Core Ideas Effectiveness of EEFs varied greatly with their modes of action, soils, and management factors. NIs, DIs, and CRFs reduced N2O emissions by 38, 30, and 19%, respectively, compared with conventional N fertilizers. NIs increased overall crop yields by 7% compared with conventional N fertilizers. DIs might provide added benefits over NIs in alkaline soils, coarse‐textured soils, and irrigated systems. Enhanced efficiency fertilizers (EEFs) have the potential to reduce N2O emissions and improve crop productivity, but the impact of soil and management conditions on their effectiveness is not clear. We conducted a meta‐analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of different EEF types in reducing N2O emissions in three cereal production systems: rice (Oryza sativa L.), corn (Zea mays L.), and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). We also compared EEF efficacy across soil and management conditions for corn and wheat systems. Results showed that the effect of EEFs on N2O emissions and crop yields varied greatly with their modes of action, soil types, and management conditions. Nitrification inhibitors (NIs), double inhibitors (DIs: urease plus nitrification inhibitors), and controlled‐release N fertilizers (CRFs) consistently reduced N2O emissions compared with conventional N fertilizers across soil and management conditions (grand mean decreases of 38, 30, and 19%, respectively). The DIs more effectively reduced N2O emissions in alkaline soils than did NIs, but the trend was reversed in acidic soils. Urease inhibitors also reduced N2O emissions compared with conventional N fertilizers in coarse‐textured soils and irrigated systems. Overall crop yields increased by 7% with the addition of NIs alone. Compared with conventional N fertilizers, DIs also increased crop yields in alkaline soils, coarse‐textured soils, and irrigated systems. However, CRFs had no effect on crop yields. Overall, this study suggests that NIs or DIs can reduce N2O emissions while improving crop yields. Growers should select EEFs based on their soil and management conditions to maximize their effectiveness.

Summary1. Many rangelands evolved under an interactive disturbance regime in which grazers respond to the spatial pattern of fire and create a patchy, heterogeneous landscape. Spatially heterogeneous fire and grazing create heterogeneity in vegetation structure at the landscape level (patch contrast) and increase rangeland biodiversity. We analysed five experiments comparing spatially heterogeneous fire treatments to spatially homogeneous fire treatments on grazed rangeland along a precipitation gradient in the North American Great Plains. 2. We predicted that, across the precipitation gradient, management for heterogeneity increases both patch contrast and variance in the composition of plant functional groups. Furthermore, we predicted that patch contrast is positively correlated with variance in plant functional group composition. Because fire spread is important to the fire-grazing interaction, we discuss factors that reduce fire spread and reduce patch contrast despite management for heterogeneity. 3. We compared patch contrast across pastures managed for heterogeneity and pastures managed for homogeneity with a linear mixed effect (LME) regression model. We used the LME model to partition variation in vegetation structure to each sampled scale so that a higher proportion of variation at the patch scale among pastures managed for heterogeneity indicates patch contrast. To examine the relationship between vegetation structure and plant community composition, we used constrained ordination to measure variation in functional group composition along the vegetation structure gradient. We used the meta-analytical statistic, Cohen's d, to compare effect sizes for patch contrast and plant functional group composition. 4. Management for heterogeneity increased patch contrast and increased the range of plant functional group composition at three of the five experimental locations. 5. Plant functional group composition varied in proportion to the amount of spatial heterogeneity in vegetation structure on pastures managed for heterogeneity. 6. Synthesis and applications. Pyric-herbivory management for heterogeneity created patch contrast in vegetation across a broad range of precipitation and plant community types, provided that fire was the primary driver of grazer site selection. Management for heterogeneity did not universally create patch contrast. Stocking rate and invasive plant species are key regulators of heterogeneity, as they determine the influence of fire on the spatial pattern of fuel, vegetation structure and herbivore patch selection, and therefore also require careful management.

No abstract

Rangeland management, like most disciplines of natural resource management, has been characterized by human efforts to reduce variability and increase predictability in natural systems (steady-state management often applied through a command-and-control paradigm). Examples of applications of traditional command and control in natural resource management include wildfire suppression, fences to control large ungulate movements, predator elimination programs, and watershed engineering for flood control and irrigation. Recently, a robust theoretical foundation has been developed that focuses on our understanding of the importance of variability in nature. This understanding is built upon the concept of heterogeneity, which originated from influential calls to consider spatial and temporal scaling in ecological research. Understanding rangeland ecosystems from a resilience perspective where we recognize that these systems are highly variable in space and time cannot be achieved without a focus on heterogeneity across multiple scales. Most people view averages as basic reality and variation as a device for calculating a meaningful measure of central tendency ……. Central tendency is a harmful abstraction and variation stands out as the only meaningful reality-Stephen Jay Gould-Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to DarwinWe highlight the broad importance of heterogeneity to rangelands and focus more specifically on (1) animal populations and production, (2) fire behavior and management, and (3) biodiversity and ecosystem function. Rangelands are complex, dynamic, and depend on the variability that humans often attempt to control to ensure long-term productivity and ecosystem health. We present an ecological perspective that targets variation in rangeland properties-including multiple ecosystem services-as an alternative to the myopic focus on maximizing agricultural output, which may expose managers to greater risk. Globally, rangeland science indicates that heterogeneity and diversity increase stability in ecosystem properties from fine to broad spatial scales and through time.