Multi-paddock grazing on rangelands, Why the perceptual dichotomy between research results and rancher experience
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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].”
From Impacts of Rotational Grazing on Soil Carbon in Native Grass-Based Pastures in Southern Australia (2015) · cites this paper as [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].”
From Impacts of Rotational Grazing on Soil Carbon in Native Grass-Based Pastures in Southern Australia (2015) · cites this paper as [10]
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).”
From Impact of 10 years of adaptive multi-paddock grazing on soil carbon and beef's greenhouse gas footprint in the US Upper Midwest (2026) · cites this paper as Teague et al., 2013
Cites
Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management
Holling, C. S., & Meffe, G. K. (1996) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10020328.x · Cited by 2,049 · see citing works
Effects of herbivores on grassland plant diversity
Olff, H., & Ritchie, M. E. (1998) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(98)01364-0 · Cited by 1,528 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Grazing management that regenerates ecosystem function and grazingland livelihoods
Teague, R., & Barnes, M. (2017) · African Journal of Range & Forage Science · doi:10.2989/10220119.2017.1334706 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
Self-citationEcosystem Impacts and Productive Capacity of a Multi-Species Pastured Livestock System
Rowntree, J. E., Stanley, P. L., Maciel, I. C. F., Thorbecke, M., Rosenzweig, S. T., Hancock, D. W., Guzman, A., & Raven, M. R. (2020) · Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2020.544984 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Impacts of Rotational Grazing on Soil Carbon in Native Grass-Based Pastures in Southern Australia
Sanderman, J., Reseigh, J., Wurst, M., Young, M.-A., & Austin, J. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0136157 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Apfelbaum, S. I., Thompson, R., Wang, F., Mosier, S., Teague, R., & Byck, P. (2022) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114576 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Self-citationExploring the relationship between regenerative grazing and Ranchers’ wellbeing
Vivas, J., & Hodbod, J. (2024) · Journal of Rural Studies · doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103267 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Garcia, L., Stanley, P. L., Sacramento, J. P., Dillon, J. A., Thorbecke, M., Thompson, L. R., Ambike, V., Sharma, P., Xu, S., Chiavegato, M. B., et al. (2026) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2026.104879 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- 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