Effects of sheep grazing on a spotted knapweed-infested Idaho fescue community

  • Published source details Olson B.E., Wallander R.T. & Lacey J.R. (1997) Effects of sheep grazing on a spotted knapweed-infested Idaho fescue community. Journal of Range Management, 50, 386-390.


In the Northern Rocky Mountain foothills of northwest USA, the perennial forb, spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa (native to Eurasia) is invasive, replacing native perennial grasses (e.g. Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis). This study undertaken near Bozeman city (111°4’ N, 45°36’ W; 1,570 m, Montana), tested whether three summers of sheep grazing would reduce spotted knapweed without detrimentally impacting the native grassland community.


In 1991, three 10 x 10 m grazing plots were enclosed with electric fencing within a 3-ha pasture (horse-grazed prior to study). Before sheep grazing commenced, standing crop in mid-June averaged 1,580 kg/ha, dominated by Idaho fescue (41%) and spotted knapweed (25%). In the summers of 1991-1993, each plot was grazed by five Targhee ewes for: 5-7 days in mid-June, 2-6 days in July and 1-2 days in early September.
Four 10 m transects (with 0.5-m² quadrats at l m intervals) were established within and outside each plot. The following were recorded prior to grazing in June 1991, and subsequently in June 1992 and 1993, and June 1994 (9 months after grazing ceased): densities of spotted knapweed (seedlings, rosettes and mature plants), Idaho fescue and arrowleaf balsamroot Balsamorhiza sagittata; Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis frequency; bare ground and litter cover.

Basal area, number of flower stems, flower stem and leaf height of knapweed and Idaho fescue plants were measured in 1994. Soil seed bank samples were collected in summer 1991 and 1994, from which viable knapweed seed densities were estimated.



Spotted knapweed: In 1994, grazed areas had lower seedling, rosette and mature plant densities (3, 10 and 65/m² respectively) than ungrazed areas (11, 79 and 115/m² respectively; note: values approximate, read of original graphs). Basal area was greater in grazed (8.2 cm²) than ungrazed areas (4.0 cm²). There were fewer seeds in soil samples in grazed (12 seeds/m²) than ungrazed (49 seeds/m²) areas. Presence of few seedlings after 1991 (both treatments) may have been due to herbivory by seedhead fly Urophora spp. (first observed in 1992).
Other plants: Idaho fescue plant density increased in grazed areas from about 20% in 1991 to 31% in 1994; leaves and flower stems were 38% and 17% shorter, respectively, than in ungrazed areas. Kentucky bluegrass frequency(approx. 61% in 1991) by 1994 was about 90% in grazed and 69% in ungrazed areas.
Arrowleaf balsamroot frequency varied from 7-8% in grazed areas and 12-15% in ungrazed areas from 1991 to 1994. Grazing did not affect litter cover (59-70% in all years). Bare soil increased from 2.2 to 5.6% cover in grazed areas, and decreased from 4 to 1% in ungrazed areas.
In conclusion, the three summers of sheep grazing negatively impacted spotted knapweed whilst minimally affecting the native grass community.
Note: If using or referring to this published study, please read and quote the original paper, this can be viewed at:


Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust