See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335945353

Grasslands and climate change: an overview

Chapter · March 2019

DOI: 10.1017/9781108163941.003

CITATIONS READS
12 2,443

2 authors:

David J. Gibson Jonathan A Newman

Southern Illinois University Carbondale Wilfrid Laurier University
271 PUBLICATIONS   7,190 CITATIONS    168 PUBLICATIONS   8,242 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Plant Competition View project

Field & Greenhouse studies of grass-Epichloë interactions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jonathan A Newman on 29 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 G R A S S L A N D S A N D C L I M AT E
CHANGE: AN OVERVIEW
david j gibson* & jonathan a newman 1
Reprint of Chapter 1 from Gibson & Newman (eds., 2019) Grasslands and Climate Change,
Cambridge University Press

contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Grassland extent and distribution 1
3 Grassland goods and services 3
4 Climate change as a threat to grassland 3
5 Grasslands and climate change policy 5
6 References 8

1 introduction
Grassland covers 31–43% of the earth’s terrestrial habitats offering a variety of im-
portant, critical ecosystem services including carbon storage, food, forage, and bio-
fuels, and opportunities for tourism and recreation. In addition, grasslands are a
unique repository of biodiversity. Some 792 million people live in grasslands world-
wide (1). Despite their importance, grasslands are an endangered biome, threat-
ened through land-use change, agricultural intensification, suppression of fire, and
abandonment, and now anthropogenic climate change (ACC) leading to warming,
changed patterns of precipitation, and other effects. The aim of this book is to bring
together an international team of researchers to review the scientific knowledge of
the effects of ACC on world grasslands. In doing so, we can better predict the
future of this important biome and understand how anthropogenic effects can be
mitigated as this ecosystem both diminishes in extent and is altered in response to
climate change.
In this introductory chapter, the unique aspects and the importance of grasslands
compared with other biomes are first defined followed by a summary of the effects
of climate change on grasslands worldwide. Broadly, the main threats to grass-
lands will be summarized along with the opportunities that grasslands provide for
ecological research.

2 grassland extent and distribution

Estimates of grassland extent vary depending upon the definition of grassland that
is adopted and the methodology used. It is surprisingly difficult to define a grass-
land and a variety of grassland definitions have been proposed (see Tab. 1.1 in

* Southern Illinois University Carbondale, USA

1 University of Guelph, Canada

1
 grassland extent and distribution 2

IVC Division Area (106 km2 )

North Sahel Semi-Desert Scrub and Grassland 3.04
Great Plains Grassland & Shrubland 2.98
Eastern Eurasian Cool Semi-Desert Scrub & Grassland 2.85
Central Asian Alpine Scrub, Forb Meadow & Grassland 2.80
Australian Tropical Savanna 2.15
Eastern Eurasian Grassland & Shrubland 2.11
Brazilian-Parana Lowland Shrubland, Grassland & Savanna 2.04
West-Central African Mesic Woodland and Savanna 1.84
Eastern Africa Xeric Scrub & Grassland 1.70
Sudano Sahelian Dry Savanna 1.63
Western Eurasian Cool Semi-Desert Scrub & Grassland 1.35

Table 1: International Vegetation Classification (IVC) of dominant grassland divisions with

land area more than 1.0 × 106 km2 . Compiled from data in Dixon et al. (4).

(2)). For example, the International Forage Grazing Terminology Committee (3) defines
native or natural grassland as a “natural ecosystem dominated by indigenous or
naturally occurring grasses and other herbaceous species used mainly for grazing
by livestock and wildlife,” in contrast to savannas which are considered as grass-
land “characterized by precipitation between 375 and 1500 mm year-1” . . . “vari-
able proportions of trees or large shrubs” and “often a transitional vegetation type
between grassland and forestland,” and shrublands as “land on which the vegeta-
tion is dominated by low-growing woody plants.” In developing a map of world
grassland types, Dixon et al. (4), define grassland as “. . . with at least 10% vegeta-
tion cover, dominated or co-dominated by graminoid and forb growth forms, and
where the trees form a single-layer canopy with either less than 10% cover and 5 m
height (temperate) or less than 40% cover and 8 m height (tropical)” (4).
Notwithstanding vagaries in definition, grasslands occur historically over 31–43%
of the Earth’s land surface, on every continent except Antarctica (although there are
native and non-native grass populations expanding on Antarctic islands in response
to anthropogenic activities and regional warming (5, 6)), with a global extent rang-
ing 41–56×106 km2 (7). Eleven countries each have more than 1 million km2 of
grassland (in order these are: Australia, Russian Federation, China, United States,
Canada, Kazakhstan, Brazil, Argentina, Mongolia, Sudan, and Angola). In an as-
sessment of 7 proposed anthropogenic biomes, grassland, including rangeland, had
the most extensive land cover occupying 39.7×106 km2 (30.4%). Across all anthro-
pogenic biomes, pasture in remote rangelands was the most extensive single land
cover type (9.5×106 km2 , 7.3%) (8). It is important to recognize that many grass-
lands are not ‘natural’ but are wholly or partly anthropogenic in origin, e.g., many
of the ‘improved grasslands,’ seeded leys, or pastures of Europe. Regardless of
origin, these grasslands are an important part of the global grassland biome and
are likely to change in composition and extent in response to climate change. The
International Vegetation Classification (IVC) recognized 49 taxonomically and spa-
tially distinct historical and current grassland formations and divisions (4). Below
upper-level physiognomic formations, the lower levels of grassland divisions were
characterized by floristics. Eleven IVC grassland divisions individually covered
more than 1.0×106 km2 with the North Sahael Semi-Desert Scrub and Grassland of
Africa being the most extensive (Tab. 1.1). It is notable that the major continental
land masses are all represented on the listing in Tab. 1.1, i.e., Africa, Eurasia, North
and South America, and Australia.
 grassland goods and services 3

3 grassland goods and services

Grasslands have many important goods and services including: food, forage, bio-
fuels, tourism, recreation, wildlife habitat, and ecosystem services such as: storm
water management, soil conservation, soil carbon storage, aquifer recharge, soil wa-
ter conservation during drought, improved soil physical and chemical properties.
All of these goods and services are threatened by climate change (2, and see Lavorel
Chapter 9). With up to 90% of grassland biomass belowground, soil carbon levels
are high in grasslands compared with other ecosystems (estimated at 650-810 Gt
C worldwide,1). As a current sink for terrestrial C, the changes in response to cli-
mate change are uncertain, but of concern (9). Grasslands have an important role
in global food security providing ruminant milk and meat production that is under
threat from climate change as productivity changes and plant species adaptation is
uncertain and variable (10). As noted in this book, and elsewhere (11), ecological
research is important in meeting this challenge of maintaining global food security
in the face of climate change.

4 climate change as a threat to grassland

Anthropogenic climate change is a growing threat to grasslands worldwide and
encompasses local and regional changes in temperature (generally, warming), pre-
cipitation (often drought, including intensification of weather extremes), and snow
cover, and increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 , CH4 , and N2 O and nitro-
gen deposition (12, and see Jones Chapter 4). Global temperature is projected to
increase from 1 to 6 ◦ C depending upon the scenario and climate model used, with
temperatures in grasslands predicted to rise 1–1.5 ◦ C with considerable regional
variation (13). These changes in global climate have been occurring since the onset
of the Industrial Revolution and were predicted as far back as the early 1800s by
German naturalist Alexander von Humboldt (14).
For example, significant changes in climate have been recorded in the southern
plains region of the United States since 2000 with record droughts in the tallgrass
prairie areas of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas in 2011 (15). The 2014 National Cli-
mate Assessment of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (16) projects temper-
atures in this region to rise 2.8–5.5 ◦ C by 2080–2099 (Fig. 1.1) with high maximum
temperature days (35–38 ◦ C) becoming more frequent in the summer, especially in
the southern part of the region. These increases in heat will lead to increases in
surface water losses, heat stress, a longer growing season by up to 24 days, and
more overwintering insect populations. Winter and spring precipitation will in-
crease in northern states as will the number of days with heavy precipitation, and
days with winter snow events. More intense droughts are projected to increase
fire frequency and desertification. Ecologically, species will have difficulty migrat-
ing as climate variability and change alters habitats in the increasingly fragmented
landscape. There are already shifts in species phenology occurring in response to
climate change (17), and it is expected that native species abundance will decline
as non-natives increase. Increasing atmospheric CO2 will somewhat offset the dry-
ing from warming, but nutritional quality of the forage may decrease (18), leading
to reduced weight gain in herbivores. O’Mara (10) poignantly asked the question,
“Can grasslands simultaneously produce extra food, cope with climate change and
mitigate greenhouse gas emissions?”
Projected climate change in other grassland regions across the globe are similar
to those projected for the US Great Plains. For example, rangelands in Australia are
similarly predicted to show increases in average temperature in all seasons, with
more hot days and fewer frosts, decreased winter rainfall in the southern range-
lands, and an increased intensity of extreme rainfall events (20). In South African
 climate change as a threat to grassland 4

Figure 1: Projected summer temperature increase in the US Great Plains by 2080–2099 accord-
ing to two IPCC emissions scenarios. This region corresponds closely to the his-
torical extent of the tallgrass prairie (Reproduced with permission by Cambridge
University Press from Karl et al., 2009)( 19)

grasslands, projected climatic changes are variable, but summer rainfall is projected
to increase, but with a delayed onset, and is projected to lead to a decrease in
range extent of native species and widespread species loss throughout the century
(Fig. 1.2) (21). In Europe 13.2% of the land area is under ‘permanent grassland’
and climate change is predicted to lead to warmer temperatures, increased summer
drought, and more frequent heat waves, floods, droughts, and wildfires, although
changes are expected to be region specific and vary among agro-climatic zones (22).
As a result, grassland production is predicted to increase in northern and north-
western Europe, but decrease in southern Europe, phenology will be advanced in
many plant species (but not all), and changes in species composition will occur.
While enhanced production may be beneficial from an agronomic perspective, in
some regions traditional grassland areas are projected to become unsuitable for
grassland production without irrigation and become threatened by more profitable
cropping systems. For example, in Europe, some climate scenarios project a de-
crease in grassland areas by as much as 50% necessitating policy development to
anticipate future use of this land (e.g., continued urban expansion, recreational land,
or forested land use) (23).
In addition to climate change, grassland habitats are under threat worldwide due
to fragmentation, habitat loss, land-use change, invasive species, agricultural inten-
sification, and species loss through ‘improvement.’ Many grasslands are overgrazed
and already suffer from problems of soil erosion and weed encroachment that are
now being exacerbated by the effects of climate change. These altered climatic pat-
terns are leading to altered productivity patterns, shifts in balance among functional
groups (especially dominance of C3 versus C4 grasses), and transient or permanent
regime change (15, and see Fraser Chapter 5 and Lavorel Chapter 8, 25).
Research into the effects of climate change is increasing across the board in all
scientific disciplines including in grassland ecology. A systematic Boolean search of
Web of ScienceTM on June 7th, 2017 retrieved 4963 papers with only 12 papers on
ecological research on climate change in grasslands (broadly defined) in 1992 rising
to 669 in 2016; an exponential increase in research output over a 24 year period (Fig.
1.3). The largest number of articles were published by authors based in the United
States (40.7%) followed by China (18.7%), Germany (10.9%), Australia (8.8%), and
England (8.3%) with 119 other countries less than 12%). These articles were pub-
lished in 324 different journals with the largest number (380 articles, 7.6%) in the
journal Global Change Biology. Other important sources included the journals Plant
and Soil (113, 2.3%), Ecology (112, 2.3%), Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment (110,
2.2%), Climatic Change (109, 2.2%), Agricultural and Forest Meteorology (109, 2.2%)
 grasslands and climate change policy 5

Figure 2: Present recorded and predicted, and a projected potential future, ranges and report-
ing rates for four grassland bird species of conservation concern in South African
grassland. (a–c) Geronticus calvus (Southern Bald Ibis); (d–f) Neotis denhami (Den-
ham’s Bustard); (g–i) Eupodotis caerulescens (Blue Korhaan); (j–l) Heteromirafra ruddi
(Rudd’s Lark); (a, d, g, j) Recorded distribution and reporting rates; (b, e, h, k) Pre-
dicted present distribution and reporting rates; (c, f, i, l) Distribution and reporting
rates projected for the HadCM3 2085 climate scenario (24). (Colour scales indicate
relative reporting rate for each species, darker colours indicating higher values.).
Reproduced with permission from Huntley and Barnard 2012 (21).

with the other 318 journals each publishing less than 2% of the articles. Such re-
search is often inter- or transdisciplinary involving teams of researchers from differ-
ent disciplinary backgrounds. This type of collaborative research brings challenges
related to project management and coordination, engagement, and knowledge in-
tegration (26). Moreover, successful facilitation of interdisciplinary climate change
research requires development of new global, regional, and sectorial scenarios to
enable assessment of the range of future climates and their effects of, in this case,
grassland systems and their interaction with social, economic and environmental
components (27, and see Dove Chapter 17). Ecologists can take an important lead
in developing new scientific and conceptual frameworks that can be translated into
the development of sustainable mitigation and adaption policies (11). For exam-
ple, the Great Plains Systems and Climate Change report (28) shows how socio-
ecological research can be brought together to assess the effects of climate change
on the United States Great Plains region in order to develop future projections and
identify research needs.

5 grasslands and climate change policy

As discussed earlier in this chapter and throughout this book, grasslands are both
threatened by climate change, contribute greenhouse gases (GHGs: N2O from soils,
CH4 from livestock, and CO2 from fire) to climate change, and act as a carbon
sink to mitigate increases in atmospheric CO2 . Nevertheless, despite the clear need
to consider grasslands in climate change policy, grasslands are not explicitly men-
tioned in the most recent international climate change treaty, The Paris Agreement.

http://bit.ly/2nHcXEr
 grasslands and climate change policy 6

Figure 3: Number of articles published per year, and cumulative number, on grassland ecol-
ogy and climate change since 1990. Data extracted from a systematic review using
the Thompson-Reuters Web of Science database using the following terms: (old
field OR savanna* OR steppe* OR grassland* OR prairie OR tallgrass* OR short-
grass* OR veld*) AND (climate change OR global warming OR climatic change)
refined to include only articles, reviews or book chapters in ecology, environmen-
tal science, plant science, biodiversity and conservation, agronomy, remote sensing,
and evolutionary biology journals. As of June 7, 2017 the search revealed 4693
records (280 records from 2017 are not plotted here).

As part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN-

FCCC), the Paris Agreement focuses on encouraging signatory countries around
the world to voluntarily keep rising global temperatures to below 2 Celsius above
pre-industrial levels. One Hundred and Fifty-seven of 197 Parties (∼ countries) rati-
fied the Paris Agreement on 5 October 2016 providing broad international support.
On a land use basis, the UNFCCC focuses on forest ecosystems through recom-
mendations of Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF: subsequently
renamed Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses: AFOLU) activities to increase
removals of atmospheric GHGs, decrease emissions, and increase forest biomass
and soil carbon stocks to mitigate climate change. Under the framework of Article
3.4 of the earlier 1998 Kyoto Protocol (KP) of the UNFCCC, signatories voluntar-
ily committed to reporting CO2 emissions and AFOLU activities through Reducing
Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) mechanisms to pro-
mote sequestration of CO2 in soils and living biomass (29). However, inclusion
of grasslands in KP AFOLU activities has lagged behind that proposed for forests.
Nevertheless, a number of activities have been proposed to mitigate greenhouse
gas emissions to improve rangeland health (Tab. 1.2) (30, 31, and see Bradford et al.
Chapter 18). Uptake of these voluntary activities varies among signatories, for ex-
ample, the expansion of sown biodiverse, legume-rich pastures has been promoted
in Portugal to increase soil organic matter and carbon sequestration in low produc-
tivity grasslands (32). There are many challenges to complying with Article 3.4.
Australia, for example, has a large area of grassland (Tab. 1.1), and high levels of
native and feral animals makes managed reductions in grazing intensity to reduce
GHG emissions problematic. Also, windstorms, floods, and wildfires lead to conti-
nental wide movements and loss of carbon, and landowner rewards systems for re-
duced income from sustaining higher C stocks, and the costs involved in measuring
and verifying C stocks are challenges that need addressing (33). In Latin America,
research has been undertaken to assess the efficacy of C sequestration in restoring
http://bit.ly/2nH07Ge
 grasslands and climate change policy 7

degraded deforested areas to well-managed pastures and silvopastoral systems (34).

Under these schemes, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the KP could
provide payments to participating low-income rural farmers practicing sustainable
C storage land-use systems (35). A similar scheme of incentivizing local farmers to
adopt sustainable silvopastoral land use systems through CDM payments is being
explored in high altitude grasslands of Nepal (36). However, a constraint with this
mitigation approach is that rangelands are excluded from the CDM scheme (37).
A key indicator of success in grassland management to mitigate GHG emissions
that can be fed into national carbon accounting metrics (CAMs) required under KP
and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agreements is the level of
soil organic carbon sequestration (SOC). The IPCC proposed three tiered levels of
CAMs with the simplest, Tier 1 method following the equation:

X
H


δC = SOCt (h) − SOCt−20 (h)
h=1

Where h represents a land use/management system by climate and soil type, H is

the number of systems, SOCt−20 is the amount of carbon before and SOCt and
after 20 years in the top 30 cm of a soil profile (38). In an analysis of managed US
grasslands, 5 to 142 Tg C yr-1 or 0.1 to 0.9 Mg C ha-1 yr-1 could be sequestered
over a 20-year period. A single management activity could enhance SOC storage by
14–17%, whereas degradation reduced SOC by 3–5% (38). Tier 2 and Tier 3 methods
are based upon the Tier 1 equation, but use more data and more complex models
and inventory measurement systems, respectively, and as noted from a study of the
Argentinean Pampa region, can provide improved estimates of SOC change (39).
Beyond the specifics of climate change policy outlined above, the threat of climate
change to grasslands and the ecosystem services that they provide can be consid-
ered in economic theory terms as an endogenous risk; i.e., consequences of the
effects created by interactions among the players in the global society (compared
with exogenous risks created by outside forces) (40). There are two components
to endogenous risk, mitigation risks and adaptation risks. Mitigation risks are self-
protection-efforts taken to reduce the likelihood of an unfavorable state, such as
actions taken to reduce GHG emissions. Adaptation risks are self-insurance-efforts
taken to reduce the severity of an unfavorable state if or when it occurs. In the
case of grasslands, adaptation strategies can include changed rangeland manage-
ment schemes, altering planting choices in restorations, and weed control strategies.
Climate change policy can be considered a case of optimizing the balance between
mitigation and adaptation strategies even though the two may sometimes be com-
plimentary and difficult to separate (for example, consider the options in Tab. 1.2).
International agreements on climate change such as the KP and Paris Agreement
under the UNFCCC are predominantly mitigation policies with adaptation policies
being largely left to the local level (individual stakeholders, farmer, ranchers, etc.).
If global mitigation policies fail, then adaptation policies become more important.
Hopkins and Del Prado (41) considered the mitigation and adaptation options for
European grassland in the light of climate change and identified specific farm-scale
options. Grassland management recommendations to mitigate GHG emissions in-
cluded minimization of mechanical operations that use fossil fuels, and growing
of crops and pasture plants that would increase sequestration of CO2 and reduce
emissions of CH4 and N2 O gases. Adaptive response recommendations included
increased use of forage legumes, species and mixtures that require less N-fertilizer
and that are adapted to drought, and greater reliance on conserved feed for housed
livestock. Such adaptive responses are complicated by the increased demands that
are being placed on grasslands for ecosystem services, especially increased global
food supply needs for ruminant milk and meat production, irrespective of threats
from climate change (10).
 references 8

6 references
1. White R, Murray S, Rohweder M. Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems: Grass-
land Ecosystems Technical Report. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute;
2000.
2. Gibson DJ. Grasses and Grassland Ecology. Oxford: Oxford University Press;
2009. 305 p.
3. Allen VG, Batello C, Berretta EJ, Hodgson J, Kothmann M, Li X, et al. An
international terminology for grazing lands and grazing animals. Grass and
Forage Science. 2011;66(1):2-28.
4. Dixon AP, Faber-Langendoen D, Josse C, Morrison J, Loucks CJ. Distribution
mapping of world grassland types. Journal of Biogeography. 2014;41:2003-19.
5. Lewis Smith RI. Vascular plants as bioindicators of regional warming in An-
tartica. Oecologia. 1994;99:322-8.
6. Pertierra LR, Lara F, Benayas J, Hughes KA. Poa pratensis L., current status of
the longest-established non-native vascular plant in the Antarctic. Polar Biol-
ogy. 2013;36:1473-81.
7. World resources 2000-2001. People and ecosystems: the fraying web of life.
Washington, DC: World Resources Institute in collaboration with the United
Nations Development Programme, The United Nations Environment Programme,
and the World Bank; 2000. 389 p.
8. Ellis EC, Ramankutty N. Putting people in the map: anthropogenic biomes of
the world. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2008;6:439-47.
9. Grace J, Meir P, Malhi Y. Keeping track of carbon flows between biosphere and
atmosphere. In: Press MC, Huntly NJ, Levin S, editors. Ecology: Achievement
and Challenge. Symposia of the British Ecological Society. Oxford: Blackwell
Science; 2001. p. 249-69.
10. O’Mara FP. The role of grasslands in food security and climate change. Annals
of Botany. 2012;110(6):1263-70.
11. Bardgett RD, Gibson DJ. Plant ecological solutions to global food security. Jour-
nal of Ecology. 2017;105(4):1-4.
12. Morgan JA. Rising atmospheric CO2 and global climate change: management
implications for grazing lands. In: Reynolds SG, Frame J, editors. Grasslands:
Developments, Opportunities, Perspectives. Enfield, New Hampshire, USA: Sci-
ence Publishers, Inc.; 2005. p. 235-60.
13. IPCC, editor. Annex I: Atlas of Global and Regional Climate Projections [van
Oldenborgh, GJ, M Collins, J Arblaster, JH Christensen, J Marotzke, SB Power,
M Rummukainen and T Zhou (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, TF, D Qin, G-K Plattner, M
Tignor, SK Allen, J Boschung, A Nauels, Y Xia, V Bex and PM Midgley (eds.)].
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University
Press; 2013.
14. Wulf A. The Invention of Nature: Alexander von Humboldt’s New World: Knopf;
2015. 496 p.
15. Belesky D, Malinowski D. Grassland communities in the USA and expected
trends associated with climate change. Acta Agrobotanica. 2016;69(2):1673.
16. Program USGCR. National Climate Assessment http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/.
2014.
17. Travers SE, Marquardt B, Zerr NJ, Finch JB, Boche MJ, Wilk R, et al. Climate
change and shifting arrival date of migratory birds over a century in the north-
 references 9

ern Great Plains. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology. 2015;127:43-51.

18. Newman JA, Abner ML, Dado RG, Gibson DJ, Hickman A. Effects of elevated
CO2 on the tall fescue-endophytic fungus interaction: growth, photosynthe-
sis, growth, chemical composition and digestibility. Global Change Biology.
2003;9:425-37.
19. Karl TR, Melilo JM, Peterson TC, editors. Global Climate Change Impacts in the
United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
20. Australian Government DotE. Climate Change in Australia
https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/2007-2016 [Available from:
https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/.]
21. Huntley B, Barnard P. Potential impacts of climatic change on southern African
birds of fynbos and grassland biodiversity hotspots. Diversity and Distributions.
2012;18(8):769-81.
22. Trnka M, Bartošová L, Schaumberger A, Ruget F, Eitzinger J, Formayer H, et
al., editors. Climate change and impact on European grasslands. Grassland
farming and land management systems in mountainous regions Proceedings
of the 16th Symposium of the European Grassland Federation, Gumpenstein,
Austria, 29th-31st August, 2011; 2011: Agricultural Research and Education
Center (AREC) Raumberg-Gumpenstein.
23. Rounsevell MDA, Ewert F, Reginster I, Leemans R, Carter TR. Future scenar-
ios of European agricultural land use. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment.
2005;107(2):117-35.
24. Gordon C, Cooper C, Senior CA, Banks H, Gregory JM, Johns TC, et al. The
simulation of SST, sea ice extents and ocean heat transports in a version of the
Hadley Centre coupled model without flux adjustments. Climate Dynamics.
2000;16(2):147-68.
25. Coffin DP, Lauenroth WK. Transient responses of North-American grasslands
to changes in climate. Climate Change. 1996;34:269-78.
26. Gaziulusoy AI, Ryan C, McGrail S, Chandler P, Twomey P. Identifying and
addressing challenges faced by transdisciplinary research teams in climate
change research. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016;123:55-64.
27. Ebi KL, Hallegatte S, Kram T, Arnell NW, Carter TR, Edmonds J, et al. A new
scenario framework for climate change research: background, process, and
future directions. Climatic Change. 2014;122(3):363-72.
28. Ojima D, Steiner J, McNeeley S, Cozzetto K, Childress A. Great Plains Regional
Technical Input Report: Springer; 2015.
29. United Nations. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. 1998.
30. Sathaye J, Meyers S. Rangelands and grasslands. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Assessment: A Guidebook: Springer; 1995. p. 211-26.
31. Conant RT. Challenges and Opportunities for Carbon Sequestration in Grass-
land Systems: FAO; 2010.
32. Valada T, Teixeira R, Martins H, Ribeiro M, TD. Grassland management op-
tions under Kyoto Protocol Article 3.4. The Portuguese case study. In: Acar,
Z, A López-Francos, and C Porqueddu, editors. New Approaches for Grassland
Research in a Context of Climate and Socio-Economic Changes: Options Méditer-
ranéennes: Série A Séminaires Méditerranéens; n 102. Zaragoza: CIHEAM;
2012. p. 53-6.
33. Gifford RM. Carbon sequestration in Australian grasslands: policy and tech-
nical issues. In: Abberton M, Conant R, Batello C, editors. Grassland Carbon
Sequestration: Management, Policy and Economics: . Integrated Crop Manage-
ment. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2010.
 references 10

p. 33-56.
34. Amézquita MC, Murgueitio E, Ibrahim M, Ramírez B. Carbon sequestration in
pasture and silvopastoral systems compared with native forests in ecosystems
of tropical America. In: Abberton M, Conant R, Batello C, editors. Grassland
Carbon Sequestration: Management, Policy and Economics: . Integrated Crop Man-
agement. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations;
2010. p. 152-61.
35. Ibrahim M, Guerra L, Casasola F, Neely C. Importance of silvopastoral sys-
tems for mitigation of climate change and harnessing of environmental bene-
fits. In: Abberton M, Conant R, Batello C, editors. Grassland Carbon Sequestra-
tion: Management, Policy and Economics: . Integrated Crop Management. Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2010. p. 188-96.
36. Pokhrel KP. Grassland management for climate change adaptation and water-
shed protection in Karnali watershed area. Journal of Biodiversity & Engangered
Species. 2016;4(3):171. doi:10.4172/2332-543.1000171.
37. Wilkes A, Tennigkeit T. Carbon finance in extensively managed rangelands:
issues in project, programmatic and sectoral approached. In: Abberton M, Co-
nant R, Batello C, editors. Grassland Carbon Sequestration: Management, Policy
and Economics: . Integrated Crop Management. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations; 2010. p. 211-33.
38. Ogle SM, Conant RT, Paustian K. Deriving grassland management factors for
a carbon accounting method developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Environmental Management. 2004;33(4):474-84.
39. Villarino SH, Studdert GA, Laterra P, Cendoya MG. Agricultural impact on
soil organic carbon content: Testing the IPCC carbon accounting method for
evaluations at county scale. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2014;185:118-
32.
40. Kane S, Shogren JF. Linking Adaptation and Mitigation in Climate Change
Policy. Climatic Change. 2000;45(1):75-102.
41. Hopkins A, Del Prado A. Implications of climate change for grassland in Eu-
rope: impacts, adaptations and mitigation options: a review. Grass and Forage
Science. 2007;62(2):118-26.
Table 2: Practices to reduce rangeland health and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions (With Permission of Springer from Sathaye and Meyers 1995) (28). The possible effect of
implementing a practice is given for carbon and methane, and qualitative cost/benefits estimates are provided. Unhealthy rangelands are those lands where soil loss,
plant species and cover loss, species invasions, and interrupted and poorly functioning nutrient cycling are the norm. Healthy rangelands have nutrient and energy
flows intact, soils are not eroding, and plant species composition and productivity is indicative of a functioning ecosystem.

Practice Healthy rangeland Unhealthy Carbon Methane Bio/physical Social/cultural Economic General comments
rangeland benefit/cost benefit/cost benefit/cost

Reduce animal No Yes Increases carbon Reduces animal Increases plant cover, Depends on country Depends on value of Positive ecosystem
numbers (in animal sink because of methane production increases soil and value of animals livestock products to effect if sufficient
unit months) increasing through reduction in organic matter, and as a social resource national and/or rainfall. May require
vegetation cover and total number improves local economy alternative sources
better root growth productivity of local food
support, this
changes in food
production policies
Change mix of Yes Yes Possible increases in No known effect Potential changes in Depends on country Depends on value of Positive effect in
animals carbon sink with plant species and cultural value of livestock products general, improves
change in plant composition specific animal type efficiency of
plant species utilization
Alter animal Yes Yes Increases carbon No effect Useless in Appropriate in Cost of salt and Positive. Not
distribution by sink because of rangelands already countries where distribution of salt applicable for
placement of salt increasing high in salt animals graze herding systems
vegetation cover extensively rather
overall than being herded
Alter animal Yes Yes Increases carbon No effect Developed water May affect territorial Motorized water Negative if used to
distribution by sink because of resources may not and property sources are often too increase number of
placement of water increasing be sustainable. boundaries costly to purchase animals. Positive if
sources vegetation cover Potential cost to on maintain used to alter animal
overall long-term distribution.
productivity
Alter animal No Yes Increases carbon No effect Benefit is to control Depends on country Varies depending on Potentially interferes
distribution by sink because of domestic animal and country and source with wildlife
placement of fences increasing number and livestock/wildlife and kind of migration
vegetation cover distribution system. Costs materials

references
overall potentially
outweight benefits
Provide livestock No Yes No effect Decrease methane Perhaps will reduce Possible where Cost of protein Potentially difficult
protein supplement production extensive grazing to animals are herded blocks or similar to distribute to local
some degree supplement areas

11
 Table 2 Continued from previous page
Practice Healthy rangeland Unhealthy Carbon Methane Bio/physical Social/cultural Economic General comments
rangeland benefit/cost benefit/cost benefit/cost

Increase native No Yes Increases carbon Potential benefit of Benefit in retention Local people rely on Depends on the Potential unknown
grasses and or plant sink because of methane reduction of native species for native species for value of the livestock benefits from native
adapted species increasing by increasing quality gene conservation medicine and other and wildlife species. Adapted
vegetation cover of diet health-related goods products, and value species survive in
overall of herbal medicine long term
Selective application No Possibly Potentially increase Potentially increase Cost if non-target Cost if non-target Varies depending on Cost if non-target
of herbicides carbon sink if expand animal species, pollution of species, pollution of country and source species, pollution of
numbers water, damage to water, damage to of herbicide water, damage to
food chain food chain food chain
Mechanical No Possibly Potentially increase Potentially increase Potential for May not fit pastoral Varies with country Benefit depends on
treatment or carbon sink if expands animal large-scale alteration system depending on success of treatment
restoration numbers of soil and availability of relative to
vegetation equipment disruption of
ecosystem
Plant halophytes If appropriate If appropriate Increase carbon sink No known effect Benefit with Benefit with Cost of planting and Beings into
(salt and increase increased plant increasing forage maintaining production
tolerant-species) productivity cover and production for vegetation otherwise
productivity livestock and non-productive land
wildlife
Apply prescribed Yes Yes Increase carbon sink Possible benefit of In systems adapted Use of fire can be Threat of wildfire Short-term increase
burning and increase methane reduction to fire, can increase part of social system. and destruction of in CO2 to
productivity in the by increasing quality productivity, Utilizes local resources atmosphere,
long term on of diet maintain nutrient knowledge long-term benefits in
appropriate cycling adapted systems
rangeland types
Implement Yes Yes Increase carbon sink Possible benefit of Possible benefit with Benefit with Cost of planting and Increases carbon
agroforestry systems and increase methane reduction increased plant increasing forage maintaining storage in trees.
productivity in the by increasing quality cover, diversity, and production for Benefit in diversity
long term on of diet productivity livestock and and productivity if
appropriate wildlife adapted species
rangeland types
Develop large scale Possibly Possibly Increase carbon sink Benefit, methane Potential for large Potential for Cost of dams etc., Potential for
watershed projects and increase reduced by land disturbance, improved foot benefit hyro-electric increased human

references
productivity increasing quality of with benefit to production, both power and animal
diet human and animal plant and animal populations because
populations because of increase in water
of regulated and
regular water supply

12
View publication stats