Paper · 2005 · Journal of Range Management

Predicting Nitrogen Content in the Northern Mixed-Grass Prairie

M. R. Haferkamp; M. D. MacNeil; E. E. Grings; et al.

7
claims
19
verbatim quotes
0
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Forage quality and quantity are important factors affecting livestock production from grazing lands. ‘‘Greenness’’ has been proposed as an indicator of herbage quality in semiarid environments, particularly nitrogen (N) content. The objective of this study was to assess the potential of estimating N content of forage using dead:green ratios and accumulated growing-degree- days (AGDD). Standing crop samples were collected April through October over 3 years from each of 3 replicated grazing regimes on a silty range site in eastern Montana. Samples were sorted into live, current dead, and old dead components, then dried, ground, and analyzed for N content. The AGDD for base temperature 45 degreesF (7.2 degreesC) was calculated from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported monthly average temperatures for Miles City. An equation to predict percent N in the total standing crop from percent dead forage and AGDD was developed using multiple linear regression. This equation accounted for 75.9% of variation in percent N, and prediction error variance was 0.026. To validate this equation, data were obtained from samples collected from April through September in an independent study of 8 areas on silty and clay- pan range sites grazed during autumn and winter. Samples from these sites were treated and analyzed in the same manner as those used to develop the equation. The developed equation was used to predict percent N for the validation data. The resulting correlation between predicted and actual values was 0.79. The regression coefficient for actual values on predicted values was 0.995 +/- 0.125. The intercept did not differ from 0.0 (P = 0.22), and prediction error variance was 0.042. This equation has utility for predicting N level of forage from Northern Great Plains rangelands.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 7

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dead forage and accumulated degree days explained 75.9% of standing-crop nitrogen variation.

Taxon
foragee2
Outcome
variation in percent Ne0
Value
75.9%e0
Qualifier
prediction error variance was 0.026e0

Verbatim

e0

“This equation accounted for 75.9% of variation in percent N, and prediction error variance was 0.026”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 990–1090 · show in text ↑
t0

“Northern Mixed-Grass Prairie”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 35–63 · show in text ↑
e2

“N content of forage using dead:green ratios”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 299–342 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The fitted equation had prediction error variance of 0.026.

Taxon
foragee2
Outcome
prediction error variancee0
Value
0.026e0

Verbatim

e0

“prediction error variance was 0.026”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1055–1090 · show in text ↑
t0

“Northern Mixed-Grass Prairie”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 35–63 · show in text ↑
e2

“N content of forage using dead:green ratios”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 299–342 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Predicted and observed nitrogen content correlated at 0.79 in validation data.

Taxon
foragee2
Outcome
correlation between predicted and actual valuese0
Value
0.79e0

Verbatim

e0

“The resulting correlation between predicted and actual values was 0.79”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1480–1550 · show in text ↑
t0

“Northern Mixed-Grass Prairie”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 35–63 · show in text ↑
e2

“N content of forage using dead:green ratios”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 299–342 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The regression coefficient of observed on predicted nitrogen was 0.995 +/- 0.125.

Taxon
foragee2
Outcome
regression coefficient for actual values on predicted valuese0
Value
0.995 +/- 0.125e0

Verbatim

e0

“The regression coefficient for actual values on predicted values was 0.995 +/- 0.125”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1552–1636 · show in text ↑
t0

“Northern Mixed-Grass Prairie”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 35–63 · show in text ↑
e2

“N content of forage using dead:green ratios”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 299–342 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The validation intercept did not differ from zero.

Taxon
foragee2
Outcome
intercepte0
Direction
did not differe0
Comparator
0.0e0

Verbatim

e0

“The intercept did not differ from 0.0 (P = 0.22)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1638–1686 · show in text ↑
t0

“Northern Mixed-Grass Prairie”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 35–63 · show in text ↑
e2

“N content of forage using dead:green ratios”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 299–342 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Validation prediction error variance was 0.042.

Taxon
foragee2
Outcome
prediction error variancee0
Value
0.042e0

Verbatim

e0

“prediction error variance was 0.042”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1692–1727 · show in text ↑
t0

“Northern Mixed-Grass Prairie”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 35–63 · show in text ↑
e2

“N content of forage using dead:green ratios”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 299–342 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors say the equation can predict forage nitrogen in Northern Great Plains rangelands.

Taxon
foragee0
Outcome
predicting N level of foragee0
Setting
Northern Great Plains rangelandse0

Verbatim

e0

“This equation has utility for predicting N level of forage from Northern Great Plains rangelands”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1729–1825 · show in text ↑