<%BANNER%>

Management Strategies to Improve Nutrient Cycling in Grazed Pensacola Bahiagrass Pastures

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011202/00001

Material Information

Title: Management Strategies to Improve Nutrient Cycling in Grazed Pensacola Bahiagrass Pastures
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0011202:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011202/00001

Material Information

Title: Management Strategies to Improve Nutrient Cycling in Grazed Pensacola Bahiagrass Pastures
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0011202:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE NUTRIENT CYCLING IN GRAZED PENSACOLA BAHIAGRASS PASTURES By JOS CARLOS B. DUBEUX, JR. A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Jos Carlos B. Dubeux, Jr.

PAGE 3

To my wife, Georgia, and my sons, Victor and Arthur.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to begin by thanki ng Dr. Lynn E. Sollenberger, chairman of the supervisory committee and an authenti c advisor. His guidance throughout the graduate program, beginning with the experi mental planning and continuing with class orientation and review of the dissertation, ha s been greatly appreciated. Also, thanks go to the other members of the advisory committ ee, Dr. C. G. Chambliss (deceased), Dr. K. J. Boote, Dr. D. A. Graetz, Dr. J. M. S. Scholberg, and Dr. M. B. Adjei, for their willingness to serve on the graduate committ ee, their input during my program, and for reviewing the dissertation. Financial support from the Brazilian govern ment through the CNPq and the Federal Rural University of Pernambuco is greatly appreciated and made the PhD program possible. Thanks are also e xpressed to Dr. Jerry Bennett, department chair, and David Wofford, graduate coordinator, for the opportunity to study in the Agronomy Department. Special acknowledgement is due to Jose’s masters degree advisor and friend, Dr. Mrio de Andrade Lira, for his encouragement earlier in Jose’s career to pursue a PhD degree. The author also wants to thanks his former forage professors, Iderval Farias and Antnio de Pdua Fernandes, for their grea t enchantment with the discipline, which boosted his interest in the fora ge and pasture management fi eld. Thanks are also due to Dr. Mrcia Santos for her great support and friendship during the author’s professional life.

PAGE 5

v Special thanks go to those who helped dur ing the field and lab activities. That includes fellow graduate students Joo Vendr amini, R. Lawton Stewart, Sindy Interrante, Mrcia Grise, Hlder Q. Santos, and underg raduate student Christina Choate for their great support both in field and lab activities Thanks go to the BRU staff, Sid Jones and Dwight Thomas, for their support at the experi mental station. In the Forage Lab, Richard Fethiere and his crew gave th e support needed for the forage analyses. Dawn Lucas in the Soil and Water Science Department, Andy Schr effler in the Agronomy Department, and Jan Kivipelto and John Funk in the Animal Sciences Department are among the staff members that also helped during lab analyses and thanks are extended to them. Thanks are due to Dr. N. B. Co mmerford for his guidance dur ing the soil organic matter determinations and also to the visiting scie ntist from Brazil, Ana Cladia Ruggieri, for her great support during those analyses. Statistical support from the IFAS team, Dr. R. Littell and Dr. K. Portier, is greatly appreciated. Also, thanks go to Dr. L. A. Gaston from the Agronomy Department of Louisiana State University for his help with the spatial statistics analyses. For the friendship and company during his gr aduate life here in Gainesville, the author wants to thanks Marcelo and Aline, Joo and Maria Lcia, Eduardo, Darlene, Lgia and Lusa, Steel, Lvia and Carita, Ga briel, Paolete, and Julia, Virna and Edgard, Victor, Enda, and Ana Helena, Lus, Cl udia and Gabriel, Abraho and Leandra, Graziela, Lucinda and Roberta, Victor a nd Carolina, Flvio and Juliana, Guto and Camila, Jos Geraldo and Valria, Aleksa and Ilka, Jens and Giselle, Flvio Gacho, Lus Nogueira, and Jos Carlos (Mr. M.).

PAGE 6

vi Thanks are also due to Mr. Bill Barker and his wife, Mrs. Ruth Barker, for their friendship and for their help in im proving the author’s English skills. The author is especially thankful to his family for the great support, education, and friendship they provided to hi m in building his character a nd helping him to be a better human being. Last but not least, Jose is deeply grateful for the comp anionship and support of his wife, Georgia, who closely fo llowed his steps during graduate life here in Gainesville. Also, Jose wants to thank his two sons, Victor and Arthur, for shedding light and happiness during the time they have been here.

PAGE 7

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................xi LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................xv ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................xvii i CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................5 Pasture Management as a Tool to Improve Nutrient Cycling......................................5 General..................................................................................................................5 Stocking Rate.........................................................................................................5 Stocking Method...................................................................................................6 Fertilization............................................................................................................8 Supplementation..................................................................................................10 Irrigation..............................................................................................................11 Animal Behavior and Nutrient Redi stribution: How Are They Linked?...................11 Nutrient Pools in a Grazed Ecosystem.......................................................................13 Carbon.................................................................................................................13 Nitrogen...............................................................................................................15 Phosphorus..........................................................................................................16 Potassium.............................................................................................................17 Other Nutrients....................................................................................................18 Animal Excreta and Nutrient Cycling........................................................................19 Litter: Its Importance for the Pasture Ecosystem.......................................................21 Soil Organic Matter: Importance and Management...................................................24 Soil Organic Matter Dynamics............................................................................25 Mechanisms Regulating Soil Organic Matter.....................................................26 Soil Organic Matter Characterization..................................................................28 Summary.....................................................................................................................29

PAGE 8

viii 3 SPATIAL EVALUATION OF HERBAGE RESPONSE TO GRAZING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN PENSACOLA BAHIAGRASS PASTURES.31 Introduction.................................................................................................................31 Materials and Methods...............................................................................................32 Experimental Site................................................................................................32 Experiment 1.......................................................................................................33 Treatments and design..................................................................................33 Response variables.......................................................................................35 Experiment 2.......................................................................................................38 Treatments and design..................................................................................38 Response variables.......................................................................................39 Experiments 1 and 2............................................................................................40 Results and Discussion...............................................................................................40 Experiment 1.......................................................................................................40 Herbage accumulation and mass..................................................................40 Herbage nutritive value................................................................................45 Experiment 2.......................................................................................................51 Herbage accumulation and mass..................................................................51 Herbage nutritive value................................................................................55 Conclusions.................................................................................................................58 4 ANIMAL BEHAVIOR AND SOIL NUT RIENT REDISTRIBUTION IN CONTINUOUSLY STOCKED PENSACOLA BAHIAGRASS PASTURES GRAZED AT DIFFERENT INTENSITIES..............................................................60 Introduction.................................................................................................................60 Materials and Methods...............................................................................................61 Experimental Site................................................................................................61 Treatments and Design........................................................................................61 Response Variables.............................................................................................62 Statistical Analyses..............................................................................................64 Results and Discussion...............................................................................................64 Animal Behavior.................................................................................................64 Soil Nutrient Concentration.................................................................................69 Conclusions.................................................................................................................72 5 STOCKING METHODS, ANIMAL BEHAVIOR, AND SOIL NUTRIENT REDISTRIBUTION: HOW ARE THEY LINKED?.................................................74 Introduction.................................................................................................................74 Materials and Methods...............................................................................................75 Experimental Site................................................................................................75 Treatments and Design........................................................................................75 Response Variables.............................................................................................77 Statistical Analyses..............................................................................................79

PAGE 9

ix Results and Discussion...............................................................................................81 Animal Behavior.................................................................................................81 Soil Nutrient Concentration.................................................................................87 Dung Spatial Distribution....................................................................................90 Conclusions.................................................................................................................91 6 LITTER DYNAMICS IN GRAZED PE NSACOLA BAHIAGRASS PASTURES MANAGED AT DIFFERENT INTENSITIES. I. DEPOSITION AND DECOMPOSITION....................................................................................................93 Introduction.................................................................................................................93 Material and Methods.................................................................................................94 Experimental Site................................................................................................94 Treatments and Design........................................................................................94 Response Variables.............................................................................................95 Existing litter, deposited litter, and herbage mass........................................95 Litter decomposition....................................................................................96 Rate of litter deposition................................................................................98 Statistical Analyses..............................................................................................99 Results and Discussion...............................................................................................99 Herbage Mass......................................................................................................99 Existing Litter....................................................................................................100 Litter Deposition Rate.......................................................................................102 Litter Decomposition Rate................................................................................104 N Returned Via Litter: Immobilized vs. Mineralized.......................................106 Conclusions...............................................................................................................108 7 LITTER DYNAMICS IN GRAZED PE NSACOLA BAHIAGRASS PASTURES MANAGED AT DIFFERENT INTENSITIES. II. QUALITY AND MINERALIZATION................................................................................................110 Introduction...............................................................................................................110 Material and Methods...............................................................................................111 Experimental Site..............................................................................................111 Treatments and Design......................................................................................111 Response Variables...........................................................................................112 Existing litter and deposited litter..............................................................112 Litter bag trial.............................................................................................113 Statistical Analyses............................................................................................114 Results and Discussion.............................................................................................116 Existing Litter and Deposited Litter..................................................................116 N concentration..........................................................................................116 C:N ratio and lignin:N ratio.......................................................................118 P concentration and C:P ratio.....................................................................121 NDF and ADF concentration.....................................................................122 Litter Bag Trial..................................................................................................124 Litter chemical composition at Days 0 and 128.........................................124

PAGE 10

x Litter N disappearance...............................................................................125 Litter P disappearance................................................................................128 Litter N concentration: total N and ADIN.................................................129 Litter lignin and lignin-to-N ratio...............................................................132 Litter C:N ratio...........................................................................................134 Conclusions...............................................................................................................137 8 CHARACTERIZATION OF SOIL ORGANIC MATTER FROM PENSACOLA BAHIAGRASS PASTURES GRAZED FO R FOUR YEARS AT DIFFERENT MANAGEMENT INTENSITIES............................................................................139 Introduction...............................................................................................................139 Material and Methods...............................................................................................140 Experimental Site..............................................................................................140 Treatments and Design......................................................................................141 Response Variables...........................................................................................142 Statistical Analyses............................................................................................144 Results and Discussion.............................................................................................145 Particle Size Distribution and Bulk Density......................................................145 Total C, N, and C:N Ratio in the Soil................................................................147 Nitrogen, C, and C:N Ratio in th e Light SOM Density Fraction......................148 Contribution of the Light SO M Fraction to Soil C and N.................................151 Conclusions...............................................................................................................155 9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................157 Herbage Responses...................................................................................................158 Animal Behavior and Soil Nutrient Redistribution..................................................159 Litter Production and Decomposition.......................................................................161 Litter Quality and Litter Nutrient Dynamics............................................................162 Soil Organic Matter..................................................................................................163 Implications of the Research....................................................................................164 Future Research Recommendations.........................................................................165 APPENDIX A CRUDE PROTEIN CONCENTRATION WITHIN THE GRAZING SEASON....166 B IN VITRO ORGANIC MATTER DIGE STIBILITY (IVOMD) WITHIN THE GRAZING SEASON................................................................................................167 C BAHIAGRASS HERBAGE ACCUMULATION WITHIN THE GRAZING SEASON...................................................................................................................168 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................169 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................185

PAGE 11

xi LIST OF TABLES Table page 3.1 Actual stocking rates (SR) of contin uously stocked bahiagrass pastures................34 3.2 Nitrogen application dates on contin uously stocked bahiagrass pastures. Application rates (kg N ha-1 applic.-1) are shown in brackets..................................35 3.3 Regression equations and R2 for the double sampling technique used to estimate herbage mass and herbage accumulation.................................................................38 3.4 Herbage accumulation rates on continuous ly stocked bahiagrass pastures at different management intensities during 2001-2003................................................42 3.5 Herbage mass of continuously stocked Pensacola bahiagrass in pasture zones defined by their distance from shade and water.......................................................44 3.6 Nitrogen concentration in hand-plucke d samples from continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures during 2001-2003.....................................................................46 3.7 Nitrogen concentration in hand-plucked sa mples from different pasture zones of continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures during 2001 through 2003.....................46 3.8 Phosphorus concentration in hand-pluc ked samples from continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures during 2001 through 2003........................................................48 3.9 Phosphorus concentration in hand-plucke d samples from different pasture zones in continuously stocked bahi agrass pastures during 2001-2003..............................48 3.10 In vitro digestible organic matter (IVDOM) concentration in hand-plucked samples from continuously stocked bahi agrass pastures managed at different intensities during 2001-2003....................................................................................50 3.11 In vitro digestible organic matter co ncentration in hand-plucked samples from different pasture zones in continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures during 20012003..........................................................................................................................5 0 3.12 Herbage accumulation rates on rotationally stocked bahiagrass pastures with different grazing periods or c ontinuous stocking during 2001-2003.......................51

PAGE 12

xii 3.13 Average preand post-graze herbage mass on rotationally stocked bahiagrass pastures during three grazing seasons......................................................................54 3.14 Post-graze herbage mass on rotationally st ocked bahiagrass pastures differing in length of grazing period...........................................................................................55 3.15 Nitrogen concentration in hand-plucked samples from one continuously and four rotationally stocked bahiagrass pa sture treatments during 2001-2003....................56 3.16 Phosphorus concentration in hand-pluc ked samples from rotationally stocked bahiagrass pastures during 2001-2003.....................................................................57 3.17 In vitro digestible organic matter concentration (IVDOM) in hand-plucked samples from rotationally and continuous ly stocked bahiagra ss pastures during 2001-2003.................................................................................................................58 4.1 Animal behavior observation dates during 2002 and 2003......................................64 4.2 Total time cattle spent per zone, total time index, urine distribution index, and dung distribution index on continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures during 2002-2003.................................................................................................................66 4.3 Grazing time in pasture z ones, defined based on distance from shade and water locations, on different evaluation date s on continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures during 2002-2003.......................................................................................66 4.4 Regression equation, R2, and P value relating the time cattle spent under the shade and weather variables.....................................................................................67 4.5 Effect of pasture management treatment on soil-N concentration at different soil depths in continuously stocked bahiagra ss pastures after 3 yr of grazing. Data are means across three zone s and two replicates......................................................70 4.6 Effect of pasture zone on soil-N conc entration at different soil depths in continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures after 3 yr of grazing. Data are means across three treatments and two replicates...............................................................70 4.7 Effect of pasture management treatment on soil P, K, and Mg concentrations at different soil depths in continuously stocked bahiagra ss pastures after 3 yr of grazing. Data are means across thre e zones and two replicates...............................71 4.8 Effect of pasture zone on soil P, K, and Mg concentration in di fferent soil depths in continuously stocked bahiagrass past ures after 3 yr of grazing. Data are means across three treatments and two replicates....................................................72 5.1 Animal behavior observation dates during 2002 and 2003......................................78 5.2 Observation dates for spatial distribution of dung...................................................79

PAGE 13

xiii 5.3 Treatment by zone interaction for du ng distribution index on rotationally and continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures during 2002 and 2003............................81 5.4 Treatment by zone interaction for urin e distribution index on rotationally and continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures during 2002 and 2003............................82 5.5 Total time index per zone on rotationa lly and continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures during 2002 and 2003.................................................................................83 5.6 Total time cattle spent per zone at different evaluations on rotationally and continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures during 2002 and 2003............................85 5.7 Time cattle spent under the shade and e nvironmental conditions at different evaluations on rotationally and continuous ly stocked bahiagra ss pastures during 2002 and 2003..........................................................................................................85 5.8 Total grazing time at different eval uations on rotationally and continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures during 2002 and 2003.................................................86 5.9 Regression equation, R2, and P value of the time cat tle spent under the shade and climate variables.......................................................................................................86 5.10 Grazing time index during 12-h evaluation periods on different pasture zones of rotationally and continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures during 2002 and 2003..87 5.11 Soil N concentration at di fferent soil depths of ro tationally and continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures after 3 yr of grazing. Data are means across three zones and two replicates...........................................................................................89 5.12 Effect of pasture zones on soil N con centration at different soil depths in bahiagrass pastures grazed using different stocking me thods for 3 yr. Data are means across three treatments and two replicates....................................................90 5.13 Effect of pasture zone on soil P, K, and Mg concentration at di fferent soil depths in bahiagrass pastures grazed using diffe rent stocking methods for 3 yr. Data are means across three treatme nts and two replicates..............................................90 5.14 Dispersion Index and distribution models followed by the dung spatial distribution in Pensacola ba hiagrass pastures managed us ing different strategies..91 6.1 Existing and deposited litter ev aluation dates during 2002 and 2003......................96 7.1 Effect of management intensity on N con centration (OM basis) of existing litter and deposited litter during 2002 and 2003.............................................................117 7.2 Effect of management intensity on ligni n:N ratio of existing litter and deposited litter during 2002-2003...........................................................................................121

PAGE 14

xiv 7.3 Effect of management intensity on P c oncentration (OM basis) and C:P ratio of existing litter and deposited litter during 2002 and 2003.......................................122 7.4 Litter chemical composition (N, P, ADI N, and lignin concentrations) at the beginning and at the end of the 128-d inc ubation period at different management intensities. Data are averages of 2 yr......................................................................125 7.5 Litter NDF and ADF concentrations and C:N and lignin:N ratio at Days 0 and 128 during 2002 and 2003......................................................................................125 8.1 Soil bulk density at different depths of a Spodosol at the research site.................147 8.2 Total C, N, and C:N ratio in the soil of Pensacola bahiagrass pastures submitted to different management strategies; data collected after 4 yr of imposing the treatments...............................................................................................................148 8.3 Total C, N, and C:N ratio in the light SOM of Pensacola bahiagrass pastures subjected to different management stra tegies; data collected after 4 yr of imposing the treatments.........................................................................................149 8.4 Total C, N, and C:N ratio in the li ght SOM fraction of Pensacola bahiagrass pastures of different particle sizes; da ta collected after 4 yr of imposing the treatments...............................................................................................................150 8.5 Carbon and N contributions of the light SOM fraction to the soil as affected by management practice and particle size on Pensacola bahiagrass pastures subjected to different manage ment strategies; data were collected after 4 yr of imposing the treatments.........................................................................................153

PAGE 15

xv LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3.1 Diagram showing the three pasture zones. Zone 1 is an 8-m radius semi-circle where the shade and water are included. Z one 2 is the area between an 8to 16m radius, and Zone 3 is the remaining area of the pasture. Figure is not drawn to the scale....................................................................................................................36 3.2 Monthly rainfall data at the experimental site; average of 30-yr, 2001, 2002, and 2003. Cumulative annual rainfall for the 30-yr average, 2001, 2002, and 2003 were 1341, 1008, 1237, and 1345 mm, respectively................................................42 3.3 Herbage accumulation rates in different pasture zones on continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures during 2001 through 2003. Zones are defined based on their distance from shade and water (Zone 1: 0 – 8 m; Zone 2: 8-16 m; Zone 3: > 16 m). Means followed by the same letter do not differ statistically by the LSMEANS (P > 0.05) procedure. SE = 3 kg DM ha-1 d-1........................................44 3.4 Herbage accumulation rates on rotationally stocked bahiagrass pastures during different grazing seasons. Means foll owed by the same letter do not differ statistically by the LSMEANS proce dure (P > 0.05). SE = 2.8 kg DM ha-1 d-1......54 4.1 Average, minimum, and maximum temper atures and relative humidity measured at Alachua Automated Weather Station during the experimental period in 2002 and 2003...................................................................................................................68 6.1 Effect of management intensity and evaluation date on herbage mass of grazed Pensacola bahiagrass pastures during 2002-2003. Means followed by same letter, within an evaluation date, are not different (P>0.10) by the SAS LSMEANS test. SE = 490 kg DM ha-1..................................................................100 6.2 Effect of management intensity and ev aluation date on existing litter of grazed Pensacola bahiagrass pastures during 2002-2003. Means followed by same letter, within each evaluation date, are not different (P>0.10) by the SAS LSMEANS test. SE = 356 kg OM ha-1..................................................................102 6.3 Effect of management intensity and ev aluation date on rate of litter deposition on grazed Pensacola bahiagrass past ures during 2002-2003. Means followed by the same letter, within ea ch evaluation date, are not different (P>0.10) by the SAS LSMEANS test. SE = 6.8 kg OM ha-1 d-1......................................................103

PAGE 16

xvi 6.4 Litter relative decomposition rate on Pens acola bahiagrass pastures managed at a range of intensities during 2002-2003. M eans with the same letter are not different by the LSMEANS test (P > 0.10). SE = 0.0008 g g-1 d-1.........................105 6.5 Litter biomass remaining on Pensacola bahiagrass pastures managed at a range of intensities during 2002-2003. Pear son correlation coefficient = 0.91...............106 6.6 Estimation of the N returned through the litter and the N actually released to Pensacola bahiagrass pastures mana ged at a range of intensities..........................108 7.1 Management intensity by evaluation date interaction effect on C:N ratio of existing litter and deposited litter on grazed Pensacola bahiagrass pastures during 2002-2003. Means followed by same letter, within each evaluation date, are not different (P>0.10) by the SAS LS MEANS test. Existing litter SE = 2.3; Deposited litter SE = 2.5........................................................................................119 7.2 Effect of management intensity and ev aluation date on neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) concentration of existing litter on grazed Pensacola bahiagrass pastures during 2002-2003. Means followed by same letter, within each evaluation date, are not different (P>0.10) by the SAS LSMEANS test. NDF SE = 224 g kg-1; ADF SE = 119 g kg-1..............................123 7.3 Total N disappearance from litter incuba ted on Pensacola bahiagrass pastures managed at a range of intensitie s during 2002 and 2003. P earson correlation coefficient in 2002 = 0.59; Pearson correlation coefficient in 2003 = 0.77...........127 7.4 Total P disappearance from litter incubated on Pensacola bahiagrass pastures managed at a range of intensitie s during 2002-2003. Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.88....................................................................................................129 7.5 Total N concentration in litter incubated on Pensacola bahiagrass pastures that were managed at a range of intens ities during 2002-2003. Pearson correlation coefficient for Low = 0.74; Moderate = 0.63; High = 0.85...................................130 7.6 Acid detergent insoluble N (ADIN) in litter incubated on Pensacola bahiagrass pastures managed at a range of inte nsities during 2002-2003. Pearson correlation coefficient for Low = 0.88; Moderate = 0.85; High = 0.92...................................131 7.7 Acid detergent insoluble N (ADIN) con centration in total N in litter incubated on Pensacola bahiagrass pastures manage d at a range of intensities during 20022003. Pearson correlation coefficient fo r Low = 0.91; Moderate = 0.84; High = 0.86.........................................................................................................................13 2 7.8 Ash-free lignin concentra tion in litter incubated on Pensacola bahiagrass pastures managed at a range of inte nsities during 2002-2003. Pearson correlation coefficient for Low = 0.87; Moderate = 0.90; High = 0.89...................................133

PAGE 17

xvii 7.9 Lignin-to-N ratio in litter incubated on Pensacola bahiagrass pastures managed at a range of intensitie s during 2002-2003. Pearson correlation coefficient for Low = 0.62; Moderate = 0.63 ; High = 0.69..................................134 7.10 Carbon-to-N ratio in litter incubated on Pensacola bahiagrass pastures managed at a range of intensitie s during 2002 and 2003. P earson correlation coefficient in 2002 = 0.62; in 2003 = 0.71.............................................................136 8.1 Particle size distribution and SO M physical separation by density.......................144 8.2 Soil particle size distribution from the 0to 8-cm depth in the Spodosol at the research site............................................................................................................146 8.3 Carbon and N concentration in the bulk soil of particles < 53 m in grazed Pensacola bahiagrass pastures managed at a range of intensities. Standard Error N = 12 mg N kg-1 soil and Standard Error C = 0.23 g C kg-1 soil..........................155 A-1 Crude protein concentration in hand-plu cked samples from bahiagrass pastures managed at different intensities..............................................................................166 B-1 In vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD) in hand-plucked samples from bahiagrass pastures managed at different intensities..............................................167 C-1 Herbage accumulation in bahiagrass past ures managed at different intensities....168

PAGE 18

xviii Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE NUTRIENT CYCLING IN GRAZED PENSACOLA BAHIAGRASS PASTURES By Jos Carlos B. Dubeux, Jr. August, 2005 Chair: Lynn E. Sollenberger Major Department: Agronomy Efficient nutrient cycling plays a major role in pasture sustaina bility in low-input systems and in preservation of the environmen t in high-input systems. In this work, we studied the effect of a range of management practices on aspects of nutrient return to pastures via animal excreta and plant litte r. There were two grazing experiments. In Experiment 1, bahiagrass pastures were con tinuously stocked and the treatments were three management intensities: Low (40 kg N ha-1 and 1.4 AU [animal units] ha-1), Moderate (120 kg N ha-1 and 2.8 AU ha-1), and High (360 kg N ha-1 and 4.2 AU ha-1). Patterns of excreta deposition, changes in soil nutrient concentration, and herbage responses were measured. Litter production a nd decomposition rates were also assessed. In Experiment 2, rotational and continuous st ocking methods were compared in terms of their effect on animal grazing behavior, uniform ity of excreta distribut ion in the pasture, changes in soil nutrient concentration, and herbage responses. Finally, the effect of management intensity and grazing method on so il organic matter (SOM) was determined.

PAGE 19

xix Based on the herbage responses to N fertiliz er it is concluded that under continuous stocking the use of more than 120 kg N ha-1 yr-1 is not justified for Pensacola bahiagrass in North Central Florida. In terms of st ocking methods, rotational stocking promoted greater herbage accumulation (70 kg DM ha-1 d-1) than continuous stocking (40 kg DM ha-1 d-1). Soil nutrient concentration was greater closer to shade and water, but rotational stocking with short grazing periods promoted a more uniform excreta distribution across the pasture. The litter results showed that the above-ground plant litter pool does not supply a large amount of nutrients for plant and microbial growth, but it does act as a buffering pool reducing potential N losses to the environment, particularly in more intensive systems. Finally, the SOM results demonstrated that increasing management intensity increased C and N accumulation in gr azed pastures. These data aid in assessing potential environmental impacts and nutri ent-use efficiency of various grazing management practices as well as providing da ta needed for modeling nutrient cycling in forage-livestock systems.

PAGE 20

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Native grasslands and planted pastures are important ecosystems worldwide, occupying vast land areas. They provide an imal products for humankind, habitat for wildlife, and serve as ground water rechar ge areas and as a carbon sink to reduce atmospheric CO2. Grasslands also cover large land ar eas in the southeastern USA and in Florida (Chambliss, 2000) and ar e one of the most important agroecosystems in this region. The constant increase in human populat ion necessitates greater food production efficiency in agricultural systems. The avai lability of nutrients and their cycling in agricultural systems play a ma jor role in determining production efficiency. In some areas of the world, decreasing soil fertility a nd the high cost of fertilizers have provided a challenge to agricultural researchers seeki ng to maintain food pr oduction, food security, and the sustainability of ru ral populations, while keeping in puts low. In contrast, the excessive use of fertilizers or livestock manur es in some developed countries has led to environmental concerns such as pollution of ground water and eutr ophication of lakes. The improvement of nutrient use efficiency is critical in bot h nutrient-limiting and nutrient-abundant systems, and the ultimate goa l is to increase f ood production per unit of nutrient used with less environmental pollution. Approaches that may increase nutrient use efficiency in pasture ecosystems include adapted plant and animal germplasm and more effective management of stocking rate, stocking method, supplementation, and soil nutr ient management. Introduction of forages

PAGE 21

2 that grow in low soil fertility environm ents may enhance livestock production in developing countries. On the other hand, fo rages with higher nutrient uptake, higher quality, and rapid growth may be desired in a high soil fertility environment. Animals adapted to the environment and with a higher ef ficiency of nutrient use, i.e., more animal product produced per unit of nutrient inge sted, should also be selected. Grazing management is another important tool and the choice of stocking rate is one of the most important decisions. Besides its effect on an imal performance and pasture persistence, stocking rate influences cruc ial aspects of nutrient cycling like the amount and forms of nutrients returned to the pasture, changes in the vegetation, and so il exposure to erosion. Stocking method may also play a role in nutrient use efficiency by affecting the uniformity of excreta distribution, which a ffects nutrient losses Supplementation of animal diets with minerals and concentrat e feeds may provide another mechanism to improve nutrient use efficiency. Synchrony in availability of energyand proteinsupplying compounds in the rumen enhances ruminal microbial growth reducing N excretion. In this way, nutrie nt use efficiency may be improved by feeding a readily available source of energy for cows having a high level of soluble N in the diet. Fertilization management completes the list of the most important tools affecting nutrient use efficiency. Examples include fertilizer s ource, level, and timing of application within the season. Plant litter (above and below ground) a nd animal excreta are the two major pathways through which the nutrients return to pasture soils. The availability of nutrients and their distribution across the soil surface differ for these two nutrient sources. Plant litter is more evenly distributed but the nutrients are not as readily available as the ones

PAGE 22

3 present in the animal excreta. The litter acts not only as a pool which is continuously degrading and providing nutrients to the plants and soil organi sms, but also as a buffering mechanism that prevents nutrient losses in higher soil fertility e nvironments. Depending upon pasture management, the amount of nutrien ts returned through these two pathways may vary. The understanding of these pathways in terms of amount and fluxes of nutrients for particular pasture management pr actices is important in order to provide a better understanding of nutrien t cycling in the system. Animal behavior is anothe r variable affecting nutrien t use efficiency. Animals adapted to high temperatures and relative humidity may spend less time under shade and around watering areas, leading to a reduction in sod degradation, less concentration of nutrients from dung and urine, and fewer nutrient losses from those areas. Lounging areas, where animals tend to rest, are othe r locations where nutrients tend to be concentrated. Stocking method may play a role in reducing both problems; however, few studies have been done in tropical and subtropical areas to c onfirm this hypothesis. Bahiagrass is the most widely planted pere nnial pasture grass in Florida, occupying more than one million ha (Chambliss, 2000) and serving as the basis for the beef cattle production system. Research related to yield, an imal performance, and nutritive value of bahiagrass is abundant in the literature (Sta nley, 1994; Cuomo et al ., 1996; Burton et al., 1997; Sollenberger et al., 1988); however, there is little information regarding the effect of pasture management on nutrient cycling in bahiagrass pastures. Florida also has environmental conditions that require a dditional concern for nutrient fate. The combination of sandy soils, high rainfall, and hi gh water table may lead to contamination of ground water if proper nutrient mana gement practices are not adopted.

PAGE 23

4 In summary, bahiagrass is the most im portant species in the environmentally sensitive agroecosystems of Fl orida, yet little is unders tood about nutrient dynamics in these systems. Research is needed to guide producer pasture management practices and to aid regulators in making informed decisions. Th us, the objectives of this study were i) to determine the effect of management intens ity and stocking method on herbage responses in bahiagrass pastures (Chapter 3); ii) to evaluate excreta distri bution and soil nutrient redistribution as affected by animal behavior under a range of management intensities and stocking methods (Chapters 4 and 5) ; iii) to quantify litter production and decomposition in grazed Pensacola bahiagrass pastures managed at different intensities (Chapter 6); iv) to evaluate litter disappearance and litter nutrient dynamics in grazed Pensacola bahiagrass pastures (Chapter 7); a nd v) to describe the physical and chemical characteristics of soil organic matter from Pe nsacola bahiagrass pastur es grazed for 4 yr at different management in tensities (Chapter 8). In order to accomplish these objectives, a 4-yr grazing experiment was conducted from 2001 through 2004. Herbage and soil fer tility data were collected from 2001 through 2003, litter measurements and animal behavior data were obtained in 2002 and 2003, and the soil organic matter was characteri zed in the middle of the fourth grazing season (2004).

PAGE 24

5 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Pasture Management as a Tool to Improve Nutrient Cycling General Pasture management involves a series of decisions by the farmer, and the ultimate goals are to obtain the most profitable result maintain pasture persistence, and adherence to environmental regulations. Choice of stocking rate, st ocking method, fertilization, irrigation, supplementation, shade and water dist ribution across the pasture, animal type (sire, sex, age), and use of fire are the most important decisions that will determine if these goals are achieved (So llenberger et al., 2002). The following section discusses a subset of these management decisions and how they are related to nutrient cycling in a pasture ecosystem. Stocking Rate Stocking rate (SR) is defined as “the re lationship between the number of animals and the grazing management unit utilized ov er a specified time period” (Forage and Grazing Terminology Committee FGTC, 1991; p.15). It may also be expressed as animal units or forage intake units over a described time period per unit of land area (FGTC, 1991). The relationship between SR and animal performance is well-described by a model developed by Mott (1960). According to that model, increasing SR increases animal gain per area up to a point after which gain starts to decrease. The gain per animal, however, is greatest at low SR, and decreases as the SR increases. Equilibrium between herbage mass

PAGE 25

6 and SR must be obtained in order to achi eve desirable economic results and also to maintain pasture persistence. If fertiliza tion and other management tools are used to increase forage growth, SR must be adjusted in order to utilize the extra forage. Cowan et al. (1995) reported an increase in the above-g round plant litter pool when N fertilization increased from 150 kg N ha-1 to 600 kg N ha-1, respectively. The authors suggested that part of this accumulation was due to ma intaining SR at two cows per hectare. The amount and form of nutrients returned to the pasture are also affected by SR. Increasing SR will increase the proportion of herbage consumed by the grazing animals, which will increase the amount of nutrients returned through dung and urine as opposed to plant litter. On the other hand, a system characterized by low utilization of the available forage (< 40%) has a higher pr oportion of nutrients re turned through litter rather than through excreta (Thomas, 1992) Nutrients recycled through excreta, especially those from urine, are more readil y available to the plan ts. However, this high availability and the tendency for excreta to be deposited in high conc entrations in small areas of the pasture lead to greater nutrie nt losses and risk of environmental pollution when compared to the losses originating fr om litter decomposition. The rate of flow of nutrients among nutrient pools increases with greater SR because the nutrients in dung and urine are more readily avai lable than in litter; however, the return of nutrients across the pasture surface is more uniform from plant litter than excreta (International Center for Tropical Agriculture CIAT, 1990; Haynes and Williams, 1993; Cantarutti and Boddey, 1997; Braz et al., 2003). Stocking Method Stocking method, also known as grazing me thod, is a defined technique of grazing management to achieve specific objectives (FGTC, 1991). Stocking methods can be

PAGE 26

7 separated into two main categories: rotati onal and continuous stocking. Experiments date back to the 1930s comparing rotational vs. continuous me thods (Hodgson et al., 1934), but in many cases the differences between th em are not clear. The purpose of rotational stocking is to allow a period for forage regrow th without animal inte rference. In this way, the forage has time to reestablish carbohydrate le vels and leaf area need ed for the plant to reach the steeper part of the growth curve, resulting in faster regrowth. Grazing pressure (i.e., the relationship between th e number of animal units and the weight of forage dry matter per unit area at any one point in time; or the inverse, forage allowance), however, may be even more important than stocking me thod in determining plant growth rate. As long as the available forage and the stocking rate are in equilibrium, a natural grazing rotation from feeding station to feeding sta tion occurs even with continuous stocking. Reasons cited for use of rota tional stocking include superior plant persistence (Mathews et al., 1994a) and increased animal producti on (Blaser, 1986) over c ontinuous stocking. There are many effects of stocking method on the forage-livestock system; however, the focus in this review will be its effect on nutrient cycling. Stocking method may affect nutrient cycli ng in the pasture th rough its impact on uniformity of excreta distribution. Peterson and Gerrish (1996) suggested that short grazing periods and high stocking rates promot e a more uniform excr eta distribution on the pasture than do other grazing methods. Th e rationale is that the higher stocking density, the relationship between the number of animals and the specific unit of land being grazed at any one point in time (FGTC, 1991), obtained by the subdivision of the pasture when using rotational stocking, leads to greater competition for forage among the

PAGE 27

8 animals, reducing their time spent under the sh ade or close to wateri ng areas (Mathews et al., 1999). Climate and stocking method may interact In temperate areas, short grazing periods and high stocking rate may improve nutrient distribution; however, in warmer climates the results do not always corroborat e this idea (Mathews et al., 1994b; Mathews et al., 1999). In warm-climate areas, the an imals tend to congregat e under the shade and closer to water points during th e warmer period of the day, regardless of the stocking rate (Mathews et al., 1994b; Mathews et al., 1999; White et al., 2 001), reducing the effect of the stocking method. Moving shad es and watering points is an alternative to overcome this situation (Russell e, 1997), but it may not be practical for more extensive systems. Mathews et al. (1994a) found that nutrient di stribution and concentration did not differ among continuous and two rotational stocki ng methods when shade and water were moved regularly for all treatments, but N, P, and K accumulated in the third of the pastures closest to lounging areas. Likewise, Mathews et al. (1999) did not find any differences between two rotational stocking methods (short vs. long grazing periods) in uniformity of excretal return. Sollenberger et al. (2002) suggested that if there are advantages in nutrient distribution of rota tional stocking or having more paddocks in a rotational system in warm climates, these may accrue due to animals being forced to utilize a greater number of lounging points (one in each paddock) as opposed to achieving greater uniformity of excret a deposition within each paddock. Fertilization Fertilization is another management tool that influences nu trient cycling in pastures. Fertilization increas es the amount of nutrients cy cling within the soil-plantanimal continuum, acting as a catalyst in th e main recycling processes, particularly in

PAGE 28

9 low-soil-fertility environmen ts. Fertilization increases th e total plant biomass produced (belowand above-ground) which leads to an increase in i) stocking rate and excreta deposition; ii) litter production and its re spective decomposition rate; iii) soil organic matter (SOM) mineralization rate. Phosphorus fertilization not only promotes the aboveand below-ground plant growth (Novais and Smyth, 1999), but also accelerates plant residue decomposition, increasing the availability of nutrients in those residues (Cadisch et al., 1994; Gijsman et al., 1997a). In a low-soil-fertility envi ronment and in the absence of fertilization, recycling becomes an even more important nutrient source for pasture gr owth, but it is often insufficient to maintain productive past ures (Sollenberger et al., 2002). Planted grasslands are considered a nutrient-conservi ng ecosystem; however, losses still occur. Therefore, if soil fertility is not replenis hed, pasture productivity decreases with time. Fisher et al. (1997) recommended fertilizer applications once ev ery 2 yr at half the rates used for establishment. These applications co mpensate for the loss of nutrients that occur through the net nutrient removal by grazing animals. In the case of tropical grass swards, N fertilization is likely needed to minimi ze pasture degradation associated with production of low quality litter and subs equent N immobilization by microbes (Sollenberger et al., 2002). Excreta distribution from grazing animal s is usually described by a negative binomial function which is characterized by clus tered and overlapped areas of excreta in some areas of the pasture (Braz et al., 2003). Th is distribution creates higher soil fertility close to shade, water, and lounging areas. Th e knowledge of this uneven distribution of nutrients in grazed pastures is useful in guiding fertiliza tion practice (Mathews et al.,

PAGE 29

10 1996; Franzluebbers et al., 2000). These author s suggested that l ounging areas should be avoided in plant and soil sampling for r outine fertilizer recommendations and when applying maintenance fertilizer. Supplementation Energy supplementation for animals gr azing high-N forages may reduce N losses through excreta, lowering N emissions to the environment and increasing N use efficiency by the animal (Vuuren et al., 1993). Energy availability and synchrony with N release are considered two of the most important factors aff ecting microbial synthesis in the rumen (Valadares Filho and Cabral, 2002). Thus, to maximize efficiency of N utilization, animals grazing forages with high le vels of N in the soluble fraction (Fraction A) should be supplemented with a readily avai lable source of energy such as molasses or citrus pulp. Valk and Hobbelink (1992) reported an increase in N-use efficiency and a 50% reduction in N excreted th rough urine when cows had a balanced diet in terms of energy and protein. Tropical forages fertili zed with N may reach crude protein (CP) concentrations between 100 and 150 g kg-1 and in vitro digestible organic matter (IVDOM) concentrations around 600 g kg-1 (Brncio et al., 2 003). Balsalobre et al. (2003), however, pointed out that 70% of th e total N found in ‘Tanznia’ guineagrass ( Panicum maximum Jacq) is in the A (200 g kg-1), B3 (400 g kg-1), and C (100 g kg-1) fractions, which might present problems for the utilization by ruminants because of rapid degradability (Fraction A), slow degradability (Fraction B3), or even non-degradability in the rumen (Fraction C). Therefore, besides th e reduction in N availability for the rumen microorganisms which leads to the protein defi ciency for the animal (Balsalobre et al., 2003), the N excretion to the environment will also increase, reducing the N-use efficiency. Supplements that contain highl y ruminal degradable carbohydrates have

PAGE 30

11 potential to decrease the non-protein N losses (A fractio n). Molasses and citrus pulp, depending upon cost and availability, ar e possible alternatives (Larson, 2003). Irrigation Irrigation is a management tool that may enhance pasture productivity (Mller et al., 2002; Marcelino et al., 2003) and may also affect nutrient cycling in the pasture. Soil moisture is one of the abiotic variables affecting microorganism activity (Brady and Weil, 2002); therefore, residue and SOM deco mposition are also aff ected by irrigation. Pakrou and Dillon (2000) reported a 50% increa se in annual N minera lization in irrigated vs. non-irrigated pastures. They attributed this to higher excret a deposition (higher stocking rate due to irrigation), residues with faster decomposition ra tes, and higher water availability during the summer season. Irrig ation has also been linked, however, to degradation of soil physical characteristics. Increasing compaction is often reported in soils from irrigated pastures. The compaction in tensity is greater in soils with higher soil moisture and pastures with higher SR (W arren et al., 1986; Silva et al., 2003). Soil compaction alters nutrient availability due to changes in SOM mi neralization, residue decomposition, and nutrient movement in th e soil, potentially leading to pasture degradation (Cantaru tti et al., 2001). Animal Behavior and Nutrient Redi stribution: How Are They Linked? Grazing animals congregate close to the shade and watering areas during the warmer periods of the day (Mathews et al ., 1994a; Mathews et al ., 1999). Because there is a correlation between time spent in a pa rticular area and the nu mber of excretions (White et al., 2001), this behavior leads to an increase in the concentration of soil nutrients close to shade and water. Russelle ( 1997) suggested the use of mobile shade and water troughs for intensive systems, but this would not be practical for more extensive

PAGE 31

12 systems. Animal characteristics also interact with the environment. In Florida, Holstein cows with predominantly black coats spent 20 additional minutes per day under the shade than did those with predominantly wh ite coats (Macoon, 19 99). Blackshaw and Blackshaw (1994) reported that Zebu cattl e spent less time unde r the shade when compared to non-Zebu cattle. Tanner et al (1984) evaluated the behavior of ZebuEuropean cross-bred cattle in South Florida. They observed that shade was not a requisite for resting sites, even during the warmest days and excretion activities were more closely associated with grazing than resting. Therefore, the sire and even the coat color within a sire may interact with the environment and alter the time spent unde r shade or close to water, altering the nutrient redi stribution in the pasture. Grazing management includes important decisions like SR and stocking method which play a role in the animal behavior and ultimately in the pasture nutrient distribution. Some of the infl uences of SR and stocking method on animal behavior were already discussed. Grazing time is affected by herbage mass, with cattle spending more time grazing when herbage mass is low (Sollenberger and Burns, 2001). Cattle may compensate for the lower forage availability by increasing grazing time up to a limit, beyond which further compensation cannot occur and inta ke is reduced. Because herbage mass is affected by SR (i.e., increasing SR without an increase in forage growth rate will decrease herbage mass) grazing time will also be affected as an ultimate result. Chacon et al. (1978) reported increasing grazing time with greater stocking rate and lesser herbage mass on setaria ( Setaria anceps Stapf cv. Nandi) and ‘Pangola’ digitgrass ( Digitaria eriantha Steudel) pastures. The increase in gr azing time as a proportion of time spent on

PAGE 32

13 the pasture may improve the uniformity of excreta distribution. White et al. (2001) observed that with a greate r proportion of tim e on a pasture spent grazing, excreta deposition was more uniform. Because most nut rients ingested by cat tle return to the pasture in excreta (P eterson and Gerrish, 1996), the uniform ity of excreta distribution is crucial for the maintenance of soil fertility. Lounging areas are greatly affected in terms of soil nutrient concentration. Nutrient transfer from grazed areas to lounging areas is likely to occur, enhancing the soil fertility at the lounging sites at the expense of th at on the main grazing areas. Haynes and Williams (1999) found an accumulation of soil or ganic C, organic and inorganic P and S, and soluble salts in the lounging areas due to the transfer of nutrien ts and organic matter to those areas via dung and urin e. Soil pH also tended to be higher in lounging areas. Nutrient Pools in a Grazed Ecosystem Essential nutrients are allocated to diffe rent pasture pools, e.g., soil, vegetation, animals, and atmosphere (Stevenson and Co le, 1999). The potential nutrient supply for plant growth in a pasture ecosystem may be estimated by measuring the amount of nutrients present in each one of the pools with their respectiv e rates of flow among pools. These estimations, however, are highly variable and may be affected by abiotic and biotic factors. Carbon Photosynthesis is the mechanism of C input to pastures, but the major pool of C in the pasture ecosystem is SOM. Thomas a nd Asakawa (1993) and Stevenson and Cole (1999) reported that the amount of C contained in the OM of terrestrial soils (30 to 50 x 1014 kg) is three to four times the C contained in the atmosphere (7 x 1014 kg) and five to six times that in the land biom ass (plants and animals; 4.8 x 1014 kg). Although

PAGE 33

14 vegetation and grazing animal pool s store less C than the SOM, they play an important role in the cycling of C within the pastur e ecosystem through surface litter deposition and decomposition as well as excreta return. Casti lla (1992) estimated a fe cal C return of 3.9 t ha-1 yr-1 in a creeping signalgrass [ Brachiaria humidicola (Rendle) Schweick.] / desmodium [Desmodium heterocarpon (L.) DC. subsp. ovalifolium (Prain) Ohashi] pasture, and, compared to l eaf litter, it was the main sour ce of above-ground C. As noted earlier in the review, the exte nt of pasture utilization (C consumption) by herbivores determines whether litter or excreta is the main source of above-ground C. The potential of the soil as a CO2 sink has led many scientists to characterize the C cycle in pasture ecosystems and the conditions in which the soil works as a C source or sink (Fisher et al., 1994; Lal et al., 1995; Rao, 1998; Silva et al., 2000). Fisher et al. (1994) suggested that introduced deep-r ooted tropical grasses like gambagrass ( Andropogon gayanus Kunth.) and creeping signalgrass c ould store greater amounts of C in the soil profile than the native savanna gr asses; legume-grass associations enhanced C storage even more. Tropical grasses cause st orage of large quantities of C mainly by producing large amounts of very poor quality below-ground litter (Gijsman et al., 1997a; Rao, 1998; Urquiaga et al., 1998). Estimates of C storage must be inte rpreted cautiously, however, because the low inputs of fertilizer and high stocking rates used in the South America savanna region have left many past ures in a process of degradation, likely decreasing their ability to act as a sink of atmospheric CO2 (Fisher et al., 1994; Silva et al., 2000). Understanding the C cycle has additional importance because th e availability of N, P, and S, nutrients associated with organic compounds and microbial activity is

PAGE 34

15 dependent on the processes of mineraliza tion and immobilization (Robertson et al., 1993a; Robertson et al., 1993b; Fi sher et al., 1994; Cantarut ti, 1996; Silva et al., 2000). These processes often are related to indexe s of C concentration and “quality” of the organic matter, e.g., C:N, C:P, C:S, C:N:P: S, lignin:N and (ligni n+polyphenols):N ratios (Thomas and Asakawa, 1993; Fisher et al., 1997). Nitrogen The major N pools in a pasture ecosystem are the soil, vegetation, grazing animals, and atmosphere. The fluxes between them are very complex and are a function of multiple interactions that take place among weather conditions, soil microbiota, forage species, and herbivores (Myers et al., 1986). The atmospheric-N pool is the largest; how ever, it is available to plants only through highly endergonic processes. Biologi cal N fixation, mediated by free-living or plant-associated bacteria, requires about 960 kJ or 25 to 30 moles of ATP per mole of N2 fixed (Marschner, 1995). This is the major r eason why N is considered the most limiting nutrient in many agricultural ecosystems (Wedin, 1996). Considering all terrestrial ecosystem s, the soil-N pool is about 16,000 times smaller than the atmospheric-N pool (Russell e, 1996). In tropical pasture ecosystems, however, the soil is the second largest N reservoir. Total N in a soil profile is primarily a function of its SOM content, soil microbial biomass, fixed NH4 +, and to a lesser extent the plant-available inorganic N concentration (NO3 --N; NH4 +-N). The below-ground soil mesofauna, e.g., nematodes, termites, and earthworms, is also an important component of the soil-N pool. The soil profile to the bottom of the rooti ng zone may contain from 4500 to 24 000 kg N ha-1 (Henzell and Ross, 1973). These amounts are greater than those typically reported in live he rbage of tropical forages (usually between 20 and 400 kg N

PAGE 35

16 ha-1). In pastures of signalgrass ( Brachiaria decumbens Stapf.) palisadegrass [ B. brizantha (A.Rich.) Stapf.] gambagrass, and ‘ Tanznia’ and ‘Tobiat’ guineagrass, roots accounted for 53 to 76% of total plant biom ass but had low N concentration (Kanno et al., 1999); thus the sum of live herbage and below-ground, total-plant N is still much lower than that for soil. Litter is another very important N pool, because along with the soil microbiota it constitutes the link between N in metabolical ly active plant tissues and N available for plant uptake (Dubeux Jr. et al., 2004). Ex cluding soil N, Robertson et al. (1993a) estimated that in green panic ( Panicum maximum Jacq.) pastures, 30 to 50% of all N in the ecosystem was in plant litter and senesced tissues, i.e., unavailable for plant uptake. Phosphorus Highly weathered tropical soils (Oxisols, Ulti sols), often utilized for pastures, are characterized by low total and available P concentration and often by a very high P sorption capacity. The P cycle is even mo re complex than the N cycle, because availability of P depends not only on biologically mediated turnover processes of organic P, but also on the chemistry of inorgani c P (Novais and Smyth, 1999; Oberson et al., 1999). Much lower P than N concentrations in both plant and animal tissues and the high soil P sorption capacity result in the soil profile being the largest and most important P pool in pasture ecosystems (Haynes and Williams, 1993). Some Latossolos of the Brazilian Cerrado region can sorb more than 2 mg P cm-3, which is equivalent to 4000 kg P ha-1 within the 0to 20-cm soil layer (Novais and Smyth, 1999). Efficient cycling of inorganic P is not expected because comp etition between the soil and the plant for

PAGE 36

17 orthophosphate in solution rendering most of the inorganic P unavailable to plants (Novais and Smyth, 1999). Like the mineral forms, organic P compounds in the soil differ in their ava ilability to plants and in their turnover rates. For tropical soils receiving little or no P fertilizer, organic compounds are considered to be the most important sour ces of P to plants and the primary P pool controlling the efficiency of P recycling (Beck and Snchez, 1994; Guerra et al., 1995; Friesen et al., 1997; Novais and Smyth, 1999; Oberson et al., 1999). In recent years, more attention has been given to the development of management strategies that minimize the flux of P out of the production cycle (inorganic P sorption) and maximize the flux of P through more dynamic organic P pools that can be accessed by the plant roots and/or mycorrhizae (Guerra et al., 1995; Friesen et al., 1997; Gijsman et al., 1997b; Oberson et al., 1999). Potassium The biogeochemistry of the K cycle in pastur es is simpler and faster than the N and P cycles, mainly because K is not part of any organic compound and the chemistry of K in tropical soils is almost solely based on cation exchange reactions. The soil is again the greatest reservoir of K in tropi cal pasture ecosystems. Most of it is in nonexchangeable forms, e.g., residues of 2:1 minerals in the si lt and clay fractions (mainly muscovite), Alinterlayered 2:1 minerals, and 1:1 minera ls (kaolinite) (Aya rza, 1988; Melo, 1998). Exchangeable K is very mobile in the so il and is prone to le aching; however, Ayarza (1988) found losses of K in tropical pastures only at high application rates (300 kg K ha-1), even under high rainfall conditions. He suggested that the main K-retention mechanisms are adsorption by Al-interlayered 2:1 minerals, retenti on in high-yielding

PAGE 37

18 forages, and luxury consumption of K. Ayar za (1988) also reported that plant residues enhanced recycling. Animals do not comprise one of the la rgest K pools, but they have a very important role in recycling because of the large amount of K ingested and excreted. In New Zealand, Williams et al. (1990) estimated th at animals were dire ctly or indirectly responsible for 74 to 92% of all K losses in pastures grazed by da iry cows over a 30-yr period. In creeping signalgrass-desmodium pa stures in the Amazon region, animals were said to disrupt rather than enhance K cycling, and losses were 30 to 95 kg K ha-1 yr-1, whereas without animals K losses were negligib le (Castilla et al., 1995). The direct losses through animal products are much lower (0.12 0.18 kg K per 100 kg of animal product) than the indirect losses associ ated with the spatial transfer and concentration of K that occur due to the pattern of urine and dung de position (Wilkinson et al., 1989; Williams et al., 1990; Mathews et al., 1994b). Other Nutrients Other essential nutrients like Ca, Mg, S, a nd the micronutrients are also distributed in belowand above-ground pools, and like the other nutrient s play important roles in plant and animal nutrition. Calcium, Mg, and micronutrients are returned to the pasture mainly in feces, whereas S has a similar pattern of return as N (Haynes and Williams, 1993). Calcium and Mg are commonly added to tropical pastures through liming and S is a component of some commonly used fer tilizers including ammonium sulfate and superphosphate. Awareness of the need for mi cronutrients is incr easing, and in wellmanaged pastures, micronutrient fertilizers are being used. Mineral supplements are another source of these nutrients and in mo st cases are more economical than pasture fertilization for overcoming mineral defici encies in grazing animals (Joost, 1996).

PAGE 38

19 Animal Excreta and Nutrient Cycling Grazing animals affect nutrient cycling by consumption of mineral nutrients in pasture plants and returning them to the so il via excretion. The retention of ingested nutrients in body tissue and thei r exportation in animal products are quite low, and most mineral nutrients consumed are excreted in feces and urine. Cattle defecate and urinate, on average, 11 to 16 and 8 to 12 times per day, respectively, but these numbers can vary considerably, being greatly influenced by grazing conditions and environmental factors. Each urination event for cattle and sheep has a mean volume of 1.6 to 2.2 L and 0.10 to 0.18 L, respectively. The mean fresh weight per defecation is 1.5 to 2.7 kg for cat tle and 0.03 to 0.17 kg for sheep (Haynes and Williams, 1993). The area covered by each cattle defecation ranges from 0.05 to 0.14 m2, whereas the area for an urina tion ranges from 0.14 to 0.39 m2 (Peterson and Gerrish, 1996). Dung and urine deposition areas are about 2 to 4 m2 per mature cow per day but at least twice this area is affected because of changes in animal selec tivity, redistribution of feces by invertebrate soil fauna, and lateral movement of soluble nutrients (Mathews et al., 1996). Phosphorus, Ca, Mg, and micronutri ent metals (Fe, Cu, Mn, and Zn) are excreted primarily in the feces, while K and to a lesser extent Na are excreted primarily in the urine. Nitrogen and S are excreted bot h in feces and urine (Mathews et al., 1996), with the relative proportion dependent on amounts in the diet. Since grazing animals often excrete minerals at sites other than where the minerals were ingested, nutrient redistribution occurs Urination and defecation happen throughout the pasture, but there generall y is a concentration of excr eta near lounging areas where animals feed, rest, seek shade, or drink water. Several studies across a range of environments and grazing methods have docum ented that nutrient accumulation is greater

PAGE 39

20 near shade than near water (Gerrish et al., 1993; Mathews et al ., 1997). In lounging areas, P and K accumulation is likely to occur (Mat hews et al., 1994a; Castilla et al., 1995; Mathews et al., 1999). There is also an accumu lation of C and N in the 0to 150-mm soil layer (Carran and Theobald, 2000). Haynes a nd Williams (1993) reported that although excretal patches may cover only 30 to 40% of the pasture surface annually, the associated high nutrient input stimulates herbage growth such that these areas may be responsible for 70% of the annual pasture production. Non-unif ormity of excreta re turn is greater for sheep than cattle. According to Peterson and Gerrish (1996), at e qual grazing pressure, cattle defecate and urinate less frequently th an sheep in a given area because there are fewer animals and also because sheep have a greater tendency to repeatedly camp at the same location than do cattle. Excretion sites on the pasture surface are al so known as “hot spots” due to the high concentration of nutrients, and they become an important pathway through which nutrient losses may occur (Scholefield and Oenema, 1997). A single urination from cattle is equivalent to 5 mm of rain on the 0.4 m2 of ground that it covers, and it may provide the equivalent of more than 400 kg N ha-1 yr-1 (Jarvis et al., 1995). It also represents an addition of approximately 637 mg of K (Castilla et al., 1995). This hot spot of N is likely to exceed the current demands of the sward for N, and losses by volatilization and leaching will most likely take place. Leaching losses of SO4 -2 are also likely to occur (Haynes and Williams, 1993; Jarvis et al., 1995). Ammonia loss from urine spots is typically significant, resulting from the hi gh pH and ammonia concentration. Urea is the source of nearly all of the a mmonia lost by volatilization, and volatilization is greatest the first 2 d after urine deposition (Russelle, 1996). Depending on weather conditions, a 4 to

PAGE 40

21 66% loss of N has been observed for urineand dung-affected areas of pasture while losses of 20 to 120 kg N ha-1 yr-1 have been reported for grazed swards (Ryden, 1986). Gaseous losses predominate in dry conditions, whereas NO3 leaching losses predominate under high rainfall conditions (Russelle, 1992). Jarvis et al. (1995) reported th at denitrification in soils is thought to be the largest source of atmospheric N2O, which is increasing at a rate of 0.2 to 0.5% per year. Molecular nitrogen (N2) is the other major product of th is process, and the combined efflux of these gases represents a serious ec onomic loss of N to the farmer. Dung beetles and earthworms reduce NH3 volatilization and denitrific ation losses by incorporating feces into the soil and by elimination of anaerobic zones within dung piles (Mathews et al., 1996). The role of stocking method in the ex creta return to the pasture was discussed previously. Litter: Its Importance for the Pasture Ecosystem In pasture ecosystems, the deposition and decomposition of belowand aboveground plant residues (plant litter) during the growing season exert a continuous influence on nutrient supply to plants. This contrasts with the influence of litter on crop systems that occurs primarily as periodic pulse s. The influence of litter depends primarily on the net balance between mineralization and immobilization processes. This is especially important for N, P, and S, nutrients whose availability is controlled in part by biological processes (Myers et al., 1994). T hus, both the quantity and quality of plant residues returned to the soil play a role in regulating nutrient cycling in pastures. In the case of N, Wedin (1996) emphasized that it is simply not valid to consider soil N availability as a “soil” propert y in isolation from the charact eristics of present and past vegetation. Key characteristic s of litter quality include its physical properties, and

PAGE 41

22 especially its chemical composition, partic ularly the concentra tions and ratios of concentrations of N, P, C, lignin, and pol yphenols (Thomas and Asakawa, 1993; Myers et al., 1994). Mathematical models have been de veloped, most often using litter-bag techniques, for litter deco mposition patterns and for estimating rates of OM disappearance. The most frequently used models for this purpose are the single and double exponential models. They are assumed to best describe the loss of mass over time with an element of biological realism (W eider and Lang, 1982). Gijsman et al. (1997b) emphasized, however, that in the single exponential model the relative decomposition rate (RDR) is assumed to be constant over time, and in the double exponential model the litter is assumed to consis t of two unique organic fractions. Both assumptions are biologically unrealistic. In order to over come that problem, Gijsman et al. (1997b) recommended the Ezcurra and Becerra (1987) model. In this model the RDR decreases nonlinearly as a function of the litter fraction remaining. Gijsman et al. (1997b) also considered that this model allows the RDR of various litter types to be compared under different conditions at each st age of decay, providing a usef ul tool for analyzing litter decomposition. All those considerations are deemed necessary because the RDR is an important parameter for estimating nutrient cycl ing rate and availabil ity (Myers et al., 1994). Pasture degradation is usually related to decreasing soil N availability caused by an accumulation of low quality plant litter a nd, consequently, by an increase in net N immobilization due to greater numbers and activity of soil microorganisms (Robbins et al., 1989; Robertson et al., 1993a; Robertson et al., 1993b; Cantarut ti, 1996). In green

PAGE 42

23 panic pastures in Australia, net N mineraliza tion did not occur until 50 to 100 d after litter deposition (Robbins et al., 1989). Even after a year, only 20 to 30% of all litter N was released in the soil, primarily due to microbial immobilization (Robbins et al., 1989; Robertson et al., 1993a; Robertson et al., 1993b). In southern Ba hia state, Brazil, Cantarutti (1996) determined that incubation of soil samp les with litte r of creeping signalgrass, desmodium, and combinations of the two led to significant net N immobilization. During the first week of inc ubation, 60 to 80% of all soil mineral N was immobilized in the microbial biomass, and 30 to 50% stayed immobilized after 150 d. At the same time, the author verified an incr ease of N in the microbial biomass of 12 to 36%. This reinforced the hypothesis that a large proportion of soil-mineral N was effectively immobilized and that competition existed between plants and microorganisms for the available N. The recommendation for establishing grass-le gume mixtures in tropical pastures is partially based on the assumption that legum es increase soil fertility and pasture sustainability through the deposition of better quality litter. Cantaru tti (1996) determined that litter production was similar between creeping signalgrass a nd creeping signalgrassdesmodium pastures (15 to 18 tons of dry matter ha-1 yr-1); however, the legume increased litter N concentra tion and, consequently, the amou nt of N recycled. In the creeping signalgrass pasture th e rates of net mineralizati on and nitrification and the inorganic N concentration were always lo wer than in the grass-legume pasture. Recently, more attention has been given to litter dynamics related to P recycling. The P mineralization and immobilization pr ocesses are especially important to understand because organic P is the soil P pool for which management has the greatest

PAGE 43

24 potential to increase the efficiency of P recycl ing in tropical pastur es (Beck and Snchez, 1994; Guerra et al., 1995; Friesen et al., 1997; Novais and Smyth, 1999; Oberson et al., 1999). When P fertilizer is applied to a crop or pasture system a considerable amount of that P accumulates in plant biomass and is “r e-applied” in an organic form through litter deposition and animal excreta (McLaugh lin and Alston, 1986; Haynes and Williams, 1993). The concentration of 2 g P kg-1 in plant residues is ofte n considered the threshold for maintaining a balance between the mineralization and immobilization processes. Below that concentration, immobilization predominates. When considering C:P ratio, values below 200:1 result in mineraliza tion predominating, whereas above 300:1 immobilization is greatest (Dalal, 1979; McLaughlin and Alston, 1986; Novais and Smyth, 1999). Considering that the P concentra tion in tropical grasses is usually lower than 1.5 g kg-1 (CIAT, 1982), high rates of net P imm obilization from forage grass litter are to be expected. Nevertheless the influe nces of other factors such as lignin and polyphenol concentrations play a role in P mineralization rates as well. Soil Organic Matter: Importance and Management Soil fertility and agricultural syst ems sustainability depend upon the SOM, particularly in tropical regions because of the highly weathered soils and low fertilizer inputs. Benefits of SOM include improvement of soil physical propert ies (soil structure, macroand microaggregates, water holding cap acity), soil chemical properties (increased CEC, reduced Al toxicity, higher nutrient s upply), and soil biologi cal properties (soil microorganism biodiversity). Because of th at, Greenland (1994) suggested that SOM would be one reliable indicator of agro-eco system sustainability. Thus, land sustainable management should include practices that elev ate, or at least main tain, the appropriate SOM level for a given soil (Greenland, 1994; Hassink, 1997). In this aspect, well-

PAGE 44

25 managed pastures might be considered sustainable production systems because an increase in SOM has been observed in these ecosystems. Additionally, because the C input in highly productive pastur es is expected to be greate r when compared to low-input systems, it should also be expected that SOM increases more in intensive pasture systems (Barrow, 1969; Malhi et al., 1997; Bernoux et al., 1999; Pulleman et al., 2000; Batjes, 2004). Soil Organic Matter Dynamics Native vegetation is the major source of residues contributing to SOM in natural ecosystems. Agroecosystems, however, have at least two major sour ces of residues: the reminiscent native vegetation and the residues originated from the new planted crops (Bernoux et al., 1999). Johnson (1995) proposed a conceptual model of SOM dynamics. According to that model, when an ecosystem is in equilibrium, i.e., the litter deposition is equal to the litter degradation; the SOM is also in equilibrium. Whenever a change occurs in the vegetation or in the soil tillage sy stem, the SOM will likely change due to modifications in the residue deposi tion/decomposition ratio. The higher SOM decomposition rate occurs due to its higher e xposure to microbial attack when the soil structure is broken down by soil tillage. Acco rding to Johnson (1995), after an initial reduction in the SOM levels (disturbance pha se), a new equilibrium is established between litter production and decomposition rates. This equilibrium, depending upon the new soil management, will determine if the SOM will stabilize at lower, the same, or higher levels than the original one. Before a new equilibrium is reached, SOM accumulation must occur, and the basic premise for that is that residue deposition must be higher than residue decomposition (Batjes and Sombroek, 1997). For example, Bernoux et al. (1999) reported an in crease of 0.33 and 0.89 kg soil C m-2 (0 – 30 cm depth) in

PAGE 45

26 planted pastures, respectively, 4 and 15 yr after clearing the native vegetation (rain forest). The same authors concluded that 10 yr after pasture establishment the SOM reached the same level found in the soil unde r native vegetation. Thus, the increase in pasture productivity may lead to the increase in SOM levels, mainly due to an increase in aboveand below-ground litter deposition. Mechanisms Regulating Soil Organic Matter The SOM increases up to a maximum and reaches an equilibrium phase. This maximum is regulated by three primary mechanisms: i) physical stabilization or protection against decomposition by formi ng soil microaggregates; ii) complexing of SOM with silt and clay particles; and iii) biochemical stab ilization by forming recalcitrant compounds (Feller and Beare, 1997; Hassink, 1997; Ha ssink et al., 1997; Six et al., 2002). The first mechanism is physical protection by forming soil microaggregates. In order for soil aggregation to occur, floccu lation must also occur. The newly formed floccules also need a biological “cement” (e.g., polysaccharides found in fungi hyphae) to build up macrofloccules (Hartel, 1999; Hillel, 1998). Soil aggr egates are hierarchically organized, starting from micro clay structures, microaggregates ( < 250 m), and macroaggregates ( > 250 m) (Cambardella and Elliott, 1993; Oades, 1993; Six et al., 2002). The soil structure originated from aggregate formation protects the SOM due to i) compartmentalization between substrate a nd microbial biomass, i.e., higher OM concentration in the inner part of the aggregate and higher microbial density on the outer part; ii) reduction in oxygen diffusion towards the i nner part of the aggregates,

PAGE 46

27 particularly the microaggregates; and iii) co mpartmentalization of microbial biomass and microbial predators (Six et al., 2002). Therefore, the soil aggregate formation promotes the increase or maintenance of SOM levels due to physical protec tion (Cambardella and Elliott, 1993; Six et al., 2002). The opposite of th is process is associated with excessive soil tillage that breaks down the soil st ructure reducing the physical protection and leaving the SOM exposed to microbial attack. The second mechanism of SOM stabilizati on is the complexing between SOM and silt/clay particles (Feller and Beare, 1997; Six et al ., 2002). Hassink (1997) observed a relationship between soil particles < 20 m and the amount of C and N found in that fraction. The author considered that the potential of the soil to protect C and N increases with association of these elements with the silt/clay fractions. Therefore, it is expected that silty and clayey soils have higher poten tial to protect SOM wh en compared to sandy soils. In tropical soils, due to high Fe and Al oxides presence, this clay/silt mechanism is reduced. The Fe and Al oxides act in two c ontrasting ways: i) reducing surface area of clay particles due to clay flocculation, the SOM protection is reduced ; ii) flocculating the SOM itself, the SOM protection is incr eased (Shang and Tiessen, 1997; Shang and Tiessen, 1998; Tiessen et al., 1998). These tw o mechanisms produce a net effect that requires further investig ation (Six et al., 2002). Biochemical stabilization by forming reca lcitrant compounds is the third major mechanism of SOM protection (Six et al., 2002; Rovira and Valejjo, 2003). Recalcitrant compounds are hard-to-decompose substances and are originated either by compounds found in plants (e.g., tannins, lignin, polyphenols), or are formed during the decomposition process (Six et al., 2002). Lignin, C, N, P, and polyphenols and their

PAGE 47

28 ratios are often used as indicators of lit ter quality (Thomas and Asakawa, 1993). As a general rule, legumes have better quality re sidue than grasses, and above-ground residues have better quality than r oots and rhizomes, however, large variability among species occurs. Thus, the utilization of plants with low quality re sidues and higher allocation of biomass to the root system could be proposed as an alternative to increase SOM. Fisher et al. (1994) suggested that tropi cal grasses (gambagrass and Brachiaria spp.) are able to increase C storage in the soil not only due to their large root system, but also due to the low quality residue originating from this root system. It is important to keep in mind, though, that the large C:N and C:P ratios may lead to net immobilizatio n of nutrients that could be available for the plants. Fertiliz ation and mixed grass-legume pastures would reduce this effect. Soil Organic Matter Characterization Traditionally SOM has been characterized by chemical fracti onation (fulvic acid, humic acid, humin), however, th e applicability of this fractionation for agroecologic systems is limited. Humic and fulvic acid have minimal influence on short-term soil processes (e.g., nutrient availability, CO2 evolution) due to low turnover rate of these compounds. Because of that, it is difficult to establish relationships between those fractions and crucial processes in the so il like SOM mineralization and aggregate formation (Feller and Beare, 1997). Physical fractionation of SOM, by size or de nsity, with subsequent analysis of the OM associated with each fraction, has become a more useful method to characterize SOM quality (Feller and Beare, 1997; Tiessen et al., 2001). Usually the sampled fractions represent the clay (< 2 m), silt (> 2 m and < 50 m), sand (> 50 m and < 2000 m),

PAGE 48

29 and macro-organic matter (> 150 m) (Hassink, 1995; Meijboom et al., 1995; Feller and Beare, 1997). Meijboom et al. (1995) proposed a SOM phys ical fractionation method where three fractions were obtained: the li ght fraction, composed mainly of plant residues at different decomposition levels; the intermediate fract ion, formed by partially humified material; and the heavy fraction, composed of amorphous organic material. The importance of this fractionation is that the SOM mineralization ra tes decrease from the light to the heavy fractions, i.e., C and N mineraliz ation rates are positively corr elated with the amount of C and N in the light fraction and in the microbial biomass. Besides that, the light fraction is more sensitive to changes in management which alters the resi due deposition when compared to the total SOM. Therefore, early detection of SOM changes is possible by the physical fractionation method (Has sink, 1995; Six et al., 2002). Summarizing, the gradual increase of SOM levels by increasing the primary productivity of the pasture with consequent in crease in the residue deposition is possible, but the SOM physical protecti on (aggregate formation and co mplexation with silt and clay) is limited by the silt and clay conten t of the soil. The OM deposited beyond this limit may still undergo biochemical protec tion by forming recalcitrant compounds, however, this limit is not well established (S ix et al., 2002). Finall y, the unprotected OM, with higher turnover rates (light fraction) wi ll also increase, ultimately increasing the supply of nutrients to the pasture ecosystem. Summary Nutrient cycling in pasture ecosystems is a major issue impacting pasture productivity, nutrient use efficiency, a nd nutrient losses to the environment.

PAGE 49

30 Understanding nutrient cycling requires a multid isciplinary approach including soil and water scientists, agronomists, and animal sc ientists, and this is probably one of the reasons that it has not been extensively studied. Grazing anim al, soil, and plant responses need to be linked with management practices in order to provide a be tter understanding of the processes involved. Critical questions are yet to be answered regarding the effect of stocking methods, stocking rates, and N fertilization on animal, plant, and soil responses when optimization of nutrient use efficiency is pursued. A seri es of studies was conducted to address these questions. Over-arching objectives included th e effect of different stocking methods, stocking rates, and N fertilization on herbag e responses, soil nutrient distribution, and animal behavior in different pasture zone s defined by their distance from shade and water. Additionally, stocking rate and N fer tilization effects on lit ter production, litter decomposition, and SOM dynamics on continuously stocked Pensacola bahiagrass pastures were studied.

PAGE 50

31 CHAPTER 3 SPATIAL EVALUATION OF HERBAGE RESPONSE TO GRAZING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN PENSACOLA BAHIAGRASS PASTURES Introduction Pasture management has a major impact on nutrient cycling in grazing systems (Sollenberger et al., 2002; Dubeux Jr. et al ., 2004). Nitrogen fert ilization and grazing management (stocking method and stocking rate) are examples of practices that play an important role in nutrient dynamics in grazed pastures. Fertilization increases the am ount of nutrients cycling wi thin the soil-plant-animal continuum, acting as a catalyst in the main r ecycling processes, particularly in low soilfertility environments. Fertilization increases the total plant biom ass produced (belowand above-ground) which favors an increase in i) possible stocking rate and excreta deposition, ii) litter production and decom position rate, and iii) soil organic matter mineralization rate (Dubeux Jr et al., 2004). Increasing st ocking rate increases the proportion of herbage consumed by livestock, in creases the importance of excreta relative to litter in nutrient return to the soil, and, b ecause of the greater avai lability to plants of nutrients in dung and urine relative to litter, increases the rates of nutrient flows among pools (Haynes and Williams, 1993; Castilla et al., 1995). Stocking method may also play a role altering distribution of excreta retu rn across the pasture surface (Peterson and Gerrish, 1996). Soil nutrient concentrations in areas clos er to animal lounging sites (e.g., shade and water sources) tend to be greater than in the rest of the pasture because of higher density

PAGE 51

32 of excreta deposition, particularly in warm environments (Mathews et al., 1996; Mathews et al., 2004). Management practices that impr ove nutrient distribution would be desirable not only because overall pasture productivity may improve, but also because of improved nutrient retention and utilization by the pastur e system. There are few studies that have evaluated the effect of mana gement practices on spatial pa tterns of plant growth and nutrient concentration in pastures. Thus, the objectives of this study were to evaluate different management practices including N fertilization, stocking rate, and stocking method on herbage responses (herbage mass and accumulation, plant N, P, and in vitro digestible organic matter concentration) in different pasture zones as defined by their distance from shade and water. Materials and Methods Experimental Site Two grazing experiments were performed at the Beef Research Unit, northeast of Gainesville, FL, at 2943’ N la t on ‘Pensacola’ bahiagrass ( Paspalum notatum Flgge) pastures. Soils were classified as Spo dosols (sandy siliceous, hyperthermic Ultic Alaquods from the Pomona series or sandy siliceous, hyperthermic Aeric Alaquods from the Smyrna series) with average pH of 5.9. Me hlich-I extractable soil P, K, Ca, and Mg average concentrations at the beginning of the experiment were 5.3, 28, 553, and 98 mg kg-1, respectively. The methods for each e xperiment are provided in the following sections, with the statistical analyses desc ribed in a common section at the end of the materials and methods.

PAGE 52

33 Experiment 1 Treatments and design This experiment tested the effect of th ree management intensities of continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures on herbage respons es in different zones defined according to their distance from shade and watering lo cations. Treatments were combinations of stocking rate and N fertilizati on rate, and in this dissertati on they are termed management intensities. The three management intensities tested were Low (40 kg N ha-1 yr-1 and 1.2 animal units [AU, one AU = 500 kg live weight] ha-1 target stocking rate), Moderate (120 kg N ha-1 yr-1 and 2.4 AU ha-1 target stocking rate), and High (360 kg N ha-1 yr-1 and 3.6 AU ha-1 target stocking rate). These treatment s were chosen because Low approximates current bahiagrass management practice in Florida cow-calf systems, Moderate represents the upper ra nge of current producer practice, and High is well above what is currently in use. Stocking rate and N-rate combinations for Moderate and High were chosen based on studies of bahiagrass yield response to N fertilizer conducted by Burton et al. (1997) and Twidwell et al. (1998). A strip-split plot arrangement in a completely randomized block design was used and each treatment was replicated twice. Zones within pastures were the strip-plot feature and w ill be described in more detail below. The bahiagrass pastures were continuously stocke d and the experiment was performed during the grazing seasons of 2001 (26 June – 16 Oc t.; 112 d), 2002 (8 May – 23 Oct.; 168 d), and 2003 (12 May – 27 Oct.; 168 d). Two crossbred (Angus x Brahman) yearling heifers were assigned to each experimental unit. Stocking rate was fixed a nd calculated based on the estimated average daily gain throughout the grazing season. The ta rgeted initial animal live weight was 270

PAGE 53

34 to 275 kg. Projecting a heifer live weight gain of 0.35 kg d-1 (Sollenberger et al., 1989) during 160 d of grazing would lead to a total weight gain of 56 kg animal-1 and a final weight of approximately 325 to 330 kg. As an example, on the Low treatment this weight gain would result in an average stocking ra te across the grazing season of 600 kg (i.e., two animals of 300 kg average weight) live weight ha-1 or 1.2 AU ha-1. Initial heifer weights were greater than anticipated at th e beginning of the grazing seasons resulting in SR being greater than the target SR in each year. The actual average stocking rates for the 3 yr are shown in Table 3.1. Table 3.1. Actual stocking ra tes (SR) of continuously st ocked bahiagrass pastures. Target SR Actual SR (AU ha-1) AU ha-1 2001 2002 2003 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.3 2.4 3.0 2.8 2.6 3.6 4.4 4.1 4.0 Pasture area varied according to treatment, and area decreased as the management intensity increased. Pasture area was 1, 0.5, and 0.33 ha for Low, Moderate, and High treatment experimental units, respectively. Ar tificial shade (3.1 m x 3.1 m) was provided at a fixed location on each experimental un it, and cattle had free-choice access to water and a mineral mixture. The water troughs were always located under the artificial shade, and each time they were filled, the minera l mix trough was placed at a new, randomly selected location in the pasture. Nitrogen fertilization dates are shown in Table 3.2. The Low treatment received all N (40 kg N ha-1) in one application at the beginni ng of each grazing season; the Moderate treatment received three a pplications of 40 kg N ha-1 in the beginning, midand lategrazing season; the High treatment recei ved four applications of 90 kg N ha-1 each

PAGE 54

35 grazing season. Because drought delayed the start of the grazing season in 2001, only 270 kg N ha-1 was applied that year on the High treatment. Phosphorus (17 kg ha-1 yr-1) and potassium (66 kg ha-1 yr-1) were applied to all treatments prior to N application in 2001 (17 April), and with the initial N applicat ion in 2002 (30 April) and 2003 (23 April). There was a second application of the same amount of P (17 kg P ha-1 yr-1) and K (66 kg K ha-1 yr-1) for Moderate and High treatments only in 2002 (15 July). Micronutrients were applied on 23 Apr. 2003 at a rate of 400 kg ha-1 of the following formula: [B (0.9 g kg-1), Fe (6.8 g kg-1), Mn (9.1 g kg-1) and Zn (3.6 g kg-1)]. Sulphur was also applied on 30 Apr. 2002 at a rate of 30 kg S ha-1 (Mitchel and Blue, 1989). Application rates and frequency of S and micronutrients re flect recommended practice in the region. Table 3.2. Nitrogen application dates on c ontinuously stocked bahiagrass pastures. Application rates (kg N ha-1 applic.-1) are shown in brackets. Grazing season Treatment 2001 2002 2003 Low 13 June (40) 30 Apr (40) 23 Apr (40) Moderate 13 June (40) 20 July (40) 24 Aug (40) 30 Apr (40) 15 July (40) 20 Aug (40) 23 Apr (40) 16 July (40) 14 Aug (40) High 13 June (90) 20 July (90) 24 Aug (90) 30 Apr (90) 12 June (90) 15 July (90) 20 Aug (90) 23 Apr (90) 12 June (90) 16 July (90) 14 Aug (90) Response variables Forage sampling was performed in three zones of each experimental unit. Zones were defined based on their distance from sh ade and water. Zone 1 consisted of a semicircle with an 8-m radius and included th e shade structure and wa ter trough. Zone 2 was

PAGE 55

36 the area located between an 8to 16-m radius away from the shade and water, and Zone 3 was the remaining area of th e pasture (Figure 3.1). Figure 3.1. Diagram showing the th ree pasture zones. Zone 1 is an 8-m radius semi-circle where the shade and water are included. Zone 2 is the area between an 8to 16-m radius, and Zone 3 is the remaini ng area of the pasture. Figure is not drawn to the scale. Forage response variables measured include herbage mass and accumulation, herbage N and P concentration, and in vitro digestible organic matter (IVDOM). Forage sampling started just prior to grazing initia tion and occurred every 14 d thereafter until the end of the grazing season. To determine herbage mass, 10 disk meter readings (0.25-m2 aluminum disk) were taken per zone of each experimental unit at each evaluation date. The disk meter was calibrated every 28 d by measuring the disk se ttling height and cutting the herbage to soil level at 18, 0.25-m2 sites (three per pasture). These sites were chosen across the six experimental units in order to represent th e range of herbage mass in those pastures. Regression equations were obtained to estima te herbage mass. This method of correlating Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Shade and water

PAGE 56

37 the indirect measurement (disk settling hei ght) with the direct measurement (herbage mass cut at ground level) is defined as double sampling (Sollenberger and Cherney, 1995). Double sampling dates with their respective regressi on equations and r-2 for the 3 yr are shown in Table 3.3. Because animals we re present on the pasture during the entire grazing season, a cage technique was us ed to quantify herbage accumulation (Sollenberger and Cherney, 1995). Two 1-m2 cages were placed in each zone of each pasture at initiation of grazing. Disk settling height was take n prior to placing each cage, and sites were chosen that represented the aver age disk settling height of that particular zone. Fourteen days after a cage was place d, the cage was removed and disk settling height measured inside the cage. Herbag e accumulation was calculated as change in herbage mass between the initial measurement a nd that taken 14 d later. Cages were then moved to new locations that represented the average herbage mass of each zone, and the procedure was repeated. Frequent sampling a nd movement of cages is required if the measured accumulation rate is to be repres entative of the surrounding grazed pasture (Sollenberger and Cherney, 1995). Herbage N, P, and IVDOM concentrations were measured biweekly to describe forage chemical composition. Hand-plucked sa mples were collected from each zone in each pasture. This technique attempts to simulate the forage actually being grazed by the animals by removing the top 5 cm of herbage at approximately 10 locations per zone per pasture. The herbage was dried at 60C and ground to pass a 1-mm screen. Analyses were conducted at the Forage Evaluation S upport Laboratory using the micro-Kjeldahl technique for N and P (Gallaher et al., 1975) and the two-stage technique for IVDOM (Moore and Mott, 1974).

PAGE 57

38 Table 3.3. Regression equations and R2 for the double sampling technique used to estimate herbage mass and herbage accumulation. Date Equation R2 ------------------------------------------------2001 ---------------------------------------------11 July y = 97 + 220x 0.82 8 Aug. y = 250 + 251x 0.84 4 Sept. y = 401 + 337x 0.85 2 Oct. y = 359 + 279x 0.80 ------------------------------------------------2002 ---------------------------------------------22 May y = 313 + 235x 0.86 19 June y = 331 + 260x 0.75 14 July y = 724 + 336x 0.78 14 Aug. y = 648 + 328x 0.83 11 Sept. y = 277 + 299x 0.81 9 Oct. y = 447 + 357x 0.82 ------------------------------------------------2003 ---------------------------------------------27 May y = – 1329 + 431x 0.89 24 June y = 89 + 286x 0.85 22 July y = – 481 + 296x 0.89 19 Aug. y = – 461 + 415x 0.87 16 Sept. y = – 775 + 519x 0.94 14 Oct. y = – 259 + 581x 0.86 Experiment 2 Treatments and design This experiment tested the effect of four rotational stocking strategies on Pensacola bahiagrass herbage responses in di fferent pasture zones defined according to their distances from shade and water lo cations. Treatments were imposed in 2001, 2002, and 2003 and consisted of four grazing periods (1, 3, 7, and 21 d) with the same resting period of 21 d. Treatments were replicated twi ce using a strip-split plot arrangement in a completely randomized block design. Zones with in pastures were the strip-plot feature. Stocking rate and N fertilization were the sa me as the High management intensity from Experiment 1, i.e., 4.2 AU ha-1 and 360 kg N ha-1 yr-1, respectively. In Experiment 2, an

PAGE 58

39 experimental unit for the rotational treatment s consisted of only one paddock from the entire rotational system. Experime ntal units were 454, 1250, 2500, and 5000 m2 for 1-, 3, 7-, and 21-d grazing period treatments, respec tively. These sizes were calculated based on a pasture size of 1 ha which would in practice be subdivided into 22, 8, 4, and 2 paddocks of the sizes indicated for the 1, 3, 7, and 21-d treatments, respectively. The area for the continuously stocked High treatment was 3333 m2. At the beginning of each grazing season, crossbred (Angus x Brahman) yearling heifers were arranged in groups of five or si x animals, and total in itial live weight (1809 kg) was approximately the same ( 10 kg) across groups. The tota l average live weight of each group across the grazing season was to be 1800 kg, corresponding to 3.6 AU, but because heifers were heavier than anticipa ted at the start of the experiment, actual stocking rates on the four treatments exceeded th e target rates and were the same as those reported earlier for High. A group was assigne d to each rotational treatment for the designated length of grazing period. When not grazing experi mental pastures, animals were assigned to other similarly managed bahiagrass swards. Nitrogen fertilization followed the same schedule as shown for the HIGH management intensity described in Experime nt 1. Water, shade, and minerals were available for each experimental unit in the same manner as in Experiment 1. Response variables Herbage hand-plucked samples, disk height measurements, and double sampling procedures were used following the same z onal approach described for Experiment 1. Because rotational stocking was used in th is experiment, no cages were needed to estimate herbage accumulation. Instead, 10 disk se ttling heights were taken per zone from

PAGE 59

40 each experimental unit at th e initiation and at the end of each grazing period. Herbage mass in each zone at the initiation (Pre-herba ge mass) and at the end (Post-herbage mass) of the grazing period was calculated using th e average disk settli ng height for the 10 observations per zone and the regression e quations obtained from double sampling. Daily herbage accumulation was calculated by subt racting the post-herbage mass of cyclen-1 from pre-herbage mass of cycle n and dividing the result by the number of days between measurements. Herbage hand-plucked sampling a nd chemical analysis followed the same protocol described for Experiment 1. Experiments 1 and 2 Statistical analyses were performed usi ng Proc Mixed of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., 1996), and the LSMEANS procedure was used to compare treatment means. Data averaged across evaluations within each grazing season were used for analysis. Management intensity was considered the main plot and the zones the strip-split plot. In Experiment 2, treatment comparisons included the High management intensity from Experiment 1 because it had the same st ocking rate and N fertilization, and the experimental units were arranged following th e same blocking criteria as the rotational treatments. Results and Discussion Experiment 1 Herbage accumulation and mass Herbage accumulation was affected by a tr eatment by year interaction (Table 3.4). In the first year, herbage accumulation was similar among treatments, but in 2002 and 2003, increased management intensity increased herbage accumulation rates. Rates for High were approximately three times those for Low in Years 2 and 3 (Table 3.4), but

PAGE 60

41 Moderate and High were not different in a ny year. In 2001, the High treatment pastures received less fertilizer N than in 2002 and 2003 and that likely affected the herbage response. Also, April, May, and August 2001 ra infall were much lower than average and were lower than in 2002 or 2003 (Figure 3.2) The lower August rainfall had a major effect on response to N because it happened in the middle of the growing season when greater plant growth rates are expected. Als o, at this time of the year temperature and evapotranspiration rates are hi gh, creating a negative water ba lance if soil moisture is reduced, particularly in sandy soils which have low soil water hol ding capacity (Brady and Weil, 2002). Another possible explan ation for the increase in the herbage accumulation for Moderate and High after 1 yr of treatment applica tions is the residual effects of previous N fertilization and high stocking rate on soil fertility (Chapters 4 and 7). These effects are most likely through excreta and plant litter, not residual N fertilizer. Increasing bahiagrass yield in response to N fertilization is reported by several authors (Blue, 1972; Burton et al., 1997; Gates and Burton, 1998), but the responses varied. Stanley and Rhoads Jr. (2000) found that bahiag rass response to N in the range of 0 to 168 kg N ha-1 was 26 kg of dry matter (DM) kg-1 of N but the response to N between 168 and 336 kg ha-1 was marginal. Burton et al. (1997) reported that rates of 56, 112, 224, and 448 kg N ha-1 produced average annual DM yields of 6010, 8240, 11 900, and 15 200 kg ha-1. Rhoads et al. (1997) suggested that even the highest rate of N (336 kg ha-1) tested in their research was economical, however, Ov erman and Stanley (1998) stated that maximal incremental OM response to appl ied N on bahiagrass occurred at 140 kg N ha-1. In the current study it was probably not ec onomically viable to use the higher N fertilization, i.e., 360 kg N ha-1 yr-1, on bahiagrass pastures because the herbage

PAGE 61

42 accumulation from Moderate to High manageme nt intensity did not change significantly (Table 3.4). Table 3.4. Herbage accumulation rates on contin uously stocked bahiagrass pastures at different management intensities during 2001-2003. Year Treatment 2001 2002 2003 ------------------------------kg DM ha-1d -1 -----------------------------Low 22 a A† 14 b A 17 b A Moderate 20 a B 41 a A 42 a A High 26 a B 41 a A 53 a A SE 6 †Means followed by the same letter, lower-c ase letters within the same column and upper-case letters in the same row, do not di ffer statistically by the LSMEANS test (P > 0.05). 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecRainfall (mm) 30-yr average 2001 2002 2003 Figure 3.2. Monthly rainfall data at the experimental si te; average of 30-yr, 2001, 2002, and 2003. Cumulative annual rainfall for the 30-yr average, 2001, 2002, and 2003 were 1341, 1008, 1237, and 1345 mm, respectively.

PAGE 62

43 Herbage accumulation rate differed among pa sture zones and was greater in Zone 1 (lounging area) than Zone 3 (Figure 3.3). B ecause animals congregate in lounging areas (e.g., shade and watering locations ), soil fertility tends to be higher in those sites due to greater excreta return per unit area (Mathews et al., 1996; Mathews et al., 2004). This pattern of increasing soil nut rient concentration was obs erved in the present study (Chapter 4), therefore, herbage accumulation was greater in Zone 1 due at least in part to higher soil fertility. For grass species with a decumbent growth habit like bahiagrass, the protection of basal leaf meristems from defoliation allows a rapid refoliation of the defoliated plants and the restoration of a positive C balance within a few days (Lemaire, 2001). Consequently, as long as overgrazing does not occur, more frequent grazing in zones closer to lounging areas (Table 3.5) is not likely to have a negative effect on bahiagrass regrowth, but it can play an im portant role in enhancing soil fertility. Bahi agrass stores C and N in roots and rhizomes, especially under higher soil fertility conditions (Impithuksa and Blue, 1978), therefore, it is likely that C and N reserves from roots and rhizomes also contributed to faster bahi agrass regrowth in Zone 1. Herbage mass did not differ (P > 0.05) among management intensities, but there was a year x zone interaction (Table 3.5). There was no management intensity effect on herbage mass because the additional forage gr owth of High and Moderate treatments was compensated for by higher stocking rate. In teraction occurred because herbage mass was least in Zone 1 in 2001 and 2003, but there we re no zone effects in 2002. This response was likely due to proportionally greater grazing time in Zone 1 (Chapter 4).

PAGE 63

44 40 33 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 123ZonesHerbage accumulation (kg DM ha-1 d-1)a ab b Figure 3.3. Herbage accumulation rates in different pasture zones on continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures duri ng 2001 through 2003. Zones are defined based on their distance from shade and water (Zone 1: 0 – 8 m; Zone 2: 8-16 m; Zone 3: > 16 m). Means followed by the same letter do not differ statistically by the LSMEANS (P > 0.05) procedure. SE = 3 kg DM ha-1 d-1. Table 3.5. Herbage mass of continuously stoc ked Pensacola bahiagra ss in pasture zones defined by their distance from shade and water. Pasture zones Year Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 ------------------------------------kg DM ha-1------------------------------2001 2260 b B† 2780 b A 2810 b A 2002 2290 b A 2290 c A 2430 b A 2003 2690 a B 3630 a A 3860 a A SE 330 †Means followed by the same letter, lower-c ase letters within the same column and upper-case letters in the same row, do not di ffer statistically by the LSMEANS test (P > 0.05).

PAGE 64

45 Herbage nutritive value Plant nitrogen concentration There was a treatment by year interacti on for plant N concentration in handplucked samples (Table 3.6). Interaction occurred because there was no difference between Low and Moderate intensities in 2002, but Moderate was greater than Low in the other 2 yr. Herbage CP for High was great er than Moderate in all 3 yr. Increased management intensity generally increased plant N concentration due to higher N fertilization. Increasing stoc king rate may also have play ed a role by increasing the proportion of the nutrients cy cling through excreta as opposed as plant litter (Thomas, 1992). Therefore, a higher amount and availabi lity of soil N probably resulted in higher plant N concentration. Grass responses to N fertilization and simultaneous increases in forage N concentration have been observed with numerous speci es throughout the world (Mathews et al., 2004) and with bahiagrass in Florida (Impithuksa et al., 1984; Blue, 1988). Nitrogen concentration observed in this research was well above 11.2 g N kg-1 (70 g kg-1 of crude protein), the leve l at which animal intake is likely to be limited by a protein deficiency (Coleman et al., 2004). An increase in crude prot ein above this level usually does not resu lt in further improvement in intake (Minson, 1990). Although not measured in this experiment, bahiagrass also accumulates N in the roots and rhizomes (Impithuksa and Blue, 1978; Impithuksa et al ., 1984) and these likely were important N sinks in the High pastures.

PAGE 65

46 Table 3.6. Nitrogen concentra tion in hand-plucked samples from continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures during 2001-2003. Year Treatment 2001 2002 2003 --------------------------------g kg-1 ---------------------------------Low 14.0 c C† 17.0 b A 15.7 c B Moderate 17.2 b A 17.9 b A 17.8 b A High 20.0 a B 22.5 a A 23.5 a A SE 0.9 †Means followed by the same letter, lower case letters within the same column and upper case letters in the same row, do not differ statistically by the LSMEANS test (P > 0.05). There also was a treatment by zone interaction for plant N concentration (Table 3.7). Differences among zones occurred onl y for the Low management intensity treatment, where overall N was most limiting. In this treatment, herbage N concentration was greater in Zone 1, as opposed to othe r zones. Zone 1 is where animals lounged, returning a greater proportion of excreta per unit area (Chapter 4). In the Moderate and High treatments, more N fertilizer was used. As a result, Zones 2 and 3 in these pastures were likely less soil-N limited than in th e Low treatment, and herbage N concentration was the same as in Zone 1. Table 3.7. Nitrogen concentrati on in hand-plucked samples fr om different pasture zones of continuously stocked bahiag rass pastures during 2001 through 2003. Zone Treatment 1 2 3 --------------------------------g kg-1 ---------------------------------Low 16.6 b A† 15.3 c AB 14.7 c B Moderate 17.8 b A 17.7 b A 17.5 b A High 21.5 a A 22.1 a A 22.4 a A SE 0.9 †Means followed by the same letter, lower case letters within the same column and uppercase letters in the same row, do not differ statistically by the LSMEANS test (P > 0.05).

PAGE 66

47 Plant phosphorus concentration Plant P concentration was affected by an interaction of treatment x year, with values generally increasing each year (Table 3.8 ). Pastures managed at higher intensities presented higher plant P concen tration in yr 2 and 3. Although P fertilization was greater for Moderate and High only in 2002, the stoc king rate was approximately three times greater in the High than in the Low treatme nt. Increasing stocking rate increased the amount of excreta returned per unit area and P is more available in excreta than in plant litter (Thomas, 1992; Braz et al., 2002). As a re sult, increasing soil P availability due to higher excreta return likely resulted in higher forage P concentration in the High treatment. Highly fertilized pastures tend to allocate proportionally more biomass to above-ground tissue when compared to nutrien t-limited pasture, which needs to invest more in the root system to explore more soil volume to obtain the same amount of nutrients (Tinker and Nye, 2000; Brady and Weil, 2002). At the same time, roots in tropical grasses present low P concentrations resulting in large C:P ratios and P immobilization (Thomas and Asakawa, 1993; Schunke, 1998). Phosphorus net mineralization in plant residues is ge nerally positive when C:P ratios are 200:1 to 300:1 (Mullen, 1999; Novais and Smyth, 1999), which is not the case for most tropical grasses (Thomas and Asakawa, 1993; Schunke, 1998), partic ularly in the root tissue. Gijsman et al. (1997), for example, reported C:P ratios up to 1540:1 in roots of creeping signalgrass [ Brachiaria humidicola (Rendle) Schweick.] grown on Co lombian Oxisols. Therefore, pastures managed at the Low intensity probably had proportion ally more roots with large C:P ratios contributing to P immobilization in the soil, and, ultimately showing lesser P concentration in the forage.

PAGE 67

48 Table 3.8. Phosphorus concentration in hand-pl ucked samples from continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures during 2001 through 2003. Year Treatment 2001 2002 2003 --------------------------------g kg-1 ---------------------------------Low 1.53 a B† 1.61 b B 2.02 c A Moderate 1.58 a C 1.71 ab B 2.13 b A High 1.48 a C 1.77 a B 2.37 a A SE 0.04 †Means followed by the same letter, lower-c ase letters within the same column and upper-case letters in the same row, do not di ffer statistically by the LSMEANS test (P > 0.05). Plant P concentration also was affected by the interaction of treatment with pasture zones (Table 3.9). The same trend that occurre d with plant N concen tration also occurred with plant P concentration, i.e., increasing pl ant P concentration in the zones closer to shade and water for the Low treatment, but not for the High. Phosphorus availability, as already discussed previously, was likely less in Low pastures due to lower stocking rate and less excreta deposition per unit area. Because Zone 1 was P enriched due to higher density of dung deposition (Chapter 4), di fferences in plant P concentration were accentuated in the Low treatment (Table 3.9). Table 3.9. Phosphorus concentration in handplucked samples from different pasture zones in continuously stocked ba hiagrass pastures during 2001-2003. Zone Treatment 1 2 3 --------------------------------g kg-1 ---------------------------------Low 1.77 b A† 1.71 b AB 1.68 b B Moderate 1.85 ab A 1.74 b B 1.83 a A High 1.88 a A 1.88 a A 1.85 a A SE 0.04 †Means followed by the same letter, lower case letters within the same column and uppercase letters in the same row do not diffe r statistically by the LSMEANS test (P > 0.05).

PAGE 68

49 IVDOM In vitro digestible organic matter con centration increased from 2001 to 2003 and treatments also interacted with year (T able 3.10). Greater intensity of management resulted in higher IVDOM in 2002 and 2003, but not in 2001. Similar trends occurred for plant N and plant P concentration. This re sponse may be due to decreasing herbage allowance (kg forage kg-1 animal live weight) with incr easing management intensity. On High pastures, the interval betw een cattle visits to a particul ar patch was likely less than on Low pastures. As a result, the average age of plant tissue was also likely lower for High than Low, leading to higher IVDOM. Fer tilizer amount may have had some impact, but the effect of N fertilizer on digestibil ity is variable and the causes are complex (Wilson, 1982). Tillering may increase at hi gher N rates (Chapman and Lemaire, 1993) contributing to the formation of new tissue re sulting in higher IVDOM (Coleman et al., 2004). The relationship between herbage IVDOM and CP concentrations expressed as DOM/CP ratio is important in determining an imal N status and need for supplementation (Moore, 1992; Lima et al., 1999). Moore et al (1999) suggested that IVDOM:CP ratios below 7 indicate that there is unlikely to be an animal response to N supplementation. In the present research, IVDOM:CP ratio aver aged 4.8, 4.3, and 3.7 for Low, Moderate, and High treatments, respectively, i ndicating no limitation of N rela tive to digestible energy for any of the treatments. If this ratio is low, an energy-protein imbalance may increase N losses to the environment due to greater N excretion by the animal. Depending upon cost and availability, readily availa ble sources of supplemental energy should be considered for animals grazing pastures receiving high rate s of N. This may result not only in higher animal performance but also in less N excretion and loss to the environment.

PAGE 69

50 Table 3.10. In vitro digestible organic ma tter (IVDOM) concentration in hand-plucked samples from continuously stocked bahi agrass pastures managed at different intensities during 2001-2003. Year Treatment 2001 2002 2003 --------------------------------g kg-1 ---------------------------------Low 419 a B† 488 b A 496 c A Moderate 433 a B 494 b A 517 b A High 436 a C 529 a B 558 a A SE 6 †Means followed by the same letter, lower case letters within the same column and uppercase letters in the same row do not diffe r statistically by the LSMEANS test (P > 0.05). Herbage IVDOM was greater for the Low treatment in Zone 1 than Zone 3, but values did not differ among zones for the other treatments (Table 3.11). Because Low pastures received the least amount of fertiliz er, a soil nutrient concen tration gradient from Zone 1 to Zone 3 may have impacted this response. Additionally, the lower herbage accumulation rate on Low pastures in conjunction with animals spending much time around shade and water (Zone 1) could have resu lted in more frequent visits to grazing patches in Zone 1 and less mature herbage. Table 3.11. In vitro digestible organic matte r concentration in hand-plucked samples from different pasture zones in con tinuously stocked bahiagrass pastures during 2001-2003. Zone Treatment 1 2 3 --------------------------------g kg-1 ---------------------------------Low 478 b A† 466 b AB 459 c B Moderate 488 ab A 476 b A 480 b A High 502 a A 509 a A 511 a A SE 6 †Means followed by the same letter, lower-c ase letters within the same column and upper-case letters in the same row do not differ statistically by the LSMEANS test (P > 0.05).

PAGE 70

51 Experiment 2 Herbage accumulation and mass Rotationally stocked pastures had si milar herbage accumulation rates among treatments, but across the 3-yr the average accumulation rate for the rotational treatments was greater than for continuous stocking. A ccumulation rate for the four rotational treatments averaged 70 kg DM ha-1 d-1 compared to 42 kg DM ha-1 d-1 for the continuous High treatment (P=0.0019) (Table 3.12). Table 3.12. Herbage accumulation rates on rotati onally stocked bahiagrass pastures with different grazing periods or c ontinuous stocking during 2001-2003. Treatment Herbage accumulation (kg DM ha-1 d-1) Rotational† 1 day 65 3 days 68 7 days 72 21 days 75 Effect‡ (P value) NS (P > 0.10) Continuous 42 Contrast Rotational vs. Continuous (P value) 0.002 †Length of grazing period. ‡Polynomial contrast for length of grazing period effect for rotational treatments. SE = 3.5 kg DM ha-1 d-1. Frequency, intensity, and timing of defolia tion often interact strongly. Richards (1993) stated that “The amount and type of tissue removed, and when the loss occurs in relation to plant development and the preva iling environment, are most important in determining the impact of defoliation on plan ts”. Experiments date back to the 1930s comparing rotational vs. continuous methods (Hodgson et al., 1934), but in many cases the differences between methods were not cl ear (Davis and Pratt, 1956; Grant et al.,

PAGE 71

52 1988). The idea of rotational stocking is to a llow a period for forage regrowth without the animal interfering in reestablishment of car bohydrate levels and LAI, allowing the plant to reach the steeper part of the growth curve resulting in a faster re growth. In the present study, defoliation interval likel y played a role in the he rbage accumulation response. Parsons and Penning (1988) reported an in crease in the average growth rate of perennial ryegrass ( Lolium perenne L.) as regrowth interval increased from approximately 13 d to 21 d, but growth rate changed little as the re growth interval was extended from 21 d to 32 d. The authors attribut ed these responses to a rapid increase in canopy photosynthesis and rate of production of new leaves after defoliation, without a corresponding increase in the rate of leaf death until approximately 21 d of regrowth. As a result, net herbage accumulation was greater at the intermediate period of regrowth, i.e., 21 d. Chapman and Lemaire (1993) pointed out that when time period between defoliation events is less than the leaf lifespa n, leaf material below defoliation height will senesce and decompose but that produced a bove defoliation height will be present at harvest. On the other hand, when interval between defoliations is longer than mean lifespan, a proportion of leaf material produced since the previous de foliation is lost to senescence and the difference between prim ary production and harvestable production increases. Thus, appropriate defoliation in terval and grazing height maximize forage growth and utilization. Considering the results obtained in the cu rrent experiment, rota tional stocking with a 21-d regrowth period appeared to favor net herbage accumulation more than the defoliation intervals and grazing heights that occurred under continuous stocking. Herbage allowance (kg forage kg-1 of animal live weight) in the High treatment was

PAGE 72

53 lower than in the other conti nuously stocked treatments becau se of greater stocking rate. Considering that herbage allowance plays a role in the frequency of defoliation for a given patch, the period of return of the gr azing animals to the same patch in the High management intensity and continuously stocke d pastures probably was not long, likely less than the 14 d allowed for forage regrowth inside the cages. As a result, the cage technique may have even underestimated the differences between continuous and rotational methods. Similar to what occurred in Experiment 1, herbage accumulation rate increased from 2001 to 2003 (Figure 3.4). The same explana tion likely holds here, i.e., the increase in soil nutrient concentration (Chapter 4 and Chapter 7) cont ributed to increasing herbage accumulation after first experimental year. Soil P, for example, averaged 5.3 mg kg-1 at the beginning of the experiment in 2001 and after 3 yr of gr azing soil P averaged 10.2 mg kg-1 for the rotational and High treatments (Chapt er 4). Soil K also increased from 28 mg kg-1 in 2001 to 108 mg kg-1 in 2003 at the 0to 8-cm soil depth. Lower rainfall in 2001 (1008 mm) when compared to the 30-yr aver age (1341 mm) and the other experimental years (1237 mm in 2002 and 1346 in 2003), probabl y also had some effect in reducing herbage accumulation rates in 2001. Pre-graze herbage mass was not affected by length of grazing period and averaged 4180 kg DM ha-1 across the four rotational stocking tr eatments. There were year effects similar to those observed in Experiment 1 (Table 3.13). Post-graze herbage mass decreased with increasing length of grazing pe riod, with the lowest value observed for the 21-d grazing period (Table 3.14). Considering that pre-graze herbage mass was similar for all treatments and other factors like st ocking rate and N fertili zation were also the

PAGE 73

54 same, lower post-graze herbage mass implies that either herbage accumulation was lower or forage utilization was higher for the 21-d treatment. A possible e xplanation is a lower herbage accumulation during the longer grazing periods because of frequent return of the cattle to the grazing patch; therefore, the use of the herbage accumulation during the resting period may not be adequate for the longer grazing period (21 days). 52 61 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 200120022003Grazing seasonHerbage accumulation (kg DM ha-1 day-1)c b a Figure 3.4. Herbage accumulation rates on rota tionally stocked bahiagrass pastures during different grazing seasons. Means followed by the same letter do not differ statistically by the LSMEANS procedure (P > 0.05). SE = 2.8 kg DM ha-1 d-1. Table 3.13. Average preand post-graze herbag e mass on rotationally stocked bahiagrass pastures during three grazing seasons. Year Pre-herbage mass Post-herbage mass --------------------------------------kg DM ha-1------------------------------------2001 3440 b† 2360 a 2002 3050 c 1860 c 2003 4740 a 2100 b SE 239 110 †Means followed by the same letter within th e same column do not differ statistically by the LSMEANS test (P > 0.05).

PAGE 74

55 Table 3.14. Post-graze herbage mass on rotationa lly stocked bahiagrass pastures differing in length of grazing period. Treatment† Pre-herbage mass (kg DM ha-1) Post-herbage mass (kg DM ha-1) 1 day 3530 2100 3 days 4020 2310 7 days 3880 2250 21 days 3550 1770 SE 250 115 Effect (P value) ‡ NS (P > 0.10) Linear ( P = 0.01) †Length of grazing period. ‡Polynomial contrast for length of grazing period effect for rotational treatments. Herbage nutritive value Plant nitrogen concentration There were no zone effects on plant N c oncentration, but there was a treatment x year interaction (Table 3.15), with N concen trations generally increasing after the first experimental year. Lower N rate in 2001 th an 2002 and 2003 for all of these treatments likely explains this response. In 2001, a linea r increase in N concentr ation occurred with increasing grazing period, but no significant e ffect was observed in the following years. Continuous stocking did not differ from rotational stocking in terms of plant N concentration. Values observed in this experiment were above the average of 857 samples collected from soil fertility trials in nine counties throughout Central Florida, which had an average of 17.4 4.4 g N kg-1 for low yielding bahiagrass and 15.7 3.1 g N kg-1 for high yielding bahiagrass (Payne et al., 1990). The hi gh N fertilization used in the present experiment (360 kg N ha-1 yr-1) likely explain most of that difference.

PAGE 75

56 Table 3.15. Nitrogen concentration in hand-pl ucked samples from one continuously and four rotationally stocked bahiag rass pasture treatments during 2001-2003. Year Treatment 2001 2002 2003 Rotational † ---------------g kg-1 ---------------1 day 20.2 B§ 22.9 A 23.1 A 3 days 20.8 C 24.3 A 22.1 B 7 days 20.7 B 23.2 A 21.0 B 21 days 21.5 C 24.0 A 22.6 B Effect‡ (P value)‡ Linear (P < 0.03) NS (P > 0.10) NS (P > 0.10) Continuous 20.0 B 22.5 A 23.5 A Contrast Rotational vs. Continuous (P value) 0.27 0.16 0.13 †Length of grazing period. ‡Polynomial contrast for length of grazing period effect for rotational treatments. §Means followed by the same letter within a row do not differ (P>0.05) by the SAS least square mean test (PDIFF). SE = 0.6 g kg-1. Plant phosphorus concentration There were no zone effects or interactions with zone, but there was a treatment x year interaction for plant P. In 2002, P concen tration in the plant de creased linearly with increasing grazing period, but no effect o ccurred in 2001 and 2003. Plant P concentration increased from 2001 to 2003 (Table 3.16). Phosphor us build up due to P fertilization and also P cycling to more available forms could explain increasing plant-P concentrations from the beginning to the end of the experi ment. Continuous stocki ng was not different from rotational stocking for all evaluated ye ars in terms of plant P concentration.

PAGE 76

57 Table 3.16. Phosphorus concentrat ion in hand-plucked samples from rotationally stocked bahiagrass pastures during 2001-2003. Year Treatment 2001 2002 2003 Rotational † -----------------g kg-1 -----------------1 day 1.52 C§ 1.92 B 2.54 A 3 days 1.46 C 1.89 B 2.40 A 7 days 1.45 C 1.73 B 2.43 A 21 days 1.52 C 1.78 B 2.49 A Effect‡ (P value) NS (P > 0.10) Linear (P < 0.05) NS (P > 0.10) Continuous 1.48 C 1.77 B 2.37 A Contrast Rotational vs. Continuous (P value) 0.87 0.48 0.39 †Length of grazing period. ‡Polynomial contrast for length of grazing period effect for rotational treatments. §Means followed by the same letter within a row do not differ (P>0.05) by the SAS least square mean test (PDIFF). SE = 0.04 g kg-1. IVDOM There were no zone effects or interactions with zone for herbage IVDOM, but there was a treatment x year interaction (Table 3.17) In general, digestib ility increased from 2001 to 2003, as observed in Experiment 1, and treatment differences were more pronounced in 2003. In 2003, IVDOM decreased linearly with increasing grazing period, with no similar effect observed in 2001 a nd 2002. Higher stocking densities in the short grazing periods may have promoted a more uniform defoliation, and therefore, more uniform regrowth and less occurrence of very mature, undefoliated herbage. In contrast, longer grazing periods like 21 d and High treatm ents may be more likely to develop patch grazing and some areas of pasture that ar e excessively mature. Contrast between rotational treatments and continuous High showed higher IVDOM for the rotational treatments (P < 0.02) in 2001, but not in 2002 and 2003.

PAGE 77

58 Table 3.17. In vitro digestible organic ma tter concentration (IVDOM) in hand-plucked samples from rotationally and conti nuously stocked bahiagrass pastures during 2001-2003. Year Treatment 2001 2002 2003 Rotational † ---------------g kg-1 -------------1 day 480 C§ 552 B 607 A 3 days 472 C 573 B 598 A 7 days 483 B 510 A 521 A 21 days 497 C 547 A 524 B Effect‡ (P value) NS (P > 0.10) NS (P > 0.10) Linear (0.0001) Continuous 436† C 529 B 558 A Contrast Rotational vs. Continuous (P value) 0.02 0.13 0.83 †Length of grazing period. ‡Polynomial contrast for length of grazing period effect for rotational treatments. §Means followed by the same letter within a row do not differ (P>0.05) by the SAS least square mean test (PDIFF). SE = 10 g kg-1. Conclusions Under continuous stocking, herbage res ponses differed among pasture zones. Herbage accumulation and herbag e nutritive value were greater in the zone closest to the shade and water, while herbage mass was lowest in Zone 1. Greater accumulation and nutritive value in Zone 1 likely reflects the greater concentration of nutrients in zones closer to shade and water. Lower herbage ma ss in Zone 1 is reflective of greater time spent by cattle in this zone (Chapter 4). Also, increasing ma nagement intensity increased herbage accumulation and herbage nutritive value, particularly after th e first experimental year. This is an indication th at nutrient build up in the so il is likely to occur when intensively managed pasture-based producti on systems are adopted, affecting herbage responses across years. The results obtained in this research do not support the use of N fertilization above 120 kg N ha-1 yr-1 for bahiagrass pastures in North Central Florida.

PAGE 78

59 In Experiment 2, herbage accumulation was lower in continuously stocked pastures when compared to rotational ones, but there were no differences among rotational strategies. Herbage nutritive value (N, P, and IVDOM) increa sed after first experimental year, but it was not affected by grazing met hod (continuous vs. rotati onal) or length of grazing period (rotational treatments) in more than 1 out of 3 yr. Herbage response was similar among pasture zones in Experiment 2, indicating a more uni form regrowth and chemical composition in more intensively managed pasture systems and rotationally stocked pastures. Considering that no additional herbage accumulation response occurred with N fertilizer greater than 120 kg ha-1 yr-1 and the advantages in terms of uniformity of soil nutrient concentration for rotational stocking with short grazing periods (Chapter 5), a potential system to optimize beef cattle production on bahiagrass pastures in North Central Florida is a rotational system with short grazing periods (< 7 d), a 21-d resting period, and N fertilizer applie d at approximately 120 kg N ha-1 yr-1.

PAGE 79

60 CHAPTER 4 ANIMAL BEHAVIOR AND SOIL NUT RIENT REDISTRIBUTION IN CONTINUOUSLY STOCKED PENSACOL A BAHIAGRASS PASTURES GRAZED AT DIFFERENT INTENSITIES Introduction A small proportion of the nut rients ingested by grazing livestock are retained in animal tissues or exported in animal products; most nutrients are retu rned to the pasture in excreta (Wilkinson and Lowrey, 1973; Haynes and Williams, 1993). Grazing animals modify nutrient distribution in pasture so ils by ingesting nutrients in forages and returning them to different locations across the pasture surface. A dditionally, excreta is not uniformly deposited and a higher density of deposition occurs around lounging areas (Mathews et al., 1994a; Mathews et al., 1999; West et al., 1989; White et al., 2001). Nutrients also are excreted in different pr oportions in dung and urine. Most of the P and Mg, for example, are excreted in the dung, while most of the K is excreted in the urine (Mathews et al., 2004). Enhancing uniformity of soil nutrient distribution across th e pasture is an important goal of grazing management. Expected result s include higher nutrient-use efficiency, more economical farming production, and le ss environmental pollution due to lower nutrient loading of ground water. Peterson and Gerrish (1996) suggested that short grazing periods with high stocking rates en hance uniformity of excreta distribution, however, in warmer climates the results are not always consistent with this conclusion (Mathews et al., 1994b; Mathews et al., 1999). Under high temperature conditions, animals stayed in small areas of the past ure congregating under shade and close to

PAGE 80

61 watering points, regardless of stocking rate or grazing method (Mathews et al., 1994b; Mathews et al., 1999; White et al., 2001). Additional research effort linking soil responses and animal behavior to pasture ma nagement practices is needed in order to better understand nutrient dynamics in grazed ecosystems (Mathews et al., 1999). Thus, the objectives of this study were to evaluate the effects of different pasture management practices on animal behavior and soil nutri ent distribution across continuously stocked ‘Pensacola’ bahiagrass ( Paspalum notatum Flgge) pastures. Materials and Methods Experimental Site A grazing experiment was performed at the Beef Research Unit, northeast of Gainesville, FL, at 2943’ N lat on Pensacola ba hiagrass pastures. Soils were classified as Spodosols (sandy siliceous, hyperthermic Ultic Alaquods from the Pomona series or sandy siliceous, hyperthermic Aeric Alaquods fr om the Smyrna series) with average pH of 5.9. Mehlich-I extractable soil P, K, Ca and Mg average con centrations at the beginning of the experiment were 5.3, 28, 553, and 98 mg kg-1, respectively. Treatments and Design This experiment evaluated the effect of three management intensities of continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures on animal behavior and soil nutrient distribution in different pastur e zones, defined according to their distance from shade and water locations. Treatments were combinations of stocking rate a nd N fertilization, and are defined here as management intensities. The three management intensities tested were Low (40 kg N ha-1 yr-1 and 1.2 animal units [AU, one AU = 500 kg live weight] ha-1 target stocking rate), Moderate (120 kg N ha-1 yr-1 and 2.4 AU ha-1 target stocking rate), and High (360 kg N ha-1 yr-1 and 3.6

PAGE 81

62 AU ha-1 target stocking rate). These treatments were selected because Low approximates current bahiagrass management practice in Florida cow-calf systems, Moderate represents the upper rang e of current practice, and High is well above what is currently in use. Actual heifer weights were greater than anticipated at the be ginning of the grazing seasons resulting in greater SR. The actual av erage stocking rates for the 3 yr were 1.4, 2.8, and 4.2 AU ha-1 for Low, Moderate, and High, respectively. A strip-split plot arrangement in a completely randomized block design was used and each treatment was replicated twice. Management intensity was the main plot and the zones were the stripsplit plot. Zones were previously described (Figure 3.1). The bahiagrass pastures were continuously stocked from 26 June to 16 Oct. 2001 (112 d), 8 May to 23 Oct. 2002 (168 d), and 12 May to 27 Oct. 2003 (168 d). Dr y spring and early summer conditions in 2001 delayed the start of the study. Due to the shorter grazing s eason of 2001, the High treatment received only 270 kg N ha-1 in that year. Two crossbred (Angus x Brahman) yearling heifers were assigned to each experimental unit. Pasture area varied accord ing to the treatment and decreased as the management intensity increased (Chapter 3). Artificial shad e (3.1 m x 3.1 m) was provided on each of the experimental units a nd cattle had free-choice access to water and a salt-based mineral mixture. The water troughs were always located under the artificial shade and the mineral mix troughs (one per pasture) were moved randomly throughout the pasture. Nitrogen fertiliza tion dates and rates were the sa me as described in Chapter 3. Response Variables Soil samples were characterized in th ree zones of each experimental unit immediately prior to the begi nning (spring) and immediately after the end (autumn) of

PAGE 82

63 each of the three grazing seasons (2001-2003). In each zone of all pastures, a composite was prepared from 20 samples (2-cm diameter) fo r the 0to 8-cm depth and for the 8to 23-cm depth, taken along a zigzag line within the zone. The composite soil samples were split with one sample air dried and analyzed for Mehlich I P, K, and Mg. The other sample was frozen, and following a subsequent 2-M KCl extraction (2 :1), shaken for 1 h, filtered in Whatman paper filter Number 5, stored in plastic vials and frozen until laboratory analysis for NH4 and NO3 using a semi-automated colorimetric analysis (EPA method 353.2). A sub-sample was taken from each frozen soil sample to determine soil moisture. Results were corrected for so il moisture and are expressed as mg kg-1 dry soil. Animal behavior was monitored continuous ly by observers over 12-h periods (0700 to 1900 h) for each treatment. Two heifer s per experimental unit were observed. Observers were located outside the pasture to minimize influence on cattle behavior. All treatments in one replicate were observed simultaneously in a given day. The second replicate was observed approximately 1 wk la ter except for the firs t observation in 2002 when the two replicates were observed duri ng the same day. A total of nine complete animal behavior evaluations were perform ed during 2002 and 2003, five in 2002 and four in 2003 (Table 4.1). Behavior observations were not made in 2001. Behavior observations included quantity of time spent grazing and lounging in each zone, as well as location (zone) and time of every dung and urine event. The three zones were delimited by colored flags in a way th at allowed the observers to visualize each zone without disturbing the he ifers’ behavior. Indices were calculated by dividing the percentage of an activity (total time sp ent per zone or dung an d urine events) that

PAGE 83

64 occurred in a given zone by the percentage of the pasture area occupied by that particular zone. Table 4.1. Animal behavior observation dates during 2002 and 2003. Evaluation Observation dates 1 21 May 2002 2 4 and 11 June 2002 3 26 June and 3 July 2002 4 12 and 19 August 2002 5 22 and 29 September 2002 6 9 and 16 June 2003 7 30 June and 7 July 2003 8 15 and 22 August 2003 9 27 September and 4 October 2003 Statistical Analyses Statistical analyses of animal behavi or and soil nutrient concentration were performed using Proc Mixed from SAS institute (SAS Inst. Inc., 1996) and the LSMEANS procedure used to compare trea tment means. Zonal soil samples were analyzed using the final soil nutrient con centration (October 2 003) as the response variable and the initial concen trations (June 2001) as a co-var iate. Animal behavior data were analyzed including evaluation date in the model. Multivariate regression was performed for some behavioral responses a nd weather variables using Proc Reg from SAS. Results and Discussion Animal Behavior Management intensity did not affect an imal behavior on continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures, but grazing behavior did differ in the pa sture zones and at different evaluation intervals. Cattle spent more time in Zone 3 followed by Zone 1 and Zone 2 (Table 4.2). Zone 3 represented 96, 92, and 88% of the pasture area for Low, Moderate,

PAGE 84

65 and High treatments, respectively, and cattle spent more time grazing in Zone 3 (Table 4.3). On the other hand, Zone 1 represented on ly 1, 2, and 3% of pasture area for Low, Moderate, and High treatments, respectively, but cattle spent approxi mately 24% of the total time in Zone 1 during observation periods (Table 4.2). The total time index, which is calculated by dividing the per centage of the total time spent in a given zone by the percentage of the pasture area occupied by that zone, was greater in Zone 1 when compared to the other zones, showing that proportionally the heifers spent more time close to the water and shade (Table 4.2). The urine and dung distribution indices, which are the percentage of dung or urine event th at occurred in a given zone divided by the percentage of the pasture area occupied by that particular zone, indi cate a concentration of both urine and dung events in Zone 1, when compared to the othe r zones (Table 4.2). Shade and water troughs were located in Z one 1, and animals congregated there during the warmer periods of the day to minimize h eat stress associated with high temperature and humidity. Although animal behavior has no t been well document ed, several studies across a range of environments and grazi ng methods have shown that nutrient accumulation is greater near shade and wa ter, with shade being more important (Sugimoto et al., 1987; West et al., 1989; Gerrish et al., 1993; Macoon, 1999; Mathews et al., 1999; White et al., 2001).

PAGE 85

66 Table 4.2. Total time cattle spent per zone, tota l time index, urine distribution index, and dung distribution index on continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures during 2002-2003. Zone Total time per zone, min evaluation-1 Total time index‡ Urine distribution index‡ Dung distribution index‡ 1 164 b† 9.8 a 6.3 a 5.7 a 2 53 c 3.9 b 2.1 b 2.8 b 3 476 a 3.5 b 0.8 b 0.8 b †Means followed within a column by the same letter do not differ (P>0.05) by the SAS least squares mean test (PDIFF). ‡Indices were calculated by divi ding the percentage of an ac tivity (total time spent per zone or dung and urine events) that occurred in a given zone by th e percentage of the pasture area occupied by that particular zone. Table 4.3. Grazing time in pasture zones, defi ned based on distance from shade and water locations, on different evaluation date s on continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures during 2002-2003. Zone Evaluation dates 1 2 3 ------------------------min evaluation-1 ------------------------4 and 11 June 2002 6 a B† 34 a B 358 a A 22 and 29 Sept. 2002 20 a C 77 a B 207 c A 30 June and 7 July 2003 16 a B 34 a B 276 b A 27 Sept. and 4 Oct. 2003 26 a B 38 a B 356 a A †Means followed by the same letter, lower case letter within a column and upper case letters within a row, do not differ (P>0.05) by the SAS least squares mean test (PDIFF). Environmental conditions may be the mo st important non-canopy factor affecting grazing behavior, and grazing behavior can have a major impact on nutrient redistribution in pastures (Sollenberger et al., 2002). In this study, time spent under the shade ranged from 30 min evaluation-1 to 230 min evaluation-1, and a multivariate regression including weather data explained 50% of the variation in this re sponse (Table 4.4). A Pearson correlation analysis indicated that the time spent under the shade was positively correlated with air temperature (0.53) and with Temperature-Humidity Index (0.54). Therefore, it is likely that in warmer mo re humid environments greater nutrient accumulation is likely to occur under shade and close to water locations than in cooler,

PAGE 86

67 drier environments (Mathews et al., 1994a; Ma thews et al., 1999). Nutrient accumulation near shade was studied for pastures in which Holstein heifers grazed bahiagrass in humid southwestern Japan (Sugimoto et al., 1987). On warm, summer days when temperatures exceeded 27C, 44 to 53% of urinations and 26 to 29% of defecations occurred in shaded areas. In autumn, when maximum air temp erature did not exceed 23.5C, only 11% of urine and dung deposits occurred in shade areas. This may help to explain the apparently greater success achieved in using grazing management to improve distribution of nutrients in temperate (Peterson and Gerrish, 1996) than in warm climates (Sugimoto et al., 1987; Mathews et al., 1994a; Mathews et al., 1999). Temperatures (average, minimum, and maximum) and relative humidity for the experimental period in 2002 and 2003 are plotted in Figure 4.1. Table 4.4. Regression equation, R2, and P value relating the time cattle spent under the shade and weather variables. Response variable Equation† R2 P value Time spent under shade Y = -682.9 + 0.3Solrad – 7.7WSP – 29.4THI 0.50 0.03 †Solrad is average solar radiation in W m2, WSP is average wind speed in km h-1, and THI is Temperature-Humidity Index (C)1. All climate data refer to the average from 0700 to 1900 h of each evaluation day. 1 Cattle Heat Stress Index was developed by the University of Oklahoma in conjunction with the Intermountain Fire Scie nces Lab of the U.S. Forest Service and the formula is THI = Tair – [0.55-(0.55*RH/100)]*(Tair-58.8); where THI is Temperature-Humidity Index, Tair is air temperature in Farenheit, and RH is percent relative humidity. Osborne, P. 2003. Managing Heat Stress Returns Divi dends [Online]. Ava ilable from West Virginia University http://www.wvu.edu/~a gexten/forglvst/heat stress.pdf (verified 12/21/2004).

PAGE 87

68 2002-15 -5 5 15 25 35 45 MayJunJulAugSepOctTemperature (C)40 50 60 70 80 90 100Relative humidity (%) Aver. temp (C) Minim. temp (C) Max. temp (C) Rel. Hum. (%) 2003-15 -5 5 15 25 35 45 MayJunJulAugSepOctTemperature (C)40 50 60 70 80 90 100Relative humidity (%) Aver. temp (C) Minim. temp (C) Max. temp (C) Rel. Hum. (%) Figure 4.1. Average, minimum, and maximu m temperatures and relative humidity measured at Alachua Automated Weather Station2 during the experimental period in 2002 and 2003. 2 Data obtained from the website http://fawn.ifas.ufl.edu/ on 12/20/2004

PAGE 88

69 Soil Nutrient Concentration There was a management treatment by so il depth interaction for soil nitrate, ammonium, and total extractable N concentrations (Table 4.5). The High treatment had greater soil concentrations of NH4-N and total extractable N at the 0to 8-cm depth when compared to other pastures. There were no differences among treatments for any soil-N fraction at the 8to 23-cm depth. Higher i norganic-N concentrati on as N fertilization increased was expected, particul arly when forage growth a nd N uptake is limited by other factors (Vogel et al., 2002). Franzluebbers and Stuedemann (2003) reported average 5-yr sampling values of 1.6 mg NO3-N kg-1 soil and 10.8 mg NH4-N kg-1 soil from the 0to 6cm depth for bermudagrass [ Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.] fertilized with 200 kg N ha-1 yr-1. These NO3-N values are similar to those obtained in the Moderate treatment in this experiment, but the NH4 values are closer to the results obtained in the High treatment. Soil textural differences may alter the inorga nic-N distribution in th e soil profile, due to the influence of texture on soil chemical and physica l properties. Ammonium accumulates more at the soil surface due to it s interaction with cation exchange sites on soil organic matter complexes and because am monification reactions from organic matter are concentrated near the soil surface (F ranzluebbers and Stuedemann, 2003). Root system density of 1 cm root cm-3 of soil or greater, absorbs most of the nitrate if soil moisture is available (Tinker and Nye, 2000). Inorganic N concentrations were simila r among zones at shallower depths, but greater in Zone 2 at the 8to 23-cm depth (Table 4.6). The NH4-N and total extractable N were higher at 0 to 8 cm than at 8 to 23 cm for Zones 1 and 3, but not for Zone 2 (Table 4.6). This suggests that either N is moving deep er in the soil profile in Zone 2 or SOM build up is occurring to a greater degree in Zone 2, than in other zones. Soil N enrichment

PAGE 89

70 in Zones 1 and 2 is expected to occur becau se those are the zones closer to shade and water. Because Zone 1 is where the shad e and water are physical ly located, heavier trampling and fouling occurs there compared to Zone 2. As a result, there are areas with exposed soil and generally less vegetation in Zone 1. In contrast, Zone 2 has greater ground coverage and when accompanied by nutrien t enrichment due to cattle excreta may provide a better condition for plant growth and SOM build up at deeper soil layers. Table 4.5. Effect of pasture management treat ment on soil-N concentration at different soil depths in continuously stocked bahi agrass pastures after 3 yr of grazing. Data are means across three zones and two replicates. Nitrate nitrogen NH4 Nitrogen Total Extractable N Treatment 0-8 cm 8-23 cm P† 0-8 cm 8-23 cm P 0-8 cm 8-23 cm P ----------------------------------------------mg kg-1 soil ------------------------------------------------Low 0.7 a‡ 3.0 a 0.57 5.5 b 4.1 a 0.17 6.2 b 7.1 a 0.22 Moderate 1.4 a 1.3 a 0.61 4.6 b 3.8 a 0.49 6.0 b 5.1 a 0.26 High 5.3 a 2.1 a 0.04 9.4 a 2.2 a 0.02 14.7 a 4.3 a <0.01 † Level of P for comparison of the two soil depths within a nutrient and a management intensity treatment. ‡ Means within a column followed by the same letter are not different ( P >0.10). Table 4.6. Effect of pasture zone on soil-N c oncentration at different soil depths in continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures after 3 yr of grazing. Data are means across three treatments and two replicates. Nitrate nitrogen NH4 Nitrogen Total Extractable N Zone 0-8 cm 8-23 cm P† 0-8 cm 8-23 cm P 0-8 cm 8-23 cm P ----------------------------------------------mg kg-1 soil ------------------------------------------------1 3.1 a‡ 1.1 b 0.13 7.6 a 1.8 b 0.02 10.6 a 2.9 b 0.01 2 1.7 a 4.0 a 0.42 5.1 a 6.7 a 0.60 6.8 a 10.7 a 0.63 3 2.6 a 1.4 b 0.26 6.8 a 1.6 b 0.03 9.3 a 3.0 b 0.01 † Level of P for comparison of the two soil depths within a nutrient and a management intensity treatment. ‡ Means within a column followed by the same letter are not different ( P >0.10). Soil P concentration was greater for the Moderate treatment at both soil depths (Table 4.7). Phosphorus fertil ization was similar between Mo derate and High treatments, so that was not the explanation for higher P levels in the Moderate treatment, although greater P fertilization may have contributed to Moderate being greater than Low. Also, a

PAGE 90

71 co-variance analysis was performed using initial soil P levels (June 2001) as a covariable, therefore, P levels at the beginning of the experiment were not responsible for the difference observed. Potassium and Mg concen trations in the soil were greater in the High treatment at the 0to 8cm depth but did not differ at the 8to 23-cm depth (Table 4.7). While most of the K is found in urine, most of the Mg is found in dung (Mathews et al., 2004). Both nutrients were higher in the Hi gh treatment most likel y due to the greater stocking rate in that treatment, as opposed to the others. As alrea dy stated, nutrients in excreta are highly available and the highest fo rage utilization that occurred in the High treatment increased nutrien t return through excreta. Table 4.7. Effect of pasture management treatment on soil P, K, and Mg concentrations at different soil depths in continuously stocked bahiagra ss pastures after 3 yr of grazing. Data are means across th ree zones and two replicates. Phosphorus Potassium Magnesium Treatment 0-8 cm 8-23 cm P† 0-8 cm 8-23 cm P 0-8 cm 8-23 cm P -------------------------------------------------mg kg soil-1 ---------------------------------------------Low 11 b‡ 14 b 0.23 63 b 68 a 0.77 149 b 111 a 0.43 Moderate 19 a 21 a 0.53 72 b 75 a 0.84 128 b 110 a 0.72 High 15 b 14 b 0.93 100 a 75 a 0.12 240 a 126 a 0.03 † Level of P for comparison of the two soil depths within a nutrient and a management intensity treatment. ‡ Means within a column followed by the same letter are not different ( P >0.10). There was an interaction of zone and de pth for soil nutrient co ncentration (Table 4.8). Phosphorus and K were greater in Z one 1 than in Zone 3 for both depths. Magnesium was greater in Zone 1 than in Zone 3 at the 0to 8-cm depth, but not different at the 8to 23-cm depth. Soil nutrient concentra tion was generall y greatest in Zones 1 and 2, showing a clear effect of incr easing soil nutrient c oncentration in areas near shade and water (Table 4.8). Dung and ur ine indices (Table 4.3) were greater in Zone 1, indicating a higher proportional return of excreta in that area, likely resulting in

PAGE 91

72 its higher soil nutrient concentration. This con centration of soil nutri ents could be even worst in larger pastures because of the sma ller proportional areas of shade. Mathews et al. (1999) reported increasing soil N, P, K, and Mg around cattle lounging areas on kikuyugrass ( Pennisetum clandestinum Hochst. ex Chiov.) pasture. Soil P, K, and Mg did not differ between the two depths (Table 4.8). Table 4.8. Effect of pasture zone on soil P, K, and Mg concentration in different soil depths in continuously stocked bahiagra ss pastures after 3 yr of grazing. Data are means across three treatments and two replicates. Phosphorus Potassium Magnesium Zone 0-8 cm 8-23 cm P† 0-8 cm 8-23 cm P 0-8 cm 8-23 cm P ---mg kg soil-1 ------mg kg soil-1 -----mg kg soil-1 --1 21 a‡ 19 a 0.44 103 a 92 a 0.45 198 a 133 a 0.21 2 14 b 17 ab 0.33 80 b 66 b 0.31 197 a 112 a 0.10 3 10 b 13 b 0.17 52 c 59 b 0.59 122 b 102 a 0.66 † Level of P for comparison of the two soil depths within a nutrient and a management intensity treatment. ‡ Means within a column followed by the same letter are not different ( P >0.10). Conclusions Management intensity did not affect animal behavior, but it did affect soil nutrient concentration. Nitrogen, K, and Mg concentratio n in the soil were greater at the highest management intensity at the shallower soil dept h but not deeper in the soil profile. This is an important indication that although soil fe rtility is increasing in the surface horizon, nutrient movement to deeper soil horizons is not occurring when higher management intensity is used on bahiagrass pastures. With the exception of soil P, which increased in Moderate pastures compared to Low, ther e was virtually no cha nge in soil nutrient concentrations associated with an increase in bahiagrass management intensity from the current industry practice (Low) up to the highe st level of management currently practiced (Moderate).

PAGE 92

73 Soil nutrient concentration was generally gr eatest in the pastur e zones closer to shade and water, with a higher proportional re turn of excreta occurring on those areas. Rotation of shade to different pasture ar eas during the grazing season may improve excreta distribution in con tinuously stocked swards, reducing the problem of high soil nutrient concentration in small pasture areas. Weather variables affected animal behavior and therefore excreta return, affecting soil nutrient distribution as an ultimate result. Selection of an imals more adapted to heat stress may be a potential tool to reduce the weather effect on animal behavior.

PAGE 93

74 CHAPTER 5 STOCKING METHODS, ANIMAL BE HAVIOR, AND SOIL NUTRIENT REDISTRIBUTION: HOW ARE THEY LINKED? Introduction Stocking method is an important component of the grazing system because it may affect animal behavior and soil nutrient redistribution (Peterson and Gerrish, 1996). These authors suggested that short grazing pe riods and high stocking densities promote a more uniform excreta distribution on the pasture than do other stocking methods. The rationale is that the higher stocking density, obtained by the subdivision of the pasture, leads to greater competition for forage among the animals, reducing their time spent under the shade or close to wateri ng areas (Mathews et al., 1999). Climate and stocking method may interact In temperate areas, short grazing periods and high stocking rate may improve nutrient distribution; however, in warmer climates this is not always the case (Mat hews et al., 1994b; Math ews et al., 1999). In tropical and subtropical climates, the animal s may congregate under shade and closer to watering points during the warmer part of the day, regardless of stocking density (Mathews et al., 1994b; Mathews et al., 1999; White et al., 2 001), reducing the effect of the stocking method. Moving artificial shades and watering points is an option for improving nutrient distribution (Russelle, 1997), but it may not be practical for more extensive systems. Sollenberger et al. (2002) suggested that if there are advantages of rotational stocking in terms of nutrient di stribution or having more paddocks in a rotational system in a warm climate, these may accrue due to animals being forced to

PAGE 94

75 utilize a greater number of lounging points (one in each paddock) as opposed to achieving greater uniformity of excr eta deposition within each paddock. Grazing experiments in many cases fail to link management practices with animal behavior and soil nutrient di stribution. Thus, the objective of this research is to investigate the effect of different stoc king methods and the grazing environment on animal behavior and soil nutri ent concentration in different pasture zones based on their distance from shade and water. Materials and Methods Experimental Site The research was performed at the Beef Re search Unit, northeast of Gainesville, FL, at 2943’ N lat on ‘Pensacola’ bahiagrass ( Paspalum notatum Flgge) pastures. Soils were classified as Spodosols (sandy siliceous, hyperthermic Ultic Alaquods from the Pomona series or sandy silice ous, hyperthermic Aeric Alaqu ods from the Smyrna series) with average pH of 5.9. Me hlich-I extractable soil P, K, Ca, and Mg average concentrations at the beginning of th e experiment were 5.3, 28, 553, and 98 mg kg-1, respectively. Treatments and Design Treatments were four rotational and one continuous stocking strategy, and in all experimental units, three zone s were identified according to distance from shade and water locations. Treatments were imposed in 2001, 2002, and 2003. The four rotational stocking strategies differed in terms of length of the grazing period (1, 3, 7, and 21 d), or, in other words, the number of paddocks in th e rotational system. All four treatments had the same resting period of 21 d. The continuous stocking treatment was the High treatment described in Chapters 3 and 4. The fi ve treatments were replicated twice using

PAGE 95

76 a strip-split plot arrangement in a completely randomized block design. Stocking methods were the main plot and the three zones were the strip-split plot. Z ones were described in Chapter 3. Stocking rate and N fertilization on all treatments were the same as for the High management intensity described in Ch apter 4, i.e., a stocking rate of 4.2 AU ha-1 and N fertilization of 360 kg ha-1 yr-1. Only one paddock from a given rotational strategy was part of the experiment, and the size of the paddock reflected the length of the grazing period. Paddock sizes were 454, 1250, 2500, and 5000 m2 for 1-, 3-, 7-, and 21-d treatments, respectively. These sizes were cal culated based on a pasture size of 1 ha which would in practice be subdivided into 22, 8, 4, and 2 paddocks of the sizes indicated for the 1, 3, 7, and 21-d treatments, respect ively. The area for the High treatment was 3333 m2. At the beginning of each grazing season, two crossbred (Angus x Brahman) yearling heifers were allocated to the conti nuously stocked treatment. Groups of five or six heifers were formed in order to obtain gr oups with similar total heifer live weight to graze the rotational experimental units. Th e heifer live weight of each group was calculated so that stocking rate was the same as on High treatment pastures. Because the rotational treatments represented an overall pasture size of 1 ha and the continuous treatment a size of 0.33 ha, there were approxi mately three times th e amount of heifer live weight on the rotational vs. the continuous treatments. The target stocking rate for all treatments was 3.6 AU ha-1, but the initial weight of the heifers was greater than expected and actual stocking rates ach ieved were 4.4, 4.1, and 4.0 AU ha-1 in 2001, 2002, and 2003, respectively.

PAGE 96

77 Fertilization followed the same schedul e for the High management intensity described in Chapter 3. Water, shade, and mine rals were available for each experimental unit as described in Chapter 3. Response Variables Soil samples were collected in three zone s of each experimental unit immediately prior to the beginning (spring) and immediately after the en d (autumn) of each of the three grazing seasons (2001-2003). In each zone of all experimental units, a composite was prepared from 20 samples (2-cm diameter core) for the 0to 8cm depth and for the 8to 23-cm depth, taken along a zigzag line within the zone. The composite soil samples were split with one subsample air dried and analyzed for Mehlich I P, K, and Mg. The other subsample was frozen for NH4 and NO3 determination as described in Chapter 4. Animal behavior was monitored continuous ly by observers over 12-h periods (0700 to 1900 h) for each treatment. Two heifer s per experimental unit were observed continuously during each 12-h period. Observ ers were located outsi de the pasture or paddock to minimize effect on animal behavior Because of the grazing calendar for the rotational treatments and the number of obs ervers required, one replicate of each treatment was observed during a given day. The second replicate was observed 1 wk later. A total of eight complete animal be havior evaluations we re performed during 2002 and 2003, four in 2002 and four in 2003 (Table 5.1). Behavior observations were not made in 2001. Behavior observations included quantity of time spent grazing and lounging in each zone, as well as location (zone) and time of every dung and urine event. The three zones were delimited by colored flags in a way th at allowed the observers to visualize each zone without disturbing the he ifers’ behavior. Dung and urin e distribution indices were

PAGE 97

78 calculated by dividing the per centage of dung or urine events that occurred in a given zone by the percentage of the pasture or paddoc k area occupied by that particular zone. In the same way, the total time index and grazing time index were calculated, i.e., dividing the total time spent per zone (or the grazing time per zone) by the percentage of the pasture or paddock area occupi ed by that particular zone. Table 5.1. Animal behavior observation dates during 2002 and 2003. Evaluation Animal behavior observation date 1 4 and 11 June 2002 2 26 June and 3 July 2002 3 12 and 19 Aug. 2002 4 22 and 29 Sept. 2002 5 9 and 16 June 2003 6 30 June and 7 July 2003 7 15 and 22 Aug. 2003 8 27 Sept. and 4 Oct. 2003 The spatial distribution of dung was also monitored in three treatments, 1 d, 7 d, and High, by a second method. Dung deposits from the preceding 24-h period were identified by spray painting existing dung patche s and returning to the pasture 24 h later. Flags were placed on the new dung patches, and their actual X and Y coordinates in the pasture or paddock were quantified using three tape measures (one each along the opposite sides of the pasture/paddock and another running betw een these two and perpendicular to them). Treatments from th e same replicate were evaluated during the same 24-h period to avoid confounding environm ental effects such as temperature and humidity with animal behavior. A total of si x complete evaluations were performed, three in 2002 and three in 2003. In the first ev aluation of 2002, the 7-d treatment was not included (Table 5.2).

PAGE 98

79 Table 5.2. Observation dates for spatial distribution of dung. Evaluation Observation dates 1 2 and 9 Sept. 2002† 2 23 and 30 Sept. 2002 3 16 and 22 Oct. 2002 4 10 and 17 June 2003 5 28 Sept. and 5 Oct. 2003 6 20 and 27 Oct. 2003 †The 7-d treatment was not observed Statistical Analyses Statistical analyses of the animal behavi or and soil nutrient co ncentration response variables were performed using Proc Mixed from SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., 1996), and the LSMEANS procedure was used to compare tr eatment means. Zonal soil samples were analyzed using the final soil nutrient con centration (October 2 003) as the response variable and the initial concen trations (June 2001) as a co-var iate. Animal behavior data were analyzed including evaluation date in the model. Multivariate regression between some behavioral responses and climate data was performed using Proc Reg from SAS. The dung spatial distribution statistical anal ysis was performed after dividing each pasture in each evaluation day into 100 quadrats of equal si ze, allocating each individual dung record according to its X and Y coordinate s in the respective quadrat. In order to evaluate the possibility of ad justing the observed frequencie s to the Poisson or to the negative binomial models, a Dispersion I ndex (Krebs, 1999) was estimated for each experimental unit at each evaluation day. The Dispersion Index (DI) is defined as: X S Mean Variance DIobserved observed 2 The null hypothesis was that the Poiss on distribution applied to the observed frequencies. It was not rejected when the va riance was not different from the mean, i.e.,

PAGE 99

80 DI was not different than 1 and the di stribution model was considered randomly distributed (Braz, 2001). In order to statistically test DI, the chi-square test was used as follows: ) 1 (2 n DIobserved Where: observedsquare chiobserved 2 DI = Dispersion Index n = number of quadrats counted (100 quadrats) The chi-square value was obtained in statis tical tables with n-1 degrees of freedom. The two-tail chi-square te st was used to test the null hypothesis, as following: If 025 0 975 02 2 2 observedthe variance is not different from the mean and DI is 1; therefore, the dung patches are randomly distributed. In this case, the Poisson distribution adequately describes the da taset, and the null hypothesis is true. If 975 02 2 observedthe variance is less than the mean and DI is close to zero; therefore, in this case the dung patches ar e uniformly distributed on the pasture. If 025 02 2 observedthe variance is greater than the m ean and DI is greater than 1; therefore, in this case the dung patches are clustered and th e negative binomial distribution describes th e dataset adequately. After calculating the DI for each trea tment individually by replication and evaluation day, the data were transformed to 1/x in order to normalize the distribution and then analyzed using Proc Mixed from SAS.

PAGE 100

81 Results and Discussion Animal Behavior There was treatment by zone interaction for dung and urine distribution (Tables 5.3 and 5.4). Dung and urine distribut ion indices were greater in Zone 1 than Zone 3 for both the 21-d and the continuous treatments. In co ntrast, there was no zone effect for shorter grazing period rotational strategies (7 d or less), indicating better excreta distribution for these treatments than for th e 21 d and continuous High treatm ents. The distribution index increased linearly as length of grazing period of the rota tional treatments increased in Zones 1 and 2 for dung and Zone 1 for urine but was not affected by grazing period in Zone 3. Table 5.3. Treatment by zone interaction for dung distribution index on rotationally and continuously stocked bahiagra ss pastures during 2002 and 2003. Zone Treatment 1 2 3 Rotational † 1 day 1.0 A§ 0.8 A 2.1 A 3 days 1.4 A 1.4 A 0.8 A 7 days 2.3 A 0.6 A 1.0 A 21 days 4.1 A 3.1 A 0.8 B Effect‡ (P value) Linear‡ (< 0.01) Linear (0.01) NS Continuous 4.4 A 1.4 B 0.8 B Contrast Rotational vs. Continuous (P value) 0.13 0.91 0.27 †Length of grazing period. ‡Polynomial contrast for effect of length of grazing period of rotational treatments. §Means followed by the same letter within a row do not differ (P>0.05) by the SAS least squares mean test (PDIFF). SE = 0.6 Not significant (P > 0.10).

PAGE 101

82 Table 5.4. Treatment by zone interaction for urine distribu tion index on rotationally and continuously stocked bahiagra ss pastures during 2002 and 2003. Zone Treatment 1 2 3 Rotational † 1 day 1.4 A§ 0.6 A 2.3 A 3 days 2.5 A 1.2 A 0.7 A 7 days 3.7 A 1.5 A 0.8 A 21 days 9.6 A 2.7 B 0.7 B Effect‡ (P value) Linear‡ (< 0.01) NS NS Continuous 5.6 A 1.1 B 0.8 B Contrast Rotational vs. Continuous (P value) 0.64 < 0.01 0.19 †Length of grazing period. ‡Polynomial contrast for effect of length of grazing period of rotational treatments. §Means followed by the same letter within a row do not differ (P>0.05) by the SAS least squares mean test (PDIFF). SE = 1.3 Not significant (P > 0.10). There also was a treatment by zone inter action for total time index (Table 5.5). There was no difference among zones in to tal time index for the 1-d grazing period treatment, but for the other tr eatments the index was greatest for Zone 1. Because there is a correlation between time spent per zone and number of excreta events in that zone (White et al., 2001), the better distribution of time spent per zone rela tive to zone area in the shortest grazing period treatment supports the smaller nutrient indices observed in Zone 1 for that treatment. There was a linea r increase in the total time index for both Zones 1 and 2 with increasing length of gr azing period (Table 5.5). The time index for continuous stocking was greater than the average index of th e rotational treatments for Zone 1, with the index more closely resembling that of the 21-d rotational treatment than any other.

PAGE 102

83 Table 5.5. Total time index per zone on rotati onally and continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures during 2002 and 2003. Zone Treatment 1 2 3 -----------Total Time Index----------Rotational † 1 day 1.8 A§ 0.7 A 0.9 A 3 days 3.3 A 0.8 B 0.7 B 7 days 4.4 A 0.7 B 0.9 B 21 days 13.3 A 1.4 B 0.7 B Effect‡ (P value) Linear (P < 0.01) Linear (P = 0.01) NS# (P = 0.58) Continuous 9.3 A 0.9 B 0.7 B Contrast Rotational vs. Continuous (P value) P < 0.01P = 0.26 P = 0.09 †Length of grazing period. ‡Polynomial contrast for effect of length of grazing period of rotational treatments. §Means followed by the same letter within a row do not differ (P > 0.10) by the SAS least square mean test (PDIFF). SE = 1.2 Total time index = % time spent per zone/% area occupied by the zone. #Not significant (P > 0.10). Evaluation date affected the total time cattle spent in the three pasture zones (Table 5.6), time spent under shade (Table 5.7), and ti me spent grazing (Table 5.8). During midsummer evaluation dates (July/August), animal s spent more time in Zone 1 and less time in Zone 3, when compared with other date s (Table 5.6). Animals also spent more time under the shade (Table 5.7) and less time gr azing Zone 3 (Table 5.8) in these same midsummer evaluations. Total time grazing averaged 338 21 min eval-1 which is approximately 48% of total evaluated time. C onsidering this relatively large period of time, if management practices alter grazing be havior they most lik ely will also alter nutrient distribution. Heat stress has a pronounced effect on anim al behavior and performance. At high temperature, the principal mechanism to reduc e heat stress is evaporative cooling, which

PAGE 103

84 is influenced by humidity and wind speed and by physiological factors such as respiration rate, and density and activity of sweating glands (Bl ackshaw and Blackshaw, 1994). Reducing feed intake, seeking shade, and increasing drinking water are behavioral mechanisms cattle develop to reduce heat st ress (Blackshaw and Blackshaw, 1994). It is not surprising therefore that more time spen t under the shade and less time spent grazing were characteristic of mid-summer evaluations. Temperature, relative humidity, and cattle heat stress index were measured from 1000 to 1500 h of each evaluation day. The h eat stress index takes in account both temperature and relative humidity to estimate cattle stress (Mader et al., 2000; Osborne, 2003). Mader et al. (2000) considered the follo wing ranges for this index: normal, < 23.3; alert, 23.9-25.6; danger, 26.1-28.3; emer gency, > 28.9 (in C). The same authors recommended adoption of management prac tices such as providing ample water, avoiding handling cattle, changing feeding pa tterns (feedlot), providing shade, improving airflow (feedlot), providing water mist, and controlling biting flies. Except for 11 June and 12 August 2002 which had an index < 26.1, a ll other evaluation dates shown in Table 5.7 presented heat stress index > 26.1. A regr ession equation relating the time cattle spent under the shade and weather vari ables (Table 5.9) included ai r temperature, wind speed, and temperature-humidity index in the model, but the R2 was not high (0.49).

PAGE 104

85 Table 5.6. Total time cattle spent per zone at different evaluations on rotationally and continuously stocked bahiagra ss pastures during 2002 and 2003. Zone Evaluation date 1 2 3 --------------------------min evaluation-1 ------------------------4 and 11 June 2002 142 b B 101 a B 475 a A 26 June and 3 July 2002 269 a A 113 a B 334 b A 12 and 19 August 2002 229 a B 126 a C 357 b A 22 and 29 Sept. 2002 236 a B 128 a C 345 b A 9 and 16 June 2003 148 b B 93 a B 345 b A 30 June and 7 July 2003 246 a B 124 a C 338 b A 15 and 22 August 2003 122 b B 133 a B 446 a A 27 Sept. and 4 Oct. 2003 151 b B 112 a B 457 a A †Means followed by the same letter, lower case letters w ithin a column and upper case letters within a row, do not differ (P>0.10) by the SAS least square mean test (PDIFF). SE = 30 min evaluation-1. Table 5.7. Time cattle spent under the shade a nd environmental conditions at different evaluations on rotationally and conti nuously stocked bahiagrass pastures during 2002 and 2003. Evaluation date Time spent under shade, min eval.-1 Average Temp. (C)‡ Relative humidity (%)‡ Heat Stress Index3 (C)‡ 4 and 11 June 2002 85 b† 33.0 and 26.8 52.5 and 76.8 28.3 and 25.3 26 June and 3 July 2002 203 a 28.4 and 31.9 70.2 and 57.0 26.2 and 27.9 12 and 19 August 2002 180 a 26.2 and 30.2 84.5 and 70.3 25.3 and 27.7 22 and 29 Sept. 2002 189 a 31.2 and 32.3 57.3 and 57.2 27.4 and 28.2 9 and 16 June 2003 93 b 31.5 and 29.4 60.0 and 76.2 27.9 and 27.5 30 June and 7 July 2003 189 a 31.7 and 32.4 62.3 and 58.5 28.2 and 28.4 15 and 22 August 2003 68 b 28.0 and 28.5 82.3 and 77.8 26.7 and 26.9 27 Sept. and 4 Oct. 2003 88 b 29.4 and 29.4 71.8 and 59.2 27.2 and 26.2 †Means followed by the same letter within a column do not differ (P>0.05) by the SAS least square mean test (PDIFF). SE = 30 min evaluation-1. ‡Average from 1000 to 1500 h. Heat Index sc ale (C): normal <23.3; alert 23.9-25.6; danger 26.1-28.3; emergency >28.9 (Mader et al., 2000). 3Cattle Heat Stress Index was developed by th e University of Oklahoma in conjunction with the Intermountain Fire Scie nces Lab of the U.S. Forest Service and the formula is THI = tair – [0.55-(0.55*relh/100)]*(tair-58.8); where THI is Temperature-Humidity Index, tair is air temperature in Farenheit, and relh is percent re lative humidity. Osborne, P. 2003. Managing Heat Stress Returns Divi dends [Online]. Ava ilable from West Virginia University http://www.wvu.edu/~a gexten/forglvst/heat stress.pdf (verified 12/21/2004).

PAGE 105

86 Table 5.8. Total grazing time at different ev aluations on rotationa lly and continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures during 2002 and 2003. Zone Evaluation date 1 2 3 ---------------------min evaluation-1 -------------------------4 and 11 June 2002 27 a B† 68 a B 295 a A 26 June and 3 July 2002 35 a C 75 a B 204 de A 12 and 19 August 2002 27 a B 64 a B 211 cde A 22 and 29 September 2002 23 a C 81 a B 247 bc A 9 and 16 June 2003 22 a B 56 a B 187 e A 30 June and 7 July 2003 22 a C 74 a B 226 bcd A 15 and 22 August 2003 32 a C 73 a B 259 ab A 27 Sept. and 4 Oct. 2003 35 a B 76 a B 285 a A †Means followed by the same letter, lower case letters within a column and capital letters within a row do not differ (P>0.10) by the SAS least square mean test (PDIFF). SE = 15 min evaluation-1. Table 5.9. Regression equation, R2, and P value of the time cattle spent under the shade and climate variables. Response variable Equation† R2 P value Time spent under shade Y = -126.7 + 27.3Tair – 9.7WSP – 15.7THI 0.49 0.04 †Tair is average air temperature in C, WSP is average wind speed in km h-1, and THI is Temperature-Humidity Index (C). These clim ate data refer to the average from 0700 to 1900 h of each evaluation day. There was a treatment by zone interaction for the grazing time index, with a small linear increase for the index occurring in Zone 2 and a small linear decrease occurring in Zone 3, as length of the grazing period incr eased. No effect was observed in Zone 1 (Table 5.10). Perhaps of greater importance th an these differences is the very narrow range in grazing time index (0.9 – 1.6) acros s zones and treatments. These data indicate that time cattle spent grazing in a zone was roughly proporti onal to the area encompassed by the zone. Thus the greater total time inde x observed for Zone 1 than Zones 2 and 3 of the longer grazing period rota tional stocking and the con tinuous stocking treatments

PAGE 106

87 (Table 5.5) occurred due to non-grazing activities (e.g., time under shade and lounging) in Zone 1. Table 5.10. Grazing time index during 12-h eval uation periods on different pasture zones of rotationally and continuously stoc ked bahiagrass past ures during 2002 and 2003. Zone Treatment 1 2 3 --------Grazing time index# ---------Rotational † 1 day 1.0 A§ 0.9 A 1.2 A 3 days 1.1 A 1.1 A 0.9 A 7 days 1.1 A 1.0 A 1.0 A 21 days 1.2 AB1.6 A 0.9 B Effect‡ (P value) NS (> 0.10) Linear (0.003) Linear (0.06) Continuous 1.4 A 1.4 A 0.9 B Rotational vs. Continuous (P value) 0.41 0.03 < 0.0001 †Length of grazing period. ‡Polynomial contrast for effect of length of grazing period of rotational treatments. §Means followed by the same letter within a row do not differ (P > 0.10) by the SAS least squares mean test (PDIFF). SE = 0.2 Not significant (P > 0.10). #Grazing time index = % total grazing time in each zone/% area occupied by the zone. Soil Nutrient Concentration A treatment by depth interaction occurred fo r soil N at the end of the 3-yr period. Linear increases in nitrate and total soil extractable N with increasing length of grazing period occurred at both depths (Table 5.11). The continuous High and 21-d rotational treatments generally presented similar soil N values, which were greater than the ones observed for the short-grazing period treatmen ts, especially for the 0to 8-cm depth. Considering that all treatments received th e same amount of N fertilizer, treatment differences are likely due to the grazing ma nagement applied. The 21-d rotational and the

PAGE 107

88 High had more animal time in each paddock which likely explain greater soil-N concentration for those treatments. Mathews et al. (1999) compared the effect of short (33.5 d) and long (20-22 d) grazing periods on th e soil nutrient distribution using a similar zonal sampling. Those authors did not find a ny difference between grazing periods in terms of soil nutrient distribut ion, but that experiment was done over only 2 yr and the stocking rate was lower (1000 kg liveweight ha-1) when compared to the present experiment (1800 kg liveweight ha-1). In another study, Ma thews et al. (1994a) comparing rotational stocking with shortand long-grazing pe riods vs. continuous stocking did not observe difference in term s of soil nutrient dist ribution among methods. In that research, however, the shade structur es and waterers were moved every 2 d along the length of Zone 1 in all treatments in order to improve excreta distribution. In the current study, shade and watering points remained fixed throughout the study, much like one might expect to find in producers’ pa stures. Moving shades to improve excreta distribution is a recommended practice (Ellington and Walla ce, 1991), however, it is not likely to be adopted by the farmers. In the current study, total extractable N and NH4-N were greater at the 0to 8-cm depth than for 8 to 23 cm, but NO3-N did not differ between these two depths (Table 5.11). Nitrat e is more mobile in the soil profile while NH4 interacts with soil colloids due to its positive charge (Tinke r and Nye, 2000; Brady and Weil, 2002). Since SOM is gr eater at shallower depths, NH4-N released after the ammonification reaction likely was adsorbed by negative charges on soil particles, presenting higher values at the 0to 8-cm depth.

PAGE 108

89 Table 5.11. Soil N concentration at different soil depths of rotationally and continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures after 3 yr of grazing. Data are means across three zones and two replicates. Nitrate Nitrogen NH4 Nitrogen Total Extractable N Treatment 0-8 cm 8-23 cm P 0-8 cm 8-23 cm P 0-8 cm 8-23 cm P --------------------------------------------mg kg-1 soil -------------------------------------------------Rotational † 1-day 0.7 0.2 0.93 5.6 3.4 0.05 6.3 3.6 0.02 3-days 2.8 0.5 0.39 3.4 2.4 0.09 6.1 2.8 0.01 7-days 3.9 2.4 0.42 2.5 1.3 0.09 6.4 3.7 0.02 21-days 7.7 3.4 0.15 7.2 4.0 0.02 14.9 7.4 <0.01 Effect‡ (P value) Linear (<0.01) Linear (0.04) NS§ Quad. (0.09) Linear (<0.01) Linear (0.07) Continuous 5.3 2.1 0.10 9.4 2.2 <0.01 14.7 4.3 <0.01 Rot vs. Cont (P value) 0.09 0.61 0.07 0.69 0.07 0.81 †Length of grazing period. ‡Polynomial contrast for effect of length of grazing period of rotational treatments §Not significant (P > 0.10) Level of P for comparison of the two soil depths within a nutrient and a management intensity treatment. A zone by depth interaction also occu rred for soil N. Total-extractable N concentrations at the 0to 8-cm depth were greatest in Zone 1, but there were no zone differences observed at the 8to 23-cm de pth (Table 5.12). The total-extractable N concentrations obtained in this research ar e lower then the ones reported by Mathews et al. (1999) for areas within 15 m of the shade, and differences are likely due to different soil characteristics between the two sites. Treatments did not differ for soil P, K, a nd Mg concentrations, but pasture zone interacted with soil depth (Table 5.13). Phosphorus, K, and Mg concentrations were greater in Zone 1 at the 0to 8-cm depth, but not at the 8to 23-cm depth (Table 5.13), probably as a result of excreta deposition by cattle on the soil su rface. Phosphorus and Mg are excreted mainly through dung and highe r density of dung deposition in Zone 1 in

PAGE 109

90 21-d and continuous High treatments may expl ain the higher soil nut rient concentration in those zones. Similar results were obtained by West et al. (1989) who suggested that a distinct zone of nutrient enha ncement within 20 m of the wa ter source should be either avoided or sampled separately when sampli ng pastures for fertilizer recommendations. Table 5.12. Effect of pasture zones on soil N co ncentration at differe nt soil depths in bahiagrass pastures grazed using different stocking me thods for 3 yr. Data are means across three treatme nts and two replicates. Nitrate Nitrogen NH4 Nitrogen Total Extractable N Zone 0-8 cm 8-23 cm P† 0-8 cm 8-23 cm P 0-8 cm 8-23 cm P --------------------------------------------mg kg-1 soil --------------------------------------------------1 5.4 a‡ 1.9 a 0.14 8.2 a 2.2 a <0.01 13.7 a 4.1 a <0.01 2 2.5 b 2.3 a 0.89 2.6 b 4.0 a 0.35 5.1 b 6.3 a 0.07 3 4.3 a 0.9 a 0.07 6.0 a 1.7 a <0.01 10.3 b 2.7 a <0.01 † Level of P for comparison of the two soil depths within a nutrient and a management intensity treatment. ‡ Means within a column followed by the same letter are not different (P>0.10). Table 5.13. Effect of pasture zone on soil P, K, and Mg concentrati on at different soil depths in bahiagrass pastures grazed us ing different stocking methods for 3 yr. Data are means across three treatments and two replicates. Phosphorus Potassium Magnesium Zone 0-8 cm 8-23 cm P† 0-8 cm 8-23 cm P 0-8 cm 8-23 cm P ----------------------------------------------mg kg-1 soil ------------------------------------------------1 17 a‡ 16 a 0.70 181 a 107 a 0.07 171 a 118 a 0.48 2 8 b 14 a 0.07 77 b 74 a 0.95 127 ab 124 a 0.97 3 6 b 13 a 0.03 67 b 77 a 0.80 95 b 141 a 0.54 † Level of P for comparison of the two soil depths within a nutrient and a management intensity treatment. ‡ Means within a column followed by the same letter are not different (P>0.10). Dung Spatial Distribution The dung spatial distribution evaluation show ed that the stocking strategies have different degrees of clustering, and no ev aluation date effect was observed. The 1-d treatment presented the lowest Dispersion In dex (DI), which means that the variance was closer to the mean than in the other treat ments. Therefore, less clustering and more uniformity in the dung distribution occurred for the 1-d treatment, which followed a

PAGE 110

91 Poisson distribution model. Both the 7d and High treatment followed a negative binomial distribution model, which describe s the clustering and ove rlaying of dung pads. Thus, the 1-d promoted a more uniform dung distribution than the 7-d and High treatment. Peterson and Gerrish (1996) sugge sted that rotational stocking with short grazing periods and high stocking densities enhance uniformity of excreta distribution, and the current study su pports this conclusion. Table 5.14. Dispersion Index a nd distribution models followed by the dung spatial distribution in Pensacola bahiagrass pastures managed using different strategies. Treatment Dispersion Index‡ Distribution Model 1-d 1.12 a† Poisson 7-d 1.67 c Negative Binomial High 1.31 b Negative Binomial †Means within a column followed by the same letter are not different (P>0.05) by the LSMEANS procedure from SAS. ‡Dispersion Index is calcul ated by dividing the varian ce by the mean of dung pads distributed in 100 quadrats per pasture. Conclusions Stocking method influenced animal behavi or and soil nutrient distribution. Shortgrazing periods promoted greater uniformity in time spent by cattle and soil nutrient redistribution among pasture zones when compar ed to long-grazing periods. The excreta distribution in the short-grazing period rota tional treatment (1 d) followed a Poison distribution model while the di stribution in the 7-d rotationa l and the continuous (High) followed a negative binomial distribution, fu rther supporting the conclusion that the short-grazing period treatment resulted in more uniform distribution. Continuous stocking presented results similar to rotational st ocking with a 21-d gr azing period, showing greater density of excreta deposition and grea ter accumulation of soil N in areas closest to

PAGE 111

92 shade and water. These results show greater potential for grazing management practices to affect nutrient redistribution in pastures than previous wo rk by Mathews et al. (1994a), likely because the shade structures were not moved during the current experiment, which is a practice commonly observed among producers. In the work by Mathews et al. (1994a), shade and water locations were systematically moved every 2 d for all treatments, reducing the impact of grazing management. Data from the current study, therefore, support the co nclusion that rotational stocking wi th short grazing periods is a potential practice to improve nutrient distribution in bahiag rass pastures. Soil nutrient accumulation occurred at a shallow depth (zer oto 8-cm) but not deeper in the soil profile (8to 23-cm) in zones closer to shade and water. Environment may affect animal behavior and, as a result, nutrient distribution. Animals spent more time in lounging areas du ring warmer days, leading to greater excreta deposition in small pasture areas wher e the shade and water were located. Besides shade and watering areas, lounging sites are also potential areas for nutrient enrichment due to higher density of excreta deposition. Adapted animals may enhance uniformity of excreta deposition by spending less time in lounging areas.

PAGE 112

93 CHAPTER 6 LITTER DYNAMICS IN GRAZED PE NSACOLA BAHIAGRASS PASTURES MANAGED AT DIFFERENT INTENSITIES. I. DEPOSITION AND DECOMPOSITION Introduction Plant litter is an important pathway of nutrient return to the soil in grazed ecosystems. In extensively managed and uti lized pastures in many warm-climate areas, nutrient dynamics in the plant litter pool have a major in fluence on pasture productivity and persistence. When compared to nutrients from animal excreta, those from litter are more evenly distributed across the pasture (R ezende et al., 1999), but nutrients in litter are not as readily available to plants (Ha ynes and Williams, 1993). In pasture ecosystems, the deposition and decomposition of belowand above-ground plan t litter during the growing season exert a continuous influence on nutrient supply to plants. This contrasts with row-crop systems in which the influence of litter occurs primarily as periodic pulses. Management intensity affects the pathway of nutrient return on pastures. Increasing stocking rate (SR) at a give n forage growth rate increas es the proportion of nutrient returned via excreta vs. litter (Thomas, 1992) The rate of flow of nutrients among nutrient pools increases with greater SR because the nutrien ts in dung and urine are more readily available than in litter (CIAT, 1990; Haynes and Williams, 1993; Cantarutti and Boddey, 1997; Braz et al., 2003). Nitrogen fertiliz ation may also play a role by increasing litter deposition, litter quality, and litter decom position. Litter quality may be defined as a conjunction of indicators (e.g., lo w C:N and lignin:N ratios) th at when combined enhance litter decomposition.

PAGE 113

94 There is a lack of information regardi ng management intensity effects on litter dynamics, particular in sub-tropical and tropical environments. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine the effect of mana gement intensity, defined in terms of N fertilization and SR, on litter production and litter decomposition in continuously stocked ‘Pensacola’ bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flgge) pastures. Material and Methods Experimental Site A grazing experiment was conducted at th e Beef Research Unit, northeast of Gainesville, FL, at 2943’ N lat on Pensacola ba hiagrass pastures. Soils were classified as Spodosols (sandy siliceous, hyperthermic Ultic Alaquods from the Pomona series or sandy siliceous, hyperthermic Aeric Alaquods fr om the Smyrna series) with average pH of 5.9. Mehlich-I extractable soil P, K, Ca and Mg average con centrations at the beginning of the experiment were 5.3, 28, 553, and 98 mg kg-1, respectively. Treatments and Design Treatments were imposed during 2003 and 2004 and included three management intensities of continuously stocked bahiagrass pastures. These intensities were defined in terms of combinations of SR and N fertilization and were Low (40 kg N ha-1 yr-1 and 1.2 animal units [AU, one AU = 500 kg live weight] ha-1 target SR), Moderate (120 kg N ha-1 yr-1 and 2.4 AU ha-1 target SR), and High (360 kg N ha-1 yr-1 and 3.6 AU ha-1 target SR). These treatments were selected because Low approximates current bahiagrass management practice in Florida cow-calf syst ems. Moderate repres ents the upper range of current producer practice, and High is well above what is currently in use. Actual SR was calculated based on initial and final li ve weights during each grazing season. These SR were 1.4, 2.8, and 4.1 AU ha-1 in 2002, and 1.3, 2.6, and 4.0 AU ha-1 in 2003 for Low,

PAGE 114

95 Moderate, and High treatments, respectively. Th ese values deviated from target values because initial heifer liveweight was greater than anticipated. A randomized complete block design was used and each treatment was replicated twice. Two crossbred (Angus x Brahman) yearling heifers were assigned to each experimental unit. Pasture area varied according to treatment, decreasing from 1 to 0.5 to 0.33 ha as the management intensity increased from Low to Moderate to High (Chapter 3). Artificial shade (3.1 m x 3.1 m) was provi ded on each of the experimental units and cattle had free-choice access to water and a sa lt-based mineral mixture. The water troughs were always located under the artificial sh ade, and the mineral troughs were repositioned several times each week at random loca tions throughout the pasture. Nitrogen fertilization dates and rates were described in Chapter 3. Response Variables Existing litter, deposited litter, and herbage mass Litter production was measured based on the technique described by Bruce and Ebersohn (1982) and also used by Thomas and Asakawa (1993) and Rezende et al. (1999). Litter was defined as dead plant mate rial on the surface of the soil, no longer attached to the plant. Existing litter in th e pasture was determined at 28-d intervals by sampling six circular quadrats (0.55 m2) in areas that represented the average herbage mass in each pasture. The existing litter co ntained within each quadrat was raked and collected, dried (72 h at 60C) and weighed. After clearing the sites of litter, exclusion cages were placed there, and 14 d later the de posited litter within the cleared area was similarly collected, dried, and weighed. In or der to correct for sand contamination, final weights were expressed on an organic matte r (OM) basis. While raking the sites to recover either existing or depos ited litter, some green material was collected along with

PAGE 115

96 the litter. Correction for green herbage was performed by se parating green material from litter. Every 28 d, six new 0.55-m2 areas were chosen in each pasture for measurement of existing and deposited litter. This procedur e was repeated five times in each grazing season. The evaluation dates are listed in Tabl e 6.1. Litter, within litter type (existing litter and deposited litter), from the six caged sites per pasture was composited for each evaluation date. Dry matter (DM) and OM anal yses were performed using the procedure described by Moore and Mott ( 1974). Herbage mass of the pastures was estimated using the same procedures described in Chapter 3. Table 6.1. Existing and deposited litt er evaluation dates during 2002 and 2003. Evaluation 2002 2003 Existing litter 12 June ; 10 July; 6 Aug; 4 Sep; 2 Oct 4 June; 2 July; 30 July; 27 Aug; 24 Sep Deposited litter 27 June ; 24 July; 21 Aug; 18 Sep; 16 Oct 18 June; 16 July; 13 Aug; 10 Sep; 8 Oct Litter decomposition Litter decomposition was estimated using a litter bag technique. For the purposes of this measurement, litter was defined as the senes cent leaves still attach ed to the plant. The reason for this approach was to avoid co llecting litter on the ground that was already degraded to an unknown extent. The litter wa s obtained by cutting standing herbage from each of the six experimental units during Ma y of each grazing season. Herbage from each experimental unit was kept separate from th e others and was oven-dried (60C for 72 h) but not ground so that surface area remained as similar as possible to the original litter. Green and senescent herbage was hand-separate d thereafter, and the senescent fraction (6 g per bag) was placed into polyester bags with 75 m mesh size and measuring 15 x 20 cm. The bags were heat sealed and in cubation times were 0, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, and 128 d.

PAGE 116

97 Each incubation time, with the exception of Day zero, was replicated six times within each experimental unit, resulti ng in 36 bags per experimental unit. Empty bags were also incubated for the different periods in order to correct the bag weight after incubation. Litter bags were placed on the ground in sets of six, one for each incubation time, and covered with existing litter from that experi mental unit. The sites where bags were placed were chosen to represent the average herbage mass of the pasture, based on disk settling height. Cages were placed over the sites where each set of six bags was located to protect them from grazing animals. Thus a total of six cages per past ure were used for the litter bag experiment, one cage for each complete set of incubation times. Herbage inside the cage was clipped biweekly thr oughout the 128-d period in orde r to maintain the herbage height inside the cage as close as possible to the average canopy height of the pasture, and the clipped material was removed. The 128-d periods were from 22 July to 27 Nov. 2002 and 23 July to 28 Nov. 2003. At the end of each incubation time, the six li tter bags per pasture for that time were collected, oven-dried (60C for 72 h), and co mposited within an experimental unit. The composited samples were milled to pass a 1-mm screen and analyzed for DM and OM using the procedure described by Moore a nd Mott (1974). Percentage of remaining biomass was calculated based on the OM conten t prior to and after the incubation period. The double exponential model (Weider a nd Lang, 1982) was used to fit the biomass decay curve using Proc Nlin from SAS Institute (SAS Inst. Inc., 1996), and it was described by Equation 1: t k t ke A Ae2 1) 1 ( (Equation 1) Where:

PAGE 117

98 = Proportion of remaining biomass at time t A= Constant k1 and k2 = Decay constants After solving the above equati on, the output parameters (A, k1, and k2) of each experimental unit were used to calculate th eir respective relative decomposition rate (k) using Equation 2 described by Weider and Lang (1982): t k t k t k t ke A Ae e A k Ae k k2 1 2 1) 1 ( ) 1 (2 1 (Equation 2) The time period used to calculate k was 14 d (approximates the length of time that the deposited litter stayed on the ground) for the estimation of the monthly litter deposition rate and 128 d (the total length of the incubation) for treatment comparisons across the entire season. Rate of litter deposition The estimation of the rate of litter deposition was performed using the approach described by Rezende et al. (1999) with some modifications in respec t to the use of the relative rate of decompositi on. According to Rezende et al. (1999), the litter on the ground at any time is a function of the litte r deposition minus the litter decomposition that occurred within a given period. Therefore, in the case of litter deposited in an area which had been cleared of litter, the quantity of litter (dX) present after th e increment of time ‘dt’ is: Litter on the ground = litter deposited – disappeared litter, or: dX = Ldt – kXdt (Equation 3) Where: L is the true daily rate of litter deposition in g m-2d-1.

PAGE 118

99 X is the quantity of litter on the ground at any time (g m-2). k is the relative decomposition rate. dt is the period of time after clea ring the site of existing litter. The daily rate of litter deposition was calculated using deposited litter 14 d after an area was cleared as X. The relative decom position rate used was obtained from the decomposition model for the litter bag data and using 14 d as the incubation period. Statistical Analyses Herbage mass, existing litter, and litter deposition were organized by evaluation period within each year and analyzed using a repeated measures procedure in Proc Mixed from SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., 1996). The LSMEANS procedure was used to compare treatment means. For the litter bag study, after fitti ng the double exponential model for each experimental unit within each grazing season, the output parameters were analyzed using Proc Mixed from SAS with year considered a fixed e ffect. Means were compared using the LSMEANS procedure of SAS. Results and Discussion Herbage Mass There was a treatment by evaluation date interaction for herbage mass (Figure 6.1). Low and Moderate treatments followed a si milar trend of increasing herbage mass through September, but herbage mass in the High treatment did not change (P > 0.10) throughout the grazing season. Changes in herbage mass reflect the net result of different processes: herbage growth, herbage senescence, and animal intake Bahiagrass growth rate reaches its peak by mid-summer (Beaty et al., 1963 ; Gates et al., 2001), and the growth rate slows as the

PAGE 119

100 season progresses into the fall. Beginning in August, herbage mass was greater on Low than High pastures, but High a nd Moderate treatments differed only in June (Figure 6.1). In the High treatment, the greater herbage accumu lation rate (Chapter 3) than in Low was compensated for by a three-fold higher SR (F igure 6.1). Because of lower SR in the Low and Moderate treatments, however, herbage mass increased through September, at which time slowing herbage accumulation rates re sulted in a decrease in herbage mass. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 JuneJulAugSepOctkg DM ha-1 Low Mod Higha b ab a a a a b b a ab b a ab b Figure 6.1. Effect of management intensit y and evaluation date on herbage mass of grazed Pensacola bahiagrass pastures during 2002-2003. Means followed by same letter, within an evaluation date are not different (P>0.10) by the SAS LSMEANS test. SE = 490 kg DM ha-1. Existing Litter There was management intensity by evalua tion date interaction for existing litter (Figure 6.2). The High management intensity had least existing litter in June and July, and greatest existing litter, along with the Low treatment, by September and October.

PAGE 120

101 Existing litter is the net result of the deposit ed litter and the litte r decomposed within a given period of time. When th e deposition of litter is greater than its degradation, litter accumulates. When degradation is greater, exis ting litter decreases. Less existing litter in the High treatment at the beginning of the season was likely due to greater litter decomposition rates during the cool season and the spring prior to in itiation of grazing. Higher N fertilization and bette r quality of the deposited litte r from the previous grazing season (same treatments were imposed on thes e pastures in 2001, the year preceding the start of this study in 2002) may explai n higher decomposition rates for the High treatment. Existing litter was high for the Low treatment during the majority of the grazing season, and the lower SR for Low comp ared to other treatments may partially explain this result. Lower SR (e.g., on the Low treatment) and the greater herbage mass often cause more litter to be deposited due to a lesser forage utilization rate and an increase in mature, senescent herbag e (Reardon and Merril, 1976; Thomas, 1992). Rezende et al. (1999) found a significant increase in litter deposition when SR was halved from 4 to 2 animals ha-1. In the current experiment however, there were other factors influencing the response. Decr easing SR was accompanied by decreasing N fertilization, resulting in lower litter quality and slow ing decomposition in the Low treatment (Chapter 7). In addition, the ra nge in herbage mass across treatments was relatively small because as SR increased so did N fertilization rate. Accumulation of existing litte r (Figure 6.2) started later for the Low and Moderate treatments (September) when compared to the High treatment (July). This occurred because the rate of litter de position was greater at the be ginning of the season for High than for Low and Moderate (Figure 6.3). Desp ite the variation with in the season, existing

PAGE 121

102 litter did not differ between years (P > 0.54), and averaged 1570 kg ha-1 across treatments. Rezende et al. (1999) reported va lues of existing litte r ranging from 800 to 1500 kg DM ha-1 in creeping signalgrass [Brachiaria humidicola (Rendle) Schweick.] pastures in pure stand or mixed with desmodium [Desmodium heterocarpon (L.) DC. subsp. ovalifolium (Prain) Ohashi] or tropical kudzu [Pueraria phaseoloides (Roxb.) Benth]. The same authors also found seasona l effects on amount of existing litter. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 JunJulAugSeptOctEvaluation Datekg OM ha-1 Low Mod Higha b aba ab b a b ab a a a a b ab Figure 6.2. Effect of management intensity and evaluation date on existing litter of grazed Pensacola bahiagrass pastures during 2002-2003. Means followed by same letter, within each evaluation da te, are not different (P>0.10) by the SAS LSMEANS test. SE = 356 kg OM ha-1. Litter Deposition Rate There was a treatment by evaluation date interaction for litter deposition rate (Figure 6.3). Interacti on occurred because there were no differences among treatments in September, but at all other evaluation dates treatment differences did occur (Figure 6.3).

PAGE 122

103 High had greater litter deposition rates than Mo derate at all dates except in September. Low had a lesser litter deposition rate than Hi gh only in July. The consistently high rates of litter deposition throughout the season in the High treatment were reflected in a gradual increase in existing litter for the Hi gh treatment (starting from August, Figure 6.2). The average (across treatm ents and dates) litter deposition rate for the grazing season was 27 kg OM ha-1 d-1, which multiplied by the grazing season length (168 d) results in approximately 4540 kg OM ha-1 deposited during this period. Collected litter was mainly leaves, sheath, and to a lesser extent the rhizomes. Thomas and Asakawa (1993) reported values ranging from 2830 to 11 800 kg DM ha-1 of litter deposited from May to December in creeping signalgrass and gambagrass (Andropogon gayanus Kunth) pastures, respectively. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 JunJulAugSepOctRate of litter deposition (kg OM ha-1 d-1) Low Mod High a b ab a b b a a b a a a a b ab Figure 6.3. Effect of management intensity a nd evaluation date on rate of litter deposition on grazed Pensacola bahiagrass pa stures during 2002-2003. Means followed by the same letter, within each evalua tion date, are not different (P>0.10) by the SAS LSMEANS test. SE = 6.8 kg OM ha-1 d-1.

PAGE 123

104 Litter Decomposition Rate The relative decomposition rate (k) of th e litter during the 12 8-d incubation trial increased with management intensity (Fi gure 6.4). Nitrogen fert ilization has been reported to increase residue mineralization rate (Kalburtji et al., 1997; Lupwayi and Haque, 1999). Increasing SR increases the proport ion of nutrients returning to the pasture via excreta (Thomas, 1992), and those nutrients are more ava ilable than those returned via C4 grass litter (Haynes and Williams, 1993). Therefore, litter decomposition rates are also expected to be greater when higher SR is adopted. Relative decomposition rate depends on lit ter quality, soil temperature, soil moisture, and amount of nutrien ts available. This includes the proportion of the total C remaining in the litter, as k is greater at the beginning of the incubation period (Gijsman et al., 1997). In the current study, litter bi omass loss over the 128-d incubation followed a double exponential model (Figure 6.5). Loss was rapid at the beginning of the incubation; approximately 15% of the litter biomass was lost after only 8 d. The k value averaged 0.0148 g g-1 d-1 during the first 14 d vs. 0.0022 g g-1 d-1 over the entire 128 d of incubation. The fast rate of decay early in the period results from the decomposition of more soluble compounds, but the k value tends to stabilize, or decrease slowly, after the more soluble compounds are deco mposed (Heal et al., 1997). D ecay rate slowed after this initial period, and biomass loss after 128 d of incubation ranged from 40 to 60%. These values are similar to those reported by Deshm ukh (1985) using the litter bag technique to estimate C4 grass litter decomposition in Kenya. So llenberger et al. ( 2002) reviewed k in the literature and found values for diff erent tropical grasses ranging from 0.0020 g g-1 d-1 in dictyoneura [Brachiaria dictyoneura (Fig. & De Not.) Stapf] (Thomas and Asakawa, 1993) to 0.0174 g g-1 d-1 in ‘Aruana’ guineagrass (Panicum maximum Jacq.; Schunke,

PAGE 124

105 1998). The k values for tropical legumes ranged from 0.0017 g g-1 d-1 in desmodium (Thomas and Asakawa, 1993) to 0.0603 g g-1 d-1 in Arachis repens Handro (Ferreira et al., 1997). These values originated from tria ls in the summer rainy season, however, different incubation periods, different approach es used to obtain the incubation material, and varied environmental conditions acr oss sites make comparison difficult. Considering the k values obtained after 128 d of incubation, the litte r half-life in the Low treatment was 433 d while the litter half -life in the High treatment was 231 d. This higher turnover rate observed for the litter fr om the High management intensity results in greater nutrient supply from litter in the Hi gh treatment but also less capacity to immobilize nutrients. Alt hough litter decomposition rates for DM varied among treatments, the output parameters from th e double exponential model were similar (P > 0.10). These results, however, need to be linke d with litter production in order to provide a better understanding of the contributions of the litter pool in terms of supply and immobilization of nutrients. 0.0016 0.0021 0.00300 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 LowModerateHighTreatmentRelative decomposition rate (g g-1 d-1)b ab a Figure 6.4. Litter relative decomposition rate on Pensacola bahiagrass pastures managed at a range of intensities during 2002-2003. Means with the same letter are not different by the LSMEANS test (P > 0.10). SE = 0.0008 g g-1 d-1.

PAGE 125

106 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 020406080100120140Days of incubationRemaining biomass (%) Figure 6.5. Litter biomass remaining on Pensaco la bahiagrass pastures managed at a range of intensities during 2002-2003. P earson correlation coefficient = 0.91. N Returned Via Litter: Immobilized vs. Mineralized A perspective on the importance of the litte r pool in terms of N immobilization and mineralization was obtained by linking the litter deposition results to the N-release curves (Chapter 7). Considering an average rate of litter deposition of 27 kg ha-1 d-1 for 2002 and 2003, and litter N concentration of 12.7, 14.3, and 21.6 g kg-1 for Low, Moderate, and High (Chapter 7), respectively, the amount of N returned through the litter pool was estimated for a period of 140 d. Nitrogen rel eased during this peri od by the litter pool was estimated using the decomposition parameters for N in 2003 (B0 = 0.9338 and k = 0.00287, which are the single exponential model para meters). The total N released is the sum of the N released during a 140-d period, ca lculated in 10 cycles of 14 d. Because litter first deposited had 140 d to decompos e while the litter deposited during the 10th

PAGE 126

107 cycle had only 14 d, different extents of deco mposition were accounted for when the final amount of N released was estimated. The results of this estimation are show n in Figure 6.6. Nitrogen immobilized and mineralized by the litter pool increased with management intensity. The N contribution by the above-ground litter pool to the pasture was not larg e, ranging from 12 to 20 kg N ha-1 (140 d)-1. The amount of recalcitrant N was gr eatest in the High treatment where 83 kg N ha-1 was returned through the litter but only 20 kg N ha-1 was mineralized (Figure 6.6). This shows the importance of th e litter as a buffering pool (Wedin, 1996), potentially reducing N losses to the environment in highly fe rtilized pasture systems. Synchrony, i.e., matching the supply of nut rients via residue decomposition and nutrient uptake by the crop, is a way to maxi mize nutrient-use efficiency and has been reviewed in the litera ture (Myers et al., 1994; Myers et al., 1997). Lack of synchrony is of concern in two situations: when the supply comes too late for the demand, and when the supply comes earlier than demand (Myers et al., 1997). In row-crop systems, asynchrony is more likely because of the relative ly narrow window for supply and demand to coincide. In warm-climate perennial pastures, however, the root syst em is present yearround and can take up nutrients whenever they are available. Also, residue deposition is distributed more uniformly throughout the year as opposed to occurring in short-term pulses of nutrients. The small amount of nutrient supplied by th e above-ground plant litter, however, reinforces its importance as a buffering pool in addition to being a nutrient supplier to the pasture.

PAGE 127

108 49 55 83 12 14 20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 LowModHighkg N ha-1 (140 d)-1 N in the deposited litter N released by deposited litter Figure 6.6. Estimation of the N returned through the litter and the N actually released to Pensacola bahiagrass pastures managed at a range of intensities. Conclusions Management intensity altered litter dyna mics in continuously stocked Pensacola bahiagrass pastures. Herbage mass increased as the season progressed for Low and Moderate treatments, but not for High. Lower management intensity generally resulted in greater existing litter, but in creasing management intensity from Low to High altered litter deposition and decomposition rates, and seasonal fluctuations in existing litter occurred as a result of the balance between the two. Existi ng litter was greater for all treatments at the beginning and at the end of the grazing season compared to mid-season, but after declining following the onset of grazi ng it started to re-accumulate earlier in the season for the High treatment, because of earli er peaks in litter depos ition rate for that treatment. Increasing management intensity reduced the amount of existing litter at the

PAGE 128

109 beginning of the grazing season likely due to greater rates of litter decomposition between seasons in more intensive system s. Although the pastures were not grazed between grazing seasons, treatments applie d during the grazing season likely had some effect on litter dynamics between seasons. At the end of the season, greater litter deposition than decomposition rates resulted in litter re-accumulation for all treatments. In terms of nutrient supply, the above-gr ound plant litter supplie s relatively small quantities of N for plant growth, but it acts as an important buffering pool by immobilizing the N and mineralizing it later, re ducing potential N losses, particularly in an N-rich environment. Changes in the litter dynamics as a result of an applied management practice affect the amount and fo rm of nutrients returning to the soil and have implications not only in the supply of nutrients to the pl ants but also in the loss of nutrients to the environment.

PAGE 129

110 CHAPTER 7 LITTER DYNAMICS IN GRAZED PE NSACOLA BAHIAGRASS PASTURES MANAGED AT DIFFERENT INTENSITIE S. II. QUALITY AN D MINERALIZATION Introduction Litter quality and decomposition play a major role in nutrient dynamics in pasture ecosystems. Immobilization and mineralization processes are directly linked to litter quality, and they are important determinants of the availability of nutrients to pasture plants. A high litter quality is defined as the litter that undergoes faster decomposition. This quality may be monitored by indicators su ch as C:N, lignin:N, and C:P ratios. The lower they are, the faster the decomposition is. Litter of C4 grasses is low in quality which results in potential N immobilization (Thomas and Asakawa, 1993), which in turn may lead to pasture degradation in low Ninput systems (Rezende et al., 1999). In contrast, litter may play an important role in immobilizing nutrients and reducing nutrient losses to the environment in highly fertilized pastures (Wedin, 1996). Litter quality is often characterized based on its concentrati on of C, N, P, lignin, polyphenols, and their ratios (Heal et al., 1997; Thomas and Asakaw a, 1993), and these litter quality indicators are related to the nutrient mineralizati on and immobilization processes (Palm and Rowland, 1997). Nitrogen fertilization and stocking rate may affect not only the amount of litter produced but also its decomposition rates. Greater litter quality, because of higher nutrient uptake and greater availability of soil nutrients in fertilized systems, may increase litter turnover resu lting in greater nutrient suppl y to the pasture via litter

PAGE 130

111 (Lupwayi and Haque, 1999). Stocking rate (SR) may also affect litter decomposition rates by altering soil nutrient availability (Thoma s, 1992), and by modifying sward structure creating a different microclimate (Hirata et al., 1991). Therefore, management practices affect nutrient dynamics in pasture ecosystems, but little attention ha s been given to this topic in grazing trials (Mat hews et al., 1994). Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of pasture management in tensity, defined in terms of N fertilization and SR, on above-ground plant litter nutrient dynamics a nd litter quality. Material and Methods Experimental Site A grazing experiment was performed at the Beef Research Unit northeast of Gainesville, FL, at 2943’ N la t on ‘Pensacola’ bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flgge) pastures. Soils were classified as Spo dosols (sandy siliceous, hyperthermic Ultic Alaquods from the Pomona series or sandy siliceous, hyperthermic Aeric Alaquods from the Smyrna series) with average pH of 5.9. Me hlich-I extractable soil P, K, Ca, and Mg average concentrations at the beginning of the experiment were 5.3, 28, 553, and 98 mg kg-1, respectively. Treatments and Design This experiment was conducted during 2002 and 2003 and tested the effect of three management intensities of continuous ly stocked bahiagrass pastures on litter nutrient disappearance and litter quality. Management intensitie s were defined in terms of combinations of stocking rate and N fertilization. The three management intensities tested were Low (40 kg N ha-1 yr-1 and 1.2 animal units [AU, one AU = 500 kg live weight] ha-1 target stocking rate), Moderate (120 kg N ha-1 yr-1 and 2.4 AU ha-1 target stocking rate), and High (360 kg N ha-1 yr-1 and 3.6

PAGE 131

112 AU ha-1 target stocking rate). These treatments were selected because Low approximates current bahiagrass management practice in Florida cow-calf systems. Moderate represents the upper ra nge of current producer practice, and High is well above what is currently in use. Actual SR was calculated based on initial and fi nal live weights during each grazing season. These SR were 1.4, 2.8, and 4.1 AU ha-1 in 2002, and 1.3, 2.6, and 4.0 AU ha-1 in 2003 for Low, Moderate, and High treatments, respectively. These values deviated from target values because initial heifer liveweigh t was greater than anticipated. A randomized complete block design was used and each treatment was replicated twice. Animal management, N fertilization, and facilities were described in Chapter 6. Response Variables Existing litter and deposited litter Litter quality was characterized in two experiments. In the first experiment, existing litter in the pasture was sampled at 28-d intervals from ci rcular quadrats (0.55 m2) in areas that represented the average herb age mass of each pasture. Six quadrats were placed per pasture. The existing litter contai ned within each quadrat was raked, collected, and dried (72 h at 60C). After clearing the site, restriction cages were placed there and after 14 d the deposited litter within the quadrat was colle cted and dried (Chapter 6). Existing and deposited litter were defined as dead plant material on the surface of the soil, no longer attached to the plant. Samp les were composited across the six caged sites per pasture within a litter type in prepar ation for lab analysis. Chemical composition analysis included dry matter (DM), organic matte r (OM), C, N, P, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and li gnin for existing and deposited litter.

PAGE 132

113 Litter bag trial In the second experiment, litter nutrient disappearance was estimated using a litter bag technique. In this experiment, litter was de fined as the senescent leaves still attached to the plant. The reason for this approach was to avoid collecting litter on the ground that was already degraded to an unknown extent. The litter was obtained by cutting standing herbage from each of the six experimental units during May of each grazing season. Herbage from each experimental unit was kept separate from the others and oven-dried (60C for 72 h). Green and senescent herbage wa s hand-separated thereaf ter, but the litter was not ground so that the surface area remained as similar as possible to the original litter. The senescent fraction (6 g per bag) was placed into polyester bags with 75-m mesh size and measuring 15 x 20 cm. The bags were heat sealed, and incubation times were 0, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, and 128 d. Each incubation time, with the exception of Day zero, was replicated six times within each e xperimental unit, resulting in 36 bags per experimental unit. Empty bags were also inc ubated for the different periods in order to correct the bag weight after incubation. Litter bags were placed on the ground in sets of six, one for each incubation time, and covered w ith existing litter from that experimental unit. These sites were chosen to represent th e average herbage mass of the pasture, based on settling height of an aluminum disk. Cage s were placed over the sites where each set of six bags was located to pr otect them from grazing animals. Thus, a total of six cages per pasture were used, one for each complete set of incubation times. Herbage inside the cage was clipped biweekly thr oughout the 128-d period in orde r to maintain the herbage height inside the cage as close as possible to the average herbage height of the pasture, and the clipped material was removed from the site.

PAGE 133

114 The 128-d incubation periods were from 22 July to 27 Nov. 2002 and 23 July to 28 Nov. 2003. At each incubation time, the six litte r bags for that time on a given pasture were collected, oven-dried (60C for 72 h), and composited samples within an experimental unit were milled to pass a 1mm screen. Chemical composition analyses included DM, OM, C, N, P, NDF, ADF, ligni n, and acid detergent insoluble N (ADIN). In both experiments, DM and OM analys es were performed using the procedure described by Moore and Mott (1974). Carbon, N, and ADIN (litter bag only) analyses were done using dry combustion with a Carl o Erba NA-1500 C/N/S analyzer. Phosphorus was determined by micro-Kjeldahl digesti on and read in the auto-analyzer using a colorimetric procedure. Fiber analysis was run in an ANKOM fiber analyzer (ANKOM Technology, 2003a; ANKOM Technology, 2003b; ANKOM Technology, 2003c). In the case of the litter bag experiment, the percen tage of remaining nutrient was calculated based on the content of each nutrient pr ior to and after th e incubation period. Statistical Analyses Composition data for existing litter and deposited litter were organized by 28-d periods within each year and analyzed usi ng a repeated measures procedure in Proc Mixed from SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., 1996). Th e LSMEANS procedure was used to compare treatment means. In the litter bag trial, non-linear models were used to fit th e decay curves using Proc Nlin from SAS Institute (SAS Inst. Inc., 1996). Before choosing the model, each data set was plotted to observ e the pattern of distribution. Decay curves usually followed the double or single exponential functions, and nutrient conc entration data followed the two-stage model. The double exponential model was used first to explain the decay curves, and whenever it wasn’t significant (P < 0.10), the single exponential decay model

PAGE 134

115 was used to fit the data. This happened when nutrient immobili zation occurred to a greater extent at the beginning of the incuba tion periods, as in the total N decay curve. The double exponential model (Weider and La ng, 1982) was used for P loss, and it was described by Equation 1: t k t ke A Ae2 1) 1 ( (Equation 1) Where: = Proportion of remaining biomass at time t A= Constant k1 and k2 = Decay constants After solving the above equati on, the output parameters (A, k1, and k2) of each experimental unit were used to calculate th eir respective relative decomposition rates (k) using Equation 2 described by Weider and Lang (1982): t k t k t k t ke A Ae e A k Ae k k2 1 2 1) 1 ( ) 1 (2 1 (Equation 2) The time used to calculate k was 128 d whic h corresponds to the total length of each incubation trial. The single exponential model (Wagner and Wolf, 1999) was used for total N decay and C:N ratio and it was described by Equation 3: kte B0 (Equation 3) Where: = Proportion of remaining biomass at time t B0 = constant k = Decay constant

PAGE 135

116 The two-stage model described by McCartor and Rouquette (1977) was used to fit nutrient concentration over time. Pearson correl ation coefficients were calculated for all models applied, correlating the observed data with the expected data from the models. After fitting the appropriate model for each experimental unit within each grazing season, the output parameters were an alyzed using Proc Mixed from SAS with year considered a fixed effect. Means were co mpared using the LSMEANS procedure of SAS. Results and Discussion Existing Litter and Deposited Litter N concentration Existing and deposited litter N concentrati ons were approximat ely 50% greater for the High management intensity than for the ot her treatments (Table 7.1). These greater N values reflect the importance of the litter as a buffering pool, potentially reducing N losses to the environment (Wedin, 1996; Wedi n, 2004) and supplying it later to plants and microbes. The potential litter mineralization may be estimated based on litter C and N concentration. Considering the average rate of litter deposition (C hapter 6) and the deposited litter N concentration (12.7 g kg-1) for the Low treatment (Table 7.1), the amount of N cycled through the above-ground deposited litter was approximately 58 kg N ha-1. Carbon concentration in deposited litter was relatively constant averaging 506 g kg-1 on an OM basis (or 436 g kg-1 on a DM basis). With this N amount (58 kg N ha-1), 2750 kg of above-ground litter (DM basi s) would be decomposed by soil microorganisms, considering a microbial C:N ra tio of 8:1 and that 1/3 of the metabolized C is actually incorporated into microbial bi omass. The remaining 2/3 would be utilized

PAGE 136

117 during the respiratory process (Brady and Weil, 2002; p.508). The average (across treatments and dates) litter deposition rate for the grazing season was 27 kg OM ha-1 d-1 (Chapter 6), which multiplied by the gr azing season length (168 d) results in approximately 4540 kg OM ha-1 deposited during this period. The undegraded remaining biomass (i.e., 4540 – 2750 = 1790 kg ha-1) tends to accumulate and act as a sink for the N from pasture pools (e.g., soil OM, excreta) or other nutrient inputs lik e fertilizers. This value (1790 kg ha-1) is close to the average existing litter for 2002 and 2003 which was 1570 kg ha-1. Below-ground litter was not accounted for in these calculations; therefore, the N immobilization potential is even greater th an reported. Nitrogen immobilization may lead to pasture degradation in low N input systems (Fisher et al., 1994). Pa sture degradation is usually related to decreasing soil N availabi lity caused by an accumulation of low quality plant litter and, consequently, by an increase in net N immobilization due to greater numbers and activity of soil microorganism s (Cantarutti, 1996; Robbins et al., 1989; Robertson et al., 1993a; Robertson et al ., 1993b). Nitrogen fertilization or legume introduction are ways to overcom e and reverse this process. Table 7.1. Effect of management intensity on N concentration (OM basis) of existing litter and deposited li tter during 2002 and 2003. Treatment Existing litter Deposited litter -----------------------------g kg-1 -------------------------Low 14.1 b† 12.7 b Moderate 15.8 b 14.3 b High 22.9 a 21.5 a SE 0.9 0.9 †Means within a column followed by the same letter are not different (P>0.10) by the SAS LSMEANS test.

PAGE 137

118 C:N ratio and lignin:N ratio Management intensity interacted with evalua tion date to affect litter C:N ratio for both existing litter and deposited litter (Figure 7.1). Th e C:N ratio was lowest for the High treatment in all evaluations of existi ng and deposited litter, and there were no differences among dates within years for this treatment (P > 0.10). Interaction occurred because during the mid-season the C:N ratio for the Low and Moderate treatments started to increase, and the change was greatest for Low for both existing and deposited litter (Figure 7.1). Therefore, at the beginni ng of the season the C:N ratio of Low and Moderate was similar, but at the end of th e season Low presented a higher C:N ratio. Carbon concentration did not differ among treat ments, but N concentration did differ, both for existing and deposited litter (Table 7.1). Thus, the higher N concentration in the litter resulted in lower C:N ratio fo r the High treatment (Figure 7.1). The C:N and lignin:N ratios are considered important components of decomposition models (Palm and Rowland, 1997) with lower values associated with more rapid decomposition. The C:N ratio in pl ant residues ranges from between 10:1 to 30:1 in legumes and young green leaves to as high as 600:1 in some kinds of sawdust (Brady and Weil, 2002). It is generally accepte d that C:N ratio less than 20:1 favors mineralization whereas C:N ratio greater th an 30:1 favors immobilization (Wagner and Wolf, 1999), but fungi and bacteria can decomp ose residues with far higher ratios (Heal et al., 1997). Data from the current study s howed that at lower management intensity (Low and Moderate treatments) the litter C: N ratio was greater than 30:1, presenting potential for N immobilization, while at the Hi gh intensity the C:N ratios were less than 30:1 (22:1 for existing litter). The C:N ratio was well-esta blished by the 1920s as a general index of litter quality and it still has widespread use. It is now generally accepted,

PAGE 138

119 however, that form of the C in plant cells, the concentration of ot her nutrients, and the composition of secondary plant compounds, can all be significant in decomposition processes (Heal et al., 1997). Existing litter 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 JuneJulAugSeptOctC:N ratio Low Mod High a a b a a b a a b a b c c a b Deposited litter 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 JuneJulAugSeptOctC:N ratio Low Mod High a a b a a b a b c a b c a b c Figure 7.1. Management intensity by evaluation date interaction effect on C:N ratio of existing litter and deposited litter on grazed Pensacola bahiagrass pastures during 2002-2003. Means followed by same letter, within each evaluation date, are not different (P>0.10) by the SAS LSMEANS test. Existing litter SE = 2.3; Deposited litter SE = 2.5.

PAGE 139

120 The lignin:N ratio differed among management intensities with lower values observed for the High treatment in both exis ting and deposited litte r (Table 7.2). Lignin concentration did not differ (P > 0.10) among treatments, averaging 92 g kg-1 for existing litter and 84 g kg-1 for deposited litter. Therefore, the lower lignin:N ratio observed in the litter from the High treatment is related to its greater N concentration. The lignin:N ratio of residues with low polyphe nol concentration is a us eful indicator of net N mineralization rates and it also regulates the synchrony between soil N supply and plant uptake, reducing N losses (Thomas and As akawa, 1993; Becker and Ladha, 1997; Whitmore and Handayanto, 1997). Lignin concentr ation varies widely, increasing with senescence of plant materials and as litter decomposition proceeds. Values in fresh, nonsenescent leaves of a broad range of plants ranged from 50 to 200 g kg-1, while those of senesced litter range from 100 to 400 g kg-1 (Palm and Rowland, 1997). Thomas and Asakawa (1993) reported lignin:N values rangi ng from 13.8 to 31.5 in litter collected from pastures of four differ ent tropical grass species. Thes e values are higher than the ones obtained in this experiment which range d from 4.4 to 5.8 (Table 7.2), and the main difference was the litter N concentration reported from Thomas and Asakawa (1993) which was in the range of 2.7 to 6.9 g N kg-1 (contrasting with the 12.7 to 22.9 g N kg-1 range obtained in this experiment). It is in teresting to note that the lignin:N ratio of existing and deposited litter were very sim ilar within a treatment despite decomposition processes occurring for a longer time in existing litter. This suggests that both lignin and N are relatively recalcitrant co mponents of bahiagrass litter.

PAGE 140

121 Table 7.2. Effect of management intensity on lignin:N ratio of existing litter and deposited litter during 2002-2003. Treatment Existing litter Deposited litter Low 5.8 a 5.9 a Mod 5.7 a 6.0 a High 4.4 b 4.4 b SE 0.4 0.3 †Means within a column followed by the same letter are not different (P>0.10) by the SAS LSMEANS test. P concentration and C:P ratio Existing and deposited litter P concentrati ons were higher and C:P ratios lower for the High treatment than for Moderate and Low (Table 7.3). Considering that P fertilization was the same among Moderate and High treatments and those treatments only received 17 kg P ha-1 more than Low over the 2 yr, the primary reason why P was higher in the High treatment is the higher SR and N fertilization. Increasing SR increases the proportion of nutrients returned via excr eta relative to litter (Thomas, 1992), and nutrients in excreta are more readily availa ble than those in pl ant litter (Haynes and Williams, 1993), particularly below-ground litte r. Nitrogen fertiliza tion may increase the rates of soil OM mineralization, increasing P av ailability. As a result of these processes, soil P availability increased leading to greater plant P uptake. Phosphorus mineralization and immobilizati on processes are especially important to understand because organic P is the soil P pool for which management has the greatest potential to increase the efficiency of P recycl ing in tropical pastur es (Beck and Snchez, 1994; Guerra et al., 1995; Friesen et al., 1997; Novais and Smyth, 1999; Oberson et al., 1999). The C:P ratio ranged from 394 (High treatment) to 662 (Low treatment). When C:P ratio is below 200:1, mineralizati on predominates, whereas above 300:1 immobilization is greatest (Dalal, 1979; McLaughlin and Alston, 1986; Novais and

PAGE 141

122 Smyth, 1999). Therefore, P immobilization by th e litter pool was expected to occur even for the High treatment. Table 7.3. Effect of management intensity on P concentration (OM basis) and C:P ratio of existing litter and deposited litter during 2002 and 2003. Treatment Existing litter Deposited litter P (g kg-1) C:P P (g kg-1) C:P Low 0.8 b† 649 a 0.8 b 662 a Mod 0.9 b 599 b 0.9 b 580 a High 1.3 a 433 c 1.3 a 394 b SE 0.04 19.4 0.08 68 †Means within a column followed by the same letter are not different (P>0.10) by the SAS LSMEANS test. NDF and ADF concentration Management intensity interacted with evaluation date affecting NDF and ADF concentration in the existi ng litter (Figure 7.2). The Hi gh treatment had less seasonal variability in existing litter NDF and ADF concentrations, while those of Low and Moderate decreased significantly during July and August. Litter NDF and ADF concentration is a function of the deposited litter quality and also of the rate of litter decomposition. Greater decomposition rates, asso ciated with the High treatment, increase NDF and ADF because fiber compounds are reca lcitrant, particularly ADF (Heal et al., 1997). There were no treatment effects but there was an evaluation date effect for NDF and ADF concentration in the deposited litter. Deposited li tter NDF increased from 620 to 710 g kg-1 and ADF from 310 to 360 g kg-1 from the beginning to the end of the grazing season. Because this material was all de posited within 14 d of sampling date, this response was most likely due to the decreasi ng nutritive value of standing herbage that occurred as the grazing season progressed (Chapter 3).

PAGE 142

123 NDF 560 580 600 620 640 660 680 700 720 740 760 JuneJulAugSeptOctg kg-1 Low Mod High a a a a b b a ab b a a a a a b ADF 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 JuneJulAugSeptOctg kg-1 Low Mod High a b aba b b a a b a a a a a b Figure 7.2. Effect of management intensity a nd evaluation date on neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) concentration of existing litter on grazed Pensacola bahiagrass pastures during 2002-2003. Means followed by same letter, within each evaluation da te, are not different (P>0.10) by the SAS LSMEANS test. NDF SE = 224 g kg-1; ADF SE = 119 g kg-1.

PAGE 143

124 Litter Bag Trial Litter chemical composition at Days 0 and 128 The litter chemical compositi on at Days 0 and 128 is pres ented for characterization purposes (Table 7.4). Non-linear models will be used later in this Chapter to explain how the changes occurred during the incubation period. There was an interaction between treatment and incubation periods for N, P, ADIN, and lignin concentration. In general, the concentration of N, ADIN, and lignin increased over the 128-d incubation period for all treatments (Table 7.4). Interaction occurr ed because these variables were similar (P > 0.10) among treatments at Day 0 but not at Da y 128, with greater values observed in the High treatment. Lignin and ADIN are considered recalcitrant materials and are slowly decomposed during the incubation period (Ruffo and Bollero, 2003). Because ADIN was a major component of total N, as will be expl ored later in this Chap ter, the N might also be considered a recalcitrant compound. The c oncentration effect occurs because soluble compounds decompose faster leaving the more recalcitrant ones behind (Heal et al., 1997; Whitmore and Handayanto, 1997). Faster decomposition rate in the High treatment (Chapter 6) combined with greater N fertil ization and SR are the likely reasons for greater increase of the recalcitrant materials in the High treatment. Litter P decreased significantly (P < 0.10) in concentration only fo r the Moderate treatment, but there were trends in the same direction for Low and High (P 0.16; Table 7.4). Litter NDF and C:N ratio decreased from Day 0 to Day 128, but litter ADF and litter lignin:N ratio increased during this sa me period (Table 7.5). Decline in C:N ratio occurs because while C is lost during deco mposition, N concentration increases because it is bound to the fiber and also because of immobilization by mi crobes. The difference between NDF and ADF is because NDF contains hemicellulose (Van Soest, 1985).

PAGE 144

125 Hemicellulose is more degradable than lig nin and ADF (Heal et al., 1997). Therefore, because of their more recalcitr ant nature, ADF and lignin increased over time, while litter NDF decreased. Table 7.4. Litter chemical composition (N, P, ADIN, and lignin conc entrations) at the beginning and at the end of the 128d incubation period at different management intensities. Da ta are averages of 2 yr. Treatments Low Moderate High 0 d 128 d P† 0 d 128 d P 0 d 128 d P ---------------------------------------g kg-1 ----------------------------------------N 14.6 23.9 < 0.01 14.8 22.5 < 0.01 16.5 30.5 < 0.01 P 1.5 1.4 0.10 1.6 1.1 < 0.01 1.4 1.2 0.16 ADIN 6.3 24.3 < 0.01 6.5 21.8 < 0.01 8.0 32.4 < 0.01 Lignin 48 258 < 0.01 52 249 < 0.01 54 304 < 0.01 †P value for comparison between incubation periods within the same treatment and response variable. Nitrogen st andard error (SE) = 1.1 g kg-1; Phosphorus SE = 0.15 g kg-1 ; ADIN SE = 1.7 g kg-1; Lignin SE = 9.8 g kg-1. Table 7.5. Litter NDF and ADF concentrations and C:N and lignin:N ra tio at Days 0 and 128 during 2002 and 2003. Incubation periods Day 0 Day 128 P value† NDF, g kg-1 735 650 0.09 ADF, g kg-1 366 437 0.07 C:N 30 19 < 0.01 Lignin:N 3.2 9.4 0.05 †P value for comparison between incubation pe riods within the same response variable. NDF SE = 8.2 g kg-1 ; ADF SE = 6.7 g kg-1 ; C:N SE = 2.15; Lignin:N SE = 0.4. Litter N disappearance Total N disappearance followed a single exponential model, and there were differences due to year but not among trea tments (Figure 7.3). Net N immobilization occurred at the beginning of th e incubation period in both years, but to a greater extent in 2002 when net N immobilization occurred up to 64 d compared to only 8 d in 2003. Litter

PAGE 145

126 quality plays a role in N immobilization, par ticularly in low N input, C4 grass systems (Fisher et al., 1994; Cantarutti, 1996), and may lead to pasture degradation. Net N mineralization varied from 20 to 30% after 128 d of incubation, resulting in a small contribution of N from the litter pool to the pa sture. Instead, the litter pool acted as an N sink, which was particularly important for the High treatment where rates of 360 kg N ha-1 yr-1 were applied. Therefore, N losses to the environment were probably reduced because of N immobilization by th e litter pool. In green panic (Panicum maximum Jacq. var. trichoglume) pastures in Australia, ne t N mineralization did not occur until 50 to 100 d after litter deposition. Even af ter a year only 20 to 30% of all litter N was released in the soil, primarily due to microbial immobili zation (Robbins et al., 1989). In southern Bahia state, Brazil, Cantarut ti (1996) determined that inc ubation of soil samples with herbage of creeping signalgrass [Brachiaria humidicola (Rendle) Schweick.], desmodium, and combinations of the two led to significant net N immobilization. During the first week of incubation, 60 to 80% of all soil mineral N was immobilized in the microbial biomass, and 30 to 50% remained immobilized after 150 d. At the same time, the author verified an increase of N in the microbial biomass of 12 to 36%. This reinforced the hypothesis that a large pr oportion of soil mineral N was effectively immobilized and that competition existed be tween plants and microorganisms for the available N.

PAGE 146

127 2002y = 98.4e-0.0021x0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 020406080100120140Days of incubationRemaining N (%) Total N Obs Total N Exp 2003y = 98.4e-0.0021x0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 020406080100120140Days of incubationRemaining N (%) Total N Obs Total N Exp Figure 7.3. Total N disappearance from litter in cubated on Pensacola bahiagrass pastures managed at a range of intensitie s during 2002 and 2003. P earson correlation coefficient in 2002 = 0.59; Pearson correlation coefficient in 2003 = 0.77.

PAGE 147

128 Litter P disappearance Phosphorus decomposition, like DM, was described using a double exponential decay model, and no treatment differences were detected (Figure 7.4). Some P immobilization occurred at the beginning of the incubation period, but after 128 d of incubation approximately 60% of net P mine ralization had occurred. The average litter P concentration on Day 0 was 1.5 g kg-1 and it decreased to 1.2 g kg-1 by Day 128 (Table 7.4). Assuming the average rate of litter deposition (i.e., 27 kg OM ha-1 d-1), the litter deposited in 140 d was 3780 kg OM ha-1. Therefore, the amount of P returned through this above-ground litter was approximately 5.7 kg ha-1 during the 140-d period. If an average of 50% of this P was released, only 2.9 kg ha-1 would be made available to the pasture from litter during this period. This may be an overestimation due to the shorter time period available for degradation of litte r P deposited later in the grazing season. Therefore, the above-ground lit ter contribution to P supply in these pastures was of limited importance. The potential for P immobilization, howe ver, particularly by the below-ground litter is high. Gijsman et al. (1997) reported root C:P ratio up to 1780 in creeping signalgrass grown on an Oxisol while microbial C:P ratio in these soils ranged from 34 to 50. When considering C:P ratio, values below 200:1 result in mineralization predominating, whereas above 300:1 imm obilization is greatest (Dalal, 1979; McLaughlin and Alston, 1986; Novais and Smyth, 1999). Considering that the P concentration in the lit ter on Day 0 was 1.5 g kg-1 and the C concentration was 430 g kg-1, the average C:P ratio on Day 0 was 287, and in creased with length of the decomposition period. Other factors such as lignin and polyphe nol concentrations may play a role in P mineralization rates. For example, minera lization rates were greater for rice [Oryza sativa

PAGE 148

129 (L.)] (0.6 g P kg-1) and Stylosanthes capitata Vog. (0.7 g P kg-1) residues than for cowpea [Vignia unguiculata (L.) Walp.] (2.7 g P kg-1); the latter has gr eater lignin-polyphenol concentrations (Friesen et al., 1997). The au thors, however, consider ed that different P mineralization rates have less importance in pa sture systems because forage grasses have an extensive root system to take up P releas ed in the soil during any time of the year. Additionally, it has b een suggested that root exud ation of acid phosphatases (e.g., phytase) could provide an e fficient mechanism for wide adaptation of signalgrass (Brachiaria decumbens Stapf.; planted on over 40 million ha) to the low inorganic P supplying soils of Latin America (Rao et al., 1999). 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 020406080100120140Days of incubationRemaining P (%) Figure 7.4. Total P disappearance from litter in cubated on Pensacola bahiagrass pastures managed at a range of intensitie s during 2002-2003. Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.88. Litter N concentration: total N and ADIN Total N concentration in the litter incr eased during the incubation period for all treatments, but it increased to a greater extent for th e High treatment (Figure 7.5). Increasing N concentration over an incubation period has been reported in the literature

PAGE 149

130 (Thomas and Asakawa, 1993). Although N con centration increased over time, most of this N was not available for decomposition because it was chemically bound to the cell wall (Figure 7.6). The availability of C and N, rather than their total concentration in the residue, plays a critical role in residue d ecomposition and nutrient release (Ruffo and Bollero, 2003). Greater increase in N concentr ation for the High treatment likely was due to greater N availability in these pastures resulting in higher N immobilization by the litter. Whitmore and Handayanto (1997) related th e increase in lignin with the increase in the protein binding capacity of residues. The High treatment, as will be explored later in this chapter, also had a greater increase in lignin concentration over time, probably due to a higher decomposition rate, therefore, the N binding capacity was also likely to be greater in the High pastures. As a result, N c oncentration increased to a greater extent for the litter in the High treatment. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 020406080100120140 Days of incubationTotal N (g kg-1) Low exp Mod Exp High Exp Figure 7.5. Total N concentration in litter incubated on Pensacol a bahiagrass pastures that were managed at a range of intens ities during 2002-2003. Pearson correlation coefficient for Low = 0.74; Moderate = 0.63; High = 0.85.

PAGE 150

131 The ADIN concentration also increase d across the incubation period for all treatments, but it increased to the greatest extent for th e High treatment (Figure 7.6). Greater decomposition rate for the High treat ment resulted in fast er decomposition of more soluble compounds, increasing ADF as a result of a concen tration effect. The proportion of ADIN in total N at the beginning of the inc ubation was approximately 200 g kg-1, but this value increased to 400 to 500 g kg-1 after 64 d of inc ubation (Figure 7.7). This reinforces the argument that despite the increase in N concentration over time, almost half of this N was bound to the ADF, therefore, it had low availability for microbial decomposition. Ruffo and Bollero (200 3) indicated that C and N mineralization rates are positively correlated to their sol uble fractions in the NDF and ADF and that large concentrations of NDF and ADF redu ce biomass decomposition and slow C and N release rates. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 020406080100120140Days of incubationADIN (g kg-1) Low Exp Mod Exp High Exp Figure 7.6. Acid detergent in soluble N (ADIN) in litte r incubated on Pensacola bahiagrass pastures managed at a range of intensities during 2002-2003. Pearson correlation coefficient for Lo w = 0.88; Moderate = 0.85; High = 0.92.

PAGE 151

132 0 100 200 300 400 500 020406080100120140 DaysADIN, g kg-1 Low Expected Mod Expected High Expected Figure 7.7. Acid detergent insol uble N (ADIN) concentration in total N in litter incubated on Pensacola bahiagrass pastures mana ged at a range of intensities during 2002-2003. Pearson correlation coefficient for Low = 0.91; Moderate = 0.84; High = 0.86. Litter lignin and lignin-to-N ratio Ash-free lignin concentration also increased across the incubation time, and similarly to ADIN, it increased to the greates t extent for the High tr eatment (Figure 7.8). Lignin plays an important role in the decomposition process because of all naturally produced organic chemicals, lignin is proba bly the most recalcitrant (Hammel, 1997). Heal et al. (1997) reported that litter decomposition is mainly controlled by the rate of lignin decomposition, and that this rate, in turn, is increased by high cellulose concentration and decreased by a high N concentration. Keyser et al. (1978) demonstrated that the ligninolytic system of lignin-decomposer fungi is synthesized in response to N starvation. Therefore, the greater lignin concen tration for the High treatment was not only because of higher de composition rates resulting in more rapid decomposition of soluble compounds leaving lig nin behind, but also due to lower lignin decomposition rates resulting from more N available in the High pastures. Lignin concentration 64 d after decomposition initiated was greater than 250 g kg-1 in the High

PAGE 152

133 treatment. Information on forage fed to an imals suggest that once lignin concentration surpasses 150 g kg-1, decomposition is impaired because lignin is covering and thus protecting the cellulose from attack (Chesson, 1997). Lignin methods of analysis might be subject to errors. The Klason procedure, for example, may overestimate lignin values if it is used on plant tissues that contain ot her high molecular wei ght components that are not removed in the initial extraction and acid treatment. Interfering substances of this type may include proteins and tannins (Ha mmel, 1997). High concentration of insoluble protein bound to the fiber at longer incubation periods may have influenced the lignin analysis, resulting in an overest imation of lignin concentration. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 020406080100120140 Days of incubationAsh-free lignin (g kg-1) Low Exp Mod Exp High Exp Figure 7.8. Ash-free lignin concen tration in litter incubate d on Pensacola bahiagrass pastures managed at a range of intensities during 2002-2003. Pearson correlation coefficient for Low = 0.87; Moderate = 0.90; High = 0.89. Lignin-to-N ratio also increased over the incubation period, but unlike ADIN and lignin, it was lowest for the High treatment (Fi gure 7.9). Lignin-to-N ratio is an indicator of residue decomposition, presenting a nega tive correlation with biomass loss (Thomas and Asakawa, 1993). Magid et al. (1997) sugge sted, however, that the lignin:N ratio is

PAGE 153

134 not a critical determinant of the shortto medium-term decomposition rates, but it may be very important in governing the long-term d ecay. Heal et al. (1997) pointed out that cereal and legume straws and litter from annual crops usua lly contain less than 100 to 150 g kg-1 of lignin and hence C:N ratios of 50 to 100 are reasonable predictors of decomposition rates in that case, because the higher ratios mainly reflect lower N concentration in tissues rather than change s in C form. When li gnin is increasing over time, however, the lignin-to-N ratio may be a better indicator of C availability to microorganisms. Although lignin concentrati on was greater for the High treatment, lignin:N ratio was lower, indicating a be tter quality litter resulting in faster decomposition rates for the litter at the High management intensity. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 020406080100120140Days of incubationLignin: N ratio Low Exp Mod exp High Exp Figure 7.9. Lignin-to-N ratio in litter incubated on Pensaco la bahiagrass pastures managed at a range of intensi ties during 2002-2003. P earson correlation coefficient for Low = 0.62; Moderate = 0.63 ; High = 0.69. Litter C:N ratio Litter C:N ratio decreased across the incubation period. The single exponential model fit this response with differences between years (Figure 7.10). Decreasing C:N ratio over time is expected because the more soluble C compounds decompose rapidly,

PAGE 154

135 but N immobilization by the low quality re sidue and the N bound to the fiber reduce N losses. No treatment differences were obser ved for C:N ratio (P > 0.10). Residue quality in 2002 at the start of the incubation period was lower than in 2003 (Figure 7.10). This is likely the reason why N immobilization occurred to a greater extent in 2002 than in 2003 (Figure 7.3). The N immobilization at the beginning is the reason why the double exponential model did not fit well for the N loss and C:N ratio curves over incubation time. Final C:N ratios were less than 20 in 2003, thus, net N mineralization of that litter should occur. The high lignin value at th e end, however, likely was controlling the decomposition rate. Although C:N ratio remain s a critical parameter in decomposition models, several studies have demonstrated important interactions with other factors including the form of the C in the plant cells as an energy source, the concentration of other nutrients, and the com position of various secondary pl ant compounds (Heal et al., 1997).

PAGE 155

136 C:N ratio, 2002y = 30.9e-0.0034x0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 020406080100120140Days of incubationC:N ratio C:N ratio, 2003y = 23.3e-0.0035x0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 020406080100120140Days of incubationC:N ratio Figure 7.10. Carbon-to-N ratio in litter inc ubated on Pensacola bahiagrass pastures managed at a range of intensi ties during 2002 and 2003. Pearson correlation coefficient in 2002 = 0.62; in 2003 = 0.71.

PAGE 156

137 Conclusions Increasing management intensity resulted in better litter quality, as indicated by the lower litter C:N and lignin:N ratios and the hi gher N and P concentrations in the High treatment. Seasonal fluctuations in litter quali ty occurred to a greater extent in the Low and Moderate treatments, as indicated by the C:N ratio, with lower litter quality observed by the end of the grazing season. Litter qua lity was generally low across treatments, presenting potential to immobilize nutrients lik e N and P, particular ly at the beginning and at the end of the grazing season. In the litter bag trial, the litter quality at the beginning of the incubation period was similar among management intensities, but it differed at the end, suggesting that N immobilization is a major factor altering bahiagrass litter quality. Litter had higher N concentration, particularly at the end of the incubation pe riod, but the N was mostly unavailable for microbial decomposition because it was bound to the ADF. Lignin concentration increased with incubation peri od and it was likely in the control of the decomposition process in the longer incuba tion periods. As a re sult, in the longer incubation periods, the lignin:N ratio was likely a better indicator of litter decomposition than C:N ratio. The improvement in litter quality with increasing management intensity results in faster litter turnover and enhancement in nutri ent supply to plants and microbes. It is not yet clear if the reduced nutrie nt immobilization capacity of high quality litter results in greater nutrient losses or if the relatively slow rate of nut rient release, compared to fertilization, simply provide s greater opportunity for the gr ass root system to capture these nutrients. Because roots and rhizomes are an important nutrient pool in Pensacola bahiagrass pastures, additional investigation is needed to obtain information about below-

PAGE 157

138 ground litter quality and decomposition rate s as affected by pasture management practices. This will enable better understanding of nutrient dynamics in the total system.

PAGE 158

139 CHAPTER 8 CHARACTERIZATION OF SOIL OR GANIC MATTER FROM PENSACOLA BAHIAGRASS PASTURES GRAZED FO R FOUR YEARS AT DIFFERENT MANAGEMENT INTENSITIES Introduction Soil organic matter (SOM) affects so il physical, chemical, and biological properties, and it is an importa nt indicator of ecosystem su stainability (Greenland, 1994). Land management affects SOM by altering re sidue deposition and decomposition. When residue deposition is greater than deco mposition, SOM accumulates. When residue decomposition is greater, SOM is redu ced (Johnson, 1995). Thus, sustainable land management should include practices that elev ate, or at least main tain, the appropriate SOM for a given soil (Greenland, 1994; Hassink, 1997). Using this criterion, wellmanaged pastures are sustainable production systems because SOM has been observed to increase over time. Additionally, because the C input in highly productive pastures is expected to be greater when compared to lo w-input systems, it should also be expected that SOM increases more in intensively managed pasture systems (Barrow, 1969; Malhi et al., 1997; Bernoux et al., 1999; Pull eman et al., 2000; Batjes, 2004). Often SOM has been characterized by ch emical fractionation (fulvic acid, humic acid, humin), however, the applicability of this fractionation for agroecosystems is restricted. Humic and fulvic acid have lim ited influence on short-term soil processes (e.g., nutrient availability, CO2 evolution) due to low turnover rate. Because of that, it is difficult to establish relationships between thos e fractions and crucial processes in the soil like SOM mineralization and aggregate forma tion (Feller and Beare, 1997). Physical

PAGE 159

140 fractionation of SOM, by size or density, with subsequent analysis of the OM associated with each fraction, has become a more comm on method to characterize SOM (Feller and Beare, 1997; Tiessen et al., 2001). The importa nce of this fractionation is that SOM mineralization rates increase as light fracti ons become more dominant, i.e., C and N mineralization rates are positively correlated with the amount of C and N in the light fraction and in the microbial biomass. In addi tion, the light fraction is more sensitive to changes in management which alters the resi due deposition. Therefore, early detection of SOM changes may be achieved by the physic al fractionation met hod (Hassink, 1995; Six et al., 2002). There are very few studies that have evaluated the effect of C4 grass pasture management on characteristics of SOM. Thus, the objective of this study was to characterize the SOM, by density fraction and particle size, from ‘Pensacola’ bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flgge) pastures mana ged at different N fertilization levels, stocking rates, and stocking methods. Because pretreatment SOM data are not available, particular attention will be paid to the light density fraction of SOM, the fraction in which differences are likely associat ed with the treatments imposed. Material and Methods Experimental Site The experiment was performed at the Beef Research Unit, northeast of Gainesville, FL, at 2943’ N lat on Pensacola bahiagrass pa stures. Soils were classified as Spodosols (sandy siliceous, hyperthermic Ultic Alaquods fr om the Pomona series or sandy siliceous, hyperthermic Aeric Alaquods from the Smyrna series) with average pH of 5.9. Mehlich-I extractable soil P, K, Ca, and Mg averag e concentrations at the beginning of the experiment were 5.3, 28, 553, and 98 mg kg-1, respectively.

PAGE 160

141 Treatments and Design The treatments evaluated were three management intensities of continuously stocked bahiagrass pasture and one rotati onal stocking strategy imposed on the same grass. Continuously stocked treatments were de fined in terms of stoc king rate (SR) and N fertilization, the combination of which was termed management intensity. The rotational stocking treatment had a 7-d grazi ng period and a 21-d resting period. The three management intensities tested in the continuous stocking treatments were Low (40 kg N ha-1 yr-1 and a target SR of 1.2 animal units [AU, one AU = 500 kg live weight] ha-1 SR), Moderate (120 kg N ha-1 yr-1 and a target SR of 2.4 AU ha-1 SR), and High (360 kg N ha-1 yr-1 and a target SR of 3.6 AU ha-1 SR). Actual average stocking rates during the 4 yr for Low, Mode rate, and High were 1.4, 2.8, and 4.2 AU ha-1, respectively. They were higher than the trea tment targets because the animals available for the study were heavier than expected. Th e rotational stocking treatment had the same combination of SR and N fertilization as th e continuously stocked High treatment. A randomized complete block design was used, and each treatment was replicated twice. The bahiagrass pastures were stocked from 2001 to 2004, and the soil samples for SOM characterization were collected durin g the fourth year of grazing. Two crossbred (Angus x Brahman) yearling heifers were assigned to each experimental unit in the continuously stocked treatments. Pasture area varied according to treatment, decreasing as the management inte nsity increased (Chapter 3). The rotational treatment was represented by a single paddock of the entire rotational system and during the resting period the cattle grazed other similarly managed bahiagrass pastures at the experimental station. Artifici al shade (3.1 m x 3.1 m) was provided on each experimental unit and cattle had free-choice access to wate r and a mineral mixture. The water troughs

PAGE 161

142 were always located under the artificial shade and the mineral mix troughs were repositioned several times each week at random locations throughout the pasture. Nitrogen fertilization dates and rates were the same as indicated in Chapter 3. Response Variables Soil samples were collected from all eight pastures on 11 Aug. 2004 from a 0to 8cm depth and air dried. Each sample was a co mposite of 40 soil cores collected in a zigzag line across an experimental unit (pasture ). After air drying, each soil sample was sieved through a 2-mm screen, with the part icles greater than 2 mm discarded. From the particles less than 2 mm, a 100-g subsample was taken and sieved for 5 min in a RoTapTM sieve shaker producing 240 oscillations min-1, using sieves with mesh sizes of 53, 150, and 250 m which were stacked on the top of each other. Following this procedure, the weight of the different soil class sizes was taken to calcul ate the particle size distribution. From the sieved material, 10 g of the different class sizes (250 to 2000 m or coarse sand, 150 to 250 m or medium sand, and 53 to 150 m or fine sand) was used to perform the OM fractionation. Particles less than 53 m (silt and clay) were not fractionated because the decantati on with water was not efficien t for this particle size. The OM fractionation was accomplished by decantation and density separation (light and heavy fractions) with water. The physical separation was performed by adapting the methods reported by Meijboom et al. (1995), using water instead of Ludox gel. From the 10 g of each class size, the mineral particles were separated from the organic particles by decantation with distilled deionized wate r. After decantation, the OM suspension of a given class size was poured into a glass funnel A plastic hose was attached to its end with c lips preventing leaking, and a 24-h settling period followed. The light OM density fraction was considered the material that was floa ting or suspended in

PAGE 162

143 the water, and the heavy density fraction was the material deposited at the bottom of the funnel and in the plastic hose. After the 24h settling period, the light OM suspension was poured into another funnel with Whatman filter paper Number 5. The same procedure was applied to the heavy density fraction wh ich was recollected by opening the clips and pouring the deposited material in a similar funnel and filter paper described for the light fraction. After filtering, the light and heavy OM fractions with the filter paper were put into a drier (65C) for 24 h, placed into a desiccator for 1 h, and the sample weight determined thereafter. Because of the small am ount of material rec overed, particularly in the light fraction, correction for mineral cont amination in the recovered fractions was performed by class size and replication usi ng the protocol detailed by Moore and Mott (1974). A scheme for the particle size distribution and SOM physical separation by density fraction is shown in Figure 8.1. The light and heavy OM density fractions fr om the different part icle size classes were analyzed for their C and N concentra tion by dry combustion using a Carlo Erba NA-1500 C/N/S analyzer. The samples of partic les less than 53 m were also analyzed for C and N using the same procedure. Con centrations of C and N per kg of soil were calculated by estimating the C and N content (quantity of OM recovered multiplied by C and N concentration in the SOM) per unit of each particle size and then multiplying the result by the proportion of each given particle size in the soil particle size distribution. Because no SOM density fractionation was perf ormed for particles < 53 m, the results reported for this class size refer only to the C and N concentration in the bulk soil. The mineral residue recovered afte r the decantation process was an alyzed for C concentration

PAGE 163

144 using the weight-loss-on-ignition method (Ma gdoff et al., 1996). A C concentration in the SOM of 580 g kg-1 was assumed (Wagner and Wolf, 1999; p.252). Figure 8.1. Particle size di stribution and SOM physical separation by density. Undisturbed soil cores (two per depth per experimental unit) were also randomly collected for soil bulk density de termination at three soil depths: 0 to 6 cm, 6 to 12 cm, and 12 to 18 cm. These depth increments were chosen based on the ring heights of the core sampler. Statistical Analyses Statistical analyses were performed usi ng Proc GLM and Proc Mixed of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., 1996). The GLM procedure was used to analyze the particle size proportion data. Original particle size pr oportion was transformed to Y valu es in order to correct for Soil Sample > 2000 m < 2000 m (100g) discarded Sieve shaker for 5 min 250 to 2000 m 150 to 250 m 53 to 150 m < 53 m OM suspension Decantation OM suspension OM suspension Decantation Decantation Light OM Heavy OM Light OM Heavy OM Light OM Heavy OM Settle in the funnel for 24 h Settle in the funnel for 24 h Settle in the funnel for 24 h

PAGE 164

145 the interdependence among vari ables (compositional data). The Y values were estimated for the different particle sizes using the following transformation: ) 1 ln(1 1 1P P Y ; ) 1 ln(2 1 2 2P P P Y ; ) 1 ln(3 2 1 3 3P P P P Y Where, Y1, Y2, and Y3 were transformed particle si ze class proportions, the 250 to 2000 m, 150 to 250 m, and 53 to 150 m, respectively, and P1 = original proportion of particles 250 to 2000 m; P2 = original proportion of pa rticles from 150 to 250 m; P3 = original proportion of pa rticles from 53 to 150 m. These transformed data (Y1, Y2, and Y3) were then analyzed using Proc GLM in SAS as compositional data. Means were compared using the Duncan’s test with a P value of 0.05. The Mixed procedure was used to analy ze the C and N concentration in the SOM and in the soil. Because soil pre-existing condition affects mainly the heavy SOM fraction and no pre-existing SOM fractionation data were available to use as a co-variate, only the light SOM was statistically anal yzed for treatment comparisons and the LSMEANS procedure was used to compare treatment means. Results and Discussion Particle Size Distribution and Bulk Density The particle size distribution of soil from 0to 8-cm depth did not differ among treatments (Figure 8.2). Soils at the experiment al site are classified as Spodosols, mainly from the Pomona and Smyrna series. In thes e sandy soils, large partic les predominate. As shown in Figure 8.2, coarse sand (250 to 2000 m), medium sand (150 to 250 m), and fine sand (53 to 150 m) represented 990 g kg-1 of total soil, with coarse sand alone representing 540 g kg-1. The clay and silt size fraction (< 53 m) represented only 10 g

PAGE 165

146 kg-1 and SOM was likely present to a greater exte nt in that fraction than in the larger particle size fractions. The capacity of this t op soil (0 to 8 cm) to protect OM, however, is low because of the low silt a nd clay content (Hassink, 1997). Figure 8.2. Soil particle size distri bution from the 0to 8-cm depth in the Spodosol at the research site. Soil bulk density (SBD) did not differ among treatments, but it did differ for the different soil depths. Soil bulk density was lower at the shallowest depth (0 to 6 cm) when compared to other depths (Table 8.1). So il organic matter plays an important role in the SBD. As SOM increases SBD decreases b ecause SOM particles are less dense than soil mineral particles. The major effect of SOM on SBD, however, is the soil aggregate formation promoted by the SOM reduces SBD. Soil organic matter is usually greater at shallower depths resulting in lower SBD at those depths. Increasing SR can result in higher SBD because of the greater number of animals grazing resulting in soil 540 g kg1 320 g kg1 130 g kg1 10 g kg1 > 250 m 150 to 250 m 53 to 150 m < 53 m

PAGE 166

147 compaction, particularly at shallower depths (Kelly, 1985), although this is less likely to occur on sandy soils (Hillel, 1998). On the other hand, increasing SOM because of greater fertilizer inputs and increased plant productivity may overcome the effect of greater SR, and this may have been the case in the current study where there were no differences in SBD among treatments. Table 8.1. Soil bulk density at different dept hs of a Spodosol at the research site. Soil Depth (cm) Soil Bulk Density (g cm-3) 0 to 6 1.12 b† 6 to 12 1.49 a 12 to 18 1.55 a SE 0.03 †Means followed by the same letter do not di ffer (P > 0.10) by the SAS LSMEANS test. Total C, N, and C:N Ratio in the Soil The total C, N, and C:N ratio in the soil did not differ among treatments with averages of 11.3 g kg-1, 0.8 g kg-1, and 14.3, respectively (Table 8.2). A total SOM determination may not reflect recent changes in SOM dynamics of a perennial grass sward because it includes both the heavy a nd light SOM density fractions. Because the heavy density fraction is the major component of the SOM (Six et al., 2002) and it is a function of the previous histor y of the soil, SOM levels at the initiation of the trial probably affected these results to a greater ex tent than the changes that occurred after the experiment began. Thus, recent changes may be better observed in the light density fraction (Hassink et al., 1997).

PAGE 167

148 Table 8.2. Total C, N, and C:N ratio in th e soil of Pensacola bahiagrass pastures submitted to different management strategies; data collected after 4 yr of imposing the treatments. Treatment Total C Total N C:N ------------------g kg-1 soil -----------------Low 12.9 0.9 14.1 Moderate 7.1 0.5 13.9 High 15.5 1.1 14.4 7d 9.8 0.6 14.9 SE 4.6 0.3 0.9 P Level NS† NS NS †Non-significant (P > 0.10) by the SAS LSMEANS test. Nitrogen, C, and C:N Ratio in the Light SOM Density Fraction The C and N concentrations in the li ght SOM were affected by management practice, but the C:N ratio was not (Table 8.3). There was a trend of increasing C and N concentration in the SOM with increased N fertilization and SR. Carbon and N concentrations were greater for the 7-d treatment when compared to the Low treatment. Carbon and N concentrations in the SOM are a function of the resi due deposited, and in this case, roots plus rhizomes is the ma jor pool contributing to soil-deposited residue (Stevenson and Cole, 1999). Therefore, increas ing management intens ity likely increased residue deposition, due to great er productivity (Chapter 3), and N concentration in the residue because of greater N fertilization pr imarily and greater SR to a lesser extent. Herbage accumulation rates were 18, 34, 40, and 72 kg DM ha-1 d-1 for Low, Moderate, High, and 7-d treatments, respectively (Chapt er 3). Bahiagrass allocates a large proportion of photoassimilate to the root and rhizome pool (Impithuksa and Blue, 1978). Also, roots and rhizomes are important N si nks in fertilized bahiagrass pastures (Impithuksa et al., 1984). Theref ore, the increase in N concen tration in the SOM fraction of the 7-d treatment is likely a result of the increased N concentration in the decaying

PAGE 168

149 roots and rhizomes that are being added to th e SOM. In addition, roots and rhizomes have a high C:N ratio, and this may immobilize soil N during the decay process, increasing N concentration in the SOM as a result. The greater C concentrati on in the SOM observed for the 7-d treatment is possibly a result of or ganic material decompos ed to a lesser extent due to more recent deposition (Table 8.3). Tota l C, N, and C:N ratio in the heavy SOM and their correspondent standa rd error were 516 101 g kg-1 SOM, 35 5 g kg-1 SOM, and 14.4 1.3, respectively. Table 8.3. Total C, N, and C:N ratio in the light SOM of Pensacola bahiagrass pastures subjected to different management stra tegies; data collected after 4 yr of imposing the treatments. Particle size C N C:N ratio -----------------g kg-1 light SOM----------------Low 440 b† 34 b 13.9 a Moderate 489 ab 41 ab 13.3 a High 488 ab 38 b 13.7 a 7-d 621 a 56 a 12.9 a SE 90 7 0.5 †Means followed by the same letter, within the same column, do not differ (P > 0.10) by the SAS LSMEANS test. There was a particle size eff ect for N concentration and C: N ratio in the light SOM, but not for C concentration (Table 8.4). The N concentration in the SOM differed in the light fraction, with lower N concentration observed for particles in the 250 – 2000 m range. The extent of degradation in the SO M increases with decreasing particle size (Hassink et al., 1997; Six et al ., 2002) and N is considered a recalcitrant element as degradation proceeds (Chapter 7). Other recalcitrant compounds like lignin also increase with decomposition (Heal et al ., 1997) and may possibly bind to the recalcitrant N. Therefore, the greater N concentration in the smaller, light density fraction particles is possibly a result of N immobilization during the decomposition process. Because C

PAGE 169

150 concentration did not differ among particle si zes, but N concentrati on did differ, the C:N ratio was different. Greater C:N ratio was observed for particles in the 250 – 2000 m range because N concentration was smaller fo r this same class si ze range (Table 8.4). Recalcitrant materials like polyphenols and li gnin are left behind by microbes and they have a large protein-binding cap acity (Handayanto et al., 1997) As a result, N is held by these recalcitrant compounds whereas the so luble C is lost rapi dly at the beginning, resulting in lower C:N ratio as the decompos ition proceeds. The light SOM fraction in the larger particle size (250 to 2000 m) correspond s to the newly added organic material in the soil and is more prone to decomposition, with positive correlation with the mineralization process (Hassink, 1995). Meijboom et al. (1995) reporte d that SOM mineralization rates decrease from the light to the heavy density fractions, i.e ., C and N mineralization rates are positively correlated with the amount of C and N in the light fraction and in the microbial biomass. The light fraction is also more sensitive to changes in management which alters the residue deposition. This is th e reason why early changes in SOM may be detected by the physical fractionation method (Hassink, 1995; Six et al., 2002), and specifically evaluation of the light fraction. Table 8.4. Total C, N, and C:N ratio in the light SOM fraction of Pensacola bahiagrass pastures of different particle sizes; da ta collected after 4 yr of imposing the treatments. Particle size C N C:N ratio ----------------g kg-1 light SOM ---------------250 – 2000 m 491 a† 24 b 20.2 a 150 – 250 m 534 a 50 a 10.6 b 53 – 150 m 504 a 52 a 9.6 b SE 82 7 0.4 †Means followed by the same letter, within the same column, do not differ (P > 0.10) by the SAS LSMEANS test.

PAGE 170

151 Contribution of the Light SOM Fraction to Soil C and N There was a management by particle size interaction for C and N contribution of the light SOM fraction to the soil (Table 8.5) Increasing management intensity increased C and N contribution in the 250 – 2000 m cla ss size range, but not in the other sizes analyzed (Table 8.5). The major contribution of C from the light SOM occurred from particles in the 250 – 2000 m size range, which accounted for more than 90% of the C coming from the light SOM. Preeminence of th is size class contribution to soil N was also observed (Table 8.5). Soil C and soil N contribution are a function of the C and N concentration in the SOM (Table 8.4) and the amount of SOM presen t. There was an increase in the C and N accumulation in the soil as management intens ity increased to the highest level. Wellmanaged pastures are consider ed a N and C sink because the residue deposition rate is greater than residue decomposition rate (Bat jes and Sombroek, 1997; Fisher et al., 1994). Conant et al. (2003) compared the long-term effect of intensive vs. extensive grazing management on soil-C fractions in the south eastern USA. Total organic-soil C was 22% greater under high than low management inte nsity. Increasing C and N in the soil has beneficial effects of improving not only soil fertility, but also incr easing C sequestration, contributing to the reduction of the greenhouse effect. Fisher et al (1994) suggested the introduction of deep-rooted C4 grasses as a tool for improvi ng C sequestration in tropical savannas. Despite greater C sequestration wi th greater SR and N fertilization, economic and environmental consequences of the hi gh management intensity used in this experiment (360 kg ha-1 yr-1 of N and 4.2 AU ha-1) may not be positive. In addition, greater N rate is associated with increased emission of nitrous oxide and greater SR with increased methane emissions (Clark et al., 2005).

PAGE 171

152 Contribution of C and N from the hea vy SOM fraction (including particles > 53 and < 2000 m) and their respective standard errors were 9740 5820 mg kg-1 soil and 655 365 mg kg-1 soil, respectively. Therefore, the heavy density fraction predominates in the soil and in this case is likely a function of pre-exis ting conditions. In contrast, the light SOM fraction is more sensitive to cha nges in land management and also correlates with N mineralization in the soil (Hassink, 1997). The C concentration in the mineral resi due did not differ among treatments and particle size, av eraging 3.2 g C kg-1 of fraction (SE = 1.1 g kg-1). These results confirm that during the decantation process some of the SOM was not recovered by the density separation process and the amount left behind should be taken into account when total C stock in the soil is calculated. In this Spodosol, the clay plus silt concentration is low (10 g kg-1), reducing the capacity of the soil to prot ect the SOM (Hassink, 1997). Physical protection by soil aggregate formation and biochemical prot ection by the formation of recalcitrant compounds (Six et al., 2002) are likely to be the major mechanisms of SOM protection in this soil. Because only the 0to 8-cm depth was sampled for this research, underestimation of the C sequestration capacity of the more intensive systems might have occurred. Spodosols are char acterized by a spodic horizon which is a subsurface accumulation of illuviated OM and an accumulation of Al oxides, with or without Fe oxides (Brady and Weil, 2002). Thus, additional C sequestration might have occurred but it could have leached to the spodic horizon resulting in an underestimation of the differences among treatments.

PAGE 172

153Table 8.5. Carbon and N contributions of the light SOM fraction to the soil as affected by manageme nt practice and particle siz e on Pensacola bahiagrass pastures subjected to different management strategies; data we re collected after 4 yr of imposing the treatments. Treatment C N 53 150 m† 150 250 m 250 2000 m 53 150 m 150 250 m 250 2000 m -------------mg C kg-1 soil --------------------------mg N kg-1 soil -------------Low 49 a‡ 37 a 338 b 4 a 3 a 16 c Moderate 6 a 24 a 461 ab 1 a 2 a 22 bc High 13 a 15 a 643 a 1 a 1 a 33 a 7 d 15 a 25 a 529 ab 2 a 2 a 27 ab SE 88 4 †Particles < 53 m were not fractionated by density. ‡Means followed by the same letter, w ithin the same column, do not differ (P > 0.10) by the SAS LSMEANS test.

PAGE 173

154 The soil-C and soil-N concentration in particles < 53 m is shown in Figure 8.3. Both C and N were higher in the Low treatment as opposed to the more intensive treatments. The proportion of particles < 53 m in the bulk soil among treatments was not different (P > 0.10), but the means were 11 g kg-1 in the Low vs. 8.4 g kg-1 in the other treatments, and the P values were le ss than 0.15 when comparing Low with the other treatments. Assuming 580 g kg-1 for C concentration in SOM in the A horizon (Wagner and Wolf, 1999), the concentration of SOM in the soil fr action < 53 m ranged from 160 (7-d rotational) to 260 g kg-1 (Low). Thus, despite the low concentration of particles of this size, their high C and N con centrations cause them to be of importance. Usually the SOM in this class size comple xes with clay and silt to form stable compounds (Hassink, 1997). In this Spodosol, however, complexation is reduced because of the very low clay and silt concentrations Therefore, the SOM is more exposed to microbial degradation in a Spodosol than in a soil high in clay. Wh en the particle-size distribution results were integr ated with C and N concentration in particles < 53 m to determine C and N in the bulk soil, there we re differences among treatments (Figure 8.3). The likely faster decomposition rates for the SOM in the more intensive systems explain these results. A question may arise, however. Is the OM input from particles > 250 and < 2000 m sufficiently great for the more intensive systems to overcome their faster decomposition rates and still increase SOM le vels? Considering the greater participation of particles > 250 and < 2000 m in the par ticle size distribution when compared to particles < 53 m (540 vs. 10 g kg-1, respectively), the higher OM inputs observed for the larger particles likely overcomes the faster decomposition observed in particles < 53 m.

PAGE 174

155 Therefore the C inputs likely resulted from greater net primary productivity of more intensive systems (Chapter 3), and this greater produc tivity is able to overcome the faster SOM decomposition rates, resulting in net C accumulation in the soil. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 LowModerateHigh7 dmg N kg-1 soil0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2g C kg-1 soil Nitrogen CarbonA BB B a b b b Figure 8.3. Carbon and N concentra tion in the bulk soil of part icles < 53 m in grazed Pensacola bahiagrass pastures managed at a range of intensities. Standard Error N = 12 mg N kg-1 soil and Standard Error C = 0.23 g C kg-1 soil. Conclusions Management intensity did not alter total C, N, and C:N ratio in the soil but it did affect these responses in the light SOM fr action. This fraction, showed a consistent pattern, increasing soil-C and soil-N concentra tions with increased management intensity. Because the light SOM fraction is indicative of recent change s in the SOM, increasing management intensity can increase soil fertility and C sequestration. Nitrogen fertilization and SR appeared to have a greater effect on C and N accumulation than

PAGE 175

156 stocking method did. Increasing N fertiliz ation and SR resu lted in greater C accumulation. Because of economic and environmental implications of the very high N level and SR, however, the use of the highest in tensity applied in this experiment (i.e., 360 kg N ha-1 yr-1 and 4.2 AU ha-1) is not recommended. Particle size influenced the quality and the stability of the SOM. The C concentration in the SOM did not vary but th e N concentration was lower in the larger particles of the light SOM, possibly due to a lesser extent of decomposition. The C:N ratio decreased with particle size as a result. Although the heavy SOM density fraction was a much larger pool in the soil compared to the light SOM fraction, the lig ht SOM fraction correlates positively with N mineralization in the soil and it reflects recent changes due to land management. In contrast, the heavy SOM fraction represents the historical SOM accumulation and does not change in a short period of time. Ther efore, the SOM fractionation process is a potential method to better describe the SOM and its recent changes due to land management.

PAGE 176

157 CHAPTER 9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flgge) is the most important pasture species in the environmentally sensitive ag roecosystems of Florida, ye t little is understood about nutrient dynamics in these systems. Resear ch is needed to guide producer pasture management practices and to aid regulators in making in formed decisions. Thus, the objectives of this study were i) to determin e the effect of management intensity and stocking method on herbage responses in bahiagra ss pastures (Chapter 3); ii) to evaluate excreta distribution and soil nutri ent redistribution as affected by animal behavior under a range of management intensities and stocking methods (Chapters 4 and 5); iii) to quantify litter production and decomposition in grazed ‘Pen sacola’ bahiagrass pastures managed at different intensities (Chapter 6); iv) to ev aluate litter disappear ance and litter nutrient dynamics in grazed Pensacola bahiagrass pastur es (Chapter 7); and v) to describe the physical and chemical characteristics of so il organic matter from Pensacola bahiagrass pastures grazed for 4 yr at different management in tensities (Chapter 8). In order to accomplish these objectives, two grazing experiments were performed from 2001 to 2004. In Experiment 1, yearling cr oss-breed beef heifers were continuously stocked and managed at different intensities. Management intensity was the combination of stocking rate (SR) and N fertilization. The three management intensities tested were Low (40 kg N ha-1 yr-1 and 1.4 animal units [AU, one AU = 500 kg live weight] ha-1 stocking rate), Moderate (120 kg N ha-1 yr-1 and 2.8 AU ha-1 stocking rate), and High (360 kg N ha-1 yr-1 and 4.2 AU ha-1 stocking rate). In Experiment 2, rotational stocking

PAGE 177

158 was applied and treatments were four grazi ng periods (1, 3, 7, and 21 d), all with the same resting period of 21 d. The High treatment from Experiment 1 was included in Experiment 2 because it had the same N fertil ization and SR. Herbage, soil, and animal responses were sampled (both in Experiments 1 and 2) in three di fferent pasture zones defined based on their distance from shade and wa ter (Zone 1: 0 – 8 m; Zone 2: 8 – 16 m; Zone 3: > 16 m). Herbage Responses Herbage production and nutritive value respons es of Pensacola bahiagrass pastures to a range of management inte nsities (Experiment 1) and st ocking strategies (Experiment 2) were evaluated from 2001 to 2003. Unde r continuous stocking, herbage responses differed among pasture zones. Herbage accu mulation rate and nutritive value were greater in the zone closest to the shade and water (Zone 1), while herbage mass was lowest in Zone 1. Greater accumulation rate and nutritive value in Zone 1 likely reflect the greater concentration of nutrients from an imal excreta in zones closer to shade and water. Lower herbage mass in Zone 1 is reflec tive of greater time spent in this zone by grazing animals (Chapter 4). Also, increas ing management intensity from Low to Moderate increased herbage accumulation rate an d herbage nutritive value, but the results obtained do not support the use of N fertilization above 120 kg N ha-1 yr-1 for bahiagrass pastures in North Central Florida because there was no further increase in herbage accumulation from Moderate to High. In Experiment 2, herbage accumulation was lower in continuously stocked pastures when compared to rotational ones, but there were no differences among rotational strategies. Herbage nutritive value (N, P, and IVDOM) increased after the first experimental year, but it wa s not affected by grazing met hod (continuous vs. rotational)

PAGE 178

159 or length of grazing period (rotational treatment s) in more than 1 out of 3 yr. Herbage response was similar among pasture zones in Experiment 2, indicating a more uniform regrowth and chemical composition in more intensively managed pasture systems and rotationally stocked pastures. Considering that no additional herbage accumulation response occurred with N fertilizer greater than 120 kg ha-1 yr-1, and the advantages already mentioned for rotational stocking with short gr azing periods, a potential system to optimize beef cattle production on bahiagrass pastures in North Central Florida is to use rotational stocking with short grazing periods (< 7 d), a 21-d resting period, and N fertilizer applied at approximately 120 kg N ha-1 yr-1. Animal Behavior and Soil Nutrient Redistribution The environment and management practices may affect animal behavior and soil nutrient distribution. Animal behavior obs ervations and soil characterization were performed in three pasture zones in the tw o grazing experiments described previously. Soil samples were collected at the beginning a nd at the end of each grazing season, in the three pasture zones and at two depths (0 8 cm and 8 23 cm). Animal behavior observations were performed five times in 2002 and four times in 2003 in order to evaluate the environment x treatment interactions. Under continuous stocking, management inte nsity did not affect animal behavior, but it did affect soil nutrient c oncentration. Nitrogen, K, and Mg concentration in the soil were greater at the highest management in tensity at the shallower soil depth but not deeper in the soil profile. This is an important indication that although soil fertility is increasing in the surface horizon, nutrient m ovement into deeper soil horizons was not occurring when higher management intensity was used on bahiagrass pastures. Soil

PAGE 179

160 nutrient concentration was generally greatest in the pasture zones closer to shade and water with a higher proportional return of excreta occurring in those areas. Rotation of shade to different pasture areas during the grazing season may improve excreta distribution reducing the probl em of high soil nutrient con centration in small pasture areas. Weather variables affected grazing time in pasture zones and therefore excreta return. Ultimately soil nutrient distribution was also affecte d. Selection of animals more adapted to heat stress may be a potential tool to reduce th e magnitude of the climate effect on animal behavior. In Experiment 2, stocking methods influe nced grazing time, excreta deposition, and soil nutrient distribution. Shortgrazing periods promoted grea ter uniformity in nutrient distribution among pasture zones when co mpared to long-grazing periods. Also, continuous stocking presented results similar to rotational stocking with a 21-d grazing period, showing greater density of excreta deposition and greater accumulation of soil N in Zone 1. Soil nutrient accumulation occurred at the shallower dept h (0 8 cm) but not deeper in the soil profile (8 23 cm) in zone s closer to shade and water. Because shortgrazing periods require more paddocks and th erefore more shade locations and watering points per unit area, the long-term trend is a mo re uniform distribution of soil nutrients in the shorter-grazing period treatments. Environment may affect animal behavior and, as a result, nutrient distribution. Animals spent more time close to shade and wa ter during warmer days, leading to greater excreta deposition in these small pasture areas. Besides shade and watering areas, lounging sites are also potentia l nutrient-enriched areas due to higher density of excreta

PAGE 180

161 deposition. Better adapted animals may enha nce uniformity of excreta deposition by spending less time in lounging areas. Litter Production and Decomposition Plant litter and animal excreta are the two major pathways of nutrient return to the pasture. Management practices alter the proportion of nutrients returning via excreta and litter, therefore, altering th e availability, uniformity of distribution, and losses of nutrients. Litter production and decomposition were measured in Experiment 1 during 2002 and 2003. Management intensity altered litter dyna mics in continuously stocked Pensacola bahiagrass pastures. Herbage mass increased as the season progressed for Low and Moderate treatments, but not for the High trea tment because of the greater stocking rate. Lower management intensity consistently result ed in greater existing litter, but increasing management intensity from Low to High altered litter deposit ion and decomposition rates, and seasonal fluctuations in existing litter occurred as a re sult of the balance between those two rates. Existing litter was gr eatest at the beginning and at the end of the grazing season. After declining dur ing the early part of the gr azing season, litter began to re-accumulate sooner for the High treatment becau se of earlier peaks in litter deposition rate for that treatment. Increases in manage ment intensity reduced the amount of existing litter at the beginning of the grazing season; a feature like ly caused by greater rates of litter decomposition during fall th rough spring in more intensive systems. At the end of the season, greater litter deposition than decomposition rates resu lted in litter reaccumulation for all treatments. In terms of nutrient supply, the above-gr ound plant litter supplie s relatively small quantities of N for plant growth, but it acts as an important buffering pool by

PAGE 181

162 immobilizing the N and mineralizing it later on, reducing potential N losses, particularly in an N-rich environment. Ch anges in litter dynamics due to management practices affect the amount and form of nutrients returning to the soil, having implications not only for the supply of nutrients to the plants but also the losses of nutrients to the environment. Litter Quality and Litter Nutrient Dynamics The low quality of C4 grass litter may have different implications depending upon the degree of intensification of the system. In low-input systems, low litter quality may lead to pasture degradation due to nutrient immobilization. In highly fertilized systems, the litter may act as a buffering pool reducing po tential nutrient losses. Litter nutrient and biomass disappearance were assessed in Experiment 1 during 2002 and 2003. Increasing management intensity resulted in better litter quality, as indicated by the litter C:N and lignin:N ratios and N and P concentrations. Seasonal fluctuations in litter quality occurred to a greater extent in the Low and Moderate treatments, as indicated by the C:N ratio, with lower litter quality observed by the e nd of the grazing season. In general, litter quality was sufficiently low that N and P were likely to be immobilized, particularly at the beginning and at the e nd of the grazing season. In the litter bag trial, litter quality at the beginning of the incubation period was similar among management intensities but not at the end, suggesting that N immobilization is the major contributor to ch anging litter quality during incubation. Litter presented a high N concentration, particularly at the end of the in cubation period, but the N was mostly unavailable for microbial decomposition because it was bound to the acid detergent fiber. The improvement in litter quality with increasing management intensity results in faster litter turnover and enhancement in nut rient supply to plants and microbes, however,

PAGE 182

163 it also reduces the nutrient immobilization capac ity of the litter, and as a result, nutrient losses may increase. Because roots and rhiz omes are an important nutrient pool in Pensacola bahiagrass pastures, additional inve stigation is needed to determine belowground litter quality and decomposition rate s as affected by pasture management practices to better understand nutrien t dynamics in the grazed system. Soil Organic Matter Soil organic matter (SOM) accumulates when residue deposition is greater than residue decomposition. Early changes in SOM dynamics, however, are not easily detected by determining the total SOM. Physi cal fractionation by density and particle size may allow detection of SOM changes earlier than the total OM determination. In addition, the light OM fraction is correlated with N minera lization in the soil. The SOM characterization was performed in the conti nuously stocked pastures (Experiment 1) and in the 7-d rotational pastures (Experiment 2) during the fourth year after treatment initiation. Management intensity altered C and N concentratio n in the soil with contrasting effects depending upon particle size class. In part icles from 53 to 2000 m, C and N concentration in the soil increased w ith increasing management intensity but for particles less than 53 m, C and N concentrat ion in the soil decrea sed with management intensity. Greater residue deposition with incr eased management intensity but also faster SOM decomposition rates likely lead to this result. Net C accumulation occurred to a greater extent in more intensive systems because of the greater proportion of large particles in this Spodosol. Particle size influenced the quality and the stability of the SOM. The C concentration in the SOM decreased from larger to smaller particles in the light fraction.

PAGE 183

164 Nitrogen concentration in the SOM was less a ffected than the C concentration. The C:N ratio decreased with particle size. Nitrogen fertilization and stoc king rate appeared to have a greater effect on C and N accumulation than stocking method did. Incr easing N fertilization and stocking rate resulted in greater C accumulation which ha s direct influence upon soil fertility and C sequestration. Soil OM fractionation by density and partic le size allowed an early detection of SOM changes in response to changes in pasture management practices. Because the different densities and particle sizes are correlated with th e quality and age of the OM deposited, the fractionation detects changes in residue deposition and decomposition in the SOM of different ages. The physical frac tionation method is relatively low cost and provides better results than total SOM determination. Implications of the Research Understanding nutrient cycling responses to pasture management practices allows the utilization of management to improve nutrient-use efficiency resulting in lower production costs and reduced environmental imp acts. Rotationally stocked pastures with short grazing periods promoted greater he rbage accumulation and more uniform herbage accumulation, herbage nutritive value, cattle grazing time, excreta deposition, and soil nutrient distribution across the pasture when compared to continuously stocked pastures. If continuous stocking is practiced, the results obtained in this experiment do not support the use of more than 120 kg N ha-1 yr-1 for Pensacola bahiagrass in North Central Florida. In terms of litter dynamics, the low quality of the above-groun d litter immobilized nutrients, particularly N, re sulting in low net N mineraliz ation. Therefore, the aboveground plant litter pool did not s upply large amount of nutrien ts to plant and microbial

PAGE 184

165 growth, but it did act as a buffering pool reducing N losses, particularly in more intensive systems. Increasing management intensity increas ed C and N accumulation in the soil of grazed pastures, and it may be an importa nt tool to improve soil fertility and C sequestration. Because of economical and e nvironmental reasons, however, the adoption of the High treatment tested in this experime nt is not recommended only for the sake of C sequestration. The data obtained in this re search aid in the assessment of potential environmental impact and nutrient-use e fficiency of various grazing management practices as well as provide data needed for modeling nutrient cycling in forage-livestock systems. Future Research Recommendations Studies of root and rhizome production and decomposition as affected by pasture management practices are needed in order to better understand nutrient dynamics in grazed Pensacola bahiagrass.

PAGE 185

166 APPENDIX A CRUDE PROTEIN CONCENTRATION WITHIN THE GRAZING SEASON 60 80 100 120 140 160 May JuneJulyAugSepOctCP (g kg-1) High Medium Lowa a a a a b c b b b b bb c ccc Figure A-1. Crude protein con centration in hand-plucked samples from bahiagrass pastures managed at different intensities.

PAGE 186

167 APPENDIX B IN VITRO ORGANIC MATTER DIGEST IBILITY (IVOMD) WITHIN THE GRAZING SEASON 300 360 420 480 540 600 May JuneJulyAugSepOctIVOMD (g kg-1) High Medium Lowb a a a aa a b bb b b c b a Figure B-1. In vitro organic matter digestibil ity (IVOMD) in hand-plucked samples from bahiagrass pastures managed at different intensities.

PAGE 187

168 APPENDIX C BAHIAGRASS HERBAGE ACCUMULATION WITHIN THE GRAZING SEASON 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 MayJuneJulyAugSepOctHaccum (kg ha-1 d-1) High Medium Lowa a a ab a a a ab b b b b a a a aa Figure C-1. Herbage accumulation in bahiagrass pa stures managed at different intensities.

PAGE 188

169 LIST OF REFERENCES Aiken, G.E., W.D. Pitman, C.G. Chambliss, and K.M. Portier. 1991. Plant response to stocking rate in a subtro pical grass-legume pasture. Agron. J. 83 (1) p. 124-129. ANKOM Technology. 2003a. Method for determin ing acid detergent lignin in beakers [Online] http://www.ankom.com/09_proce dures/procedures4b.shtml (verified 1/6/2005). ANKOM Technology. 2003b. Method for determin ing acid detergent fiber [Online] http://www.ankom.com/09_procedures/pro cedures1.shtml (verified 1/6/2005). ANKOM Technology. 2003c. Method for determin ing neutral detergent fiber [Online] http://www.ankom.com/09_procedures/pro cedures2.shtml (verified 1/6/2005). Ayarza, M.A. 1988. Potassium dynamics in a humid tropical pasture in the Peruvian Amazon. Ph.D. Dissertation, North Caroli na State University, Raleigh, NC. Balsalobre, M.A.A., M. Corsi, P.M. Sa ntos, I. Vieira, and R.R. Crdenas. 2003. Composio qumica e fracionamento do n itrognio e dos carboidratos do Capim Tanznia irrigado sob trs nveis de resduo ps-pastejo. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 32:519528. Barrow, N.J. 1969. The accumulation of soil organic matter under pasture and its effects on soil properties. Aust. J. E xp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 9:437-445. Batjes, N.H., and N.H. Sombroek. 1997. Possibi lities for carbon sequest ration in tropical and subtropical soils. Global Change Biology 3:161-173. Batjes, N.H. 2004. Estimation of soil carbon gains upon improved management within croplands and grasslands of Africa. Environment, Development and Sustainability 6:133-143. Clark, H., C. Pinares-Patio, and C. deKlei n. 2005. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from grazed grasslands. In D.A. McGilloway (ed.) Gra sslands: a global resource. Proceedings of the 20th International Grassland C ongress, 26 June 1 July, 2005, Dublin, Ireland. p.279-293. Beaty, E.R., J.D. Powell, R.H. Brown, and W. J. Ethredge. 1963. Effect of nitrogen rate and clipping frequency on yield of Pe nsacola bahiagrass. Agron. J. 55:3-4.

PAGE 189

170 Beck, M.A., and P.A. Snchez. 1994. Soil phosphorus fraction dynamics during 18 years of cultivation on a Typic Paleudult. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58:1424-1431. Becker, M., and J.K. Ladha. 1997. Synchronizi ng residue N mineralization with rice N demand in flooded conditions. p. 231-238. In G. Cadisch and K. E. Giller (eds.). Driven by nature: Plant litter quality and decomposition. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Bernoux, M., B.J. Feigl, C.C. Cerri, A.P. A. Geraldes, and S.A.P. Fernandes. 1999. Carbono e nitrognio em solos de uma cr onosseqncia de floresta tropical pastagem de Paragominas. Scientia Agricola. 56:777-783. Blackshaw, J.K., and A.W. Blackshaw. 1994. Heat stress in cattle and the effect of shade on production and behaviour: a review. Au st. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 34:285295. Blaser, R.E. 1986. Forage-animal management systems. Virginia Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 86. Blue, W.G. 1972. Nitrogen fertilization in relation to seasonal Pensacola Bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flugge) forage nitrogen and production distribution on Leon fine sand. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 31:75-77. Blue, W.G. 1988. Response of Pensacola bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flgge) to fertilizer nitrogen on an entisol and a spodos ol in north Florida. Soil and Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 47:135-139. Brady, N.C., and R.R. Weil. 2002. The nature and properties of soil. 13th ed. PrenticeHall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Brncio, P.A., D. Nascimento Jr., V.P.B. Euclides, D.M. Fonseca, R.G. Almeida, M.C.M. Macedo, and R.A. Barbosa. 2003. Avaliao de trs cultivares de Panicum maximum, Jacq. sob pastejo: composio da dieta, consumo de matria seca e ganho de peso animal. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 32(5):1037-1044. Braz, S.P. 2001. Distribuio de fezes de bovinos e a reciclagem de nutrientes em pastagens de Brachiaria decumbens. M.Sc., UFV, Viosa MG. Braz, S.P., D. Nascimento Jr., R.B. Cantarutti, A.J. Regazzi, C.E. Martins, D.M. Fonseca, and R.A. Barbosa. 2002. Aspectos quanti tativos do processo de reciclagem de nutrientes pelas fezes de bovinos sob pastejo em pastagem de Brachiaria decumbens na Zona da Mata de Minas Ge rais. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 31:858-865. Braz, S.P., D. Nascimento Jr., R.B. Cantarut ti, C.E. Martins, D.M. Fonseca, and R.A. Barbosa. 2003. Caracterizao da distribu io espacial das fezes por bovinos em uma pastagem de Brachiaria decumbens. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 32:787-794.

PAGE 190

171 Bruce, R.C., and J.P. Ebersohn. 1982. Litter measurements in two grazed pastures in southeast Queensland. Trop. Grassl. 16:180-185. Burton, G.W., R.N. Gates, and G.J. Gascho. 1997. Response of Pensacola bahiagrass to rates of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizers. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 56:31-35. Cadisch, G., K.E. Giller, S. Urquiaga, C.H.B. Miranda, R.M. Boddey, and R.M. Schunke. 1994. Does phosphorus supply enhance soil-N mineralization in Brazilian pastures? European Journal of Agronomy 3:339-345. Cambardella, C.A., and E.T. Elliott. 1993. Methods for physical separation and characterization of soil organic matter fracts. Geoderma 56:449-457. Cantarutti, R.B. 1996. Dinmica de nitrognio em pastagens de Brachiaria humidicola em monocultivo e consorciada com Desmodium ovalifolium cv. Itabela no sul da Bahia. D.S. Dissertation, Universida de Federal de Viosa, Viosa, MG. Cantarutti, R.B., and R.M. Boddey. 1997. Nitrogen transfer from legumes to grasses. p. 267-279. In J. A. Gomide (ed.). Intern ational Symposium on Animal Production under Grazing. UFV, Viosa, Brazil. Cantarutti, R.B., D. Nascimento Jr., and O.V. Costa. 2001. Impacto do animal sobre o solo: Compactao e reciclagem de nutrients. CD-ROM Reunio Anual da Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia. SBZ, Piracicaba SP. Carran, R.A., and P.W. Theobald. 2000. Effect s of excreta return on properties of a grazed pasture soil. Nutrient Cy cling in Agroecosystems 56:79-85. Castilla, C.E. 1992. Carbon dynamics in mana ged tropical pastures: The effect of stocking rate on soil properties and above and below-ground carbon inputs. Ph.D. Dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Castilla, C.E., M.A. Ayarza, and P.A. Sanchez. 1995. Carbon and potassium dynamics in grass/legume grazing systems in the Am azon. p. 191-210. In J. M. Powell (ed.). Livestock and Sustainable Nutrient Cyc ling in Mixed Farming Systems of subSaharan Africa, Vol. 2. ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Chacon, E.A., T.H. Stobbs, and M.B. Dale. 1978. Influence of sward characteristics on grazing behaviour and growth of Hereford steers grazing tropi cal grass pastures. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 29:89-102. Chambliss, C. 2000. Bahiagrass Universi ty of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Chapman, D.F., and G. Lemaire. 1993. Morphogen etic and structural determinants of plant regrowth after defo liation, p. 95-104 Proceedings of the XVII In ternational Grassland Congress, Palmerston North, NZ.

PAGE 191

172 Chesson, A. 1997. Plant degradation by ruminant s: Parallels with li tter decomposition in soils. p. 47-66. In G. Cadisch and K. E. G iller (eds.). Driven by nature: Plant litter quality and decomposition. CAB In ternational, Wallingford, UK. International Center for Tr opical Agriculture CIAT. 1982. Programa pastos tropicales, Informe anual. CIAT, Cali, Colombia. International Center for Tr opical Agriculture CIAT. 1990. Programa pastos tropicales, Informe anual. CIAT, Cali, Colombia. Coleman, S.W., J.E. Moore, and J.R. Wilson. 2004. Quality and utilization. p. 267-308. In L. E. Moser, B.L. Burson, L.E. Solle nberger (eds.). Warm-season (C4) Grasses. ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, WI. Conant, R.T., J. Six, and K. Paustian. 2003. La nd use effects on soil carbon fractions in the southeastern United Stat es. I. Management-intensive versus extensive grazing. Biol. Fert. Soils 38:386-392. Cowan, R.T., K.F. Lowe, P.C. Ehrlich, P.C. Upton, and T.M. Bowdler. 1995. Nitrogen fertilised grass in a subtropical dairy system 1. Effect of level of nitrogen fertiliser on pasture yield and soil chemical characte ristics. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 35:125-135. Cuomo, G.J., D.C. Blouin, D.L. Corkern, and J.E. McCoy. 1996. Plant morphology and forage nutritive value of three bahiag rasses as affected by harvest frequency. Agron. J. 88:85-89. Dalal, R.C. 1979. Mineralization of carbon and phosphorus from carbon-14 and phosphorus-32 labeled plant material added to soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 43:913916. Davis, R.R., and A.D. Pratt. 1956. Rotationa l vs. continuous grazing with dairy cows. Research Bulletin 778. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster, Ohio. Denef, K., J. Six, K. Paustian, and R. Merckx. 2001. Importance of macroaggregate dynamics in controlling soil carbon stabili zation: short-term effects of physical disturbance induced by dry-wet cycl es. Soil Biol. Biochem. 33:2145-2153. Deshmukh, I. 1985. Decomposition of grasse s in Nairobi National Park Kenya. Oecologia 67:147-149. Dubeux Jr., J.C.B., H.Q. Santos, and L.E. Sollenberger. 2004. Ciclagem de nutrientes: perspectivas de aumento da sustentabilidade da pastagem manejada intensivamente. p. 357-400. In C. G. S. Pedreira, J.C. de M oura, V.P. de Faria (eds.). Fertilidade do solo para pastagens produtivas. FEALQ, Piracicaba, SP.

PAGE 192

173 Ellington, D.L., and S.D. Wallace. 1991. An ove rview of best management practices for Florida's dairies. p. 224-230. In A. B. Bottcher (ed.). Proc. Conf. Environ. Sound Agric., Vol. 1. Florida Coop. Ext. Serv., IFAS, Gainesville, FL. Ezcurra, E., and J. Becerra. 1987. Experi mental decomposition of litter from the Tamaulipan cloud forest: a comparison of four simple models. Biotropica 19:290296. Feller, C., and M.H. Beare. 1997. Physical c ontrol of soil organic matter dynamics in the tropics. Geoderma 79:69-116. Ferreira, E., C.P. Rezende, R.M. Bodde y, S. Urquiaga, and B.J.R. Alves. 1997. Decomposio da liteira de diferentes es pcies forrageiras avaliadas no campo em diversas condies climticas. (Arq496; CD-ROM). 26th Congresso brasileiro de cincia do solo. SBCS, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Forage and Grazing Terminology Committ ee FGTC. 1991. Terminology for grazing lands and grazing animals. Commonwealth Press, Inc., Radford, VA. Fisher, M.J., I.M. Rao, M.A. Ayarza, C.E. Lascano, J.I. Sanz, R.J. Thomas, and R.R. Vera. 1994. Carbon storage by introduced deep-rooted grasses in the South American savannas. Nature 371:236-238. Fisher, M.J., I.M. Rao, and R.J. Thomas. 1997. Nu trient cycling in trop ical pastures, with special reference to the neot ropical savannas. p. 371-382. 18th Int. Grassl. Cong., Winnipeg and Saskatoon, Canada. Franzluebbers, A.J., J.A. Stuedemann, and H.H. Schomberg. 2000. Spa tial distribution of soil carbon and nitrogen pools under grazed ta ll fescue. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64:635-639. Franzluebbers, A.J., and J.A. Stuedema nn. 2003. Bermudagrass management in the southern Piedmont USA: VI. Soil-Profile Inorganic Nitrogen. J. Environ. Qual. 32:1316-1322. Friesen, D.K., I.M. Rao, R.J. Thomas, A. Oberson, and J.I. Sanz. 1997. Phosphorus acquisition and cycling in crop and pasture systems in low fertility tropical soils. Plant and Soil 196:289-294. Gallaher, R.N., C.O. Weldon, and J.G. Futral 1975. An aluminum digester for plant and soil analysis. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Amer Proc. 39:803-806. Gates, R.N., and G.W. Burton. 1998. Seed yiel d and seed quality re sponse of Pensacola and improved bahiagrasses to fertilization. Agron. J. 90:607-611. Gates, R.N., P. Mislevy, and F.G. Ma rtin. 2001. Herbage accumulation of three bahiagrass populations during the cool season. Agron. J. 93:112-117.

PAGE 193

174 Gerrish, J.R., J.R. Brown, and P.R. Pe terson. 1993. Impact of grazing cattle on distribution of soil mineral. p. 66-70. Am erican Forage and Grassland Council, Lexington, KY. Gijsman, A.J., H.F. Alarcn, and R.J. Thomas. 1997a. Root decomposition in tropical grasses and legumes, as affected by soil texture and season. Soil Biol. Biochem. 29:1443-1450. Gijsman, A.J., H.F. Alarcon, and R.J. Thom as. 1997b. Nutrient cycling through microbial biomass under rice-pasture rotations replac ing native savanna. Soil Biol. Biochem. 29:1433-1441. Grant, S.A., G.T. Barthram, L. Torvell, J. King, and D.A. Elston. 1988. Comparison of herbage production under continuous stocki ng and intermittent grazing. Grass For. Sci. 43:29-39. Greenland, D.J. 1994. Soil science and sustaina ble land management. p. 1-15. In J. K. Sypers and D. L. Rimmer (eds.). Soil sc ience and sustainable land management in the Tropics. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Guerra, J.G.M., M.C.C. Fonseca, D.L. Almeida, H. Polli, and M.S. Fernandes. 1995. Contedo de fsforo da biomassa mi crobiana de um solo cultivado com Brachiaria decumbens Stapf. Pesq. Agropec. Bras. 30:543-551. Hammel, K.E. 1997. Fungal degradation of lig nin. p. 33-45. In G. Cadisch and K. E. Giller (eds.). Driven by nature: Plan t litter quality and decomposition. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Handayanto, E., G. Cadisch, and K.E. Gille r. 1997. Regulating N mineralization from plant residues by manipulation of quali ty. p. 175-185. In G. Cadisch and K. E. Giller (eds.). Driven by nature: plan t litter quality and decomposition. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Hartel, P.G. 1999. The soil habitat. p. 21-43. In D. M. Sylvia, J.J. Fuhrmann, P.G. Hartel, D.A. Zuberer (eds.). Principles and A pplications of Soil Microbiology. PrenticeHall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Hassink, J. 1995. Density fractions of soil m acroorganic matter and microbial biomass as predictors of C and N mineraliza tion. Soil Biol. Biochem. 27:1099-1108. Hassink, J. 1997. The capacity of soils to pr eserve organic C and N by their association with clay and silt particle s. Plant and Soil 191:77-87. Hassink, J., A.P. Whitmore, and J. Kubt. 1997. Size and density fractionation of soil organic matter and the physical capacity of soils to protect organic matter. Europ. J. Agron. 7:189-199.

PAGE 194

175 Haynes, R.J., and P.H. Williams. 1993. Nutrient cycling and soil fertility in the grazed pasture ecosystem. Adv. Agron. 49:119-199. Haynes, R.J., and P.H. Williams. 1999. Influe nce of stock camping behaviour on the soil microbiological and biochemical properties of grazed pastoral soils. Biol. Fert. Soils. 28:253-258. Heal, O.W., J.M. Anderson, and M.J. Swift. 1997. Plant litter quality and decomposition: an historical overview. p. 3-30. In G. Cadisch and K. E. Giller (eds.). Driven by nature: Plant litter quality and decompos ition. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Henzell, E.F., and P.J. Ross. 1973. The nitr ogen cycle of pasture ecosystems. p. 227-246. In G. W. Butler and R. W. Bailey (eds.). Chemistry and biochemistry of herbage, Vol. 2. Academic Press, London, UK. Hillel, D. 1998. Environmental soil physics Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Hirata, M., Y. Sugimoto, and M. Ueno. 1991. Litter decomposition in bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flgge) swards under different cutting heights. Grassland Sci. 36:458-463. Hodgson, R.E., M.S. Grunder, J.C. Knott, and E.V. Ellington. 1934. A comparison of rotational and continuous gr azing of pastures in west ern Washington. Wash. Agr. Exp. Stn. Bull. Impithuksa, V., and W.G. Blue. 1978. The fate of fertilizer nitrogen applied to Pensacola bahiagrass on sandy soils as indicated by Nitrogen-15. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 37:213-217. Impithuksa, V., W.G. Blue, and D.A. Graetz. 1984. Distribution of applied nitrogen in soil Pensacola bahiagrass components as indicated by Nitrogen-15. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48:1280-1284. Jarvis, S.C., D. Scholefield, and B. Pain. 1995. Nitrogen cycling in grazing systems. p. 381-419. In P. E. Bacon (ed.). Nitrogen fert ilization in the environment. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY. Johnson, M.G. 1995. The role of soil manage ment in sequestering soil carbon. p. 351363. In R. Lal, J. Kimble, E. Levine, B. A. Stewart (eds.). Soil Management and Greenhouse Effect. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. Joost, R.E. 1996. Nutrient Cycling in Forage Sy stems. p. 1-11. In R. E. Joost and C. A. Roberts (eds.). Nutrient cycling in fo rage systems. PPI/FAR, Columbia, MO. Kalburtji, K.L., A.P. Mamolos, and S. Kostopoulou. 1997. Nutrient release from decomposing Lotus corniculatus residues in relation to soil pH and nitrogen levels. Agric., Ecosyst. Environ. 65:107-112.

PAGE 195

176 Kanno, T., M.C. Macedo, V.P.B. Euclides, J.A. Bono, J.D.G. Santos, M.C. Rocha, and L.G.R. Beretta. 1999. Root biomass of five tropical grass pastures under continuous grazing in Brazilian Savanna s. Grassl. Sci. 45:9-14. Kelly, K.B. 1985. Effects of soil modificati on and treading on pasture growth and physical properties of an irrigated red-br own earth. Aust. J. Ag ric. Res. 36:799-807. Keyser, P., T.K. Kirk, and J.G. Zei kus. 1978. Ligninolytic enzyme system of Phanerochaete chrysosporium: synthesized in the absen ce of lignin in response to nitrogen starvation. J. Bacteriol. 135:790-797. Krebs, C.J. 1999. Ecological Methodology. 2nd ed. Harper & Row Publishers, Menlo Park, California. Lal, R., J. Kimble, E. Levine, and C. Wh itman. 1995. Towards improving the global data base on soil carbon. p. 433-436. In R. Lal (ed.). Soils and global change. CRC Lewis, Boca Raton, FL. Larson, C.C. 2003. The effects of nonfiber carboh ydrate source and protein degradability on lactation performance of holstein cows. M.S. Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Lemaire, G. 2001. Ecophysiology of grassla nds: Dynamic aspects of forage plant populations in grazed swards. Proceedings of the XIX International Grassland Congress. FEALQ, So Pedro, SP Brazil. Lima, G.F.d.C., L.E. Sollenberger, W.E. Kunkle, J.E. Moore, and A.C. Hammond. 1999. Nitrogen fertilization and supplementation effects on performance of beef heifers grazing limpograss. Crop Science 39:1853-1858. Lupwayi, N.Z., and I. Haque. 1999. Leucaena hedgerow intercropping and cattle manure application in the Ethiopian highlands. I. Decomposition and nutrient release. Biol. Fert. Soils 28:182-195. Macoon, B. 1999. Forage and animal respons es in pasture-based dairy production systems for lactating cows. Ph.D. Dissertati on, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Mader, T., D. Griffin, and L. Hahn. 2000. Ma naging Feedlot Heat Stress [Online]. Available by Nebraska Cooperative Exte nsion and University of Nebraska http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/beef /g1409.htm (verified 12-21-2004). Magdoff, F.R., M.A. Tabatai, and E.D. Ha nlon. 1996. Soil organic matter: Analysis and interpretation. SSSA, Madison, WI.

PAGE 196

177 Magid, J., T. Mueller, L.S. Jensen, and N.E. Nielsen. 1997. Modelling the measurable: Interpretation of field-scale CO2 and N-mineralization, soil microbial biomass and light fractions as indicators of oilseed rape, maize and barley straw decomposition. p. 349-362. In G. Cadisch and K. E. Giller (eds.). Driven by nature: Plant litter quality and decomposition. CAB In ternational, Wallingford, UK. Malhi, S.S., M. Nyborg, J.T. Harapiak, K. Heier, and N.A. Flore. 1997. Increasing organic C and N in soil under bromegrass with long-term N fertilization. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 49:255-260. Marcelino, K.R.A., L. Vilela, G.G. Leite, A.F. Guerra, and J.M.S. Diogo. 2003. Manejo da adubao nitrogenada e de tenses hdricas sobre a produo de matria seca e ndice de rea foliar de Tifton 85 cult ivado no cerrado. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 32:268275. Marschner, H. 1995. Mineral nu trition of higher plants. 2nd ed. Academic Press, New York, NY. Mathews, B.W., L.E. Sollenberger, V.D. Nair, and C.R. Staples. 1994a. Impact of grazing management on soil nitrogen phosphorus, potassium, and sulfur distribution. J. Envi ron. Qual. 23:1006-1013. Mathews, B.W., L.E. Sollenberger, P. Nkedi-Kizza, L.A. Gaston, and H.D. Hornsby. 1994b. Soil sampling procedures for monito ring potassium distribution in grazed pastures. Agron. J. 86:121-126. Mathews, B.W., L.E. Sollenberger, and J. P. Tritschler II. 1996. Grazing systems and spatial distribution of nutrients in pastur es soil considerations. p. 213-229. In R. E. Joost and C. A. Roberts (eds.). Nutrie nt cycling in forage systems. PPI/FAR, Columbia, MO. Mathews, B.W., J.P. Tritschler, and L.E. Sollenberger. 1997. Rotational stocking and soil nutrient distribution on Hawaiian grassla nds. p. 119-120. In J. G. Buchanan-Smith (ed.). 18th Int. Grassl. Congress, Winnipeg and Saskatoon, Canada. Mathews, B.W., J.P. Tritschler, J.R. Ca rpenter, and L.E. Sollenberger. 1999. Soil macronutrient distribution in rotationally stocked kikuyugrass paddocks with short and long grazing periods. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 30:557-571. Mathews, B.W., S.C. Miyasaka, and J.P. Tr itschler. 2004. Mineral nu trition of C4 forage grasses. p. 217-266. In L. E. Moser, B.L. Burson, L.E. Sollenberger (eds.). Warmseason (C4) Grasses. ASA-C SSA-SSSA, Madison, WI, USA. McCartor, M.M., and F.M.J. Rouquette. 1977. Gr azing pressures and animal performance from pearlmillet. Agron. J. 69:983-987.

PAGE 197

178 McLaughlin, M.J., and A.M. Alston. 1986. The rela tive contribution of plant residues and fertilizer to the phosphorus nutrition of wheat in a pasture/cereal system. Aust. J. Soil Res. 24:517-526. Meijboom, F.W., J. Hassink, and M. Van N oordwijk. 1995. Density fractionation of soil macroorganic matter using silica suspen sions. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2:1109-1111. Melo, V.F. 1998. Potssio e magnsio em minera is de solos e relao entre propriedades da caulinita com formas no-trocveis destes nutrientes. D.S. Dissertation, Universidade Federal de Viosa, Viosa, MG. Minson, D.J. 1990. Forage in ruminant nutri tion Academic Press Inc., San Diego, CA. Mitchell, C.C.; Blue, W.G. 1989. Bahiagrass response to sulphur on an aeric haplaquod. Agronomy Journal. 81:53-57. Moore, J.E., and G.O. Mott. 1974. Recovery of residual organic matter from in vitro digestion of forages. J. Dairy Sci. 57:1258-1259. Moore, J.E. 1992. Matching protein and energy supplements to forage quality. p. 31-44. In W. E. Kunkle (ed.). 3rd Annual Florida Ruminant Nu trition Symposium. Anim. Sci. Dep., Dairy Sci. Dep., Univ. of Fla., Gainesville, FL. Moore, J.E., M.H. Brant, W.E. Kunkle, and D.I. Hopkins. 1999. Effects of supplementation on voluntary forage inta ke, diet digestibility, and animal performance. J. Anim. Sci. 77:122-135. Mott, G.O. 1960. Grazing pressure and the m easurement of pasture production. p. 606611. 8th International Grassland Congress. University of Reading, Reading, UK. Mullen, M.D. 1999. Transformations of other el ements. p. 369-386. In D. M. Sylvia, J.J. Fuhrmann, P.G. Hartel, D.A. Zuberer (eds.) Principles and Applications of Soil Microbiology. Prentice-Hall, U pper Saddle River, New Jersey. Mller, M.S., A.L. Fancelli, D. Dourado Neto, A.G. Garca, and R.F.L. Ovejero. 2002. Produtividade do Panicum maximum cv. Mombaa irrigado, sob pastejo rotacionado. Sci. agric. 59:427-433. Myers, R.J.K., I. Vallis, W.B. McGill, a nd E.F. Henzell. 1986. Nitrogen in grassdominant, unfertilized pa sture systems. p. 761-771. 13th Congress of the International Society of Soil Sc ience, Vol. 6, Hamburg, Germany. Myers, R.J.K., C.A. Palm, E. Cuevas, I.U.N. Gunatillike, and M. Brossard. 1994. The synchronisation of nutrient mineralisati on and plant nutrient demand. p. 81-116. In P. L. Woomer and M. J. Swift (eds.). Th e biological management of tropical soil fertility. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.

PAGE 198

179 Myers, R.J.K., M.V. Noordwijk, and P. Vityakon. 1997. Synchrony of nutrient release and plant demand: Plant litter quality, soil environment and farmer management options. p. 215-230. In G. Cadisch and K. E. Giller (eds.). Driven by nature: Plant litter quality and decomposition. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Novais, R.F., and T.J. Smyth. 1999. Fsforo em solo e planta em condies tropicais UFV, Viosa. Oades, J.M. 1993. The role of biology in th e formation, stabilization and degradation of soil structure. Geoderma 56:377-400. Oberson, A., D.K. Friesen, H. Tiessen, C. Mo rel, and W. Stahel. 1999. Phosphorus status and cycling in native savanna and improve d pastures on an acid low-P Colombian Oxisol. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 55:77-88. Osborne, P. 2003. Managing heat stress return s dividends [Online]. Available by West Virginia University http://www.wvu.edu/~a gexten/forglvst/heat stress.pdf (verified 12/21/2004). Overman, A.R., and R.L. Stanley. 1998. Bahi agrass response to applied nitrogen and harvest interval. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 29:237-244. Pakrou, N., and P. Dillon. 2000. Key processes of the nitrogen cycle in an irrigated and a non-irrigated grazed pastur e. Plant and Soil 224:231-250. Palm, C.A., and A.P. Rowla nd. 1997. A minimum dataset for characterization of plant quality for decomposition. p. 379-392. In G. Ca disch and K. E. Giller (eds.). Driven by nature: Plant litter qua lity and decomposition. CAB In ternational, Wallingford, UK. Parsons, A.J., and P.D. Penning. 1988. The e ffect of the duration of regrowth on photosynthesis, leaf death and the average rate of growth in a rotationally grazed sward. Grass For. Sci. 43:15-27. Payne, G.G., J.E. Rechcigl, and R.J. St ephenson. 1990. Development of diagnosis and recommendation integrated system norm s for bahiagrass. Agron. J. 82:930-934. Peterson, P.R., and J.R. Gerrish. 1996. Grazi ng systems and spatial distribution of nutrients in pastures: Livestock manage ment considerations. p. 203-212. In R. E. Joost and C. A. Roberts (eds.). Nutrient cycling in forage systems. PPI/FAR, Columbia, MO. Pulleman, M.M., J. Bouma, E.A. Van Essen, and E.W. Meijles. 2000. Soil organic matter as a function of different land use history. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64:689-693. Rao, I.M. 1998. Root distribution and production in native and introduced pastures in the South America savannas. p. 19-41. 5th Sym. Int. Soc. Root Res. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Clemson, South Carolina.

PAGE 199

180 Rao, I.M., D.K. Friesen, and M. Osaki. 1999. Plant adaptation to phosphorus-limited tropical soils. p. 61-95. In M. Pessarak li (ed.). Handbook of plant and crop stress, 2nd. ed. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY. Reardon, P.O., and L.B. Merril. 1976. Vege tative response under various grazing management systems in the Edwards Plateau of Texas. J. Range Manage. 29:195198. Rezende, C.P., R.B. Cantarutti, J.M. Braga, J.A. Gomide, E. Ferreira, R. Tarr, R. Macedo, B.J.R. Alves, S. Urquiaga, G. Cadisch, K.E. Giller, and R.M. Boddey. 1999. Litter deposition a nd disappearance in Brachiaria pastures in the Atlantic forest region of the South of Bahia, Brazil. Nut. Cycl. Agroecosystems 54:99-112. Rhoads, F.M., R.L. Stanley Jr., and E.A. Ha nlon. 1997. Response of bahiagrass to N, P, and K on an Ultisol in north Florida. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 56:79-83. Richards, J.H. 1993. Physiology of plants recovering from defoliation. p. 95-104. Proceedings of the XVII International Gr assland Congress, Palmerston North, NZ. Robbins, G.B., J.J. Bushell, and G.M. McKeon. 1989. Nitrogen immobilization in decomposing litter contributes to productiv ity decline in aging pastures of green panic (Panicum maximum var. trichoglume). J. Agric. Sci. 113:401-406. Robertson, F.A., R.J.K. Myers, and P. G. Saffigna. 1993a. Carbon and nitrogen mineralization in cultivated and grassland soils in subtropical Queensland. Aust. J. Soil Res. 31:611-619. Robertson, F.A., R.J.K. Myers, and P.G. Saffigna. 1993b. Distribution of carbon and nitrogen in a long-term cropping system and permanent pasture system. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 44:1323-1336. Rovira, P., and V.R. Valejjo. 2003. Physical protection and biochemical quality of organic matter in Mediterranean calcareous forest soils: A density fractionation approach. Soil Biol. Bioch. 35:245-261. Ruffo, M.L., and G.A. Bollero. 2003. Resi due decomposition and prediction of carbon and nitrogen release rates based on bi ochemical fractions using principalcomponent regression. Agron. J. 95:1034-1040. Russelle, M.P. 1992. Nitrogen cycling in pa sture and range. Journal of Production Agriculture 5:13-28. Russelle, M.P. 1996. Nitrogen cycle in pasture sy stems. p. 125-166. In R. E. Joost and C. A. Roberts (eds.). Nutrient cycling in forage systems. PPI/FAR, Columbia, MO. Russelle, M.P. 1997. Nutrient cycling in pa sture. p. 235-266. In J. A. Gomide (ed.). International Symposium on Animal Production Under Grazing. UFV, Viosa, MG.

PAGE 200

181 Ryden, J.C. 1986. Gaseous losses of nitrogen fr om grassland. p. 59-74. In H. G. Van Der Meer (ed.). Nitrogen fluxes in intensiv e grassland systems. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, NL. SAS Inst. Inc. 1996. SAS statistics user's gui de. Release version 6. SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC. Scholefield, D., and O. Oenema. 1997. Nutrie nt cycling within temperate agricultural grasslands. p. 357-370. In J. G. Buchanan-Smith (ed.). 18th Int. Grassl. Cong. Proc., Winnipeg and Saskatoon, Canada. Schunke, R.M. 1998. Qualidade, decomposio e liberao de nutrientes da "litter" de quatro cultivares de Panicum maximum Jacq. D.S. Thesis, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Seropdica, RJ, Brazil. Shang, C., and H. Tiessen. 1997. Organic matter lability in a tropical oxisol: evidence from shifting cultivation, chemical oxida tion, particle size, density, and magnetic fractionations. Soil Sci. 162:795-807. Shang, C., and H. Tiessen. 1998. Organic matter stabilization in two semiarid tropical soils: size, density, and magnetic separa tions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62:1247-1257. Silva, A.P., S. Imhoff, and M. Corsi. 2003. Ev aluation of soil compaction in an irrigated short-duration grazing system. Soil and Tillage Research 70:83-90. Silva, J.E., D.V.S. Resck, E.J. Corazza, and L. Vivaldi. 2000. Carbon storage under cultivated pastures in a clayey oxisol in the cerrado region, p. (S5 T4; CD-ROM) 1st Int. symp. soil functioning under past ure in intertropical areas. EMBRAPA, IRD, Braslia, Brazil. Six, J., R.T. Conant, E.A. Paul, and K. Pa ustian. 2002. Stabilization mechanisms of soil organic matter: Implications for C-sa turation of soils. Plant and Soil 241:155-176. Sollenberger, L.E., W.R. Ocumpaugh, V.P.B. Euclides, J.E. Moore, K.H. Quesenberry, and J. C.S. Jones. 1988. Animal performance on continuously stocked Pensacola bahiagrass and Floralta limpograss. J. Prod. Agric.:216-220. Sollenberger, L.E., G.A. Rusland, C.S. Jones Jr., K.A. Albrecht, and K.L. Gieger. 1989. Animal and forage responses on rotationally grazed 'Floralta' limpograss and 'Pensacola' bahiagrass pastures. Agron. J. 81:760-764. Sollenberger, L.E., and D.J.R. Cherney. 1995. Evaluating forage production and quality. p. 97-110. In R. F. Barnes, D.A. Miller, C.J. Nelson (eds.). Forages: The science of grassland agriculture, Vol. 2. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, IA. Sollenberger, L.E., and J.C. Burns. 2001. Canopy characteristics, inge stive behaviour and herbage intake in cultivated tropical grasslands. p. 321-327. Proceedings of the XIX International Grassland Congress, So Pedro, SP Brazil.

PAGE 201

182 Sollenberger, L.E., J.C.B. Dubeux, Jr., H.Q. Santos, and B.W. Mathews. 2002. Nutrient cycling in tropical pasture ecosystems. p. 151-179. In A. M. V. Batista, M.V.F. dos Santos, L.M.C. Ferreira (eds.). Reunio Anual da Soc. Bras. Zootecnia. SBZ, Recife, PE, Brazil. Stanley, R.L. 1994. Response of 'Tifton 9' Pensacola bahiagrass to harvest interval and nitrogen rate. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 53:80-81. Stanley, R.L., and F.M. Rhoads Jr. 2000. Bahiagrass production, nutrient uptake, and soil-test P and K. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 59:159-163. Stevenson, F.J., and M.A. Cole. 1999. Cycles of soil carbon, n itrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, and micronutrients. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY. Sugimoto, Y., M. Hirata, and M. Ueno. 1987. Energy and matter flows in bahiagrass pasture. V. Excreting behavior of Holstein heifers. J. Japan. Soc. Grassl. Sci. 33:814. Tanner, G.W., L.D. Sandoval, and F.G. Mar tin. 1984. Cattle behavior on a South Florida Range. J. Range Manage. 37:248-251. Thomas, R.J. 1992. The role of the legume in the nitrogen cycle of productive and sustainable pastures. Gr ass For. Sci. 47:133-142. Thomas, R.J., and N.M. Asakawa. 1993. Deco mposition of leaf lit ter from tropical grasses and legumes. Soil Biol. Biochem. 25:1351-1361. Tiessen, H., E. Cuevas, and I.H. Salce do. 1998. Organic matter stability and nutrient availability under temperate and tropical conditions. I: Towards sustainable land use. Advances in Geoecology 31:415-422. Tiessen, H., E.V.S.B. Sampaio, and I.H. Salcedo. 2001. Organic matter turnover and management in low input agriculture of NE Brazil. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 61:99103. Tinker, P.B., and P.H. Nye. 2000. Solute movement in the rhizosphere. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Twidwell, E., W.D. Pitman, and G.J. Cuomo. 1998. Bahiagrass production and management. LSU publication # 2697. Urquiaga, S., G. Cadisch, B.J.R. Alves, R.M. Boddey, and K.E. Giller. 1998. Influence of decomposition of roots of tropical forage species on the availability of soil nitrogen. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30:2099-2106.

PAGE 202

183 Valadares Filho, S.C., and L.S. Cabral. 2002. Aplicao dos princpios de nutrio de ruminantes em regies tropicais. p. 514543. In A. M. V. Batista, M.V.F. dos Santos, L.M.C. Ferreira (eds.). Reunio Anual da Soc. Bras. Zootecnia. SBZ, Recife, PE, Brazil. Valk, H., and M.E.J. Hobbelink. 1992. Supplemen tation of dairy grazing cows to reduce environmental pollution, p. 400-405 14th General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, Lahti, Finland. Van Soest, P.J. 1985. Composition, fiber quality and nutritive value of forages, p. 412421. In M. E. Heath, R.F. Barnes, D.S. Metcalfe (eds.). Forages: The science of grassland agriculture, 4th. ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. Vogel, K.P., J.J. Brejda, D.T. Walters and D.R. Buxton. 2002. Switchgrass biomass production in the Midwest USA: Harvest and nitrogen management. Agron. J. 94:413-420. Vuuren, A.M.V., C.J.V.D. Koelen, H. Val k, and H.D. Visser. 1993. Effects of partial replacement of ryegrass by low protein f eeds on rumen fermentation and nitrogen loss by dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 76:2982-2993. Wagner, G.H., and D.C. Wolf. 1999. Carbon transformations and soil organic matter formation. p. 218-258. In D. M. Sylvia, J.J. Fuhrmann, P.G. Hartel, D.A. Zuberer (eds.). Principles and Applications of Soil Microbiology. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Warren, S.D., M.B. Nevill, W.H. Blackburn, and N.E. Garza. 1986. Soil response to trampling under intensive rotational grazi ng. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Journal 50:13361341. Wedin, D.A. 1996. Nutrient cycling in grasslands : An ecologist's perspective. p. 29-44. In R. E. Joost and C. A. Roberts (eds.). Nutr ient cycling in forage systems. PPI/FAR, Columbia, MO. Wedin, D.A. 2004. C4 grasses: Resource use, ecology and global change, p. 15-50, In L. E. Moser, B.L. Burson, L.E. Sollenberger (eds.). Warm-season (C4) Grasses. ASACSSA-SSSA, Madison, WI, USA. Weider, R.K., and G.E. Lang. 1982. A critique of the analytical methods used in examining decomposition data from litter bags. Ecology 63:1636-1642. West, C.P., A.P. Mallarino, W.F. Wedin, and D.B. Marx. 1989. Spatial variability of soil chemical properties in grazed pastures. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Journal. 53:784-789. White, S.L., R.E. Sheffield, S.P. Washburn, L.D. King, and J.T. Green Jr. 2001. Spatial and time distribution of dairy cattle excreta in an intensive pasture systems. J. Environ. Qual. 30:2180-2187.

PAGE 203

184 Whitmore, A.P., and E. Handayanto. 1997. Si mulating the mineralization of N from crops residues in relation to residue quality. p. 3 37-348. In G. Cadisch and K. E. Giller (eds.). Driven by nature: Plan t litter quality and decomposition. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Wilkinson, S.R., and R.W. Lowrey. 1973. Cycl ing of mineral nutrients in pasture ecosystem, p. 247-315, In G. W. Butler and R. W. Bailey, eds. Chemistry and Biochemistry of Herbage, Vol. 2. Academic Press, New York, NY. Wilkinson, S.R., J.A. Stuedemann, and D.P. Belesky. 1989. Soil potassium distribution in grazed K-31 tall fescue pastures as af fected by fertilization and endophytic fungus infection level. Agron. J. 81:508-512. Williams, P.H., P.E.H. Gregg, and M.J. Hedley. 1990. Mass balance modelling of potassium losses from grazed dairy pasture. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 33:661-668. Wilson, J.R. 1982. Environmental and nutritiona l factors affecting herbage quality. p. 111-131. In J. B. Hacker (ed.). Nutriti onal limits to animal production from pastures. Common. Agric. Bu r., Farnham Royal, UK.

PAGE 204

185 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jos Carlos B. Dubeux, Jr. was born on 4 May 1968, in Recife, Pernambuco State, Brazil. He received a B.S. in agronomy ( 1990) at the Federal Rural University of Pernambuco. After graduation, Jos spent some time on his small farm working to establish pastures and raise da iry cows. In 1992, Jos returned to the university to start graduate school. He obtained a Master of Science degree (1995) in animal production from the same university where he obtained his B.S. After completion of this degree, Jos worked as a research assistant for one year at the Agricultural Research Institute in his state (IPA). In 1996, Jos started his teach ing career, working at the Federal Rural University of Pernambuco as a temporary professor. In 1997, he entered the same university as a permanent faculty member in the Animal Sciences Department teaching courses related to forages and pastures. He al so conducted research projects in the same area of interest. In 2001, Jos received a CNPq fellowship and entered the Agronomy Department at the University of Florida to pursue his PhD degree. During his PhD program, Jos received the Paul Harris Awa rd in 2003 and 2004 and also the Robert F. Barnes award during the ASACSSA-SSSA meeting in Sea ttle (2004). After completion of his program, Jos plans to return to his university in Pernambuco and continue his career as a researcher and profe ssor, with interest in nutrient cycling in forage and pasture ecosystems.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101129_AAAABU INGEST_TIME 2010-11-30T03:41:21Z PACKAGE UFE0011202_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 15388 DFID F20101129_AABCQC ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH dubeux_j_Page_175.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
00ab106f265aabd0b1eab5f91bb6d817
SHA-1
6ef37b42a7fba2c23bd32b6ecb8a7f4cc1144328
1053954 F20101129_AABCPO dubeux_j_Page_049.tif
7c25141ea2782f7a16fd1acfb1cb37a1
0dbca8b3ce4bf06d7ffd0d73aad8f0af2c262396
101581 F20101129_AABCOZ dubeux_j_Page_116.jp2
251c94134474c8b43cdab152abd97402
83957b640cf94399e20ddaa1470833d810c558d0
86185 F20101129_AABCQD dubeux_j_Page_023.jp2
5fe4316d8f978acd0906f8f231fa0da6
a3dfecd7b7a29d1c68906b41bcbcb14c8c1cea94
F20101129_AABCPP dubeux_j_Page_043.tif
7f08c3c98e2b675d26bedfb7d2e60fa3
ea09bf949d9b47aba464715b1106840215a1f599
F20101129_AABCQE dubeux_j_Page_198.tif
0bda70ca8e7bb3f6839d8b17c8a696c0
e1fbc1eb3121794f24a5ef8806e104fb3a75461b
23530 F20101129_AABCPQ dubeux_j_Page_173.QC.jpg
e8caf5ce58cec71bf59b3f1228080321
22cc06c601f290f04354f1707bba8880e4fc3186
19126 F20101129_AABCQF dubeux_j_Page_166.QC.jpg
2bbcb857b4501fcac0053a6bbfe8dcf7
068412cb63873f86b401c5136f79ca18a54a4f1c
6584 F20101129_AABCPR dubeux_j_Page_034thm.jpg
81e392cdd7b3f581dd2d2707a15f8897
10b7b6a00548120fec446d0039b9ab7ca7013f54
F20101129_AABCQG dubeux_j_Page_147.tif
d370280365e4dce2786873a44259bff1
29fd677800acb8ab5a930c71156d69eabfbf87d1
6164 F20101129_AABCPS dubeux_j_Page_144thm.jpg
3cfa5eec0346a76e1922e61cf6f37ca6
a23dd6a3c68930021c73df69adb03354930b1e8b
22889 F20101129_AABCQH dubeux_j_Page_026.QC.jpg
b430b1563a7b778fdaa266398a6a7de3
e52304bbce2d9af0b9272907c83151146e0e670c
7234 F20101129_AABCPT dubeux_j_Page_013thm.jpg
f9ef466b0e75405827a98aa7a6b3ac6e
e41cffc7cfaea20de0ca8634a487fdddb23dbe7d
43655 F20101129_AABCQI dubeux_j_Page_154.jpg
28c4e02a888e9b739fb021127bc51244
f4721486b141520a5ede521db18b202b5d5bd4af
F20101129_AABCPU dubeux_j_Page_077.tif
8c0371e22f148ed580463bda8f8978b1
2285260c632a4d67050d8cf8d5e5deb629932938
7122 F20101129_AABCQJ dubeux_j_Page_109thm.jpg
75eeccb4e47b90a8430a3e399afe3296
77434081c6e1eb18e884fc3b5185694de32e9831
F20101129_AABCPV dubeux_j_Page_139.tif
cf962c09316ff174ef32d55c29aa251a
ca24c965c43ed5c9f22b80be18b7e865028ef600
103322 F20101129_AABCQK dubeux_j_Page_140.jp2
a7b019f264861d498f38e753c95c838e
14e4617663285891482cef7ec22bacf7f237cf55
6308 F20101129_AABCPW dubeux_j_Page_021thm.jpg
78b4dcd0f7e5ba387456ed8be3356fe6
b29a4c80c8060db2432f17db534df7c92d9509fc
66952 F20101129_AABCQL dubeux_j_Page_124.jpg
e95801d71f5277be3d78fc706263cf93
22556b075ad0b63e347dbf85f33e26027430dadf
25271604 F20101129_AABCPX dubeux_j_Page_087.tif
8947a828dc595ea23b90d1b4ed8d083f
7236cefc04b3d4b77bced4e3cd9b1ebbfe7ad98d
3804 F20101129_AABCQM dubeux_j_Page_128thm.jpg
6ee051146e0a1e7fd22be9a72652a8f5
6578ebe95896a821e372c3bd1b419c3402f18e7d
6697 F20101129_AABCPY dubeux_j_Page_137thm.jpg
119507f9ee4f792c0839b3ae41f0aef4
79f3c71f6c30e120eba12c03e1a0433723d3924e
22893 F20101129_AABCRA dubeux_j_Page_168.QC.jpg
7b5d0c22c0ccf4310b89c8cc73013b55
8bb57dd8ba189690f39701cd508af0aab934846b
1051871 F20101129_AABCQN dubeux_j_Page_017.jp2
c1541234ef160348cad5c78bee79f269
796ef12fb60c9615600258783567d86133dc41b8
72137 F20101129_AABCRB dubeux_j_Page_188.jpg
2e3ff7a038ac2f782f6842cd05cb11cb
7de0afe904426447315581f001c11ce9065b88ec
5437 F20101129_AABCQO dubeux_j_Page_004thm.jpg
4853af4ad54b2ff0e937faa513f31c78
be170694ded99fe553ea565a33726122b9d04b52
F20101129_AABCPZ dubeux_j_Page_149.tif
a9e6f48c26b8b595e04872b64295a175
5847375c4b1713ae7dedc81865a602d72f2f9cee
F20101129_AABCRC dubeux_j_Page_067.tif
c5f8aeb6e650ec0a8142e582322eb319
753edbfd627b74508106e0b2af74c9761ed8ec3c
63166 F20101129_AABCQP dubeux_j_Page_020.jpg
3e9a2f53465378c7f9088db054606951
1a371cf2d7855a31932b1b62aa1436a06ea46515
5402 F20101129_AABCRD dubeux_j_Page_070thm.jpg
98d7c211d0854d0ad9a3b749514d50c7
e1fa49d9d2fca58ec0758f7f704185af3d9932f9
60674 F20101129_AABCQQ dubeux_j_Page_064.jpg
89d6dd9dcc8f09d4d115f2400709cb96
8c067c1b913617de06be6dfa247dea4d89110228
5052 F20101129_AABCRE dubeux_j_Page_111thm.jpg
bbbba9946b056d646a9cc0bb29343403
d543b2c22dad8aed3903facf0c250a27ded3973d
4106 F20101129_AABCQR dubeux_j_Page_154thm.jpg
b6e71e706dd2f0ee56694fae60e4de80
30488c293377676855ee529b1b21883d066dedd6
F20101129_AABCRF dubeux_j_Page_032.tif
119f42a5aacc2e1cec5b7f700b0ab006
6919264ec53aed4fce20a59ede279b4f17841c02
6475 F20101129_AABCQS dubeux_j_Page_046thm.jpg
6216a314de4def5fae74b035feebd420
ab927e14a2e073a4bc6c9423af8190daccd8033d
23846 F20101129_AABCRG dubeux_j_Page_133.QC.jpg
94478a4d47ed09b81455ae97b5d4f9bf
f73cb5f73243bd7f5f8e997ff3fe9623827ddc79
3011 F20101129_AABCQT dubeux_j_Page_092thm.jpg
2a2e260aaf15a03e71abe082b2203f7f
6c15f11613db1c9d97610142566e6ee6cd5a870b
131632 F20101129_AABCRH dubeux_j_Page_202.jp2
c699c9763e2d6c9230f808540ec1932b
c19b5fe4a3b241b4a41a17b4c8f9a60c39966bef
F20101129_AABCQU dubeux_j_Page_093.tif
be25e06cde66d8f99d6248d9feb324b7
7553cbb17657d202313b1fdab7ba184a8ee1b614
F20101129_AABCRI dubeux_j_Page_078.tif
b2b05167e475a740ab1b883746cbb4bf
249177121c0c121e22d076501509f1a05f0dc903
23204 F20101129_AABCQV dubeux_j_Page_162.QC.jpg
5b656803ba857d0b37c3b25a63a69319
4ff4a169bc099af6b890261400b98f3a4565e005
25503 F20101129_AABCRJ dubeux_j_Page_192.QC.jpg
cea35dd12779526a409a33621982646a
4fa9e49d6ae24172ef1f8cc5b9407257a1fac995
58345 F20101129_AABCRK dubeux_j_Page_149.jpg
8bcb5d855cf41181a20190122b12e72a
1bdfcfe36f4ec89c1712a97ff938e5628056867c
8869 F20101129_AABCQW dubeux_j_Page_187.QC.jpg
450219c2f80b410e92af42622d060513
2fe8161e83ff03dc2711d6419324a468e478e42e
F20101129_AABCRL dubeux_j_Page_102.tif
77102140eeb39e67206d3d8bd2104cf0
f16396ae7f6196026f8b8bf3812fe05913de1065
87086 F20101129_AABCQX dubeux_j_Page_084.jp2
030b1f60c5b2a5ea2cb94f38cb41addd
72f6c8f1a19b0b66b2a82cc4849dd9e143f0faed
F20101129_AABCSA dubeux_j_Page_074.tif
6e11e91c4208a80ccda7809f4d973fd3
1380cdcaa9ee5ed53af9c3f663fa44ccebbf693b
114247 F20101129_AABCRM dubeux_j_Page_060.jp2
11e213da602148689e36cad894b5a7fe
2de821b1634cae93963d555fe96c4a9b83553772
6291 F20101129_AABCQY dubeux_j_Page_035thm.jpg
cc857ad06b07038c90bf9431cbd85de3
cd65154ff722a39d9d012d4e9d8fe2c698fbfe0f
6538 F20101129_AABCSB dubeux_j_Page_044thm.jpg
72090d6674893141de115a5917177c0d
e4c3a245e659f6df6672bb9be4724289d8a4eb3a
6209 F20101129_AABCRN dubeux_j_Page_028thm.jpg
9a0bbb9288f5db126f240020842af863
02ae4cb535edd3da6d9d28de2587660338b4c312
F20101129_AABCQZ dubeux_j_Page_160.tif
38f6b062407141615c2c583ef55f07a1
e84e459c1d1125aa96237037eaba1f3d42529734
F20101129_AABCSC dubeux_j_Page_200.tif
962d3cf83d384f88aa30cbce66aca59b
699b8c1ab6f0905c0f2f9e8b0f8938b0d0c80869
107864 F20101129_AABCRO dubeux_j_Page_082.jp2
8d4c26876ccbc6d2e36f2dd9d5c5fcbb
b919a21a8a23335db8d5da3a7cd5128685d8bba0
6439 F20101129_AABCSD dubeux_j_Page_130thm.jpg
1bdf9c9a2d611ae36792db40a6a088d3
c4b635f985e71281abb9364bca881e4900d11402
77950 F20101129_AABCRP dubeux_j_Page_111.jp2
740c58d8d1f2437342e7eaecce7fc54c
25e6d0b9e90633579b5350f4af510abfc5150698
F20101129_AABCSE dubeux_j_Page_149.QC.jpg
15ff16274956b9ea32987c1828f262c8
b88c5ca1fc27b97e236bb1f46920a00710937461
F20101129_AABCRQ dubeux_j_Page_162.tif
1bba7f4748d4d40d807fad09660c494e
a985fcf9ce29e9aa3003d1a576405ffd660a9c2f
25949 F20101129_AABCSF dubeux_j_Page_015.QC.jpg
3a12dc7f540c0de7eb32e4eed66ed973
ffb39d14ad55fda4ba563b2b45184c819bb3dd01
6441 F20101129_AABCRR dubeux_j_Page_096thm.jpg
dc8288063851da579d7145baae532fe3
7ccf32d2213e9364b1be04e54c52cf6308eb963a
5580 F20101129_AABCSG dubeux_j_Page_024thm.jpg
fcbe9699e2066d6bb242cf3209543f65
0b363000849a0640a3de26081e40f02a11f9ecf4
60715 F20101129_AABCRS dubeux_j_Page_145.jpg
af13ae1e86bf513581b76fa57c572ddc
9f1651421c281b3c70895972f7680786f01e22d0
5294 F20101129_AABCSH dubeux_j_Page_127thm.jpg
be5c508c9dc07f1cd36e6a6225d23d9c
4b75468eb33743b79592a289fab352c9e512fde2
106616 F20101129_AABCRT dubeux_j_Page_180.jp2
5b9e6aaa3ccb0101be3eeca800fa9379
7cd8bc73931ed6993313896e3698537bc034748e
3001 F20101129_AABCSI dubeux_j_Page_187thm.jpg
f57ecfb443ee590404c9b6c6feae0955
80841be97a3834c622ec51152eee239d3a4ab0fd
6495 F20101129_AABCRU dubeux_j_Page_178thm.jpg
41a65acb35a57a63ff39ba45e7cadb7e
3b25e02b3fc090b6973ce08271ba469496f02c3c
54897 F20101129_AABCSJ dubeux_j_Page_163.jpg
8639ac6bc35ee0b4b2a12c59dcd57186
054b1982e2055bdbdd93a36b78393f44b298ded5
29824 F20101129_AABCRV dubeux_j_Page_185.jp2
aa90631aedb9e0bc9c9fe94208c1b5ed
61546bc2f0d1e1757a3f83e0dbdbfba8308faddb
10692 F20101129_AABCSK dubeux_j_Page_002.jpg
03166130c38cfe316af3e7920736a56b
bc6e317cca475034c4d74f709ab766be273c1db0
5908 F20101129_AABCRW dubeux_j_Page_011thm.jpg
d62dd9911b4e2e51f461e6d21fe2c950
4cb827db3753800522a89b4e1a592f05f2ff645d
67776 F20101129_AABCSL dubeux_j_Page_107.jpg
2d0a49c087287717e3c4dfee6287e62f
eaa8b0e8510ea8a275f6d436f657fc7a2de45f24
87712 F20101129_AABCRX dubeux_j_Page_194.jpg
5b6553612bd8081b1b2018c1dcd22fb0
eb3835524872449efd945cf34477a2288971f040
101707 F20101129_AABCSM dubeux_j_Page_013.jpg
a02f25e85eadd1a89f53e0afa1eac9de
b6f9c57e5e3651c6313daa0e1544059eae379233
77823 F20101129_AABCRY dubeux_j_Page_119.jp2
cc3e290f527b4f2aef78e4cf4729ddbd
ba0ada9460ebd4003c03bbc1a2556404702f4ca6
23657 F20101129_AABCTA dubeux_j_Page_114.QC.jpg
43fd138942ec59778492c42e6680d33d
8eed4430842b018b1fd45c5b66baf43779d5e8e3
5913 F20101129_AABCSN dubeux_j_Page_009thm.jpg
b5914624f2d257b338d81a3ecbe8017f
415e8f3028ae420d325753842c07bc8406b84715
6235 F20101129_AABCRZ dubeux_j_Page_139thm.jpg
ce617dd2231d82942f3a9a201805bc94
2f3efab13d40bd1374eb7c6b0264af0b604e40c6
57198 F20101129_AABCTB dubeux_j_Page_125.jpg
7165886dc8c1738b3856171b40427b62
de685a47c21cf05d33ed91512553faee4ce87a5f
22076 F20101129_AABCSO dubeux_j_Page_136.QC.jpg
b99bc44ab127ba5e49097c3824d0987d
f88d1c0229827bb0760b2a3859205a0e1f5f7bdf
6686 F20101129_AABCTC dubeux_j_Page_060thm.jpg
6be6e9adb9d7830d41f7b117c8b91660
7a84e07630f27553a8732146cbfdcc1d85946f79
114403 F20101129_AABCSP dubeux_j_Page_161.jp2
cb27126e8dbe776f02738775aa5f67dd
97f7f64c1a4292e4473de862f767975770eef2b6
52895 F20101129_AABCTD dubeux_j_Page_119.jpg
28a15a25e754993d277e915fa1bd9428
46cdddbb46c8c2658d79d7150ba827b51f04c3f5
F20101129_AABCSQ dubeux_j_Page_028.tif
c4955ebf29b12f9a205c5bfe12313922
b7284b454852d7fe4b2c6544a6e00dcde250eab9
F20101129_AABCTE dubeux_j_Page_068.tif
535d710c1090205de070fae1f34459b0
825e1c55d35bdbba345fc1c0c0db6b7f72c3118a
24700 F20101129_AABCSR dubeux_j_Page_161.QC.jpg
b73068697660556f05f3b65c0f94e52c
5e5c37bd1223e27d4283ab5ad58dbcc0db182dd6
107843 F20101129_AABCTF dubeux_j_Page_177.jp2
5218cf904f21cd1c2ee7b581d5df8c39
88b5d93e9468eb8debdd9470ae76b77c7b785ee3
8423998 F20101129_AABCSS dubeux_j_Page_174.tif
dd14393bdbcdc3706bb96774e88dfb49
fa14d69b2810bf314a215a3be3a7273acf64096f
40266 F20101129_AABCTG dubeux_j_Page_128.jpg
228d94dde90432401c3669aa3149b8a8
26c7f4614fb39ed0fad5f4e0e043f05f1d7a1214
17128 F20101129_AABCST dubeux_j_Page_111.QC.jpg
1a0b3a3a7a374f66707a2849bce23fc9
65bc3b1b64373646a9626d6d1071836f6b38f89d
23124 F20101129_AABCTH dubeux_j_Page_183.QC.jpg
02908aba16289d9201a2a24cbdcbfffc
39a9e7f3e08f16826bf82cc46c9ba053a10759a6
24202 F20101129_AABCSU dubeux_j_Page_143.QC.jpg
df6d45cbfa71efb1246df9cfd3c9d696
cc7ba83aca5b77b1ab9f4822f9944ff5e13492b9
97370 F20101129_AABCTI dubeux_j_Page_054.jp2
ce28761223f4efce5c81772f08891e6d
22a4d4ebf520ca235a1ece514b3bb46de6217125
66512 F20101129_AABCSV dubeux_j_Page_078.jp2
ef5bb0bc1f0e35cb570f0ccba42382e3
de564a795fc0cfa58be80f6e266290ed0d300646
F20101129_AABCTJ dubeux_j_Page_181.tif
209e3b9f8be55c599e5d0aec5bb7cc0e
7e93b67bde073cf00ee057b4e7b90b2c4ea0aee4
6838 F20101129_AABCSW dubeux_j_Page_190thm.jpg
db3f84a83df84203997350bf49affe73
e25e191cd976e92a22fa0bccf97c382e924122f0
F20101129_AABCTK dubeux_j_Page_101.tif
df54a14faccbe570761ea6c2c9924cd0
a2b3b7fd48445e20cf6f4c6826b3432cfe0fdb01
24191 F20101129_AABCSX dubeux_j_Page_040.QC.jpg
fefeede771ff955c6a020661bf80c532
091b7cf58af2d4ff529f91468e62d32cca72833d
F20101129_AABCTL dubeux_j_Page_075.tif
bd4141230a8813087d2d1343c3b2e31f
c37e4fd183a1d0d0deb54de3967106c1ba10e36c
F20101129_AABCSY dubeux_j_Page_015.tif
ffc6ab9f7a752dc6c9b649a735a55db0
4b9085b2efc8d8d88866c0b24a37fcdef78b531b
6992 F20101129_AABCUA dubeux_j_Page_199thm.jpg
723e847879ecc568a11596025dab8a2a
0cd6a8a2e34fc5aa32ca98ef6adaf1b0f58e6c4d
88714 F20101129_AABCTM dubeux_j_Page_011.jpg
c68ecb37ec7fe91c64e1e9f9353d385e
eb52ef956a7922f013ee2ba0339a44c7b00ad751
F20101129_AABCSZ dubeux_j_Page_129.tif
0b2ae4fe4cb7bef7a0b4dcd683112f31
81e2ab5edcd9cc248ef697b69128f1f5b12a7bf2
110695 F20101129_AABCUB dubeux_j_Page_033.jp2
5750144a53325a3d755acd71bc82a667
f9ce2648f4db8e5398944908a9ab9e4386965253
125023 F20101129_AABCTN dubeux_j_Page_193.jp2
8339f71daf6bc3ddcd8be4b1b6edcb3b
a7375a7680b291d5c35ba2a000b2946f8f5a101c
57333 F20101129_AABCUC dubeux_j_Page_150.jpg
37349c133955d55f6614992e34b1d871
6bec6df0442f7c4c4decabe38e318e008ce53aa6
6758 F20101129_AABCTO dubeux_j_Page_189thm.jpg
9a0577244adda03cd03ee7e347639005
50c2cc1461ae85c1c3398c5c7917ca0e068db921
83663 F20101129_AABCUD dubeux_j_Page_089.jpg
385ae79438809ffad879214445c274fe
227656dd32056b66e8f60e5620eaffde763b306d
71056 F20101129_AABCTP dubeux_j_Page_021.jpg
a1c29ee38dcc0700a30a69e16b55d99d
c92946ec0dacd2e0cfc44a067549f49095343f69
5404 F20101129_AABCUE dubeux_j_Page_055thm.jpg
101a1b7a8680970b59e3fb45bf7bbba3
ad62af3bc20bda497c97e054d217726e552081a5
7711 F20101129_AABCTQ dubeux_j_Page_001.QC.jpg
2e52a8654f3294910ed33fe6733fff76
997549be8f7847d04b8c3b6212ae5e13abaf1b00
71009 F20101129_AABCUF dubeux_j_Page_177.jpg
35822177458ea8c43b2b1090924189c0
7ff93e260223d9380bfb8e1b93c148c5197edf6c
72309 F20101129_AABCTR dubeux_j_Page_114.jpg
a95067a3c4d3640b5e3b1239cb654ff9
37c4e66f2449262ea49a64ce3ae225e4bb9aed8a
936845 F20101129_AABDAA dubeux_j_Page_124.jp2
666986c87f146f10944e6dad58d8346c
825a99cf8fb1d650a8ca376303f1105c5595b6fb
64972 F20101129_AABCUG dubeux_j_Page_007.jpg
6c40bce7e3086c88d1c6d80d5840f534
159bb12785f66cc37937766d6d12140d13842f99
71333 F20101129_AABCTS dubeux_j_Page_056.jpg
588f1618b2e49ab1a990aa3f198e530a
c4e9b0ee687840d5c222d65ed40fa0f7db98bcd0
767250 F20101129_AABDAB dubeux_j_Page_125.jp2
46dc7c12fdaf8b7bc450cbd7d69d518c
d23d71006e2f7b01552d2ca5db9d0122a752842e
47972 F20101129_AABCUH dubeux_j_Page_172.jp2
d8018e88335368324eacab95ead96355
26c8d603ba558ca50d8541a7d18c0064d614fbc8
18999 F20101129_AABCTT dubeux_j_Page_084.QC.jpg
bec415b8544d2a5593246bb86addf945
7ece3c64af8ede044a8d3f0002d990e81ecc8c17
96674 F20101129_AABDAC dubeux_j_Page_126.jp2
f0c08accd02d9342a2e3370c90c0f2f7
0396f79e98e8c04c9b249f2b58a9182a3c2b160f
101441 F20101129_AABCUI dubeux_j_Page_005.jp2
efc35ba74667013633801253954d903a
79254d6721a12b12cd2a0d62d4f76554cdd5d5ff
6763 F20101129_AABCTU dubeux_j_Page_085thm.jpg
4812b9f58296e4560f2a42c47ed55719
f254a94ad9b9e99bb373badea390a6c4ddb6886f
704168 F20101129_AABDAD dubeux_j_Page_127.jp2
b09b27d55d7c70b94058617c0c8e92c2
09cbd57a3ba595a61943cafc950c90f9b2ea0861
20725 F20101129_AABCUJ dubeux_j_Page_069.QC.jpg
fbbb3bc5d25390e740fa1a6bc1848f10
9d15d859fb755e03bc6abf49f72d615b0694edf0
24167 F20101129_AABCTV dubeux_j_Page_088.QC.jpg
8f552c87e6d4ae63c152f0d6f826d09e
297f260f6ba578733c083fab6934d06496710b2f
56390 F20101129_AABDAE dubeux_j_Page_128.jp2
eba7aaf7db5930eca4f9e865a5a629ed
c14f102d73cd33686021a5eba4e51211f057baec
19455 F20101129_AABCUK dubeux_j_Page_074.QC.jpg
cad1d937aa24d3e379dde79373d30adf
f90443dd937c96dd9f10c9975608d97fefa45060
F20101129_AABCTW dubeux_j_Page_187.tif
8cedd6a2788c340a00f0e6bfc41274c0
c9c33a2bc8342b810221e948fd6d157823c65b27
103697 F20101129_AABDAF dubeux_j_Page_131.jp2
acd9f5638f406f7e0b92721f6a1373be
546d83f158b6d9e6194aaa1754ea19b42e6ecdda
F20101129_AABCUL dubeux_j_Page_183.tif
4d8c042ba6c4c5d9c66d788ef1f5afe5
3d661da527853e5e12a24e9758a58ee776069206
F20101129_AABCTX dubeux_j_Page_084.tif
9a2c7586c8362102a8126b32f509818c
acc5cababef8f361608ca64c2341f7c4fc1e114d
99934 F20101129_AABDAG dubeux_j_Page_135.jp2
56e1b266aa46e2e5abcf77ae1567dacd
b00f57c1acd21beb6e2e2c8527102e74d2212be9
5368 F20101129_AABCVA dubeux_j_Page_100thm.jpg
9065d0bcd29d073e827f8113b098eb57
f0151fa5cdb212afc695b3d864b53ddec3d08552
39879 F20101129_AABCUM dubeux_j_Page_184.jpg
4c2f812315aac78d014a5b25cea1f20e
69ee7c341e47c205015887d4249f534e95142755
92228 F20101129_AABCTY dubeux_j_Page_198.jpg
f6a1db176fa89bf8d17ead47f06d4c89
cde36403ac4aaf25b3ff3a1a3294cdd5ab415c1c
112523 F20101129_AABDAH dubeux_j_Page_137.jp2
1da9a88ffc833ffc2ae1be6f766ecfdd
e473b99e14e1a4226cd11034846bb10f37a999e3
103850 F20101129_AABCVB dubeux_j_Page_110.jp2
ea82d8faee2ddc5c0497eab18f3d9190
2b4848ccd2983fd985befff4219df7ea6a840213
5772 F20101129_AABCUN dubeux_j_Page_124thm.jpg
81d4ae5c822ec35d05ff720e01aa7de4
8a6d8c945c501d553fce22b45e268ccc12ed3606
721677 F20101129_AABCTZ dubeux_j_Page_073.jp2
96b617a2bcd56fab4396eae40efe0ac3
4273516db24ec0bfdf4e72cea4124e22334566d2
49759 F20101129_AABDAI dubeux_j_Page_138.jp2
b7955e633f20e3bd592d32c0428f87ae
22c1f1f45647e69dbaf6e0b3b629206a88ee639d
F20101129_AABCVC dubeux_j_Page_057.tif
409f965a1e70b467308d660c3435109e
f6fc1ab310398ada24a19e1192c72d91a92ee2f7
F20101129_AABCUO dubeux_j_Page_089.tif
ded91e5ee3709347924024b55c390390
c9b0f20a13326223c2541d5f0c37381bf0a98364
82962 F20101129_AABCVD dubeux_j_Page_166.jp2
2e48ef6fc9a33d4d37a61b64672ba572
9b5fa2f22e3dc27a35db93006bfc91ece1025285
513924 F20101129_AABCUP dubeux_j_Page_087.jp2
b2bc65bed6f33a5e93bff725648e7268
718c281209266940bc4bbaeed66af599651ec6c0
103006 F20101129_AABDAJ dubeux_j_Page_139.jp2
b9c64e1e4336f620822a9f22905284ab
82691672ea7d0e594c7cd7353b79c71888f2ca94
218620 F20101129_AABCVE UFE0011202_00001.xml FULL
0eae0840af3dbe5601ffa2ff197c6886
bea33bf28c46caad0d05903d5d732d8fb3cd199f
115788 F20101129_AABCUQ dubeux_j_Page_043.jp2
125b7a487884940db7215b3aae5424e4
61fe95be7a9b8c6e44c8f67e421eca60d1379795
97098 F20101129_AABDAK dubeux_j_Page_141.jp2
69778dfe26f95ab9c2a576a88a62d08c
7cd3658f3dd3003ac8f3e768abc3eac7ecf76697
F20101129_AABCUR dubeux_j_Page_022.tif
7f3f4db3600952d622bb99105b9583f7
34e8c20f3df81db9f99660070292298889701ddd
712250 F20101129_AABDBA dubeux_j_Page_165.jp2
fc1d660f3a0e8a9aeed15d23b18b5b39
30196d45138c815d5e1a81c493b4d7c5bc232a80
49954 F20101129_AABDAL dubeux_j_Page_142.jp2
78b2163306feb37d4bc3c2bf54ff1499
22d4f2385aaaba18565376d532558f94c45d7e28
5843 F20101129_AABCUS dubeux_j_Page_079thm.jpg
1dbcbc71a88958cc1b3efbf0b5d0e357
da9f516b61b5828423f138f33210beefde82476d
105394 F20101129_AABDBB dubeux_j_Page_169.jp2
3728b542c8c00f60957ed436b44f19fd
fb4edf6d0e4a930d39f9bafd1fc292f209a38719
110660 F20101129_AABDAM dubeux_j_Page_143.jp2
f4e02ba9d1c369cb7654a70aad52843d
a8246e822c39d73ca5a7bee314a08c76ed4bb783
24418 F20101129_AABCVH dubeux_j_Page_001.jpg
c151d62e0efab262881d7d4d4b3ca71e
434194d1bd68ece9f60cdb7fc5109e60701d6a0a
107127 F20101129_AABCUT dubeux_j_Page_178.jp2
126f1f27f254d1c7ffe5118754ec91a0
51c8985bab54b636faa6c7b85e753174d74ab849
108219 F20101129_AABDBC dubeux_j_Page_173.jp2
9205af1a3e42e0c4ceae7adac76f9811
b1ea8883cef54c6e1f16048f37f090343b7799b2
97132 F20101129_AABDAN dubeux_j_Page_144.jp2
691ba3d10ca49c52b6e073314fd4281b
85b1d35046ac353aca5a1e6574146edd3f92bc1b
60221 F20101129_AABCVI dubeux_j_Page_004.jpg
9d7d8b16e07b0092ece4bb91fcabf2bf
da775e9d80e3b1c947fee7cc8086f8ced265d76f
108913 F20101129_AABCUU dubeux_j_Page_056.jp2
f08c5a462c0eaf982847ffd83ecedbbb
3bcbc9bf87662daf85f0f961a99b0d77df0b3bd7
103301 F20101129_AABDBD dubeux_j_Page_176.jp2
d79d58f94ee41a0f2599a2ba0c45cb3e
2f4fa78f619ebeea8e4e7ba0c50e1413130532ba
89496 F20101129_AABDAO dubeux_j_Page_145.jp2
d10338ad1d660f4ddf0459babcc6f76c
2dec5f5f50d5a7ff4767e8d1dab2fef42a2849af
68997 F20101129_AABCVJ dubeux_j_Page_005.jpg
93ffe4d159c09bfd414046aee1febed7
0dd2228fe42d3abf43c671dac8fa74ef39851c5b
6022 F20101129_AABCUV dubeux_j_Page_118thm.jpg
af9e333ff8d153cdd062d173b4ee87e7
f1e947c23ab18a29415514d2937eec379472755f
103570 F20101129_AABDBE dubeux_j_Page_179.jp2
d4977442199b7181e7c84d9c5c7927b2
1370eefc3b8faaf4301b6e39ce8a266e62c8d457
109686 F20101129_AABDAP dubeux_j_Page_147.jp2
98b66e12b3c870fd64560383973d15d7
17ec98cbf76466b15d1ffcec0ab1fbc0192acc18
30262 F20101129_AABCVK dubeux_j_Page_006.jpg
a35056762de91f5516acdc1ca8bdda79
442b7935148be1cb19b683a305a7ca526d201248
6137 F20101129_AABCUW dubeux_j_Page_002.jp2
d31134ba4adba74a1d834f70a37b9e3d
19162c1eaaf11800fdb3397673762e3d78f00940
109303 F20101129_AABDBF dubeux_j_Page_181.jp2
2f1078fe6e3436885be4a868eebbb9f1
e035039d014bc7daeafb728abc8c6cdb21e43fe8
822570 F20101129_AABDAQ dubeux_j_Page_148.jp2
c70e3a2612b46029278e78c3ae924002
87d8254aaf67231bb9aea3dd478eee4f89c7eb54
95614 F20101129_AABCVL dubeux_j_Page_010.jpg
a2afbeb451b0159f988d0dbe4fbb08dc
969a1165f8087606b801da985172f90a33251da7
7061 F20101129_AABCUX dubeux_j_Page_200thm.jpg
d2046f87403f40b244a34c072c50465c
f130c2fe86b3caadc1d033e6c421eda4aaa795d1
31445 F20101129_AABDBG dubeux_j_Page_186.jp2
1dcede97d26451a3a1714f2a8aed31a5
7574802b8f4095a1de2b2cac47262652e7e7af61
80145 F20101129_AABDAR dubeux_j_Page_150.jp2
adcdd688bf70a8fa3bfc177443e3146a
3ba4c0ed172ae458b90e849ed78114096a4356bc
103202 F20101129_AABCVM dubeux_j_Page_012.jpg
9658f53df5a961da164d1ff35f192eb0
2dfb94e5d8e1b3f8d495ac81af62f653ba63a236
F20101129_AABCUY dubeux_j_Page_195.tif
16bc84be92c51819803617a5557bc3e3
62db6878e1d8df724fb13d04bdc1a07ce3080366
28837 F20101129_AABDBH dubeux_j_Page_187.jp2
e186b16b9e5e0c4048ec23643be6e63e
5e8c61a74394659012f1278b5e163a14baf0104f
61054 F20101129_AABCWA dubeux_j_Page_051.jpg
0f35a165e9d6da968b67e265f9e6c57c
863dc506d89a20f39f901f4099be06269f96c396
90808 F20101129_AABDAS dubeux_j_Page_151.jp2
d780c1825f8fa5d495c25e0104b773f5
7733b029ca33ee4a8e639847a0caacc1c641f406
69840 F20101129_AABCVN dubeux_j_Page_014.jpg
a18d1e19fb46e48bddcfef512762012d
934b922aff27a615b3cb3acdef215f05a9c72e83
68885 F20101129_AABCUZ dubeux_j_Page_047.jpg
12a97657aa3b1249cc4beba27166e953
a401c29a44b0a736db42fc61f6db8deeed0bfb90
112297 F20101129_AABDBI dubeux_j_Page_188.jp2
1f330ec822c6ba1a35a6741fa6995f3f
6ad234be15c4e713609dd59c0110d14f631b2bfe
68715 F20101129_AABCWB dubeux_j_Page_052.jpg
434af180130d287fe1d49bdbf648ea4d
4fcaaded267120686d2be2ac09f4627172f6a327
61179 F20101129_AABDAT dubeux_j_Page_154.jp2
f4ac415dba654e600dd1c060dfdfa5e4
25b0eea74a53a2177731cb5ef1578b1cfd6cfc44
102280 F20101129_AABCVO dubeux_j_Page_015.jpg
ae233ed404ad8eca0318263fee0f730d
9867706d0e1fbf3ff97669cc780be4990b655f56
136242 F20101129_AABDBJ dubeux_j_Page_190.jp2
cbce45649718039ebba7d3e4a81dfeca
592df22af909f98cf8092f8c9dd3fa6689c8f394
65062 F20101129_AABCWC dubeux_j_Page_059.jpg
b60798c921e9e7ab6906cbdb74bc898c
1f3c0ecfa4eb133c871c233a086e5bf97cab3f7b
32609 F20101129_AABDAU dubeux_j_Page_155.jp2
6321da18d61bcf5e12b96939e3db686f
a26700c8d31836633dee7af3e63159037ef2f3bd
70844 F20101129_AABCVP dubeux_j_Page_027.jpg
a92ef0718184f5d6ffba1febd119f968
a6c96f4f4d3d9b2a42e2cdd678c0a200582777b2
69343 F20101129_AABCWD dubeux_j_Page_062.jpg
9703b634572d59b765f776fc2f21c501
c57c040bccece49b9e0385623042be1924956b55
106696 F20101129_AABDAV dubeux_j_Page_156.jp2
f2e7f7f64bc0716b463ff895b3b0bf9a
17de3fa1c5d823eaeb99d735ce1baa66af89ebe7
71076 F20101129_AABCVQ dubeux_j_Page_028.jpg
327a072c1bd5a7cace0199262389eb18
1516589c788df905eae90e940580efd6413385ff
125323 F20101129_AABDBK dubeux_j_Page_191.jp2
45ce2e8826b0b92edc8a476aa766c87f
9d1359e58233cddd4c79d399a2250dcab3ecff51
68873 F20101129_AABCWE dubeux_j_Page_065.jpg
50ac76be06b7b875d74f5787babc965c
8ba8c99fd1aa211777cab005efeb8f5d24d72d98
106069 F20101129_AABDAW dubeux_j_Page_159.jp2
74e95decb0e1027de61f69a9cd7729d4
8a6259c9294eaa2334123075ffa70db9802d3f80
71735 F20101129_AABCVR dubeux_j_Page_033.jpg
d2fb0e8fff24d21b26444513f7d21cb2
fe83d965a1fee07cde7f5e15cb3444c7323e81a0
F20101129_AABDCA dubeux_j_Page_031.tif
ad764d66060f71b5cf484568398fb5d0
089b9168645d2983f0d06a93ceed9830cb9d4c44
128051 F20101129_AABDBL dubeux_j_Page_192.jp2
c59dc8ff587f383f174267ac059402ba
99aa56d945c533453915253f26c8d5f41156bb05
71070 F20101129_AABCWF dubeux_j_Page_066.jpg
46ac90b07d226b14f06ecb5adb0094ab
1b29ddfd63c9286d544edc8f1cb5e889c879859f
106853 F20101129_AABDAX dubeux_j_Page_162.jp2
2ca9013c204674fd5e638e91164ec78c
c5c7264d979eab67c99a4acb7debee52aac21da3
70778 F20101129_AABCVS dubeux_j_Page_034.jpg
d3b3c90fc77064b6e802a45816865e43
ec4d13009c5ce7a2535c8edcd6da66cf9f7c8066
F20101129_AABDCB dubeux_j_Page_034.tif
4f83887134295d49f345285db7369ffa
00da70acd698f6a87aeae3404533286c6a3e9af7
127639 F20101129_AABDBM dubeux_j_Page_194.jp2
e6e29c15b5a9ff628fabc937c5216429
10cc1d80c7d879a66fe2d3769cc85dc42db06352
73652 F20101129_AABCWG dubeux_j_Page_068.jpg
64274d03cdbe9e50580d78ff5295c825
85c90cb194db9509aa735001922943224a234a99
70832 F20101129_AABDAY dubeux_j_Page_163.jp2
9d787795d95e75b8728e69f174973345
6d76873946b6429b89c6c8b9691d43e5930dd522
F20101129_AABDCC dubeux_j_Page_036.tif
43b4f88f8b22acdb9a853cc72b355f42
c11840e5f7efdbf93eb80b23eb950bf5e94e926a
139653 F20101129_AABDBN dubeux_j_Page_200.jp2
158794a7f92ac174cb0b20782ef3cbc2
eaea1ed34b2c969cb920a75f15fa211bf1b05056
72193 F20101129_AABCWH dubeux_j_Page_071.jpg
b5954f26a2ee8ce6e7dba0646235f9df
80e883acb61c87ef69f0922c94771a3f14ff8ff2
98121 F20101129_AABDAZ dubeux_j_Page_164.jp2
7fdc8d8581401d85cbc0440328e78d7e
bd3b478af1e3ebc4024669a4e4af8b65730d9821
68513 F20101129_AABCVT dubeux_j_Page_036.jpg
2db541264b79dfd8db83571cfed8bba4
28d3e9b1261ed3582e7f6df01a6d1857dedabe17
F20101129_AABDCD dubeux_j_Page_040.tif
c0485333105821d8756f76f3c2c77932
0298ff9de1a9d4cd65e1ade34bf7d542cdb0fbf5
114739 F20101129_AABDBO dubeux_j_Page_201.jp2
d3269b36128858e3353d872b8ce4af03
7b24f9ff11e41ed43f7e3d0f0c4b119dafe15173
71982 F20101129_AABCWI dubeux_j_Page_072.jpg
ebab029d05746e048c1e8567a8dd6e07
ce26745825b25ea5ba606d09ba6b8d9b8d2581e5
70622 F20101129_AABCVU dubeux_j_Page_037.jpg
fb63f0a9c009af655a192485efb15882
9c3eb7eac00b6f5ca1a830af75b8abf90968c449
F20101129_AABDCE dubeux_j_Page_042.tif
7e07d72587f13268ef2b40b2880501b3
f1c2199687a3d22ffe0b8ea4801add092d135d78
F20101129_AABDBP dubeux_j_Page_004.tif
d2ade5dd70c1c31099dc90756696ae3a
fd9275998914a3af9fde29fc0730b72147b2467c
53391 F20101129_AABCWJ dubeux_j_Page_073.jpg
365e1dbc07a54e1ad67eed213e3b70f7
38e99c9f987717e41065566ec3389dc0b8ed38a7
74366 F20101129_AABCVV dubeux_j_Page_038.jpg
324dcedff849019a010a3931911225c4
b1214c0d557d5f259054a7e767622634829e09e1
F20101129_AABDCF dubeux_j_Page_044.tif
d780366be67cb401702e996a44faf886
447606d6188ad4baca52ed4739157158c2b52235
F20101129_AABDBQ dubeux_j_Page_005.tif
40a99ff98313b183a36b1772050f64c5
fabe6f2190debeb680803603c2935aad03755650
59905 F20101129_AABCWK dubeux_j_Page_074.jpg
7cd81539017779d91379efed2a7a3285
58f2783aeae4723cd7478c221ae3b365c572158f
73243 F20101129_AABCVW dubeux_j_Page_039.jpg
98f058f3956fa0bd7bdfc466b2ec6890
162ff79424c8552dc148db3d1c4b8cf28b53e9a2
F20101129_AABDCG dubeux_j_Page_046.tif
a6e10a20706d7f8e3c873ea781f02d13
7efd4f9e087815ef0b6b5059ea2447346529cca5
73646 F20101129_AABCXA dubeux_j_Page_133.jpg
47173871e117f3ad4f4491b9b062d3f8
b7112672e8d196bafd1077dfcbdfcc3ac60e1391
F20101129_AABDBR dubeux_j_Page_009.tif
0db2b51e53f7e1a5db05ccc580423f64
0a7dbe5585ab2253a792ce86c6585b44227f7a0c
57524 F20101129_AABCWL dubeux_j_Page_075.jpg
ca05bea38b25e991674b2efd1b79e104
8f53b6a1c01d5984617c21dfb01693974c13170c
72318 F20101129_AABCVX dubeux_j_Page_044.jpg
8f8c7fe203447b5d4a8634f4aac165da
a564ae7e5147d24cd6b37c9eb952974f387863d5
F20101129_AABDCH dubeux_j_Page_050.tif
33f9d6187c7dcab18259d61ad949fdfe
b8ac46d54998fb33c094f5e3fe3d4ba88bc6472b
F20101129_AABDBS dubeux_j_Page_011.tif
bb7c9e115042a901c35081e9594a2676
7b02ea93343b4c01ad440dbd6c642ca644dcae95
67117 F20101129_AABCWM dubeux_j_Page_080.jpg
e3a8f7c5384eb105694fa521eb636a4c
e482ce7c4cdaf5ec6d0070e27a83bf78cc39ca95
65478 F20101129_AABCVY dubeux_j_Page_045.jpg
10e7acf551d1b0ffda3e6d46dbc6303c
a5b92a46a53ec91c9f88c817d18a2f69214f6fb2
F20101129_AABDCI dubeux_j_Page_052.tif
1abf831990d3d4725181140bc5d20f96
4c527b66ca85ebeea499e292a27f073349111386
43575 F20101129_AABCXB dubeux_j_Page_134.jpg
a8fb98ae1a62524bf75d78258d8f3410
5840f09529ac040175cdca8bbb8e00dec5b501fb
F20101129_AABDBT dubeux_j_Page_013.tif
78a3ad6ad18d0db184d79308ce7f4d4e
0f1bacad52a4cc9fea45cebb9d3271c7854abaf0
71865 F20101129_AABCWN dubeux_j_Page_081.jpg
5d0535278d055a3f840fc115560823bf
24367fc721ba6af72975aab91c79e5a29cac44fd
62997 F20101129_AABCVZ dubeux_j_Page_050.jpg
945d416d59739c87d67b2625f5ba1777
cf30c4e89715683493f47306f7c2a2e417b8bf5c
F20101129_AABDCJ dubeux_j_Page_053.tif
4ada8961817f6a40a12e05d8e4d5590f
f8b78bdae2b266160ff0a623cb78c3b3aafc545c
66626 F20101129_AABCXC dubeux_j_Page_136.jpg
44e09923c3bf87fea7bdbb079a8bf069
5bb0545076449701dc3f259b4633d025558d9a2b
F20101129_AABDBU dubeux_j_Page_014.tif
0a84c19a71b8f1b17cef8e36e2a3acb3
3c7976d18df80930374a9e0320004d8a7ee85dda
36039 F20101129_AABCWO dubeux_j_Page_087.jpg
29b40ea39c07a5594f67625d86ef6031
41987f1fd0581a5d204d68fdd39e09855bccdb9b
F20101129_AABDCK dubeux_j_Page_055.tif
f68e65a70af5ecca361907b8e80d1ca7
e4b3e15ab94dd5c6638a827d052dcf824456f7b9
68274 F20101129_AABCXD dubeux_j_Page_139.jpg
35ab7828289fa89d701888d62b16033a
34dd61da6136c0cbe0a2ee066c76a010411dec5f
F20101129_AABDBV dubeux_j_Page_018.tif
a9a5c21775c9abfb1d4cbd2ca851c45b
fcd759fb3ff08ef57a65d5654301746ddf69ccaa
77141 F20101129_AABCWP dubeux_j_Page_090.jpg
49fe9cf2e23325d2db8bc21eb96e5d11
2c77b095a9dafcc71955bfe04cbfe78b35162d63
70751 F20101129_AABCXE dubeux_j_Page_140.jpg
4406fbeca4cc78c0ccb567a17abbf833
4a176500f491424fa3af68efe8a49ba35b63a3bd
F20101129_AABDBW dubeux_j_Page_023.tif
0b3b844775f22927ae742255bded5d13
f8a909a11e21aed326bf59b8a8c4e4b3c980392c
72001 F20101129_AABCWQ dubeux_j_Page_091.jpg
961e9449b8d08b07fe1a415d7bf2a815
7b66fd940553af185883cc4a2681ff7162b1a797
F20101129_AABDDA dubeux_j_Page_099.tif
f19c71d943749aa81751a9c06805be77
acad4aa4bc065a2e5b453cedc32a38475b66fbae
F20101129_AABDCL dubeux_j_Page_060.tif
22f70fb002fd58bef814c62f625373c8
bee7819643cca6a56a59642f482283761b66dcf3
65632 F20101129_AABCXF dubeux_j_Page_141.jpg
c9a23612b313b02513d6bdafe78f6b8d
79bb3ed10d5a6e3076afcf945f63b9bfc0fcad0a
F20101129_AABDBX dubeux_j_Page_024.tif
cf8673ff9a66ec4d550358d0cc6941d6
84aff23472b5111e7d0ae599e1a6e45f4482ec27
29402 F20101129_AABCWR dubeux_j_Page_092.jpg
351d8d8d696d535b54a3a9c13f862920
55df9a8b02d4c35e2143b79344fa0d5c2cf76920
F20101129_AABDDB dubeux_j_Page_103.tif
ad903edeab0abbf4b440339ab3ef0d7c
93f0033746b5ace66ba44e9badda8812826c86d6
F20101129_AABDCM dubeux_j_Page_061.tif
78b2d3ae1c2d8eb9d010e4429e621c4e
745cf43f1fdb40e42b8543f74cb6e76afa2c671b
30575 F20101129_AABCXG dubeux_j_Page_146.jpg
a9ed5366b8dbcb6acfb72adcc0824f86
3d4c568d8d19aa75d97cdd6aeb0034bc41c3ecff
F20101129_AABDBY dubeux_j_Page_025.tif
f41adc608feb7cfa0200ea5a6e364f0c
89d73d81fc5ad129aed007dfdd849aaaefa3ccc0
64722 F20101129_AABCWS dubeux_j_Page_093.jpg
c18905f2cbab353a44fe50e60a9adc46
8f9596c1342e9db2f3bb19286374b41e0936d5e2
F20101129_AABDDC dubeux_j_Page_104.tif
415fc33f8bbc3041543106a9c4dd83f4
e4606a161f9081e0a3cfa60a3494f117aa9a3b79
F20101129_AABDCN dubeux_j_Page_062.tif
c8a2aef87c366916a6721c3a8e536dfd
6aa2306cb1abeb0e52970bc865700c5f867509eb
73531 F20101129_AABCXH dubeux_j_Page_147.jpg
ed1ea67d5f0a3472fd9566b0a742e1e2
b4b71f1ed0891ab08e24d79641455f25399e46c9
F20101129_AABDBZ dubeux_j_Page_026.tif
8822b584760fdbc97bd2c667a30be8ab
b3941ee614dc9e030bed3e1ada5a9c3bc0c14fd9
63139 F20101129_AABCWT dubeux_j_Page_097.jpg
867d6e8b9dc3c2e1d29af28450590dfb
cd7133bbf8edd49c9a7df0de2b2eac9e6f10beb8
97193 F20101129_AABCAA dubeux_j_Page_136.jp2
ce4553afebf51328ca6a5eb6e3a3c84a
c2e5ede5f77c6c32a525c401c5b8feff12b3ebbe
F20101129_AABDDD dubeux_j_Page_107.tif
6a52705561f38d4115607bc82386065e
8b61901002adc9b7e0e87adc9d5b220034f1068b
F20101129_AABDCO dubeux_j_Page_064.tif
530868f4ae87204cba67bdd429c47621
f39250dc4d3859bf9b2ff349c5ce3c47d598ad46
60097 F20101129_AABCXI dubeux_j_Page_148.jpg
33b891e95965a24f433c079418c1d0b7
f036fab32408f09652750b2fe5ac62baa4ef4ddb
75510 F20101129_AABCWU dubeux_j_Page_105.jpg
214dfe92274bef03557822ae18bfb95b
62e0477a71ec9fbe51dd55dd45e1fbe0c23b523b
86948 F20101129_AABCAB dubeux_j_Page_204.jp2
581d657e80f3f2f8178d1f1d80b48224
b385df4ff8bfa86456b8d89fb58cb6242f71920f
F20101129_AABDDE dubeux_j_Page_108.tif
3ead5c25f2f16bf1ef8408f35ba6a16c
c3d1d77cd088d7d7178920dfdf420efab8e6f40b
F20101129_AABDCP dubeux_j_Page_065.tif
04ee14a6055c46df69a5cc956461e84a
231c67fa5d652109e6b0bb773258bac0ec4feb58
61760 F20101129_AABCXJ dubeux_j_Page_152.jpg
a87862cb272f3721fa983cdd34c3d975
850d84194e10478bc4921d30c07571401326069b
89148 F20101129_AABCWV dubeux_j_Page_109.jpg
c67a3c8118f0e1b428981dd457c9ac45
f9dd9939fec30a78707865f0ff1d0b5359ea0017
69158 F20101129_AABCAC dubeux_j_Page_041.jpg
29a6e451991e30ff2c0aa532d2aa0dfe
6d5ada6040199691a03038f8f2f039d6afc8f8d7
F20101129_AABDDF dubeux_j_Page_110.tif
d7c096470405527528fe3579676cd0b8
81beaedeb7c742f80ecb5cff428a2cff61561fbb
F20101129_AABDCQ dubeux_j_Page_070.tif
59a2df640bf783e06cc3491d2429e70d
674ef0ac9714203ad7b695e188fd6bf6b8cdd431
69526 F20101129_AABCXK dubeux_j_Page_159.jpg
1abb20f5b58e30d9b9a66174c5eec493
2c0beadd66c2f70170b5fed1f1c253b73de73178
70199 F20101129_AABCWW dubeux_j_Page_110.jpg
fec9e04e8a6cd02f6613d66b13d8d367
97aec4a6d0eccc43483e1597d6a806643d159fca
61227 F20101129_AABCAD dubeux_j_Page_153.jpg
b40b4f45a74ccbf0eee72feef5129468
1a5482bd40efd29cb0a36d603b0555f834d2376d
F20101129_AABDDG dubeux_j_Page_117.tif
c40bfa5b759dd3b5ea89bb2e38522d5a
cc17fb77c05a2853d6912c9e874e1d19489b662d
F20101129_AABDCR dubeux_j_Page_072.tif
c02a6ca22fa9ddb40233ba55413f0188
e422e5815abab8599109f25e37c034341366e286
74511 F20101129_AABCXL dubeux_j_Page_161.jpg
8f8151f0c8f8310b9635c62cc19f277c
2fbfeaa6cfccb62d45125141217414e155791018
72907 F20101129_AABCWX dubeux_j_Page_115.jpg
f42ae3e557aa276b684ffb505d63e759
7071385661383ed1eeefe160bde240fff106218a
107241 F20101129_AABCAE dubeux_j_Page_021.jp2
400adcf14ff12172f10def5bb071532c
3888fecccf66b9ba5179733a351211781b399196
92544 F20101129_AABCYA dubeux_j_Page_190.jpg
54ff88e18e762394a3e475c79ee21ff0
61b3fd01bbfb45e6f0fcef0a464197dbd01f65d0
F20101129_AABDDH dubeux_j_Page_119.tif
c2d1dd8a277736dfbba71800c0f5d8b1
6e8a27548390fcca0d97baabf94ffe573414b7ba
F20101129_AABDCS dubeux_j_Page_080.tif
ca33935ee41656d04ea9fb7abe8b68b6
eb44a5c3cc16b6d60015d3a976dbca7eb06d1f72
71842 F20101129_AABCXM dubeux_j_Page_162.jpg
544315a69bcbd5ec19f660f58756b5f9
d2281cbafefce3b02f5f642ce28c6d43362d690b
76162 F20101129_AABCWY dubeux_j_Page_123.jpg
1b2f78eb140ff7cdb513d054c95ba543
addf4041a575247ed72c0df68ac84b4172141c05
6146 F20101129_AABCAF dubeux_j_Page_171thm.jpg
9ff3d1c68decad337be1505b3ce53ffc
47ac2169b6df3cdda79d8b3e0697d00178e23148
86033 F20101129_AABCYB dubeux_j_Page_191.jpg
73981af81441f6a9ffa8967c57090722
f655f95609f867ad658b43a31b1d92b764dbed01
F20101129_AABDDI dubeux_j_Page_120.tif
541924c55f2a889570b9cee0355fca15
9d01a9558f7a09241747474c4370a42ea6f005a8
F20101129_AABDCT dubeux_j_Page_081.tif
53aefa6be286bf6e88224641ab2b2199
e7f188c054ddd3e2633300fd09ebaf67b161ba63
65183 F20101129_AABCXN dubeux_j_Page_164.jpg
7f567f9d8dbe8be8deaa134ae24e11ca
842d5a49be7babfb1257606acf172b76364ec355
66945 F20101129_AABCWZ dubeux_j_Page_130.jpg
70d7b3f29c39b3afbbf1637ad2254456
38bb9b1a9344c6d689896dcb74449489bd2b018a
22830 F20101129_AABCAG dubeux_j_Page_159.QC.jpg
b7b06c13cd270c36aaeb797b5e292a52
645ece3870920fc915d392b6ef038437e6cfa82f
F20101129_AABDDJ dubeux_j_Page_121.tif
4882479158e8b49eb4b6c4181728b10b
667797cb05d5682b718f2da464d3f18985b6d839
F20101129_AABDCU dubeux_j_Page_083.tif
599b6f53375f5ede68406ad350b47e3d
345f686a2f73c24c87d945eb8b7503862675276a
69056 F20101129_AABCXO dubeux_j_Page_167.jpg
2f049432812101c0dc1e9e77c2755907
e6a60e7ab0c32f5606741f5c5b05a2811db77b38
134284 F20101129_AABCAH dubeux_j_Page_198.jp2
b3c558c70e032cdbe9edfd4ef382efc5
6c066e307c5b579b9dbe757cfebbce5021d043fb
87073 F20101129_AABCYC dubeux_j_Page_193.jpg
bffd9538d1ba616cbcdf3941250a56c1
4dce6fe331295ea0f1f8ba57e3369a229dbf45af
F20101129_AABDDK dubeux_j_Page_124.tif
7987bc2cb2281ed68e9bfdfa6ed5b3b2
d9d03fe361117bb4f2a13dd36d6b35cded1c24d0
F20101129_AABDCV dubeux_j_Page_085.tif
4364685686af7b9862a431553ef5323d
04d5aaa219207b5cfd00275dbdb289e807c3ed4f
71665 F20101129_AABCXP dubeux_j_Page_168.jpg
d68af3643faff28111e88685568c9674
d82c05316d4c7ed2a773da4b4b95d1859994bec8
67369 F20101129_AABCAI dubeux_j_Page_095.jpg
aaf8c914b242bafc9e63682ea833e73f
d3e288d272630054f445be2153121dc437a25c92
88419 F20101129_AABCYD dubeux_j_Page_196.jpg
64381fff57503900f47b2ef1324ebda0
d95121f240d88d5a1898e58676abd7084fa7979a
F20101129_AABDDL dubeux_j_Page_126.tif
78eb485a5de9b91eaf82637dee230096
34dfcf83e66889eb53192d72359b5567644fdd1e
F20101129_AABDCW dubeux_j_Page_094.tif
4bb5752bc979c4a03ae46cb48c0ed37e
5b81a4f3d0fcb3f7a50e04def9470195469bf437
71029 F20101129_AABCXQ dubeux_j_Page_169.jpg
ec6bf34a1dde3e13f7598c0823aa39de
298d3e052cc8f92e4a452a27cc586dcd6ebcb810
46856 F20101129_AABCAJ dubeux_j_Page_019.jpg
d9f31a677b4a442dce2aefe557ca0f70
83bbf4dae141981a601d8aa2390e5aee5ab75b5b
90022 F20101129_AABCYE dubeux_j_Page_199.jpg
afb4e6febb79baf9422e81836b540b98
70f9b45bdef9897d18cb384c6c36f0cd85bd11e6
F20101129_AABDEA dubeux_j_Page_158.tif
6ccb64a8c329d2b94ef528d4268eb0ec
84117ee0927ae54c2c8a21627d78224fcaea737d
F20101129_AABDCX dubeux_j_Page_095.tif
da4abc1a19bd42e0ea4c6c30fbdd8ab5
0a2242011bc415556020a94005c391d550852ce0
51081 F20101129_AABCXR dubeux_j_Page_174.jpg
6dc0db0849aa7c0f7b491c732872c857
bc691789da5fe0a27fd88b4f36ca62ddc32847f2
6600 F20101129_AABCYF dubeux_j_Page_003.jp2
c4762e1e4c202b038a7a14c2790ba60b
d3cea533d00ca2a0001d1743cc5439ce87e83315
F20101129_AABDEB dubeux_j_Page_159.tif
ebdea2236794b0bb37cd8901b7054ed0
1524b578318949e94531935302e81c6ffd768c78
F20101129_AABDDM dubeux_j_Page_127.tif
8d51f76f1ebfc8ce8dfe06b84db795b9
a8ee4ce8f380a9c684c55067eed4a92d7280e76f
F20101129_AABDCY dubeux_j_Page_096.tif
a9c3e7738d56ce0d6ef27100ee2241f8
a005514e3e308b0102dc366aee724caf263ce328
45893 F20101129_AABCXS dubeux_j_Page_175.jpg
19bc694995a83ead80c12ebc6a861622
2a7b14505aa64359923c9a8033a2f14d440b3f85
F20101129_AABCAK dubeux_j_Page_002.tif
f2884c01c4dcc85062f0d2da65055114
e7f6e5d8445f47a168d26b6d930ea740210032dc
87775 F20101129_AABCYG dubeux_j_Page_004.jp2
c2ddb136b5e43503727d0dcce06df42b
062380feba03044699576550047fd0b5c9b35fc3
F20101129_AABDEC dubeux_j_Page_161.tif
c4f22f602c62e41daee0aacae366cb58
6f296a92de8b7aa6c3772afd0e4516a35a2a2d01
F20101129_AABDDN dubeux_j_Page_128.tif
6bd2ab75c7d2913012860ad22d643842
fcc60d9ffb288543e47b8829fdbc4f40a5a26e1b
F20101129_AABDCZ dubeux_j_Page_097.tif
d629fdd7363446ee653eb3fc57f9ecac
dab6985ed2a05584ef6c84755108780dc7c2aecf
68079 F20101129_AABCXT dubeux_j_Page_176.jpg
1f5147759a853ae210bda3db541fe2fc
3a03e2d4a8896669f729c97ed605f143b5114655
23556 F20101129_AABCBA dubeux_j_Page_081.QC.jpg
2c4b045e125f37df2ff6b402584750ff
bcac66d676d427ff5c7334a637e4c48427fcf1c1
4949 F20101129_AABCAL dubeux_j_Page_174thm.jpg
6b7707acaa33a73ed9191bdf38b9fc8c
26b2d95e2d67ccebd1671c7239e4d26bfd57e3a2
39380 F20101129_AABCYH dubeux_j_Page_006.jp2
9c4e8265ab87856097740200ccaaca0d
a0bce6fdebda5f8dd43122edb56d4f6231b78df6
F20101129_AABDED dubeux_j_Page_163.tif
5691991a2486347cf107c1ef47a94e29
880f7c164d15a3094f9c402a6d31b2288247125c
F20101129_AABDDO dubeux_j_Page_130.tif
1498f292b73e928375cf041e56df33a1
945e02a4541ed56282dc510ccf91748f84ca50e9
71327 F20101129_AABCXU dubeux_j_Page_178.jpg
544af2af754b9d5f70fa87a2a317f0ee
08df88a39651beb91d3764659d3be8b8db7320bc
F20101129_AABCBB dubeux_j_Page_086.tif
5c14ea289c8533ac9452cdfafcf36762
0921b630a96732032e052e720ee395bd27355f78
5897 F20101129_AABCAM dubeux_j_Page_129thm.jpg
7f4c190a6fede64b6b3d8351fad5faf4
9c299a16258658d8e1cfacb5a4b9541d54231c06
1051981 F20101129_AABCYI dubeux_j_Page_007.jp2
31862bb81c2bc4edd3dc60e5415690c4
79d354d32f574491278514a7948b2bc651eecca1
F20101129_AABDEE dubeux_j_Page_164.tif
36169043c512ba4c660f604ae3d5eb00
4511a0ef61dcd165925ea8d9f2f8a076dee66570
F20101129_AABDDP dubeux_j_Page_131.tif
7931d4f4212178f47d86ee98411b4e08
75bae0c3d4a23854cb43d43abd33eac5997d2817
69577 F20101129_AABCXV dubeux_j_Page_180.jpg
605d675e7f848f56ff89e2ec96cb415f
b5f11b44a1842767268cb0eff75d71a33867288f
F20101129_AABCBC dubeux_j_Page_173.tif
10c9a8ac9272c4d1bbc02836131eff0a
5c355ae0389f177d9853a5e946334090c10c232b
104142 F20101129_AABCAN dubeux_j_Page_168.jp2
c4d5c78e291239c93d7614b1feec272a
213563e59e947e0e5f6207f960a332bb3318f520
F20101129_AABCYJ dubeux_j_Page_009.jp2
f23c9aabf0b363d928101cdfc5c1c337
ca4f40e2481d321e9bcec6d571250755d7a1aae8
F20101129_AABDEF dubeux_j_Page_166.tif
21344f16338b79e4e2e11f6a9bbb266c
b0a2b00e2e77bd9643f2818ea3629a1554539360
F20101129_AABDDQ dubeux_j_Page_136.tif
ced5874d56a3499259b4869bc5573cf2
48f8ff6494b1f8f41847729df066dfe011023c97
68549 F20101129_AABCXW dubeux_j_Page_182.jpg
a9d922faa8700146dbfe8d0222380024
7f51f610971ed7887f54e63b19b2a4cece60420c
17789 F20101129_AABCBD dubeux_j_Page_100.QC.jpg
18f23368666eda5bbe8f5ac78ba68258
90d499464185516ff4a967b829f8d52a51508e50
82048 F20101129_AABCAO dubeux_j_Page_085.jpg
84cd6f520c5a73436b12c8870c009fa3
21e0f3c1363b7649e008d8205101f32ce538d36a
1051980 F20101129_AABCYK dubeux_j_Page_011.jp2
18a92c045f95553ce5b7a26774a90416
679c943e525c1a033f3c716ba094e697d701911b
F20101129_AABDEG dubeux_j_Page_168.tif
8f5efd56f67dd9cccfeeda90bebdd517
64942dba69d644b4a347b56e2647fedd082779b8
F20101129_AABDDR dubeux_j_Page_138.tif
5d179d81ca4975578b9880ab45d8101b
730179ab77d558bcd20452868dbca203b97cd7f2
70629 F20101129_AABCXX dubeux_j_Page_183.jpg
976672e46b3c0a516d4dd0ec79f60626
99aed2483e6b6c89968c01812f849bdd1b78c0d5
26467 F20101129_AABCBE dubeux_j_Page_109.QC.jpg
2e13846f7d0c0c8d45e527bb4f406ce0
733bdbea8051c5c22b85c4ee5f36a05324892a19
42919 F20101129_AABCAP dubeux_j_Page_203.jpg
20c63685a86856fc71dfed175258cf06
effd83ec37b988663243a1f00916d1c49fc5212a
76805 F20101129_AABCZA dubeux_j_Page_055.jp2
562a5215855e06b8ac90e7abbd65b4b6
356072a18284e76dc2dba571ddf50a05683e43c8
1051948 F20101129_AABCYL dubeux_j_Page_012.jp2
a4a2f4d960dc1e86d77b8696415d40ec
9bf1d87d600d5c7f5aa23cc6380a614429636160
F20101129_AABDEH dubeux_j_Page_169.tif
996571cd47f0e62769cf868d56bafc2e
0b766d73285b66a7189c19553ce9321594b3cac7
F20101129_AABDDS dubeux_j_Page_141.tif
88f5373d6acdbd9f3eb4f105ed6fcc84
942a15e6db4a02d93b89803b3f8e2873d6331ade
29747 F20101129_AABCXY dubeux_j_Page_186.jpg
376068f730d14e1fe9d1063322f94001
8f5e24d96771b0f57382587b9c22e79338f8b841
6347 F20101129_AABCBF dubeux_j_Page_091thm.jpg
37c5f4e9852e9118ad75c084d65864a1
4192ccddea2b140e31a223440ad87b7660357217
20590 F20101129_AABCAQ dubeux_j_Page_097.QC.jpg
8522266fae8fa8ee3654709ac31d7e29
586a9bd5be003ab62611f58b8185f40e8d050bc7
99175 F20101129_AABCZB dubeux_j_Page_059.jp2
b9658407faeb52d94bdf58aed6bf2978
978490b6cc8349aedbf56884e08747844e7bb7a0
1051958 F20101129_AABCYM dubeux_j_Page_014.jp2
d2d36d2dd27e4283a1b61d87665e6184
3a0e98b27de07959fc448f7ff2c560a7537365cc
F20101129_AABDEI dubeux_j_Page_176.tif
af69dada84bc2e2ead2d591a6aa2304d
8e74ad4307f267781347bb4baa8aa5e3c303c38f
F20101129_AABDDT dubeux_j_Page_142.tif
08c6595cf92593a31b7903b26347c9a2
0123d2400233f8a253486ec4576e588dbf6d8949
89729 F20101129_AABCXZ dubeux_j_Page_189.jpg
c7077eacca4fbaf95adfb16c56db8176
bfa60225bd9493b6fbc471e92c155f8477dc7e7f
F20101129_AABCBG dubeux_j_Page_203.tif
e4daa91a45a74c82299265c7b8ef2227
edd7003945c772e0807a0e99f9cb416ad362b266
65523 F20101129_AABCAR dubeux_j_Page_076.jpg
a7b7308d34e3fa8b959872baed2cd42d
5d621361a7cebd5365ad1c813c241c7791bb479c
104947 F20101129_AABCZC dubeux_j_Page_062.jp2
75d080f54457e7384bcf51ef2f344399
5acd02acbfc838a7728a564e047cb05df4576ef6
94146 F20101129_AABCYN dubeux_j_Page_020.jp2
7c03e6b30361110af3c71b7394e6a9b4
930566e0195a3e07af9560228f36f471c6cb9bfd
F20101129_AABDEJ dubeux_j_Page_178.tif
0a639fa9eb63e827446271671a8aae8f
5b3c39927a59b484eae3e5424f6eed4c92ce95ba
F20101129_AABDDU dubeux_j_Page_143.tif
13cd3c69f9fd52c33252646ee2871278
cb3e3d6622111c78ecdbf69811b70fccb67dbfcd
59996 F20101129_AABCBH dubeux_j_Page_203.jp2
7c8e93df792ba4967a872dec61f24f04
618e44bd45327202ef914a9f020b8e5770401eb3
F20101129_AABCAS dubeux_j_Page_106.tif
a2dce5a02f01ebc645544454830648ac
7c792c334843d0400cb878d136efa6dfe16f58f5
108828 F20101129_AABCYO dubeux_j_Page_027.jp2
92f3e1494141cd5d8ae2efba5f1592a0
dc47d4d2fe7ad1ac1248c554c11682e811a0bb31
F20101129_AABDEK dubeux_j_Page_180.tif
f2c0ca00a10224d3367d0d55bbada644
f89dabcac4856e96ec44853a83e7f2d006b43cbb
F20101129_AABDDV dubeux_j_Page_145.tif
935959465a0b7ef744a12e8adfdeeecd
71998b9988fad0ec7d75ac206b2ca6832f2e64b4
23293 F20101129_AABCBI dubeux_j_Page_178.QC.jpg
646ac641cc654e10827474af77b7562a
fb6678d89ec33ad14b0c717d0470451e428f8d8e
5160 F20101129_AABCAT dubeux_j_Page_119thm.jpg
2e153d7aa7a7d8b6501248f193b69c2e
fa057d6b3d5dd6fe609da7fc3d01a38367bb598d
593597 F20101129_AABCZD dubeux_j_Page_063.jp2
044e9bb71c6e46cbff3f9e09dc6235ae
05d1ec440694c6ca391122331679585f33f6b257
107538 F20101129_AABCYP dubeux_j_Page_028.jp2
a98f92bd8f866a9532f88b662c9b277a
a45273c1290e4467fd6defa049fdf16a18132c85
F20101129_AABDEL dubeux_j_Page_185.tif
a20fd6bdc93f2c2b269ca3b42caced7b
2c57729b7f93cd3a3447b1da01911736f5387a8d
F20101129_AABDDW dubeux_j_Page_146.tif
7939b1e30dce1922fea39e7f6c9430f3
117feb3b22e4bf765d466d4879075770a44446eb
50448 F20101129_AABCBJ dubeux_j_Page_099.jpg
4d419090ec28226bcd3a29f3c6e7e0cc
4c0f460929db49773f461ef0aecbcd6f06ddb6b0
F20101129_AABCAU dubeux_j_Page_112.tif
0ab05fb94c7cfdb6ab9f406693f0711b
d621bbc13006cd00acc5b0c551e0a2dd599287fa
107232 F20101129_AABCZE dubeux_j_Page_066.jp2
a7311f18f2f826aef3fcd7c65aed9ed9
c132d6414d77587f96f0fbc33595e328df6c060c
112333 F20101129_AABCYQ dubeux_j_Page_029.jp2
97c1376b5506329c77e0991ee17ba305
8147bf0e28852ca75e38d5d3bea68b082e03c46e
28447 F20101129_AABDFA dubeux_j_Page_013.QC.jpg
e2352a84c165c68a3d948b0e7b9ebd3c
1e8c009dc61bb09ef10a86fbca52cd09726d7898
F20101129_AABDEM dubeux_j_Page_186.tif
df5200f54afbf01dedcae8d34183b343
b6ec16d6d9d6c045167d2099a4be4e3eacd5a576
F20101129_AABDDX dubeux_j_Page_148.tif
b8679cf645dc36e830ea88bfe84c974c
4bdb30a164227f8f1f6c2aaf8b3f1e6a0fd6f3e7
93130 F20101129_AABCBK dubeux_j_Page_129.jp2
443075b1be35cd40415b2ff7827d9b16
c7bbdb51fccfffe3479d37f02e62e7ce7f1e19b2
59303 F20101129_AABCAV dubeux_j_Page_070.jpg
c43b6e7ac7e92e3f9e622da9b01bd6b8
b716d618c8c6f52eb1f7d17794d135d087efdee9
94988 F20101129_AABCZF dubeux_j_Page_067.jp2
94cc19fcf1ff81da56bc9d711f9bb8a3
55f69a5f53b02247e6899dac020dc5c489fc6574
104890 F20101129_AABCYR dubeux_j_Page_032.jp2
24ec31a10acfc518c377650cb2cacc4e
f079bc4a80f8f00c3049831c1362a24c576568cc
6350 F20101129_AABDFB dubeux_j_Page_015thm.jpg
e02b9be763dc0368760df0ada27c835d
eda679d9d21a42ff037cdfac71c691b4f384c23a
F20101129_AABDDY dubeux_j_Page_153.tif
bd23fa8ee4f189c20bed7147891ce936
ca34110c1bc4c8690a65c0beb164087baf520b39
5712 F20101129_AABCAW dubeux_j_Page_106thm.jpg
fdc61747b645be0bc39a6a10d0a8e175
c438387848ac65abe29ec85762eb90c5e4c0fe48
84793 F20101129_AABCZG dubeux_j_Page_070.jp2
95b482d6e2f69ed481e014447e6f8929
4ed170c341f9a237700f3c74d0f19cc25215e283
108336 F20101129_AABCYS dubeux_j_Page_034.jp2
03b2d68d500cd3d174865882037a7753
916efc6d7f54f05e81ece24641f746fd73ad8053
15380 F20101129_AABDFC dubeux_j_Page_019.QC.jpg
fded9a8d54b40fb057152d128fe2cb20
23a941ada1853f70bf5c12c1f98a2fa32d1472ba
F20101129_AABDEN dubeux_j_Page_191.tif
132378b7d8ba9be56a64ff85352ef221
1fe600bfb26d310cb369047838c35379ecdd46ed
F20101129_AABDDZ dubeux_j_Page_157.tif
a722187bea3362584c858df4a1cfffb6
bf45ea2f5d607c50c6e9e9292425b635b947db5e
74624 F20101129_AABCBL dubeux_j_Page_029.jpg
07fcac58177c2ba2d11d3e431290223d
73d69f714389966384d12ce11b286aceb12c9ab8
100206 F20101129_AABCAX dubeux_j_Page_158.jp2
f691aa2b2dc8cc3025389434f403c39e
2a4ac7a1d0717d82381d8f3f8d123a3d1ff9c545
95908 F20101129_AABCZH dubeux_j_Page_076.jp2
b275bb367a6635c963eb19eed1216180
112f43096bf6abe138bd596f8ba8ec91ed277e07
102777 F20101129_AABCYT dubeux_j_Page_036.jp2
8bca228b1ff106d3915c0dac17836fbf
f8d656725b406ef2699e4b31a0c5b98279e56c01
134474 F20101129_AABCCA dubeux_j_Page_199.jp2
1381373171a7fd04c9ed38a47bea133d
f92613333fcb5392650bd2f69fa7f5c94e0eb5b7
20382 F20101129_AABDFD dubeux_j_Page_020.QC.jpg
ca23812ace38560683c4ab70419b1306
095393a0aa69db6bf661ee5f14b8c0f54b1788c6
F20101129_AABDEO dubeux_j_Page_194.tif
730a23efbf64ca8e41612598230651b3
70b48beb0a1ae68eb036b16536aba93091d94f6b
F20101129_AABCBM dubeux_j_Page_091.tif
bb7908925610eb6b34225c15a5174841
a59cc56d6d07e3d8dbb00b7e925addfc96da64eb
9756 F20101129_AABCAY dubeux_j_Page_146.QC.jpg
05ea3bcf388980c2420b7bf3e2346ed5
d21a075161ea2408d09ec2e1b9289107ada6a14f
99798 F20101129_AABCZI dubeux_j_Page_077.jp2
1dab773bec8dac80c436d7e0c1228e1f
a4c377c4a03f17f0e5d43e02130db853ddb8912e
107744 F20101129_AABCYU dubeux_j_Page_037.jp2
016077cd22110d8db5881e1f588a5e25
73a4297ddb44b504cb197e4deecf2838aef679c3
F20101129_AABCCB dubeux_j_Page_088.tif
48902498aca173a25dc6cb881f31d4c4
fe40047938c7879939b1d0192746c9d6612cdfc8
5910 F20101129_AABDFE dubeux_j_Page_020thm.jpg
a8abebfe4a8626f945865939961ac9de
46af06d27836483b9698052cdb910974ce989bb2
F20101129_AABDEP dubeux_j_Page_201.tif
a90030e67895ef60c7f91e9dfeac2eae
654e574c94e6d23cd048518a9fd2ab7de87d03f3
F20101129_AABCBN dubeux_j_Page_151.tif
27e0e7bdaa17c5f737567c47d1c46cc0
204b05729c5ec5b62dc3f493bfc653e68d0c5320
6416 F20101129_AABCAZ dubeux_j_Page_072thm.jpg
b0507d54eeb9e998fe3cab891dd88d7a
b39cd83bf5d0ebd57367059876aff19cb1b57717
96345 F20101129_AABCZJ dubeux_j_Page_079.jp2
0125f3f643e329d3175fc03e1496761b
2374ff19738ebb9634a108b34bfbc9ba46caa5c8
107714 F20101129_AABCYV dubeux_j_Page_042.jp2
79b50748e38be6df37644b9e3b89ecaf
536e636c47c65d56118d09e15bc26c0da0bf9ccb
90621 F20101129_AABCCC dubeux_j_Page_101.jp2
f5c19975b72faa3c32a4605dec280bf4
885485170e5b17882d73ca9d16a767fadebb625a
23712 F20101129_AABDFF dubeux_j_Page_022.QC.jpg
3f7b0ee17e64115b8562dad25190c4a9
8aa78167ceeb95c3bab6e03edd4d283a1c902c69
F20101129_AABDEQ dubeux_j_Page_202.tif
1de5887b1839fde7814d8629e7e4bf56
373521dcd651c100a2facf4c8234c99aa532fcb4
5811 F20101129_AABCBO dubeux_j_Page_050thm.jpg
93d5bd63d2be2a0a06b2f75d38cdc4bb
8d2a07c3e0e134c9695ab22ae04ed6f5f4049b96
84900 F20101129_AABCZK dubeux_j_Page_083.jp2
c3a1a0ae3df1fffb111b6726dceac429
edf776054c8c69f10ec28d914843bb446ad4f072
101556 F20101129_AABCYW dubeux_j_Page_045.jp2
5518eac4c5ae4edc0f4ffecc3f320be9
bb77de8645571cb9822ec954139b0456b7101e8d
6098 F20101129_AABCCD dubeux_j_Page_069thm.jpg
ca5dc695cf8b8e0fbd1bcaf68ebf0447
972a98603a93056e686c88ea81412ffe13d95c7e
6522 F20101129_AABDFG dubeux_j_Page_022thm.jpg
ae650708a46e7b5c7c6ce18bb2374857
9816968fbae7fd743f01698e51a0fceeb0fce8e2
F20101129_AABDER dubeux_j_Page_204.tif
0f473ad3179851861b17302a991faafb
8086392be5d9bceee6633bf3d40d25398d8d7e2c
87609 F20101129_AABCBP dubeux_j_Page_192.jpg
e0e691c8f9f1ad592250749280611537
516d21782d57543aa8cb0521e279e007fe0e7676
117863 F20101129_AABCZL dubeux_j_Page_085.jp2
599dce1f42b45d95b298f4471fa9b0d6
ffa3c1449701791098af2c07b7e040a4c8ae5d96
105885 F20101129_AABCYX dubeux_j_Page_047.jp2
ea4c15ff2acd354bc42e706897da6e4f
6505b99bb132545b0519ba3c65fc943d57596367
18741 F20101129_AABCCE dubeux_j_Page_014.QC.jpg
3eb2d327ae7bba4912569799f34b40c4
e80fc8573bfcdab1480f349ec69e65035f2d1aac
6519 F20101129_AABDFH dubeux_j_Page_026thm.jpg
6910cf7b18daeefd6ea2e4cdbb59bbb6
f21dc1a62be49a5dcf9e103d52b5ebdc5e09eee8
711490 F20101129_AABDES dubeux_j.pdf
fbbb5c5acc48bfefe05069f8b898996e
bd58d7b8480f656cc3037a247e66c9bf26b744a4
62208 F20101129_AABCBQ dubeux_j_Page_101.jpg
729c9110993d439de58b2ad755125d99
c41b2e2a777c2697781cdcf4efd659c63a1c0cc0
112432 F20101129_AABCZM dubeux_j_Page_088.jp2
dec25a6b6216af9382bc7635d5ac20ab
66198ce75425afc971cd4513d47b0969e9c9f525
65420 F20101129_AABCYY dubeux_j_Page_049.jp2
473e5d56e1d5c2d1b4fdee7c54d7f6d6
3ad41453923bc5c5b2f4aad65e93744f6970bd4b
23586 F20101129_AABCCF dubeux_j_Page_072.QC.jpg
f1db3d77fd08dda3b98a33f7696dc874
35ab3bb569d681e7cb35353f204d5ebd9a133c36
6500 F20101129_AABDFI dubeux_j_Page_027thm.jpg
59ed917afafd346ec0036c0ce4e71a6b
1c28be9d121d304e0eb051cd79037c450c4a0b39
6300 F20101129_AABDET dubeux_j_Page_005thm.jpg
c5a258282b0c7cb2c032b371f6cdddcf
c3eafe878ddf83ebe4e5ede31a1ae40536fd12c5
F20101129_AABCBR dubeux_j_Page_003.tif
eb244e9bf4486c5b437366d8b6e16d84
8bcaaa83a23706aa9fbe9df39456ffa40a4caf80
122226 F20101129_AABCZN dubeux_j_Page_089.jp2
ff88a65345c39ec8b61099d4f71ba8b6
eb61d8b6e6b2e5bc7c213721c207762390903f53
93387 F20101129_AABCYZ dubeux_j_Page_050.jp2
8462f763c7e2b040309d750c4d4a3c3c
76e2dacb7214e6813f97cf7e88c35a25714cc4fd
21613 F20101129_AABCCG dubeux_j_Page_094.QC.jpg
97e14904a5eb090a28ae2dd694f86279
091ba57195a91c66b7463bcab556a0e47e63bc0e
24783 F20101129_AABDFJ dubeux_j_Page_029.QC.jpg
7b6ed72b1ce83c627f4efd27037e5fd2
57bb73ea39055c92fbce2ab64f40fce38aa88eeb
3168 F20101129_AABDEU dubeux_j_Page_006thm.jpg
f749b296e69557a81300f2e8e77df136
61730a5f1a95d891ca493e444fdea09c5f9b09b3
F20101129_AABCBS dubeux_j_Page_123.tif
775f373bb086ad96ea78a962965dde2c
20e57bd5688059cd75b6c4f70a895be68e39d38f
39936 F20101129_AABCZO dubeux_j_Page_092.jp2
900538b759e2e42cc3ec481049b315bd
016b7802e790b4b14581edce463bd89f8cbb072a
F20101129_AABCCH dubeux_j_Page_114.tif
896a613fdf2b0a64f44b48a063d01089
3145d7bba727e7683e35acf423991c21bfa93e54
6781 F20101129_AABDFK dubeux_j_Page_029thm.jpg
a681e9b840d7d446fcc229a53a609b68
f84ca296472ccde3aad5ec879b76b6ea6cda4e62
4540 F20101129_AABDEV dubeux_j_Page_007thm.jpg
d3cbea301ebbe9237dcfa8af6051c5fa
bcf5af353560b00f8c87113398b1dc70617fca8c
73506 F20101129_AABCBT dubeux_j_Page_120.jpg
b8357c784fb07591b4ff9100060d77ad
6f42ca006ca0542484c682f67f047263ab448379
101085 F20101129_AABCZP dubeux_j_Page_095.jp2
ffd750960ee80146a8180a153611499a
47b8cd1bb1b7a77387357b0ab8142d67888a2190
73449 F20101129_AABCCI dubeux_j_Page_181.jpg
1915e378463c6e6aa78a3fd2cef32751
b94008d983df3bde51e8efaa97a4f048f8907ff1
22986 F20101129_AABDFL dubeux_j_Page_031.QC.jpg
d7da4509014b8cd8e036c92bb982741f
fc6f7ebb38bbaf97838e83387993660cc0502fbb
23594 F20101129_AABDEW dubeux_j_Page_009.QC.jpg
cafc7cda4be4e8b8cda348757e080ddf
a7112d157ad17a515516effb074abc73aebc715a
105901 F20101129_AABCBU dubeux_j_Page_091.jp2
b73b6028d854c6e16d9d33c208379b6e
617ece414c4bb1bc09dc618a13ecc6035f8807ae
107651 F20101129_AABCZQ dubeux_j_Page_096.jp2
ad41ac4f622aec9bb2dfe7193f59ccd5
393c0d07a4129d260523df89fff0b83817f3f128
21524 F20101129_AABCCJ dubeux_j_Page_077.QC.jpg
59c3f97a11f5cc20fbd2d3509fc59b29
55424fffe96e1e418f787800b5bcf81126b869c5
6003 F20101129_AABDGA dubeux_j_Page_045thm.jpg
75ff97c7161825667b1dfc8541871eee
afc620ec6ba5d8582d23474d34c545b0d62131c0
6206 F20101129_AABDFM dubeux_j_Page_032thm.jpg
68a28f27a3bafb0ded9509a478a9dd63
c5320fd8df856315a9d2b0154369e5f901d62d06
24288 F20101129_AABDEX dubeux_j_Page_010.QC.jpg
cb3b95b8260c422b4a4ed1847746771c
41fa9a08aa2a9183e5ff44ceaa3a7086da128dc5
5927 F20101129_AABCBV dubeux_j_Page_126thm.jpg
ecfc33bda402b94ec6721671a05ae9b2
e11666d3e84ba6ddec50f4bfcc9851fde7408cad
93109 F20101129_AABCZR dubeux_j_Page_097.jp2
28ee87d7a7a58b9a711c5863f0a75275
3ab9a364c9053056ca22ffd85219f37cd7aa041f
111110 F20101129_AABCCK dubeux_j_Page_030.jp2
ba27d688e2d85c65383d7762d0d9d9ab
fc350f58c7bc8dc716b0334e0fca78e8777de134
6015 F20101129_AABDGB dubeux_j_Page_048thm.jpg
d5171d9b1db1160a19e96c277cf463eb
5aa2ebe66974e013f2b5ec35178cdd986f60a979
23243 F20101129_AABDFN dubeux_j_Page_033.QC.jpg
f8f2e98a7bb6f29919d75453df7d0d04
dd06e7c94561504039d6945e84ce923b7d04cb02
23197 F20101129_AABDEY dubeux_j_Page_011.QC.jpg
96eda38165016e3ffb5da238352330bf
9f4f32d7b2a532f227fefecd5b481bdc5043e65c
84320 F20101129_AABCBW dubeux_j_Page_195.jpg
87c64448f7e894a4c7f4ef662b2c8218
2006c348423a909a6b9c34f77d6b97268f225977
96847 F20101129_AABCZS dubeux_j_Page_102.jp2
78feb087faa37b8a20d495751edde1c6
828a64a3180cf90607fe98448a23a86d89fee302
5356 F20101129_AABCCL dubeux_j_Page_149thm.jpg
7a1995fdce5da1057a3061fa79dd1615
029cfcf3475edbae8d2bb12d55b231267bae7a6c
4375 F20101129_AABDGC dubeux_j_Page_049thm.jpg
72b16cb932a19d15402c7669bb449774
7807707a77132979e36aab9582e2797697f5c0fd
28351 F20101129_AABDEZ dubeux_j_Page_012.QC.jpg
bacaf340b3152100c2430f2220fd61af
0fd55e00bdb494ac990017ea8e04b98e73b4ae1a
F20101129_AABCBX dubeux_j_Page_167.tif
e320436b81b0d2f0e41f014e9e39a158
1874ebf3214dd7b49c514b06b8e35ca007d19db5
89099 F20101129_AABCZT dubeux_j_Page_103.jp2
918868affcabcad0298dd6cb872734ba
6b2149e587abda9a578d17a58939f25665fb0b8b
69616 F20101129_AABCDA dubeux_j_Page_053.jpg
53d97c49b338887c43985afa42d515e8
0be63ad78dbec6389b59beaf6578942a5388135e
22577 F20101129_AABDGD dubeux_j_Page_052.QC.jpg
ae3939e51b328f9abd2e7d58d923c122
301687600c286a7faba7c3e37264ffc4cf86cec6
6533 F20101129_AABDFO dubeux_j_Page_033thm.jpg
e55bc09beb947d4e35f83a3f99c1a289
eff356db3384f3cd845832f6f5dceca2ae0f3f7e
F20101129_AABCBY dubeux_j_Page_056.tif
278cebf2a57820358ad6a3aefdacfcee
71b6a5e1f5f39050573ba8f46afe94f7a6f6676e
101375 F20101129_AABCZU dubeux_j_Page_107.jp2
93789db9b795140947ba6e82d71bc86a
c749cd4430432bd72bb89d8c3915224664a81d5f
36715 F20101129_AABCDB dubeux_j_Page_138.jpg
9d7771c972079c9b87a4c466fc05a64c
0615d89433a524401e0d37534acaee25d6e967a0
111062 F20101129_AABCCM dubeux_j_Page_046.jp2
790030cc4957440faac51a19ba762756
778c4f86c9fe82116ccb9af85c99a953d2f871d0
22399 F20101129_AABDGE dubeux_j_Page_053.QC.jpg
8e389a79074f0b4fe98f4c8198aa67df
4bfdfe63d859cdc95b139d8a16f7e2e50cdfd8bd
22678 F20101129_AABDFP dubeux_j_Page_036.QC.jpg
459a973d3a83ab043f873e84cf811e23
00905baf90d195bffb2b9932f1142752f16dcd14
5338 F20101129_AABCBZ dubeux_j_Page_121thm.jpg
09e23cc394fd559ee79f1f515e9e6ff3
5da29d45089dd1199864b980ce73ab718cd62744
1051963 F20101129_AABCZV dubeux_j_Page_109.jp2
32718680d9c65a0f871c2efb4949af19
e95ebdc3771fe8a8ef21ca50ecdd90c57f5bf638
F20101129_AABCDC dubeux_j_Page_041.tif
205fb80c33aed34c1a470f43086a8874
18a40a89fa0ceff678325e08a382a069d024ec08
66656 F20101129_AABCCN dubeux_j_Page_171.jpg
0eb8b50ab46e0916ae9966256c81acb6
7f39fb06025e4dc266fcba536aba8136cb67e926
6446 F20101129_AABDGF dubeux_j_Page_053thm.jpg
0cb2e0feb2a56c82bfd80387c2710792
5d57100e879b76ea6bd7add9c0fef53913bc1e32
6071 F20101129_AABDFQ dubeux_j_Page_036thm.jpg
63ae2675eba1b9adc2782fe2856ff3f6
2adae69c409919617ddf1687188f53a16091d439
96199 F20101129_AABCZW dubeux_j_Page_112.jp2
69edaf97e384974284e6a4191f138a51
bae26db22a116f13257b7d8d6a9e7df98d668876
F20101129_AABCDD dubeux_j_Page_134.tif
de06e1e65340cb7e3351bd6dd2f64fe6
67fc62cee9fc665a944f46198036de9c70f677d5
73325 F20101129_AABCCO dubeux_j_Page_025.jpg
7776566c4dbfdfc518cde2ab80e1c4e4
4949362232bf49c8266877c7dea2a896a8a1ef19
21533 F20101129_AABDGG dubeux_j_Page_054.QC.jpg
c213ffd1439db0a742af29d20d4be5eb
261b8e942214e4f8aff5bd0dcb6a4430204dbd43
6619 F20101129_AABDFR dubeux_j_Page_038thm.jpg
05105beb2d9575b245842b414d6ed8e0
c44221096a73c54c48e04fe89cc387b0efd8475f
106205 F20101129_AABCZX dubeux_j_Page_113.jp2
d63e8d3e03213f2e92e840b12fad72ec
7dcb3b33ef304308db8e8dc9002b4b128dcc18ee
23012 F20101129_AABCDE dubeux_j_Page_034.QC.jpg
ef593801f1c622232f543627be921800
3c2701d12b7019ad82410b2c57aeee45c09fa83b
F20101129_AABCCP dubeux_j_Page_133.tif
fee0fd5cb591b9e3f25e62c6cd983322
1729e9cc96cb10c37a032865b2943f1c0bf3f072
6124 F20101129_AABDGH dubeux_j_Page_054thm.jpg
44d122f6271054c24b2b9fab32337a8b
c626fb2b5b4255109b4807879707e4df9ab5e594
23779 F20101129_AABDFS dubeux_j_Page_039.QC.jpg
9db8ad8759ca9bdf1b37df0ab1c73ac8
572c8240712e1b57144ce6eb7667588fc1199434
79063 F20101129_AABCZY dubeux_j_Page_117.jp2
dd336cd96c5c5defb397364e5fa08d37
1d05fe4faf5981b885ed6855306317eb78dd6e8b
69923 F20101129_AABCDF dubeux_j_Page_144.jpg
5fe697e7be7fa6be4a3b7d0ebb3fcbc6
cf84bd24f5cfdd47d41e086a85ee8bf40f2218b1
21902 F20101129_AABCCQ dubeux_j_Page_176.QC.jpg
4f95c323d25b4d0f865ad04a87fae04c
a6a5f172129973d35b7a1aa57395b5539579c86b
22866 F20101129_AABDGI dubeux_j_Page_056.QC.jpg
19a8a8c5fa6835204f8ebfa805acb882
a939389aada1142c5ef9a2cac46a55ebdf79563c
6558 F20101129_AABDFT dubeux_j_Page_040thm.jpg
8682389b93172014c995a7e3a526a64e
332d66b095f791c5298a6c7510b007ff24a8529b
114492 F20101129_AABCZZ dubeux_j_Page_123.jp2
e7f73d8a8893cbd1568a79db9b1b4edd
5a9b485e9f95d3b94f4dc210c40af7ea7ab15e3c
F20101129_AABCDG dubeux_j_Page_156.tif
92a7bdd018127eec4f28f8a2a6b2aba0
2bbe77bb4aa4f38882cd657974f44ae7bd891dc5
72997 F20101129_AABBYA dubeux_j_Page_040.jpg
4b81fbcaf10fda4e865908da91931e29
dbee379fd88ce8289c9551da5decdf557164aa0d
4858 F20101129_AABCCR dubeux_j_Page_014thm.jpg
8b39cb28f0eb50584c99bd4f890b24c6
9cf4de25c7b637afab80eb95940b10803e6abd15
18891 F20101129_AABDGJ dubeux_j_Page_057.QC.jpg
f0a11d8abe77b3f81e41333b2586a4ab
7d3f2c7e8bd1dcccabb996e883c61cfc59890f51
22339 F20101129_AABDFU dubeux_j_Page_041.QC.jpg
b4451e352615b2356210895c77fdbfc5
506074b7afdb3cb376903bca77fa2233b7f2861f
94667 F20101129_AABCDH dubeux_j_Page_098.jp2
4f8b443687da3772f24a5539388cfe3a
0f6be4e028fd7e5999a87667a3e4ae99d4de5339
26182 F20101129_AABBYB dubeux_j_Page_089.QC.jpg
cd0cdb2850875f2266e285cb85a76fc9
f88863087534d564c322d0bfee8f271a9aa2e35f
21685 F20101129_AABCCS dubeux_j_Page_164.QC.jpg
84281314af37f0bc55def5112d4da0ed
2a014021e1365fdde1cba3380d35d1f3996f32bf
6234 F20101129_AABDGK dubeux_j_Page_058thm.jpg
c2426d5b469c4ab8634ff1c79ea2534e
e50256e7d33fac74e6ed2519ba0d7f74d3a34e8e
6186 F20101129_AABDFV dubeux_j_Page_041thm.jpg
dd31b39f9d48b185efa211a01c0ee508
30ee3fccc66cc418c11f9c03299c4792bb829e24
105560 F20101129_AABCDI dubeux_j_Page_182.jp2
266c0aded5eaafd531bb194b232f3fae
b4b492421b66140756abda44f7d3392b459baeec
F20101129_AABBYC dubeux_j_Page_144.tif
5970f7cbdc7f39bc7a1e1077156dc620
7a896e3b16cc30d9e81723e0c446d5a0f32bdd7f
23626 F20101129_AABCCT dubeux_j_Page_044.QC.jpg
b864c963111838d5efdaf6349bf77bb7
34a13f2a87c006717d307fdf6065d8ad49639b16
21250 F20101129_AABDGL dubeux_j_Page_059.QC.jpg
4cf08e3ffef010f26376371fa04aed79
b77f97f97b806e3549e96e0d730f1d70a9288c53
F20101129_AABDFW dubeux_j_Page_042.QC.jpg
f8d19f30f54de845360a366e9fd65077
8d6e67dd65919579e19dd050f849d668d8da5805
6680 F20101129_AABCDJ dubeux_j_Page_197thm.jpg
9be868cfd9e9cae83029387b19fb7009
591d345ab61669778765ec83be70dde5c494a90a
18213 F20101129_AABCCU dubeux_j_Page_023.QC.jpg
3ce1dfd3be6cb2c09348ac60ba28b1a1
7a2698bd5516cea23bd7b751948b6ca3079f5568
20927 F20101129_AABDHA dubeux_j_Page_076.QC.jpg
033b2ee12b0445b906e5f1e2ecfd6670
af9e07a17bf6f0b3365c5e1128b34717d6a5422b
6256 F20101129_AABDGM dubeux_j_Page_059thm.jpg
9c425f8afcd27dcaff2d09a971280b78
597ece2c48146846750b17c8e22bf4f0d799ff62
24885 F20101129_AABDFX dubeux_j_Page_043.QC.jpg
841256817a88ec7f84bda02f6dc2abaa
9700f7f62a9079714991157b3ba8f24cf85a6423
17607 F20101129_AABCDK dubeux_j_Page_055.QC.jpg
57539ecc966777425bfbcc261b35e519
2b3eda96e0fbbfb809d243a5beab82f09843fa63
96133 F20101129_AABBYD dubeux_j_Page_009.jpg
9a4cae0e58d5588a22e495df08fa040c
1ea833a1766e6580f9f7030883d56a79ab825245
6277 F20101129_AABCCV dubeux_j_Page_095thm.jpg
38548c52140351764cfa3d49483aafdf
d1714c8fe9471a8d1de13088f9b7e648e1cf7306
6094 F20101129_AABDHB dubeux_j_Page_077thm.jpg
b16fb1f11e2e01eb953ab1c79d41cd6e
78c4d3164fd4488586efa1d8ae2e329f850f8f37
17381 F20101129_AABDGN dubeux_j_Page_061.QC.jpg
08e907e069ca7c3151d65ad67783f445
8dcfe8b560472c36ebe8a9ed3b1e5efa86fc0449
6800 F20101129_AABDFY dubeux_j_Page_043thm.jpg
15da2b9b4268a29b99486fd5f8084a68
b614dc131a0f22f391acef0cfd34e80f46b56f92
F20101129_AABCDL dubeux_j_Page_152.tif
5e4780b02e7f6cef89a75228f8df08a1
99e32635d015c507d8146ad07ea8c4f2667710cf
F20101129_AABBYE dubeux_j_Page_105.tif
ad2edefe214d55b52292aa0912513987
8fb7a6722a81ba2d84a9b5410811a8781b6f01e2
84501 F20101129_AABCCW dubeux_j_Page_201.jpg
a9ca92632c56ff1a1fdcb6f084457561
6e27d58e301542af15fb1bdad86bed5c40f958e5
23118 F20101129_AABDHC dubeux_j_Page_082.QC.jpg
fa08a205d3a343105a72a339f8e53287
edb7e2ea6f76c8eaf9634c1998a3ef368229c5f1
22246 F20101129_AABDGO dubeux_j_Page_062.QC.jpg
023b83e246409a7e8a3e52bfd7d2ac2b
2d7b5e3585abd71690e5c4ed37ac3b1c4009e253
20951 F20101129_AABDFZ dubeux_j_Page_045.QC.jpg
4bc5ba202eb712d7a56b0fb203ecc717
45cbf6d7b03d5d1dd93c2f8021b702800b8b8d72
67881 F20101129_AABCEA dubeux_j_Page_019.jp2
fd6795f7176cf118c62439a2ae3efbaf
12fd0da75858bb2df48fa1feab61076187708b50
6576 F20101129_AABCDM dubeux_j_Page_082thm.jpg
9cf8457dbefe11d6c2719e80d4849a57
6eb7016a314431fbd0317d33269afab376a7e230
F20101129_AABBYF dubeux_j_Page_193.tif
13eb255cadc2023efff5e1c08e83f8b3
870010aaaf9427231a34c75874f6cd0f4d3da176
13431 F20101129_AABCCX dubeux_j_Page_157.jp2
c1eb4ed52c7a9f2c043dabeabb7cff4e
b7c5e3aa72f7259dc8b2c2928213c2b099ccfab6
19127 F20101129_AABDHD dubeux_j_Page_083.QC.jpg
12c1b3acd028fb0e30231611253f24fe
bde043113ba73120e5422e59a0701f29c5b4e962
17392 F20101129_AABCEB dubeux_j_Page_099.QC.jpg
887a74485b59753906c852cf40564d85
b4666c42716694936829277b8fc71367cb3a4df2
5980 F20101129_AABBYG dubeux_j_Page_098thm.jpg
b162ff69bb344c0c3a9250cc0d7c74e7
8a413005a67a5892b4f5fec93d56ad09bc699bbd
1399 F20101129_AABCCY dubeux_j_Page_002thm.jpg
b86499a046bead9bfd250a924abd1693
06516b7b38da4f80fd209917302f1e3e78b231db
5328 F20101129_AABDHE dubeux_j_Page_084thm.jpg
28edbb335e7cc13ac3145ac8dc058dab
a1a8a4bfb0ca1a3dae61c222d9addba204f24b6a
19730 F20101129_AABDGP dubeux_j_Page_064.QC.jpg
cff45caf397284d71042203a3cd4b81f
488e22f636db708628a08dfb834bfb96b602ba43
F20101129_AABCEC dubeux_j_Page_039.tif
cc82d2aa88d093fa750077659e10a01b
2dc1e3d8e15ccec0e377e9c7b0750f5714973cb8
71765 F20101129_AABCDN dubeux_j_Page_082.jpg
183cd38ab7731e8de3abf2cb2cb75e4f
1724f4bc470bda1cca4974a1648be6243809e8ca
105995 F20101129_AABBYH dubeux_j_Page_086.jp2
d6571ff9605e6916197f40adcd1d0a5d
e0954063a439fbbfc0d75615efe321df89b86870
21804 F20101129_AABCCZ dubeux_j_Page_158.QC.jpg
69c29eb5f078abe074d4e72ba166b6a6
0202dec33b2c4ee7f2054d2b0daf7e7999e84ab4
25005 F20101129_AABDHF dubeux_j_Page_085.QC.jpg
8dee64f7fc103dcc1bfb62050ad90588
36fcde73eeb437278629adb82536972c0b122163
5572 F20101129_AABDGQ dubeux_j_Page_064thm.jpg
fdba2a03992f4307b4c770c150c79424
218d1390283d22d380e3cfb9e5341f71038c3e92
8650 F20101129_AABCDO dubeux_j_Page_155.QC.jpg
024685f01cd8a7a749c1c87b2d093a1f
b0d062d10350c9ad8a15871546df3e8d08d48b62
22838 F20101129_AABBYI dubeux_j_Page_182.QC.jpg
db9021b55a1a840c643c4244db6e59bb
2b44a468560073cb969f6f4073a64c1222c3c9aa
137861 F20101129_AABCED dubeux_j_Page_104.jp2
505c6f5226e75dca907d3403e6afdf05
a39395154f595acae46a24494290a5644f6fadc1
22413 F20101129_AABDHG dubeux_j_Page_086.QC.jpg
6939b19b7aaec32341f6dfc1eab8609e
c78fa5ccef0b4405b75b1da77859a138983819e3
21399 F20101129_AABDGR dubeux_j_Page_065.QC.jpg
bc7b650ee7958192494c10f834f99205
16ec7258c862cc113bd28666ae49b4710f27dc21
F20101129_AABCDP dubeux_j_Page_045.tif
faf1bba9a78e46f6ef4114e36a7d1f39
8831d4cfd7c67d9bfdfcbc4705eb8ae9c3584d2a
F20101129_AABBYJ dubeux_j_Page_027.tif
44d9dd30f8651b411909296dd7e248f1
a5c7873eb31f84878dcf5b96a5ea71ca6f432180
5449 F20101129_AABCEE dubeux_j_Page_166thm.jpg
ef3b6e20fd1598f9167b32ffe8899630
d08cfbc9080261b82d38301bd6fea636da044c68
6190 F20101129_AABDHH dubeux_j_Page_086thm.jpg
0e95c0d35dfa2d936705d9dd69aa689d
f418906afe27e73c80ea5426478ecfb91846b8a4
22934 F20101129_AABDGS dubeux_j_Page_066.QC.jpg
68d0aa18b47ea9eb456253d8587507c8
5abd66952488db3874ebc10a57ac7902362e0daf
2515 F20101129_AABCDQ dubeux_j_Page_001thm.jpg
cd8c7522f01109b4173ce559c14137fb
003a4f431ef5c4197bc6c07cdf52b8f593877652
4036 F20101129_AABBYK dubeux_j_Page_063thm.jpg
1f2729735812e46a2fa08f0233611f11
681b94876d9442bd0b826df8b037a581f9034443
56481 F20101129_AABCEF dubeux_j_Page_122.jpg
1c2746a287302e7aaf9da06c3e935c91
e023eec03996284ee3cacf08402492e9bf9cca26
11654 F20101129_AABDHI dubeux_j_Page_087.QC.jpg
c9f7e35fde17bb641014e5ba9e6449f8
da208e8f26d9247288ded5978053e1aea14104d0
6368 F20101129_AABDGT dubeux_j_Page_066thm.jpg
0519857543da145df086690bf8a6cb97
5a43d389c376cdd1fdd42d994c7b4e7220a31182
13911 F20101129_AABBZA dubeux_j_Page_063.QC.jpg
837527b552ca004af37df779a5f70864
931b0807e606344d37ea682924a1540e7108dcf2
18237 F20101129_AABCDR dubeux_j_Page_148.QC.jpg
6f52ad4bdc2343c628f804eb434dcb0f
078d696be0e78ab8cd6841c13b21715003a4488c
74439 F20101129_AABBYL dubeux_j_Page_170.jpg
ab894e5a1ba836fe143d72d974a16818
b807e94759f5817452b44def548dd47d381a151b
F20101129_AABBXX dubeux_j_Page_150.tif
a3be86c01c7267e35bc444a70c8d2fcb
e9a25f834c9b3178d8b410a48b47b0c753aa8339
6690 F20101129_AABCEG dubeux_j_Page_039thm.jpg
d11e1f5fe043c20fc6f845019db0f8cb
c1f3d030d338345c14cd4d6c5d8e7845fd203bab
3971 F20101129_AABDHJ dubeux_j_Page_087thm.jpg
a882fd36abcbb6938da6ef8600d55eef
709de7bee0f8b8220534a2c414ee3bed84b2731c
21934 F20101129_AABDGU dubeux_j_Page_067.QC.jpg
2f3f8ceaba8274debcca2d15a0d1a6cf
c4596ec20e00972187a0bdaf9a028bf08746e380
19226 F20101129_AABBZB dubeux_j_Page_204.QC.jpg
9dfc90a1473d757d69efec32c393aef0
a9ae790f100f492b31210c207d45d3e27c702c1b
F20101129_AABCDS dubeux_j_Page_076thm.jpg
b077046549892025f3ccf2eab37010bf
189a5b60989a30a6338f6ee7945f4780f8e5f370
24473 F20101129_AABBYM dubeux_j_Page_170.QC.jpg
d545b7e79b3b6a05c4bb12ab5ee0400f
ce984b14ade6050cb967f704ce41eff31981099e
108626 F20101129_AABBXY dubeux_j_Page_115.jp2
2802b6680ce7c24eef6bcd62c4b906a3
e08ced55224699c9ee0dbe33624a90e46649eb47
6393 F20101129_AABCEH dubeux_j_Page_180thm.jpg
91163fee0af513c13e1f7ff4227abc4c
58541272ef02270aeae0e2a8908d6fbcbd6b2793
7047 F20101129_AABDHK dubeux_j_Page_089thm.jpg
8d5f9c9664dfe58cacdc320236748d64
20cc470dd783f7905e100aeb9acbe035b9819ac8
6069 F20101129_AABDGV dubeux_j_Page_067thm.jpg
874a47bc68b327c05cc1a3dc4f1ecd0d
4998b33ff6176e1018acd9989ed4d46c9c387a83
23308 F20101129_AABBZC dubeux_j_Page_027.QC.jpg
a0cd72dcecda9e9919926e9a0aaf2093
3d9f7b5728ca075d081a9d9e0c35e5263341d93d
6534 F20101129_AABCDT dubeux_j_Page_081thm.jpg
eb0d7c29d40644d8c136387e1d7b8793
5b6d76288a7ebc821a9136cceb11fb61d4989a25
86715 F20101129_AABBYN dubeux_j_Page_153.jp2
ac39ff5bbec8e09399564e5bf3cadcfc
eed3ff738af883f7431c95a1ca0085dfb0b617f8
F20101129_AABBXZ dubeux_j_Page_037.tif
98d0e1e8dd556acaa949d15c9843f41d
688e9dd91c0ba72e528bcc6bb94f29bca440112d
F20101129_AABCEI dubeux_j_Page_140.tif
823bbec5806ff878a3387f61d43f5545
593249d7bbdf1049ed0830af0620890bdfcb2e58
24449 F20101129_AABDHL dubeux_j_Page_090.QC.jpg
2c5e213bc42535d8d85a0b7f38dc6676
9d1e66f78be030dc33042dc84772b7d952a5169b
6466 F20101129_AABDGW dubeux_j_Page_068thm.jpg
37c5611ed1dd1f843996adba999ab7d0
e4e231635d27260230fa07cd5f209ec6baf808cb
101950 F20101129_AABBZD dubeux_j_Page_035.jp2
0d415831fb42b2c28314672305d96614
e5716b75ad002bead988f6e9e7da423ed42b6b92
6843 F20101129_AABCDU dubeux_j_Page_161thm.jpg
8f8d93156853a81302eb101a6e5ae9fc
756c7ae213f3aa21cf04e0eddbdb141ef801c704
82158 F20101129_AABBYO dubeux_j_Page_149.jp2
32e91fa0eefa76cf20435b191135f82d
593a52d20e143e39338d3db426bfcf83abbdc6c9
1796 F20101129_AABCEJ dubeux_j_Page_157thm.jpg
a01b2524311cbf396f6566a2f0471e40
bd6e5de8993e0fd94a6ce7fbbf8563580e12bd4e
23605 F20101129_AABDIA dubeux_j_Page_105.QC.jpg
9a258bedda81afa8913598aa015d79e3
fb574a946d45316c4fc9045d9073a917c09c4743
F20101129_AABDHM dubeux_j_Page_090thm.jpg
68cffcceda078c38ee798c5a403cbd40
3de7cd8d83ef349297beb9647855760ad2b1f9b9
18503 F20101129_AABDGX dubeux_j_Page_070.QC.jpg
6dc62ba0b87688da9a1d343614b1ec0d
a8deef4208fe40ae6c117e500adef9ce17feb178
71549 F20101129_AABCDV dubeux_j_Page_031.jpg
ae7a596030abfca32f19e720a3a75010
c00521e0d504ccf7168412d59b553a04ecbbae5f
6409 F20101129_AABBYP dubeux_j_Page_132thm.jpg
82f849ff3d2014bbcbda70f63eb19312
f352649b57e41c834f0437e815066f8f88b86e22
113578 F20101129_AABCEK dubeux_j_Page_160.jp2
3929ea4f38c5a55e1ec7dc2420667a7c
f09bf3c441e5c36a78b8f4d8260877f07848adce
F20101129_AABDIB dubeux_j_Page_105thm.jpg
e9dd4d02740f9739c9e966f439fb42e1
b669d5b5c4893572c76034c909b40efab863959c
20762 F20101129_AABDHN dubeux_j_Page_093.QC.jpg
0d85f6d2f12d95ce8aa87f0fe3cd3f7b
11e6a7c3511f6deecb4089b3cb950cda7e0968c8
23382 F20101129_AABDGY dubeux_j_Page_071.QC.jpg
033e4a10f9d8cddd5a2d20d901e01bcf
c8a8e078708b96ba16ee3d5a0d1dc34f85dca125
23331 F20101129_AABBZE dubeux_j_Page_147.QC.jpg
e789ac5eeaf1e37c386030494dcf3667
be52d3039e86800f61a244c0751e96c886d652a7
70126 F20101129_AABCDW dubeux_j_Page_032.jpg
6ddb8ee87eacd04e44bbb44f44a9cd27
f0f87f00a644c33eb1434ac4847fb54fe0133533
21079 F20101129_AABBYQ dubeux_j_Page_126.QC.jpg
4dbd62cd13cec55d1e5fc7482be54886
f7b63174986bbe4c88d4c9fcec138eda1bd31cb3
79556 F20101129_AABCEL dubeux_j_Page_100.jp2
975698f976bb53abc2401042a3cf5479
98e2906a2eea2b409fc406151df765598cf60d9b
19800 F20101129_AABDIC dubeux_j_Page_106.QC.jpg
8f530c8d76e8164fcd93d3eb3b4c8f38
8c0cbe98ab44118f39999b73676e29c3ca4a58ac
5968 F20101129_AABDHO dubeux_j_Page_093thm.jpg
fbae6e5b13946eacd37613aca8de66bf
fa5ca2aa9b4373350133340d5ce40dbaaa3e1345
F20101129_AABDGZ dubeux_j_Page_071thm.jpg
f642b220bd816ec5e12b4e4e899665c0
4a9f466a8bc9e55f7d1db8aea3183b7083bdad7a
F20101129_AABBZF dubeux_j_Page_021.tif
7e397ff8434bcbfaaecb0c512a33ea20
f342b740da24b61c13ca937f777f8903cfaae0a1
23878 F20101129_AABCDX dubeux_j_Page_201.QC.jpg
502812a240e3348172e1dad164a3bae8
3e471755bf0791b0a771459e8c6d11bc4b23d6a6
92627 F20101129_AABBYR dubeux_j_Page_051.jp2
ab9fb172fc1b9641efd4cbfcb28b2bc5
7f588cd30857783eebac46d5be09185d4e1f0590
45159 F20101129_AABCFA dubeux_j_Page_049.jpg
97a336de27b80e09e371eab97765f7e3
7c726d63bcf2fe243bfeab4789615dc7d643731b
93634 F20101129_AABCEM dubeux_j_Page_069.jp2
1929dd36863da7f20ee82f8463cd255b
9479a890b8eaac8fc610e2c47f9223008b590302
22176 F20101129_AABDID dubeux_j_Page_107.QC.jpg
506d9a716ce4097cf222a49dc4fd4e82
19b3dc505d1c5ad51b17b73c7af4bf6cce7efda6
6181 F20101129_AABDHP dubeux_j_Page_094thm.jpg
d7a12d4cc1d52961ebbffb461c421fcd
a24d6bbeeda76b6514900a05a7a8989fd20df7cd
7344 F20101129_AABBZG dubeux_j_Page_016thm.jpg
f7dd86041f042e674d1883c64710bf8d
e7d6d5255f904e5bffdb018b84a623e3070a5be1
F20101129_AABCDY dubeux_j_Page_019.tif
9c1afb6a1ab394e3e1bc5202c22baa39
86ee0f2064f7b6fd204ac29bb103b35e8790087a
12547 F20101129_AABBYS dubeux_j_Page_203.QC.jpg
58826f0c01390bcf1669920a44d635f7
767da44de4946ae99d8df9014c4681078896a6a1
30502 F20101129_AABCFB dubeux_j_Page_016.QC.jpg
6d9cbb2190cbe7499a230e4d92d073fd
c80e489ba170b118a5c779f86f69eaab657b18f2
22257 F20101129_AABCEN dubeux_j_Page_058.QC.jpg
867ba1a027f3d00873a9250b490b77b6
94db3f4dc1e20066da50bc1acddafbf9dfa32c8d
6131 F20101129_AABDIE dubeux_j_Page_107thm.jpg
732177555879da0c53879c3c9c6d7bfa
f2f07e53e04a7c9a45dad9a93565da33bcf06ef8
24533 F20101129_AABBZH dubeux_j_Page_060.QC.jpg
947f96b4dde36d2283f3346d9bb25492
cc4c7cbb633d30a39babf557b67af6383476fd84
5309 F20101129_AABCDZ dubeux_j_Page_061thm.jpg
079429a44315830b02f57cc2771776b7
d4201492703c64c65eaccaed0846d5057b94ac7e
65746 F20101129_AABBYT dubeux_j_Page_175.jp2
f9fb610567ff2f06903b8de7b7edee99
645b9aecdeb99cdb52e506c240dd0231db43d9ab
55690 F20101129_AABCFC dubeux_j_Page_121.jpg
91c4eb161df3c25fd7df7a3591f41f12
c201f4d7d1a268b3182d4eadd71eef0d73e136f3
22248 F20101129_AABDIF dubeux_j_Page_108.QC.jpg
1f7cdf1a3af8b51ecbc8579787893d1a
4642f78fe7cbe071bea94c44e0c09ae097630911
21603 F20101129_AABDHQ dubeux_j_Page_095.QC.jpg
accc304a44cd10b0329fa3f70044f421
0de2130cc20d09bed35d9c2e8f31db77db93aab0
111842 F20101129_AABBZI dubeux_j_Page_038.jp2
c9c7434fa33e4852d45f27e919605291
be18cca96b6aebc64311512a71b47b35f633297d
2778 F20101129_AABBYU dubeux_j_Page_172thm.jpg
ef60cf63afcec1876dd39b47ed48c06b
643787d04aa81c12c91444c1cc473c714d09e747
1051950 F20101129_AABCFD dubeux_j_Page_008.jp2
f5bfc4e017eb5977d0e301739340cade
c88482e5723975469f6a85be81a45cc6bc8fe041
6359 F20101129_AABCEO dubeux_j_Page_062thm.jpg
c502206d219db0c7aa7263d6367bca13
81e0bacfbd442c934a1f4e7fc55658efcbf18e33
6231 F20101129_AABDIG dubeux_j_Page_108thm.jpg
31cf1ea92b4ea2289311a1e85d34330e
1d2dbcc5d177f5ba3083f02973f2941b371d6668
5704 F20101129_AABDHR dubeux_j_Page_097thm.jpg
8bb29204f5627bce46121a758b98031c
ab43b05c78b3bdc8480240b6908f3b696b888596
F20101129_AABBZJ dubeux_j_Page_068.QC.jpg
5dd61e3f77018f4f8a39fb1633426dd0
348c5c37cd3df908e2f79536fcfe499fb436a91d
5779 F20101129_AABBYV dubeux_j_Page_152thm.jpg
384f1499a077490c99ea3bf91f76c981
5c0d5de6cf6746e536c5347b8fe3dbb4834f7bed
4394 F20101129_AABCFE dubeux_j_Page_175thm.jpg
cfa4b8f9650c50c044fb774fbc472833
8027be5021cf30d7034316421de43a2355d6ce05
F20101129_AABCEP dubeux_j_Page_080.QC.jpg
60d07e3d175baa262d9badafa3750143
034e1e3729c2b60eb5d0d22b9501b9456f1c1b9e
21308 F20101129_AABDIH dubeux_j_Page_112.QC.jpg
dc6625a7ee3294aa40eeda528a06dd9f
88e6a474f1f5d6c7925aae33c8d84a3f4d82e4bf
20897 F20101129_AABDHS dubeux_j_Page_098.QC.jpg
1a27403eb8c7ddfe10209b02d1d558ed
4fb839c4e4b6c52d4c741ae8e66bd48a189eb60a
110209 F20101129_AABBZK dubeux_j_Page_071.jp2
f7a1253d520fbfc9c11b32b2631545bc
a8ef3a19568a4ef3b4b1bc5b490703382ac6b41f
3278 F20101129_AABBYW dubeux_j_Page_003.QC.jpg
4d6cff4c3226a32f79d7d00e165557ab
f55b59d52cf2095217b51983eaa4652acc2833ba
F20101129_AABCFF dubeux_j_Page_125.tif
b993b1ab378e6d05b08907ab974a846b
7082ce9d744eebcd138de0e1dc4496ae18aaf8be
9633 F20101129_AABCEQ dubeux_j_Page_006.QC.jpg
ec5d89975b988973e6435ba0cc7a464f
cb4cf784377c6e1fd48bb9a8118ebc1f3181e0a4
5838 F20101129_AABDII dubeux_j_Page_112thm.jpg
35b434ac858e9d82e21f977c2a9d4262
89e6efc46e70063cc2359cecc49d351d61239fe7
4875 F20101129_AABDHT dubeux_j_Page_099thm.jpg
355d1cad1910de85c32bc03491bda7a0
fbc024e70e2458841d00f8ccbeb3a0b77a3f3fa0
68105 F20101129_AABBZL dubeux_j_Page_179.jpg
bbe85f884cff66789d117cd2ea5c3e30
6512de9dcc32a4a4df812c53684489ac6d42ec36
46373 F20101129_AABBYX dubeux_j_Page_063.jpg
34f1fa308fe434cdd8cc30b16bc59093
791a60eb094d5cfc2999143cbc4973dc8a9927db
18576 F20101129_AABCFG dubeux_j_Page_150.QC.jpg
b19d67b31d899b21947d2a86f01721d3
76dd5cac6b30b4ab7714c3b2fde99f4ce3745358
129932 F20101129_AABCER dubeux_j_Page_196.jp2
d482c3648bc586d6c8a092f7b5f15bf3
b96cc87575d20cf0c4eb900e1d72c64ccf85fc0a
22637 F20101129_AABDIJ dubeux_j_Page_113.QC.jpg
75b4ca8e007a2e5742460edf8d7c2e94
4abd7a52e78271fc054be0c9c1de1ddde9b9ef0a
5588 F20101129_AABDHU dubeux_j_Page_101thm.jpg
c903e55332ba2c3e1db111837cb4f128
888fdb3fe2dce69548b200006f0aedb89456aa58
79334 F20101129_AABBZM dubeux_j_Page_121.jp2
f489bf0179e336103c925951b4709b92
82630b95e476640ffa3cccf8fbd24581dd8afd2c
1516 F20101129_AABBYY dubeux_j_Page_003thm.jpg
3b617e1fc62ed4deaca2faecec8fd66d
396112ce1792943e172cab7a3b5e741a4b33425d
F20101129_AABCFH dubeux_j_Page_079.tif
051172b6f1f6741ed0d8a2f83e5027b2
cbd33c4cb154e2d52a9ec021f2405d80d5836fa5
14858 F20101129_AABCES dubeux_j_Page_134.QC.jpg
4f99bc2a428a48e939c04911ef059218
c717f36d62dfce11297a034120e34759e765e517
6461 F20101129_AABDIK dubeux_j_Page_113thm.jpg
56af5a2fe8d89bc85390f46de5fefb0b
4fbcc0f0c139c10ce9e3dd2ab00a4ed0a100b8d0
5935 F20101129_AABDHV dubeux_j_Page_102thm.jpg
3ee3e44ebdc7c7b2bacf7b82c5cfff4f
6f106c7c7a66b2984db5eeecf5461b055d8e28f1
16412 F20101129_AABBZN dubeux_j_Page_017.QC.jpg
6cdd4b51e3a52bc3de68dbe688952a8e
8e8cf6c97a5b0e889fbf84be643844e7632b0925
F20101129_AABBYZ dubeux_j_Page_058.tif
729eba1d6a9c01c424a328e5910536b1
466c9c749ea3fef3e0e46f4811ac6822f639a57f
7105 F20101129_AABCFI dubeux_j_Page_198thm.jpg
3a90ffa27d8848bd1594fddf03f6e7c8
529c74128fb2efec2f7aaa9e38f87fe256f2513e
109300 F20101129_AABCET dubeux_j_Page_040.jp2
68c055528a3155a5304330e5bb5642d4
5ec08fd240a964d326bd6c378fad64ae3b354345
6547 F20101129_AABDIL dubeux_j_Page_114thm.jpg
a06f88d459c0623aed233d9d55d85f79
517a7cb8148fc5ca88936e834a671f246566f9ce
19090 F20101129_AABDHW dubeux_j_Page_103.QC.jpg
44c0b7f36e76c2136e6a1e68eeeccb0a
d8a8f266e18b1fa1bf1f4a7c387217f11e54c2c7
F20101129_AABBZO dubeux_j_Page_111.tif
0c12be37e0ddafc2efe1b39e1ddbf7a1
06421bb94820f1826ae72c787ca1f01fba475ee5
24560 F20101129_AABCFJ dubeux_j_Page_193.QC.jpg
9edc9f2ac67df365fcfee4d86b6cb552
22d29ddf7071a28262b8f72e56dd2af52e121a6a
6664 F20101129_AABCEU dubeux_j_Page_025thm.jpg
9015fb257cba85839abe3eb4125832a6
e50e5a5f649131b91528f42f577924a43e129d78
13425 F20101129_AABDJA dubeux_j_Page_128.QC.jpg
9f85bb85dfaebb7a0b30d66480aa2533
76319d005648044b4b979a2d130503f370c4aa5e
23269 F20101129_AABDIM dubeux_j_Page_115.QC.jpg
acbcb34e1b6ba2812e8f3840b0d81b84
52170cd632dd81b1c46076b8f6489b9d24b59bb9
5346 F20101129_AABDHX dubeux_j_Page_103thm.jpg
bfba066aa0e35a8c6545ace0ac246cbb
973dc617feadb27bb03841572dcb7596a0d7b11d
68271 F20101129_AABBZP dubeux_j_Page_158.jpg
3cf8e70ac517189cd6824a90fe011546
fdcbd3828514655476b1251dcad314ad3323d87f
5487 F20101129_AABCFK dubeux_j_Page_083thm.jpg
abc0ae311ae23ee0d1f3ee2a2d2922e0
cf3cbcbef8fe5aee3df35d791460a69e1229ab8a
95258 F20101129_AABCEV dubeux_j_Page_104.jpg
27a8d242cef9645b1038cde3b73922f3
ae34f573e3f02b6fc69b21c90309761b2fe033d8
20982 F20101129_AABDJB dubeux_j_Page_129.QC.jpg
9b7c840738b96dfb08c316ffff91c7b2
a53f04bfa49cc595978d7673821bf7efdbdaf2dc
6736 F20101129_AABDIN dubeux_j_Page_115thm.jpg
77efc12154936e6e349f8efee9ceec1b
230f10fd1e839c688680590678a4e24b089a60f8
26779 F20101129_AABDHY dubeux_j_Page_104.QC.jpg
6c072b826b1073f5edb3d345e5c36141
79594ffc5071776de058481c800db08e9fdca798
10791 F20101129_AABBZQ dubeux_j_Page_003.jpg
c673ca5419814f6cc10cdf5b50bac552
5f6274d35983aa352bec7b54cc8942b9c50ae858
F20101129_AABCFL dubeux_j_Page_020.tif
44096ffdcfd676694eb5befc69ad9dcc
7b92c7334b1195dab2969b2518c32ce83d677fca
72763 F20101129_AABCEW dubeux_j_Page_022.jpg
9bc20f32e6707d58072a0d8c89680971
8abab6c4df1b713bdae6a8b763529cfae9d46d65
21999 F20101129_AABDJC dubeux_j_Page_131.QC.jpg
55e177517aaebc7eecd08911beecbac9
476b7ec81460abdb3caba07cf4ac6dea34161dad
22062 F20101129_AABDIO dubeux_j_Page_116.QC.jpg
3ecca0534682adcc4a4576586b501eb0
94a5cedd6d342199261fd153f1d58869cf0375bc
6608 F20101129_AABDHZ dubeux_j_Page_104thm.jpg
9d4bcbc6e584a669f93b91f6c728633b
ecdd2d4b05a2eef89f1acf29e3bfb8da0439d014
73044 F20101129_AABBZR dubeux_j_Page_030.jpg
b4707c769049e9bf969d491e71dd236d
c0ea7dbcebd9469bd9ad7bb8614bc7c5bf4acf31
22954 F20101129_AABCGA dubeux_j_Page_037.QC.jpg
28dcc7409ead1289a85de1388cf75ae8
c8257e6d872b8bed2f87eb9f03516151ba028109
26894 F20101129_AABCFM dubeux_j_Page_185.jpg
2e2596670b515fe31229ae86cbffa0a5
0d7ba25bf3f4841c6b0c228efa2188c85cbbdf8f
90802 F20101129_AABCEX dubeux_j_Page_106.jp2
9906b362680febca103d47b5f0c07beb
ce273080f7863729983858f83ecd56c37dce0546
23433 F20101129_AABDJD dubeux_j_Page_132.QC.jpg
151834dd8ba31a072b5a6cec3b8032fa
cac8b4dcda3498717ccf407b9881ae14f0dffc24
17665 F20101129_AABDIP dubeux_j_Page_117.QC.jpg
46341a361d01ebb54d1317e5243c6a78
ab487c1a02b09b94c81c652ae8b973e0bf308fcf
24190 F20101129_AABBZS dubeux_j_Page_195.QC.jpg
be9b6cb429dc015bd1bcd452d0daa58b
99ff3c406fbf3e6d7014d636381e21087b22c4f5
25859 F20101129_AABCGB dubeux_j_Page_189.QC.jpg
170315d045a13fe384d2d3992d39558e
79ba78360be4f19ae65494ff5470bb6d3377ebb2
F20101129_AABCFN dubeux_j_Page_017.tif
45ae93c4788ed94599662a8b67c0e8db
6d633ad18b6c96b772268bca4bc77a4905f12490
23989 F20101129_AABCEY dubeux_j_Page_025.QC.jpg
208efe0e2cbe5046d7beaf3ddc033578
ad5270b8128445187cebb6dc30a4ce6fa84dae96
6460 F20101129_AABDJE dubeux_j_Page_133thm.jpg
e2b3050b6ab4aa1e4f7fa9698aa592e1
423f5dcdd30b64e7abdd8806e51d8ae3102b6d88
20258 F20101129_AABDIQ dubeux_j_Page_118.QC.jpg
f4bf57b0a9abfe494184033fc8ea4adc
1aa862aa51beb91749a95530e6dce96e73338022
5756 F20101129_AABBZT dubeux_j_Page_153thm.jpg
8921473bcfb7a01a361e7279eb8716dd
dda6a1a4e37b971f6ae4a07701c1144f1e38dcd7
F20101129_AABCGC dubeux_j_Page_171.tif
0b55f81444a10192d754bef68d0f38b9
4bc2a70362e9711dbf0434e4f8b9d625533c8d07
F20101129_AABCFO dubeux_j_Page_155.tif
e4c5cacba466e38ee3c4dfa96e18f5ab
e83337a71bf02b9634a64de423606224cecfc356
F20101129_AABCEZ dubeux_j_Page_196.tif
efada4e752552435b2a2ae1894ea1b62
a10cd5c4c4585498f200e3dbf027965fd2c6d1dc
4427 F20101129_AABDJF dubeux_j_Page_134thm.jpg
64af1f04f6d4b320d5e9d0eb02ecc675
59abb32ad85dfa33aaba2c4ad77b0c5c996c9c07
734209 F20101129_AABBZU dubeux_j_Page_061.jp2
91555d4c9284b7c24d19c9c0fb6da7d7
03f5ab53fd3b3e839080764dfc20f9802d5102c7
56936 F20101129_AABCGD dubeux_j_Page_184.jp2
2689e951ed0bc995db63306f52fe0bb9
e0ed43dcf215a8fd251294dc082cc5b854c55d58
F20101129_AABDJG dubeux_j_Page_137.QC.jpg
46943aafdab55a4811b63c1cae0e9e05
06d2d041e594cef8aa63633df57541b3f6d05779
17469 F20101129_AABDIR dubeux_j_Page_119.QC.jpg
73669a1745a8f7f9c2c7a919115438ca
1ada0465b7d2e2a51d320e4eea39e78eb116f248
72369 F20101129_AABBZV dubeux_j_Page_132.jpg
181bc4501a95bb85091479539f4e3e40
ad32ef2b196dc354723a3df20f9ff44011745719
95665 F20101129_AABCGE dubeux_j_Page_093.jp2
4fd3fe8fd05338a62b6743d118095e52
b08d93409b34518cd751430fbcdbe70a91f78319
74165 F20101129_AABCFP dubeux_j_Page_143.jpg
7421f2b0c9d0a995d23e604ff9aa0eeb
11c437caffbff0f85a781d9c12af809941fb8e33
11960 F20101129_AABDJH dubeux_j_Page_138.QC.jpg
b0e0c17891668a91e5561ed339b2a2d9
170f0e0637e744595ec8e692ed7055a5f07c27b4
24033 F20101129_AABDIS dubeux_j_Page_120.QC.jpg
dbf7d31604d5d2926a7110e01b4664e2
6eeddbed12b6b6c6916278bd1be27dd265e53a3b
102614 F20101129_AABBZW dubeux_j_Page_130.jp2
cfda70d5de292bc698ee21e93b35478b
df31cce2e04e2cc71502cf5ec9fbf327e8c5386d
F20101129_AABCGF dubeux_j_Page_118.tif
0e5b9c047843c4ee7ab846c3f0810c54
7550e7ad57df1b5c2d25c711203d223b4d55f90d
1054428 F20101129_AABCFQ dubeux_j_Page_172.tif
9db8826ad54899d00531c9bfc9cde9a8
8092c8e6535e8be031d9505a2af6419eb4882322
22198 F20101129_AABDJI dubeux_j_Page_139.QC.jpg
9ccc41723e3dcb0ca1872521c9204beb
a6933230c6f6d6cca291e548c13e1ea2855f5d4d
6476 F20101129_AABDIT dubeux_j_Page_120thm.jpg
01d9c69f8a5a0e21b58413a2b5dad009
3e7f81dc9528473a7ab0457216c27013894b0880
F20101129_AABBZX dubeux_j_Page_170.tif
279700366356ab090499ad9a2c6b1319
d184290edd0f274362f57cbaa068a33ce9e4f08b
4450 F20101129_AABCGG dubeux_j_Page_019thm.jpg
aba5c840fd38a6b2d59ab40840a65c17
72014a40f8c7428119c6faefd7bf0df4d40e7599
22794 F20101129_AABCFR dubeux_j_Page_047.QC.jpg
852ab4453c75ea91eb30c78c8123fcfc
7f58f3ec859c2e905d5dcd9486101af65793e544
21357 F20101129_AABDJJ dubeux_j_Page_141.QC.jpg
05bc0b57b58e8bccf9be17139f3ac649
5911925c330c67b36f752b8af48d2a70dc073e30
18327 F20101129_AABDIU dubeux_j_Page_121.QC.jpg
0801322b0168fc3300dc8baaf76867d7
08fcd66b1614606bddaf6349d13187a56e09a845
81424 F20101129_AABBZY dubeux_j_Page_075.jp2
d1d7b012a200102e4807772d21ab27e3
1b6a0e9cfd7deff34682c4334bc09a189fec01c4
24595 F20101129_AABCGH dubeux_j_Page_123.QC.jpg
52951728e5285fe762f2c6f9202c426d
54b14aa9eb9539d90cae93040b1ce7d9f3f74647
69403 F20101129_AABCFS dubeux_j_Page_058.jpg
1053bbb9e52a380ccee6f81436eec0a0
328fda34ba0414fe8a7c72d047703cd54a60526e
6264 F20101129_AABDJK dubeux_j_Page_141thm.jpg
20b99e369a7f54ea0fe862bfdf966049
fb87f93d21bd3c0d02f4be9de118e20cbf184492
18008 F20101129_AABDIV dubeux_j_Page_122.QC.jpg
1655c96449f7cabcff09074d8b7b3fb3
82cfd8c9c433408a447b9e85b0f144d12aad7c49
6340 F20101129_AABBZZ dubeux_j_Page_042thm.jpg
07e98977766337b6c6fcbb41ce979ce4
613e2aa647765a22e06caa64ec7656795b47b296
74935 F20101129_AABCGI dubeux_j_Page_088.jpg
b157162ed4a7300a2d11926b0c014172
e1966222c2c05b40cf2a4cf81053eaf525b58244
58686 F20101129_AABCFT dubeux_j_Page_061.jpg
ff08ec813ed6c206e85ba1e017f2eb71
2f71c88cd56b5e2f7044a75fa718713006fb61b3
3795 F20101129_AABDJL dubeux_j_Page_142thm.jpg
0c2c7ee4e1996f8db6e1a253adcc3b54
b4918797811c50212c133ffe705e5a92e9954a78
5265 F20101129_AABDIW dubeux_j_Page_122thm.jpg
2b0cd3f4f4e557a640e8ad312b9e78db
44328cdc603552d4097be5a37bd42c2bf73fac88
59813 F20101129_AABCGJ dubeux_j_Page_057.jpg
8318cbf484e5f1961cb934814eb36d4f
9777588c140985f5627febb8580d898be5ab34c3
6864 F20101129_AABCFU dubeux_j_Page_030thm.jpg
5a1933d04a010c89a57321aea544cdc8
f3d77b07e2b3ffb14b32420bb255a358904591ad
6330 F20101129_AABDKA dubeux_j_Page_164thm.jpg
0f1379e61f8f5004717ceff7a8e676e5
ea6d0a09bd57aa358ac94c9bed4d832cb0815dbf
F20101129_AABDJM dubeux_j_Page_143thm.jpg
b7df4ab7bf86458d5e0014728852f8f6
c83e36c8c4d4d6f6d3324bbee05620b9593e6d2c
6786 F20101129_AABDIX dubeux_j_Page_123thm.jpg
0378904e23a5613eab19a44f7f8e9373
8b9603a42d1cf7cfcd2a38d12a3fb2d333c8b04e
62011 F20101129_AABCGK dubeux_j_Page_118.jpg
c34e3bb59d6d25ad7ecca45817479054
7eafa2f739c562869df60ff5c957156b2a0b1f78
110317 F20101129_AABCFV dubeux_j_Page_132.jp2
001cf903874b5b9b9d7282343ff8e4e5
317cf955f884582316fea8026fa2d07ecdb3d8f8
17386 F20101129_AABDKB dubeux_j_Page_165.QC.jpg
16f90b1aa3e708063594450e5f324b60
c253f9f839defdda616d7cbfc2c5f69fb06f63fd
19721 F20101129_AABDJN dubeux_j_Page_145.QC.jpg
672dc9b5ec3be75be11f4358d8187fe9
7d1c5a5d15ce142ed1a980782a45fe15a301dc84
17978 F20101129_AABDIY dubeux_j_Page_125.QC.jpg
977e946996355a2b0e47d40e32fb6cfc
9c3034911837d0b6d8422edb47e2aa15f0a6f15f
70811 F20101129_AABCGL dubeux_j_Page_113.jpg
f72be381ce4eda0766af0fce34d7c0e5
8c5524f66df92826ae57bcd40b268109a20fcd73
F20101129_AABCFW dubeux_j_Page_051.tif
0760672e194ded7ed6184d4649542527
244807def27056b0c66bf43dbc8da48f58ba7291
6285 F20101129_AABDKC dubeux_j_Page_167thm.jpg
ced99ec2cffbfad6fa15e1ea64e1ce54
e6209cef30704fa90e907df7bd7ca4030820eb07
3419 F20101129_AABDJO dubeux_j_Page_146thm.jpg
22754ec14b31b3499f29b615649d48c4
4a8e0824b1e4ee864ada889924b0620916aa4562
5318 F20101129_AABDIZ dubeux_j_Page_125thm.jpg
4e7fbfe53a7089a34f2ac6cfdf7a26bb
8435851c6b15ca7c8e049dfaa6019179ef5b86a3
F20101129_AABCGM dubeux_j_Page_115.tif
eae5cb10937103c0615d849b514a4ac0
7bffad6e5c787e810aceec7ebdd28dbae5be8f69
101257 F20101129_AABCFX dubeux_j_Page_167.jp2
f44e1aaa42ef1be08cd171abc97f96ec
bb7b6d2ee1c54d6709d210878d0216636e5865f6
14368 F20101129_AABCHA dubeux_j_Page_154.QC.jpg
fb3faa6272a438e10f5b5b89e7fca221
7dad7782f380b20f0b4af950b43b108c9504b39a
F20101129_AABDKD dubeux_j_Page_169.QC.jpg
457080d936a2a6f3a9bd175a8e090656
ff9099baad4ebc7db4401d5819171fc39ed2704a
6452 F20101129_AABDJP dubeux_j_Page_147thm.jpg
d7249cf50fa7861c7d2339270c7253c5
42eaf637bdc0d4c79cb85021abfc3a6fb30c717e
6616 F20101129_AABCGN dubeux_j_Page_088thm.jpg
30c2ff1635cb74093d5656c936606861
8be26d7230f42e7172064c219a1772bcb828d0b0
9544 F20101129_AABCFY dubeux_j_Page_092.QC.jpg
ab42d7a4024d379dab79f37a28fd54c1
2c24352d18aeea4787b4b96908c4e2ecfe8b1172
130368 F20101129_AABCHB dubeux_j_Page_197.jp2
8e22c6971df1dd5f5758f287510eb919
bf76a637d96b652bb9f0854025e8be5d6dce4f0b
6639 F20101129_AABDKE dubeux_j_Page_169thm.jpg
719e64e2920143368c11c844e5c84ac7
c29715cfcb187bcf62576f683a3f010ddcca4375
5300 F20101129_AABDJQ dubeux_j_Page_150thm.jpg
f83ec518b69baef1a04aef26f835b125
54eac2dc87a726d5c14d96fa3965db8656558a7c
23370 F20101129_AABCGO dubeux_j_Page_046.QC.jpg
68c961ad762ae69f45206785ec905a93
ba527bc802bac8250b5cf870fdaae5a4cfbd0861
20206 F20101129_AABCFZ dubeux_j_Page_101.QC.jpg
2b2685cacdb905655bbbf0786b62ebc1
3d898074927a1464d66b990012d9de9411761d0b
87336 F20101129_AABCHC dubeux_j_Page_018.jp2
d3f36bc1ff11523182c476b48f7681b0
54a8f8bf868e7305cbfd336feb5f708f35c7fd96
6644 F20101129_AABDKF dubeux_j_Page_170thm.jpg
a81dad6c2b9e890626d8245a321aef20
3c541febd5b5ce01998cc66c7b0e315e51bf1f25
23265 F20101129_AABDJR dubeux_j_Page_156.QC.jpg
45e40505ac92f546e662494b528bea2e
936ee68d42139c3f34631566c6bc0952c6967683
15102 F20101129_AABCGP dubeux_j_Page_078.QC.jpg
af342c316f3267030516119aa944eda8
0c8add3a42761311987c88aa8f9e6f86234bc02c
F20101129_AABCHD dubeux_j_Page_054.tif
9978f0e54b741a2355ab7ae17d787b64
4ebb607a1c530663c4e8a2a54a208893f29375b6
21312 F20101129_AABDKG dubeux_j_Page_171.QC.jpg
efbfc0148969026c12123af34424195e
65b154a348cffa8dac219ee6f14ba99735cae9da
110060 F20101129_AABCHE dubeux_j_Page_133.jp2
b226a3b806ea7143aa00400905964abe
e702a2dad9df0655ba4f2f897e7ffd8abf68c1b0
8144 F20101129_AABDKH dubeux_j_Page_172.QC.jpg
4d3f429abf4c022b3e116d347d500f03
4d5ace914dde566fbe0312c36b69af6723225c50
4940 F20101129_AABDJS dubeux_j_Page_157.QC.jpg
e7bc5f5b6dff34c7066990b6a865b025
755ba56566ad924fc44f0179c1690b8cdd1d0f98
100105 F20101129_AABCGQ dubeux_j_Page_094.jp2
e3cea028b2a41bff4a1ff8810f5cc4c2
99788944d96b6603f965cbd9cd35f5439a7c2c80
F20101129_AABCHF dubeux_j_Page_190.tif
8843723f4566bc9c058032b5cf29fe37
9d613492d664f41203762621f37599bef751657e
6595 F20101129_AABDKI dubeux_j_Page_173thm.jpg
9930a8718686307cd6b5f368ca6f5862
5b7600355f7a0f5be55960f7f5e6bc2e537e4102
5925 F20101129_AABDJT dubeux_j_Page_158thm.jpg
92cad970c7c5f638c29308f70f292ce8
4add7a46ea85e1142d278e700aec22f2dc214cd2
67305 F20101129_AABCGR dubeux_j_Page_069.jpg
91a89ba7a666b9a13880ef6f0d0a671b
cfbd982d701b961ff83930a91f6027553b92226c
F20101129_AABCHG dubeux_j_Page_048.tif
5554bf776b575874be60f1a3ecd6f128
121ef103de9f5beec7255e6550fa64004264fc99
6023 F20101129_AABDKJ dubeux_j_Page_176thm.jpg
6afcc36de2f1d22bd9e00527f2b44ee9
ac4711c253975532f689bfbd4fe5f0e45af2698d
6457 F20101129_AABDJU dubeux_j_Page_159thm.jpg
6424c48acd0c9f0a6f3ff9dc9376b89e
9f274fb0943cf70d4b6c74578cfc804c1d20752e
5785 F20101129_AABCGS dubeux_j_Page_151thm.jpg
0523d90ff1337600373a754eed00a96d
0b6a472f2d0ee27a1cc5c1983858c7cf80f4e6a6
F20101129_AABCHH dubeux_j_Page_165.tif
daf92785584f534323df904652f7e739
75d30c99d6b09788aff443cea990b217fb1131df
23156 F20101129_AABDKK dubeux_j_Page_177.QC.jpg
cd1518f2b74251c25055ec554832d845
0db670934e945577403090dfa6e894aa7747c18f
24235 F20101129_AABDJV dubeux_j_Page_160.QC.jpg
299fcf70a798ac2716768123456ede35
58a813aa49e4e46276381e50afddafa0746d046c
111652 F20101129_AABCGT dubeux_j_Page_039.jp2
2d23cc65768fcebd010828dcbacd9660
19ca570745faa33c0e998c8a9efa03e8c987d703
F20101129_AABCHI dubeux_j_Page_179.tif
3a6769f4cf522512cafa4dc2046bab3e
2b143ee1b29049e2ccfbe56ac20a877efdf689cd
22016 F20101129_AABDKL dubeux_j_Page_179.QC.jpg
ca39ff7aa42bbaddf930d0ebc0c1d780
a3e0130c3cf878c0130c6116fbbb5b5a0fd1fcc6
6621 F20101129_AABDJW dubeux_j_Page_160thm.jpg
ef4a947dc302a401c91a48af0e2a2063
1858f7327684965b465d2bdcaebde2659d8a1ae0
6961 F20101129_AABCGU dubeux_j_Page_192thm.jpg
871cb5bb6b7f0b3e0a4bb21a2dea4061
98fe101d860fa9fef6e6bbbd75c4c1e4c9101bfc
112170 F20101129_AABCHJ dubeux_j_Page_170.jp2
54f7501e4b5034c711d5fee6c0320676
b4758d5d1f1672f4e6ae27fc3e8512816f418925
25760 F20101129_AABDLA dubeux_j_Page_196.QC.jpg
bc78a7f01bf22fa14438d7fd98823393
8a4dde3d11f92c0b232c40ef6c44f3c5935c25bf
6806 F20101129_AABDKM dubeux_j_Page_181thm.jpg
af57216faeb478d420ab2da0727fefa2
9abdeb88c41f6dce85316e2be94d1d17ba72d272
6454 F20101129_AABDJX dubeux_j_Page_162thm.jpg
434f6978ca49f976e41ecbca79010161
622cd0907907b8482eab013138e6cda6b77b4490
104400 F20101129_AABCGV dubeux_j_Page_041.jp2
cddd626b5e199b2450720406271c20e3
87979f1333eecc75d607366574df790c3b939f8a
3963 F20101129_AABCHK dubeux_j_Page_138thm.jpg
d2c731444748daeb4750c2ec66bb219b
fa1362f359036db25f64b20566bb8f0e30b0cb42
26545 F20101129_AABDLB dubeux_j_Page_198.QC.jpg
ae7e79037052a22dcacc56763587a4fa
f764968b2ffc6b91e9d332d336a03d920d389a10
6270 F20101129_AABDKN dubeux_j_Page_182thm.jpg
53fe54440345b8ca353ae37acf3a9d90
11b4ecffef7e165dd036007493eb24ff861b5b9b
18423 F20101129_AABDJY dubeux_j_Page_163.QC.jpg
5f64d4ff447a4d0a14e2adc3d9e9807b
db2043aa035be3ce75b6613146e3865bb9b38a16
6144 F20101129_AABCGW dubeux_j_Page_110thm.jpg
68d4fb330d63d15bce1c720392741f56
ec293e69316cbcd1760e23a2b8065a275cb09765
85696 F20101129_AABCHL dubeux_j_Page_024.jp2
a8c09b09146de2ebeb0e8d2263593956
46445de1eda8a4079ec572901fe3f631dd04c19c
26116 F20101129_AABDLC dubeux_j_Page_199.QC.jpg
f119be2ed4d5bfdda323cfc3ffe8cf16
faf94f3aa842fb5565262156a359b7cc8ba5e7b9
12567 F20101129_AABDKO dubeux_j_Page_184.QC.jpg
6c68a86e78483d1ec44bb98df3608e85
c827597cd524f6d2593208b3ab7b7311f6aff7ce
F20101129_AABDJZ dubeux_j_Page_163thm.jpg
e0b97742dad82f37758a0deb88604540
4c5690a0612ea855efb3d9423b1fa2bf84d04a64
5806 F20101129_AABCGX dubeux_j_Page_051thm.jpg
3cc9257cb3c3464f7328ff66f1f6b780
8a382f3e05ba6c42d0d3475929ae9f7b08965633
F20101129_AABCIA dubeux_j_Page_189.tif
28e58b5e1932ce3a5f4de34d9ef648d1
b68e057f777284d67df38bef5f4b36fbce67a622
4305 F20101129_AABCHM dubeux_j_Page_078thm.jpg
569772f462b9b0d7ba26ae12335a7392
d5a1eb6774b5307ed75c5cc7afb27537f1be7811
6398 F20101129_AABDLD dubeux_j_Page_201thm.jpg
4a9f488b8ed3b8dce24f187c860cb1db
0bb49ef3039e93135ec1031de01571ea178730e6
4031 F20101129_AABDKP dubeux_j_Page_184thm.jpg
8b9ed5d68c7c0963e16a1251d6705660
7288c6328452bd17bdef265248d1986e5c26e90f
22942 F20101129_AABCGY dubeux_j_Page_028.QC.jpg
8a53f0428954c9d47e0102ccf721ea28
9e20fe358ba06f5e121d5be74a08b9bffdc1898c
100262 F20101129_AABCIB dubeux_j_Page_171.jp2
18f0eea771d971ddcf56b23171a96298
71dff428b9ebf091ad9f1e86434d8dcc9f0b60dd
107481 F20101129_AABCHN dubeux_j_Page_058.jp2
51fa167899ebefc7040365e3d27dc061
a1732e0ad719b2f35d6d27028c4fdc9c100b07ef
25072 F20101129_AABDLE dubeux_j_Page_202.QC.jpg
6d0d179847d89d0895a8b32ef46cdf64
f4c937416b7807679eefcdd8b8ab3358bc611431
3483 F20101129_AABDKQ dubeux_j_Page_185thm.jpg
0acb77d4d757f9b98edb089998b3fc0a
7939106f8ea50c726165fe52ebe84c8ac4a5b877
F20101129_AABCGZ dubeux_j_Page_199.tif
79e2154095a9980afd8f4cf571948d4a
b661153c97243eba9a96f954f830c6646ccb55ba
6239 F20101129_AABCIC dubeux_j_Page_131thm.jpg
8df931a59eecd9ba15f24b1e3b485067
c2918b401ae9b97067c9875c59c5c03594cb4e9b
F20101129_AABCHO dubeux_j_Page_137.tif
7cd0246b63b6c35590731d23b6fd99b2
141039595fcae0190e9dd67a74b406d4fb66a73c
6960 F20101129_AABDLF dubeux_j_Page_202thm.jpg
ec1e68f03dc4870936d731ce4d08030d
7223cf5d4c381442eac9ef4c31c0fe672c7f8ebe
10194 F20101129_AABDKR dubeux_j_Page_186.QC.jpg
2e9fb267d3807121dfd1940921ce2ad1
2ab19266852dd902cb6226c8bab42314d11ae4b6
7261 F20101129_AABCID dubeux_j_Page_012thm.jpg
ab41615279b67b58774c8f9ca5e44baa
cf755c4e966ecde356812bded469fc8adf66cee9
6405 F20101129_AABCHP dubeux_j_Page_156thm.jpg
e084800ac92c868dd7a4c5920aea814c
50f056848fb07c617055fac45846add833c798c6
5530 F20101129_AABDLG dubeux_j_Page_204thm.jpg
a1967f508981331d6ab9beebbe4aa721
b1d2a8282bc243298eb318bbaa5eff259b4f996c
3261 F20101129_AABDKS dubeux_j_Page_186thm.jpg
918989d325c7e7cf0eb9ed5e84e89470
c31e7c1b6d55ae1835800c549872b730fdf453aa
14620 F20101129_AABCIE dubeux_j_Page_049.QC.jpg
4598462fcbff8a82369e875abd3e98e3
ed866b1913573bb0db891f283836a79a8ce1d760
64018 F20101129_AABCHQ dubeux_j_Page_129.jpg
bac782cfc6346c21a1e4567a7fc752d8
71200277499014e682ca3258bcb27924b4753c6c
149350 F20101129_AABDLH UFE0011202_00001.mets
12e4c5a4bbaef470c3d41403bd78c914
567328b4ae18789fcb0609700944b643c5bbb1c5
F20101129_AABCIF dubeux_j_Page_080thm.jpg
3fd9c733595f9de82cec98f00ac47f4c
f8c1b945f267f6f581b8c46c00caaaf489691199
21256 F20101129_AABDKT dubeux_j_Page_188.QC.jpg
c0f3336ca7d5b7ad7c9913fc9281fad6
3816238d79cf566151b876dc9bd68141341b1b2d
14495 F20101129_AABCIG dubeux_j_Page_157.jpg
c844bb0bcd675bcfe1a6599449332053
40ed2336584c78e108cf747d511303db636e5e51
6366 F20101129_AABCHR dubeux_j_Page_047thm.jpg
3330439812caafaf505a25bc5805b1ba
a401b778f9cb96294fcbf9c03f1c219b5c1fbcb4
5840 F20101129_AABDKU dubeux_j_Page_188thm.jpg
8d19325e629d33127df4feda12a30332
f3f3c332a62a075567feb461d4b71f0d4a2de5a1
6267 F20101129_AABCIH dubeux_j_Page_183thm.jpg
965f03572097798301d4dfa34f9ac909
9808cc2482671219bcdd1386ff19ba4cf0f6245b
6238 F20101129_AABCHS dubeux_j_Page_135thm.jpg
a24e5ced62ea673adf0d43210d7f3235
1bbd3e23bd1f6576d6616dd7968fce1cd3771601
24993 F20101129_AABDKV dubeux_j_Page_191.QC.jpg
c2316996f8485ab0b8e55dabd9e1abdd
5b7e72fc688de1193b0b4556a27eda796f827ef2
5077 F20101129_AABCII dubeux_j_Page_075thm.jpg
115742ba3f4e3de9d000d749f546e3a3
bda1fd671849a1bd766d139f3720f01e47ea2a4e
5125 F20101129_AABCHT dubeux_j_Page_117thm.jpg
c7b40d1a992ccdbf66c13f7b7eee5ac8
8b8452372c45a0998dfc25c4cb7a1bb0373d59bd
6627 F20101129_AABDKW dubeux_j_Page_191thm.jpg
1950c03d1628f9317da28dea469694df
37a000fad98efa6374d7b4309104808d0ec13db2
4781 F20101129_AABCIJ dubeux_j_Page_073thm.jpg
209574fd58f4b16522f92b9b824bb868
249187d9ab74452269a1ed9a055135a7cf665850
6295 F20101129_AABCHU dubeux_j_Page_140thm.jpg
d36cbf2d5b97745a43ba8e2e3a41e543
80bcb4693e522518de09180020c11baa8847ab20
6840 F20101129_AABDKX dubeux_j_Page_193thm.jpg
2e1a1445ebb3f7c5d559adf9a9968790
59b3b710ee31aca87aabd75adc5fde75efee1345
F20101129_AABCIK dubeux_j_Page_182.tif
82adb43f2d3934ed0a1a7fcbec3e23a9
d24904f5997be3a7319b169c1479649b14e7e4cc
F20101129_AABCHV dubeux_j_Page_154.tif
e0b63aabe1d37d318d34ee37bee08f06
d4948fe16d5d39a0eda90c140ec3bd97575fecdd
25595 F20101129_AABDKY dubeux_j_Page_194.QC.jpg
b9ce126715998852cb17236f6a5f563f
08100e297377df8d1371e4bcf95a4acb29ce9210
F20101129_AABCIL dubeux_j_Page_071.tif
af5f10d88d2c9dc0315c4d0244cd670b
ffbaf18c60b9ab59e22c4d69a03973f307045e4e
108789 F20101129_AABCHW dubeux_j_Page_026.jp2
4f2d95b45d94f6200c4333a7d968a601
769b16cbbf0f3ffdc74173e17db31c9c27b85087
6448 F20101129_AABDKZ dubeux_j_Page_195thm.jpg
e53ea6e15472ede295622f93a031afda
67b9316adf21aa34434ffee41b20dd3921928359
F20101129_AABCIM dubeux_j_Page_066.tif
28bb56fd8b9ee5965c2145615e718786
7c48a12ee77c426d23d052d0fd9ee56106fc8fc8
6564 F20101129_AABCHX dubeux_j_Page_168thm.jpg
8a27ce6dcb2d458874cd09d300a2bf4a
a4f60c224fce34eb84d913a0900ce7d1fb87a5c3
36413 F20101129_AABCJA dubeux_j_Page_142.jpg
ebfea4e42a0662faf4acf05664bc1003
d6fe5645fd4945e1a432ec68d196306a0abdb8e2
112172 F20101129_AABCIN dubeux_j_Page_120.jp2
947a80705be8f9d2f2a2c04dd2afc849
5b60c38c789294a929d97086fda6952e96e4fe1e
1051977 F20101129_AABCHY dubeux_j_Page_016.jp2
e5714650fcd4b9b29fa2a6df2ae0a2de
7f5fb2db5f6146656678400b2dc1c26167fd50f3
83437 F20101129_AABCJB dubeux_j_Page_057.jp2
b337cfd3a22478e574d6a9e6da116737
b7c364092724078330163ce65759ede5d2a2ce71
F20101129_AABCIO dubeux_j_Page_016.tif
1a9187babc1694dc2da9ee25fcf7a544
f17761401a95d8cb038f03ce9327fd8bd0535bcf
90221 F20101129_AABCHZ dubeux_j_Page_152.jp2
e7fad9e17fb5c9d215098934c4daf33e
2996711964c83c534948ca9c81ca81ab2398af54
110755 F20101129_AABCJC dubeux_j_Page_068.jp2
dc6845c694bc5c9987836be2f22d0c65
02a40053739be8e7661320abd8d0df6f76392b14
22650 F20101129_AABCIP dubeux_j_Page_144.QC.jpg
8472b40b2ec0ac72ff6094dab43120b7
4ad58da2725b5914390ba9bbcd08438b93658a21
101815 F20101129_AABCJD dubeux_j_Page_053.jp2
ea02347041ac39b9384f93805e51bd09
d62c616ea5ae6bdfbb505c84ecd4ef185f4cf5e3
88732 F20101129_AABCIQ dubeux_j_Page_064.jp2
092764aabaf44cd9828d55cd44515589
9e403a3e68c4cbe89c761fb19d382d15d182957b
F20101129_AABCJE dubeux_j_Page_175.tif
45bd138c8f60854221294f6486240055
7c87b01a5d2791d2c8380388a226f8011720e09c
65821 F20101129_AABCIR dubeux_j_Page_112.jpg
4d2b552764ec74942a0c942839eedae8
58bbffe42249f169daceb4c388aeddf776c41953
20608 F20101129_AABCJF dubeux_j_Page_124.QC.jpg
fb22d89e4ccc089dd9297368b5e67b17
d02ad8ec85e957be9e260c736f508bec9c4bd5af
20060 F20101129_AABCJG dubeux_j_Page_153.QC.jpg
66806786a6c8cdf31bfd432a84076578
1b9640dae3ef3f59358c7e438ad83deadf9430bf
5942 F20101129_AABCIS dubeux_j_Page_008thm.jpg
4c8d6ff8747ffd250df1d6df21447d66
eb199199923e8758d147351e0c3ff169cf012c38
F20101129_AABCJH dubeux_j_Page_136thm.jpg
e83531580dadc2d58b936ac2f16d788b
197900598ab667ec25f453b7572920e334a67066
3074 F20101129_AABCIT dubeux_j_Page_155thm.jpg
03beaedb7a987c612736d0ab09053bab
e8c136d28833b2cf7ce25681900a765374e10be9
17569 F20101129_AABCJI dubeux_j_Page_127.QC.jpg
163b6bb9aec1458f25cefa310e50f092
679b150a76ceb562970364a676cfe05dd4d1e61c
F20101129_AABCIU dubeux_j_Page_047.tif
60bc88af69feebb5e3409e190ea53185
4ab154a862a5102abc26f888a151306aac323a0f
67280 F20101129_AABCJJ dubeux_j_Page_135.jpg
4db70c3d4771b4b832b48e8729808175
67dafa759635d53e0b2a46352838afd60bb2db67
86754 F20101129_AABCIV dubeux_j_Page_202.jpg
7fdd96f974e6fd41ed875088b47e19f4
33f9a32f2af601228acc9ace5da2a3cc932fc1f0
22524 F20101129_AABCJK dubeux_j_Page_091.QC.jpg
2383b2017eade0156c46a940ccdcd8f8
ce7e02d30cc383fcf703abbb68effc23f8357bf7
76292 F20101129_AABCIW dubeux_j_Page_043.jpg
1202451a9e95a0c159c24753aac1800c
a7f47da347ac76544ef1fa9c26069b69eb67c9df
63439 F20101129_AABCJL dubeux_j_Page_134.jp2
f1472819576e04738ac98b7e516182ef
3223430b84c6bad187fb48edb0350765085a4695
71495 F20101129_AABCIX dubeux_j_Page_096.jpg
e1251279dc51d9494504e0880c367adc
c109fc3f4d147e293c96ef0505db24fb8d34e144
25767 F20101129_AABCKA dubeux_j_Page_197.QC.jpg
ad808b7ea9e072c76ea176a9b3c061a1
e503b796ccaaac7c163de50ed4ac106360fdd594
110521 F20101129_AABCJM dubeux_j_Page_025.jp2
dc2b0b2e8f7c8c7a81a4d5ca1f13245e
0562fe403ee3585eb11cf2d30e26b9be677bd6d2
F20101129_AABCIY dubeux_j_Page_007.tif
45fa4d79f301d6e2f260dd1fc5652cd3
5c9e2165b21176e9d60fc78bcf7db096ef827b9a
85725 F20101129_AABCKB dubeux_j_Page_074.jp2
428d74911ab2f7ca7f9760c91df1b7a8
3357fff9ebed1ba4ace387d3e41601ce63784b6b
F20101129_AABCJN dubeux_j_Page_132.tif
351d7065d9f63c29827351c8ad62f9cd
075c9fdfd9770293b4e3edc9b9eb71da397508c7
104002 F20101129_AABCIZ dubeux_j_Page_108.jp2
2443164a28913ffa5d5c3027ca0b6214
1ef7731ff4043d23d004ba1095842b516729ffeb
113117 F20101129_AABCKC dubeux_j_Page_090.jp2
ceaa468e1e0e0cda0b517e3c5b61aad2
1dab5b9820f18595502ca08255204a28d423fb07
75313 F20101129_AABCJO dubeux_j_Page_137.jpg
6011278a5d2662bf1ab027bd5af7ae0d
5f840800628064b8bb93cc9c54ed08b7f077afaf
22099 F20101129_AABCKD dubeux_j_Page_048.QC.jpg
a38a02f1381fa21ee91280eee0309063
53d4d25dbb5dacd54ebd7df75dc31fe3d8cfc3c9
F20101129_AABCJP dubeux_j_Page_098.tif
be813af56e62f84595ef4b6ec32e5f6f
705f783d7e41169ac88964dbfd400b32931d5a6f
19420 F20101129_AABCKE dubeux_j_Page_004.QC.jpg
0430d631d33c64dc63500b393e268f44
4fcacaaf936a4d773c4e894e699ab3608368bd21
53880 F20101129_AABCJQ dubeux_j_Page_117.jpg
a5d8faaa0244ae5cf17c961456041d4e
fde61967ae49d09622388e0d5079102fbc7aee0a
75547 F20101129_AABCKF dubeux_j_Page_160.jpg
3d50d23a35568c2c966783a5cc434337
34c009d9f1bc0f883934b2cad2f55825e9a64e07
6715 F20101129_AABCJR dubeux_j_Page_196thm.jpg
32a3b0fb3dba15af9bdaf9152d142a21
befeeb15b3c72dd2d469409a6940a7e7c3389905
59607 F20101129_AABCKG dubeux_j_Page_017.jpg
4c1c46a6b351129d3ef26fae8ec155b0
1f506ade40dff04e21f728ced2d03321d2ff1db8
51979 F20101129_AABCJS dubeux_j_Page_111.jpg
02c0892e2e6667388c4f0d998e21d8e1
d21400f1e4a890bf07d9e990b3be4f7f9f3dd20a
F20101129_AABCKH dubeux_j_Page_076.tif
a662072e94c28f115685a91b21fbaa79
dab12561528496cb847e97a41e43011d08942ba7
23836 F20101129_AABCKI dubeux_j_Page_030.QC.jpg
061344d8ef2d672799bb8acc75ea80e5
51b900a4dc79aafc605ad37ac13cfd9427efdd60
F20101129_AABCJT dubeux_j_Page_059.tif
7e31686f562e4fb670545c77e19156b9
9e933b02b90a9be85257ea6a88fb45436c2a159d
23079 F20101129_AABCKJ dubeux_j_Page_180.QC.jpg
471f41f0f1eb2f3a0c91c5cc71c8e883
c5b39ca6e204ae648065ae2c9bd4591220bdbe8d
20460 F20101129_AABCJU dubeux_j_Page_151.QC.jpg
2bf38119734a5dc6fa3cf2bd783d5d6a
094e051c5b139aafd6c67db2d2dd9481e0274413
59247 F20101129_AABCKK dubeux_j_Page_204.jpg
edd8513a30acc88bc29dd2f24d0011fa
a5b92dec97d35fe5c6363e41d646a751ca8b676e
22978 F20101129_AABCJV dubeux_j_Page_021.QC.jpg
c2fc55b7a72745a27f8fcb6df3840b63
3c856a4f13d60de1d0081cc664315229577957ba
19650 F20101129_AABCKL dubeux_j_Page_152.QC.jpg
11486d68b0f2d598a1fbb1e3d3d38096
e48c3ead92418755ea4d9ae595c606c6558c0e88
5868 F20101129_AABCJW dubeux_j_Page_010thm.jpg
08ae85a75086c55fbd5fe4838cb1c313
860a563411986681c9d383cae39c1b1f7a75ee0d
66365 F20101129_AABCLA dubeux_j_Page_054.jpg
c1c90d8bda3713f38e0118b7549ea1ba
c89e245d89e6952a656535e5f54608ddbeda4fdb
104103 F20101129_AABCKM dubeux_j_Page_080.jp2
f2fb6320134f08d53536934d776ae412
551b880333197f6ee19d983cb32c188daf139277
5060 F20101129_AABCJX dubeux_j_Page_023thm.jpg
6de71372a882de31990b3d460d345950
4ceaa88c94b6d2321be2b68ce97d3e104fe313bd
F20101129_AABCLB dubeux_j_Page_109.tif
ee278d7dd6e4526141b326909dcccc16
e50d3ddab936c44e6ed7c6b0ec98ba52ecfc3e57
21910 F20101129_AABCKN dubeux_j_Page_135.QC.jpg
55a90c6d70c581fbb3495f98dde2519b
6f6862d7ec588d11377b1b6a649d9e31e3178bb6
F20101129_AABCJY dubeux_j_Page_035.tif
ed19d10c43f139500df779792e96c112
880266b330ab1cfdd8e29de3e4e9e2d582893b8a
22068 F20101129_AABCLC dubeux_j_Page_167.QC.jpg
e4d1cc5fd9155bfcec146a2b4f875b67
dae5e33156bbc7d630d71868487f658a8f72344f
23849 F20101129_AABCKO dubeux_j_Page_038.QC.jpg
8aeca87daba857c4e79586e8ec556442
c3bc908a6a8df38096d968ef93c29845d58e64c5
22344 F20101129_AABCJZ dubeux_j_Page_005.QC.jpg
4ed3af7e8afc29422563decd85700950
d243e456de498c21ec5099c18ae8bfd7f11179fe
F20101129_AABCLD dubeux_j_Page_082.tif
24f12f66b903b240d37ac8f9594485e6
d498bbd18a1d84c28b1bce58294eed72a9d20659
57562 F20101129_AABCKP dubeux_j_Page_024.jpg
c4098a3dceff0fc34b323bbdbfc3a5b2
fdda26ae18003040de5e7630097fa7ebefa3ac13
108349 F20101129_AABCLE dubeux_j_Page_081.jp2
dbdf741454417a918b8a5896b293e5cc
9deaf2c4b843bd1bb07f5020e1685cf6c67fdb4a
F20101129_AABCKQ dubeux_j_Page_122.tif
64df9ed4a397e239260f731a771d67aa
fc0ed92c393c1a011834e979ffbfa242f3059f06
54395 F20101129_AABCLF dubeux_j_Page_055.jpg
92432550e049251b3ae6b623163ecfc1
0c4b2d4aed7ce4209c6ca6d86001168791a88f6a
F20101129_AABCKR dubeux_j_Page_001.tif
185374dd64d9893e5f76e269c1d7f8ae
add83ad2bdc5da423606e63756b4f1bd1a54a263
5332 F20101129_AABCLG dubeux_j_Page_018thm.jpg
2f5ca012abdfb4b2cc6f24500f280acd
f4fa50a578780309dec33c841157d8dfce819015
6923 F20101129_AABCKS dubeux_j_Page_194thm.jpg
b1267fa22d022862810c4624750aa804
d167e4d1dcbebbc277f8e65b70d3fd6927170644
57843 F20101129_AABCLH dubeux_j_Page_166.jpg
84dfb02a4741d576fa984b4fe05982f9
887d7898382f0b1fe99b3105e85c95fd54e89cde
53921 F20101129_AABCKT dubeux_j_Page_165.jpg
adfe9d8af41ec743ebb168265f974dee
2c3c6f30643a21b1b034248bd53549e0b4e8b488
108799 F20101129_AABCLI dubeux_j_Page_072.jp2
1ddb70ec9a1c3d869de5e29f80dcf817
bbbf013108777aaa2d19023cdc74a52759902ffe
93099 F20101129_AABCLJ dubeux_j_Page_118.jp2
e2b0c05d47e7acd0bb00acf5d6c9945f
729db4f5863ba1097b43aa10d71f854c67829dc0
55998 F20101129_AABCKU dubeux_j_Page_023.jpg
f0390f6e25759fc3b8b10bfc5cfd682c
d3a77778b916e42d15d77ca19017cd04401a534b
6302 F20101129_AABCLK dubeux_j_Page_037thm.jpg
1685f9bf878fb94ae9c14900ace29c1c
22c353fa733badf4aec78b0ecbf6508a8643d507
F20101129_AABCKV dubeux_j_Page_184.tif
f0f39d24a3a823f6c0b7f8ded0436ec5
075fb0df6168b37f33c3eac7c722c17477a68293
F20101129_AABCLL dubeux_j_Page_090.tif
b14c86efb77094c1f79b62a8b0996f41
121be464aa4ba72adb8668d12e48f5b2ddba7275
59090 F20101129_AABCKW dubeux_j_Page_083.jpg
977011a1f2eb5e5dc45e8b285cf33ba1
9e8f7be14715123faf5a2c416d9fb86aa4a1be6d
24028 F20101129_AABCLM dubeux_j_Page_181.QC.jpg
6ad70e353a16b2d325ce6dbbdc5b1765
cee77e2eb15a70f2642073d6240906f30ee06c8f
120828 F20101129_AABCKX dubeux_j_Page_016.jpg
d7436fa2a907adadf1edc8260a5581a8
6b3dab10318ebeede11244b79691570d9d38eb63
110796 F20101129_AABCMA dubeux_j_Page_114.jp2
e258224feefdf7a8c80ad2b44dc9eabe
9cdaa50441d6689317c94782a7160de9faa61bd6
6051 F20101129_AABCLN dubeux_j_Page_065thm.jpg
c51e9f05572d3fccd15c29cabc30794a
fb3fceab664368a9963675e9ffb8d5cdbbfef26a
26332 F20101129_AABCKY dubeux_j_Page_190.QC.jpg
4e70d68d74edee533a305da621202073
12ff0d39d16db09137bd4ffc9b800571f11fc5dc
71873 F20101129_AABCMB dubeux_j_Page_026.jpg
c0e3417361b4f07c0d14ca86ab8c245f
0a8a804a981121f35bcb3b39db67c9ac95b337b8
1051919 F20101129_AABCLO dubeux_j_Page_013.jp2
7d70ac712e8ddca1ac68f389106f4c46
1dcb2bbe64a28bd8cf7111f2281b4636dcc2ae6c
111183 F20101129_AABCKZ dubeux_j_Page_044.jp2
6679fd92d83d7138d5dab96f468689c5
d6ff08b59b0dc5440d98b2e4ca42c736340326c7
70808 F20101129_AABCMC dubeux_j_Page_108.jpg
5c96535a0ddce842259742d6e55e506a
2e66c48807480e46ee855fdb29ab2f28a6a9ed8b
134725 F20101129_AABCLP dubeux_j_Page_189.jp2
ac25c02bd1821f2685a73059366e7544
6b940263933c835ebf879a7a81b8d2db5251e45c
F20101129_AABCMD dubeux_j_Page_069.tif
d3004e64e5fec3f85f4e13a902eec9b8
e9a39925bccf766f744bc401e8d50c4ddac64d51
67688 F20101129_AABCLQ dubeux_j_Page_035.jpg
6f1c7308766e7f9ec575f27b2af4c68c
b2d350ecb474dc56fe68a7c6b29f24d8d4a55884
61836 F20101129_AABCME dubeux_j_Page_106.jpg
24652b1923f3b38193caa458f14a1b0b
a28d1d3dbd80923e961eaeda918f3b67309593c6
105370 F20101129_AABCLR dubeux_j_Page_052.jp2
105fe9408246bfeec80b0a605929ff23
3243a2ab10050a0a3df3abc5a94e6e68bec3bb94
F20101129_AABCMF dubeux_j_Page_010.tif
55328f13f8ef972a269dafa15e1352f0
85c3532c910c5be7988987746a52c4b36f731387
F20101129_AABCLS dubeux_j_Page_092.tif
632524eb70a89c79517e525285c7556d
2625aa0dbeaaafc5c09541887dea26cc67160469
71682 F20101129_AABCMG dubeux_j_Page_042.jpg
c0f5344a3aaaa7eb761e524b316756b7
24f2b05654aca679f983076f42c237fc393b57e3
108967 F20101129_AABCLT dubeux_j_Page_031.jp2
5aabc4e65615932fa9dfdb976807ba7a
96bde6e85c20d55c7ead450e6ced2e6d15b5a235
72336 F20101129_AABCMH dubeux_j_Page_086.jpg
d865fec6ede89be7365147ded91da87d
3bfb3366e7b4486d0145e21765f30369fedcc98d
18926 F20101129_AABCLU dubeux_j_Page_018.QC.jpg
188115725e7e3d21174dfbc9b03a863f
0984f2ed4ce433e58ac92a7dc9bd3681fce8cd71
23570 F20101129_AABCMI dubeux_j_Page_096.QC.jpg
44e63b55d22ef84aa51b689728cdbedb
1a4e77fa16529f185d73063b76f2e4b58f1785b1
24712 F20101129_AABCMJ dubeux_j_Page_008.QC.jpg
5a0a1e3cf59a9ec344a8d3ef01aec5e2
f747e8d5366114761f2e4894c188a6df8feda552
90063 F20101129_AABCLV dubeux_j_Page_197.jpg
2bb3b8c2b99ac2bd7c58b061548e0195
c5f4f2303345324d1d9da066accab07f901d77d8
26697 F20101129_AABCMK dubeux_j_Page_200.QC.jpg
ec1ac88db8a72ffd1f0f795feed84729
1ff0f991bbc448ede7957d7ba374f2c7596b493d
19022 F20101129_AABCLW dubeux_j_Page_024.QC.jpg
7d006b53b80f3b5a2a7802e37b43b210
470f8a50192ccb9cff27f73eaeea1699164ed50f
6327 F20101129_AABCML dubeux_j_Page_177thm.jpg
72c13e432598890466ea79ead5725a56
d022e113ba3cf7577fe37783be7e2ba64b7c66d2
65166 F20101129_AABCLX dubeux_j_Page_098.jpg
143a0c8f64021847510b04cf15b5c0aa
00c3b13d7fcc87ced9650838172729f17d8de6ab
F20101129_AABCNA dubeux_j_Page_017thm.jpg
30f77f815ed9f1c51eabd4f936200585
be200f85002f250eeba0c5613c5519f1521cddc1
F20101129_AABCMM dubeux_j_Page_116.tif
2a81956b897c3b018c05b0456b80540f
8e0f24d173d11fc9666e17a086948f050c2f2912
20359 F20101129_AABCNB dubeux_j_Page_050.QC.jpg
a1256d221f57e9a906010b1fd0370828
f3f49c89511b4a6eb966688af44a631f7ad25ce9
22858 F20101129_AABCMN dubeux_j_Page_140.QC.jpg
5628fd66ff8a9dbb9fd44cfc921301a7
d28ef2fcd33c09560cb7822dfb82561206470e5a
22197 F20101129_AABCLY dubeux_j_Page_035.QC.jpg
7916e2d5700d5dced90b90e452485e36
6028302c47a747fc465c5331e6a0247391544f3a
5508 F20101129_AABCNC dubeux_j_Page_074thm.jpg
8c1b94ac2249766d63e4f129b51b1732
4e386847b82232eaf27dcfeb8145e030d592276e
68037 F20101129_AABCMO dubeux_j_Page_131.jpg
c6594481be36f64bf11fe0a68e2f1bd2
ff10680493d3365df058265c4739b1090e274ced
9953 F20101129_AABCLZ dubeux_j_Page_185.QC.jpg
afbeacd81c41abbefb27c9f02c7996d3
f6e9303cda71c29b95f1594af28f634e3abd8bf8
67158 F20101129_AABCND dubeux_j_Page_116.jpg
fb1cfb5088590a0dee5ae256df1e5767
004a3a54e3db9ef0162b0c7eab025ce4f96e3817
F20101129_AABCMP dubeux_j_Page_010.jp2
add0f2051d17eb7febd10d4497f2636d
d98644e845be1070f1001d81204bb8fe6ca6ee2d
16250 F20101129_AABCNE dubeux_j_Page_073.QC.jpg
751dd103f41c3cc0e91f3c8e2c3c013d
48ab715f7261344120745bfc12b7ceffa6014796
11639 F20101129_AABCMQ dubeux_j_Page_142.QC.jpg
0009692379276c57ae0911aa814bed14
97eb0302418041a36f5147b27576632a8b5f6e28
F20101129_AABCNF dubeux_j_Page_077.jpg
d431a149b3ce68337d35edce67e46d06
5c048f01cb4cd49571f3bc4f05fa1ff9092ae500
67150 F20101129_AABCMR dubeux_j_Page_102.jpg
b37593d862c9b203d29628b672f5990c
7c3e2f0d8a61d9a1a00b2d5fb9224215200df128
6544 F20101129_AABCNG dubeux_j_Page_056thm.jpg
f7495991d301808b860cbce6117eddce
10396513ab8ccca036d4544433b246c10912ebb7
21455 F20101129_AABCMS dubeux_j_Page_102.QC.jpg
0bb67d78e70ad49de73733c2954f97b1
0d0c1f3e2df4c5b1d1eefa243ec26822d4aa5fab
708018 F20101129_AABCNH dubeux_j_Page_174.jp2
8d09aeea55a30c5380aee416c8d47243
1cb71567611032e6479367e1e016c7fbd9cf3093
F20101129_AABCMT dubeux_j_Page_148thm.jpg
3381867a3762e9d436aaaa8b705a91ca
f3171d1cf11ba08e379ce80ebb540c55da650a47
F20101129_AABCNI dubeux_j_Page_177.tif
9adf68f99c7c43fd60a501032aa8ac8f
7f39150a9c32726bd2a15c89c012d2d11c7db17d
F20101129_AABCMU dubeux_j_Page_063.tif
c3155f7a1f712f9688c69b7d8f910021
24efbdc825d3ef3f8b21eb384f67bdd0ffdc930a
3456 F20101129_AABCNJ dubeux_j_Page_002.QC.jpg
6f36309a9d91672b03f572e2a7f7d71a
571dfec4d44a1d578e5b0ca9842ccfcbca437d9b
16569 F20101129_AABCMV dubeux_j_Page_007.QC.jpg
51e6292c89da11acfba775a774cac70b
f6ca0979a0c3eb4d43c87785df66930f7f63b0b0
83605 F20101129_AABCNK dubeux_j_Page_122.jp2
a926c509efad6637466fe3e3a2324d7a
6d859b0e0e78bb829d0ad70f2ac28947ec9915b6
F20101129_AABCNL dubeux_j_Page_006.tif
eeae9e3b5db3bd247005a11f1a4f4c3a
98de1235a1f4fb272d92d14040d6844d044144f4
67295 F20101129_AABCMW dubeux_j_Page_067.jpg
16f90c69828dd23343a4c3203eb57b08
e57bf950bbf27a33ecabe9457c9d279125c81d11
F20101129_AABCNM dubeux_j_Page_038.tif
d6aa6bb066e6969d1dbbcb6870c5ac4e
86095782d01e9bab8240ffba4f6bf31281e5a477
71349 F20101129_AABCMX dubeux_j_Page_156.jpg
a8e1261e101e9fa1134f05a65e85d1d5
ab6041fd35f585294e06aaa81e1dad773fc42b0f
45526 F20101129_AABCOA dubeux_j_Page_078.jpg
d9a27bd9be05ab194c8a3e79e499502b
f2d1699f7d7a1aa1074b142ba6769f3a78a77643
24996 F20101129_AABCNN dubeux_j_Page_172.jpg
0891d5ceac7eb287a0e47895ecbbc7bd
305ff09ddc8390d52bac8e2bca74c5edd618c3b5
F20101129_AABCMY dubeux_j_Page_192.tif
cb91ce4a2e2530286a8c78d7c40a17c4
b30639b32ebb7c908b1f9de8b3bc330333bb57a4
92368 F20101129_AABCOB dubeux_j_Page_065.jp2
c3270745a7b80a739a2c55be6dd3655e
375f288f050cde84e6b790a9b5d9174dee86d961
22772 F20101129_AABCNO dubeux_j_Page_032.QC.jpg
32cbd35618d558291343985e1fa63f47
f3f780890cba825ca2850975d44dd6129dd452d3
60051 F20101129_AABCMZ dubeux_j_Page_018.jpg
0db0f3846f14b579dfe174c1235c73f5
1710fbdd1d90c8f9338b19749b5dca2f922f9070
108493 F20101129_AABCOC dubeux_j_Page_105.jp2
f7cc8992220199497d52a6e17c562ba3
d934a82e84bd5b0d8d037d15a9bcc0bc2b50e5bd
F20101129_AABCNP dubeux_j_Page_113.tif
d87c38a5e40da1cc8ec153869de07ccd
8b23e108a038a2f2683360485eda43e917f9a220
66803 F20101129_AABCOD dubeux_j_Page_079.jpg
0a977238a6e4abf0bf777bed8f116283
867d7df3e616d1bc3ee591b0b55a37501c7644a3
22090 F20101129_AABCNQ dubeux_j_Page_130.QC.jpg
8710735feccf7e8d3c01f6298bfd2293
52ae55974196450937309655598a7b0a97c4c261
65353 F20101129_AABCOE dubeux_j_Page_126.jpg
01d433f9ab90df559c786a29e8f69f38
cc5067e8ebcf0cd7543634e37f036802c8a012b9
6173 F20101129_AABCNR dubeux_j_Page_116thm.jpg
7da95d17125c0a2f78a08b9e75a91fd7
fa510c7f17e106fdb682d4568e8261da07bc3c54
3622 F20101129_AABCOF dubeux_j_Page_203thm.jpg
9657e87e3719b6830ac006359aaa1794
f7117f372ac3ebff09fce14639dd4194615e1170
53532 F20101129_AABCNS dubeux_j_Page_127.jpg
a35dc99b88fb9d432f98ebda8415b5cc
b14e12f66ea572c963a9af3eba1cd6c7ad818397
71022 F20101129_AABCOG dubeux_j_Page_173.jpg
10bcf419cc3fdb66bcbefd6b3b652c99
65e7a0da41cb06356b44fe12d3d6e27b99a7b3ec
121043 F20101129_AABCNT dubeux_j_Page_195.jp2
4743565a96605296ed54a1188b4dfe91
01ac5323580af3c2608a65cd0195b14b2e28394d
F20101129_AABCOH dubeux_j_Page_012.tif
3154528645d6d8afcde38322a405a7cd
229a1f7cc4780d1012b4d8022b9555e01e7bd12c
65538 F20101129_AABCNU dubeux_j_Page_094.jpg
2117a3311e80b335d15eeda796c32b17
ab440eeac4416578589408e02b9ab45091bfa1f6
5412 F20101129_AABCOI dubeux_j_Page_165thm.jpg
0c2d76a834e5ea95083db2a2971a86cc
9267531284672a9971688e6f549126ed9dbec07e
6242 F20101129_AABCNV dubeux_j_Page_179thm.jpg
0bcf90220f5703cf61b20563ac5c2f88
7ebbef7f9647ee97f180fb55f18039edd1604c17
5381 F20101129_AABCOJ dubeux_j_Page_057thm.jpg
373d42e7f4f450d90404c8b0652e1d63
6f4816b298ef6bf309036cffb547c32c3868aacf
56691 F20101129_AABCNW dubeux_j_Page_100.jpg
9c2769ed6b43c3c34bf8391ca222d8bc
6b5080ba9c1a7d5911921b395df8c8d599c5fdc0
22533 F20101129_AABCOK dubeux_j_Page_110.QC.jpg
73fc392c7c14d962f7117373493df04f
73da6a461ed53563dec2441ebdafc6d83a76560b
93873 F20101129_AABCOL dubeux_j_Page_200.jpg
5a855d0b7ef86ef242f99b5287079433
247b0f32f43e1d602c12057460e079e8299dc0e1
F20101129_AABCNX dubeux_j_Page_100.tif
81065757cfed11cec7a90cdaa603e16e
c8e0cf8d5a75021dc5453d1c2dcf8e2c15a57012
63455 F20101129_AABCPA dubeux_j_Page_151.jpg
4c7ab4abd7bb4a5adcb26eb705a4a901
03b906fc7f79d33ac97820354ad94e555e60ed05
67572 F20101129_AABCOM dubeux_j_Page_048.jpg
3452dee339d1c997ab5b82718f7552d8
fe5a5bf7ecb0771ff3954ab92f99cbbc16cd4364
102274 F20101129_AABCNY dubeux_j_Page_048.jp2
b29c8f7b588104593eb129591aa1a7bd
6db28eb7f0dd8c257121f933b96761fd124a9d32
F20101129_AABCPB dubeux_j_Page_033.tif
7ad19cb8aef98277c8104b00fef22646
53c061581e2cb2787523a6ece5bb4f25dd14f250
F20101129_AABCON dubeux_j_Page_030.tif
37a9ed6be9c8b26cefe94eabe1965dcf
f0f623e767493710e2341e4224c15656f6c8dc36
26915 F20101129_AABCNZ dubeux_j_Page_155.jpg
d23311b545f6f0df11a4272f5be2677f
62c28079f38c530328eb028c424274a6e659567c
93743 F20101129_AABCPC dubeux_j_Page_008.jpg
d1db6cc958a07b68e3c23585c84399c8
6f82df156bc16092dca5e6a131c62e78ff3e7d13
1051952 F20101129_AABCOO dubeux_j_Page_015.jp2
d08bdbff246f98d4cc1f2976d550ce82
e006b00cadab9d9c63dd02798d3fcc6c6f919d47
75029 F20101129_AABCPD dubeux_j_Page_060.jpg
76bbbe7ede73b20f759eb7a41a695ba2
8a8dca692e497b3a879089baeb51e6e257474efc
58031 F20101129_AABCOP dubeux_j_Page_084.jpg
06a7542248873ab3a9b5c686167a912c
3937e1812e4d502511fda5a9da472e992ffc854d
25283 F20101129_AABCPE dubeux_j_Page_187.jpg
800c677a0be87f21f1dc80c7f1111f5f
986441e151383bb0a332fe19f01e52d5a761b9a7
F20101129_AABCOQ dubeux_j_Page_008.tif
5cb02963fb41b0b53fb9732f2255e150
7cb9d85ff2f947cf202d82a1d69a150da1908657
39568 F20101129_AABCPF dubeux_j_Page_146.jp2
e028f2da8a79b3aeb1b3adada7b82a04
71bcfb81793a5307fac7dc604fc64b1fade5971b
F20101129_AABCOR dubeux_j_Page_197.tif
19f2789378045b270e52c0d0a5824f3e
113610486c4da21d33ed1c821e79a017ec191e4b
71359 F20101129_AABCPG dubeux_j_Page_046.jpg
ed438a3631dcef12feb91d894b8594d4
6990aff833c86e2ac4e8621d8a5bcecca793fd7b
18313 F20101129_AABCOS dubeux_j_Page_075.QC.jpg
c2cc8015a687649cc389d09f2f414b2e
271c5d30d8638bc47b5f2e65f06cf0e78283332b
6354 F20101129_AABCPH dubeux_j_Page_031thm.jpg
1184c397af3445098d5ab4e67c887067
a1e26a016fe1f49351320cb191767ba5cc19f4cd
F20101129_AABCOT dubeux_j_Page_135.tif
099f9c7f7033a15def581f03faab587c
7e9377d4aee06896bdca0c8f4d45c6b344f6d672
110615 F20101129_AABCPI dubeux_j_Page_022.jp2
3e04873ef5518afac547b122470e7f48
7641509471626bfdfbafb64a1d2ae813d71708a8
19664 F20101129_AABCOU dubeux_j_Page_051.QC.jpg
c99795c80c709c3fbf74af3d15ac51a1
4a036cd51c9c9085abc3d969d223cc0c054c902c
F20101129_AABCPJ dubeux_j_Page_188.tif
85d71debca61a29efc60d7ce759c0eef
86e547555dd2ded0f6e93455334d6cb5d1225ace
6374 F20101129_AABCOV dubeux_j_Page_052thm.jpg
bd61027baf620e61f6b3bbfa3eb1454d
c0f45b7a47f5c90f62a9543131f03ad3e286437c
58613 F20101129_AABCPK dubeux_j_Page_103.jpg
38a52f9e8de8c3080c53d7fa625560ef
e5000421f3665fc3923cdb9e6f91ff08fb677ec9
F20101129_AABCOW dubeux_j_Page_073.tif
0f059d3d5cf50958c6f8bd15d950892a
0bf8a159c47d7c8106dc1fc4432a009184d03432
21216 F20101129_AABCPL dubeux_j_Page_079.QC.jpg
ca414fda6522288ba71d92812aa7dc37
cd414fdb8f202f4a13201b473ad37eb79078f4a9
107373 F20101129_AABCOX dubeux_j_Page_183.jp2
47fd7de507a353b943aa3c3a2e4f2e87
b388ddd54ef7099a8eed87776283eee3530ca5c4
5455 F20101129_AABCQA dubeux_j_Page_145thm.jpg
b8e8d9e8eb68f13fb8f1fe2ce641fc19
5fd817587ba48372748de6340bd6727304ba74df
17314 F20101129_AABCPM dubeux_j_Page_174.QC.jpg
8b03372bff71ba17be86a511f41c5b8c
76cd7f9f12de17445ba3324341f9fc0cb20404d0
26282 F20101129_AABCQB dubeux_j_Page_001.jp2
bac21fe723430506105fd9b14bc669b0
7053bde0aa779b168ca328acd5149db8b02b76e6
F20101129_AABCPN dubeux_j_Page_029.tif
134022a7b284de7851dbb9b334dcc45c
6aec2b982e6969388937e0ee42f18a4f3dddc371
74506 F20101129_AABCOY dubeux_j_Page_099.jp2
47d8ba3f154fceba84fdcbd8469e2466
d4b60bd95cdf1dc04e8832f21f7e210c22bb68fd