Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 27, 2026.

Critical review of the impacts of grazing intensity on soil organic carbon storage and other soil quality indicators in extensively managed grasslands

M. Abdalla, A. Hastings, D.R. Chadwick and 5 more

Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment · 2018 · Review · CC BY

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2017.10.023

Abstract

Livestock grazing intensity (GI) is thought to have a major impact on soil organic carbon (SOC) storage and soil quality indicators in grassland agroecosystems. To critically investigate this, we conducted a global review and meta-analysis of 83 studies of extensive grazing, covering 164 sites across different countries and climatic zones. Unlike previous published reviews we normalized the SOC and total nitrogen (TN) data to a 30 cm depth to be compatible with IPCC guidelines. We also calculated a normalized GI and divided the data into four main groups depending on the regional climate (dry warm, DW; dry cool, DC; moist warm, MW; moist cool, MC). Our results show that taken across all climatic zones and GIs, grazing (below the carrying capacity of the systems) results in a decrease in SOC storage, although its impact on SOC is climate-dependent. When assessed for different regional climates, all GI levels increased SOC stocks under the MW climate (+7.6%) whilst there were reductions under the MC climate (-19%). Under the DW and DC climates, only the low (+5.8%) and low to medium (+16.1%) grazing intensities, respectively, were associated with increased SOC stocks. High GI significantly increased SOC for C4-dominated grassland compared to C3-dominated grassland and C3-C4 mixed grasslands. It was also associated with significant increases in TN and bulk density but had no effect on soil pH. To protect grassland soils from degradation, we recommend that GI and management practices should be optimized according to climate region and grassland type (C3, C4 or C3-C4 mixed).

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 27, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

Grasslands cover approximately 40% of the earth's land surface and represent about 70% of the agricultural area. They contain about 10% of terrestrial biomass and make a contribution of about 20–30% to the global pool of soil organic carbon (SOC). Grasslands have some potential to sequester atmospheric CO2 as stable carbon (C) in the soil and hence could contribute to mitigation of climate change. However, the accumulation and storage of C in grasslands is influenced by many factors, especially biotic factors e.g. grazing intensity (GI), animal type and grass species. Nevertheless, although grasslands have high SOC contents, recent studies have suggested that intensive livestock management has led to C losses from many grasslands around the world and thereby, grassland soils could become a source rather than a sink for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Grazing intensity has the potential to modify soil structure, function and capacity to store organic carbon (OC) and could significantly change grassland C stocks. As SOC has a major influence on soil physical structure and a range of ecosystem services (e.g. nutrient retention, water storage, pollutant attenuation), its reduction could lead to reduced soil fertility and consequently, land degradation. These effects may also be magnified if SOC loss rates are magnified by climate change. However, investigating the effects of GI on SOC is hampered by the heterogeneity in grassland types and variations in environmental factors among sites. This is exacerbated by the fact that all previous published meta-analyses studies on this topic (e.g.,, ) pooled the data of different studies together without considering the differences in soil depth at which the SOC and TN were measured, thus producing highly uncertain/contradictory results.

High GI could indirectly alter grass species composition by decreasing water availability. This decreases plant community composition, aboveground biomass, leaf area and light interception and thereby, net primary production (NPP). However, according to, and, high GI can increase soil C sequestration but only when mean annual precipitation is 600 mm or less, and with different responses observed in different soil types. Grazing intensity has also been shown to increase root C contents (a primary control of SOC formation) at the driest and wettest sites, but decrease root C contents at intermediate precipitation levels (400 mm–850 mm). reported that the compositions of plant species and soil condition in the Tibetan pastures were not only affected by GI but also by the local environmental factors. Moreover, suggest that grazing at high intensity for a short period of time was effective at increasing soil organic matter and diversity in forage species composition. On the other hand, overgrazing to the point of stripping surface vegetation can result in soil-degradation and loss of the fertile topsoil, especially where precipitation is low and evaporation is high.

Furthermore, high GI can alter SOC by changing the competitive abilities of different microbial phyla because of the link between GI, SOC availability and ecosystem functions. However, suggest that, the relationship between GI and SOC is generally non-linear. Previous studies have found mixed results, with some showing increases, while others show no effect or decreases in SOC stocks. The review by showed that GI effects on SOC are highly context-specific where higher GI increased SOC on C4-dominated and C4-C3 mixed grasslands, but decreased SOC in C3-dominated grasslands. Other recent reviews by and found that high GI significantly decreased belowground C and N pools. They found that GI interacts with elevation and mean annual temperature or with soil depth, livestock type and climatic conditions.

Understanding the impacts of GI on SOC accumulation and storage in grasslands is crucial to provide the most effective soil C management options. However, although all of these previous reviews are valuable, scientific understanding would be improved by normalizing the sampling depth and GI. In this study, to be compatible with the IPCC guidelines, reduce these errors and make a comprehensive evaluation for GI we have normalized the soil depth for all studies to 30 cm using a quadratic density function based on and calculated a normalized GI. The major objective of this meta-analysis was to investigate the impacts of GI on SOC in extensively grazed grassland soils at a global scale. Additionally, and because of its importance for C biogeochemistry, we considered the impacts of GI on total nitrogen (TN) and other soil properties (mainly pH and bulk density) in grasslands. We also investigated whether spatial variations in climate determine the ecological effects of grazing practices on SOC in grasslands. The specific hypotheses we critically evaluated are as follows: 1) higher GI decreases SOC and TN in soils; 2) the impacts of GI on SOC are modified by environmental and biotic factors; and 3) the effects of GI on SOC stocks depends on climatic zone and soil texture.

Data collection

To collect published studies that have investigated the impacts of GI on SOC and other selected soil properties (TN, pH and BD) under grassland, we performed a comprehensive search on the Web of Science database (accessed between January 2015 and July 2017) using the following keywords: grazing; soil organic carbon; grassland; GI; total nitrogen and carbon sequestration. In an attempt to have the best possible coverage; we also checked all references in the papers found in the Web of Science search. Only studies which were longer than one year and measured SOC or TN were selected. We also accounted for the differences in grass growing seasons at each experimental site. Our searches resulted in 83 studies that investigated the impacts of grazing on SOC and other selected soil properties; carried out at 164 sites covering different countries; climatic zones and management systems (Fig. 1). The studies were segregated into four groups depending on the regional climatic zones (dry cool (DC); dry warm (DW); moist cool (MC) and moist warm (MW)).

We defined the climatic zones based on thermal and moisture regimes: cool, warm, dry, and moist zone according to. The cool zone covers the temperate (oceanic, sub-continental, and continental) and boreal (oceanic, sub-continental and continental) areas, whilst the warm zone covers the tropics (lowland and highland) and subtropics (summer rainfall, winter rainfall, and low rainfall) areas. The dry zone includes the areas where the annual precipitation is equal or below 500 mm, whilst the moist zone includes areas where the annual precipitation is above 500 mm. Coordinates, grass type (i.e. shrubby, woody, steppe, and prairie), annual mean climatic conditions as well as grazing details, soil texture, original depth (OD), initial and final BD and pH, changes in SOC and TN (kg m−2); values were added where available or were designated plus (+) for increased and minus (−) for decreased, as shown in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4.

Estimation methods applied

In some studies SOC and TN values are given as concentrations. To convert these values to stocks (kg m−2), the following equations were applied:

In cases where there were more than one year of values reported in the original paper we used the mean value in this meta-analysis. However, because studies reported the SOC and TN content from different soil depths, we used a quadratic density function based on to derive a scaling cumulative distribution function (c.d.f.) for soil density as a function of soil depth up to 1m. This allows SOC and TN at a given depth d (m) to be scaled to the equivalent values at 0.30 m as follows:

Different methods were used to measure soil pH in different studies, e.g. using pH probe/meter in deionized water or 0.01 M CaCl2 in 1:1 and 1:2 or 1:5 (v:v) soils: solution ratios. We did not adjust pH results recorded by different methods, but where a range of values were reported, we took the mean value. Also, where a range of air temperatures was reported, we used mean annual value in degree Celsius (°C) as reported for the years of the study in the meta-analysis. The mean annual precipitation (mm) value for each study period was taken from the original papers. However, where the mean annual precipitation or mean annual temperature were not reported, those values were taken from the CRU 3.24 climate data set.

The GI reported in each of the studies was estimated in different ways, and was usually subjective, depending on local practices, and usually described as high, medium (or moderate) and low. To undertake this analysis we required a continuous variable for grazing intensity and so the method described below was developed for this study and used to classify the GI used for each of the experiments in a comparable way. As available forage was not described in all studies it was necessary to estimate the amount of plant dry material available (DM) on each site annually and to calculate the forage requirements for the animals grazed at each experimental plot in a consistent manner. To achieve this, the annual NPP, expressed as dry vegetable matter (DM) (mg DM ha−1 y−1) in terms of C was predicted for each location using the Miami model and calculated using mean annual precipitation (P, in mm), and mean annual temperature (T, in °C) reported in each study or determined from the CRU TS 3.4 dataset (i.e. possible effect of N fertilizer was not considered because of data scarcity however; N application rates would generally be considered low in extensively grazed systems).where NPPT is the net primary production calculated based upon temperature and NPPp is the net primary production calculated based upon precipitation.

The available surface vegetable dry matter (SVDM) available for animal grazing for each location was calculated using the following relationship, assuming an allocation of NPP to above ground biomass of 50%:

An animal unit month (AUM) is considered as a bovine weighing of 500 kg requiring 350 kg of DM a month of feed, based on the animal equivalent chart (USDA-Animal equivalent chart, ). The carrying capacity (CC) of grassland is the number of animal unit months that the land will support, based upon the available forage dry matter and the energy requirement, and this we calculated as:

The GI was calculated from the ratio of the number of animal unit months actually grazed up to carrying capacity. The actual number of animal unit months (AAUM) depended on the type of animal: i) cows = 1; ii) steers = 0.7; iii) sheep = 0.2; iv) goats = 0.2, v) domesticated yaks = 0.7 (USDA-Animal equivalent chart, ). The AAUM was calculated as the product of stocking density per ha multiplied by the number of months grazed per year in ha−1 y−1.

As changes in SOC stocks are related to the initial SOC and the annual carbon input to the soil. We calculated the annual carbon input (CIN) to be the quantity of annual NPP carbon not grazed by the animals, and calculated as:

Data analyses

We used Minitab 17 (Minitab, Inc., State College, PA) to conduct the data exploration, conditioning and analyses. The complete data set was analysed to estimate the overall impact of grazing on grassland SOC and selected soil properties, and then to analyse the impact of climatic zone and GI. We have sufficient data to estimate the change in SOC stock (n = 83) related to grazing for the top 30 cm or the profile over the period of the experiment that could be normalized to an annual rate per year. For a subset of the data (n = 64), it was possible to estimate the change in total nitrogen per year during the experiment, bulk density change (n = 43), and pH (n = 30).

The data collected were segregated into four climatic zones for the meta-analysis: DC (n = 26), DW (n = 33), MC (n = 9) and MW (n = 15). The data were also grouped by the calculated GI: low (LG; GI = 0–0.33), medium (MG; GI = 0.33–0.66), high (HG; GI = 0.66–1.0) and overgrazed (OG; GH ≤ 1.0). The tests were also grouped by animal type bovine (B), which included yaks, steers, cows and heifers; caprine (C), including sheep and goats; and a mixture of both bovine and caprine (M). The tests were also grouped by soil type and texture: clay, clay-loam, loam, sandy-loam and sandy; and grassland type: grassland, shrubby grassland, woody grassland, steppe, and prairie. We also tested grass by photosynthetic pathway type: C3, C4 and mixed.

We used different analytical procedures for each group and parameter that related to the available published data. An analysis of the effects of grazing on SOC, TN, pH and BD was made by the methods of and using the response ratio (RR) defined as the natural logarithm of the ratio of the value or the parameter measured on the grazing treatment to that without grazing (control).

The rate of change (R) was calculated in the form ln (RR) by dividing by the length of the experiment in years (y).

The descriptive statistics of the annual change in SOC, TN, BD and pH due to grazing including mean, median, standard deviation, and 95% confidence intervals for each were calculated. One way ANOVAs were performed to investigate the impact of factors: climate, GI, grass and animal types on SOC, TN and other selected soil properties, and the rates of change. Principle component analysis was used to determine significant explanatory variables and response variables and determine the differences between climatic zones. In addition, regressions or mixed models such as GLM's, were used to determine significant explanatory variables.

Estimation of NPP and grazing intensities

Mean NPP for the period 1960–2000 covered a wide range of values reflecting the global diversity of NPP under different climatic zones (Fig. 1). In addition to decomposition rates, SOC content partly depends on OC input. No statistically significant differences in NPP between the DC, DM and MC climatic zones was found; however, the NPP values at the MW climate were significantly greater from those under the other climatic zones (Fig. 2 and Table 5). The calculated and reported estimates of GIs show considerable overlap, and only three experiments represented ‘overgrazing’ i.e. beyond the carrying capacity of the system (Fig. 3). They also illustrated the different definitions of the levels of grazing used in the literature for each domain.

A linear regression of annual NPP remaining available as a possible OC input to the soil, with the calculated GI and climatic zones (p < 0.001, R2 = 67%), demonstrated that the SOC stock under the MC climatic zone is much higher than under the other climatic zones (Fig. 4). The second highest climatic zone, in SOC, is MW but with much higher standard deviation (data not shown). An ANOVA showed that un-grazed SOC is different between the different climatic zones as shown in Table 6 and explains 21% of the variation. A GLM showed that adding NPP and pH explained 41% of the un-grazed SOC value.

Impacts of grazing intensity on SOC and other selected soil properties using the response ratio ln (RR)

An analysis of all studies together and using the response ratio ln (RR) of grazed compared to un-grazed grassland, showed that GI was associated with a decrease of overall SOC stocks by a response ratio of −0.0774 (−8%; StDev = 0.358). It was also associated with a slight increase in pH of 0.029 (+3%; StDev = 0.044), an increase in TN of 0.06 (+6%; StDev = 0.772) and BD of 0.070 (+7%; StDev = 0.083). However, an ANOVA of the SOC, TN, BD and pH showed that whilst climatic zone significantly affects SOC change (p = 0.011) and pH (p = 0.014), it did not significantly impact BD (p = 0.144) or TN (p = 0.118) (Table 7). At all GI levels, grazing increased SOC stocks under the MW climate (+7.6%), but decreased them under the MC climate (−19.5%). However, for the DW and DC climates, only the low (+5.8%) and low to medium (+16.1%) grazing intensities, respectively, led to increases in SOC (Fig. 5).

Analysis of the impact of animal type (bovine, caprine and mixed) on ln (RR) of SOC across all climate types showed no significant difference (p = 0.89). Neither soil texture (clay, clay-loam, loam, sandy-loam and sandy) (p = 0.75), nor grassland characteristics (grassland, shrubby grassland, woody grassland, steppe, and prairie) (p = 0.079) significantly affected SOC levels. However, an ANOVA for grass photosynthetic pathway type (C3, C4 and mixed) showed that there was a significant difference (p = 0.003) with C4 grasslands increasing SOC by 0.056 (5.6%; StDev = 0.341), and C3 grasses and mixed grass decreasing SOC by −0.155 (−15.5%; StDev = 0.233) and −0.25 (−25%; StDev = 0.435), respectively (Table 8).

Impacts of grazing intensity on SOC with annual rate of response ratio ln (RR)

The annual rate of change, R, of the response ratio ln (RR), show that overall GI decreased SOC, with an annual rate of −0.009 (−0.9%; StDev = 0.037), but increased pH at a rate of 0.003 (+0.3%; StDev = 0.006), TN at a rate of 0.0005 (+0.05%; StDev = 0.0047) and BD at a rate of 0.009 (+0.09%; StDev = 0.021). However an ANOVA of the SOC, TN, BD and pH showed that, whilst climatic zone significantly impacts the rate of SOC change (p < 0.001), rate of TN (p = 0.047) and rate of BD change (p = 0.009), it did not significantly impact the rate of pH change (p = 0.201) (Table 9). It also showed that GI was associated with more rapid decreases in SOC in DW and MC climates, than in DC and MW climates (Table 9).

Interactions between climatic zone, grazing intensity and soils

The effect of soil texture was tested by ANOVA both for the entire data set (n = 67) and for each climatic region (DC, n = 22; DW, n = 21; MC, n = 6 & MW, n = 14), but no statistical differences were found between texture classes (data not shown).

Interactions of significant explanatory variables on response ratio ln (RR)

Principle component analysis (PCA) showed that the main explanatory variables for response ratio ln (RR) were climatic zone, initial SOC, grazing intensity and NPP. PCA component 1–4 derived from this parameter subset showed a different pattern for each climatic zone with DW and DC being similar and MW and MC exhibiting different patterns (Fig. 6). When the contribution of each variable to the four components is examined in radar plots (Fig. 7), it is observed that the pattern of interaction of each variable is different for each climatic zone indicating that SOC change is governed by different factors.

Comparison of methods used here with previous analyses

In this systematic global review and meta-analysis we collected 83 published studies, on the impacts of GI of grasslands on SOC and other selected soil properties, covering 164 sites and representing different countries and climatic zones. Unlike previous published reviews (e.g.,, ), we depth-normalized the SOC and TN data in line with IPCC guidelines. We also calculated a normalized GI, with the aim of harmonising very heterogeneous data. Additionally, the calculation of the normalized GI allowed us to compare across experiments, since reported grazing intensities were subjective, considering the normal local management practices. We found the calculated GI overlapped with the GI from the collected literature, which suggests that our normalization method is unlikely to have introduced additional errors. The extracted mean annual temperatures and annual rainfall at each site from the CRU 3.4 dataset all agreed well with the values reported in publications, where given, providing confidence to the calculation of NPP using the Miami model at each experimental site. Our values of excess NPP for a given GI are similar for all climatic zones except for MW, where the value is almost double that in the other climatic zones. Here climate, especially temperature and rainfall, influences grass productivity and thereby NPP. Climatic zones also play a major role in the initial SOC contents, and values for the different zones were significantly different (p < 0.05) from each other (i.e. SOC was highest for MC, and lowest for the DW climatic zone). Estimation of uncertainty is of crucial importance since it has a large impact on the management decisions. In this study, some approximations and assumptions incorporated in the methods we used may have created uncertainty in the final results. To consider this, we have conservatively estimated it by calculating the standard deviation for all values as shown in the Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9.

Impacts of grazing intensity on soil organic carbon (SOC)

By pooling all the data and ignoring the regional climatic zones we found that higher GI (below the carrying capacity of the systems), was generally associated with a decrease in SOC stocks. Similar results were found by and among others. The effects of GI management on SOC are mediated by ground cover and high organic matter supply and/or less soil erosion. High GI can decrease net primary productivity and result in the loss of palatable, larger-leaved species causing domination of unpalatable small-leaved species which produce litter of low quality for soil microbes and fauna. This reduction of some plant-species could also result in decreasing chemical quality of the organic C stock (i.e. reducing of water soluble C) in soil. Moreover, high GI can shift the fungal- to- bacterial ratio towards dominance by fungi, which are more tolerant of periodic drought and seasonal fluctuations in soil moisture than bacteria. In a world of a changing climate livestock production will be negatively affected, especially in arid and semiarid regions, due to e.g. diseases and water availability. High GI under increased frequency of drought and heat wave events may increase GHG emissions and turn grasslands into C sources. Additionally, long-term drought in combination with high atmospheric CO2 concentration can decrease soil microbial biomass and promotes a shift in functional microbial types, and thereby, modify biogeochemical cycles and SOC storage.

However, analysing our data according to climatic zone revealed that the impact of GI on SOC is clearly climate dependent, so that the same GI level in different climatic zones could have different impacts on SOC stocks. This can be explained by the interactions between GI and the environmental parameters (e.g. temperature and precipitation) at each climatic zone. The different GI levels have significantly different effects on individual plant species occurrences and covers and thereby, SOC. Generally, grazing stimulates pasture growth, so although the animals under high GI consume more C from the system and respire it, grazing returns (urine and faeces) recycle the C so, the input to the soil remains similar. In addition, the amount and quality of animal urine and dung, and typical manure management practices in each climatic zone, may also stimulate grass regrowth differently. Further, high GI on dry areas or C3 grassland reduces C storage and makes it vulnerable to climate change whilst increases C sequestration under C4 grasslands. Below we discuss our results for each climatic zone in more detail.

Impacts of grazing intensity on soil organic carbon (SOC) under dry/warm climates

Under the DW climate, where soil is dry and temperature and evapotranspiration are high, GI has detrimental effects on SOC at all levels apart from low GI, where SOC increases by 5.8%. In this climatic zone, reported a decline in species richness under high GI and suggested low to medium grazing intensities for promoting and conserving key forage species. Low GI could stimulate grass regrowth and mobilise nutrients within the soil and is therefore, recommended for steppe-type ecosystem such as those found in Inner Mongolia. reported that high GI decreases soil fertility and has long-term potential implications for the sustainability of grazing in semi-arid environments. It can also increase CO2 fluxes from soil and reduce the potential of grasslands to capture CO2 by reducing aboveground biomass, thereby reducing the source of SOC from above- and below-ground inputs. Similarly, in a mixed prairie, high GI has been shown to change grass composition (reduced tallgrasses) resulting in reduced litter accumulation and ground cover. It is also likely to increase nutrient losses (particularly N), and affect bacterial and fungal community structures; hence threaten longer term sustainability. However, according to, although high GI reduces SOC and TN content and its C/N ratio, a resting period of 1-2 years followed by three consecutive grazing years at low GI would improve SOC and be ideal for sustainable livestock production in South Africa. In addition, Walters et al. (2017) reported that management of GI by rotational grazing (which incorporating long periods of rest) also increased SOC on red Lixisol soils.

Impacts of grazing intensity on soil organic carbon (SOC) under moist/cool climates

In the MC climatic zone, where soil is moist for longer periods and the temperature is low, all grazing led to a decrease in SOC. The activity of soil microorganisms is supressed due to low temperature and high water saturation of the soil (i.e. reducing oxygen availability). High rainfall decreases microbial biomass, possibly due to high demand of nutrients from the soil for the peak growth of vegetation during that time and decreases soil pH. Many other studies in MC climates have found that frequent disturbances of grassland by grazing practices at different intensities decrease C sequestration in soils (e.g.,,, ). reported that higher GI under alpine meadows, reduced plant biomass productivity and changed the species composition and thereby, decreased SOC. Moreover, and found that high GI decreased not only SOC, but also soil N in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Further, trampling by cattle decreases SOC storage by stimulating organic matter decomposition, due to the destruction of soil aggregates by mechanical stress, alters soil microbial community structure, leading to lower fungal- to- bacterial ratios, and increase denitrification rates and N losses. found that medium GI could enhance soil C accumulation at higher altitudes. The trade-off between above- and belowground C storage is positively associated with net ecosystem productivity. However, increasing grass productivity by adding more N fertilizer then intensifying the GI accordingly can increase SOC. Although the use of added inorganic N fertilizer to enhance productivity in temperate grasslands is widespread, it can lead to an enhancement of N losses particularly as GI increases. This can lead to a situation where despite increases in C sequestration the losses of non CO2 GHGs (e.g. N2O) increase and the net GHG balance remains close to zero (or becomes positive), offsetting the benefits of C sequestration. In circumstances where soils have a high nutrient capital (e.g. upland sheep grazing), it can be more appropriate to recommend no or low-intensity grazing as a management practice for enhancing plant and soil C sequestration. In contrast,, and reported that higher GI increased soil C and N storage in alpine meadows through changes in the species composition and biomass allocation pattern. Although grazing in the warm-season is good for plant diversity conservation and nutrient storage in the topsoil, grazing in the cold season can enhance for C and N storage in deep soil layers.

Impacts of grazing intensity on soil organic carbon (SOC) under moist/warm climates

In the MW climatic zone, where both moisture and temperature are high, all GIs have a beneficial impact on SOC. High temperatures increase soil microbial C due to faster decomposition of plant residues and immobilization of products in the microbial biomass. However, found that only medium GI benefits sub-tropical grasslands by influencing nutrient dynamics and should therefore be prescribed for the management of these grasslands. reported that light GI was a useful management for enhancing C sequestration, whilst high GI led to a reduced number of plant species, plant basal area, and amount of deposited dead plant material. also reported that long-term grazing at low GI of Bermuda-grass pastures can increase SOC and SON concentrations and could have strong potential for C and N sequestration. This is mainly due to enhanced turnover of plant material and excreta under low GI., found that long-term grazed pastures in the Southern Piedmont USA have great potential to restore natural soil fertility, sequester SOC and N and increase soil biological activity compared to other land use management options (e.g. cropping). The processing of forage through cattle and deposition of faeces onto the pasture leads to long-term storage of SOC. In contrast, other studies (e.g., ) found no consistent impacts of GI on soil C and N, C/N ratios and microbial biomass and respiration rate. There is a lack of quality studies in Middle and West Asia and Africa, and this is a future research requirement.

Impacts of grazing intensity on soil organic carbon (SOC) under dry/cool climates

In the DC climatic zone, where both moisture and temperature are low, low to medium GIs are beneficial for SOC, while the impact of high GI is unknown, since we found no relevant published data. According to and low to medium GI is the most sustainable grazing management system to increase SOC in this environment. reported that high GI diminished grass regrowth, decreased litter deposition and decreased SOC. reported that sheep grazing at high GI deteriorated physical and chemical parameters of steppe top-soils and depleted SOC and could be improved by reducing GI or excluding from grazing. Further, long-term grazing at different intensity levels significantly reduced SOC and TN in an Inner Mongolian grassland. Also, soil compaction induced by sheep trampling changes selected soil properties, possibly enhances soil vulnerability to water and nutrient loss, and thereby reduces plant available water, and thus grassland productivity. In contrast, found that grazing at high and low intensities increased SOC, partly due to rapid annual shoot turnover and redistribution of C within the plant-soil system, as a result of changes in plant species composition.

Impacts of grazing intensity on C3/C4 dominated grass or C3-C4 mixed grasslands

Our results show that for C4 dominated grasslands, increased GI, on average, was associated with significantly increased SOC, whilst it significantly decreased SOC for C3 dominated grasslands and C3-C4 mixed grasslands. Similar findings were reported by. The reason for increased SOC levels under grazed C4-dominated grass, especially in tropical grasslands, is the ability of the grass to adapt and compensate for grazing practices. C4 grasses adapt to high GI by having many rhizomes and other storage organs that enable them to respond quickly to grass defoliation by animals. In addition to the warm temperature that encourages macro-decomposers to incorporate plant and animal materials in the soil, C4-grasses can compensate the loss by sacrificing stems for leaves, and by containing higher levels of lignin and cellulose. As C4 dominated grasslands would be generally in the moist warm climatic zone, these results are self-consistent.

Impacts of grazing intensity on other selected soil properties (TN, BD and pH)

There were too few data points in each climatic zone to assess the impact of grazing intensity on pH, BD and TN separately for each climatic zone. However, pooling data across all climatic zones suggests that, on average, GI could significantly increase TN and BD but the effect on soil pH was small. Many studies have found higher BD (e.g.,,, ) and high pH (e.g.,, ) in response to high GI in different climatic zones. Grazing intensity increases soil BD and lowers soil moisture content, mainly due to increased animal trampling, leading to higher denitrification losses and may increase the risk of soil erosion by wind. However, some studies have found lower BD due to GI e.g. and. High GI was reported to decrease soil pH. Also, many studies (e.g.,,, ) have found that GI increases TN, while others suggest it decreases TN (e.g.,, ) or results in no change.

Concluding remarks

Overall, the impact of GI on SOC stocks differed between the different climatic zones. Lower GIs increased SOC stocks in three of the four climatic zones (DW, DC and MW), while higher GIs resulted in increased SOC in only one climatic zone (MW). Such climate impacts should be considered in future grassland management and conservation plans. Although our model for predicting biomass production does not take into account extra gains in productivity that can be achieved (promoting increased C sequestration), the benefits (in terms of net GHG emissions) of N use will often be offset by increased losses of non-CO2 GHG emissions in the form of N2O (particularly at higher GIs). There are also differences between C3, C4 and mixed grasslands in their response to GI, and the TN and BD tend to increase under high GI. Best management practices for GI, therefore, need to be tailored to local bioclimatic conditions to avoid loss of soil carbon. Policy makers in each climatic zone should decide on the level of GI depending on the local climate and pasture types they have. The optimal use of GI and grass species has the potential to significantly increase SOC and SON sequestration, and alters C and N cycling in soil. In addition, the breeding of plants with deeper or more extensive root ecosystems e.g. Festulolium (ryegrass x fescue hybrid), which have greater efficiency in resource use, could improve carbon storage, water and nutrient retention, as well as biomass yields. Our results have important implications for setting future grassland management policies that account for climate change. Thus, it is essential to consider both climate and grass type (C3/C4) in grazing management decisions to address sustainability of SOC, conservation of biodiversity, reduction of GHG emissions and mitigation of climate change.

References 150

  1. 1.

    Abril A., Bucher E.H. The effects of overgrazing on soil microbial community and fertility in the Chaco dry savannas of Argentina. Appl. Soil Ecol. 1999;12:159-167.

    Not in our library

  2. 2.

    Allard V., Soussana J.-F., Falcimagne R., Berbigier P., Bonnefond J.M., Ceschia E., D’hour P., Henault C., Laville P., Martin C., Pinares-Patino C. The role of grazing management for the net biome productivity and greenhouse gas budget (CO2, N2O, and CH4) of semi-natural grassland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007;121:47-58.

    Not in our library

  3. 3.

    Altesor A.I., Pineiro G., Lezama F., Jackson R.B., Sarasola M., Paruelo J.M. Ecosystem changes associated with grazing in sub-humid grasslands of South America. J. Veg. Sci. 2006;17:323-332.

    Not in our library

  4. 4.

    Angassa A. Effects of grazing intensity and bush encroachment on herbaceous specie and rangeland condition in southern Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Dev. 2014;25:438-451.

    Not in our library

  5. 5.

    Asgharnezhad L., Akbarlou M., Karkaj E.S. Influences of grazing and enclosure on carbon sequestration Puccenilia distans (Jacq.) Parl. and soil carbon sequestration (case study: Gomishan wetlands). Int. J. Agron. Plant Prod. 2013;4:1936-1941.

    Not in our library

  6. 6.

    Bagchi S., Ritchie M.E. Introduced grazers can restrict potential soil carbon sequestration through impacts on plant community composition. Ecol. Lett. 2010;13:959-968.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01486.x

  7. 7.

    Bagchi S., Roy S., Maitra A., Sran R.S. Herbivores suppress soil microbes to influence carbon sequestration in the grazing ecosystem of the trans-Himalaya. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017;239:199-206.

    Not in our library

  8. 8.

    Barger N.N., Ojima D.S., Belnap J., Wang S., Wang Y., Chen Z. Changes in plant functional groups, litter quality, and soil carbon and nitrogen mineralization with sheep grazing in an Inner Mongolian Grassland. J. Range Manag. 2004;57:613-619.

    Not in our library

  9. 9.

    Barnard R., Barthes L., Leadley P.W. Short-term uptake of 15N by a grass and soil micro-organisms after long-term exposure to elevated CO2. Plant Soil. 2006;280:91-99.

    Not in our library

  10. 10.

    Barton F.E., Amos I.I., Burdick H.E., Wilson D. Relationship of chemical analysis to in vitro digestibility for selected tropical and temperate species. J. Anim. Sci. 1976;43:504-512.

    Not in our library

  11. 11.

    Cao J., Yeh E.T., Holden N.M., Yang Y., Du G. The effect of enclosures and land-use contracts on rangeland degradation on the Qinghai-Tibetan plateau. J. Arid Environ. 2013;97:3-8.

    Not in our library

  12. 12.

    Chaneton E.J., Lavado R.S. Soil nutrients and salinity after long-term grazing exclusion in a flooding pampa grasslands. J. Range Manag. 1996;49:182-187.

    Not in our library

  13. 13.

    Chu C., Bartlett M., Wang Y., He F., Weiner J., Chave J., Sack L. Does climate directly influence NPP globally? Glob. Change Biol. 2016;22:12-24.

    Not in our library10.1111/gcb.13079

  14. 14.

    Ciais P., Reichstein M., Viovy N. Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003. Nature. 2003;437:529-533.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature03972

  15. 15.

    Ciais P., Dolman A.J., Dargaville R., Barrie L., Bombelli A., Butler J., Canadell P., Moriyama T. Geo Carbon Strategy. 2010.

    Not in our library

  16. 16.

    Cingolani A.M., Noy-Meir I., Diaz S. Grazing effects on rangeland diversity: a synthesis of contemporary models. Ecol. Appl. 2005;15:757-773.

    Not in our library

  17. 17.

    Conant R.T., Paustian K., Elliott E.T. Grassland management and conversion into grassland: effects on soil carbon. Ecol. Appl. 2001;11:343-355.

    Not in our library

  18. 18.

    Conant R.T., Lal R. Grassland soil organic carbon stocks: status, opportunities, vulnerability. Re-carbonization of the Biosphere: Ecosystems and the Global Carbon Cycle. 2012.

    Not in our library

  19. 19.

    Cornelissen J.H.C., Perez-Harguindeguy N., Dıaz S., Grime J.P., Marzano B., Cabido M., Vendramini F., Cerabolini B. Leaf structure and defense control litter decomposition rate across species and life forms in two regional floras on two continents. New Phytol. 1999;143:191-200.

    Not in our library

  20. 20.

    Craine J.M., Ballantyne F., Peel M., Zambatis N., Morrow C., Stock W.D. Grazing and landscape controls on nitrogen availability across 330 South African savanna sites. Austr. Ecol. 2009;34:731-740.

    Not in our library

  21. 21.

    Cui X.Y., Wang Y.F., Niu H.S., Wu J., Wang S.P., Schnug E., Rogasik J., Fleckenstein J., Tang Y.H. Effect of long-term grazing on soil organic carbon content in semiarid steppes in Inner Mongolia. Ecol. Res. 2005;20:519-527.

    Not in our library

  22. 22.

    Da Silva F.D., Amado T.J.C., Ferreira A.O., Assmann J.M., Anghinoni I., De Faccio Carvalho P.C. Soil carbon indices as affected by 10 years of integrated crop-livestock production with different pasture grazing intensities in Southern Brazil. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014;190:60-69.

    Not in our library

  23. 23.

    Derner J.D., Schuman G.E. Carbon sequestration and rangelands: a synthesis of land management and precipitation. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2007;62:77-85.

    Not in our library

  24. 24.

    Derner J.D., Detling J.K., Antolin M.F. Are livestock gains affected by blacktailed prairie dogs? Front. Ecol. Environ. 2006;4:459-464.

    Not in our library

  25. 25.

    Devi T.I., Yadava P.S., Garkoti S.C. Cattle grazing influences soil microbial biomass in sub-tropical grassland ecosystems at Nambol, Manipur, north-east India. Trop. Ecol. 2014;55:195-206.

    Not in our library

  26. 26.

    Dong S.K., Wen L., Li Y.Y., Wang X.X., Zhu L., Li X.Y. Soil-quality effects of grassland degradation and restoration on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2012;76:2256-2264.

    Not in our library

  27. 27.

    Dubeux J.C.B., Sollenberger L.E., Mathews B.W., Scholberg J.M., Santos H.Q. Nutrient cycling in warm-climate grasslands. Crop Sci. 2007;47:915-928.

    Not in our library

  28. 28.

    Eldridge D.J., Delgado-Baquerizo M. Continental-scale impacts of livestock grazing on ecosystem supporting and regulating services. Land Degrad. Dev. 2017;28:1473-1481.

    Not in our library

  29. 29.

    Eldridge D.J., Delgado-Baquerizo M., Travers S.K., Val J., Oliver I., Hamonts K., Singh B.K. Competition drives the response of soil microbial diversity to increased grazing by vertebrate herbivores. Ecology. 2017;98:1922-1931.

    Not in our library10.1002/ecy.1879

  30. 30.

    Enriquez A.S., Chimner R.A., Cremona M.V., Diehl P., Bonvissuto G.L. Grazing intensity levels influence C reservoirs of wet and mesic meadows along a precipitation gradient in Northern Patagonia. Wet. Ecol. Manag. 2015;23:439-451.

    Not in our library

  31. 31.

    Fernandez D.P., Neff J.C., Reynolds R.L. Biogeochemical and ecological impacts of livestock grazing in semi-arid southern-east Utah, USA. J. Arid Environ. 2008;72:777-791.

    Not in our library

  32. 32.

    Frank A.B., Tanaka D.L., Hofmann L., Follett R.F. Soil carbon and nitrogen of northern Great Plains grasslands as influenced by long-term grazing. J. Range Manag. 1995;48:470-474.

    Not in our library

  33. 33.

    Frank D.A., Kuns M.M., Guido D.R. Consumer control of grassland plant production. Ecology. 2002;83:602-606.

    Not in our library

  34. 34.

    Franzluebbers A.J., Stuedemann J.A. Particulate and non-particulate fractions of soil organic carbon under pastures in the Southern Piedmont USA. Environ. Poll. 2002;116:S53-S62.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0269-7491(01)00247-0

  35. 35.

    Franzluebbers A.J., Stuedemann J.A. Soil carbon and nitrogen pools in response to tall fescue endophyte infection fertilization, and cultivar. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2005;69:396-403.

    Not in our library

  36. 36.

    Franzluebbers A.J., Stuedemann J.A. Soil-profile organic carbon and total nitrogen during 12 years of pasture management in the Southern Piedmont USA. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009;129:28-36.

    Not in our library

  37. 37.

    Franzluebbers A.J., Stuedemann J.A., Schomberg H.H., Wilkinson S.R. Soil organic C and N pools under long-term pasture management in the Southern Piedmont, USA. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2000;32:469-478.

    Not in our library

  38. 38.

    Franzluebbers A.J., Wright S.F., Stuedemann J.A. Soil aggregation and glomalin under pastures in the Southern Piedmont USA. Soil Soc. Am. J. 2000;64:1018-1026.

    Not in our library

  39. 39.

    Fuhlendorf S.D., Zhang H., Tunnell T.R., Engle D.M., Cross A.F. Effects of grazing on restoration of southern mixed prairie soils. Rest. Ecol. 2002;10:401-407.

    Not in our library

  40. 40.

    Ganjegunte G.K., Vance G.F., Preston C.M., Schuman G.E., Ingram L.J., Stahl P.D., Welker J.M. Influence of different grazing management practices on soil organic carbon constituents in a northern mixed-grass prairie. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2005;69:1746-1756.

    Not in our library

  41. 41.

    Gao Y.H., Luo P., Wu N., Chen H., Wang G.X. Grazing intensity impacts on carbon sequestration in an alpine meadow on the eastern Tibetan Plateau. Res. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 2007;3:642-647.

    Not in our library

  42. 42.

    Gao Y.H., Schuman M., Chen H., Wu N., Luo P. Impacts of grazing intensity on soil carbon and nitrogen in an alpine meadow on the eastern Tibetan Plateau. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2009;7:749-754.

    Not in our library

  43. 43.

    Gao-Lin W., Dong W., Yu L., Lu-Ming D., Zhen-Heng L. Warm-season grazing benefits species diversity conservation and top-soil nutrient sequestration in alpine meadow. Land Degrad. Dev. 2017;28:1311-1319.

    Not in our library

  44. 44.

    Garcia M.R.L., Sampaio A.A.M., Nahas E. Impact of different grazing systems for bovine cattle on the soil microbiological and chemical characteristics. R. Bras. Zootec. 2011;40:1568-1575.

    Not in our library

  45. 45.

    Ghoreyshi R., Behjou F.K., Motamedi J., Kalanpa E.G. Soil carbon capacity in a grassy rangeland ecosystem in North-western Iran: implication for conservation. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2013;8:916-921.

    Not in our library

  46. 46.

    Golluscio R.A., Austin A.T., Martinez G.C., Gonzalez-Polo M., Sala O.E., Jackson R.B. Sheep grazing decreases organic carbon and nitrogen pools in the Patagonian Steppe: combination of direct and indirect effects. Ecosystem. 2009;12:686-697.

    Not in our library

  47. 47.

    Grieser J., Gommes R., Bernardi M. The Miami Model of Climatic Net Primary Production of Biomass. 2006.

    Not in our library

  48. 48.

    Hafner S., Unteregelsbacher S., Seeber E., Lena B., Xu X., Li X., Guggenberger G., Miehe G., Kuzyakov Y. Effect of grazing on carbon stocks and assimilate partitioning in a Tibetan montane pasture revealed by 13CO2 pulse labelling. Glob. Change Biol. 2012;18:528-538.

    Not in our library

  49. 49.

    Han G., Hao X., Zhao M., Wang M., Ellert B.H., Willms W., Wang M. Effect of grazing intensity on carbon and nitrogen in soil and vegetation in a meadow steppe in Inner Mongolia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008;125:21-32.

    Not in our library

  50. 50.

    Harris L., Jones P.D., Osborn T.J., Lister D.H. Updated high resolution grids of monthly climatic observations – the CRU TS3.1 data set. Int. J. Clim. 2013;34:623-642.

    Not in our library

  51. 51.

    He N.P., Zhang Y.H., Yu Q. Grazing intensity impacts soil carbon and nitrogen storage of continental steppe. Ecosphere. 2011;2:304-316.

    Not in our library

  52. 52.

    Hedges L.V., Gurevitch J., Curtis P.S. The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology. 1999;80:1150-1156.

    Not in our library

  53. 53.

    Hiernaux P., Bielders C.L., Valentin C., Bationo A., FernándezRivera S. Effects of livestock grazing on physical and chemical properties of sandy soils in Sahelian rangelands. J. Arid Environ. 1999;41:231-245.

    Not in our library

  54. 54.

    Hiltbrunner D., Schulze S., Hagedorn F., Schmidt M.W., Zimmmermann S. Cattle trampling alters soil properties and changes soil microbial communities in a Swiss sub-alpine pasture. Geoderma. 2012;170:369-377.

    Not in our library

  55. 55.

    Huhe Chen X., Hou F., Wu Y., Cheng Y. Bacterial and fungal community structures in loess plateau grasslands with different grazing intensities. Front. Microbiol. 2017;8:606.

    Not in our library10.3389/fmicb.2017.00606

  56. 56.

    Humphreys M.W., Canter P.J., Thomas H.M. Advances in introgression technologies for precision breeding within the LoliumFestuca complex. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2003;143:1-10.

    Not in our library

  57. 57.

    IGBP-DIS. Soil Data (V.0). A Program for Creating Global Soil-Property Databases. 1998.

    Not in our library

  58. 58.

    Ingram L.J., Stahl P.D., Schuman G.E. Grazing impacts on soil carbon and microbial communities in a mixed-grass ecosystem. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2008;72:939-948.

    Not in our library

  59. 59.

    Janzen H.H. The soil carbon dilemma: shall we hoard it or use it? Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006;38:419-424.

    Not in our library

  60. 60.

    Jones M.B., Donnelly A. Carbon sequestration in temperate grassland ecosystems and the influence of management, climate and elevated CO2. New Phytol. 2004;164:423-439.

    Not in our library

  61. 61.

    Jones S.K., Helfter C., Anderson M., Coyle M., Campbell C., Famulari D., Di Marco C., van Dijk N., Topp C.F.E., Kiese R., Kindler R., Siemens J., Schrumpf M., Kaiser K., Nemitz E., Levy P., Rees R.M., Sutton M.A., Skiba U.M. The nitrogen, carbon and greenhouse gas budget of a grazed: cut and fertilised temperate grassland. Biogeosciences. 2016;14:2069-2088.

    Not in our library

  62. 62.

    Kölbl A., Steffens M., Wiesmeier M., Hoffmann C., Funk R., Krümmelbein J., Reszkowska A., Zhao Y., Peth S., Horn R., Giese M., Kögel-Knabner I. Grazing changes topography-controlled topsoil properties and their interaction on different spatial scales in a semi-arid grassland of Inner Mongolia, P.R. China. Plant Soil. 2011;340:35-58.

    Not in our library

  63. 63.

    Kell D.B. Breeding crop plants with deep roots: their role in sustainable carbon, nutrient and water sequestration. Ann. Bot. 2011;108:407-418.

    Not in our library10.1093/aob/mcr175

  64. 64.

    Kieft T.L. Grazing and plant-canopy effects on semiarid soil microbial biomass and respiration. Biol. Fertil. Soils. 1994;18:155-162.

    Not in our library

  65. 65.

    Klumpp K., Soussana J.-F., Falcimagne R. Effects of past and current disturbance on carbon cycling in grassland mesocosms. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007;121:59-73.

    Not in our library

  66. 66.

    Klumpp K., Fontaine S., Attard E., LeRoux X., Gleixner G., Soussana J.F. Grazing triggers soil carbon loss by altering plant roots and their control on soil microbial community. J. Ecol. 2009;97:876-885.

    Not in our library

  67. 67.

    Lal R. Sequestering carbon in soils of arid ecosystems. Land Degrad. Dev. 2009;20:441-444.

    Not in our library

  68. 68.

    Larreguy C., Carrera A.L., Bertiller M.B. Effects of long-term grazing disturbance on the belowground storage of organic carbon in the Patagonian Monte, Argentina. J. Environ. Manag. 2014;134:47-55.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.024

  69. 69.

    Larreguy C., Carrera A.L., Bertiller M.B. Reductions of plant cover induced by sheep grazing change the above-belowground partition and chemistry of organic C stocks in arid rangelands of Patagonian Monte, Argentina. J. Environ. Manag. 2017;199:139-147.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.04.086

  70. 70.

    Leith H. Modelling the primary productivity of the world. 1972;VIII:5-10.

    Not in our library

  71. 71.

    Li C., Frolking S., Harriss R. Modelling carbon biogeochemistry in agricultural soils. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycl. 1994;8:237-254.

    Not in our library

  72. 72.

    Li C., Hao X., Zhao M., Han G., Willms W.D. Influence of historic sheep grazing on vegetation and soil properties of a Desert Steppe in Inner Mongolia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008;128:109-116.

    Not in our library

  73. 73.

    Li W., Huang H.Z., Zhang Z.N., Wu G.L. Effects of grazing on the soil properties and C and N storage in relation to biomass allocation in an alpine meadow. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2011;11:27-39.

    Not in our library

  74. 74.

    Li X., Zhang C., Fu H., Guo D., Song X., Wan C., Ren J. Grazing exclusion alters soil microbial respiration, root respiration and the soil carbon balance in grasslands of the Loess Plateau, northern China. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2015;59:877-887.

    Not in our library

  75. 75.

    Liu N., Zhang Y., Chang S., Kan H., Lin L. Impact of grazing on soil carbon and microbial biomass in typical steppe and Desert Steppe of Inner Mongolia. PLoS One. 2012;7.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0036434

  76. 76.

    Lu X., Kelsey K.C., Yan Y., Sun J., Wang X., Cheng G., Neff J.C. Effects of grazing on ecosystem structure and function of alpine grasslands in Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau: a synthesis. Ecosphere. 2017;8.

    Not in our library

  77. 77.

    Luan J., Cui, Xiang L., Wu C., Song J., Ma H., et al Q. Different grazing removal exclosures effects on soil C stocks among alpine ecosystems in east Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Ecol. Eng. 2014;64:262-268.

    Not in our library

  78. 78.

    Luo Y.Q., Hui D.F., Zhang D.Q. Elevated CO2 stimulates net accumulations of carbon and nitrogen in land ecosystems: a meta-analysis. Ecology. 2006;87:53-63.

    Not in our library10.1890/04-1724

  79. 79.

    Ma W., Ding K., Li Z. Comparison of soil carbon and nitrogen stocks at grazing-excluded and yak grazing alpine meadow sites in Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, China. Ecol. Eng. 2016;87:203-2011.

    Not in our library

  80. 80.

    Manley J.T., Schuman G.E., Reeder J.D., Hart R.H. Rangeland soil carbon and nitrogen responses to grazing. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1995;50:294-298.

    Not in our library

  81. 81.

    Marriott C.A., Fisher G.M., Hood K., Pakeman R.J. Impacts of extensive grazing and abandonment on grassland soils and productivity. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010;139:476-482.

    Not in our library

  82. 82.

    McNaughton S.J. Ecology of a grazing ecosystem. Serengeti. Ecol. Monogr. 1985;55:259-294.

    Not in our library

  83. 83.

    McSherry M., Ritchie M.E. Effects of grazing on grassland soil carbon density: a global review. Glob. Change Biol. 2013;19:1347-1357.

    Not in our library10.1111/gcb.12144

  84. 84.

    Medina-Roldan E., Paz-Ferreiro J., Bardgett R.D. Grazing exclusion affects soil and plant communities, but has no impact on soil carbon storage in an upland grassland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012;149:118-123.

    Not in our library

  85. 85.

    Medina-Roldana E., Arredondoa J.T., Huber-Sannwalda E., Chapa-Vargasa L., Olalde-Portugal V. Grazing effects on fungal root symbionts and carbon and nitrogen storage in a shortgrass steppe in Central Mexico. J. Arid Environ. 2008;72:546-556.

    Not in our library

  86. 86.

    Naeth M.A., Bailey A.W., Pluth D.J., Chanasyk D.S., Hardon R.T. Grazing impacts on litter and soil organic matter in mixed prairie and fescue grassland ecosystems in Alberta. J. Range Manag. 1991;44:7-12.

    Not in our library

  87. 87.

    Neff J.C., Reynolds R.L., Belnap J., Lamothe P. Multi-decadal of grazing on soil physical and biochemical properties in southeast Utah. Ecol. Appl. 2005;15:87-95.

    Not in our library

  88. 88.

    Nianpeng H., Yunhai Z., Jingzhong D., Xingguo H., Taogetao B., Guirui Y. Land-use impact on soil carbon and nitrogen sequestration in typical steppe ecosystems, Inner Mong. J. Geogr. Sci. 2012;22:859-873.

    Not in our library

  89. 89.

    Niu D., Hall S.J., Fu H., Kang J., Qin Y., Elser J.J. Grazing exclusion alters ecosystem carbon pools in Alxa desert steppe. N. Z. J. Agric Res. 2011;54:127-142.

    Not in our library

  90. 90.

    Nosetto M.D., Jobbagy E.G., Paruelo J.M. Carbon sequestration in semi-arid rangelands: comparison of Pinus ponderosa plantations and grazing exclusion in NW Patagonia. J. Arid Environ. 2006;67:142-156.

    Not in our library

  91. 91.

    Oenema O., Velthof G.L., Yamulki S., Jarvis S.C. Nitrous oxide emissions from grazed grassland. Soil Use Manag. 1997;13:288-295.

    Not in our library

  92. 92.

    Olff H., Ritchie M.E., Prins H.T.H. Global environmental controls of diversity in large herbivores. Nature. 2002;415:901-904.

    Not in our library10.1038/415901a

  93. 93.

    Pappas I.A., Koukoura Z., Vrahnakis M., Kyriazopoulos A.P., Chouvardas D., Fotiadis G. Grazing intensity affects soil carbon sequestration in an altitudinal gradient. Dry Grasslands of Europe: Grazing and Ecosystem Services, Proceedings of 9th European Dry Grassland Meeting (EDGM). 2011.

    Not in our library

  94. 94.

    Pavlů V., Hejcman M., Pavlů L., Gaisler J. Restoration of grazing management and its effect on vegetation in an upland grassland. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2007;10:375-382.

    Not in our library

  95. 95.

    Pei S., Fu H., Wan C. Changes in soil properties and vegetation following exclosure and grazing in degraded Alxa desert steppe of Inner Mongolia, China. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 2008;124:33-39.

    Not in our library

  96. 96.

    Pinay G., Barbera P., Carreras-Palou A. Impact of atmospheric CO2 and plant life forms on soil microbial activities. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2007;39:33-42.

    Not in our library

  97. 97.

    Pineiro G., Paruelo J.M., Jobbagy E.G., Jackson R.B., Oesterheld M. Grazing effects on belowground C and N stocks along a network of cattle exclosures in temperate and subtropical grasslands of South America. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycl. 2009;23:GB2003.

    Not in our library

  98. 98.

    Pineiro G., Paruelo J.M., Oesterheld M., Jobbagy E.G. Pathways of grazing effects on soil organic carbon and nitrogen. Rang. Ecol. Manag. 2010;63:109-119.

    Not in our library

  99. 99.

    Powlson D.S., Whitmore A.P., Goulding K.W.T. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change: a critical re-examination to identify the true and the false. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2011;62:42-55.

    Not in our library

  100. 100.

    Pringle M.J., Allen D.E., Dalal R.C., Payne J.E., Mayer D.G., O'Reagain P., Marchant B.P. Soil carbon stock in the tropical rangelands of Australia: effects of soil type and grazing pressure: and determination of sampling requirement. Geoderma. 2011;167–168:261-273.

    Not in our library

  101. 101.

    Qiu L., Wei X., Zhang X. Ecosystem carbon and nitrogen accumulation after grazing exclusion in semiarid grassland. PLoS One. 2013;8.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0055433

  102. 102.

    Raiesi F., Riahi M. The influence of grazing exclosure on soil C stocks and dynamics: and ecological indicators in upland arid and semi-arid rangelands. Ecol. Indic. 2014;41:145-154.

    Not in our library

  103. 103.

    Reeder J.D., Schuman G.E. Influence of livestock grazing on C sequestration in semi-arid mixed grass and short grass rangelands. Environ. Pollut. 2002;116:457-463.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0269-7491(01)00223-8

  104. 104.

    Reeder J.D., Schuman G.E., Morgan J.A., Lecain, DR, 2004. Response of organic and inorganic carbon and nitrogen to long-term grazing of the shortgrass steppe. Environ. Manag. 2004;33:485-495.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00267-003-9106-5

  105. 105.

    Reid R.S., Thornton P.K., McCrabb G.J., Kruska R.L., Atieno F., Jones P.G. Is it possible to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in pastoral ecosystems of the tropics. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2004;6:91-109.

    Not in our library

  106. 106.

    Reszkowska A., Krümmelbein J., Zhao Y., Peth S., Horn R., Gan L. Influence of grazing on hydraulic and mechanical properties of semiarid steppe soils under different vegetation type in Inner Mongolia, China. Plant Soil. 2011;340:59-72.

    Not in our library

  107. 107.

    Risch A.C., Anderson T.M., Schutz M. Soil CO2 emissions associated with Termitaria in tropical savanna: evidence for hot-spot compensation. Ecosystem. 2012;15:1147-1157.

    Not in our library

  108. 108.

    Ritchie M.E. Plant compensation to grazing and soil carbon dynamics in a tropical grassland. Peer J. 2014;2:e233.

    Not in our library10.7717/peerj.233

  109. 109.

    Rogers W.M., Kirby D.R., Nyren P.E., Patton B.D., Dekeyser E.S. Grazing intensity effects on northern plains mixed-grass prairie. Prairi Nat. 2005;37:73-83.

    Not in our library

  110. 110.

    Rounsevell M., Evans S.P., Bullock P. Climate change and agricultural soils impacts and adaptation. Clim. Change. 1999;43:683-709.

    Not in our library

  111. 111.

    Russell J.R., Barnhart S.K., Morrical D.G., Sellers H.J. Use of Mob Grazing to Improve Cattle Production, Enhance Legume Establishment and Increase Carbon Sequestration in Iowa Pastures. 2013.

    Not in our library

  112. 112.

    Schonbach P., Wolf B., Dickhofer U., Wiesmeier M., Chen W., Wan H. Grazing effects on the greenhouse gas balance of a temperate steppe ecosystem. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2012;93:357-371.

    Not in our library

  113. 113.

    Schuman G.E., Reeder J.D., Manley J.T., Hart R.H., Manley W.A. Impact of grazing management on the carbon and nitrogen balance of a mixed-grass rangeland. Ecol. Appl. 1999;9:65-71.

    Not in our library

  114. 114.

    Schuman G.E., Janzen H.H., Herrick J.E. Soil carbon dynamics and potential carbon sequestration by rangelands. Environ. Poll. 2002;116(3):391-396.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0269-7491(01)00215-9

  115. 115.

    Schuman G.E., Ingram L.J., Stahl P.D., Derner J.D., Vance G.F., Morgan J.A. Influence of Management on Soil Organic Carbon Dynamics in Northern Mixed-Grass Rangeland. Soil Carbon Sequestration and the Greenhouse Effect. 2009.

    Not in our library

  116. 116.

    Scurlock J.M.O., Hall D.O. The global carbon sink A grassland perspective’. Glob. Change Biol. 1998;4:229-233.

    Not in our library

  117. 117.

    Shengjie L.I.U., Xiaodong Y., Ives A.R., Zhili F., Liqing S.H.A. Effects of seasonal and perennial grazing on soil fauna community and microbial biomass carbon in the subalpine meadows of Yunnan, Southwest China. Pedosphere. 2017;27:371-379.

    Not in our library

  118. 118.

    Shrestha G., Stahl P.D. Carbon accumulation and storage in semi-arid sagebrush steppe: effects of long-term grazing exclusion. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008;125:173-181.

    Not in our library

  119. 119.

    Sigua G.C., Coleman S.W., Albano J. Quantifying soil organic carbon in forage-based cow-calf congregation-grazing zone interface. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2009;85:215-223.

    Not in our library

  120. 120.

    Silveira M.L., Xu S., Adewopo J., Franzluebbers A.J., Buonad G. Grazing land intensification effects on soil C dynamics in aggregate size fractions of a Spodosol. Geoderma. 2014;230–231:185-193.

    Not in our library

  121. 121.

    Slessarev E.W., Lin Y., Bingham N.L., Johnson J.E., Dai Y., Schimel J.P., Chadwick O.A. Water balance creates a threshold in soil pH at the global scale. Nature. 2016;540:567-569.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature20139

  122. 122.

    Smith P., Goulding K.W.T., Smith K.A., Powlson D.S., Smith J.U., Falloon P., Coleman K. Including trace gas fluxes in estimates of the carbon mitigation potential of UK agricultural land. Soil Use Manag. 2000;16:251-259.

    Not in our library

  123. 123.

    Smith P., Martino D., Cai Z. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 2008;363:789-813.

    Not in our library10.1098/rstb.2007.2184

  124. 124.

    Smith S.W., Vandenberghe C., Hastings A., Johnson D., Pakeman R., Wal R., Woodin S.J. Optimizing carbon storage within a spatially heterogeneous upland grassland through sheep grazing management. Ecosystem. 2014;17:418-429.

    Not in our library

  125. 125.

    Soussana J.F., Allard V., Pilegaard K., Ambus P., Amman C., Campbell C., Ceschia E., Clifton-Brown J., Czobel S., Domingues R., Flechard C., Fuhrer J., Hensen A., Horvath L., Jones M., Kasper G., Martin C., Nagy Z., Neftel A., Raschi A., Baronti S., Rees R.M., Skiba U., Stefani P., Manca G., Sutton M., Tuba Z., Valentini R. Full accounting of the greehouse gas (CO2, N2O, CH4) budget of nine European grassland sites. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007;121:121-134.

    Not in our library

  126. 126.

    Steffens M., Kolbl A., Totsche K.U., Kogel-Knabner I. Grazing effects on soil chemical and physical properties in a semiarid steppe of Inner Mongolia (PR China). Geoderma. 2008;143:63-72.

    Not in our library

  127. 127.

    Su Y.Z., Li Y.L., Cui J.Y., Zhao W.Z. Influences of continuous grazing andlivestock exclusion on soil properties in a degraded sandy grassland, Inner Mongolia, northern China. Catena. 2005;59:267-278.

    Not in our library

  128. 128.

    Sun D.S., Wesche K., Chen D.D., Zhang S.H., Wu G.L. Grazing depresses soil carbon storage through changing plant biomass and composition in a Tibetan alpine meadow. Plant Soil Environ. 2011;57:271-278.

    Not in our library

  129. 129.

    Talore D.G., Tesfamariam E.H., Hassen A., Du Toit J.C., Klamppd K., Jean-Francoise S. Long-term impacts of grazing intensity on soil carbon sequestration and selected soil properties in the arid Eastern Cape, South Africa. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016;96:1945-1952.

    Not in our library10.1002/jsfa.7302

  130. 130.

    Teague W.R., Dowhower S.L., Baker S.A., Haile N., DeLaune P.B., Conover D.M. Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical: physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011;141:310-322.

    Not in our library

  131. 131.

    Tessema Z.K., de Boer W.F., Baars R.M.T., Prins H.H.T. Changes in soil nutrients, vegetation structure and herbaceous biomass in response to grazing in a semi-arid savanna of Ethiopia. J. Arid Environ. 2011;75:662-670.

    Not in our library

  132. 132.

    Thomas A.D. Grasslands in southern Botswana organic carbon and soil CO2 efflux in two semiarid Impact of grazing intensity on seasonal variations in soil. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 2012;367:3076-3086.

    Not in our library10.1098/rstb.2012.0102

  133. 133.

    USDA. Animal equivalent chart – Domestic Livestock, Native Wildlife and Exotic Wildlife. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs144p2_002433.pdf (Accessed 31 August 2017).

    Not in our library

  134. 134.

    Wang W., Fang J. Soil respiration and human effects on global grasslands. Glob. Planet. Change. 2009;67:20-28.

    Not in our library

  135. 135.

    Wang Z., Jiao S., Han G., Zhao M., Ding H., Zhang X., Wang X., Ayers E.L., Willms W.D., Havsatad K., Lata A., Liu Y. Effects of stocking rate on the variability of peak standing crop in a desert steppe of Eurasia grassland. Environ. Manag. 2014;53:266-273.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00267-013-0186-6

  136. 136.

    Wang Y., Heberling G., Gorzen E., Miehe G., Seeber E., Wesche K. Combined effects of livestock grazing and abiotic environment on vegetation and soils of grasslands across Tibet. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2017;20:327-339.

    Not in our library

  137. 137.

    Wardle D.A. Communities and Ecosystems: Linking the Above Ground and Belowground Components. 2002.

    Not in our library

  138. 138.

    Waters C.M., Orgill S.E., Melville G.J., Toole I.D., Smith W.J. Management of grazing intensity in the semi-arid rangelands of southern Australia: effects on soils and biodiversity. Land Degrad. Dev. 2017;28:1363-1375.

    Not in our library

  139. 139.

    Wright I.J., Reich P.B., Westoby M., Ackerly D.D., Baruch Z., Bongers F., Cavender Bares J., Chapin T., Cornelissen J.H.C., Diemer M., Flexas J., Garnier E., Groom P.K., Gulias J., Hikosaka K., Lamont B.B., Lee T., Lee W., Lusk C., Midgley J.J., Navas M.L., Niinemets U., Oleksyn J., Osada N., Poorter H., Poot P., Prior L., Pyankov V.I., Roumet C., Thomas S.C., Tjoelker M.G., Veneklaas E.J., Villar R. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature. 2004;428:821-827.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature02403

  140. 140.

    Wu L., He N., Wang Y., Han X. Storage and dynamics of carbon and nitrogen in soil after grazing exclusion in Leymus chinensis grasslands of northern China. J. Environ. Qual. 2008;37:663-668.

    Not in our library10.2134/jeq2007.0196

  141. 141.

    Wu G.L., Du G.Z., Liu Z.H., Thirgood S. Effect of fencing and grazing on a Kobresia-dominated meadow in the Qinghai Tibetan Plateau. Plant Soil. 2009;319:115-126.

    Not in our library

  142. 142.

    Wu G.L., Liu Z.H., Zhang L., Chen J.M., Hu T.M. Longterm fencing improved soil properties and soil organic carbon storage in an alpine swamp meadow of western China. Plant Soil. 2010;332:331-337.

    Not in our library

  143. 143.

    Xie Y., Wittig R. The impact of grazing intensity on soil characteristics of Stipa grandis and Stipa bungeana steppe in northern China (autonomous region of Ningxia). Acta Oecol. 2004;25:197-204.

    Not in our library

  144. 144.

    Xu M.Y., Xie F., Wang K. Response of vegetation and soil carbon and nitrogen storage to grazing intensity in semi-arid grasslands in the agro-pastoral zone of Northern China. PLoS One. 2014;9:e96604.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0096604

  145. 145.

    Yi W., Wen-Xia D., Tu C., Washburn S., Lei C., Hu S. Soil carbon, nitrogen and microbial dynamics of pasturelands: impacts of grazing intensity and planting systems. Pedosphere. 2014;24:408-416.

    Not in our library

  146. 146.

    Zhang J., Zuo X., Zhou X., Lv P., Lian J., Yue X. Long-term grazing effects on vegetation characteristics and soil properties in a semiarid grassland, northern China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2017;189:216.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10661-017-5947-x

  147. 147.

    Zhao Y., Peth S., Krummelbein J., Horn R., Wang Z., Steffens M., Hoffmann C., Peng X. Spatial variability of soil properties affected by grazing intensity in Inner Mongolia grassland. Ecol. Model. 2007;205:241-254.

    Not in our library

  148. 148.

    Zhou G., Zhou X., He Y., Shao J., Hu Z., Liu R., Zhou H., Hosseinibai S. Grazing intensity significantly affects belowground carbon and nitrogen cycling in grassland ecosystems: a meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 2017;23:1167-1179.

    Not in our library10.1111/gcb.13431

  149. 149.

    Ziter C., MacDougall A.S. Nutrients and defoliation increase soil carbon inputs in grassland. Ecology. 2013;94:106-116.

    Not in our library10.1890/11-2070.1

  150. 150.

    Zuo X.A., Zhao H.L., Zhao X.Y., Zhang T.H., Guo Y.R., Wang S.K., Drake S. Spatial pattern and heterogeneity of soil properties in sand dunes under grazing and restoration in Horqin Sandy Land, Northern China. Soil Tillage Res. 2008;99:202-212.

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 2

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.