10 BULLETIN 34, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
YEARLONG PROTECTION OF THE RANGE. 
It is plain enough that yearlong or season-long grazing, as just 
discussed, tends neither to maintain the forage crop nor to improve 
the carrying capacity of overgrazed lands nor does it favor the best 
interests of the stockman. On the other hand, the plan of closing 
certain depleted lands during the period required for revegetation 
might seem at first sight to meet the requirements in a practicable 
way. It might seem best to carry out such an alternating system 
of season-long grazing and protection, so that when one portion of 
the range is thoroughly reseeded another may be protected until the 
original productivity of the entire range is restored. This plan 
implies, of course, that protection would result in satisfactory re- 
vegetation. Moreover, if the grazing industry is not to be seriously 
interfered with the extent of range protected must be determined by 
the demands upon the grazing land. 
To determine definitely the practicability of reseeding the range 
in this way several plots, lying between elevations of 3,000 and 7,000 
feet, on which vegetation had been weakened through overgrazing, 
were fenced in 1907. An area at 3,000 feet supplied a sparse stand of 
vegetation, consisting mainly of annual species, chiefly soft cheat or 
chess {Bromus hordeaceus). A few widely scattered tufts of two 
perennial grasses, big bunchgrass (Agropyron spicatum) and June 
grass {Koeleria cristata) were also found. The plots located at about 
5,200 feet elevation supported a variety of annual and perennial 
grasses and other plants. The high mountain plots, shown in Plate 
V, supported mainly perennial grasses, annual weeds, Douglas knot- 
weed {Polygonum douglasii) being particularly conspicuous in 
places. Each plot contained enough vegetation to produce at least 
a small seed crop after vigor had been regained through the much- 
needed rest. During the first two seasons of protection, especially 
the second year, the herbage of the perennial vegetation increased to 
a notable degree. In addition, the stand was somewhat improved by 
new shoots from the rootstocks. But there was no reproduction from 
seed. The annual species, of course, have no rootstocks, but their 
reproduction from seed is relatively good. During the first season 
the perennial vegetation produced very few flower stalks and practi- 
cally no fertile seed. At the end of the second season all species 
appeared to be fairly vigorous, and while at least a small seed crop 
was developed on each plot, virtually no new plants of the perennial 
species had come up from seed. By the close of the third season the 
plants appeared to have fully recovered their vitality, and a thor- 
oughly satisfactory seed crop of average germinative power lay scat- 
tered over the plots in the autumn. 
In the spring of the fourth season the lowest areas had improved 
to a marked degree in carrying capacity through the increased stand 
