Translator Disclaimer
12 May 2021 Effects of Grazing on the Grassland Vegetation Community Characteristics in Inner Mongolia
Guo Caiyun, Zhao Dongsheng, Zheng Du, Zhu Yu
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

The continuous increase of livestock production in Inner Mongolia has caused severe degradation of the grassland ecosystems in recent years. Previous grazing experiments have shown a wide range of vegetation responses between the biome types on a global scale, but there is still a lack of sufficient studies to discern the relative responses of a given biome type. We conducted a meta-analysis of vegetation coverage (VC), plant density (PD), total biomass (TB), above-ground biomass (AGB), under-ground biomass (UGB) and Shannon–Weaver Index (SI) in different grassland types in Inner Mongolia obtained under conditions of different grazing intensities and durations. The results showed that grazing decreased VC, TB, AGB, UGB, and PD significantly. Compared to the global and national average values, the negative effects of grazing to steppe biomass in Inner Mongolia were higher than that on the global scale, while less pronounced than that in China. TB of the meadow steppe in Inner Mongolia increased by 40% under moderate grazing intensity and duration because of compensatory growth. SI of the desert and meadow steppe showed negative linear relationships with the grazing intensity in Inner Mongolia. The percentage changes in AGB, PD, and SI to grazing showed quadratic relationships with the mean annual temperature of the experimental year. With increasing mean annual precipitation, the negative effects of grazing on UGB and SI first decreased and then increased, with that of VC and grazing showing a cubic relationship.

1 Introduction

Grassland is one of the most widely distributed vegetation types, covering approximately 40% of the global land surface (Simons and Weisser, 2017) and accounting for 20% of terrestrial production (Scurlock and Hall, 1998). Grassland provides numerous ecological services, including species diversity maintenance and soil erosion control, and acts as a carbon sink (Wang et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2019). In addition, most of the global demands for milk and meat are provided by grassland ecosystem, which is a major objective of grassland husbandry (Boval and Dixon, 2012). Over-grazing damages the vegetation community characteristics of grassland ecosystems and accelerates grassland degradation (Gillson and Hoffman, 2007; Gan et al., 2012), which also threatens grassland ecological health (Fedrigo et al., 2017).

The effects of grazing on grasslands have been widely investigated (Milchunas et al., 2011), and diverse results have been obtained. Some studies reported that grazing induced increases in biomass, as proposed by the grazing optimization hypothesis (McNaughton, 1976; de Mazancourt et al., 1998; Patton et al., 2007). Other studies suggested that grazing may be adverse to the vegetation community characteristics in most grassland types (Hanke et al., 2014; Jemma et al., 2017). Wang et al. (2002) found that grazing decreased species diversity and increased the spatial heterogeneity of the communities. Dowling et al. (2005) showed that grazing has no apparent benefit to the grassland. The majority of the studies on the effects of grazing on grasslands were performed using controlled grazing experiments (James et al., 2001; McIntyre et al., 2019; Silva et al., 2019) because the grazing experiment was considered as the most effective approach for examining the effects of grazing up to now (Dong et al., 2007). However, various independent experiments on the grazing effects on grasslands have produced divergent results because of (i) different grass types (Yan et al., 2013), (ii) different climate conditions (Ren et al., 2012), and (iii) differences in the duration of grazing treatments (Su et al., 2017). These differences, combined with the complex response of grasslands to disturbances, raise challenges in quantifying the effects of grazing. Therefore, it is necessary to integrate the divergent experiments to provide asynchronous results for a given biome. The meta-analysis method can combine data from various independent studies mathematically, and has emerged as a standard approach for synthesizing research findings (Yang, 2015).

The grassland of Inner Mongolia is one of the major parts of the Eurasian steppes, comprising meadow, typical, and desert steppes distributed along a gradient of decreasing precipitation from northeast to southwest. Meanwhile, it is one of the grasslands with the most frequent human activities in the world since it has served as a key resource for supporting the subsistence of local people for thousands of years. The introduction and expansion of livestock production pose major challenges to the grasslands in this region. Currently, the area of degraded grassland is approximately 50% of the total land area of Inner Mongolia, of which 20% is seriously degraded. Numerous individual grazing experiments have been undertaken to ascertain the effects of grazing on grassland productivity and plant community diversity in Inner Mongolia (Silletti and Knapp, 2002; Focht and Pillar, 2003; Mike et al., 2012). Based on the data from these individual grazing experiments, several meta-analyses have examined the responses of grassland productivity and plant community diversity to grazing at the biome scale. For example, Ren et al. (2012) analyzed the effect of grazing intensity on species diversity of typical steppe in Inner Mongolia, and demonstrated that species diversity had a neutral response to grazing intensity. Su (2017) quantified the AGB response to grazing in Inner Mongolia grassland. Yan et al. (2013) revealed the response of grassland production to grazing in China based on a transect survey and published data. However, these studies only examined the effects of grazing on individual indexes, but neglected the comprehensive responses of the grassland ecosystem. Furthermore, the limited data on grazing experiments have also prevented the examination of the heterogeneity of the effect size. One example is the study of Yan, which used transect survey data to compensate for the insufficient grazing experiment data. Therefore, high uncertainties remain in the effects of grazing on vegetation community characteristics at the biome scale. A comprehensive analysis based on more extensive experimental data is needed to examine the effects of grazing on grassland vegetation community characteristics in a given biome type.

In this study, we compiled data from 433 observations in 61 studies to quantify the effect of grazing on the vegetation coverage (VC), plant density (PD), total biomass (TB), above-ground biomass (AGB), under-ground biomass (UGB), and Shannon-Weaver Index (SI) in different grassland types in Inner Mongolia for conditions of different grazing intensities and durations. Our objectives were to: 1) examine the patterns of the vegetation community characteristics of the grassland ecosystem in response to grazing; and 2) investigate the regulatory effects of environmental factors on productivity and species diversity in response to grazing.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Data

We compiled peer-reviewed studies published before May 2018 using the resources of the Web of Science (WOS), Google Scholar, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). The extensive searches were conducted using combinations of the keywords: grazing intensity, grazing experiment, vegetation coverage, plant density, Shannon-Weaver Index, and Inner Mongolia. To find additional relevant studies, we consulted the reference lists of the papers found in the databases.

Figure 1 shows a flow diagram detailing the procedure for the selection of the studies used in the meta-analysis. We included only those studies meeting the following criteria in the meta-analysis: 1) The studies were carried out in the grassland ecosystem of Inner Mongolia, and data for at least one of the variables VC, PD, AGB, UGB, TB, and SI was reported; 2) The data for replicates, means, standard errors, standard deviations and the sample sizes of both control and grazing groups were available; and 3) Grazing intensity, grassland type, and grazing duration were provided in the study. A list of the data sources used in the study is provided as “Supplementary Data” .

Since publication bias is inevitable in any meta-analysis, the standard method used to identify publication bias currently is a funnel plot (Mavridis and Salanti, 2014), which makes a corresponding scatter plot using the estimated effect value of a single study as the X-axis and the sample size of each study as the Y-axis. Because the accuracy of effect estimation increases with an increase in the sample size, the effect values of small sample studies in a funnel plot would be distributed at the bottom of the graph, while the effect values of large sample studies in a funnel plot would be distributed in the middle or top of the graph.

Fig. 1

The flow diagram for identifying the studies to include in the meta-analysis

img-z3-1_319.jpg

We used GetData Graph Digitizer ( http://getdata-graphdigitizer.com) to extract data from papers only providing standard deviations and sample numbers in graphical figures. Standard deviation (SD) was calculated as follows:

e01_319.gif

where SE is the standard error; and n is the sample number. Following the exclusion of duplicates in the various studies, 435 sets of vegetation community characteristic data and environmental data from 61 studies were included in our analysis.

2.2 Meta-analysis

Meta-analysis was conducted using METAWIN 2.1, STATA 12.0, and Origin 8.0 software. The natural log of the response ratio (ln R) represented the effect size (Hedges et al., 1999; Wang et al., 2011). The random-effect model was adopted for those cases. The effect-size ln R was calculated as follows (Cohen, 1988; Hayley and Jones, 2010).

e02_319.gif

with a variance of:

e03_319.gif

where ln R is the effect size; fi01_319.gif and fi02_319.gif are the means of the treatment and control groups, respectively; nt is the sample size of the treatment group; nc is the sample size of the control group; St is the standard deviation of the treatment group; and Sc is the standard deviation of the control group.

We calculated the heterogeneity of effect size by subgroup analysis, and the between-group (QB) heterogeneity was calculated as follows:

e04_319.gif

with degree of freedom df = m–1, m is the number of groups, ki is the number of comparisons in the ith group, wi,j is the weighting factor of each group, ln Ri+ is the individual weighted log effect size, ln R+ is the weighted log effect size, If QB is larger than a critical value, then the independent variable has a significant influence on the response ratio (Hedges, 1984). Statistical significance was tested at the P < 0.05 level.

Grazing effects were estimated as a PC (percentage change) relative to the control, and calculated using equation (5).

e05_319.gif

2.3 Classification of grazing indices

The study region extends from the Greater Hinggan Mountains in the east to the Juyan Sea in the west, covering semi-humid, semi-arid and arid regions with different climatic and soil hydro-meteorological conditions. With an average elevation of 1000–1200 m, the terrain shows a gradual downward trend from the southwest to the northeast. The average annual precipitation in the study area is about 100–400 mm, while the average annual temperature ranges from –5.0 to 7.0 °C. By 2010, the grassland area of Inner Mongolia was about 86.67 million ha, accounting for 44.08% of the total grassland area in China, making it an important animal husbandry production base (Dai, 2016). Due to the variation in hydrothermal conditions and topography, the natural grassland vegetation in the study area consists of meadow steppes, typical steppes, and desert steppes.

In grazing experiments, grazing intensity refers to the number of grazing livestock per unit area of grassland, which directly affects the stability and sustainable development of the grassland ecosystem (GB/T 34754–2017). In this paper, we divided the grazing intensity into light grazing (0.15–0.93 sheep per ha per half year), moderate grazing (0.94–1.82 sheep per ha per half year) and heavy grazing (1.83–2.89 sheep per ha per half year). Grazing durations ranged widely from a half month up to several years, and the experiments with more years of grazing are inevitably affected by the cumulative grazing influence of previous years. To examine the effects of grazing on vegetation community characteristics not affected by the cumulative grazing years, we included an assessment of the grazing experiments with 1-year grazing duration or less, which were divided into short-term grazing (0–3 months), moderate-term grazing (3–6 months), and long-term grazing (6–12 months). The grassland types in the Inner Mongolian study sites were classified as meadow, typical, and desert steppes.

3 Results

3.1 Effects of grazing on grassland vegetation community characteristics

Figure 2 shows the percentage changes of VC, TB, AGB, UGB, PD, and SI in response to grazing in Inner Mongolia. AGB was affected by grazing with a reduction of 35.04% (95% CI: –47% to –27%), while VC was reduced by 27% (95% CI: –39% to –6%), TB was reduced by 45% (95% CI: –56% to –34%), UGB was reduced by 14% (95% CI: –23.5% to –4%), and PD was reduced by 15% (95% CI: –2.5% to –30%). Meanwhile, no significant effect was found on the SI. Between-group heterogeneity tests (Table 1) showed that the effect on VC was not significantly different among grazing intensities or grazing durations, but a significant difference was found among grassland types (QB = 25.3576, P = 0.009). The AGB showed significant differences among grazing intensities (QB = 68.0871, P = 0.001). The UGB exhibited significant differences among grassland types (QB = 18.8179, P = 0.005). The SI demonstrated significant differences among grazing durations (QB = 72.7619, P = 0.001).

Fig. 2

Percentage changes of vegetation community characteristics in response to grazing in Inner Mongolia Note: Vegetation coverage (VC), total biomass (TB), above-ground biomass (AGB), under-ground biomass (UGB), plant density (PD), and the SI were included in the meta-analysis. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A significant effect is indicated if the 95% CI does not overlap zero. The numbers above or below the error bars show the number of observations used in the analysis of each characteristic.

img-z4-5_319.jpg

Figure 3 shows the percentage changes of the vegetation community characteristics in response to differing grazing intensity, grazing duration, and grassland type. The responses of vegetation communities in different types of grassland were obviously different under various grazing intensities and durations. Differences were evident in the percentage changes in VC, AGB, and UGB among the corresponding groups. The TB of grasslands decreased by 20% (95% CI: –50% to 10%), while SI increased by 27% (95% CI: 5% to 35%) with short grazing duration.

Table 1

Between-group heterogeneity (QB) and probability (P) for grazing effects on VC, PD, TB, AGB, UGB, and SI among different grazing intensities, grassland types, and grazing durations.

img-z4-9_319.gif

3.2 Effect of grazing on VC

Figure 4 shows the percentage changes of VC in response to different grazing intensities and grazing durations. The effect on VC varied among the desert, typical, and meadow steppes (QB = 25.3576, P = 0.009). Light grazing decreased VC by 40% (95% CI: –59% to –17%) in the desert steppes, while it had no significant effect on other types of grassland; VC decreased by 32% (95% CI: –61% to –11%) in the desert steppes under moderate grazing intensity, while the moderate grazing had no significant effect on the VC of other types of grassland. The VC of grassland in Inner Mongolia was significantly decreased when grazing was heavy, with the greatest reduction occurring in the desert steppe (a reduction of 40%; 95% CI: –58% to –18%), followed by the typical and meadow steppes. VC was more sensitive to grazing intensity in the desert steppe.

VC of the desert steppe was reduced by 50% (95% CI: –111% to 5%) after short-term grazing. However, the 95% CI crossed the invalidation line due to the limited data collected for this group. VC of desert steppe and meadow steppe decreased by 65% (95% CI: –130% to –5%) and 15% (95% CI: –30% to 2%), respectively, after the moderate-term grazing, while VC of typical grassland had no obvious effect from the moderate-term grazing. After long-term grazing, the VC of desert steppe decreased by 23% (95% CI: –48% to 35%), while the meadow steppe showed no significant change. VC of meadow steppe declined after short-term grazing, but that was reversed to an increase after long-term grazing.

Fig. 3

Percentage changes of vegetation community characteristics due to differing grazing intensity, grazing duration, and grassland type. Note: Values are means ± 95% CI.

img-z5-1_319.jpg

Fig. 4

Percentage changes of VC in response to different grazing intensities (a) and grazing durations (b)

img-z5-4_319.jpg

3.3 Effect of grazing on TB

Figure 5 shows the percentage changes of TB in response to different grazing intensities and grazing durations. Light grazing reduced TB of the grasslands in Inner Mongolia gradually. TB of the desert and typical steppe decreased by 48% (95% CI: –50% to –49%) and 31% (95% CI: –35% to –32%), respectively, under moderate grazing intensities, while the TB of meadow steppe increased by 40% (95% CI: 25% to 50%). TB of the desert and typical steppe declined with the increase of grazing intensity, but TB of meadow steppe was not affected by the heavy grazing intensity. The biggest drop in TB was always in the desert steppe, followed by the typical and meadow steppe.

Fig. 5

Percentage changes of TB in response to different grazing intensities (a) and grazing durations (b)

img-z5-8_319.jpg

TB of desert steppe decreased by 44% (95% CI: –45% to –43%), while it increased by 40% (95% CI: 8% to 71%) after the moderate-term grazing in the meadow steppe. TB of the three types of grasslands decreased significantly after moderate-term grazing, and the ranking of the decreasing amplitude was: meadow steppe > desert steppe > typical steppe. With the increasing of the grazing duration, TB of the grasslands in Inner Mongolia further declined. Therefore, it can be seen that the desert steppe is more sensitive to the grazing duration.

3.4 Effect of grazing on AGB

Figure 6 shows the percentage changes of AGB in response to differing grazing durations and grassland types. AGB decreased with increasing grazing intensity (QB = 68.0871, P = 0.001). Heavy grazing caused a significant negative effect on AGB, with lesser effects being found for moderate and light grazing intensities. However, the decreases in AGB caused by light and moderate grazing intensities were similar to short-term grazing (approximately 20%). AGB for the desert steppe under light and moderate grazing intensities declined by 15% (95% CI: –33% to –4%) and 50% (95% CI: –80% to –24%), respectively.

3.5 Effect of grazing on SI

The SI is a diversity index that indicates the adaptation of species to the environment following competition. Figure 7 shows the percentage changes in the SI caused by differing grazing durations (a) and intensities (b). The SI was more profoundly affected by grazing intensity (QB = 5.9352, P = 0.413) than by the grazing duration (QB = 72.7619, P = 0.001). Compared with typical and meadow steppe, the SI for the desert steppe was more sensitive to grazing intensity, decreasing by 8% (95 CI: –17% to –1%), 11% (95 CI: –20% to –3%), and 19% (95 CI: –24% to –9%) under light, moderate, and heavy grazing, respectively. The SI for the meadow steppe was not affected by either light or heavy grazing, but showed a 10% (95 CI: –21% to –4%) reduction under moderate grazing.

Fig. 6

Percentage changes of AGB in response to differing grazing durations (a) and grassland types (b)

img-z6-7_319.jpg

Fig. 7

Percentage changes in the SI caused by differing grazing durations (a) and grassland types (b)

img-z6-9_319.jpg

After short-term grazing, the SI of Inner Mongolia did not show a significant change under the light grazing intensity, but it was reduced by 7% (95% CI: –10% to –3%) and 9% (95% CI: –15% to –1%) under the moderate and heavy grazing intensities, respectively. The SI of grassland decreased with the increasing of the grazing intensity after moderate-term grazing, as it declined by 21% (95% CI: –31% to –15%), 30% (95% CI: –47% to –19%), and 42% (95% CI: –73% to –25%) under light, moderate, and heavy grazing intensities, respectively.

4 Discussion

4.1 Effects of grazing on grassland productivity

Our study revealed that grazing can reduce the grassland productivity of Inner Mongolia. We compared the effects of grazing on productivity at global scales (Milchunas and Lauenroth, 1993) and national scales (Yan et al., 2013) to Inner Mongolia (Table 2). AGB was reduced by 43% in Inner Mongolia, approximately double the reduction on a global scale. Grazing resulted in UGB reduction in Inner Mongolia, but an incremental increase on the global scale. TB was reduced by 38% in Inner Mongolia, while there is no obvious effect of grazing when examined on the global scale (Table 2). This difference can be attributed to the more palatable species to livestock which occur in Inner Mongolia, as this leads to heavy grazing as a common form of land-use. Furthermore, the rapid expansion of the grazing area largely reduced the soil nutrients and vegetation degradation (Bai et al., 2015; Du et al., 2020).

Table 2

Percentage changes in grazing effects globally, in China, and in Inner Mongolia

img-AYGn_319.gif

Compared to results at the national scales, the decrement of the grassland biomass was only slight in Inner Mongolia. The effect of grazing on the grassland biomass is mainly regulated by the variations in the community composition in each grassland type. The meadow and typical steppe, which account for 79% of the total steppe area in Inner Mongolia (Dong et al., 2020), involved plentiful biodiversity including species with higher grazing tolerance, such as Stipa baicalensis, Chinensis, Stipagrandis, Cleistogenes polyphylla, Carex piriformis, and Spodinpogon sibiricus, et al. Moreover, owing to the broader study area in Yan et al (2013), the smaller number of experiments in the Inner Mongolian steppe was covered in the meta-analysis, which also largely contributed to the difference.

Fig. 8

Response ratios of VC (a), TB (b), UGB (c), AGB (d), PD (e), and SI (f) relative to mean annual temperature of experimental year.

img-AY0E_319.jpg

The grasslands in Inner Mongolia are distributed in arid and semi-arid areas, where the competition for water dominates the inter-species relationships. The precipitation in Inner Mongolia is lower than in other temperate steppes (Mónica et al., 1996; Ni, 2004; Su et al., 2017). The low and unevenly distributed precipitation during the summer can have negative effects on the AGB, even if the precipitation increases in the subsequent period (Fang et al., 2005). The grazing by livestock reduces the individual species and AGB in the low precipitation condition, increasing surface exposure. As a result, soil evaporation is enhanced, and then the plant species are inhibited from growing due to water stress. The AGB of meadow steppe with perennial hybrid grass is positively correlated with the growing season precipitation, while the AGB of the desert steppe is significantly negatively correlated with the amount of precipitation (Sala et al., 1988).

Figure 8 shows the relationships between observed factors and the mean annual temperature of the experimental year. The response ratios of UGB (Fig. 8c) and TB (Fig. 8b) showed linear relationships with the mean annual temperature of the experimental year. The ln R of UGB and TB decreased with the increasing temperature. However, no significant relationship was found between AGB (Fig. 8d), TB (Fig. 8b), and precipitation. Furthermore, grassland productivity is widely limited by various nutrients, such as N, P, K, and mi-cronutrients (Jobbágy et al., 2002; Dangal et al., 2016).

It is worth noting that the TB of the meadow steppe increased by 40% under moderate grazing intensity and moderate-term grazing, because the vegetation biomass exhibited compensatory growth (Burke et al., 1997; Ferraro and Martín, 2002; Bai et al., 2012; Fay et al., 2015). Previous studies have reported that compensatory growth occurs only under a suitable grazing intensity (Xue et al., 2010) or in the croplands where strong cultivation management measures are applied (Münkemüller and Johst, 2006). Furthermore, the seasonal distribution of temperature determines the beginning and length of the vegetation growing season. Increased precipitation and temperature may exert positive effects on the biomass production of meadow steppes (Xiao, 1996).

4.2 Effects of grazing on SI

The SI declined obviously with an increasing grazing intensity and duration, except under the light and short-term grazing. Moderate grazing reduced SI of the meadow and desert steppe. This is different from the intermediate disturbance hypothesis (IDH) (McManus et al., 1972), which assumes that species diversity reaches peak levels at intermediate disturbance (Wang et al., 2003), because grazing jeopardizes the regenerative ability of edible herbage (Milchunas et al., 1988). Moreover, grazing reduces the soil organic matter, which leads to the depletion of soil nutrients, and thus reduces the competitiveness of plants (Mazumder, 1998).

Fig. 9

Response ratios of VC (a), PD (b), AGB (c), UGB (d), TB (e), and SI (f) relative to mean annual precipitation of the experimental year.

img-z8-2_319.jpg

The water-related factors are the main driving variables of species diversity in the thermal and temperate zones (Connell, 1979; Watt and Gibson, 1988; Wang et al., 1998). With increasing precipitation, the negative effects of grazing on SI first decreased and then increased (Fig. 9f). Previous studies verified IDH through a large number of experiments and found that the IDH appeared in different grazing stages of different grassland types. For example, it was generally confirmed at the stage of light to moderate grazing intensity in humid meadows, and the stage of moderate to heavy grazing intensity in the dry grassland (Nautiyal et al., 2004; Kreft and Jetz, 2007).

4.3 The relationship between productivity and species diversity

The relationship between productivity and species diversity is crucial for explaining the attributes of vegetation community characteristics (Field et al., 2005), and it is generally believed that higher biodiversity can maintain higher productivity. Our results confirmed that the grassland productivity decreased with the reduction of species diversity because the reduction in the number of species decreased the supply sources of productivity (Fig. 10) (Oesterheld et al., 1999; Bai et al., 2001; Guang et al., 2002). The analysis of the structural equation model showed that the grassland vegetation community characteristics were affected not only by grazing intensity and duration, but also the observed community characteristics were closely related to each other. The SI was negatively linearly correlated with VC and PD. The heavy grazing intensity and duration had direct negative effects on VC, PD, AGB, and SI, while they had indirect negative effects on TB (Fig. 11).

Fig. 10.

Bubble plots of the meta-regression results between the responses of TB to the SI reduction Note: The size of each bubble is the relative weight of the effect size (response ratio, ln R) in the meta-regression. Larger bubbles indicate study outcomes that contributed a greater overall weight in the meta-regressions.

img-z9-2_319.jpg

Fig. 11.

Structure equation modeling examining the direct and indirect effects on vegetation community characteristics of grasslands in Inner Mongolia (n = 159) Note: Double-headed arrows represent covariance between related variables. Single-headed arrows indicate the hypothesized direction of causation. The numbers in red adjacent to arrows are standardized path coefficients.

img-z9-5_319.jpg

Several studies have analyzed the relationships between productivity and species diversity from different spatial scales and ecosystem types since 1990, and six relationship types, including positive correlation (Zhu et al., 2020), humped-back correlation (Shea et al., 2004), negative correlation (Wang et al., 2001), unitary correlation (Guo and Berry, 1998), no correlation (Al-mufti et al., 1977) and “U” relationships (Guo and Berry, 1998), were found between them (Scheiner and Willig, 2005; Jain et al., 2007). The relationship between species diversity and productivity is known to be driven by multiple factors, such as the climate (Kondoh, 2001), soil (Gillman and Wright, 2006), and density (Waide et al., 1999), and each factor changes with the spatial scale (Mittelbach et al., 2001). On the other hand, due to differences in environmental conditions, species composition, and habitats, differences in grassland productivity are often out of synchronization with changes in the factors that affect species diversity. Therefore, productivity may be a poor predictor of plant diversity (Peter et al., 2011). It is difficult to explain plant function without taking into account of all these elements (Hadgu et al., 2009). Furthermore, some details such as sampling area, location of sampling sites, sampling number, and methods of measuring productivity would also affect the relationship between productivity and species diversity.

4.4 The need for appropriate grazing intensity criteria

The standard for the divisions of the grazing intensity affects the accuracy of the meta-analysis by integrating the groups. In addition, an inappropriate division of grazing intensity may lead to grassland degradation under the guidance of a correct grazing policy (Wolfe et al., 2004). Reconsidering the grazing intensity criteria is necessary for defining the relationship between grazing and the grassland degradation degree. Grazing modifies the vegetation community characteristics by changing species composition (Šimova et al., 2013) and alters grassland productivity by changing VC, vegetation height, and biomass (Adler et al., 2011). Proposed indicators of grassland deterioration include vegetation composition, VC, litter, biomass, SI, and soil nutrients (Guang et al., 2002). Some studies inferred the grazing intensity from the distance to drinking water (Wang et al., 2020) or herder huts (Marcos and Willig, 2004). Other studies classified the grazing intensity according to the feces density (Rodríguez et al., 2003), species composition (Xia et al., 2005), or the proportion of herbivore mammals (Peter, 2012). A uniform standard for the grazing intensity classification has not been established yet. Currently, quantifying the number of herbivore mammals per unit area and unit time is the generally used criterion for classifying grazing intensity, but it cannot reflect the corresponding effect. The moderate grazing intensity in one ecosystem may be defined as heavy grazing intensity in another ecosystem. Therefore, the use of grazing intensity should be redefined based on different grassland types according to plant composition, herbage yield, soil coarse fraction, amount of soil litter, and soil erosion rate (Haynes et al., 2013).

4.5 The influences of climate change on the grassland vegetation community characteristics under different grazing intensities and durations

According to the Fifth IPCC Climate Assessment Report, the rate of the national average annual temperature rise is about 0.21–0.25 °C (10 yr)–1 in the recent 50–60 years, which is higher than the global average over the past 100 years (1909–2011) (IPCC, 2013). Sarah et al. (2015) suggested that vegetation community characteristics and ecosystem processes are strongly affected by the climate change. The increasing temperature will bring forward the spring phenological period and prolong the growing period of grasslands, resulting in a significant increase in AGB, thus improving the grassland productivity (Silva, 2020). However, more frequent meteorological disasters caused by extreme climate, such as extremely high temperatures and droughts in summer, could decrease the grassland biomass and species diversity. The grassland will deteriorate severely assuming a long-term exposure of grasslands to extreme climate (Ali, 2020). The trend of climate warming and drying across Inner Mongolia, as well as the occupation of surface water by grazing, have reduced surface water and hinder the growth of vegetation (Zhao, 2019).

Fig. 12.

Funnel plots of VC (a), PD (b), SI (c), AGB (d), UGB (e), and TGB (f) used for assessing publication bias in this study.

img-z10-7_319.jpg

4.6 Uncertainties

To determine the effects of grazing on vegetation community characteristics not affected by the cumulative grazing years, we analyzed the effects just within grazing durations of one year or less. But the lack of experimental data for more than one year's grazing duration in our study results in certain limitations over the long term. In addition, since many unpublished and grey literature studies with statistically non-significant results are inaccessible and could not be compiled into the database, some limitations of this study remain to some extent. We evaluated the publication bias by funnel plots (Gonnet et al., 2003) (Fig. 12). Most of the samples in this study were distributed at the top of the funnel plot and clustered toward the center, indicating there were a few issues with publication biases in this study. Besides, the different variables that represent the vegetation growth in various studies, such as vegetation height, the Simpson Index, annual net primary production, and other ecosystem trait indexes (Li et al., 2008), need to be considered fully in further studies. Therefore, the meta-analysis related to the effects of grazing on grassland requires further study and exploration.

5 Conclusions

The Inner Mongolia grassland ecosystem exhibits a pronounced response to grazing. Unlike the intermediate disturbance hypothesis (IDH), SI of the desert and meadow steppe showed a negative linear relationship with the grazing intensity in Inner Mongolia. The meadow steppe in Inner Mongolia had a typical compensatory growth phenomenon with suitable grazing intensity and duration. The negative effects of grazing on steppe biomass in Inner Mongolia were higher than that on the global scale, while less pronounced than that in China.

References

1.

Adler P B, Seabloom E W, Borer E T, et al. 2011. Productivity is a poor predictor of plant species richness. Science , 333(6050): 1750–1753. Google Scholar

2.

Al-Mufti M M, Sydes C L, Furness S B, et al. 1977. A quantitative analysis of shoot phenology and dominance in herbaceous vegetation. Journal of Ecology , 65(3): 759–791. Google Scholar

3.

Bai Y F, Li L H, Huang J H, et al. 2001. The influence of plant diversity and functional composition on ecosystem stability of four Stipa communities in the Inner Mongolia Plateau. Acta Botanica Sinica , 43(3): 280–287. Google Scholar

4.

Bai Y F, Wu J G, Clark C M, et al. 2012. Grazing alters ecosystem functioning and C: N: P stoichiometry of grasslands along a regional precipitation gradient. Journal of Applied Ecology , 49(6): 1204–1215. Google Scholar

5.

Bai W M, Fang Y, Zhou M, et al. 2015. Heavily intensified grazing reduces root production in an Inner Mongolia temperate steppe. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment , 200: 143–150. Google Scholar

6.

Boval M, Dixon R M. 2012.The importance of grasslands for animal production and other functions: A review on management and methodological progress in the tropics. Animal , 6(5): 748–762. Google Scholar

7.

Burke I C, Lauenroth W K, Parton W J. 1997. Regional and temporal variation in net primary production and nitrogen mineralization in grasslands. Ecology , 78(5): 1130–1340. Google Scholar

8.

Cohen J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. London, UK: Routledge. Google Scholar

9.

Connell J H. 1979. Intermediate-disturbance hypothesis. Science , 204(4399): 1344–1345. Google Scholar

10.

Dangal S R S, Tian H Q, Lu C Q, et al. 2016. Synergistic effects of climate change and grazing on net primary production of Mongolian grasslands. Ecosphere , 7(5): e01274. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1274Google Scholar

11.

de Mazancourt, Loreau M, Abbadie L. 1998. Grazing optimization and nutrient cycling: When do herbivores enhance plant production? Ecology, 79(7): 2242–2252. Google Scholar

12.

Dong Y Q, Sun Z J, An S Z, et al. 2020. Community structure and carbon and nitrogen storage of sagebrush desert under grazing exclusion in Northwest China. Journal of Arid Land , 12(2): 239–251. Google Scholar

13.

Dong S K, Gao H W, Xu G C, et al. 2007. Farmer and professional attitudes to the large-scale ban on livestock grazing of grasslands in China. Environmental Conservation , 34(3): 246–254. Google Scholar

14.

Dowling P M, Kemp D R, Ball P D, et al. 2005. Effect of continuous and time-control grazing on grassland components in south-eastern Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture , 45(4): 369–382. Google Scholar

15.

Du S, Shen J P, Sun Y F, et al. 2020. Grazing does not increase soil antibiotic resistome in two types of grasslands in Inner Mongolia, China. Applied Soil Ecology , 155: 103644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2020.103644Google Scholar

16.

Fang J Y, Piao S L, Zhou L M, et al. 2005. Precipitation patterns alter growth of temperate vegetation. Geophysical Research Letters , 32(21): L21411. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005gl024231Google Scholar

17.

Fay P A, Prober S M, Harpole W S, et al. 2015. Grassland productivity limited by multiple nutrients. Nature Plants , 1(7): 15080. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2015.80Google Scholar

18.

Fedrigo J K, Ataide P F, Filho J A, et al. 2017. Temporary grazing exclusion promotes rapid recovery of species richness and productivity in a long-term overgrazed Campos grassland. Restoration Ecology , 26(4): 677–685. Google Scholar

19.

Ferraro D O, Martín O. 2002. Effect of defoliation on grass growth: A quantitative review. Oikos , 98(1): 125–133. Google Scholar

20.

Field R, O'Brien E M, Lavers C P. 2005. Global models for predicting woody plant richness from climate: Development and evaluation. Ecology , 86(9): 2263–2277. Google Scholar

21.

Focht T, Pillar V D. 2003. Spatial patterns and relations with site factors in a Campos grassland under grazing. Brazilian Journal of Biology, 63(3): 423–436. Google Scholar

22.

Gan L, Peng X, Peth S, et al. 2012. Effects of grazing intensity on soil thermal properties and heat flux under Leymus chinensis and Stipa grandis vegetation in Inner Mongolia, China. Soil & Tillage Research , 118: 147–158. Google Scholar

23.

Gillman L N, Wright S D. 2006. The influence of productivity on the species richness of plants: A critical assessment. Ecology , 87(5): 1234–1243. Google Scholar

24.

Gillson L, Hoffman M T. 2007. Ecology: Rangeland ecology in a changing world. Science , 315(5808): 53–54. Google Scholar

25.

Gonnet J M, Guevara J C, Estevez O R. 2003. Perennial grass abundance along a grazing gradient in Mendoza, Argentina. Journal of Range Management , 56(4): 364–369. Google Scholar

26.

GB/T 34754–2017. 2017. Grade of grazing intensity on rangeland for the household ranch. Beijing, China: China Academic Journal Electronic Publishing House. (in Chinese) Google Scholar

27.

Guo Q F, Berry W L. 1998. Species richness and biomass: Dissection of the hump-shaped relationships. Ecology , 79(7): 2555–2559. Google Scholar

28.

Hanke W, Böhner J, Dreber N, et al. 2014. The impact of livestock grazing on plant diversity: An analysis across dryland ecosystems and scales in southern Africa. Ecological Applications , 24(5): 1188–1203. Google Scholar

29.

Hayley E, Jones J. 2010. Introduction to meta-analysis. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology , 24: 131–139. Google Scholar

30.

Hadgu K M, Rossing W A H, Kooistra L, et al. 2009. Spatial variation in species diversity, soil degradation and productivity in agricultural landscapes in the highlands of Tigray, northern Ethiopia. Food Security , 1(1): 83–97. Google Scholar

31.

Haynes M A, Fang Z D, Waller D M. 2013. Grazing impacts on the diversity and composition of alpine rangelands in Northwest Yunnan. Journal of Plant Ecology , 6(2): 122–130. Google Scholar

32.

Hedges L V, Gurevitch J, Curtis P S. 1999. The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology , 80(4): 1150–1156. Google Scholar

33.

Hedges L V. 1984. Advances in statistical methods for meta-analysis. New Directions for Program Evaluation , (24): 25–42. Google Scholar

34.

IPCC. 2013. Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policy makers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

35.

Jobbágy E G, Sala O E, Paruelo J M. 2002. Patterns and controls of primary production in the Patagonian steppe: A remote sensing approach. Ecology , 83(2): 307–319. Google Scholar

36.

Jain S, Collins L S, Hayek L A C. 2007. Relationship of benthic foraminiferal diversity to paleoproductivity in the Neogene Caribbean. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology , 255(3–4): 223–245. Google Scholar

37.

Kondoh M. 2001. Unifying the relationships of species richness to productivity and disturbance. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 268(1464): 269–271. Google Scholar

38.

Kreft H, Jetz W. 2007. Global patterns and determinants of vascular plant diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA , 104(14): 5925–5930. Google Scholar

39.

Li Y H, Wang W, Liu Z L, et al. 2008. Grazing gradient versus restoration succession of Leymus chinensis (Trin.) Tzvel. Grassland in Inner Mongolia. Restoration Ecology , 16(4): 572–583. Google Scholar

40.

Marcos G P, Willig M R. 2004. Landscape responses of bats to habitat fragmentation in Atlantic forest of Paraguay. Journal of Mammalogy , 85(4): 688–697. Google Scholar

41.

Mavridis D, Salanti G. 2014. How to assess publication bias: Funnel plot, trim-and-fill method and selection models. Evidence-based Mental Health , 17(1): 30. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2013-101699Google Scholar

42.

Mazumder P A. 1998. Reversal of grazing impact on plant species richness in nutrient-poor vs. nutrient-rich ecosystems. Ecology , 79(8): 2581–2592. Google Scholar

43.

McIntyre S, Nicholls A O, Graff P, et al. 2019. Experimental reintroduction of three grassland forbs to assess climate-adjusted provenancing, grazing protection and weed control. Australian Journal of Botany , 66(8): 628–639. Google Scholar

44.

Mcmanus W R, Reid J T, Donaldson L E. 1972. Studies of compensatory growth in sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science , 79(1): 1–12. Google Scholar

45.

Mcnaughton S J. 1976. Serengeti migratory wildebeest: Facilitation of energy flow by grazing. Science , 191(4222): 92–94. Google Scholar

46.

Milchunas D G, Sala O E, Lauenroth W K. 1988. A generalized model of the effects of grazing by large herbivores on grassland community structure. The American Naturalist , 132(1): 87–106. Google Scholar

47.

Milchunas D G, Vandever M W, Ball L O, et al. 2011. Allelopathic cover crop prior to seeding is more important than subsequent grazing/mowing in grassland establishment. Rangeland Ecology & Management , 64(3): 291–300. Google Scholar

48.

Milchunas D G, Lauenroth W K. 1993. Quantitative effects of grazing on vegetation and soils over a global range of environments. Ecological Monographs , 63(4): 327–366. Google Scholar

49.

Mittelbach G G, Steiner C F, Scheiner S M, et al. 2001. What is the observed relationship between species richness and productivity? Ecology , 82(9): 2381–2396. Google Scholar

50.

Münkemüller T, Johst K. 2006. Compensatory versus over-compensatory density regulation: Implications for metapopulation persistence in dynamic landscapes. Ecological Modelling , 197(1–2): 171–178. Google Scholar

51.

Nautiyal M C, Nautiyal B P, Prakash V. 2004. Effect of grazing and climatic changes on alpine vegetation of tungnath, Garhwal Himalaya, India. Environmentalist , 24(2): 125–134. Google Scholar

52.

Oesterheld M, Loreti J, Semmartin M, et al. 1999. Grazing, fire, and climate effects on primary productivity of grasslands and savannas. In: Walker L. (ed.). Ecosystems of disturbed ground. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Google Scholar

53.

Patton B D, Dong X J, Nyren P E, et al. 2007. Effects of grazing intensity, precipitation, and temperature on forage production. Rangeland Ecology & Management , 60(6): 656–665. Google Scholar

54.

Peter G, Funk F A, Loydi A, et al. 2012. Variation in specific composition and cover in grassland exposed to various grazing pressures in the Monte Rionegrino. Phyton , 81(2): 233–237. (in Spanish) Google Scholar

55.

Peter B, Eric W S, Elizabeth T B, et al. 2011. Productivity is a poor predictor of plant species richness. Science , 333(6050): 1750–1753. Google Scholar

56.

Ren H Y, Schönbach P, Wan H W, et al. 2012. Effects of grazing intensity and environmental factors on species composition and diversity in typical steppe of Inner Mongolia, China. Plos One , 7(12): e52180. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052180Google Scholar

57.

Rodríguez C, Leoni E, Lezama F, et al. 2003. Temporal trends in species composition and plant traits in natural grasslands of Uruguay. Journal of Vegetation Science , 14(3): 433–440. Google Scholar

58.

Xue R, Zheng S X, Bai Y F. 2010. Impacts of grazing intensity and management regimes on aboveground primary productivity and compensatory growth of grassland ecosystems in Inner Mongolia. Biodiversity Science , 18(3): 300–311. Google Scholar

59.

Sala O E, Parton W J, Joyce L A, et al. 1988. Primary production of the central grassland region of the United States. Ecology , 69(1): 40–45. Google Scholar

60.

Scheiner S M, Willig M R. 2005. Developing unified theories in ecology as exemplified with diversity gradients. The American Naturalist , 166(4): 458–469. Google Scholar

61.

Šimova I, Li Y M, Storch D. 2013. Relationship between species richness and productivity in plants: The role of sampling effect, heterogeneity, and species pool. Journal of Ecology , 101(1): 161–170. Google Scholar

62.

Scurlock J M O, Hall D O. 1998. The global carbon sink: A grassland perspective. Global Change Biology , 4(2): 229–233. Google Scholar

63.

Shea K, Roxburgh S H, Rauschert E S J. 2004. Moving from pattern to process: Coexistence mechanisms under intermediate disturbance regimes. Ecology Letters, 7(6): 491–508. Google Scholar

64.

Silletti A, Knapp A. 2002. Long-term responses of the grassland co-dominants Andropogon gerardii and Sorghastrum nutans to changes in climate and management. Plant Ecology , 163(1): 15–22. Google Scholar

65.

Silva V, Catry F X, Fernandes P M, et al. 2019. Effects of grazing on plant composition, conservation status and ecosystem services of Natura 2000 shrub-grassland habitat types. Biodiversity and Conservation , 28(5): 1205–1224. Google Scholar

66.

Simons N K, Weisser W W. 2017. Agricultural intensification without biodiversity loss is possible in grassland landscapes. Nature Ecology & Evolution , 1(8): 1136–1145. Google Scholar

67.

Su R N, Cheng J H, Chen D M, et al. 2017. Effects of grazing on spatiotemporal variations in community structure and ecosystem function on the grasslands of Inner Mongolia, China. Scientific Reports , 7(1): 40. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00105-yGoogle Scholar

68.

Waide R B, Willig M R, Steiner C F, et al. 1999. The relationship between productivity and species richness. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics , 30(1): 257–300. Google Scholar

69.

Wang S P, Li Y H, Wang Y F, et al. 2001. Effects of different stocking rates on plant diversity of Artemisia frigida in Inner Mongolia steppe. Journal of Botany , 43: 89–96. Google Scholar

70.

Wang S P, Wang Y F, Chen Z Z. 2003. Effect of climate change and grazing on populations of Cleistogenes squarrosa in Inner Mongolia steppe. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica , 27(3): 337–343. Google Scholar

71.

Wang S P, Wang Y F, Li Y, et al. 1998. The influence of different stocking rates on herbage regrowth and aboveground net primary production. Acta Agrestia Sinica , 8(1): 15–20. Google Scholar

72.

Wang S P, Wilkes A, Zhang Z C, et al. 2011. Management and land-use change effects on soil carbon in northern China's grasslands: A synthesis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment , 142(3–4): 329–340. Google Scholar

73.

Wang L, Luan L M, Hou F J, et al. 2020. Nexus of grazing management with plant and soil properties in northern China grasslands. Scientific Data , 7(1): 39. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.11663340Google Scholar

74.

Wang X, McConkey B G, VandenBygaart A J, et al. 2016. Grazing improves C and N cycling in the Northern Great Plains: A meta-analysis. Scientific Reports , 6: 33190. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep33190Google Scholar

75.

Wang Y S, Shiyomi M, Tsuiki M, et al. 2002. Spatial heterogeneity of vegetation under different grazing intensities in the Northwest Heilongjiang Steppe of China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment , 90(3): 217–229. Google Scholar

76.

Watt T A, Gibson C W D. 1988. The effects of sheep grazing on seedling establishment and survival in grassland. Vegetatio , 78(1–2): 91–98. Google Scholar

77.

Yan L, Zhou G S, Zhang F. 2013. Effects of different grazing intensities on grassland production in China: A meta-analysis. Plos One , 8(12): e81466. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081466Google Scholar

78.

Yang L H. 2015. Developing a multicollaborative governance system: A meta-analysis for the Inner Mongolia grassland region. New York, USA: Palgrave Macmillan US. Google Scholar

79.

Zhang Y F, Liang W T, Liao Z L, et al. 2019. Effects of climate change on lake area and vegetation cover over the past 55 years in Northeast Inner Mongolia grassland, China. Theoretical and Applied Climatology , 138(1–2): 13–25. Google Scholar

80.

Zhu Y J, Delgado-Baquerizo M, Shan D, et al. 2020. Diversity-productivity relationships vary in response to increasing land-use intensity. Plant and Soil , 450(1–2): 1–10. Google Scholar

Appendices

e06_319.gif

Notes

[1] Please log in the journal's website:  www.jorae.cn, find this article and download the supplementary data attachment.

Guo Caiyun, Zhao Dongsheng, Zheng Du, and Zhu Yu "Effects of Grazing on the Grassland Vegetation Community Characteristics in Inner Mongolia," Journal of Resources and Ecology 12(3), 319-331, (12 May 2021). https://doi.org/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.03.002
Received: 31 August 2020; Accepted: 24 February 2021; Published: 12 May 2021
JOURNAL ARTICLE
13 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top