Cited by 43Pasture and Agricultural SystemsRangeland and Wildlife ManagementRangeland Management and Livestock Ecology

Vegetation, water infiltration, and soil carbon response to adaptive multi-paddock and conventional grazing in southeastern USA ranches

Apfelbaum, Steven I., Thompson, Ry, Wang, Fugui, Mosier, Samantha, Teague, Richard, Byck, Peter·2022·Journal of Environmental Management

Abstract

We examine Adaptive Multi-Paddock (AMP) grazed with short grazing events and planned recovery periods and paired ranches using Conventional Continuous Grazing (CG) at low stock density on vegetation, water infiltration, and soil carbon across SE USA. Increased vegetation standing biomass and plant species dominance-diversity were measured in AMP grazed ranches. Invasive perennial plant species richness and abundance increased with AMP grazing in the south, while in the north they increased on CG grazed ranches. Percent bare ground was significantly greater in CG at the Alabama and Mississippi sites, no different at the Kentucky and mid-Alabama sites, and greater on AMP at the Tennessee pair. On average, surface water infiltration was higher on AMP than paired CG ranches. Averaged over all locations, soil organic carbon stocks to a depth of 1 m were over 13% greater on AMP than CG ranches, and standing crop biomass was >300% higher on AMP ranches. AMP grazing supported substantially higher livestock stocking levels while providing significant improvements in vegetation, soil carbon, and water infiltration functions. AMP grazing also significantly increased available forage nutrition for key constituents, and increased soil carbon to provide significant resource and economic benefits for improving ecological health, resilience, and durability of the family ranch.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114576

Cites

67 of 67 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?

  • Multiple studies have demonstrated SOC gains under AMP grazing, alongside broader improvements in ecophysiological indicators of soil health such as enhanced plant community composition and water dynamics.

    “Despite limited long-term data, multiple studies have demonstrated SOC gains under AMP grazing (e.g., Mosier et al., 2021;Stanley et al., 2025), alongside broader improvements in ecophysiological indicators of soil health such as enhanced plant community composition and water dynamics (Apfelbaum et al., 2022;Döbert et al., 2021).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 68 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Apfelbaum, S. I., Thompson, R., Wang, F., Mosier, S., Teague, R., & Byck, P.
Affiliations
  • Applied Ecological Institute (US)
  • Renewable Energy Systems (United States) (US)
  • Colorado State University (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
Apfelbaum, Steven I.
Venue
Journal of Environmental Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-04
Volume
308
Pages
114576
ISSN
0301-4797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4210463466
Cited by
42
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4
FWCI
9.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Environmental Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Pasture and Agricultural Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Rangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
Keywords
adaptive multi-paddock grazing, rotational grazing, soil organic carbon, water infiltration, plant biomass, plant diversity, bare ground, livestock stocking, forage nutrition
MeSH terms
Carbon, Soil, Water, Ecosystem, Biomass

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