Emergence and Growth of Six Mixed Prairie Grasses under the Influence of Yucca glauca Extract

1968 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 136
Author(s):  
S. Emory Young ◽  
G. K. Hulett
Keyword(s):  
Prairie Grasses ◽  
Mixed Prairie

Seasonal Protein Content of Four Southern Mixed Prairie Grasses

1967 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 177
Author(s):  
J. Daniel Rodgers ◽  
Thadis W. Box
Keyword(s):  
Protein Content ◽  
Prairie Grasses ◽  
Mixed Prairie

Wheat Crops and Native Prairie in Relation to the Nutritional Ecology of Camnula pellucida (Scudder) (Orthoptera: Acrididae) in Saskatchewan

1963 ◽  
Vol 95 (7) ◽  
pp. 764-770 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Pickford
Keyword(s):  
Dominant Role ◽  
Nutritional Ecology ◽  
Bouteloua Gracilis ◽  
Field Cage ◽  
Agropyron Smithii ◽  
Native Prairie ◽  
Prairie Grasses ◽  
Complete Life Cycle ◽  
Stipa Comata ◽  
Mixed Prairie

AbstractField cage experiments conducted through the complete life cycle of Camnula pellucida (Scudder) demonstrated that wheat, the major cereal crop grown in Saskatchewan, played the dominant role in the nutritional ecology of this grasshopper. A native sod mixture, comprising Stipa comata, Bouteloua gracilis, Agropyron smithii, and Carex eleocharis, four of the dominant species of the mixed prairie association, was consistently unfavourable during all stages of grasshopper growth and development. Grasshoppers reared on wheat survived better, were considerably larger and laid up to 20 times more eggs than those reared on the native prairie grasses. The presence of the native sod with wheat contributed nothing nutritionally to the food combination. The unfavourable qualities of the native grasses, although resulting in small adults, low fecundity and small pods, did not affect the hatchability of eggs laid or the development and survival of nymphs that hatched from them.

scholarly journals 500 Consumer Viewpoints on Prairie Grass and Wildflower Plantings

HortScience ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 531D-531 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greg L. Davis ◽  
Julie Schimelfenig
Keyword(s):  
Agricultural Research ◽  
Late Summer ◽  
Research Area ◽  
Plant Population ◽  
Prairie Grasses ◽  
Landscape Plants ◽  
Prairie Grass ◽  
Second Year ◽  
Mixed Prairie ◽  
Development Center

Public interest in installing landscapes for reduced maintenance remains high. While availability and specification of native and/or adapted landscape plants such as wildflowers and prairie grasses increase, establishment, management, and expectations of such plantings are not well understood. Our objectives in this study were to measure temporal changes of mixed prairie wildflower plantings under various management regimes and to determine consumer expectations and preferences in these plantings. Nine combinations of wildflowers and prairie grasses were planted in June 1997 at the John Seaton Anderson Turfgrass and Ornamental Research Area, Univ. of Nebraska Agricultural Research Development Center near Mead. On-site surveys were conducted during the Festival of Color, a popular outreach event that occurs annually in September at the site. In 1997 and 1998, the festival attracted more than 9000 and 10,500 participants, respectively, of which 750 completed the survey. To determine preferences for planting compositions, plot desirability ratios were calculated from scaled responses. In 1997, respondents preferred the planting composed of only annuals by a ratio of 5.8: 1 (rated desirable vs. undesirable). This result changed dramatically by the second year, in which the desirability ratio for annuals was 0.3: 1, while that of the combination of perennials and annuals was 11.2: 1. Our plant population density and flowering data validate consumers' preference for abundant color. In late summer of the establishment year (1997), the percentage of the plant population in full bloom was highest in the planting of annuals alone as expected and in 1998 was lowest in the annuals.

scholarly journals Effect of Fire on Southern Mixed Prairie Grasses

1974 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry A. Wright
Keyword(s):  
Prairie Grasses ◽  
Mixed Prairie

Consumer Preferences in Mixed Prairie Wildflower Plantings

HortScience ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 450c-450
Author(s):  
G.L. Davis ◽  
J. Schimelfenig
Keyword(s):  
Agricultural Research ◽  
Consumer Preferences ◽  
Consumer Preference ◽  
Research Area ◽  
First Year ◽  
Pesticide Use ◽  
Prairie Grasses ◽  
Mixed Prairie ◽  
Development Center

A goal of this study is to establish temporal evaluations of the problems homeowners may encounter when establishing mixed prairie wildflower plantings. These plantings are often attempted with the notion that the composition of the planting will remain static over time with little or no maintenance. Six combinations of wildflowers and prairie grasses were compared for consumer preference. A survey was conducted at the long-term forbs research plots during the Festival of Color, an open house event at the John Seaton Anderson Turfgrass and Ornamental Research Area, Univ. of Nebraska Agricultural Research Development Center near Mead, Neb. Of the 9000 participants in the festival, ≈850 visited the plots. Of those, nearly 300 completed the survey instrument. Results from the first year indicate that the majority of respondents were homeowners who do their own yard work. Most of them considered a low maintenance landscape to be an important way in which to conserve resources such as water and fertilizer and reduce pesticide use. Most had grown prairie wildflowers and considered them to be low maintenance. The study showed that, depending on the planting composition, it would require between 59 and 118 h of weeding to establish wildflowers in the majority of respondents' home landscapes, which were between 1717 m2 and 1525 m2. The majority (56%) of visitors preferred combinations that included annuals but excluded prairie grasses. The majority (66%) disliked the combinations of prairie grasses without the inclusion of wildflowers.

Seasonal and temperature effects on mycorrhizal activity and dependence of cool- and warm-season tallgrass prairie grasses

1992 ◽  
Vol 70 (8) ◽  
pp. 1596-1602 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. P. Bentivenga ◽  
B. A. D. Hetrick
Keyword(s):  
Tallgrass Prairie ◽  
Mycorrhizal Fungi ◽  
Warm Season ◽  
Growing Season ◽  
Cool Temperature ◽  
Cool Season ◽  
Fungal Activity ◽  
Prairie Grasses ◽  
Vesicular Arbuscular ◽  
Warm Season Grasses

Previous research on North American tallgrass prairie grasses has shown that warm-season grasses rely heavily on vesicular–arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis, while cool-season grasses are less dependent on the symbiosis (i.e., receive less benefit). This led to the hypothesis that cool-season grasses are less dependent on the symbiosis, because the growth of these plants occurs when mycorrhizal fungi are inactive. Field studies were performed to assess the effect of phenology of cool- and warm-season grasses on mycorrhizal fungal activity and fungal species composition. Mycorrhizal fungal activity in field samples was assessed using the vital stain nitro blue tetrazolium in addition to traditional staining techniques. Mycorrhizal activity was greater in cool-season grasses than in warm-season grasses early (April and May) and late (December) in the growing season, while mycorrhizal activity in roots of the warm-season grasses was greater (compared with cool-season grasses) in midseason (July and August). Active mycorrhizal colonization was relatively high in both groups of grasses late in the growing season, suggesting that mycorrhizal fungi may proliferate internally or may be parasitic at this time. Total Glomales sporulation was generally greater in the rhizosphere of cool-season grasses in June and in the rhizosphere of the warm-season grasses in October. A growth chamber experiment was conducted to examine the effect of temperature on mycorrhizal dependence of cool- and warm-season grasses. For both groups of grasses, mycorrhizal dependence was greatest at the temperature that favored growth of the host. The results suggest that mycorrhizal fungi are active in roots when cool-season grasses are growing and that cool-season grasses may receive benefit from the symbiosis under relatively cool temperature regimes. Key words: cool-season grasses, tallgrass prairie, vesicular–arbuscular mycorrhizae, warm-season grasses.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document