EAIsTGE AND CATTLE MANAGEMENT DURING DEOUGHT, 



29 



good in 1918. The slight improvement of this range during 1919 

 and continued deterioration of the protected areas made the former 

 27.1 per cent as good as the latter that year. This difference in ac- 

 tion on the two areas in 1919 is attributed to the fact that the pro- 

 tected areas with over 80 per cent of a maximum stand had more 

 vegetation than the available moisture would support, and the result 

 Avas heavy depreciation. On the other hand, the outside range, with 

 less than 30 per cent of a maximum stand and approximately equal 

 average moisture conditions, made improvement when protected dur- 

 ing the main growing season for two years. This conclusion is sup- 

 ported by the records given later for pasture 5. 



Table 9. — Variation in density of grama grass on protected areas, outside range, 

 pasture 2, and pastdire 5, and comparison of grazed ranges with protected 

 areas, 1915 to 1919, inclusive. 







Outside range.— 



Pasture 2— 



Pasture 5— 













Range heavily 



Range grazed 



Reducea grazing 











Protected 



grazed yearlong 



yearlong with- 



during growing 



Percentage of forage on 





areas — Range 



until 1918; very 



out overgrazing, 



season since 



grazed range 



as com- 





protected from 



light grazing 



but no reduc- 



1915 but fully 



pared to protected 





grazing yearlong. 



during growing 



tion in grazing 



utilized during 



range 



each year. 







season in 1918 



during growing 



the rest of the 









Year. 





and 1919. 



season after 1915. 



year. 

































Amount 





Amount 





Amount 





Amount 













of grass, 



Per- 



of grass, 



Per- 



of grass, 



Per- 



of grass, 



Per- 











square 



centage 



square 



centage 



square 



centage 



square 



centage 



Out- 

 side 



Pas- 

 ture 

 2. 



Pas- 



ture 



5. 





centi- 



of 



centi- 



of 



centi- 



of 



•centi- 



of 





meters 



maxi- 



meters 



maxi- 



meters 



maxi- 



meters 



maxi- 





per 



mum 



per 



mum 



per 



mum 



per 



mum 



range. 





square 



year. 



square 



year. 



square 



year. 



square 



year. 











meter. 





meter. 





meter. 





meter. 











1915 .... 



511 



87.6 



232 



99.6 



553 



100.0 



326 



71.2 



45.4 



108.2 



63.8 



1916 



583 



100.0 



233 



lOQ.O 



421 



76.1 



405 



88.4 



39.9 



72.2 



69.4 



1917.... 



537 



92.1 



183 



78.5 



269 



48.6 



444 



96.9 



34.0 



50.0 



82.6 



1918.... 



511 



87.6 



90 



38.6 



177 



32.0 



458 



100.0 



17.6 



34.6 



89.6 



1919.... 



347 



59.5 



94 



40.3 



. 165 



29.8 



343 



74.8 



27.0 



47.5 



98.8 



Pasture 2 showed steady depreciation from its maximum stand 

 in 1915 to 32 per cent of this stand in 1918 and 29.8 per cent in 1919, 

 As compared with the amount of forage on the protected areas the 

 pasture was 27.8 per cent lower in 1916, 50 per cent in 1917, and 

 65.4 per cent in 1918. Granting that the figures for the protectecl- 

 area curve are too high for 1917 and 1918, because of difficulty in 

 determining the amount of dead grass, as explained on page 20, and 

 that the 1919 curve point more nearly represents the depreciation 

 due to the drought factor, there is still a difference of 52.4 per cent 

 in favor of the protected areas as compared with pasture 2 range. 

 The greater loss in pasture 2 is attributed primarily to the heavy 

 grazing during the main growing season in 1916-17 and in 1918, and 

 approximately full stocking the rest of the year, as shown in Table 8. 

 The soil in pasture 2 is not as compact as that in the protected areas 

 or in pasture 5, and consequently dried out more quickly. In addi- 

 tion, the area was slightly overgrazed in 1917, but this slight over- 



