Ecological services to and from rangelands of the United States

Havstad, Kris M.; Peters, Debra P. C.; Skaggs, Rhonda K.; Brown, Joel R.; Bestelmeyer, Brandon T.; Fredrickson, Ed L.; Herrick, Jeffrey E.; Wright, Jack

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.005

Cited by 289 publications

(187 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

181

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other ecosystem services are strongly affected by the quantity of water delivered to rangelands and how it is partitioned among processes of surface water flow, ground water recharge, evaporation, and transpiration. Many relatively static factors (topography, soils, and geology) and dynamic factors (climate, land management, and land use) interact to determine how this water is partitioned and how it will be delivered to competing consumers (Havstad et al 2007). Water yield is difficult to measure and value, but the changing availability of water from rangeland watersheds needs to be quantified across multiple spatial scales and over long time horizons to ensure sustainable use (Scanlon et al 2005;Havstad et al 2007;Brown and MacLeod 2011;He and Hogue 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Though more commonly known for their provisioning ecosystem services, such as food and fiber, rangelands offer regulating services such as carbon sequestration, soil protection, and water quality and quantity (Havstad et al 2007). Rangelands also produce cultural ecosystem services such as maintenance of scenic landscapes, tourism, cultural heritage, educational values, and recreation (Brunson and Huntsinger 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At 308 million ha, rangelands represent 31 % of the total land area of the United States (Havstad et al 2007). Rangelands comprise land on which vegetation is predominantly grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs, and include natural grasslands, savannas, shrublands, many deserts, tundras, alpine communities, marshes, and meadows (Society for Range Management 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite this uncertainty, rangelands can serve an important role in supplying water. The provision of water has been called ''the ecosystem service that most directly links growing human populations to rangelands'' (Havstad et al 2007). Other ecosystem services are strongly affected by the quantity of water delivered to rangelands and how it is partitioned among processes of surface water flow, ground water recharge, evaporation, and transpiration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Integrated climate and land use change scenarios for California rangeland ecosystem services: wildlife habitat, soil carbon, and water supply

Byrd

Flint

Alvarez³

et al. 2015

Landscape Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context In addition to biodiversity conservation, California rangelands generate multiple ecosystem services including livestock production, drinking and irrigation water, and carbon sequestration. California rangeland ecosystems have experienced substantial conversion to residential land use and more intensive agriculture. Objectives To understand the potential impacts to rangeland ecosystem services, we developed six spatially explicit (250 m) climate/land use change scenarios for the Central Valley of California and surrounding foothills consistent with three Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emission scenario narratives.Methods We quantified baseline and projected change in wildlife habitat, soil organic carbon (SOC), and water supply (recharge and runoff). For six case study watersheds we quantified the interactions of future development and changing climate on recharge, runoff and streamflow, and precipitation thresholds where dominant watershed hydrological processes shift through analysis of covariance. Results The scenarios show that across the region, habitat loss is expected to occur predominantly in grasslands, primarily due to future development (up to a 37 % decline by 2100), however habitat loss in priority conservation errors will likely be due to cropland and hay/pasture expansion (up to 40 % by 2100). Grasslands in the region contain approximately 100 teragrams SOC in the top 20 cm, and up to 39 % of this SOC is subject to conversion by 2100. In dryer periods recharge processes typically dominate runoff. Future development lowers the precipitation value at 123Landscape Ecol (2015) 30:729-750 DOI 10.1007 which recharge processes dominate runoff, and combined with periods of drought, reduces the opportunity for recharge, especially on deep soils. Conclusion Results support the need for climatesmart land use planning that takes recharge areas into account, which will provide opportunities for water storage in dry years. Given projections for agriculture, more modeling is needed on feedbacks between agricultural expansion on rangelands and water supply.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Integrated climate and land use change scenarios for California rangeland ecosystem services: wildlife habitat, soil carbon, and water supply

Byrd

Flint

Alvarez³

et al. 2015

Landscape Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Livestock production plays an important role for increasing the value and multifunctional management of forests (Havstad et al, 2007;Rigueiro-Rodríguez et al, 2009). However, the use of domestic animals in extensively managed forest systems of Europe is not widely used due to the shortage of shepherds and economic changes driven mostly by subsidy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Horse grazing systems: understory biomass and plant biodiversity of a Pinus radiata stand

Rigueiro-Rodríguez

Mouhbi

Santiago-Freijanes

et al. 2012

Sci. agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Horse grazing systems may affect productivity and biodiversity of understory developed under Pinus radiata D. Don silvopastoral systems, while acting as a tool to reduce the risk of fire. This study compared continuous and rotational grazing systems effect upon biomass, fractions of stem, sprouts, leaves and woody parts of Ulex europaeus L. and alpha (Species Richness, Shannon-Wiener) and beta (Jaccard and Magurran) biodiversity for a period of four years in a P. radiata silvopastoral system. The experiment consisted of a randomized block design of two treatments (continuous and rotational grazing). Biomass, and species abundances were measured -biodiversity metrics were calculated based on these results for a two years of grazing and two years of post-grazing periods. Both continuous and rotational grazing systems were useful tools for reducing biomass and, therefore, fire risk. The rotational grazing system caused damage to the U. europaeus shrub, limiting its recovery once grazing was stopped. However, the more intensive grazing of U. europaeus plants under rotational had a positive effect on both alpha and beta biodiversity indexes due to the low capacity of food selection in the whole plot rather than continuous grazing systems. Biomass was not affected by the grazing system; however the rotational grazing system is more appropriate to reduce U. europaeus biomass and therefore forest fire risk at a long term and to enhance pasture biodiversity than the continuous grazing system.

show abstract

Assessing the Impact of Parameter Uncertainty on Modeling Grass Biomass Using a Hybrid Carbon Allocation Strategy

Reyes

Tague

Evans

et al. 2017

J Adv Model Earth Syst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grasslands play an important role in feeding the growing human population by supporting dairy and livestock production. The purpose of this paper was to improve the representation of carbon (C) allocation processes in ecosystem models, and to understand the sensitivity of simulated grass biomass to model parameters, providing guidance for future environmental change research. We used the Regional Hydro‐Ecologic Simulation System to compare estimates of above and belowground biomass for C allocation strategies based on plant growth, resource use, and a newly developed HYBRID approach that integrates the first two allocation schemes. Observed values of biomass at seven grassland sites are used to compare performance of these three allocation strategies. Partial ranked correlation coefficients are then calculated to assess parameter importance and sensitivity under current and future climate conditions. We found that both resource use and plant growth play a role in simulating dynamic C allocation in grass biomass over time, indicating the need for the HYBRID approach to capture grassland C allocation. Parameter importance was site‐specific under increased temperatures, enhanced carbon dioxide, and changed precipitation. Site‐specific parameter importance also yielded insight into limiting resources (i.e., energy, moisture) at sites and subsequent effects on ecological processes like photosynthesis and allocation. This work increases our understanding of C allocation in ecosystem models related to grasses, and guides what model parameters may require further research.

show abstract

Ecological services to and from rangelands of the United States

Cited by 289 publications

References 38 publications

Integrated climate and land use change scenarios for California rangeland ecosystem services: wildlife habitat, soil carbon, and water supply

Integrated climate and land use change scenarios for California rangeland ecosystem services: wildlife habitat, soil carbon, and water supply

Horse grazing systems: understory biomass and plant biodiversity of a Pinus radiata stand

Assessing the Impact of Parameter Uncertainty on Modeling Grass Biomass Using a Hybrid Carbon Allocation Strategy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About