Table 3.
Mean score of the rangeland condition assessment in Ewa rangeland, Afar, Ethiopia.
| Grazing intensity | Upland |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GC | NS | AC | BC | LC | SE | SC | TS | RC | |
| LG | 1.33 (0.23)c | 0.73 (0.23)a | 1.00 (0.20)a | 1.93 (0.50)c | 1.67 (0.70)b | 4.20 (0.80)a | 4.60 (0.70)a | 15.46 (1.60)c | Poor |
| MG | 0.87 (0.23)b | 0.47 (0.12)a | 0.73 (0.23)a | 0.93 (0.12)b | 0.80 (0.00)a | 3.13 (0.42)a | 3.87 (0.12)a | 10.80 (1.40)b | Poor |
| HG | 0.00 (0.00)a | 0.00 (0.00)b | 0.00 (0.00)b | 0.00 (0.00)a | 0.00 (0.00)a | 1.87 (0.46)b | 1.87 (0.64)b | 3.74 (1.00)a | Very poor |
| P-value | 0.005 | 0.013 | 0.01 | 0.005 | 0.019 | 0.025 | 0.017 | 0.001 | |
| Lowland | |||||||||
| GC | NS | AC | BC | LCns | SEns | SCns | TS | ||
| LG | 1.27 (0.31)a | 1.20 (0.35)b | 1.13 (0.50)b | 2.20 (0.40)c | 1.07 (1.22) | 4.47 (0.76) | 4.67 (0.31) | 16.01 (1.61)c | Poor |
| MG | 0.80 (0.53)a | 0.27 (0.23)a | 0.53 (0.31)ab | 1.26 (0.61)b | 0.27 (0.46) | 3.60 (0.00) | 4.27 (0.12) | 11.00 (1.70)b | Poor |
| HG | 0.00 (0.00)b | 0.00 (0.00)a | 0.00 (0.00)a | 0.00 (0.00)a | 0.00 (0.00) | 3.93 (0.64) | 4.47 (0.12) | 8.4 (2.10)a | Very poor |
| P-value | 0.021 | 0.005 | 0.032 | 0.01 | 0.321 | 0.315 | 0.221 | 0.042 | |
LG = Lightly grazed; MG = Moderately grazed; HG=Heavily grazed; GC = Grass composition; NS= Number of seedlings; AC= Age category; BC= Basal cover; LC= Litter cover; SE= Soil erosion; SC= Soil compaction; TS = Total score. RC=Range condition class. Standard deviation in parentheses. Means within columns with different letters are significantly different (Fisher's LSD test, P < 0.05). nsnot significant. Note that for GC, NS, AC, BC, LC, SE, SC and TS the values used in the analysis were scores. High score of soil erosion, for example, implies absence or less erosion.