Cited by 19Rangeland and Wildlife ManagementRangeland Management and Livestock EcologyLand Use and Ecosystem Services

A management framework for the transition from livestock production toward biodiversity conservation on great plains rangelands

Freese, C. H., Fuhlendorf, S. D., Kunkel, K.·2014·Ecological Restoration

Abstract

Management for biodiversity and other ecosystem services from North America’s rangelands has received increasing attention as recognition of the societal value of those services and payment mechanisms for them have grown. This, combined with adverse effects of livestock management on North American rangeland biodiversity and predictions of a warmer and drier climate reducing rangeland productivity, has led some rangeland scientists to call for a paradigm shift from utilitarian-driven management to biodiversity conservation management. A challenge for rangeland science is to describe management changes required for this shift and to elucidate consequent ecological and economic tradeoffs. On the basis of two criteria, direct alteration of biodiversity and alteration of one or more drivers of biodiversity, a framework of ten ecological conditions is proposed for making the transition from livestock-centered management toward biodiversity-centered management on Great Plains rangelands: (1) composition and productivity of plant communities; (2) herbivory patterns; (3) fire regimes; (4) habitat contiguity; (5) stream hydrology; (6) temporal ecological variability; (7) herbivorous mammal communities; (8) fate of ungulate production; (9) apex predators; and (10) size of management units. Reflecting trends in rangelands elsewhere around the world, a shift toward management for biodiversity on the Great Plains may be facilitated by changes underway in land ownership and by a potentially increasing number of landowners for whom livestock production is of secondary importance to lifestyle and natural amenity benefits from the land.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3368/er.32.4.358

Cites

80 of 80 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

1 of the 81 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Freese, C. H., Fuhlendorf, S. D., & Kunkel, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Massachusetts Dartmouth (US)
  • Oklahoma State University (US)
  • University of Montana (US)
Corresponding author
Freese, C. H.
Venue
Ecological Restoration
Published
2014-11-07
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
358-368
ISSN
  • 1522-4740 (ISSN-L)
  • 1543-4079
OpenAlex
W2138423959
Cited by
19
References
81
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2
FWCI
0.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ecological Restoration (publishedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • World Wildlife Fund
  • U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Rangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
Keywords
rangeland management, biodiversity conservation, animal husbandry, ecosystem services, herbivory, fire regimes, stream hydrology, top predators, land ownership, climate change impacts

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