Table 1.
Study sites and their location, herbivore assemblage type, feeding guilds and densities (in tropical livestock unit TLU ha−1).
Table 2.
Comparisons conducted and their statistical values addressing the various questions (see Table 1 for abbreviations).
Figure 1.
Average (±SE) grass leaf nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) content of Urochloa mosambicensis and Digitaria eriantha across study sites (for abbreviations see Table 1).
Different letters denote significant differences of the mean (HSD-Tukey).
Figure 2.
Percent of grazed grass tufts versus (A) grass leaf N content in % dry matter and versus (B) ranked palatability.
Figure 3.
The average percentage of grazed grass tufts according to their absolute greenness values across the five study site types defined in Table 1.
Numbers above bars indicate sample size.
Table 3.
Average grass leaf nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), increaser (I) or decreaser (D) species and palatability (Palat.code: 0 = not palatable, 1 = moderately palatable, 2 = highly palatable) with respect to veld condition [42].
Table 4.
Mean values of herbaceous layer species richness, diversity, biomass and cover at wildlife (A) and livestock (B) sites (see Table 1 for abbreviations; in addition, “sub” represent sites influenced by tree canopies while “out” are sites outside the sphere of influence of tree canopies).
Figure 4.
Average (±SE) grass height of ungrazed and grazed sites for different site types (see Table 1 for abbreviations).
Different letters denote significant differences of the mean (HSD-Tukey).
Figure 5.
Regression line and 95% CI (solid and dashed lines, respectively) of grass leaf N (A) and P (B) contents against overall herbaceous layer standing biomass.
Filled circles represent values for sub- and outside tree canopy herbaceous biomass averaged for each site.