The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Grazing intensity significantly affects belowground carbon and nitrogen cycling in grassland ecosystems: a meta‐analysis
Open accessAbstract
Livestock grazing activities potentially alter ecosystem carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) cycles in grassland ecosystems. Despite the fact that numerous individual studies and a few meta‐analyses had been conducted, how grazing, especially its intensity, affects belowground C and N cycling in grasslands remains unclear. In this study, we performed a comprehensive meta‐analysis of 115 published studies to examine the responses of 19 variables associated with belowground C and N cycling to livestock grazing in global grasslands. Our results showed that, on average, grazing significantly decreased belowground C and N pools in grassland ecosystems, with the largest decreases in microbial biomass C and N (21.62% and 24.40%, respectively). In contrast, belowground fluxes, including soil respiration, soil net N mineralization and soil N nitrification increased by 4.25%, 34.67% and 25.87%, respectively, in grazed grasslands compared to ungrazed ones. More importantly, grazing intensity significantly affected the magnitude (even direction) of changes in the majority of the assessed belowground C and N pools and fluxes, and C : N ratio as well as soil moisture. Specifically,light grazing contributed to soil C and N sequestration whereas moderate and heavy grazing significantly increased C and N losses. In addition, soil depth, livestock type and climatic conditions influenced the responses of selected variables to livestock grazing to some degree. Our findings highlight the importance of the effects of grazing intensity on belowground C and N cycling, which may need to be incorporated into regional and global models for predicting effects of human disturbance on global grasslands and assessing the climate‐biosphere feedbacks.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Connell, J. H. (1978) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.199.4335.1302 · Cited by 9,417
Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security
Lal, R. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1097396 · Cited by 8,376
The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology
Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J., & Curtis, P. S. (1999) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:tmaorr]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 4,704
Analysis of Factors Controlling Soil Organic Matter Levels in Great Plains Grasslands
Parton, W. J., Schimel, D. S., Cole, C. V., & Ojima, D. S. (1987) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj1987.03615995005100050015x · Cited by 3,759
The global carbon dioxide flux in soil respiration and its relationship to vegetation and climate
RAICH, J. W., & SCHLESINGER, W. H. (1992) · Tellus B · doi:10.1034/j.1600-0889.1992.t01-1-00001.x · Cited by 3,486
Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology
Chapin, F. S., Matson, P. A., & Mooney, H. A. (2002) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/b97397 · Cited by 2,097
Soil compaction in cropping systems
Hamza, M. A., & Anderson, W. K. (2005) · Soil and Tillage Research · doi:10.1016/j.still.2004.08.009 · Cited by 1,889
The carbon balance of terrestrial ecosystems in China
Piao, S., Fang, J., Ciais, P., Peylin, P., Huang, Y., Sitch, S., & Wang, T. (2009) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature07944 · Cited by 1,724
Tillage and soil carbon sequestration—What do we really know?
Baker, J. M., Ochsner, T. E., Venterea, R. T., & Griffis, T. J. (2007) · Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.014 · Cited by 1,252
Altered ecosystem carbon and nitrogen cycles by plant invasion: a meta‐analysis
Liao, C., Peng, R., Luo, Y., Zhou, X., Wu, X., Fang, C., Chen, J., & Li, B. (2008) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02290.x · Cited by 1,088
Self-citation
Cited by
Grassland soil carbon sequestration: Current understanding, challenges, and solutions
Bai, Y., & Cotrufo, M. F. (2022) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abo2380 · Cited by 1,374
Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change
Searchinger, T. D., Wirsenius, S., Beringer, T., & Dumas, P. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0757-z · Cited by 617
Abdalla, M., Hastings, A., Chadwick, D. R., Jones, D. L., Evans, C. D., Jones, M. B., Rees, R. M., & Smith, P. (2018) · Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/j.agee.2017.10.023 · Cited by 537
Smith, P., Calvin, K., Nkem, J., Campbell, D., Cherubini, F., Grassi, G., Korotkov, V., Le Hoang, A., Lwasa, S., McElwee, P., et al. (2020) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.14878 · Cited by 422
Animals and the zoogeochemistry of the carbon cycle
Schmitz, O. J., Wilmers, C. C., Leroux, S. J., Doughty, C. E., Atwood, T. B., Galetti, M., Davies, A. B., & Goetz, S. J. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aar3213 · Cited by 372
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhou, G., Zhou, X., He, Y., Shao, J., Hu, Z., Liu, R., Zhou, H., & Hosseinibai, S.
- Venue
- Global Change Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-09-22
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1167-1179
- ISSN
- 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2486
- OpenAlex
- W2460532155
- Cited by
- 580
- References
- 70
- FWCI
- 33.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Grazing intensity significantly affects belowground carbon and nitrogen cycling in grassland ecosystems: a meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/gcb.13431
- The paper
- Zhou, G., Zhou, X., He, Y., Shao, J., Hu, Z., Liu, R., Zhou, H., & Hosseinibai, S. (2017). Grazing intensity significantly affects belowground carbon and nitrogen cycling in grassland ecosystems: a meta‐analysis. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13431
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.