Cited by 171Pasture and Agricultural SystemsRangeland Management and Livestock EcologyRangeland and Wildlife Management

Grazing management that regenerates ecosystem function and grazingland livelihoods

Teague, Richard, Barnes, Matt·2017·African Journal of Range & Forage Science

Abstract

Adopting a systems view and regenerative philosophy can indicate how to regenerate ecosystem function on commercial-scale agro-ecological landscapes. Adaptive multi-paddock grazing management is an example of an approach for grazinglands. Leading conservation farmers have achieved superior results in ecosystem improvement, productivity, soil carbon and fertility, water-holding capacity and profitability. Their method is to use multiple paddocks per herd with short grazing periods, long recovery periods, and adaptively changing recovery periods, residual biomass, animal numbers and other management elements as conditions change. In contrast, much research on grazing management has not followed adaptive research protocols to account for spatial effects, for sufficient time to produce resource improvement, sound animal production, and socio-economic goals under constantly varying conditions on rangelands. We briefly review what management has achieved best outcomes and show how previous reviews of grazing studies were limited in scope and applicability to larger, more complex landscapes. We argue that future research can provide better understanding of how multi-paddock grazing management can improve socio-ecological resilience in grazing ecosystems, while avoiding unintended consequences of possible management options, by involving realistic scale and context, partnering with innovative land managers on real operations, applying adaptive treatments, and combining field studies…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2989/10220119.2017.1334706

Cites

95 of 95 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?

  • Adaptive multi-paddock grazing can improve animal and forage productivity and potentially sequester more soil organic carbon than continuous grazing.

    “By managing for more optimal forage growth and recovery, adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing can improve animal and forage productivity, potentially sequestering more soil organic carbon (SOC) than continuous grazing.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 96 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Teague, R., & Barnes, M.
Affiliations
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • Shining Horizons Land Management LLC, Bozeman, Montana, USA
Corresponding author
Teague, Richard
Venue
African Journal of Range & Forage Science
Published
2017-04-03
Volume
34
Issue
2
Pages
77-86
ISSN
  • 1022-0119 (ISSN-L)
  • 1727-9380
OpenAlex
W2735618685
Cited by
171
References
96
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2
FWCI
19.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
African Journal of Range and Forage Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • 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
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
regenerative agriculture, ecosystem functioning, soil carbon, soil fertility, water holding capacity, social-ecological resilience, rangeland management, conservation agriculture

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