W W W . i n d u s t r Y. n s W . g o V . a u N AT I V E C O U C H G R A S S E S F O R R E H A B I L I TAT I O N A N D G R A Z I N G O N A S A LT S I T E – W E S T H U M E Case study – Albury s u s ta i n a b l e g r a z i n g o n s a l i n e l a n d s NSW GOVERNMENT RESEARCHERS BURRUMBUTTOCK, NEAR ALBURY grazing and to assess the amount (mass) and forage quality of the herbage produced. Soil test results are in the Appendix. The problem The West Hume Landcare Group commenced in 1990. Salinity has been a growing concern for members since the group’s inception. Salinity continues to express itself in isolated parts of the catchment and group members were keen to investigate more productive options for discharge sites in the future. The Landcare group, in conjunction with researchers from the then Department of Natural Resources, selected a saline site near Burrumbuttock for a series of plant evaluation trials. The site was traditionally moist throughout the year but very wet in winter. In recent years, the site has been much drier because of drought. Trials began in October 2001 with a preliminary screening trial. This was followed in August 2002 by a more quantitative study (Trial 1 below) and in August 2004 by a dietary preference study (Trial 2 overleaf ). Most, but not all, of the accessions evaluated were native warm-season perennials and were established vegetatively in late winter to early spring. Native species were selected because they were less likely to become weeds (though this was not guaranteed) and may even enhance local biodiversity. Trial 1 This replicated small-plot (0.5 m × 0.5 m) trial assessed survival, vigour, ground cover, herbage production and (laboratory) forage value for the following (for scientific names see Appendix): • commoncouchgrass • Australiansaltgrass • salt-watercouch • Condaminecouch • marinecouch • Malleelovegrass. During the second growing season, plants were cut every 4 to 6 weeks from October 2003 to April 2004 to simulate Results: Trial 1 This section comes entirely from a journal article by the researchers: Semple WS, Cole IA, Koen TB, Costello D and Stringer, D (2006) Native couch grasses for revegetating severely salinised sites on the inland slopes of NSW. Part 2. The Rangeland Journal 28, 163–173. The text below is, wherever possible, direct quotes from this paper, with occasional slight adaptation only when needed. Condamine couch ‘Relative to the other species, Condamine couch consistently produced the lowest amounts of herbage mass …’ ‘Groundcover was low …’ ‘Nevertheless it appeared to be a relatively ‘benign’ species, which, despite its ability to produce long stolons, is not reported to be weedy in its natural habitat … Hence, it would appear to be of limited use for pasture production but may be suitable for revegetation in conservation areas.’ Mallee love grass Survival of Mallee love grass was acceptable, but vigour and groundcover performance were unexceptional. As a consequence, this grass was not included in the subsequent herbage mass and forage value assessments. It did not appear to be a candidate for use as a production species, but being relatively benign and with no known weed potential it may have application in salinised conservation areas. Australian saltgrass This species had sharp underground shoots that grew vigorously, resulting in relatively quick spread. Survival was high, as was vigour, throughout much of the year. However, it was adversely affected by regular cutting, and the promise of high herbage mass production throughout the season was not realised, being similar to those of common couch and marine couch. Although protein content was similar to those of the other species, digestibility and energy were consistently and often significantly lower, and fibre Trial 2 usually higher, than in the others, suggesting it has limited application as a forage plant. This replicated trial (conducted in a new area with 5 m × 10 m plots) compared dietary preferences for some of the native grasses with those for some non-natives. Its ‘aggressive’ growth here was surprising, and its reported survival in non-saline areas urges caution in its use as a revegetation species outside its natural habitat. Its adverse reaction to regular cutting may, if stock can be made to eat it, offer a potential method of controlling this potentially weedy species. The trial was sown and planted in late August 2004. The soil was already damp, and there was a storm (5 to 7 mm rain) the day after sowing. No fertiliser was applied. Common couch, salt-water couch and marine couch The native grasses were established vegetatively at 1 m spacings: In terms of groundcover production, survival and vigour, all species performed well. • commoncouch In terms of herbage mass, salt-water couch was the best performer (up to 70 kg/ha/day), whereas marine couch and common couch were low producers (up to 25 kg/ha/day), at least under a regular cutting regime. Salt-water couch also produced herbage mass with higher digestibility and energy than did marine couch and common couch. Protein was similar in all species throughout the growing season. • salt-watercouch • Australiansaltgrass Two introduced pasture grasses were sown at 20 kg/ha with a plot-seeder: • ‘Tyrrell’tallwheatgrass • ‘Demeter’tallfescue. Marine couch was adversely affected by regular cutting; this suggests that it may not be appropriate for ‘saline pastures’ unless appropriately managed. In addition to these five species, untreated control plots (with naturalised annuals) were included in the design. The native grasses remained dormant until early November 2004. Tall fescue and tall wheatgrass germinated about 4 weeks after sowing. Note: This trial was part of a wider one that involved trials in central NSW as well. For conclusions on these species over all sites, see the journal article already mentioned. Dale Stringer Dale Stringer Case study – Albury N A T I V E C O U C H G R A S S E S F O R R E H A B I L I T A T I O N A N D G R A Z I N G O N A S A LT S I T E – W E S T H U M E Some of the grass species in their small plots in 2003. One grass plot being assessed in 2003. s u s ta i n a b l e g r a z i n g o n s a l i n e l a n d s Dale Stringer Small mobs of sheep were used in short grazing trials to assess the relative dietary preferences of sheep for these species in different seasons. The grazing observations were conducted in January, May and November 2006. Samples of each species were collected in May and November 2006 for feed quality analyses. Results: Trial 2 Feed quality Feed values were analysed for each species. The results are summarised in Table 1. In May, the nutritional value of the native grass species was lower than those of the two introduced species and the annual species. Sheep grazing plots of the grasses in the experiment to determine grazing preferences. Dale Stringer Spring 2006 was very dry, and the annual grasses had dried off. The November nutritional values of the annual grasses, common couch and Australian saltgrass were lower than those of the introduced species or salt-water couch. Grazing preferences In their second summer the pastures were established enough to graze. Small mobs of sheep were used by NSW DPI staff to graze the plots for short periods to determine the relative acceptability of the grasses to sheep. Table 2 shows the relative grazing preferences for each species. Preferences changed between times, with common couch preferred more in the warmer months. Although tall fescue and tall wheatgrass had high overall nutritional values, the grazing preferences did not reflect that quality. This might have been due to the fact that these plots were mown in the weeks immediately before the preference observations. Researchers observing sheep grazing the grass plots. Table 1. Feed values in Trial 2 Tall fescue Crude protein (%) Digestibility (%) Metabolisable energy (MJ/kg) May 2006 Nov 2006 May 2006 Nov 2006 May 2006 Nov 2006 14 10 62 58 8.9 8.7 Tall wheatgrass 14 11 62 56 9.1 8.2 Common couch Australian saltgrass 9 6 42 47 5.5 6.2 9 8 53 55 7.6 7.8 Salt-water couch 7 16 54 64 7.6 9.1 Untreated naturalised annual controls* 22 9 60 50 8.4 6.9 * Mainly sea barley grass and annual beard grass. Table 2. Relative grazing preferences in Trial 2 Tall fescue Tall wheatgrass January May November 0 0 0 – + 0 ++ Strong preference + Low preference 0 expected chance – least preferred Common couch Australian saltgrass Salt-water couch Untreated Control ++ 0 + 0 0 – – 0 +? 0 0 0 Case study – Albury N A T I V E C O U C H G R A S S E S F O R R E H A B I L I T A T I O N A N D G R A Z I N G O N A S A LT S I T E – W E S T H U M E IMPORTANT NOTE APPENDIx These two trials produced results that represented performance at this site, with its unique soil characteristics, in the climatic conditions prevailing in the brief periods in which measurements were taken, and with the accessions of plant species chosen. They do not represent definitive results for these species that can be used for recommendations on their performance at all salt sites, but they make good contributions to knowledge in this area. Scientific and common names of native and exotic (*) grass species used in the trials Acknowledgments The information on Trial 1 comes from Bill Semple (retired, formerly researcher with NSW Department of Natural Resources) and from the paper mentioned, of which he is the lead author. The information on Trial 2 comes from Dr Greg Lee, Livestock Research Officer, Industry & Investment NSW. David Costello, formerly West Hume Landcare Group and Dale Stringer, Murray Catchment Management Authority. Scientific name Cynodon dactylon Distichlis distichophylla Paspalum vaginatum Sporobolus mitchellii Sporobolus virginicus Eragrostis dielsii Thinopyrum ponticum Festuca arundinacea Rainfall during trial (mm) (average annual rainfall = 601 mm at Albury) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 2004 12 0 0 19 39 111 2005 72 82 10 15 5 104 2006 6 6 34 40 19 30 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total 2004 51 61 52 8 111 75 539 2005 40 100 106 88 46 54 722 2006 38 11 27 2 23 2 238 NSW Salt Teams. Prepared by Luke Beange, Advisory Officer, Industry & Investment NSW Common name and accession/cultivar ‘Aberdeen’ common couch grass* ‘Lake Charm’ Australian saltgrass ‘Ootha’ saltwater couch ‘Carop’ Condamine couch ‘Port Macquarie’ marine couch ‘Lake Charm’ Mallee love grass ‘Tyrrell’ tall wheatgrass* ‘Demeter’ tall fescue* Topsoil (0 to 10 cm) characteristics for Trial 1* Estimated ECe (dS/m) pH (1:5 soil:water) Mean 9.1 9.1 Range 0.7–33.5 8.7–9.7 * From Semple WS, Cole IA, Koen TB, Costello D and Stringer, D (2006) Native couch grasses for revegetating severely salinised sites on the inland slopes of NSW. Part 2. The Rangeland Journal 28, 163–173. Disclaimer © State of New South Wales through Department of Industry and Investment (Industry & Investment NSW) 2010. The information contained in this publication is based on knowledge and understanding at the time of writing (June 2010). However, because of advances in knowledge, users are reminded of the need to ensure that information upon which they rely is up to date and to check currency of the information with the appropriate officer of Industry & Investment NSW or the user’s independent adviser. Recognising that most of the information in this document is provided by third parties, the State of New South Wales, the author and the publisher take no responsibility for the accuracy, currency, reliability and correctness of any information included in the document provided by third parties. jn 7346-13 The product trade names in this publication are supplied on the understanding that no preference between equivalent products is intended and that the inclusion of a product name does not imply endorsement by the Industry & Investment NSW over any equivalent product from another manufacturer. ALWAYS READ THE LABEL Users of agricultural or veterinary chemical products must always read the label and any permit, before using the product, and strictly comply with the directions on the label and the conditions of any permit. Users are not absolved from compliance with the directions on the label or the conditions of the permit by reason of any statement made or not made in this publication.
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz