Seasonality constraints to livestock grazing intensity

Fetzel, Tamara; Havlík, Petr; Herrero, Mario; Erb, Karl‐Heinz

doi:10.1111/gcb.13591

Cited by 57 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Here we present some independent tests of their predictions and show that observed GI reported in the literature is consistently higher than observed GI reported by Fetzel et al. (). Consequently, the gap between forage produced and consumed may be narrower.…”

Section: Seven Examples From Eight Different Literature References Insupporting

confidence: 66%

“…In all cases, the simulated GI ( ˜ 40%) was higher than the maximum values by Fetzel et al. () for those vast areas. Moreover, the maximum GI value from the long‐term experiments almost doubled the maximum GI by Fetzel et al.…”

Section: Seven Examples From Eight Different Literature References Incontrasting

confidence: 55%

“…We present seven examples that show higher GI than Fetzel et al. () (Table ). The first two examples are global (Table ; McNaughton, Oesterheld, Frank, & Williams, ; Milchunas & Lauenroth, ; Oesterheld, Loreti, Semmartin, & Paruelo, ).…”

Section: Seven Examples From Eight Different Literature References Inmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…Fetzel, Havlik, Herrero, & Erb () globally mapped the gap between observed and potential grazing intensity (GI): the ratio between consumption by livestock and aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP). Fetzel et al.…”

Section: Seven Examples From Eight Different Literature References Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fetzel et al. () estimated grazing land, forage production and livestock demand at a half‐degree resolution. They mapped GI below 15% for most of the world.…”

Section: Seven Examples From Eight Different Literature References Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A narrower gap of grazing intensity. Reply to Fetzel et al., 2017. Seasonality constrains to livestock grazing intensity

Irisarri

Aguiar

Oesterheld

et al. 2017

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Seven Examples From Eight Different Literature References Insupporting

confidence: 66%

Section: Seven Examples From Eight Different Literature References Incontrasting

confidence: 55%

Section: Seven Examples From Eight Different Literature References Inmentioning

confidence: 79%

Section: Seven Examples From Eight Different Literature References Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fetzel et al. () estimated grazing land, forage production and livestock demand at a half‐degree resolution. They mapped GI below 15% for most of the world.…”

Section: Seven Examples From Eight Different Literature References Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A narrower gap of grazing intensity. Reply to Fetzel et al., 2017. Seasonality constrains to livestock grazing intensity

Irisarri

Aguiar

Oesterheld

et al. 2017

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantification of uncertainties in global grazing systems assessment

Fetzel¹,

Havlík

Herrero

et al. 2017

Global Biogeochemical Cycles

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Livestock systems play a key role in global sustainability challenges like food security and climate change, yet, many unknowns and large uncertainties prevail. We present a systematic, spatially explicit assessment of uncertainties related to grazing intensity (GI), a key metric for assessing ecological impacts of grazing, by combining existing datasets on a) grazing feed intake, b) the spatial distribution of livestock, c) the extent of grazing land, and d) its net primary productivity (NPP). An analysis of the resulting 96 maps implies that on average 15% of the grazing land NPP is consumed by livestock. GI is low in most of worlds grazing lands but hotspots of very high GI prevail in 1% of the total grazing area. The agreement between GI maps is good on one fifth of the world's grazing area, while on the remainder it is low to very low. Largest uncertainties are found in global drylands and where grazing land bears trees (e.g., the Amazon basin or the Taiga belt). In some regions like India or Western Europe massive uncertainties even result in GI > 100% estimates. Our sensitivity analysis indicates that the input-data for NPP, animal distribution and grazing area contribute about equally to the total variability in GI maps, while grazing feed intake is a less critical variable. We argue that a general improvement in quality of the available global level datasets is a precondition for improving the understanding of the role of livestock systems in the context of global environmental change or food security. Plain Language SummaryLivestock systems play a key role in global sustainability challenges like food security and climate change, yet, many unknowns and large uncertainties prevail. We present a systematic assessment of uncertainties related to the intensity of grazing, a key metric for assessing ecological impacts of grazing. We combine existing datasets on a) grazing feed intake, b) the spatial distribution of livestock, c) the extent of grazing land, and d) the biomass available for grazing. Our results show that most grasslands are used with low intensity but hotspots of high intensity prevail on 1% of the global grazing area, mainly located in drylands and where grazing land bears trees. The agreement between all maps is good on one fifth of the global grazing area, while on the remainder it is low to very low. Our sensitivity analysis indicates that the input-data for available biomass, animal distribution and grazing area contribute about equally to the total variability of our maps, while grazing feed intake is a less critical variable. We argue that a general improvement in quality of the available datasets is a precondition for improving the understanding of livestock systems in the context of global environmental change or food security.

show abstract

Grazing effect on grasslands escalated by abnormal precipitations in Inner Mongolia

Liang

Chen

Gornish

et al. 2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grazing effects on arid and semi‐arid grasslands can be constrained by aridity. Plant functional groups (PFGs) are the most basic component of community structure (CS) and biodiversity & ecosystem function (BEF). They have been suggested as identity‐dependent in quantifying the response to grazing intensity and drought severity. Here, we examine how the relationships among PFGs, CS, BEF, and grazing intensity are driven by climatic drought. We conducted a manipulative experiment with three grazing intensities in 2012 (nondrought year) and 2013 (drought year). We classified 62 herbaceous plants into four functional groups based on their life forms. We used the relative species abundance of PFGs to quantify the effects of grazing and drought, and to explore the mechanisms for the pathway correlations using structural equation models (SEM) among PFGs, CS, and BEF directly or indirectly. Grazers consistently favored the perennial forbs (e.g., palatable or nutritious plants), decreasing the plants’ relative abundance by 23%–38%. Drought decreased the relative abundance of ephemeral plants by 42 ± 13%; and increased perennial forbs by 20 ± 7% and graminoids by 80 ± 31%. SEM confirmed that annuals and biennials had negative correlations with the other three PFGs, with perennial bunchgrasses facilitated by perennial rhizome grass. Moreover, the contributions of grazing to community structure (i.e., canopy height) were 1.6–6.1 times those from drought, whereas drought effect on community species richness was 3.6 times of the grazing treatment. Lastly, the interactive effects of grazing and drought on BEF were greater than either alone; particularly, drought escalated grazing damage on primary production. Synthesis. The responses of PFGs, CS, and BEF to grazing and drought were identity‐dependent, suggesting that grazing and drought regulation of plant functional groups might be a way to shape ecosystem structure and function in grasslands.

show abstract

Seasonality constraints to livestock grazing intensity

Cited by 57 publications

References 56 publications

A narrower gap of grazing intensity. Reply to Fetzel et al., 2017. Seasonality constrains to livestock grazing intensity

A narrower gap of grazing intensity. Reply to Fetzel et al., 2017. Seasonality constrains to livestock grazing intensity

Quantification of uncertainties in global grazing systems assessment

Grazing effect on grasslands escalated by abnormal precipitations in Inner Mongolia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About