.
Desired grazing management: 2/3 of grazing animals should be heifers (1 AUE) remaining 1/3 of grazing animals are cow-calf pairs (1.3 AUE).
Heifers will graze pastures from June 1 to August 15, while cow-calf pairs will graze from May 15 to November 1.
Please use the information the owners have provided you to determine how many heifers and cow-calf pairs are needed to graze the Rolling
Hills Ranch according to desired management changes by the owners.
Solution:
Previous grazing (equivalent to carrying capacity):
600 cow-calf pairs X 1.3 AU/pair X 5.5M = 4,290 AUM
Desired grazing:
4,290 AUM = [(1.3 AU/pair X 5.5 M)x] + [(1 AU/heifer X 2.5 M)2x]
4,290 AUM = 7.15AUMx + 5.0AUMx
4,290 = 12.15x
x = 4,290 ÷ 12.15353
2x = 706
The numbers of animals which should be stocked according to the ranchers’ wishes are 353 cow-calf pairs and 706 heifers
58
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Riparian, Rangeland and Pastureland Assessment
In addition to riparian assessment, there are two major types of rangeland and pasture assessments that have been used in Manitoba; Range
Condition Assessment (RCA) and Rangeland Health Assessment (RHA). These are used to record the status of rangelands, pasturelands and
riparian areas; to help apply management changes to where they are most needed; and to evaluate the effectiveness of past management
changes.
Riparian Health Assessment
Riparian Health Assessments evaluate the ability of riparian systems to provide ecological functions. Usually an entire riparian area is too large to
assess completely, in which case, a reach, or segment of the water body, that is representative of the range or pasture is selected for the
assessment. The assessment uses a number of different vegetative and physical indicators.
Vegetation

Soil surface is covered by plant growth (less than five percent bare soil)

Healthy and diverse native plant communities

Weeds are at a minimum

Bank has a deep binding root mass
Banks/Shorelines

No structural alterations

Minimal rutting from machinery,
pugging (holes) and hummocking
(mounds) from livestock
hoofprints (Figure 37)
o
Occurs when ground is
saturated
59
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
o
Increases compaction
o
Can lead to vegetation changes
See accompanying “Managing the Water’s Edge”
Aquatics section for details on how to conduct a
Figure 37 Pasture showing extensive pugging and
hummocking in riparian zone
resource for Manitoba in the
riparian health assessment.
What is Range Condition?
Range Condition is the current state of a particular range or pasture community composition in
comparison to some perceived potential (usually the climax community). It is based on the idea
that different plant species respond in different ways to grazing pressure. Range Condition
Assessments (RCA) are being phased out as expectations and assumptions about plant succession
have been found to be inaccurate and there are more factors that need to be considered instead
of just species composition. The principles behind Range Condition Assessment assume that as
grazing pressure is eased, that the plant community bounces back to what it once was. In reality,
this is not the case with so many grazing lands.
Figure 38 Performing a range condition and
health assessment at Spy Hill-Ellice PFRA
Range Condition Assessment is a simple species percentage comparison of the expected
Community Pastureland
successional climax
community (or the seeded plant
community) and the
community that currently exists (Figure
38). Percentage quartiles
are classified as Poor (0-25%), Fair (25-
50%), Good (50-75%) and
Excellent (75-100%) (Figure 39). An
Excellent or Good condition
rangeland has an abundance of
decreaser species (those
60
Figure 39 Range condition scores and relative abundances of
decreasers, increasers and invaders
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
that decrease with greater grazing intensity because cattle prefer to eat them over others), and a low number of increasers (those that increase
with greater grazing intensity because they are less palatable or too short to bite). Invaders are any exotic forage or weed, and tend to establish
and increase in abundance when a plant community is stressed by too much grazing or some other disturbance that exposes soil and creates an
opportunity for them to grow. There are some increaser species whose dominance indicates more severe levels of grazing (i.e. they are the last
standing). Note that all of these species (except invaders) exist in a natural or well-managed stand; it is just the proportions of each species that
you need to be concerned about.
When conducting a rangeland condition assessment, each field, and each major ecological site within a field are surveyed. For example, if ¼ of a
field is sandy and the rest is clayey, then 2 range condition assessments will be done for that field. This is because livestock have preferences for
certain ecological sites and thus, will put greater pressure on those sites. Survey areas are representative of the field and the ecological site
within that field. They are not adjacent to a road or watering site or gate, because these are favoured areas for livestock and thus will score
more poorly than the remainder of the area. Five to ten well-spaced sampling plots are established in the survey area. Plots are delineated using
frames of 50 cm x 50 cm or smaller, and each plant species is listed with its percentage contribution, with all contributions within a frame adding
to 100%. The five to ten sampling plots are averaged to represent the species composition of the entire plant community within the survey area.
To score the range condition of a survey area, the percentage species composition is compared against published allowable limits for decreasers,
increasers, and invaders. These limits are different for different ecological sites. For example, sandgrass is likely to contribute more to a sandy
ecological site than a clayey ecological site. All decreasers have allowable limits of 100%, and all invaders have limits of 0%. Increasers have a
listed allowable limit between 0% and 100%. When adding up the range condition score for the survey area, you include the entire amount of
decreaser species, none of the amount of invader species, and the smaller value of either your survey percentage of increasers or the published
allowable percentage of increasers. The total of these three categories is the Range Condition Score, and it can be assigned to a Range Condition
Class of Excellent, Good, Fair, and Poor as shown earlier in this section.
61
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
The following is a simplified example of how a range condition assessment is conducted for a loamy ecological site within one field of a tall grass
prairie rangeland. The range condition score is 82.5%, which falls into the Excellent Range Condition Class.
Species
Category
Survey %
Indian Grass
Big Bluestem
Little Bluestem
Switch Grass
Bent Grass
Low Goldenrod
Forage Kochia
TOTAL
Decreaser
Decreaser
Decreaser
Increaser
Invader
Increaser
Invader
12.5
32.5
17.5
20.0
7.5
6.0
4.0
100.0
Published
Allowable %
100
100
100
15
0
5
0
-
Range Condition Score
Contribution %
12.5
32.5
17.5
15
0
5
0
82.5
What is Rangeland Health? How is it different from Range Condition?
The traditional range condition assessment method just considers which species are growing, not how vigorous they are, how much insulation is
over the soil, or how much soil is exposed and eroding. It also underestimates the risk posed by noxious weeds. This is why Rangeland Health
Assessment has come into use.
Rangeland Health is the ability of rangelands to perform certain key functions, including net primary production, maintenance of soil, capture
and beneficial release of water, nutrient and energy cycling and functional diversity of plant species. Healthy rangelands provide sustainable
grazing opportunities for livestock producers and ecological benefits to the public, such as clean water, recreation and hunting. The Rangeland
Health Assessment tool (RHA) studies a number of indicators, and can be used for native rangelands, tame pasturelands, and forested
rangelands. Indicators are compared to conditions of a reference community (a plant community in pristine condition on a specific ecological
site). If published information is not available for what the reference plant community should be for a specific ecological site, then the evaluator
can use a fenced out exclosure or remote part of a field that has received little to no use over the long term. Specific scoring criteria vary for
62
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
each of the native and forested rangeland assessments and the pasture assessment, but they will generally fall into the five categories described
below.
1. Does the site have the plant species that are supposed to be there according to a natural reference community or one that has
been seeded onto the site?
This indicator closely resembles the traditional Range Condition Assessment. The severity of past stress on the plant community by grazing,
drought and other disturbances will result in a certain level of modification from this desired or reference community. Plant competition
dynamics are affected by disturbance. For example, plants that are not eaten or trampled will gain a competitive advantage and change the
plant community. Quite often, the species shift is towards shorter, less palatable and trampling-resistant plants with shallower root systems and
less biomass to contribute to ecological functions.
2. Are all structural and functional groups adequately represented, as compared to the reference community, for example, tall
grass, short grass, legumes, tall forbs, short forbs, short shrubs, tall shrubs?
“Structural groups” refers to height and type of plants, while “functional groups” refers to abilities of the plants such as having a nitrogen fixing
symbiont, annual or perennial growth, or cool season (C3) or warm season (C4) growth. Diverse plant structures and functions above ground
reflect diversity of root structures and functions below ground. Structural diversity enables a plant community to acquire energy, nutrients and
water efficiently because foliage and roots are in many different locations. Functional diversity provides sustainable nutrient cycling and growth
throughout spring, summer and fall. This indicator refers more generally to all species of similar structure or function, regardless of the actual
species. For example, you may have a plant community with 50% cover of tall grass species that are not in the reference community, even
though the reference community does have 50% cover of different tall grass species. This site will lose some points for the first indicator of
species composition, but it will keep all points for the second indicator of structure and function because it still has 50% cover of tall grasses. If
the site had only 20% tall grass cover, it would lose some points because of the significant reduction in tall grass cover.
63
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
3. Is there soil exposure and erosion beyond what is natural for the site?
The top layer of the soil profile is important for plant growth, carbon sequestration, water infiltration,
decomposition, and nutrient cycling (Figure 40). Exposing it to sunlight and putting it at risk of eroding from wind
or water will diminish these functions. It also creates an opportunity for invasive weeds to become established.
With the moist climate in Manitoba we expect natural soil exposure and erosion of most ecological sites to be
close to zero, including stabilized sands. Areas with moving sands are different. They have a natural amount of
soil exposure and erosion, but mismanagement will cause more soil to become exposed and increase erosion.
Figure 20 Low litter and
high amounts of bare soil
inhibit nutrient and water
cycling
4. Is there enough dead plant material (litter) to conserve soil and soil moisture and to continue the
nutrient cycle?
Plant litter accumulates over many years when a certain amount of vegetation is left behind after grazing each
year. If not enough is left behind after grazing, the soil is no longer protected from the sun, wind, or water
runoff. Both plant litter and live vegetation stop water from flowing over land so it is allowed to infiltrate into the soil instead. Litter even acts as
a sponge to take up extra water and release it over a longer period. Litter and live vegetation prevent soil water from evaporating by keeping the
soil cool. Seeds and seedlings of rangeland and pastureland plants are protected by litter from exposure to heat, sun, and physical damage. Birds
and rodents use plant litter for nesting and protection. Newer plant litter deposits can also create a forage bank for livestock. Some amount of
litter trampling is needed because big pieces of plants need to be made smaller and they need to touch the ground to enable soil organisms to
return their nutrients to the soil. In Manitoba, the moist climate produces a lot of vegetation so it is fairly easy under conservative management
to accumulate litter on upland and forested rangelands and pasturelands. In many areas that are already very moist, like depressions and
wetlands, the litter rots before it is able to accumulate, but through this rotting, nutrients are recycled into the soil.
64
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
5. Does the site have invasive plants that threaten the functions of the rangeland or pastureland?
Invasive plant establishment can result from past disturbance or stress on the plant community, combined with introduction of seed from
nearby weed populations, contaminated machinery, contaminated forage seed, and hitch-hiking on animals or people. They create a risk of
reduced ecological benefits, and can increase risk of fire or injury to herbivores. This indicator measures the abundance (cover) and distribution
pattern of the worst invaders (noxious weeds). Less cover and limited distribution create smaller risk of losing ecological benefits than higher
cover and frequent, extensive distribution. The greater the risk, the lower the score is for this indicator.
Specific details on how to conduct a Rangeland Health Assessment can be found in the Rangeland Health Assessment Worksheet PDFs for Native
and Forested Rangelands and Tame Pastureland.
http://www.srd.alberta.ca/LandsForests/GrazingRangeManagement/documents/RangeHealthWorksheet-Grasslands-May2011.pdf
http://www.srd.alberta.ca/LandsForests/GrazingRangeManagement/documents/RangeHealthWorksheet-Forest-May2011.pdf
http://www.srd.alberta.ca/LandsForests/GrazingRangeManagement/documents/RangeHealthWorksheet-TamePasture-May2011.pdf
Interpreting Rangeland Condition and Rangeland Health
Rangeland condition and health assessments were developed to evaluate the sustainability of management on rangelands and pasturelands.
They help us to decide if and what improvements are needed.
Range Condition Assessment scores fall into four categories:
75% to 100%
Excellent. The plant community is in a very advanced state of succession. It is dominated by plants that would decrease in
abundance if unsustainably managed (decreasers). Due to lack of significant disturbance, there may be an overabundance of decreaser species
compared to a naturally occurring community that would receive occasional disturbance from fire or bison grazing. Some ecological benefits
65
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
such as nutrient cycling, forage productivity, and wildlife habitat, may be inhibited because of too much litter cover or the spread of trees onto
grassland. Increasing stocking rates or improving livestock distribution over the landscape will improve the balance of economic and
environmental goals.
50% to 74%
Good. The plant community succession is fairly advanced as a result of sustainable grazing practices. Although plants that
increase with unsustainable grazing (increasers) are common, the plant community is still dominated by decreasers. This condition category is
ideal because it results from a balance of livestock production which has economic benefits, and conservative grazing which has ecological
benefits.
25% to 49%
Fair. This is a mid to late successional plant community, significantly modified from a natural climax community. Although
decreaser plants can still be found, the plant community has been changed to one dominated by increaser plants or, in the case of native
grassland, exotic invasive plants by unsustainable grazing management. Wildlife cover is considerably reduced and the site cannot carry as many
livestock as a site in better condition because increaser and invader plants are often unproductive, shallow-rooted, and/or unpalatable. The
ecological functions of energy capture, nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration and water infiltration are diminished. Change in management, or
rejuvenation in the case of tame pastureland, is needed to prevent these functions from remaining this way or declining further. Think about the
four grazing management principles and make some management and infrastructure changes to help encourage the growth of later successional
decreaser plants. Certain invasive plants may never be removed from a native plant community once they are established, but their abundance
may be reduced to levels which will allow the site to provide ecological benefits. The number of years for the site to recover to Good or Excellent
condition under sustainable grazing management or tame forage rejuvenation depends on how severely the plant community has been
modified.
0% to 24%
Poor. This plant community is severely modified to an early to mid-successional stage as a result of prolonged unsustainable
grazing management practices, or poor establishment of a seeded pastureland. It is often accompanied by bare soil. Decreaser plants are
unlikely to be found and the plant community is dominated by invasive species, weedy annuals, and/or the most grazing resistant increasers
66
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
(Figure 41). Wildlife cover is considerably reduced and the site cannot carry as many livestock as a site in better condition because increaser and
invader plants are often unproductive, shallow-rooted, and/or unpalatable. The ecological functions of energy capture, nutrient cycling, carbon
sequestration and water infiltration are diminished. Change in management, or
rejuvenation in the case of tame pastureland, is needed to prevent these functions
from remaining this way or declining further. Think about the four grazing
management principles and make some management and infrastructure changes to
help encourage the growth of mid to later successional plants. Certain invasive
plants may never be removed from a native plant community once they are
established, but their abundance may be reduced to levels which will allow the site
to provide ecological benefits. It may take years or decades of conservative grazing
management, or rejuvenation of tame pastureland, for the site to recover to Good
Figure 41 An example of rangeland with poor range
condition and unhealthy range score
or Excellent condition.
Rangeland Health Assessment scores will fall into one of three categories:
75% to 100%
Healthy. Current grazing levels and management practices are sustainable (maintaining or improving the delivery of ecological
benefits). There may even be some opportunity to increase stocking rates to optimize both economic and environmental goals.
50% to 74%
Healthy with Problems. Some of the ecological functions are not being performed well, but could recover within a few years if
adjustments to management are made. Determine which of the five indicators contributes to the low score, and formulate a change based on
the four principles of grazing management. In the case of tame pastureland, forage rejuvenation may be required. Lack of action may keep the
situation at the same level of health or it may allow health to decline further over time into the Unhealthy category.
0% to 49%
Unhealthy. Few, if any, of the ecological functions, including forage production, are being performed well as a result of
unsustainable management practices (Figure 41). Urgent change is needed to prevent function from remaining this way or declining further.
67
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Think about the four grazing management principles and make some management and infrastructure changes to put those principles into action.
In the case of tame pastureland, forage rejuvenation or even re-seeding may be required. Lack of action may keep the situation at the same level
of health or it may allow health to decline further.
68
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Glossary
Acres: an imperial unit of area mostly used for land, equal to 4,047 square metres or 0.405 hectares
Adaptive Behaviour: behaviour adjustment in response to one’s environment, an event, or others’ behaviour
Agricultural Land: land used for any kind of food production, including farmland, pastureland and rangeland
Allowable Limit: maximum percentage of individual decreaser, increaser, or invader species in scoring range condition
Animal Unit (AU): a standard unit for animal size and feed requirement (based on a 455 kg (1000 lb) cow)
Animal Unit Day (AUD): the forage requirement one animal unit (AU) for one day; one animal unit (AU) would need 12 kg of forage
a day
Animal Unit Equivalent (AUE): a factor used to adjust for any type, class and size of animal that is different from the standard
animal unit (AU), when calculating feed requirements
Animal Unit Month (AUM): the forage requirement of one animal unit (AU) for one month; to convert animal unit days (AUD) to
AUM, simply multiply by 30 or 31 days, depending on the month
Annual Growth: the amount of forage grown in one year, either herbaceous or woody
Annual Plant: a plant with a life cycle of one year or growing season
Anthropogenic Disturbance: disturbance of an ecosystem caused by human activity such as agriculture, forestry, mining and sewage
leakage
Anti-Quality Factor: characteristic of feeds or forages that reduces their quality and digestibility; may lead to poor animal
performance if not managed properly
69
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Aspen Parkland Ecoregion: an ecoregion in southern Manitoba distinguished by mixed woodland and grassland; a transition from
grassland into boreal forest
Available Forage Supply: the portion of forage production that is accessible for use by a specified kind or class of grazing animal;
also a specific calculated proportion of total forage production that takes into account safe use factor
Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs): any method of managing production that has positive outcomes for the three aspects of
sustainability: economic, environmental, and sociocultural
Biodiversity: variety of life on Earth, can be specific to a particular ecosystem or habitat
Biomass: the total mass of living plants and animals above and below ground in a specified area at a given time
Bio-Security: procedures meant to protect humans or animals against disease or harmful biological agents
Black Chernozem: soil developed in the southern part of Manitoba under relatively low rainfall and high summer temperatures and
predominantly grassland and aspen parkland vegetation; surface horizon of soil black, reflecting a significant accumulation and
decomposition of grasses and other vegetation; the most fertile and productive soil in Manitoba
Boreal Transition Ecoregion: an ecoregion distinguished by a mixture of deciduous forest and farmland on highlands throughout the
Aspen Parkland; a transition from Aspen Parkland into closed Boreal Forest
Browse: leaf and twig growth of shrubs, woody vines, and trees available for use by animals; also meaning to search for or consume
growth from woody vegetation
Brunisol: soil developed under closed or mixed forest canopies that is in the mid stages of development; development is limited by
high lime content or coarse texture of parent geological materials
C3 (cool season) Plant: a plant which generally makes the major portion of its growth during spring and fall and sets seed in the late
spring or early summer; follows the pentose phosphate pathway of photosynthesis to break down carbon dioxide
70
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
C4 (warm season) Plant: a plant which generally makes the major portion of its growth during hot summer months and sets seed in
midsummer; follows the dicarboxylic acid pathway of photosynthesis to break down carbon dioxide
Carbon Sequestration: the process of removing carbon from the atmosphere and depositing it in a reservoir
Carrying Capacity: the average number of livestock and/or wildlife which may be sustained on a management unit compatible with
management objectives for the unit
Class of Animal: an animal’s sex, age, and intactness of genitalia
Climax Community: the final or stable biotic community in succession, determined primarily by climate but also influenced by soil,
topographic, vegetative, fire and animal factors
Community Pastures: pastures for multiple producers, established and managed by federal and provincial governments or
cooperatives
Community Pastures Program: the specific community pastures which are established by and managed by the federal government
Community (ecology): all of the populations of different species of plants, animals, fungi, and other living organisms living and
interacting in a certain geographical area
Conservation Tillage: practices that reduce the amount and/or impact of soil tillage, thereby reducing disruption of soil and its
ecological processes
Conservative Management: management that balances human use of the Earth’s resources with maintaining ecological integrity
Continuous (or Season-Long) Grazing System: a system that allows grazing on an area for an entire growing season without rest
Cool-Season Plant (C3 plant): a plant which generally makes the major portion of its growth during spring and fall and sets seed in
the late spring or early summer
71
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Corral: a small fenced area used to handle and sort livestock and store them temporarily for quarantine, release into pastureland or
rangeland, or transportation from the land
Crown Lands Act of Manitoba: an act governing the allocation and use of provincially owned lands (also known as public lands) in
Manitoba
Crown Lands: land which is owned by provincial or federal governments of Canada; also known as public lands
Dark Grey Chernozem: soil developed to the east and north of the Black soils, where cooler temperatures and more humid
conditions fostered a mix of grassland and forest vegetation; very productive soil in Manitoba
Dark Grey Luvisol: soil developed under cooler climate and forest vegetation largely in central to northern Manitoba and at higher
elevations in the western part of the Province; upper layers of soil somewhat leached and, as a result, dark grey in colour; utilized
mainly for mixed farming, particularly in rolling or hilly areas where steeply sloping land is best suited to pasture and forage
production
Decreasers: plant species of the climax community that decrease in relative amount with continued overuse; in rangelands and
pasturelands, they are usually the taller or more palatable plants; term used in Range Condition Assessment
Deferred Rotational Grazing System: a grazing system in which one field of a multi-field range or pasture is left ungrazed for one
whole grazing season; a different field is rested each year
Depradation: wildlife using annual crops, forage, or hay; usually in reference to damage or reduction of supply
Dichotomous Key: a sequence of two-way choices for use in determining the identity of a plant or animal species, or of a plant
community
Disturbance: a natural or human-caused change that interrupts ecological processes and alters the composition and structure of a
plant community
72
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Diverse Species Mixture: a pasture seed mix that contains several to numerous different plant species
Domestic: living organisms that have been cultured to provide food for livestock or humans, as in domesticated forage varieties, and
domestic animals
Dominion Lands Act (1872): A Canadian Act outlining the process and requirements for people wishing to settle in the Western
Canadian Prairies; it offered 65 hectares for free, provided 16 ha was cultivated and a permanent dwelling erected within 3 years of
registration
Dormant: being in a state of reduced growth and respiration; in plants, usually from mid fall to mid spring
Ecological Functions: interactions among living and non-living components of ecosystems, sometimes creating products and services
which are useful to humans, interchangeable with Ecological Processes
Ecological Goods and Services: environmental benefits resulting from functions of ecosystems, interchangeable with Ecosystem
Services and Products
Ecological Integrity: describing an ecosystem composed of native plant and animal species, where natural ecological processes are
sustained and happening at natural rates
Ecological Processes: interactions among living and non-living components of ecosystems, sometimes creating products and services
which are useful to humans, interchangeable with Ecological Functions
Ecological Site: a kind of land with a specific potential natural community and specific physical site characteristics, differing from
other kinds of land in its ability to produce vegetation and to respond to management
Ecoregion: large geographical area determined by climate, dominant vegetation forms, and landforms
Ecosystem Services and Products: environmental benefits resulting from functions of ecosystems, interchangeable with Ecological
Goods and Services
73
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Ecosystem: a complete interacting system of organisms (i.e. community) and their environment
Eco-tourism: tourism focused on experiencing and respecting the environment
Edge Effect: the influence on the structure and function of two communities on each other at their boundary
Energy Capture: transformation of sunlight energy by photosynthesis into a chemical form of energy which is useable by organisms
in an ecosystem
Energy Flow: movement of energy through the ecosystem from sun to primary producers to consumers to decomposers, until all of
the stored energy has been used up
Erosion: movement of soil particles from one location to another
Exclosure: a structure that restricts livestock and wildlife from accessing an area of rangeland or pastureland
Exotic Plant Species: a plant that does not occur naturally in a location; usually refers to plants imported purposefully or by accident
from another continent
Farmland: land that is cultivated for annual crops
Field: an agricultural space that is fenced off from its surroundings
Forage Bank: available forage that is not used during the grazing season but remains in place for use during the winter or following
spring
Forage Demand: the amount of forage needed to meet the requirements of certain numbers, types, classes, and sizes of livestock
and wildlife
Forage Production: weight of forage that is produced within a designated period of time, usually one entire growing season, on a
given area
74
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Forage Quality: measure of how well forage meets nutritional needs of animals
Forage Rejuvenation: improvement of the condition of forage or the amount of forage produced on a pasture
Forage Supply: the amount of forage produced that can be sustainably grazed; equal to Useable Forage Production multiplied by the
Safe Use Factor
Forage: browse and herbaceous vegetation which is available as food for grazing animals or be harvested for feeding; also to search
for or consume browse or herbaceous vegetation
Forb: non-woody plant generally with solid, non-jointed stems, broad netted veined leaves, and tap root systems; any herbaceous
plant other than those in the grass, sedge or rush families
Forest: land on which the vegetation is dominated by trees; lands classified forestland if trees present will provide 25% or greater
canopy cover at maturity
Forested Rangeland: land on which the vegetation is dominated by trees and is usable for food and habitat by wildlife or domestic
animals
Frame: a steel, rope, wire or plastic device used to outline a sample plot so that observations can be made within its area; commonly
used in determining species composition and ground cover
Frequency of Disturbance: how often a disturbance occurs or the regularity of disturbances
Functional Diversity: a characteristic of an ecosystem of with a variety of plants that can perform different ecological functions
Functional Group: a group of plant species performs similar ecological functions, for example, legumes, cool season plants, warm
season plants, annuals, perennials and herbaceous species
75
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Gleysol: a soil found in poorly drained areas throughout Manitoba, and showing the influence of soil water; waterlogged soils tend
to be dull grey in colour and soils where the water has left have orange coloration
Grass: plant of the Gramineae family; usually herbaceous with narrow, parallel-veined, two-ranked leaves
Grassland: lands on which the vegetation is dominated by grasses, grass-like plants, and/or forbs
Grass-like Plant: plant of the Cyperaceae or Juncaceae family; usually herbaceous with slender, usually solid, round or three-angled
stems and parallel-veined, often three-ranked leaves
Graze: to consume herbaceous and/or non-woody plant material
Grazing Management Principles: basic ideas about beneficial treatment of rangelands and pasturelands that can be used to choose
or develop many different beneficial management practices; common themes among existing beneficial management practices that
help explain why they give positive results for rangelands and pasturelands
Grazing Management: the manipulation of grazing and browsing animals to accomplish a desired result
Grazing Season: the period during which livestock are using rangelands and pasturelands; usually longer than a growing season, and
often from early or mid-spring to mid or late fall in Manitoba
Grazing System: the way in which a pasture or range is grazed; may be planned or not; may be scheduled or flexible or neither of the
above
Grey Luvisol: soil developed under cool climates and forest vegetation largely in central to northern Manitoba and at higher
elevations in the western part of the Province; the upper layers leached and, as a result, light gray in color; lower layers accumulate
leached organic matter and clay; utilized mainly for mixed farming, particularly in rolling or hilly areas where steeply sloping land is
best suited to pasture and forage production
Ground Cover: amount or types of material covering soil; common types are herbaceous, plant litter, moss, or fecal material
76
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Growing Season: the period during which plants are able to grow and photosynthsize; in southern Manitoba, usually from mid April
to mid October
Healthy: condition of an ecosystem which is able to perform ecological functions well in order to create ecological goods and
services efficiently
Hectare: a metric unit of area, equal to 10,000 m2 or 2.47 acres
Herbaceous: having little or no woody growth and dying back to the ground at the end of each growing season
High Intensity-Low Frequency Grazing System: a heavy, short-duration grazing system in which all livestock in a set of several range
units or pastures graze one pasture at a time until the desired degree of use is obtained
Increasers: plant species in a community that increase in relative amount with continued overuse; in rangeland and pastureland
communities, usually the shorter or less palatable plants on the site; term used in Range Condition Assessment
Infrastructure: permanent or semi-permanent physical structures; in rangeland and pastureland settings, fencelines, corrals,
watering facilities, barns, constructed windbreaks, dams, and livestock crossings over water bodies
Intensive Rotational Grazing System: a grazing system in which livestock rotate relatively quickly through many small fields during
the grazing season; fields often used twice or more during the season
Interlake Plain Ecoregion: an ecoregion between Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnipeg; distinguished by extensive wetlands and
riparian areas, and uplands covered by mixed woodland and grassland
Invaders: plant species absent in undisturbed plant communities; can invade a plant community following disturbance or continued
overuse, via wind, water, dirty machinery, or in the coats and digestive systems of animals; term used in Range Condition
Assessment
77
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Invasive Plant: plant species absent in undisturbed plant communities; can invade a plant community following disturbance or
continued overuse, via wind, water, dirty machinery, or in the coats and digestive systems of animals
Lake Manitoba Plain Ecoregion: an ecoregion between the Manitoba Escarpment and Lake Manitoba; distinguished by extensive
wetlands and riparian areas, and uplands covered by mixed woodland and grassland
Manitoba Escarpment: a series of landforms running from south-central Manitoba towards west-central Manitoba that denote a
significant change in elevation from east to west, including the Pembina Hills, Riding Mountain, Duck Mountains, Porcupine Hills
Legume: a plant belonging to the Leguminosae, or pea, family, which, through a symbiotic relationship, can fix its own nitrogen
Litter: uppermost layer of non-living organic debris on the soil surface; essentially freshly fallen or slightly decomposed plant
material
Livestock Distribution: spatial arrangement of grazing animals over an entire pasture or range
Livestock Husbandry: the agricultural practice of breeding and raising livestock
Marginal Land: land that is unsuitable for growing annual crops because of limitations to cultivation and crop survival such as
stoniness, poor water and nutrient holding capacity, steep slopes, wetness, salt, and hard soil layers; most suitable for hay and
pasture, although some be severely damaged if annual cropping attempted, or unsustainable grazing practices used
Mid Boreal Upland Ecoregion: an ecoregion in west-central Manitoba made of a series of elevated landforms, distinguished from
surrounding ecoregions by cooler temperatures, additional snowfall, and closed forest vegetation
Modified Landscapes: a landscape that has been altered from its original form; on rangelands it refers to plant communities with a
significant contribution from exotic forages or invasive weeds
Monoculture: the planting of a single annual or forage crop in a given area
78
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Native Plant Community: plant community dominated by species of local origin
Native Species: a species which is part of the original flora and fauna of the area in question
Natural Disturbance: disturbance of ecosystem caused by natural events such as fire, flooding, drought and wildlife grazing
Naturalized: having become so integrated into an ecosytem where the species is not native that it is difficult to eradicate
Net Primary Production: the amount of photosynthetic products which are not used by the plant itself, but are stored in structures
such as leaves, stems and roots; see also Primary Producers
Nitrogen-fixing Symbiont: an organism that converts dinitrogen gas from the atmosphere into ammonia, which is used by plants; in
return the symbiont receives carbohydrates from the plant
Northern Mixed Grass Prairie: grassland located in the Black to Dark Grey Chernozemic transitional soil zone of the Northern Great
Plains; characterized by dry western grasses such as western wheatgrass, blue grama grass, and needle and thread grass
Noxious Weed: A particularly unlikable weed species; usually listed as such in provincial regulations and listed in criteria for
evaluating rangeland health
Nutrient Cycling: movement through an ecosystem of minerals, compounds, or elements that promote biological growth or
development in a closed loop ; may contain multiple pathways
Nutritional Requirement: the amounts of various substances in food needed by an organism to sustain healthy life and reproduce,
by supporting metabolism, milk production, conception, pregnancy, flowering, seed production, and growth
Once-over Rotational Grazing System: a grazing system composed of several fields or paddocks where livestock are moved from
one to the other after using each field once during a grazing season (spring to late fall)
Paddock: a division of land within a pasture; often synonymous with field
79
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Parkland/Northern Fescue: a grassland located on Black and Dark Grey Chernozemic or Dark Grey and Grey Luvisolic soils of the
Canadian Prairies; existing on deep fertile soil and characterized by plains rough fescue and groves of aspen and/or bur oak
Pasture: a specific grazing area separated from other areas by fencing or other barriers; the management unit for grazing land; any
specific area devoted to the production of forage, native or introduced, and harvested by grazing; also forage plants used as food for
grazing animals; often used interchangeably with pastureland
Pastureland: a general term for grazing lands which are planted primarily to introduced or domesticated native forage species, and
receive periodic renovation (re-seeding) and cultural treatments (like fertilizer) to maintain productivity and species composition
Perennial Plant: a plant with a life cycle of three or more years
Plant Residue: dead or dormant plant material
Prairie: large area of grassland
Predation: the preying of one animal on others; in agriculture, the injury or loss of livestock by carnivores
Prescribed Burning: a fire set in a designated place to achieve specific results and approved by land manager or owner
Primary Producers: organisms that transform atmospheric or aquatic carbon dioxide into organic compounds using solar or chemical
energy; e.g., plants
Primary Production: the amount of photosynthetic products produced by plants, also referred to as Gross Primary Production; see
Net Primary Production
Private Rangeland: rangeland owned by individuals or private companies
Public Rangeland: rangeland owned by the public and managed by different governments except where a lease or management
agreement allows an individual or organization to manage and use them for a specific period of time, with certain restrictions
80
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Quarantine: the act of isolating livestock or feed temporarily for the purpose of preventing spread of disease, pathogens or invasive
weeds
Range: specific area of rangeland that supports a cover of herbaceous or shrubby vegetation suitable for grazing by livestock or
game; often used interchangeably with rangeland
Range Cage: a structure, smaller than an exclosure, that restricts livestock and wildlife from accessing a rangeland or pastureland
sample plot
Range Condition: the present status of a unit of range in terms of specific values or potentials which are stated; also defined as the
present state of vegetation of a rangeland or pastureland in relation to the climax (natural potential) plant community for that site
Range Condition Assessment: an evaluation of the status of a rangeland or pastureland in which species composition of rangeland
or pastureland in question is compared to expected climax plant community, and scored based on relative abundance of different
plant species that respond in certain ways to unsustainable grazing pressure (i.e. decreaser, increaser, invader)
Range Condition Class: name given to categories into which range condition scores fall: Excellent (75%-100%), Good (50%-75%), Fair
(25%-50%), Poor (0%-25%)
Range Condition Score: a percentage comparison of species composition of a rangeland or pastureland with the composition of
expected climax plant community, based on the response of different plant species to unsustainable grazing pressure (i.e. decreaser,
increaser, invader)
Rangeland: land on which the plant community is comprised of predominately native or indigenous grasses, grass-like plants (e.g.
sedges), forbs and/or shrubs; in Manitoba also includes forested plant communities and plant communities modified by invasive
plants; often interchanged with the term range
Rangeland Health: the ability of a rangeland to perform ecological functions and create ecological goods and services efficiently
81
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Rangeland Health Assessment: the study of ecosystem indicators for the purpose of evaluating how well a rangeland or pastureland
will function
Rangeland Health Category: one of the three ratings into which a rangeland health assessment score may fall: Healthy, Healthy with
Problems, and Unhealthy
Rangeland Health Indicator: one of a number of qualities that are studied in order to evaluate how well a rangeland or pastureland
will function
Rangeland Units: large neighbouring areas of rangelands
Reach: a smaller segment of a water body whose riparian zone is used to represent the riparian zone of the whole water body, when
evaluating riparian health; see also Sample Plot
Reference Community: a plant community in pristine condition on a specific ecological site, whose qualities are compared to a
rangeland or pastureland on the same ecological site when evaluating rangeland health
Reproductive Propagules: structures of plants and other living creatures, including seeds, segments of roots, rhizomes, stolons,
bulbs, which allow a population to grow and spread over a landscape
Rest: absence of grazing on a field or entire range or pasture for a specified amount of time
Riparian Health Assessment: the study of ecosystem indicators for the purpose of evaluating how well a riparian area will function
ecologically
Riparian Health Indicator: one of a number of qualities that are studied in order to evaluate how well a riparian area will function
ecologically
Riparian: adjacent to water and/or influenced by free water such as rivers or streams; does not refer to open water
82
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Rotational Grazing: a grazing system in which animals are moved from one unit of pasture or range to another
Safe Use Factor: a factor multiplied by total forage production to calculate how much forage should be allocated to livestock or
wildlife; used to ensure enough vegetation is left behind to sustain itself and future functions
Sampling Plot: small defined area where observations are made, used as representative of large area of rangeland and pastureland
Season-Long Grazing System: A system that allows grazing on an area for an entire growing season without rest
Selective Grazing: grazing in which livestock eat forage they prefer
Symbiont: organism that lives in close and persistant association with another organism, may be beneficial or detrimental to other
symbiont
Shrub: a woody plant without a single main stem (trunk)
Simple Mixture: forage stand composed of two (or sometimes three or four) key plant species
Soil Chemistry: study of chemical characteristics of the soil which are affected by mineral composition, organic matter and
environmental factors
Soil Conservation: management and land-use methods that safeguard the soil against depletion or deterioration
Soil Exposure: the amount of soil visible at the soil surface (not covered by live or dead plant material); see also Ground Cover
Soil Organic Matter (SOM): organic fraction of the soil that includes microorganism, plant and animal residues and substances
excreted by the soil population
Soil Physical Characteristics: physical properties of soil, which include, but are not limited to texture, structure, porosity and
permeability
83
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Species Composition: the species present in a community or ecosystem; also, a list of the proportions that each species represents
in the whole community
Stocking Density: the number of livestock or wildlife actually present at a single point in time on a specific area of rangeland and
pastureland; preferred units are standard measures such as animal units per hectare (AU/ha), or hectares per animal unit (ha/AU)
Stocking Rate: the number of livestock or wildlife actually using a specified area of rangeland and pastureland for a specified period
of time; preferred units are standard measures such as animal unit months (AUM) or animal unit months per hectare of area
(AUM/ha)
Structural Diversity: a characteristic of an ecosystem or plant community that is represented by many different structural groups of
plants
Structural Group: a group of plant species that has similar growth form both below and above ground, for example, tall grasses,
short grasses, tall forbs, short shrubs, trees
Succession: an orderly and predictable sequence of changes in which an ecosystem becomes successively occupied by different
communities of higher ecological order
Supplemental Forage: additional forage provided to livestock above what is produced by the pasture or range
Sustainability: the capacity to ensure the provision of economic, environmental and sociocultural needs of future users
Sustainable Management: management that balances current economic, environmental and sociocultural needs while ensuring the
provision of those needs for future users
Switchback Rotational Grazing System: a grazing system with two fields where a field is used for ¼ of the grazing season, then
rested while a second field is used for ½ of the grazing season, then grazed again for the remaining ¼ of the season; the order of use
is switched from year to year
84
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Tall Grass Prairie: a very moist grassland which is a transition between deciduous forest to the east where there is a lot of rainfall,
and Mixed Grass prairie and Short Grass prairie to the west where it is very dry; soil is very deep and black and dominated by very
tall grass species such as big bluestem
Tame Pasturelands: all pasturelands by definition are tame, that is, they are seeded to exotic forages
Taste Aversion: dislike or avoidance of a particular substance because of its taste, smell or other characteristics
Topography: the shape of the land, commonly described by degree of flatness or hilliness, and regularity and steepness of slopes
Trampling: the action of animals stepping on living or dead plants, sometimes causing injury or death to live plants, sometimes
crushing live and dead plants into smaller pieces
Twice-over Rotational Grazing System: a grazing system designed to graze a field quickly, rest it, and then graze it for a longer
period, for the purposes of stimulating vegetation growth and improving soil microbial activity
Upland: land that is not wet, adjacent to or within water bodies
Upland Grasslands: lands on dry to moist, but not wet, soil that are dominated by grasses
Vegetation Zones: obvious areas on a landscape where the vegetation appears different; typically describing the different rings of
vegetation radiating away from water bodies
Warm-Season (C4) Plant: a plant which generally makes the major portion of its growth during spring and fall and sets seed in the
late spring or early summer
Water Cycling: cycle of evaporation and condensation that controls the distribution of the earth's water as it evaporates from bodies
of water, condenses, precipitates, and returns to those bodies of water; also called hydrologic cycle
Water Infiltration: downward entry of water into the soil
85
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Weed: any unwanted or undesirable plant, whether grass, forb, shrub or tree
Wetland: a lowland area, such as a marsh or swamp that is saturated with water
Wildlife Cover: any place an animal can use for living space(ex. nesting, hiding, safety)
Woody: producing wood as a tissue and growing from stems above the ground every year
86
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Appendix A Community Pastures Across the Prairies
The community pasture (CP) program is Agriculture Canada’s largest and longest running contribution to soil
conservation on the prairies. These pastures were established by the federal government during the drought in
the 1930s. Abandoned degraded agricultural lands were becoming a noticeable problem, as people were walking
away from the land and giving up on farming. [This is also when the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration
(PFRA) was created.] Across Canada, CPs cover in excess of 2 million acres. Approximately half a million acres are
in Manitoba. Most of the pasture acres can be considered as native rangelands, making these areas important for
biodiversity.
87
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
The mandate of the program is to conserve and protect the land from deterioration, and to use the land for
grazing of livestock. Grazing is used as a tool which also supports the diverse functioning prairie ecosystem, while
managing often what are considered as marginal soils.
In Manitoba, the community pastures were set aside starting in 1939. An agreement between the federal and
provincial government helped reclaim the badly eroded lands, or in Manitoba’s case, land which may also have
been frequently flooded or was severely sloped. Most of the land is Provincial Crown Land, a large portion of
88
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
some pastures is owned by municipalities, and some is held federally. Regardless of ownership, Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) has paid for infrastructure (e.g. fencing) and any applicable taxes. The pastures are
managed by federal staff who balance the needs of pasture patrons with those of environmental conservation
interests.
This past spring, as part of the federal budget cuts, it was announced that the community pasture program would
be ending, with pasture lands gradually reverting back to Provincial or RM management over a 6 year span. In
Manitoba, besides the half a million acres, this decision effects 62 federal employees, about 500 patrons, and 29
municipal governments, 7 of which have rural municipality (RM) land included in the pastures. Manitoba
Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives (MAFRI) is now working through the transfer of responsibility with
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). A stakeholders committee and municipal governments are also being
consulted.
Benefits from the CP Program
Benefits of the community pastures are numerous. The most obvious benefit belongs to the participating
livestock producer, as the program increases the land available for grazing. Patrons deliver the cattle to the CP by
a certain time in the spring, where they remain on pasture until late fall. Who gets into the pasture is decided on
by a local grazing association committee, called a Patron Advisory Committee (PAC), in cooperation with the
pasture manager (an AAFC employee). Grazing rates have been kept low. Rates range from $0.45/day per head to
$0.60/day for bulls. Breeding services and vet bills are charged back to patrons. Surrounding communities benefit
financially as supplies are often purchased locally, and salaries are spent by resident Pasture Managers and
Pasture Riders.
89
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
An evaluation of the community pasture program in 2002 indicated that these pastures provide a range of
benefits to the general public which are just as significant to those provided to patrons through grazing. These
public benefits include soil conservation, wildlife and waterfowl habitat, community development, carbon
sequestration, protection of watersheds and ecosystems, and other factors. In 2002, the total [prairie wide]
financial benefit was $49.6M, with 50% from grazing, and 50% from public benefits.
These pastures have been studied in detail, not only because they are important for grazing, but also because
they remain relatively large, intact native rangelands, on which we can evaluate such factors as climate change. A
large amount of data has been collected for grazing, species composition, range condition and health
assessments, and riparian surveys. A species at risk decision support tool was also developed for each pasture.
Because of the land management with grazing, community pastures have been maintained as habitat for species
which are being threatened elsewhere by normal farming practices. [The federal government was in the process
of negotiating a species at risk memorandum of understanding with the provincial government; that is currently
on hold.]
Manitoba’s Community Pastures
In Manitoba, there are 21 separate community pastures, which are found in most of the ecozones related to
agro-Manitoba. The one at the Pas (Pasquia) is the most northern pasture.
PFRA Pasture
Alonsa
Bield
Cote-San Clara
Ellice- Archie
Ethelbert-Dauphin
Total Acres
33150
7784
8235
37641
42152
Dominant Soil Class
45P/5W
4ST
3ST
5S
4SP/3S
90
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Gardenton-Pansy
Lakeview
Langford
Lenswood-Birch River
Libau-Netley
McCreary
Mulvihill
Narcisse
Pasquia
Portage
Spy Hill-Ellice
Sylvan Dale
Turtle Mountain
Wallace
Westbourne
Woodlands
12560
9280
20621
21683
2592
39955
17929
14074
5036
14290
38219
12178
22701
10082
12711
20977
5WP
4SP
6S
4WM
2W
4WP
4SP
5WP
5W
4SP
5W
5P/6P
5T/4T
5P
7W
4SP
Simplified Soil Class Table
Subclass
Limitations to
Production of
Annual Crops
Class 3
Class 4
Class 5
Class 6
Class 7
moderate to
severe
severe
very
severe
restricted to
perennial
crops
no
capability
91
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Topography
(T) (percent
5-9%
9-15%
15-30%
30-45%
Excess Water
(W)
loamy to fine
textured
Gleysols with
improved
drainage
coarse
textured
Gleysols
with
improved
drainage
poorly very poorly
drained drained
Stoniness (P)
very
>45%
slope calculated
by rise over run)
(S)
exceedingly
excessively
a combination of two or more limitations
92
open water
or marsh
fragmental
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Appendix B - Rangeland and Pasture Plant Species in Manitoba
Category
Grass or Grass like
Upland Grassland, conservatively
grazed
Upland Grassland, overgrazed
Upland Grassland, sandy
Mixed Grass Prairie upland
Fescue Prairie Upland
Tall Grass Prairie Upland
Forb
Shrub
Tree
big bluestem
fringed aster
saskatoon
aspen
porcupine grass
awned wheatgrass
June grass
Blue grama grass
Low sedge
sand reed grass
sand dropseed
porcupine grass
porcupine grass
needle and thread grass
June grass
plains rough fescue
awned wheatgrass
porcupine grass
big bluestem
side-oats grama
indiangrass
harebell
American vetch
Pasture sage
Pussytoes
Three-flowered avens
sunflower
silver psoralea
prickly rose
snowberry
snowberry
Prickly rose
oak
creeping juniper
choke cherry
saskatoon
creeping juniper
choke cherry
saskatoon
choke cherry
saskatoon
oak
aspen
balsam poplar
oak
aspen
choke cherry
saskatoon
oak
aspen
prairie coneflower
purple prairie clover
three-flowered avens
American vetch
wild strawberry
three-flowered avens
sunflower
purple prairie clover
goldenrod
93
oak
aspen
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Category
Wet Meadow
Woodland Pasture
Tame Pasture (Old Field)
Managed or Rejuvenated Pasture
Invasive species
Rare species
Grass or Grass like
Northern reed grass
Alkali cord grass
Awned sedge
White grained mountain rice grass
Purple oatgrass
awned wheatgrass
Kentucky bluegrass
smooth brome
creeping bent grass
smooth brome
meadow fescue
timothy
downy brome
Japanese brome
buffalo grass
plains rough fescue
indiangrass
94
Forb
wild mint
water hemlock
silverweed
Wild lily of the valley
Purple peavine
fringed aster
white clover
dandelion
wild strawberry
alfalfa
bird's-foot trefoil
red clover
leafy spurge
purple loosestrife
common tansy
rough agalinis
western spiderwort
small white lady's slipper
Shrub
red osier dogwood
willow
choke cherry
saskatoon
beaked hazel
Russian olive
European buckthorn
Tree
green ash
Manitoba maple
cotton wood
aspen
oak
balsam poplar
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Plant Species References
For more information on how to identify species as well as pictures, these references may be useful.
Moore, J. 2003. Common Native Pasture Plants of southern Manitoba; A landowner’s guide. Critical Wildlife Habitat Program. Winnipeg, Canada.
http://mbfc.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/1-6-Common-Native-Pasture-Plants-of-Manitoba.pdf
Hargrave, A. 2007. Identification of Common Range Plants of Northern Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Forage Council, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
http://www.saskforage.ca/publications/Northern.pdf
Better pictures in the original edition: http://www1.foragebeef.ca/$foragebeef/frgebeef.nsf/all/frg1057/$FILE/nativeplantidnorthernsk.pdf
Hargrave, A. 2007. Identification of Common Range Plants of Southern Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Forage Council, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
http://www.saskforage.ca/publications/Southern.pdf
Hargrave, A. 2007. Identification of Common Seeded Plants for Forage and Reclamation in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Forage Council,
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
http://www.saskforage.ca/publications/Forage%20&%20Reclamation.pdf
Old edition: http://mbfc.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/1-7-Common-seeded-forage-plants-of-Manitoba.pdf
Hargrave, A. 2007. Identification of Common Riparian Plants of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Forage Council, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
http://www.saskforage.ca/publications/Riparian.pdf
Original edition with good images: http://www1.foragebeef.ca/$Foragebeef/frgebeef.nsf/all/frg96/$FILE/riparianplantIDSk.pdf
Grasses Identified by their Vegetative Characteristics (webpage with additional relevant links; based on the book by Looman, J. entitled Prairie
Grasses Identified and Described by their Vegetative Characters)
http://www1.foragebeef.ca/$foragebeef/frgebeef.nsf/all/aafc143
Brown, Lauren. 1979. Grasses: An Identification Guide. Houghton-Mifflin Company, Boston. 240 pp.
Field Guide to the Native Trees of Manitoba. http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/forestry/pdf/health/fieldguidefinal.pdf
95
THINK TREES – Manitoba Forestry Association
Ontario Trees and Shrubs. http://ontariotrees.com/
United States Department of Agriculture. Plants Database. http://plants.usda.gov/java/
(search for plants by name to get images, geographic range, and links to descriptions)
H.J. Scoggan (1957). Flora of Manitoba. http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~bford/PDFs/Scoggan.pdf
Saskatchewan PCAP. Saskatchewan Invasive Plant Species Identification Guide
http://www.pcap-sk.org/docs/5_resandlit/Invasives_ID_Guide_2010_SFC_30Mar11.pdf
Stubbendieck, J., Hatch, S.L., and N.M. Bryan. 2011. North American Wildland Plants. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London.
Agriculture Canada. 1987. Budd’s Flora of the Canadian Prairie Provinces. Supply and Services Canada. Ottawa, Ontario
Rare plant species in Manitoba
http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wildlife/sar/sarlist.html
96
Appendix C
Background
•This scientific poster was prepared by University of Manitoba students as part of the Society for Range Management’s Rangeland Cup. The
Rangeland Cup is an activity to promote critical thinking and cooperative, collaborative work on current topics and/or topics of historical
importance to rangeland ecology and management (sound familiar?).
What is a scientific poster?
•A scientific poster is typically a fairly large display that quickly and effectively communicates information (usually research) at a meeting,
conference or seminar.
Invasive Species Management on Tolstoi Tall Grass Prairie Preserve in Manitoba
Lindsey Andronak1, Rachel Evans, 1 Alicia Leroux1, Gwen Donohoe 1, and Mae Elsinger2
1Departments of Soil Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3T 2N2
University of Manitoba Department of Animal Science
Manitoba Forage Council
2Agri‐Environmental Services Branch, Agriculture and Agri‐Food Canada, Brandon, MB, Canada R7A 5Y3
INTRODUCTION
Over 99% of the 6000 square kilometers that was once Tall Grass Prairie in southern
Manitoba is now cultivated, annual crop land. The remaining (less than 1%) can be found
within the Tolstoi Tall Grass Prairie Preserve, located south of the city of Winnipeg (Figure
1). These fragmented pieces of remaining Tall Grass Prairie are located on Black
Chernozemic soils with sandy surface texture overlying a high water table. Preserving
these fragmented pieces of tall grass prairie in Manitoba requires management practices
that favour native species and maintain biological diversity. Invasive species, including
leafy spurge and aspen, are currently the biggest threats to biological diversity. Climate
change along with social, political, and economic constraints will favour invasive species
and further complicate invasive species management strategies.
Society for Range Management Prairie Parkland Chapter
Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation
INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Prevention of Aspen Encroachment:
Grazing Fire
o Inexpensive and effective
o Pre‐planned boundaries under
o Forage yields can increase 5 ‐10x
controlled conditions
o More palatable forage
o Burn when plants are dormant and
o Use high stocking rates when
soil is moist
suckers have emerged with
o Attracts livestock to unutilized areas
rotational cycles o Reduces cover of weeds o Reseeding in burned areas
Table 1. Management in a deferred rotational grazing system following a spring burn.
Objectives: To prepare a 20‐year management plan for the Tolstoi Tall Grass Prairie
Preserve that will incorporate long‐term climate change and socio‐economic predictions
to ensure the survival of the last of the tall grass prairie in Manitoba.
Spring Figure 2. Aspen encroachment with leafy spurge understory.
2030 CLIMATIC PREDICTIONS
o ↑ temperature of 2oC o ↓ summer precipita on
o ↑ intensity of precipita on events
o Overall ↑ in precipita on
2030 SOCIOECONOMIC PREDICTIONS
o ↑ value for biodiversity the environment
o ↓ in livestock producers
o ↑ in acreages
o ↑ in farm size
o ↑ n annual crop produc on acres
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Summer Fall Defer grazing for up to 2 months or when suckers are established Adjust stocking rate with increase in forage supply High density, short duration grazing to 60% use of grasses Graze to 50% use of grasses High density, short duration grazing to 60% use of grasses Light grazing
Reduced suckers
Defer spring grazing by 2 weeks Normal graze
Graze to 40‐50% use of grasses Rest for re‐growth
Herbicide application for Leafy Spurge Normal graze
Normal graze
Year 4 Biological Control of Leafy Spurge:
o Flea beetles (Aphthona spp.)
• Larvae are root feeding, whereas, adults consume foliage
• Can be used in combination with grazing, fire, and chemical control
• Requires post‐release monitoring
o Sheep and goat grazing on isolated patches
Figure 1. Location of Tolstoi Tall Grass Prairie Preserve.
CONCLUSIONS
Aspen and leafy spurge are a serious threat to the continued existence of the native Tolstoi tall grass prairie preserve in Manitoba. With proper grazing and burning management techniques, the prairie should be able to thrive and even expand, despite climate change. It is anticipated that our proposed management techniques will be adaptable for other invasive species threats not described here.
PRIMARY INVASIVE THREATS IN 2010
o Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula)
• High water table has made it difficult for survival of biological control agents and use of herbicides
• Early emergence, deep rooted, high reproductive rate via seeds and vegetative roots, unpalatable (toxic) to many native fauna and livestock
o Aspen (Populus tremulodies)
• Although aspen is a native species to North America, it is not native to the tall grass prairie, and dense aspen encroachment has been displacing tall grass prairie species
Figure 3. Climate change predictions for 2030.
CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
o Grazing  Twice over grazing system (start date June 1 and end date October 15)
 Grazing areas and stocking density based on habitat acres of upland, sedge meadow, oak savannah, forest, and wetland areas
o Fire
 Attempted to be introduced, but socio‐economic constraints and weather make it a difficult management tool
o Socio‐economic
 Local producers with pasture land are encouraged to sign conservation easements which include grazing management plans
 Educational awareness programs
 Reseeding native species
Fire
Education
Management Changes
Summer precipitation will decrease but with an overall increase in precipitation, the
abundance of aspen and leafy spurge is favoured. This will result in the tall grass prairie being
more vulnerable to competitive invasive species that are adapted to lower summer
precipitation, such as downy brome. Our prediction for the following 20 years is optimistic by
believing biodiversity and conservation efforts will hold more value to Manitobans. To achieve
these goals, humans will have to play an active role in managing and maintaining the tall grass
prairie. Current management plans will be modified to adjust for decreased summer
precipitation and allow more flexibility due to increased intensity of precipitation. The use of
grazing, fire, biological control and education will be the main components of this adaptable
and flexible management plan to ensure the survival and biological diversity of the tall grass
prairie into the year 2030. The following demonstrates revised invasive species management
plan.
Healthy Tall Grass Prairie
Grazing
Biological
Control
Figure 4. Components of management plan to control existing and future invasive species.
References
What is Rangeland and Pasture?
Holecheck, J., Pieper, R.D. and C.H. Herbel. 2011. Range management: principles and practices 6th ed.
Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall/Pearson
North American Envirothon. 2012. Sustainable Rangeland Management: Achieving a balance between
Traditional Agricultural Uses with Non-Agricultural uses on Montana Rangelands. [online] Available from
http://www.envirothon.org/the-competition/current-competition/254.html
Settlement and Cultivation of Rangelands
Bailey, A.W., McCartney, D. and M.P. Schellenberg. 2010. Management of Canadian Prairie Rangeland.
Government of Canada. http://www.beefresearch.ca/files/pdf/factsheets/991_2010_02_TB_RangeMgmnt_E_WEB_2_.pdf
Who uses rangelands and for what purpose?
Wood, M. Figure 3 and Figure 4
Rangeland and Pasture Ownership, Management and Rights
Rangeland in Western Canada
Bailey, A.W., McCartney, D. and M.P. Schellenberg. 2010. Management of Canadian Prairie Rangeland.
Government of Canada. http://www.beefresearch.ca/files/pdf/factsheets/991_2010_02_TB_RangeMgmnt_E_WEB_2_.pdf
Horton, P.R. 1994. Range resources in the Canadian context, p. 16-30. IN: Taha, F.K., Abouguendia, Z.,
and Horton, P.R. Managing Canadian rangelands for sustainability and profitability, Proc. First
Interprovincial Range Conference in Western Canada. Grazing and Pasture Technology Program, Regina,
Saskatchewan.
McCartney, D. and Horton, P.R. 1999. Canada’s forage resources, p. 3-10. IN: Proc. XVIII International
Grassland Congress, Opening Session, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Statistics Canada. 2011. Census of Agriculture. Farm and Farm Operator Data. [online] Available from
http://www29.statcan.gc.ca/ceag-web/eng/data-type-selection-type-donnees?geoId=460000000.
Ecological Communities
Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation. 2010. Personal Communication.
University of Idaho Rangeland Centre. 2011. Rangelands: An Introduction to Idaho’s Wild Open Spaces.
University of Idaho
Grasslands of Manitoba
Bailey, A.W., McCartney, D. and M.P. Schellenberg. 2010. Management of Canadian Prairie Rangeland.
Government of Canada. http://www.beefresearch.ca/files/pdf/factsheets/991_2010_02_TB_RangeMgmnt_E_WEB_2_.pdf
Brennan, J. 2012. C3 Versus C4 Plants. [online] Available from http://www.ehow.com/info_8171376_c3versus-c4-plants.html
Sherritt, D. Figure 13
Ecoregions
Ecological Stratification Working Group. 1995. A National Ecological Framework for Canada. Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada [online] Available from
http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/publications/ecostrat/cad_report.pdf
Ecological Processes of Rangeland and Pasture
Busman, Lowell. 1997. The nature of phosphorus in soils. Minnesota Extension Service, University of
Minnesota. Figure 17
Encyclopedia Britannica. 1996. Energy Flow. Figure 16
Holecheck, J., Pieper, R.D. and C.H. Herbel. 2011. Range management: principles and practices 6th ed.
Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall/Pearson
Knight, R.W. 1993. Managing stocking rates to prevent adverse environmental impacts. In: Managing
livestock stocking rates on rangeland. P. 97-107. Texas Agricultural Extension Service, College Station,
Texas.
Moss, R. Figure 18
Tenuta, M. 2010. Personal Communication. Carbon Sequestration Seminar
Range Plant Identification
Colorado State University. 2011. Identifying Broadleaf Trees and Shrubs. [online] Available from
http://www.cmg.colostate.edu/gardennotes/153.html
Leithead, H.L., Yartlett, L.L. and T.N. Shiflet. 1971. 100 Native Forage Grasses in 11 Southern States.
Agriculture Handbook No. 389 U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D.C. Text and Figures 19-23
University of California. 2010. Identification: Characteristics of Broadleaf Plants. [online] Available from
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/WEEDS/ID/brdlfchar.html
Invasive Plant Species
Holecheck, J., Pieper, R.D. and C.H. Herbel. 2011. Range management: principles and practices 6th ed.
Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall/Pearson
Wood, M. Figure 25
Negative Plant Impacts on Animal Productivity
Gizaw, G.L. 2012. Personal Communication. Negative Plant Impacts on Animal Productivity Seminar
Sustainable Rangeland and Pasture Management
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2011. Mapping Supply and Demand for
Animal-Source Foods to 2030. Rome: FAO
Rural Development Institute. 2010. Economic Impact Assessment of Leafy Spurge in Southern Manitoba.
Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs)
Gizaw, G.L. 2012. Personal Communication. Negative Plant Impacts on Animal Productivity Seminar
Calculations related to Grazing Management Planning
Agricultural Research and Extension Council of Alberta. 2008. Grass Clippings: Stocking Rate
Calculations. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Pratt, M. and G.A. Rasmussen. 2001. Determining Your Stocking Rate. Utah State University
Other Range Management Considerations
Onischuk, L. 2007. Personal Communication. AGRI 1510 Production, Distribution & Utilization of
Agricultural Products
Oregon State University. 2008. Discuss the livestock dynamics on pastures and grazing. [online] Available
from
http://forages.oregonstate.edu/nfgc/eo/onlineforagecurriculum/instructormaterials/availabletopics/gra
zing/livestock
Interactions between Wildlife and Livestock
Government of Manitoba. Wildlife Disease: Bovine Tuberculosis in Elk. [online] Available from
http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wildlife/disease/bovine.html
Ranellucci, C.L., Koper, N. and D.C. Henderson. 2012. Twice-Over Rotational Grazing and Its Impacts on
Grassland Songbird Abundance and Habitat Structure. Rangeland Ecology & Management 65: 109-118.
Thornton, J. 2012. Personal Communication
Vavra, Martin, and Dennis P. Sheehy. 1996.Improving elk habitat characteristics with livestock grazing.
Rangelands 18: 182-185.
Rangeland and Pasture Assessment
Abouguendia, Z. 1990. Range Plan Development: A practical Guide to Planning for Management and
Improvement of Saskatchewan Rangeland. The New Pasture and Grazing Technologies Project.
Adams, B.W., Ehlert, G. Stone, C., et al. 2009. Rangeland Health Assessment for Grassland, Forest and
Tame Pasture. Government of Alberta.
http://www.srd.alberta.ca/LandsForests/GrazingRangeManagement/documents/RangelandHealthAsses
smentforGrasslandForestTamePasture-Revised-Apr2009.pdf
Launchbaugh, K. 2008. Assessing Rangeland Condition. University of Idaho
Riparian Health Council. 2004. Managing the Water’s Edge - Riparian Health Assessment for Streams and
Small Rivers. Version 1.
http://www.thinktrees.org/my_folders/Envirothon_Aquatics_Resources_2010/watersedge.pdf
Sherritt, D. Figure 34
Appendix A
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 2009. AESB Community Pastures with Land Management Districts
Gauer, E. 2012. Personal Communication
Appendix B
Andronak, L., Evans, R., Leroux, A., Donohoe, G. and M. Elsinger. 2010. Invasive Species Management on
Tolstoi Tall Grass Prairie Preserve in Manitoba. Joint Annual Meeting of the Society for Range
Management and the Weed Science Society of America, Denver, Colorado.
Appendix C
Invasive Species Council of Manitoba. Invasive Terrestrial Species List
http://invasivespeciesmanitoba.com/site/index.php?page=terrestrial-species
Thornton, J. 2012. Personal Communication