Effect of manipulating animal stocking rate on the carbon storage capacity in a degraded desert steppe
Managing the stocking rate is considered one of the most important practices influencing carbon storage on rangeland. The effects of four stocking rates consisting of a non-grazed control (CK), light (0.15 sheep ha−1 month−1), moderate (0.30 sheep ha−1 month−1) and heavy (0.45 sheep ha−1 month−1) were evaluated for impacts on carbon storage taking place on the Desert Steppe of Inner Mongolia, China. Carbon storage was measure in aboveground vegetation, roots and soil in August of 2009, 2011 and 2013. Both aboveground biomass (AGB) and below-ground biomass (BGB) increased significantly as stocking rate decreased. Stocking rate also had a significant effect on both the aboveground and below-ground carbon storage in plant biomass, but had no effect on the soil carbon. Compared to the heavy stocking rate typically practiced by local herders, lower stocking rates increased the total above- and below-ground biomass carbon storage by ≥ 7%. Over the 3 year study, compared to the moderate stocking rate, the rate of carbon sequestration with a light stocking rate was 0.7 Mg C ha−1 year−1. Thus, reducing stocking rate has the potential to increase C sequestration and storage, as well as maintaining animal numbers at a more sustainable level suitable for the Desert Steppe ecosystem.
KeywordsCarbon sequestration Global change Range management Sheep grazing
This study was supported by Excellent Young Scientist Foundation of Inner Mongolia Agricultural University of China (2014XYQ-7), National Nature Science Foundation of China (31260124, 31560140, 31270502, 31760143), Key Laboratory of Grassland Resources Ministry of Education People’s Republic of China and Key Laboratory of Forage Cultivation, Processing and High Efficient Utilization of Ministry of Agriculture, Innovation Research Team of Ministry of Education (IRT17R59), also supported by West Light Foundation of Chinese Academy of Sciences. The authors are thankful for kindly checking English and the helpful suggestions provided by Walter D. Willms and Dean M. Anderson. The authors would like to thank all students of IMAU for their efforts in collecting and analyzing field samples and all staff members of Siziwang Grassland Research Station for their help in our study, and very grateful to the anonymous referees for their valuable comments on the manuscript.
- Allen-Diaz B (1996) Rangelands in a changing climate: impacts, adaptations and mitigation. In: Watson RT, Zinyowera MC, Moss RH (eds) Climate change 1995. Impacts, adaptations, and mitigation of climate change: scientific-technical analyses. Published for the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University press, Cambridge, pp 131–158Google Scholar
- Atjay GL, Ketner P, Duvigeaud P (1979) Terrestrial primary production and phytomass. In: Bolin B, Degens ET, Kempe S et al (eds) The global carbon cycle SCOPE 13. Wiley, Chichester, pp 129–182Google Scholar
- Derner JD, Schuman GE (2007) Carbon sequestration and rangelands: a synthesis of land management and precipitation effects. J Soil Water Conserv 62:77–85Google Scholar
- Eswaran H, Van den Berg E, Reich P, Kimble J (1995) Global soil carbon resources, in Global change. Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 27–43Google Scholar
- Gilmanov TG, Aires L, Barcza Z, Baron VS, Belelli L, Beringer J, Billesbach D, Bonal D, Bradford J, Ceschia E, Cook D, Corradi C, Frank A, Gianelle D, Gimeno C, Gruenwald T, Guo H, Hanan N, Haszpra L, Heilman J, Jacobs A, Jones MB, Johnson DA, Kiely G, Li S, Magliulo V, Moors E, Nagy Z, Nasyrov M, Owensby C, Pinter K, Pio C, Reichstein M, Sanz MJ, Scott R, Soussana JF, Stoy PC, Svejcar T, Tuba Z, Zhou G (2010) Productivity, respiration, and light-response parameters of world grassland and agro ecosystems derived from flux-tower measurements. Rangel Ecol Manag 63:16–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Holechek JL, Pieper RD, Herel CH (2004) Range management: principles and practices, 5th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, p 607Google Scholar
- Houghton RA (1995) Effects of land-use change, surface temperature, and CO2 concentration on terrestrial stores of carbon. In: Woodwell GM, Mackenzie FT (eds) Biotic feedbacks in the global climatic system: will warming feed warming?. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 333–350Google Scholar
- White RS, Murray S, Rohweder M (2000) Pilot analysis of global ecosystems: grassland ecosystems technical report. World Resources Institute, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- Zhang G, Kang Y, Han G, Hong M, Sakurai K (2011) Grassland degradation reduces the carbon sequestration capacity of the vegetation and enhances the soil carbon and nitrogen loss. Acta Agric Scand B Sect Plant 61:356–364Google Scholar