Management of Grazing Intensity in the Semi‐Arid Rangelands of Southern Australia: Effects on Soil and Biodiversity

Waters, Cathy; Orgill, Susan; Melville, Gavin J.; Toole, Ian D.; Smith, W. J.

doi:10.1002/ldr.2602

Cited by 64 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The damage of the soil structure and the expansion of open surfaces may cause an increased rate of erosion and deflation (Lu et al, 2017). Grazing can also influence the organic matter content of the soil affecting decisive processes of mineralization and decomposition (Peco, Navarro, Carmona, Medina, & Marques, 2017;Waters, Orgill, Melville, Toole, & Smith, 2017;Zhou et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vegetation type and grazing intensity jointly shape grazing effects on grassland biodiversity

Török

Penksza

Tóth

et al. 2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the Palaearctic steppe zone, overgrazing was identified as one of the key drivers of declining grassland biodiversity, which underlines the necessity of the functional evaluation of increased grazing pressure on grassland vegetation. We tested the following hypotheses: (a) The effect of grazing intensity on species and functional diversity is strongly dependent on grassland type. (b) The magnitude of diet selectivity of grazers decreases with increasing grazing intensity. (c) Increasing grazing intensity increases evenness and functional evenness of the subjected grasslands. We analyzed vegetation patterns in four types of grasslands (Dry alkali short‐grass steppes, Dry loess steppes, Non‐alkali wet and Alkali wet grasslands) along an intensity gradient of beef cattle grazing at 73 sites in Hungary. Species richness, Shannon diversity, evenness, and four leaf traits were analyzed. We calculated community‐weighted means for each single trait, and multi‐trait functional richness, functional evenness, and divergence for all leaf traits. All species and functional diversity metrics were significantly affected by the grassland type, except leaf dry matter content. The effect of interaction between grazing intensity and grassland type was also significant for functional richness, functional evenness, community‐weighted means of leaf area, and for species richness and evenness. An upward trend of specific leaf area was detected in all grasslands with the highest scores for the overgrazed sites, but the change was also grassland type dependent. The detected trend suggests that with increased intensity the overall selectivity of grazing decreased. We found that evenness was affected but functional evenness was not affected by grazing intensity. Functional evenness scores were more related to the grassland type than to changes in grazing intensity, and displayed a high variability. We stress that one‐size‐fits‐all strategies cannot be recommended and actions should be fine‐tuned at least at the level of grassland type.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vegetation type and grazing intensity jointly shape grazing effects on grassland biodiversity

Török

Penksza

Tóth

et al. 2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Participants in this case study did not consider it appropriate to this context, despite the fact that it is commonly recommended for rangelands overseas (Liniger et al 2011, Nkonya et al 2011 and Australian results have indicated potential benefits for groundcover and plant diversity on certain rangeland soil types (Waters et al 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

‘This country just hangs tight’: perspectives on managing land degradation and climate change in far west NSW

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discussions of land degradation often display a disconnect between global and local scales. Although global-scale discussions often focus on measuring and reversing land degradation through metrics and policy measures, local-scale discussions can highlight a diversity of viewpoints and the importance of local knowledge and context-specific strategies for sustainable land management. Similarly, although scientific studies clearly link anthropogenic climate change to land degradation as both cause and consequence, the connection may not be so clear for local rangelands communities due to the complex temporal and spatial scales of change and management in such environments. In research conducted in October 2015, we interviewed 18 stakeholders in the far west of New South Wales about their perspectives on sustainable land management. The results revealed highly variable views on what constitutes land degradation, its causes and appropriate responses. For the pastoral land managers, the most important sign of good land management was the maintenance of groundcover, through the management of total grazing pressure. Participants viewed overgrazing as a contributor to land degradation in some cases and they identified episodes of land degradation in the region. However, other more contentious factors were also highlighted, such as wind erosion, grazing by goats and kangaroos and the spread of undesired ‘invasive native scrub’ at the expense of more desirable pasture, and alternative views that these can offer productive benefits. Although few participants were concerned about anthropogenic climate change, many described their rangeland management styles as adaptive to the fluctuations of the climate, regardless of the reasons for these variations. Rather than focusing on whether landholders ‘believe in’ climate change or agree on common definitions or measurement approaches for land degradation, these results suggest that their culture of adaptation may provide a strong basis for coping with an uncertain future. The culture of adaption developed through managing land in a highly variable climate may help even if the specific conditions that landholders need to adapt to are unlike those experienced in living memory. Such an approach requires scientific and expert knowledge to be integrated alongside the context-specific knowledge, values and existing management strategies of local stakeholders.

show abstract

“…If optimisation increases system complexity (e.g. rotational or mob grazing), time costs may be incurred (Waters, Orgill, Melville, Toole, & Smith, 2017).…”

Section: Private Financial Barriers and Incentives (Yield Maintenancmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterising the biophysical, economic and social impacts of soil carbon sequestration as a greenhouse gas removal technology

Sykes

MacLeod

Eory

et al. 2019

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To limit warming to well below 2°C, most scenario projections rely on greenhouse gas removal technologies (GGRTs); one such GGRT uses soil carbon sequestration (SCS) in agricultural land. In addition to their role in mitigating climate change, SCS practices play a role in delivering agroecosystem resilience, climate change adaptability and food security. Environmental heterogeneity and differences in agricultural practices challenge the practical implementation of SCS, and our analysis addresses the associated knowledge gap. Previous assessments have focused on global potentials, but there is a need among policymakers to operationalise SCS. Here, we assess a range of practices already proposed to deliver SCS, and distil these into a subset of specific measures. We provide a multidisciplinary summary of the barriers and potential incentives towards practical implementation of these measures. First, we identify specific practices with potential for both a positive impact on SCS at farm level and an uptake rate compatible with global impact. These focus on: (a) optimising crop primary productivity (e.g. nutrient optimisation, pH management, irrigation); (b) reducing soil disturbance and managing soil physical properties (e.g. improved rotations, minimum till); (c) minimising deliberate removal of C or lateral transport via erosion processes (e.g. support measures, bare fallow reduction); (d) addition of C produced outside the system (e.g. organic manure amendments, biochar addition); (e) provision of additional C inputs within the cropping system (e.g. agroforestry, cover cropping). We then consider economic and non‐cost barriers and incentives for land managers implementing these measures, along with the potential externalised impacts of implementation. This offers a framework and reference point for holistic assessment of the impacts of SCS. Finally, we summarise and discuss the ability of extant scientific approaches to quantify the technical potential and externalities of SCS measures, and the barriers and incentives to their implementation in global agricultural systems.

show abstract

Management of Grazing Intensity in the Semi‐Arid Rangelands of Southern Australia: Effects on Soil and Biodiversity

Cited by 64 publications

References 59 publications

Vegetation type and grazing intensity jointly shape grazing effects on grassland biodiversity

Vegetation type and grazing intensity jointly shape grazing effects on grassland biodiversity

‘This country just hangs tight’: perspectives on managing land degradation and climate change in far west NSW

Characterising the biophysical, economic and social impacts of soil carbon sequestration as a greenhouse gas removal technology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About