Abstract
China launched the “Returning Grazing Lands to Grasslands” project about a decade ago to restore severely degraded grasslands. Grassland grazing exclusion was one of the experimental approaches for achieving the grand goal. Here, we evaluate the long-term regional ecological effects of grassland grazing exclusion in the Xilingol region of Inner Mongolia, China. The dynamics of grassland communities over 8 years (2004–2011) were continuously monitored at 11 research sites dominated by temperate steppe ecosystems. These sites represent the diverse landscapes of the Mongolian Plateau in the Arid, Semi-Arid, and Humid Climatic Zones that have varying precipitation levels. The community structure of degraded grasslands was found to recover quickly toward a benign state after grazing exclusion. The exclusion promoted an increase in mean plant community height, coverage, aboveground fresh biomass, and quality. The grasslands recovered fastest and most favorably in the Humid Zone followed by the Semi-Arid Zone and the Arid Zone. The increase in the aboveground biomass and vegetation height correlated significantly with the amount of total growing season precipitation. Precipitation therefore amplified the grazing exclusion effects on grassland restoration. Grazing exclusion was most effective in the relatively moist part of the study region. However, other factors such as global climate change and variability might have interacted with grazing management practices, thereby influencing the outcomes of grassland restoration efforts in Inner Mongolia. Future implementations of grassland ecosystem management should consider the regional climatic heterogeneity to maximize costs/benefits for achieving long-term ecosystem sustainability.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
As the largest ecosystem type in China, grassland covers 393 million ha, or 42 %, of the national territory. China ranks second in the world in its amount of grassland, only behind Australia. During the past three decades, the grassland ecosystems in China have been seriously deteriorating under the combined effects of climate change, land use change, and socioeconomic transformation (Qi et al. 2012; Liu et al. 2013). In the arid and semi-arid regions in the Inner Mongolian Plateau, in addition to climate change, land use change and grassland overgrazing have been recognized as the key causes for the declines of grassland coverage and quality, loss of biological diversity, and degradation of ecosystem functions (Zhen et al. 2010; Cease et al. 2012; Li et al. 2012; Liu et al. 2013). Understanding the effects of the both human and natural driving forces behind grassland degradation has important ecosystem management implications in response to global change for the region (Li et al. 2012; Chen et al. 2013).
In 2003, in response to regional environmental concerns, the Chinese government launched an ambitious project called “Returning Grazing Lands to Grasslands” in northern, northwestern, and southwestern China, including the provinces and autonomous regions of Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan, Tibet, Ningxia, and Yunnan (Liu et al. 2014). These grassland-dominated regions are all water-limited and vulnerable to both human and natural disturbances. The ultimate goal of the large project was to slow down overgrazing and thus reverse the severe grassland degradation trend. In this project, various degraded grasslands were fenced using a similar approach without considering climatic or ecosystem specifications. Some pastures were closed for several months each year for rotational grazing, while other pastures were fenced for livestock exclusion for 5–10 years and grazing was permanently prohibited. As of 2010, China has invested over $2 billion in total capital for grassland livestock exclusion with an area of 52 million ha. Meanwhile, grain subsidies were provided to local herdsmen for project implementation (China Ministry of Agriculture 2012).
Ecological restoration theories suggest that ecosystems can be potentially restored to their healthy states naturally with their own resilience under certain environmental and ecological conditions (Golodets et al. 2010; Cao et al. 2011). It is often too costly to artificially restore severely damaged ecosystems, if it is doable at all. Therefore, livestock exclusion, a relatively inexpensive approach for ecological restoration, has been widely used in grassland management as a primary approach for curbing grassland degradation and restoring damaged ecosystems toward a healthy state in Inner Mongolia (Yeo 2005; Zhang et al. 2005a; Li et al. 2013).
Field studies in the past have suggested that grazing exclusion plays a positive role in vegetation restoration, which can directly affect plant aboveground biomass, litter production, and root and soil development of grassland ecosystems (Liu et al. 2006; Teague et al. 2011; Vega and Montaña 2011; Heather et al. 2012). Compared to overgrazed grasslands, those under grazing exclusion generally show an increase in plant coverage and enhanced biomass production (Valone et al. 2002; Floyd et al. 2003; Yeo 2005). Several studies in China found that livestock exclusion had positive impacts on the grassland vegetation restoration in the arid and semi-arid regions of China (Zhang et al. 2005b; Xiong et al. 2011). However, these studies noted that the grazing effects varied in scale and magnitude. In general, three ecosystem restoration patterns, as quantified by plant community height, coverage, and biomass, have been observed. That is, increasing over time; initially increasing and then decreasing; and reducing initially, then increasing, but significantly reducing in the end (Li et al. 2013). Other studies suggest that the grazing exclusion practice alone is not likely to reverse the grassland degradation trend in the arid and semi-arid regions. Controversies remain on the positive effects of livestock exclusion on degraded grasslands and some argue that climate change also plays a dominating role and may have masked the human intervention to control grassland degradation (Zheng et al. 2006; Yeh 2010; Zhang et al. 2011; Li et al. 2012; Zhou et al. 2014).
Evaluating the effects of ecological restoration on a large scale is often challenging. Remote sensing (RS) technology has been widely used for regional evaluations of grassland restoration (Zhou et al. 2009). The conditions of grassland degradation have been classified through RS-based monitoring for changes in biomass, coverage, and dominant species of steppe communities (Davidson and Csillag 2003; Tong et al. 2004). Detections of species changes require high spatial resolution or hyper-spectral RS technology (Pickup et al. 1994). Plant biomass and coverage have been used as two major indicators in the evaluation of large-area grassland vegetation change (Nicholson and Farrar 1994; Wessels et al. 2006). Both RS and ground monitoring studies suggest that vegetation dynamics closely correspond to climatic variability (Cao et al. 2013). However, few studies have examined how grazing exclusion and climate interact in the vegetation restoration processes on a broad scale in the arid and semi-arid regions.
Grazing exclusion has been widely implemented in the Xilingol grassland-the northern frontier of China. Both water and heat distribute unevenly in this region, resulting in large variations in primary productivity (Shao et al. 2013). The short growing season of grassland and the large variability of inter-and intra-annual precipitation explained the low and unstable grassland productivity (Zhou and Wang 2002). In the meadow steppe, the annual fluctuation of grassland productivity is generally less than 50 %, while a two- to four-fold change in ecosystem productivity in a typical steppe or desert steppe is not uncommon (Hao et al. 2003).
The ultimate goal of the ecological restoration is to restore grassland structure and its associated ecological functions. The structures of plant communities, grassland productivity, and species diversity are the key indicators of ecological restoration success (Christensen et al. 1996; Allen et al. 1997; Bradshaw 1997; Dobson et al. 1997). Numerous researchers have studied the grassland restoration processes in the Xilingol grassland. Previous work focused on community productivity, distribution patterns, species diversity, and soil physical, chemical, and biological properties (Li et al. 1994; Wang et al. 2001; Liu et al. 2002). These field studies suggested that the plant species and diversity of degraded grasslands increased and the community structure and dominance of species changed greatly after grazing exclusion. With the increase of grazing exclusion over time, plant coverage, density, biomass, and height reached a maximum and then declined (Shan et al. 2008). Studies on how external environmental factors such as climate change contribute to the effectiveness of grazing exclusion on a large scale are relatively rare. A climate change study by Lu et al. (2009) suggests that the Inner Mongolia region has been getting warmer and perhaps drier due to an increase in air temperature and variable precipitation over the past four decades. According to this study, air temperature increased at the rates of +0.41 °C per decade in the grassland and +0.39 °C in desert biomes from 1960 to 1990, which are larger than the rate of +0.27 °C in the forest biomes. Previous studies on the effects of livestock exclusion on grassland vegetation restoration in Xilingol were mostly conducted at a single experimental site (Liu et al. 2006; Shan et al. 2008) and mainly focused on certain steppe types such as Leymus chinensis, Stipa baicalensis, and S. grandis. Little is known about the effectiveness of grazing exclusion under different climatic conditions at landscape and regional scales.
In 2004, the China Meteorological Administration established a comparative monitoring study on plant community characteristics in Xilingol that spanned a wide range of precipitation regimes. In situ comparative monitoring data have been collected continuously at 11 grazing and fencing sites for more than 8 years. We analyzed this long-term monitoring data to better understand the regional processes and controls of the ecological restoration of degraded grasslands under grazing exclusions across three climatic zones.
Our overall objective was to quantify the role of precipitation in reversing grassland degradation from the perspective of the coupled natural and human system in Xilingol, Inner Mongolia. Specifically, we were to answer the following questions: (1) What is the restoration trend of a temperate steppe under grazing exclusion in different climatic conditions? (2) What is the magnitude of the responses of different parameters of community characteristics to grazing exclusion? (3) What are the differences of degraded grassland restoration among three ecological types under different climatic regimes?
Methods
Location and climate
The Xilingol grassland region (41–47°N, 111–120°E) is located in the central part of the Eurasian Steppe (Fig. 1) with a typical temperate steppe representing the major native grasslands of Inner Mongolia in northern China. Efforts have been made to preserve this typical temperate steppe with various levels of success over the past few decades. The terrain is characterized by low hills with moderate slopes. The soils in this area follow an obvious pattern from the southeast to the northwest, ranging from chernozem to dark chestnut soils and light chestnut soils. The vegetation types in the research region include various formations of desert steppes, typical steppes, and meadow steppes (Liu et al. 2002). The region has a continental temperate climate with four distinct seasons characterized by long, cold winters and short frost-free summers. The annual average temperature is 2.4 °C with large annual and daily temperature fluctuations (Fig. 2a). Precipitation falls mainly in June, July, and August with large intra-annual variability (Fig. 2a). The annual precipitation gradually decreases from about 400 mm in the eastern part of the Xilingol region to about 200 mm in the western part, while the corresponding annual pan evaporation increases from 1,600 to 2,400 mm. The climate records at the Xilinhot Station indicated an increased trend in air temperature and decreased trend in precipitation during 1956–2011 (Fig. 2b). The study period of 2004–2011, when grassland restoration data were collected for this study, was considered as a dry period (Fig. 2c).
Zoning systems for regional analysis
The 11 research sites are Sonid Right Banner (SNY), Sonid Left Banner (SNZ), Xilinhot (XLHT), Abag Banner (ABG), East Ujimqin Banner (DW), West Ujimqin Banner (XW), Bordered Yellow Banner (XH), Plain and Bordered White Banner (ZXB), Plain Blue Banner (ZL), Taibus Banner (TPS), and Wulagai (WLG) (Fig. 1). In order to examine the coupled effects of grazing exclusion and climate, we divided the Xilingol grassland into three climatic zones according to their total growing seasonal (April–August) precipitation, P t , during 2004–2011: Arid Zone (P t ≤ 150 mm) (SNZ and SNY); Semi-Arid Zone (150 mm < P t ≤ 200 mm) (DW, ABG, XLHT, XH, and ZXB); and Humid Zone (P t > 200 mm) (XW, WLG, ZL, and TPS) (Figs. 1, 2a). As an alternative, we also divided the study region into three ecological types: desert steppe (SNZ and SNY), typical steppe (ABG, XLHT, ZL, ZXB, XH, and TPS), and meadow steppe (DW, XW, and WLG). We explored the different effects of the two classification approaches on interpreting the ecosystem responses to grazing exclusion practices on a regional scale.
Experiment design and monitoring
We conducted the comparative analysis at the 11 sites (Fig. 1) by contrasting the observed vegetation properties of the grassland in fenced (i.e., treatment) and grazing zones (i.e., control). Each research site (Fig. 1), about 5 km × 5 km in size, was located in a relatively remote area, away from roads and water bodies with no human interference but with easy access for management. The entire monitoring area at each site was divided into a grazing zone and a fenced zone to detect the restoration effects of the enclosure on grass height, aboveground biomass, and grass quality. The monitored grazing pastures represented the main pasture type, growing condition, and grazing intensity. The number of grazing animals in the research area is constant during 2004–2011. The four corners of each monitoring area were clearly marked with a precision GPS unit. Within the monitoring area, metal fences were used to form a 50 × 50 m non-grazing plot separated from the rest of the area subject to normal grazing by sheep. The fenced plot had four 1 × 22 m subplots to monitor grass development and height and four 1 × 1 m subplots to monitor coverage and aboveground biomass. We used 2 m buffers to separate two adjacent subplots and the subplots from the metal fences.
The field data were collected between the 25th and 30th day of each month during 2004–2011. Here, we used the data from the month of August because August represented the peak of grass growth in the region. The aboveground vegetation characteristics were monitored, including the community and species compositions, community species heights, community coverage, community aboveground fresh biomass, and proportion of high-quality herbage. In this paper, high-quality herbage was referred to as the grass that had a feeding evaluation ranking of good to excellent (Chen 1979). Before the plant biomass was harvested and weighed, a visual inspection was first conducted within the quadrat and then the coverage of the mixed grass and the community coverage was measured (Qin et al. 2006). We acquired daily air temperature and precipitation during the grass growing season for all 11 sites in Xilingol during 2004–2011 from the China Meteorological Administration.
Statistical analysis
Both the absolute and relative values of the monitored vegetation properties were used to evaluate the effects of exclusion. The relative restoration rate of each variable was defined as the differences of the measurements between the fenced and grazed conditions divided by the values under the grazing condition (i.e., control). For example, the annual change rate for the height of the mixed grassland (H RD ) was calculated as:
where H f and H g are the community heights measured in the fenced area and grazing area, respectively.
We estimated grassland carrying capacity (Fig. 3) using a classification system for 18 types of steppes developed based on a study of community composition and population biomass of 120 plots of steppe in the central-eastern part of the Mongolian Plateau (Li et al. 1994). The overloading index, I o , was used to quantify the severity of overgrazing by livestock:
where P a is the actual livestock population (Sheep unit), P c is the carrying capacity (Sheep unit), and A g is the area of available grassland (ha).
The paired t test was used to determine whether vegetation was changed with and without grazing. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was also used for the single-factor analysis of variance, Duncan analysis, and least significant difference (LSD) to compare the differences of multiple samples of three climatic zones or three ecological types. The Pearson Correlation procedure was applied to assess the relationships among different factors. We used Mann–Kendall statistics to detect temporal trends of variables.
In lieu of experiment replications for each site, we compared the biomass of each of the 8 years with the baseline year (2004) for each non-grazed/grazed pair at each site. The statistical power for aboveground biomass of the designed experiment was also calculated by G*Power 3.1.9.2 (Faul et al. 2007, 2009). Conventionally, a test with a power greater than 0.8 (or β ≤ 0.2) is considered statistically powerful (Mazen et al. 1985). We found that the calculation power values were higher than this threshold value at 7 of the 11 sites, indicating a sufficient sample size and high experiment precision.
Results
Biomass change
Grass biomass for both the grazed and fenced plots dramatically increased at 5 of the 11 sites and decreased significantly at three sites (TPS, ZL, ZXB) when compared to the baseline of 2004 (Fig. 4). Biomass responded differently to climatic variability between the grazing types and between sites. For example, biomass increased in the fenced area but decreased under grazing at the SNY site. However, opposite changes occurred at the TPS site. No difference was found at the ZXB site. Both grazing types showed a decreasing trend from 2004 to 2010 and showed an abrupt increase in the wet year of 2011. The amount of grass biomass in the non-grazed area was higher than the grazed area at 6 of the 11 sites (Fig. 4).
Vegetation restoration
After 8 years of exclusion, the grassland community generally moved toward a benign state at most sites, as gauged by both absolute (Fig. 5a) and relative (Fig. 5b) ecosystem structure indictors including height, coverage, aboveground biomass, and high-quality herbage. The absolute change values (or relative restoration rates) increased significantly (p < 0.05) by 200–2,500 kg ha−1 (5–270 %) for community biomass, about 1–11 cm (10–150 %) for the height, and 1–30 % (10–100 %) for the coverage at seven sites (Table 1). No significant differences were found for any ecosystem indicators at the SNY site. The proportion of high-quality herbage increased by 0.5–4 % (1–15 %) at seven sites, but decreased at SNY, XLHT, XH, and TPS.
Both the maximum absolute and relative restoration of biomass and height occurred in the Humid Zone (XW, ZL, and WLG). The maximum absolute increase of coverage was found at two sites in the Humid Zone (ZL and WLG) and one site in the Semi-Arid Zone (XH). The maximum relative restoration of height occurred at three sites in the Humid Zone (ZL, XW, and TPS) (Fig. 5a, b). Recoveries at ZL, XW, and WLG were the largest, with improvements by about 100–270 % for biomass, 30–150 % for height, and 15–100 % for coverage. The improvements were relatively small at SNY and ABG and not obvious at SNY. This result suggested that the relative restoration was similar to the absolute restoration process, but some differences existed due to the differences in baseline conditions among the 11 sites.
Potential factors controlling vegetation restoration
Both the mean plant biomass and height responses were positively and (p < 0.05) correlated with precipitation (R = 0.60, p = 0.049 and R = 0.62, p = 0.042, respectively) (Table 2). Changes in coverage and grass quality were not strongly influenced by precipitation (R = 0.52, p = 0.10 and R = 0.40, p = 0.224, respectively). However, the negative correlations between the previous overloading index and relative restoration rates for all four vegetation characteristic parameters were weak (R = −0.12, p = 0.37; R = −0.06, p = 0.86; R = −0.39, p = 0.231; and R = −0.09, p = 0.80, respectively).
Restoration among the climatic zones
Different climatic zones responded distinctly to grazing exclusion experiments. In contrast to the Semi-Arid Zone and the Humid Zone, sites in the Arid Zone showed no obvious improvements for height, coverage, aboveground biomass, or high-quality herbage, especially at the western site of this zone (SNY). The aboveground biomass in two of the three climatic zones responded significantly (p < 0.01) to exclusion in terms of both absolute (Fig. 6a) and relative restoration (Fig. 6b). In the fenced areas, the eight-year annual means of aboveground biomass in the Humid Zone, the Semi-Arid Zone, and the Arid Zone were 3,369, 2,087, and 1,274 kg ha−1, respectively, representing a significant increase in comparison with the control (grazing) areas. On a relative term, the biomass growth in the Semi-Arid Zone and the Humid Zone increased significantly by 52 and 141 % (p = 0.0). The biomass increase in the Arid Zone, however, was only 21 %, which was not statistically significant (p = 0.1).
The community coverage and height also noticeably improved in all three climate zones after exclusion (Fig. 6). The vegetation coverage of the Humid Zone increased significantly by 57.2 % (p = 0.00). Similarly, vegetation coverage increased significantly in the Semi-Arid Zone by 22.4 % (p = 0.00). However, the responses in the Arid Zone were small (5.7 %) and were not statistically significant. The community height in the Humid Zone also improved significantly (p = 0.005) by 71 %. The restoration effects on community height in the Semi-Arid Zone and the Arid Zone were not statistically significant (18 and 11 %).
Restoration trend by climatic zones
In the Semi-arid Zone, the peak values of the annual relative restoration rate for community height, coverage, and aboveground biomass all occurred in the first 4 years (2004–2007), reaching a relatively high value around the fourth year, followed by a period with a stable or decreasing trend (Fig. 7). For example, the annual mean growth rate of aboveground biomass at XLHT increased after exclusion, reaching a relatively high value in the fourth year (2007) and then decreased over the following 4 years. The vegetation coverage and height also had synchronous changes. In 2010, compared with the grazing area, community height in the fenced area of XLHT and XH as well as the aboveground biomass of XLHT reduced instead. The harvest for residual biomass from prior years represented the accumulation of biomass and was likely the causal mechanism for this temporal trend pattern.
The restoration trend in the Humid Zone was different from that in the Semi-Arid Zone. Biomass, coverage, and grass quality peaked later in the Humid Zone than in the Semi-Arid Zone. In the Arid Zone, there were no obvious overall changes for grass height, coverage, or aboveground biomass.
Although the proportion of high-quality herbage continuously increased over time under exclusion, the changes of annual relative response rates diminished over time at all sites. Over the period of exclusion, the proportion of sedge (Carex liparocarpos) and Allium polyrrhizum decreased while the dominant positions of Stipa (Stipa capillata) and guinea grass (Leymus chinensis) constantly strengthened. For example, the absolute height of sedge at XW was higher over time than that of guinea grass, but it later became similar and eventually much lower than that of guinea grass (Fig. 8a). However, with the increase in the fenced time, the absolute height of Allium polyrrhizum at SNZ was much larger than that of Stipa in 2004, but almost equal in 2008, and lower thereafter (Fig. 8b).
Vegetation restoration among ecological types
The restoration effects of grazing exclusion did not show a clear pattern in terms of their dependence on the ecological types of meadow steppe, typical steppe, and desert steppe. Community height, coverage, aboveground biomass, and high-quality herbage all have shown high dependence on climate zones. The differences in relative restoration rates for height among the three ecological types were significant only at p = 0.013, which is much lower than that for climatic zones (p = 0.0) (Fig. 9). Thus, using climate as a zoning method appeared to be a better approach than the traditional ecological type method in detecting the effects of grazing exclusion practices.
Discussion
The Xilingol region experienced grassland degradation and desertification over the past two decades. The causes were rooted in overgrazing driven by the one-sided pursuit of economic interests coupled with climate warming and extreme weather events such as drought. During 1996–2000, with the dramatic increase in livestock population, the aboveground biomass decreased sharply (Table 3). During 2002–2006, with the implementation of the ecological environment protection policy, the livestock population was somewhat controlled. However, due to periodic droughts, the grass biomass did not recover better than that of 1996–2000. This illustrated the coupled and interactive impacts on community aboveground biomass (Table 3).
The eight-year field monitoring data for the large region provided a rare opportunity to examine the combined effects of grazing exclusion and spatial climate variability on ecosystem dynamics. The data analysis described above suggested that the degraded grassland community structure could generally quickly develop toward a benign state across the study region. The main reason was that the degraded grassland had experienced severe overgrazing before the exclusion treatments and the growth and development of vegetation was inhibited due to long-term extensive damage by livestock (Table 3). Livestock exclusion eliminated the effects of grazing disturbances and extended the time for the grass to recover to improve vegetation community structure and increase aboveground biomass. Our findings agreed with the results from previous studies that enclosures in the degraded grassland would increase community coverage, height, aboveground biomass, and the proportion of high-quality herbage, reduce poisonous plants, and remarkably improve grass yields (Wang et al. 2001; Liu et al. 2002; Shan et al. 2008).
The new knowledge learned from this study was that there were regional differences in response to grazing exclusions and the restoration rate was influenced by the precipitation regime and previous livestock grazing history. Precipitation during the growing season had a significant positive impact on the restoration of the community aboveground biomass and height. The Humid Zone, with more precipitation, recovered most, followed by the Semi-Arid Zone, and then the Arid Zone. Thus, the effectiveness of grazing exclusion was impacted by precipitation during the grass growing season; the more the precipitation, the faster the restoration.
It is perhaps not surprising that water availability (i.e., growing season precipitation) was a major driver for the restoration of temperate grasslands on the Mongolian Plateau. The dry habitat had high growing season temperatures and high water loss by evapotranspiration and thus the distribution and growth of plants was predominantly determined by precipitation (Chen and Wang 2000; Shao et al. 2013).
The effects of water availability were especially pronounced for the Arid Zone, where the variability of annual precipitation was high and droughts were common. Therefore, some disturbance factors such as overgrazing would likely result in much more severe ecosystem degradation. Our study period of 2004–2011 represented a period drier than normal (Fig. 2c) and the Arid Zone received much less precipitation than the long-term average. In addition, grasslands in this zone degraded severely before the exclusion. Ecosystems in this zone would have difficulty recovering or have a hard time being restored under coupled stressors of human disturbances and natural factors. For the Semi-Arid Zone and the Humid Zone, with relatively favorable soil moisture conditions, it was relatively easier to restore the degraded ecosystems.
For sites that experienced successive droughts (e.g., ABG, XLHT) before or during exclusion (Fig. 2c), the ecosystems indeed recovered slower. During 1999–2001, XLHT and DW suffered successive droughts and locust plagues (Zhang et al. 2006), causing serious grassland degradation. Perennial grass almost disappeared and vegetation became sparse. Both of these sites had slow recoveries with only little improvement of pasture vegetation after exclusion (Fig. 5). The actual livestock population in 2002 for the XLHT site did not exceed its carrying capacity (Fig. 3), but ecological restoration was limited. Compared with XW, ZL, and WLG, TPS also recovered slowly, mainly because it was the most serious overloading area in the entire Xilingol region (Fig. 3). All of these findings were good examples that coupled impacts of the previous disturbances and prolonged droughts might have contributed to the slow restoration at some sites.
The strong correlations between the growing season precipitation and relative restoration rate of biomass confirmed our hypothesis that climate was a dominant factor in influencing the role of grazing exclusion in grassland restoration. Our study suggests that traditional grassland restoration pathway planning only by ecological types may not be as appropriate as using precipitation as a key additional indicator. In this study, the climatic zones were divided by the total precipitation during the grass growing season. During the study period, the climate fluctuated dramatically. There was an increasing trend in air temperature and a decreasing trend in precipitation in these zones (Fig. 2b). The observed climatic variability might partially explain why the responses of degraded grasslands to grazing exclusions could be better explained by climatic zones than ecological types.
Our results also showed that the relative restoration rates for height, coverage, and aboveground biomass peaked around the fourth year in the Semi-Arid Zone. However, in the Humid Zone, which received more precipitation than the other two zones, biomass, coverage, and grass quality peaked later than in the fourth year. The Arid Zone had no obvious trend for any of the four characteristic parameters. The contrasts among these zones indicated that there was large variability of recovering potentials among the three zones and grazing management practices should be designed accordingly. The mechanisms for the occurrence of peaks around the fourth year have yet to be understood.
We found that precipitation might have amplified the effects of exclusion for both magnitude and trend in the Xilingol region where moisture was a dominant environmental factor. There is sufficient evidence that the Inner Mongolia region is getting warmer and perhaps drier, either due to increases of water loss potential or water resource exhaustion due to human activities (e.g., mining and groundwater withdrawal). Water shortages will bring more challenges to future grassland management. More stringent and bold grazing management policies may be necessary. The implementation of livestock exclusion should be better targeted from the perspective of the coupled natural and human system to prevent a one-size-fits-all management mode, either in time or space.
Besides climate-induced changes in water availability, our data suggested that the effectiveness of grazing exclusion was also influenced by grassland conditions prior to exclusion. We illustrated that the magnitudes of previous overgrazing activities might have some negative impacts on the restorations in some areas. Overall, our data suggested that as long as water and vegetation conditions were reasonably good, the grasslands in these regions could recover quickly with grazing exclusion practices. Further testing regarding the effects of livestock sizes in different zones should be carried out.
Conclusions
Our long-term regional monitoring data indicated that grazing exclusion was an effective measure for curbing the natural grassland degradation in Inner Mongolia. However, grazing exclusion may not be a permanent solution and this management practice should not be generalized across the Inner Mongolia landscapes because different responses were observed under different climatic regimes. The differential responses were reflected in different vegetation characteristics examined and their changes. The coupled impacts of past livestock grazing disturbances and prolonged droughts might have contributed to the current slow restoration in the study region. Our results illustrated that while livestock exclusion was undoubtedly a key driver of vegetation change in some areas, other factors such as climate and its interactions with other factors also played an important role.
Our results suggested that effective grassland management must be site-specific and must be developed based on local environmental conditions. For those areas with rapid responses to exclusion, such as the Humid Zone and Semi-Arid Zone, short-term exclusion combined with rotational grazing should be considered in order to achieve sustainable use of grasslands. The seasonal grazing method should also be adopted when the grassland shave recovered to a certain extent so that a balance between vegetation and livestock grazing intensity can be gradually established. For degraded grassland in the Arid Zone, more active artificial and semi-artificial grassland establishment is perhaps an efficient method.
Future studies should focus on longer-term in situ observations to better understand the ecological restoration processes. In order to develop better science-based grassland restoration strategies, the research on the effects of exclusion on grassland plant diversity, soil seed banks, and other ecological processes should be further strengthened. Future studies should also consider the coupled effects of grazing, climate, soil nutrients, insects (Li et al. 2012; Cease et al. 2012) and diseases, and other human activities. Research is also needed for considering the timing of grazing exclusion under different degrees of degradation and grassland adaptability to exclusion and climate change, including extreme weather and climate events (Li et al. 2012; Liu et al. 2013).
References
Allen EB, Covington WW, Falk DA (1997) Developing the conceptual basis for restoration ecology. Restor Ecol 5:275–276
Batu NC, Hu YF, Yan Y, Liu JY (2012) The variations and its spatial pattern of grassland changes in Xilinguole from1975 to 2009. J Resour Sci 34(6):1017–1023
Bradshaw AD (1997) What do we mean by restoration. In: Urbanska KM, Webb NR, Edwards PJ (eds) Restoration ecology and sustainable development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 8–16
Cao S, Sun G, Zhang Z, Chen L, Feng Q, Fu B, McNulty SG, Shankman D, Tang J, Wang Y, Wei X (2011) Greening China naturally. Ambio 40:828–831. doi:10.1007/s13280-011-0150-8
Cao L, Xu JH, Chen YN, Li WH, Yang Y, Hong YL, Li Z (2013) Understanding the dynamic coupling between vegetation cover and climatic factors in a semiarid region—a case study of Inner Mongolia, China. Ecohydrology 6(6):917–926. doi:10.1002/eco.1245
Cease AJ, Elser JJ, Ford CF, Hao S, Kang L, Harrison JF (2012) Heavy livestock grazing promotes locust outbreaks by lowering plant nitrogen content. Science 335(6067):467–469. doi:10.1126/science.1214433
Chen S (1979) Overview of forage grass resources of Xilingol grassland. Grassl China 1(01):13–20
Chen ZZ, Wang SP (2000) China typical grassland ecosystem. Science Press, Beijing
Chen J, Wan S, Qi J, Henerbry G, Sun G, Kappas M (eds) (2013) Dryland East Asia: land dynamics amid social and climate change. HEP & De Gruyter, Berlin, p 467
China Ministry of Agriculture (2012) The grassland monitoring report. Available from http://www.agri.gov.cn/V20/SC/jjps. Accessed Aug 2013
Christensen NL, Bartuska A, Brown JH, Carpenter S, Antonio CD, Francis R, Franklin JF, MacMahon JA, Noss RF, Parsons DJ, Peterson CH, Turner MG, Moodmansee RG (1996) The report of the ecological society of America Committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 6(3):665–691
Davidson A, Csillag F (2003) A comparison of three approaches for predicting C4 species cover of northern mixed grass prairie. Remote Sens Environ 86:70–82
Dobson AP, Bradshaw AD, Baker AJM (1997) Hopes for the future: restoration ecology and conservation biology. Science 277(25):515–522
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39(2):175–191
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A-G (2009) Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 41:1149–1160
Floyd ML, Fleischner TL, Hanna D, Whitefield P (2003) Effects of historic livestock grazing on vegetation at Chaco Culture National Historic Park, New Mexico. Conserv Biol 17(6):1703–1711
Golodets C, Kigel J, Sternberg M (2010) Recovery of plant species composition and ecosystem function after cessation of grazing in a Mediterranean grassland. Plant Soil 329(1–2):365–378
Hao L, Wang JA, Shi PJ (2003) Vulnerability assessment of regional snow disaster of animal husbandry—taking pasture of Inner Mongolia as an example. J Nat Disaster 12(2):51–57
Heather FA, Andrea JB, van der René W, Sarah JW (2012) Grazing exclusion and phosphorus addition as potential local management options for the restoration of alpine moss-sedge heath. Biol Conserv 153:17–24
Li YH, Mo WH, Yang C, Ye B (1994) Aerial biomass and carrying capacity of steppe vegetation in Inner Mongolia and their relations with climate. J Arid Land Resour Environ 8(4):43–50
Li A, Wu JG, Huang JH (2012) Distinguishing between human-induced and climate-driven vegetation changes: a critical application of RESTREND in inner Mongolia. Landsc Ecol 27:969–982
Li YJ, Song XL, Yu WC, Wang H, Zhang GL, Yang DL (2013) Advance in the influence of rest–grazing on the grassland ecosystem. Agro-Environ Dev 30(4):62–71
Liu ZL, Wang W, Hao DY, Liang CZ (2002) Probes on the degeneration and recovery succession mechanisms of Inner Mongolia steppe. J Arid Land Resour Environ 26(1):84–91
Liu ZK, Wang SP, Chen ZZ, Wang YF, Han JG (2006) Properties of soil nutrients and plant community after rest grazing in Inner Mongolia steppe, China. Acta Ecol Sin 26(6):2048–2055
Liu YY, Evans JP, McCabe MF, de Jeu RAM, van Dijk AIJM, Dolman AJ, Saizen I (2013) Changing climate and overgrazing are decimating Mongolian Steppes. PLoS One 8(2):e57599. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057599
Liu D, Chen Y, Cai W, Dong W, Xiao J, Chen J, Zhang H, Xia J, Yuan W (2014) The contribution of China’s grain for green program to carbon sequestration. Landsc Ecol. doi:10.1007/s10980-014-0081-4
Lu N, Wilske B, Ni J, John R, Chen J (2009) Climate change in Inner Mongolia from 1955 to 2005—trends at regional, biome and local scales. Environ Res Lett 4:045006 (6pp). doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045006
Mazen A, Magid M, Hemmasi M, Lewis MF (1985) In search of power: a statistical power analysis of contemporary research in strategic management. In: Academy of management proceedings. Academy of Management, San Diego, pp 30–34
Nicholson SE, Farrar T (1994) The influence of soil type on the relationships between NDVI, rainfall and soil moisture in semi-arid Botswana: part I. NDVI response to rainfall. Remote Sens Environ 50:107–120
Pickup G, Bastin GN, Chewings VH (1994) Remote-sensing based condition assessment for non equilibrium rangelands under large-scale commercial grazing. Ecol Appl 4:497–517
Qi J, Chen J, Wan S, Ai L (2012) Understanding the coupled natural and human systems in Dryland East Asia. Environ Res Lett 7:015202. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/015202
Qin W, Zhu QK, Zhang XX, Li WH, Fang B (2006) Review of vegetation covering and its measuring and calculating method. J Northwest Sci-Tech Univ Agric For (Nat Sci Ed) 34(9):163–170
Shan GL, Xu Z, Ning F, Ma YB, Li LH (2008) Influence of enclosure year on community structure and species diversity on a typical steppe. Acta Prataculturae Sin 17(6):1–8
Shao C, Chen J, Li L (2013) Grazing alters the biophysical regulation of carbon fluxes in a desert steppe. Environ Res Lett 8:025012. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/025012
Teague WR, Dowhower SL, Baker S, Haile N, DeLaune PB, Conover DM (2011) Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie. Agr Ecosyst Environ 141(3–4):310–322
Tong C, Wu J, Yong S, Yang J, Yong W (2004) A landscape-scale assessment of steppe degradation in the Xilin River Basin, Inner Mongolia, China. J Arid Environ 59:133–149
Valone TJ, Meyer M, Brown JH, Chew RM (2002) Time scale of perennial grass recovery in desertified arid grasslands following livestock removal. Conserv Biol 16(4):995–1002
Vega E, Montaña C (2011) Effects of overgrazing and rainfall variability on the dynamics of semiarid banded vegetation patterns: a simulation study with cellular automata. J Arid Environ 75(1):70–77
Wang SP, Li YH, Wang YF, Chen ZZ (2001) Influence of different stocking rates on plant diversity of Artemisia frigid community in Inner Mongolia Steppe. Acta Bot Sin 43(1):89–96
Wessels KJ, Prince SD, Zambatis N, Macfadyen S, Frost PE, Van Zyl D (2006) Relationship between herbaceous biomass and 1-km2 advanced very high resolution radiometer (AVHRR) NDVI in Kruger National Park, South Africa. Int J Remote Sens 27(5):951–973
Xiong HQ, Duan JY, Zhang XS (2011) Effects of grazing exclusion on plant community characteristics in a degraded Mu Us Sand land, Inner Mongolia, northern China. Ecol Environ Sci 20(2):233–240
Yeh E (2010) Restoring the grasslands? Available from http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/3470-Restoring-the-grasslands. Accessed Jan 2010
Yeo JJ (2005) Effects of grazing exclusion on rangeland vegetation and soils, East Central Idaho. West N Am Nat 65(1):91–102
Zhang JY, Wang Y, Zhao X, Xie G, Zhang T (2005a) Grassland recovery by protection from grazing in a semi-arid sandy region of northern China. New Zeal J Agr Res 48(2):277–284
Zhang JY, Zhao HL, Zhang TH, Zhao XY, Drake S (2005b) Community succession along a chronosequence of vegetation restoration on sand dunes in Horqin Sandy Land. J Arid Environ 62(4):555–566
Zhang LY, Liu AJ, Xin Q, Liu DF, Gan W (2006) Trend and analysis of vegetation variation of typical rangeland in Inner Mongolia—a case study of typical rangeland of Xilinguole. J Arid Land Resour Environ 20(2):185–190
Zhang CX, Wang XM, Li JC, Hua T (2011) Roles of climate changes and human interventions in land degradation: a case study by net primary productivity analysis in China’s Shiyanghe Basin. Environ Earth Sci 64:2183–2193
Zhen L, Ochirbat B, Lv Y, Wei YJ, Liu XL, Chen JQ, Yao ZJ, Li F (2010) Comparing patterns of ecosystem service consumption and perceptions of range management between ethnic herders in Inner Mongolia and Mongolia. Environ Res Lett 5. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/5/1/015001
Zheng YR, Xie ZX, Robert C, Jiang LH, Shimizu H (2006) Did climate drive ecosystem change and induce desertification in Otindag sandy land, China over the past 40 years? J Arid Environ 64:523–541
Zhou G, Wang Y (2002) Response of grassland plant community along Northeast China transect to water gradient. J Veg Sci 13:361–368
Zhou HJ, Rompaey AV, Wang JA (2009) Detecting the impact of the “Grain for Green” program on the mean annual vegetation cover in the Shaanxi province, China using SPOT-VGT NDVI data. Land Use Policy 26:954–960
Zhou W, Gang CC, Zhou L, Chen YZ, Li JL, Ju WM, Odeh I (2014) Dynamic of grassland vegetation degradation and its quantitative assessment in the northwest China. Acta Oecol 55:86–96
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the three reviewers and the editors for their valuable comments and suggestions. Lisa Delp Taylor provided English editing. This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71373130, 41105112), Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Agricultural Meteorology Fund (No. KYQ1201), the One Hundred Person Project of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (O927581001), and the International Center for Ecology, Meteorology, and Environment (IceMe). Partial support was also from the Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hao, L., Sun, G., Liu, Y. et al. Effects of precipitation on grassland ecosystem restoration under grazing exclusion in Inner Mongolia, China. Landscape Ecol 29, 1657–1673 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0092-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0092-1