Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br /> stand. These considerations are not decisive and leave <br /> the reclamation supervisor without positive direction. <br /> When costs , however, are included, and when it is pointed <br /> out that thousands of acres of dry land, non-irrigated <br /> range seedings in the Great Plains have been successful , <br /> the decision can logically be to take the chance of planting <br /> without irrigation. Moreover, the value of sorghum stubble <br /> cover will significantly conserve moisture and add to the <br /> soundness of not irrigating. <br /> 2 . 3 Weed Control <br /> Russian-thistle comprised 62 per cent of the <br /> production and 35 per cent of the cover in the 1986 Reclam- <br /> ation Area. This heavy growth of a weed brings up the issue <br /> of weed control . An agronomic answer to weed competition <br /> is to use a herbicide; but this would be more feasible and ap- <br /> plicable for pasture plantings and intensive cropland <br /> uses . Weeds in rangeland plantings can be viewed with less <br /> alarm. because weed growth, within reason, favors succession <br /> toward a perennial plant .cover. The 1986 area often had <br /> seeded perennial grasses growing beneath the dense weed <br /> cover. A significant reduction in weed growth this year in <br /> the ' 85 RA supports the recommendation to rule out the <br /> need to control weeds . <br /> Opponents to herbicidal control of weeds in <br /> range seedings for reclamation areas stress the value of <br /> forbs and shrubs in the stand because they are largely <br />