Interrelationships between net primary production, ground-storey condition and grazing capacity of the Acacia aneura rangelands of semi-arid Australia

Christie, EK; Hughes, P.G.

doi:10.1016/0308-521x(83)90059-8

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Generally, good condition areas produced the most forage, followed by fair condition stands, with poor condition areas producing the least forage. These results are similar to those reported by Goebel and Cook (1960), Cook et al (1962), Christie and Hughes (1981), and Powell et al (1982). Nevertheless, this relationship was found in only 60% of the locations sampled.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…If the species which increase are less palatable, less available, or less digestible for a specific herbivore than those which decrease, forage value of the vegetation may be diminished for that animal. In some cases forage production for livestock has been shown to be greater on good condition ranges than on poor condition ranges as rated by the climax approach (Goebel and Cook 1960, Cook et al 1962, Christie and Hughes 1981, Powell et al 1982. In other cases, poor or fair condition rangeland may produce more forage for livestock than good condition range (e.g., Cook et al 1965).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Biomass Productivity and Range Condition on Range Sites in Southern Arizona

Frost¹,

Smith²

1991

Journal of Range Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Range condition is usually defined by similarity of current to climax or potential vegetation. It is often assumed that rangelands in low condition are biologically less productive than those in higher condition. The objective of this study was to determine if range condition (ecological status) is related to total productivity or to forage production for livestock. Adjacent areas along fencelines representing differences in range condition were sampled in 58 locations. These comparisons represented 31 different range sites across southern Arizona. Weight by species of above-ground peak standing crop current year's growth of vegetation was estimated using the dry-weight-rank/comparative yield methods. Range condition was rated with Soil Conservation Service range site descriptions. Species were classified as forage or non-forage to estimate forage available for cattle. In 75-85% of comparisons of good condition sites to fair condition, good to poor, and fair to poor, total current year's standing crop did not differ significantly. Where differences were significant, productivity was not consistently more on the high condition class. Forage production, however, was more from the stand in the higher condition class in about 213 of the comparisons. We concluded that in southern Arizona rangelands in higher condition (higher seral) classes usually produce more forage for cattle than lower condition classes on the same range site. Nevertheless, il is not usually true that total biomass productivity on low condition range is less than the same range site in higher condition.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomass Productivity and Range Condition on Range Sites in Southern Arizona

Frost¹,

Smith²

1991

Journal of Range Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mitchell grass pastures are found on cracking clay soils of better fertility and water holding capacity. Ninety per cent of annual forage growth occurs over summer (Christie and Hughes 1983).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They indicated the model may offer graziers, land administrators and financiers a tool to (a) guide strategic decisions (20-30 year) regarding grazing capacities and (b) assist in an objective review of grazing capacities of individual properties in south-west Queensland. While tools for assessing grazing capacities and stocking rates have been described by Condon et al (1969) (for western New South Wales, Australia), Christie and Hughes (1983) (south-west Queensland, Australia), Forge (1994) (Queensland, Australia), Scanlan et al (1994) (North Queensland, Australia), Curry et al (1994) (Murchison river catchment, Western Australia), Pringle et al (1994) (north-eastern goldfields, Western Australia), Ogwang (1992) (Swaziland, Africa), de Leeuw and Tothill (1993) (Sub-Saharan Africa) and Holechek (1988) (United States rangelands), none have been applied and evaluated on individual properties in south-west Queensland.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Objective `Safe' Grazing Capacities for South-West Queensland Australia: Model Application and Evaluation.

Johnston¹,

Tannock²,

Beale³

1996

Rangel. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes the employment of two experienced graziers as consultants to apply and evaluate a model for calculating 'safe' long-term grazing capacities of individual properties. The model was based on ecological principles and entailed estimates of average annual forage grown (kglha) on the different land systems on each property and the calculation of the number of livestock (dry sheep equivalents, DSE) required to 'safely' utilise this forage. The grazier consultants applied and evaluated the 'safe' grazing capacity model on 20 properties of their choosing. For evaluation, model results were compared with; (a) the Department of Lands rated carrying capacities for those properties and (b) the grazing capacity assessed independently by the owners of those properties. For the 20 properties, the average 'safe' grazing capacity calculated by the model (21.0 DSE/kmZ) was 8% lighter than the average of the owner assessed capacities (22.7 DSE/kmZ), which in tum was 37% lighter than the average of the pre-1989 Department of Lands rated carrying capacity (31.0 DSE/kmZ). The grazing land management and administrative implications of these results and the role graziers played as consultants are discussed.

show abstract

“…• estimation of sustainable land uses (Christie and Hughes 1983, Stafford Smith et al 1995, Hansen and Jones 1996;…”

Section: Uses Of Simulation Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Near-real time financial assessment of the Queensland wool industry on a regional basis

Hall

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

TJiis thesis describes a systems analysis of the Queensland wool industry at a farm-enterprise level, and development of a computer simulation model designed to provide near real-time physical and financial information to policy makers at a regional level as an aid to decision making.Extensive reviews of the main biological factors affecting the wool enterprise were completed: diet selection and feed intake, protein digestion and metabolism, energy digestion and metabolism, wool growth, reproduction and mortalit}\ A sensitivity analysis of three separate bio-economic models was carried out to identify system components having the greatest impact on the financial performance of wool enterprises. Fleece production, wool price and total variable costs were found to be the most important determinants in each model. Grazfeed, a commercially available software package based on the Australian feeding standards for ruminants, was tested for its ability to simulate animal production as observed in Queensland sheep grazing experiments. A FORTRAN version of the required code for sheep and cattle was written and used in the subsequent analysis. These experiments varied greatly, both temporally and spatially. A number of problems in trial management and methodology were identified, these often required adjustment of recorded data. The collation of trial data was done in a manner that allowed ease of use in computer models. Optimisation software was used to modify parameters and equations within the model in an attempt to improve the agreement between predicted and observed values. Grazfeed was found to be unsuitable using the available test data.Regression analysis techniques were then used to identify climate, soil water, pasture and dietary variables which were able to explain the observed grazing trial variation in annual fleece production and liveweight change. The dietary variables were estimated using a theoretical diet selection subroutine, and a feed intake subroutine based on

show abstract

Interrelationships between net primary production, ground-storey condition and grazing capacity of the Acacia aneura rangelands of semi-arid Australia

Cited by 5 publications

References 18 publications

Biomass Productivity and Range Condition on Range Sites in Southern Arizona

Biomass Productivity and Range Condition on Range Sites in Southern Arizona

Objective `Safe' Grazing Capacities for South-West Queensland Australia: Model Application and Evaluation.

Near-real time financial assessment of the Queensland wool industry on a regional basis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About