Grazing effects on soil characteristics and vegetation of grassland in  northern China

Wang, Z.; Johnson, Douglas A.; Rong, Yiming; Wang, K.

doi:10.5194/se-7-55-2016

Cited by 26 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The existence of spatial heterogeneity due to grazing has been well recognized and investigated in natural ecosystems (Lin et al, 2010;Ren et al, 2015;Wang, Johnson, Rong, & Wang, 2016;Zhao et al, 2007Zhao et al, , 2011. Besides, pasture heterogeneity has been associated with increased ecosystem services such as biodiversity and soil conservation (Benton, Vickery, & Wilson, 2003;Sch€ onbach, Wan, Gierus, Bai, & M€ uller, 2011;Wang et al, 2016). Nevertheless, most anthropogenic management interventions toward agricultural intensification in the last decades have led to environmental homogenization (Adler, Raff, & Lauenroth, 2001;Foley et al, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Grazing intensity determines pasture spatial heterogeneity and productivity in an integrated crop‐livestock system

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatial heterogeneity is a property of natural ecosystems. Integrated crop‐livestock systems (ICLS) aim to mimic natural ecosystem functions as pillars of sustainable intensification, and grazing is a process that potentially affects spatial heterogeneity. Then, we investigated the effect of different grazing intensities, defined according to a range of sward heights (intensive grazing, 10 cm; moderate grazing, 20 cm; moderate‐light grazing, 30 cm; light grazing, 40 cm; and ungrazed), on the spatial heterogeneity and biomass productivity of mixed Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) and black oat (Avena strigosa Schreb.) pastures. The mixture was grazed by steers under continuous variable stocking, using put‐and‐take animals to maintain targeted sward heights. The pasture was in rotation with soybean in an integrated crop‐livestock system for 15 years. Data concerns pasture phase on the 15th rotation cycle. Cattle grazing at moderate to light intensities increased pasture spatial heterogeneity and total aboveground primary productivity, while intensive grazing led to homogeneous overgrazed canopies with frequent bare soil patches. Pre‐grazing sward structure suggests that the summer crop rotation buffers the contrasts created by grazing at different intensities. This study suggests that moderate to light grazing intensities increase pasture productive efficiency and create more heterogeneous canopies in ICLS, while intensive grazing should be avoided.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Grazing intensity determines pasture spatial heterogeneity and productivity in an integrated crop‐livestock system

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, a further increase of grazing exclusion duration from 11 to 31 years did not increase SOC stocks. Wang, Johnson, Rong, & Wang, 2016), leading to increased plant biomass accumulation on the soil surface . The reduction in grazing pressure also leads to more belowground root biomass than aboveground biomass, and the increased root: Shoot ratio accelerates SOC accumulation (Liu, Liu, Wu, Wang, & Chen, 2014).…”

Section: Soil Carbonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grazing exclusion—An effective approach for naturally restoring degraded grasslands in Northern China

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nearly 90% of the 390 million ha of grasslands in northern China are degraded. ‘Grazing exclusion’ has been implemented as a nature‐based solution to rejuvenate degraded grasslands, but the effectiveness of the rejuvenation processes is uncertain. Here, we investigated the effects of grazing exclusion on aboveground plant community traits, soil physiochemical and biological properties, and the mechanisms responsible for enhanced grassland rejuvenation. A meta‐analysis across various studies was used to assess the effectiveness. On average, grazing exclusion improved vegetation coverage by 18.5 percentage points and increased aboveground biomass by 1.13 t ha−1 and root biomass by 1.27 t ha−1, which represent an increase of 84%, 246%, and 31%, respectively, compared with continuous grazing practices. Grazing exclusion reduced soil bulk density by 13.7% and increased soil water content by 68.9%. Grasslands under grazing exclusion increased soil organic carbon (SOC) in the 0‐ to 15‐cm depth by 3.95 (±0.35 Std err) t ha−1 and total soil N, available N, and total soil P in the 0‐ to 40‐cm depth by 2.39 (±0.14), 0.83 (±0.37), and 1.96 (±0.44) t ha−1, respectively, compared with continuous grazing; these values represent an increase of 31%, 25%, 23%, and 14%, respectively. Prolonging the duration (years) of grazing practices enlarged the differences in SOC and soil N content between grazing exclusion and continuous grazing. Grazing exclusion has improved plant community traits and enhanced soil physiochemical and biological properties of degraded grasslands, and thus, this ‘nature‐based’ approach can serve as an effective means to rejuvenate degraded grasslands.

show abstract

“…Under the upper reaches of the Changjiang River climatic conditions, the upper line of allowed soil loss is 50 t/(km 2 a) for developing soil from limestone, whereas 100 t/(km 2 a) for developing soil from non-carbonaceous rock. Wei (1996) reported that the T values of the calcareous soil area in the karst area ranged from 0.522 to 1.285 t/(km 2 a); if the eluviation and normal erosion in soil-forming process were not considered, then the scope of the T value ranges from 3.24 to 8.10 t/(km 2 a). However, the soil loss tolerance of some parts of the argillaceous limestone, such as the non-pure carbonate rocks, can be increased to 16.2-40.5 t/(km 2 a), and the upper line of soil allowed loss is 50 t/(km 2 a) for the karst area (Wei, 1996).…”

Section: T Value Criteria In Different Regionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wei (1996) reported that the T values of the calcareous soil area in the karst area ranged from 0.522 to 1.285 t/(km 2 a); if the eluviation and normal erosion in soil-forming process were not considered, then the scope of the T value ranges from 3.24 to 8.10 t/(km 2 a). However, the soil loss tolerance of some parts of the argillaceous limestone, such as the non-pure carbonate rocks, can be increased to 16.2-40.5 t/(km 2 a), and the upper line of soil allowed loss is 50 t/(km 2 a) for the karst area (Wei, 1996). Li (2006) reported that with 49.67 mm ka −1 as the average weathering dissolving rate of carbonate rocks in Guizhou, the pedogenesis rates of different petrologic assemblages in carbonate area were calculated and used as the values of soil loss tolerance in carbonate areas.…”

Section: T Value Criteria In Different Regionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the spatial heterogeneity of soil loss tolerance and its effects on erosion risk in the carbonate areas of South China

Li¹,

Bai²,

Wang³

et al. 2016

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Soil loss tolerance (T value) is the ultimate criterion to determine the necessity of erosion control measures and ecological restoration strategy. However, the validity of this criterion in subtropical karst regions is strongly disputed. In this study, T value is computed based on soil formation rate by using a digital distribution map of carbonate rock assemblage types. Results indicated spatial heterogeneity and diversity in such values; moreover, a minimum of three criteria should be considered instead of only one criterion when investigating the carbonate areas of South China given that the “one region, one T value” concept may not apply to this region. T value is proportionate to the amount of argillaceous material in formations that determine surface soil thickness in homogenous carbonate rock areas; such values are 20 and 50 t/(km2 · a) in carbonate rock intercalated with clastic rock areas and 100 t/(km2 · a) in carbonate/clastic rock alternation areas. These three areas are each extremely, severely, and moderately sensitive to soil erosion. This erosion is extreme in karst rocky desertification (KRD) land and reflects the degree of erosion risk. Thus, the relationship between T value and erosion risk is determined with KRD as a parameter. The existence of KRD land is unrelated to T value, although this parameter indicates erosion sensitivity. In fact, erosion risk is strongly dependent on the relationship between real soil loss (RL) and T value rather than on either erosion intensity or the T value itself. If RL >> T, then erosion risk is high despite a low RL. Conversely, if T >> RL, the soil is safe although RL is high. Overall, these findings may clarify T value heterogeneity and its effect on erosion risk in a karst eco-environment; hence, innovative technological assessment solutions need not be invented.

show abstract

Grazing effects on soil characteristics and vegetation of grassland in northern China

Cited by 26 publications

References 43 publications

Grazing intensity determines pasture spatial heterogeneity and productivity in an integrated crop‐livestock system

Grazing intensity determines pasture spatial heterogeneity and productivity in an integrated crop‐livestock system

Grazing exclusion—An effective approach for naturally restoring degraded grasslands in Northern China

Evaluating the spatial heterogeneity of soil loss tolerance and its effects on erosion risk in the carbonate areas of South China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About