Abstract
Four native perennial grasses, Aristida ramosa R.Br. (wire grass), Bothrioc.llloa macra (Steud) S.T. Blake (red grass), Spovo- bolus elongatus R.Br. (slender rats tail grass) and Stipa variabilis Hughes (corkscrew grass) were collected from 60 randomly allocated quadrats (0.16 m2) in a grazed unfertilized native pasture in November 1979. In each quadrat all plants of each species were counted, harvested individually and their basal areas were estimated. The mass of green leaf, green stem, dead herbage and total herbage of each species was estimated using the mean mass of the individual plants harvested in each of the quadrats. A method for determining the relative importance of the components of this herbage mass viz. plant density, basal area and mass per unit basal area is presented and these values are compared for each species. Plant density contributed significantly fP <0.05) to green leaf, green stem, dead and total herbage mass estimates of A. ramosa and S. elongatus; basal area to all herbage mass estimates of A. ramosa, S. elongatus and S. variabilis; and mass per unit basal area to all herbage mass estimates of A. ramosa and B. macra. The plant basal area of individual plants contributed signifi- cantly more (P <0.05) to the herbage mass estimate of S. vaviabilis and S, elongatus plants than did mass per unit basal area, whereas for B. rnacra mass per unit basal area was the significant (P < 0.05) component. Field procedures for estimating herbage mass and assessing the relative significance of its components are discussed and the extra time taken to collect plant density, plant basal area, and plant mass per unit basal area datais outlined.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 10
Claim · model-written summary
Plant density contributed significantly to green leaf, stem, dead and total herbage mass of A. ramosa.
- Taxon
- A. ramosa
Aristida ramosae0 - Treatment
- Plant densitye0
- Outcome
- green leaf, green stem, dead and total herbage mass estimatese0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plant density contributed significantly fP <0.05) to green leaf, green stem, dead and total herbage mass estimates of A. ramosa and S. elongatus”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant density contributed significantly to herbage mass of S. elongatus.
- Taxon
- S. elongatuse0
- Treatment
- Plant densitye0
- Outcome
- green leaf, green stem, dead and total herbage mass estimatese0
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Plant density contributed significantly fP <0.05) to green leaf, green stem, dead and total herbage mass estimates of A. ramosa and S. elongatus”
Claim · model-written summary
Basal area contributed to all herbage mass estimates for A. ramosa.
- Taxon
- A. ramosaAristida ramosae0
- Treatment
- basal areae0
- Outcome
- herbage mass estimatese0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“basal area to all herbage mass estimates of A. ramosa, S. elongatus and S. variabilis”
Claim · model-written summary
Basal area contributed to all herbage mass estimates for S. elongatus.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“basal area to all herbage mass estimates of A. ramosa, S. elongatus and S. variabilis”
Claim · model-written summary
Basal area contributed to all herbage mass estimates for S. variabilis.
- Taxon
- S. variabilisAustrostipa variabilise0
- Treatment
- basal areae0
- Outcome
- herbage mass estimatese0
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“basal area to all herbage mass estimates of A. ramosa, S. elongatus and S. variabilis”
Claim · model-written summary
Mass per basal area contributed to all herbage mass estimates for A. ramosa.
- Taxon
- A. ramosaAristida ramosae0
- Treatment
- mass per unit basal areae0
- Outcome
- herbage mass estimatese0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mass per unit basal area to all herbage mass estimates of A. ramosa and B. macra”
Claim · model-written summary
Mass per basal area contributed to all herbage mass estimates for B. macra.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“mass per unit basal area to all herbage mass estimates of A. ramosa and B. macra”
Claim · model-written summary
Individual basal area contributed more to S. vaviabilis herbage mass than mass per basal area.
Verbatim
e0“The plant basal area of individual plants contributed signifi- cantly more (P <0.05) to the herbage mass estimate of S. vaviabilis and S, elongatus plants than did mass per unit basal area”
Claim · model-written summary
Individual basal area contributed more to S, elongatus herbage mass than mass per basal area.
Verbatim
e0“The plant basal area of individual plants contributed signifi- cantly more (P <0.05) to the herbage mass estimate of S. vaviabilis and S, elongatus plants than did mass per unit basal area”
Claim · model-written summary
Mass per basal area was the significant herbage mass component for B. rnacra.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“for B. rnacra mass per unit basal area was the significant (P < 0.05) component.”