Cited by 149Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsPasture and Agricultural SystemsRangeland Management and Livestock Ecology

Grazing management contributions to net global warming potential: a long-term evaluation in the Northern Great Plains

Liebig, M. A., Gross, J. R., Kronberg, S. L., Phillips, R. L.·2010·Journal of Environmental Quality

Abstract

The role of grassland ecosystems as net sinks or sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is limited by a paucity of information regarding management impacts on the flux of nitrous oxide (N(2)O) and methane (CH(4)). Furthermore, no long-term evaluation of net global warming potential (GWP) for grassland ecosystems in the northern Great Plains (NGP) of North America has been reported. Given this need, we sought to determine net GWP for three grazing management systems located within the NGP. Grazing management systems included two native vegetation pastures (moderately grazed pasture [MGP], heavily grazed pasture [HGP]) and a heavily grazed crested wheatgrass [Agropyron desertorum (Fisch. ex. Link) Schult.] pasture (CWP) near Mandan, ND. Factors evaluated for their contribution to GWP included (i) CO(2) emissions associated with N fertilizer production and application, (ii) literature-derived estimates of CH(4) production for enteric fermentation, (iii) change in soil organic carbon (SOC) over 44 yr using archived soil samples, and (iv) soil-atmosphere N(2)O and CH(4) fluxes over 3 yr using static chamber methodology. Analysis of SOC indicated all pastures to be significant sinks for SOC, with sequestration rates ranging from 0.39 to 0.46 Mg C ha(-1) yr(-1). All pastures were minor sinks for CH(4) (<2.0 kg CH(4)-C ha(-1) yr(-1)). Greater N inputs within CWP contributed to annual N(2)O emission nearly threefold greater than HGP and MGP. Due to differences in stocking rate, CH(4) prod…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2134/jeq2009.0272

Cites

4 of 4 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liebig, M. A., Gross, J. R., Kronberg, S. L., & Phillips, R. L.
Affiliations
Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
Liebig, M. A.
Venue
Journal of Environmental Quality
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-05
Volume
39
Issue
3
Pages
799-809
ISSN
  • 0047-2425 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-2537
OpenAlex
W2070534084
Cited by
149
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 11
FWCI
21.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Environmental Quality (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Pasture and Agricultural Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Rangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
Keywords
grazing management, net global warming potential, nitrous oxide emissions, methane emissions, soil organic carbon sequestration, stocking rate, enteric methane, Northern Great Plains
MeSH terms
Methanol, Animals, Animal Husbandry, Carbon, Carbon Dioxide, Cattle, Environmental Monitoring, Poaceae, Nitrogen, Nitrous Oxide, Rain, Soil, Sunlight, Temperature, Time Factors, Ecosystem, Global Warming

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