The effect of forward (F) and lateral (L) creep grazing, as two possible management alternatives of intensive production systems, on the gastro-intestinal nematode epidemiology of ewes and lambs was studied. Two groups of Romanov x Rasa Aragonesa ewes rearing twins and maintained on an autumn-contaminated pasture at a mean stocking density of 35 ewes ha-1, were used. Measurements were made of the population of infective larvae on the pasture, level of serum pepsinogen, worm eggs in faeces of ewes and lambs, and lambs' growth rate. In addition, post-mortem worm counts from 'indicator' lambs were used to establish the level of infection at each rotational grazing cycle. Two different waves of nematode infection were identified. In both treatments, the over-wintering larvae were responsible for the first outbreak of parasitism which was particularly important for lambs on Treatment F. The second wave of infection apparently came up with several overlapped L3 generations and had different effects on the animals of each group. While early pasture contamination was suffered by the lambs of Treatment F, lambs on Treatment L were not seriously affected until the end of the third grazing cycle (end of May). The different grazing behaviour of lambs in both treatments appeared to be related to the outbreak of parasitism in lambs. The general pattern of liveweight gains was similar for both groups of animals. However, during the first 90 days on pasture lamb growth rate under Treatment L (193 g day-1) was significantly higher than that under Treatment F (164 g day-1). The serum pepsinogen values, worm burdens and liveweight gains indicate that under intensive systems where lateral creep grazing is allowed for lambs, the level of parasite infection is maintained within acceptable limits for the first 90 days on pasture with lambs' growth rate close to their potential. However, the parasitic consequences of grazing under a forward creeping system indicate that anthelmintic drenchings should be used at lambing and at 3-week intervals thereafter during the first 42 days on pasture, after which the risk of contamination from the over-wintering population is over.

To understand resource partitioning, essentially a community phenomenon, we require a holistic theory that draws upon models at the individual and population level. Yet some investigators are still content mainly to document differences between species, a procedure of only limited interest. Therefore, it may be useful to conclude with a list of questions appropriate for studies of resource partitioning, questions this article has related to the theory in a preliminary way. 1) What is the mechanism of competition? What is the relative importance of predation? Are differences likely to be caused by pressures toward reproductive isolation? 2) Are niches (utilizations) regularly spaced along a single dimension? 3) How many dimensions are important, and is there a tendency for more dimensions to be added as species number increases? 4) Is dimensional separation complementary? 5) Which dimensions are utilized, how do they rank in importance, and why? How do particular dimensions change in rank as species nuimber increases? 6) What is the relation of dimensional separation to difference in phenotypic indicators? To what extent does the functional relation of phenotype to resource characteristics constrain partitioning? 7) What is the distance between mean position of niches, what is the niche standard deviation, and what is the ratio of the two? What is the niche shape?