首页> 外文期刊>Journal of animal science >Technical note: Comparing 4 techniques for estimating desired grass species composition in horse pastures
【24h】

Technical note: Comparing 4 techniques for estimating desired grass species composition in horse pastures

机译:技术说明:比较4种估算马场中所需草种组成的技术

获取原文

摘要

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.
机译:存在许多用于估计物种组成的方法,但是很少有研究比较可用于改良马草场的方法。这项研究的目的是根据流行率估算,可重复性,偏倚和实用性,研究4种技术来估算2个凉季马草场中理想的牧草种类组成,并选择一种用于随后的放牧研究的方法。这些技术包括马牧场评估光盘(EPED),具有3个样条线的线点截取,每个样条50个观测值(LPI 3-50),具有5个样条线的LPI样机,每个样值30个观测值(LPI 5-30),以及步点(StPt) 。具有logit链接的SAS(GLIMMIX)广义线性混合效应模型过程用于分别测试每个物种之间的差异。当方法显着不同(α= 0.05)时,使用配对t检验进行成对比较。方法在检测creep曲草(P = 0.3334)或果园(P = 0.4207)方面没有差异,但是肯塔基州的蓝草(P = 0.0082),高羊茅(P = 0.0314)和其他(P = 0.0448)存在差异。 。重复性图显示,随着物种流行率的提高,方法的重复性降低。通过草种分析了成对方法之间的一致性。 30对中的5对显示出显着的总体偏差(P = 0.0114、0.0045、0.0170、0.0328和0.0404),其中3对在LPI 3-50和EPED之间。与StPt和EPED一样,LPI 3-50和LPI 5-30技术在患病率和偏倚方面完全吻合,这意味着它们可以互换使用。 LPI 3-50和EPED是最不相似的方法。总之,StPt可以与LPI互换使用,但是选择StPt是因为它能充分代表牧场,并且易于使用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号