<%BANNER%>

Analysis and modeling of cattle distribution in complex agro-ecosystems of south Florida

University of Florida Institutional Repository
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 E20101209_AAAAAW INGEST_TIME 2010-12-09T08:32:47Z PACKAGE UFE0017519_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 17055 DFID F20101209_AAAPBJ ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH pandey_v_Page_151.pro GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
a229d6105fa3109e3c6d5ca21ec3795a
SHA-1
428a17c1234059706ccd63e0a75a23c8f54f695d
25271604 F20101209_AAAOWD pandey_v_Page_105.tif
92bb10ddbb16d1606999f2bad6249b45
1a23ec74228d89d169a109e9182e8cc4a5a96e64
47060 F20101209_AAAPAV pandey_v_Page_133.pro
389abd083e7fcfc88a6ab796f2e1f0ae
5a5e2f27cdcadb70cfc18ff2901332e3130ca0ae
1053954 F20101209_AAAOVP pandey_v_Page_082.tif
fe046bd7bf7b7fec4d9ebac5b2470803
102f81c8ddc6126bc1bcc073064b08bd8a175979
105 F20101209_AAAPBK pandey_v_Page_002.txt
d0ff0a1e8974e3a785444ef131df490d
a4b473d623f2f17bd972f490ff6468538e17cf5d
F20101209_AAAOWE pandey_v_Page_107.tif
5979be91cc65d7e88e8cd9fa8f8c68ad
c102c8421c39ff7ee3986d7d404d361c465e3181
46324 F20101209_AAAPAW pandey_v_Page_134.pro
f12c235f36722698efc1745b9fd2ab2e
c095ba83e07d1cc496b72d0891488baf045c8d39
F20101209_AAAOVQ pandey_v_Page_083.tif
4c1f1447b8a24cac24dad1ce515a6c4a
0a114318e37aaa4071bc777ff9079f5e1a0207f4
2997 F20101209_AAAPBL pandey_v_Page_005.txt
18f8744b6445342831245b1e5c18a98d
98657a4f1c9707cdbb51d5ac53f14310c11d2f9e
F20101209_AAAOWF pandey_v_Page_108.tif
409486fde0dc2db081f3435ee0230f6d
1af97439ec9108ea71aebb8fa93ab77a23fefa32
49995 F20101209_AAAPAX pandey_v_Page_135.pro
f4350447af79e3f686d4945a9a478bd9
194ceabf91aab05427cb67f2a6520605c37c33d7
F20101209_AAAOVR pandey_v_Page_084.tif
cae79da3e7ac84d49d684421bb97ab1a
7c7699008dfad1f50abaa56c4fcfc7477ad84f3b
2106 F20101209_AAAPCA pandey_v_Page_025.txt
5acd07fe9bc80b54440b2c766f96a9cf
058f75d714d8b325d67c50c6f04f8e93b249c8f8
3304 F20101209_AAAPBM pandey_v_Page_006.txt
ef799e8b8b140f41b0fea0fab4b8dbe3
3b7998b40fcbf8f42429d3263cd4e1ba04ec228f
F20101209_AAAOWG pandey_v_Page_109.tif
a63790ce7fbbbc471bbe5a0eaca2ad0e
7754ec46a97aba633cc2b795d86888fcf8c0f1b5
46856 F20101209_AAAPAY pandey_v_Page_136.pro
fe2fc1ae54493e1442fe6c39fd29b8ab
7d288c4974ec0b730e0a3247e7f3943ef408813a
F20101209_AAAOVS pandey_v_Page_087.tif
250ead9e4dd0551ec18858bb86ef6058
78aca8e8dd3b98ab561ac583359816f362a402a6
404 F20101209_AAAPBN pandey_v_Page_007.txt
1995c8c0a4ddb2ea878440f3f6d269fa
2c98c3dd472fd55475f74c15b6ce80a864d711c5
F20101209_AAAOWH pandey_v_Page_110.tif
d548c3e6e6e30f535a82be01beb65e9f
f7356224995c0eb415a374cd6c29ffdcbe5eba11
63511 F20101209_AAAPAZ pandey_v_Page_138.pro
f6004c261898c27006aac99f28f5fc77
1ac282026d65e27e5f820a1cb06dc2e4a36fecc7
F20101209_AAAOVT pandey_v_Page_088.tif
94501bd59e7b708e64ea680cf2cdeaa9
f2d0a8480c81a267f101e58ded6b199271a01cf4
2135 F20101209_AAAPCB pandey_v_Page_026.txt
f553d7b6adc12a67d5ca1367d08a5526
55565924684b56bf12f73f157c06b2fb045646f5
2410 F20101209_AAAPBO pandey_v_Page_008.txt
e42e0730de104be057d688baedf376d7
3ab6cd7b8886bb827fca3319a2957b337495e7af
F20101209_AAAOWI pandey_v_Page_112.tif
84054d801fa36af7b61d85b811030e8a
4499118920ae395485fc6c5cacbd468157b03ee7
F20101209_AAAOVU pandey_v_Page_089.tif
c42a6830b0d62fb394c61530de3b6cd7
08bcf75efefd86dd576b225f95bf9aebbb58f13f
1818 F20101209_AAAPCC pandey_v_Page_027.txt
d5cbffb68182a022dd80bf9b5d7f1959
bee52583cf62161f123aec320014f6c1155048e8
231 F20101209_AAAPBP pandey_v_Page_009.txt
e5e171e346d88004120ae4cadc7ddd8b
2e2903ef991d9317c3e9dc8251d9363f3e49a36c
F20101209_AAAOWJ pandey_v_Page_113.tif
79fc263a2e5bbabd609469542e4fc27f
c46827c5541ca8e69421b64f1b83513e961c6033
2015 F20101209_AAAPCD pandey_v_Page_028.txt
760a8ef704d2ff64b0a5e429f81ec8f3
e7f5e025171ebd5eb7c7f53707e46fe0160a76e2
2581 F20101209_AAAPBQ pandey_v_Page_010.txt
04d1b7f2b70e3a9f28c8a257d1b36e61
dd39159fd9834a3f51bd771783d53e84bc2dea14
F20101209_AAAOWK pandey_v_Page_114.tif
2fb491f12b12935e4c72c5eb28fdc0c1
08339bbe501539da9b203f2011b924d98abad388
F20101209_AAAOVV pandey_v_Page_090.tif
91cf6afa56d845ed45e7f4c9021d24f8
2e570670c41d8f79e7ae365dc996052fb32706be
2148 F20101209_AAAPCE pandey_v_Page_029.txt
c451ca9b9e983a5fb359984f4f775cb6
37c2d56868b22cd20dcd3847e0c85d41d8bd1b75
2684 F20101209_AAAPBR pandey_v_Page_011.txt
495fea0288fc180db603f87900685229
c7f48aa96bde4eb7d71cac5b271c1b72728eb625
F20101209_AAAOWL pandey_v_Page_115.tif
b563d6be70bdd8bfaf319f78feb7f4bf
667fa8f064b193b559b25a10efeb7693851b0bf4
F20101209_AAAOVW pandey_v_Page_091.tif
5d34d4702d02cd51dd19b5a9245bbde1
cff31f5989087ad9e387c4f92ab9b09107191bdd
2185 F20101209_AAAPCF pandey_v_Page_030.txt
6c5286333756e1f0e41835fb25f4bc41
6c027bea89ee50bb4d517479c66e670aa08e6b94
F20101209_AAAOXA pandey_v_Page_136.tif
4cc9e41e4cf5ddd5cdfe0845b5f066f7
b1f61bd60fbb706c05334ce4e688d8c726b90068
1734 F20101209_AAAPBS pandey_v_Page_012.txt
96593b85a68677bbbe82cf71982e3986
7badf9abe190c7f069efbd3fac4ba9df273dac67
F20101209_AAAOWM pandey_v_Page_116.tif
3282ab726090da13eccc2106e5a2b79b
acfd314aaff8150bced7f3fbf47d9c531728fed2
F20101209_AAAOVX pandey_v_Page_092.tif
f2089c234db40da06aaf3b9c782d373f
e492c8a9156eca28284bb58be69409bdb11fa53a
2078 F20101209_AAAPCG pandey_v_Page_031.txt
40ad974801f836ca8353319058f0ee2c
d0c5b36e048d08ae68f0a2056eef0824d333f113
F20101209_AAAOXB pandey_v_Page_138.tif
6acf6155f54a09cfb01c9991cf95d37d
2f4c88163d53e65da4bd35efaef149250a56cc03
2012 F20101209_AAAPBT pandey_v_Page_013.txt
6553b5c7209d989add3557f510d1c816
084b3d94827307fedd69a24d5028a6819b293ccd
F20101209_AAAOWN pandey_v_Page_117.tif
121134173127c5dd591b05e2a94b4615
9fdef8c4a801b68b4275c07cb430f8f80e28f1fe
F20101209_AAAOVY pandey_v_Page_094.tif
79d056f1939ce269edb81912d4b3c0b6
ada65155b757b3b9908b0dfdd2f9aefddc06b950
1363 F20101209_AAAPCH pandey_v_Page_033.txt
2fe61bfe4b07c8283054547c41d67b8b
fcd5c6edf67d9737550bf8149c69bf26206d2ebd
F20101209_AAAOXC pandey_v_Page_139.tif
922f530550b8a840db1861534d7f5247
d9a6d36622e3ffc596b0e3e1d99b84af8e81f6c2
1105 F20101209_AAAPBU pandey_v_Page_014.txt
a4c0c2f69ae8a8d988a49024e43e6760
6bd04ce9665808bb08236ba245f1da97ea55d742
F20101209_AAAOWO pandey_v_Page_118.tif
76a4bf4f041b16ef4c3933d029c28282
e2e8f5c865a6844778df71f038960d11cb2394a7
F20101209_AAAOVZ pandey_v_Page_095.tif
d38ab6d4a792306a16ed17405e622e4d
5d4a190ab56fac13dcce6ee8a62ab4edba72d1bd
1936 F20101209_AAAPCI pandey_v_Page_034.txt
117c795d23fdf6f4f66cdb7b79f9da30
90f7be39983d7a8eaa780335c8f87e4ff1d3e5e9
F20101209_AAAOXD pandey_v_Page_141.tif
60f275a62236f2ee16fab205b80a1df7
967b0e58524c8cee0655ea4cf9f19ac14a676129
2082 F20101209_AAAPBV pandey_v_Page_016.txt
5c06cf87727ebd47bb4ad4be0d1cd2f5
1bec2d968ecad8cb24112958043e132187b8f591
F20101209_AAAOWP pandey_v_Page_119.tif
3b8496de714c58e2a734963e70aaba37
76b6bd85b42d8446f6b8cb2757108795a3c0ab72
2108 F20101209_AAAPCJ pandey_v_Page_035.txt
2ccb9b9e3729f13668b755c8a146d78a
f7db0c1f2db8e275ff6836c092e194cdf7d43ffd
F20101209_AAAOXE pandey_v_Page_143.tif
7467a9ded13d48da707365806d1d1458
6cf727df9f1fa976dfa0aa6bd6a4f4b149075127
2166 F20101209_AAAPBW pandey_v_Page_019.txt
ce418e26a770d89074725fb7de44bc3d
dc01132bcf26e909c83c589b9459843a6762bf60
F20101209_AAAOWQ pandey_v_Page_120.tif
9b1c5338d4134b6a1d03277a6e55dc9b
ffb4ab68a476ad3c6b51fd8af4e07c9ea0e1315d
2069 F20101209_AAAPCK pandey_v_Page_036.txt
036f430a9c46483f5b47d3e16cee5606
14c0c32e2bf9f7a0c0389111f875f02de521bdab
2066 F20101209_AAAPDA pandey_v_Page_062.txt
f720bc08ca7309a9075461f54e19c6ce
229c7e104cd35815f856d55757dbc1929846abcb
F20101209_AAAOXF pandey_v_Page_144.tif
06a4476f0d6a5212771307be1c169cce
980b2af6c2ef11881a4429edf5c50a51cd2f96cb
2171 F20101209_AAAPBX pandey_v_Page_022.txt
24a0e6ea971ec00fbe991caf3d541fc9
ba9d1e915f60ed3bfc25ff8ba1a1df01ee1b0f31
F20101209_AAAOWR pandey_v_Page_121.tif
f16c0e38863562f4499866ba62e9f574
b252c656786d9315163d4995b63c65b5e61a7bb2
F20101209_AAAPCL pandey_v_Page_039.txt
ed53017ca37aab2185380eded74e3581
9ecf17634915c4ff43eee4cc79715280658dad84
1943 F20101209_AAAPDB pandey_v_Page_063.txt
3d8d7338b382f1e0daa3582e26f21e42
ce85d551bf1f938029504475dcca16022fecd419
F20101209_AAAOXG pandey_v_Page_145.tif
1dbe133a5fa1d6ea6ae1254995af364c
129a9d9bd7ad3b5399020fed14ab58397645d090
2155 F20101209_AAAPBY pandey_v_Page_023.txt
7899391cbbcdecdf22a2ac8fc1bc8398
13be4e3aef65ab4b3fd6b6287de3c71951a466c6
F20101209_AAAOWS pandey_v_Page_126.tif
0db53bec7d6948ea02a145c4da1746f0
a919599781ad073b0ef28ac77354c4ec7b09ec55
2109 F20101209_AAAPCM pandey_v_Page_042.txt
c33f82e1c8bc9e16b6b5b614fa6ce759
f222f38eb1c9a98356f4127571a21d502a38e5fa
F20101209_AAAOXH pandey_v_Page_147.tif
ce5714f654a58e98c9366ba1d8142538
984b5d5487918aa03d981b1b82a00d3fb7e5479b
2150 F20101209_AAAPBZ pandey_v_Page_024.txt
a9be883b0a4c79be4201d242fa88eff2
3b7cab1267ceeb261a430768aa2c02eb1abfe7db
F20101209_AAAOWT pandey_v_Page_127.tif
55da4e85fed0020ec94606a829a52884
725103e1b58bd87d7de3baa785b9d156fd5096a7
1351 F20101209_AAAPCN pandey_v_Page_043.txt
79c808f521f39ff20416f901d99ed32d
66d148117d590826723a3f2f9db8ae1032d0d44e
249 F20101209_AAAPDC pandey_v_Page_064.txt
3e08c2abfca579f11de74ce59d5e4ecb
bac109725b181c87fc60171c30101bfd1df0622c
F20101209_AAAOXI pandey_v_Page_148.tif
685d66bf5fb1f74db275c75efdc973fd
ffc8979e99cfc28bde97f8db2a6ebfdb60ce4984
F20101209_AAAOWU pandey_v_Page_128.tif
a3485a1bff221d3735f8c5f46d100ce4
9f6c336aeac51bb3d27fcbe57c967505e5335b56
8968 F20101209_AAAOAA pandey_v_Page_137thm.jpg
6360f421bfa5537e84d15032d1b5d946
5c5b1ef9c8c047453404ae029390a2126ca7264d
667 F20101209_AAAPCO pandey_v_Page_045.txt
33721e9179f6c53f69e98fbd4de8ff3d
8d23793a9e5b5e49fbfa5cf2846baa95b7ced7f0
443 F20101209_AAAPDD pandey_v_Page_067.txt
7c47672addc0e5c8240663d2930d71d7
b326f551ae3660d0260264207bfe9bb5854f350a
604 F20101209_AAAPCP pandey_v_Page_047.txt
c53c8ca9cdfd433365a80f2f6ba6ce27
8ba8f920edffa5529dcbee3e9490eceff2f8262c
F20101209_AAAOXJ pandey_v_Page_149.tif
2c6ee2f68ca0a74bb0590cd52597fefc
ad30f99a3c748cd264f84100f308de59683f34f5
F20101209_AAAOWV pandey_v_Page_129.tif
c2f23d0f491cdfdbe995edbc57606b5a
5e3a6996af97f90198e0f9538cf754ea74611b70
19373 F20101209_AAAOAB pandey_v_Page_104.pro
5d25910077e49a0f713ccdb638246c8f
a68b91eea6809375f3ef157a971beb0e69d38321
447 F20101209_AAAPDE pandey_v_Page_068.txt
f9452fddb40a901686c8748d1d480122
9270e27e7f975fc27f129b5e06b6a333f6238065
1566 F20101209_AAAPCQ pandey_v_Page_049.txt
04661cb3d54f91dd704b768aa7fdda9f
ae8d30a380fdc0dc089f8193504d355c8d69b21c
F20101209_AAAOXK pandey_v_Page_151.tif
7511d6ca3624da54d16eba90f6c25aaa
7afcb89859f86badc826d009669fcde41750d4e2
4272 F20101209_AAAOAC pandey_v_Page_109thm.jpg
0d3453d600bdae12f3d0285c0e067f3c
d2abcc60baf883e47bf15928a52a92b18a1ceb9d
2043 F20101209_AAAPDF pandey_v_Page_069.txt
db3c1a088d9adde068472130e2c686fa
35b5345ec75b1380601881247dae4fa5961eec1e
2203 F20101209_AAAPCR pandey_v_Page_050.txt
91a9d24bfd5eebaf76bab28cb134c957
4484a71f6119039d2af013326555d5a3e4ae310a
8446 F20101209_AAAOXL pandey_v_Page_001.pro
8242e305a78705f91d18b31e3bc15741
1537221aad334f6281b52305023a1364b4499993
F20101209_AAAOWW pandey_v_Page_131.tif
a8ce3b6edd4fcb4f1a5675c543527991
b07bcf91a31c0a3c719b71f3aaf34f53268d80dc
626 F20101209_AAAOAD pandey_v_Page_107.txt
a3299e888aa80623b60c2338412b3318
7a321ea34b37767259c82508655c8063e41d545d
2580 F20101209_AAAPDG pandey_v_Page_071.txt
3ec0754cb130e4439d6aa4f887822a54
a8bd03b9950f89d7f522e501977f20bad39bc77d
2283 F20101209_AAAPCS pandey_v_Page_054.txt
450fceaeada29b1b765ce333fa0fb82f
29004e2aae78309608b7ea5e09b493c945a0a44e
1146 F20101209_AAAOXM pandey_v_Page_002.pro
58780297ae55f21af27f02c0a3568f08
7c8d945216fd896d0be84ff6ac83c8956b4b6a57
F20101209_AAAOWX pandey_v_Page_132.tif
19babbbf3f9ba648a315a0de6be167cc
729d236b3a1c0446643bffa5907cd0618a850306
F20101209_AAAOAE pandey_v_Page_096.tif
f394579dbd04f238922539ace572a870
393f7f5df4497d58be953091f6aa343a0c4582e8
54479 F20101209_AAAOYA pandey_v_Page_018.pro
ee7c2d266d1e2e043baa5b01d2c04094
514baff0f452b9bf40becd61b918803843866dc2
2028 F20101209_AAAPDH pandey_v_Page_073.txt
03e33c5bf3efd807d57425a03c417efe
c882ec3a6e7cee0117a6b8872b31249a01cc969d
2030 F20101209_AAAPCT pandey_v_Page_055.txt
3ed35323d640046a8a5ed733b43ea025
dd12ff3818a5bfc6aa440c44cb9f999bb62ae949
1116 F20101209_AAAOXN pandey_v_Page_003.pro
f90e6bb6dcece9602e68e930ef140155
08a5d9c70eeed82c76bbcaa09abb71803c57bb82
F20101209_AAAOWY pandey_v_Page_133.tif
2c0f225d857aebb8afe7a47e07cef95d
97c8d3634209a30981b880e1612d8f8d4ba78046
2500 F20101209_AAAOAF pandey_v_Page_137.txt
ed13286ea990e2238f92d670cd502a27
f25df588377e0369af1453a3e0a55980b75e8f98
30197 F20101209_AAAOYB pandey_v_Page_020.pro
149ef375fc71c9f367f6fe4e45fc2cb7
f7ee3bdf3286874e7066f4e0cb5ec0f08e5be8bf
2214 F20101209_AAAPDI pandey_v_Page_074.txt
76cba0875871dbe83c1015823a02529f
c0dd63b2d8eaed0d6ba7e704cf773fb4f95557e5
2226 F20101209_AAAPCU pandey_v_Page_056.txt
154a33059cb266e26fbd051b86ed7eea
772c446b87bb758cdf676ae4e2cc4a023abaa738
46029 F20101209_AAAOXO pandey_v_Page_004.pro
074999b8451569055775d3663a6f985a
d9b168fc422cd2e5423aa937d71739d1c551e994
F20101209_AAAOWZ pandey_v_Page_134.tif
affd5114101a868df73d4613f20f460d
429e3d24b913a848b11d21a281a53e8add1d54e4
F20101209_AAAOAG pandey_v_Page_146.tif
c25e250594fafbaccb007f5a6c17f5ea
0d09113ee9919ea67be1b48183cb22c63a0e7531
54922 F20101209_AAAOYC pandey_v_Page_023.pro
4d0050e2d28ec1b19054b19c872bacb9
0c933ad063cb257b6071c784461fdbbf222e5680
1736 F20101209_AAAPDJ pandey_v_Page_075.txt
9909ecc531f5058e9e0f604c7a59f7c7
00f8e228d762d56622b26dfcb7a93b210e110224
2170 F20101209_AAAPCV pandey_v_Page_057.txt
f111cc299248030512c713d490afd5cc
f7b53f9aeb886e1306583adff4c3752607692ef6
67437 F20101209_AAAOXP pandey_v_Page_005.pro
55946e6727b1c78658cd3abb21e75991
91e2997a4d4f1ce151761895143862ec7859ff2c
30672 F20101209_AAAOAH pandey_v_Page_114.QC.jpg
8558b1327ab22499981319cbe26ae0b9
db6cdcbc052895ea5ad298d14a7d318f306b9078
54831 F20101209_AAAOYD pandey_v_Page_024.pro
c97280b5f248f02c241ce3556e6ee812
9a2e6d5ad703a7b2d9b611ff33867686d3590335
2010 F20101209_AAAPDK pandey_v_Page_078.txt
b40e4c5ae60c5e5bca8d7d93940d7a30
9ad81c65f2c39dddd8401d8f46aece47606f2d10
2220 F20101209_AAAPCW pandey_v_Page_058.txt
384b966389cbc61713647c4df231cb7c
3d756925397c758cc813469c1f9c859972157e2c
78798 F20101209_AAAOXQ pandey_v_Page_006.pro
1e62c35efdfdbc20cecf851946da892f
1ecd27b5c69c4b63d4515aa04a78bda1f93c9ee3
108747 F20101209_AAAOAI pandey_v_Page_016.jpg
490fdc99ae7c6ab62322285da9bf2035
c40cb561cbc228ed27bb4e6dc77fbe9fdf102d13
54441 F20101209_AAAOYE pandey_v_Page_026.pro
0883e4379793d987eac7028759bfb097
37b7a26b660a2818bbd76cff4e7d89679f51b620
2075 F20101209_AAAPEA pandey_v_Page_094.txt
e1beb1d0d28bcaa0eecd2fb045f26a2e
0bc6de0ef486c89a89ae3a86ae1091fb8f9f92af
2112 F20101209_AAAPDL pandey_v_Page_079.txt
86024994fc2126cebac2eb1a05e4379b
79158e7478b9673b11aac294b7831eed2e8771eb
2116 F20101209_AAAPCX pandey_v_Page_059.txt
f21d7feb52707adff47ff973fb6402db
d32f6155d1e7a0f2d10ead1737b4bd05d6f298f7
60000 F20101209_AAAOXR pandey_v_Page_008.pro
6a8aed5649eac007d99e6ca05128c9e6
db0091f01270b3e33d39621fe4fb4405101c1690
8824 F20101209_AAAOAJ pandey_v_Page_024thm.jpg
aa7bd662b7fbdcd5f6d16f745240570f
f73e5ff1532a0e7ba3044e1b8a0b5bb9198b17e7
44250 F20101209_AAAOYF pandey_v_Page_027.pro
f5a28c47f9e3455e16fd7295059ab98f
ec2ed111411d90d0d3eb4e12cafee693851f54e9
2154 F20101209_AAAPEB pandey_v_Page_096.txt
2c1d56938ab798cc035c3779f3d200dc
d1809cefbab2ee580e18ca5aebe4376f0369f7c1
2127 F20101209_AAAPDM pandey_v_Page_080.txt
c880610b06cb0282b62c7a7670109116
255b9250cd228ba41485aebefdca044fa2f88e79
2212 F20101209_AAAPCY pandey_v_Page_060.txt
2c4c909930726436d42376024ef670f9
ea045689b4fa29ee89e954cfb43191128ea2a7c8
5697 F20101209_AAAOXS pandey_v_Page_009.pro
3f69c3a28b43eba7a08156049d127bdf
fda79f824c1ba62d37551414ae95d6811ba827f9
604567 F20101209_AAAOAK pandey_v_Page_106.jp2
aaabb16286145d32e71281a9877ac629
e6f81d8a6770214d9865984e3a015c4b3cfa9950
49292 F20101209_AAAOYG pandey_v_Page_028.pro
b3e1a6723e8658df8f62c51f058e3611
73448b96901c42a91b7247ff930856f596e490fe
2227 F20101209_AAAPEC pandey_v_Page_097.txt
92893d8eb2041dc87c9fd98a1c06f5ec
1a19059aaa3d19a52a884cecba80b9dd8560c8db
2168 F20101209_AAAPDN pandey_v_Page_081.txt
39320fb7db2efe83e0b03be9367b765a
dca28413637d67398d8a4ea7fcebb01b97f96e3a
2194 F20101209_AAAPCZ pandey_v_Page_061.txt
3dcf2b866b3fe490fc1c654b7755b5bc
4f40746bbf8b7839734a5046b268cbdb6780e583
61355 F20101209_AAAOXT pandey_v_Page_010.pro
79978057401ca3ea908cd4b976faefab
84b2fb316cce6f20de3f2f638d3d84dcedd990b2
2139 F20101209_AAAOBA pandey_v_Page_018.txt
5ca75d0fd8403743b40dbbbeaafee5f4
9a038b60b95e901139cb12751982021bae8debeb
25559 F20101209_AAAOAL pandey_v_Page_069.QC.jpg
075669c3099520424b1ca19248598cef
c54c719fd0192129da7f1a7a45b3251d2593bae9
53228 F20101209_AAAOYH pandey_v_Page_029.pro
9cccfb87e9a05353630a87bd0ac3513b
65e78f306db97aba3aec43752b19824b956e13bc
2119 F20101209_AAAPDO pandey_v_Page_082.txt
8b5e2d1ac510ab09cde6e76b8c113149
02e52123fe7a73d1d9ff8a9c82c697ceafb4dfd3
43588 F20101209_AAAOXU pandey_v_Page_012.pro
a922397274a52d964a3f70f173290301
1b71b901cbf1ccf4e08fe29ef073e57d7332da46
7153 F20101209_AAAOAM pandey_v_Page_027thm.jpg
c47f2e45b4b3b72623fb9deec8870f72
3e036bc2a7402b31b2ff845bdb3964c2ad1f303e
55569 F20101209_AAAOYI pandey_v_Page_030.pro
00943e0617c7da07ff2e545425282ce3
fe81d8d7de80bbb98e1426d3e97da935167379c5
1887 F20101209_AAAPED pandey_v_Page_100.txt
0fe59b293f02fbce5bfed7f51b308175
8a8bd742d71452e98e49d75f8c87abf07696183f
2121 F20101209_AAAPDP pandey_v_Page_083.txt
5fab15de44305c2b7b879a434fd51976
310f73d08510a67c6f88e3cb795ac6e496835835
45835 F20101209_AAAOXV pandey_v_Page_013.pro
d4eb66c19485c08369049738caba5c83
49ae50785c4ce266ef1bdc2a8497e7e166db6367
23554 F20101209_AAAOBB pandey_v_Page_101.QC.jpg
cb20812acff783044b6daf6660c18e32
6f269a0b63dbd9692c1de4a0e7339655d3e645ff
1395 F20101209_AAAOAN pandey_v_Page_103.txt
ef8434a716ed3b0b1e2985e4f0cfe359
7d90e456d81ebdf07a8ca643670fde5dc38b2f9d
52638 F20101209_AAAOYJ pandey_v_Page_031.pro
601d6088c11e3964e66b6cdd7bc42f08
2103969a5defc2b14a8da5b849ce603e65355109
1391 F20101209_AAAPEE pandey_v_Page_101.txt
15b02c8d086b28789ec4dfe169c75eec
4e32ce0001e6f8b76b1d096a7dc826475c9e2462
1765 F20101209_AAAPDQ pandey_v_Page_084.txt
d557b2a2f2050145524ae0e145aac4c6
c4b0ca656e2c7676ba73776e33ecf235c98565b4
27748 F20101209_AAAOXW pandey_v_Page_014.pro
d937d0a0a24d2f2c0a694886773a3daf
bc9c8c1beb3a6e94010bd2e0a8b25bd759fe774f
37056 F20101209_AAAOBC pandey_v_Page_056.QC.jpg
36f7a4c867fe863790ce4d08f81be81c
d6124c9dd65c4845395d16ea2aa58744b56585ad
F20101209_AAAOAO pandey_v_Page_039.tif
826a224006e46fd2557a09caa4f1bbf7
e673df7ee756c3efeddc2e97e7445a79653f638f
50589 F20101209_AAAOYK pandey_v_Page_032.pro
421b47116a3c804b48f022a3a2ce5fcc
eb9e85082afd1d8270723b336681a9715e280871
1451 F20101209_AAAPEF pandey_v_Page_104.txt
f05d561293f187434103fe23fde0b250
17f1dcc85c42b6c3c641f07ac6e5581d1b780759
1947 F20101209_AAAPDR pandey_v_Page_085.txt
22c85fe2c868eea5147f65953e151c66
a0c3e14bd28f8c611615707a477d08764deca3b7
12499 F20101209_AAAOBD pandey_v_Page_021.pro
30e8be63545f4691f3269d2f0ff585cf
072e40a66e66961f30198226439cbf8461ef27a4
6963 F20101209_AAAOAP pandey_v_Page_135thm.jpg
285e994e00ddbd443af9e660d24ddefb
6d9339a34da583e86752eab4277f2cb580a2416c
30616 F20101209_AAAOYL pandey_v_Page_033.pro
ab9ac56ebfe043ffe732c7cd46ae70ad
69dc1dc9868e8acb2be0aff65e22336f780abf22
214 F20101209_AAAPEG pandey_v_Page_105.txt
3727dc224b0ec4db2c987968695a9ebb
74727aa1d8263d56eb42f687af45a97437609e57
2122 F20101209_AAAPDS pandey_v_Page_086.txt
62789cbcbf8a4e62f03fd7885a9ec716
5f566736ec3e6ed24e1ba3a1b7b339dadd68b6f2
50175 F20101209_AAAOXX pandey_v_Page_015.pro
a0c115cf9be40fb9cb05bc7bb1c63bd1
9334484d0ebd8fa3ae72026e72483e64267d3649
1131 F20101209_AAAOBE pandey_v_Page_108.txt
b85c042cfd5f4e0031beeabdaf7a80fe
6fc8ca30b8ab43fccbd034f90b00c158e90f393b
2236 F20101209_AAAOAQ pandey_v_Page_041.txt
3ccdb90a75031fdd1c6e7abe2fc04e3a
416224629b20066f1041ad3363b537b11e80ed83
53875 F20101209_AAAOZA pandey_v_Page_059.pro
d956a175c1e7c99a32aeaffcc09f5b36
d931dfa8920bc06eb4ac1a42b3d743e73aa4a234
53268 F20101209_AAAOYM pandey_v_Page_035.pro
dc4a0375361cb788459b2a158a73c8c8
f9ebaece9f01d57e6cbb57b5cb6ef2553395c94e
748 F20101209_AAAPEH pandey_v_Page_106.txt
cda2387c8f26923ae66a145e1e0bab81
51f17159655efbe6b95246c5f27d34bc92775f1d
573 F20101209_AAAPDT pandey_v_Page_087.txt
5910cb33033669e9cdd1f5c33847d829
deec93bdbbd8f215058424eed601946628130cf0
52978 F20101209_AAAOXY pandey_v_Page_016.pro
59fa41758062794dd7070bbc132563fc
5a5c04450dc7a405448c73be38f751b37abec8e6
F20101209_AAAOBF pandey_v_Page_100.tif
3037e1e8035afeb5e4c13d162cf92791
8bd24f3c875286b1c251d54971381b78197125a1
9196 F20101209_AAAOAR pandey_v_Page_097thm.jpg
3afb28f0d679c7b96d820fdf0e48eb8f
bc7764d8e9086b6d7799a626113da098a63b8918
54945 F20101209_AAAOZB pandey_v_Page_061.pro
cb90f0a7fcd91f7f85b97c28d2c9032a
3a4fb864dd08623fd48d885fc37729b21271efea
53163 F20101209_AAAOYN pandey_v_Page_037.pro
fd32d31b3e0c862f13df38ac04e12c41
c309011ff5ee6a542c8177bd5624f3ca36891949
879 F20101209_AAAPEI pandey_v_Page_109.txt
d61dd48fb5155b95308b95af81011cc2
4dc34e420e8bb723a05ce5820943b7ea460b4616
374 F20101209_AAAPDU pandey_v_Page_088.txt
64a08171ea406f4661a3d81969481b51
a18bdc18109679afcd15e43809bbd8ac892af8d4
53448 F20101209_AAAOXZ pandey_v_Page_017.pro
4e021906859617370b7341f6839ce143
53cb16d6c303e0cc8f855386e3487894bda3fdad
117102 F20101209_AAAOBG pandey_v_Page_080.jp2
176f832f87a16a55c9fefe25955799dd
cccb32965357ef250b43bac17eda83e3839a02a7
23569 F20101209_AAAOAS pandey_v_Page_044.pro
104e1a61282fe2bf6b2a32a9c77920a1
3050a7cb3459c2da84e2bdde7d0c5bc89233ac71
52481 F20101209_AAAOZC pandey_v_Page_062.pro
808a17161ea83b20a7fccef8a0761dfa
01fb08f5b25c8b37767c4cbc2fbed47efb1f2a2c
57505 F20101209_AAAOYO pandey_v_Page_038.pro
f8fd35aa69d50d2cf176396d5bede595
cab0166c2f6ab5c6cb3fe8780d9189de6b87c66e
2141 F20101209_AAAPEJ pandey_v_Page_110.txt
2b264967b6da41be828dff8d309f794d
2da822bb5a654a52b1c852a60758cf7dd62089c5
324 F20101209_AAAPDV pandey_v_Page_089.txt
914ca874680dbef2b22c24546ad1662a
39e350946c418c135bc23e8c8cd41fea4283fe5b
12111 F20101209_AAAOBH pandey_v_Page_047.pro
83253d13d6262b86b7260ed391d63c00
2d6d86ff1a6ba18e26383058e900264c65764fed
35167 F20101209_AAAOAT pandey_v_Page_099.QC.jpg
0883120f1a040f7d9b4588ed152ff575
274ed57474d65e19cd497c484bd98ea62d9cea78
49107 F20101209_AAAOZD pandey_v_Page_063.pro
39bb1723ab055ad3950966f8a52f1d1d
a3c56b6aea61a964912add688a67fdff16d49fbb
52491 F20101209_AAAOYP pandey_v_Page_039.pro
ad382eb741f319559b33372bee6f92ac
81b11e020f121d7904372e4a5b6341b98ebd7a7f
2143 F20101209_AAAPEK pandey_v_Page_112.txt
377153ab4ac330b1309928663b31d384
36b8d87520196b2f08c430c86b3c7b12d39849bc
384 F20101209_AAAPDW pandey_v_Page_090.txt
f412ceef768a2c77905871d9e5c22fed
777c64dc5ba462ccdbefa5b6a6e859eb0866d4a2
93764 F20101209_AAAOBI pandey_v_Page_114.jpg
f839611bf5d609c289a4220f0f38e793
245c2239ab9ed40f93f27e43a823d3a044c96ca7
34831 F20101209_AAAOAU pandey_v_Page_083.QC.jpg
2e8cfdbd9416a4e7785d182e05ad9957
28c41b228ffee7bf45d54acb9f1ae39b7c9761a8
4905 F20101209_AAAOZE pandey_v_Page_064.pro
09090128f84bf810f27b860747fd2e47
f7e7dd2c576a7a9d01837f2145b1d4ae36bdc4c7
56572 F20101209_AAAOYQ pandey_v_Page_040.pro
379df44f21563bdda945c9d2221bf256
0e569151fee2097edcdf5b5c5ff976e2e27db3aa
2455 F20101209_AAAPFA pandey_v_Page_135.txt
f299031c16db52bace22e58a109f5a4e
a15e9eedc31fe8b402288abec8c9afb611cd63f5
2064 F20101209_AAAPEL pandey_v_Page_113.txt
ad499de952742fb1fc9e1a998e3ac283
dd67d1e5371a041c2d440bcc6964a8075b0489a1
2173 F20101209_AAAPDX pandey_v_Page_091.txt
614e083e36badeb2f7a06090eb381cb0
e9adca11cbaf14b3c5212d05182dcf436dea69f5
F20101209_AAAOBJ pandey_v_Page_015.txt
8fdbc9c6c844c8fedc46e3ab24001af2
b3106fe531978e86c6f252994387ccd68aa6e19b
F20101209_AAAOAV pandey_v_Page_142.tif
8c3261ea0bcc1c00c35d41640a221607
1b113a00106ecde3b7bc513a16096879f4fafe65
8182 F20101209_AAAOZF pandey_v_Page_065.pro
aa105432457d6eb1229cd9b5943e2f76
e6325e85ec00d07fb2f8d514a8b35b3b504f4e7f
56239 F20101209_AAAOYR pandey_v_Page_041.pro
a00f7f179a9b8139751322666f00a774
738c486436459f1a54512c0b3866f14e3b88b967
1869 F20101209_AAAPFB pandey_v_Page_136.txt
8c3e5f9f335d7ae8553d800a4772e2d5
7b6f5cc36dc7b8660b591cce7f723df607862612
1799 F20101209_AAAPEM pandey_v_Page_114.txt
c52f3c3b9d6b7586ae291b6f48fe85dc
d6fb451f525b2f6263a52650494cf55c04e8dcf2
2245 F20101209_AAAPDY pandey_v_Page_092.txt
2338779334111003de8f036a909bdf46
48906b9212d388e49e8a37a9537eebd97811917e
11161 F20101209_AAAOBK pandey_v_Page_106.pro
364144d6bbc1336242fd70c2f7f50d5a
5c42ba78052c79b72e0b4b45b66bb3a408cd9448
2088 F20101209_AAAOAW pandey_v_Page_037.txt
35982fce34715bec93485fff6c9ff193
ac05ce8635e9893dba2ced7b2e540e44aa044697
7685 F20101209_AAAOZG pandey_v_Page_066.pro
4dc00679290fe89ee82d09ab2a2b0458
64a7bb76e6ab892f799e8a226407ae37464259e5
52477 F20101209_AAAOYS pandey_v_Page_042.pro
edc7b48fc36c09e9d679d3409dcea466
c6be62541fc1a6a3e779fc10e72b3327b80e316b
2576 F20101209_AAAPFC pandey_v_Page_139.txt
120bac6a442ff340351edd0836ab208b
a0e03d2ce807094431447ba5e44ead16f5277bca
1689 F20101209_AAAPEN pandey_v_Page_115.txt
6825ffe38d490342bb86f5a2ebc1a4da
3c69af34e22e98bd6f0b4a5bf6aa6c346e3e8300
2199 F20101209_AAAPDZ pandey_v_Page_093.txt
aab1d5bf7a06b3bfe838794ba3e98fbb
418bc2d9d3025af0ea7d0532ae101f6a2e382087
61898 F20101209_AAAOBL pandey_v_Page_137.pro
69c7849c0f0f532b578819bf9009a6b6
51b20ada5e0f60565ee42324327741e8d4b05bc9
F20101209_AAAOAX pandey_v_Page_106.tif
7d60d8daf57ab1f64f95e80bfa6b1e6e
cc5d5e8ba27c149be252d9cdc5dbdd5b1a2503c7
7107 F20101209_AAAOZH pandey_v_Page_067.pro
d3113591ddb8ee9d5e3102c486448dc4
f2031e8268d466bde42fb58456cbe623db70c3ef
31910 F20101209_AAAOYT pandey_v_Page_043.pro
5e7796641927f151d2a0ea6c71630302
a2ccfa626b032647c92d2fc2d9bad3d5ff4ac3eb
110477 F20101209_AAAOCA pandey_v_Page_080.jpg
e59036269bbb0d64a32f1425cb88b8b7
ce38afdc063075b883a8e585554fa46853ee70ae
3039 F20101209_AAAPFD pandey_v_Page_140.txt
9877a2209a9172441585227536e35330
e2fb3d5a91d46c0dda3c6d266a7638d6b5a97d24
1408 F20101209_AAAPEO pandey_v_Page_117.txt
93d20ca5b644a342eb8495c6403d5398
5e6433ec3e46680c6d6862aed3954fba26e9e41e
110001 F20101209_AAAOBM pandey_v_Page_026.jpg
c1edfebb63bba42f5423ffdbf2c2c4c1
a011c4fafddc9b6865479ba6b1b0a169ac02f6bd
129418 F20101209_AAAOAY pandey_v_Page_137.jp2
a1f31795d79376c55ae3078588f21058
02446a28e32d518a7b9728b0ee00139a9e4e4031
5465 F20101209_AAAOZI pandey_v_Page_068.pro
5782ad00821aefe57b7dbf992386f774
f7c9a22d13cdec309bf0633d78c87ce4504bf744
14735 F20101209_AAAOYU pandey_v_Page_045.pro
2c563796799339c2719a0735ce11ba09
ecf3eb9ad6793dac1682131b906f7ea1e32fb642
24514 F20101209_AAAOCB pandey_v_Page_124.QC.jpg
e0185ff98d75ccdf59a4d4c38642b923
808e4ab3c67af95c53aeddbab2c330a0c6d7b030
1117 F20101209_AAAPEP pandey_v_Page_118.txt
9eea29419272dfac86003b4e8f16f70d
3b3816fd310d5e5a5f57c566eaeb538b5a8b6fb4
964 F20101209_AAAOAZ pandey_v_Page_150thm.jpg
181e01d1cacef36bb2c3958a64f25577
5fadf73dc27413e8dbee5d9b0502dd53b70a02bf
32373 F20101209_AAAOZJ pandey_v_Page_072.pro
2936668112003680315bf582683a0b3b
773d2a1564f4aa0a0a01d90ae66cb93b47957ac7
32112 F20101209_AAAOYV pandey_v_Page_049.pro
efdba22a1c3cb1aee9993c67a64edb77
a9bf0e054b06a2b2a79c6414b347ed67f89bc335
121273 F20101209_AAAOBN pandey_v_Page_018.jp2
4a638ec0d9e4843fe6a27af9deb48a68
2456bad1468cab74f65e70bcc9df556437131d72
2641 F20101209_AAAPFE pandey_v_Page_141.txt
87c7ed09780df60cc5f8627340d28f4c
4ebb77a4b21ff673447783e030201eb465857889
743 F20101209_AAAPEQ pandey_v_Page_123.txt
338b58ff88eda747730b8f93568f683c
9971f9c0e1b2b09e553d5feab3e05d68b4f918d9
49081 F20101209_AAAOZK pandey_v_Page_073.pro
6f903c055dedb95efe5fbb8237510718
e274bafd8ededc940b6150d22edff65fdb21167f
57229 F20101209_AAAOYW pandey_v_Page_051.pro
3d209501278ec980129962f1a925df11
e1e89f9ea34842a3bcf1e091d4398e33436c2611
36019 F20101209_AAAOCC pandey_v_Page_026.QC.jpg
8cde6aa89492dd8c07d0a8d8d192c542
1d034476f86dda241bb74b4db9bb047f6c837abf
F20101209_AAAOBO pandey_v_Page_130.tif
1b17ff38adc880d6f8ec9778212ad83e
934a7dfc28b2c17d03e237313ffb7e9a6c634f97
2701 F20101209_AAAPFF pandey_v_Page_142.txt
13dc2924c14dc1182669f53ee5a52067
6e1229ce16eb8ea1c4597d463773f63b35bda450
1358 F20101209_AAAPER pandey_v_Page_124.txt
fd5aafa2da8875938b964496696d391c
cfcc94a783cdf6ccee311e0a536f7c72db58d5cc
48375 F20101209_AAAOZL pandey_v_Page_076.pro
202aaca07a086f647d1bd412167a0b18
b33c4424ebbb2804a8e91afad026ce60f68fbab4
50727 F20101209_AAAOYX pandey_v_Page_052.pro
47d55aae1420cbc1932436471b8bcc18
ede62109e15e8276282b207b017fe9c3d505db1d
114315 F20101209_AAAOCD pandey_v_Page_019.jpg
d4decb09bd2ddd5ccde72c8965c436af
6a153b40454a7cbfc3889305b6ca22013ed41724
16950 F20101209_AAAOBP pandey_v_Page_129.QC.jpg
2aecad81bf7b581911d89ff83c5dadd6
94781c5c4afcd904ed2f59448155cdcbd292b02f
2619 F20101209_AAAPFG pandey_v_Page_143.txt
d90cb714624189ef3385f3b82822e61e
2dc3358d37b923d8051d8680d8b476c6c1fae155
1095 F20101209_AAAPES pandey_v_Page_126.txt
3aa3db8ae91a4a2de9b3c2e1dab1a690
d4664cf69bc95215591f46a065ba9baa1b519ecf
51014 F20101209_AAAOZM pandey_v_Page_078.pro
026deec29547ee19ed05967e97985d2f
a90069c862d2331ef45ccb6a4f4839dd5ae8f73e
8481 F20101209_AAAOCE pandey_v_Page_122thm.jpg
df49307bc258794889d1dd0ff0fffed4
744b66abb0f499bf87b1daea692a0d4e906d132e
65004 F20101209_AAAOBQ pandey_v_Page_143.pro
04db82061eca7e80aeff82a251a781f0
1bf03e2f4e58d10752035c82981d9e4764110f49
2582 F20101209_AAAPFH pandey_v_Page_144.txt
d2c81c03f0ee867ffe2cabd0c4008edf
1b8cf2e038e62750b7107e3ec59ec0eab78bacd8
1109 F20101209_AAAPET pandey_v_Page_127.txt
be5ce97bc10ffe50442e6529ac677160
2241186a11eb71ad8a34be959162458de54db34c
53722 F20101209_AAAOZN pandey_v_Page_079.pro
0ed03623002efc1dfbd08912054949a8
dc258f8556cf2849f95e7d03e217ab482a7d9bad
56728 F20101209_AAAOYY pandey_v_Page_056.pro
d73252de1bd385ec9ab9a6b0e98f2390
9821944fdeb6628a1b64d373fb8123a3dff64925
500 F20101209_AAAOCF pandey_v_Page_065.txt
e0097a3b09a5a46131beccf3bd1ad98a
30907a7a966ef2c35b6353ee9eb4d65a5417a92b
110925 F20101209_AAAOBR pandey_v_Page_057.jpg
47758891a501eb8984de9519393d739e
ebc6af2cb8ef0d3d4ee1772536085647bd2f6246
2521 F20101209_AAAPFI pandey_v_Page_146.txt
ada57c5708784232c94034f3c1f1172e
819ced1094752867e2877854414e71b1289372ab
1185 F20101209_AAAPEU pandey_v_Page_128.txt
a01663d63c9dab0573e3e6a87e6b2bfd
166a667787be58b06f0ccab4750274ec4d376f18
54213 F20101209_AAAOZO pandey_v_Page_080.pro
e28b44696a4d9f168e775c5636c16509
3adbc2fc5230ff51df11402138b15714561921f0
55259 F20101209_AAAOYZ pandey_v_Page_057.pro
c5adc99edf8fa6a4e0c688e05fedde5d
c3cf1ed9fc7355f9fc87fd8ae6ecdc4076975b58
27216 F20101209_AAAOCG pandey_v_Page_007.jpg
3f7f35348d16fb5ea21e2f0688b716d8
bc99aa070eed167800f043ba69909ff000fb5ab6
F20101209_AAAOBS pandey_v_Page_005.tif
7679a22314c04fa3df25482e3eccac0a
7024f416f367da23b8c29e6840c49b53b557317c
2649 F20101209_AAAPFJ pandey_v_Page_147.txt
55b50ba075a981fb38ac9c5f48cd6342
0211f738a21ae1ab1599adcbbeaaff5a1ca3f249
1054 F20101209_AAAPEV pandey_v_Page_129.txt
cab95b215bb9a296a870d4246ee7571f
be499ebf9ac8c0a2c2941b3b7086fce07974e029
54379 F20101209_AAAOZP pandey_v_Page_081.pro
098404a44974f6bb20f0349b4ed9caa8
52a2328ccf0e3bf484ec01115fdf951ee5f15649
8840 F20101209_AAAOCH pandey_v_Page_099thm.jpg
04ba5c9ee81c8b2e27c1349166f4899a
549dd20e2b6f3602b371ada98c3ad05ca8212aa6
90787 F20101209_AAAOBT pandey_v_Page_053.jpg
3548cff8d5cf901c58ba8ff58200ac98
ed5d2f071b5aa6ab11ec43a5428dae3a98743cfb
2643 F20101209_AAAPFK pandey_v_Page_148.txt
462dee4a4aa25c76048a79211b355f0c
76037781ba31a33af7ae7847bb3c4b2e93191ab5
1059 F20101209_AAAPEW pandey_v_Page_130.txt
a38f151deea81eb83c567bf2a5bbae59
518fcfa818aef783e44e590baa600bb101734af4
54123 F20101209_AAAOZQ pandey_v_Page_082.pro
f2d7748a2568ce017edafcdd36688f99
43f7053b47ef6371ba56984aabf7c281fed04eca
F20101209_AAAOCI pandey_v_Page_133thm.jpg
c71bcfb01419a7b85c1044c74d9009a5
9b4d2aef237f22189dcc82102c5c7954a0c3e455
2603 F20101209_AAAOBU pandey_v_Page_120thm.jpg
b281672f8e92d5dea51343bda15e003a
de26e2c9e83258a56965e459a3fbd7bdce2974a5
10616 F20101209_AAAPGA pandey_v_Page_121.QC.jpg
1f6085506000331fb326c49f5a054f51
9d1e42e170639686e7ebe283c102124524c672e7
2627 F20101209_AAAPFL pandey_v_Page_149.txt
319c330d9661805ac264f3097f33f4c9
c8814b601184b9a5a15458cfa5054b9d4a9773f8
1181 F20101209_AAAPEX pandey_v_Page_131.txt
6507dab57b29ecea76e541e7114a09af
1c71d1dae33d23fcd244a8b84fec20b15ba76278
41082 F20101209_AAAOZR pandey_v_Page_084.pro
206a1030292a86b3d86838a12b1bd3d4
d79d41e92b04f0757cd6c9b482a52a2bdc334290
53104 F20101209_AAAOCJ pandey_v_Page_083.pro
6cb41e7586698538c58317b0856c2427
3d09b0a40317b55db55bc2d74fad922486419d3e
20202 F20101209_AAAOBV pandey_v_Page_104.QC.jpg
51c3b92346685a2848baa9c8fc46a199
38f433e7ba65465da16fa099d14068700d87593f
1547 F20101209_AAAPGB pandey_v_Page_009thm.jpg
c6b7d4d3b0ec8898629a49fb5ba56a9b
1051fb231f051cc9fd2d33e9f862d943d30e1103
715 F20101209_AAAPFM pandey_v_Page_151.txt
107036baeb321dfb20f2fabd2542ed7d
0cf7df5ff3384c2c2ea97f8c6ccfe47a4379dd4b
1875 F20101209_AAAPEY pandey_v_Page_133.txt
ca421d1e7514c51249c4d4438394e733
ce6506f1f8e5d1f790d3aa776dac4d69aa5cdde8
53987 F20101209_AAAOZS pandey_v_Page_086.pro
7b91bab4183cc631e7daf8418b585f2a
67909a0a91c679cda2506119192e4d5686376f2c
105735 F20101209_AAAOCK pandey_v_Page_078.jpg
130cc619f60ce4a19d7f63a418fbccb4
f8bdcc19ee87f6fb089224b326a36c26eee5f49f
63105 F20101209_AAAOBW pandey_v_Page_064.jpg
3f53611169d4f1c722b82cdb5d7d0bc9
66045a0927d5dbda0372a9d96343c9e5b22d43ce
31554 F20101209_AAAPGC pandey_v_Page_032.QC.jpg
594591ea1277f937f26e0f8895f0b531
23bdce640968c4d766f1ee7bdd6ec50f9e25b102
2094 F20101209_AAAPFN pandey_v_Page_001thm.jpg
73995663fd01829017c583f2b47dc34c
d38e834789f19e2f0fb0939272ad08600c3154f1
1849 F20101209_AAAPEZ pandey_v_Page_134.txt
fa79828747b105e8385e275a6fde7ba1
702f1a06b2013c061f6229cc00eca39db57c220a
7238 F20101209_AAAOZT pandey_v_Page_088.pro
f7d655dfbb8fce624dc1b299f48e1e56
f14f27d0544e68dd6f30c1eb8ed9c681c9a85237
2105 F20101209_AAAODA pandey_v_Page_017.txt
dcdad6c04cfa4fa54c8775897cb27b72
d9bfd0a30eb218f44e616d67685b5b9ddd9be780
40848 F20101209_AAAOCL pandey_v_Page_140.QC.jpg
47e3b1153763f9cd2b8a6c699b18c0a8
bae8a2e86a1ae06d9379547994a3d0360e1e2ffa
4582 F20101209_AAAOBX pandey_v_Page_068thm.jpg
6904801cc05560998ebaeeee92924b65
c154aa776a7742520e9608acf81e9e7c6289f7a2
34563 F20101209_AAAPGD pandey_v_Page_122.QC.jpg
1c6eb6faabecb9bdbc03f83134939bb4
a03f1af96f63edd30e698a94a0f7d0566c324745
3490827 F20101209_AAAPFO pandey_v.pdf
2e8fd01ed6c95b889041f0bb35b0836d
92856d3f34646faec01aad3477bdce99adb56c95
7589 F20101209_AAAOZU pandey_v_Page_089.pro
7213b6f559235b1ab6a4994b89f7bcb0
0e26441ea60ac8bd0de4f22c649d13794acf66a4
6704 F20101209_AAAODB pandey_v_Page_115thm.jpg
1973bfd3c580b4eb9d60fac32e617d07
be004eaaf35636c341a0f3b3d7e29d517ff990dc
751300 F20101209_AAAOCM pandey_v_Page_124.jp2
49b4a36b804717b8dc494ffd7fa5a86e
c0f61171c68e018384b8b21040f85f42d0f5293b
103654 F20101209_AAAOBY pandey_v_Page_076.jp2
a683907a1f3edc3072e7d673c23b5c8f
ee5989bbf71e3439fd8c5b0b7bdc194cd1d14575
36857 F20101209_AAAPGE pandey_v_Page_058.QC.jpg
115e19c188ca7b247df06463b1d54320
4a77badbea60a18ccdad19bb9475b1f798f8ef05
9167 F20101209_AAAPFP pandey_v_Page_074thm.jpg
d85885d1f608a0adc3147842821da55c
9e1b25ca61b4134b24769ebb9887b8c606237e40
8043 F20101209_AAAOZV pandey_v_Page_090.pro
9b2545a356dcfc7f2d42030543da58d3
7e0756eadf92646be09d90f6b70d60e14f6c8e9d
113506 F20101209_AAAODC pandey_v_Page_056.jpg
b82b566162e21414f9b88d5cf86686d4
2519c4eaf2567f646ed5ab10f8420cae7b721c51
37024 F20101209_AAAOCN pandey_v_Page_011.QC.jpg
84cedb7a57a3c2363d9c633f56fcf4c1
051e57bb963386f4054afeccfed95e3bcb7ce172
9204 F20101209_AAAOBZ pandey_v_Page_058thm.jpg
1192f83f7430a601b211be2dea7a424e
cff59ec2c95f3062c57e9e990ff9769f177f509e
8997 F20101209_AAAPFQ pandey_v_Page_057thm.jpg
1abadea7ba73dfc6d1e0a1607d838ed9
de90d42100a4b71cc74c8b0065e307033c88ab90
52964 F20101209_AAAOZW pandey_v_Page_091.pro
184fff0b2420e196dd12b4d62075ec8c
7f606869c4c72535139138ff419462a0e789eac2
F20101209_AAAOCO pandey_v_Page_003.tif
b8d2b6873ba335f988ae7a81103a7e29
0bdc8143bf4bb5f9eefbcf5c18bd3de0c46bc3b6
4968 F20101209_AAAPGF pandey_v_Page_072thm.jpg
df631d7e6bb094e9c76b4d3da1a42e7c
516bb7d9d5ac425217f2c682c4cada38c2f70ac3
6455 F20101209_AAAPFR pandey_v_Page_102thm.jpg
ce7b83199513144cadd66982b4d1fc5e
ef7e7122ebd7aff707994fc43c973bc906c7559d
56312 F20101209_AAAOZX pandey_v_Page_092.pro
37b9fd3e93659b5d9dc0490902f1a6d6
971190bb282c2587e6f2ed44c023c2eceef47151
5129 F20101209_AAAODD pandey_v_Page_107thm.jpg
0c1e5be9f95678f1557b80d631c35c42
08f06c1e2cc14f5e79ebe1cce08ee7704a8d26ee
11216 F20101209_AAAOCP pandey_v_Page_150.jpg
3e8120dbb5741f51d9deaef35438aa49
447a8d9cdfd53c575fb005b075110a5461e2c833
8222 F20101209_AAAPGG pandey_v_Page_085thm.jpg
d0ca131fa0abcfd8822c595c2464785d
b4012b31e3a36393ab18dcd597f3a38c0eef05d6
8675 F20101209_AAAPFS pandey_v_Page_023thm.jpg
39241f0df957a90beed5759c1c8db405
fc873dd83fc9780218304cd61ecbbd1a7bfeceda
56197 F20101209_AAAOZY pandey_v_Page_093.pro
26c863d4661dc01b7460b8047a941a71
15f4f4009104902a6374fe8a98aadcebc8725e26
4935 F20101209_AAAODE pandey_v_Page_125.pro
8028c923769b13701bc98ddb62b86c81
deb1ed1a515f3b3a0b6db0b7b8b4724b90789d0d
46671 F20101209_AAAOCQ pandey_v_Page_132.pro
2fdfc4babacb4541fd51263cc18d5865
1a4f01b39555e8115af45eeb1e2268d77c4bcdaa
9261 F20101209_AAAPGH pandey_v_Page_142thm.jpg
c0f91ad05b46ffa110adb76e8e3834b2
8afaa6978a3c3b312e45e40631db74743e9c1ac7
8979 F20101209_AAAPFT pandey_v_Page_041thm.jpg
338c9a15b7f69bbc0db0b8b713554a8c
38638c481f9b003b3a126042a9d36be60cae936e
96998 F20101209_AAAODF pandey_v_Page_136.jp2
741ed3af56f9ce59240abb94ae7aba11
2310419db0eb5252724eeafdd9ed4734d12ed0eb
48677 F20101209_AAAOCR pandey_v_Page_085.pro
1ee4f751881f17e8d674850dba753276
37f6934bb42ffdd9ecbb879882a6dd3175292166
5002 F20101209_AAAPGI pandey_v_Page_127thm.jpg
648d669d33271b6d70590110f8768159
48ec66b6b66d720423c38de727f8bd2abd7c7ef1
38408 F20101209_AAAPFU pandey_v_Page_040.QC.jpg
08d309b0ab95be0e06e42a7d4742248d
8325daf25e7cd07bb6774d5c6621e13565d58cec
51708 F20101209_AAAOZZ pandey_v_Page_094.pro
2f5a0b6cad853ea3f3b400a2c5b37b5a
f0335f473e86f9e90d53e910ed4c5541175f3dc7
111818 F20101209_AAAODG pandey_v_Page_092.jpg
a7e8eeac0aa9b01346220236dfe0a495
277d75dce747dde8ef9fa7634b014948d97339a6
1237 F20101209_AAAOCS pandey_v_Page_020.txt
aaa7c7b920ee00137bd601eceaf53363
40a08e88df3b7939b95f2ef48d676e9d0a79996d
8329 F20101209_AAAPGJ pandey_v_Page_073thm.jpg
fb98ebbca4623921eff2d5f753aad2c9
9b73e1685e41bf4377c79ba6cfa53ba66a68c5eb
8627 F20101209_AAAPFV pandey_v_Page_120.QC.jpg
8516c301032b30dd78efae351d433c7c
e4b1b0ea3ebae7695e9b5b7dfeea15bdab7cddf7
8668 F20101209_AAAODH pandey_v_Page_029thm.jpg
3888cff500ba4caa91caec18d26e627f
572f6c7a8c8424021bc4a8f8cf8e670ca795cbf3
8485 F20101209_AAAOCT pandey_v_Page_113thm.jpg
bfb829ca023b9e05f2eda9efcd5a2dfb
6910486a6c9deb60ececb61b8d707a6d8dd7e244
8743 F20101209_AAAPGK pandey_v_Page_030thm.jpg
29e23f5183721efbd2f481b7962d3177
163b169f6e5876a3724c53d30185d7eadbb72d31
18790 F20101209_AAAPFW pandey_v_Page_126.QC.jpg
6071998bc5648562e022accbc84d3f0d
a000287ce54186ee59162bb520f087f0ff6b10d7
13585 F20101209_AAAODI pandey_v_Page_123.QC.jpg
9978dbf97c708e09ac89d54445314133
3c2d07fc6f1564b72a0fae14067bc3d522ae8dee
31297 F20101209_AAAOCU pandey_v_Page_132.QC.jpg
92a74cc076f4ea5819753407fcad8c7f
a4e833ba4606cf1a7a98fb84540b2657186c638f
19661 F20101209_AAAPHA pandey_v_Page_103.QC.jpg
48a3da8f8166a4bc6cf5e19b863ba43d
3b84d881dd441b2626a31d04ae093920bdee9446
38177 F20101209_AAAPGL pandey_v_Page_018.QC.jpg
49ab34d50027061d9c79addcdb04b6e9
2a79dbed1b7c6a05ee3f21d07d7be4fd49352c4f
36799 F20101209_AAAPFX pandey_v_Page_144.QC.jpg
befa0c09860d5e79ecd34058d8f86fd2
13c786f66ea7f4410e7634a8c4f3c9169cc35b15
7211 F20101209_AAAODJ pandey_v_Page_136thm.jpg
7f7dabfe8b160a01bd4a258baabaea3a
400bb18399c09854d834df0c311602b843bbf18d
108104 F20101209_AAAOCV pandey_v_Page_091.jpg
a896244138847773c5081a784e784a9e
21e2054f0f32ccf671c0528acd86315a36cd7020
12416 F20101209_AAAPHB pandey_v_Page_151.QC.jpg
e10cad9cdb144d5007b185814975809e
6d4052f128b44732a4f8ac107cb32319c5ad93fe
37701 F20101209_AAAPGM pandey_v_Page_141.QC.jpg
076823e466b42c95e9346391a2704c98
81f3c90155ad19d233150b908707b116cb5d61eb
3876 F20101209_AAAPFY pandey_v_Page_123thm.jpg
014461138890fd4db268495e4312cce5
d4babfd9d828fce3b67150f9a49e559c8a2b6b1f
107781 F20101209_AAAODK pandey_v_Page_032.jp2
45a5c998af7711392df102249cd1f078
96197c31111cac6fb2680eb86585318cdbbdfb60
5689 F20101209_AAAOCW pandey_v_Page_105thm.jpg
a0b36e9bd7b91ef5d20ec09a42677751
da3c65b62062a71f1947f53f4b4ed5b6fbeb343e
225755 F20101209_AAAPHC UFE0017519_00001.xml FULL
2b4112e6a1263f99c7dfb455940e0aa7
f55e56abe467c0123e90b751bead980676837b81
5444 F20101209_AAAPGN pandey_v_Page_070thm.jpg
3e222aea308dedd13f0de6be8374ddc2
7f528757f587964ae159f69eb0d89f66efb64f6d
4562 F20101209_AAAPFZ pandey_v_Page_088thm.jpg
3d238467827a47e8942b27a022d04028
91ac4c349bf4fec9dd4b73019af807e520553222
35280 F20101209_AAAODL pandey_v_Page_050.QC.jpg
da13a71437d6d25aac7882227d68c1cc
a90a589f565debd4b8764beac287662dac2e2ac0
F20101209_AAAOCX pandey_v_Page_095.txt
fc2118170e5a284f503e76428ce1c70c
4c469b0b670187eb059ef76ac66aa7ef27685cf4
F20101209_AAAOEA pandey_v_Page_016.tif
5a04ef163426378f6b0fe944e97c4736
1fbb84c1bf9f8de1402122b4d0f71618634b77d0
8203 F20101209_AAAPHD pandey_v_Page_001.QC.jpg
bfe08be9ea2ec2daef34a9434d737f6a
bea20a576b793ae5d370894f0227ee05d65aa78d
34382 F20101209_AAAPGO pandey_v_Page_010.QC.jpg
c1adb06689aada3437636255a75e2e15
68fd19fa5c8cbd7226111ddff59990db1c9919af
9291 F20101209_AAAODM pandey_v_Page_146thm.jpg
06b5740119c4913489d9ede7ee06f98e
2f69c1b7983d61d40fcb36789f3e10659983248a
58655 F20101209_AAAOCY pandey_v_Page_104.jpg
27da0ed5e00c97a5cffb4ec34e161f9b
9b5691559b374113a945c4e26fc1572cc92c1a13
63490 F20101209_AAAOEB pandey_v_Page_118.jpg
eb5cc99fb92bb7ecb69459bf74ea5178
8425fb2efa2907ae1d92e6613235758bda1a1083
1586 F20101209_AAAPHE pandey_v_Page_002.QC.jpg
5856022a17673ad75c16006d99b8fcee
ad01b9905e12935721bad62cf7654027a1ca22fd
37809 F20101209_AAAPGP pandey_v_Page_145.QC.jpg
1791401ab30da11c9a273e9f3a75a6c7
179462264fa8e87c460dccb4577193e23605cb4f
104807 F20101209_AAAODN pandey_v_Page_029.jpg
34b1c6b6348de4959164e57cda3853ae
774e824948dff98fe3b20ba31bbc6bce19cbea72
52778 F20101209_AAAOCZ pandey_v_Page_036.pro
5a71823599c63781b261c5b86ff03147
14fdca5a1b21fd9fb6e363276e68a67d482b4cb5
19025 F20101209_AAAOEC pandey_v_Page_126.pro
9796f916bf03ad893dfeeeb69c4d6138
ff6abdde29b7ba7cc61aa156748d803b8cc93f7a
551 F20101209_AAAPHF pandey_v_Page_003thm.jpg
d2475107c2bb0e6e4051edc3cca5ac5d
4e525be3eacbab92ec34e8b55b7d6cfd0bc37936
15332 F20101209_AAAPGQ pandey_v_Page_109.QC.jpg
36ce0211ddb5dfaac0b0bcf40ef18328
7835175dba9e825666727c82a82ab8185fc68329
F20101209_AAAODO pandey_v_Page_111.tif
869ef06d8381078553af08fa685a51a3
38e1518b316b139cc7b4f97001d521faabc15a8d
414 F20101209_AAAOED pandey_v_Page_120.txt
2272baa08299fe85f948aec39d9fad82
98bedc46edc4cbe11e7be10c6b836e125615fd67
8672 F20101209_AAAPGR pandey_v_Page_042thm.jpg
e67e8f4862b3718ca624b6ce0c8a2765
168f176a398234cc60ff7a94a7b18b4ee7b86838
6389 F20101209_AAAODP pandey_v_Page_069thm.jpg
c243dbc70c9732873749d3693d4fc8cd
81cd2dee8930f9e918f40fe590650bcda3c5f36c
55225 F20101209_AAANYJ pandey_v_Page_131.jpg
60cb7e3bdd77c6883e295cb80922b4f6
a48ef98b3ea705d48b9d9ef546b50adeec23192f
1273 F20101209_AAAPHG pandey_v_Page_003.QC.jpg
d86e321dc67a16f6a34bbc95e9824cc3
7bf28e046cbd9d29dac5ae6d74de0a6de705acf8
9376 F20101209_AAAPGS pandey_v_Page_149thm.jpg
151a9f42074f40f201f86b0f2b39fdf9
491bc11da6c175e72766a1531adb675f5327682a
F20101209_AAAODQ pandey_v_Page_007.tif
a1c1c123e81be8ff1df7d3c4b3ebafe5
4be33bb3b8791c26c296a4c2f685570f15cb0472
90072 F20101209_AAANYK pandey_v_Page_027.jpg
51e7cac76778dc9eb04b6826afe90080
cfdae40150b7a382aa3a8f9b83714119c0b92d82
48929 F20101209_AAAOEE pandey_v_Page_034.pro
853b7c352df059c306ea52ae34fa03b6
f75467b1993aec05aa8cd2b6898949f6cd905daf
7734 F20101209_AAAPHH pandey_v_Page_004thm.jpg
12a0029761a95f17df03987fc9e1c539
9704b1541c96244b856ae65a6148cc071b896fe9
15008 F20101209_AAAPGT pandey_v_Page_107.QC.jpg
0d373b14525538212282cab1f7e3258d
291106734c5706f60fde0cfc09b36b999cbab576
1817 F20101209_AAAODR pandey_v_Page_053.txt
79e9a4a5a53c1d177f5cee4dfd76cd5b
484bf3ef37cac2e9f9d2e9441b457ba62ef51173
107972 F20101209_AAANYL pandey_v_Page_036.jpg
354dd286127b29b0fef08fa7dcff7374
dafc9dbd18960e45a069ca431607aff8ffd73487
75736 F20101209_AAAOEF pandey_v_Page_140.pro
c95adda4cdee6e787764ae8131bfbe81
92870cf5eb9402ed676b1e6283346dbbdc017eb7
31716 F20101209_AAAPHI pandey_v_Page_004.QC.jpg
19a9ba1e2d8adb5c9e86f110e3aa32fa
ed465dfaaac25a2a19711364675d9ce6a7c60189
9072 F20101209_AAAPGU pandey_v_Page_077thm.jpg
9fc464add9f754253c934a810cd1a218
77b56b1f30fc7c34b83fad5731774e9f2cd96f65
8431 F20101209_AAANZA pandey_v_Page_008thm.jpg
ee5e19388802ff4a4385e0b3178d5797
5c139080c63845dba2a7901e8a4a18f5cdc06cae
F20101209_AAAODS pandey_v_Page_021.txt
5f51d6d9494f307661d0be309322550f
2e8f7ff7f578dfe129a29bacd4e492c3a5f5f5b7
114344 F20101209_AAANYM pandey_v_Page_083.jp2
5bf038230eb0c2d07523331b91853b4a
8939e03c16b7ce22163d1a30785b3fc8bba2d138
F20101209_AAAOEG pandey_v_Page_125.tif
3c3310e5a34e7a5c6162dbfea6366ebd
3ecf36e641239ea98f7133b72f7504f85fee2c74
6526 F20101209_AAAPHJ pandey_v_Page_005thm.jpg
1d27a252213c9a73aa8f8454d1f6b7cf
7b834b4fd12091e7206f25a3101365737a3c0d56
17452 F20101209_AAAPGV pandey_v_Page_130.QC.jpg
31b8dc54b1c35413a744c0b483f7307e
dd363ed85cc5b50663c5209fb73bb5897007f08b
110064 F20101209_AAANZB pandey_v_Page_050.jpg
7a0255bd52d684f9d818294c2cb95d92
bf7b8951f94c1df513360705747de4ac7402b25a
8336 F20101209_AAAODT pandey_v_Page_015thm.jpg
2edbe445c6e5d957b59890839cb0653c
41f9f41276ad1b35d4f8fa1d58a482d055a7a778
21053 F20101209_AAANYN pandey_v_Page_109.pro
e6a290c89309f795c8fc05da5b38186b
a52efd208fe18c40b35837a37103c319941f6607
31605 F20101209_AAAOEH pandey_v_Page_006.QC.jpg
2697b0d35a101d36be07a03719770593
31af7c99c7bd69c9cce28c0ce302c7185c343398
26538 F20101209_AAAPHK pandey_v_Page_005.QC.jpg
34635c1438e37ea4344946003d9d3615
1388648956721a03a96a10c09c43f33f591d81eb
8530 F20101209_AAAPGW pandey_v_Page_055thm.jpg
3719cf80a678c164567a6f00522b0c1f
fe0fc3f8cab16069d849c54db13dbff79acad606
53603 F20101209_AAANZC pandey_v_Page_025.pro
11a83e6645e0c1e9fe60c37433f85e24
d5d571355e27d179fe2775d4c9055a9d523a7b13
8894 F20101209_AAAODU pandey_v_Page_051thm.jpg
76206da2f0174d690adb57945f97cfc0
6917adb0558612121cfe4a30da73d0d6c128c90e
2201 F20101209_AAANYO pandey_v_Page_111.txt
47400bc03d6f9e822b03342b122f746c
908713dda81a32fc9663767eeef3aba0faec7e19
23141 F20101209_AAAOEI pandey_v_Page_048.pro
67895835afa749306922882608bbd220
72c800cad5d421a39c2748d3682ea2490e20776d
35709 F20101209_AAAPIA pandey_v_Page_022.QC.jpg
256ab193d78e7e34aa2b63acb3b64a03
bff1c926ff56fe325664694a0e1e1de10e8922f3
1978 F20101209_AAAPHL pandey_v_Page_007thm.jpg
d9b0ac3767371c9c20192faeabf68a50
e6ae4a02a2c8445f0d902242ca8be02e249a8cf0
6094 F20101209_AAAPGX pandey_v_Page_116thm.jpg
7eca94e731ed2b754e3eadb0a6df9ffc
044a464b31a977c887e80e7d995e192c6bcbb2fa
F20101209_AAANZD pandey_v_Page_064.tif
80c078bf93c69cb511e5508c66a13979
d73fbfe5b6bc4a8a4870d735911711a26453cf67
808 F20101209_AAAODV pandey_v_Page_119.txt
34c1d0e7437c3431a93fb260ae00865f
e18bba2e24045a9eeb139b370645f7e49b396d29
113889 F20101209_AAANYP pandey_v_Page_091.jp2
76e4d5a29e59646d7a0b15e7d812ca98
0d499b62cfe171ae2446a3b9962d045d7544a9e9
53719 F20101209_AAAOEJ pandey_v_Page_050.pro
928a1f5ac1748b4f7502e92a739fd74d
fc336f862fda38ea4f5ad91ffb87b56004ad3f17
35924 F20101209_AAAPIB pandey_v_Page_024.QC.jpg
1cbaa058a32b5ad8d9fb0833d759be8b
ba9e53ad8f97bdbab46941c6a5e24bf4c63cc7ca
7936 F20101209_AAAPHM pandey_v_Page_007.QC.jpg
c4de91c22b805941c229eca901e88585
8861e86f80a70cadb710ec6c36ee905bb5ad60fc
8035 F20101209_AAAPGY pandey_v_Page_028thm.jpg
f5637390d095712414d9ccf41be81c05
026c6bfb2b283a4eeb0b6da086e944fc04c96107
9113 F20101209_AAANZE pandey_v_Page_017thm.jpg
39b0fa817a7a7f306c149024b5574ac9
7b5b9180d91f5b65de22959b2ba373139f3f1881
94382 F20101209_AAAODW pandey_v_Page_100.jpg
040807f38df6040670239a110f683b51
307b481e870994a4f8d16e866c4519536f32553e
35805 F20101209_AAANYQ pandey_v_Page_096.QC.jpg
fb4ace1576fac6b50ff1c6a60eb24038
a61f7dea008850935cb2e7fac532fa75b402c8f7
F20101209_AAAOEK pandey_v_Page_122.tif
7960b6e7cd4b7c498a34f66e0f753be3
2c61827f94fe5411f9a70cb3fee6a1a8f59a894b
34628 F20101209_AAAPIC pandey_v_Page_025.QC.jpg
8b92747fc1f37167ec52853c62d67147
74c40cfb768f0232ccf710e3a87101adf349986b
34779 F20101209_AAAPHN pandey_v_Page_008.QC.jpg
70657aaac03716abd69de9b8557c062d
74f5413f58ae4d2af2ebcf475337efe3c2c11da6
36725 F20101209_AAAPGZ pandey_v_Page_086.QC.jpg
56f30f036fd914e87c05c74394d1bfe3
56b189f59498301ce8f6a64b7fc6f53799efc1cd
41382 F20101209_AAANZF pandey_v_Page_107.jpg
32ec937cd6e24372ae92740f9ca91b84
8b9fdcaf14ab3c6ba503c4f9feffe74438279c28
4779 F20101209_AAAODX pandey_v_Page_014thm.jpg
7f69f64c7139f418d6f4601a50099907
c509cd1d8a070d8262333929b6462cc218cf5e7b
7534 F20101209_AAANYR pandey_v_Page_006thm.jpg
28154949cdf51fa054b838e2526299b7
965ab0c8057691c3583764823292242df1a44f76
115268 F20101209_AAAOFA pandey_v_Page_035.jp2
f5f5403a870411240fb60db701129fbc
292d51c871071d1758e79c57c9175c5c92b19bb6
8924 F20101209_AAAOEL pandey_v_Page_061thm.jpg
a489cde68cad34fda3e8a7a2ded8709c
d76f770d5011d110df239ceb295b424f67b648bc
8773 F20101209_AAAPID pandey_v_Page_026thm.jpg
204447d022d4cde11eb9fbfcb264500f
ba2b7205f1cfc0ae65fc081d6c0fcb8bd64a33b7
5418 F20101209_AAAPHO pandey_v_Page_009.QC.jpg
b1a984c5f475524ad6c3a18b51526e37
aa6c0d9fb97f0a954be4e41c90c3e5ef942fee60
10493 F20101209_AAANZG pandey_v_Page_087.pro
5eb50a754b5a13b2c681bf00c9db16cd
9a2b84a0d6c4837dab672dcc5fd9ec05abbdb358
F20101209_AAAODY pandey_v_Page_060.tif
dfee05ad5ce2cf0143a45293e513c0b1
ee24eadbdcc16b637204db057b703cfd2ecbf393
35856 F20101209_AAANYS pandey_v_Page_137.QC.jpg
a6609e5156a485921c2882c95f948bf3
dda76655bf6355e27b8bfdc5c027b1df03c5fbab
167 F20101209_AAAOFB pandey_v_Page_150.txt
f4c8cd3b354bd9603a36ade74d662414
642dd8ab7db8adedf709e5ce55ac8067214715de
F20101209_AAAOEM pandey_v_Page_085.tif
08f557877d95bc592da0c842a6aecdcd
6223481df14e46eae54a404d960c201954ffb06f
28581 F20101209_AAAPIE pandey_v_Page_027.QC.jpg
0f96b0d9d00af0aaaad2c9c7ddea9440
5f30964a8060b6aad66021c6bb33e5c1d159f269
8493 F20101209_AAAPHP pandey_v_Page_010thm.jpg
130499f713e257bed63c0ffe6806bcdd
e49a35180613d6cbd4ab59e9264510b4d6202a27
F20101209_AAANZH pandey_v_Page_021.tif
6262d634f5e37bb399ca9b2985d46bb8
3c9822f463adbabb0fa31b5802403b16db301851
F20101209_AAAODZ pandey_v_Page_031.tif
e2a9e8098b09b0c9df772ce65cf7bd4b
f01a794264b0cf60838ea113ee242a396a9361f3
91536 F20101209_AAANYT pandey_v_Page_135.jpg
e841cd32c73bd11a052dcb32ef034af8
f6b781ac0ade03d27235887d165a8cc360ad3185
31842 F20101209_AAAOFC pandey_v_Page_122.pro
9b321fcbba54332782656ed8f0e93b79
835a3a84daae2fc365ee34b257d6d78069fc5070
34703 F20101209_AAAOEN pandey_v_Page_138.QC.jpg
da231b6b15be234b072aad0438c4addb
27f67afe66e3f53e8c431c5de7063462d41d4bd3
30581 F20101209_AAAPIF pandey_v_Page_028.QC.jpg
b9dacd6d4aa080e78454d8e06a7526e2
dde00d85ce00e56b077a8f60bb1263be4f02f646
8632 F20101209_AAAPHQ pandey_v_Page_011thm.jpg
32cc3cc64e954779dd30b019750831f6
15bb320bb03e4c2d8568a86644ef0e162969bf42
372 F20101209_AAANZI pandey_v_Page_125.txt
52f6fc2f15493eb097fed7c2c52c3c1b
b2df30e379472f9c83cfd5a371a584d78ca17ba6
1444 F20101209_AAANYU pandey_v_Page_048.txt
121f6e46a965093c1bc6f75f87d62f56
0216ba6a96206283e4e2a7e13dc111c3907dc562
1511 F20101209_AAAOFD pandey_v_Page_070.txt
0158fc6b135cd769e093453778ae6af7
5436493d836536e2cd083f2c2abbf92d3f2ff936
F20101209_AAAOEO pandey_v_Page_104.tif
b8e1ae94aa8c8db28ce3acf2a074ea21
3e1eb60d0982f27bc6a77dcf8278d5b20c159e31
34635 F20101209_AAAPIG pandey_v_Page_029.QC.jpg
860108ba850392a9a7e9d0ac64dd688e
8271e66988676e4ae7def58cee1f239a44cd6356
6867 F20101209_AAAPHR pandey_v_Page_012thm.jpg
d46b7747520fd6cabf4eeb431ec16acf
ea297f03ee2277f9a9d524de2716d7c62ed96f84
17837 F20101209_AAANZJ pandey_v_Page_068.QC.jpg
1a58ff8d11c644586cea2d13c1c14f45
d47885f83718f44f500727d3f7938d215ccc0b76
7410 F20101209_AAANYV pandey_v_Page_013thm.jpg
f65d2288fc44dd512e1177a5a45b71f6
4dbf879396d25804de2e188a603a4033f37aa930
42806 F20101209_AAAOFE pandey_v_Page_075.pro
dbe1472eb1a0ea410d99747579008667
809d82b417d0c664c7eafd3160347c85a31f73c6
2250 F20101209_AAAOEP pandey_v_Page_051.txt
54cafdaf915bd2f5c2bc13728f9198e2
721dea1c26481e6929b434c66b9035c3606cfb34
33734 F20101209_AAAPHS pandey_v_Page_015.QC.jpg
4a3d56238fa415619fb9d0e2446eb060
40eb9fd3d28c7f49c7051915d0e0045bdd2f9071
36444 F20101209_AAANZK pandey_v_Page_093.QC.jpg
bfeeae3022bdead0b125c92a0ae4093a
d5372e97233e3211ba35c5c407962321ab0f7a7a
4785 F20101209_AAANYW pandey_v_Page_090thm.jpg
84a179385057e83a23b637c128be0779
5d51dabbc4889540266208d0cdd170cda1117dbc
116806 F20101209_AAAOEQ pandey_v_Page_061.jp2
d1cc7631daf32c6b4ec03f94b78945bf
0e1a7c83986f0c6512ebeac3de4e98130d20b83c
37208 F20101209_AAAPIH pandey_v_Page_030.QC.jpg
6bbfda51ab7ca1c7fd222d9a0d936896
2cb313cd16399fda32a305ed05704005631d16fa
8642 F20101209_AAAPHT pandey_v_Page_016thm.jpg
831377299d69b9ed5b94b37756bc34fb
2814446f27564fc467211da95745b8b97c4b8cfe
17571 F20101209_AAANZL pandey_v_Page_047.QC.jpg
faea08c31d1efe26ce95a4d0c0b395cc
d2506f1315768a894e1634d894052ee40f1d51a9
61956 F20101209_AAANYX pandey_v_Page_049.jp2
467feb10134e795f9255b6fa8322be12
a3ad538931976c880e9c530d753a7b176d448593
477 F20101209_AAAOFF pandey_v_Page_001.txt
9c3711d7df4353b28a3ff67c9d083c88
39a5cc521561532772bb533c9df7287d3998a840
61384 F20101209_AAAOER pandey_v_Page_048.jpg
b5d25098e6dbc0bab74b3d9b6cdbdc57
fd4d2d9738f830efc75a60412180819ce425be03
34678 F20101209_AAAPII pandey_v_Page_031.QC.jpg
9d99a017a5c46c6c73413d89b15f9fd7
a1568b8dcb7347ef0a3f6b7ae589d7e95855d5d5
35710 F20101209_AAAPHU pandey_v_Page_016.QC.jpg
6d0a47f34ed7fea5def419fac195e545
266c1b863846f213935a018647d866388cb82039
36102 F20101209_AAANZM pandey_v_Page_035.QC.jpg
95cca1ada6bcad2654c94eb0a319c0e2
dda4a6dc2b71e6b00ae9e0b7411d2d8de3cd57b3
34974 F20101209_AAANYY pandey_v_Page_059.QC.jpg
5e28d752bfdfa889125ea92758d8f5eb
bccc40b82eabe0af693599da675e1f6de4307fdf
97906 F20101209_AAAOFG pandey_v_Page_133.jp2
9210d8cb6af01a31432aab1b28607ebb
2e277a21905c8e6e0987ec135ba09fcc82b96187
448260 F20101209_AAAOES pandey_v_Page_119.jp2
5df7e0e02de9b018d3b45410210c371d
cf8a4a1889abe2144495c3997429ff0b0601abb4
8077 F20101209_AAAPIJ pandey_v_Page_032thm.jpg
84559bd0360497961b64391ead8c7ee8
6e75a8dfd6ad019af7a1e8ecf052eb43891b2d69
8941 F20101209_AAAPHV pandey_v_Page_019thm.jpg
5e1f0f712294f7e1410e7c2eb2b043f1
2bb1ec425d7386a19c8f4c7f7d452385cf5b4855
57092 F20101209_AAAOFH pandey_v_Page_054.pro
785a8f51e59293a67d5a0f57e7a274a2
b439085ddce5b2b05e064bb614e871fa30e124a1
8706 F20101209_AAAOET pandey_v_Page_120.pro
494a00305321678a18e618a9199edf66
c45ef8646586e7ccd753e6685a883e4654cd2542
15705 F20101209_AAANZN pandey_v_Page_067.QC.jpg
74d4a153c31950ad3a744c0c1d206a84
3114a11cc027ee4c34c464a99904c40be3dd23ea
5882 F20101209_AAAPIK pandey_v_Page_033thm.jpg
4fdec750063e794d6610dd92d089b070
e1128e411b7d5a2bbfbc2d548f2e13ac1fbb0acf
37671 F20101209_AAAPHW pandey_v_Page_019.QC.jpg
bdb5c3330d67ff8592db11e3fa9f675d
edd0d6d89d3b95f741ac935e0c85a73d8ac3b8ba
F20101209_AAANYZ pandey_v_Page_058.pro
724fb895908205d0af2772d1f748bd20
b4023dbd01183c776a142b7c9d4a9e74aa3fc254
62201 F20101209_AAAOFI pandey_v_Page_049.jpg
74cc6e06ff8db6432ca1e91510cccd96
04bc0abdff3e67c6f7f06353bcd881215f8d69be
430485 F20101209_AAAOEU pandey_v_Page_007.jp2
0bed13655d801451ec7d031aa9b3c5ab
235c7d310c6366acc24432789055f9a822dbdfdf
29573 F20101209_AAANZO pandey_v_Page_013.QC.jpg
be9cce97109d74cac9e55b1a43e18836
52f5657ea82c610f83a59a2c248a53208b000d74
16113 F20101209_AAAPJA pandey_v_Page_045.QC.jpg
0a617dc0604fccf0d23e1869b9744e61
7d5af7b4c0b9a04187c7cab9c83b9a47b4c27351
21380 F20101209_AAAPIL pandey_v_Page_033.QC.jpg
93eb0ff1795d4c974ff792378cfe137b
51274af5d00a28feea6a9dce3c708e44d241f743
5168 F20101209_AAAPHX pandey_v_Page_020thm.jpg
1bd68c41a6fe49925688f39ab1c58193
57392352b5ba769a884dd0146dab847eb28f9d4f
F20101209_AAAOFJ pandey_v_Page_059.tif
6508ec11d4b6d8b1dc29a685af5a6cd1
12da5d0c940899bc549b74aca48d1eee74cbfce1
F20101209_AAAOEV pandey_v_Page_093.tif
a27cf189f76b48dba6808a04d796df7f
a9f5a34d16dd2de92c8902e80ac2ed5bcd1267fc
F20101209_AAANZP pandey_v_Page_066.tif
68ed0c809b461d8bc592983a66454719
caef76742bbb0abe1f0febd32418dd03134ad8b4
4295 F20101209_AAAPJB pandey_v_Page_046thm.jpg
b3ac82c8ff5ba4bbc4d490559312032d
4ff0da374d6c026810205ac4891e3e5258f20770
8560 F20101209_AAAPIM pandey_v_Page_034thm.jpg
12bdddc9d7bbfc348cf5dd94466c1dcf
65256da1d1ce1dd9c0aeacbe8cf5178e7d5372eb
5353 F20101209_AAAPHY pandey_v_Page_021thm.jpg
24532c7bcc1ae0c07d519b45be9edaff
655080a2386f00d569a433d0b4e41c85ad47d665
22553 F20101209_AAAOFK pandey_v_Page_102.QC.jpg
999967c4ef682aa4cf9e5afb34a57fe1
47bfc5f1deee1baceae85fc0dafba4dc79cb9cfa
36843 F20101209_AAAOEW pandey_v_Page_092.QC.jpg
23887128536fe4fe9dbeceee1d8c1a21
1a63d5efb75d70640566bd31f0a6fda29d709bc9
2683 F20101209_AAANZQ pandey_v_Page_102.pro
60c3e7ca0e1de3402cd448e817b6e376
de4e8f51ff5a3f71bc2046a087e7c603f3ee8ad7
5581 F20101209_AAAPJC pandey_v_Page_047thm.jpg
a95b6a5917ab07979bb780375e5e96b5
186c324040be46270a771622785e95ba88eda68c
32812 F20101209_AAAPIN pandey_v_Page_034.QC.jpg
bc5411955cc6a151ea851d037e6eb20b
217cb86a79f0f820758c53b8a68e90846577b1d4
8775 F20101209_AAAPHZ pandey_v_Page_022thm.jpg
483ed4f3855003b0df73315697f81021
712e8c72379ec77e3d1af9ef0998cf5680efecd3
4062 F20101209_AAAOGA pandey_v_Page_087thm.jpg
05f7258f6fa9a7211b86d35d3063c962
d3a63fac64ad09727eada03dc48ba170056c6747
67209 F20101209_AAAOFL pandey_v_Page_011.pro
d0e673914d12e7104be9f22ce1c1a06b
97007fccbe444ea5b550f9aec4ec216b489599a9
132577 F20101209_AAAOEX pandey_v_Page_142.jpg
3e1cc424cbcadfbda30a2a891054581d
c5874ebab224847e48a4f684823c700bb5ef9733
77634 F20101209_AAANZR pandey_v_Page_102.jpg
e9809a380f84ff5d4b304929d611d937
00e1233554b62e29cb64635940bdc66af02b8fe6
5971 F20101209_AAAPJD pandey_v_Page_048thm.jpg
dd667bcd01eaae38ebf735cc462f0b14
0c445902f6bc7dd7932a3539819e02fe492117c7
8528 F20101209_AAAPIO pandey_v_Page_035thm.jpg
6c57daf190958e262e0259636ca52e25
b8880439b183cc007253ca8d04ffb6aab9ac3305
36167 F20101209_AAAOGB pandey_v_Page_023.QC.jpg
3b9d8550eb0c61477489a90c28d1dd2f
71c9a0091281844572041e7e7a2046cde371065c
106683 F20101209_AAAOFM pandey_v_Page_073.jp2
b6cb08227c607218f879565695927d17
15434aca227974b857bfdb521195a99c2f6ebb13
1136 F20101209_AAAOEY pandey_v_Page_044.txt
5d06e9f5496e5c303f733bb00419f08b
3a02d31a570becc3f46d59b2f7479d0d0cf7016c
8846 F20101209_AAANZS pandey_v_Page_081thm.jpg
ffb155584fea956917ec1e1aa7689519
04f7195838474d929ef874f0864720deda3077fc
21723 F20101209_AAAPJE pandey_v_Page_048.QC.jpg
5698b0ea11d82d87ba39474dd0c01589
c28813ca70bea93a7e43d248421227e9b8ad36d1
36030 F20101209_AAAPIP pandey_v_Page_036.QC.jpg
c91c34b30db05dde1375bad6f7189a98
bad7a7eb8c4454aa2ad945ff8ac511c780ce80e0
5967 F20101209_AAAOGC pandey_v_Page_104thm.jpg
d348b48b256c1ebfe92f8dd51401a2fa
51e8ac401903d950e81c36720fdaf8a7c4aa4e0d
2016 F20101209_AAAOFN pandey_v_Page_032.txt
9b5848611549608236b57020d15b7041
d5dc89e1966cd624004020e8ef02974c8ea9d6ff
34326 F20101209_AAAOEZ pandey_v_Page_070.pro
152060ceaab51b6e405312db9751a00d
732c5f2f4fc112d4616b020a1e2d3d3e19d8bb66
F20101209_AAANZT pandey_v_Page_002thm.jpg
7d0bfe6e076f0c33ac89baaf9004e172
7b3698380eca8ed1ab968b43238ea5f5a9aa3acd
4742 F20101209_AAAPJF pandey_v_Page_049thm.jpg
d9eb7c5ed542f07fe020c4de801cbcf8
4629f48d733c53cfed5f16e6655952db5a479fe4
8724 F20101209_AAAPIQ pandey_v_Page_037thm.jpg
7d7aebc43dbac65eaf9b9f46f6f7171a
c2b9aafa4cd9cf094cb3e036e6a2e82b6378071d
F20101209_AAAOGD pandey_v_Page_150.tif
09a59bc5fac1b3261f43e2cd515519f9
a674b3f9c4bcb59f2fbbfb55b4c67a41a5d85787
134378 F20101209_AAAOFO pandey_v_Page_141.jp2
940b002c74e522e8c46e261bc5a716d7
21aa190f88ade9e1a890abbb55f034a5d1a58c45
F20101209_AAANZU pandey_v_Page_123.tif
244e5288e8f8e7ad4582321dee8b09ba
72508731a710729e703e4d3b0e96a8eb8158a99a
8638 F20101209_AAAPJG pandey_v_Page_050thm.jpg
82ca1e10eb59491cfc7e18fbaebdddf6
ad30aed51e42d12747c22262f73662bbdb09e5fa
35248 F20101209_AAAPIR pandey_v_Page_037.QC.jpg
8a5186bd40e357c9f93ca01e21ede4f0
5195ee7b1ba3935e2bbd5d949b18c4618162c3f9
629722 F20101209_AAAOGE pandey_v_Page_047.jp2
5759618441adc3a6c92b13f3d85be5ff
d28883a09e621114c6c7f5ddd6d7d305451110bd
106166 F20101209_AAAOFP pandey_v_Page_031.jpg
a3f274e9d4e5b346ae9dc551cc735d4e
b9e32e46f1ff1fcbcfa777482a8ceba869e02ab4
38086 F20101209_AAANZV pandey_v_Page_142.QC.jpg
66ff83fa4c6d81b8f51b6a161a72b8bb
48ca707940bd710339bb9a48fa8bd5d02ab15825
37356 F20101209_AAAPJH pandey_v_Page_051.QC.jpg
9dcbff1a157cb2eb17d54dba1c7d16d4
aade8ff9b6008888b2c7441ed2afbe541765623d
9140 F20101209_AAAPIS pandey_v_Page_038thm.jpg
be803364510008d178670c181aed4c54
e194395ab5d94ec01117a2b869f84bf76d8bc465
504545 F20101209_AAAOGF pandey_v_Page_130.jp2
bb4357ca32064789f807882ec3e17293
bab9440461fa7a1c045901de65190d04a6bffc1b
26865 F20101209_AAAOFQ pandey_v_Page_043.QC.jpg
fe47a067374074fe1138e72491ac661b
b5179f51adacb4406477bcab989c66c638fefb39
740 F20101209_AAANZW pandey_v_Page_066.txt
8a85ec0773bbb0b81bbc4ca768aca4af
483d626f55f079166d6bf60e0c28fa7d0c7b8705
38998 F20101209_AAAPIT pandey_v_Page_038.QC.jpg
61e33de73a16580ebe3f697da14f30b8
02eceb32f64a2da826d2fac64689de7401a89728
18296 F20101209_AAAOFR pandey_v_Page_049.QC.jpg
9a4dd17a73a2760ce1d0180af69f8fc1
d62fe438e9f5fcd21d45127bb810e43c4f4843c8
103547 F20101209_AAANZX pandey_v_Page_132.jpg
eca35201643adc324e2779441afe788d
d32ea4c7085f87cf66eb24ea4ef0ac763678f779
8705 F20101209_AAAPJI pandey_v_Page_052thm.jpg
8afcc53d22dc91d745a8b7d837189afe
6991815083dc3e6cc975990ad4d0e13860b72ca4
8654 F20101209_AAAPIU pandey_v_Page_039thm.jpg
219c666310362f8181fcd9f922ec0a7b
443fc9dce814a63d7edebf2b80d3b7faa31dd52b
9021 F20101209_AAAOGG pandey_v_Page_060thm.jpg
c8efb3830127d97d8bb0747077442116
94672e6ddaf77165dd36c2a43195108a530ad7e6
3181 F20101209_AAAOFS pandey_v_Page_151thm.jpg
d8f18221e8823858e9961aadc318ed22
84dbeee41bab58cd92800c5b539a97d9634ef9bd
14919 F20101209_AAANZY pandey_v_Page_107.pro
c528b9a8c5d1a698d13294dc79c283ab
956834c2de88925f0a6a1eaa41ab7c68cf78ba4e
30068 F20101209_AAAPJJ pandey_v_Page_053.QC.jpg
31436f8894762a61494c9dc35d393c26
9a04bd754c14697bb9309521136ba67eb74c0084
37747 F20101209_AAAPIV pandey_v_Page_041.QC.jpg
c96e49cf4fe5b552c79a3f38193c7445
c0399015219feec7f0e723f3adb1fc28c4725a3b
11980 F20101209_AAAOGH pandey_v_Page_150.jp2
02629c8b217441a7c2fa1c4ed9204fde
b82f8ba940f1f7330c1fd037ca15c35d028f8759
551131 F20101209_AAAOFT pandey_v_Page_048.jp2
2b20567401be5ccb5db9de0194000cdc
b685223df83b1a7c4ad41afcea4f3ec397c96704
F20101209_AAANZZ pandey_v_Page_044.tif
79206c772d6c73754b69537d6b6339b7
55e50bf3df13c9f54b69f46e8d581ddb54548448
9012 F20101209_AAAPJK pandey_v_Page_054thm.jpg
5263a339410221e19163f2d557ec66fc
1830c7cd4b239e0d444f5de8ec3ceea390ae3ec3
34742 F20101209_AAAPIW pandey_v_Page_042.QC.jpg
a20c3f6cb12a63a382dac7c9c4a599ba
d802dd314430c703ecc66ea249468db2e49d8334
20117 F20101209_AAAOGI pandey_v_Page_014.QC.jpg
2dd4efa505acc8fb5713912402d26dfd
a6c279acc0d665623e2200afc90b12516240b1b0
7045 F20101209_AAAOFU pandey_v_Page_117thm.jpg
e3aeb93817330f5f30962ed6b888499d
84953d7ab44b5d137890f52ff20180ead7c6a053
21232 F20101209_AAAPKA pandey_v_Page_070.QC.jpg
54fcf17e45f930fdca84e0a15bc3155a
1a7c043bd122994c3d65df790730bc10c2d45e60
37818 F20101209_AAAPJL pandey_v_Page_054.QC.jpg
5dbba490659ef8f7321a9022f4b59985
6ab0de77dacf9740737a55f76d7d53c06d312658
6188 F20101209_AAAPIX pandey_v_Page_044thm.jpg
cd11bf6a80f908a3a35b8252f262fbb2
5ccd12b1555d95ea810b25f729c6f573b2274a14
F20101209_AAAOGJ pandey_v_Page_006.tif
987d47b59da6f28a77fcd3eaa4b777dd
5a9dc7a7eb5ea52299ecdd53339e51ecf8058785
F20101209_AAAOFV pandey_v_Page_099.tif
254ababd437c0731f7268b29b714b1ff
02e7da624a299fdd2358b0a3793e896cde8b4199
8226 F20101209_AAAPKB pandey_v_Page_071thm.jpg
041f583b77b70c7dbdfbbebc52fe0a22
02a3219735c7982093405ba50ae6d47aa429c099
33393 F20101209_AAAPJM pandey_v_Page_055.QC.jpg
453000ccb72dc3f7187d62dbf05e7e37
58187645b16fb6c2f98bb4117f517971813e9bfe
22522 F20101209_AAAPIY pandey_v_Page_044.QC.jpg
7f2f0c29cc61b8a9eae63659cc7ca56e
1fbdc45f1397b0ff614fbe7f18d5481b688ab136
118772 F20101209_AAAOFW pandey_v_Page_023.jp2
0f8315c789b996e84586b0ebdf3d35dd
fd6ad39afe6cbee9156b3ff9ee74f8b1b9960414
34424 F20101209_AAAOGK pandey_v_Page_052.QC.jpg
edcb82ea67bbe3983fe97d69f508a0a6
b2f2148812c75449c8fa34232bbbae65478c47dc
20481 F20101209_AAAPKC pandey_v_Page_072.QC.jpg
8d1898987878deb16063b921f6f95426
812b6809f2a972293c6b68b6ea9a7213cd759b06
9201 F20101209_AAAPJN pandey_v_Page_056thm.jpg
d7ece36906ebdafbf727e6e6c38b2dc7
7542233cf3ffc85f70361e9b6b6ca95582b297d0
4976 F20101209_AAAPIZ pandey_v_Page_045thm.jpg
182fb9159499ed82f170a5bea409061a
a2473fe99262021cdd6d660396bde22adaac3773
F20101209_AAAOFX pandey_v_Page_137.tif
93243cb70c62d6412fc657ddf56fd551
5cfa553340f756310d9afc5fb5294710454e4af4
114628 F20101209_AAAOHA pandey_v_Page_051.jpg
308b077700cb14b9ad9b398a7c4cc640
9cf3e525cd8062073143af64a8161aff6314d14f
F20101209_AAAOGL pandey_v_Page_004.tif
b1f4bde8faab97d519605a78193dfead
88aeb5703a5cddf577b42af458dd9e9bddd70a97
34048 F20101209_AAAPKD pandey_v_Page_073.QC.jpg
39ad0141c1738c182c128c079bb69793
60892911d5568e747eacf3ab03f3bcf59b4d8fab
35846 F20101209_AAAPJO pandey_v_Page_057.QC.jpg
bcf910f8bd7d0029a99756c6baff8596
72e089c0b59c92095a7e3984768cf0c36d5b8885
F20101209_AAAOFY pandey_v_Page_041.tif
adc8f26c7313e64c55b599634455c131
1c1b46ae2972793363a3470591364ed6004d353b
2565 F20101209_AAAOHB pandey_v_Page_138.txt
6f28f913cd69b9e84df42c1dacf1ec8b
ddaa8656d3432a08420cd7653caf1844fa840da6
44275 F20101209_AAAOGM pandey_v_Page_067.jpg
9250b0ab03ecf509b93181593dd590d9
fdc80dce01dc0b0ac5846bd891a257e29f21d1ef
7928 F20101209_AAAPKE pandey_v_Page_075thm.jpg
cedb0ba891c6973fc8ee516ee0974830
865d73dcda86e3eac065c01d6c58ba1c8f5a96d4
F20101209_AAAPJP pandey_v_Page_059thm.jpg
fb834b0ffc8c851cd99fd90c90cd41e1
f7fc7c0c6993c628dfe21e542af8b3271078053d
8762 F20101209_AAAOFZ pandey_v_Page_031thm.jpg
39ac31017128998f1ae2443f2768992b
53321332cdedd194714a59de5250d4edf6314046
1861 F20101209_AAAOHC pandey_v_Page_004.txt
1d1301c0c0449ed93f008bbf248f529b
78d2464856eb2d6ab0dfb527414b447dd3c92a19
46661 F20101209_AAAOGN pandey_v_Page_069.pro
47d6c81999db7080ba16bd781f5aa638
a576a1821060397476a66a01d0648917a0c5fe8e
30579 F20101209_AAAPKF pandey_v_Page_075.QC.jpg
aec0707ef75d5e11206cb4c9f1086119
42f728fcdbbd462954205a6a8a2ae78876e9f326
36682 F20101209_AAAPJQ pandey_v_Page_061.QC.jpg
7155beb98e93ba1885598bf3d3167662
a5ed3c39dee11eacc567303adf2405cc434c5103
9454 F20101209_AAAOHD pandey_v_Page_046.pro
139ccd7d2c1e0028eddd76d4326f7f9a
a19bec0f0d04dc8a074da9d622c924cdd3ae08a6
55133 F20101209_AAAOGO pandey_v_Page_019.pro
e4a7922290ce510236058154790505c6
40df0f6d1299bf41ed88e946cd4df3d17a819f82
8084 F20101209_AAAPKG pandey_v_Page_076thm.jpg
44b06f2776809f75dbc40271c29ecaca
beb614df1ca9a42c3604514697732a07e58d09ff
34673 F20101209_AAAPJR pandey_v_Page_062.QC.jpg
21ee988084ab9fcc2190c4822e5b3330
d6783b0b3c6cf0c4e4ee2359cb9b9c24f8fc3667
F20101209_AAAOHE pandey_v_Page_040thm.jpg
44bfd6da97671c4ce70eeb76486ceb43
ef5d7f719f709702dd768e041129a8bdf26f844b
753636 F20101209_AAAOGP pandey_v_Page_108.jp2
09f29d1f9b251e764ae7f756f9ce1892
d1e77a12d7bd32d81a8d7f1ea209914a28551c26
31220 F20101209_AAAPKH pandey_v_Page_076.QC.jpg
d9b6dfefd3d35032fa2e572a7f693f95
30e13f5c4ef566e7733e32488f1aa8badf437e4a
7848 F20101209_AAAPJS pandey_v_Page_063thm.jpg
c6684f01d7b56b77c1321c64c0c45214
9245efc121d768e893a20ea36a0713630de47ef2
1622 F20101209_AAAOHF pandey_v_Page_122.txt
ffe105d6b24dadcde151cac9e3848959
5df734eedc537bca6f20e064ebe43154e51a6b01
2114 F20101209_AAAOGQ pandey_v_Page_099.txt
4d126b0862d4314a5a18573d44d8ab65
542628718933930493647b9c4051cd79882b49bb
37171 F20101209_AAAPKI pandey_v_Page_077.QC.jpg
2247b450291dd3bcdc0e512f7a926b81
7718b9caf02f46c295152db8271e1773d6923960
33165 F20101209_AAAPJT pandey_v_Page_063.QC.jpg
9a3071fcddc3ef413352ed2bc8c2d5fb
392770ae71a80a63f762c9e1df54ec215e718702
444 F20101209_AAAOHG pandey_v_Page_046.txt
fee38d41b1b7d978303fce31879ea320
802120a33ec18deadfbc04dba06cb4045dc2629f
9289 F20101209_AAAOGR pandey_v_Page_018thm.jpg
49ca9b852d569e0d52aa7570c36ba311
bce774b4ab54d7aa78c004269955b60c285d6d7c
5726 F20101209_AAAPJU pandey_v_Page_064thm.jpg
7723550e642e626fbc2d0054eea5fd41
e77291de651f65ab758e583f7921aece16e5c104
5794 F20101209_AAAOGS pandey_v_Page_106thm.jpg
d628692b0150c9f9224bf8fef8519ef1
e54ee222d1d384bb5da1e08dd2a8a95c7c4b7dcd
8797 F20101209_AAAPKJ pandey_v_Page_078thm.jpg
0b3493ea011a56264158f1c0054ea112
7752562928f9df4904444c42ab4e5a93fececa9a
19921 F20101209_AAAPJV pandey_v_Page_064.QC.jpg
34657710d61dd97d423ee50d2647e11c
75b782ab9267897be5c402a19ce88f3544fa2112
35033 F20101209_AAAOHH pandey_v_Page_101.pro
4e07817646943e6859a47ff7a7120bd3
58b2f45f18f50931a737ea6259300a98c48c5471
13645 F20101209_AAAOGT pandey_v_Page_121.pro
0477dd9cf6f090d57e236cda03f9553f
68fbc1de46f9dfa1c5acfc80145909c263273084
36154 F20101209_AAAPKK pandey_v_Page_078.QC.jpg
2415bd6dd878eebb91b527d1641a5bc6
7fee4fb89e84e85f71a116f3e79b2c7f7224be50
5831 F20101209_AAAPJW pandey_v_Page_065thm.jpg
47400fcdf0aa0f626a47ff45ac5c83b6
368ed0007e8d398f7a7ca4dc2f2ab603c9f29a55
1421 F20101209_AAAOHI pandey_v_Page_072.txt
9fd9a2c86b088cd76ef068e5fd24e15c
89b4b4630fa19a03850bb6ebce13989efd4cbf17
46301 F20101209_AAAOGU pandey_v_Page_100.pro
0a8ce5657cd51c11abf1d41319e4eca6
75a8ac4aedeabe5b4239bd7ae54fcade07c6ca14
9114 F20101209_AAAPLA pandey_v_Page_092thm.jpg
bef353d41c16ec6357cba00111bd2401
3cf7c2a5862050b5589c041f3adab2671c888a43
8709 F20101209_AAAPKL pandey_v_Page_079thm.jpg
bf5924ba4d849b33aa8d3744f5b0291a
5cd06b47bad612fd703273baec2420e473127060
20207 F20101209_AAAPJX pandey_v_Page_065.QC.jpg
24bb919cac76f8120dd7e861942ed497
493674340123212cf0c3d6f71842c7c18d64acac
F20101209_AAAOHJ pandey_v_Page_068.tif
842e19f10056030f856f4d3457e6d303
e574060b4e222d2ca473ce12347748bfa62d366c
118931 F20101209_AAAOGV pandey_v_Page_092.jp2
67aeddb1884e7ee4765a834420c934a6
716723eefa9371eeed43b08442c112b57d480b23
9016 F20101209_AAAPLB pandey_v_Page_093thm.jpg
8786ef61bafde119211d7085702ec9d9
23f2baa95a360fa61889ee28a53817c02d5965a3
35695 F20101209_AAAPKM pandey_v_Page_079.QC.jpg
c2f5ca2fc929c4258631ccebd997baa5
b5e7d7daeea88db9d6d8501dfff1fc43b0632bcc
4873 F20101209_AAAPJY pandey_v_Page_066thm.jpg
42a3e0dafeb107137667f4e60bdd87a1
77ffe997b53a9414f7d2474304897bf15aeada24
41328 F20101209_AAAOHK pandey_v_Page_115.pro
f45591d9d577475674c991396417d89b
be656409e568d04af393d6390a5d1cc29b008dac
1920 F20101209_AAAOGW pandey_v_Page_132.txt
ba38d3ac7ea396c8339be4c75f67e8f9
9804becb10d83a6e3bd37a2f5b7eac4b33acaccb
8758 F20101209_AAAPLC pandey_v_Page_094thm.jpg
99152c807b22ba8bdb253af95da92f78
97dd5132c1cfb80fd7d0c12db893828b5137a72a
8932 F20101209_AAAPKN pandey_v_Page_080thm.jpg
71d3621b759ad8461a6c2a64e6634310
6574d7027b0159bf1ef68d7cc4370550bad28c31
16931 F20101209_AAAPJZ pandey_v_Page_066.QC.jpg
d435fca68477295e04e3e9caf11bb567
7c48ec55cb349b10b608cac65a8f65a8220efbad
119155 F20101209_AAAOIA pandey_v_Page_095.jp2
3d098f669bdf49222635faeeaa02a038
cb54f2b2a650733ccbc2c9be6a9be605efea3dcc
29508 F20101209_AAAOHL pandey_v_Page_012.QC.jpg
46cb53018f2cf311cee1d7e91a23b20f
d051d7d047af24c30cc5f05bfded5b137fa27ef8
116513 F20101209_AAAOGX pandey_v_Page_036.jp2
23ea41d34bcb9c95f4534baf19c72267
61c2734cb0fe6716ad6a17c8a3a0bec6864779dd
34705 F20101209_AAAPLD pandey_v_Page_094.QC.jpg
7c75187cd58ced9c3384ffd6a569c575
ebfc1ecd7101e496684d67cb90a69e5d0268bc9e
36274 F20101209_AAAPKO pandey_v_Page_080.QC.jpg
1f3b244c0ea55a4f0b9be2db562b8b39
3cabefe57c5b1f8f31bc3b02641ed200c87e07e3
F20101209_AAAOIB pandey_v_Page_063.tif
5a03055a33c5e9bf86866befa4bbddac
3ac28a07be94779504ef763a83d9e5666f168788
116870 F20101209_AAAOHM pandey_v_Page_025.jp2
4d790a256e3ee9ab7ffb02d7cf5cab0d
774ac5f6716d970ccf92f8d0e22a052f3fcb9b7e
7545 F20101209_AAAOGY pandey_v_Page_053thm.jpg
bd6bb3a929b663c6c8de72fecd32aa50
4495f89e1eb2227ae0ba9afcc527785ceb4638d0
8601 F20101209_AAAPLE pandey_v_Page_095thm.jpg
0c70b4fad4b9710fd2a05ebf0e199b86
b66b8426daaa514402d4ef7e7e3aac30b82aed2a
37187 F20101209_AAAPKP pandey_v_Page_081.QC.jpg
693a9c9c7b265ddc2b1589c01c97c570
287179c22ae6c024689d6f82be95e33fc8ecbef7
134136 F20101209_AAAOIC pandey_v_Page_145.jpg
22998f3a00b574368a8836eb64ba9ba1
feb01c977dc7dbcd5935187447a362864e8e8cc7
9211 F20101209_AAAOHN pandey_v_Page_098thm.jpg
1e6526a2a9aeed21525a8bc49e37101f
9790c81c315b7ef705cf14b625fac39229a40245
67762 F20101209_AAAOGZ pandey_v_Page_044.jpg
fd0f643a213e7398c6ee357cb63839fc
51e4e85b5334e41fb52aa1fc5133e08771638ad1
36784 F20101209_AAAPLF pandey_v_Page_095.QC.jpg
f7beafde9d70b02fe24aa984a41582e6
d2c0eab374070a19fdb6204e8913dc19cc991886
F20101209_AAAPKQ pandey_v_Page_082.QC.jpg
c97eb865796964aa3d1baf8b749d7115
07fce3601ab79b6e7a8fc0df65f2517d8c2cc209
255 F20101209_AAAOID pandey_v_Page_102.txt
b8857611145898e86c1e28cd25f07a97
82a6647d153b1d608515a9eefc60c61a7f756189
54540 F20101209_AAAOHO pandey_v_Page_112.pro
9e6cf75512e52234011b715b05b486ad
2b2ae40a4d7156dedb37c6c54df4c9496001ef46
9003 F20101209_AAAPLG pandey_v_Page_096thm.jpg
f5aff622f413e91711654a5a4e05d17d
d57507f8e8f1348e0d7740b8fd4c9ae1f17019e1
7097 F20101209_AAAPKR pandey_v_Page_084thm.jpg
20d22c9ed700db9d0ebb122fa4124ebc
c7fe6346c3e1a2c7950efc8f8499d5a1d4e68774
26669 F20101209_AAAOIE pandey_v_Page_084.QC.jpg
d908622fcb3a4c53f71846c9d719f6a9
6fa72814925b51e61a43ba947275e37f864bfc7f
7093 F20101209_AAAOHP pandey_v_Page_089thm.jpg
1cf4478cbd8f054c35b1ad2edb19c630
f0d010bc0ae3d60d04a9e740154bc29833f04d28
36897 F20101209_AAAPLH pandey_v_Page_097.QC.jpg
7f859754aac05530319416aa5fc3b53e
ca5fb6fa8a8bc73c13f3b26b09949cdede05fec4
31578 F20101209_AAAPKS pandey_v_Page_085.QC.jpg
86a4f50018e307ad0f16c5817d5f23d8
879590e4ab35c22d14f01019dfb4f97ffcf1b701
2035 F20101209_AAAOIF pandey_v_Page_052.txt
108e3b239c67be1ac7f2245dfe0fd770
e9ef3290ff913de075b16d1a42f60ac24e8cbcd0
35998 F20101209_AAAOHQ pandey_v_Page_060.QC.jpg
fe68728e667ccf358a24aece9333e29e
a2b7bcfc6cc1e1fa49fbf99ab37d2ea1d9490e8e
36670 F20101209_AAAPLI pandey_v_Page_098.QC.jpg
d5ee21c260990c501d126a09ecba7836
c0be81d2e0375d432673b6cafe79756ffb9fa444
9004 F20101209_AAAPKT pandey_v_Page_086thm.jpg
20244bbf63f1a0f47ca4455110e9f383
914d0b66be4fa91ffa2dd07f42f90892f8d6d95e
13029 F20101209_AAAOIG pandey_v_Page_046.QC.jpg
686fbb28c4747753fb2158448c912d67
4ad73a1341adbfdc23239d1a841a0be8bd2fd341
F20101209_AAAOHR pandey_v_Page_081.tif
1e19203c5e179b0af68d6e94b706e5d3
aa957cc1e25674e0013c31e5a47298cc4f6de571
7957 F20101209_AAAPLJ pandey_v_Page_100thm.jpg
225f8b2e6f7747329307e8fb7a1d4e76
f51c1e2fc2e73eaab4bbd67fa5b4519441839635
13095 F20101209_AAAPKU pandey_v_Page_087.QC.jpg
6b5f22c3075b9329668d7d1ab653c2a4
5293f0224832bbd49243dd9291a0fc80a57b479d
F20101209_AAAOIH pandey_v_Page_011.tif
93a0ed58705ac92dae84122a2ee913c5
47ce965f86eaffbfa6a888036a99bca9309b4156
50308 F20101209_AAAOHS pandey_v_Page_055.pro
10bd0b280b112536a6f319b6e5dba690
f56971fc64d1652b17cf859dca799b5250732b5e
13946 F20101209_AAAPKV pandey_v_Page_088.QC.jpg
c579a1e96accb22a688a037f72432627
61025a39bc46fe55fac41aea76dc26d288148d86
F20101209_AAAOHT pandey_v_Page_103.tif
da6dbb6657e60c8eb610713dd8415dd8
aa62e4703271d50f73f13eb23741a976ae230e6d
33023 F20101209_AAAPLK pandey_v_Page_100.QC.jpg
7e13c151493ddf805a94d7fd48278a72
f532d8bcaca00e37a2ad83d157a71ee9eb9e3784
24081 F20101209_AAAPKW pandey_v_Page_089.QC.jpg
0f4bdd010c520582120ec6071e81bf98
60de39f9653534a44d6218c61b06dbce2d6f60a7
134592 F20101209_AAAOII pandey_v_Page_147.jpg
090b76916833e5b21c3e95cd22d27866
e2adcbb41d83d396016ffcb998569fbc6aa3a762
21964 F20101209_AAAOHU pandey_v_Page_108.QC.jpg
383df2ddd5220769ce8864e85f782409
4506da21dd7800144a5540a2b1f85ae5435ae611
4294 F20101209_AAAPMA pandey_v_Page_119thm.jpg
010b8ffa4f357707473718fb5ad37640
c77c143a5d0a2582eca0576672d945e43877a424
5775 F20101209_AAAPLL pandey_v_Page_101thm.jpg
e23601cf07d0811bbd2c33193490efc0
3f0e3263ab8dbd6d202194a8c805befbba5d8c4a
16695 F20101209_AAAPKX pandey_v_Page_090.QC.jpg
6d310792c4577b475ccca5c21c64de5e
4fb13e69781a5ed4524c37812e5ea78544c23c6e
9164 F20101209_AAAOIJ pandey_v_Page_148thm.jpg
f920839179482709cf79884d8b808e25
8edca31ba549304a5b955c82ab5702f1a8637a12
110242 F20101209_AAAOHV pandey_v_Page_112.jpg
79b83a54a5cc97c1c1f5408105da7b25
097c718d92f8fc9b06238d78d97e295e6a9056de
16119 F20101209_AAAPMB pandey_v_Page_119.QC.jpg
c936dab7a27343d28ba2898852881094
a13ab2cccc2c65ab2aceefa1c5cb292daeffda98
20951 F20101209_AAAPLM pandey_v_Page_105.QC.jpg
dd372a39f677e7873e2da83131a7153d
701d370e158ce15101f88290b1f3ff81a85f906c
8818 F20101209_AAAPKY pandey_v_Page_091thm.jpg
a867bd3dc8a63b94e7b2dd7d3e4ad088
b93ccb3be270ec0bc33a77ba640fb808ad3f9e5b
F20101209_AAAOIK pandey_v_Page_032.tif
c82b9be8cbf57aae529044d19f911482
d762ff7e50dbc1d382bfeb9250bf681bce321014
F20101209_AAAOHW pandey_v_Page_086.tif
c0e95ac45ce393dda171c19932c4d3df
c923595e536c6326e18babb2c3688f339744e055
2972 F20101209_AAAPMC pandey_v_Page_121thm.jpg
99a1a4b52bd04590dc737b0ea548f04a
1d0c85e2417c35f2c51f4ebd59089172509979d8
19622 F20101209_AAAPLN pandey_v_Page_106.QC.jpg
8881c9bd233fa86724c87590d1811399
794b8bcd4c501ee83e7c02923c1eed1b5f66f349
35235 F20101209_AAAPKZ pandey_v_Page_091.QC.jpg
ea30272444bf244d363c93a0b1b7fa69
3a6b5d86a8b8e781dd9c69992c2b99706b0fc28c
1537 F20101209_AAAOIL pandey_v_Page_116.txt
558262733f863d87de30f7c4c6e7d53c
80c05960bd9e2ba4e05544ba783ae4277520758a
108634 F20101209_AAAOHX pandey_v_Page_035.jpg
632d02b56a1ccf555934e025c1e47b39
b2adef9be7b09bfe7c611542b5182ccb3ea1c1e6
103666 F20101209_AAAOJA pandey_v_Page_094.jpg
190107cea7dfcd756363d72f2f3802d8
7e10fe2f3ab607a479ece8e09d19b66c466b72ac
6516 F20101209_AAAPMD pandey_v_Page_124thm.jpg
b1d711315a6eb63a8135de4252c18dd6
b254f838ad9810c3cb2402a076b71e6a9486473d
6312 F20101209_AAAPLO pandey_v_Page_108thm.jpg
40acda80e9e3c984dcc5c2fc1da7496d
0e425feac4c5c5beaeb214d1f97d17496ea999a2
19308 F20101209_AAAOIM pandey_v_Page_128.pro
bb84be5b9a93d54da15c3c55c920f0eb
6ad94c6e87cd104b0593fa926485fa068a716e77
35864 F20101209_AAAOHY pandey_v_Page_039.QC.jpg
0c60682fc3a6eaf3faea774bd809a540
72ecc2a0f6f32d186561c85d6b49e16dd2abb990
44297 F20101209_AAAOJB pandey_v_Page_090.jpg
36a9c4b509b10ec9122a7a8d21543745
b428822d1c60b2f76ef31926f9d24c2a961a6ac6
2260 F20101209_AAAPME pandey_v_Page_125thm.jpg
598dd696621e7af7d594505ba304fb3b
2e4fdd78084e2fa4136067bb40c25e899a29bdd4
8367 F20101209_AAAPLP pandey_v_Page_110thm.jpg
53d27b4ae04ae7a06feb7e020ac3edca
2ea24daeb1cf0156422760c5ee98eb1c03e04291
2217 F20101209_AAAOIN pandey_v_Page_040.txt
e22b4f8c85a51dbb74e1d3a4a0ef4ca8
6b79739048aed91b984d216b8ed3a97b9b41b644
74326 F20101209_AAAOHZ pandey_v_Page_070.jp2
189b980e985fee618750da84cb89b21c
a7d382c76455aaa691697e5108908e63d38c4e63
64083 F20101209_AAAOJC pandey_v_Page_139.pro
7fd57b8af971ea28c18926f333e201c3
69c41c42bd25d1091ccfd5db00d2dc310278415d
6893 F20101209_AAAPMF pandey_v_Page_125.QC.jpg
94cefc1519ef197a632649fac6a5e1d8
4e127a361a125fc98df2a2e76d6afbdf29e3cf85
F20101209_AAAPLQ pandey_v_Page_111thm.jpg
93735e25912de39d00e201269f470311
2dfe9334f315c27f0ecf5b5d13d5207847d5d586
37265 F20101209_AAAOIO pandey_v_Page_074.QC.jpg
99097f08f9a3d7de11f027b8498e704d
759fe2a7dea02a280bd71d39af8d595eceb78fc8
F20101209_AAAOJD pandey_v_Page_080.tif
8496670915813d63d640dafb1db54578
540d7f24e13e693ce29f048349316bcf07f20c8c
5413 F20101209_AAAPMG pandey_v_Page_126thm.jpg
45d5fc0a6e41d5834b2b8829c9a1931c
c1072fa690dea7792d19106d08272ca5e7b20e3b
36254 F20101209_AAAPLR pandey_v_Page_111.QC.jpg
1121d6e7402231eed0cf775675cb5f36
58bfc81e88380e666f6b5e26550b30b368845d65
66056 F20101209_AAAOIP pandey_v_Page_020.jpg
ca1514330fed6a0b14546235f45f382b
879efd579d0f8ffd3c44e4c2131f45ed817491e4
138170 F20101209_AAAOJE pandey_v_Page_125.jp2
6434bd499273a60e81a2b70006118129
443f8f5a700d4359bd315231e184ca395598bdb3
17789 F20101209_AAAPMH pandey_v_Page_127.QC.jpg
41f407d53ead04721436be8826608948
6303fba360b9bc410e459f823d21fd5b182135e4
F20101209_AAAPLS pandey_v_Page_112thm.jpg
f3158a2a2fbf7620fe1e4426970cc003
b5a36a8995a851451a0bf584477efc7fd3b87b8d
149720 F20101209_AAAOIQ pandey_v_Page_140.jpg
62bac266da73bed9c9d76d3be1520510
53e28840fc20a3bf0fb8f1f4b5cf0190b0cfd2d1
108345 F20101209_AAAOJF pandey_v_Page_022.jpg
8b1c1c5c3ea8f242b63544ad2a3eafc0
be49e5f84e35f1ba96dd20a1dce9db117f90060b
5063 F20101209_AAAPMI pandey_v_Page_128thm.jpg
2eace85bad9691b526f6993a47d64b4d
d9c4288746b73f019088de70ebac1518dc87ada7
34768 F20101209_AAAPLT pandey_v_Page_113.QC.jpg
6ec76ff1cc53fe0b91078bdc166d2350
5b512e70206f7a115cfe70ae895fad58baee9615
4940 F20101209_AAAOIR pandey_v_Page_131thm.jpg
76e8e572783f8e5a1f83038ea9a786d9
a2df0f4111b7c072437a2974b99cb25b49c7c11b
34517 F20101209_AAAOJG pandey_v_Page_110.QC.jpg
9355907f87aa2dcf3060f4cfe7c3fed5
b0c3df261f32fae6847f16dd4802637e2505ef30
17057 F20101209_AAAPMJ pandey_v_Page_128.QC.jpg
d9b62e7e757b54138f42c91b3b7c135e
743f634b90c3308ed92f7c55b9bf63941b4b65ab
7691 F20101209_AAAPLU pandey_v_Page_114thm.jpg
b288f799e8ebc1f378a905258036319d
721eb8cd610a4abdf89366f3d7d0ad3ec9e2f70f
7154 F20101209_AAAOIS pandey_v_Page_134thm.jpg
8bf779f6388a69cb7cace67223fa2bba
7a2c4893265ed7edc24c416e68ab821bed142246
1924 F20101209_AAAOJH pandey_v_Page_076.txt
6d06e9ad141a48846b1b7d79adc56db4
55c42d66fd48f037750cfc39860f4a013cd090f6
5040 F20101209_AAAPMK pandey_v_Page_129thm.jpg
78528d2b235460e2152c02636db03711
f1f25883dfece68c9babf37e1d1e97b97388f416
28086 F20101209_AAAPLV pandey_v_Page_115.QC.jpg
3c26c97f0c4463ac671fabd9e111e8dc
5cfdb8cc068e732561d22ed6d1500b473c9b393c
61941 F20101209_AAAOIT pandey_v_Page_071.pro
8e11f1c453dd54f7c94ed13c2c5d1f9f
042185f2eb8ee699f4a772d7885a46941fa2336c
99 F20101209_AAAOJI pandey_v_Page_003.txt
2001de0408e33144be48abb752c4817f
2636c40d53acc019224a0b4385e605b3d2a54267
24424 F20101209_AAAPLW pandey_v_Page_116.QC.jpg
5e443d583c5c5796648489cb27abe7c2
6187553d0291b72021f5bf2f407ce3d93562b9a7
509905 F20101209_AAAOIU pandey_v_Page_128.jp2
2ae2e50e2500d09860f970652e6516b1
3ffff36776cd362c347a4e3fc7f38fa23fda2d02
9223 F20101209_AAAPNA pandey_v_Page_147thm.jpg
d07d5e52bfed282442d997b50ec8e5aa
8ce0bfc5141e15acfce944d3864db8eebba08628
4973 F20101209_AAAPML pandey_v_Page_130thm.jpg
6329122de1f42298f9a845c433a64d0f
5b583f4b31b7be72d7ee30b0ff6fba66263c0370
24210 F20101209_AAAPLX pandey_v_Page_117.QC.jpg
a2eeb470b0659682801dd8a8780130d9
228417c0f2bee0cebd9b9839cd2570d69f9f0d3d
21581 F20101209_AAAOIV pandey_v_Page_020.QC.jpg
1bda142eb5fe7d1882ea7b6227b612a8
e191f662690b509be29fd37bb1e44b8c851654c2
140024 F20101209_AAAOJJ pandey_v_Page_147.jp2
3739452757dccb3ca395bba6e6a5b78a
aedcb36ef272576b33b38ff1526d9e39b1f8994b
39078 F20101209_AAAPNB pandey_v_Page_147.QC.jpg
3d849bdc67e8df3496b05ca3aa920805
66a83c60081e6d4db5426f8895e79f482ee4314e
17339 F20101209_AAAPMM pandey_v_Page_131.QC.jpg
630a043447c49cc8f6d4f122229b02ef
00d8d682d14e99c9bf1842c3d1195b73f1507edd
5824 F20101209_AAAPLY pandey_v_Page_118thm.jpg
80a3998eb1a1ee2c0405ab124117bc3a
5578069603b622821f19a2201262c3af2710f1ef
60787 F20101209_AAAOIW pandey_v_Page_014.jpg
24dc22951699249c0d96a31a7218904f
f213b0e30bdfa1675e91a886d292abbc6d5a9376
137120 F20101209_AAAOJK pandey_v_Page_145.jp2
d270e72488ba4415afec07a80c3f8948
c0d333e3bf5b7c9b54c4fc26b6f97ee736427e32
37004 F20101209_AAAPNC pandey_v_Page_148.QC.jpg
8ab9b5ba4d08546a922a507d5036da6d
fc66a74eac407d7323ebc5e1a9daf2b8c7c57aae
7369 F20101209_AAAPMN pandey_v_Page_132thm.jpg
a5233b2359d14d3db89e04549201d224
0f8dbcc4725e619a5ecd3b21d26f88655382e867
20106 F20101209_AAAPLZ pandey_v_Page_118.QC.jpg
940dceb9b24a5b469cf7e3962a58c6a4
66fc4dcbe44b334eb5bb28d76730f08197522754
75307 F20101209_AAAOIX pandey_v_Page_116.jpg
d206fe7a66b3436466e010aa0af923aa
9f2fbbb1abaa97bb6915955ada63ced594d73e86
2248 F20101209_AAAOKA pandey_v_Page_038.txt
2e1ff100388ea62ffef6bfc2794038b0
6736cab54957e611eab39e41656be53e711fd3c2
F20101209_AAAOJL pandey_v_Page_140.tif
ee60753061a54c8ae4357e769c704e9d
69d48c73b2f153cdc4d1157c20016afc17d83f06
37808 F20101209_AAAPND pandey_v_Page_149.QC.jpg
bd8242f29146cfe9de836451e561235a
00453f15959fb53a225095295e05085c548bf54f
27978 F20101209_AAAPMO pandey_v_Page_133.QC.jpg
22749afca2f0dcdd7cdb126a1386262c
1f49a0eaa5bf77bd0973794e52ed3bd35e55cc25
8716 F20101209_AAAOIY pandey_v_Page_025thm.jpg
9c41837c70bba9a633c90681d9da45a9
36a3d461913b76ca22335c8114fe6e80d31bd6ba
F20101209_AAAOKB pandey_v_Page_020.tif
ce62ea6208b4314ff1115324182c2c49
e50269a78ab9ace7a24a2ce3b5280164f4ff17d9
56520 F20101209_AAAOJM pandey_v_Page_074.pro
81ad2ed79951f45911fd148c4470a7de
024bd927e9bb0149c04c78c52118e56b08f06cd2
3800 F20101209_AAAPNE pandey_v_Page_150.QC.jpg
248c44b9d64ec7571c2e010ba6c1680f
d9ad76ea63f3d44dacfe15433e344e9eb67f68cc
27257 F20101209_AAAPMP pandey_v_Page_134.QC.jpg
cca8a932599e253d06e2946b9e8d1356
171987dbda45f256be077555ba4be62d257c71ad
8680 F20101209_AAAOIZ pandey_v_Page_083thm.jpg
d0cc6510ea131eb914c83c949b117a3e
0f489fb5af7525df5ee05e0e7781ae076170b493
53549 F20101209_AAAOKC pandey_v_Page_022.pro
7f0f7dfd55316933b4d4089df6857485
e0bebff0ffb3356a9af30972f057c5f15db429f8
515607 F20101209_AAAOJN pandey_v_Page_127.jp2
1e6230e3effe208d12fc8d294e92e607
ead2bec911b9f9552487bd2f0752e90bb07425fb
27261 F20101209_AAAPMQ pandey_v_Page_135.QC.jpg
7f1a8d61fe50319fcc7121e0a50c9987
f6bb54d42d10234a863de9413900b13a87736cee
625 F20101209_AAAOKD pandey_v_Page_121.txt
914b42cb7542ea1b8de6413c8c725da1
20c9f16062e9cbcf6e49e0139dc3da9554b2285b
F20101209_AAAOJO pandey_v_Page_112.QC.jpg
22ac86829e2e0305ebcb90363e5e40e8
585d63df5cf5ad0013a2ec3d9466111a10d4f3b4
27235 F20101209_AAAPMR pandey_v_Page_136.QC.jpg
200e2dec1a731622914487876e63c582
98a6c075e97c78aa6f2e4478151ca3cd4d233b33
436475 F20101209_AAAOKE pandey_v_Page_045.jp2
bce1a8e4bc0aed79973fa4bf30e55ba1
9f355d2463d239eef5f7b85cca981a12c9931da7
469878 F20101209_AAAOJP pandey_v_Page_067.jp2
9f80fd223b80f01222e8c9c67cf7b3f7
1a293e971a7cc61708ea0c795e186a24418728f3
9084 F20101209_AAAPMS pandey_v_Page_138thm.jpg
333e002473ec8059514d72cff4217a20
8331adbaedc2bdd4004007bf5602cdb8e689cf10
53699 F20101209_AAAOKF pandey_v_Page_099.pro
0b416170133a816aff3bfe81780d01a2
d4d7431dbf2000da4717d3037830329373ecfb4e
83391 F20101209_AAAOJQ pandey_v_Page_084.jp2
8557149816963f4f9d4dbc65723355a7
4d94f5b7f782f84fda3da418322718c7003e2b27
9033 F20101209_AAAPMT pandey_v_Page_139thm.jpg
d1e01b13fc29b92475d8c10b700f9a75
35fc605e51b9406d1c6e0cc3ae9b0b40f5b72e7c
9756 F20101209_AAAOKG pandey_v_Page_007.pro
ed8b64bf888038962ac251e89d60de29
d2e836a1f19952d3ce0394db5d2211d436e6f73f
50427 F20101209_AAAOJR pandey_v_Page_066.jpg
356741e73a5be5a2fe5cfa3ccfc014f4
5b83b300665b61d16429e15ae3e91c29c77d7275
35502 F20101209_AAAPMU pandey_v_Page_139.QC.jpg
9288238e905da0a9f3ce4027fe3e18ba
a338139cc62c109c650e6dd02963978e92b8deae
98892 F20101209_AAAOKH pandey_v_Page_114.jp2
f7a2b49318ba53bc2c4e484beac6801d
487713d87f7498a7a676f02f25abc38fd74288b3
9471 F20101209_AAAOJS pandey_v_Page_140thm.jpg
a271ad03fd3cd1343ab7dd253e399c9f
fb65e379dd63ea9b4b984048af2bd95331f6aac1
9058 F20101209_AAAPMV pandey_v_Page_141thm.jpg
2c4f5216790f3814f15f7a208a50ca51
acc92af128508458f48ea51bab80baf9aac2037d
F20101209_AAAOKI pandey_v_Page_045.tif
177da28fcc07785b449d68d0badf8715
be98f027703e4778bd679d31ab9c98e2b68db6c9
53416 F20101209_AAAOJT pandey_v_Page_109.jpg
872a3234006af72b80ff828026a48e9b
05432f878083632033a60704f3ecce2f061655a1
37508 F20101209_AAAPMW pandey_v_Page_143.QC.jpg
97ef06b9ae95fa2c5a1e1a2bf74e22a8
534b3e1d0e3fd2eb86cc5b8720cc1c64ecdc60c9
8876 F20101209_AAAOKJ pandey_v_Page_036thm.jpg
d0e59a483de4fd38474e30c4be1f3ad9
9d21ce3eb019cfb0903ec13e898a3b2406c256e2
34939 F20101209_AAAOJU pandey_v_Page_017.QC.jpg
a0d2ca9b893214a56749a16b5ade8269
9c5581d3f90ed255f82e47ca2c9d6a928274771f
9276 F20101209_AAAPMX pandey_v_Page_144thm.jpg
eebd4b08b332530357a098b11ad7cb64
7441f2807edef118729651e665dde658bd4a7422
5253 F20101209_AAAOJV pandey_v_Page_067thm.jpg
4c51536da99c65985ccb64181f277e93
2abc088ac1c887ea84cb62310b083aee1b61d3e5
9146 F20101209_AAAPMY pandey_v_Page_145thm.jpg
4818b34a73d5662f4f7724093923a735
86cf957e076520a7f3b21d3385303ba52ff03775
8523 F20101209_AAAOKK pandey_v_Page_062thm.jpg
7568f9c34f6d9bd17e5104242d96773f
b04235305f5ff804c7d0bc1b6bd9bd248862ca7f
5505 F20101209_AAAOJW pandey_v_Page_103thm.jpg
fc455d7deeaa17462920e84578e1dbd6
80a6e02370510a7d23702f0c04e436c58d59ba76
36814 F20101209_AAAPMZ pandey_v_Page_146.QC.jpg
247c844741f6002882a410de21d3d5d9
5215c0c07da5a86054a7c2b5a65e332491b02f2a
9227 F20101209_AAAOLA pandey_v_Page_082thm.jpg
881ecf63a2ebf4b5d4c5de83617abc8c
4fef7e877bdcf22d6aa915044c5e6b93303bd764
34407 F20101209_AAAOKL pandey_v_Page_071.QC.jpg
3cca994f63c8b04461529012206c7245
037e7c1cf6cb869dfca96ec24d8ee1f07e306b4f
57337 F20101209_AAAOJX pandey_v_Page_077.pro
3455f18dd49298112e181bb2141b2099
dfb5812d614b3fc77e4756c90f01c8cc01bbf980
56396 F20101209_AAAOLB pandey_v_Page_060.pro
2d53f96c6fef46416d125a821a9b34e1
0e41257429529c24473b47a79aae653ce1129a87
F20101209_AAAOKM pandey_v_Page_077.txt
b35e5d8f2b4cca349d82a5f322b674e6
c43f8d016dc4f6317cede1c964bd2bdd69725327
6956 F20101209_AAAOJY pandey_v_Page_043thm.jpg
6bdda1db60a6719fbe2136d64f9795bd
5433185ac119768b2fad54ec2ed2b1356bb3f9ac
F20101209_AAAOLC pandey_v_Page_135.tif
65248be65df3b1045386d017aca879c6
8f61cd67621ee3c0ecf0bd981d1e94a2b173dbca
1045061 F20101209_AAAOKN pandey_v_Page_064.jp2
0b71f7c755d42e484a589cc657dba71d
bab50ebd8f4990a688d9c898ba5d4f4343e1656f
132117 F20101209_AAAOJZ pandey_v_Page_149.jpg
bfa844c7f23a6e6d590ae22a7b0a4156
eb1fa4c56b2bdc0d6b2b77af47c7200a166aecf0
174345 F20101209_AAAOLD UFE0017519_00001.mets
017bc426a0cde41bbfad0fce6e3e019a
033ac32d8af4b840aa2ac2ab5ba3a1bceef12a6f
89687 F20101209_AAAOKO pandey_v_Page_075.jpg
ffd1de3a4b4fca6882585d87d82d24f3
c3710a35c975a1ce601667725952a7b3debe8b01
F20101209_AAAOKP pandey_v_Page_102.tif
6412ea91dbbbb324e4fc3103b480b7db
8c1a92e2d54a574fa1856790fd3975b52decce34
18057 F20101209_AAAOKQ pandey_v_Page_021.QC.jpg
d232fa93c239a614672df75ce5c3a90b
77a7aba5db68e4ee1a34dd88f0ebc5d46f49e57f
27271 F20101209_AAAOLG pandey_v_Page_001.jpg
8943b811cf79cd169d0b0303f506d92f
b940398d2c1114d794172c58f180b96a1de16244
9050 F20101209_AAAOKR pandey_v_Page_143thm.jpg
a8acdb51099eade49b39b27ecf7efc4a
54739e07cd50a048d627e196f58ba06789e2d75d
4731 F20101209_AAAOLH pandey_v_Page_002.jpg
67b1af81b48b7ba883ed7437b91d81db
5d2b59efb0dd2880ccaec20269553de18cff4d03
2186 F20101209_AAAOKS pandey_v_Page_098.txt
b450b7c9961ed7d845e67cf85a0ab6d2
6dff19d1bb0087e4b2bd1b9f7232fd658e9d9f29
95786 F20101209_AAAOKT pandey_v_Page_075.jp2
942c1c77e8d02de99b734ac00bf80d16
18143e5597de71e75f3f219ca7a3f289b3edd7a7
4533 F20101209_AAAOLI pandey_v_Page_003.jpg
9eb1a5a07b5dc7e6ff4cfc7c3a4d9e3b
ff22687f4653c6a77f120751a0ed867f8d32b3c0
97358 F20101209_AAAOKU pandey_v_Page_028.jpg
fa830040b19a73910e46003f723ac8fc
5b52ed98615c619b7aab16344bc459cccc56462c
96472 F20101209_AAAOLJ pandey_v_Page_004.jpg
b3e01677bcf092acb2ae148d462eefab
2ea967d95200e1703c3cfe94f9d6113fdb6cbb8a
F20101209_AAAOKV pandey_v_Page_124.tif
0274ba58cf31830c4ccd7d7819f54890
06368a401e35251876b0937f66981cbb0e07b072
117949 F20101209_AAAOLK pandey_v_Page_005.jpg
c996a337d5baa8c046ec649434888182
7198da2a62cb537d6bc229465af9997c39716810
114889 F20101209_AAAOKW pandey_v_Page_016.jp2
e7623d2b6697d7c12b56bda2b067fc0c
c019c04ef6c00e335a90a73a30f83ea22a2521d9
122029 F20101209_AAAOKX pandey_v_Page_148.jpg
8ba5335762cdd1a117c383a4f99c92d8
ae908ce63fb48a95aacf32bcf71bad052ca9dc9c
101512 F20101209_AAAOMA pandey_v_Page_032.jpg
13e483e76cc62abd703070736a9c5cfa
b85538428e04960d4cb149485de121352b889cd3
137598 F20101209_AAAOLL pandey_v_Page_006.jpg
847f84e351b94ad79f51bb225b9b006f
2586ccebdcdd57fe20b7948b4b0dc2a4e25c2dd4
2652 F20101209_AAAOKY pandey_v_Page_145.txt
07a37040a640010a31d9ed150db8dc7c
7ebca99b19ac936fd759823f44da0e66b1fd303f
64065 F20101209_AAAOMB pandey_v_Page_033.jpg
959a2b165908ca0b748e53124dd72a61
2805e51c069a22af8b7eb17be4a920fe2b17f7ad
118308 F20101209_AAAOLM pandey_v_Page_008.jpg
e0a0c45473f6345fc2a10b6f379708df
62c3b98c2475e314ad592627ac401996d454265d
44451 F20101209_AAAOKZ pandey_v_Page_053.pro
9d42f1d60d9f20fcebbe3678a5f07e19
24c8b245c81d4feca722c45cec531cdc324afaa2
102301 F20101209_AAAOMC pandey_v_Page_034.jpg
5a999746c0a43380670918f281914810
3842cf251ac461e59334c8d5c8bd693c4e69c86d
15927 F20101209_AAAOLN pandey_v_Page_009.jpg
2ac134d20e789e12cf960b76584c295e
2a49fd98dda2c2eb31239a11c54fef848b8c164f
109712 F20101209_AAAOMD pandey_v_Page_037.jpg
9e0bb9fd286f3bef75d1a77833437b9c
4eea8d07fa06ec5ff8d56b2d7c85d0c0429f12a8
124427 F20101209_AAAOLO pandey_v_Page_010.jpg
cfd18bc69a01f9c7ce7dbee6f5b4b16b
c887c99af147afa31f742303c372d97405757659
118009 F20101209_AAAOME pandey_v_Page_038.jpg
4ee4b516e4d2f5fdd10c7fbadfd32197
94d68eef223120d4181fec640513d8db0cc773d4
126876 F20101209_AAAOLP pandey_v_Page_011.jpg
675d8bdc85044f031bc25af11a979244
a37c14a9309a20937eb6320786f0633058a926a3
106554 F20101209_AAAOMF pandey_v_Page_039.jpg
7eb6e2f9cb486453604427e10e6a5871
6e112ddf736d521a702a60108ceb86883c6415a8
99391 F20101209_AAAOLQ pandey_v_Page_012.jpg
56079a55e9c3c80cf7ce95a4987bc3c1
2b66dd730f5259bbd7f3857fcbd89d17d46aefad
114605 F20101209_AAAOMG pandey_v_Page_040.jpg
cdea85892d383bc6b43b86134b397e44
f6504a22d572c573ff3b29232e92de88e9d51058
97921 F20101209_AAAOLR pandey_v_Page_013.jpg
eae0a42ac81ffa68a4794ee06506e42a
d267b3360b2c2687556d0abb9165caf488d71805
113996 F20101209_AAAOMH pandey_v_Page_041.jpg
11de24422a4800c663d0f454d7976e85
f36505165c056d7a026462295a38acf21cb2d1e6
102235 F20101209_AAAOLS pandey_v_Page_015.jpg
8f3c5f37cac2783924ea628990d6555f
132dcfe89e4a3c08b5be0b0c4ad1a000f8c49890
106242 F20101209_AAAOMI pandey_v_Page_042.jpg
dd9611a3af7d8aed88590def39f23026
6d532554c41df571940e56f97f7e38c54cdf0b41
109799 F20101209_AAAOLT pandey_v_Page_017.jpg
f70ed8a72569875481feb1318bf7ba07
3bb092f74d1a1071f52001167ff6c4570f61f04e
81298 F20101209_AAAOMJ pandey_v_Page_043.jpg
409eb2cbce1831a2ca1766ae56e6db52
773880f02992e10038dc9fcaf931b03f44563117
113363 F20101209_AAAOLU pandey_v_Page_018.jpg
7174461dcd176328b3e980fca1856ea5
6df9eaad76d902c061f40e39d14899ec3411d05a
46032 F20101209_AAAOMK pandey_v_Page_045.jpg
b652f851c5e473e1c535bb3efe0cd462
bf939d8f1fc742b5a65d1e467633ad5f188d2d3e
54417 F20101209_AAAOLV pandey_v_Page_021.jpg
4fd7c252a25e577a0fdbbe33e21c6314
ef1b7f1fd385494dab2b194575659462305e5bed
38859 F20101209_AAAOML pandey_v_Page_046.jpg
12f888d22263c1359ee9d8f8b5ba8086
8a170479b1af111412fa4abe04c4cd58973b4502
109127 F20101209_AAAOLW pandey_v_Page_023.jpg
7e8dbe3a2627f21e0ac31f065c69b8f6
9d884195dbda89987a0d1f31c7af1801722a307d
126923 F20101209_AAAONA pandey_v_Page_071.jpg
ecdc50597079a0334969c3f00042da6c
60d31263fe8b6a7d9cee532433bdc57fb898f3a8
108953 F20101209_AAAOLX pandey_v_Page_024.jpg
dbc40eb149e9338eef0545c52299a0b0
8c142982235ef9f96951fc84c1096bf19c21eda3
71318 F20101209_AAAONB pandey_v_Page_072.jpg
d186c45c47cdbf170c4913c7a34fb0af
be62e923fd3c728ec6a4a5b0d0b22aa8ae942a0f
54854 F20101209_AAAOMM pandey_v_Page_047.jpg
df3a8ab3991eb6d6e6bad4b3dd212bc0
66ee6c368ec34f94fc44ef41df377fbc9eb47e75
106736 F20101209_AAAOLY pandey_v_Page_025.jpg
d345c43626028b822703b6bcb59f6303
db4369c2af3eca33e534a65fff8fb7dd0b11e1a2
102692 F20101209_AAAONC pandey_v_Page_073.jpg
51737be6743d22b3dabece20e795782f
7b3ead9b491f54e37de045cd12ae50f91a3172a2
102935 F20101209_AAAOMN pandey_v_Page_052.jpg
09fcd88681670b819c1f0984d9cdb110
20dc899acac664d8f1a027bee3308f2db6e476db
113239 F20101209_AAAOLZ pandey_v_Page_030.jpg
04888e078cbf88991d7ac29fc2046c81
1a93f20742af709c4ac5ac3d81dd70a5c5c89739
113178 F20101209_AAAOND pandey_v_Page_074.jpg
de56334be5e33db48e45198c76d9eb51
336d36159d6496cc4cdb5c11109c290484eb2c0c
115181 F20101209_AAAOMO pandey_v_Page_054.jpg
44d5547d5fc1e0ded013c7cbbe388647
5789eb56039e34f842ca74734256f2900c2a7876
97089 F20101209_AAAONE pandey_v_Page_076.jpg
22bdece6e6d8cf2638e1a514fdb12237
6c050110abfed743acf708f95d32b7f5e7e8748a
104521 F20101209_AAAOMP pandey_v_Page_055.jpg
f64eb17c8e8b3abe456e8cbefda3f6ae
73991c70bd8af67d2a42fca26db00fbc2c534958
114441 F20101209_AAAONF pandey_v_Page_077.jpg
ee53480933f59bc4542a351765ccaeba
487e852e94585b7f6e2d911494a95b6d1aab3200
114113 F20101209_AAAOMQ pandey_v_Page_058.jpg
25c4a8776ef4767aae5360ea3c3f4bec
6793d1f76a5c94982d535f22fd0af5c062b6a5c5
109057 F20101209_AAAONG pandey_v_Page_079.jpg
4fb799954f03ca36333a0e935e259166
7f78fa8d5d1bf3b389fad7416ac1b84eb1e23049
107809 F20101209_AAAOMR pandey_v_Page_059.jpg
5bde0c4a20d26ccf8512dcc85668ac2b
1a62259565c8b2ea9cb5d59e62c61d2b22333025
112554 F20101209_AAAONH pandey_v_Page_081.jpg
f1b3e5e5caf7e867e060a9936e5e59f6
d240229ad9fa2a34e648f8f95661109687195760
111180 F20101209_AAAOMS pandey_v_Page_060.jpg
647a54105fbb0806c4e246604528ad48
120e8904c3df28165b04262025233d6a4baf6f72
112486 F20101209_AAAONI pandey_v_Page_082.jpg
a67a9da6520fcd7866e68683c0494884
2d9d58583aca61126207f18e86acb80a5c2711c6
108691 F20101209_AAAOMT pandey_v_Page_061.jpg
1934d77d961d17768db96262f3e26a31
3550cfee7c88ca8ca4435c7354f5c78f6f32e0be
107317 F20101209_AAAONJ pandey_v_Page_083.jpg
5f0f821b8636cb311a7b3c5d9fb3edbb
0e79d3b0607183dd5ebbe52665603a70baef014b
105523 F20101209_AAAOMU pandey_v_Page_062.jpg
eb9c33f1aa9c4bd4507c27b9047ba78f
cb9692cb21a11fc27e265bce5ae4c7014d26d894
80713 F20101209_AAAONK pandey_v_Page_084.jpg
1ae0f17d4862e1665732f44bb18178a2
5023a60323dbf116d61a5bc011b18b9c350159bb
98926 F20101209_AAAOMV pandey_v_Page_063.jpg
41e152480e6c405b2e206517c5d09ada
0405871bccbf487bdba19e14222e795601591565
98748 F20101209_AAAONL pandey_v_Page_085.jpg
ec69d4217a3bc71b5eccf6f50b60f679
d6ef3085c4c90f3e71ac276c4b6618a648f82a89
62162 F20101209_AAAOMW pandey_v_Page_065.jpg
6ad3f1ea61f9f2b068841fd360b03788
7e3accd46ef9d561bdeff11a4ce4def60b11ffc8
111195 F20101209_AAAONM pandey_v_Page_086.jpg
adca86f8c7373e50fcf87f407f17747c
a50e4a2657e056d78f744525f18bc8845b6c4d0a
59078 F20101209_AAAOMX pandey_v_Page_068.jpg
32d3ba522e59bf429409c11ad0504518
ad5ed087ddf4c952fb0bed419dc4175590d3ba5d
72995 F20101209_AAAOOA pandey_v_Page_108.jpg
00a72deeae13536a045237ff1ef7b94d
529f3055e91051bd698010cbbba18093a52694c9
87509 F20101209_AAAOMY pandey_v_Page_069.jpg
e2b26ecb35ef7dfe8cdfd6c09075525e
60c5c42d70c8dbdf6c4aa0ab550cb957b3703912
105248 F20101209_AAAOOB pandey_v_Page_110.jpg
7a67f01e1a2a5513eda72ce578d3efea
3821c40f31579f4e981dc83770450edde746dd9e
35498 F20101209_AAAONN pandey_v_Page_087.jpg
a28af19129fa533540f60ed2d9991879
6bee8329ae7db9bcb27847a3e93c609c7a517529
72089 F20101209_AAAOMZ pandey_v_Page_070.jpg
f24235acf0ef85af38b406075bedc9ad
1e8e90279191431d5a7d881b0e4de0b6c3443543
110253 F20101209_AAAOOC pandey_v_Page_111.jpg
67135963861a2ef367e6416f42efd70b
f4870c03b16810173a65d8cb81da178cbbd95a34
40429 F20101209_AAAONO pandey_v_Page_088.jpg
04c5fa7ac6a9cdc008efabb9bf7f791f
737ba613a832274dcc15d4bcb411a763a6c39ff7
102571 F20101209_AAAOOD pandey_v_Page_113.jpg
4a12782835b06e434286714e6d379cae
63addfcec26cd9b8eef881a541986123c7d1feb6
72186 F20101209_AAAONP pandey_v_Page_089.jpg
c1d7acdc013024bf0f56666a25a4ce1b
674d26385f5c1cc2c05d436122ffc39ec019f8e6
87614 F20101209_AAAOOE pandey_v_Page_115.jpg
fa81a0c1be0db5b7d45df85dcad86865
35c7cb78a3d6af54eeae2e4a4f5c2d536ff59ee5
112626 F20101209_AAAONQ pandey_v_Page_093.jpg
86ac7ee7f64bcbe64ad4997bb22970f8
308649a4b6699582f4c782860b7d26770c04b54b
75744 F20101209_AAAOOF pandey_v_Page_117.jpg
a4ad95d555a1e00da8ee676a149eae50
314932133fa7d0774b38fc99a41b16b406e96de9
113686 F20101209_AAAONR pandey_v_Page_095.jpg
7d71e2fb5385aa6104fb6531ad65eb9d
794ac892c532291835b24ebfb2a149f264c84937
50811 F20101209_AAAOOG pandey_v_Page_119.jpg
3ec32c431951d394c2a62f32eca6cec0
b2c33d56c66f8d487fb57512adf2d13fd3ac5eb8
109379 F20101209_AAAONS pandey_v_Page_096.jpg
42ba3ec468dfe1735d95d6e794829d38
8052f4dd705391fd2fc8bdc6abbe7aa4488d9c3b
26087 F20101209_AAAOOH pandey_v_Page_120.jpg
a149462417e8ea71285846b6cf204aca
2fb2d33e87595da737780e3111dbb893489aad6d
114064 F20101209_AAAONT pandey_v_Page_097.jpg
6d8728e21d03ef2efea1b5b446dd7bd4
b1903fdcf730ea396a8f8821840c9ebfd34774de
34472 F20101209_AAAOOI pandey_v_Page_121.jpg
d9871311a03a7e7b38b29e819234d183
bcb1235f7b477b4b4e94e65de109670304a588c6
113206 F20101209_AAAONU pandey_v_Page_098.jpg
9cb6e1b88fbc149d9df18b3fb97b640b
27d1133d3100221dc237ce09e56c5826851f22d0
92225 F20101209_AAAOOJ pandey_v_Page_122.jpg
5a5a4e0d4a8e42bb504b6e2260bb6fbf
8bcc368a357d21c2189d8a1bb217f2b195d6c3b0
108868 F20101209_AAAONV pandey_v_Page_099.jpg
0bfd898404e3040771c674160942a21c
5f1ce18c41c3ba239b3406a18b7a8550521d31df
42801 F20101209_AAAOOK pandey_v_Page_123.jpg
cef063525635565bf2a3cee514586dac
8738d0cf2059b5067149b3c02fd615c16247ce3b
72339 F20101209_AAAONW pandey_v_Page_101.jpg
36ecd92fb3a8c1b145ef8ddfb0a8216d
af789f392851dc53459fb1fd3a7588527f49dfde
76558 F20101209_AAAOOL pandey_v_Page_124.jpg
97b038b3a9c8c236e5e8d0d507233f32
59c75f859b9b1f66c9be0aa1422e2e2d1db780c6
56371 F20101209_AAAONX pandey_v_Page_103.jpg
8638e5dba2b9b6a31909508ffaf632cf
65b09d54ea2a78ceaefb8575f4ab8f3dc5586e18
125411 F20101209_AAAOPA pandey_v_Page_144.jpg
cff69896fb7af89c01ad726b65952fc8
33382cd426ee7c07b4bc3bbe66c8c552efd1649c
18384 F20101209_AAAOOM pandey_v_Page_125.jpg
514cff540f25376adb77fd4c8ec6a091
a4cb83d384af940f4116c9c10d3ecd7d142544a1
69037 F20101209_AAAONY pandey_v_Page_105.jpg
bad9d4718d47c7550370bc23eef90e07
a50bc4b497fe9f957e3f0901a9c1c30531b4bdec
125698 F20101209_AAAOPB pandey_v_Page_146.jpg
a7bc8b26e0fdb3437d56acd5b0eab9e2
beb25ccdaffa2b9edbf7c0bc9b97f7102c1c9c32
56977 F20101209_AAAOON pandey_v_Page_126.jpg
cd9e4d91a801686b14826c88ec9a8e32
211b05a3a7eb53b123ed55f1b33297eb046418e7
58527 F20101209_AAAONZ pandey_v_Page_106.jpg
512f53f260749d367bbe252a5f5cb60d
05205e55a484573f11b3c1172519f67453d3eebc
39587 F20101209_AAAOPC pandey_v_Page_151.jpg
758e6330b61c1d4f8b408ab68809081a
76db4eb29d23fc673560c32eaf4ab7dcf9b34ba7
25439 F20101209_AAAOPD pandey_v_Page_001.jp2
00dae6034bfe977acf3fff1838bc2011
dc7ce997846be0c019968edcb2005157d9728ac7
56402 F20101209_AAAOOO pandey_v_Page_127.jpg
103eeb8e7587d860bdeeb62ac62aac33
a6fedb03749e269733762beee6f5b4d4b71bf43a
5818 F20101209_AAAOPE pandey_v_Page_002.jp2
ef6f74a65cc5e214a6bc1bce3aaa3b59
6e295b49df22de47df912a115667820061afa55c
55319 F20101209_AAAOOP pandey_v_Page_128.jpg
af3754c5e65631e8ade723b61dfa6d2c
f755718e585c007c7a28595a1ee3ea759226bd7b
5810 F20101209_AAAOPF pandey_v_Page_003.jp2
5ca694938dd916ea83cf0828bb6e31c7
fda514cb2bf34ecc0438e6dbbb56b6a2a66b291c
54651 F20101209_AAAOOQ pandey_v_Page_129.jpg
da956149974df1148c81f38c49f4bc7b
0366fc66d26abcb5456fce86079b07b4c91215e1
101002 F20101209_AAAOPG pandey_v_Page_004.jp2
9f15ac963562ae174e5bdaaa0c72351b
998917d3b7b941451f8828ebc6a48430d40d47c8
55404 F20101209_AAAOOR pandey_v_Page_130.jpg
a66cb9b776ae1edc87e96c40220053ca
03422a2ffec4b7fdcb8d3788895f9be9a00035c8
1051949 F20101209_AAAOPH pandey_v_Page_005.jp2
2beb1861809b5ad7807055b7fda677cf
53dc2e2fff9740af7f6f6de6d471862f0293f1c5
94307 F20101209_AAAOOS pandey_v_Page_133.jpg
3b7f74c2adecea8597f975ebe2561492
639a6a7b261fb800fe4f612bf8a1bd83fd1ca904
1051980 F20101209_AAAOPI pandey_v_Page_006.jp2
03e6a4b603c066b54eb0073c84ba59c8
a94d5f9760acb25a58cb84f2587c55fad0c81ecd
91978 F20101209_AAAOOT pandey_v_Page_134.jpg
5c588544830a4df5362ceb30d72d9f92
0a273272f8fb0dd2671998f03619695e2c12f502
1051986 F20101209_AAAOPJ pandey_v_Page_008.jp2
279cd87cafce51fcb775a6a1b7a68aa8
f96c5c471d963030e9b6f695cef7ff12a0431ad4
92767 F20101209_AAAOOU pandey_v_Page_136.jpg
a730eed312057c02f99f96af94027378
301036b1b00e80018152bb128a7d533d70e6b636
252263 F20101209_AAAOPK pandey_v_Page_009.jp2
2f3e1df810bf862daa42d033428d9367
6d76159562951bed940f2871fc7c8afdd3b3d654
124391 F20101209_AAAOOV pandey_v_Page_137.jpg
09f39513eb44a617f29960ce8ef8929c
dda07c78b6b34a35c69a2837909267e7a885255e
F20101209_AAAOPL pandey_v_Page_010.jp2
bf0e12fcf00130ec97d5befdb7858152
ddb974c33391335021216a5d4e5782964db24325
114414 F20101209_AAAOOW pandey_v_Page_138.jpg
d00a530a53597aebc280e04af2b56071
e79768656fcc542a2a263dae7ae374de8c6026d7
114709 F20101209_AAAOQA pandey_v_Page_029.jp2
686f7e3a0408e9976ec943ce8bcc796d
11e78b927bc5942a9a86fdc7774097ce34600f70
1051982 F20101209_AAAOPM pandey_v_Page_011.jp2
282d92a7b8e251f9ee479ede77934a0d
c73a2dc497fadca439e55becfe295147a5807b43
119710 F20101209_AAAOOX pandey_v_Page_139.jpg
7d832fcfadb0fd25374755517b582dec
221258abf53ab7d6361a9186eac824b2da673bcb
120180 F20101209_AAAOQB pandey_v_Page_030.jp2
cec9b6d3c88733f78d8ce2c59ff70d78
0b693c69a49dc71c76a07b11d9ff0bdd55517661
1051940 F20101209_AAAOPN pandey_v_Page_012.jp2
ba6f8126a81e5bad8a844acec2df1fa2
5dac2a39d98e1aed31e71a26357a90dfed6d92c4
135461 F20101209_AAAOOY pandey_v_Page_141.jpg
a88c807ade2a82f089eccc551f4d39bb
3b83658a0383edb72e9e8ebb2c1bb2cd5235b43a
113074 F20101209_AAAOQC pandey_v_Page_031.jp2
96e5b69d493ab05cf61b128a66a89cfc
97f8e20e2c86f330a4a76cfb7f53ddcc80b9b80a
100260 F20101209_AAAOPO pandey_v_Page_013.jp2
930ee6c32051d0ad52db33b85ab8118c
a9abaeac34e790c4d4c74032e5997f0676c6cb52
130700 F20101209_AAAOOZ pandey_v_Page_143.jpg
1c9315703afc9436e4b2de97b821cbdf
97515dfdbb01392d121f2a8c78bdbbb5c19b8c39
70025 F20101209_AAAOQD pandey_v_Page_033.jp2
b248f40baf56d85d36630a48ef1aede6
e84147d6624f4ba14ee33d044076320b2a239655
1051985 F20101209_AAAOQE pandey_v_Page_034.jp2
dbd17e0e5108426e095cefc31ee8cd53
97775eb75151bdf0c710951403ee06c6f1e2a2db
64571 F20101209_AAAOPP pandey_v_Page_014.jp2
08a8c39e4cf95ba0ceab19fe97d6c8f5
e899e5e5a1396b2daf1a143f450a18b55f196fb2
108969 F20101209_AAAOPQ pandey_v_Page_015.jp2
00376c5f48aa1554387bc92e4fcfaad0
ec5442a2109bccc4c9744d7b72501d1ed5745e2c
117876 F20101209_AAAOQF pandey_v_Page_037.jp2
4a388be9045cbfec9c6c306c228122f6
f493bd72a9fc4b201281be251e2d0ca37f5a5a43
116124 F20101209_AAAOPR pandey_v_Page_017.jp2
c2a72476cf86345f736c08201ab075f4
9c69223ca1f7d9aa04fee1b5c7a1ac258b1a0d43
126147 F20101209_AAAOQG pandey_v_Page_038.jp2
47ffbb580b271924a743483d455a17e1
50fc53969ecfe5df858f4cc54a667c0016e80299
119595 F20101209_AAAOPS pandey_v_Page_019.jp2
426701a2ce50ce99f983537ef60c5ee1
ecd8066c58f3baa3b7caed01cfaa182bee202840
115231 F20101209_AAAOQH pandey_v_Page_039.jp2
3b1f0d5c515e00f0964c49e16a12cb5b
6d62b511bf53a615ab521ee562eaa25b1e99768b
68528 F20101209_AAAOPT pandey_v_Page_020.jp2
386a0a0180a9f4f3efbda7b8b16a5c9f
974ee19cc58402a1736c08a45ab9c381656e43a1
121628 F20101209_AAAOQI pandey_v_Page_040.jp2
dc39d7b59bbde6b404c7ea14b17afa58
83e644e8e9473db1c1cede30418427dadfc6089c
716668 F20101209_AAAOPU pandey_v_Page_021.jp2
395e2e975e4ad582f5b0b5b8638c67a4
edfbd6d44b5037b55bdf4c9b9d19c609666dc917
121473 F20101209_AAAOQJ pandey_v_Page_041.jp2
46d36642e46f7588858ad304e274ac1d
af9d16e70f6e2ae587834df0fb2549476e5059de
115447 F20101209_AAAOPV pandey_v_Page_022.jp2
adc4215b4432b9e74c51804f2c551b1c
ba54c004478f11952fb2109246eca975c23e9546
114072 F20101209_AAAOQK pandey_v_Page_042.jp2
45047d5e96efb163c91d4067ec39c6e2
467fb8e9d96d25a923d3986b6ba69b69db7bc03d
118767 F20101209_AAAOPW pandey_v_Page_024.jp2
3de4e95c0b2f4fb2ca68247958d05b89
1331f5df04c141dd4007e10dc2d7f79b67627988
834052 F20101209_AAAOQL pandey_v_Page_043.jp2
bcbdb800e81bf736051df29d1181c8d2
eb24a1483c51961e09f9fe3186878da00f15fd12
118604 F20101209_AAAOPX pandey_v_Page_026.jp2
9d20ac498865bda6f2650bef4a834945
9fef814491605bbd05b265f29901b004fe9324df
106063 F20101209_AAAORA pandey_v_Page_063.jp2
1f776daa059c99420465be85376f8325
2207bb850ad3aa5893b9a7fdbb44c9309aa951dd
699331 F20101209_AAAOQM pandey_v_Page_044.jp2
1ac2a09cd8270b344337288631ccd05d
71af36be9e9433635baaebf7fd948aeda283bfe8
96267 F20101209_AAAOPY pandey_v_Page_027.jp2
22962421d8017da74d1123a494fccbf6
3dee2e10e74790e4bc6a39d23de439926cfe8773
910983 F20101209_AAAORB pandey_v_Page_065.jp2
d3b7d6d44db7ac2559c11a7c565be8ee
6cfc1a0a130b0cef0ebc4b02161587589482cbd3
410981 F20101209_AAAOQN pandey_v_Page_046.jp2
7a196c57a63f087b61e900a3945384f3
6f0c30d15076c6c6af4bb368c128e0037ec90ad3
105798 F20101209_AAAOPZ pandey_v_Page_028.jp2
2814ab3328b78008891274073a901c12
8a5d3e254e9336b5e680b27b3ec1826d4d339609
761662 F20101209_AAAORC pandey_v_Page_066.jp2
7de757857c3cbb8a144b32705e8a2fd2
58c3ee15a721e50565e2c1d525c467229afae3d3
115512 F20101209_AAAOQO pandey_v_Page_050.jp2
bb6be4214488591a8620016d8c28e5ef
30fe5e43ff2699f18ab99e420e116ab579da3da0
1051905 F20101209_AAAORD pandey_v_Page_068.jp2
638ccece66eb2d18a0b6c04e7384cbf6
b3990727346a9f56559bc5a953f97bab681779e2
123181 F20101209_AAAOQP pandey_v_Page_051.jp2
874e5e6ee0c94ec8efeea2fcb6ad946b
9c9667df16045ee91a005d299e0eb120880c7bc3
95241 F20101209_AAAORE pandey_v_Page_069.jp2
6ede30d2726a3c0df4d695c5ea081fc0
c2158937fa37e18a11bdece80d35cb013ea181eb
1051950 F20101209_AAAORF pandey_v_Page_071.jp2
30aed41291c2739b8f002ff3b5e9cda1
0de5fb9aa6ad92b610edfbadd07b7f177a1de82d
110684 F20101209_AAAOQQ pandey_v_Page_052.jp2
a438edb0f4dea0f5938ec02f821c6864
61bca3423d0156863c59cfe1fccd8e3427245cf1
715687 F20101209_AAAORG pandey_v_Page_072.jp2
4c52da421500408acbe78aec59c6a56f
7b7d33bb2a773d53d270c46adf6b3d99707a3e86
97111 F20101209_AAAOQR pandey_v_Page_053.jp2
52c9d7a97794dd75249e703f8bc090c6
2b7c748c8e0ee063291d42c52e9d6aaa78b3165b
118724 F20101209_AAAORH pandey_v_Page_074.jp2
951800f9d43f920c923554c3eb6f817d
32ce8748804ba44ab488a0be6ad1c2fc75d44a61
122117 F20101209_AAAOQS pandey_v_Page_054.jp2
cac6f0edb29ac64aca1c8306ddf547d0
7667d861c8ca68258c03103f68522c3044671364
122632 F20101209_AAAORI pandey_v_Page_077.jp2
6d36e0e5e870e8f2c3a6696e7a1e80a2
bc6ec98c3a2b1fd97c16fb14a1d1ac0809498814
111322 F20101209_AAAOQT pandey_v_Page_055.jp2
98a7f1b3345b7f40e3df7e338c9635d1
16cece54a290d9b963bd2f4b7397146f70f12492
112770 F20101209_AAAORJ pandey_v_Page_078.jp2
8fd5fb6dfb191f3348aced2abe996e21
1e26db92aff12a2462dedfc6b19503c1d18f38f7
121712 F20101209_AAAOQU pandey_v_Page_056.jp2
8f1057f25442c1589d5ca6eedf389657
296da54c59d1fa6d44d6adc24f3ada202503b7e9
116610 F20101209_AAAORK pandey_v_Page_079.jp2
bd51150476ab09566d6dcb0ae2a662da
63003f33c95cf8fd530bc0154569623439291958
118176 F20101209_AAAOQV pandey_v_Page_057.jp2
f1e5988677479d18647294aeb702eb4f
890af70ea10d71a0ca344fe8860e878381928c64
120370 F20101209_AAAORL pandey_v_Page_081.jp2
57e4c5e340e2d8002060cf72142739a5
c3d689923c093370b78f078fbce194018bb5d015
121790 F20101209_AAAOQW pandey_v_Page_058.jp2
04a4a1914ab03936e1713177ee98283b
cf25224528793f35b81b595ba8babe0577127261
77278 F20101209_AAAOSA pandey_v_Page_101.jp2
af2f3426375a4bea2788d748a4d3135d
f5760626be6d1695b639e22fdcca00a3dda5a1ba
118619 F20101209_AAAORM pandey_v_Page_082.jp2
aa86819f9753fb605eb36672c16dc68a
01da8b192115f924bcc4a0571957e13a04434c45
115752 F20101209_AAAOQX pandey_v_Page_059.jp2
1530f63981bfd8cd63a2b834318ca379
719f9d929fea608b70171bb49d969342f9c0d8ab
1051979 F20101209_AAAOSB pandey_v_Page_102.jp2
3d9cea2de357bcb5edbcabea5f78fab3
8bab2fafd82b661790b7aa8b1489b709e2d71b4b
105229 F20101209_AAAORN pandey_v_Page_085.jp2
a2d5d4d73b3f0cb8edf4a2fa4ae3dedf
93dc23056a613e184ef027feb2870848f6c0e678
119841 F20101209_AAAOQY pandey_v_Page_060.jp2
37ace6102763f3bc4e076a6276f79ce5
db7a63b789fdba88e74642ebf10052e7ddb09ed4
515951 F20101209_AAAOSC pandey_v_Page_103.jp2
14c64941228a679aacb6acd51c7bb6eb
fce7b586de5f83b119d538a7e86eb16c54364dd9
117667 F20101209_AAAORO pandey_v_Page_086.jp2
7f72c1ff83a048fe7beead87e5d1769d
2c765ba5cc9f1bba682e6c535d4f7544d332c556
113124 F20101209_AAAOQZ pandey_v_Page_062.jp2
b7d38ab87950a3abeb077d07e05b012b
38b0c1b8129f9066b9211331fbb2d97eafe54622
535401 F20101209_AAAOSD pandey_v_Page_104.jp2
baecb2c3a03552e9bf731fcabfe8db4d
cbd5b1bec68f686ce1bd9a6ce97037fc4b5611b0
328186 F20101209_AAAORP pandey_v_Page_087.jp2
92d1f963033add2254234e1d988033d2
2f57a84e2f37a4571bfc9522b2a9ee0eafa0f7b2
1051984 F20101209_AAAOSE pandey_v_Page_105.jp2
79e974af61829ff3ce5d24f644ea8c73
d4afe15dfd734be68dfdff97cff12d898477a998
364816 F20101209_AAAORQ pandey_v_Page_088.jp2
4a98bad962154879e7cbf2772fc4a407
7ed189475981493d2f39d904c67797b5854197da
38205 F20101209_AAAOSF pandey_v_Page_107.jp2
52c842af4ab9c8f0c74ea2e853711976
48809ff8c9a794d8297f9c746106ea9c37c049b4
533237 F20101209_AAAOSG pandey_v_Page_109.jp2
987a035d4942853e3f929964c1a320d1
9d765e8b49e3b587d79ded5b38c8644bcd42d679
1045921 F20101209_AAAORR pandey_v_Page_089.jp2
7e2ceb430ad56e52c10ef16393ceaf35
d9f1e63030ccd4c1b3d9a7c92182d12e67870c97
112627 F20101209_AAAOSH pandey_v_Page_110.jp2
72d9b4b772cb08304964c6602948d1bc
28f8ea0bab340fc83f010fa98e489f5024dbea29
375549 F20101209_AAAORS pandey_v_Page_090.jp2
57506be7d748d6a926445af65660a235
5f082d66e3a32fbe6bf7f1d023b63fc0e5e85c20
119097 F20101209_AAAOSI pandey_v_Page_111.jp2
946be4b11401dc7355e1dd8cec103890
99f4ed86ef9ef4adf63c6cb38e520acfbfb8780a
119699 F20101209_AAAORT pandey_v_Page_093.jp2
cf87b12b24562a5dfee009e806e7e5c9
643c9973dcaf8d7fcee8791b643d669e09787fc3
116954 F20101209_AAAOSJ pandey_v_Page_112.jp2
4cdb3d894a3428e8e4859ae6e9e6df4d
fcb0b01b4f205947ad47dff1b82d94d8fbad7e2f
109772 F20101209_AAAORU pandey_v_Page_094.jp2
73cf6afc8d4acf500003b926941756ae
3e29cc52ba1ae1d0ac6edd6f7acb5e04edb72ff4
110338 F20101209_AAAOSK pandey_v_Page_113.jp2
9ff4559f779df85033e70d04c8249d70
285303603f9111cf5eb6951dc666aa0fae1ffc56
115831 F20101209_AAAORV pandey_v_Page_096.jp2
a99850df0bd78b36756e066db3ef19c1
e9a36bc6acc28f53a1f7e1c7306ea4e0d1212765
92695 F20101209_AAAOSL pandey_v_Page_115.jp2
fbb0d3524b21696009263a810ab981ce
c2e2a422a2554511f71f718b11291de93d91f9d9
120355 F20101209_AAAORW pandey_v_Page_097.jp2
6a4946df01942194c3c74984092f0d12
1c7be5b356c8098754d64a60fb2ca3b17e278cd5
78462 F20101209_AAAOSM pandey_v_Page_116.jp2
0e02595e2f0472754b7f0a47c502bdf6
d4c5a3397a5b2e3f22077bccf9b7afd45be1862a
120339 F20101209_AAAORX pandey_v_Page_098.jp2
2fa9cd31ffed6970e51ab8a35ba3b8d4
7f2988da77cbe9247d56dfb0ecd501b6b9fdbab0
131121 F20101209_AAAOTA pandey_v_Page_139.jp2
3c6714f6e7669b5b096be4711f8fb6c6
27112be492a3db9ba4a2c3eb27f92257ca35c1b2
81331 F20101209_AAAOSN pandey_v_Page_117.jp2
df61eedbfa7f51d190218e667ef422f1
91b3e4ae043c69b8153845ce000e3b49f86b2f58
114381 F20101209_AAAORY pandey_v_Page_099.jp2
dbeeb8158deb5ade952fa14761d0688d
f62a93bb4a0b403b6568b9710150da3e4e33f57b
F20101209_AAAOTB pandey_v_Page_140.jp2
66642d29c76c207c1de6cf37b109c9ac
7dc025f75702d28ecfee8acc770a54cbef4f5877
66311 F20101209_AAAOSO pandey_v_Page_118.jp2
1274b0ac9708d310fa66bfc5ec0b3d85
86cfb9b44845404c4ff9c41bd55c5bc19c8441a7
98968 F20101209_AAAORZ pandey_v_Page_100.jp2
f4d432bc8617d36a3d7424735bc223d8
e2cbc5907a11396ed33191e8ff0bee4c2a319aa5
136604 F20101209_AAAOTC pandey_v_Page_142.jp2
022f5d47389dd9df2579cc63e8a6e1a2
053229efc944854dfe646f0d3cf56b73304d1a82
215958 F20101209_AAAOSP pandey_v_Page_120.jp2
167fe9e17fb2d4275cd778c21e1a4f1a
8bb7eae5916feaae6adb0c1a5b1e31b0bbdc5bbb
134583 F20101209_AAAOTD pandey_v_Page_143.jp2
9bd465135a3533520503acc7cfb91691
e0d49ee8f6eea8b8bcece96220a41187a9dfe9f2
291887 F20101209_AAAOSQ pandey_v_Page_121.jp2
313fda9e57488fbbf46b63cb5e8ccdf5
6e0bb2725e965f7ac099c62bddf457cf7a7d472a
134257 F20101209_AAAOTE pandey_v_Page_144.jp2
b36d48b9f617930e5dceb696d66bff3c
f11e4d90b9ae447f54663ec572693ac8f0724f89
767209 F20101209_AAAOSR pandey_v_Page_122.jp2
3c55b0e2ee68de5dc776e51a85bbe5b5
e4cb1803b4af6ecd5bb7c77dc07c9789b7e6cb58
131962 F20101209_AAAOTF pandey_v_Page_146.jp2
36e11d7f78bddefe9a5b796529451cf3
cffea50c02d22f67ff4b71f185e8dab47fffdc15
134283 F20101209_AAAOTG pandey_v_Page_148.jp2
3c2d674004a26776616fc5e01bed5fae
63649f0bf1c0936fd890d53c7c25f12a5745e62a
427237 F20101209_AAAOSS pandey_v_Page_123.jp2
6fd974b39c55ded6522ea484e9f0cea2
a4f21494f777b31a0b4820c01a6e3d1f335c437a
136317 F20101209_AAAOTH pandey_v_Page_149.jp2
afedd4098dfee83756051d6154890a41
704f001824a347c3626c4cd0efa6cfe08e31581b
521438 F20101209_AAAOST pandey_v_Page_126.jp2
a900b9747363021f22de94af77b7f4c1
81177e929b1263079f7e055de8eda035f86381a4
41030 F20101209_AAAOTI pandey_v_Page_151.jp2
73df98442b34152c0087580e70cc20d5
210e5ae4746882440ecfeb69d0ca20ae6354809c
509650 F20101209_AAAOSU pandey_v_Page_129.jp2
8bedbc900f08ee3c4ceaebccc28f995b
6c26a2db4d98b6dd9c564c62285b56f316723d57
F20101209_AAAOTJ pandey_v_Page_001.tif
9855bef1d037a3220a9edef5929a14ca
0e570a33bea58f03e47cd6a364e57e1238d7447a
502882 F20101209_AAAOSV pandey_v_Page_131.jp2
980975a37aa1609b42d5d20cb4d17835
f9b93a7c7490f89e08f65dd7bca0ac19a3325aac
F20101209_AAAOTK pandey_v_Page_002.tif
a406371b6983d431449e051200b5e76f
f68380f6ca6412d080609f598da7ad02b9a097ae
1051970 F20101209_AAAOSW pandey_v_Page_132.jp2
4bc601f4c2600fb57516049b167cc0e7
12d8bb186292c7556ab01f5c89349bd608ee42a3
F20101209_AAAOTL pandey_v_Page_008.tif
98914355af708a84ae7c54f2d3331130
f185d765f2508141f89aced89dbd48141c55b964
96490 F20101209_AAAOSX pandey_v_Page_134.jp2
9b4fcc65c6113d21f18e1c602592bb52
7822f9f9dc6c2f5f55db5b4a7013cfd23326c165
F20101209_AAAOUA pandey_v_Page_027.tif
b4b85f596640e728683fa6492dc39ada
81d646efb8962abf2ca81ab7b58605a03ad2ecad
F20101209_AAAOTM pandey_v_Page_009.tif
1d82b6d18ad60ba4cd30bc668d5e2399
4f324a7bb7445562205c8ddb89e384147d23a442
95094 F20101209_AAAOSY pandey_v_Page_135.jp2
fd5d908005e430e0dd0f78dc7e3841c8
da7f02cd7239d7548fe5fdb477370419394b6401
F20101209_AAAOUB pandey_v_Page_028.tif
efa22101fc6631a4d4b4b2fd8eda9a86
1b17439f385005c53443ffc707d3fc7664caf50f
F20101209_AAAOTN pandey_v_Page_010.tif
44eac548f96ceff1347829373a7116de
9aae0e22032374e22e648524cbd2284287bae8c1
129771 F20101209_AAAOSZ pandey_v_Page_138.jp2
337d509bfb40679ca9da876dad5f5d6a
05869e38d8da5731e81cdce6f6b8352de9dfa2c6
F20101209_AAAOUC pandey_v_Page_029.tif
5026cda7075c9354081150564cf35750
341cc8e98935be0d2bdae29ac799c8d69b3553e2
F20101209_AAAOTO pandey_v_Page_012.tif
11add9089d48a4b393a9e2dc925b9a1e
6a0d5f1cd644d8061eee30b16b67eb72ca576280
F20101209_AAAOUD pandey_v_Page_030.tif
7c3e01a6edf4764474e00edca9d4c4e6
a6fbceee2fc09fcac203f79f5ad1aba944214425
F20101209_AAAOTP pandey_v_Page_013.tif
2cb5905901edcdb0995e236e6cec3397
7799d5cefe929019b3c09ec5341300dea4668952
F20101209_AAAOUE pandey_v_Page_033.tif
a7bccae60c5f852105dc4f80f4d2303c
a7ea308cece5247db01c50c060fbdf1f95fee518
F20101209_AAAOTQ pandey_v_Page_014.tif
50535a17aebfddcdf5583a8a41b28be8
8b9b798594aa07a091e8a71e2b98ab1f045ed8ad
F20101209_AAAOUF pandey_v_Page_034.tif
136e200dc17428f1a937691432099bcb
c37459090b910cb2f62933d2653fa6e53c95200a
F20101209_AAAOTR pandey_v_Page_015.tif
1f061cc547046ccea1985abb907914d3
cccdb79c9d115a263446be934b290accd26a30ea
F20101209_AAAOUG pandey_v_Page_035.tif
052625a109f05a575396775e6432b898
46e18f38384143193a09f0daa75ffe5fa6061dab
F20101209_AAAOTS pandey_v_Page_017.tif
2e817cf4ac269a82c1b03a20b0d5ac34
3371810c98aaf45b21f2f3bb28307079d0384b14
55173 F20101209_AAAPAA pandey_v_Page_095.pro
ba9be1018bd85db8abfe6b608cb377b6
1677d70a1d02df250dc45cc129254d60ec302db4
F20101209_AAAOUH pandey_v_Page_036.tif
32a5486869dfc8dba2e3e06cd030ba2f
777f18fb09c981d08b441fb4c27e5ac6694a40c0
53929 F20101209_AAAPAB pandey_v_Page_096.pro
c8095af2a3fc71398dc0779b43792be3
4e5fe1a4a4023b8559f04cf88e4b13d9db1f6024
F20101209_AAAOUI pandey_v_Page_037.tif
f4711ba87828db50ab8c60971441aae1
1f8e090d938f2a744be13b0dff512159468b1e92
F20101209_AAAOTT pandey_v_Page_018.tif
693cd5796006102b8097b350d914efa5
e9e44d0ffd18443b45c2cb8f2d4aa281ab61f812
56588 F20101209_AAAPAC pandey_v_Page_097.pro
4065eeffcefb6de446b3c117abaf8c7d
65ff73e217e10f5b6dc353c007ce5d9fa825fe2a
F20101209_AAAOUJ pandey_v_Page_038.tif
b47e419de31418d89cf964053755a569
0eed71af38906389e41487c9c531fb2878a53bd7
F20101209_AAAOTU pandey_v_Page_019.tif
2d18524851f4ce619b8f832226c6df98
6b53829359e4f501da8fc292428a690de2a1032d
55748 F20101209_AAAPAD pandey_v_Page_098.pro
a0ae8e50e2700936cb4b66db64563fad
d2fce871c28591c17e89a5be53d262211b2d4009
F20101209_AAAOUK pandey_v_Page_040.tif
9cb852fc9d233a6a73382c9978cf6d86
525fa6436e7ccb035dbc18b5d5cc81ec8465e4b7
F20101209_AAAOTV pandey_v_Page_022.tif
8bfd3c58e3a52aeefa09675e12aee358
a79c73bda9cc2dea1604bc802f3abcb05696ce48
16277 F20101209_AAAPAE pandey_v_Page_103.pro
61c5aa1b5da57f3720352411df629ab5
6940718bce2181aecad9ab7cbefa750e222a50d0
F20101209_AAAOUL pandey_v_Page_042.tif
1757aa01f9a5b19c465eedbc6a92cbae
e10981ecf6402c4c22d3ce31591d65dcff579e49
F20101209_AAAOTW pandey_v_Page_023.tif
85a135cf5b288f33c1481bfdcb689dc6
1dd316c8b56967a0204cb5c7df34fa696d2adba7
3393 F20101209_AAAPAF pandey_v_Page_105.pro
e6b3f8a1514df9124c761d3881601d67
d59b5528a36e489f254f5f144e546bcb84658000
F20101209_AAAOVA pandey_v_Page_061.tif
07de07f906b05776ec6a355291bb5d6c
ac34434fe4114c7fbebf55278afda0936b82a454
F20101209_AAAOUM pandey_v_Page_043.tif
c08d2e8083b586b3a2891d099f9fda0d
f6c25623dfb06e4b2d22f9ad23bd43f5e3fc82d4
F20101209_AAAOTX pandey_v_Page_024.tif
9d35275fa11ef472f004660e387f12d0
6806b733539570e827da359e124d92acf8b3748f
27420 F20101209_AAAPAG pandey_v_Page_108.pro
3a70b8e38f890cffc99b1980fe1088ad
dfb847c48c2dd46d13b7a9e40a60f77b5dacdbb8
F20101209_AAAOVB pandey_v_Page_062.tif
66c9569aef348c6741e5cf445249d585
0c5d182704d5cb12fd0449ba0bb45c301be24e8b
F20101209_AAAOUN pandey_v_Page_046.tif
2f3ff2fbd38c6d4d03ab4f9dbf2c21a0
e67485995fee2347d1e4b6bbc55d15a95cb69135
F20101209_AAAOTY pandey_v_Page_025.tif
3e9e484a7f0b3520dadd5981caca8365
c9b160d7a6ded268614c066cdd1843665e8e7aa2
51821 F20101209_AAAPAH pandey_v_Page_110.pro
96cf3f95566a6a8800b882e9ad30ec24
f6e9bcaea130492a3607898f68c3706a530ac0e7
F20101209_AAAOUO pandey_v_Page_047.tif
84bad9a4faafb395247d29d2f0bc7434
438a059cc78cdc4e568239b26e67f7eb1f66b604
F20101209_AAAOTZ pandey_v_Page_026.tif
2f8637e604f8bc4fe64781643c55cd94
fe1b8fc111438063ecfcd8be6c2fe3d67efe3816
55125 F20101209_AAAPAI pandey_v_Page_111.pro
028dcf350037198d5bb3bc855dc078b8
e79614b15d3ff441b3d16e3be344898429380e55
F20101209_AAAOVC pandey_v_Page_065.tif
8109006c5565c0b21fba37fb0b1f2fcf
d2e71eb60281de8eed3c924303f96f1c39f3772c
F20101209_AAAOUP pandey_v_Page_048.tif
b73970cd23010258118277c7299cbafc
a2d0a8fdbb8e6005cf2339214a2dee4ed07c9c85
50410 F20101209_AAAPAJ pandey_v_Page_113.pro
edada238e0b3e3e28baa1daffd60afe0
13327a1019ef79f385d3e4aaea7ed5551fd99708
F20101209_AAAOVD pandey_v_Page_067.tif
e093b51de9ad53f85c916cd44c987f5b
b5246489233abeb86d4593065f464d949246d609
F20101209_AAAOUQ pandey_v_Page_049.tif
098a1375b5a89261bcd39daf4344a495
acec92139830bef9787fc59f76be43c3a5aa84d0
45260 F20101209_AAAPAK pandey_v_Page_114.pro
4c8cf4d6f914a9ac19c44bc2f2741c7f
d5d14b7f36bb9212b61279a306bb75b6bb85f9b6
F20101209_AAAOVE pandey_v_Page_069.tif
363c4aa9307a48f7b36b7c82c638ae40
ea35914524fe74aa16d6b319d072b27cd327a609
F20101209_AAAOUR pandey_v_Page_050.tif
33513be3528d84e83f29205aa42306ba
554481c5698a82738ccdef907c2039383c9a6c37
35454 F20101209_AAAPAL pandey_v_Page_116.pro
b3a7d275d09a04c1f65263313d4b8a51
8609f588249af57596b50771512da75ff0bb0ddc
F20101209_AAAOVF pandey_v_Page_070.tif
051faf168d9ebd693bf12fe6b4e84417
292df27cd001c5de70f4db96a11dfbc211736203
F20101209_AAAOUS pandey_v_Page_051.tif
84b8c928b54aa553654917529b4f05c0
a6365ab57650a5286d7f931ec566244a6a4daf28
65626 F20101209_AAAPBA pandey_v_Page_141.pro
da5a668635e454cd09b011e81fe57c2f
48351d420679eee42b866d4fafd602a9fae53432
35102 F20101209_AAAPAM pandey_v_Page_117.pro
a4ce62e51c1020c23708356ac7d37e4d
8274e4d98a4586c2cd5d2f2951cf038f6d921437
F20101209_AAAOVG pandey_v_Page_071.tif
cb9a229fb5faafc9021effbd2dd983cc
78c19495bb0628231f5888a63c3ddbca1f354cd1
F20101209_AAAOUT pandey_v_Page_052.tif
00c29bfe8c66083deea1d007d41d1724
220b4e5f190eb70e98920c8742093024cdc24c56
66963 F20101209_AAAPBB pandey_v_Page_142.pro
6c658f5f7aca40c2b3da0f463b63c146
2960d18e53f331c694da4c167cb473b3121d0ce3
28038 F20101209_AAAPAN pandey_v_Page_118.pro
49ee198a5c56201c343bde8624347053
5038e93e5bcb5101cbf3faefb8cd5232ec60008a
F20101209_AAAOVH pandey_v_Page_072.tif
f861645342ff2d52255a0957ba77ec4e
cf7e0bd2b8eec01d3135f3c92a63f8bfa285bd40
63874 F20101209_AAAPBC pandey_v_Page_144.pro
142e2740328656e2093d535ec62af9e3
f9caf2d72efb9cfd45b75584d1ba1141ef8de220
16762 F20101209_AAAPAO pandey_v_Page_119.pro
d50b73d5a4d51aa9da77a681797faed2
e3b7699cd53d91fdf25ea0293c7d7081abb93d45
F20101209_AAAOVI pandey_v_Page_073.tif
766221c1e02c3b8603ddb1be99c373e3
a5d391648c93d2314f6cc791cef30f84db835871
F20101209_AAAOUU pandey_v_Page_053.tif
95f617cc77bda3c539a94b177d82f7de
8d5d3474c12c665f329268479e60a6f218c7c2e3
65863 F20101209_AAAPBD pandey_v_Page_145.pro
c038344e7d3a400631fdfc0c0a1af96f
502162515b778f87abeedb2c659300cc87bb4b8f
17376 F20101209_AAAPAP pandey_v_Page_123.pro
531935d822963b78c98e94b9799edbe3
05a5910f5ca4a5614ad729e9d529aea7a9656082
F20101209_AAAOVJ pandey_v_Page_074.tif
ed664592a2f53a65dc6a167bfebca1bb
58bbe3bd6ac52b6abaaaa278db04c76816812959
F20101209_AAAOUV pandey_v_Page_054.tif
ef2d495f42a0ab62dd03f43a9110e992
1bccf81a6d3a6a974ef97429076b79832cb1e5a0
62427 F20101209_AAAPBE pandey_v_Page_146.pro
f58c74bb845414e56fec3fb52aa82d0f
1b7ff94965ea42f2b9fcf5b6410b6123a37ec571
29612 F20101209_AAAPAQ pandey_v_Page_124.pro
ce15705fbfedda10b5499b1af30b0dab
f18f425733559153accd38f0836b9d00f426438f
F20101209_AAAOVK pandey_v_Page_075.tif
7d1a7a44833e69a27f147fdf6f627a05
f036c397413a07cb09b373c59c5c326331cda48d
F20101209_AAAOUW pandey_v_Page_055.tif
f4e65166e94e39dd54aedf642fce5b7b
b75fee14abb193f0a0f131fe272fe9e375daf692
66041 F20101209_AAAPBF pandey_v_Page_147.pro
142d3e98a14c3bf3b1b89cba20df191f
bef1c793c5965bd12d7f247c9ec446c3e20c6481
19786 F20101209_AAAPAR pandey_v_Page_127.pro
881830475718be452daa36868d0052eb
8aef262102a627cabb652a2172e8b0332e49e68e
F20101209_AAAOVL pandey_v_Page_076.tif
bbb939850577ce2e45a55ae2fd4a18ce
ef91cfdbe503b82e1d52bd330325d33465cc88f3
F20101209_AAAOUX pandey_v_Page_056.tif
a5f0654d38d1e1aa3576931d93c6f736
51547993bfd8c132a70e41aa1bbb77d6f1bdcd92
65675 F20101209_AAAPBG pandey_v_Page_148.pro
b0f3c784504f9a677c59e6895abea6d6
9f0a4642083248fe4dd7cdaab5a1237e831cbf80
F20101209_AAAOWA pandey_v_Page_097.tif
438b820a1933308bfbfe87360d4e28ff
302fe483aacde1f3ad08131674a36bffa1aaa2ba
18514 F20101209_AAAPAS pandey_v_Page_129.pro
490dc34ae5ac1d8b164aaba3e23ab0d7
4bdeaa9a50d95e2d8a67075d601ccd11bce1a794
F20101209_AAAOVM pandey_v_Page_077.tif
76a1e759fd23e70129461901178fadef
47dd8c2b24c4c6b9cebf00d1d3e65a87d50ab94e
F20101209_AAAOUY pandey_v_Page_057.tif
dfb3b39739d7a89eef9fd7a77773491b
441bcb6598a29e3240dba4413f0e859d00cf4e4e
65286 F20101209_AAAPBH pandey_v_Page_149.pro
83e66e16a0a7d87c3f024adebd928a15
5ccdc7bb02e6982897af170b33209a1a49630ad9
F20101209_AAAOWB pandey_v_Page_098.tif
3b8a8eea28ef6a4eb5ba35566beecd92
aa6d798bdfc09ddc13ac4bcdf64a7f224ff74560
18929 F20101209_AAAPAT pandey_v_Page_130.pro
732932ffbf1b36824697fb42dd2f63af
4da189bfc3bfceafe73f22eae733cb5a5607329d
F20101209_AAAOVN pandey_v_Page_078.tif
d2e47b53af7dce93f64175e72a73af7d
0d62990c51eb19256aa6f0e11207586b8738677d
F20101209_AAAOUZ pandey_v_Page_058.tif
9a540093b0bece561ab98f37f3df57ac
6d8251cab209b68f768a57733ba34a47fbd6bf26
3991 F20101209_AAAPBI pandey_v_Page_150.pro
2117587f71713e5e272a1501a1424caa
50f3985753f15c4e87b06b44d76aa1e61504e76c
F20101209_AAAOWC pandey_v_Page_101.tif
58d9d5df7432090bee82d968f168903d
84ca0ec5feddd6191001cdbf4c742435cfab1a32
18478 F20101209_AAAPAU pandey_v_Page_131.pro
c40849f6f5ccf20067b22e9afcbbc14f
4bbcf237fc99ed2174f85efbb92b76897ed8ce1b
F20101209_AAAOVO pandey_v_Page_079.tif
727ef2037bdc6830666400a4230dbae2
547310ca9f57caab14755cd0134a62c44cb3caf2



PAGE 1

1 ANALYSIS AND MODELING OF CATTLE DISTRIBUTION IN COMPLEX AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS OF SOUTH FLORIDA By VIBHUTI PANDEY 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 2007

PAGE 2

2 Copyright 2006 by Vibhuti Pandey

PAGE 3

3 To my parents and my loving wife

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am greatly indebted to my supervisory co mmittee chair (Dr. Gregory A. Kiker) for his constant guidance, insight, encouragement, a nd most of all his enthusiastic and continuous support and confidence in my research. His t horough and thoughtful coaching was unselfishly tireless, and his enthus iasm has left me an everlasting impression. He always made himself available and hence I was able to progress consta ntly in a sustainable manner. I would like to acknowledge my thanks and appreciation to Dr. Chris J. Martinez for his help throughout the development of my model. Without his guidance and support with programming, timely completion of my research would have been impo ssible. His enthusiasm and helpful nature made my research progress swiftly. I e xpress my sincere appreciation to Dr. Kenneth L. Campbell for his guidance during the first 3 y ears as my supervisory committee chair. He provided direction that eventually helped me to identify the specif ic topic for my research. His advice on addressing each of my technical problems and concerns has b een invaluable as well. I am grateful to Dr. Sanjay Shukla for his support and help during field work. Also, I would like to express thanks to Drs. Michael Annable and Mark W. Clark who served on my committee and provided valuable insights into my research. I am greatly thankful to my lab-mates for th eir friendship and encouragement, and to the staff of the Agricultural and Biological Engine ering Department for their technical and moral support. The department as a whole has been a wonderful working and learning environment. Last but not the least, I would like to thank my family and frie nds for their relentless support and advice throughout this endeavor.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........8 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .......10 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .15 Study Background............................................................................................................... ...15 Lake Okeechobee and Watershed Description.......................................................................15 Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Lake Okeechobee Watershed.........18 Contribution to Information Required for Modeling and BMP Implementation...................19 Organization of This Dissertation...........................................................................................20 2 CATTLE BEHAVIOR DYNAMICS AND CU RRENT MODELING APPROACHES......22 Factors Influencing Cattle Distribution..................................................................................22 Cognitive Mechanisms....................................................................................................23 Water Development.........................................................................................................23 Breed Selection................................................................................................................ 24 Seasonal Distribution.......................................................................................................25 Shade Structures..............................................................................................................2 5 Social Behavior...............................................................................................................2 7 Cattle Location and Water Quality.........................................................................................28 Existing Modeling Approaches..............................................................................................29 Regression Models..........................................................................................................29 Habitat Suitability Index Models.....................................................................................30 Mechanistic Models.........................................................................................................35 Metapopulation Models...................................................................................................36 Spatially Explicit-Indi vidual Based Models............................................................38 Numerical Fish Surrogate Model.............................................................................39 Multi-Agent Systems.......................................................................................................40 Cattle Tracking Techniques....................................................................................................4 1 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........42 3 ANALYSIS OF GPS COLLAR DATA.................................................................................50 Study Site: Buck Island Ranch...............................................................................................50

PAGE 6

6 Summer Pastures.............................................................................................................51 Winter Pastures................................................................................................................ 52 Hydrologic Data................................................................................................................ ......52 GPS Data....................................................................................................................... .........53 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................. ........54 Results and Discussion......................................................................................................... ..55 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... .........61 4 DEVELOPMENT OF CATTLE MOVEME NT ALGORITHMS FOR ACRU2000............73 Habitat Suitability Index (HSI)...............................................................................................7 3 Model Design for Cattle Distribution in ACRU2000.............................................................73 Suitability Index for Cattle Distribution..........................................................................74 Preference Estimation Using Anal ytical Hierarchy Process...........................................76 Index for Heat Stress and Seasonal Distribution.............................................................78 Integration of HSI Model into ACRU2000............................................................................81 The Agricultural Catchments Research Unit (ACRU) Modeling System.......................81 Minimum Habitat Area for HSI Model in ACRU2000...................................................86 5 MODEL RESULTS................................................................................................................ 91 Testing Model Performance at Buck Island Ranch................................................................91 Calibration Results............................................................................................................ ......92 Verification Results........................................................................................................... .....94 Sensitivity Analysis........................................................................................................... .....95 Hypothetical Scenario Model Testing....................................................................................96 Summary........................................................................................................................ .......100 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION..................................................................................110 GPS Collar Analysis............................................................................................................ .110 HSI Model...................................................................................................................... ......111 Management Implications....................................................................................................113 Future Research Recommendation.......................................................................................113 Herbivore Physiological Representation.......................................................................114 Stream Routing Algorithm............................................................................................114 Graphical User Interface................................................................................................114 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... .......115 APPENDIX A LIST OF NEW AND MODIFIED OBJECTS......................................................................116 B HSI MODEL PROCESSES UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE (UML) DIAGRAMS....................................................................................................................... ..119 C SURVEY FOR DETERMINATION OF WEIGHTING FACTORS..................................122

PAGE 7

7 D WEIGHTING FACTORS D ETERMINED BY SURVEY..................................................124 E RESULTS FROM SURVEY................................................................................................126 F SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS RESULTS...............................................................................132 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................. 137 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................151

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Significant predictors of cattle behavior............................................................................48 2-2 Coefficients in the s easonal grazing models......................................................................49 2-3 Coefficients in the seasonal daytime resting models.........................................................49 3-1 Percent area of wetlands and ditche s in summer and winter pastures...............................69 3-2 Summary of climatological data during the study period..................................................69 3-3 Summary of GPS collar data in the experiment al pastures................................................70 3-4 Locations that are assumed to have presence of water......................................................70 3-5 Mean percentage of daily time spent by cattle near water locations.................................71 3-6 Mean percentage of daily time spent by cattle near water trough.....................................71 3-7 Mean percentage of daily time spent by cattle in wetland.................................................71 3-8 Mean percentage of daily time spent by cattle in ditch.....................................................72 3-9 Mean daily distance traveled and mean daily MCP area by cattle....................................72 5-1 Input parameters and their descrip tion used in the ACRU2000-HSI model...................108 5-2 Values of input parameters used in the ACRU2000-HSI model after calibration...........108 5-3 Input parameter values used in sensitivity analysis.........................................................109 5-4 Example of adjusted weighting f actors used in sensitivity analysis................................109 D-1 Summary of weightings of features as generated by the LDW program based on the survey......................................................................................................................... ......124 D-2 Summary of weightings of three forage species as generated by the LDW program based on the survey..........................................................................................................12 4 F-1 Weighting factors used in sensitivity analysis.................................................................132 F-2 Sensitivity of water, shade and forage weighting factors in warm season......................133 F-3 Sensitivity of the three vegetation speci es weighting factors in warm season................134

PAGE 9

9 F-4 Sensitivity of water, shade and fora ge weighting factor s in cool season.........................135 F-5 Sensitivity of the three vegetation speci es weighting factors in cool season..................136

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Drainage Basins of Lake Okeechobee...............................................................................21 1-2 Yearly average total phos phorus concentrations in the open-water (pelagic) region of Lake Okeechobee...............................................................................................................2 1 2-1 Average herbage yield of perennial grassesfrom year long access to water on southern Arizona range......................................................................................................43 2-2 The relationships between shrub habitat variables and suitability index values for pronghorn winter food quality...........................................................................................44 2-3 The relationships between two variables of forage diversity and suitability index values for pronghorn winter food quality..........................................................................44 2-4 The relationship between mean topographic diversity and suitability index values for pronghorn winter food quality...........................................................................................45 2-5 Graphical representation of the index................................................................................45 2-6 Two performance suitability indicato rs expressed as functions of hydrologic variables...................................................................................................................... .......46 2-7 A time series of values of a suitabil ity indicator derived from time series of hydrologic variable values.................................................................................................46 2-8 Creating a composite suitability indicato r time series from multiple suitability indicator time series.......................................................................................................... .47 2-9 Three approaches to spatial ecology..................................................................................47 2-10 Using GIS in metapopulation models................................................................................48 3-1 Location of Buck Island Ranch and the Experimental Pastures........................................64 3-2 Map displaying wetlands, ditches and water troughs in summer pastures........................64 3-3 Map displaying wetlands, ditches and water troughs in wi nter pastures...........................65 3-4 Example of rainfall and groundwater level data in summer pasture 3..............................65 3-5 Typical cattle movement in summer pasture 2 on June 11, 2001......................................66 3-6 Average % time spent near water locations.......................................................................67

PAGE 11

11 3-7 Average % time spent in shade structures.........................................................................67 3-8 Typical MCP area in summer pasture 2 on June 31, 2001................................................68 4-1 Suitability index valu es of water features..........................................................................87 4-2 Suitability index values of shade area................................................................................87 4-3 Suitability index values of forage consumption.................................................................88 4-4 Goals hierarchy view in Logical Decisions for Windows software...............................88 4-5 General structure of the ACRU (v 3.00) model.................................................................89 4-6 Configuration of multiple directional overland flows from source land segment to adjacent land segments......................................................................................................89 4-7 Phosphorus cycle of the ACRU2000 model......................................................................90 4-8 Nitrogen cycle of the ACRU2000 model...........................................................................90 5-1 Land segment Discretization of summ er pastures 4 and 5 for ACRU2000-HSI.............102 5-2 Calibration results on SP4 in warm season......................................................................103 5-3 Calibration results on SP4 in cool season........................................................................103 5-4 Verification results on SP5 in warm season....................................................................104 5-5 Verification results on SP5 in cool season.......................................................................104 5-6 Hypothetical scenario setup for ACRU2000-HSI model.................................................105 5-7 Total phosphorus results using ACRU2000-HSI model..................................................106 5-8 Total phosphorus results from vari ous scenarios in ACRU2000-HSI model..................106 5-9 Phosphorus budget of complete mode l domain using simulated results.........................107 5-10 Phosphorus budget of top two model layers using simulated results..............................107 5-11 Total phosphorus retained within gr azing cattle using simulated results........................108 B-1 PCalculateHabitatSuitabilityIndex UML diagram...........................................................119 B-2 PForageConsumption UML diagram...............................................................................120 B-3 PDefecation UML diagram..............................................................................................121 C-1 Cattle preference of features in a pasture during summer...............................................122

PAGE 12

12 C-2 Cattle preference of features in a pasture during winter..................................................122 C-3 Cattle preference of forage species in a pasture...............................................................122 C-4 Example illustrating identification of the relative importance of one feature over the other on the scale provi ded in the survey.........................................................................123 D-1 Range of weighting of featur es in warm and cool seasons..............................................124 D-2 Range of weighting of the three forage species...............................................................125 E-1 Simulation result on SP4 in warm season us ing weighting factors of researcher-1........126 E-2 Simulation result on SP4 in cool season us ing weighting factors of researcher-1..........126 E-4 Simulation result on SP4 in cool season us ing weighting factors of researcher-2..........127 E-5 Simulation result on SP4 in warm season us ing weighting factors of ext. agent -1........128 E-6 Simulation result on SP4 in cool season us ing weighting factors of ext. agent -1..........128 E-7 Simulation result on SP4 in warm season us ing weighting factors of ext. agent -2........129 E-8 Simulation result on SP4 in cool season us ing weighting factors of ext. agent -2..........129 E-9 Simulation result on SP4 in warm season using weighting factors of rancher -1............130 E-10 Simulation result on SP4 in cool season using weighting factors of rancher -1..............130 E-11 Simulation result on SP4 in warm season using weighting factors of rancher -2............131 E-12 Simulation result on SP4 in cool season using weighting factors of rancher -2..............131

PAGE 13

13 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 ANALYSIS AND MODELING OF CATTLE DISTRIBUTION IN COMPLEX AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS OF SOUTH FLORIDA By Vibhuti Pandey December 2006 Chair: Gregory A. Kiker Cochair: Sanjay Shukla Major Department: Agricultur al and Biological Engineering It is perceived that cow-calf operations in s outh Florida can be a s ubstantial source of phosphorus loading, to Lake Okeechobee. Spatial and temporal information of cattle location within a pasture can be instrumental in estima ting the deposition location of cattle fecal matter. To address this issue, cattle position data were analyzed and a simplified distribution model was developed. Cattle position data were acquired through GPS collars and a cattle distribution model was developed and incorporated into a re gionally tested hydrological/water quality model, ACRU2000. The GPS data were spatially and temporally analyzed to quantify the amount of time spent by cattle near shade and water locations. The an alysis revealed the prominence of seasonal utilization of water troughs, ditc hes, and shade. Shade structur es were utilized substantially during the warm seasons. Wetland utilization was similar across cool and warm periods but was variably distributed across times within periods. The analysis also revealed that there can be significant differences in an i ndividual cow’s behavior and ut ilization of water features. The GPS analysis was instrumental in the iden tification of variables to be included in the cattle distribution model. This distribution m odel was added as an add-on module within the

PAGE 14

14 Java-based object-oriented framework of th e ACRU2000 modeling system. The algorithms are composed of attractants of cattle (shade, water, and forage) and their weighting factors. The algorithms were developed using the techniques of Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) and criteria weighting was developed using th e Analytical Hierarchy Process. The HSI model was integrated with the current hydrology, nutrient, and vegetation modul es within ACRU2000. The HSI model was calibrated and verified on summer pastures of Buck Island Ranch, Lake Placid, FL. Model verification revealed th at its performance was in good agreement with observed GPS data. Several Best Management Pract ice scenarios, designed to mimic fencing of selected pasture areas, revealed that the phos phorus release from senesced biomass may be a significant store amongst all ot her pools of phosphorus. The HS I model has enhanced the capability of ACRU2000 to represent the spatia l variability and nutrient effects of cattle distribution within complex agro -ecosystems of south Florida.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Study Background The State of Florida has plentiful, divers e water resources that support a variety of ecosystems, animals, food crops, industry, tour ism, and recreation. However, rapid population growth over the past 35 years is si gnificantly affecting the quality of these systems. It is also projected that Florida’s populat ion will increase to 25.9 milli on in 2025 (US Census Bureau, 2005). Hence, Florida is facing a unique challenge of managing wate r quantity and quality with the pressure of continuing population growth, accompanied w ith development and extensive agricultural operations. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is the regulatory agency responsible fo r restoring and protecting the st ate’s water quality. In its 2006 Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report, th e FDEP documented increasing nonpoint source pollution from urban stormwater and agricultural activities as a major environmental concern (FDEP, 2006). Nonpoint source water pollution, so metimes called "diffuse" source pollution, arises from a broad group of hu man activities for which pollutants have no obvious point of entry into receiving watercourses. Because of its diffuse nature, nonpoint source pollution is much more difficult to identify, quantify, and control than point source pollution. In south Florida, especially in the Lake Okeechobee watershed, nonpoint source pollution from agricultural operations is a matter of concern. Lake Okeechobee and Watershed Description Lake Okeechobee and its watershed are key components of south Florida's KissimmeeOkeechobee-Everglades ecosystem, which extends from the headwaters of the Kissimmee River in the north, to Florida Bay in the south. Located in south cen tral Florida, Lake Okeechobee covers 1891 km2 (730 mi2) and functions as the central part of a large interconnected aquatic

PAGE 16

16 ecosystem in south Florida. The lake is the seco nd largest freshwater body located wholly within the continental United States. Lake Okeechobee is a multipurpose reservoir providing drinking water for urban areas, irrigation water for agricultural lands, rechar ge for aquifers, freshwater for the Everglades, habitat for fish and waterfowl, flood control, navigati on, and many recreational opportunities (SFWMD, 1997). Under natural historic conditions, water flowed from Lake Okeechobee to the Everglades. After events of hea vy rainfall, water exited th e lake’s littoral zone by numerous small tributaries, and by a broa d sheet-flow at the southeastern lake edge (SFWMD, 1999). At that time, the lake bottom was composed primarily of sand that had low phosphorus content. Conditions in and around La ke Okeechobee changed dramatically during the last century, due to agricultural development in the watershed to the north of the lake, and construction of the Central and South Florida (C&SF) Project. Excess nutrient inputs from agriculture and more efficient delivery of stormwater by the C& SF Project have dramatically increased in-lake total p hosphorus concentrations. The Okeechobee watershed is divided into si x regions: Lower Kissimmee River (LKR) (S154, S-65D, and S-65E), Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough (TCNS) (S191), Fisheating Creek, Indian Prairie/Harney Pond, the Lakeshore a nd the EAA (Figure 1-1). During the 20th century, much of the land around Lake Okeechobee was rehabilitated to agricultural use. To the north, dairy farms and beef cattle ranching became the major land uses. In the south, sugar cane and vegetable farming increased rapidly. Associated with the la nd use changes were large increases in the rate of nutrient inputs to the lake (SFWMD, 1999). The main sources of high nutrient loads in the watershed are thought to be runo ff from dairy barns and holding areas, direct stream access by large numbers of dairy and beef cattle, and runoff from improved pastures.

PAGE 17

17 The lake, a designated Class I water body (pot able water supply), ha s been threatened especially by high phosphorus levels, which have tripled since 1975 (Figure 1-2) causing large algal blooms (SFWMD, 1999). The watershed has little relief, and the water table is near the soil surface during the wet season. Before development this area was largely composed of wetlands (Blatie 1980). During 1926 and 1928, flooding resulte d in the loss of life and property, which then resulted in the construction of a flood cont rol levee (Herbert Hoover Dike) and a rim canal around the lake to control flooding. Currently, all flows into and out of the lake are managed through 140 miles of canals; control structures (gates, locks, and pumps); and levees, which were completed in the late 1950s, as part of the Central and South Florid a (C&SF) Flood Control Project. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), in conjunction with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), re gulates these structures and canals (SFWMD, 1997). This modified system has improved flood c ontrol and supplied irri gation water; however, it negatively affected the water quality of Lake Okeechobee by expediting the delivery of stormwater runoff to Lake Okeechobee. Soils in the watershed (especially in north ern regions) are mainly Spodosols which are, sandy, low in clay content, low pH, low cation exchange capacity and low phosphorus retention capacity. These soils (more than 90% sand) are characterized by high inf iltration rates and poor internal drainage due to low permeability of the Bh horizon. The Bh horizon contains large deposits of Aluminum (Al) and Iron (Fe) along with organic matter and is known as the spodic layer. When rainfall occurs, the soils can quickly become saturated. During much of the year, the water table is located between the spodic horiz on and the soil surface (Graetz and Nair, 1995). Because of this restrictive layer, nutrient m ovement in Spodosols occurs through surface runoff

PAGE 18

18 and also through subsurface flow (Campbell et al ., 1995). Apart from landuse changes, soil and hydrologic characteristics of the wa tershed have also f acilitated in development of algal blooms and other adverse impacts to water qualit y both in Lake Okeechobee and in downstream receiving waters. Consequently, in 1999, the FDEP initiated deve lopment of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of phosphorus for Lake Okeechobee. A TMDL is the maximum amount of a given pollutant that a water body can absorb and still maintain its designated use. It was adopted by rule in May 2001. The FDEP proposed a maximum annual load of 140 metric tons of phosphorus to Lake Okeechobee to achieve an in-lake ta rget phosphorus concentrat ion of 40 ppb. The FDEP is working in conjunction with other state ag encies such as the Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services (FDACS), Water Management Districts (WMD), Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD), and U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to support a healthy lake system, restore the designated uses of the lake, and allow the lake to meet applicable water quality standards. These agencies are implementing a multifaceted approach to reducing phosphorus loads by impr oving the management of phosphorus sources within the Lake Okeechobee watershed thr ough continued implementation of existing regulations and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (FDEP, 2001). Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Lake Okeechobee Watershed The state agencies responsible for water qualit y have recognized that mere implementation of regulations will not be sufficient to achieve the targeted load reductions for the lake (SFWMD, 1999). Other management strategi es for this region are needed, including development of non-enforceable guidelines and e ducation of farmers and ranchers to adopt BMPs to reduce the current pollution levels in surf ace waters. A step in this direction resulted in development of the “Water Quality Best Manage ment Practices for Cow-Calf Operations in

PAGE 19

19 Florida” (FCA, 1999) by the Florida Cattlemen’s Association (FCA). The BMPs included in the manual include a variety of structural (e.g., fenc ing) and managerial (e.g., nutrient management) BMPs. Although the BMPs developed represent th e best efforts of the ranchers and state agencies, limited information exists on the effectiveness of these BMPs. To address the information gap, a study is currently underway by rese archers at University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF-IFAS) in conjunction with FDEP FDACS, SFWMD, and NRCS. The study is aimed at demonstrating and determining the efficacy of water quality BMPs such as fencing and improved water management for reducing phosphorus loads to Lake Okeechobee from cow-calf operations in the Okeechobee basin (UF-IFAS, 2002). Another important factor governing the BMP implementa tion by the ranchers wi ll be their economic impact on ranch income. Unless a BMP is ec onomically feasible for a rancher, its implementation will be limited. Contribution to Information Required fo r Modeling and BMP Implementation Given the fact that cattle’s pres ence in waters can be a source of direct loading of P, it is important to quantify the time spent by them near/in waters so that an informative decision can be made regarding water quality BMPs for ranche s in the region of south Florida. It is also essential that the current m odeling systems should incorporat e dynamics of localized grazing pressure so that comprehensive representation of existing agro-ecosystems is accounted. Almost all hydrological models lack representation of spa tial distribution of cattle presence. A successful model should not only represent hydrology and nutrients but also the dynamics of cattle movement and behavior. If modeling systems are fl exible and extensible they can be updated as per the requirement of the system they are representing. One such modeling system is the ACRU2000 which is available for expansion and in corporation of cattle distribution dynamics. The specific objectives of this research are:

PAGE 20

20 Review cattle behavior studies, especially those associated with water quality impacts. Analyze cattle movement dynamics and their behavior using GPS Collar data. Construct a methodology to identif y the spatial and temporal in formation of grazing cattle. Development of cattle distribution algor ithms for the ACRU2000 modeling system. Test ACRU2000 on a site, which will best represent the condition for which the model is being designed, i.e. agro-ecosystem of south Florida. Organization of This Dissertation Chapter 2 is a thorough review of two broa d categories: cattle behavior studies and existing modeling approaches that are used in de fining ecological systems at various scales. In Chapter 3, detailed analysis of GPS Collar data is presented. Results of various techniques have also been presented that have been utilized to process GPS data. The following chapter (Chapter 4) includes model design, algorithm development and incorporation of cattle movement in the ACRU2000 model. In Chapter 5 the cattle moveme nt add-on module is tested and verified. Finally Chapter 6 summarizes the effo rt of data analysis and modeling.

PAGE 21

21 Figure 1-1. Drainage Basins of Lake Okeechobee (SFWMD). Figure 1-2. Yearly average total phosphorus concentrations in th e open-water (pelagic) region of Lake Okeechobee (SFWMD).

PAGE 22

22 CHAPTER 2 CATTLE BEHAVIOR DYNAMIC S AND CURRENT MOD ELING APPROACHES High density animal operation is of interest as it can potentially be a cause of concern with regards to its impact on the environment (Bottc her et al., 1995). Pastureland and dairies can become an important source of diffuse or nonpoint source pollution if adequate practices are not implemented or in cases when livestock are a llowed to approach or enter surface waters. In regions such as south Florida where cattle-ranch ing and dairy-farming ar e important agricultural activities; there are concerns of increase in nutrient loadings from these agricultural lands. Phosphorus loading from rangeland s and its subsequent movement into the drainage waters (Lake Okeechobee) is a major e nvironmental concern in this wa tershed (Allen et al., 1982). The primary source of phosphorus has been non-point s ource agricultural runoff, particularly from beef cattle ranching and dairy farming, the tw o primary land uses in the Lake Okeechobee watershed (Flaig and Reddy, 1995). Unlike dairy farms, beef cattle ranches are not yet treated as sources of point source pollution due to lower an imal stocking rates associated with cow/calf production systems. Therefore, these ranches are not subject to any regulations from state and federal agencies. A “voluntary” BMP implementa tion program exists for beef cattle ranches, however, due to limited information on the effectiveness of these BMPs not many ranchers have enrolled in the program. Factors Influencing Cattle Distribution Since cattle defecation is of major concern, it is eviden t that to develop a complete understanding of the animal-plant-soil system in a ranch system, the spatial information of grazing cattle will be crucial, which will aid in developing a comprehensive understanding of ecological interactions. Various st udies have examined the scope of improving pasture utilization by increasing the distribution of cattle (Baile y et al., 1989a; Bailey et al., 1996; Ballard and

PAGE 23

23 Krueger, 2005; Ganskoop, 2001; Marlow and Pogacn ik, 1986; Owens et al., 1991, Schacht et al., 1996; Smith et al., 1992, Sneft et al., 1985a, b). Cognitive Mechanisms In an invited synthesis paper Bailey et al. (1996) examined behavioral mechanisms that produce large herbivore distributi on patterns. It was reported that grazing distribution can be attributed to biotic factors such as forage quality and abiotic fact ors such as slope. Abiotic factors form cattle’s conspicuous habit to graze “conve nient areas” (Schacht et al., 1996). Selective grazing of these convenient areas within pasture isolates area that do no t get grazed or only lightly grazed. This eventually causes reducti on in the carrying capacity of grasslands and efficiency of livestock enterprise (Anderson, 1967). Bailey et al. (1996) defined the foraging process as an aggregate of two mechanis ms: non-cognitive and cognitive. Non-cognitive mechanisms do not require use of memory from large herbivores during foraging. Grazing velocity and intake rate are examples of non-c ognitive mechanisms that require little judgment from the animal. Whereas, cognitive mechanism is a process of learning and memory that have shown to affect diet sele ction in selecting feeding sites. In earlier studies Baile y et al. (1989b, c) demonstrated that large herbivores return to nut rient rich areas more frequently and generally avoid nutrient poor areas. This is primarily beca use animals have an accur ate spatial memory and can associate food resource levels with the locations in which they were found. Water Development To ensure even pasture utilization, managers try to increase cattle’s uniformity of grazing by changing these abiotic attributes of their pa stures. Slope and distance to water have been widely acknowledged as the two primary determinan ts of grazing patterns in large scale range environments (Owens et al., 1991; Sneft et al., 1985b; Sneft et al., 1987; Schacht et al., 1996). Areas that are steeper receive less use than thos e that are gentle (Mueggler, 1965), and locations

PAGE 24

24 that are farther from water also receive less use than those that are near water (Valentine, 1990). Development of water sources that are further than 1 km from existing water source usually increases forage utilization and thereby increa sing overall uniformity of grazing (Bailey, 2004). Goebel (1956) increased the number of water de velopments from 9 to 52 over period of five years and observed that this increase in water av ailability decreased concentrations of cattle in overgrazed areas and increased us e of areas which previously r eceived little or no utilization. During the growing season drainage channels and plant community near water locations gets heavily grazed (Sneft et al., 1985b). Therefore, to increase distribu tion and also to lighten forage over-utilization near water (Figure 2-1) some studi es have controlled ca ttle’s access to water (Martin and Ward, 1970). Water development has also been useful in protecting riparian areas thereby improving stream water quality. Off stream water source ha s proven to decrease grazing pressure in the riparian zone (Porath et al., 2002). Sheffield et al. (1997) reported that installation of off stream water source reduced the averag e concentrations of total susp ended solids, total nitrogen, ammonium, sediment bound nitrogen, sedi ment bound phosphorous, total phosphorous and stream bank erosion. In another study in Oregon, Miner et al. (1992) obser ved that cows reduced their presence in the st ream from 25.6 min/day to only 1.6 min/day (reduction of more than 90%),when off stream tank was made available. Breed Selection It has been reported that herbivores pref er gentle slopes near water (Mueggler, 1965). Bailey et al. (2001) has suggested the use of breeds that orig inate from mountainous terrain (Tarentaise) in rugged rangelands and use of breeds developed in gentler slopes (Hereford) in rolling topographical rangelands. However, there can be some individuality associated with regards to grazing on rugged terrain (Bailey et al., 2004). In a study condu cted in the mountains

PAGE 25

25 of Montana Bailey et al. (2004) compared the da ily grazing patterns of co ws that used steepest slope and highest terrain to t hose that used gentler slopes a nd lower elevations. The authors termed cows that spent more time grazing steeper slopes as “hill climbers” and those that used gentler slope as “bottom dwellers ”. The study concluded that indi vidual cows within a herd can use different terrain. Seasonal Distribution A seasonal effect on cattle grazing behavior has also been reported in many studies (Marlow and Pogacnik, 1986; Sneft et al., 1985b ; Tanner et al., 1984). Typically during summer (growing season), forage becomes mature and plen tiful and there is more even grazing. Whereas, during winter (dormant season) forage is not that palatable and hence there is more patchy grazing. However, grazing distribution of weani ng cows generally improves during late fall and winter because of decreased wa ter and nutrient requirements afte r weaning (Schach t et al., 1996). A study conducted in northeastern Colorado used cl uster analysis of fora ge-use to analyze the consistent seasonal-grazing pattern and eventual ly construct a predictive model (Sneft et al., 1985b). It was found that seasonal-grazing distribu tion was correlated with proximity to water and site-quality indicators. Results of a 2-year be havior study in Montana also indicated seasonal trend in cattle use of riparian and up land areas (Marlow and Pogacnik, 1986). Shade Structures In regions associated with high temperatures, an other important factor in cattle distribution and performance is availability of shade. At high temperatures, eva porative cooling is the principal mechanism for heat dissipation in catt le (Blackshaw and Blackshaw, 1994). In order for a cow to maintain a relatively constant body temperature with respect to its environment (homeostasis), it must maintain thermal equilibrium via its developed heat-regulating mechanisms. When the ambient temperature appr oaches or exceeds cattle’s body temperature,

PAGE 26

26 the cattle must increase th eir active cooling by evaporation of wa ter from the respiratory tract or from the skin by sweating (Lee, 1967 ). Failure to maintain homeostasis at high temperatures may lead to reduced productivity or even death (Blackshaw and Bl ackshaw, 1994). Historically there used to be a perception amongst producers that providing shade may reduce the time that cattle spent grazing. However, recent studies have demons trated that the amount of time cattle spent in shade was related to environmental conditions an d that shade seeking di d not result in reduced grazing time (Widowski, 2001). Also, by manipula ting shade, cattle can be drawn to underutilized area of pasture (McIlvain and Shoop, 1971) Shade has also proven to bring financial profits in ranching enterprise. In a 4 year study in Oklahoma it was quantified that shade increased summerlong gain of yearling Hereford steers by a profitable 19 lb/head (McIlvain and Shoop, 1971). The same study also concluded that “hot muggy days” (days when temperatures were above 850 F and high humidity) reduced summerlong steer gains by 1 lb per day. In a review paper on the effect of shade on producti on and cattle behavior Blackshaw and Blackshaw (1994) reported that und er high heat stress, Bos indicus breeds and their cro sses have better heat regulatory capacities than Bos taurus breeds. The authors attributed this difference due to differences in metabolic rate, food and water cons umption, sweating rate, co at characteristics and color. The sweating of Bos indicus increases exponentially with rises in body temperatures; whereas, in Bos taurus, sweating rates tended to plateau after an initial increase (Finch et al., 1982) Therefore, Bos taurus must evaporate substantially more sweat than Bos indicus to maintain normal body temperatures (Finch, 1986). Blackshaw and Blackshaw (1994) in their review paper discussed some of the important physiological mechan isms that help cattle to cope with heat stress: Evaporative Cooling Metabolic rate and tissue insulation

PAGE 27

27 Water consumption Cattle coat characteristics Social Behavior In mountainous terrain, cattle may form so cial groups (Roath and Krueger, 1982a). Amongst these social groups cattle have been cla ssified as leaders, followers and independents with regards to movement during grazing (Sato, 1982). A dominance hierarchy exists in a herd (Bennett et al., 1985; Bennett and Holmes, 1987; Br oom and Leaver, 1978). Animals high in the hierarchy have priority to feed, shelter, and water. Low-ranked animals maintain a certain distance from dominant animals to avoid conf lict. As subordinates get closer to dominant animals, they may reduce their bi te rate, stop feeding, relocate into areas of lower habitat quality or wait their turn until the more dominant animals are satisfied a nd leave the area (Bennett et al., 1985; Bennett and Holmes, 1987; Broom and Leaver 1978). Therefore, management strategies that involve social composition (e .g., herding, selective culling) can be used to relieve grazing pressure on environmentally sensi tive areas (Sowell et al., 1999). Apart from the various factors mentioned above there are plentiful ot her factors that may be responsible in influencing ca ttle distribution dynamics. Schacht et al. (1996) have categorized four techniques that can be employe d for improving graz ing distribution: Enticing the grazing animal to forage Water placement Salt and mineral placement Supplemental feeding location Rubs and oiler placement Other methods (mowing, burning, shade etc.) Pasture characteristics Fencing Pasture size Pasture shape Grazing management strategies Rotational Grazing Stocking density

PAGE 28

28 Flash grazing Season of grazing Livestock considerations Class of livestock Vegetation and terrain characteristics Cattle Location and Water Quality Considerable research pertai ning to water quality impacts of grazing systems have been well documented in the western states of US A (Belsky et al., 1999; Buckhouse and Gifford, 1976; Miner et al., 1992; Nader et al ., 1998). Numerous studies have specifically ta rgeted cattle distribution patterns relative to wa ter locations and riparian areas (Dickard et al., 1998; Gillen et al., 1985; McIlvain and Shoop, 1971; Owens et al., 1991; Roath and Krueger, 1982b; Sneft et al., 1985). Results from all the above studies have indi cated water to be an influencing factor in cattle distribution patterns. In a cattle ranch system with stream there is concern of di rect contamination within the stream and significant impact on riparian areas. These impacts depend upon cattle behavior and utilization of riparian vegetati on (Marlow and Pogacnik, 1986). Catt le prefer to be closer to water sources while grazing. This situation can lead to defecation, and eventually over enrichment of the water bodies. Hi gh-density cattle ac tivities near or on the stream banks can result in rapid transport of manure to the stream s (Bottcher et al., 1995). Apart from direct input of nutrients into the stream, grazing near stream ba nks can also result in increased erosion of the stream banks (Helfrich et al., 1998 ). Bowling and Jones (2003) lis ted four key potential impacts grazing cattle can have on water quality: Increased suspended sediment concentrati ons, due to the physical stirring up of the bottom sediments when cattle are in the wate r, and due to increased sediment run off from grazed foreshore areas. Input of organic materials causing effects su ch as increased biological oxygen demand.

PAGE 29

29 Increased nutrients by both direct depositi on into the water or entrained in run off entering the water body. Increased fecal bacteria and potential pathogenic mi croorganisms, again through defecation straight into the water, or in run off from nearby areas. Cattle grazing and resting pattern will change with respect to water availability, climate, presence of shade structures, and forage quant ity and quality. Water seems to be the driving force in attracting cattle towards in and around st ream areas. Cattle wade into the shallow water to graze on aquatic plants, to dr ink the water, and to wallow in it and remain cool on hot days (Gary et al., 1983; Hagedorn et al ., 1999). However, even when availability of water is not a limiting factor still, cattl e are known to spend significant time in grazing within th e riparian area due to availability of higher quality forage. Existing Modeling Approaches Model development is a crucial step in representing such a diverse ecosystem and it will help define problems, organize our thoughts, develop an understanding of the data and eventually be able to make predictions. Ther e are various approaches for modeling population response to environmental patt ern. Following are some modeling methodologies that have been widely utilized in the scientific community. Regression Models In some early model development effort pert aining to cattle’s spatial distribution, Cook (1966) used multiple regression equations to expl ain livestock spatial utilization patterns. The same methodology was later used to predict spatia l patterns of cattle behavior over an entire landscape (Sneft et al., 1983, 1985a, 1985b). Data us ed to develop the regression model were collected on the USDA-ARS Central Plains Experi mental Range in northeastern Colorado during 1970-1973 (Sneft et al., 1983). Observations of cat tle movement were made by following cattle on foot for one 24-hour period during each month of the study period on two small paddocks, 11

PAGE 30

30 ha and 22 ha. Over 60 independent variables were screened and seven were eventually incorporated for analysis using stepwise multiple regression (Table 2-1). In another observational study over a 2-year period (June 1980 through May 1982) at the same site, researchers derived regression models of spatial patterns of graz ing (Table 2-2) (Sneft et al., 1985b) and resting (Table 2-3) (Sneft et al., 1985a). It was concluded that even though mathemati cally the models are boundless (i.e. can be applied to pastures of any size), it was noted th at the models do not cons ider interactions among variables. Hence, introduction of a complex herd structure mi ght require more complicated mathematical descriptions of spatial use. Snef t et al., (1983) also acknow ledged that even though the models are “fine-grained” in space, they are “coarse-grained” in time This indicates that on finer time scale, daily temperature variations, for example, may have an effect on the behavior of cattle. These limitations have been overcome by using a different technique known as habitat suitability index (HSI) m odeling (Cook and Irwin, 1985; Schamberger et al., 1982). Habitat Suitability Index Models The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services developed a methodology known as Habitat Evaluation Procedures, a pla nning and evaluation t echnique that focuses on the habitat requirements of fish and wildlife species (U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). These procedures were formulated according to standa rds for the development of Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Models (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981). The HSI models are usually presented in three basic formats: (1) graphic; (2 ) word; and (3) mathematical (Schamberger et al, 1982). The graphic format is a representation of the structure of the model and displays the sequential aggregation of variables into an HS I. Following this, the model relationships are discussed and the assumed relationships betw een variables, components, and HSI's are documented. This discussion of model relationships provides a working version of the model and

PAGE 31

31 is, in effect, a model described with words. Fi nally, the model relationships are described in mathematical language, mimicking as closely and as simply as possible, the preceding word descriptions. HSI provides a probability that the habitat is suitable for the species, and hence a probability that the species will o ccur where that habitat occurs. If the value of the index (Range 0 to 1) is high in a particular location, the chan ces of that species occurrence in that location are high. For example, HSI of 0 woul d mean totally unsuitable hab itat, whereas HSI value of 1 would mean optimum habitat. To determine habi tat suitability, suitabi lity indexes (SI) are assigned to represent the degree in which the vari able may contribute to species life requisites (Hohler, 2004). The SI score is based upon empirical data, professional wisdom and at times, inspired guesses (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981). Spatial location of herbivores has challenged many researchers who have tried to model their distribution (Bailey et al., 1996; Coughenour, 1991; Pringle and Landsberg, 2004; Wade et al., 2004). In an invited synthesis paper, Coughe nour (1991) provided impor tant insights into models that integrate plant growth, ungulate movement, and foraging. A variety of modeling approaches was discussed and HSI modeling wa s accredited of overcom ing the limitations of multiple regression models (application constraints) Bailey et al. (1996) developed a conceptual model to demonstrate how cognitive foraging mechan isms can be integrated with abiotic factors to predict grazing patterns of large herbivores. Abiotic factor multipliers were used in the modeling systems which are similar to HSI models. As an example of a typical HSI model, a step by step illustration of a HSI model development is given by Allen et al. (1984) in a U.S. Department of Interior document. This document is one in a series of publications that provides information on the habitat requirements

PAGE 32

32 of selected fish and wildlife species. In this particular document, the HSI model was developed for pronghorn ( Antilocarpa americana ) chiefly for application for the Great Basin and the Great Plains region for winter weather. This simplistic model assumed the winter habitat characteristics to be the most limiting conditions affecting pr onghorn distribution. The model is based on the assumptions that pronghorn survival and repr oductive success are func tions of winter food availability. The model incorporates vegeta tion and topographic feat ures that favor food availability under mild snow conditions. After de tailed review of literature describing the relationship between habitat vari ables to the pronghorn’s preferen ce; the authors synthesized all the information and identified six variables of interest: Percent shrub crown closure (V1) Average height of the shrub canopy (V2) Number of species present (V3) Percent herbaceous canopy cover (V4) Amount of available hab itat in winter wheat (V5) Slope of land (V6) Each of these six variables has their respectiv e suitability index relationships as shown in the Figures 2-2 and 2-3 and synthesized in equation 2-1. 5 3 / 1 4 3 2 1] ) ( [ SIV SIV SIV SIV SIV WFI (2-1) Equation 2-1 accounts only for the forage factor towards the overall HSI where WFI is an index representing the forage preference of th e pronghorn’s diet. The geometric mean of the three variable indexes (SIV2, SIV3 and SIV4) in the equation 2-1 is a compensatory function. This function is used in multiplicative models so that partial compensation of the interacting variables is accounted for (U.S. Fi sh and Wildlife Service, 1981). The three variable indexes are assumed to have equal value, meaning that all three must be 1.0 (optimum) in order for this function to be optimum. Also, a unit increase (e.g., increase an SI by 0.1) in the variable index is

PAGE 33

33 assumed to have the greatest positive impact on the overall index (WFI). This relationship (Equation 2-1) is combined with the suitability in dex of the sixth variable, slope of land (Figure 2-4), to calculate the co mbined food/cover index. 26SIV WFI WFCI (2-2) The HSI is equal to the WFCI as calculated in equation 2-2. Allen et al. (1984) extended the application of the model for evaluation areas that may comprise several cover types. To represent several cover types it was suggested to multiply the area of ea ch cover type by its respective WFI value, sum the products, and divide by the total area of cover types to determine the area weighted WFI (equation 2-3) (Allen et al., 1984). n i i n i i iA A WFI WFI weighted1 1 (2-3) where n is the number of cover types, WFIi is the winter food index for individual non cropland cover type, and Ai = area of cover type i. A similar procedure was suggested to follow to determine the area weighted cover index (CI) value (equation 2-4). Once both the weighted indexes are computed an overall HSI value is determined by averaging the WFI and CI values. n i i n i i iA A CI CI weighted1 1 (2-4)

PAGE 34

34 where CIi = cover index value for each cover type. A similar HSI model (equation 2-5) for elk (Cervus elaphus nelsonii) has been documented by Thomas et al. (1988) for the Blue Mountain winter ranges of Oregon and Washington. The aut hors made use of some published as well as some unpublished data to derive a procedure for evaluating eff ectiveness of various habitat variables. N C F R S SRFCHE HE HE HE HE/ 1) ( (2-5) where: HESRFC is the habitat-effectiveness index, allowing for the interaction of HES, HER, HEF, and HEC, HES is the habitat-effectiveness index deri ved from size and spacing of cover and forage areas, HER is the habitat-effectiveness index derive d from the density of the roads open to vehicular traffic, HEF is the habitat-effectiveness index de rived from the quantity and quality of forage available to elk, HEC is the habitat-effectiveness i ndex derived from cover quality, and 1/N is the Nth root of the product taken to obtain the geometric mean. The mean reflects the compensatory interaction of the N factors in the habitat-effectiveness model. Similar to the pronghorn HSI model the geometric mean is also used in this model as a compensatory function. The authors also incorporated gra phical representation of the index resulting from raising any product derived from (HES HER HEF HEC) to the power of 1/N (1/4 in this case) (Figure 2-5). In a more recent application, HSI technique ha s been utilized by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), for evaluating wa ter management alternatives in the greater Everglades ecological system, extending south of Lake Okeechobee in South Florida (Tarboton et al., 2004). In their study, Tar boton et al. (2004) used conceptu al ecological models to help define water-dependent habitat suitability indices for select ecosystem indicator species and

PAGE 35

35 landscape features. The first step in the process of defining habitat suitability functions was to identify the indicator that would serve as a su rrogate for the entire ecosystem. Six different indicators were identified: three were landscape features and remaining th ree were fish, alligator and wading birds. After identifying the indicator features and animals, the next step was to determine the hydrologic vari ables, attributes, or characteristics that affect the se lected indicator feature and animals. Examples of hydrologic variables used are water depth, flow direction, and hydroperiod. Once the specific hydrologic variables were selected for each feature or animal, the next step was to identify the re lationship between those variable (Figure 2-6) values and the relative conditions of the indi cator features or animals. These functions were based on observed data and expert opinion. Once defined, these HSI functions were combined with time series of hydr ologic values to obtain an overall time series of ecosystem habitat suitability values (Figure 2-7). Eventually, based on time series values of multiple suitability functions, composite value were obtained (Figure 2-8). To obtain composite performance indicator va lues geometric means, weighted arithmetic means, and maximum or minimum values were used. The methods selected for combining different habitat suitability functions for the same ecosystem feature or sp ecies were determined during the calibration procedure (T arboton et al., 2004). The author s concluded that with this approach they were able to link ecology to hydrology in a way that would make it easy for anyone to understand, modify, test and evaluate this linkage. Mechanistic Models Herbivore and plant dynamics have also been modeled utilizing cl assical predator-prey relationship between two species in an ecosyst em (Noy-Meir, 1975). In some cases researchers have utilized an energy balance relationship to account for the balance between energy required

PAGE 36

36 for herbivore body maintenance and the amount gathered by foraging (FAO, 1991; Hobbs and Swift, 1985). Over time various simple as well as complex models have been developed which along with other processes also attempt to descri be animal responses to environmental inputs. The SAVANNA ecosystem model (Coughenour, 1993) is a spatially explicit, process-oriented modeling system developed to simulate ecosyst ems occupied by ungulate herbivores. The model is composed of several submodels, which descri be various processes and vary in complexity. The herbivory submodel simulates forage intake by diet selection, forage abundance and forage quality. An energy balance submodel simulates body weight of the mean animal of each species based on differences between energy intake and energy spent. Smith (1988) described a detailed mechanistic model in which they added a behavior al sub-model to simulate the ecology of an arid zone sheep paddock in past oral areas of south Australi a. The spatial component was included in the model by dividi ng the paddock into cells of 500*500 m2 and modeled on an hourly timestep (movement of sheep while gr azing is 500 m/hr). Movement of sheep was determined by the state of its f our physiological criteria: heat st ress, thirst, hunger, and darkness. Each of these criteria was define d in a hierarchy of trigger leve l conditions which determines the dominant trigger and consequently determines where and at what speed animal movement will take place. Metapopulation Models Levins (1969, 1970) defined metapopulation as “population of populations”; in which distinct subpopulations (local popul ations) occupy spatially separate d patches of habitat. In other words metapopulation is a patchy distribution of populat ion in which species ex ist in clusters that are either isolated from one a nother or have limited exchange of individuals (Akakaya et al., 1999). It is a network of semi-i solated populations with some le vel of regular or intermittent

PAGE 37

37 migration among them. In a review paper Hanski (1998) distinguished between three approaches to large scale spatial ecology (Figure 2-9). The approach of theoretical ecology assumes homogenous continuous or discrete (lattice) space and the model does not incorporate any en vironmental heterogeneity. On the other hand, landscape ecologists have developed models that are very descriptive of the complex real environment. Hanski (1998) termed metapopulation models as a “compromise” where landscapes are viewed as networks of idealized habitat patches in which species occur as discrete local populations connected by migr ation. Metapopulation models are spatially structured so that they incorporate information about habitat relationships and the characteristics of the landscape in which the metapopulation exists (Akakaya, 2001). RAMAS has been a popularly used model which includes metapopulation dynamics integr ated with GIS (Applied Mathematics, 2003) (Figure 2-10). Hanski (2004) pointed out that even though the idea of running simulation models using metapopulation theory may seem tempting as it can be applied to any kind of population, it is however prone to problems. Firs tly, validating a complex simula tion model will be virtually impossible, and secondly, the simulation approach will yield specific results rather than more general understanding. A good example of such a modeling approach has been exemplified in Schtickzelle and Baguette (2004) where the researchers modele d the metapopulation dynamics of the bog fritillary butterfly utilizing the abovementioned RAMAS/GIS. The model was validated by comparing the predicted and observe d distribution using the same empirical data that were used to estimate model parameters. It is therefore important that modelers be careful in the construction and parameter es timation of models using metapopul ation theory. Hanski (2004) has therefore, repeatedly emphasi zed that the classica l metapopulation theory are most useful for

PAGE 38

38 examining the dynamics of metapopulations li ving in highly fragmented landscapes. Such landscapes are in which the suitable habitat for the focal species accounts for only a small fraction of the total landscape area, and where the habitat occurs as discrete fragments. Spatially Explicit-Individual Based Models Spatially explicit popula tion models are increasingly being used in modeling animal populations and their movements (D unning et al., 1995). These models can be simple as well as complex. The extreme of simplicity in population models are the patch occupancy models that are based on the number of occupied populations. On the other hand, the extreme of complexity are the spatially explicit indivi dual/agent based models, which describe spatial and habitat information at the individual level. Logan (1994) has pointed out that complex systems need complex solutions. The complexity of the proce sses involved in ecosystem, has compelled the modelers to accommodate processes that vary acro ss wide range of spatial and temporal scales (Levin, 1992). Modelers of aquatic ecosystems have realized the constraint a limited spatial scale simulation poses towards model accuracy and us efulness towards decision making. Individualbased-model (IBM) is a relatively new approach in ecology. In an individual-based model, the characteristics, behavior, growth, reproduction et c. of each individual is tracked through time. This system is different than the commonly us ed modeling techniques wh ere the characteristics of the population were averaged together (Rey nolds, 1999). These models provide ecologists with an effective way to e xplore the mechanisms through which population and ecosystem ecology arises from how individu als interact with each other a nd their environment. IBMs are also known as entity or agent based models, a nd as individual/entity/agent-based simulations. Similar to individual-based, agent-based models has also been utilized for simulating animals with comprehensive and dynamic landscape struct ure (Topping et al., 200 3). More recently Ovaskainen and Hanski (2004) derived a stocha stic patch occupancy (SPOM) model from an

PAGE 39

39 IBM, where individuals obey th e rules of correlated random wa lk. This unique and novel modeling framework generates emigration and immi gration events in a mechanistic manner and avoids the need for particular assumptions a bout how the areas and c onnectivities of habitat patches influence migration. It was concluded that in spite of being simplistic the SPOM replicated the behavior of IBM remark ably well (Ovaskainen and Hanski, 2004). Numerical Fish Surrogate Model It is for this reason, Nestler et al. (2001) utilized a particletracking algorithm with stimulus-response rules to develop a Numerical Fish Surrogate (NFS) system (Goodwin et al., 2001), which creates virtual fish that are capable of making individual movement decisions based on spatial physiochemical and biological in formation. The Numerical Fish Surrogate uses a Eulerian-Lagrangian-agent method (Goodwin et al., 2006) for mechanistically decoding and forecasting movement patterns of individual fish responding to abiotic stimuli. An ELAM model is an individual-based model (IBM) coupling: Eulerian framework to govern the physical, hydrodynamic, and water quality domains Lagrangian framework to govern the sensory perception and movement trajectories of individual fish Agent framework to govern the beha vior decisions of individuals. The modeling-philosophy behind ELAM is base d upon two major theoretical approaches that are coupled to represent the movement of fi sh (Nestler et al., 2005). Eulerian and Lagrangian approaches are the two frameworks that have been integrated in ELAM. The former approach is utilized by engineers to describe the physiochemi cal properties in hydrau lics, while the latter approach, used by biologists, is mostly cente red on the stage development and movement patterns of particles or indivi duals. The developers of ELAM hypot hesize that by marrying these two frameworks into a coupled Eulerian-Lagrang ian (CEL) hybrid method, they can maintain the

PAGE 40

40 integrity of individuals while c oncurrently simulate the physiochem ical properties of the aquatic ecosystem that affects fish’s movement. The hydrodynamic and water quality module of the CEL hybrid model is CE-QUAL-W2 Version 3.0 (Cole and Wells, 2000), a 2-D laterally averaged model developed at the U.S. Army Research and Development Center The coupler in CEL Hybrid model is based upon particle-tracking-algo rithm that uses equations for computation of forcing functions in the longit udinal and vertical directions. The temporal scale of ELAM is exceptionally low, i.e. 2 sec time-step. Modelers argue that to produce better fit of the fish’s movement in the vertical directi on short time-steps are essential. Given the fact that ELAM is an individual-based model, i.e., it tracks the behavior movement of an “individual” fish at each time step, the mathematical computations become massively demanding. It is for this reason that the model is currently ru n on U.S. Army Major Shared Resource Center supercomputers. The computationa l infrastructure of the model (as of June 2004) handles simulations of 5,000 virtual fish in approximately 11 hr of run time (20,000 2-sec time steps). More recently, Goodwin et al. (2005) have realized the involvement of substantial run time associated with the mathematical computat ions of this model and have tried to increase the computational efficiency by simulating more virtual fish in far less simulation times. Multi-Agent Systems Recently, several researchers have started to use multi-agent systems (MAS). MAS is similar to agent-based modeling, but are more influenced by computer sciences and social sciences (Bousquet and Page, 2004). MAS give mo re prominence to the decision-making process of the agents and to the social organization in which these ag ents are embedded. Ferber (1999) has defined a multi-agent system being composed of: environment, objects, agents, and relations and operations. MAS has been eff ectively used in variety of cas es, for example: modeling of sheep’s spatial memory (Dumont and Hill, 2001 ), prediction of duck population response to

PAGE 41

41 anthropogenic cases (Mathevet et al., 2003) a nd predict the effects of alternative water management scenarios in south Florida on the long-term populations of white-tailed deer and Florida panther (A bbott et al., 1995). Cattle Tracking Techniques To develop comprehensive grazing management strategies to impr ove water quality in watersheds consisting of beef cattle ranches, it is imperative to develop an understanding of cattle’s usage of water locations. This often invol ves observation of cattle movement in a pasture setting. Earlier studies involved ex tensive field observations and in most cases observations were limited to daylight only (Tanner et al., 1984). Research involving visual observations of the cattle’s position and its actions ar e prone to error as the observe r can alter cattle behavior and make visual errors. In such studies, observati on periods are generally short due to its labor intensity and concerns over observer fatigue. In s ubtropical regions such as south Florida, night time observations can be critical because cattle exhibit bimodal grazing patterns (early morning and evening) and with less adapted breeds of cattle spending a greater portion of the night grazing as compared to day time (Bowers et al., 1995; Chase et al., 1999; Hammond and Olson, 1994). Global Positioning System (GPS) and Geographical Information System (GIS) technology allow livestock grazi ng behavior and management to be evaluated with greater spatial and temporal resolution (Ganskopp, 2001; Turner et al., 2000; Ungar et al., 2005). Animals can be tracked on a 24-hour basis usi ng GPS receivers incorporated into collars. Agouridis et al. (2004) tested GPS collars under static (open fi eld, under trees and near fence) and dynamic conditions to evaluate their accuracy for applications pertaining to animal tracking in grazed watersheds. Their results indicated that the collars were accurate within 4 to 5 m, deemed acceptable for most cattle operational areas Collars can also record ambient temperature and number of vertical and hor izontal head movements. Head movements can be used to

PAGE 42

42 determine grazing time and differentiate animal activity (resting or graz ing) between location fixes. Location and other programmed data are stor ed in the collar, and animals must be caught and the collar removed to retrieve the data. With more recent technical advancement, Cattle Traq LLC, an affiliate of American Biomedical Group Inc. located in Oklahoma City, has developed software capable of monitoring cattle and recording internal body te mperature. Cattle Traq is an integrated system of microchips located in ear tags, access control sensors and proprietary software (ABGI, 2005). It operates with radio frequency waves sent fr om ear tags to software that d ecodes the signals and translates them into usable information. Summary In their thorough review on grazing impacts on str eam water quality in the southern region of USA, Agouridis et al. (2005) credited the plentiful graz ing studies of the western and midwestern USA; but, also acknowle dged that the differences be tween the arid west and the southern humid region prohibit the universal transf er of research results. Models and concepts developed elsewhere cannot be applied to the un ique agro-ecosystems of the south-east (Platt and Peet, 1998) such as south Florida. A limited number of grazing studies in the southern humid regions (Tanner et al., 1984; Z uo, 2001) have provided valuable, yet incomplete information with regard to the extent, if any, of water qual ity degradation by the graz ing beef cattle in the southeastern USA. In recent times, with the advancement in co mputational power, researchers have exploited new advanced computer-based technologies for the development of ecological simulation systems. Primarily, the research in ecological m odel development has been greatly concentrated in utilizing enhanced computer technology to incorporate the de tails of ecological phenomena. The primary goal when building an ecological mode l should be to incorpor ate the knowledge and

PAGE 43

43 understanding of a system’s patterns and processes into a computerized t ool that will simulate the way in which the real system would behave under specific conditions Simple models often achieve this goal; they have simplistic assu mptions, and can function with limited data. However, they might neglect detailed aspects such as spatial heterogeneity and individual variability. Alternately, complex models incorporate the details of ecological phenomenon but, are often criticized because they are difficu lt to understand, parameterize, and hard to communicate. Individual based m odels are good examples of complex modeling systems. These models are useful classroom exercises to demons trate effects at fine sc ale. Unfortunately, the behavior rules at individual le vels are poorly known and therefore modelers have to rely on stochastic mechanisms. Another limitation of thes e models is the exorbitant computation demand to represent large number of animals over large areas. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 100200300400500Distance from water (yards)Herbage Yield (lb/acre ) Figure 2-1. Average Herbage Yiel d (lb/acre) of perennial gra sses (1959-1966) from year long access to water on southern Arizon a range (Martin and Ward, 1970).

PAGE 44

44 A B C Figure 2-2. The relationships between shrub hab itat variables and suitability index (SI) values for pronghorn winter food quality. A) Percent shrub crown cover. B) Average height of shrub canopy. C) Number of shrub species present per cover type (adapted from: Allen et al., 1984). A B Figure 2-3. The relationships between two variables of forage diversity and suitability index (SI) values for pronghorn winter food quality. A). Percent herbaceous canopy cover B) Percent of available habitat in winter wheat (adapted from: Allen et al., 1984).

PAGE 45

45 Figure 2-4. The relationship between mean t opographic diversity and suitability index (SI) values for pronghorn winter food quality (adapted from: Allen et al., 1984). Figure 2-5. Graphical represen tation of the index (adapted from: Thomas et al., 1988).

PAGE 46

46 Figure 2-6. Two performance suitability indi cators expressed as functions of hydrologic variables (adapted from : Tarboton et al., 2004). Figure 2-7. A time series of values of a suita bility indicator derived from time series of hydrologic variable values (adapt ed from: Tarboton et al., 2004).

PAGE 47

47 Figure 2-8. Creating a composite suitability indi cator time series from multiple suitability indicator time series (adapted from: Tarboton et al., 2004). Figure 2-9. Three approaches to spat ial ecology (adapted from: Hanski, 1998).

PAGE 48

48 Figure 2-10. Using GIS in metapopulation models (adapted from: Applied Mathematics, 2003). Table 2-1. Significant predicto rs of cattle behavior (adapt ed from: Sneft et al., 1983). Pasture Characteristic Distance From Behavior Water Fence Corner Elev. Aspect Cactus Freq. Slope r2 Grazing + Travel S* S S S 0.50 Summer Resting S S S S 0.34 Winter Resting S S S 0.25 Bedding S S S S 0.20 Functional form in models X 1 X 1 X 1 X 1 ) ( k X Cos X X 1 *S denotes a pasture variable statistically significant in predicting the distribution of a given behavior at the 0.001 level.

PAGE 49

49 Table 2-2. Coefficients in th e seasonal grazing models (ada pted from: Sneft et al., 1985b). Independent variable1 Season Proximity to water Oppo Freq. Agsm Freq. Eref Freq. Sihy Freq. Bogr rel. abund Constant r Growing (Apr-Oct) 438.0 -.104 .316 .039 4.30 .460 Dormant (Nov-Mar) 350.0 -.010 -.109 .014 .50 .269 Mathematical express in model2 11X 2X 3X 4X 5X 7 5 100 X X X c 1 Species symbols are defined in text 2 X1 = distance from stock tank (meters) X2 to X5 = percent frequency to plant species X6 = biomass of blue grama (Bogr) in community (g/m2) X7 = biomass of all plant species in community, excluding pricklypear (g/m2) Table 2-3. Coefficients in the seasonal daytim e resting models (adapted from: Sneft et al., 1985a). Independent variable Season Proximity to water Proximity to fence corners Elevation Aspect Constant r Warm (Jun-Aug) 416.45 157.71 11.25 -1.89 .426 Cool (Sep-May) 408.80 106.60 5.34 k4 -1.51 .555 Mathematical express in model* 11X 21X 31X ) cos(4X c X1 = distance from stock tank (meters) X2 = distance from nearest fence corner (meters) X3 = elevation above 1646 m contour (meters) k4 = 0.600 (cos(0.5236(month-12)) X4 = degrees deviation from due south

PAGE 50

50 CHAPTER 3 ANALYSIS OF GPS COLLAR DATA Prolonged hot summers in the region of sout h Florida can cause physiological heat stress in cattle and drive them into sh ade and water-filled d itches and wetlands to cool down. The main focus of this chapter is to qua ntify the amount of time spent by grazing cattle near or in water locations (wetlands, ditches and water troughs) across seasons in a cow-calf production ranch in south Florida. Partial data were used to conduct analysis on the im pact of shade st ructures, total distance traveled and total area ut ilization. This chapter is divided into five sections: description of the study site, data collection, methodology utilized to quantify the time spent by cattle near/in features of interest, results, and fina lly some conclusions from the analysis. Study Site: Buck Island Ranch The MacArthur Agro-ecology Research Center Buck Island Ranch (BIR), Lake Placid, Florida, USA (27o 09’N, 81o 12’W) (Figure 3-1) is representa tive of the agro-ecosystem that exists in the Okeechobee waters hed. BIR (4,168-ha) is a full-scal e commercial cattle ranch owned by the John D. and Catherine T. M acArthur Foundation and leased to Archbold Biological Station and is located in the central portion of the Indian Pr airie/Harney Pond Basin, one of five major tributary basins of the Lake Okeechobee watershed. The ecology of this ranch is composed of a mosaic of habitats that in cludes open grasslands, fore sts, and wetlands which support a diverse and productive community of wildlif e and plants (Art hington et al., 2006; Swain et al., 2006). This ranch is representative of much of south Florida which was once a native, subtropical, wet-prairie ecosystem. The ra nch has been mostly drained and converted to improved pasture; however, some patchy wetland ar eas still exist. For more than 10 years BIR has been a platform of comprehensive interd isciplinary agro-ecological research (MAERC, 2005). The key goals of ongoing research efforts are to quantify the effects of various

PAGE 51

51 management practices on surface water quality and protection of the na tural biodiversity of ranches while maintaining the ec onomic viability of the ranching industry in central Florida. The BIR is primarily a commercial ranch a nd therefore ranch operation management is designed to support animal performance while op timizing the amount of beef production per unit area of land. Cattle are rotated among the pastures to maximize the available forage for grazing cattle. Cattle are stocked for longer periods in the improved pa stures (typically during summer season, May through October) and shorter periods in semi-native pastures (typically during winter season, November through April). Two re asons necessitate this management strategy: firstly, summer pastures are fertilized (NH4NO3 – 56 Kg N/ha) (Arthington et al., 2006) in spring and, therefore, have better forage quantity and qu ality compared to winter pastures which have never been fertilized (Swain et al., 2006). Secondl y, winter pastures are less intensively drained and as a result they are regularly flooded during the rainy season in summer. Rotation to winter pastures provides time for the summer pa stures to recuperate from active grazing. This study was conducted over three years from 2001 to 2003 at BIR. Since the main objective of this chapter is to quantify the time spent by cattle near water locations only the physical description regarding ditches and wetlands is presented here. Detailed description of the presence of pasture and wetland vegetation species has already b een reported by Swain et al. (2006); whereas, soil information has been reported by Capece et al. (2006). Summer Pastures Summer pastures (Figure 3-2) c onsist of eight (S1-S8), approximately 20 ha fields (range = 19.0 to 22.1 ha) with bahiagrass ( Paspalum notatum ) as the dominant forage species. These pastures are located on soil types that for the area are considered relatively well drained. Pastures S1 and S8 serve as control fields and were not stocked. The drainage ditch network in these pastures is comprised of two orders of ditche s: deep ditches (0.6 m deep) that run north-south

PAGE 52

52 and receive flow from feeder di tches (0.3 m deep) that run eastwest approximately every 30 m. In the stocked pastures, the average total le ngth of the ditch network is 6175 m (range = 5793.5 to 6864.8 m) and the average area of wetlands is 0.90 ha (range = 0.20 to 1.57 ha). Water troughs were located at the north end of all stocked pastures (Figure 3-2). Winter Pastures Winter pastures (Figure 3-3) al so consist of eight fields (W1-W8), that are slightly larger, averaging 32.2 ha (range = 30.3 to 34.1 ha). These fi elds consist of mixture of forage species but were predominantly bahiagrass, and located on so il types that are consid ered poorly drained for the area. All fields, except W4 and W7 which se rved as controls, were stocked during the period of this study. Similar to summer pastures, wint er pastures have a ditc h network; however, W8 consists of an additional order (0.9 m deep) of di tch. In the stocked winter pastures, the average total length of the d itch network is 4437 m (range = 6618.2 to 2535.6 m) and the average area of wetlands is 3.28 ha (range = 1.58 to 5.66 ha). Runoff from summer and winter pastures drains in a collection ditch and is then conveyed into th e Harney Pond Canal which discharges directly into Lake Okeechobee. A summary of individual pastures, ditches and wetlands is provided in Table 3-1. Hydrologic Data As part of the ongoing water qu ality study (Capece et al., 2006) on-site climatological data and groundwater elevation data are collected for both summer and winter fields. All experimental pastures are bermed so that su rface water runoff from each pasture exits through a single trapezoidal flume. This study utilized climatological information (Table 3-2) in conjunction with groundwater level data (Figure 3-4) to estimate antecedent soil moisture conditions and consequently determine the presen ce and level of water in ditches and wetlands.

PAGE 53

53 The following criteria were utilized to determine the presence of water: A water table depth of 0.3 – 0.6 m was deemed to inundate wetlands, shallow and deep ditches A water table depth of 0.6 – 0.9 m was deemed to inundate wetlands, and deep ditches A water table depth of 0.9 – 1.2 m was deemed to inundate wetlands A water table depth of below 1.2 m wa s deemed to inundate no features GPS Data Cattle position data was monitored con tinuously using GPS collars (GPS_2200, Lotek Wireless Inc., Newmarket, Ontario, Canada). Thes e collars are relatively lightweight (950 gm) and primarily designed for use on smaller animals such as cattle, deer, wolves and bears. The manufacturer reports that with differential co rrection deployed, accuracies of position reading consist of errors that are less th an 5 m. For the purpose of this study, data were recorded every 15 min during a 5-day period in spring (March), summer (June), fall (late August), and winter (November or December) of each ye ar. These periods were select ed to be representative of environmental extremes or expected seasonal differences in forage quality and to fit in the standard animal handling routine of the ranch. Data collected includ ed: collar identification, latitude, longitude, temperature a nd time. A summary of the quantit y of GPS Data is provided in Table 3-3. Figure 3-5 shows typical GPS collar data on summer pasture 2 collected on June 11, 2001. The GPS point data have been joined by a line to illustrate the cattle’s sequential movement. Figure 3-5 represents a small portion of the large data set that was colle cted over the entire study period (27,924 Total GPS Location Fixes).

PAGE 54

54 Data Analysis To analyze the data collected from the G PS collars ArcView (ESRI, Redlands, CA) package was utilized. The first step in the analys is was to ascertain that the movement pattern was not random. To accomplish that, a Nearest Neighbor analysis was performed. Developed by Clark and Evans (1954) for work in the field of botany, Nearest Neighbor method computes the ratio (R) of distance between near est points and distances that would be expected on the basis of chance. A freely available software that is an add-on extension to ArcView Animal Movement extension (Hooge and Eichenlaub, 1997) was utili zed to perform this statistical technique. For cattle location analysis, all the fix data (latitude, longitude format) was converted to UTM Cartesian coordinates (NAD 83, Zone 17N) fo r analysis with other features. The buffer distance that was utilized for the features were : wetland = 5 m, ditch = 2 m, water trough = 20 m and shade = 5 m. The extensive ne twork of the ditches is a unique feature in these pastures as they occupy a considerable area of the pastures. The buffer distance was assumed to be 2m on each side of the line coverage to represent the narrow nature (2 m width) of this shallow ditch system. A more flexible (5 m) buffer was utili zed for the wetlands to capture the presence of cattle in the transitional (ecotone ) areas of the wetlands which can be wet or dry depending upon moisture conditions. Cattle do not spend much time in actually drinking water (Wagon, 1963). Therefore, to capture their pres ence near the trough the buffer fo r water trough was set to be at 20 m. Shade structures (5m by 5m) were present at the north end of all stocked summer pastures. Apart from the shade structures and few patchy trees in SP5, there was complete absence of natural shade. Winter pastures di d not contain any shade structures as most of them had natural shade from trees. The buffer used for shade structures was 5 m. The data points that existed within the buffer z one were compared with total data points for a day (typically 96). Consequently the data were converted into a percentage of time for a given

PAGE 55

55 day. In addition, temporal dynamics with regards to the utilization of water features were identified by categorizing hours of the day into 4 time zones: (a) Early Morning (12:00 am to 6:00 am) (b) Late Morning (6:00 am to 12:00 pm ) (c) Afternoon (12:00pm to 6:00 pm) and (d) Night (6:00 pm to 12:00 pm). Animal Movement ex tension was further utilized to compute total distance traveled by collare d cattle and a minimum convex polygon (MCP) home range. Statistical analysis for comparison of mean percentage of time was performed using JMP Statistical Software (SAS Inst itute, Inc., 2005). Tukey-Kramer’s Honest Significant Difference (Tukey’s HSD) test was performed. An alpha le vel of 0.05 was accepted as a nominal level of significance and results were cons idered statistically significa nt when a P < 0.05 was obtained. Results and Discussion The test of nearest neighbor analysis for complete spatia l randomness was performed for all data. Values close to R = 1.0 indicate that the observed averag e distance is the same as the mean random distance, suggesting that the spread of data is random. However, R values < 1.0 imply that the observed distance is smaller than the mean random distance, suggesting that data is clustered. The average R value during summ er was 0.51 (range = 0.80 to 0.13) and the average winter R value was 0.47 (range = 0.74 to 0.11), s uggesting that the data was non-random and the GPS fixes displayed more clustering during winter than summer months. Climatological information (Table 3-2) and groundwater level data (Figure 3-4) were utilized to make hydrologic judgment regarding the presence and level of water in ditches and wetlands. This information was especially useful when making judgment regarding presence of water in shallow or deep ditches. Table 3-4 summarizes the estimated presence and location of water during different time periods of the study.

PAGE 56

56 Since temperatures in summer and fall are often similar (Table 3-2) these two seasons were grouped into one category of warm period. Accordingly, spring and winter was combined into a cool period category. Average percentage of dail y time spent by cattle near/in all possible water locations (water trough, wetland and ditch) was relatively low (<15% of 24-hr period) compared to the remainder of the pasture area, but was higher (P<0.01) during the warm than the cool period (11.45 0.39%[(mean s.e.; n = 215] vs. 6.09 0.69% [mean s.e.; n = 160], respectively). Statistical analysis was performe d to compare means of percent utilization of individual water features in diffe rent Seasons and also all water features within the same Season. For example, wetland use was stat istically the same and lower in all seasons except warm 2003 as indicated by the lowercase “b”. In warm 2001 th e use of all the three di fferent water features was not statistically different as indicated by the uppercase “A”. Wetland and ditches had simila r, higher cattle presence co mpared to troughs (4.410.35 and 5.290.38 % vs. 1.970.18%, respectively) across periods (Table 3-5 and Figure 3-6). This was not unexpected because wetlands and ditche s buffer areas (approx. 20% of average pasture area) was much larger than the buffer area of wa ter troughs which were es sentially a single point. Utilization of the water sources differed within periods. This difference was mainly due to a lower than average utilization of water sour ces in warm 2001. Unlike what was found in the other years, utilization in warm 2001 was similar to what was found in cool 2001-02. Across periods and years, cattle utilizati on of the different water features remained fairly consistent with the exception of the ditch feature which showed higher use in warm periods and lower use in cool periods for all years except 2001. This may have been related to th e drier conditions that occurred during the summer sampling period that y ear (Table 3-4). During the summer sampling period in 2001, all ditch classe s and wetland areas were dry. This observation supports the

PAGE 57

57 hypothesis that cattle utilize wate r in ditch features for coolin g in addition to possibly for drinking or feed sources. Water trough use was consistently higher in th e warm periods than cool periods (Table 35). Since troughs could only be us ed for drinking water, this obs ervation supports what has been observed in other studies (Goodwin and Miner, 1996; Kelly et al., 1955 ; Miner et al., 1992; Sheffield et al., 1997) that cattle will preferentially use altern ate and clean sources of water for drinking. In contrast, the use of water-filled wetlands was fair ly consistent regardless of periods and did not differ, with the exception of an almo st doubling of average utilization of wetlands in warm 2003 (8.25% 2.11). The high wetland utili zation during warm 2003 can be explained by a single cow’s strong affinity towards wetland. During the warm 2003 period, data were collected only from five collare d cows during the summer season ( no data were collected in fall, Table 3-3). Amongst the five cattle, one displaye d very high affinity towards wetland and ditches. Average percent of time spent by this specific cow in the wetlands was 24.95%, which is substantially higher than any ot her collared cow in any period. This individual cow entered the wetland every day (all 5 observed days) during 8am to 9am in the morning and remained in the wetland until 5pm to 6pm. Even if environmental factors are similar, di fferences in individual cattle behavior have been previ ously reported as well (Bailey et al., 2004). If the data from this individual cow are excluded, the average time spent in wetlands for the period of warm 2003 becomes 4.08%, which is similar to pe rcent utilization in other periods. There were two periods (spr ing 2002 and winter 2002) when cattle were stocked in summer pastures instead of winter (Table 3-3). Th is occurred because of prescribed burning of the winter pastures during spring 2002 and acci dental burning during winter 2002. The rotation of cattle due to fire events did allow the determination of whether cattle proximity to water

PAGE 58

58 location was influenced by differences in summer vs. winter pastures (s ize, average depth of water, forage differences, etc.) or driven by temperature. Spring 2002 and winter 2002 experienced 5.46% and 5.09% uti lization of all water features respectively. This result was consistent with cool season util ization of water feat ures by cattle and demonstrated that water usage in pastures was independent of pasture composition and forage quality. The amount of time cattle spent near each water feature during a 24-h period was investigated to identify any temporal dynamics associated with the use of these features. Water troughs were generally not utiliz ed during early mornings and ni ght time regardless of periods (Table 3-6). As expected, water trough usage wa s highest during afternoon times of all periods with the exception of warm 2001. In warm 2001 cattle utilized the trough more during late mornings than the af ternoon. Warm 2001 had the highest maximum daily temperatures of the whole trial (37.5C, table 2), and it has been ack nowledged that increased water consumption is a major response to thermal stress (Johnson a nd Yeck., 1964; McDowell, 1972). Drinking water may have a direct comforting eff ect by cooling the reticulum as well as by reducing the thermal load (Beede and Collier, 1986). Hence, it is possibl e that in periods of hot conditions such as Warm 2001 the cattle utilized the tr ough earlier to mitigate their th ermal stress. Data from late morning as well as afternoon of re maining periods reveals that ther e was always higher presence of cattle at the water troughs dur ing warm periods as compared to cool periods. This observation is in agreement with a previous study in which it was observed that in hot climates most water is consumed by cattle during two 4-h periods: 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., which were also the times when cattle grazed (Ittner et al., 1951). In early studies various researchers had established that water intake of cattle is a function of forage consumption and ambient temperature (Leitch and Thompson, 1944; Ritzman and Benedict, 1924; Winchester and Morris,

PAGE 59

59 1956). Hence, during warm periods cattle utilized water troughs more during their two grazing bouts. Unlike cattle’s utilizatio n of water troughs, the presence of cattle in wetlands appeared to be similar across cool and warm periods but was variably distributed across times within periods (Table 3-7). Wetland utilization was consistently lowest ( 0.015 0.04, P<0.05) in the early morning hours and highest (1.590.18, P<0.05) in th e afternoon hours regardle ss of period. Late morning and night presence in wetlands was simila r and intermediate to the other two times of day, although there is a suggestion that period of year influenced the time of the day the cattle started utilizing wetlands. Cattle presence was not recorded during late mornings in the two of the warm periods; whereas, the data showed cons istent utilization of wetlands during the same time in the cold periods. The extraordinar y use of wetlands during warm 2003 has been explained in the previous secti on by the exorbitant use of wetland by one cow. As late morning is a time when grazing activity normally occurs in Florida (Bowers et al., 1995; Chase et al., 1999; Hammond and Olson, 1994), this data suggests that cattle were usi ng wetlands for grazing during the cool period but not during the warm period. Additionally, presence of cattle in wetlands during warm period afte rnoon hours, when grazing does not normally occur (Bowers et al., 1995; Chase et al., 1999; Ha mmond and Olson, 1994), also suggest s that wetlands were used for cooling and not grazing during the summer pe riod. Since wetlands ar e expected to be the deepest water containing feature in the landscape, it is reasonable to exp ect they would be used for cooling. In contrast, since it is unlikely that cattle would not need to cool themselves during the cool period, presence during the afternoon peri od in the cool season probably represents a continuation of the morning grazing bout into the afternoon period due to lower forage availability due to sl ower forage growth.

PAGE 60

60 Unlike wetland presence, cattle’s presence in the ditches during all times of the day exhibited a fairly consistent pattern of being higher during the warm periods and lower in the cool periods (Table 3-8). The exception to this pattern was early and la te mornings of the 2001 warm period, when cattle presence was similar du ring warm and cool periods. Cattle can utilize the ditches for water as well as for higher quality of forage along the periphery of the ditches. Generally lower presence of cattl e in ditches during the cool pe riod may reflect differences in growth patterns of the forage species found in the ditches. Bahiagrass and bermudagrass were the dominate forage species in the ditch areas an d as warm season grasses, their growth rate would be lower in the cool pe riods of the year. Lower grow th rate and hence less forage availability of these grasses in the cool seas on would explain both, lower cattle presence in the ditches and higher cattle presence in the wetl and areas, which containe d more native forage species. Unlike wetlands, though, there was no consiste nt pattern for time of day within warm or cool periods. This suggests that cattle presence may not have been related to forage availability or the need to regulate body temperature, and ma y simply reflect an artifact of pasture design that necessitated a lot of ditches. Partial data were used to analyze the utiliz ation of shade structures in summer pastures. The results are presented in a box plot format in Figure 3-7. Error bars represent standard deviations. Summer 2001 was the driest season, wetlands and ditches are assumed to have no water presence and hence highest use of shade dur ing this season is expected. However, results indicate that cattle did not use shade in summ er 2002 and nominally in fall 2002. It is noteworthy that this analysis was conducte d using only partial data. Only tw o collared cows result was used for shade analysis for summer 2002. The error bars in Figure 3-7 illustrate the high variability in the use of shade. As mentioned before, it is possible that these two co ws are not representative

PAGE 61

61 of the herd behavior. Relatively low use duri ng Fall 2002 could be attributed to high rainfall during the five monitored days in this season. Using the animal movement extension, two ho me range analyses were performed on the entire data set. The first one was total di stance traveled and the second one was Minimum Convex Polygon (MCP). Total distance traveled is the sum of the length of polylines generated by joining GPS location fixes. MCP is the sma llest (convex) polygon which contains all points which the cattle has visited. It should be kept in mind that the MCP will also contain a lot of empty space that the animal never visited. Figu re 3-8 shows a typical MCP area in SP2 during the summer season of 2001. Both these analyses can be used in conjunction to get an understanding of the area covere d and effort made by grazing cat tle. Seasonal means of these two analyses is presented in Table 3-9. A season al pattern is evident in distance traveled by cattle. Cattle traveled more during cool seasons and less during warm s easons. In terms of MCP area covered by grazing cattle, both cool seasons were higher than warm seasons; however, Cool 2002-03 was the only season that was statistically higher than remaining seasons. Since forage growth is slower in the cool seas on, it is likely that ca ttle have to travel gr eater distances to look for palatable forage to meet their intake requi rements and in doing so, they browse a greater pasture area as well. Conclusion Beef cattle can utilize the water sources in so uth Florida to graze, to drink water, and to keep cool. During these activities, urination and de fecation can occur which can result in direct contamination of watered locations If BMPs are needed to mini mize the impact of beef cattle production on water bodies in south Florida, a bette r understanding of beef cattle utilization of natural (wetland) and artificial (ditches and water trough) water s ources is necessary. To quantify the amount of time spent by grazing cattle near or in water locations GPS collars were used. The

PAGE 62

62 GPS collars were successful in identifying, quantifying and eventually deriving pertinent information regarding cattle utili zation of water sources. Climatolog ical information was used in conjunction with observed groundwat er level data to make hydrol ogic judgment regarding the presence and level of wate r in ditches and wetlands. The data illustrated that there was higher presence of cattle near water locations during warm periods than in cool periods (11.45 0.39% vs. 6.09 0.69%). On a daily basis, cattle utilization of all water sources (as determined by % time present) was relatively low (<15% in a 24-hr period). Cattle seemed to utilize water trou ghs in a fairly consistent manner, going to water troughs earlier (late morning) and staying in th e area longer during warm periods, compared to cool periods when they went later (afternoon) in the day and for shorter periods of time. The presence of cattle in the wetlands was generally well distributed across all periods as well as all times (approx. 4% in a 24-hr period). Unlike wa ter trough utilization, cattle utilized wetlands considerably in the cool periods as well. This suggests that wetlands in Florida are used for different purposes at different times of the year. During the cool periods, cattle were present in wetlands when grazing would be e xpected to occur (late morning) indicating the need for feed was the driving factor. In c ontrast, during the warm periods, cattle were present when grazing was not an expected occurrence (afternoon), sugg esting that cooling wa s the reason the cattle were in the wetlands. Unlike wetlands, presence of cattle in ditches was generally higher in the warm periods than the cool peri ods; though there was no consistent pattern for time of day within warm or cool periods. This suggests that ca ttle presence in ditch areas may not have been related to forage availa bility or the need to regulate body te mperature, and simply reflect an artifact of pasture design.

PAGE 63

63 Another important factor this study identified wa s that there can be substantial variability in individual cow behavior. This was recognized by an exceptionally high presence of cattle in wetlands during the 2003 warm period, which was due to one individual’s affinity towards wetland. It is perceived that during this period th is cow utilized wetland not only to drink water but to cool itself by staying in water for extended hours. It is s uggested that future studies deploy multiple GPS collars on cattle to account for vari ability in the population distributions. Shade, total distance traveled and MCP area also indica te seasonal utilization and browsing patterns in grazing. The result findings may be useful from a ranch management perspective. Knowledge regarding cattle’s preference of water location wi ll be useful in developing a comprehensive understanding of the pasture utilization. Inform ation from this study is not comprehensive enough to design appropriate management strategi es to achieve targeted P load reductions. Nevertheless, this study does provi de useful information regardi ng cattle utilization of water features in sub-tropical-humid pastoral environments of south Florida. From BMP implementation perspective, information from th is study can be utilized in conjunction with other studies to suggest pertinent structural or managerial BMPs for this region. However, the installation or use of one structur al or management BMP will rarely be sufficient to solve the P loading problem. Combinations of BMPs (BMP System) that control the same pollutant are generally more effective than individual BMPs (Gilliam et al., 1997). In order for the BMPs to be successful in the unique settings of subtropica l agro-ecosystems of south Florida, they should be strategically tailored to be site sp ecific, effective, and cost efficient.

PAGE 64

64 Figure 3-1. Location of Buck Island Ra nch and the experimental pastures. Figure 3-2. Map displaying wetlands, ditche s and water troughs in summer pastures.

PAGE 65

65 Figure 3-3. Map displaying wetlands, ditche s and water troughs in winter pastures. GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONSUMMER PASTURE 35 10 151 /1 /2002 2/1/2002 3 / 1/2002 4/1/20 0 2 5/1 /2 0 0 2 6 /1 /2 0 02 7/1 /2 0 0 2 8 /1 /2 0 02 9 / 1/2002 10/ 1 /2 0 0 2 1 1/ 1 / 2002 1 2/ 1 /2 0 0 2GW Elevation (m)0 2 4 6 8 10 12Rainfall (cm) Rain (cm) Ground Elevation Ground Water Level Figure 3-4. Example of rainfall and gr oundwater level data in summer pasture 3.

PAGE 66

66 Figure 3-5. Typical cattle movement in summer pasture 2 on June 11, 2001

PAGE 67

67 Figure 3-6. Average % time spent near water locations. Figure 3-7. Average % time spent in shade structures.

PAGE 68

68 Figure 3-8. Typical MCP area in summer pasture 2 on June 31, 2001

PAGE 69

69 Table 3-1. Percent area (ha) of wetlands and ditches in summer and winter pastures. Summer Pastures Area (ha) Animal Units Ditch Length (m) Wetland Area (ha) % Area of Wetland % Area of Buffered Wetland ** % Area of Buffered Ditch ** S1* 22.04 0 4511.65 4.52 20.51 S2 19.01 20 5878.47 1.57 8.26 11.47 12.37 S3 20.42 35 6382.36 1.20 5.88 8.47 12.50 S4 20.49 15 5598.73 1.33 6.49 8.83 10.93 S5 20.95 35 6864.82 0.20 0.95 1.53 13.11 S6 19.49 15 6202.32 0.48 2.46 3.49 12.73 S7 19.22 20 5893.76 0.67 3.49 5.15 12.27 S8* 20.3 0 3463.35 2.95 14.53 Winter Pastures W1 33.23 15 2535.59 5.66 17.03 21.28 3.05 W2 31.3 20 2843.65 2.46 7.86 10.38 3.63 W3 33.64 35 4118.76 3.80 11.30 14.48 4.90 W4* 34.12 0 5243.47 0.90 2.64 W5 32.31 35 4848.63 3.35 10.37 13.59 6.00 W6 32.08 15 5656.41 1.58 4.93 6.92 7.05 W7* 30.24 0 6217.83 1.86 6.15 W8 30.27 20 6618.18 2.85 9.42 13.41 8.75 Control Pastures (Not Stocked) ** Assumes a 5-m buffer around wetlands and a 2-m buffer around ditches Table 3-2. Summary of climatologi cal data during the study period. Season Start Date End Date Av Temp Min Temp Max Temp Rainfall During Study Period (cm) Summer_2001 06/11/2001 06/15/200125.36 15.50 37.50 1.80 Fall_2001 08/27/2001 08/31/200126.26 17.00 37.00 0.66 Winter_2001 12/03/2001 12/07/200120.25 9.00 33.50 0.20 Spring_2002 03/04/2002 03/08/200215.49 3.00 33.50 0.03 Summer_2002 06/10/2002 06/14/200225.08 12.50 36.50 5.46 Fall_2002 08/26/2002 08/30/200224.56 19.00 35.50 8.35 Winter_2002 11/25/2002 11/29/200215.78 3.30 26.51 Spring_2003 03/03/2003 03/07/200323.25 16.99 31.44 Summer_2003 06/09/2003 06/13/200326.58 22.03 32.85 0.25

PAGE 70

70 Table 3-3. Summary of GPS colla r data in the experimental pa stures. The number before the parenthesis is the number of collars used within a pasture and number within parenthesis is the average daily fixes dur ing 5 day collection pe riod in each season. Summer Pastures Summer 2001 Fall 2001 Spring 2002 Summer 2002 Fall 2002 Winter 2002 Summer 2003 S1* S2 4 (92) 2 (87) 1 (95) 1 (96) S3 4 (91) 1 (95) 3 (85) 2 (95) 1 (96) 2 (96) S4 4 (91) 4 (91) 1 (93) 1 (89) 1 (96) S5 2 (94) 2 (94) 3 (95) 1 (81) 1 (96) 1 (94) S6 3 (91) 1 (95) 1 (96) 1 (96) 1 (95) S7 3 (92) 3 (84) 1 (96) 2 (84) 1 (96) 1 (94) S8* Winter Pastures Winter 2001 Spring 2002 W1 3 (95) W2 2 (96) W3 2 (96) W4* W5 3 (95) 2 (95) W6 2 (73) W7* W8 1 (96) 1 (95) Table 3-4. Locations that are assumed to have presence of water (water trough always contained water). Season Start Date End Date Water Presence Summer 06/11/2001 6/15/2001 Fall 08/27/2001 8/31/2001 W,DD Winter 12/03/2001 12/7/2001 W,DD Spring 03/04/2002 3/8/2002 W Summer 06/10/2002 6/14/2002 W Fall 08/26/2002 8/30/2002 W,D Winter 11/25/2002 11/29/2002W,DD Spring 03/03/2003 3/7/2003 W,DD Summer 06/09/2003 6/13/2003 W,D (W = Wetland, D = Both Shallow and D eep ditch, DD = D eep Ditches only)

PAGE 71

71 Table 3-5. Mean percentage of daily time spent by cattle near water locations (mean std error; n = days). SEASON* WATER TROUGH WETLAND DITCH Season Mean Warm 2001 2.790.34; n = 130 a A 4.120.98; n = 35 b A 3.830.76; n = 35 b A 7.900.68 c Cool 2001-02 0.640.15; n = 130 b C 3.490.32; n = 130 b A 2.420.34; n = 65 b B 5.510.42 c Warm 2002 3.660.70; n = 60 a B 3.130.42; n = 60 b B 9.931.04; n = 35 a A 13.161.16 b Cool 2002-03 0.240.09; n = 30 b B 4.040.69; n = 30 b A 4.330.55; n = 30 b A 8.610.90 c Warm 2003 2.670.86; n = 25 a, b B 8.252.11; n = 25 a A 9.441.09; n = 25 a A 20.592.19 a Feature Mean 1.970.18 B 4.410.35 A 5.290.38 A Warm = Summer + Fall; Cool = Winter + Spring a b c: means within columns sharing a common letter are not significantly different (P>0.05) A B C: means within rows sharing a common letter are not significantly different (P>0.05) Table 3-6. Mean percentage of daily time spen t by cattle near water tr ough (mean std Error). Water Trough Season Early Morning (12am – 6am) Late Morning (6am – 12pm) Afternoon (12pm – 6pm) Night (6pm – 12pm) Warm 2001 0.000.00 b C 1.810.25 a A 0.950.15 b, c B 0.010.01 a C Cool 2001-02 0.100.03 a A 0.110.04 b A 0.320.11 c A 0.110.04 a A Warm 2002 0.000.00 a, b B 1.480.34 a A 2.170.44 a A 0.000.00 a B Cool 2002-03 0.000.00 a, b A 0.100.05 b A 0.130.08 c A 0.000.00 a A Warm 2003 0.000.00 a, b B 0.880.32 a, b A, B 2.000.61 a, b A 0.000.00 a B Time Mean 0.030.01 B 0.970.11 A 0.930.11 A 0.040.01 B a b c: means within columns sharing a common letter are not significantly different (P>0.05) A B C: means within rows sharing a common letter are not significantly different (P>0.05) Table 3-7. Mean percentage of daily time spent by cattle in wetland (mean std Error). Wetland Season Early Morning (12am – 6am) Late Morning (6am – 12pm) Afternoon (12pm – 6pm) Night (6pm – 12pm) Warm 2001 0.030.03 a B 0.000.00 b B 1.650.67 b A 0.63 0.17 a A, B Cool 2001-02 0.150.06 a B 1.080.16 a A 1.070.14 b A 0.73 0.11 a A Warm 2002 0.240.13 a B 0.000.00 b B 1.360.26 b A 0.320.09 a B Cool 2002-03 0.000.00 a B 1.300.33 a A 1.470.38 b A 0.870.41 a A, B Warm 2003 0.330.15 a B 1.940.80 b A, B 4.931.38 a A 0.330.21 a B Time Mean 0.150.04 C 0.810.11 B 1.590.18 A 0.610.07 B a b c: means within columns sharing a common letter are not significantly different (P>0.05) A B C: means within rows sharing a common letter are not significantly different (P>0.05)

PAGE 72

72 Table 3-8. Mean percentage of daily time spent by cattle in ditch (mean std Error). Ditch Season Early Morning (12am – 6am) Late Morning (6am – 12pm) Afternoon (12pm – 6pm) Night (6pm – 12pm) Warm 2001 0.170.09 b C 0.330.17 c B, C 1.760.58 a, b A 1.550.30 a, b, c A, B Cool 2001-02 0.250.07 b B 0.670.13 c A, B 0.930.14 b A 0.560.18 c A, B Warm 2002 2.230.41 a A 2.180.35 a, b A 2.860.38 a A 2.650.44 a A Cool 2002-03 0.560.18 b B 1.280.27 b, c A, B 1.610.31 a, b A 0.870.20 b, c A, B Warm 2003 2.950.47 a A 2.440.43 a A 2.020.31 a, b A 2.020.30 a, b A Time Mean 1.010.13 B 1.210.12 A, B 1.690.15 A 1.370.13 A, B a b c: means within columns sharing a common letter are not significantly different (P>0.05) A B C: means within rows sharing a common letter are not significantly different (P>0.05) Table 3-9. Mean daily distance traveled and mean daily MCP ar ea by cattle (mean std Error). Season Distance Traveled (meters) MCP Area (acres) Warm 2001 3179.1757.64 b 13.690.22 b Cool 2001-02 3994.6892.33 a 14.150.49 b Warm 2002 3193.0482.16 b 13.850.35 b Cool 2002-03 4331.05237.77 a 17.671.04 a Warm 2003 2980.4998.58 b 13.362.58 b a b c: means within columns sharing a common letter are not significantly different (P>0.05)

PAGE 73

73 CHAPTER 4 DEVELOPMENT OF CATTLE MOVEMENT ALGORITHMS FOR ACRU2000 Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Modelers develop and use HSI models for la nd-use management plans because they are simple to use and the outputs are generally in form of GIS-based maps, which are easy to understand. These models are also preferred because they may be applied in an efficient manner and are relatively inexpensive to operate (Schamberger and O’ Neil, 1986). The first step in developing HSI is to identify habitat variables. The second step is to develop suitability index functions for each individual habitat variable. The fi nal step is to combine these functions into an equation for the HSI. In HSI modeling, animals get distributed in proportion to the habitat suitability. More detail about HSI modeling methodology and some applications have been discussed in Chapter 2. Model Design for Cattle Distribution in ACRU2000 Limited information is available regarding catt le’s preference in gr azing systems of south eastern USA. It has been elucidated in Chapte r 2 that plentiful grazing studies have been conducted in the western and mid-western USA; how ever, differences between the arid west and the southern humid region prohibit the universal transfer of research results. The land is very flat and the climate is warm and humid in the south Florid a for most of the year. Th is is in contrast to western regions where land is hilly and the temper atures are dry and extreme. The use of water features is existent (Chapter 3); however, their utilization ma y be for different reasons. Controlled as well as uncontro lled ranges in south Florida co nsist of abundant wetlands. Therefore, accessibility to water is not a lim iting condition, which may be the case in the west. Hence, models developed elsewhere cannot be applied to the unique ag ro-ecosystems of the

PAGE 74

74 south-east. Therefore, functions fo r individual habitat variable in a HSI model must be defined to represent the distribution of cattle in ecosystems of south Florida. Suitability Index for Cattle Distribution The first step in the process of defining hab itat suitability functions is to identify the variables that would affect th e distribution of cattle in a paddock system. Shade and water features are the obvious attractants that dictate the distribution of cattle; hence they have been included as variables for HSI co mputation. Water features such as wetlands and ponds may be attractive for different reasons in different seas ons. Depending on the presence or absence of water, cattle may display a difference in the utilization of a wetland or pond. A dry wetland may not be an attractive feature fo r hot or thirsty cattle; however it may be luring for hungry cattle that may graze in it for better quality of forage Hence a dynamic suitability index is required for features that may become devoid of standing wa ter during dry periods an d thereby changing their attractiveness for grazing cows. The current hydrologic module in ACRU2000 simulates the depth of water table for each land segmen t. The methodology used in Chapter 3, which determines the presence of standing water in wetlands, is used here as well. Water table depth of less than 0.6 m from the ground su rface is deemed to have sta nding water in the wetlands and ponds. Hence, the HSI for water is optimum (1.0) when the water table depth is less than 0.6 m (2 ft). On the other hand, water table depth of more than 1.21 m (4 ft) from the ground surface is deemed not to inundate wetlands and ponds. Theref ore, HSI for water is minimum (0.0) when the water table depth is more th an 1.21 m. Thus, a dry day (i.e. when water table falls below 1.21 m) will have a different suitability index for a land segment with wetland than a wet day; thereby making it very dynamic. The suitability index values for a water feature with respect water table depth in between 0.6 m and 1.21 m is a linear relationship and is are illustrated in Figure 4-1 and as:

PAGE 75

75 0 ) ( t tWT HSI for 21 1 tWTDEP (4-1a) t t tWTDEP WT HSI 63 1 67 1 ) ( for 21 1 60 0 tWTDEP (4-1b) 1 ) ( t tWT HSI for 60 0 tWTDEP (4-1c) where WTDEPt is the water table de pth on day t; and HSIt(WTt) is the HSI of water feature on day t. Under extended warm humid conditions of southeastern USA when the ambient temperature approaches or exceeds cattle’s body te mperature, the cattle will seek shade to cool themselves. In a study conducted during summer in Louisiana, McDaniel and Roark (1956) found that shade, either artificial or natural, increased the gain s of cows and their calves. The area of the shade will depend on the size of the herd. In an experimental study Clarke (1993) tested the effects of shade on behavior, rectal te mperature, and live weight gain. It was found that 2.5 m2 shade/cow reduced rectal temperatures in bot h, zebu-cross steers and in Hereford steers. Buffington et al. (1983) r ecommended at least 4.2 m2 shade/cow but also agreed with Bond et al. (1958) that 5.6 m2 shade/cow was desirable. Alternat ely, Hahn (1985) only suggested 1.8-2.5 m2 shade/cow was required. For southeastern cl imatic conditions, a shaded area of 50 m2 was considered representative of the agro-ecosystems of south Florida. Some isolated trees may also attract a few cattle; however, a shade area of less than 30 m2 will be less attractive, and may cause crowding (Buffington et al., 1983). Hence, the suitability index values linearly increase from 30 m2 to 50 m2 (Figure 4-2) and as: 0 ) ( SH HSIt for 0 0 SA (4-2a) 02 0 ) ( SA SH HSIt for 0 50 0 0 SA (4-2b) 1 ) ( SH HSIt for 0 50 SA (4-2c)

PAGE 76

76 where SA is the shade area (m2); and HSIt(SH) is the HSI of shade on day t. Shade area is an input from the user, and will remain constant throughout the simulation. Herbivores eat to satisfy their need and de sire for nutrients, the most prominent being energy and protein (NRC, 1996; 2001). The mechanism via which herbivores satisfy their energy and protein requirement is through consumption of available forage. The current version of ACRU2000 is set up to simulate three functiona l forage groups: bahi agrass, floralta, and panicum. These vegetation speci es represent functi onal groups that correspond to vegetation found in uplands, transition zones and wetlands, respectively (Yang, 2006). The forage is also an important factor that dictates herbivores movement and distribution. The HSI of forage consumption (Figure 4-3) is based upon data published by Rayburn (1986), who summarized a group of experiments and developed a more genera l relationship of relati ve intake (a proportion of maximum or potential intake) to herbage mass. The forage suit ability index is represented in the model as: 0 ) (.t i tF HSI for 150, t i aW (4-3a) 1 0 00066 0 ) (, , t i a t i tW F HSI for 1350 150, t i aW (4-3b) 1 ) (,t i tF HSI for 0 1350, ,t i aW (4-3c) where Wa,i,t is the aboveground biomass of speci es i on day t (Kg/ha); and HSIt(Ft) is the HSI of forage on day t. Preference Estimation Using Analytical Hierarchy Process After development of a suite of suitability indices that are deemed influential in herbivore’s spatial location preference, the next step is to determine the relative importance of parameters with one another. In case of limited literature availability a good stra tegy is to utilize the technique of decision analys is to quantify the pr eferences of one vari able over the other.

PAGE 77

77 Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a ma thematical tool within the field of multicriteria decision analysis that a llows consideration of both qualita tive and quantitative aspects of decisions. AHP is especially suitable for comp lex decisions which involve the comparison of decision elements which are difficult to quantify (S aaty, 1980). It is based on the assumption that when faced with a complex decision the natura l human reaction is to cluster the decision elements according to their common characteristics. The AHP methodology involves building a hierarchy (Ranking) of decision elements and then making comparisons between each possible pair in each cluster (as a matrix). These pair -wise comparisons provide a weighting for each element within a cluster (or level of the hierar chy) and also a consis tency ratio (useful for checking the consistency of the user-defined wei ghts). This process requi res the user to make direct comparisons of the rela tive importance of the alternativ es on the measure. In case of herbivore distribution model there are three alternatives (Shade, Wa ter, and Forage) that need to be compared and evaluated. Within forage there are three types of forage s: bahiagrass, panicum, and floralta. Also, since the di stribution is dominated by two s easons, two sets of preferences need to be developed for all the alternativ es. Logical Decisions for Windows (LDW) is a decision analysis tool that helps define alternatives a nd variables (Logical Decisions, 2005). Within LDW, AHP technique is available. To us e this technique the us er needs to pair-wise compare two variables as part of the assessment process. The user enters the weight ratios for each possible pair of variables in a matrix. This ratio describes the ratio of importance of a variable as compared to the other. Within LDW there is also an option of printing the preference assessment in a questionnaire format. This lets the user obtain a hard copy of the preference assessment question(s) being posed by LDW. The questionnaire asks the user to identify the importance of one feature with respect to the ot her (e.g., Forage vs. Shade) on a scale of 1-9.

PAGE 78

78 This is a useful feature of LDW where the questio nnaire can be distributed to the participants in the study who may not be readily av ailable for direct questioning. Fo r this research we utilized this feature and distributed the questionnaire to many researchers, ranch managers, and extension agents (Appendix B). This allowed us to acquire and incorporate a broad spectrum of expertise and opinion into the herbivore di stribution model. Once this info rmation is entered into LDW (Figure 4-4), it uses the AHP co mputation process to compute se t of weights for the variables (Appendix C). Model simulation results using wei ghting factors from the survey are shown in Appendix D. The model for herbivore distribut ion is given in equation 4-4: )] { ) ( ) [( ForageHSI ForageWF WaterHSI WaterWF ShadeHSI ShadeWF HSI (4-4) where ShadeWF and ShadeHSI are the weighting f actor and habitat suitability index for shade, WaterWF and WaterHSI are the weighting factor and habitat suitability index for water, and ForageWF and ForageHSI are the weighting factor and habitat suitability index for forage. Since ACRU2000 is capable of simulating multiple vegetati on species, the forage factor in equation 41 can be further expanded to include desire d number of vegetation species (Equation 4-5). )} .....( ) ( ) (2 2 1 1HSI Veg WF Veg HSI Veg WF Veg HSI Veg WF Vegn n (4-5) where VegWF and VegHSI are the weighting factor and habitat suitability index for the specific forage species. Index for Heat Stress and Seasonal Distribution Summer heat stress has long been recognized as a factor that reduces both, the productivity and reproductive efficiency of cattle in the Sout heastern regions of the USA (Jordan, 2003). In grazing systems cattle are exposed to varying amount s of solar radiation. This radiant energy can come directly from the sun or indirectly fr om the immediate surroundings. During summer, this

PAGE 79

79 radiant load may exceed metabolic heat producti on of cattle significantly. To cope with the hot environment, cattle will strategi ze their behavior and physiology to relieve the total heat burden. Cattle will seek shade, increase water intake and orient themselves away from direct sunlight. These behavioral changes increase the tissue con ductance to facilitate heat transfer from the body core to the skin and eventually away from the skin by convection and radiation. There will be increased sweating to increa se evaporative loss as well as increased respiratory volume (heavy breathing) (Blackshaw and Blackshaw, 1994) Cattle will reduce feed intake as an immediate response to heat st ress (Blackshaw and Blackshaw, 1994) and expenditure of energy to maintain homeothermy (NRC, 1981). Heat stress is caused by environmental factors such as air temperature, radiation, hu midity, and wind velocity (Gwazdauskas, 1985). Over the years researchers have created indexe s that relate specific envir onmental characteristics to the physiological variables of hear t rate, respiratory rate and volume, sweating rate, and body temperature (Blackshaw and Bl ackshaw, 1994). The two environmental parameters that have been popularly used have been dry-bulb temp erature and humidity. In a research conducted during the summers of 1975-78 at the University of Florida’s Da iry Research Unit near Hague, FL, Buffington et al. (1981) esta blished that dry-bulb temperatur e and dewpoint temperature was directly related to rectal te mperature and respiration rate and inversely related to milk production. They established that Black Globe-Humidity Index (BGH I) is a comfort index that is based on the combined effects of dry-bulb te mperature, humidity, net radiation, and air movement, as can be seen in equation 4-6: 5 41 36 0 dp bgt t BGHI (4-6) where: tbg = black globe temperature (C) and tdp = dew point temperatur e (C) calculated from wet bulb temperature. When the BGHI is 75 or hi gher, milk yield and feed intake are seriously

PAGE 80

80 depressed (Buffington et al., 1981). The black globe temperature, (tbg), is measured by the black globe thermometer, which usually consists of a 150 mm (6 inch) black globe with a thermometer located at the centre. Since black globe temper ature measurements are not available for BIR, another index can be used which is based on relative humidity. Thom (1958) suggested a temperature and relative humidity index (T HI) to evaluate a cow’s heat stress as: )} 58 )( 100 / 1 ( 55 0 { d dt RH t THI (4-7) where td = dry bulb temperature (F) and RH = relati ve humidity (%).The heat stress is defined as occurring whenever the THI exceeds 72 (Armstrong, 1994, De Dios and Hahn, 1993; Hahn, 1982; Hahn and Mader, 1997; Igono et al., 1991). However, most of the research has been conducted in midwestern states on dairy cows with reduction in milk production due to heat stress as the main concern. The cattle in south Fl orida are mostly beef cattle. More specifically, the cattle on BIR are Brahman-crossbred (Arthi ngton et al., 2006). Nu merous studies have documented that Brahman cattle have better he at regulatory capacities than other breeds (Blackshaw and Blackshaw, 1994). This physiological advantage ha s been attributed to higher respiratory rate (Finch et al., 1982; Kibler a nd Brody, 1952), lower metabolic rate (Kibler and Brody, 1954; Vercoe, 1970; Worstell and Br ody, 1953), less water consumption at higher temperatures (Winchester and Morris, 1956), an d thinner-brighter hide s (Allen et al., 1970; Finch, 1985; Finch et al., 1984; Hutchinson and Brown, 1969; Yeates; 1954) Keeping the better heat resistance of Brahman cows in mind, the cri tical level of THI was set to 75. On a given day if the index reaches 75, the weighting factor of shade and water increases by 20% and 10%, respectively. Consequently, the forage weighti ng factor decreases by 30%. This change in the weighting factors of shade, water, and forage acco unt for the change in behavior the cattle will exhibit during days when they experience thermal stress.

PAGE 81

81 Analysis of cattle movement data in Chapte r 2 clearly indicates that cattle display a difference in their behavior in th e two seasons of Florida. To repr esent the difference in behavior in the two seasons in Florida, two entire sets of weighting factors have been developed with the abovementioned variables, one for warm season and the other for cool. The warm season is defined as March to October and the remaining four months are defined as the cool season. Integration of HSI Model into ACRU2000 It has been demonstrated that HSI is a rela tively swift way to utilize information either from literature or even from opinions of experts to develop a model. Therefore, a similar approach has been used to distribute the cattle in a modeling system, ACRU2000. The Agricultural Catchments Resea rch Unit (ACRU) Modeling System The ACRU agrohydrological modeling system wa s originally developed in the Department of Agricultural Engineering (now the School of Bioresources Engineer ing and Environmental Hydrology) at the University of Natal by Sc hulze (1995). The devel opers of ACRU model describe it as a multi-purpose and multi-level in tegrated physical conceptual model that can simulate streamflow, total evaporation, and la nd cover/management and abstraction impacts on water resources at a daily time step (Figure 4-5). The ACRU program code was developed in the FORTRAN 77 programming language. As the model got developed and modi fied by researchers around the world, the existing programming langua ge (FORTRAN) posed problems with regards to its compatibility to accommodate these newer versions. It is for this reason the model was restructured entirely with an object oriented programming language: Java and was named AC RU2000 (Kiker et al., 2006). The advent of ACRU2000 made the model more compliant with spatial hydrological aspects and addition of newer modules became unproblematic (Campbell et al., 2001; Kiker and Clark, 2001; Kiker et al., 2006; Martinez, 2006; Yang, 2006). ACRU2000 can operate either as a lumped small

PAGE 82

82 catchment model with relatively homogeneous soil and land cover a ttributes, or as a distributed cell-type model where complex catchments are se parated into sub-catchments or land segments (Figure 4-6). The nutrient module within ACRU2000 modeling system was incorporated by Campbell et al. (2001) (ACRU-NP), which borrowed the con cepts used in GLEAMS (Knisel and Davis, 1999; Leonard et al., 1987). The nutrient module added capability in ACRU2000 to 1) simulate nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) loss es in surface runoff, sediment transport, and leaching, 2) simulate N and P cycling in the soil-water-plant-animal system, and 3) simulate N and P mass balances in the watershed system. However, ACRU-NP module was incapable of simulating multidirectional lateral nutrient transport between mu ltiple land segments through either surface or subsurface water movement. The lateral nutrient transport com ponent in ACRU-NP was mainly designed for transporting nutrients dissolv ed in runoff and adsorbed in sediments through single outflow from one land se gment. Consequently, Yang ( 2006) restructured ACRU-NP and added new components to enable multi-directiona l spatial transport of N and P through surface runoff and lateral groundwater flow. In addition, a new conservative solu te transport component was also added to rectify the pr ocess of nutrient extrac tion and adsorption in which the ratio for partitioning the nutrients between the water and so il phases was a function of clay content. Yang (2006) compared the performance of the new c onservative solute tran sport algorithm from PMPATH (Chiang and Kinzelbach, 2005), which is an advective tr ansport model using groundwater pore velocities from MODFLO W (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1998) using a hypothetical scenario. The comparison revealed that both models produced qualitatively similar results. In addition, the ability of the modified nutrient model to predic t non-point source nutrient pollution, at BIR was evaluated. It was concluded that the mo del performed reasonably well.

PAGE 83

83 Yang (2006) also added significant framew ork to the ACRU2000 modeling system by adding a new vegetation component to enab le multi-directional spatial simulation of hydrological, chemical, and biological processe s simultaneously in a daily time step. The vegetation model is a simple model that avoids overwhelming data requirements, but is still capable of capturing the vegeta tion dynamics. The model is based on the land segment system developed by Yang (2006), where each land segment is initialized with one or multiple species, which compete for light, water and nutrients. For each time step, plant growth is driven by climate variables including solar radiation and temperature. The ba sic processes in this model are light interception, conversion of light into dry matter production and al location of dry matter between aboveground and belowground dry matter. The impacts from the changes in hydrology and nutrient concentrations are expressed in gr owth limiting factors. Yang (2006) accounts for two types of pressure on the vegetation: lack or excess of water and nutrient. These stress factors are combined to define a growth reduction factor that is used in the model to reflect the adverse growth conditions causing the reducti on of the potential dry matter production. In the model the potential growth rate ( Wpot,i,t [kg/m2/day]) for each species i on day t is calculated through a linear function of the absorbed light a nd a mean radiation-use efficiency parameter as shown in Equation (4-8). ) (, , , t t i t i abs i t i potT F I RUE W (4-8) where RUEi is the average radiation use efficiency of species i [kg/MJ(PAR)] and is a summary variable for all processes dealing w ith photosynthesis and respiration. Iabs,i,t and Fi,t(Tt) are the light interception and temperature factor for assimilation by species i on day t, respectively. The plant growth rate may be limited by N or P defi ciency, water shortage or water logging during different parts of the growing season:

PAGE 84

84 t i t i pot t i redRF W W (4-9) t i t i t i pot t iCN RF W N (4-10) t i t i t i pot t iCP RF W P (4-11) where Wred,i,t is the reduced dry matter produc tion rate of sp ecies i [kg/m2/day]; Ni,t and Pi,t are the N and P uptake rates corresponding to Wred,i,t [kg/ha], respectively; CNi,t and CPi,t are the biomass N and P percents, respectively; RFi,t is a growth reduction factor of species i, which integrates the limiting factors from water, N and P. RFi,t, is a unit less, species-specific growth reduction factor with a value ranging from 0 to 1, which is obtained by taking the minimum value of water stress, water logging, and N a nd P stress factors as shown in the following equation: ) F F F F min( RFt i P t i N t i WL t i WS t i (4-12) where FWS,i,t is the water stress f actor for species i; FWL,i,t is the water logging factor for species i; FN,i,t is the N stress factor; and FP,i,t is the P stress factor. Plant senescence is assumed to start when the daily sum of leaf areas ( i t i sumLAI LAI[m2 leaf/m2 ground]) of all species on one land segment exceeds the critical leaf area (LAIcr [m2 leaf/m2 ground]), an input to the model. The daily total senesced biomass (Ws,i,t [kg/ha]) and the corresponding N (Ns,i,t [kg/ha]) and P and (Ps,i,t [kg/ha]) removed through the senesced biom ass for each species on that land segment are calculated as: i cr cr sum bs t i sSLA / ) LAI LAI LAI ( Frac W (4-13) t i red t i s t i t i sW / W N N (4-14) t i red t i s t i t i sW / W P P (4-15)

PAGE 85

85 where Fracbs is the fraction of biomass above the cri tical level to senesce per day, which is assumed to be a constant value in the model fo r all species. The senesced biomass and biomass N and P decrease the amount of live biom ass and its corresponding N and P pools: t i s t i red t i redW W W (4-16) t i s t i t iN N N (4-17) t i s t i t iP P P (4-18) Currently the model simulates three pere nnial species including bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flgge), floralta (Hemarthria altissima), and panicum (panicum rigidulum) which are believed to be the dominating forage species in s outh Florida. One of the outputs from this model is aboveground biomass on a daily basis. This out put is critical in the de velopment of the cattle distribution model. Recent ACRU2000 model developers (Martin ez, 2006; Yang, 2006) have enabled and tested the model to be capable of simulating both hydrology and nutrient d ynamics in field-scale catchments. Pandey (2006) applied the distri buted ACRU2000 modeling system to predict hydrology and non-point source nutrient pollution, on a commercial beef cattle ranch (Pelaez Ranch) in the Lake Okeechobee region. Pandey (2006) applied the model on the entire ranch by finely discretizing the modeling domain into various sizes of 134 land segments. Thus, ACRU2000 can be confidently used as a basis for coupling with an animal distribution simulation model to form a more comp lete ecohydrological modeling system. Once the HSI’s are computed for every land segment in the model’s domain, they are summed, and normalized (so that they sum to 1.0). The cattle in the population are then distributed across their range in proportion to the distributi on of the normalized HSI’s among land segments. The redistribution occurs on a daily basis. After redistribu tion, the cattle consume

PAGE 86

86 existing forage proportional to their population presen ce on land segments. It is assumed that each cow will eat 16 Kg of forage per day. This amount is based on the ty pical cattle weight (640 Kg) (ASAE Standards, 2000) and forage cons umption (2.5% of Body Weight) (NRC, 1996). The total forage amount that gets consumed by graz ing cattle is removed fr om the vegetation model on a daily basis. The removal is based on the pref erence weighting assigned to individual forage species. For example, if Veg1 has a higher weig hting factor than Veg2 and Veg3, Veg1 will get consumed more. This consumption will be in pr oportion to the weighting factors. According to suitability index of forage consumption (Figure 4-3), the grazing herbivores will not “see” any biomass that is less than 150 kg/ha. Once the fora ge biomass reaches that low level in a specific land segment, the forage suitability becomes zero and thereby lowering the HSI for that land segment. Lower HSI in turn allows less herbivor es to be assigned and this allows forage to recover in that specific land segment. Cattle also defecate proportional to their population presence on land segments. It is assumed that each cow will defecate 8.5 Kg/day (ASAE Standards, 2000). The cattle waste gets applied to the top (litter) layer of the model. The waste is characterized into various nutrients pools (Organic -P, Labile-P, Organic-N, Ammonium -N, Active-N, Organic Matter) (Figures 4-7, 4-8) based on the rates set by th e nutrient model of ACRU2000. Minimum Habitat Area for HSI Model in ACRU2000 Application of habitat suitability criteria requires that some specific spatial parameters be defined. Minimum habitat area is defined as th e minimum area of contiguous habitat that can support a cattle population on a long term basis. In case of modeling catt le distribution within ACRU2000-HSI, it is imperative th e users maintain a minimum land segment of 0.1 ha in order for cattle distribution module to be able to pe rform reasonably. Maintaining the right spatial

PAGE 87

87 scale is important in order for the suitability i ndexes to be realistic over temporal and spatial variation. Suitability Index of Water Table0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.521.210.60.3Water Table Depth (m)Suitability Values Figure 4-1. Suitability inde x values of water features. Suitability Index of Shade Area0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 05060Shaded Area (m2)Index Values Figure 4-2. Suitability i ndex values of shade area.

PAGE 88

88 Suitability Index of Forage 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 015013501650Standing Aboveground Biomass (Kg/ha)Suitability Values Figure 4-3. Suitability index va lues of forage consumption. Figure 4-4. Goals hierarchy view in Logical Decisions fo r Windows software (Logical Decisions, 2005).

PAGE 89

89 Figure 4-5. General structure of the ACRU (v 3.00) model (Schulze, 1995). Figure 4-6. Configuration of multiple directional overland flows from source land segment to adjacent land segments (adapted from: Yang, 2006).

PAGE 90

90 Figure 4-7. Phosphorus cycle of the ACRU2000 model (adapted from: Knisel et al., 1993). Figure 4-8. Nitrogen cycle of the ACRU2000 m odel (adapted from: Knisel et al., 1993).

PAGE 91

91 CHAPTER 5 MODEL RESULTS Testing Model Performance at Buck Island Ranch A cattle distribution model (ACRU2000-HSI) was developed for the region of south Florida in Chapter 4. The algorithms were developed using the procedure of Habitat Suitability Index and criteria weightings were developed by processing expert opinio n using the technique of Analytical Hierarchy Process. The GPS data analysis in Chapter 3 was helpful in providing insights into cattle’s beha vior in warm humid regions. However, the GPS data were not utilized to create algorithms for the HSI model. The algo rithms are composed of “attractants” of cattle (shade, water, and forage) and their weighting f actors. The attractants were determined based on the features that exist in the la ndscape of this region. Weighti ng factors were determined using surveys from experts and were then calibrated to obtain better results. Depending on the presence or absence of water, cattle may display a diffe rence in the utilizati on of a wetland or pond. Therefore, the depth of water table, which is an output from the hydrologic model, was utilized to determine presence or absence of water in wetlands. South Florid a’s long hot and humid summer can cause heat stress in grazing cattle. Cattl e’s change in grazing a nd resting pattern as a result of heat stress in hot-humid environments of the southeast is also incorporated into the model. To incorporate the difference in behavior in the two seasons of Florida, two sets of weighting factors were developed. After model development, the next crucial step is to verify the performance of the model. The model should be verified and tested at a site that is representative of the region for which the model is developed. It is also preferable to test the model using observed data. Since the GPS data from BIR (described in Chapter 3) were available, they were utilized to verify the performance of the HSI model. Table 3-3 is a summary of the sampling of the GPS data. During

PAGE 92

92 any season the number of cows collared for th e GPS study was not consistent. Since the GPS collar data were available only from a few select ed cows from the whole herd, for comparative purposes, it is assumed that the collared cows ar e representative of the total cattle population in the model domain. As there can be significant variability in an indi vidual cow’s behavior (discussed in the conclusion section of Chapter 3), it was essential to select a pasture that had the largest availability of GPS data. Consequent ly, SP4 and SP5 were selected for HSI model application (Figure 5-1). Th e rationale for selecting these two pastures during the abovementioned times is because of plentiful GPS data availability (Table 3-3) that qualifies the data to be representative of the whole herd. For each collared cow, number of recorded “hits” in a land segment were divided by the total number of hits and then multiplied by herd size to convert the hits into number of cows. The description of input paramete rs are given in Table 5-1 and their values that were used for model calibration and verifica tion are given in Table 5-2. Th e values in Table 5-2 are the result of calibration of the HSI model input parameters that were obtained from the LDW software using AHP technique. Since the water, sh ade, and forage parameters change during the two seasons, it was essential to calibrate and verify the model during both warm and cool seasons. Summer 2001 (June 11-15) and spring 2002 (Mar ch 4-8) were the two seasons selected for testing of the HSI model. SP4 was select ed for calibration and SP5 for verification. Calibration Results Figure 5-2 is the result of calibration on summer pasture 4 during warm season of 2001. The box plot (Figure 5-2) shows the range of the observed GPS data in all land segments. Within the box the dark dotted line and the light solid li ne represents the mean and median number of cattle in each land segment, respectively. The li ght dotted line (running across all land segments) illustrates the assumption of equal distribution of cattle (1.25 cattle per land segment) by the

PAGE 93

93 ACRU2000 version. Land segments consisting of water trough, wetland, and shade are abbreviated WT, WET, and S, respectively. The calibration re sults of the ACRU2000-HSI during the warm season captures the overall dynamics of individual land segments. Under prediction of the number of cattle in land segment 8 can be attributed to the lower forage biomass, especially panicum (less than 150 kg/ha) which has the high est weighting factor amongst the three forage species. There is a slight over prediction in la nd segment 3 due to higher biomass availability. The variability in the GPS data is also noteworthy. Figure 5-3 is the result of ca libration on summer pasture 4 du ring cool season of 2002. The calibration result for the cool s eason also captures the overall dyna mics of land segments, with exception to LS1 and LS2. A water trough and two shade structures are present in LS1. The model is unable to represent the presence of two shade structures and it is possible that due to more availability of shading area, more cattle ar e present. However, the simulation result is still within the lower range of observed data. Cattle’s presence is exceptionally high in LS2. This high presence has been observed in the north section of all the su mmer pastures. Closer examination of GPS data and personal communi cation with the ranch manager of BIR has revealed that in this area cattle would stand or lie down, ruminate, for approximately 2 to 3 hours. Various studies indicate that cattle graze mostly in early morning and evening, and rest mostly in the middle of the day (Bagshaw, 2001; Hafez & Bouissou, 1975; Martin, 1978; Sneva, 1970). A similar observation was made in an ex perimental study conducted to establish beef cattle defecation frequency and distribution on h ill country in New Zealand (Bagshaw, 2002). It was observed that often cattle would rest betw een 11 am and midday. They would rest and ruminate during this time on flat areas either at the top or middle of the field. In a field where there was a large flat area at th e top of the field next to a tro ugh, cattle were observed to spend

PAGE 94

94 the majority of their resting time in this area. Similar pasture setting exists at BIR where the cattle display an affinity to rest in the nor thern section of all su mmer pastures. This high presence is not recorded in the summer season b ecause cattle spend most of the afternoon resting and avoiding direct solar radiation under a shade. The ACRU2000-HSI slightly ove r predicts the number of cattle in the southern land segments. This is mainly due to the normalization of cattle population across all land segments. The impact of under prediction in LS1 and LS2 is tr anslated into slight over prediction in LS912. Verification Results Figure 5-4 displays the resu lt of verification of ACRU2000-HSI on summer pasture 5 during warm season of 2001. The stocking rate on this pasture was higher than SP4 (35 Cows). There is also more variability in the observed G PS data in this pasture as compared to SP4. There is slight over prediction in LS2 due to high in itial biomass. Nevertheless, in all the land segments, the model’s performance is always within the range of observed GPS data. The dynamics of water trough, shade, and wetland seems to be well represented by the model. Figure 5-5 displays the result of verification on summer past ure 5 during cool season of 2002. Similar to warm season, the model is able to capture the dynamics of water trough, shade and wetlands in the cool season as well. The pheno mena where the cattle display an affinity to rest in the northern section of the pasture is once again evident. The number of cattle recorded in LS2 is higher than any other land segment (Fi gure 5-5). Additionally, th ere is slight over prediction in the number of cattle in the land segmen ts from mid field to the southern end of the pasture (S6-12). The model results for most of these land segments (S6-9) are within the range of observed data and overall the number of cattle prediction is better than the original model.

PAGE 95

95 Sensitivity Analysis In a typical modeling system, the model resu lts are more sensitive to certain inputs compared to others. This information is of esse ntial use for future model users who may need to calibrate the model for application on a different site. Therefore, it is important to perform a sensitivity analysis to establish priorities in collecting and determining model parameters. An analysis was performed to determine the sensitiv ity of model simulated cattle distribution to the weighting factors. The sensitivity analysis was performed usi ng the six-year simulation (January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2003) on the experimental pastur e at BIR. Since the model was already parameterized for the SP5 (Figure 5-1), it was applied on the same past ure for this analysis. Model sensitivity was determined for 25, 50, 75, and 100% of the base i nput value (Table 5-3). Summer 2001 (June) and spring 2002 (March) were the two seasons selected from the simulation period. The sensitivity analyses were focused on the population of cattle in all land segments during the two seasons. It is important to be ar into mind that the ACRU2000-HSI model is different from a typical process based modeling system where cha nge in an input parameter will result in an expected change in output. The ACRU2000-HSI model is dependent on the hydrologic model for determination of water pres ence, nutrient model for rate of growth of vegetation, and vegetation model for total biomass. In additio n, as per model design, the three weighting factors (water, shade and forage) must sum to 1.0. For example if warm season weighting factor of water (WWF AC) is increased by 25% the ot her two corresponding variables (i.e. warm season weighting factor s of shade and forage, WSFAC, WOVRLFAC) must be adjusted so that the sum of the three weighting fa ctors equals 1 (Table 5-3). For this analysis the adjustment of the two variables was carried out so as to maintain the ratio amongst the adjusted variables. In Table 5-3, th e sensitivity analysis is pe rformed on WWFAC and WSFAC and

PAGE 96

96 WOVRLFAC have been adjusted accordingly. Comple te list of weighting factors values used in sensitivity analysis and the corresponding adjust ment in the weighting factors of other two variables is given in Ta ble F-1 of Appendix F. Results of sensitivity analysis are given in Tables F-2 to F-5 of Appendix F. There is considerable change in cattle population with cha nge in shade and water weighting factors in the warm period (Table F-2); especially in the land se gments that consist of those features (LS1 and LS2). Even though water or shade availability do not exist in land segments apart from LS1 and LS2, there is still change in cattle population in other land segments (LS3-12) due to change in shade and water weighting factors. As explained before, this is due to corresponding change in forage weighting factor which has to be adjusted so that all the three weighting factors sum to 1. There is also considerable variation in presen ce of cattle in LS1 and LS2 with change in weighting factor of forage in both, warm season as well as cool season (Table F-2 and F-4). This drastic change in cattle populat ion is due to the proportional change in shade and water weighting factors (shade in LS1 and water in LS2). Since the ba se value of forage weighting factor is higher in cool season (Table F-4), ther e is higher variability in cattle population in the cool season as compared to warm season (Table F2). A similar trend is observed with variability in cattle population due to variation in weigh ting factor of individua l forage species, more variation in cool season (T able F-3) as compared to warm season (Table F-5). Hypothetical Scenario Model Testing Sufficient GPS data are not currently availa ble from the region of south Florida to quantitatively test the ACRU2000-HSI model towa rds BMP implications. Adequate data are however, rarely available to make management decisions. This is the reason modeling is an important tool which allows mana gers to envision future implications based on current decisions.

PAGE 97

97 "In a decision-making context, the ultimate test of a model is not how accurate or truthful it is, but only whether one is likely to make a better decision with it than with out it" (Starfield, 1997). Therefore, a hypothetical test was designed to evaluate the algorithms of the ACRU2000HSI model, coupled with the vegetation, hydrolog ic, and nutrient models. This scenario testing determined whether the ACRU2000-HS I model can be utilized to de termine the feas ibility of a BMP with phosphorus loading as an objective f unction. One of the obvious water quality-BMP in a cow-calf operation is to exclude the cows from streams. By restricting cow’s access to a stream, direct deposition of the cattle feces in flowi ng water can be prevented. In its current state, the ACRU2000 does not consist of a stream r outing algorithm for water and P. Therefore, fencing the cows away from streams or ditches cannot be defined in the model. However, a similar scenario was designed to mimic restrictive access of cattle. First of all, a basic set of simulation were made with the ACRU2000-HSI model to observe change in P loading due to presence and absence of cows (Figure 5-7). The results from these simulations came out to be counter intuitive. The P load in absence of co ws was greater than in presence of cows. These results warranted furt her investigation and more detailed scenario simulations. Hence a new data object called DC attleExclusion (Appendix A) was created to accomplish the exclusion of cattle from user-specified land segments. This functionality allows the user to specify the land segment from which the cattle are to be excluded. During simulation the cattle are distributed only on la nd segments in which cattle exclusion option is turned off. Primarily, it was important to see a difference in the P load prediction, if any, from the two versions of the ACRU2000 model: one with th e HSI algorithms and the other using equal distribution of animal manure. Fo llowing the above stated basic run it was also crucial to see whether the HSI additions within ACRU2000 modeling system have enhanced its capabilities to

PAGE 98

98 make relevant management decisions. Three s cenarios were tested on summer pasture 5 (Figure 5-1) at BIR using a 6 year (19982003) simulation time period. In th e first scenario (Figure 5-6a) cattle were excluded from the land segments that were close to the flume (LS7 – LS12); in the second scenario cattle were excluded from the land segments that were away from the flume (LS1 – LS6); and finally in the third scenario all cattle were stocked on the land segment that adjoined the flume (LS11) and they were excluded from all other land segments. The three scenarios were designed to fence the cattle in various locations on the pasture to observe any changes in the nutrient loading. In total, five set of simulations were made using the ACRU2000 and the ACRU2000-HSI model and compared with observed P loading data (Figure 5-8). There is considerable difference in the nutrient predictions in the two versions of ACRU2000. The ACRU2000-HSI’s prediction of TP is less than ACRU2000 and closer to observed data (Figure 5-8). The ACRU2000 ve rsion assumed the animal manure to be distributed equally amongst all land segments The HSI version deposits manure on land segments based on the number of animals assigne d to specific land segments. However, in both versions the total quantity of manure remains same; therefore, some difference was anticipated yet the magnitude of difference required further investigation. It should be noted that even though there was provision to include animal manure in case of stocking in ACRU2000, there was no accountabili ty of forage consumption by grazing cattle. In the vegetation model, plant senescence is assume d to start when the daily sum of leaf areas of all species on one land segment exceeds the critical leaf area. Each vege tation species senesces biomass, N, and P in proportion to its leaf area. The daily tota l senesced biomass (Ws,i,t [kg/ha]) and the corresponding N (Ns,i,t [kg/ha]) and P and (Ps,i,t [kg/ha]) removed through the senesced biomass are given in Equation 4-13 to 4-15 of Chap ter 4. Since there was no consumption of the

PAGE 99

99 vegetation by grazing cattle in ACRU2000 there wa s a high amount of nutr ients being released from senesced biomass. This seems to have been corrected by the ACRU2000-HSI model where the cattle consume the vegetation as per their nutritional requirement. Figures 5-7 shows that when the cattle are closer to the flume there is reduction in nutrient load. This reduction can be expl ained by the change in quantity of senesced biomass that is closer to the flume. When there are more cattle present near the flume they consume more forage and hence reduction in senesced biomass. On th e other hand, when cattle are away from the flume there is increase in nutri ent load due to increase in a bove ground biomass that senesces and release nutrients. In the third scenario, when all the cattle are stoc ked on LS11 (land segment that is adjacent to flume) there is a slight in crease in nutrient loading. This increase can be attributed to the exorbitant st ocking rate (35 cows on 1.6 ha). A budget of the ACRU2000-HSI modeling syst em was prepared to quantify various “pools” of P using 6 years of simulation (Figure 59). It is evident that P from senesced residue (two order magnitude higher than P from def ecation) is the largest component. When the ACRU2000-HSI model is turned on, the grazing cat tle consume forage and reduce the amount of senesced residue (Equation 4-16) which consequen tly reduces P load. Within the model, only the top two layers (plant residue layer and soil surf ace layer) interact with su rface runoff; therefore a P budget with the top two layers of ACRU2000-HS I as a control volume was also computed (Figure 5-10). Apart from the P budget within the model domain it was also important to test the retention of P within the cattle over time (Figure 5-11). With the exception of initial increase, the P retained by cow remains within the bounds of 20-25 g. The P reta ined values correspond well to the values published in literature (NRC, 1996). The initial jump in P rete ntion can be explained

PAGE 100

100 by the utilization of nutrient uptake algorithms in the vegetation model (Yang, 2006). The N and P uptake algorithms in the vegetation model we re adopted from GLEAMS (Knisel and Davis, 1999) with a slight modification to account for the nutrient uptake by multiple plant species in one land segment. In the GLEAMS model the nutr ient uptake is based on demand and supply of nutrients. The P demand for sp ecies i at time t, DEMPi,t [kg/ha], is determined by the difference between the dry matter P on two successive days as: 1 t i t i t iTDMP TDMP DEMP (5-1) Uptake of labile P, UPLPi,t [kg/ha], is estimated for each layer where transpiration, occurs using t j i j d s t j iT CPLABW UPLP (5-2) where, CPLABWs,d,t, is the concentration of labile P. The total uptake of P is the sum over all species i and all layers j where transpiration occurs. The P take n up is converted into the plant biomass P: ij t j i t upUPLP P (5-3) where Pup,t is the plant biomass P [kg/ha]. The amount of initial biomass will dictate the role of P uptake during the initial pha se of simulation. It is perceived th at in some land segments there can be high initial biomass of any of the three vegetation species (Bahiagrass, Floralta, and Panicum). This will cause an increase in the supp ly of nutrients to support the growth of the vegetation. Thus, during the initial stages, consum ption of P enriched biomass is resulting in higher P retention within the cow’ s body. Over time, as the mode l equilibrates the high retention “levels-off” to a more sustainable level. Summary The algorithms in the HSI model are composed of “attractants” of cattle (shade, water trough, and wetland) and their we ighting factors. The HSI met hodology represents the dynamics

PAGE 101

101 of cattle distribution within the land segment system of ACRU2000 fairly well. The HSI model is not able to represent a resting/ruminating activ ity by cattle in a prefer red area of the pasture during the cool season. Consequently, the result of cattle population in that specific land segment is under predicted. Sensitivity analyses revealed a crucial difference between the HSI model and a typical process based modeling sy stem. Since the weighting factors must sum to 1.0, increase in the value of one parameter must correspond to comparable d ecrease in the value of other parameters. Hence, it is possible that the change in cattle distribution might not be only due to change in an individual parameter value but also due to change in other “adjusted” variables. Scenarios were tested to see any nutrient load changes associ ated with different spatial locations of cattle. Testing of cattle exclusion from certain land segments provided vital insights regarding the components that dictate nutrient loading in agro-ecosystems. The scenarios revealed that the nutrient loadi ng at summer pasture at BIR is mostly dictated by the N and P in senesced residue. Grazing cattle are a means of reducing the senesced biomass (as they consume forage) and consequently nutrient loadings. A P budget quantifies and supports this theory.

PAGE 102

102 Figure 5-1. Land segment Discretization of summer pastures 4 and 5 for ACRU2000-HSI.

PAGE 103

103 Figure 5-2. Calibration results on SP4 in warm season. Figure 5-3. Calibration resu lts on SP4 in cool season. WET WET WT, S WET WT = Water Trough S = Shade WET = WetlandACRU2000H.S.I. ACRU2K Mean of GPS WT, S WET WET WET WT = Water Trough S = Shade WET = WetlandACRU2000H.S.I. ACRU2K Mean of GPS

PAGE 104

104 Figure 5-4. Verification resu lts on SP5 in warm season. Figure 5-5. Verification resu lts on SP5 in cool season. WT, S WET WT = Water Trough S = Shade WET = WetlandACRU2000H.S.I. ACRU2K Mean of GPS WT, S WET WT = Water Trough S = Shade WET = WetlandACRU2000H.S.I. ACRU2K Mean of GPS

PAGE 105

105 (A) (B) (C) Figure 5-6. Hypothetical scen ario setup for ACRU2000-HSI mode l. (A) Away from flume (B) Close to Flume (C) All on LS11.

PAGE 106

106 Total Phosphorus Results Using ACRU2000-HSI Model0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.001/1/1998 4/1/1998 7/1/1998 10/1/1998 1/1/1999 4/1/1999 7/1/1999 10/1/1999 1/1/2000 4/1/2000 7/1/2000 10/1/2000 1/1/2001 4/1/2001 7/1/2001 10/1/2001 1/1/2002 4/1/2002 7/1/2002 10/1/2002 1/1/2003 4/1/2003 7/1/2003 10/1/2003TimeTotal Phosphorus (Kg/ha) Observed HSI Model HSI Model No Cows Figure 5-7. Total phosphorus re sults using ACRU2000-HSI model. Comparison of Total Phosphorus Results in a BMP Scenario0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.001/1/1998 4/1/1998 7/1/1998 10/1/1998 1/1/1999 4/1/1999 7/1/1999 10/1/1999 1/1/2000 4/1/2000 7/1/2000 10/1/2000 1/1/2001 4/1/2001 7/1/2001 10/1/2001 1/1/2002 4/1/2002 7/1/2002 10/1/2002 1/1/2003 4/1/2003 7/1/2003 10/1/2003TimeTotal Phosphorus (Kg/ha) Observed ACRU2000 ACRU2000/HSI Away Flume Close Flume All LS11 Figure 5-8. Total phosphorus results from various scenar ios in ACRU2000-HSI model.

PAGE 107

107 Complete Soil Profile Rain 2.43 kg/ha Defecation 3.95 kg/ha Senesced Residue 257.00 kg/ha Groundwater 1.26 kg/ha Runoff 10.54 kg/ha Uptake 503.64 kg/ha Figure 5-9. Phosphorus budget of complete model domain using simulated results. Plant Residue Layer Soil Surface Layer Rain 2.43 kg/ha Defecation 3.95 kg/ha Senesced Residue 257.00 kg/ha Groundwater 0.0 kg/ha Leaching 9.76 kg/ha Upward Flux 1.26 kg/ha Runoff 10.54 kg/ha Uptake 503.64 kg/ha Figure 5-10. Phosphorus budget of top two model layers using simulated results.

PAGE 108

108 Total Phosphorus Retained per Cow15 20 25 301/1/1998 4/1/1998 7/1/1998 10/1/1998 1/1/1999 4/1/1999 7/1/1999 10/1/1999 1/1/2000 4/1/2000 7/1/2000 10/1/2000 1/1/2001 4/1/2001 7/1/2001 10/1/2001 1/1/2002 4/1/2002 7/1/2002 10/1/2002 1/1/2003 4/1/2003 7/1/2003 10/1/2003TimeP Retained in Cattle (g) TP Retain Figure 5-11. Total phosphorus retained with in grazing cattle using simulated results. Table 5-1. Input parameters and their de scription used in the ACRU2000-HSI model. Parameter Description WWFAC Warm season water weighting factor WSAFC Warm season shade weighting factor WOVRLFAC Warm season forage weighting factor CWFAC Cool season water weighting factor WSAFC Cool season shade weighting factor COVRLFAC Cool season forage weighting factor V1FAC Weighting factor for vegetation 1 (Bahiagrass) V2FAC Weighting factor for vegetation 2 (Floralta) V3FAC Weighting factor for vegetation 3 (Panicum) Table 5-2. Values of input parameters used in the ACRU2000-HSI mo del after calibration. Forage 0.420 Shade 0.160 Summer Season Water 0.420 Forage 0.640 Shade 0.060 Winter Season Water 0.300 Bahiagrass 0.280 Floralta 0.280 Forage Panicum 0.440

PAGE 109

109 Table 5-3. Input parameter values used in sensitivity analysis. Parameter -100% -50% -25% Base +0.25%+50% +100% WWFAC 0.00 0.21 0.32 0.42 0.53 0.64 0.85 WSAFC 0.00 0.07 0.10 0.14 0.17 0.21 0.28 WOVRLFAC 0.00 0.21 0.32 0.42 0.53 0.64 0.85 CWFAC 0.00 0.15 0.22 0.30 0.38 0.45 0.60 WSAFC 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.12 COVRLFAC 0.00 0.31 0.47 0.63 0.79 0.95 1.00 V1FAC 0.00 0.14 0.21 0.28 0.35 0.42 0.57 V2FAC 0.00 0.14 0.21 0.28 0.35 0.42 0.57 V3FAC 0.00 0.21 0.32 0.43 0.53 0.64 0.86 Table 5-4 Example of adjusted weigh ting factors used in sensitivity analysis. -100% -0.50%-0.25%Base+0.25%+50% +100% WWFAC 0.000 0.2150.3220.4290.5360.644 0.858 WSAFAC 0.330 0.1890.1620.1430.1150.088 0.035 WOVRLFAC 0.670 0.6030.5210.4290.3490.268 0.107

PAGE 110

110 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Lake Okeechobee, the second largest fres hwater body located wholly within the continental United States is located at th e center of the Kissimmee-Okeechobee-Everglades aquatic ecosystem in south Florida. Non-point agricultural runoff from dairies and cow-calf operations in the northern watershed of the lake is considered to be the primary source of excess phosphorus (P) loading discharged into the la ke. To protect the water quality of Lake Okeechobee and reach environmental restoration goals, a variety of BMPs pertaining to cow-calf operations can be implemented in the Lake Okee chobee watershed. Significant uncertainty exists in the perceived and actual efficiency of these proposed BMPs. Decades of work in hydrologic monitoring a nd modeling has been carried out in the regions of South Florida. However, an integrated research approach is required that can help explain how agricultural activities contribute to, and can be modified to ameliorate P loading problems. All the components in grazing lands of complex agro-ecosystems are still largely unknown. If the BMPs are to minimize the impact of beef cattle productio n on water bodies in South Florida, a better understanding of beef cattle utilization of natural (wetland) and artificial (ditches and water trough) wa ter sources is necessary. GPS Collar Analysis To quantify the amount of time spent by grazing cattle near or in water locations, spatially and temporally explicit position data from GPS collars in an agro-eco system were gathered. Analysis of GPS locations identified, quantifie d and eventually derived important information regarding cattle utilizatio n of water sources, shade, MCP area and distance traveled (Chapter 3). This analysis provided vital in sights regarding cattle’s preferen ces and their behavior. It was evident that cattle’s behavior and utilization of biotic as well as abiotic features was seasonal.

PAGE 111

111 Some features were utilized more in the cool season whereas some more in the warm. Also, based on presence or absence of water, the cattle di splayed different interest in features such as wetlands. Even though the GPS collar analysis was not explicitly used for parameterizing the HSI model, it proved vital in the identification of the attributes that dictate the distribution of cattle. HSI Model To comprehensively represent the agro-ecosystem as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of the BMPs, an eco-hydrological model that incor porates simple algorithms pertaining to spatial distribution of cattle was developed. There is limite d data available to establish and calibrate an animal distribution model for any region of south east. Therefore, a simple model that avoids overwhelming data requirements, but is still capable of capturing the animal dynamics in a logical manner was developed as a practical first approach. Wh en sufficient data become available in the future, the model can be furt her improved and calibrate d. A cattle distribution model was designed to integrate as a module with the current hydr ology, nutrient and vegetation modules within ACRU2000 for south Florida fl atwoods watersheds. The module was developed within the Java-based, object-oriented fram ework of the existing ACRU2000 model (Campbell et al., 2001; Kiker and Clark, 2001). The algorithms are composed of “attractants” of cattle (shade, water, and forage) and their weighting f actors. The attractants were determined based on the features that exist in the la ndscape of this region. Weighti ng factors were determined using surveys from experts and were then calibrated to obtain better results. The previous version of ACRU2000 did not ac count for consumption of forages by grazing cattle, if they are present. Integration with the vegetation model now accounts for vegetation to be consumed by grazing cattle. Cattle consum e the three vegetation functional groups based on the analytical hierarchy process that is elucidated in Chapter 4. The HSI model now accounts for

PAGE 112

112 deposition of cattle manure on land segments base d upon the number of cattle present on a daily basis. Since the number of cattle that are present on each land segment is now based upon the HSI system, the cattle population on each land segm ent might change daily. Therefore, instead of a uniform deposition of animal manure within the modeling domain, a spatially dynamic deposition occurs that varies temporally as well. The HSI model has now allowed a more realistic and comprehensive representation of the agro-ecosystems of south Florida. A hypothetical test was designed to determine whether the HSI model can be utilized as a tool to determine the feasibility of a water qua lity-BMP with P loading as an objective function. Modeling scenarios were designed to mimic rest rictive access of cattle. The results from these scenarios were often counter intuitive. The results showed that when the cattle are closer to the flume there is reduction in P load. When more cattle are present near the fume, they consume more forage and thus reduce the pool of senesced biomass (near the flume) which consequently reduces the P loading. Since he rbaceous vegetation is abundant at BIR (even after reduction of aboveground biomass through grazing) the P release from senesced biomass supersedes all other sources of nutrient. A P budget was computed to quantify this phenomenon. The agro-ecosystem at BIR is unique in the sense that the presence of cattle seems to have few measurable effect on P in runoff during six years of model simulation. Similar effects were noted by Capece et al. (2006) in their stocking rate expe riment carried out at the experi mental pastures of BIR. Capece et al. (2006) noted that variati ons in stocking rate had no signi ficant effect on nutrients. They hypothesized that P loads were proba bly related to historic use of P fertilizer and not due to cattle stocking rates. The authors suggested that decreasing the movement of accumulated soil phosphorus into surface runoff would be more effective approach than focusing on cattle

PAGE 113

113 management for reducing P loads in surface r unoff from cattle pastures. The simulated BMP scenarios of ACRU2000-HSI tend to agree with the Capece et al. (2006) observations. Management Implications From a BMP implementation perspective, it is important to identify the primary source of P in the system before considering any management strategy. In the case of BIR, it was assumed that cattle were depositing a subs tantial amount of P that eventual ly discharged in the form of surface runoff and sub-surface lateral flow from th e edge of the field. However, simulating the effects of fencing in selected pa sture areas on BIR revealed that the senesced biomass is a more significant store of P than animal defecation. In this specific case at BIR, any BMP designed to reduce P from cattle manure would probably ha ve little impact. Removal or cropping of aboveground vegetation may be an effective alte rnative practice to reduce P loading. Further experimental studies would be needed to ve rify the effectiveness of this practice. There are a few general management implicatio ns that can also be drawn from the GPS collar analysis and ACRU2000-HSI model application at BIR. Cattle are likely to be attracted to ditches and wetlands, which can be source of water and forage. The length of time cattle spend in a particular area influences the amount of feces deposited in that area. Even though the ACRU2000-HSI model application at BIR suggest that cattle may not be a significant contributor towards P loading, deposition of fecal matter directly into a stream can potentially increase the P loading. Manipulation of the availabi lity of the attractive features (shade, salt lick) near the stream can also be carried out to reduce the time spent in/near these areas. Future Research Recommendation Following are some recommendations for resear chers who may be interested in further developing ACRU2000:

PAGE 114

114 Herbivore Physiological Representation Apart from the factors used in the HSI model (i .e. water features, shade, forage), there are other aspects that also determine the behavior of grazing cattle. It has been documented that herbivores graze to satisfy their nutritiona l requirements (NRC, 1996; 2001). Some basic physiological aspects need to be incorporated into the model in order for it to be comprehensive. Factors such as energy and protei n requirement, and herbage intake need to be included into the HSI model. Stream Routing Algorithm The current ACRU2000 model does not have a stream routing algorithm. An algorithm that routes water and its constitu ents through land segments and attenuates to a stream system is highly recommended. Attenuation of flow and nutrient dynamics w ithin the stream should be incorporated as well. A mechanism should be deve loped that will allow user to define a stream network within their modeling domain. This mechanism should also account for direct deposition of animal manure within a stream system. Graphical User Interface A graphical user interf ace would be a very helpful feature for the current ACRU2000. This feature would be especially helpful when the mo del would be required to be set up for a large watershed with multiple land segments. Entering values of various required parameters and initial boundary conditions for each individual la nd segment file is very cumbersome. A GISbased user interface can be utilized to auto generate inputs such as area, centroid, length of land segment sides, adjoining land segments etc. Th e GIS-based user interf ace can be utilized to define and parameterize stream networ k within the model domain as well.

PAGE 115

115 Conclusion Extensive animal operations along with rapi dly increasing urban development in South Florida have stressed the fragile ecosystem that ex ists in the region. One of the stress is due to non-point source pollution of P from the agricultu ral industry located north of Lake Okeechobee. The main focus of this dissertation was to analyze the temporal and spatial location of cattle and to incorporate basic algorithms of cattle distri bution in a regionally tested hydrological/water quality model. The GPS analysis quantified the average percentage of daily time spent by cattle near/in water locations (water trough, wetland and ditch) and sh ade during the warm and cool season. The ACRU2000-HSI model algorithms were developed using the t echnique of habitat suitability index and the weighti ngs of variables were obtained from expert opinion using the analytical hierarchy process. The ACRU2000-HS I model development now accounts for forage consumption by grazing cattle, which was previously not represented by ACRU2000. To represent a complex ecological system with in a modeling domain requires synthesis of current scientific understanding, field observations, and expert judgment. Integrated modeling approaches can help to achieve this goal. The addition of the new HSI model as a module into ACRU2000 has made it more robust and comprehens ive for application in agro-ecosystems of south Florida. Application of the ACRU2000-HSI model on Buck Island Ranch has proven useful in its representation of cattle distri bution and enhanced nutrient load prediction.

PAGE 116

116 APPENDIX A LIST OF NEW AND MODIFIED OBJECTS Following are process and data objects that were added or modified to the ACRU2000 modeling system. New Process Objects PCalculateHabitatSuitabilityIndex PDefecation PForageConsumption New Data Objects DCattleExclusion DCoolShadeAreaWeightingFactor DCoolWaterWeightingFactor DDefecation DHabitatSuitabilityIndex DLandSegmentCattle DOverallForageWeightingFactor DShadeArea DTemperatureHumidityIndex DTotalNumberOfCattle DVegetationWeightingFactor DWarmShadeAreaWeightingFactor DWarmWaterWeightingFactor DWaterTroughPresence DWetlandPresence Description of New Process Objects PCalculateHabitatSuitabilityIndex This process can be described in 5 steps. The firs t step checks for the time of the year i.e. warm season or cool season. In the s econd step, the process loops through all land segments and based on the presence of features (water, shade, and fo rage), a HSI is computed for individual land segments. The third step normalizes the HSI th roughout the model domain. The fourth step is distribution of animals on all la nd segments according to the normalized HSI. The fifth and final step is computation of THI and redistribution of animals based on the threshold value of THI.

PAGE 117

117 PDefecation This process determines the amount of solid manure deposited on each land segment based on number of cattle present on land segment. PForageConsuption This process determines the amount of fora ge consumed from each land segment based on number of cattle present on the land segment. Description of Ne w Data Objects DCattleExclusion This DInteger data object contains a value of 0/1 (Include/Exclude). This value determines whether cattle are to be included or excluded from land segment. (Unit less) DCoolShadeAreaWeightingFactor This DDouble data object contains the weighting factor of shade area for the cool season. (Unit less) DCoolWaterWeightingFactor This DDouble data object contains the weighting factor of water feature for the cool season. (Unit less) DDefecation This DDouble data object contains the amount of animal manure on in dividual land segments based on the number of animals present on land segments. (kg/ha/day) DHabitatSuitabilityIndex This DDouble data object contains the Habitat Suita bility Index of each land segment. (Unit less) DLandSegmentCattle This DDouble data object contains the total num ber of animals in individual land segments. (Unit less) DOverallForageWeightingFactor This DDouble data object contains the we ighting factor of forage. (Unit less)

PAGE 118

118 DShadeArea This DDouble data object contains the value of the area of shade in a land segment. (m2) DTempratureHumidityIndex This DDouble data object contains the te mperature humidity index. (Unit less) DTotalNumberofCattle This DDouble data object contains the total numbe r of animals in the entire modeling domain. (Unit less) DVegetationWeightingFactor This DDouble data object contains the weighting factor of indivi dual forage species. (Unit less) DWarmShadeAreaWeightingFactor This DDouble data object contains the weighting factor of shade area for the warm season. (Unit less) DWarmWaterWeightingFactor This DDouble data object contains the weighting factor of water features for the warm season. (Unit less) DWaterTroughPresence This DInteger data object cont ains a 0/1 (absent/present) va lue indicating the presence or absence of a water trough in a land segment. (Unit less) DWetlandPresence This DInteger data object cont ains a 0/1 (absent/present) va lue indicating the presence or absence of a wetland in a land segment. (Unit less)

PAGE 119

119 APPENDIX B HSI MODEL PROCESSES UNIFIED M ODELING LANGUAGE (UML) DIAGRAMS Figure B-1. PCalculateHabitatSuitabilityIndex UML diagram.

PAGE 120

120 Figure B-2. PForageConsumption UML diagram.

PAGE 121

121 Figure B-3. PDefecation UML diagram.

PAGE 122

122 APPENDIX C SURVEY FOR DETERMINATION OF WEIGHTING FACTORS Figure C-1. Cattle preference of features in a pasture during summer. Figure C-2. Cattle preference of f eatures in a pasture during winter. Figure C-3. Cattle preference of forage species in a pasture. This survey asks you to identify the importance of one feature with respect to the other (e.g., Forage vs. Shade). Each comparison assumes al l other features to be constant. On a scale of 1-9, you may circle the number that you believe best represents the preference of cattle. For example:

PAGE 123

123 If you believe for a cattle during a typical summer day in Florida remaining in the shade is more important than spending time eating fo rage, you would circle a number on the right portion of the scale (Figure A-3). If you believe that the shade is “equally” impor tant as forage you will circle 1 (triangle) If you believe that the shade is “somewhat” important than forage you will circle 4 (square) If you believe that the shade is “extremely ” important than forage you will circle 9 (diamond) Figure C-4. Example illustrating identification of the relative importance of one feature over the other on the scale provided in the survey.

PAGE 124

124 APPENDIX D WEIGHTING FACTORS DETE RMINED BY SURVEY Table D-1. Summary of weightings of features as gene rated by the LDW program based on the survey. Summer Season Winter Season Participant Forage Shade Water Forage Shade Water Researcher-1 0.523 0.284 0.193 0.474 0.053 0.474 Researcher-2 0.429 0.143 0.429 0.633 0.063 0.304 Extension Agent-1 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.637 0.105 0.258 Extension Agent-2 0.311 0.493 0.196 0.691 0.149 0.160 Rancher-1 0.500 0.064 0.437 0.367 0.051 0.582 Rancher-2 0.484 0.092 0.423 0.472 0.084 0.444 Table D-2. Summary of weightings of three forage speci es as generated by the LDW program based on the survey. Forage Participant Bahiagrass FloraltaPanicumResearcher -1 0.519 0.177 0.304 Researcher -2 0.086 0.297 0.618 Extension Agent-1 0.687 0.244 0.069 Extension Agent-2 0.649 0.279 0.072 Rancher-1 0.637 0.258 0.105 Rancher-2 0.353 0.586 0.061 Figure D-1. Range of weighting of features in warm and cool seasons.

PAGE 125

125 Figure D-2. Range of weighti ng of the three forage species.

PAGE 126

126 APPENDIX E RESULTS FROM SURVEY Figure E-1. Simulation result on SP4 in warm s eason using weighting factors of researcher-1. Figure E-2. Simulation result on SP4 in cool s eason using weighting factors of researcher-1. WT = Water Trough S = Shade WET = Wetland ACRU2K/H.S.I. ACRU2K Mean of GPS WT, S WET WT = Water Trough S = Shade WET = Wetland ACRU2K/H.S.I. ACRU2K Mean of GPS WT, S WET

PAGE 127

127 Figure E-3. Simulation result on SP4 in warm s eason using weighting factors of researcher-2. Figure E-4. Simulation result on SP4 in cool s eason using weighting factors of researcher-2. WT = Water Trough S = Shade WET = Wetland ACRU2K/H.S.I. ACRU2K Mean of GPS WT, S WET WT = Water Trough S = Shade WET = Wetland ACRU2K/H.S.I. ACRU2K Mean of GPS WT, S WET

PAGE 128

128 Figure E-5. Simulation result on SP4 in warm s eason using weighting factors of extension agent -1. Figure E-6. Simulation result on SP4 in cool seas on using weighting factors of extension agent 1. WT = Water Trough S = Shade WET = Wetland ACRU2K/H.S.I. ACRU2K Mean of GPS WT, S WET WT = Water Trough S = Shade WET = Wetland ACRU2K/H.S.I. ACRU2K Mean of GPS WT, S WET

PAGE 129

129 Figure E-7. Simulation result on SP4 in warm s eason using weighting factors of extension agent -2. Figure E-8. Simulation result on SP4 in cool seas on using weighting factors of extension agent 2. WT = Water Trough S = Shade WET = Wetland ACRU2K/H.S.I. ACRU2K Mean of GPS WT, S WET WT = Water Trough S = Shade WET = Wetland ACRU2K/H.S.I. ACRU2K Mean of GPS WT, S WET

PAGE 130

130 Figure E-9. Simulation result on SP4 in warm season using weighting factors of rancher -1. Figure E-10. Simulation result on SP4 in cool season using weighting factors of rancher -1. WT = Water Trough S = Shade WET = Wetland ACRU2K/H.S.I. ACRU2K Mean of GPS WT, S WET WT = Water Trough S = Shade WET = Wetland ACRU2K/H.S.I. ACRU2K Mean of GPS WT, S WET

PAGE 131

131 Figure E-11. Simulation result on SP4 in warm season using weighting factors of rancher -2. Figure E-12. Simulation result on SP4 in cool season using weighting factors of rancher -2. WT = Water Trough S = Shade WET = Wetland ACRU2K/H.S.I. ACRU2K Mean of GPS WT, S WET WT = Water Trough S = Shade WET = Wetland ACRU2K/H.S.I. ACRU2K Mean of GPS WT, S WET

PAGE 132

132 APPENDIX F SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS RESULTS Table F-1. Weighting factors used in sensitivity analysis. -100% -0.50%-0.25%BASE+0.25%+50% +100% WWFAC 0.000 0.2150.3220.4290.5360.644 0.858 WSAFAC 0.330 0.1890.1620.1430.1150.088 0.035 WOVRLFAC 0.670 0.6030.5210.4290.3490.268 0.107 WSAFC 0.000 0.0720.1070.1430.1790.215 0.286 WWFAC 0.500 0.4640.4460.4290.4100.392 0.357 WOVRLFAC 0.500 0.4640.4460.4290.4100.392 0.357 WOVRLFAC 0.000 0.2150.3220.4290.5360.644 0.858 WWFAC 0.751 0.5900.5090.4290.4100.392 0.357 WSAFC 0.248 0.1950.1690.1430.4100.392 0.357 CWFAC 0.000 0.1520.2280.3040.3800.456 0.608 CSAFAC 0.010 0.0800.0720.0630.0620.054 0.035 COVRLFAC 0.990 0.8000.7200.6330.5600.490 0.357 CSAFC 0.000 0.0320.0470.0630.0790.095 0.126 CWFAC 0.324 0.3140.3090.3040.2990.294 0.284 COVRLFAC 0.675 0.6540.6430.6330.6220.611 0.590 COVRLFAC 0.000 0.3170.4750.6330.7910.950 1.266 CWFAC 0.833 0.5690.4370.3040.1740.041 0.000 CSAFC 0.167 0.1140.0880.0630.0350.009 0.000 V1FAC 0.000 0.1430.2140.2850.3560.428 0.570 V2FAC 0.397 0.3400.3120.2850.2640.228 0.171 V3FAC 0.602 0.5160.4730.4300.3800.344 0.259 V2FAC 0.000 0.1430.2140.2850.3560.428 0.570 V1FAC 0.397 0.3400.3120.2850.2640.228 0.171 V3FAC 0.602 0.5160.4730.4300.3800.344 0.259 V3FAC 0.000 0.2150.3230.4300.5380.645 0.860 V1FAC 0.500 0.3920.3380.2850.2310.177 0.070 V2FAC 0.500 0.3920.3380.2850.2310.177 0.070 Variable above the dotted line was varied for sensitivity analysis and the variables below the dotted line were adjusted so the sum of all three variables amounted to 1.

PAGE 133

133 Table F-2. Sensitivity of water, shade and fora ge weighting factors in warm season (reported as percentage difference of base simulation on each land segment of SP5). WWFAC -100% -0.50%-0.25%+0.25%+50% +100% LS1 -10.71 -7.14-10.71 -17.86-25.00 -53.57 LS2 -10.77 -47.69-32.31 13.8549.23 189.23 LS3 17.86 25.0021.43 10.710.00 -35.71 LS4 -13.33 -6.67-6.67 -20.00-26.67 -53.33 LS5 10.53 21.0515.79 5.26-5.26 -39.47 LS6 -13.33 -6.67-6.67 -20.00-26.67 -53.33 LS7 3.57 10.717.14 -3.57-10.71 -42.86 LS8 -15.38 -7.69-7.69 -23.08-30.77 -53.85 LS9 12.50 21.8818.75 6.25-3.13 -37.50 LS10 3.57 10.717.14 -3.57-10.71 -42.86 LS11 10.53 21.0515.79 5.26-5.26 -39.47 LS12 -10.53 -5.26-10.53 -15.79-26.32 -52.63WSAFAC -100% -0.50%-0.25%+0.25%+50% +100% LS1 -53.57 -28.57-14.29 14.2932.14 64.29 LS2 6.15 3.081.54 -1.54-3.08 -6.15 LS3 0.00 0.00-3.57 -3.57-7.14 -10.71 LS4 6.67 0.000.00 0.00-6.67 -6.67 LS5 5.26 2.630.00 -2.63-2.63 -5.26 LS6 6.67 0.000.00 0.00-6.67 -6.67 LS7 3.57 0.000.00 0.00-3.57 -7.14 LS8 0.00 0.000.00 -7.69-7.69 -7.69 LS9 3.12 0.000.00 -3.13-3.13 -9.38 LS10 3.57 0.000.00 -3.57-3.57 -7.14 LS11 5.26 2.632.63 0.000.00 -5.26 LS12 5.26 0.000.00 0.000.00 -5.26 WOVRLFAC -100% -0.50%-0.25%+0.25%+50% +100% LS1 207.14 46.4317.86 67.8650.00 21.43 LS2 304.62 70.7727.69 -18.46-26.15 -36.92 LS3 -100.00 -25.00-10.71 -7.140.00 3.57 LS4 -100.00 -26.67-13.33 0.000.00 6.67 LS5 -100.00 -23.68-7.89 -2.632.63 7.89 LS6 -100.00 -26.67-13.33 0.000.00 6.67 LS7 -100.00 -21.43-10.71 -3.573.57 7.14 LS8 -100.00 -23.08-15.38 -7.690.00 7.69 LS9 -100.00 -25.00-12.50 -6.250.00 3.12 LS10 -100.00 -21.43-7.14 -3.573.57 7.14 LS11 -100.00 -23.68-7.89 -2.632.63 7.89 LS12 -100.00 -26.32-10.53 0.000.00 5.26

PAGE 134

134 Table F-3. Sensitivity of the three vegetation sp ecies weighting factors in warm season (reported as percentage difference of base si mulation on each land segment of SP5). V1FAC -100% -0.50%-0.25%+0.25%+50% +100% LS1 -28.57 -10.71-7.14 3.5710.71 17.86 LS2 9.23 4.621.54 -1.54-4.62 -7.69 LS3 42.86 17.867.14 -10.71-17.86 -28.57 LS4 -73.33 -33.33-13.33 13.3326.67 46.67 LS5 23.68 10.535.26 -2.63-5.26 -13.16 LS6 -73.33 -33.33-13.33 13.3326.67 46.67 LS7 0.00 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 LS8 -100.00 -46.15-23.08 15.3830.77 61.54 LS9 46.88 18.759.38 -9.38-18.75 -31.25 LS10 0.00 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 LS11 23.68 10.535.26 -2.63-7.89 -13.16 LS12 -42.11 -21.05-10.53 5.2610.53 21.05V2FAC -100% -0.50%-0.25%+0.25%+50% +100% LS1 3.57 3.570.00 0.00-3.57 -3.57 LS2 -13.85 -7.69-3.08 4.627.69 18.46 LS3 10.71 7.143.57 -7.14-10.71 -17.86 LS4 6.67 0.000.00 0.00-6.67 -6.67 LS5 5.26 2.632.63 0.00-2.63 -5.26 LS6 6.67 0.000.00 0.00-6.67 -6.67 LS7 -3.57 -3.570.00 0.000.00 3.57 LS8 23.08 7.690.00 -7.69-15.38 -30.77 LS9 -3.13 -3.13-3.13 -3.13-3.13 -3.13 LS10 -3.57 -3.570.00 0.000.00 3.57 LS11 5.26 2.632.63 0.00-2.63 -5.26 LS12 -15.79 -10.53-5.26 5.2610.53 21.05 V3FAC -100% -0.50%-0.25%+0.25%+50% +100% LS1 21.43 10.713.57 -3.57-10.71 -25.00 LS2 7.69 3.081.54 -1.54-4.62 -10.77 LS3 -57.14 -28.57-17.86 14.2932.14 71.43 LS4 53.33 26.6713.33 -20.00-33.33 -73.33 LS5 -23.68 -13.16-5.26 7.8915.79 34.21 LS6 53.33 26.6713.33 -20.00-33.33 -73.33 LS7 3.57 0.000.00 0.00-3.57 -7.14 LS8 53.85 23.0815.38 -23.08-38.46 -76.92 LS9 -43.75 -25.00-12.50 9.3821.88 53.13 LS10 3.57 3.570.00 0.000.00 -3.57 LS11 -23.68 -13.16-5.26 7.8915.79 34.21 LS12 52.63 26.3210.53 -15.79-36.84 -73.68

PAGE 135

135 Table F-4. Sensitivity of water, shade and fora ge weighting factors in cool season (reported as percentage difference of base simulation on each land segment of SP5). CWFAC -100% -0.50%-0.25%+0.25%+50% +100% LS1 -15.79 5.265.26 0.000.00 -15.79 LS2 -45.24 -21.43-9.52 30.9554.76 119.05 LS3 6.45 0.000.00 -6.45-9.68 -19.35 LS4 -5.26 -10.53-10.53 -15.79-15.79 -26.32 LS5 6.82 0.000.00 -6.82-9.09 -18.18 LS6 -5.26 -10.53-10.53 -15.79-15.79 -26.32 LS7 25.93 18.5214.81 11.117.41 -3.70 LS8 14.29 7.147.14 0.00-7.14 -14.29 LS9 5.56 0.00-2.78 -8.33-11.11 -19.44 LS10 25.93 18.5214.81 11.117.41 -3.70 LS11 2.27 2.270.00 -6.82-9.09 -18.18 LS12 4.55 0.000.00 -9.09-9.09 -18.18 CSAFAC -100% -0.50%-0.25%+0.25%+50% +100% LS1 -21.05 -10.53-5.26 10.5315.79 31.58 LS2 2.38 2.382.38 0.000.00 0.00 LS3 0.00 0.000.00 0.00-3.23 -3.23 LS4 0.00 0.000.00 0.000.00 -5.26 LS5 0.00 0.000.00 -2.27-2.27 -2.27 LS6 0.00 0.000.00 0.000.00 -5.26 LS7 0.00 0.000.00 0.000.00 -3.70 LS8 7.14 7.147.14 0.000.00 0.00 LS9 0.00 0.000.00 -2.78-2.78 -2.78 LS10 3.70 3.703.70 0.000.00 0.00 LS11 0.00 0.000.00 -2.27-2.27 -2.27 LS12 0.00 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 COVRLFAC -100% -0.50%-0.25%+0.25%+50% +100% LS1 205.26 36.8415.79 -5.26-10.53 -10.53 LS2 592.86 107.1440.48 -23.81-42.86 -45.24 LS3 -100.00 -19.35-9.68 3.239.68 12.90 LS4 -100.00 -21.05-10.53 5.2610.53 10.53 LS5 -100.00 -20.45-6.82 4.55-9.09 -9.09 LS6 -100.00 -21.05-5.26 5.2610.53 10.53 LS7 -100.00 -14.813.70 3.707.41 7.41 LS8 -100.00 -21.43-7.14 7.1414.29 14.29 LS9 -100.00 -22.22-8.33 5.5611.11 11.11 LS10 -100.00 -11.11-3.70 3.7011.11 11.11 LS11 -100.00 -20.45-6.82 4.559.09 11.36 LS12 -100.00 -13.64-4.55 4.559.09 9.09

PAGE 136

136 Table F-5. Sensitivity of the three vegetation sp ecies weighting factors in cool season (reported as percentage difference of base si mulation on each land segment of SP5). V1FAC -100% -0.50%-0.25%+0.25%+50% +100% LS1 -10.53 -15.79-5.26 -5.26-10.53 47.37 LS2 107.14 7.1440.48 -23.81-42.86 21.43 LS3 22.58 61.29-9.68 3.239.68 -51.61 LS4 -15.79 -15.79-10.53 5.2610.53 42.11 LS5 -38.64 -31.82-6.82 4.55-9.09 -38.64 LS6 -10.53 -15.79-5.26 5.2610.53 42.11 LS7 -14.81 -14.813.70 3.707.41 37.04 LS8 -100.00 -35.71-7.14 7.1414.29 64.29 LS9 2.78 13.89-8.33 5.5611.11 -44.44 LS10 -11.11 -11.11-3.70 3.7011.11 37.04 LS11 -20.45 20.45-6.82 4.559.09 -47.73 LS12 0.00 -9.09-4.55 4.559.09 36.36V2FAC -100% -0.50%-0.25%+0.25%+50% +100% LS1 47.37 10.530.00 5.2610.53 15.79 LS2 19.05 4.760.00 4.7611.90 28.57 LS3 25.81 16.136.45 -3.230.00 0.00 LS4 15.79 0.00-5.26 0.000.00 -5.26 LS5 -31.82 -25.00-18.18 -4.55-6.82 -13.64 LS6 15.79 0.00-5.26 0.000.00 0.00 LS7 -3.70 0.007.41 0.007.41 3.70 LS8 57.14 14.290.00 0.000.00 0.00 LS9 -30.56 2.788.33 -2.78-2.78 -8.33 LS10 -3.70 0.00-3.70 3.703.70 3.70 LS11 -31.82 -4.556.82 -2.27-6.82 -13.64 LS12 0.00 4.550.00 0.000.00 -4.55 V3FAC -100% -0.50%-0.25%+0.25%+50% +100% LS1 89.47 36.8421.05 -10.530.00 36.84 LS2 42.86 16.679.52 -2.3821.43 135.71 LS3 -77.42 -41.94-22.58 35.4835.48 3.23 LS4 68.42 26.3210.53 -15.79-10.53 -15.79 LS5 -50.00 -15.91-6.82 -22.73-29.55 -43.18 LS6 68.42 26.3215.79 -15.79-10.53 -15.79 LS7 25.93 25.9314.81 -14.813.70 -11.11 LS8 114.29 50.0021.43 -14.29-14.29 -28.57 LS9 -77.78 -44.44-22.22 47.222.78 -16.67 LS10 25.93 29.6314.81 -11.113.70 -7.41 LS11 -63.64 -36.36-18.18 0.00-18.18 -36.36 LS12 54.55 22.7313.64 -9.0913.64 -4.55

PAGE 137

137 LIST OF REFERENCES Abbott, C. A., Berry, M. W., Comiskey, E. J., Gr oss, L. J., and Luh, H. K. 1995. Computational models of white tailed deer in the Fl orida Evergaldes. UTK-CS. Available At: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~berry/deer/d eer.html Accessed: 18 August 2006. ABGI (American Biomedical Group Inc.) 2005. Cattle-Traq. Available At: http://www.cattletraq.com Accessed: 18 August 2006. Agouridis, C. T., T. S. Stombaugh, S. R. Workman, B. K. Koostr a, D. R. Edwards, and E. S. Vanzant. 2004. Suitability of a GPS collar for grazing systems. Trans. ASAE 47(4): 13211329. Agouridis, C. T., S. R. Workma n, R. C. Warner, and G. D Jennings. 2005. Livestock grazing management impacts on stream water quality: A review. J. American Water Resource Assoc. 41(3): 591-606. Akakaya, H. R. 2001. Linking pop ulation-level risk assessment with landscape and habitat models. The Science of the Total Environment 274:283-291 Akakaya, H. R., M. A. Burgman, and L. R. Ginzburg. 1999. Applied Population Ecology: Principles and Computer Ex ercises using RAMAS EcoLab 2.0. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. Allen, T. E., J. W. Bennett, S. M. Donegan, and J. C. D. Hutchingson. 1970. Moisture, its accumulation and site of evaporation in the coats of sweating cattle. J. Ag. Sc 74: 247-58. Allen, A. W., J. G. Cook, and M. J. Armb ruster. 1984. Habitat suit ability index models: Pronghorm. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. FWS/OBS-82/10.65. 22p. Allen, L. H. Jr., J. M. Ruddell, G. J. Rutter, and P. Yates. 1982. Land effects on Taylor Creek water quality. In: E.G. Kruse, C.R. Burdick and Y.A. Yousef (Eds.), Environmentally Sound Water and Soil Management, American So ciety of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 67-77. Anderson, E. W. 1967. Grazing systems as methods of managing the range resources. J. Range Mgmt. 20: 383-388. Applied Mathematics. 2003. A short introduction to metapopulation models and GIS. Available at: http://www.ramas.com/mpmodels.htm Accessed 18 August 2006. Armstrong, D. V. 1994. Heat stress interactions with shade and cooling. J. Dairy Sci. 77: 20442050 Arthington, J. D., F. M. Roka, J. J. Mullahey, S. W. Coleman, L. O. Lollis, and R. M. Muchovej. 2006. Integrating ranch forage production, cattle performance and economics in ranch management systems. Rangeland Ecology and Mgmt. 60(1).

PAGE 138

138 ASAE (American Society of Agricultural Engi neers) Standards, 2000. D384.1 DEC99: Manure Production and Characteristics St. Joseph, MI.: ASAE. Bagshaw, C. S. 2001. Factors influencing cattl e (Bos Taurus) use of streams. PhD diss. University of Auckland, Department of Psychology. Bagshaw, C. S. 2002. Factors infl uencing direct deposition of cattl e fecal material in riparian zones. MAF Technical Paper No: 2002/19, Wellington, New Zealand. Bailey, D. W. 2004. Management strategies for optimal grazing distribu tion and use of arid rangelands. J. Animal Sci. 82(E. Suppl): E147-E153. Bailey, D. W., J. E. Gross, E. A. Laca, L. R. Rittenhouse, M. B. Coughenour, D. M. Swift, and P. L. Sims. 1996. Mechanisms that result in large herbivore grazing distribution patterns. J. Range Mgmt. 49: 386-400. Bailey, D. W., M. R. Keil, and L. R. Rittenhouse. 2004. Research observation: Daily movement patterns of hill climbing and bottom dwelling cows. J. Range Mgmt. 51(1): 20-28. Bailey, D. W., D. D. Kress, D. C. Anderson, D. L. Boss, and E. T. Miller. 2001. Relationship between terrain use and perf ormance of beef cows gr azing foothill rangeland. J. Animal Sci. 79: 1883-1891. Bailey, D. W. and L. R. Rittenhouse. 1989a. Management of cattle distribution. Rangelands 11: 159-161. Bailey, D. W., L. R. Rittenhouse, R. H. Hart, and R. W. Richards. 1989b. Characteristics of spatial memory in cattle. Applied Animal Behavior Sci. 23: 331-340. Bailey, D. W., L. R. Rittenhouse, R. H. Hart D. M. Swift, and R. W. Richards. 1989c. Association of relative food avai labilities and locations by cattle. J. Range Mgmt. 42: 480482. Ballard, T. M. and W. C. Krueger. 2005. Cattle a nd Salmon: cattle distribution and behavior in a northeastern Oregon riparian ecosystem. Rangeland Ecology & Mgmt 58(3): 267-273. Beede, D. K., and R. J. Collier. 1986. Potentia l nutritional strategies for intensively managed cattle during thermal stress. J. Animal Sci. 13: 227-236. Belsky, A. J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 54(1): 419431. Bennett, I. L., V. A. Finch, and C. R. Holmes 1985. Time spent in shade and its relationship with physiological factors of thermo-r egulation in three breeds of cattle. Applied Animal Behavior Sci. 13: 227-236.

PAGE 139

139 Bennett, I. L. and C. R. Holmes. 1987. Formation of a feeding order in a group of cattle and its relationship with grazing behaviour heat-tolerance and production. Applied Animal Behavior Sci. 17: 9-18. Blackshaw, J. K. and A. W. Blackshaw. 1994. Heat stress in cattle and the effect of shade on production and behaviour: a review. Australian J. Experimental Agriculture 34: 285-295. Blatie, D. 1980. Land into Water-Water into Land Florida State University Press, Tallahassee, FL. Bond, T. E., C. F. Kelly, and Jr. H. Heitman. 1958. Improving livestock environment in hightemperature areas. J. Heredity: 49: 75-79. Bottcher, A. B., T. K. Tremwel and K. L. Camp bell. 1995. Best management practices for water quality improvement in the Lake Okeechobee watershed. Ecol. Eng. 5: 341-356. Bousquet, F. and Page, C. L. 2004. Multi-age nt simulations and ecosystem management: a review. Ecol. Modeling 176:313-332. Bowers, E. J., A. C. Hammond, C. C. Chase, Jr., and T. A. Olson. 1995. Effect of breed on indicators of heat tolerance and grazing activ ity in lactating Angus and Brahman cows in Florida. J. Animal Sci. 73 (Suppl. 1):131. Bowling, L. and H. Jones. 2003, Impacts of cattle grazing on water qualit y at Glennies Creek Storage New South Wales Department of Land and Water Conservation, Parramatta. Broom, D. M. and J. D. Leaver. 1978. Effects of group-rearing or partial is olation on later social behaviour of calves. Animal Behaviour 26: 1255-1263. Buckhouse, J. C. and G. F. Gifford. 1976. Wate r quality implications of cattle grazing on a semiarid watershed in southeastern Utah. J. Range Mgmt 29(2): 109-113. Buffington, D. E., A. Collazo-Arocho, G. H. Cant on, D. Pitt, W. W. Thatcher, and R. J. Collier. 1981. Black-globe humidity index (BGHI) as comfort equation for dairy cows. Trans. ASAE: 24: 711. Buffington, D. E., R. J. Collier, and G. H. Canton. 1983. Shade management systems to reduce heat stress for a dairy cows in hot, humid climates. Trans. ASAE: 26: 1798-1802. Campbell, K. L., G. A. Kiker, and D. J. Clark. 2001. Development and testing of a nitrogen and phosphorus process model for Southern Afri can water quality issues. 2001 ASAE Annual International meeting. Paper No 012085, St. Joseph, MI.: ASAE. Campbell, K. L., J. C. Capece, and T. K. Tremwel. 1995. Surface/subsurface hydrology and phosphorus transport in the Kissi mmee River Basin, Florida. Ecol. Eng. 5: 301-330.

PAGE 140

140 Capece, C. J., K. L. Campbell, P. J. Bohlen, D. A. Graetz, and K. M. Portier. 2006. Soil Phosphorus, Cattle Stocking Rates and Water Qual ity in Subtropical Pastures in Florida. Rangeland Ecol. and Mgmt. 60(1). Chase, C. C., Jr., M. J. Williams, and A. C. Ha mmond. 1999. Interaction of breed and nutritional demand on the grazing behavior of lactating Bos taurus cattle in the subtropics, 6 pp. In: Stone, G., Forbes, T. D. A., Stuth, J. W., a nd Byers, F. M. (eds.). Nutritional Ecology of Herbivores. Posters and Plenar y Discussions and Papers presented at Satellite Symposia and Seminal held in conjunction with the Fifth Intl. Symp. Nutrition of Herbivores, San Antonio, TX, 10-16 April, 1999. (CD-ROM and online poster http://cnrit.tamu.edu/c onf/isnh/post-online/post0070/ Chiang, W. H., and W. Kinzelbach. 2005. A ccessed at April 15, 2005. Processing MODFLOW for Windows (PMWIN), Version 5.3.0. Av ailable http://www.pmwin.net/pmwin5.htm. Clark, P. J., and F. C. Evans. 1954. Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. J. Ecology. 35: 445-453. Clarke, M. R. 1993. Some effects of shade in feedlots. Proceedings of Australian Veterinary Association 1993 National Conference, Gold Coast, Queensland. p: 53. Cole, T. M. and S. A. Wells. 2000. CE-QUAL-W 2: A two-dimensional, laterally averaged, hydrodynamic and water quality model, version 3. Instruction Rep. EL-2000, U.S. Army Research and Development Center, Waterway s Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Cook, C. W. 1966. Factors affecting u tilization of mountai n slopes by cattle. J. Range Mgmt. 19: 200-204. Cook, J. G. and L. L. Irwin. 1985. Validation a nd modification of a habita t suitability model for pronghorns. The Wildlife Soci ety Bulletin 13: 440-448. Coughenour, M. B. 1991. Spatial components of pl ant-herbivore interactions in pastoral, ranching, and native ungulate ecosystems. J. Range Mgmt 44 (6): 530-542. Coughenour, M. B. 1993. Savanna-Landscape and Re gional Ecosystem Model. Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State Un iversity, Fort Collins, USA. De Dios, O. O. and G. L. Hahn. 1993. Ther moregulation of growing bovines during fall transitional environments. In: E. Collins and C. Boon (Ed.) Livestock Environment 4th Intl. Symp., July 6-9, 1993, Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, MI. pp 289-297. Dickard, M. L., P. A. Momont, N. R. Rimbey, T. DelCurto, M. L. Mcinnis, A. Stillings, and J. A. Tanaka. 1998. Offstream water and salting as management strategies for improved cattle distribution and subsequent ripa rian health. Corvallis, OR: eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center. Annual Repor t. Special Report 991. 138p. Dumont, B. and Hill, D. 2001. Multi-agent simu lation of group foraging in sheep: effects of spatial memory, conspecific attraction and plot size. Ecol. Modeling 14:201-215.

PAGE 141

141 Dunning, J.B., Stewart, D.J., Danielson, D.J., Noon, B.R., Root, T.L., Lamberson, R.H., and Stevens E.E. (1995) Spatially explicit populati on models: current forms and future uses. Ecol. Applications 5(1):3-11. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1991, Guidelines: Land evaluation for extensive grazing. FAO Soils Bulletin 58. FAO, Rome. FCA (Florida Cattlemen’s Association). 1999. Wa ter quality best management practices for cow/calf operations in Florida. Florida Cattlemen’s Association. Kissimmee, FL. FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Pr otection). 2001. Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus, Lake Okeechobee, Florida. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, Florida. FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2006. Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: 2006 305(b) Report and 303(d) List Update. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Water Resource Management, Bureau of Watershed Management, Tallahassee, Florida. Ferber, J. 1999. Multi-Agent Systems: An intr oduction to distributed artificial intelligence. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Finch, V. A. 1985. Comparison of non-evaporativ e heat transfer in different cattle breeds. Australian J. Agric. Res. 6: 640-644. Finch, V. A. 1986. Body temperature in beef cattle: its control and relevan ce to production in the tropics. J. Animal Sci. 62: 531-542. Finch, V. A., I. L. Bennett, and C. R. Holmes 1982. Sweating response in cattle and its relation to rectal temperature, tolerance of the sun and metabolic rate. J. Agric. Sci. (Cambridge) 99: 479-487. Finch, V. A., I. L. Bennett, and C. R. Holmes 1984. Coat colour in ca ttle: effect on thermal balance, behaviour, and growth, a nd relationship with coat type. J. Agric. Sci. 102: 141147. Flaig, E. G. and K. R. Reddy. 1995. Fate of phosphorus in the Lake Okeechobee watershed, Florida, USA: Overview and recommendations. Ecol. Eng. 5: 127-142. Ganskopp, D. 2001. Manipulating cattle distributi on with salt and water in large arid-land pastures: a GPS/GIS assessment. Applied Animal Behavior Sci. 73(4): 251-262. Gary, H. L., S. R. Johnson, and S. L. Ponce. 1983. Cattle grazing impact on surface water quality in a Colorado front range stream. J. Soil Water Conserv. 38(2): 124–128. Gillen, R. L., W. C. Krueger, and R. F. Miller. 1985. Cattle use of riparian meadows in the Blue mountains of northeastern Oregon. J. Range Mgmt. 38: 205-209.

PAGE 142

142 Gilliam, J. W., D. L. Osmond, and R. O. Evans. 1997. Selected Agricultural Best Management Practices to Control Nitrogen in the Neuse River Basin. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service Technical Bulletin 311, Nort h Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C. Goebel, C. J. 1956. Water development on the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range. J. Range Mgmt. 9: 232-234. Goodwin, D. C., and J. R. Miner. 1996. The poten tial of off-stream livestock watering to reduce water quality impacts. Bioresource Tech. 58(3): 285-310. Goodwin, R. A., J. M. Nestler, J. J. Anderson, J. Kim, and T. Toney. 2005. Evaluation of Wanapum Dam bypass configurations for outmigr ating juvenile salmon using virtual fish: Numerical Fish Surrogate (NFS) analysis. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. ERDC/EL TR-05-7 Goodwin, R. A., J. M. Nestler, J. J. Anderson, L. J. Weber, and D. P. Loucks. 2006. Forecasting 3-D fish movement behavi or using a Eulerian-Lagra ngian-agent method (ELAM). Ecol. Modeling 192:197-223. Goodwin, R. A., J. M. Nestler, D. P. Loucks, and R. S Chapman. 2001. Simulating mobile populations in aquatic ecosystems. ASCE J. Water Res. Planning and Mgmt. 127(6):386393 Graetz, D. A. and V. D. Nair. 1995. Fate of P hosphorus in Florida Spodosols contaminated with cattle manure. Ecol. Eng. 5:163-181. Gwazdauskas, F. C. 1985. Effects of climate on reproduction in cattle. J. Dairy Sci.: 68: 15681578. Hafez, E. S. E. and M. F. Bouissou. 1975. The be havior of cattle, In: E. S. E. Hafez (Ed) The Behavior of Domestic Animals (London, Bailiere Tindal). Hagedorn, C., S. L Robinson, J. R. Filtz, S. M. Grubbs, T. A. Angier, and R. B. Reneau. 1999. Determining sources of fecal pollution in a rural Virginia watershed with antibiotic resistance patterns in fecal streptococci. Applied Environ.. Microbiology 65: 5522–5531. Hahn, G. L. 1982. Compensatory performance in livestock: influence on e nvironmental criteria. In Proc. of the Second International Livest ock Environment Sympos ium 2: 285-294. Iowa State University, St. Joseph, Michigan: ASAE. Hahn, G. L. 1985. Management and housing of fa rm animals in hot environments. In ‘Stress Physiology in Livestock, Vol. 2: Ungulates .’ (Ed. M. K. Yousef.) pp. 151-174. (CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA). Hahn, G. L. and T. L. Mader. 1997. Heat waves in relation to thermoregulation, feeding behavior and mortality of feedlot cattle. Proc. 5th International Livestock Environment Symposium, St. Joseph, MI. pp 563-571.

PAGE 143

143 Hammond, A. C. and T. A. Olson. 1994. Rectal temperature and grazing time in selected beef cattle breeds under tropical summer conditions in subtropical Florida. Tropical Agriculture (Trinidad) 71:128-134. Hanski I. 1998. Metapopulation Dynamics. Nature 396: 41-49. Hanski I. 2004. Metapopulati on theory, its use and misuse. Basic and Applied Ecology 5: 225229. Helfrich, L. A., D. L. Weigmann, and R. J. Neves. 1998. Landowner’s guide to managing streams in the eastern Unites States. Pub lication No. 420-141. Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Hirata, M., R. Sato, and S. Ogura. 2002. Effect s of progressive grazing of the pasture on the spatial distributions of herbage mass and utilization by cattle: A preliminary study. Ecol. Res. 17: 381-393. Hobbs, N.T. and D.M. Swift, 1985. Estimates of habitat carrying capacity incorporating explicit nutritional constraints. J. Wildlife Mgmt. 49(3): 814-822. Hohler, D. D. 2004. Evaluation of habitat suitab ility models for elk and cattle. Unpublished MS diss. Bozeman, Montana.: Montana State Univ ersity, Department of Animal and Range Sciences. Hooge, P. N. and B. Eichenlaub. 1997. Animal movement extension to ArcView Version 1.1. Alaska Science Center Biol ogical Science Office, U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage, Alaska, USA. Hutchinson, J. C. D., and G. D. Brown. 1969. Penetrance of cattl e coats by radiation. J. Applied Physiology 26: 454-464. Igono, M. O., G. Bjotvedt, and H. T. SanfordCrane. 1991. Environmental profile and critical temperature effects on milk production of Holstein cows in desert climate. Intl. J. Biometeorology 36: 77-87. Ittner, N. R., C. F. Kelly, and H. R. Guibert. 1951. Water consumption of Hereford and Brahman cattle and the effect of cooled drinking water in a hot climate. J. Animal Sc. 10: 742-751. Johnson, H. D., and R. G. Yeck. 1964. Envir onmental physiology with special reference to domestic animal, influence of increasing of temperature 40o to 105o F on milk production in Brown Swiss cows, and on feed and wa ter consumption and body weight in Brown Swiss and Brahman cows and heifers. Mi ssouri Agric. Res. Bulletin, n.471, 1961. Jordan, E. R. 2003. Effects of heat stress on reproduction. J. Dairy Sc. 86: 104-114. Kauffman, J. B., and W. C. Krueger. 1984. Li vestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications…A review. J. Range Mgmt. 37(5): 430-438.

PAGE 144

144 Kelly, C. F., T. E. Bond, and N. R. Ittner. 1955. Water cooling for livestock in hot climates. Agric. Eng. 36: 173-180. Kibler, H. H., and S. Brody. 1952. Relative e fficiency of surface evaporative, respiratory evaporative, and non-evaporative cooling in relation to heat production in Jersy, Holstein, Brown Swiss and Brahman cattle, 5 to 105 F. Missouri Agricultural Experimental Station Bulletin No. 497. Kibler, H. H., and S. Brody. 1954. Influence of ra diation intensity on evaporative cooling, heat production, and cardiorespirato ry activities in Jeresy, Holstein, and Brahman cows. Missouri Agricultural Experiment al Station Bulletin No. 574. Kiker, G. A., and D. J. Clark. 2001. The develo pment of a Java-based, object-oriented modeling system for simulation of Southern African hydrology. 2001 ASAE Annual International Meeting. ASAE Paper no. 012030. St. Joseph, MI.:ASAE. Kiker, G. A., D. J. Clark, C. J. Martinez, and R. E. Shulze. 2006. A Java-Based Object Oriented Modeling System for Southern African Hydr ology: Verification in the Mgeni River Watershed, Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. Trans. ASABE 49(5): 1419-1433. Knisel, W. G., and F. M. Davis. 1999. GLEAMS (Groundwater Loading E ffects of agricultural Management Systems) Version 3.0 User Manual. SEWRL-WGK/FMD-050199. Tifton, GA. 167p. Leitch, M. A., and J. S. Thompson. 1944. The water economy of farm animals. Nutr. Abstr. Rev. 14: 197. Leonard R. A., W. G. Knisel, and D. A. Still. 1987. GLEAMS: Groundwater loading effects of agricultural management systems. Trans. ASABE 30(5): 1404-1418. Levin, S. A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1943-1967 Levins, R. 1969. Some Demographic and Ge netic Consequences of Environmental Heterogeneity for Biological Control. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 15: 237-240. Levins, R. 1970. Extinctions. In: in Some Math ematical Questions in Biology: Lectures on Mathematics in the Life Sciences pp. 77-107. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island. Line, D. E., W. A. Harman, G. D. Jennings, E. J. Thompson, and D. L. Osmond. 2000. Nonpoint-source pollutant load reductions associated with livestock exclusion. J. Environ. Quality 29(6): 1882-1890. Logan, J. A. 1994. In defense of big ugly models. American Entomologist 40:202–207 Logical Decisions, 2005. Manual for Logical De cisions for Windows Version 5.1. Falls Church, VA.

PAGE 145

145 MAERC (McArthur Agro-Ecology Research Center). 2005. The MacArthur Agro-ecology Research Center: Research Proj ects.: MacArthur Agro-ecology Research Center. Available at: www.archbold-station.or g. Accessed 28 April 2006. Marlow, C. B. and T. M. Pogacnik. 1986. Cattle feeding and resting patterns in a foothills riparian zone. J. Range Mgmt. 39(3): 212-217. Martin, C. S. 1978. Evaluating the impact of cattle grazing on ripa rian habitats in the national forests of Arizona and New Mexico, In: O.B. Cope (Ed) Proceedings of the forum grazing and riparian/stream ecosystems (De nver, Colorado, Trout Unlimited, Inc). Martin, C. S. and D. E. Ward. 1970. Rotating acce ss to water to improve semidesert cattle range near water. J. Range Mgmt. 23:22-26. Martinez, C. J. 2006. Object oriented hydrologi c and water quality model for high-water-table environments. Unpublished PhD diss. Gainesville, F.L..: University of Florida, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering. Mathevet, R., Bousquet, F., Page, C. L., and Antona, M. 2003. Agent-based simulations of interactions between duck population, farming decisions and leasing of hunting rights in the Camargue (Southern France). Ecol. Modeling 165:107-126 McDaniel, A. H., and C. B. Roark. 1956. Perf ormance and grazing habits of Hereford and Aberdeen-Angus cows and calves on improved pa stures as related to types of shade. J. Animal Sci. 15: 59-63. McDonald M. G., and A. W. Harbaugh. 1988. A Modular Three-dimensi onal Finite-difference Ground-water Flow Model. US Geological Su rvey, Techniques of Water Resources Investigation Book 6, Chapter A1; 586 pp. McDowell R. E. 1972. Improvement of livestock production in warm climates. WH Freeman & Co., San Francisco. McIlvain, E. H., and M. C. Shoop. 1971. Shad e for improving cattle gains and rangeland use. J. Range Mgmt. 24: 181-184. Miner, J. R., J. C. Buckhouse, and J. A. M oore. 1992. Will a water trough reduce the amount of time hay-fed livestock spent in the stream (and therefore improve water quality)?. Rangelands 14(1): 35-38. Mueggler, W. F. 1965. Cattle distribution on steep slopes. J. Range Mgmt 18: 255-257. Nader, G., K. W. Tate, R. Atwill, and J. Bus hnell. 1998. Water quality effect of rangeland beef cattle excretement. Rangelands 20(5): 19-25. National Research Council. 1981. Effect of e nvironment on nutrient requirements of domestic animals. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

PAGE 146

146 National Research Council. 1996. Nutr ient Requirements of Beef Cattle, 7th rev. ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. National Research Council. 2001. Nutrie nt Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 7th rev. ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Nestler, J. M., R. A. Goodwin, T. M. Cole, D. Degan, and D. Dennerline. 2001. Simulating movement of blueback herring in a southern impoundment. Trans. American Fisheries Soc. 131:55-69 Nestler, J. M., R. A. Goodwin, and D. P. L oucks. 2005. Coupling of e ngineering and biological models for ecosystem analysis. Water Res. Planning and Mgmt. 131(2):101-109. Noy-Meir, I. 1975. Stability of gr azing systems: an application of the predator prey graphs. J. Ecol. 63:459. Ovaskainen, O. and I. Hanski. 2004. From i ndividual behavior to metapopulation dynamics: Unifying the patchy population a nd classic metapopulation models. The American Naturalist 164(3): 000-000. Owens, M. K., K. L. Launchbaugh, and J. W. Hollo way. 1991. Pasture char acteristics affecting spatial distribution of utilization by cattle in mixed brush communities. J. Range Mgmt. 44(2): 118-123. Pandey, V., K. L. Campbell., S. Shukla, and B. Jacobson. 2006. Simulating beef cattle nutrient loads in the Lake Okeechobee basin. 2006 AS AE Annual International Meeting. ASAE Paper no. 012030. St. Joseph, MI.:ASAE. Platt, W. J., and R. K. Peet. 1998. Ecological concepts in conservation biology: Lessons from southeastern U.S. ecosystems. Ecol. Applic. 8(4): 907-908. Porath, M. L., P. A. Momont, T. DelCurto, N. R. Rimbey, J. A. Tanaka, and M. McInnis. 2002. Offstream water and trace mineral salt as management strategies for improves cattle distribution. J. Animal Sci. 80: 346-356. Pringle, H. J. and J. Landsberg. 2004. Predicting the distribution of livesto ck grazing pressure in rangelands. Austral Ecology 29: 31-39. Rayburn, E. B. 1986. Quantitative aspect s of pasture management. Seneca Trail RC&D Technical Manual. Franklinville, NY. Seneca Trail RC&D. Reynolds, C. 1999. Individual-Base d Models. Available at: http ://www.red3d.com/cwr/ibm.html Ritzman, E., and F. Benedict. 1924. The effect of varying feed levels on the physiological economy of steers. N.H. Agric. Exp. Station. Tech. Bulletin 26. Roath, L. R. and W. C. Krueger. 1982a. Ca ttle grazing and behavior on a forested range. J. Range Mgmt. 35: 332-338.

PAGE 147

147 Roath, L. R. and W. C. Krueger. 1982b. Cattle grazing influenceon a m ountain riparian zone. J. Range Mgmt. 35: 100-103. Saaty, T. 1980. The Analytic Hier archy Process. NY, McGraw-Hill. SAS Institute, Inc. 2005. JMP. Ver. 6.0.0. Cary, N.C.: SAS Institute, Inc. Sato, S. 1982. Leadership during actual grazing in a small herd of cattle. Applied Animal Ecology 8: 53-65. Schacht, W. H., J. D. Volesky, and S. S. Wa ller. 1996. Proper livesto ck grazing distribution on rangeland. Range and Forage Resources G80-504 -A, University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension. Schamberger, M., A. H. Farmer, and J. W. Terrel. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: introduction. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10. 2pp. Schamberger, M., A., and L. J. O’Neil. 1986. Con cepts and constraints of habitat model testing, p. 5-10 In: J. Verner, C. J. Ralph, and M. Morrison. Wildlife 20 00: Modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial ve rtebrates. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI Schtickzelle, N. and Baguette, M. 2004. Metapopul ation viability analysis of the bog fritillary butterfly using RAMAS/GIS. Oikos 104: 277-290. Schulze R. E. 1995. Hydrology and Agr ohydrology: a text to accompany the ACRU 3.00 Agrohydrological modelling System. WRC Repo rt No. TT69/95. ACRU Report No.43. SFWMD (South Florida Water Ma nagement District). 1997. Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) plan update for Lake Okeechobee. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida. SFWMD (South Florida Water Ma nagement District). 1999. Lake Okeechobee Action Plan. Developed by the Lake Okeechobee Issue Team for the South Florida ecosystem restoration working group. West Palm Beach South Florida Water Management District. Sheffield, R. E., S. Mostaghimi, D. H. Vaughan, E. R. Collins, and V. G. Allen. Jr. 1997. Offstream water sources for grazing cattle as a stream bank stabiliza tion and water quality BMP. Trans. ASAE 40(3): 595-604. Smith, M. A., J. D. Rodgers, J. L. Dodd, and Q. D. Skinner. 1992. Habitat selection by cattle along an ephemeral channel. J. Range Mgmt. 45(4): 385-390. Smith, M. S. 1988. Modeling: Three Approaches to Predicting How Herbivore Impact is Distributed in Rangelands. Ne w Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 628. Sneft, R. L., M. B. Coughenour, D. W. Bailey, L. R. Rittenhouse, O. E. Sala, and D. M. Swift. 1987. Large herbivore foraging and ecological hierarchies. Bioscience 37: 789-799.

PAGE 148

148 Sneft, R. L., L. R. Rittenhouse, and R. G. W oodmansee. 1983. The use of regression models to predict spatial patterns of cattle behavior. J. Range Mgmt. 36: 553-557. Sneft, R. L., L. R. Rittenhouse, and R. G. W oodmansee. 1985a. Factors in fluencing selection of resting sites by cattle on Shortgrass Steppe. J. Range Mgmt. 38(4): 295-299. Sneft, R. L., L. R. Rittenhouse, and R. G. W oodmansee. 1985b. Factors influencing patterns of cattle grazing on Shortgrass Steppe. J. Range Mgmt. 38(1): 82-87. Sneva, F. A. 1970. Behavior of y earling cattle on eastern Oregon Range. J. Range Mgmt. 23: 155-157. Sowell, B. F., J. C. Mosely, and J. G. P. Bowman. 1999. Social behavior of grazing beef cattle: Implications for management. Proceedings of the American Society of Animal Science. Starfield, A. M. 1997. A pragmatic appro ach to modeling for wildlife management. J. Wildlife Mgmt. 61(2): 261-270. Swain, H., P. J. Bohlen, K. L. Campbell, L. O. Lollis, and A. D. Steinman. 2006. Integrated Ecological and Economic Analysis of Ranch Management Systems. Rangeland Ecology Mgmt. 60(1). Tanner, G. W., L. D. Sandoval, and F. G. Martin 1984. Cattle behavior on a south Florida range. J. Range Mgmt. 37(3): 248-251. Tarboton, K. C., M. M. Irizarry-Ortiz, D. P. L oucks, S. M. Davis, and J. T. Obeysekera. 2004. Habitat Suitability Indices for evaluating wa ter management altern atives. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Thom, E. C. 1958. Cooling degree-days. Air Conditioning Heating and Ventilating 55(7): 65. Thomas, J. W., D.A. Leckenby, M. Henjum, R. J. Pedersen, and L. D. Bryant. 1988. Habitateffectiveness index for elk on Blue Mountain Winter Ranges. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR218. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agri culture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 28p. Topping, C. J., Hansen, T. S., Jensen, T. S., Je psen, J. U., Nikolajsen, F., and Odderskaer, P. 2003. ALMaSS, an agent-based models for animals in temperate European landscapes. Ecol. Modeling 167: 65-82. Turner, L. W., M. C. Udal, B. T. Larson, and S. A. Shearer. 2000. Moni toring cattle behavior and pasture use with GPS and GIS. Canadian J. Animal Sci. 80: 405-413. U. S. Census Bureau. 2005. Interim Projections of the Total Population for the United States and States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2030. Report by U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Interim State Population Projections, 2005.

PAGE 149

149 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habita t Evaluation Procedures (HEP). USDI Fish and Wildife Service. Division of Ecological Services. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Standards fo r the development of ha bitat suitability index models for use in the Habitat Evaluation Procedures, USDI Fish and Wildife Service. Division of Ecological Services. ESM 103. UF-IFAS (University Of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences). 2002. Demonstration of water quality best manageme nt practices for beef cattle ranching in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. University Of Flor ida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Ungar, E. D., Z. Henkin, M. Gutman, A. Dolev, A. Genizi, and D. Ganskopp. 2005. Inference of animal activity from GPS collar data on free ranging cattle. Rangeland Ecology Mgmt. 58(3): 256-266. USDA, 2006. Florida Agricultural Overview. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. Available at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Stat istics_by_State/Florida /index.asp Accessed 03 April 2006. Valentine, K. A. 1990. Grazing management. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Vercoe, J. E. 1970. The fasting metabolism of Brahman Africander and Hereford X Shorthorn cattle. British J. Nutrition 24: 599-606. Wade, T. G., B. W. Schultz, J. D. Wickham, and D. F. Bradford. Modeling the potential spatial distribution of beef cattle gr azing using Geographic Information System. Available at: http://www.brrc.unr.edu/data/publica tions/graze Assessed: 15 July 2005. Wagon, K. A. 1963. Behavior of beef cows on a California range. Calif. Agric. Ext. Serv. Bull. 799. Davis, Cal. Widowski, T. M. 2001. Shade-seeking behavior of rotationally-grazed cows and calves in a moderate climate. In Proc. 6th International Livestock Envi ronment Symposium., 632-639. R. R. Stowell, R. Bucklin and R. W. Bottche r, eds. Louisville, Ky ASAE Publication No. 701P0201. Winchester, C. F., and M. J. Morr is. 1956. Water intakes of cattle. J. Animal Sc. 15: 722-739. Worstell, D. M. and S. Brody. 1953. Comparative physiological reactions of European and Indian cattle to changing temperature. Mi ssouri Experimental Station Bulletin No. 515. Yang, L. 2006. Coupled simulation modeling of flatwoods hydrology, nutr ients, and vegetation dynamics. PhD diss. Gainesville, F.L.: Univers ity of Florida, Depart ment of Agricultural and Biological Engineering. Yeates, N. T. M. 1954. Environmental control of coat changes in cattle. Nature 174: 609-610.

PAGE 150

150 Zuo, H. 2001. Cattle behavior and impacts on streamwater quality. PhD diss. Auburn, A.L.: Auburn University, Department of Agronomy and Soils.

PAGE 151

151 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Vibhuti Pandey was born in the state of Utta r Pradesh, India, on 26th January 1977. He graduated from Allahabad Agricultural Institute India, in 1999 with a bachelor’s degree in agricultural engineering. He move d to Utah State University to pursue his graduate studies, in 2000. He graduated with a Master of Science degree in irrigation engi neering in 2002. To continue his higher education he moved to Florida. That same year he joined the Ph.D. program in the University of Florida’s Department of Ag ricultural and Biological Engineering, where he specialized in ecological modeling and water resources engineering.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0017519/00001

Material Information

Title: Analysis and modeling of cattle distribution in complex agro-ecosystems of south Florida
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Language: English
Creator: Pandey, Vibhuti ( Dissertant )
Kiker, Gregory ( Thesis advisor )
Shukla, Sanjay ( Thesis advisor )
Campbell, Kenneth L. ( Reviewer )
Annable, Michael ( Reviewer )
Clark, Mark W. ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007
Copyright Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Agricultural and Biological Engineering thesis, Ph.D
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Agricultural and Biological Engineering
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: United States -- Florida

Notes

Abstract: It is perceived that cow-calf operations in south Florida can be a substantial source of phosphorus loading, to Lake Okeechobee. Spatial and temporal information of cattle location within a pasture can be instrumental in estimating the deposition location of cattle fecal matter. To address this issue, cattle position data were analyzed and a simplified distribution model was developed. Cattle position data were acquired through GPS collars and a cattle distribution model was developed and incorporated into a regionally tested hydrological/water quality model, ACRU2000. The GPS data were spatially and temporally analyzed to quantify the amount of time spent by cattle near shade and water locations. The analysis revealed the prominence of seasonal utilization of water troughs, ditches, and shade. Shade structures were utilized substantially during the warm seasons. Wetland utilization was similar across cool and warm periods but was variably distributed across times within periods. The analysis also revealed that there can be significant differences in an individual cow’s behavior and utilization of water features. The GPS analysis was instrumental in the identification of variables to be included in the cattle distribution model. This distribution model was added as an add-on module within the Java-based object-oriented framework of the ACRU2000 modeling system. The algorithms are composed of attractants of cattle (shade, water, and forage) and their weighting factors. The algorithms were developed using the techniques of Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) and criteria weighting was developed using the Analytical Hierarchy Process. The HSI model was integrated with the current hydrology, nutrient, and vegetation modules within ACRU2000. The HSI model was calibrated and verified on summer pastures of Buck Island Ranch, Lake Placid, FL. Model verification revealed that its performance was in good agreement with observed GPS data. Several Best Management Practice scenarios, designed to mimic fencing of selected pasture areas, revealed that the phosphorus release from senesced biomass may be a significant store amongst all other pools of phosphorus. The HSI model has enhanced the capability of ACRU2000 to represent the spatial variability and nutrient effects of cattle distribution within complex agro-ecosystems of south Florida.
Subject: behavior, BMP, cattle, habitat, index, modeling, quality, suitability, water
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 151 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 003874826
System ID: UFE0017519:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0017519/00001

Material Information

Title: Analysis and modeling of cattle distribution in complex agro-ecosystems of south Florida
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Language: English
Creator: Pandey, Vibhuti ( Dissertant )
Kiker, Gregory ( Thesis advisor )
Shukla, Sanjay ( Thesis advisor )
Campbell, Kenneth L. ( Reviewer )
Annable, Michael ( Reviewer )
Clark, Mark W. ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007
Copyright Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Agricultural and Biological Engineering thesis, Ph.D
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Agricultural and Biological Engineering
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: United States -- Florida

Notes

Abstract: It is perceived that cow-calf operations in south Florida can be a substantial source of phosphorus loading, to Lake Okeechobee. Spatial and temporal information of cattle location within a pasture can be instrumental in estimating the deposition location of cattle fecal matter. To address this issue, cattle position data were analyzed and a simplified distribution model was developed. Cattle position data were acquired through GPS collars and a cattle distribution model was developed and incorporated into a regionally tested hydrological/water quality model, ACRU2000. The GPS data were spatially and temporally analyzed to quantify the amount of time spent by cattle near shade and water locations. The analysis revealed the prominence of seasonal utilization of water troughs, ditches, and shade. Shade structures were utilized substantially during the warm seasons. Wetland utilization was similar across cool and warm periods but was variably distributed across times within periods. The analysis also revealed that there can be significant differences in an individual cow’s behavior and utilization of water features. The GPS analysis was instrumental in the identification of variables to be included in the cattle distribution model. This distribution model was added as an add-on module within the Java-based object-oriented framework of the ACRU2000 modeling system. The algorithms are composed of attractants of cattle (shade, water, and forage) and their weighting factors. The algorithms were developed using the techniques of Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) and criteria weighting was developed using the Analytical Hierarchy Process. The HSI model was integrated with the current hydrology, nutrient, and vegetation modules within ACRU2000. The HSI model was calibrated and verified on summer pastures of Buck Island Ranch, Lake Placid, FL. Model verification revealed that its performance was in good agreement with observed GPS data. Several Best Management Practice scenarios, designed to mimic fencing of selected pasture areas, revealed that the phosphorus release from senesced biomass may be a significant store amongst all other pools of phosphorus. The HSI model has enhanced the capability of ACRU2000 to represent the spatial variability and nutrient effects of cattle distribution within complex agro-ecosystems of south Florida.
Subject: behavior, BMP, cattle, habitat, index, modeling, quality, suitability, water
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 151 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 003874826
System ID: UFE0017519:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





ANALYSIS AND MODELING OF CATTLE DISTRIBUTION IN COMPLEX
AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS OF SOUTH FLORIDA





















By

VIBHUTI PANDEY


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007































Copyright 2006

by

Vibhuti Pandey


































To my parents and my loving wife









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am greatly indebted to my supervisory committee chair (Dr. Gregory A. Kiker) for his

constant guidance, insight, encouragement, and most of all his enthusiastic and continuous

support and confidence in my research. His thorough and thoughtful coaching was unselfishly

tireless, and his enthusiasm has left me an everlasting impression. He always made himself

available and hence I was able to progress constantly in a sustainable manner. I would like to

acknowledge my thanks and appreciation to Dr. Chris J. Martinez for his help throughout the

development of my model. Without his guidance and support with programming, timely

completion of my research would have been impossible. His enthusiasm and helpful nature made

my research progress swiftly. I express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Kenneth L. Campbell for

his guidance during the first 3 years as my supervisory committee chair. He provided direction

that eventually helped me to identify the specific topic for my research. His advice on addressing

each of my technical problems and concerns has been invaluable as well. I am grateful to Dr.

Sanjay Shukla for his support and help during field work. Also, I would like to express thanks to

Drs. Michael Annable and Mark W. Clark who served on my committee and provided valuable

insights into my research.

I am greatly thankful to my lab-mates for their friendship and encouragement, and to the

staff of the Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department for their technical and moral

support. The department as a whole has been a wonderful working and learning environment.

Last but not the least, I would like to thank my family and friends for their relentless support and

advice throughout this endeavor.












TABLE OF CONTENTS



page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............. ...............4.....


LIST OF TABLES ........._..... ...............8.._.._ ......


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............10....


AB S TRAC T ............._. .......... ..............._ 13...


CHAPTER



1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............15.......... ......


Study Background .............. ......... ..... .. ..........1
Lake Okeechobee and Watershed Description ................. ........ ..... ...... ........ .......... .......1
Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Lake Okeechobee Watershed.........1 8
Contribution to Information Required for Modeling and BMP Implementation .................19
Organization of This Dissertation............... ..............2

2 CATTLE BEHAVIOR DYNAMICS AND CURRENT MODELING APPROACHES ......22


Factors Influencing Cattle Distribution .............. ...............22....
Cognitive M echanisms .............. ...............23....
W ater Devel opment ............ ..... .._ ...............23...
Breed S el section ............ ..... .._ ...............24..
Seasonal Di stribution............... ..............2
Shade Structures .............. ...............25....
Social Behavior ..................... ...............27.
Cattle Location and Water Quality ................. ...............28.._._._ ....
Existing Modeling Approaches .............. ...............29....
Regression Model s ................... ...............29..
Habitat Suitability Index Models............... ...............30.
Mechanistic Models............... ...............35.
M etapopulation M odels.................. ... ........... .......3
Spatially Explicit-Individual Based Models .............. ...............38....
Numerical Fish Surrogate Model .............. ...............39....
Multi-Agent Systems ........._.___..... .___ ...............40.....
Cattle Tracking Techniques ........._._.. ....__... ...............41....
Summary ........._.___..... ._ __ ...............42.....

3 ANALYSIS OF GPS COLLAR DATA ............ ......__ ...............50.


Study Site: Buck Island Ranch .............. ...............50....












Summer Pastures .............. ...............5 1....
Winter Pastures ................. ...............52......__. .....

Hy drol ogic Data............... ...............52..
GP S D ata .............. ...............53....
Data Analy sis............... ...............54
Results and Discussion .............. ...............55....
Conclusion ............ ..... ._ ...............61...


4 DEVELOPMENT OF CATTLE MOVEMENT ALGORITHMS FOR ACRU2000 ............73


Habitat Suitability Index (HSI).................................. ........7
Model Design for Cattle Distribution in ACRU2000 ................. ............... ...._ ....73
Suitability Index for Cattle Distribution............... .. .............7
Preference Estimation Using Analytical Hierarchy Process .............. ....................7
Index for Heat Stress and Seasonal Distribution............... ..............7

Integration of HSI Model into ACRU2000 ........._ ..................... .... ........._ ...... 8
The Agricultural Catchments Research Unit (ACRU) Modeling System .....................81
Minimum Habitat Area for HSI Model in ACRU2000 ................. ........................86


5 MODEL RE SULT S ............_ ..... ..._. ...............9 1...


Testing Model Performance at Buck Island Ranch ........._.._.. ......._ ........_.._.......9
Calibration Results............... ...............92
Verification Results .............. ...............94....
Sensitivity Analysis .............. ........ ...............95
Hypothetical Scenario Model Testing .............. ...............96....
Summary ........._..... ...._... ...............100....

6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ........._._. ...._... ...............110...


GPS Collar Analysis .....__................. ...............110 .....
H SI M odel .............. ... ...............111.............

Management Implications ................. ...............113.............
Future Research Recommendation ....._.................. ...............113 .....
Herbivore Physiological Representation ................. ....._._ ....._._ .............1
Stream Routing Algorithm ..........._..._ ...............114..._.._ ......
Graphical User Interface ..........._...__........ ...............114....
Conclusion ..........._..._ ...............115.....__ ......


APPENDIX



A LIST OF NEW AND MODIFIED OBJECTS ..........._...__......_. ........... .........1


B HSI MODEL PROCESSES UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE (UML)
DIAGRAM S ................. ...............119......... ......


C SURVEY FOR DETERMINATION OF WEIGHTING FACTORS .............. .................122












D WEIGHTING FACTORS DETERMINED BY SURVEY ......____ ..... ... ._ ..............124


E RESULTS FROM SURVEY............... ...............126


F SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS RESULTS................ ...............13


LIST OF REFERENCES ............ ...... ..._. ...............137...


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........._.._.. ...._... ...............151....













LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 Significant predictors of cattle behavior. .............. ...............48....

2-2 Coefficients in the seasonal grazing models. .............. ...............49....

2-3 Coefficients in the seasonal daytime resting models. ............. ...............49.....

3-1 Percent area of wetlands and ditches in summer and winter pastures. ........._.... .............69

3-2 Summary of climatological data during the study period. ................ ..................6

3-3 Summary of GPS collar data in the experimental pastures. ......____ ...... ....__..........70

3-4 Locations that are assumed to have presence of water. ..........._.....__ .............70

3-5 Mean percentage of daily time spent by cattle near water locations. ............. .................71

3-6 Mean percentage of daily time spent by cattle near water trough. ............. ...................71

3-7 Mean percentage of daily time spent by cattle in wetland. ....__ .............. ..... ..........71

3-8 Mean percentage of daily time spent by cattle in ditch. ............. .....................7

3-9 Mean daily distance traveled and mean daily MCP area by cattle .............. ..................72

5-1 Input parameters and their description used in the ACRU2000-HSI model. ..................108

5-2 Values of input parameters used in the ACRU2000-HSI model after calibration. ..........108

5-3 Input parameter values used in sensitivity analysis. .................... ...............0

5-4 Example of adjusted weighting factors used in sensitivity analysis. ............. ..... ........._.109

D-1 Summary of weightings of features as generated by the LDW program based on the
survey ........... ..... .._ ...............124..

D-2 Summary of weightings of three forage species as generated by the LDW program
based on the survey ........... ..... .._ ...............124.

F-1 Weighting factors used in sensitivity analysis. ......____ .... ... .__ .. ......__........3

F-2 Sensitivity of water, shade and forage weighting factors in warm season. .........._.........133

F-3 Sensitivity of the three vegetation species weighting factors in warm season. ...............134










F-4 Sensitivity of water, shade and forage weighting factors in cool season. ........................13 5

F-5 Sensitivity of the three vegetation species weighting factors in cool season. ...............136













LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1-1 Drainage Basins of Lake Okeechobee. ................ ...............21...............

1-2 Yearly average total phosphorus concentrations in the open-water (pelagic) region of
Lake Okeechobee............... ...............2

2-1 Average herbage yield of perennial grassesfrom year long access to water on
southern Arizona range. .............. ...............43....

2-2 The relationships between shrub habitat variables and suitability index values for
pronghom winter food quality.. ............ ...............44.....

2-3 The relationships between two variables of forage diversity and suitability index
values for pronghorn winter food quality.. ............ ...............44.....

2-4 The relationship between mean topographic diversity and suitability index values for
pronghom winter food quality. ............. ...............45.....

2-5 Graphical representation of the index ................. ...............45...............

2-6 Two performance suitability indicators expressed as functions of hydrologic
variables. ............. ...............46.....

2-7 A time series of values of a suitability indicator derived from time series of
hydrologic variable values. ............. ...............46.....

2-8 Creating a composite suitability indicator time series from multiple suitability
indicator time series. ............. ...............47.....

2-9 Three approaches to spatial ecology. ............. ...............47.....

2-10 Using GIS in metapopulation models. .............. ...............48....

3-1 Location of Buck Island Ranch and the Experimental Pastures. ..........._.. ......_.........64

3-2 Map displaying wetlands, ditches and water troughs in summer pastures. .......................64

3-3 Map displaying wetlands, ditches and water troughs in winter pastures. ..........................65

3-4 Example of rainfall and groundwater level data in summer pasture 3. ........._...._ .............65

3-5 Typical cattle movement in summer pasture 2 on June 11, 2001 ...........__... ................ 66

3-6 Average % time spent near water locations. .............. ...............67....











3-7 Average % time spent in shade structures. ............. ...............67.....

3-8 Typical MCP area in summer pasture 2 on June 31, 2001 ............_.. .. ...__ ...........68

4-1 Suitability index values of water features ................. ...............87........... ..

4-2 Suitability index values of shade area ................. ...............87........... ..

4-3 Suitability index values of forage consumption. ................ ............ ...................88

4-4 Goals hierarchy view in Logical Decisions for Windows@ software. ............. ................88

4-5 General structure of the ACRU (v 3.00) model ...._ ......_____ ...... .._ ........8

4-6 Configuration of multiple directional overland flows from source land segment to
adjacent land segments. ............. ...............89.....

4-7 Phosphorus cycle of the ACRU2000 model. ................ .....___.....___..........9

4-8 Nitrogen cycle of the ACRU2000 model ............... ...............90....___ ...

5-1 Land segment Discretization of summer pastures 4 and 5 for ACRU2000-HSI. ............102

5-2 Calibration results on SP4 in warm season ................. ...............103.............

5-3 Calibration results on SP4 in cool season. .............. ...............103....

5-4 Verification results on SP5 in warm season. ............. ...............104....

5-5 Verification results on SP5 in cool season ................. ...............104.............

5-6 Hypothetical scenario setup for ACRU2000-HSI model............... ...............105.

5-7 Total phosphorus results using ACRU2000-HSI model ................. .....___.............106

5-8 Total phosphorus results from various scenarios in ACRU2000-HSI model ..................1 06

5-9 Phosphorus budget of complete model domain using simulated results. ........................ 107

5-10 Phosphorus budget of top two model layers using simulated results. ............. ...... ......... 107

5-11 Total phosphorus retained within grazing cattle using simulated results. .......................108

B-1 PCalculateHabitatSuitabilityIndex UML diagram ................. .............................119

B-2 PForageConsumption UML diagram ................. ...............120...............

B-3 PDefecation UML diagram. .........____...... ..... ...............121....

C-1 Cattle preference of features in a pasture during summer. ............. ......................122










C-2 Cattle preference of features in a pasture during winter. ........._.__..... ..._._............122

C-3 Cattle preference of forage species in a pasture............... .................122

C-4 Example illustrating identification of the relative importance of one feature over the
other on the scale provided in the survey ......._..__ ........._._....... .........12

D-1 Range of weighting of features in warm and cool seasons ................. ......................124

D-2 Range of weighting of the three forage species. ....._._._ .... ... .__ ........_.........2

E-1 Simulation result on SP4 in warm season using weighting factors of researcher-1. ........126

E-2 Simulation result on SP4 in cool season using weighting factors of researcher-1. ..........126

E-4 Simulation result on SP4 in cool season using weighting factors of researcher-2. .........127

E-5 Simulation result on SP4 in warm season using weighting factors of ext. agent -1........128

E-6 Simulation result on SP4 in cool season using weighting factors of ext. agent -1. .........128

E-7 Simulation result on SP4 in warm season using weighting factors of ext. agent -2........129

E-8 Simulation result on SP4 in cool season using weighting factors of ext. agent -2. .........129

E-9 Simulation result on SP4 in warm season using weighting factors of rancher -1............130

E-10 Simulation result on SP4 in cool season using weighting factors of rancher -1..............130

E-11 Simulation result on SP4 in warm season using weighting factors of rancher -2............13 1

E-12 Simulation result on SP4 in cool season using weighting factors of rancher -2..............13 1









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

ANALYSIS AND MODELING OF CATTLE DISTRIBUTION IN COMPLEX
AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS OF SOUTH FLORIDA

By

Vibhuti Pandey

December 2006

Chair: Gregory A. Kiker
Cochair: Sanjay Shukla
Major Department: Agricultural and Biological Engineering

It is perceived that cow-calf operations in south Florida can be a substantial source of

phosphorus loading, to Lake Okeechobee. Spatial and temporal information of cattle location

within a pasture can be instrumental in estimating the deposition location of cattle fecal matter.

To address this issue, cattle position data were analyzed and a simplified distribution model was

developed. Cattle position data were acquired through GPS collars and a cattle distribution

model was developed and incorporated into a regionally tested hydrological/water quality model,

ACRU2000.

The GPS data were spatially and temporally analyzed to quantify the amount of time spent

by cattle near shade and water locations. The analysis revealed the prominence of seasonal

utilization of water troughs, ditches, and shade. Shade structures were utilized substantially

during the warm seasons. Wetland utilization was similar across cool and warm periods but was

variably distributed across times within periods. The analysis also revealed that there can be

significant differences in an individual cow' s behavior and utilization of water features.

The GPS analysis was instrumental in the identification of variables to be included in the

cattle distribution model. This distribution model was added as an add-on module within the









Java-based obj ect-oriented framework of the ACRU2000 modeling system. The algorithms are

composed of attractants of cattle (shade, water, and forage) and their weighting factors. The

algorithms were developed using the techniques of Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) and criteria

weighting was developed using the Analytical Hierarchy Process. The HSI model was integrated

with the current hydrology, nutrient, and vegetation modules within ACRU2000.

The HSI model was calibrated and verified on summer pastures of Buck Island Ranch,

Lake Placid, FL. Model verification revealed that its performance was in good agreement with

observed GPS data. Several Best Management Practice scenarios, designed to mimic fencing of

selected pasture areas, revealed that the phosphorus release from senesced biomass may be a

significant store amongst all other pools of phosphorus. The HSI model has enhanced the

capability of ACRU2000 to represent the spatial variability and nutrient effects of cattle

distribution within complex agro-ecosystems of south Florida.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Study Background

The State of Florida has plentiful, diverse water resources that support a variety of

ecosystems, animals, food crops, industry, tourism, and recreation. However, rapid population

growth over the past 3 5 years is significantly affecting the quality of these systems. It is also

proj ected that Florida' s population will increase to 25.9 million in 2025 (US Census Bureau,

2005). Hence, Florida is facing a unique challenge of managing water quantity and quality with

the pressure of continuing population growth, accompanied with development and extensive

agricultural operations. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is the

regulatory agency responsible for restoring and protecting the state's water quality. In its 2006

Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report, the FDEP documented increasing nonpoint source

pollution from urban stormwater and agricultural activities as a maj or environmental concern

(FDEP, 2006). Nonpoint source water pollution, sometimes called "diffuse" source pollution,

arises from a broad group of human activities for which pollutants have no obvious point of entry

into receiving watercourses. Because of its diffuse nature, nonpoint source pollution is much

more difficult to identify, quantify, and control than point source pollution. In south Florida,

especially in the Lake Okeechobee watershed, nonpoint source pollution from agricultural

operations is a matter of concern.

Lake Okeechobee and Watershed Description

Lake Okeechobee and its watershed are key components of south Florida's Kissimmee-

Okeechobee-Everglades ecosystem, which extends from the headwaters of the Kissimmee River

in the north, to Florida Bay in the south. Located in south central Florida, Lake Okeechobee

covers 1891 km2 (730 mi2) and functions as the central part of a large interconnected aquatic









ecosystem in south Florida. The lake is the second largest freshwater body located wholly within

the continental United States. Lake Okeechobee is a multipurpose reservoir providing drinking

water for urban areas, irrigation water for agricultural lands, recharge for aquifers, freshwater for

the Everglades, habitat for fish and waterfowl, flood control, navigation, and many recreational

opportunities (SFWMD, 1997). Under natural historic conditions, water flowed from Lake

Okeechobee to the Everglades. After events of heavy rainfall, water exited the lake' s littoral zone

by numerous small tributaries, and by a broad sheet-flow at the southeastern lake edge

(SFWMD, 1999). At that time, the lake bottom was composed primarily of sand that had low

phosphorus content. Conditions in and around Lake Okeechobee changed dramatically during

the last century, due to agricultural development in the watershed to the north of the lake, and

construction of the Central and South Florida (C&SF) Proj ect. Excess nutrient inputs from

agriculture and more efficient delivery of stormwater by the C&SF Proj ect have dramatically

increased in-lake total phosphorus concentrations.

The Okeechobee watershed is divided into six regions: Lower Kissimmee River (LKR) (S-

154, S-65D, and S-65E), Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough (TCNS) (S-191), Fisheating Creek, Indian

Prairie/Harney Pond, the Lakeshore and the EAA (Figure 1-1). During the 20th century, much of

the land around Lake Okeechobee was rehabilitated to agricultural use. To the north, dairy farms

and beef cattle ranching became the maj or land uses. In the south, sugar cane and vegetable

farming increased rapidly. Associated with the land use changes were large increases in the rate

of nutrient inputs to the lake (SFWMD, 1999). The main sources of high nutrient loads in the

watershed are thought to be runoff from dairy barns and holding areas, direct stream access by

large numbers of dairy and beef cattle, and runoff from improved pastures.









The lake, a designated Class I water body (potable water supply), has been threatened

especially by high phosphorus levels, which have tripled since 1975 (Figure 1-2) causing large

algal blooms (SFWMD, 1999). The watershed has little relief, and the water table is near the soil

surface during the wet season. Before development this area was largely composed of wetlands

(Blatie 1980). During 1926 and 1928, flooding resulted in the loss of life and property, which

then resulted in the construction of a flood control levee (Herbert Hoover Dike) and a rim canal

around the lake to control flooding. Currently, all flows into and out of the lake are managed

through 140 miles of canals; control structures (gates, locks, and pumps); and levees, which were

completed in the late 1950s, as part of the Central and South Florida (C& SF) Flood Control

Proj ect.

The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), in conjunction with the United

States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), regulates these structures and canals (SFWMD,

1997). This modified system has improved flood control and supplied irrigation water; however,

it negatively affected the water quality of Lake Okeechobee by expediting the delivery of

stormwater runoff to Lake Okeechobee.

Soils in the watershed (especially in northern regions) are mainly Spodosols which are,

sandy, low in clay content, low pH, low cation exchange capacity and low phosphorus retention

capacity. These soils (more than 90% sand) are characterized by high infiltration rates and poor

internal drainage due to low permeability of the Bh horizon. The Bh horizon contains large

deposits of Aluminum (Al) and Iron (Fe) along with organic matter and is known as the spodic

layer. When rainfall occurs, the soils can quickly become saturated. During much of the year, the

water table is located between the spodic horizon and the soil surface (Graetz and Nair, 1995).

Because of this restrictive layer, nutrient movement in Spodosols occurs through surface runoff









and also through subsurface flow (Campbell et al., 1995). Apart from landuse changes, soil and

hydrologic characteristics of the watershed have also facilitated in development of algal blooms

and other adverse impacts to water quality both in Lake Okeechobee and in downstream

receiving waters.

Consequently, in 1999, the FDEP initiated development of the Total Maximum Daily Load

(TMDL) of phosphorus for Lake Okeechobee. A TMDL is the maximum amount of a given

pollutant that a water body can absorb and still maintain its designated use. It was adopted by

rule in May 2001. The FDEP proposed a maximum annual load of 140 metric tons of phosphorus

to Lake Okeechobee to achieve an in-lake target phosphorus concentration of 40 ppb. The FDEP

is working in conjunction with other state agencies such as the Florida Department of

Agricultural and Consumer Services (FDACS), Water Management Districts (WMD), Soil and

Water Conservation Districts (SWCD), and U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS) to support a healthy lake system, restore the designated uses of the lake, and allow the

lake to meet applicable water quality standards. These agencies are implementing a multifaceted

approach to reducing phosphorus loads by improving the management of phosphorus sources

within the Lake Okeechobee watershed through continued implementation of existing

regulations and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (FDEP, 2001).

Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Lake Okeechobee Watershed

The state agencies responsible for water quality have recognized that mere implementation

of regulations will not be sufficient to achieve the targeted load reductions for the lake

(SFWMD, 1999). Other management strategies for this region are needed, including

development of non-enforceable guidelines and education of farmers and ranchers to adopt

BMPs to reduce the current pollution levels in surface waters. A step in this direction resulted in

development of the "Water Quality Best Management Practices for Cow-Calf Operations in









Florida" (FCA, 1999) by the Florida Cattlemen's Association (FCA). The BMPs included in the

manual include a variety of structural (e.g., fencing) and managerial (e.g., nutrient management)

BMPs. Although the BMPs developed represent the best efforts of the ranchers and state

agencies, limited information exists on the effectiveness of these BMPs. To address the

information gap, a study is currently underway by researchers at University of Florida, Institute

of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF-IFAS) in conjunction with FDEP, FDACS, SFWMD, and

NRCS. The study is aimed at demonstrating and determining the efficacy of water quality BMPs

such as fencing and improved water management for reducing phosphorus loads to Lake

Okeechobee from cow-calf operations in the Okeechobee basin (UF-IFAS, 2002). Another

important factor governing the BMP implementation by the ranchers will be their economic

impact on ranch income. Unless a BMP is economically feasible for a rancher, its

implementation will be limited.

Contribution to Information Required for Modeling and BMP Implementation

Given the fact that cattle's presence in waters can be a source of direct loading of P, it is

important to quantify the time spent by them near/in waters so that an informative decision can

be made regarding water quality BMPs for ranches in the region of south Florida. It is also

essential that the current modeling systems should incorporate dynamics of localized grazing

pressure so that comprehensive representation of existing agro-ecosystems is accounted. Almost

all hydrological models lack representation of spatial distribution of cattle presence. A successful

model should not only represent hydrology and nutrients but also the dynamics of cattle

movement and behavior. If modeling systems are flexible and extensible they can be updated as

per the requirement of the system they are representing. One such modeling system is the

ACRU2000 which is available for expansion and incorporation of cattle distribution dynamics.

The specific objectives of this research are:









* Review cattle behavior studies, especially those associated with water quality impacts.

* Analyze cattle movement dynamics and their behavior using GPS Collar data.

* Construct a methodology to identify the spatial and temporal information of grazing cattle.

* Development of cattle distribution algorithms for the ACRU2000 modeling system.

* Test ACRU2000 on a site, which will best represent the condition for which the model is
being designed, i.e. agro-ecosystem of south Florida.

Organization of This Dissertation

Chapter 2 is a thorough review of two broad categories: cattle behavior studies and

existing modeling approaches that are used in defining ecological systems at various scales. In

Chapter 3, detailed analysis of GPS Collar data is presented. Results of various techniques have

also been presented that have been utilized to process GPS data. The following chapter (Chapter

4) includes model design, algorithm development and incorporation of cattle movement in the

ACRU2000 model. In Chapter 5 the cattle movement add-on module is tested and verified.

Finally Chapter 6 summarizes the effort of data analysis and modeling.



























































Lakewater Total Phosphorus
140

120-

-100 o



4 0 -



20


68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 BB 90 92 94 96 98
Year


-f St. Lucie
*. anal






C-43 I, -
1- 10
PRIORITY
BASINS

L-18
North Newr
River
L-24
Mliamli Canal

DRAINAGE BASINS
OF LAKE OKEECHOBEE




Figure 1-1. Drainage Basins of Lake Okeechobee (SFWMD).


Figure 1-2. Yearly average total phosphorus concentrations in the open-water (pelagic) region of
Lake Okeechobee (SFWMD).









CHAPTER 2
CATTLE BEHAVIOR DYNAMICS AND CURRENT MODELING APPROACHES

High density animal operation is of interest as it can potentially be a cause of concern with

regards to its impact on the environment (Bottcher et al., 1995). Pastureland and dairies can

become an important source of diffuse or nonpoint source pollution if adequate practices are not

implemented or in cases when livestock are allowed to approach or enter surface waters. In

regions such as south Florida where cattle-ranching and dairy-farming are important agricultural

activities; there are concerns of increase in nutrient loadings from these agricultural lands.

Phosphorus loading from rangelands and its subsequent movement into the drainage waters

(Lake Okeechobee) is a maj or environmental concern in this watershed (Allen et al., 1982). The

primary source of phosphorus has been non-point source agricultural runoff, particularly from

beef cattle ranching and dairy farming, the two primary land uses in the Lake Okeechobee

watershed (Flaig and Reddy, 1995). Unlike dairy farms, beef cattle ranches are not yet treated as

sources of point source pollution due to lower animal stocking rates associated with cow/calf

production systems. Therefore, these ranches are not subject to any regulations from state and

federal agencies. A "voluntary" BMP implementation program exists for beef cattle ranches,

however, due to limited information on the effectiveness of these BMPs not many ranchers have

enrolled in the program.

Factors Influencing Cattle Distribution

Since cattle defecation is of maj or concern, it is evident that to develop a complete

understanding of the animal-plant-soil system in a ranch system, the spatial information of

grazing cattle will be crucial, which will aid in developing a comprehensive understanding of

ecological interactions. Various studies have examined the scope of improving pasture utilization

by increasing the distribution of cattle (Bailey et al., 1989a; Bailey et al., 1996; Ballard and










Krueger, 2005; Ganskoop, 2001; Marlow and Pogacnik, 1986; Owens et al., 1991, Schacht et al.,

1996; Smith et al., 1992, Sneft et al., 1985a, b).

Cognitive Mechanisms

In an invited synthesis paper Bailey et al. (1996) examined behavioral mechanisms that

produce large herbivore distribution patterns. It was reported that grazing distribution can be

attributed to biotic factors such as forage quality and abiotic factors such as slope. Abiotic factors

form cattle's conspicuous habit to graze "convenient areas" (Schacht et al., 1996). Selective

grazing of these convenient areas within pasture isolates area that do not get grazed or only

lightly grazed. This eventually causes reduction in the carrying capacity of grasslands and

efficiency of livestock enterprise (Anderson, 1967). Bailey et al. (1996) defined the foraging

process as an aggregate of two mechanisms: non-cognitive and cognitive. Non-cognitive

mechanisms do not require use of memory from large herbivores during foraging. Grazing

velocity and intake rate are examples of non-cognitive mechanisms that require little judgment

from the animal. Whereas, cognitive mechanism is a process of leaming and memory that have

shown to affect diet selection in selecting feeding sites. In earlier studies Bailey et al. (1989b, c)

demonstrated that large herbivores return to nutrient rich areas more frequently and generally

avoid nutrient poor areas. This is primarily because animals have an accurate spatial memory and

can associate food resource levels with the locations in which they were found.

Water Development

To ensure even pasture utilization, managers try to increase cattle' s uniformity of grazing

by changing these abiotic attributes of their pastures. Slope and distance to water have been

widely acknowledged as the two primary determinants of grazing patterns in large scale range

environments (Owens et al., 1991; Sneft et al., 1985b; Sneft et al., 1987; Schacht et al., 1996).

Areas that are steeper receive less use than those that are gentle (Mueggler, 1965), and locations









that are farther from water also receive less use than those that are near water (Valentine, 1990).

Development of water sources that are further than 1 km from existing water source usually

increases forage utilization and thereby increasing overall uniformity of grazing (Bailey, 2004).

Goebel (1956) increased the number of water developments from 9 to 52 over period of five

years and observed that this increase in water availability decreased concentrations of cattle in

overgrazed areas and increased use of areas which previously received little or no utilization.

During the growing season drainage channels and plant community near water locations gets

heavily grazed (Sneft et al., 1985b). Therefore, to increase distribution and also to lighten forage

over-utilization near water (Figure 2-1) some studies have controlled cattle's access to water

(Martin and Ward, 1970).

Water development has also been useful in protecting riparian areas thereby improving

stream water quality. Off stream water source has proven to decrease grazing pressure in the

riparian zone (Porath et al., 2002). Sheffield et al. (1997) reported that installation of off stream

water source reduced the average concentrations of total suspended solids, total nitrogen,

ammonium, sediment bound nitrogen, sediment bound phosphorous, total phosphorous and

stream bank erosion. In another study in Oregon, Miner et al. (1992) observed that cows reduced

their presence in the stream from 25.6 min/day to only 1.6 min/day (reduction of more than

90%),when off stream tank was made available.

Breed Selection

It has been reported that herbivores prefer gentle slopes near water (Mueggler, 1965).

Bailey et al. (2001) has suggested the use of breeds that originate from mountainous terrain

(Tarentaise) in rugged rangelands and use of breeds developed in gentler slopes (Hereford) in

rolling topographical rangelands. However, there can be some individuality associated with

regards to grazing on rugged terrain (Bailey et al., 2004). In a study conducted in the mountains










of Montana Bailey et al. (2004) compared the daily grazing patterns of cows that used steepest

slope and highest terrain to those that used gentler slopes and lower elevations. The authors

termed cows that spent more time grazing steeper slopes as "hill climbers" and those that used

gentler slope as "bottom dwellers". The study concluded that individual cows within a herd can

use different terrain.

Seasonal Distribution

A seasonal effect on cattle grazing behavior has also been reported in many studies

(Marlow and Pogacnik, 1986; Sneft et al., 1985b; Tanner et al., 1984). Typically during summer

(growing season), forage becomes mature and plentiful and there is more even grazing. Whereas,

during winter (dormant season) forage is not that palatable and hence there is more patchy

grazing. However, grazing distribution of weaning cows generally improves during late fall and

winter because of decreased water and nutrient requirements after weaning (Schacht et al., 1996).

A study conducted in northeastern Colorado used cluster analysis of forage-use to analyze the

consistent seasonal-grazing pattern and eventually construct a predictive model (Sneft et al.,

1985b). It was found that seasonal-grazing distribution was correlated with proximity to water

and site-quality indicators. Results of a 2-year behavior study in Montana also indicated seasonal

trend in cattle use of riparian and upland areas (Marlow and Pogacnik, 1986).

Shade Structures

In regions associated with high temperatures, another important factor in cattle distribution

and performance is availability of shade. At high temperatures, evaporative cooling is the

principal mechanism for heat dissipation in cattle (Blackshaw and Blackshaw, 1994). In order for

a cow to maintain a relatively constant body temperature with respect to its environment

homeostasiss), it must maintain thermal equilibrium via its developed heat-regulating

mechanisms. When the ambient temperature approaches or exceeds cattle's body temperature,









the cattle must increase their active cooling by evaporation of water from the respiratory tract or

from the skin by sweating (Lee, 1967). Failure to maintain homeostasis at high temperatures may

lead to reduced productivity or even death (Blackshaw and Blackshaw, 1994). Historically there

used to be a perception amongst producers that providing shade may reduce the time that cattle

spent grazing. However, recent studies have demonstrated that the amount of time cattle spent in

shade was related to environmental conditions and that shade seeking did not result in reduced

grazing time (Widowski, 2001). Also, by manipulating shade, cattle can be drawn to under-

utilized area of pasture (McIlvain and Shoop, 1971). Shade has also proven to bring financial

profits in ranching enterprise. In a 4 year study in Oklahoma it was quantified that shade

increased summerlong gain of yearling Hereford steers by a profitable 19 lb/head (McIlvain and

Shoop, 1971). The same study also concluded that "hot muggy days" (days when temperatures

were above 850 F and high humidity) reduced summerlong steer gains by 1 lb per day. In a

review paper on the effect of shade on production and cattle behavior Blackshaw and Blackshaw

(1994) reported that under high heat stress, Bos indicus breeds and their crosses have better heat

regulatory capacities than Bos taunts breeds. The authors attributed this difference due to

differences in metabolic rate, food and water consumption, sweating rate, coat characteristics and

color. The sweating of Bos indicus increases exponentially with rises in body temperatures;

whereas, in Bos taurus, sweating rates tended to plateau after an initial increase (Finch et al.,

1982) Therefore, Bos taurus must evaporate substantially more sweat than Bos indicus to

maintain normal body temperatures (Finch, 1986). Blackshaw and Blackshaw (1994) in their

review paper discussed some of the important physiological mechanisms that help cattle to cope

with heat stress:

* Evaporative Cooling
* Metabolic rate and tissue insulation










* Water consumption
* Cattle coat characteristics

Social Behavior

In mountainous terrain, cattle may form social groups (Roath and Krueger, 1982a).

Amongst these social groups cattle have been classified as leaders, followers and independents

with regards to movement during grazing (Sato, 1982). A dominance hierarchy exists in a herd

(Bennett et al., 1985; Bennett and Holmes, 1987; Broom and Leaver, 1978). Animals high in the

hierarchy have priority to feed, shelter, and water. Low-ranked animals maintain a certain

distance from dominant animals to avoid conflict. As subordinates get closer to dominant

animals, they may reduce their bite rate, stop feeding, relocate into areas of lower habitat quality

or wait their turn until the more dominant animals are satisfied and leave the area (Bennett et al.,

1985; Bennett and Holmes, 1987; Broom and Leaver, 1978). Therefore, management strategies

that involve social composition (e.g., herding, selective culling) can be used to relieve grazing

pressure on environmentally sensitive areas (Sowell et al., 1999).

Apart from the various factors mentioned above, there are plentiful other factors that may

be responsible in influencing cattle distribution dynamics. Schacht et al. (1996) have categorized

four techniques that can be employed for improving grazing distribution:

r Enticing the grazing animal to forage
Water placement
Salt and mineral placement
Supplemental feeding location
Rubs and oiler placement
Other methods (mowing, burning, shade etc.)
Pasture characteristics
Fencing
Pasture size
Pasture shape
r Grazing management strategies
Rotational Grazing
Stocking density










Flash grazing
Season of grazing
Livestock considerations
Class of livestock
Vegetation and terrain characteristics

Cattle Location and Water Quality

Considerable research pertaining to water quality impacts of grazing systems have been

well documented in the western states of USA (Belsky et al., 1999; Buckhouse and Gifford,

1976; Miner et al., 1992; Nader et al., 1998). Numerous studies have specifically targeted cattle

distribution patterns relative to water locations and riparian areas (Dickard et al., 1998; Gillen et

al., 1985; McIlvain and Shoop, 1971; Owens et al., 1991; Roath and Krueger, 1982b; Sneft et al.,

1985). Results from all the above studies have indicated water to be an influencing factor in

cattle distribution patterns.

In a cattle ranch system with stream there is concern of direct contamination within the

stream and significant impact on riparian areas. These impacts depend upon cattle behavior and

utilization of riparian vegetation (Marlow and Pogacnik, 1986). Cattle prefer to be closer to

water sources while grazing. This situation can lead to defecation, and eventually over

enrichment of the water bodies. High-density cattle activities near or on the stream banks can

result in rapid transport of manure to the streams (Bottcher et al., 1995). Apart from direct input

of nutrients into the stream, grazing near stream banks can also result in increased erosion of the

stream banks (Helfrich et al., 1998). Bowling and Jones (2003) listed four key potential impacts

grazing cattle can have on water quality:

Increased suspended sediment concentrations, due to the physical stirring up of the
bottom sediments when cattle are in the water, and due to increased sediment run off
from grazed foreshore areas.

Input of organic materials causing effects such as increased biological oxygen demand.










Increased nutrients by both direct deposition into the water or entrained in run off
entering the water body.

Increased fecal bacteria and potential pathogenic microorganisms, again through
defecation straight into the water, or in run off from nearby areas.

Cattle grazing and resting pattern will change with respect to water availability, climate,

presence of shade structures, and forage quantity and quality. Water seems to be the driving

force in attracting cattle towards in and around stream areas. Cattle wade into the shallow water

to graze on aquatic plants, to drink the water, and to wallow in it and remain cool on hot days

(Gary et al., 1983; Hagedorn et al., 1999). However, even when availability of water is not a

limiting factor still, cattle are known to spend significant time in grazing within the riparian area

due to availability of higher quality forage.

Existing Modeling Approaches

Model development is a crucial step in representing such a diverse ecosystem and it will

help define problems, organize our thoughts, develop an understanding of the data and

eventually be able to make predictions. There are various approaches for modeling population

response to environmental pattern. Following are some modeling methodologies that have been

widely utilized in the scientific community.

Regression Models

In some early model development effort pertaining to cattle's spatial distribution, Cook

(1966) used multiple regression equations to explain livestock spatial utilization patterns. The

same methodology was later used to predict spatial patterns of cattle behavior over an entire

landscape (Sneft et al., 1983, 1985a, 1985b). Data used to develop the regression model were

collected on the USDA-ARS Central Plains Experimental Range in northeastern Colorado during

1970-1973 (Sneft et al., 1983). Observations of cattle movement were made by following cattle

on foot for one 24-hour period during each month of the study period on two small paddocks, 1 1









ha and 22 ha. Over 60 independent variables were screened and seven were eventually

incorporated for analysis using stepwise multiple regression (Table 2-1).

In another observational study over a 2-year period (June 1980 through May 1982) at the

same site, researchers derived regression models of spatial patterns of grazing (Table 2-2) (Sneft

et al., 1985b) and resting (Table 2-3) (Sneft et al., 1985a).

It was concluded that even though mathematically the models are boundless (i.e. can be

applied to pastures of any size), it was noted that the models do not consider interactions among

variables. Hence, introduction of a complex herd structure might require more complicated

mathematical descriptions of spatial use. Sneft et al., (1983) also acknowledged that even though

the models are "fine-grained" in space, they are "coarse-grained" in time. This indicates that on

finer time scale, daily temperature variations, for example, may have an effect on the behavior of

cattle. These limitations have been overcome by using a different technique known as habitat

suitability index (HSI) modeling (Cook and Irwin, 1985; Schamberger et al., 1982).

Habitat Suitability Index Models

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services developed a methodology known as Habitat

Evaluation Procedures, a planning and evaluation technique that focuses on the habitat

requirements of fish and wildlife species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). These

procedures were formulated according to standards for the development of Habitat Suitability

Index (HSI) Models (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981). The HSI models are usually

presented in three basic formats: (1) graphic; (2) word; and (3) mathematical (Schamberger et al,

1982). The graphic format is a representation of the structure of the model and displays the

sequential aggregation of variables into an HSI. Following this, the model relationships are

discussed and the assumed relationships between variables, components, and HSI's are

documented. This discussion of model relationships provides a working version of the model and









is, in effect, a model described with words. Finally, the model relationships are described in

mathematical language, mimicking as closely and as simply as possible, the preceding word

descriptions.

HSI provides a probability that the habitat is suitable for the species, and hence a

probability that the species will occur where that habitat occurs. If the value of the index (Range

0 to 1) is high in a particular location, the chances of that species occurrence in that location are

high. For example, HSI of 0 would mean totally unsuitable habitat, whereas HSI value of 1

would mean optimum habitat. To determine habitat suitability, suitability indexes (SI) are

assigned to represent the degree in which the variable may contribute to species life requisites

(Hohler, 2004). The SI score is based upon empirical data, professional wisdom and at times,

inspired guesses (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981).

Spatial location of herbivores has challenged many researchers who have tried to model

their distribution (Bailey et al., 1996; Coughenour, 1991; Pringle and Landsberg, 2004; Wade et

al., 2004). In an invited synthesis paper, Coughenour (1991) provided important insights into

models that integrate plant growth, ungulate movement, and foraging. A variety of modeling

approaches was discussed and HSI modeling was accredited of overcoming the limitations of

multiple regression models (application constraints). Bailey et al. (1996) developed a conceptual

model to demonstrate how cognitive foraging mechanisms can be integrated with abiotic factors

to predict grazing patterns of large herbivores. Abiotic factor multipliers were used in the

modeling systems which are similar to HSI models.

As an example of a typical HSI model, a step by step illustration of a HSI model

development is given by Allen et al. (1984) in a U.S. Department of Interior document. This

document is one in a series of publications that provides information on the habitat requirements









of selected fish and wildlife species. In this particular document, the HSI model was developed

for pronghorn (Antilocarpa amnericana) chiefly for application for the Great Basin and the Great

Plains region for winter weather. This simplistic model assumed the winter habitat characteristics

to be the most limiting conditions affecting pronghorn distribution. The model is based on the

assumptions that pronghorn survival and reproductive success are functions of winter food

availability. The model incorporates vegetation and topographic features that favor food

availability under mild snow conditions. After detailed review of literature describing the

relationship between habitat variables to the pronghorn's preference; the authors synthesized all

the information and identified six variables of interest:

Percent shrub crown closure (V1)
Average height of the shrub canopy (V2)
Number of species present (V3)
Percent herbaceous canopy cover (V4)
Amount of available habitat in winter wheat (Vs)
Slope of land (V6)

Each of these six variables has their respective suitability index relationships as shown in

the Figures 2-2 and 2-3 and synthesized in equation 2-1.


WFI = [SIVzx(SIV~xSIV~xSIV4 1/3] +SIVS (2-1)


Equation 2-1 accounts only for the forage factor towards the overall HSI where WFI is an

index representing the forage preference of the pronghorn' s diet. The geometric mean of the

three variable indexes (SIV2, SIV3 and SIV4) in the equation 2-1 is a compensatory function.

This function is used in multiplicative models so that partial compensation of the interacting

variables is accounted for (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981). The three variable indexes are

assumed to have equal value, meaning that all three must be 1.0 (optimum) in order for this

function to be optimum. Also, a unit increase (e.g., increase an SI by 0.1) in the variable index is









assumed to have the greatest positive impact on the overall index (WFI). This relationship

(Equation 2-1) is combined with the suitability index of the sixth variable, slope of land (Figure

2-4), to calculate the combined food/cover index.


WFFI + SI F
FFFCI = 6 (2-2)



The HSI is equal to the WFCI as calculated in equation 2-2. Allen et al. (1984) extended

the application of the model for evaluation areas that may comprise several cover types. To

represent several cover types it was suggested to multiply the area of each cover type by its

respective WFI value, sum the products, and divide by the total area of cover types to determine

the area weighted WFI (equation 2-3) (Allen et al., 1984).




weighted FFI = (2-3)




where n is the number of cover types, WFli is the winter food index for individual non cropland

cover type, and Ai = area of cover type i.

A similar procedure was suggested to follow to determine the area weighted cover index

(CI) value (equation 2-4). Once both the weighted indexes are computed an overall HSI value is

determined by averaging the WFI and CI values.



C;I, A
weighted CI = '- (2-4)

i7=1









where Cli = cover index value for each cover type. A similar HSI model (equation 2-5) for elk

(Cervus elaphus nelsonii) has been documented by Thomas et al. (1988) for the Blue Mountain

winter ranges of Oregon and Washington. The authors made use of some published as well as

some unpublished data to derive a procedure for evaluating effectiveness of various habitat

variables.


HESRFC (HEs x HER x HEF x HEc)1/" (2-5)


where: HESRFC is the habitat-effectiveness index, allowing for the interaction of HEs, HER, HF,

and HEc, HEs is the habitat-effectiveness index derived from size and spacing of cover and

forage areas, HER is the habitat-effectiveness index derived from the density of the roads open to

vehicular traffic, HEF is the habitat-effectiveness index derived from the quantity and quality of

forage available to elk, HEc is the habitat-effectiveness index derived from cover quality, and

1/N is the Nth TOOt of the product taken to obtain the geometric mean. The mean reflects the

compensatory interaction of the N factors in the habitat-effectiveness model.

Similar to the pronghorn HSI model the geometric mean is also used in this model as a

compensatory function. The authors also incorporated graphical representation of the index

resulting from raising any product derived from (HES x HER x HEF x HEC) to the power of

1/N (1/4 in this case) (Figure 2-5).

In a more recent application, HSI technique has been utilized by the South Florida Water

Management District (SFWMD), for evaluating water management alternatives in the greater

Everglades ecological system, extending south of Lake Okeechobee in South Florida (Tarboton

et al., 2004). In their study, Tarboton et al. (2004) used conceptual ecological models to help

define water-dependent habitat suitability indices for select ecosystem indicator species and









landscape features. The first step in the process of defining habitat suitability functions was to

identify the indicator that would serve as a surrogate for the entire ecosystem. Six different

indicators were identified: three were landscape features and remaining three were fish, alligator

and wading birds. After identifying the indicator features and animals, the next step was to

determine the hydrologic variables, attributes, or characteristics that affect the selected indicator

feature and animals. Examples of hydrologic variables used are water depth, flow direction, and

hydroperiod. Once the specific hydrologic variables were selected for each feature or animal, the

next step was to identify the relationship between those variable (Figure 2-6) values and the

relative conditions of the indicator features or animals.

These functions were based on observed data and expert opinion. Once defined, these HSI

functions were combined with time series of hydrologic values to obtain an overall time series of

ecosystem habitat suitability values (Figure 2-7).

Eventually, based on time series values of multiple suitability functions, composite value

were obtained (Figure 2-8).

To obtain composite performance indicator values geometric means, weighted arithmetic

means, and maximum or minimum values were used. The methods selected for combining

different habitat suitability functions for the same ecosystem feature or species were determined

during the calibration procedure (Tarboton et al., 2004). The authors concluded that with this

approach they were able to link ecology to hydrology in a way that would make it easy for

anyone to understand, modify, test, and evaluate this linkage.

Mechanistic Models

Herbivore and plant dynamics have also been modeled utilizing classical predator-prey

relationship between two species in an ecosystem (Noy-Meir, 1975). In some cases researchers

have utilized an energy balance relationship to account for the balance between energy required









for herbivore body maintenance and the amount gathered by foraging (FAO, 1991; Hobbs and

Swift, 1985). Over time various simple as well as complex models have been developed which

along with other processes also attempt to describe animal responses to environmental inputs.

The SAVANNA ecosystem model (Coughenour, 1993) is a spatially explicit, process-oriented

modeling system developed to simulate ecosystems occupied by ungulate herbivores. The model

is composed of several submodels, which describe various processes and vary in complexity.

The herbivory submodel simulates forage intake by diet selection, forage abundance and forage

quality. An energy balance submodel simulates body weight of the mean animal of each species

based on differences between energy intake and energy spent. Smith (1988) described a detailed

mechanistic model in which they added a behavioral sub-model to simulate the ecology of an

arid zone sheep paddock in pastoral areas of south Australia. The spatial component was

included in the model by dividing the paddock into cells of 500*500 m2 and modeled on an

hourly timestep (movement of sheep while grazing is 500 m/hr). Movement of sheep was

determined by the state of its four physiological criteria: heat stress, thirst, hunger, and darkness.

Each of these criteria was defined in a hierarchy of trigger level conditions which determines the

dominant trigger and consequently determines where and at what speed animal movement will

take place.

Metapopulation Models

Levins (1969, 1970) defined metapopulation as "population of populations"; in which

distinct subpopulations (local populations) occupy spatially separated patches of habitat. In other

words metapopulation is a patchy distribution of population in which species exist in clusters that

are either isolated from one another or have limited exchange of individuals (Akgakaya et al.,

1999). It is a network of semi-isolated populations with some level of regular or intermittent









migration among them. In a review paper Hanski (1998) distinguished between three approaches

to large scale spatial ecology (Figure 2-9).

The approach of theoretical ecology assumes homogenous continuous or discrete (lattice)

space and the model does not incorporate any environmental heterogeneity. On the other hand,

landscape ecologists have developed models that are very descriptive of the complex real

environment. Hanski (1998) termed metapopulation models as a "compromise" where

landscapes are viewed as networks of idealized habitat patches in which species occur as discrete

local populations connected by migration. Metapopulation models are spatially structured so that

they incorporate information about habitat relationships and the characteristics of the landscape

in which the metapopulation exists (Akgakaya, 2001). RAMAS has been a popularly used model

which includes metapopulation dynamics integrated with GIS (Applied Mathematics, 2003)

(Figure 2-10).

Hanski (2004) pointed out that even though the idea of running simulation models using

metapopulation theory may seem tempting as it can be applied to any kind of population, it is

however prone to problems. Firstly, validating a complex simulation model will be virtually

impossible, and secondly, the simulation approach will yield specific results rather than more

general understanding. A good example of such a modeling approach has been exemplified in

Schtickzelle and Baguette (2004) where the researchers modeled the metapopulation dynamics

of the bog fritillary butterfly utilizing the abovementioned RAMAS/GIS. The model was

validated by comparing the predicted and observed distribution using the same empirical data

that were used to estimate model parameters. It is therefore important that modelers be careful in

the construction and parameter estimation of models using metapopulation theory. Hanski (2004)

has therefore, repeatedly emphasized that the classical metapopulation theory are most useful for









examining the dynamics of metapopulations living in highly fragmented landscapes. Such

landscapes are in which the suitable habitat for the focal species accounts for only a small

fraction of the total landscape area, and where the habitat occurs as discrete fragments.

Spatially Explicit-Individual Based Models

Spatially explicit population models are increasingly being used in modeling animal

populations and their movements (Dunning et al., 1995). These models can be simple as well as

complex. The extreme of simplicity in population models are the patch occupancy models that

are based on the number of occupied populations. On the other hand, the extreme of complexity

are the spatially explicit individual/agent based models, which describe spatial and habitat

information at the individual level. Logan (1994) has pointed out that complex systems need

complex solutions. The complexity of the processes involved in ecosystem, has compelled the

modelers to accommodate processes that vary across wide range of spatial and temporal scales

(Levin, 1992). Modelers of aquatic ecosystems have realized the constraint a limited spatial scale

simulation poses towards model accuracy and usefulness towards decision making. Individual-

based-model (IBM) is a relatively new approach in ecology. In an individual-based model, the

characteristics, behavior, growth, reproduction etc. of each individual is tracked through time.

This system is different than the commonly used modeling techniques where the characteristics

of the population were averaged together (Reynolds, 1999). These models provide ecologists

with an effective way to explore the mechanisms through which population and ecosystem

ecology arises from how individuals interact with each other and their environment. IBMs are

also known as entity or agent based models, and as individual/entity/agent-based simulations.

Similar to individual-based, agent-based models has also been utilized for simulating animals

with comprehensive and dynamic landscape structure (Topping et al., 2003). More recently

Ovaskainen and Hanski (2004) derived a stochastic patch occupancy (SPOM) model from an









IBM, where individuals obey the rules of correlated random walk. This unique and novel

modeling framework generates emigration and immigration events in a mechanistic manner and

avoids the need for particular assumptions about how the areas and connectivities of habitat

patches influence migration. It was concluded that in spite of being simplistic the SPOM

replicated the behavior of IBM remarkably well (Ovaskainen and Hanski, 2004).

Numerical Fish Surrogate Model

It is for this reason, Nestler et al. (2001) utilized a particle- tracking algorithm with

stimulus-response rules to develop a Numerical Fish Surrogate (NFS) system (Goodwin et al.,

2001), which creates virtual fish that are capable of making individual movement decisions

based on spatial physiochemical and biological information. The Numerical Fish Surrogate uses

a Eulerian-Lagrangian-agent method (Goodwin et al., 2006) for mechanistically decoding and

forecasting movement patterns of individual fish responding to abiotic stimuli. An ELAM model

is an individual-based model (IBM) coupling:

Eulerian framework to govern the physical, hydrodynamic, and water quality domains

Lagrangian framework to govern the sensory perception and movement traj ectories of
individual fish

Agent framework to govern the behavior decisions of individuals.

The modeling-philosophy behind ELAM is based upon two maj or theoretical approaches

that are coupled to represent the movement of fish (Nestler et al., 2005). Eulerian and Lagrangian

approaches are the two frameworks that have been integrated in ELAM. The former approach is

utilized by engineers to describe the physiochemical properties in hydraulics, while the latter

approach, used by biologists, is mostly centered on the stage development and movement

patterns of particles or individuals. The developers of ELAM hypothesize that by marrying these

two frameworks into a coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian (CEL) hybrid method, they can maintain the










integrity of individuals while concurrently simulate the physiochemical properties of the aquatic

ecosystem that affects fish' s movement. The hydrodynamic and water quality module of the CEL

hybrid model is CE-QUAL-W2 Version 3.0 (Cole and Wells, 2000), a 2-D laterally averaged

model developed at the U.S. Army Research and Development Center. The coupler in CEL

Hybrid model is based upon particle-tracking-algorithm that uses equations for computation of

forcing functions in the longitudinal and vertical directions.

The temporal scale of ELAM is exceptionally low, i.e. 2 sec time-step. Modelers argue that

to produce better fit of the fish' s movement in the vertical direction short time-steps are essential.

Given the fact that ELAM is an individual-based model, i.e., it tracks the behavior movement of

an "individual" fish at each time step, the mathematical computations become massively

demanding. It is for this reason that the model is currently run on U. S. Army Maj or Shared

Resource Center supercomputers. The computational infrastructure of the model (as of June

2004) handles simulations of 5,000 virtual fish in approximately 11 hr of run time (20,000 2-sec

time steps). More recently, Goodwin et al. (2005) have realized the involvement of substantial

run time associated with the mathematical computations of this model and have tried to increase

the computational efficiency by simulating more virtual fish in far less simulation times.

Multi-Agent Systems

Recently, several researchers have started to use multi-agent systems (MAS). MAS is

similar to agent-based modeling, but are more influenced by computer sciences and social

sciences (Bousquet and Page, 2004). MAS give more prominence to the decision-making process

of the agents and to the social organization in which these agents are embedded. Ferber (1999)

has defined a multi-agent system being composed of: environment, objects, agents, and relations

and operations. MAS has been effectively used in variety of cases, for example: modeling of

sheep's spatial memory (Dumont and Hill, 2001), prediction of duck population response to









anthropogenic cases (Mathevet et al., 2003) and predict the effects of alternative water

management scenarios in south Florida on the long-term populations of white-tailed deer and

Florida panther (Abbott et al., 1995).

Cattle Tracking Techniques

To develop comprehensive grazing management strategies to improve water quality in

watersheds consisting of beef cattle ranches, it is imperative to develop an understanding of

cattle's usage of water locations. This often involves observation of cattle movement in a pasture

setting. Earlier studies involved extensive field observations and in most cases observations were

limited to daylight only (Tanner et al., 1984). Research involving visual observations of the

cattle's position and its actions are prone to error as the observer can alter cattle behavior and

make visual errors. In such studies, observation periods are generally short due to its labor

intensity and concerns over observer fatigue. In subtropical regions such as south Florida, night

time observations can be critical because cattle exhibit bimodal grazing patterns (early morning

and evening) and with less adapted breeds of cattle spending a greater portion of the night

grazing as compared to day time (Bowers et al., 1995; Chase et al., 1999; Hammond and Olson,

1994). Global Positioning System (GPS) and Geographical Information System (GIS)

technology allow livestock grazing behavior and management to be evaluated with greater

spatial and temporal resolution (Ganskopp, 2001; Tumner et al., 2000; Ungar et al., 2005).

Animals can be tracked on a 24-hour basis using GPS receivers incorporated into collars.

Agouridis et al. (2004) tested GPS collars under static (open field, under trees and near fence)

and dynamic conditions to evaluate their accuracy for applications pertaining to animal tracking

in grazed watersheds. Their results indicated that the collars were accurate within 4 to 5 m,

deemed acceptable for most cattle operational areas. Collars can also record ambient temperature

and number of vertical and horizontal head movements. Head movements can be used to










determine grazing time and differentiate animal activity (resting or grazing) between location

fixes. Location and other programmed data are stored in the collar, and animals must be caught

and the collar removed to retrieve the data.

With more recent technical advancement, Cattle Traq LLC, an affiliate of American

Biomedical Group Inc. located in Oklahoma City, has developed software capable of monitoring

cattle and recording internal body temperature. Cattle Traq is an integrated system of microchips

located in ear tags, access control sensors and proprietary software (ABGI, 2005). It operates

with radio frequency waves sent from ear tags to software that decodes the signals and translates

them into usable information.

Summary

In their thorough review on grazing impacts on stream water quality in the southern region

of USA, Agouridis et al. (2005) credited the plentiful grazing studies of the western and mid-

western USA; but, also acknowledged that the differences between the arid west and the

southern humid region prohibit the universal transfer of research results. Models and concepts

developed elsewhere cannot be applied to the unique agro-ecosystems of the south-east (Platt

and Peet, 1998) such as south Florida. A limited number of grazing studies in the southern humid

regions (Tanner et al., 1984; Zuo, 2001) have provided valuable, yet incomplete information

with regard to the extent, if any, of water quality degradation by the grazing beef cattle in the

southeastern USA.

In recent times, with the advancement in computational power, researchers have exploited

new advanced computer-based technologies for the development of ecological simulation

systems. Primarily, the research in ecological model development has been greatly concentrated

in utilizing enhanced computer technology to incorporate the details of ecological phenomena.

The primary goal when building an ecological model should be to incorporate the knowledge and










understanding of a system's patterns and processes into a computerized tool that will simulate

the way in which the real system would behave under specific conditions. Simple models often

achieve this goal; they have simplistic assumptions, and can function with limited data.

However, they might neglect detailed aspects such as spatial heterogeneity and individual

variability. Alternately, complex models incorporate the details of ecological phenomenon but,

are often criticized because they are difficult to understand, parameterize, and hard to

communicate. Individual based models are good examples of complex modeling systems. These

models are useful classroom exercises to demonstrate effects at fine scale. Unfortunately, the

behavior rules at individual levels are poorly known and therefore modelers have to rely on

stochastic mechanisms. Another limitation of these models is the exorbitant computation demand

to represent large number of animals over large areas.



120

100






~ 0





100 200 300 400 500
Distance from water (yards)


Figure 2-1. Average Herbage Yield (lb/acre) of perennial grasses (1959-1966) from year long
access to water on southern Arizona range (Martin and Ward, 1970).










1.0 1.



S0.6 0.6

30.4 -1 t0.4



vn0.0 .I 0 6 12 18 24(in)
0 25 50 75 10) A 0 15.2 30.4 45.7 60.9(an)B






= t /Variable 3
30.4




I 2 3 4 5C


Figure 2-2. The relationships between shrub habitat variables and suitability index (SI) values
for pronghorn winter food quality. A) Percent shrub crown cover. B) Average height
of shrub canopy. C) Number of shrub species present per cover type (adapted from:
Allen et al., 1984).



1. II r X .


S0.6 0.6-
r Variable 4 variable 5
i 0.4 -1 C 0.4-

S0.2 0,2 -

vr0.0 vr0.0
U 25 50 75 1 0 A 0 25 50 75 100 B


Figure 2-3. The relationships between two variables of forage diversity and suitability index (SI)
values for pronghorn winter food quality. A). Percent herbaceous canopy cover B)
Percent of available habitat in winter wheat (adapted from: Allen et al., 1984).











* 1 9 1 1


A B C D.~.


1.0




0.6


0.4



0.2-


A) CI-2% slope; flat or

B) 3-8%8 slope; gently rolling
C) 9-25% slope; substantial
drainages, ridges, and/or
rims present
0) > 25% slope; mountainous


Figure 2-4. The relationship between mean topographic diversity and suitability index (SI)
values for pronghorn winter food quality (adapted from: Allen et al., 1984).


z
S0.8
TLI

ur.
S0.6


uJ .

e


.L 0.2


0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Value for (MEyx HER x HEF x HEC)


Figure 2-5. Graphical representation of the index (adapted from: Thomas et al., 1988).


















0 0



Hydrologic Variable Hydrologic Variable

Figure 2-6. Two performance suitability indicators expressed as functions of hydrologic
variables (adapted from: Tarboton et al., 2004).


Time, t


Figure 2-7. A time series of values of a suitability indicator derived from time series of
hydrologic variable values (adapted from: Tarboton et al., 2004).

























Time, t


Time, t


Tlkfe.l


Figure 2-8. Creating a composite suitability indicator time series from multiple suitability
indicator time series (adapted from: Tarboton et al., 2004).


T~heoretical
ecology


Metapopulation
ecology


Landscape
ecology


I
I
Ii '-(


...:.....i......... ..i.. ..L....~.....i....i
I--
I.....l.....i-~..1.....;.... i .


Figure 2-9. Three approaches to spatial ecology (adapted from: Hanski, 1998).











RAMAS/GIS
rmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmy
5 ~Patch
I HSI recognition PatchI


I Ia tutr


I I


SpatiI al
Population
Metapop.





Sensitivity Risk
analysis II analysis

111 1 11


Land-
GIS





Field studies


Demographic
data



Experiments


PVA
Reserve design
Wildlife management


Figure 2-10. Using GIS in metapopulation models (adapted from: Applied Mathematics, 2003).

Table 2-1. Significant predictors of cattle behavior (adapted from: Sneft et al., 1983).
Pasture Characteristic


Distance From


Cactus


Behavior Water Fence Corner Eley. Aspect Slope r
Freq.
Grazing + Travel S* S S S 0.50
Summer Resting S S S S 0.34
Winter Resting S S S 0.25
Bedding S S S S 0.20
Functional form 1 1 1 1 1
in models X X X X Cos(X +k) X X
*S denotes a pasture variable statistically significant in predicting the distribution of a given behavior at the 0.001
level.











Table 2-2. Coefficients in the seasonal grazing models (adapted from: Sneft et al., 1985b).
Independent variable
Proximity Oppo Agsm Eref Sihy Bogr rel.
Season Constant r
to water Freq. Freq. Freq. Freq. abund
Growing (Apr-Oct) 438.0 -.104 .316 .039 --4.30 .460
Dormant (Nov-Mar) 350.0 -.010 -.109 .014 .50 .269
Mathematical X1 x
express in model' X 2 3; 4q 5I X7
SSpecies symbols are defined in text
2 X1 = distance from stock tank (meters)
X2 to Xg = percent frequency to plant species
X6 = biomass of blue grama (Bogr) in community (g/m2)
X7 = biomass of all plant species in community, excluding pricklypear (g/m2)


Table 2-3. Coefficients in the seasonal daytime resting models (adapted from: Sneft et al.,
1985a).
Independent variable
Proximity Proximity to
Season Elevation Aspect Constant r
to water fence corners
Warm (Jun-Aug) 416.45 157.71 11.25 --1.89 .426
Cool (Sep-May) 408.80 106.60 5.34 k4 -1.51 .555
Mathematical 1 1 1
cos(X4 )C
express in model* X, X2 X3
* X, = distance from stock tank (meters)
X2 = distance from nearest fence corner (meters)
X3 = CICVation above 1646 m contour (meters)
k4 = 0.600 (cos(0.5236(month-12))
X4 = degrees deviation from due south









CHAPTER 3
ANALYSIS OF GPS COLLAR DATA

Prolonged hot summers in the region of south Florida can cause physiological heat stress

in cattle and drive them into shade and water-filled ditches and wetlands to cool down. The main

focus of this chapter is to quantify the amount of time spent by grazing cattle near or in water

locations (wetlands, ditches and water troughs) across seasons in a cow-calf production ranch in

south Florida. Partial data were used to conduct analysis on the impact of shade structures, total

distance traveled and total area utilization. This chapter is divided into five sections: description

of the study site, data collection, methodology utilized to quantify the time spent by cattle near/in

features of interest, results, and finally some conclusions from the analysis.

Study Site: Buck Island Ranch

The MacArthur Agro-ecology Research Center, Buck Island Ranch (BIR), Lake Placid,

Florida, USA (270 09'N, 81o 12'W) (Figure 3-1) is representative of the agro-ecosystem that

exists in the Okeechobee watershed. BIR (4, 168-ha) is a full-scale commercial cattle ranch

owned by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and leased to Archbold

Biological Station and is located in the central portion of the Indian Prairie/Harney Pond Basin,

one of five maj or tributary basins of the Lake Okeechobee watershed. The ecology of this ranch

is composed of a mosaic of habitats that includes open grasslands, forests, and wetlands which

support a diverse and productive community of wildlife and plants (Arthington et al., 2006;

Swain et al., 2006). This ranch is representative of much of south Florida which was once a

native, subtropical, wet-prairie ecosystem. The ranch has been mostly drained and converted to

improved pasture; however, some patchy wetland areas still exist. For more than 10 years BIR

has been a platform of comprehensive interdisciplinary agro-ecological research (MAERC,

2005). The key goals of ongoing research efforts are to quantify the effects of various










management practices on surface water quality and protection of the natural biodiversity of

ranches while maintaining the economic viability of the ranching industry in central Florida.

The BIR is primarily a commercial ranch and therefore ranch operation management is

designed to support animal performance while optimizing the amount of beef production per unit

area of land. Cattle are rotated among the pastures to maximize the available forage for grazing

cattle. Cattle are stocked for longer periods in the improved pastures (typically during summer

season, May through October) and shorter periods in semi-native pastures (typically during

winter season, November through April). Two reasons necessitate this management strategy:

firstly, summer pastures are fertilized (NH4NO3 56 Kg N/ha) (Arthington et al., 2006) in spring

and, therefore, have better forage quantity and quality compared to winter pastures which have

never been fertilized (Swain et al., 2006). Secondly, winter pastures are less intensively drained

and as a result they are regularly flooded during the rainy season in summer. Rotation to winter

pastures provides time for the summer pastures to recuperate from active grazing.

This study was conducted over three years from 2001 to 2003 at BIR. Since the main

obj ective of this chapter is to quantify the time spent by cattle near water locations only the

physical description regarding ditches and wetlands is presented here. Detailed description of the

presence of pasture and wetland vegetation species has already been reported by Swain et al.

(2006); whereas, soil information has been reported by Capece et al. (2006).

Summer Pastures

Summer pastures (Figure 3-2) consist of eight (S1-S8), approximately 20 ha fields (range =

19.0 to 22.1 ha) with bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) as the dominant forage species. These

pastures are located on soil types that for the area are considered relatively well drained. Pastures

S1 and S8 serve as control fields and were not stocked. The drainage ditch network in these

pastures is comprised of two orders of ditches: deep ditches (0.6 m deep) that run north-south









and receive flow from feeder ditches (0.3 m deep) that run east-west approximately every 30 m.

In the stocked pastures, the average total length of the ditch network is 6175 m (range = 5793.5

to 6864.8 m) and the average area of wetlands is 0.90 ha (range = 0.20 to 1.57 ha). Water troughs

were located at the north end of all stocked pastures (Figure 3-2).

Winter Pastures

Winter pastures (Figure 3-3) also consist of eight fields (W1-W8), that are slightly larger,

averaging 32.2 ha (range = 30.3 to 34. 1 ha). These fields consist of mixture of forage species but

were predominantly bahiagrass, and located on soil types that are considered poorly drained for

the area. All fields, except W4 and W7 which served as controls, were stocked during the period

of this study. Similar to summer pastures, winter pastures have a ditch network; however, W8

consists of an additional order (0.9 m deep) of ditch. In the stocked winter pastures, the average

total length of the ditch network is 4437 m (range = 6618.2 to 253 5.6 m) and the average area of

wetlands is 3.28 ha (range = 1.58 to 5.66 ha). Runoff from summer and winter pastures drains in

a collection ditch and is then conveyed into the Harney Pond Canal which discharges directly

into Lake Okeechobee. A summary of individual pastures, ditches and wetlands is provided in

Table 3-1.

Hydrologic Data

As part of the ongoing water quality study (Capece et al., 2006), on-site climatological data

and groundwater elevation data are collected for both summer and winter fields. All

experimental pastures are bermed so that surface water runoff from each pasture exits through a

single trapezoidal flume. This study utilized climatological information (Table 3-2) in

conjunction with groundwater level data (Figure 3-4) to estimate antecedent soil moisture

conditions and consequently determine the presence and level of water in ditches and wetlands.











The following criteria were utilized to determine the presence of water:

* A water table depth of 0.3 0.6 m was deemed to inundate wetlands, shallow and deep
ditches

* A water table depth of 0.6 0.9 m was deemed to inundate wetlands, and deep ditches

* A water table depth of 0.9 1.2 m was deemed to inundate wetlands

* A water table depth of below 1.2 m was deemed to inundate no features

GPS Data

Cattle position data was monitored continuously using GPS collars (GPS_2200, Lotek

Wireless Inc., Newmarket, Ontario, Canada). These collars are relatively lightweight (950 gm)

and primarily designed for use on smaller animals such as cattle, deer, wolves and bears. The

manufacturer reports that with differential correction deployed, accuracies of position reading

consist of errors that are less than 5 m. For the purpose of this study, data were recorded every 15

min during a 5-day period in spring (March), summer (June), fall (late August), and winter

(November or December) of each year. These periods were selected to be representative of

environmental extremes or expected seasonal differences in forage quality and to fit in the

standard animal handling routine of the ranch. Data collected included: collar identification,

latitude, longitude, temperature and time. A summary of the quantity of GPS Data is provided in

Table 3-3.

Figure 3-5 shows typical GPS collar data on summer pasture 2 collected on June 11, 2001.

The GPS point data have been joined by a line to illustrate the cattle's sequential movement.

Figure 3-5 represents a small portion of the large data set that was collected over the entire study

period (27,924 Total GPS Location Fixes).









Data Analysis

To analyze the data collected from the GPS collars ArcView@ (ESRI, Redlands, CA)

package was utilized. The first step in the analysis was to ascertain that the movement pattern

was not random. To accomplish that, a Nearest Neighbor analysis was performed. Developed by

Clark and Evans (1954) for work in the field of botany, Nearest Neighbor method computes the

ratio (R) of distance between nearest points and distances that would be expected on the basis of

chance. A freely available software that is an add-on extension to ArcView@ Animal Movement

extension (Hooge and Eichenlaub, 1997) was utilized to perform this statistical technique.

For cattle location analysis, all the fix data (latitude, longitude format) was converted to

UTM Cartesian coordinates (NAD 83, Zone 17N) for analysis with other features. The buffer

distance that was utilized for the features were: wetland = 5 m, ditch = 2 m, water trough = 20 m

and shade = 5 m. The extensive network of the ditches is a unique feature in these pastures as

they occupy a considerable area of the pastures. The buffer distance was assumed to be 2m on

each side of the line coverage to represent the narrow nature (2 m width) of this shallow ditch

system. A more flexible (5 m) buffer was utilized for the wetlands to capture the presence of

cattle in the transitional (ecotone) areas of the wetlands which can be wet or dry depending upon

moisture conditions. Cattle do not spend much time in actually drinking water (Wagon, 1963).

Therefore, to capture their presence near the trough the buffer for water trough was set to be at

20 m. Shade structures (5m by Sm) were present at the north end of all stocked summer pastures.

Apart from the shade structures and few patchy trees in SP5, there was complete absence of

natural shade. Winter pastures did not contain any shade structures as most of them had natural

shade from trees. The buffer used for shade structures was 5 m.

The data points that existed within the buffer zone were compared with total data points for

a day (typically 96). Consequently the data were converted into a percentage of time for a given










day. In addition, temporal dynamics with regards to the utilization of water features were

identified by categorizing hours of the day into 4 time zones: (a) Early Morning (12:00 am to

6:00 am) (b) Late Morning (6:00 am to 12:00 pm) (c) Afternoon (12:00pm to 6:00 pm) and (d)

Night (6:00 pm to 12:00 pm). Animal Movement extension was further utilized to compute total

distance traveled by collared cattle and a minimum convex polygon (MCP) home range.

Statistical analysis for comparison of mean percentage of time was performed using JMP

Statistical Software (SAS Institute, Inc., 2005). Tukey-Kramer' s Honest Significant Difference

(Tukey's HSD) test was performed. An alpha level of 0.05 was accepted as a nominal level of

significance and results were considered statistically significant when a P < 0.05 was obtained.

Results and Discussion

The test of nearest neighbor analysis for complete spatial randomness was performed for

all data. Values close to R = 1.0 indicate that the observed average distance is the same as the

mean random distance, suggesting that the spread of data is random. However, R values < 1.0

imply that the observed distance is smaller than the mean random distance, suggesting that data

is clustered. The average R value during summer was 0.51 (range = 0.80 to 0.13) and the average

winter R value was 0.47 (range = 0.74 to 0. 11), suggesting that the data was non-random and the

GPS fixes displayed more clustering during winter than summer months.

Climatological information (Table 3-2) and groundwater level data (Figure 3-4) were

utilized to make hydrologic judgment regarding the presence and level of water in ditches and

wetlands. This information was especially useful when making judgment regarding presence of

water in shallow or deep ditches. Table 3-4 summarizes the estimated presence and location of

water during different time periods of the study.









Since temperatures in summer and fall are often similar (Table 3-2) these two seasons were

grouped into one category of warm period. Accordingly, spring and winter was combined into a

cool period category. Average percentage of daily time spent by cattle near/in all possible water

locations (water trough, wetland and ditch) was relatively low (<15% of 24-hr period) compared

to the remainder of the pasture area, but was higher (P<0.01) during the warm than the cool

period (11.45 & 0.39%[(mean a s.e.; n = 215] vs. 6.09 & 0.69% [mean a s.e.; n = 160],

respectively). Statistical analysis was performed to compare means of percent utilization of

individual water features in different Seasons and also all water features within the same Season.

For example, wetland use was statistically the same and lower in all seasons except warm 2003

as indicated by the lowercase "b". In warm 2001 the use of all the three different water features

was not statistically different as indicated by the uppercase "A".

Wetland and ditches had similar, higher cattle presence compared to troughs (4.4110.35

and 5.2910.38 % vs. 1.9710. 18%, respectively) across periods (Table 3-5 and Figure 3-6). This

was not unexpected because wetlands and ditches buffer areas (approx. 20% of average pasture

area) was much larger than the buffer area of water troughs which were essentially a single point.

Utilization of the water sources differed within periods. This difference was mainly due to a

lower than average utilization of water sources in warm 2001. Unlike what was found in the

other years, utilization in warm 2001 was similar to what was found in cool 2001-02. Across

periods and years, cattle utilization of the different water features remained fairly consistent with

the exception of the ditch feature which showed higher use in warm periods and lower use in

cool periods for all years except 2001. This may have been related to the drier conditions that

occurred during the summer sampling period that year (Table 3-4). During the summer sampling

period in 2001, all ditch classes and wetland areas were dry. This observation supports the









hypothesis that cattle utilize water in ditch features for cooling in addition to possibly for

drinking or feed sources.

Water trough use was consistently higher in the warm periods than cool periods (Table 3-

5). Since troughs could only be used for drinking water, this observation supports what has been

observed in other studies (Goodwin and Miner, 1996; Kelly et al., 1955; Miner et al., 1992;

Sheffield et al., 1997) that cattle will preferentially use alternate and clean sources of water for

drinking. In contrast, the use of water-filled wetlands was fairly consistent regardless of periods

and did not differ, with the exception of an almost doubling of average utilization of wetlands in

warm 2003 (8.25% + 2. 11). The high wetland utilization during warm 2003 can be explained by

a single cow' s strong affinity towards wetland. During the warm 2003 period, data were

collected only from five collared cows during the summer season (no data were collected in fall,

Table 3-3). Amongst the five cattle, one displayed very high affinity towards wetland and

ditches. Average percent of time spent by this specific cow in the wetlands was 24.95%, which is

substantially higher than any other collared cow in any period. This individual cow entered the

wetland every day (all 5 observed days) during 8am to 9am in the morning and remained in the

wetland until 5pm to 6pm. Even if environmental factors are similar, differences in individual

cattle behavior have been previously reported as well (Bailey et al., 2004). If the data from this

individual cow are excluded, the average time spent in wetlands for the period of warm 2003

becomes 4.08%, which is similar to percent utilization in other periods.

There were two periods (spring 2002 and winter 2002) when cattle were stocked in

summer pastures instead of winter (Table 3-3). This occurred because of prescribed burning of

the winter pastures during spring 2002 and accidental burning during winter 2002. The rotation

of cattle due to fire events did allow the determination of whether cattle proximity to water









location was influenced by differences in summer vs. winter pastures (size, average depth of

water, forage differences, etc.) or driven by temperature. Spring 2002 and winter 2002

experienced 5.46% and 5.09% utilization of all water features respectively. This result was

consistent with cool season utilization of water features by cattle and demonstrated that water

usage in pastures was independent of pasture composition and forage quality.

The amount of time cattle spent near each water feature during a 24-h period was

investigated to identify any temporal dynamics associated with the use of these features. Water

troughs were generally not utilized during early mornings and night time regardless of periods

(Table 3-6). As expected, water trough usage was highest during afternoon times of all periods

with the exception of warm 2001. In warm 2001 cattle utilized the trough more during late

mornings than the afternoon. Warm 2001 had the highest maximum daily temperatures of the

whole trial (37.50C, table 2), and it has been acknowledged that increased water consumption is a

major response to thermal stress (Johnson and Yeck., 1964; McDowell, 1972). Drinking water

may have a direct comforting effect by cooling the reticulum as well as by reducing the thermal

load (Beede and Collier, 1986). Hence, it is possible that in periods of hot conditions such as

Warm 2001 the cattle utilized the trough earlier to mitigate their thermal stress. Data from late

morning as well as afternoon of remaining periods reveals that there was always higher presence

of cattle at the water troughs during warm periods as compared to cool periods. This observation

is in agreement with a previous study in which it was observed that in hot climates most water is

consumed by cattle during two 4-h periods: 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., which were

also the times when cattle grazed (Ittner et al., 1951). In early studies various researchers had

established that water intake of cattle is a function of forage consumption and ambient

temperature (Leitch and Thompson, 1944; Ritzman and Benedict, 1924; Winchester and Morris,










1956). Hence, during warm periods cattle utilized water troughs more during their two grazing

bouts.

Unlike cattle' s utilization of water troughs, the presence of cattle in wetlands appeared to

be similar across cool and warm periods but was variably distributed across times within periods

(Table 3-7). Wetland utilization was consistently lowest (0.015+ 0.04, P<0.05) in the early

morning hours and highest (1.5910. 18, P<0.05) in the afternoon hours regardless of period. Late

morning and night presence in wetlands was similar and intermediate to the other two times of

day, although there is a suggestion that period of year influenced the time of the day the cattle

started utilizing wetlands. Cattle presence was not recorded during late mornings in the two of

the warm periods; whereas, the data showed consistent utilization of wetlands during the same

time in the cold periods. The extraordinary use of wetlands during warm 2003 has been

explained in the previous section by the exorbitant use of wetland by one cow. As late morning

is a time when grazing activity normally occurs in Florida (Bowers et al., 1995; Chase et al.,

1999; Hammond and Olson, 1994), this data suggests that cattle were using wetlands for grazing

during the cool period but not during the warm period. Additionally, presence of cattle in

wetlands during warm period afternoon hours, when grazing does not normally occur (Bowers et

al., 1995; Chase et al., 1999; Hammond and Olson, 1994), also suggests that wetlands were used

for cooling and not grazing during the summer period. Since wetlands are expected to be the

deepest water containing feature in the landscape, it is reasonable to expect they would be used

for cooling. In contrast, since it is unlikely that cattle would not need to cool themselves during

the cool period, presence during the afternoon period in the cool season probably represents a

continuation of the morning grazing bout into the afternoon period due to lower forage

availability due to slower forage growth.









Unlike wetland presence, cattle' s presence in the ditches during all times of the day

exhibited a fairly consistent pattern of being higher during the warm periods and lower in the

cool periods (Table 3-8). The exception to this pattern was early and late mornings of the 2001

warm period, when cattle presence was similar during warm and cool periods. Cattle can utilize

the ditches for water as well as for higher quality of forage along the periphery of the ditches.

Generally lower presence of cattle in ditches during the cool period may reflect differences in

growth patterns of the forage species found in the ditches. Bahiagrass and bermudagrass were

the dominate forage species in the ditch areas and as warm season grasses, their growth rate

would be lower in the cool periods of the year. Lower growth rate and hence less forage

availability of these grasses in the cool season would explain both, lower cattle presence in the

ditches and higher cattle presence in the wetland areas, which contained more native forage

species. Unlike wetlands, though, there was no consistent pattern for time of day within warm or

cool periods. This suggests that cattle presence may not have been related to forage availability

or the need to regulate body temperature, and may simply reflect an artifact of pasture design

that necessitated a lot of ditches.

Partial data were used to analyze the utilization of shade structures in summer pastures.

The results are presented in a box plot format in Figure 3-7. Error bars represent standard

deviations. Summer 2001 was the driest season, wetlands and ditches are assumed to have no

water presence and hence highest use of shade during this season is expected. However, results

indicate that cattle did not use shade in summer 2002 and nominally in fall 2002. It is noteworthy

that this analysis was conducted using only partial data. Only two collared cows result was used

for shade analysis for summer 2002. The error bars in Figure 3-7 illustrate the high variability in

the use of shade. As mentioned before, it is possible that these two cows are not representative










of the herd behavior. Relatively low use during Fall 2002 could be attributed to high rainfall

during the five monitored days in this season.

Using the animal movement extension, two home range analyses were performed on the

entire data set. The first one was total distance traveled and the second one was Minimum

Convex Polygon (MCP). Total distance traveled is the sum of the length of polylines generated

by joining GPS location fixes. MCP is the smallest (convex) polygon which contains all points

which the cattle has visited. It should be kept in mind that the MCP will also contain a lot of

empty space that the animal never visited. Figure 3-8 shows a typical MCP area in SP2 during

the summer season of 2001. Both these analyses can be used in conjunction to get an

understanding of the area covered and effort made by grazing cattle. Seasonal means of these

two analyses is presented in Table 3-9. A seasonal pattern is evident in distance traveled by

cattle. Cattle traveled more during cool seasons and less during warm seasons. In terms of MCP

area covered by grazing cattle, both cool seasons were higher than warm seasons; however, Cool

2002-03 was the only season that was statistically higher than remaining seasons. Since forage

growth is slower in the cool season, it is likely that cattle have to travel greater distances to look

for palatable forage to meet their intake requirements and in doing so, they browse a greater

pasture area as well.

Conclusion

Beef cattle can utilize the water sources in south Florida to graze, to drink water, and to

keep cool. During these activities, urination and defecation can occur which can result in direct

contamination of watered locations. If BMPs are needed to minimize the impact of beef cattle

production on water bodies in south Florida, a better understanding of beef cattle utilization of

natural (wetland) and artificial (ditches and water trough) water sources is necessary. To quantify

the amount of time spent by grazing cattle near or in water locations GPS collars were used. The









GPS collars were successful in identifying, quantifying and eventually deriving pertinent

information regarding cattle utilization of water sources. Climatological information was used in

conjunction with observed groundwater level data to make hydrologic judgment regarding the

presence and level of water in ditches and wetlands.

The data illustrated that there was higher presence of cattle near water locations during

warm periods than in cool periods (11.45 f 0.39% vs. 6.09 f 0.69%). On a daily basis, cattle

utilization of all water sources (as determined by % time present) was relatively low (<15% in a

24-hr period). Cattle seemed to utilize water troughs in a fairly consistent manner, going to water

troughs earlier (late morning) and staying in the area longer during warm periods, compared to

cool periods when they went later (afternoon) in the day and for shorter periods of time. The

presence of cattle in the wetlands was generally well distributed across all periods as well as all

times (approx. 4% in a 24-hr period). Unlike water trough utilization, cattle utilized wetlands

considerably in the cool periods as well. This suggests that wetlands in Florida are used for

different purposes at different times of the year. During the cool periods, cattle were present in

wetlands when grazing would be expected to occur (late morning), indicating the need for feed

was the driving factor. In contrast, during the warm periods, cattle were present when grazing

was not an expected occurrence (afternoon), suggesting that cooling was the reason the cattle

were in the wetlands. Unlike wetlands, presence of cattle in ditches was generally higher in the

warm periods than the cool periods; though there was no consistent pattern for time of day within

warm or cool periods. This suggests that cattle presence in ditch areas may not have been

related to forage availability or the need to regulate body temperature, and simply reflect an

artifact of pasture design.









Another important factor this study identified was that there can be substantial variability

in individual cow behavior. This was recognized by an exceptionally high presence of cattle in

wetlands during the 2003 warm period, which was due to one individual's affinity towards

wetland. It is perceived that during this period this cow utilized wetland not only to drink water

but to cool itself by staying in water for extended hours. It is suggested that future studies deploy

multiple GPS collars on cattle to account for variability in the population distributions. Shade,

total distance traveled and MCP area also indicate seasonal utilization and browsing patterns in

grazmng.

The result findings may be useful from a ranch management perspective. Knowledge

regarding cattle' s preference of water location will be useful in developing a comprehensive

understanding of the pasture utilization. Information from this study is not comprehensive

enough to design appropriate management strategies to achieve targeted P load reductions.

Nevertheless, this study does provide useful information regarding cattle utilization of water

features in sub-tropical-humid pastoral environments of south Florida. From BMP

implementation perspective, information from this study can be utilized in conjunction with

other studies to suggest pertinent structural or managerial BMPs for this region. However, the

installation or use of one structural or management BMP will rarely be sufficient to solve the P

loading problem. Combinations of BMPs (BMP System) that control the same pollutant are

generally more effective than individual BMPs (Gilliam et al., 1997). In order for the BMPs to

be successful in the unique settings of subtropical agro-ecosystems of south Florida, they should

be strategically tailored to be site specific, effective, and cost efficient.




























Figure 3-1. Location of Buck Island Ranch and the experimental pastures.


SUMMER PASTURES


Figure 3-2. Map displaying wetlands, ditches and water troughs in summer pastures.



































Figure 3-3. Map displaying wetlands, ditches and water troughs in winter pastures.


GROUNDWATER ELEVATION
SUMMER PASTURE 3
MRain (cm) Ground Elevation -Ground Water Level








15 12






Figr 3-4 Exml ofrifl n rudae ee aain ume ate3


WINTER PASTURES


0 260 620 1.040 Melrs
I 1 1 1 t I r rI


Dit













--O


-I I / END





















O Early Morning (12am 6am)
O Late Morning (6am 12am)
O Afternoon (12am -6pm)

ANight (6pm 12pm)
Water Trough
Wetland
-Ditch
Fence

o 0 50 100 2 10 Meters
SI I I I I I I I I





Figure 3-5. Typical cattle movement in summer pasture 2 on June 11, 2001



















on Time Spent








Seasons

Figure 3-6. Average % time spent near water locations.


SHADE UTILIZATION


30


5 -






Figure 3-7.


SUMMER 2001 FALL 2001 SPRING 2002 SLIMMER 2002 FALL 2002 WINTER 2002 SLIMMEP 2003
Periods

Average % time spent in shade structures.










-0O


N


GPS Location on 31 June 2001
V~hter Trough
SMCP Area

SWetland
SFence

S0 50 100 2( 0 Meters
SI I I l I I I


Figure 3-8. Typical MCP area in summer pasture 2 on June 31, 2001










Table 3-1. Percent area (ha) of wetlands and ditches in summer and winter pastures.


Ditch
Length
(m)
4511.65
5878.47
6382.36
5598.73
6864.82
6202.32
5893.76
3463.35


2535.59
2843.65
4118.76
5243.47
4848.63
5656.41
6217.83
6618.18


Wetland
Area
(ha)
4.52
1.57
1.20
1.33
0.20
0.48
0.67
2.95


5.66
2.46
3.80
0.90
3.35
1.58
1.86
2.85


% Area
of
Wetland
20.51
8.26
5.88
6.49
0.95
2.46
3.49
14.53


17.03
7.86
11.30
2.64
10.37
4.93
6.15
9.42


% Area of
Buffered
Wetland **

11.47
8.47
8.83
1.53
3.49
5.15




21.28
10.38
14.48

13.59
6.92

13.41


% Area of
Buffered
Ditch **

12.37
12.50
10.93
13.11
12.73
12.27




3.05
3.63
4.90

6.00
7.05

8.75


Summer
Pastures

Sl*
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8*
Winter
Pastures
W1
W2
W3
W4*
W5
W6
W7*
W8


Area
(ha)
22.04
19.01
20.42
20.49
20.95
19.49
19.22
20.3


33.23
31.3
33.64
34.12
32.31
32.08
30.24
30.27


Amimal
Units

0
20
35
15
35
15
20
0


15
20
35
0
35
15
0
20


* Control Pastures (Not Stocked)
** Assumes a 5-m buffer around wetlands and a 2-m buffer around ditches


Table 3-2. Summary of climatological data during the study period.


Rainfall
Max During
Temp Study Peniod
(cm)
37.50 1.80
37.00 0.66
33.50 0.20
33.50 0.03
36.50 5.46
35.50 8.35


Av
Start Date End Date
Temp


Min
Temp

15.50
17.00
9.00
3.00
12.50
19.00
3.30
16.99
22.03


Season


Summer 2001
Fall 2001
Winter 2001
Spring_2002
Summer 2002
Fall 2002
Winter 2002
Spring_2003
Summer 2003


06/11/2001
08/27/2001
12/03/2001
03/04/2002
06/10/2002
08/26/2002
11/25/2002
03/03/2003
06/09/2003


06/15/2001
08/31/2001
12/07/2001
03/08/2002
06/14/2002
08/30/2002
11/29/2002
03/07/2003
06/13/2003


25.36
26.26
20.25
15.49
25.08
24.56
15.78
23.25
26.58


26.51
31.44
32.85


0.25










Table 3-3. Summary of GPS collar data in the experimental pastures. The number before the
parenthesis is the number of collars used within a pasture and number within
parenthesis is the average daily fixes during 5 day collection period in each season.
Summer Fall Spring Summer Fall Winter Summer
Summer Pastures 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 2003


Sl*
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8*

Winter Pastures
W1
W2
W3
W4*
W5
W6
W7*


4 (92)
4 (91)
4 (91)
2 (94)
3 (91)
3 (92)


Winter
2001
3 (95)
2 (96)
2 (96)

3 (95)
2 (73)


2 (87)
1 (95) 3 (85)
4 (91)
2 (94) 3 (95)
1 (95) 1 (96)
3 (84)


1 (95) 1 (96)
2 (95) 1 (96)
1 (93) 1 (89)
1 (81)
1 (96)
1 (96) 2 (84)


2 (96)
1 (96)
1 (94)

1 (94)


1 (96)
1 (95)
1 (96)


Spring
2002




2 (95)


1 (96) 1 (95)


Table 3-4. Locations that are assumed to have presence of water (water trough always contained
water) .


Water
Presence

W,DD
W,DD
W
W
W,D
W,DD
W,DD
W,D


Season

Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer


Start Date End Date
06/11/2001 6/15/2001


08/27/2001
12/03/2001
03/04/2002
06/10/2002


8/31/2001
12/7/2001
3/8/2002
6/14/2002


08/26/2002 8/30/2002


Winter
Spring
Summer
(W = Wetland, D


11/25/2002
03/03/2003
06/09/2003


11/29/2002
3/7/2003
6/13/2003


Both Shallow and Deep ditch, DD = Deep Ditches only)













SEASON* WATER TROUGH WETLAND DITCH j Season Mean
Warm 2001 2.7910.34; n = 130 a A 4.1210.98; n = 35 b A 3.8310.76; n= 35 b A 7.9010.68 c
Cool 2001-02 0.6410.15; n = 130 b C 3.4910.32; n = 130 b A 2.4210.34; n= 65 bB 5.5110.42 c
Warm 2002 3.6610.70; n = 60 aB 3.1310.42; n = 60 b B 9.9311.04; n = 35 aA 13.1611.16 b
Cool 2002-03 0.2410.09; n = 30 b B 4.0410.69; n= 30 b A 4.3310.55; n= 30 b A 8.6110.90 c
Warm 2003 2.6710.86; n = 25 a, b B 8.2512.11; n = 25 aA 9.4411.09; n = 25 a A 20.5912.19 a
Feature Mean 1.9710.18 B 4.4110.35 A 5.2910.38 A


Table 3-5. Mean percentage of daily time spent by cattle near water locations (mean & std error;
n = days).


* Warm = Summer + Fall; Cool = Winter + Spring
a b c: means within columns sharing a common letter are not significantly different (P>0.05)
A B C: means within rows sharing a common letter are not significantly different (P>0.05)


Table 3-6. Mean percentage of daily time spent by cattle near water trough (mean std Error).
Water Trough
Season Early Momning Late Momning Aftemnoon Night
(12am 6am) (6am 12pm) (12pm 6pm) (6pm 12pm)
Warm 2001 0.0010.00 b C 1.8110.25 aA 0.9510.15 b, c B 0.0110.01 aC
Cool 2001-02 0.1010.03 aA 0. 1110.04 b A 0.3210.11 cA 0. 11 0.04 aA
Warm 2002 0.0010.00 a, b B 1.4810.34 aA 2.1710.44 a A 0.00 0.00 a B
Cool 2002-03 0.0010.00 a, b A 0.1010.05 b A 0. 1310.08 c A 0.00 0.00 aA

Time Mean 0.0310.01 B 0.9710.11 A 0.9310.11 A 0.0410.01 B
a b c: means within columns sharing a common letter are not significantly different (P>0.05)
A B C: means within rows sharing a common letter are not significantly different (P>0.05)


Table 3-7. Mean percentage of daily time spent by cattle in wetland (mean a std Error).
Wetland
Season Early Momning Late Momning Aftemnoon Night
(12am 6am) (6am 12pm) (12pm 6pm) (6pm 12pm)
Warm 2001 0.0310.03 a B 0.0010.00 b B 1.6510.67 b A 0.63 f 0.17 a A, B
Cool 2001-02 0.1510.06 a B 1.0810.16 a A 1.0710. 14 b A 0.73 f 0.11 a A
Warm 2002 0.2410.13 a B 0.0010.00 b B 1.3610.26 b A 0.3210.09 a B
Cool 2002-03 0.0010.00 a B 1.3010.33 a A 1.4710.38 b A 0.8710.41 a A, B

Time Mean 0.1510.04 C 0.8110.11 B 1.5910. 18 A 0.6110.07 B
a b c: means within columns sharing a common letter are not significantly different (P>0.05)
A B C: means within rows sharing a common letter are not significantly different (P>0.05)










Table 3-8. Mean percentage of daily time spent by cattle in ditch (mean a std Error).
Ditch


Early Morning
Season
(12am 6am)


0. 1710.09 b C
0.2510.07 b B
2.2310.41 aA
0.5610.18 bB

1.0110.13 B


Late Morning Afternoon Night
(6am 12pm) (12pm 6pm) (6pm 12pm)
0.3310.17 c B, C 1.7610.58 a, b A 1.5510.30 a, b, c A, B
0.6710.13 c A, B 0.9310.14 bA 0.5610.18 c A, B
2.1810.35 a,bA 2.8610.38 aA 2.6510.44 aA
1.2810.27 b, c A, B 1.6110.31 a, b A 0.8710.20 b, c A, B

1.2110.12 A, B 1.6910.15 A 1.3710.13 A, B


Warm 2001
Cool 2001-02
Warm 2002
Cool 2002-03

Time Mean


a b c: means within columns sharing a common letter are not significantly different (P>0.05)
A B C: means within rows sharing a common letter are not significantly different (P>0.05)


Table 3-9. Mean daily distance traveled and mean daily MCP area by cattle (mean a std Error).
Distance Traveled MCP Area
Season
(meters) (acres)
Warm 2001 3179.17157.64 b 13.6910.22 b


Cool 2001-02 3994.68192.33 a


14.1510.49 b

13.8510.35 b

17.671.04a

13.3612.58 b


Warm 2002


3193.04182.16 b


Cool 2002-03 4331.051237.77 a


Warm 2003


2980.49198.58 b


a b c: means within columns sharing a common letter are not significantly different (P>0.05)









CHAPTER 4
DEVELOPMENT OF CATTLE MOVEMENT ALGORITHMS FOR ACRU2000

Habitat Suitability Index (HSI)

Modelers develop and use HSI models for land-use management plans because they are

simple to use and the outputs are generally in form of GIS-based maps, which are easy to

understand. These models are also preferred because they may be applied in an efficient manner

and are relatively inexpensive to operate (Schamberger and O'Neil, 1986). The first step in

developing HSI is to identify habitat variables. The second step is to develop suitability index

functions for each individual habitat variable. The final step is to combine these functions into an

equation for the HSI. In HSI modeling, animals get distributed in proportion to the habitat

suitability. More detail about HSI modeling methodology and some applications have been

discussed in Chapter 2.

Model Design for Cattle Distribution in ACRU2000

Limited information is available regarding cattle's preference in grazing systems of south

eastern USA. It has been elucidated in Chapter 2 that plentiful grazing studies have been

conducted in the western and mid-western USA; however, differences between the arid west and

the southern humid region prohibit the universal transfer of research results. The land is very flat

and the climate is warm and humid in the south Florida for most of the year. This is in contrast to

western regions where land is hilly and the temperatures are dry and extreme. The use of water

features is existent (Chapter 3); however, their utilization may be for different reasons.

Controlled as well as uncontrolled ranges in south Florida consist of abundant wetlands.

Therefore, accessibility to water is not a limiting condition, which may be the case in the west.

Hence, models developed elsewhere cannot be applied to the unique agro-ecosystems of the









south-east. Therefore, functions for individual habitat variable in a HSI model must be defined to

represent the distribution of cattle in ecosystems of south Florida.

Suitability Index for Cattle Distribution

The first step in the process of defining habitat suitability functions is to identify the

variables that would affect the distribution of cattle in a paddock system. Shade and water

features are the obvious attractants that dictate the distribution of cattle; hence they have been

included as variables for HSI computation. Water features such as wetlands and ponds may be

attractive for different reasons in different seasons. Depending on the presence or absence of

water, cattle may display a difference in the utilization of a wetland or pond. A dry wetland may

not be an attractive feature for hot or thirsty cattle; however, it may be luring for hungry cattle

that may graze in it for better quality of forage. Hence a dynamic suitability index is required for

features that may become devoid of standing water during dry periods and thereby changing their

attractiveness for grazing cows. The current hydrologic module in ACRU2000 simulates the

depth of water table for each land segment. The methodology used in Chapter 3, which

determines the presence of standing water in wetlands, is used here as well. Water table depth of

less than 0.6 m from the ground surface is deemed to have standing water in the wetlands and

ponds. Hence, the HSI for water is optimum (1.0) when the water table depth is less than 0.6 m

(2 ft). On the other hand, water table depth of more than 1.21 m (4 ft) from the ground surface is

deemed not to inundate wetlands and ponds. Therefore, HSI for water is minimum (0.0) when

the water table depth is more than 1.21 m. Thus, a dry day (i.e. when water table falls below 1.21

m) will have a different suitability index for a land segment with wetland than a wet day; thereby

making it very dynamic. The suitability index values for a water feature with respect water table

depth in between 0.6 m and 1.21 m is a linear relationship and is are illustrated in Figure 4-1 and

as:









HSI, (WT, ) = for WTDEP, > 1.21 (4-la)

HSI, (WT, ) = 1.67 -1.63 x WTDEP, for 0.60 < WTDEP, <1.21 (4-1b)

HSI, (WT, ) =1 for WTDEP, < 0.60 (4-1c)

where WTDEPr is the water table depth on day t; and HSIt(WTt) is the HSI of water feature on

day t.

Under extended warm humid conditions of southeastern USA when the ambient

temperature approaches or exceeds cattle's body temperature, the cattle will seek shade to cool

themselves. In a study conducted during summer in Louisiana, McDaniel and Roark (1956)

found that shade, either artificial or natural, increased the gains of cows and their calves. The

area of the shade will depend on the size of the herd. In an experimental study Clarke (1993)

tested the effects of shade on behavior, rectal temperature, and live weight gain. It was found that

2.5 m2 Shade/cow reduced rectal temperatures in both, zebu-cross steers and in Hereford steers.

Buffington et al. (1983) recommended at least 4.2 m2 Shade/cow but also agreed with Bond et al.

(1958) that 5.6 m2 Shade/cow was desirable. Alternately, Hahn (1985) only suggested 1.8-2.5 m2

shade/cow was required. For southeastern climatic conditions, a shaded area of 50 m2 was

considered representative of the agro-ecosystems of south Florida. Some isolated trees may also

attract a few cattle; however, a shade area of less than 30 m2 will be less attractive, and may

cause crowding (Buffington et al., 1983). Hence, the suitability index values linearly increase

from 30 m2 to 50 m2 (Figure 4-2) and as:

HSI, (SH) = 0 for SA < 0.0 (4-2a)

HSI, (SH) = SA x 0.02 for 0.0 < SA < 50.0 (4-2b)

HSI, (SH) =1 for SA > 50.0 (4-2c)









where SA is the shade area (m2); and HSIt(SH) is the HSI of shade on day t. Shade area is an

input from the user, and will remain constant throughout the simulation.

Herbivores eat to satisfy their need and desire for nutrients, the most prominent being

energy and protein (NRC, 1996; 2001). The mechanism via which herbivores satisfy their energy

and protein requirement is through consumption of available forage. The current version of

ACRU2000 is set up to simulate three functional forage groups: bahiagrass, floralta, and

panicum. These vegetation species represent functional groups that correspond to vegetation

found in uplands, transition zones and wetlands, respectively (Yang, 2006). The forage is also an

important factor that dictates herbivores movement and distribution. The HSI of forage

consumption (Figure 4-3) is based upon data published by Rayburn (1986), who summarized a

group of experiments and developed a more general relationship of relative intake (a proportion

of maximum or potential intake) to herbage mass. The forage suitability index is represented in

the model as:

HSI, (F ) = 0 for Wa,2,, < 150 (4-3 a)

HSI, (F~, ,)= Wa,~,, x 0.00066 +0. 1 for 150 < Wa,2,, < 1350 (4-3b)

HSI, (F,~,) = 1 for Wa,~,, > 13 50.0 (4-3 c)

where Wa,i~t is the aboveground biomass of species i on day t (Kg/ha); and HSIt(Ft) is the HSI of

forage on day t.

Preference Estimation Using Analytical Hierarchy Process

After development of a suite of suitability indices that are deemed influential in

herbivore's spatial location preference, the next step is to determine the relative importance of

parameters with one another. In case of limited literature availability a good strategy is to utilize

the technique of decision analysis to quantify the preferences of one variable over the other.










Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a mathematical tool within the field of multi-

criteria decision analysis that allows consideration of both qualitative and quantitative aspects of

decisions. AHP is especially suitable for complex decisions which involve the comparison of

decision elements which are difficult to quantify (Saaty, 1980). It is based on the assumption that

when faced with a complex decision the natural human reaction is to cluster the decision

elements according to their common characteristics. The AHP methodology involves building a

hierarchy (Ranking) of decision elements and then making comparisons between each possible

pair in each cluster (as a matrix). These pair-wise comparisons provide a weighting for each

element within a cluster (or level of the hierarchy) and also a consistency ratio (useful for

checking the consistency of the user-defined weights). This process requires the user to make

direct comparisons of the relative importance of the alternatives on the measure. In case of

herbivore distribution model there are three alternatives (Shade, Water, and Forage) that need to

be compared and evaluated. Within forage there are three types of forages: bahiagrass, panicum,

and floralta. Also, since the distribution is dominated by two seasons, two sets of preferences

need to be developed for all the alternatives. Logical Decisions@ for Windows (LDW) is a

decision analysis tool that helps define alternatives and variables (Logical Decisions, 2005).

Within LDW, AHP technique is available. To use this technique the user needs to pair-wise

compare two variables as part of the assessment process. The user enters the weight ratios for

each possible pair of variables in a matrix. This ratio describes the ratio of importance of a

variable as compared to the other. Within LDW there is also an option of printing the preference

assessment in a questionnaire format. This lets the user obtain a hard copy of the preference

assessment questions) being posed by LDW. The questionnaire asks the user to identify the

importance of one feature with respect to the other (e.g., Forage vs. Shade) on a scale of 1-9.









This is a useful feature of LDW where the questionnaire can be distributed to the participants in

the study who may not be readily available for direct questioning. For this research we utilized

this feature and distributed the questionnaire to many researchers, ranch managers, and extension

agents (Appendix B). This allowed us to acquire and incorporate a broad spectrum of expertise

and opinion into the herbivore distribution model. Once this information is entered into LDW

(Figure 4-4), it uses the AHP computation process to compute set of weights for the variables

(Appendix C). Model simulation results using weighting factors from the survey are shown in

Appendix D.

The model for herbivore distribution is given in equation 4-4:

HSI = [ (Shade WF Made IIIHSI) + (WaterWF WaterHSI) + {Forage WF ForageHSI) ] (4-4)

where ShadeWF and ShadeHSI are the weighting factor and habitat suitability index for shade,

WaterWF and WaterHSI are the weighting factor and habitat suitability index for water, and

ForageWF and ForageHSI are the weighting factor and habitat suitability index for forage. Since

ACRU2000 is capable of simulating multiple vegetation species, the forage factor in equation 4-

1 can be further expanded to include desired number of vegetation species (Equation 4-5).

(Veg, WF Veg, HSI) +(Veg,WF" eg,HSI)+.... .(Veg,,WF eg,,HSI) (4-5)

where VegWF and VegHSI are the weighting factor and habitat suitability index for the specific

forage species.

Index for Heat Stress and Seasonal Distribution

Summer heat stress has long been recognized as a factor that reduces both, the productivity

and reproductive efficiency of cattle in the Southeastern regions of the USA (Jordan, 2003). In

grazing systems cattle are exposed to varying amounts of solar radiation. This radiant energy can

come directly from the sun or indirectly from the immediate surroundings. During summer, this









radiant load may exceed metabolic heat production of cattle significantly. To cope with the hot

environment, cattle will strategize their behavior and physiology to relieve the total heat burden.

Cattle will seek shade, increase water intake and orient themselves away from direct sunlight.

These behavioral changes increase the tissue conductance to facilitate heat transfer from the

body core to the skin and eventually away from the skin by convection and radiation. There will

be increased sweating to increase evaporative loss as well as increased respiratory volume

(heavy breathing) (Blackshaw and Blackshaw, 1994). Cattle will reduce feed intake as an

immediate response to heat stress (Blackshaw and Blackshaw, 1994) and expenditure of energy

to maintain homeothermy (NRC, 1981). Heat stress is caused by environmental factors such as

air temperature, radiation, humidity, and wind velocity (Gwazdauskas, 1985). Over the years

researchers have created indexes that relate specific environmental characteristics to the

physiological variables of heart rate, respiratory rate and volume, sweating rate, and body

temperature (Blackshaw and Blackshaw, 1994). The two environmental parameters that have

been popularly used have been dry-bulb temperature and humidity. In a research conducted

during the summers of 1975-78 at the University of Florida' s Dairy Research Unit near Hague,

FL, Buffington et al. (1981) established that dry-bulb temperature and dewpoint temperature was

directly related to rectal temperature and respiration rate and inversely related to milk

production. They established that Black Globe-Humidity Index (BGHI) is a comfort index that is

based on the combined effects of dry-bulb temperature, humidity, net radiation, and air

movement, as can be seen in equation 4-6:

BGHI = tbg + 0.36.t, + 41.5 (4-6)

where: tbg = black globe temperature (oC) and tdp = dew point temperature (oC) calculated from

wet bulb temperature. When the BGHI is 75 or higher, milk yield and feed intake are seriously










depressed (Buffington et al., 1981). The black globe temperature, (tbg), iS measured by the black

globe thermometer, which usually consists of a 150 mm (6 inch) black globe with a thermometer

located at the centre. Since black globe temperature measurements are not available for BIR,

another index can be used which is based on relative humidity. Thom (1958) suggested a

temperature and relative humidity index (THI) to evaluate a cow's heat stress as:

THI = td (0.55(1 RH /100)(td 58) } (4-7)

where td = dry bulb temperature (oF) and RH = relative humidity (%).The heat stress is defined

as occurring whenever the THI exceeds 72 (Armstrong, 1994, De Dios and Hahn, 1993; Hahn,

1982; Hahn and Mader, 1997; Igono et al., 1991). However, most of the research has been

conducted in midwestern states on dairy cows with reduction in milk production due to heat

stress as the main concern. The cattle in south Florida are mostly beef cattle. More specifically,

the cattle on BIR are Brahman-crossbred (Arthington et al., 2006). Numerous studies have

documented that Brahman cattle have better heat regulatory capacities than other breeds

(Blackshaw and Blackshaw, 1994). This physiological advantage has been attributed to higher

respiratory rate (Finch et al., 1982; Kibler and Brody, 1952), lower metabolic rate (Kibler and

Brody, 1954; Vercoe, 1970; Worstell and Brody, 1953), less water consumption at higher

temperatures (Winchester and Morris, 1956), and thinner-brighter hides (Allen et al., 1970;

Finch, 1985; Finch et al., 1984; Hutchinson and Brown, 1969; Yeates; 1954). Keeping the better

heat resistance of Brahman cows in mind, the critical level of THI was set to 75. On a given day

if the index reaches 75, the weighting factor of shade and water increases by 20% and 10%,

respectively. Consequently, the forage weighting factor decreases by 30%. This change in the

weighting factors of shade, water, and forage account for the change in behavior the cattle will

exhibit during days when they experience thermal stress.









Analysis of cattle movement data in Chapter 2 clearly indicates that cattle display a

difference in their behavior in the two seasons of Florida. To represent the difference in behavior

in the two seasons in Florida, two entire sets of weighting factors have been developed with the

abovementioned variables, one for warm season and the other for cool. The warm season is

defined as March to October and the remaining four months are defined as the cool season.

Integration of HSI Model into ACRU2000

It has been demonstrated that HSI is a relatively swift way to utilize information either

from literature or even from opinions of experts to develop a model. Therefore, a similar

approach has been used to distribute the cattle in a modeling system, ACRU2000.

The Agricultural Catchments Research Unit (ACRU) Modeling System

The ACRU agrohydrological modeling system was originally developed in the Department

of Agricultural Engineering (now the School of Bioresources Engineering and Environmental

Hydrology) at the University of Natal by Schulze (1995). The developers of ACRU model

describe it as a multi-purpose and multi-level integrated physical conceptual model that can

simulate streamflow, total evaporation, and land cover/management and abstraction impacts on

water resources at a daily time step (Figure 4-5). The ACRU program code was developed in the

FORTRAN 77 programming language. As the model got developed and modified by researchers

around the world, the existing programming language (FORTRAN) posed problems with regards

to its compatibility to accommodate these newer versions.

It is for this reason the model was restructured entirely with an obj ect oriented

programming language: Java and was named ACRU2000 (Kiker et al., 2006). The advent of

ACRU2000 made the model more compliant with spatial hydrological aspects and addition of

newer modules became unproblematic (Campbell et al., 2001; Kiker and Clark, 2001; Kiker et

al., 2006; Martinez, 2006; Yang, 2006). ACRU2000 can operate either as a lumped small









catchment model with relatively homogeneous soil and land cover attributes, or as a distributed

cell-type model where complex catchments are separated into sub-catchments or land segments

(Figure 4-6).

The nutrient module within ACRU2000 modeling system was incorporated by Campbell et

al. (2001) (ACRU-NP), which borrowed the concepts used in GLEAMS (Knisel and Davis,

1999; Leonard et al., 1987). The nutrient module added capability in ACRU2000 to 1) simulate

nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) losses in surface runoff, sediment transport, and leaching, 2)

simulate N and P cycling in the soil-water-plant-animal system, and 3) simulate N and P mass

balances in the watershed system. However, ACRU-NP module was incapable of simulating

multidirectional lateral nutrient transport between multiple land segments through either surface

or subsurface water movement. The lateral nutrient transport component in ACRU-NP was

mainly designed for transporting nutrients dissolved in runoff and adsorbed in sediments through

single outflow from one land segment. Consequently, Yang (2006) restructured ACRU-NP and

added new components to enable multi-directional spatial transport of N and P through surface

runoff and lateral groundwater flow. In addition, a new conservative solute transport component

was also added to rectify the process of nutrient extraction and adsorption in which the ratio for

partitioning the nutrients between the water and soil phases was a function of clay content. Yang

(2006) compared the performance of the new conservative solute transport algorithm from

PMPATH (Chiang and Kinzelbach, 2005), which is an advective transport model using

groundwater pore velocities from MODFLOW (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1998) using a

hypothetical scenario. The comparison revealed that both models produced qualitatively similar

results. In addition, the ability of the modified nutrient model to predict non-point source nutrient

pollution, at BIR was evaluated. It was concluded that the model performed reasonably well.









Yang (2006) also added significant framework to the ACRU2000 modeling system by

adding a new vegetation component to enable multi-directional spatial simulation of

hydrological, chemical, and biological processes simultaneously in a daily time step. The

vegetation model is a simple model that avoids overwhelming data requirements, but is still

capable of capturing the vegetation dynamics. The model is based on the land segment system

developed by Yang (2006), where each land segment is initialized with one or multiple species,

which compete for light, water and nutrients. For each time step, plant growth is driven by

climate variables including solar radiation and temperature. The basic processes in this model are

light interception, conversion of light into dry matter production and allocation of dry matter

between aboveground and belowground dry matter. The impacts from the changes in hydrology

and nutrient concentrations are expressed in growth limiting factors. Yang (2006) accounts for

two types of pressure on the vegetation: lack or excess of water and nutrient. These stress factors

are combined to define a growth reduction factor that is used in the model to reflect the adverse

growth conditions causing the reduction of the potential dry matter production.

In the model the potential growth rate (AWot~i~t [kg/m2/day]) for each species i on day t is

calculated through a linear function of the absorbed light and a mean radiation-use efficiency

parameter as shown in Equation (4-8).

AWpo,l,, = RUE, xlabs,l,t xF,,(Tt) (4-8)

where RUEi is the average radiation use efficiency of species i [kg/MJ(PAR)] and is a summary

variable for all processes dealing with photosynthesis and respiration. Iabs,i,t and Fi~t(Tt) are the

light interception and temperature factor for assimilation by species i on day t, respectively. The

plant growth rate may be limited by N or P deficiency, water shortage or water logging during

different parts of the growing season:










AWred,i,t = AWpot,i,t x RFi,t (4-9)

ANi,t = AWpot,i,t x RFi,t x CNi,t (4-10)

Al,t =Apot,i,t x RFi~t x CPi,t (-1

where AWred,i~t is the reduced dry matter production rate of species i [kg/m2/day]; ANi~t and APi~t

are the N and P uptake rates corresponding to AWred,i~t [kg/ha], respectively; CNi~t and CPi~t are

the biomass N and P percent, respectively; RFi~t is a growth reduction factor of species i, which

integrates the limiting factors from water, N and P. RFi~t, is a unit less, species-specific growth

reduction factor with a value ranging from 0 to 1, which is obtained by taking the minimum

value of water stress, water logging, and N and P stress factors as shown in the following

equation:

RFi,t = min(Fw,,i,t, FWL,i,t ,FN,i,t, FP,i,t) (4-12)

where Fws,i,t is the water stress factor for species i; FwL,i,t is the water logging factor for species i;

FN,i,t is the N stress factor; and FP,i,t is the P stress factor. Plant senescence is assumed to start

when the daily sum of leaf' areas (LAlsum = C LAi,t, [m2 leaf/m2 grOund]) of all species on one


land segment exceeds the critical leaf area (LAler [m2 leaf/m2 grOund]), an input to the model.

The daily total senesced biomass (Ws,its [kg/ha]) and the corresponding N (Ns,i~t [kg/ha]) and P

and (Ps,i,t [kg/ha]) removed through the senesced biomass for each species on that land segment

are calculated as:

LAI, LAI,
Ws,i,t = Fracbs su c ) /SLAi (4-13)
LAICT


Ns,i,t = Ni,t x Ws,i,t / Wred,i,t (4-14)

Ps,i,t = Pi,t x Ws,i,t / Wred,i,t (4-15)









where Fracbs is the fraction of biomass above the critical level to senesce per day, which is

assumed to be a constant value in the model for all species. The senesced biomass and biomass

N and P decrease the amount of live biomass and its corresponding N and P pools:

Wred,i,t = red,i,t Ws,i,t= (4-16)


Ni~t = Ni~t Ns,i~t (4-17)

Pi,t = Pi,t Ps,i,t (4-18)

Currently the model simulates three perennial species including bahiagrass (Paspahtna

notatunt Fhigge~), floralta (Hentarthria altissinta), and panicum (panicunt rigiduhlnt) which are

believed to be the dominating forage species in south Florida. One of the outputs from this model

is aboveground biomass on a daily basis. This output is critical in the development of the cattle

distribution model.

Recent ACRU2000 model developers (Martinez, 2006; Yang, 2006) have enabled and

tested the model to be capable of simulating both hydrology and nutrient dynamics in field-scale

catchments. Pandey (2006) applied the distributed ACRU2000 modeling system to predict

hydrology and non-point source nutrient pollution, on a commercial beef cattle ranch (Pelaez

Ranch) in the Lake Okeechobee region. Pandey (2006) applied the model on the entire ranch by

finely discretizing the modeling domain into various sizes of 134 land segments. Thus,

ACRU2000 can be confidently used as a basis for coupling with an animal distribution

simulation model to form a more complete ecohydrological modeling system.

Once the HSI' s are computed for every land segment in the model's domain, they are

summed, and normalized (so that they sum to 1.0). The cattle in the population are then

distributed across their range in proportion to the distribution of the normalized HSI' s among

land segments. The redistribution occurs on a daily basis. After redistribution, the cattle consume









existing forage proportional to their population presence on land segments. It is assumed that

each cow will eat 16 Kg of forage per day. This amount is based on the typical cattle weight (640

Kg) (ASAE Standards, 2000) and forage consumption (2.5% of Body Weight) (NRC, 1996). The

total forage amount that gets consumed by grazing cattle is removed from the vegetation model

on a daily basis. The removal is based on the preference weighting assigned to individual forage

species. For example, if Vegl has a higher weighting factor than Veg2 and Veg3, Vegl will get

consumed more. This consumption will be in proportion to the weighting factors. According to

suitability index of forage consumption (Figure 4-3), the grazing herbivores will not "see" any

biomass that is less than 150 kg/ha. Once the forage biomass reaches that low level in a specific

land segment, the forage suitability becomes zero and thereby lowering the HSI for that land

segment. Lower HSI in turn allows less herbivores to be assigned and this allows forage to

recover in that specific land segment.

Cattle also defecate proportional to their population presence on land segments. It is

assumed that each cow will defecate 8.5 Kg/day (ASAE Standards, 2000). The cattle waste gets

applied to the top (litter) layer of the model. The waste is characterized into various nutrients

pools (Organic -P, Labile-P, Organic-N, Ammonium-N, Active-N, Organic Matter) (Figures 4-7,

4-8) based on the rates set by the nutrient model of ACRU2000.

Minimum Habitat Area for HSI Model in ACRU2000

Application of habitat suitability criteria requires that some specific spatial parameters be

defined. Minimum habitat area is defined as the minimum area of contiguous habitat that can

support a cattle population on a long term basis. In case of modeling cattle distribution within

ACRU2000-HSI, it is imperative the users maintain a minimum land segment of 0. 1 ha in order

for cattle distribution module to be able to perform reasonably. Maintaining the right spatial












scale is important in order for the suitability indexes to be realistic over temporal and spatial


variation.


Suitability Index of Water Table




08-


~06-


m04-


02-



152 121 06 03
Water Table Depth (m)



Figure 4-1. Suitability index values of water features.



I Suitability Index of Shade Area


08


006


~04


02


S0 50
I Shaded Area (m2)


Figure 4-2. Suitability index values of shade area.













Suitability Index of Forage


08-


i~06-





02-



0 150 1350 1650
Standing Aboveground Biomass (Kg/ha)



Figure 4-3. Suitability index values of forage consumption.


Figure 4-4. Goals hierarchy view in Logical Decisions for Windows@ software (Logical
Decisions, 2005).

















LI i


Figure 4-5. General structure of the ACRU (v 3.00) model (Schulze, 1995).


Neighbo~r 1


Neighbor


Neighbor 2


Figure 4-6. Configuration of multiple directional overland flows from source land segment to
adj acent land segments (adapted from: Yang, 2006).

































Groundwater


Denitrification Volatilization


Runoff

Percolation


Figure 4-7. Phosphorus cycle of the ACRU2000 model (adapted from: Knisel et al., 1993).


Runol. and
Percolation


Runo~fand
Percolatiocn


Figure 4-8. Nitrogen cycle of the ACRU2000 model (adapted from: Knisel et al., 1993).









CHAPTER 5
MODEL RESULTS

Testing Model Performance at Buck Island Ranch

A cattle distribution model (ACRU2000-HSI) was developed for the region of south

Florida in Chapter 4. The algorithms were developed using the procedure of Habitat Suitability

Index and criteria weightings were developed by processing expert opinion using the technique

of Analytical Hierarchy Process. The GPS data analysis in Chapter 3 was helpful in providing

insights into cattle's behavior in warm humid regions. However, the GPS data were not utilized

to create algorithms for the HSI model. The algorithms are composed of "attractants" of cattle

(shade, water, and forage) and their weighting factors. The attractants were determined based on

the features that exist in the landscape of this region. Weighting factors were determined using

surveys from experts and were then calibrated to obtain better results. Depending on the presence

or absence of water, cattle may display a difference in the utilization of a wetland or pond.

Therefore, the depth of water table, which is an output from the hydrologic model, was utilized

to determine presence or absence of water in wetlands. South Florida' s long hot and humid

summer can cause heat stress in grazing cattle. Cattle's change in grazing and resting pattern as a

result of heat stress in hot-humid environments of the southeast is also incorporated into the

model. To incorporate the difference in behavior in the two seasons of Florida, two sets of

weighting factors were developed.

After model development, the next crucial step is to verify the performance of the model.

The model should be verified and tested at a site that is representative of the region for which the

model is developed. It is also preferable to test the model using observed data. Since the GPS

data from BIR (described in Chapter 3) were available, they were utilized to verify the

performance of the HSI model. Table 3-3 is a summary of the sampling of the GPS data. During










any season the number of cows collared for the GPS study was not consistent. Since the GPS

collar data were available only from a few selected cows from the whole herd, for comparative

purposes, it is assumed that the collared cows are representative of the total cattle population in

the model domain. As there can be significant variability in an individual cow's behavior

(discussed in the conclusion section of Chapter 3), it was essential to select a pasture that had the

largest availability of GPS data. Consequently, SP4 and SP5 were selected for HSI model

application (Figure 5-1). The rationale for selecting these two pastures during the

abovementioned times is because of plentiful GPS data availability (Table 3-3) that qualifies the

data to be representative of the whole herd. For each collared cow, number of recorded "hits" in

a land segment were divided by the total number of hits and then multiplied by herd size to

convert the hits into number of cows.

The description of input parameters are given in Table 5-1 and their values that were used

for model calibration and verification are given in Table 5-2. The values in Table 5-2 are the

result of calibration of the HSI model input parameters that were obtained from the LDW

software using AHP technique. Since the water, shade, and forage parameters change during the

two seasons, it was essential to calibrate and verify the model during both warm and cool

seasons. Summer 2001 (June 11-15) and spring 2002 (March 4-8) were the two seasons selected

for testing of the HSI model. SP4 was selected for calibration and SP5 for verification.

Calibration Results

Figure 5-2 is the result of calibration on summer pasture 4 during warm season of 2001.

The box plot (Figure 5-2) shows the range of the observed GPS data in all land segments. Within

the box the dark dotted line and the light solid line represents the mean and median number of

cattle in each land segment, respectively. The light dotted line (running across all land segments)

illustrates the assumption of equal distribution of cattle (1.25 cattle per land segment) by the









ACRU2000 version. Land segments consisting of water trough, wetland, and shade are

abbreviated WT, WET, and S, respectively. The calibration results of the ACRU2000-HSI during

the warm season captures the overall dynamics of individual land segments. Under prediction of

the number of cattle in land segment 8 can be attributed to the lower forage biomass, especially

panicum (less than 150 kg/ha) which has the highest weighting factor amongst the three forage

species. There is a slight over prediction in land segment 3 due to higher biomass availability.

The variability in the GPS data is also noteworthy.

Figure 5-3 is the result of calibration on summer pasture 4 during cool season of 2002. The

calibration result for the cool season also captures the overall dynamics of land segments, with

exception to LS1 and LS2. A water trough and two shade structures are present in LS1. The

model is unable to represent the presence of two shade structures and it is possible that due to

more availability of shading area, more cattle are present. However, the simulation result is still

within the lower range of observed data. Cattle's presence is exceptionally high in LS2. This

high presence has been observed in the north section of all the summer pastures. Closer

examination of GPS data and personal communication with the ranch manager of BIR has

revealed that in this area cattle would stand or lie down, ruminate, for approximately 2 to 3

hours. Various studies indicate that cattle graze mostly in early morning and evening, and rest

mostly in the middle of the day (Bagshaw, 2001; Hafez & Bouissou, 1975; Martin, 1978; Sneva,

1970). A similar observation was made in an experimental study conducted to establish beef

cattle defecation frequency and distribution on hill country in New Zealand (Bagshaw, 2002). It

was observed that often cattle would rest between 11 am and midday. They would rest and

ruminate during this time on flat areas either at the top or middle of the Hield. In a Hield where

there was a large flat area at the top of the Hield next to a trough, cattle were observed to spend









the maj ority of their resting time in this area. Similar pasture setting exists at BIR where the

cattle display an affinity to rest in the northern section of all summer pastures. This high

presence is not recorded in the summer season because cattle spend most of the afternoon resting

and avoiding direct solar radiation under a shade.

The ACRU2000-HSI slightly over predicts the number of cattle in the southern land

segments. This is mainly due to the normalization of cattle population across all land segments.

The impact of under prediction in LS1 and LS2 is translated into slight over prediction in LS9-

12.

Verification Results

Figure 5-4 displays the result of verification of ACRU2000-HSI on summer pasture 5

during warm season of 2001. The stocking rate on this pasture was higher than SP4 (3 5 Cows).

There is also more variability in the observed GPS data in this pasture as compared to SP4. There

is slight over prediction in LS2 due to high initial biomass. Nevertheless, in all the land

segments, the model's performance is always within the range of observed GPS data. The

dynamics of water trough, shade, and wetland seems to be well represented by the model.

Figure 5-5 displays the result of verification on summer pasture 5 during cool season of

2002. Similar to warm season, the model is able to capture the dynamics of water trough, shade

and wetlands in the cool season as well. The phenomena where the cattle display an affinity to

rest in the northern section of the pasture is once again evident. The number of cattle recorded in

LS2 is higher than any other land segment (Figure 5-5). Additionally, there is slight over

prediction in the number of cattle in the land segments from mid field to the southern end of the

pasture (S6-12). The model results for most of these land segments (S6-9) are within the range of

observed data and overall the number of cattle prediction is better than the original model.









Sensitivity Analysis

In a typical modeling system, the model results are more sensitive to certain inputs

compared to others. This information is of essential use for future model users who may need to

calibrate the model for application on a different site. Therefore, it is important to perform a

sensitivity analysis to establish priorities in collecting and determining model parameters. An

analysis was performed to determine the sensitivity of model simulated cattle distribution to the

weighting factors.

The sensitivity analysis was performed using the six-year simulation (January 1, 1998

through December 31, 2003) on the experimental pasture at BIR. Since the model was already

parameterized for the SP5 (Figure 5-1), it was applied on the same pasture for this analysis.

Model sensitivity was determined for + 25, 50, 75, and 100% of the base input value (Table 5-3).

Summer 2001 (June) and spring 2002 (March) were the two seasons selected from the simulation

period. The sensitivity analyses were focused on the population of cattle in all land segments

during the two seasons. It is important to bear into mind that the ACRU2000-HSI model is

different from a typical process based modeling system where change in an input parameter will

result in an expected change in output. The ACRU2000-HSI model is dependent on the

hydrologic model for determination of water presence, nutrient model for rate of growth of

vegetation, and vegetation model for total biomass. In addition, as per model design, the three

weighting factors (water, shade and forage) must sum to 1.0. For example if warm season

weighting factor of water (WWFAC) is increased by 25% the other two corresponding variables

(i.e. warm season weighting factors of shade and forage, WSFAC, WOVRLFAC) must be

adjusted so that the sum of the three weighting factors equals 1 (Table 5-3). For this analysis the

adjustment of the two variables was carried out so as to maintain the ratio amongst the adjusted

variables. In Table 5-3, the sensitivity analysis is performed on WWFAC and WSFAC and









WOVRLFAC have been adjusted accordingly. Complete list of weighting factors values used in

sensitivity analysis and the corresponding adjustment in the weighting factors of other two

variables is given in Table F-1 of Appendix F.

Results of sensitivity analysis are given in Tables F-2 to F-5 of Appendix F. There is

considerable change in cattle population with change in shade and water weighting factors in the

warm period (Table F-2); especially in the land segments that consist of those features (LS 1 and

LS2). Even though water or shade availability do not exist in land segments apart from LS1 and

LS2, there is still change in cattle population in other land segments (LS3-12) due to change in

shade and water weighting factors. As explained before, this is due to corresponding change in

forage weighting factor which has to be adjusted so that all the three weighting factors sum to 1.

There is also considerable variation in presence of cattle in LS1 and LS2 with change in

weighting factor of forage in both, warm season as well as cool season (Table F-2 and F-4). This

drastic change in cattle population is due to the proportional change in shade and water

weighting factors (shade in LS1 and water in LS2). Since the base value of forage weighting

factor is higher in cool season (Table F-4), there is higher variability in cattle population in the

cool season as compared to warm season (Table F-2). A similar trend is observed with variability

in cattle population due to variation in weighting factor of individual forage species, more

variation in cool season (Table F-3) as compared to warm season (Table F-5).

Hypothetical Scenario Model Testing

Sufficient GPS data are not currently available from the region of south Florida to

quantitatively test the ACRU2000-HSI model towards BMP implications. Adequate data are

however, rarely available to make management decisions. This is the reason modeling is an

important tool which allows managers to envision future implications based on current decisions.









"In a decision-making context, the ultimate test of a model is not how accurate or truthful it is,

but only whether one is likely to make a better decision with it than without it" (Starfield, 1997).

Therefore, a hypothetical test was designed to evaluate the algorithms of the ACRU2000-

HSI model, coupled with the vegetation, hydrologic, and nutrient models. This scenario testing

determined whether the ACRU2000-HSI model can be utilized to determine the feasibility of a

BMP with phosphorus loading as an obj ective function. One of the obvious water quality-BMP

in a cow-calf operation is to exclude the cows from streams. By restricting cow's access to a

stream, direct deposition of the cattle feces in flowing water can be prevented. In its current state,

the ACRU2000 does not consist of a stream routing algorithm for water and P. Therefore,

fencing the cows away from streams or ditches cannot be defined in the model. However, a

similar scenario was designed to mimic restrictive access of cattle.

First of all, a basic set of simulation were made with the ACRU2000-HSI model to observe

change in P loading due to presence and absence of cows (Figure 5-7). The results from these

simulations came out to be counter intuitive. The P load in absence of cows was greater than in

presence of cows. These results warranted further investigation and more detailed scenario

simulations. Hence a new data obj ect called DCattleExclusion (Appendix A) was created to

accomplish the exclusion of cattle from user-specified land segments. This functionality allows

the user to specify the land segment from which the cattle are to be excluded. During simulation

the cattle are distributed only on land segments in which cattle exclusion option is turned off.

Primarily, it was important to see a difference in the P load prediction, if any, from the two

versions of the ACRU2000 model: one with the HSI algorithms and the other using equal

distribution of animal manure. Following the above stated basic run it was also crucial to see

whether the HSI additions within ACRU2000 modeling system have enhanced its capabilities to









make relevant management decisions. Three scenarios were tested on summer pasture 5 (Figure

5-1) at BIR using a 6 year (1998-2003) simulation time period. In the first scenario (Figure 5-6a)

cattle were excluded from the land segments that were close to the flume (LS7 LS12); in the

second scenario cattle were excluded from the land segments that were away from the flume

(LS1 LS6); and finally in the third scenario all cattle were stocked on the land segment that

adj oined the flume (LS 11) and they were excluded from all other land segments.

The three scenarios were designed to fence the cattle in various locations on the pasture to

observe any changes in the nutrient loading. In total, five set of simulations were made using the

ACRU2000 and the ACRU2000-HSI model and compared with observed P loading data (Figure

5-8). There is considerable difference in the nutrient predictions in the two versions of

ACRU2000. The ACRU2000-HSI' s prediction of TP is less than ACRU2000 and closer to

observed data (Figure 5-8). The ACRU2000 version assumed the animal manure to be

distributed equally amongst all land segments. The HSI version deposits manure on land

segments based on the number of animals assigned to specific land segments. However, in both

versions the total quantity of manure remains same; therefore, some difference was anticipated

yet the magnitude of difference required further investigation.

It should be noted that even though there was provision to include animal manure in case

of stocking in ACRU2000, there was no accountability of forage consumption by grazing cattle.

In the vegetation model, plant senescence is assumed to start when the daily sum of leaf areas of

all species on one land segment exceeds the critical leaf area. Each vegetation species senesces

biomass, N, and P in proportion to its leaf area. The daily total senesced biomass (Ws,i~t [kg/ha])

and the corresponding N (Ns,i~t [kg/ha]) and P and (Ps,i~t [kg/ha]) removed through the senesced

biomass are given in Equation 4-13 to 4-15 of Chapter 4. Since there was no consumption of the









vegetation by grazing cattle in ACRU2000 there was a high amount of nutrients being released

from senesced biomass. This seems to have been corrected by the ACRU2000-HSI model where

the cattle consume the vegetation as per their nutritional requirement.

Figures 5-7 shows that when the cattle are closer to the flume there is reduction in nutrient

load. This reduction can be explained by the change in quantity of senesced biomass that is

closer to the flume. When there are more cattle present near the flume they consume more forage

and hence reduction in senesced biomass. On the other hand, when cattle are away from the

flume there is increase in nutrient load due to increase in above ground biomass that senesces

and release nutrients. In the third scenario, when all the cattle are stocked on LS11 (land segment

that is adj acent to flume) there is a slight increase in nutrient loading. This increase can be

attributed to the exorbitant stocking rate (35 cows on 1.6 ha).

A budget of the ACRU2000-HSI modeling system was prepared to quantify various

"pools" of P using 6 years of simulation (Figure 5-9). It is evident that P from senesced residue

(two order magnitude higher than P from defecation) is the largest component. When the

ACRU2000-HSI model is turned on, the grazing cattle consume forage and reduce the amount of

senesced residue (Equation 4-16) which consequently reduces P load. Within the model, only the

top two layers (plant residue layer and soil surface layer) interact with surface runoff; therefore a

P budget with the top two layers of ACRU2000-HSI as a control volume was also computed

(Figure 5-10).

Apart from the P budget within the model domain it was also important to test the retention

of P within the cattle over time (Figure 5-1 1). With the exception of initial increase, the P

retained by cow remains within the bounds of 20-25 g. The P retained values correspond well to

the values published in literature (NRC, 1996). The initial jump in P retention can be explained










by the utilization of nutrient uptake algorithms in the vegetation model (Yang, 2006). The N and

P uptake algorithms in the vegetation model were adopted from GLEAMS (Knisel and Davis,

1999) with a slight modification to account for the nutrient uptake by multiple plant species in

one land segment. In the GLEAMS model the nutrient uptake is based on demand and supply of

nutrients. The P demand for species i at time t, DEMPi~t [kg/ha], is determined by the difference

between the dry matter P on two successive days as:

DEMPi~, = TDMPi,t TDMPi,t-1 (5-1)

Uptake of labile P, UPLPi~t [kg/ha], is estimated for each layer where transpiration, occurs using

UPLPi,,tt = CPLABWs,d,j x Ti~j~t (5-2)

where, CPLABWs,d~t, is the concentration of labile P. The total uptake of P is the sum over all

species i and all layers j where transpiration occurs. The P taken up is converted into the plant

biomass P:


Pu,Dt = IfUPL~Pi,;J (5-3)


where Pu,~t is the plant biomass P [kg/ha]. The amount of initial biomass will dictate the role of P

uptake during the initial phase of simulation. It is perceived that in some land segments there can

be high initial biomass of any of the three vegetation species (Bahiagrass, Floralta, and

Panicum). This will cause an increase in the supply of nutrients to support the growth of the

vegetation. Thus, during the initial stages, consumption of P enriched biomass is resulting in

higher P retention within the cow' s body. Over time, as the model equilibrates the high retention

"levels-off' to a more sustainable level.

Summary

The algorithms in the HSI model are composed of "attractants" of cattle (shade, water

trough, and wetland) and their weighting factors. The HSI methodology represents the dynamics