GRAZING TYPES. 271 



his particular range so constantly overgrazed that no one else will be tempted 

 to use it. It is evident that a proper carrying capacity can be redeveloped 

 and maintained on such areas only through the assurance of control. This 

 has been secured in Texas by the private ownership of grazing lands, while 

 in the case of the sunmier ranges of the national forests it has been provided 

 by a system of grazing allotments. For the inmiense acreage still in the pub- 

 lic domain, adequate control can best be obtained by a proper leasing system, 

 as is shown in a later section. After the individual stockman has secured the 

 exclusive use of his range under proper restrictions as to overgrazing, it is of 

 secondary importance whether control is maintained by herding, drift fences, 

 or complete inclosure. As will be seen, however, the latter method alone 

 permits the maximum conservation and utiUzation of the natural forage crop. 



GRAZING TYPES. 



Kinds of grazing indicators. The simplest and most obvious indication of 

 a plant community is that which denotes the possibiUty of grazing. To-day 

 this is so axiomatic for grassland and scrub associations as to be entirely taken 

 for granted. This has not always been the case, however (Wilcox, 1911 : 35), 

 and even at present there are forest and serai communities in which grazing 

 indicators furnish a decisive test of the desirabihty of utilizing them. In the 

 first instance, grazing types may be grouped as grass, weed, browse, and 

 forest, and used to indicate the kind of grazing. The general principle in 

 effect here is that a uniform community of grass, weed, or browse indicates 

 cattle, sheep, or goats, respectively, while a prairie or a grass-scrub mictium 

 or savannah denotes mixed grazing of two or three kinds of animals. The 

 most striking and useful indicators are those which have to do with carrying 

 capacity and overgrazing. These make it not only possible to measure the 

 amount of carrying capacity and the degree of overgrazing, but they also 

 reveal any failure to secure proper utilization. In addition, they serve to 

 indicate the annual variations in forage production and to permit the cor- 

 relation of these with the wet and dry phases of the cUmatic cycle. They 

 likewise disclose the effect of local disturbances, especially those due to rodents, 

 and they furnish a means of tracing the effects of eradication. As a conse- 

 quence, they afford a complete basis for maintaining a proper balance between 

 the utilization and conservation of the range and are of the greatest service in 

 developing and applying an adequate system of range or ranch management. 



The grouping of indicator communities as grass, weed, browse, and forest 

 (Jardine, 1911) is one of both general and practical value. It permits sub- 

 division into as many minor communities as desirable (Shantz and Aldous, 

 1917), and the chief consideration is to correlate these as naturally and effec- 

 tively as possible. For this, no system approaches in value that of the de- 

 velopmental relationship as exhibited in the various cUmaxes and their suc- 

 cessional stages. The climaxes discussed in Chapter IV illustrate the three 

 main types, grass, scrub, and forest, while the serai communities and sub- 

 dominants frequently exemplify the weed type as well. With reference to the 

 grazing value, however, forest and woodland are to be classified on the basis 

 of their undergrowth as grass, weed, or browse. It makes Uttle difference 

 practically whether grazing types are first grouped on the basis of their nature, 

 as grass, browse, etc., or on that of development, as climax and serai. The 



