2002
DOI: 10.1006/jema.2001.0514
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of a forage allocation model for Theodore Roosevelt National Park

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…On the basis of the species-specific forage rates partitioned across the available forage types, and a habitat classification of EINP, our analysis (972 animals) best matched the actual number of animals (959) recorded in EINP in 1996 when forage use was set to 7% ( Table 3). This result is insightful given safe-use factors (SUF) for forage removal by native ungulates is commonly set between 35-50% of annual growth [18,20,22].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 93%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…On the basis of the species-specific forage rates partitioned across the available forage types, and a habitat classification of EINP, our analysis (972 animals) best matched the actual number of animals (959) recorded in EINP in 1996 when forage use was set to 7% ( Table 3). This result is insightful given safe-use factors (SUF) for forage removal by native ungulates is commonly set between 35-50% of annual growth [18,20,22].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…x 1 0.01 animals/ha x 3 0.03 animals/ha Forage supply was estimated using annual production of three forage classes (grass, forbs, shrubs) across four habitat types, and subsequently matched with the annual dietary preferences and forage intake levels of each ungulate species [20,48,49]. A forage "production by habitat" availability matrix summarized forage biomass within each of the four major habitat types of EINP ( Table 1).…”
Section: Materials and Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations