Managing Browsing and Grazing Ungulates

Fynn, Richard W.S.; Augustine, David J.; Fuhlendorf, Samuel D.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-25865-8_14

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the proponents of pyric herbivory, the "uniformist" argument for rangeland use was exemplified by practices advocated in the standard textbooks of mainstream North American range management at the end of the last century (such as Stoddart et al, 1975;Holechek et al, 2001). For the proponents of an adaptive response to resource heterogeneity (Fynn, 2012;Fynn et al, 2016), the critique of uniform range use is directed at the "conceptual and theoretical flaws" underpinning a more recent manifestation of homogenous rangeland exploitation-short duration rotational 7 The similarity between pastoral and wildlife migration is noted in a paper advocating pyric herbivory for the restoration of abandoned cropland in Kazakhstan (Brinkert et al, 2016) and by Fynn et al (2019) in a consideration of the role of mobility in the exploitation of functional environmental heterogeneity by both wild and domesticated ungulates. grazing schemes (Fynn, 2012, p. 324).…”

Section: Managing For or Against Heterogeneitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Grazing Into the Anthropocene or Back to the Future?

Behnke

2021

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay examines three central components of extensive livestock production—herd composition, grazing/pasture management, and rangeland tenure. In all of these areas, fenced, and open-range forms of migratory pastoralism face a number of shared problems. Set aside the presumption that either one of these systems is technically or institutionally more advanced than the other, and it turns out that each has lessons for the other. 1. For a variety of reasons, including climate change, we can look forward to a future world with less grass, which presents a challenge for livestock producers reliant on grass feeding livestock. With little delay and minimal scientific support, East African pastoralists are already adjusting to a new woody world by diversifying the species composition of their herds to include more browsers—camels and goats. There is a potential lesson here for commercial ranchers who have traded the stability of mixed herds for the profitability of keeping sheep or cattle alone. 2. Migratory rangeland systems distribute livestock very differently than fenced, rotational systems of livestock, and pasture management. Whereas, migratory herds exploit environmental heterogeneity, fenced ranching attempts to suppress it. Emerging archaeological evidence is demonstrating that pastoralists have amplified rangeland heterogeneity for millennia; ecological research shows that this heterogeneity sustains both plant and wildlife biodiversity at the landscape scale; and new approaches to ranch management are appropriating aspects of migratory herding for use on fenced ranches. A rapprochement between the environmental sciences, ranching, and open-range migratory pastoralism has occurred and merits wider policy recognition. 3. In contemporary Africa, indigenous tenure regimes that sustain open rangelands are eroding under pressure from market penetration and state encapsulation. At the same time in the American West, there are emerging novel land tenure instruments that replicate some of the most important functional characteristics of tenure arrangements in pastoral Africa. After many false starts, it appears that some aspects of American ranching do provide an appropriate model for the preservation of the open-range migratory systems that they were once supposed to supplant. “Development” policy needs to reflect upon this inversion of roles and its implications for accommodating diversity.

show abstract

Section: Managing For or Against Heterogeneitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…smaller conservation areas" (Grant et al, 2019, p. 7). With more ambition, others see the exploitation and enhancement of functional environmental heterogeneity as a basis for the management of broad landscapes and for wildlifelivestock co-existence on African savannahs (Fynn et al, 2016(Fynn et al, , 2019.…”

Section: Managing For or Against Heterogeneitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Grazing Into the Anthropocene or Back to the Future?

Behnke

2021

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mobile pastoralists would also benefit from access to land near the Atlantic Ocean, which would provide additional moisture to the Leliefontein resource system. A larger and connected pastoral system will increase the functional heterogeneity and stability of the overall pastoral ecosystem as pastoralists will have access to green forage provided by sea fog, seasonal, orographic and patchy rainfall events which are key mechanisms to adapt to a changing climate (Hobbs et al 2008;Fynn et al 2019). These connected mountainous landscapes provide an alternative approach to modernisation as it could accommodate pastoralists with different production objectives and prevent elite capture.…”

Section: Policy Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Environmental drivers of mobile pastoralism include extreme temperature fluctuations, usually on a seasonal cycle, and low rainfall, often patchily distributed, associated with high variation between seasons or drought of several months to several years in duration. In mobile pastoral systems, transhumance is also a characteristic feature where livestock are moved along ecological gradients such as altitude, rainfall, soil moisture and hydrology in search of forages with key functional characteristics to sustain and optimise growth and reproduction (Breman and De Wit 1983;Homewood 2008;Fynn 2012;Fynn et al 2015). These functional characteristics include forage productivity, quality, phenology, digestibility and salinity (key minerals) (Fynn 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in pastoral mobility in a semi-arid montane region of South Africa: The role of policy and legislation

Samuels

Allsopp

Hoffman

2021

African Journal of Range & Forage Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mobile pastoralism, which we consider to be the movement of people and their livestock, is practiced all over the world, but more particularly in environments with extreme weather conditions where cultivation is considered risky and frequently prone to failure (Box and Perry 1971;Mapiye et al. 2009). Environmental drivers of mobile pastoralism include extreme temperature fluctuations, usually on a seasonal cycle, and low rainfall, often patchily distributed, associated with high variation between seasons or drought of several months to several years in duration. In mobile pastoral systems, transhumance is also a characteristic feature where livestock are moved along ecological gradients such as altitude, rainfall, soil moisture and hydrology in search of forages with key functional characteristics to sustain and optimise growth and reproduction (Breman and De Wit 1983;Homewood 2008;Fynn 2012;Fynn et al. 2015). These functional characteristics include forage productivity, quality, phenology, digestibility and salinity (key minerals) (Fynn 2012). An additional driver in some circumstances is the seasonal cultivation of crops that need to be protected from grazing (Samuels et al. 2008). These conditions have given rise to many pastoral communities whose livestock herding practices have evolved to encompass the variable availability of forage and water at a range of spatial and temporal scales.For example, in the montane environments of Namaqualand, South Africa, mobility takes place at both a daily and seasonal scale. On a daily basis, herders avoid overusing the same pasture and adapt their grazing circuit to accommodate factors such as animal behaviour and hunger, whereas on a seasonal cycle herds may move in response to cold winters in higher altitudes and access forage at lower elevations (Allsopp et al. 2007; Baker and Hoffman 2008;Samuels et al. 2008). In times of drought, herders will attempt to move to better grazing, but if such movement is constrained, they will use other strategies, in order to mitigate the impacts of climatic shocks and to maintain optimal production (Samuels et al. 2007). The evolution of mobile practices in response to environmental influences is well documented around the world (

show abstract

“…Innovative approaches, such as hunting for fear (diverting animals from areas where they are not desirable) [97], consideration of the issues of functional heterogeneity [98] and social-ecological setting [50] are being used in the management of moose. Classified as services or disservices, "depending on the value orientation and economic position of the various stakeholders perceiving this relationship" [2], moose management may seek different scenarios.…”

Section: Moose-related Problems: Why Is Management Necessary?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Moose Management Strategies under Changing Legal and Institutional Frameworks

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Moose (Alces alces) management strategies in Lithuania, East Europe, were analyzed. The study was intended to show the (un)sustainability of the current management approach in relation to changes in hunting rules, hunting organization and development of the responsible administrative bodies. Moose population and bag dynamics were analyzed using I index in connected scatterplots and compound annual growth rates (CAGR). In 1962–2020, the CAGR of the moose population was 3.84%, resulting in a population size increase of nearly 10 times. The seesaw principle in moose management was confirmed, showing three periods of population decrease (1973–1977, 1989–1995, 2000–2005), and two periods of hunting bag decrease (1976–1978 and 1990–1993). All decline phases were related to legal and administrative issues in the country. Since 2006, population growth has not been controlled. Lithuania has no long-term strategy of the moose population management at any administrative level. The current management approach is not sustainable, as it has not ensured long-term stability of the moose population. The current continuous growth of population, followed by only a moderate increase in the hunting bag, is related to the possibility for owners to adopt long-term planning of the hunting plot units.

show abstract

Managing Browsing and Grazing Ungulates

Cited by 7 publications

References 85 publications

Grazing Into the Anthropocene or Back to the Future?

Grazing Into the Anthropocene or Back to the Future?

Changes in pastoral mobility in a semi-arid montane region of South Africa: The role of policy and legislation

Moose Management Strategies under Changing Legal and Institutional Frameworks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About