No abstract

Grazing lands support the livelihoods of millions of people across nearly one-half of the globe. Soils are the backbone of stability and resilience in these systems. To determine livestock grazing impacts on soil health, we conducted a global meta-analysis of soil organic carbon (SOC), total N, C/N ratio, and bulk density responses to grazing strategies (continuous, rotational, and no grazing) and intensities (heavy, moderate, and light grazing) from 64 studies around the world. Across all studies and grazing intensities, continuous grazing significantly reduced SOC, C/N, and total N compared with no grazing. Soil compaction (i.e., increased bulk density) was greater under both continuous and rotational grazing compared with no grazing; however, rotational grazing had lower bulk density than continuous grazing. Rotational grazing had greater SOC than continuous grazing and was not different from no grazing. The positive responses of SOC to rotational grazing could create climate change mitigation opportunities. Grazing strategy comparisons were minimally conditioned by aridity class (i.e., arid, subhumid, and humid); however, complete observations were notably limited or missing for many rotational grazing comparisons. For continuous and no grazing strategy comparisons, we found that grazing management can significantly influence soil function and health outcomes; however, site-specific environmental factors play important moderating roles. Greater coordination across regional, national, and global efforts, as well as consistent guidelines for soil health evaluation, would help overcome these knowledge gaps and vastly improve our collective understanding of grazing impacts on soil health, providing greater management and policy impacts.

Agricultural producers grapple with low farm yields and declining ecosystem services within their landscapes. In several instances, agricultural production systems may be considered largely unsustainable in socioeconomic and ecological (resource conservation and use and impact on nature) terms. Novel technological and management options that can serve as vehicles to promote the provision of multiple benefits, including the improvement of smallholder livelihoods, are needed. We call for a paradigm shift to allow designing and implementing agricultural systems that are not only efficient (serving as a means to promote development based on the concept of creating more goods and services while using fewer resources and creating less waste) but can also be considered synergistic (symbiotic relationship between socio-ecological systems) by simultaneously contributing to major objectives of economic, ecological, and social (equity) improvement of agro-ecosystems. These transformations require strategic approaches that are supported by participatory system-level research, experimentation, and innovation. Using data from several studies, we here provide evidence for technological and management options that could be optimized, promoted, and adopted to enable agricultural systems to be efficient, effective, and, indeed, sustainable. Specifically, we present results from a study conducted in Colombia, which demonstrated that, in rice systems, improved water management practices such as Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD) reduce methane emissions (~70%). We also show how women can play a key role in AWD adoption. For livestock systems, we present in vitro evidence showing that the use of alternative feed options such as cassava leaves contributes to livestock feed supplementation and could represent a cost-effective approach for reducing enteric methane emissions (22% to 55%). We argue that to design and benefit from sustainable agricultural systems, there is a need for better targeting of interventions that are co-designed, co-evaluated, and co-promoted, with farmers as allies of transformational change (as done in the climate-smart villages), not as recipients of external knowledge. Moreover, for inclusive sustainability that harnesses existing knowledge and influences decision-making processes across scales, there is a need for constant, efficient, effective, and real trans-disciplinary communication and collaboration.

C alifornia has committed to cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40% of 1990 levels by 2030. As a sector, agriculture is responsible for 8% of state emissions. Approximately two-thirds of that is from livestock production (manure management and enteric fermentation); 20% from fertilizer use and soil management associated with crop production; and 13% from fuel use associated with agricultural activities (e.g., irrigation pumping, cooling or heating commodities) (CARB 2017a). California plays an essential role in the nutritional quality of our national food system, accounting for, by value, roughly two-thirds of U.S. fruit and nut production, half of U.S. vegetable production and 20% of U.S. dairy production. Assembly Bill 32, California's primary climate policy law, adopted in 2006, has spurred research into practices and technologies that could assist in reducing emissions and sequestering carbon. Here we report on