Abstract
Errors in field subsampling of pasture plots for herbage dissection are presented from nine different sites. There were marked site differences in error level. Two different basic methods of sainpling were employed at the sites included in the survey. Subsamples were either taken from a mown herbage sample or were cut to ground level with a motorized shearing machine from the uncut plot areas following mower cuts. Standard error was compatible with an appfoximate parabolic relationship with percentage herbage dissection values and was symmetrical about 50%. Percentage errors associated with herbage components constituting up to 5% of the sample, were unacceptably large.
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 3
Claim · model-written summary
Error level differed markedly across sites.
Verbatim
e0“There were marked site differences in error level.”
t0“pasture plots for herbage dissection”
Claim · model-written summary
Standard error followed an approximate parabolic relationship with herbage dissection percentages and was symmetric around 50%.
- Taxon
- pasture plotst0
- Outcome
- Standard errore0
- Value
- 50%e0
- Comparator
- percentage herbage dissection valuese0
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Standard error was compatible with an appfoximate parabolic relationship with percentage herbage dissection values and was symmetrical about 50%.”
t0“pasture plots for herbage dissection”
Claim · model-written summary
Percentage errors for herbage components at or below 5% of the sample were unacceptably large.
Verbatim
e0“Percentage errors associated with herbage components constituting up to 5% of the sample, were unacceptably large.”
t0“pasture plots for herbage dissection”