RANGE AND CATTLE MANAGEMENT DURING DROUGHT. 29 
good in 1918. The shght 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 
was 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 pasture 5, and comparison of grazed ranges with protected 
areas, 1915 to 1919, inclusive. 
Outside range.—| Pasture 2— Pasture 5— 
Range heavily | Range grazed | Reduced grazing 
Protected grazed yearlong | yearlong with- | during growing | Percentage of forage on 
areas—Range | until1918; very | out overgrazing,| seasonsince grazed range as com- 
protectedfrom | light grazing but no reduc- 1915 but fully pared to protected 
grazing yearlong.| during growing | tionin grazing | utilized during range each year. 
seasonin 1918 | during growing | the rest of the 
and 1919. season after 1915. year. 
Weak |S ie S| Ee ees 
Amount Amount Amount Amount 
ofgrass,| Per- |ofgrass,| Per- |ofgrass,) Per- |ofgrass,) Per- 
square | centage} square | centage] square | centage} square | centage 
cones of centi- of centi- of centi- of gute aS as 
meters | maxi- | meters | maxi- | meters | maxi- | meters | maxi- an 5 on Pe 
per mum per mum per mum per mum 80. een 5 
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 | 100.0 421 76.1 405 88. 4 39.9 (2.2) 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 2700 (47554! 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 protected- 
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 addh- 
tion, the area was slightly overgrazed in 1917, but this slight over- 
