Action

Other biodiversity: Use rotational grazing

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    38%
  • Certainty
    10%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

Amphibians (0 studies)

Birds (0 studies)

Invertebrates (0 studies)

Mammals (0 studies)

Plants (2 studies): One before-and-after study in grasslands in the USA found a higher cover of native plants after the adoption of rotational grazing. One replicated, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found that the density and mortality of a native plant species did not differ between plots with rotational or continuous grazing, but plants had more reproductive stems in plots with rotational grazing, in two of three years. This study also found that plants were larger under rotational grazing, in some comparisons, but smaller in other comparisons.

Reptiles (0 studies)

Implementation options (0 studies)

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A replicated, controlled study in 1998–2000 in grasslands in north-central California, USA, found no difference in purple needlegrass Nassella pulchra mortality or density between plots with rotational grazing or continuous grazing, but there were some differences in plant size and reproduction. Plants: Needlegrass mortality and density did not differ between plots with rotational grazing or continuous grazing (data reported as model results). Plants in rotationally-grazed plots had more reproductive stems than plants in continuously-grazed plots, in two of three years (1.3–1.8 vs 0.4–0.5). Plants were taller under light rotational grazing, but shorter under heavy rotational grazing, compared to continuous grazing, in one of three years (data not provided). There were no differences in plant stem diameter. Methods: Thirty 20 x 20 m plots were grazed from January (in 1998) or December (1999, 2000) until May at a stocking density of 0.75 animal units/ha. Rotationally-grazed plots were grazed until 25% (lightly grazed) or 50% (heavily grazed) of the plant biomass was removed, and then they were rested for 35 days. Continuously-grazed plots had animals at all times. Thirty individual plants were measured each year and plant density was estimated using 3–5 quadrats/plots (1 x 1 m quadrats).

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A before-and-after study in 2011–2013 in grasslands in central California, USA, found that native grasses increased in cattle pasture after the adoption of rotational grazing. Plants: More survey units had native grasses, two years after rotational grazing was adopted, compared to before (80% vs 8%). Average percentage cover increased to 3%, two years after rotational grazing was introduced, compared to 0% before (0–20% vs 0–10%). Methods: In 2011, cattle density in 74 plots (1–10 ha) was increased to 110–170 t/ha, with fields grazed for 1–7 days and rested for 70–120 days (depending on the time of year and pasture quality). Previously, larger fields were grazed for longer periods, with little rest between grazing periods. Vegetation cover was estimated each July, using transects of variable lengths.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Shackelford, G. E., Kelsey, R., Robertson, R. J., Williams, D. R. & Dicks, L. V. (2017) Sustainable Agriculture in California and Mediterranean Climates: Evidence for the effects of selected interventions. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Mediterranean Farmland

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Mediterranean Farmland
Mediterranean Farmland

Mediterranean Farmland - Published 2017

Mediterranean Farmland synopsis

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation assesses the research looking at whether interventions are beneficial or not. It is based on summarised evidence in synopses, on topics such as amphibians, bats, biodiversity in European farmland, and control of freshwater invasive species. More are available and in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
Our Journal: Conservation Evidence

Our Journal:
Conservation Evidence

A unique, free to publish open-access journal publishing research and case studies that measure the effects of conservation actions.

Read latest volume: Volume 16

Special issues: Amphibian special issue

Go to the Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust