1. Additionally, the 'AMP' systems described in the two studies only differed in overall GII by a value of 0.01. However, there are greater differences in the Rest, Grazing, and Animal/Land Relationship Effects between the comparative systems in each study and between the two 'AMP' systems. The AMP/Conventional systems differed in the Rest Effect by a value of 0.67, while the AMP-RG/Season-long systems differed by a value of only 0.35 (Table 8). Thus, the amount of rest in each system is almost twice as different in the AMP/Conventional study compared to the AMP-RG/Season-long study. The difference in Grazing Effect values was also greater in the AMP/Conventional comparison (0.38) compared to the AMP-RG/Season-long comparison (0.26). Finally, the differences in the Animal/Land Relationship values were substantially greater in the AMP/Conventional comparison compared to the AMP-RG/Season-long comparison. The AMP/Conventional systems;Apfelbaum;Animal/Land Relationship Effect,2020
2. The Forage and Grazing Terminology Committee, 2011. An international terminology for grazing lands and grazing animals;V G Allen;Grass and Forage Science
3. Vegetation, water infiltration, and soil carbon response to Adaptive Multi-Paddock and Conventional grazing in Southeastern USA ranches;S I Apfelbaum;Journal of Environmental Management,2022
4. Adaptive, Multipaddock Rotational Grazing Management: A Ranch-Scale Assessment of Effects on Vegetation and Livestock Performance in Semiarid Rangeland;D J Augustine;Rangeland Ecology & Management, Special Section: Weed-Suppressive Bacteria,2020