Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rangeland vegetation productivity and biomass

  • Chapter
Vegetation science applications for rangeland analysis and management

Part of the book series: Handbook of vegetation science ((HAVS,volume 14))

Abstract

Herbage weight or biomass is an important characteristic for range vegetation since it supports directly or indirectly all consumer groups. Plant biomass is also important as a measure of dominance in plant communities. Many methods have been devised to estimate plant biomass, but all have some limitations. Estimation techniques, either by plot or plant, often involve a double sampling procedure to improve on the estimates. Direct harvesting is a destructive sampling procedure which is often used when biomass is the response measured in research studies. Precipitation has been used as an independent variable to predict end-of-season biomass. However, considerable data are necessary to develop reliable relationships. Capacitance meters, biomass meters, and β-attenuation techniques have promise for specific situations, but have not received widespread support among range researchers and ecologists. All these techniques require considerable calibration before they can be used for specific situations. Plant biomass data are useful for establishing dominance of individual species, estimating livestock stocking rates, and determining range condition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ahmed, J., and C. D. Bonham. 1980. DUBSAM -Alogarithm and computer program for optimum allocation in multivariate double sampling for biomass estimation. Colo. State Univ., Range Sci. Ser. 33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed, J., and C. D. Bonham. 1982. Optimum allocation in multivariate double sampling for biomass estimation. J. Range Manage. 35: 777–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed, J., C. D. Bonham, and W. A. Laycock. 1983. Comparison of techniques used for adjusting estimates by double sampling. J. Range Manage. 36: 217–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alcock, M. B. 1964. An improved electronic instrument for estimation of pasture yield. Nature 203:1309–1310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alcock, M. B., and J. V. Lovett. 1967.The electronic measurement of the yield of growing pasture. 1. A statistical assessment. J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 68: 27–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldon, E. F., and G. Garcia. 1971. Stocking rangelands on the Rio Puerco in New Mexico. J. Range Manage. 24: 344–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angelone, A., J. M. Toledo, and J. C. Burns. 1980a. Herbage measurements in situ by electronics. 1. The multiple-probe type capacitance meter: A brief review. Grass and For. Sci. 35: 25–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angelone, A., J. M. Toledo, and J. C. Burns. 1980b. Herbage measurements in situ by electronics. 2. Theory and design of an earth-plate capacitance meter for estimating forage dry matter. Grass and For. Sci. 35: 95–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, M. G., J. H. Burk, and W. D. Pitts. 1987. Terrestrial Plant Ecology. 2nd Ed. Benjamin Cummings Publ. Co., Inc., Menlo Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartolome, J. W., and B. H. Kosco. 1982. Estimating browse production by deerbrush (Ceanothus integerrimus). J. Range Manage. 35: 671–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basile, J. V., and Ss S. Hutchings. 1966. Twig diameter-length-weight relations for bitter-brush.J. Range Manage. 19: 34–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, R. M. 1958. Weight techniques for sampling browse production on deer ranges. In: Techniques and methods for measuring understory vegetation. U.S. For. Serv. Proc. Sym., Tifton, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaisdell, J. P. 1958. Seasonal development and yield of native plants on the upper Snake River Plains and their relation to certain climatic factors. U.S. Dept. Agr. Bull. 1190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blankenship, J. O., and D. R. Smith. 1966. Indirect estimation of standing crop. J. Range Manage. 19:74–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransby, D. I., A. G. Matches, and G. F. Krause. 1977. Disc meter for rapid estimation of herbage yield in grazing trials. Agron. J. 69: 393–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. K. 1976. Estimating shrub biomass from basal stem diameters. Can J. For. Res. 6: 153–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, F. C, and M. M. Kothmann. 1979. Variability in predicting edible browse from crown volume. J. Range Manage. 32:144–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, D., E. Leviness, P. Ogden, and L. Smith. 1978. Guide to Arizona range analysis. Univ. Ariz., Tucson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cable, D. R. 1975. Influence of precipitation on perennial grass production in the semidesert southwest. Ecology 56: 981–986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A. G., D. S. M. Phillips, and E. D. O’Reilly. 1962. An electronic instrument for pasture yield estimation. J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 17: 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, L. H., O. C. Wallmo, and M. J. Morris. 1973. Effect of woody stems on estimating herbage weights with a capacitance meter. J. Range Manage. 26:151–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clary, W. P. 1964. A method for predicting potential herbage yield on the Beaver Creek pilot watersheds. p. 244-250. In: M. Stelley (ed.) Forage plant physiology and soil-range relationships. Amer. Soc. Agron. Spec. Publ. No. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, W. G. 1963. Sampling techniques. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, C. W., and J. Stubbendieck (eds.) 1986. Range research: Basic problems and techniques. Soc. Range Manage., Denver, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordova, F. J., J. D. Wallace, and R. D. Pieper. 1978. Forage intake by grazing livestock: A review. J. Range Manage. 31:430–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currie, P. O., M. J. Morris, and D. C. Neal. 1973. Uses and capabilities of electronic capacitance instruments for estimating standing herbage. Part 2. Sown ranges. J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 28:155–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean, S. A., J. W. Burkhardt, and R. O. Meeuwig. 1981. Estimating twig and foliage biomass of sagebrush, bitterbrush and rabbitbrush in the Great Basin. J. Range Manage. 34: 224– 227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, D. A., and R. G. Woodmansee. 1975. Forecasting forage yield from precipitation in California’s annual rangeland. J. Range Manage. 28: 327–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, R. A., and M. B. Jones. 1958. Plant height times ground cover versus clipped samples for estimating forage production. Agron. J. 50: 504–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, R. B., and M. A. Marsden. 1977. Estimating overwinter bitterbrush utilization from twig diameter-length-weight relations. J. Range Manage. 30: 231–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. E., and M. E. Robinson. 1956. A capacitance meter for estimating forage weight. J. Range Manage. 9: 96–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, R. C, G. M. Van Dyne, and B. K. Williams. 1979. An evaluation of weight estimation double sampling as a method of botanical analysis. J. Environ. Manage. 8: 55–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goebel, C. J. 1955. The weight-estimate method at work in southeastern Oregon. J. Range Manage. 8:212–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goebel, C. J., L. F. DeBano, and R. D. Lloyd. 1958. A new method of determining forage cover and production on desert shrub vegetation. J. Range Manage. 11: 244–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, W. L., V. W. Howard, and K. A. Valentine. 1972. Soil characteristics, biotic composition and vegetative production of areas leased by Western Coal Company for strip mining near Fruitland, New Mexico. New Mex. State Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. Spec. Rep. No. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, R. B. 1983. Use of reciprocal averaging ordination for the study of range condition. J. Range Manage. 36: 25–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halls, L. K., and T. R. Dell. 1966. Trial of ranked-set sampling for forage yields. For. Sci. 12: 22–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halls, L. K., and R. F. Harlow. 1971. Weight-length relations in flowering dogwood twigs. J. Range Manage. 24: 236–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, R. M. 1972. Estimation of herbage intake from jackrabbit feces. J. Range Manage. 25:468–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heady, H. F. 1957. The measurement and value of plant height in the study of herbaceous vegetation. Ecology 38: 313–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilmon, J. B. 1959. Determination of herbage weight by double-sampling: Weight estimate and actual weight. In: Techniques and methods of measuring understory vegetation. USDA For. Serv. Proc. Symp., Tifton, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, E. E. 1962. Estimating herbage production using inclined point frame. J. Range Manage. 15:323–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, R. R. 1962. Range Ecology. Ronald Press Co., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings, S. S., and L. R. Mason. 1970. Estimating yields of Gambel oak from foliage cover and basal area. J. Range Manage. 23:430–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings, S. S., and J. E. Schmautz. 1969. A field test of the relative weight-estimate method for determining herbage production. J. Range Manage. 22:408–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings, S. S., and G. Stewart. 1953. Increasing forage yields and sheep production on intermountain winter ranges. USDA Circ. 925.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johns, G. G., G. R. Nicol, and R. B. Watkin. 1965. A modified capacitance probe technique for estimating pasture yield. I. Construction and procedure for use in the field. J. Brit. Grassland Soc. 20: 212–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karl, M. G., and A. Nicholson. 1987. Evaluation of the forage-disc method in mixed-grass rangelands of Kansas. J. Range Manage. 40:467–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, A. K., M. D. Abrams, and L. C. Hurlbert. 1985. An evaluation of beta-attenuation for estimating aboveground biomass in a tallgrass prairie. J. Range Manage. 38: 556– 558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreil, W., and J. Matschke. 1968. Studies on the determination of pasture yields with an electronic measuring instrument.Ztschr. Landeskuit. 9: 75–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kucera, C. L. 1973. The Challenge of Ecology. The C.V. Mosby Company, St. Louis, MO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laycock, W. A. 1965. Adaptation of distance measurements for range sampling. J. Range Manage. 18:205–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig, J. A., J. F. Reynolds, and P. D. Whitson. 1975. Size-biomass relationships of several Chihuahuan desert shrubs. Amer. Midl. Nat. 94:451–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, L. J. 1968. Prediction of herbage yields of serviceberry from crown volumes. J. Wildl. Manage. 32:115–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, L. J. 1970. Length-and-weight diameter relations of serviceberry twigs. J. Wildl. Manage. 34:456–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. R., and S. S. Hutchings. 1967. Estimating foliage yields on Utah juniper from measurements of crown diameter. J. Range Manage. 20:161–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, G. A. 1952. A method for unbiased selective sampling, using ranked sets. Austral. J. Agr. Res. 3: 385–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medin, D. E. 1960. Physical site factors influencing annual production of true mountain mahogany. Ecology 41:454–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milner, C., and R. E. Hughes. 1968. Methods for the measurement of primary production of grasslands. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, Great Britain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, J. E. 1972. An analysis of the beta-attenuation technique for estimating standing crop of prairie range. J. Range Manage. 25: 300–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, P. 1982. Value of a rising-plate meter for estimating herbage mass of grazed perennial ryegrass-white clover swards. Grass and Forage Sci. 37: 81–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. J., K. L. Johnson, and D. L. Neal. 1976. Sampling shrub ranges with an electronic capacitance instrument. J. Range Manage. 29: 78–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. J. 1962. The use of rating or ranking in vegetation measurement. In: Range research methods -a symposium. USDA For. Serv. Misc. Publ. 940.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mott, G. O., R. F. Barnes, and C. L. Rhykerd. 1965. Estimating pasture yield in situ by betaray attenuation techniques. Agron. J. 57: 512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueggler, W. F. 1976. Number of plots required for measuring productivity on mountain grasslands in Montana. USDA. For. Serv. Res. Note INT.-207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, A. H. 1970. Predicted forage yield based on fall precipitation in California annual grasslands. J. Range Manage. 23: 363–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, R. B., and M. Q. Jacobson. 1982. An evaluation of dimension analysis for predictin shrub biomass. J. Range Manage. 35:451–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadabo, S., R. D. Pieper, and R. F. Beck. 1980. Growth patterns and biomass relations of Xanthocephalum sarothrae on sandy soils in southern New Mexico. J. Range Manage. 33:394–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neal, D. L., P. O. Currie, and M. J. Morris. 1976. Sampling herbaceous native vegetation with an electronic capacitance instrument. J. Range Manage. 29: 74–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neal, D. L., and R. L. Neal. 1965. A new electronic meter for measuring herbage yield. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note PSW-56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neal, D. N., and J. L. Neal. 1973. Uses and capabilities of electronic capacitance instruments for estimating standing herbage. Part 1. History and development. J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 28: 81–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nord, E. C. 1965. Autecology of bitterbrush in California. Ecol. Monogr. 35: 307–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pamo, E. T. 1983. Mathematical approach to range condition in comparison to the SCS method. Ph.D. dissertation, New Mex. State Univ., Las Cruces.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papanastasis, V. P. 1977. Optimum size and shape of quadrat for sampling herbage weight in grasslands of northern Greece. J. Range Manage. 30:446–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Passey, H. B., V. K. Hugie, and E. W. Williams. 1964. Herbage production and composition fluctuations of natural plant communities as related to climate and soil taxonomic units. p. 206–221. In: M. Stelley (ed.) Forage plant physiology and soil-range relationships. Amer. Soc. Agron. Spec. Publ. No. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasto, J. K., J. R. Allison, and J. R. Washku. 1957. Ground cover and height of sward as a means of estimating pasture production. Agron. J. 407–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, G. F. 1974. Cover-weight relationships. J. Range Manage. 27:403–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pechanec, J. F., and G. D. Pickford. 1937. A weight estimate method for determination of range or pasture production. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 29: 894–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peek, J. M. 1970. Relation of canopy area and volume to production of three woody species. Ecology 51:1098–1101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pieper, R. D. 1978. Measurement techniques for herbaceous and shrubby vegetation. New Mex. State Univ., Las Cruces, NM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pieper, R. D. 1981. The stocking rate decision. In: L. D. White, and A. L. Hoermann (eds.) Proc. Inter. Ranchers’ Round-up. Texas A & M Univ., College Station, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pieper, R. D. 1984. A critique of “Methods for Inventory and Monitoring of Vegetation, Litter and Soil Surface Condition”. In: Developing Strategies for Rangeland Management. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pieper, R. D., J. R. Montoya, and V. L. Groce. 1971. Site characteristics on pinyon-juniper and blue grama ranges in south-central New Mexico. New Mex. State Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pieper, R. D., C. H. Herbel, D. D. Dwyer, and R. E. Banner. 1974. Management implications of herbage weight changes on native rangeland. J. Soil and Water Cons. 29: 227–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pino, R. 1954. Comparative efficiency of various lengths of belt transects in estimating forage production on semidesert grassland range. M.S. thesis, New Mex. State Univ., Las Cruces.

    Google Scholar 

  • Provenza, F. D., and P. J. Urness. 1981. Diameter length-weight relations for blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissimus) branches. J. Range Manage. 34: 215–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pumphrey, F. V. 1980. Precipitation, temperature and herbage relationships for a pine woodland site in northeastern Oregon. J. Range Manage. 33: 307–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, E. H., J. L. Kovner, and S. C. Martin. 1963. A proposed method of determining cattle numbers in range experiments. J. Range Manage. 16:184–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reppert, J. N., M. J. Morris, and C. A. Graham. 1962. Estimation of herbage on California annual-type range. J. Range Manage. 15: 318–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reese, G. A., R. L. Bayn, and N. E. West. 1980. Evaluation of double-sampling estimators of subalpine herbage production. J. Range Manage. 33: 300–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risser, P. G. 1984. Methods for inventory and monitoring vegetation, litter and soil surface conditions. In: Developing strategies for rangeland management. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittenhouse, L. R., and F. A. Sneva. 1977. A technique for estimating big sagebrush production. J. Range Manage. 30: 68–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogler, G. A., and H. J. Haas. 1947. Range production as related to soil moisture and precipitation on the Northern Great Plains. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 39: 378–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, J. W. 1973. Soil-plant-livestock-weather relationships of a range ecosystem: Interactive timeshare regression and simulation model approaches. M.S. thesis, New Mex. State Univ., Las Cruces.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruyle, G. B., J. F. Bowns, and A. F. Schlundt. 1983. Estimating snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilus) utilization by sheep from twig diameter-weight relations. J. Range Manage. 36:472–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, F. X., and R. A. Chapman. 1948. Sampling methods in forestry and range management. Duke Univ. School of For. Bull. No. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuster, J. L. 1965. Estimating browse from twig and stem measurements. J. Range Manage. 18:220–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scrivner, J. H., D. M. Centner, and M. B. Jones. 1986. A rising platemeter for estimating production and utilization. J. Range Manage. 39:475–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shoop, M. C., and E. H. McIlvain. 1963. The micro-unit forage inventory method. J. Range Manage. 16:172–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. L. 1978. Evaluation of the range condition concept. In: D. N. Hyder (ed.) Proc. First Inter. Rangeland Congr. Soc. Range Manage, Denver, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. L. 1984. Use of inventory and monitoring data for range management purposes. In: Developing Strategies for Rangeland Management. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smoliak, S. 1956. Influence of climatic conditions on forage production of shortgrass range-land. J. Range Manage. 9: 89–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soplin, H., H. D. Gross, and J. D. Rawlings. 1975. Optimum size of sampling unit to estimate coastal bermudagrass yield. Agron. J. 67: 533–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sneva, F. A., and D. N. Hyder. 1962. Estimating herbage production on semiarid ranges in the Intermountain Region. J. Range Manage. 15: 88–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tadmor, N. H., A. Brieghet, I. Noy-Mier, R. W. Benjamin, and E. Eyal. 1975. An evaluation of the calibrated weight-estimate method for measuring production in annual grassland vegetation. J. Range Manage. 28:65–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teare, I. D., and G. O. Mott. 1965. Estimating for yield in situ. Crop Sci. 5: 311–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teare, I. D., G. O. Mott, and J. R. Eaton. 1966. Beta attenuation -a technique for estimating forage yield in situ. Rad. Bot. 6: 7–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Telfer, E. S. 1969. Twig weight-diameter relationships for browse species. J. Wildl. Manage. 33:917–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terry, W. S., D. H. Hunter, and B. F. Swindel. 1981. Herbage capacitance meter: An evaluation of its accuracy in Florida rangelands. J. Range Manage. 34: 240–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toledo, J. M., J. C. Burns, and A. Angelone. 1980. Herbage measurements in situ by electronics. 3. Calibration, characterization and field application of the earth-plate forage capacitance meter: A prototype. Grass and For. Sci. 35:189–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tueller, P. T., and W. H. Blackburn. 1974. Condition and trend of the big sagebrush/needle-and-thread grass habitat type in Nevada. J. Range Manage. 27: 36–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uresk, D. W., R. O. Gilbert, and W. H. Richard. 1977. Sampling for sagebrush phytomass. J. Range Manage. 30: 311–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dyne, G. M., F. M. Glass, and P. A. Opstrup. 1968. Development and use of capacitance meters to measure standing crop of herbaceous vegetation. Oak Ridge Nat. Lab. ORNL-TM02247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dyne, G. M., W. G. Vogel, and H. G. Fisser. 1963. Influence of small plot size and shape on range herbage production estimates. Ecology 44: 746–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigert, R. G. 1982. The selection of an optimum quadrat size for sampling the standing crop of grasses and forbs. Ecology 43:125–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whisenant, S. G., and D. F. Burzlaff. 1978. Predicting green weight of mesquite. J. Range Manage. 31:396–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker, R. H. 1970. Communities and ecosystems. McMillan Co., London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wight, J. R. 1967. The sampling unit and its effect on saltbush yield estimates. J. Range Manage. 20: 323–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilm, H. G., D. F. Costello, and G. E. Klipple. 1944. Estimating forage yield by the double sampling method. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 36:194–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, A. D., and G. J. Tupper. 1982. Concepts and factors applicable to the measurement of range condition. J. Range Manage. 35:684–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Rex D. Pieper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Range, Wildlife and Forestry, University of Nevada Reno, Reno, Nevada, 89512, USA

    P. T. Tueller (Professor of Range Ecology) (Professor of Range Ecology)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1988 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pieper, R.D. (1988). Rangeland vegetation productivity and biomass. In: Tueller, P.T. (eds) Vegetation science applications for rangeland analysis and management. Handbook of vegetation science, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3085-8_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3085-8_18

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-7886-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-3085-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation