Cited by 319Rangeland Management and Livestock EcologyRangeland and Wildlife ManagementPasture and Agricultural Systems

Multi-paddock grazing on rangelands, Why the perceptual dichotomy between research results and rancher experience

Teague, Richard, Provenza, Fred, Kreuter, Urs, Steffens, Tim, Barnes, Matt·2013·Journal of Environmental Management

Abstract

Maintaining or enhancing the productive capacity and resilience of rangeland ecosystems is critical for the continued support of people who depend on them for their livelihoods, especially in the face of climatic change. This is also necessary for the continued delivery of ecosystem services derived from rangelands for the broader benefit of societies around the world. Multi-paddock grazing management has been recommended since the mid-20th century as an important tool to adaptively manage rangelands ecosystems to sustain productivity and improve animal management. Moreover, there is much anecdotal evidence from producers that, if applied appropriately, multi-paddock grazing can improve forage and livestock production. By contrast, recent reviews of published rangeland-based grazing systems studies have concluded that, in general, field trials show no superiority of vegetation or animal production in multi-paddock grazing relative to continuous yearlong stocking of single-paddock livestock production systems. Our goal is to provide a framework for rangeland management decisions that support the productivity and resiliency of rangelands and then to identify why different perceptions exist among rangeland managers who have effectively used multi-paddock grazing systems and research scientists who have studied them. First, we discuss the ecology of grazed ecosystems under free-ranging herbivores and under single-paddock fenced conditions. Second, we identify five principles unde…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.064

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most positive responses of SOC to adoption of rotational grazing seem to be located in more mesic rangelands because of the shorter recovery times needed for vegetation between defoliations.

    “Most of the positive responses of SOC to adoption of rotational grazing seem to be located in more mesic rangelands because of the shorter recovery times needed for the vegetation between defoliations [10].”
  • Improvements in pasture productivity with rotational grazing have been attributed to enhanced growth and survival of plant species, increased herbage production, and greater perennial grass content and basal area through regeneration of plants.

    “Improvements in pasture productivity with rotational grazing have been attributed to enhanced growth and survival of plant species [12], [13], increased herbage production [10], [18], [55], and greater perennial grass content and basal area through regeneration of plants [11], [19], [20].”
  • Past studies have failed to robustly inform the long-term GHG impacts of AMP grazing, largely due to the scarcity of studies measuring SOC over time.

    “Past studies have failed to robustly inform its long-term GHG impacts.This gap is largely due to the scarcity of studies measuring SOC over time, primarily because AMP's adaptive nature limits its study in traditional agricultural research (Roche, 2016;Teague et al., 2013).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Teague, R., Provenza, F., Kreuter, U., Steffens, T., & Barnes, M.
Affiliations
  • Texas A&M University System (US)
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • Natural Resources Conservation Service (US)
Corresponding author
Teague, Richard
Venue
Journal of Environmental Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-10
Volume
128
Pages
699-717
ISSN
0301-4797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2091808643
Cited by
319
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5
FWCI
3.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Environmental Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Texas A&M AgriLife Research
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Rangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Pasture and Agricultural Systems
Keywords
rangeland management, adaptive management, research-practice gap, continuous grazing, forage production, animal husbandry, fencing, knowledge gaps
MeSH terms
Agriculture, Animals, Conservation of Natural Resources, Ecosystem, Livestock, Herbivory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review