Abstract
Many methods exist for estimating species composition, but few studies compare those useful in improved horse pastures. The objective of this study was to examine 4 techniques for estimating desirable forage species composition in 2 cool-season horse pastures based on prevalence estimates, repeatability, bias, and practicality, and to select a method for use in a subsequent grazing study. The techniques included Equine Pasture Evaluation Disc (EPED), Line-Point Intercept with 3 transects of 50 observations each (LPI 3-50), LPI with 5 transects of 30 observations each (LPI 5-30), and Step Point (StPt). A generalized linear-mixed effects model procedure of SAS (GLIMMIX) with a logit link was used to test for differences among each species separately. When methods were significantly different (α = 0.05), pairwise comparisons were performed using a paired t-test. The methods did not differ in detecting creeping bentgrass (P = 0.3334) or orchardgrass (P = 0.4207), but there were differences for Kentucky bluegrass (P = 0.0082), tall fescue (P = 0.0314), and other (P = 0.0448). Repeatability plots displayed lower method repeatability as species prevalence increased. Agreement was analyzed between pairs of methods by grass species. Five out of 30 pairs showed significant overall bias (P = 0.0114, 0.0045, 0.0170, 0.0328, and 0.0404), and 3 of them were between LPI 3-50 and EPED. The LPI 3-50 and LPI 5-30 techniques agreed perfectly in prevalence and bias, as did StPt and EPED, meaning they can be used interchangeably. The techniques LPI 3-50 and EPED were the most dissimilar methods. In conclusion, StPt can be used interchangeably with LPI, but StPt was selected due to its thorough representation of the pastures and ease of use.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
The techniques did not differ in detecting creeping bentgrass.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrass
Agrostis stoloniferae0 - Outcome
- detecting creeping bentgrasse0
- Direction
- did not differe0
- Value
- P = 0.3334e0
- Comparator
- methodse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The methods did not differ in detecting creeping bentgrass (P = 0.3334)”
Claim · model-written summary
The techniques did not differ in detecting orchardgrass.
- Taxon
- orchardgrass
.jpg?width=60)
Dactylis glomeratae0 - Outcome
- orchardgrasse0
- Direction
- did not differe1
- Value
- P = 0.4207e0
- Comparator
- methodse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“or orchardgrass (P = 0.4207)”
e1“The methods did not differ in detecting creeping bentgrass”
Claim · model-written summary
Methods differed in detecting Kentucky bluegrass.
- Taxon
- Kentucky bluegrass
.jpg?width=60)
Poa pratensise0 - Outcome
- Kentucky bluegrasse0
- Direction
- differencese0
- Value
- P = 0.0082e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“there were differences for Kentucky bluegrass (P = 0.0082), tall fescue (P = 0.0314), and other (P = 0.0448)”
Claim · model-written summary
Methods differed in detecting tall fescue.
- Taxon
- tall fescue
Lolium arundinaceume0 - Outcome
- tall fescuee0
- Direction
- differencese0
- Value
- P = 0.0314e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there were differences for Kentucky bluegrass (P = 0.0082), tall fescue (P = 0.0314), and other (P = 0.0448)”
Claim · model-written summary
Methods differed in detecting other.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“there were differences for Kentucky bluegrass (P = 0.0082), tall fescue (P = 0.0314), and other (P = 0.0448)”
Claim · model-written summary
Method repeatability declined as species prevalence increased.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Repeatability plots displayed lower method repeatability as species prevalence increased.”
Claim · model-written summary
Five of 30 method pairs showed significant overall bias, including three LPI 3-50 versus EPED pairs.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Five out of 30 pairs showed significant overall bias (P = 0.0114, 0.0045, 0.0170, 0.0328, and 0.0404), and 3 of them were between LPI 3-50 and EPED.”
Claim · model-written summary
LPI 3-50 and LPI 5-30 agreed perfectly in prevalence and bias.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The LPI 3-50 and LPI 5-30 techniques agreed perfectly in prevalence and bias”
Claim · model-written summary
StPt and EPED agreed perfectly in prevalence and bias.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“as did StPt and EPED, meaning they can be used interchangeably.”
e1“agreed perfectly in prevalence and bias”
Claim · model-written summary
LPI 3-50 and EPED were the most dissimilar techniques.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The techniques LPI 3-50 and EPED were the most dissimilar methods.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors selected StPt because it represented pastures thoroughly and was easy to use.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“StPt was selected due to its thorough representation of the pastures and ease of use.”