European Commission

A Surveillance System for 6th Framework Programme:

Global Change & Ecosystems.
Assessing and Monitoring Desertification Integrated Project Contract No. 003950
www.desurvey.net
Contractor n° GOCE-CT-2003-003950

WP1.3.2. RANGELAND, MARGINAL LAND AND

FORESTRY VULNERABILITY.

DELIVERABLE 1.3.2.2: A QUALITATIVE CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THE

VARIABLES INVOLVED IN THE DESERTIFICATION CAUSED BY CLIMATE

AND ANTHROPOGENIC CHANGES SUCH AS GRAZING, AGRICULTURAL

ENCROACHMENT AND FIRE IN MARGINAL LANDS

Zianis1, D., Papanastasis2, V.P., Xanthopoulos3, G., Casimiro4, P.C.,

and Tsiourlis5, G.

1
Research scientist
2
Scientific responsible of the participating team AUTH
3
Scientific responsible of the participating team NAGREF-FRIA
4
Scientific responsible of the participating team UNL
5
Scientific responsible of the participating team NAGREF-FRI
 Table of contents

Pages

1. Introduction 3
2. Purposes of conceptual models 3
3. A summary of approaches describing desertification processes 5
4. Desertification through vegetation destruction 13
4.1 Theoretical models 14
4.2 Empirical studies 15
4.3 A proposed model for soil erosion-vegetation interaction 17
5. Recapitulation 18
6. A proposed First Level Generic Model describing desertification processes 19
6.1 Justification of the model 19
6.2 Description of the model 19
7. Climate sub-model 21
8. Grazing sub-model 23
8.1 A summary of models involving grazing patterns 24
8.2 Spatial distribution of livestock 26
8.3 A proposed model for grazing pressure 29
9. Agricultural encroachment sub-model 32
10. Fire sub-model 34
11. The First Level Generic Model as a research tool 37
12. References 38

2
WP1.3.2. RANGELAND, MARGINAL LAND AND FORESTRY
VULNERABILITY

D1.3.2.2: A qualitative conceptual model of the variables involved in the

desertification caused by climate and anthropogenic changes such as grazing,
agricultural encroachment and fire in marginal lands.

1. Introduction
Desertification is one of the most prominent processes that threaten ecosystems with
negative impacts directly imposed on livelihoods (Ibrahim, 1993). Many effects can come
together in order to start a desertification process: overpopulation, overgrazing, fires,
cultivation with non-adapted species, over-exploitation of water resources, soil
salinization, wind and water erosion, loss and inadequate replacement of nutrients,
climatic variability and climate change (Squires, 1998). An extended literature review was
carried out during the first 12 months of the project in order to compile information
about land degradation processes (Tsioras et al., 2006). Papers published in scientific
journals and international conferences as well as “grey literature” (internal reports in
research institutes, universities, ministries, etc.) were compiled in order to cover a broad
eco-geographical range for the phenomenon under study. The data were analyzed and
evaluated and functional-empirical interrelationships for the main factors (climate,
grazing, agricultural encroachment and fire) driving land degradation were identified. The
objective of the current analysis was to develop a conceptual model that describes the
impact of climate, grazing, agricultural over-exploitation and fire on marginal lands. This
synthesis will provide the basis upon which the First Level Generic Model (Deliverable
1.3.2.2) will be built.

2. Purposes of conceptual models

When there is a need to combine the work of many research groups into a summary
product and in a multidisciplinary way (as it happens with scientific approach of
international conventions about desertification), models are usually used as an integrator
within and between disciplines (Wainwright and Mulligan, 2004). Martin (1992) claimed
that:

3
 “A model is a narrative and/or a graphic representation of a physical environment. A model
must identify the major components of the environment, describe those components in terms of their major
attributes, and depict the relationships between the components and the conditions under which the
components exist and interact with each other”.

According to Skidmore (2002)

“…an environmental model helps us to understand and explain complex behaviors in

environmental systems and simulate the functioning of environmental processes”.

Wainwright and Mulligan (2004) pointed out that:

“A model is an abstraction of reality. This abstraction represents a complex reality in the

simplest way that is adequate for the purpose of modeling. The best model is always that which achieves
the greatest realism with the least parameter complexity and the least model complexity”.

There are different types and classifying methods for models. Moreover, a model may be
a mixture of different categories of representations (Wainwright and Mulligan, 2004;
Skidmore 2002). Skidmore (2002) made a classification of the various types of models.
The conceptual models were grouped into the deterministic category and especially in
knowledge- and process-driven simulations which are also known as physically based
models or process driven systems or white box models or goal driven systems or use
mathematics.

Jorgensen (1988) stressed that a conceptual model should be a list of fundamental

functions and state variables of importance inherent to the ecosystem and directly related
to the problem under investigation. Furthermore, it was supported that a conceptual
model can show how the elemental components are interconnected by means of
processes (e.g. input-output dualism approach) revealing the quantitative and qualitative
contribution of each variable to the system in focus. A model is usually employed as a
tool to create abstractions of reality in ecosystems and to delineate the level of
organization that best meets the research objectives. He also supported that it is hardly
possible to model without a conceptual diagram to visualize the modelers’ perception of
the system. Conceptual models can be used to describe real world geographical

4
phenomena through entities and fields. They constitute the first stage in the process of
standardized data models, which are used to represent land cover, soil and hydrological
applications (Burrough and McDonnell, 1998).

Accordingly, conceptual models are used to summarize existing knowledge and

hypotheses concerning the structure and functioning of ecosystems. An important goal
of the models is to depict how natural drivers (e.g., climate) and anthropogenic stressors
affect the structure and function of the ecosystem (Mark, 2004). For example, the ability
of the monitoring procedure to describe the ecological effects of anthropogenic stressors
is dependent upon interpreting the trends of modeling outputs against the intrinsic
variation of natural phenomena.

Legg et al. (1998) concluded that conceptual modeling provides a valuable tool for 1)
studying complex dynamic systems such as those including the interactions between
vegetation and grazing 2) co-ordinating the research effort, 3) illustrating the current
status of our knowledge about processes, 4) exposing gaps in our understanding, and 5)
focusing on truly critical variables of the system under study.

3. A summary of approaches describing desertification processes

A brief summary of several approaches (models, flowcharts and algorithms) used to
describe desertification processes through different analytical methods is presented in
order to put emphasis on the variety of factors interacting upon several spatial levels and
through different time scales.

Classification of degradation causes

Lal et al (1989) proposed a classification system for global causes of land
degradation/desertification and categorized them into two groups (direct and indirect) as
presented in Figure 1. According to this system, climatic conditions, overgrazing and fire
are considered to be direct causes of land degradation. All these factors set in motion
those processes that lead to soil properties changes and consequently to its life-support
attributes (Dunjó Denti, 2004). It should be noted that land desertification is the
consequence of a complex mixture of hidden and apparent causes and there are feedback
mechanisms between them (Lal et al., 1989).

5
Figure 1: Global causes of land degradation/desertification processes (after Lal et al.,
1989)

MEDRUSH model
A major objective within the MEDALUS project has been the creation, development
and testing of MEDRUSH, a physical model designed to forecast runoff and sediment
yield by water erosion, for catchments of up to 2000 km2 in the Mediterranean region.
According to MEDRUSH approach, decadal interactions such as the formulation of
surface microtopography, surface armouring, and changes in soil properties due to
erosion or deposition were related to a vegetation growth model. The performance of the
MEDRUSH model had been examined at the level of individual components, and
attempts to validate the model for large catchments proved impracticable (Kirkby et al.,
2002). It is therefore implied that the confidence in the model is largely based on the
behavior of individual components and not in the final outputs.

SHETRAN model
Another physically based modeling system simulating the spatial distribution of water
flow, sediment transport and contaminant migration at river basin scale is SHETRAN
(Ewen et al., 2000). It incorporates the major elements of the land phase of hydrological

6
cycle, while raindrop impact and overland flow account for soil erosion processes. The
spatial distribution of vegetation cover was also a major component in this model and
appropriate parametric values for different vegetation types were retrieved either from
the literature or previous applications of SHETRAN in Mediterranean Basin (Bathurst et
al., 2002). However, one of the major drawbacks in SHETRAN model was the
uncertainty surrounding the evaluation of the model parameters, which arises from the
scaling distortion and multiple model calibrations of equal validity (Ewen and Parkin,
1996).

The IMAGE model

The structure of the IMAGE model was developed by Hootsmans et al. (2001), (as
reported in Leemans and Kleidon, 2002) and presents a simple structured approach
(Figure 2). The model formulation is restricted to the assessment of land’s sensitivity to
water erosion, which is one of the prominent causes of land degradation in the world.
Other forms of land degradation, such as salinization, alkalinization and wind erosion,
are not considered in this version. Sensitivity to water erosion is used to express the
probability of short-term occurrence of water erosion under current conditions of terrain
erodibility, rainfall erosivity, land cover, and land use. The sensitivity is assumed to be
lowest under natural vegetation, which provides maximum protection; for agricultural
systems the actual vulnerability depends on the type of crop grown. The land’s sensitivity
may change, along with changes in land use and climate.

Leemans and Kleidon (2002), supported that the IMAGE model provides some insights
into the changing future risks of global land degradation. However, they pointed out that
there are major limitations for using IMAGE model in a comprehensive desertification
assessment, since the effect of soil and crop management and soil conservation practices
is not yet included in the land-use pressure component. In other words, human activities
are not directly addressed, and are merely considered in the model via changes in land
cover patterns. Management is neglected and the vulnerability of different land use
systems in different regions (farm, community, national, and global level) are not fully
integrated.

7
 Terrain erodibility Soil and terrain data

Rainfall erosivity Climate data

Potential erosion risk Climatic change

Land use pressure Land-cover change

Actual erosion risk

Feedback to IMAGE

Adjustment of agricultural
productivity in IMAGE

Figure 2: The structure of the land degradation model in IMAGE framework

MODMED model
According to Mazzoleni and Legg (1998), the MODMED approach aimed to fill the gap
between the biophysical processes involved in process-based models (e.g., MEDRUSH,
SHETRAN), the probabilistic or functional approaches of population models, and the
approximations of regional-scale models (e.g., water balance over large areas). In order to
produce predictive models, the MODMED project made use of the hierarchical modular
approach into which the individual, community and landscape level were modeled
through built-in submodels. The user could run either the individual, or community, or
landscape model in its own right depending on the availability of data, the required
precision and the speed of calculations. A GIS platform would be used to spatially
analyze and illustrate the model outputs. However, the lack of appropriate datasets and
empirical functional relationships for the modeled variables (Legg et al., 1998) may
provide equivocal results.

8
Desertification pathways
Apart from process-based models to simulate land degradation, generic approaches
including socioeconomical variables have also been used to describe desertification
processes. The Millenium Ecosystems Assessment (MA, 2005) presented a schematic
representation of how drylands response to changes induced by human factors
(demographic, economic, etc) which is illustrated in Figure 3. A downward spiral process
leads to land desertification (left side) or to avoidance/reduction (right side) of further
degradation. The intensity and impact of the mechanisms that are involved in land
degradation (soil loss, reduction of vegetative cover and composition changes, reduced
water quality and availability, changes in regional climate system) vary from place to place
and change over time. Furthermore, they depend on the level of aridity and the varying
pressure exerted by humans on the natural resources (MA, 2005).

Figure 3: Schematic description of development pathways in drylands (Source:

Millenium Ecosystems Assessment, 2005)

Desertification Indicator System (DIS)

Dunjó Denti (2004) pointed out that it is difficult to comprehend and therefore model
land degradation process in its totality, since the productive capacity of land can not be
assessed simply by any single measure. She proposed that the use of indicators may

9
constitute the powerful tools for the overall assessment of land condition. Furthermore,
she supported that a Desertification Indicator System (DIS) could provide a wide range
of activities such as the estimation and mapping of desertification while the causes of
land degradation can be readily identified and their impacts be rapidly quantified. In spite
the fact that several socioeconomical variables were identified as causes for land
degradation, he totally formulated the DIS on nine physical-based sub-models: 1) Soil
moisture content sub-model, 2) Potential infiltration capacity sub-model, 3) Runoff sub-
model, 4) Actual infiltration capacity sub-model, 5) Overland flow sub-model, 6)
Potential evapotranspiration sub-model, 7) Actual evapotranspiration sub-model, 8)
Ground water recharge sub-model, and 9) Soil erosion submodel. The model was tested
against field dataset and seems to overestimate land degradation in cultivated lands and
underestimate it in most natural vegetated ecosystems. An important scaling problem
between real and simulated data was also observed.

DIS4ME approach
The European project “The Desertification Indicator System for Mediterranean Europe”
(DIS4ME) formulated a synthesis of several indicators related to soil, climate, vegetation,
socio-economic and management characteristics (Figure 4), based on published results
and expert opinion (DESERTLINKS, 2005).

Figure 4: Link between indicators for the assessment of desertification risk in pastures
(DIS4ME).

10
These indices were used to classify land desertification risk due to erosion in pasture
lands. About 150 indicators were formulated in order to be used by local stakeholders to
explore alternative management scenarios and by the National Committees for national
and regional management and monitoring.

Human dimension of desertification

Ibrachim (1993) supported that land degradation is not simply the biological and physical
destruction of the ecosystem, but the deterioration of the complex production system
developed through Man-Nature interactions. Furthermore, he identified the potential
interrelationships leading to desertification and proposed a scheme as illustrated in Figure
5. According to this, the production system is considered to be a symbiosis of Man and
Nature guaranteeing the survival of both, not as separate entities, but in one integrated
reproduction framework. Desertification can take place when the resilience of a dryland
ecosystem is impaired and there is no return to the expected levels of service supply after
the stress is removed. Finally, three categories of indicators (economic, social, and
political) were analyzed in order to illustrate the high degree of involvement of human
communities in the process of desertification. He pointed out that these indicators (and
their degree of correlation) could play a central role during the development of a
desertification model.

11
Figure 5: Desertification scheme (after Ibrachim, 1993).

The triggering-propagation model

Okin (2002) characterized climate change and human-induced activities (such as grazing,
agricultural encroachment and fire) as the main factors disrupting vegetation distribution
and patchiness (i.e., initiating land desertification) and classified them as the triggering
factors. Subsequently, it was supported that the increased scales of degradation lead
further to the removal of soil resources by wind and water erosion which were classified
as the propagation factors of land desertification (Figure 6).

12
 Shrub
Encroachment
Human forcer Redistribution of
or Climate Change Soil resources

Wind and
water erosion
Reduced vegetation
Destruction of soil Removal of
Soil resources

Destruction of
patches

Figure 6: A unified model of land degradation proposed by Okin (2002). According to

this model, the initiation of land degradation requires a triggering factor (human or
climate), which destroys vegetation patchiness through a propagation factor (wind and
water).

Desertification within the ecological economics context

Thornes (unpublished) has recently used the approach of ecological economics (Regev et
al., 1998) to model land degradation as a result of grazing activity. A ‘Darwinian
shepherd’ is also allowed to have a dynamic impact in the model by roaming at random
with the flock. The distribution of biomass and the number of bites on the grazed area
are obtained for different grazing paths. The vegetation cover is finally related to a soil
erosion equation in order to model the impact of grazing on land degradation.
Constraints on the spatial scale upon which the model is to be valid have not yet been set
(at the time the first draft was written).

4. Desertification through vegetation destruction

The vegetation cover is considered to be the main variable related to land degradation
since reduction in the perennial coverage is regarded as an indicator of desertification
processes (Thornes, 1996). In a study carried out in Lesvos island (Greece) the rate of
soil degradation was directly related to the rate of vegetation destruction (Kosmas et al.,
2000). Overexploitation of natural ecosystems and intensive cultivation of the sloping
lands has already led to soil erosion and in turn to soil depth decline with negative

13
impacts on plant species regeneration (Kosmas et al., 1997). Specifically, the
Mediterranean basin has experienced serious deterioration of natural resources resulting
in land degradation and environmental instability (Grove, 1996; Thornes, 1996).
According to Papanastasis et al. (2003), plant cover is an important factor in combating
desertification. It protects the soil surface from raindrop impact, enhances infiltration
and retards runoff. Okin (2002) proposed the destruction of vegetation patchiness as the
key feature for modeling soil erosion in semi-arid areas. He supported that the
elucidation of vegetation-erosion interactions is an important biophysical framework for
understanding key mechanisms that drive land degradation.

4.1 Theoretical models

Several theoretical attempts have been made to describe land desertification processes
through vegetation destruction. Such a model which links vegetation cover with soil
hydrology was proposed by Eldridge (1995; as reported by Squires, 1998). According to
the model soil loss (S, ton ha-1 y-1) is related to percent ground cover (G)

S = ae(-bG)
where e is the Euler’s base, a and b real numbers which depend upon site characteristics.
The model predicts that sites with high percentage infiltration on bare soils are sensitive
to cover changes in the short-to medium-term. The time period depends on soil type, the
nature of vegetation and the intensity of change. In the short-term, the predictions
indicated that increased grazing pressure at a site in excellent condition will reduce
infiltration at zero ground cover, denoting the importance of ground cover as a
moderator of rainfall and in effect of land degradation.

Additionally, a flowchart to simulate the functional interrelationship between vegetation

characteristics and soil erosion in a simple arid zone watershed in central Australia was
presented by Squires (1998). As he pointed out one of the main drawback in that
approach is the failure to include the spatial element in the modeling process. He also
stressed that the proposed conceptual model failed to differentiate the impact of several
factors (such as livestock grazing) on vegetation cover across several scales within the
landscape.

14
Apart from site-specific models, global scale simulation techniques have also been
developed to describe the soil erosion-vegetation interactions. For example, Okin (2002)
proposed an algorithm of the relationship between soil erosion rate and vegetation type
taking into account the inclination of the terrain, the amount of rainfall and soil
characteristics (2002; Figure 7). The presented algorithm is assumed to be valid across
different geographical areas and for diverse biomes.

Figure 7: Soil erosion rate due to rainfall in different vegetation types [as adapted by
Okin (2002)]..

4.2 Empirical studies

Empirical evidence has also demonstrated the close relationship between land
desertification and vegetation cover. Roxo and Casimiro (1998) estimated the annual
average soil erosion (tha-1) of agricultural lands in the Vale Formoso (Portugal) plots for
the years 1989/90 to 1991/92 and the results are presented in Table 1. It is clearly
illustrated that land use practices greatly affected the degree of land degradation in the
study area.

15
Table 1: Annual average soil erosion in relation to land use (after Roxo and Casimiro,
1998).

Annual average
Land use
soil erosion ( tha-1)
Bare soil 7.3
Wheat 7.6
Stubble 3.1
Ploughed 4.4
Natural pasture 0.2
Cistus ladanifer 0.2

Moreover, Hellali and Nastis (1998) monitored the vegetation cover in three plots
(located at northern Greece) with slope around 20% and recorded the corresponding
runoff production (Table 2).

Table 2: Vegetation cover and water runoff for three plots located on slope 20% (source
Hellali and Nastis, 1998).

Vegetation cover (%) Water runoff (lt)

90 4.1
63 13.9
47 60.3

The reported data were used to illustrate the effect of vegetation distribution on the
runoff production at the studied sites. A simple regression analysis (model I approach on
the log-transformed data) produced a negative linear function between the two variables
(Figure 8). The empirical relationship obtained from the dataset of Table 2 (Runoff =
40*108*Veget. Cover-4.1125) indicates that an asymptotic positive value of water runoff is
reached if vegetation cover is about 50%.

16
 70

Water runoff (lt) 60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Vegetation cover (%)

Figure 8: Exponential decrease of water runoff in relation to vegetation cover (data in

the normal scale; modified from Hellali and Nastis, 1998).

Squires (1998) reported that if the rate of flow is doubled, it has four times the scouring
capacity, 32 times the transport capacity and can transport particles 64 times as large.
Hellali and Nastis (1998) reported that vegetation cover of 50% is sufficient to effectively
control excessive runoff on moderately sloped grasslands. Thornes (1999) proposed a
vegetation cover threshold of 30%, below which the soils are more susceptible to
erosion, a procedure accelerated by compaction caused by machines and animals. The
determination of a threshold for vegetation cover, under which protection against
erosion is not efficient, is crucial for modeling processes. Mitigation of water runoff
through increased vegetation cover and biomass density (Postiglione et al., 1998) may
lead to rehabilitation of land degradation since regeneration processes can take place
within suitable soil structure.

4.3 A proposed model for soil erosion-vegetation interaction

Based on the close relationship between ground cover and water runoff (Figure 8), the
following model (Figure 9) could be used to simulate the interrelationships between
rangeland vegetation and degradation processes.

17
 Rangeland
vegetation

Soil erosion Water runoff

Figure 9: The spatial cover of rangeland vegetation influences the water runoff which in
turn affects soil erosion process.

According to Figure 9, water runoff is directly related to vegetation cover since the
amount of foliage mitigates the impact of raindrop on soil surface. Additionally, the root
system may enhance water infiltration into soil and prevent sediment production. If plant
cover is reduced, overland flow may initiate and this phenomenon could become
increasingly severe with increased land slope. In such a case, water runoff can not be
impeded and therefore soil is more susceptible to erosion. Once erosion has established
in an area, ecosystem degradation will initiate and soil loss will increase unless a change in
the erosion resistance of the landscape occurs (Squires, 1998). Decreasing soil depth has
a dramatic effect on vegetation regeneration since the establishment and/or the
recruitment of new individuals is retarded. Low vegetation cover implies increased water
runoff and accelerated erosion of marginal lands. Soil may be eroded down to bedrock
and become unsuitable to accommodate plant species for a long time.

5. Recapitulation
The approaches described so far have been formulated by researchers working on
different aspects of land degradation. A broad conclusion drawn from desertification
models is that they are unable to identify within an acceptable degree of reality those
parts of the ecosystem where degradation may occur. Global scale models usually address
the desertification problem within the context of surrogate variables and are limited on
the spatial level upon which the processes were described. In addition, Leemans and
Kleidon (2002) pointed out that large-scale biophysical patterns of desertification
processes are relatively well known and can be readily modeled. However, it was argued
that the next generation of models can accomplish a comprehensive assessment of

18
desertification only through an integrated approach including both socioeconomic and
biophysical dimensions.

A common point found in the aforementioned models is that the vegetation cover plays
a central role in desertification processes (Thornes, 1996; Hootsmans et al., 2001;
Bathurst et al., 2002; Okin, 2003; MA, 2005; to name but a few) since soil erosion is
strongly related to ground cover (as previously depicted; see Figure 8 and Figure 9). In
the following section a straightforward First Level Generic Model is proposed in order to
simulate degradation processes in Mediterranean marginal lands.

6. A proposed First Level Generic Model describing desertification processes

6.1 Justification of the model
The First Level Generic Model (Figure 10) is a synthesis of four different sub-models
that incorporate social and biophysical variables (as proposed by Leemans and
Kleidon, 2002) which are directly related to desertification phenomena. Previous
attempts to model land degradation within a biophysical-social framework failed to
include fire (see Figure 3 and Figure 4) or put more emphasis on the economical,
social and political aspects of the studied phenomenon (see Figure 5). The First Level
Generic Model is comparable to the approach presented by Okin (2002; see Figure 6
in the present report) but analyze in more detail the effects of each factor on marginal
land desertification.

The proposed conceptual model is based upon the fact that within a specified area,
desertification processes are strongly influenced by vegetation cover. Such an
approach may quite reliably reflect land desertification, since soil degradation initiates
when the biomass productivity drops below a threshold value which depends on the
type of ecosystem (Kosmas et al., 1999). Human-induced factors (such as agricultural
encroachment, fire and grazing pressure) as well as several climatic variables are
therefore related to rangeland vegetation which is used as a surrogate variable to
model land degradation in marginal ecosystems.

6.2 Description of the model

According to the First Generic Model (Figure 10), the main factors leading to land
degradation through vegetation destruction in marginal Mediterranean ecosystems are

19
the following: grazing pressure, fire, agricultural encroachment and climate. Each factor
is linked with the rangeland vegetation which is used as the starting point to simulate
degradation processes. Thus, the First Generic Model consists of four different sub-
models structured in such a way that changes in one factor directly influence rangeland
vegetation. Subsequently, modifications in vegetation status may trigger mechanisms that
could either deteriorate or stabilize the ecological balance in marginal lands.

Grazing
Pressure
Fire
(-) (+)
(-) (+)
(-)
Agricultural Rangeland
Land vegetation Climate
(+)
(-) (+)

Desertification
Processes

Figure 10: First Level Generic Model for simulating marginal land degradation.
Agricultural encroachment, fire, grazing pressure and climate are the main factors leading
to land degradation. Solid arrows present negative feedbacks while dashed line arrows
denote positive interactions. The middle-head arrow implies a process-based modeling
procedure. A positive feedback implies that changes of one variable are followed by
similar trends of changes to the related variable. The status of vegetation cover is
considered to be the main factor directly related to desertification processes.

For example, if the vegetation cover is high then grazing pressure increases which in turn
retards the regeneration of vegetation and therefore soil degradation may begin. In case
that vegetation cover is small then the fire risk is negligible which gives rise to vegetation
development and increased biomass production. Increased biomass production and
vegetation cover mitigate soil degradation processes (small desertification risk) but create
pasture areas preferable for grazing. Such a condition in pastures may lead to high

20
stocking rate which negatively influence primary production and in turn generates
favorable conditions for desertification processes to be spread.

Similar trends for the agricultural encroachment are also presented by the model. For
example, high coverage of agricultural land within a specific region leads to small spatial
distribution of natural vegetation and therefore a higher risk of ecosystem instability may
be attained. On the other hand, abandoned marginal lands may provide favorable
conditions for the establishment of plant species and an increase of vegetation cover may
be obtained. Climatic variables (such as precipitation, temperature, wind, humidity,
irradiance) in the proposed conceptual model are assumed to affect both rangeland
vegetation and fire variables (Tsiourlis and Konstantinidis, 2005).

In the subsequent pages, the four conceptual sub-models of climatic and human-induced
effects are presented in detail. Specifically, the grazing pressure sub-model was built by
Papanastasis (AUTH) and based on information reported in Tsioras et al. (2006). The
agricultural encroachment flow-chart was delivered by Casimiro (UNL) and the fire sub-
model was developed by Xanthopoulos (NAGREF, FRIA).

7. Climate sub-model
The climatic impact on rangeland productivity is of major concern to ecologists and
managers since its significance to plant growth and development is well-known (for
example see Smoliak, 1956). A close relationship between rainfall and rangeland
productivity has been recorded in several studies. Van Dyne (1979; cited in Papanastasis
and Noitsakis, 1992) reported that the annual productivity may amount to 20 ton/1 ha
when rainfall ranged from 100 to 2400 mm. It should be noted that this trend does not
follow a linear pattern and depends on the vegetation type. Le Houerou and Hoste
(1977) studied the range forage (Y, kg/ha) in relation to precipitation (X, mm;
50<X<900) for Mediterranean rangeland ecosystems and a strong linear empirical
relationship (Y = -10.372 + 0.217X, r = 0.83) was obtained. Papanastasis (1982)
formulated a similar model for the grassland productivity in northern Greece and the
empirical equation derived was Y = -32.767 + 0.4351X (r = 0.81). This regression is
assumed to be valid from 268 to 1079 mm of rainfall. Assuming that allowable forage to
animals constitutes 50% of annual rangeland productivity then a small variation in the
predicted values of the two models is expected.

21
However, lack of transferability of empirical equations to other sites may limit their
applicability and can not be used as appropriate models to simulate the effect of climate
on rangeland vegetation. Wight and Hanks (1981) built a crop production model (the so-
called ‘physical model’) for American grassland ecosystems which runs on a day to day
basis. One of the main inputs was the daily precipitation and the validation procedure
indicated that reasonable estimates of herbage production were obtained for the sites
under investigation. Distribution of precipitation within a year is also a very important
variable as is the total amount of precipitation. For example, it is reported that autumn
precipitation greatly affected the rangeland production of the following growing season
(Walker et al. 1994; Koc, 2001). In case that drought occurred in spring, reduced
aboveground biomass production was recorded and related to lower leaf area, leaf
number and shoot number, and depended on the intensity of stress (Busso and Richards
1995).

Apart from the precipitation effect on plant production, Van Dyne (1979; cited in
Papanastasis and Noitsakis, 1992) reported an increase of rangeland productivity in
relation to air temperature (in the range of 0 to 24 oC). Additionally, laboratory
experiments have demonstrated that seed germination of shrub species exhibit
temperature dependence (Kruse, 1970) while winter and spring precipitation influence
the establishment and recruitment of rangeland plant species (Maier et al., 2001).

In Figure 11, rangeland biomass (accumulation of plant productivity) and regeneration

processes are considered to be the main variables affected by the amount of rainfall and
the variations of air temperature. Solar radiation and specifically photosynthetic flux
density also plays a central role in the establishment, growth and development of plant
species (Moolai and Mallik, 1998).

22
 Climate
Rainfall
Temperature
Irradiance

Rangeland vegetation

Figure 11: A schematic representation of the main climatic variables affecting the
regeneration processes of rangeland regeneration and its biomass production.

8. Grazing sub-model
Livestock grazing activity is characterized by a high degree of spatio-temporal variability,
which originates from diverse sources of factors inherent in socioeconomical and
biophysical contexts (Squires, 1998). Reduction of vegetation cover is considered to be
the main impact of grazing activity on ecosystems (Thornes, 1995) since it affects the
exchange of energy, water and carbon within the soil-surface- atmosphere interface and
plays a central role in ecosystem stability. Additionally, plants are considered to be the
medium of water transport from soil to the atmosphere, since water molecules absorbed
by roots are transpired by the foliage and return back to the ecosystem through
precipitation. Thus, the impact of human activities on vegetation cover can influence the
soil-atmosphere interactions and therefore have a significant effect on several
components of the ecosystem.

Attempts to predict livestock grazing patterns and develop management practices to

sustain rangeland resources started 40 years ago (Cook, 1966). Recent research has
demonstrated the importance of spatial variables on livestock preference and forage
attributes (Brock and Owensby, 2000), while the shift to mechanistic modeling of grazing
patterns the last ten years has been feasible due to the development of technological
advancements such as GIS and GPS collars (Bailey et al., 1996). Bailey (2005) presented
several empirical models mainly developed for cattle in order to describe the dependence
of livestock grazing and performance on habitat factors. Five models of grazing activity

23
are presented in the following section in order to demonstrate the variety of factors and
processes involved in such simulations.

8.1 A summary of models involving grazing patterns

Grazing and the dynamic-thermodynamic paradigm
Pulina et al (1998) described the grazing activity as a complex system and integrated the
principles of dynamic and thermodynamic paradigms within a GIS framework in order
to evaluate land suitability for pasture improvements. The dynamic principle was applied
for land classification, while the thermodynamic paradigm was used to estimate the
entropy of ecosystem components. The following significant variables for land suitability
to pasture improvement were identified: vegetation cover, slope, aspect, rockiness,
stoniness, soil depth, and a soil chemical-physical characteristic index. The main
drawback in the proposed approach seems to be the demarcation of a specific land unit
upon which simulation should take place. This problem originates from the fact that
changes occurring on a small spatial unit are not directly related to (or influence) changes
that take place in larger scales. The mere use of qualitative indices to classify land patches
according to their informative content (thermodynamic paradigm), could not support
thorough quantitative analyses for grazing pressure patterns. It is undoubtful that
information on the dependence of several factors across different spatial levels is needed
if a deeper understanding of grazing effects on the ecosystem is to be achieved.

A modular grazing model (MODMED)

ModMed modeling approach was based on a hierarchical and modular context to
integrate processes ranging from plant level to landscape scale (Legg et al., 1998). The
modular approach enables each ecological process to be represented as a discrete part,
while hierarchical representation enables to simulate different ecological processes that
are dominant at different spatial and organizational scales. Thus, the modular structure
permits several alternative community-level models to be used in the same landscape.
Equally, several different individual-level models can be represented in the same
community.

Feeding site selection model

A conceptual model of feeding site selection was presented by Bailey (2005) and based
on the assumption that animals rate individual sites according to abiotic and biotic

24
factors. An effort to maximize nutrient capture, minimize travel effort, and maintain
thermoneutrality was the main selection criterion used by the animals. The individual’s
selection of a feeding site could be modified by weather conditions, social interactions,
and herding. According to this model, the grazing upon selected sites affects the site’s
biotic characteristics, which in turn change the preference of the animals for the specific
site. Thus, a loop between grazing and site characteristics was obtained.

Host-parasitoid model
Thornes (1995) was based on the host-parasitoid model in order to simulate biomass and
livestock density distribution on flat terrain. He concluded that the interaction of grazing,
vegetation, and erosion could give rise to unexpected outcomes in space and time
dimensions (from relative stable to chaotic behaviors of the system). He pointed out that
emphasis should be placed on the conditional stability of the system rather than on the
carrying capacity of the grazing areas.

Fire-grazing model
Papanastasis (1977) modeled the grazing activity of a Mediterranean type ecosystem
(phrygana) in relation to fire regime practiced mainly by sheepmen (Figure 12).

Mature
phrygana
ecosystem

Undesirable Desirable
vegetation vegetation

Fire

Modified Number of
phrygana sheep
ecosystem

Sheepman Management practice

Succession stages
Feedback interactions

25
Figure 12: A compartmental model of phrygana ecosystem and the managerial,
successional and feedback interactions as presented by Papanastasis (1977).

According to the proposed model, shepherds use fire as a tool to suppress phryganic
species and take advantage of the palatable to sheep legumes appearing in the burned
area one or two years after fire. High numbers of animals enter within the burned area
resulting in overgrazing which in turn contributes to ecosystem degradation.

8.2 Spatial distribution of livestock

The topographical characteristics of rangelands strongly influence the spatial pattern of
livestock grazing activity (Squires, 1998). In order to analyze the spatial plant-herbivore
interactions, Coughenour (1991) emphasized the need to consider landscape physical
constraints on ungulate distributions. It was concluded that the patterns of herbivores on
the landscape are constrained by the spatial distribution of vegetation cover, water
resources, minerals and by the elevation, slope and aspect variability. For example, cattle
prefer to use level to gently sloping terrain and avoid slopes of more than 10% (Mueggler
1965; Cook 1966). Moreover, water distribution appeared to be the major factor affecting
cattle utilization patterns on a foothill range. Cattle also expressed preference for areas
within 366 m of water and avoided areas beyond that except when forage was depleted
(Pinchak et al., 1991). Sensitivity of cattle to slope is most pronounced in foothill and
mountain regions (Mueggler 1965; Roath and Krueger, 1982; Gillen et al., 1984). Bailey
(2005) proposed the application of an integrated indicator of terrain use to model the
horizontal and vertical animal movements from water while taking into account the slope
effect.

According to Nastis (1998) spatial grazing movements can be distinguished into five
scale classes and each of those classes is related to a specific animal movement: 1. Home
range-population 2. Landscape unit-herd movement 3. Feeding site-group movement 4.
Patch-individual animal movement and 5. Plant part-head movement. Animals firstly
choose the broader scale space divisions and thereafter search in small-scale for effective
performance. It is assumed that small scale movement decisions are based on direct
forage attributes such as vision, smell, taste, physical structure or chemical composition

26
while decisions for large scale movements are based primarily on memory and abiotic
factors (Nastis, 1998).

A schematic representation of the animal movements in different spatial scales is

presented in Figure 13. It should be pointed out that the pattern of grazing pressure
dispersal is determined largely by the shepherd who may direct flocks according to
factors other than simple resource availability, resulting in misuse of vegetation
resources. Bailey (2005) reviewed livestock grazing distribution models based on
empirical datasets and ruled-based processes. He concluded that these models had
variable success and put emphasis on the integration of spatially explicit models with
abiotic and biotic factors. Alvarez (1995; as quoted by Rebollo and Gomez-Sal, 1998)
demonstrated that the stocking rate (sheep per ha) decreases rapidly as the area of
grazing unit increases and a negative power function was obtained (r = 0.33, p<0.01).
High

Quality importance
Memory importance
Medium
Low

Individual Herd Population

Bite Patch Site Landscape Home range

Figure 13: Animal movements according to forage quality and memory importance in
different spatial scales (modified by Nastis, 1998).

27
Moreover, it was reported that the decline in sheep numbers was lower than the
theoretical value of grazing capacity of the studied pastures (Rebollo and Gomez-Sal,
1998). The grazed areas ranged three orders of magnitude (from ca. 50 ha to ca. 1000 ha)
covering a broad spectrum of spatial scales. Under the neologism of fractal geometry
(Mandlebrot, 1982) such phenomena are characterized as self-similar, implying that the
aggregation of sheep (individual- herd- and population-level) at different spatial levels is
scale-invariant. The mathematical manifestation of self-similar objects (usually described
by the fractal dimension) could be very useful in the modeling procedure since attention
should be paid in the case that the model outputs fail to depict the fractal distribution of
the livestock at different spatial scales.

A thorough review of the quantitative effects of grazing on vegetation and soils over a
global range of environments was presented by Milchunas and Lauenroth (1993). They
compiled 236-site datasets from worldwide studies in order to assess the factors relating
to ecosystem responses on grazing impacts. The effects of grazing by large herbivores on
species composition, abundance of dominant species, aboveground net primary
productivity (ANPP), root biomass and soil carbon/nitrogen contents were analyzed.
The synthesis of the published datasets indicated that the changes in species composition
with grazing were primarily a function of ANPP which in turn increases with livestock
rate in some situations. Thus, the spatial variability of ANPP can influence the
distribution of animals given the restrictions imposed by topography and distance to
water points (Bailey, 2005).

According to Squires (1998) more intensive grazing activity is recorded in areas with
high production which in turn depend on the amount of vegetation cover (Figure 14).
In addition to ground cover, leaf area index (LAI) is considered to be a useful indicator at
the landscape level of how forage responds to grazing (Hill, 1996; Enne et al., 2002).
Undergrazing results in overgrowth and shading by senescent foliage and eventually in
the decline of photosynthesis, while overgrazing results in excessive defoliation
(Papanastasis and Noitsakis, 1992). In addition, domestic animals may reduce plant
regeneration capacity through overgrazing, overbrowsing and trampling. However, it is
reported that moderate grazing increases grassland diversity by providing gaps for
subordinate species (Noy-Meir, 1998) and is necessary for ensuring ecosystem
conservation and sustainability (Papanastasis and Noitsakis, 1992). Large herbivores are

28
an important structuring agent in terrestrial ecosystems through their impact on plant
diversity and plant nutritional value (Frank and McNaughton, 1992; McNaughton 1993;
Burkhardt, 1996; Collins et al., 1998).

1,2
Relative forage production

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Ground cover (%)

Figure 14: Relative forage production in relation to ground cover (data from Squires,
1998).

8.3 A proposed sub-model for grazing pressure

In this section a conceptual model for the livestock grazing-vegetation cover
interrelationship is presented (Figure 15). The proposed model is based on the
assumption that the kind and number of animals distributed across a certain spatial scale
at the rangeland ecosystem depend on the feed availability provided by the rangeland
vegetation. Additionally, the quantity and quality of supplementary food is supposed to
strongly influence the grazing pressure patterns. In the case where food is provided in
the sheds, the livestock grazing pressure on the rangeland is reduced and restricted to
small scale effects. The feed availability of the rangeland may be high, but the foliage and
several edible plant parts are not removed from the livestock since they are fed in the
sheds. In such situations increased primary productivity in pasture land may be recorded
(Milchunas and Lauenroth, 1993).

In case that supplementary feed is not adequate, then several characteristics of rangeland
vegetation such as LAI (Milchunas and Lauenroth, 1993), species diversity (Noy-Meir,

29
1998; Papanastsis and Noitsakis, 1992) and spatial distribution of plant species (Squires,
1998) are greatly influenced by livestock grazing and across several scales (Figure 13).
Thus, the disturbance of vegetation characteristics due to overgrazing affects ecosystem
stability and in case that certain threshold is surpassed for a given relationship (e.g.,
vegetation cover-surface runoff), then soil degradation processes may initiate.

Rangeland vegetation

Feed
availability
Topography
•Slope
Supplementary
feed Grazing •Aspect
pressure •Elevation
Infrastructure
Management
•Watering points •Number of animals
•Salt points •Kind of animals
•Sheds •Grazing system
•Roads •Subsidies
•Village vicinity •Labor

Figure 15: A conceptual model of the grazing pressure on rangeland vegetation at

landscape level.

Furthermore, the infrastructures in the rangeland (watering and salt points, road network,
shed’s location) also affect the grazing pressure. It is well-know that animals tend to
graze more intensively near the watering points and sheds than away from them
(McNaugthon, 1984; Stuth and Maraschin, 2000; Ghussob, 2003) so animal density is
expected to be higher near the vicinity of these gathering points. Since sheds are usually
located near the boundaries of the village or along the roads, then grazing pressure is
expected to present a spatial variability according to these factors.

30
Additionally, animal density is reported to be negatively related to the slope of the grazed
terrain (Bailey, 2005), since grazing use decreases if nearby slopes are steep (Cook, 1966).
Gillen et al. (1984) reported that cattle avoid slopes in excess of 20% while Holechek
(1988) recommends considering areas with slopes over 60% as unusable, reducing
grazing capacity by 60% for areas with slopes between 31 and 60%, while no reduction in
grazing capacity is proposed for gentle slopes (0-10%). In order to identify relative
differences in expected grazing use according to spatial attributes, Bailey (2005)
developed an integrating indicator of terrain use based on the effects of slope, horizontal
and vertical distance to water. He pointed out that in mountain pastures the horizontal
distance to water may be disregarded from the grazing use indicator.

Range management is also of great importance, since it determines the way the grazing
activity will take place (i.e. number and kind of animals, season and duration of grazing
activityAlthough some grazing lands may be suitable to be grazed by certain number of
species, most pastures have some flexibility relative to grazing animal species (Tsioras et
al., 2006). Due to the different way the grazing animals collect the forage, their impact on
vegetation varies and therefore the kind of animal species is one of the factors that
should be taken into account in modelling activity. For example, goats prefer the shrub
Quercus coccifera than the annual legume Trifoliun hirtum, whereas this preference is reversed
by sheep, whilst Dactylys glomerata is preferred by both these species (reported in Tsioras
et al., 2006) Cattle, in general, prefer grasses than forbs (Papanastasis and Noitsakis,
1992).

The most influential socioeconomical variables (i.e., subsidies and labor) affecting the
livestock grazing across a Mediterranean rangeland are also introduced into the model
and directly related to grazing pressure. For example subsidies may positively affect
animal density if economical support is given on a per head basis. On the other hand,
subsidies may be provided if the size of a herd sustained by a shepherd is deliberately
reduced, and therefore a decrease in livestock density is obtained.

31
A rule-based model (Boolean logic processes) could provide valuable information (Legg
et al., 1998) for simulating the grazing status at the landscape level. A GIS platform could
be used to further analyze the model outputs under standard geospatial procedures. For
example, landscape maps can be produced and new maps may be generated based on
model derived data. These maps could be readily modified and directly affect grazing
status values. For example, areas within a certain range of road infrastructure could be
modeled to have a larger value of stocking rates than areas further apart. The model
could run for specific time intervals and the previous values are used as inputs to the
next time step, resembling the dynamic processes of grazing patterns.

9. Agricultural encroachment sub-model

Land use practices on marginal lands are influenced by several socioeconomic and
cultural factors. Additionally, these practices are largely controlled by the availability of
natural resources and maximum levels of potential economic growth through their
sustainable management (Verstraete and Schwartz, 1991 as reported in Xanthopoulos et
al., 2006).

During the second half of the 20th century, the expectations of individuals were not met
in the countryside of the southern Mediterranean region, and a massive exodus of rural
people to large cities initiated (Xanthopoulos et al., 2006). Barbero et al. (1990) supported
that the Common Agricultural Policy (C.A.P) further accelerated the shrinkage of rural
population with the disappearance of small farms, which in turn led to the abandonment
of agricultural areas. In the southern European Union land abandonment is the major
large-scale change occurring and a continuously operating process which in some cases
may constitute an integral part of the agricultural system. It comes and goes recurrently
according to the economical and social context (Thornes, 2002).

Land abandonment means a change in land use from the traditional or recent pattern to
another, less intensive, and occurs because of external driving forces. Nevertheless,
Mediterranean landscapes have being shaped by a socio-natural system that is highly
“disturbance-dependent” in the sense that many aspects of natural processes depend on
regular human intervention (Castilo et al., 2004). Whether an abandoned land will move
towards recovery or desertification depends on the state of the land at the time of its
abandonment and what follows afterwards. The abandonment of highly human-shaped

32
landscapes often moves the system towards to a threshold that, when crossed, may led to
irreversible degradation (Martínez-Fernández et al.,1996 as reported in Castilo et al.,
2004).

In Mediterranean landscapes the marginal agricultural areas were used for grazing and as
a buffer for balancing the increase or release of agricultural activity, according to the
occasional requirements of rural populations (Thornes, 2002). This buffer role has been
one of the factor that put marginal lands under heavy risk of desertification. At present
the dynamic of these areas are subject to three kinds of changes: (i) encroachment of
agriculture into marginal areas, (ii) release of agricultural activity and (iii) grazing of
rangelands (Castilo et al., 2004.)

According to Casimiro (2006), the driving forces of human activities that cause
desertification processes by occupying marginal lands and acting on the local scale are the
following: i) Poverty and lack of basic security; ii) Lack of awareness; iii) Unsustainable
land use practices; iv) Inadequate extension service; v) Lack of technical know-how; vi)
Absence of agricultural credit schemes. Furthermore, Castilo et al. (2004) reported that
the intensification of agriculture and the introduction of new farm machinery and
extensive application of fertilizers break-up the original equilibrium between cultivation
and grazing practices. A flow-chart describing marginal land modification from buffer
rangeland zones to cultivated areas and vice versa is presented in Figure 16 (Casimiro,
2006).

33
Figure 16: The driving forces acting at local, national and institutional level play a central
role in determining human activities and macro level socioeconomic trends that lead to
agricultural encroachment practices (Casimiro, 2006).

10. Fire sub-model

Fire is considered to be an important component of Mediterranean ecosystems since the
vegetation regeneration processes depend on its frequency, intensity, and season of
occurrence. Although Mediterranean vegetation is adapted to fire, extensive burning (i.e.,
repeated fires in short intervals) may result in a continuous retrogression of climax stages
which can have long-term and outstanding impacts on plant productivity and allocation
of resources and retard ecosystem succession. In Mediterranean areas, fire is the main
factor for ecosystem auto-succession in case that a certain fire-frequency threshold is not
surpassed (Xanthopoulos et al., 2006). Repeated burning may cause irreversible
disturbances to ecosystem since biological productivity and soil potential to sustain
natural regenerated vegetation are declined (Verstraete and Schwartz, 1991).

34
Thus, the frequent presence of wildfires has affected the structure of Mediterranean flora
and the spatial characteristics (i.e., mosaic form) of landscapes in the basin (Naveh,
1975). Moreover, Mediterranean ecosystems have been dominated by fire-adapted plant
species which regenerate after a fire event (Trabaud and Galtier, 1996), provided that an
additional, secondary disturbance does not follow (Arianoutsou-Faraggitaki, 1984; Dafis,
1986). Trabaud and Galtier (1996) reported that if fire intensity is very high, regeneration
can be delayed or avoided.

A sub-model for the fire-vegetation interactions in marginal lands of the Mediterranean

basin was built, based upon the literature review that was carried out in previous project
stages in regard to the identification of the main variables and processes (Xanthopoulos
et al., 2006). The model identifies the site and fire characteristics that play a role in the
appearance of desertification processes. Survival of the vegetation appearing after a fire
event is key to the onset of desertification processes.

A generalized flow chart of the model is presented first (Figure 17). It is followed by
further analysis of the main model steps to the point of identifying the main parameters
(see Xanthopoulos et al., 2006). The rule followed is to offer a simple and abstract view
of the entities and processes that participate in each stage.

35
Figure 17: A generalized flow chart of the fire model (Source: Xanthopoulos et al., 2006).

36
11. First Level Generic Model as a research tool
The proposed First Level Generic Model (FLGM) could be a valuable tool for co-
ordinating a complex research programme studying land desertification processes in
Mediterranean marginal lands. The strength of FLGM lies on the fact that social and
biophysical variables formulated the basis of its structure and were subsequently related
to land degradation processes taking place at the landscape level. It is consists of four
different sub-models whose connecting component is rangeland vegetation. Vegetation is
considered to be the standard variable involved in desertification research since its
significance is associated with a variety of abiotic and biotic factors. Rangeland vegetation
could also be used as a reference point for the Second Level Generic model developed
by WP 1.3.3.

The FLGM model may be expanded and include variables spanning a wide range of
spatial, temporal and organizational scales since each sub-model could be modified
according to up-to-date knowledge. For example, the rule-based modeling approach
could be used in the encroachment sub-model so as to incorporate the wealth of
qualitative knowledge already available to scientists. Additionally the use of a process-
based approach in order to quantify the effect of fire on vegetation, could substantially
improve the prediction ability of the model. Moreover, interactions and feedbacks
among plant biomass, regeneration process, fuel accumulation and climatic variables
could be modeled through mathematical relationships valid for Mediterrenean
ecosystems.

Although the model predictions may not quite accurately quantify desertification
patterns, the FLGM can reveal areas prone to degradation processes and highlight the
potential impact of different agents acting upon marginal lands. More research is
required before precise predictions can be made and more emphasis should be placed on
the parameterization of the model if numerical outputs are to be used as tools in
desertification research. As more data become available the precision of the predictions
will increase and so the generality of the proposed FLGM will improve.

37
12. References
Alvarez, J., 1995. Dinamica sucesionl tras el abandono y recuperacion del matorral
mediante pastoreo controlado. Experiencia en un sector de la Montana de Leon.
Tesis Doctoral. Universidad de Lleida.
Arianoutsou-Faraggitaki, M., 1984. Post-fire successional recovery of a phryganic (East
Mediterranean) ecosystem. Acta Oecologica 5: 387-394.

Bailey, D.W., J.E. Gross, E.A. Laca, L.R. Rittenhouse, M.B. Coughenour, D.M. Swift
and P.L. Sims, 1996. Mechanisms that result in large herbivore grazing
distribution patterns. Journal of Range Management 49: 386-400.
Bailey, D.W., 2005. Identification and creation of optimum habitat conditions for
livestock. Rangeland Ecology and Management 58:109-118.
Barbero, M., G. Bonin, R. Loisel and P. Quezel, 1990. Changes and disturbances of
forest ecosystems caused by human activities in the western part of the
Mediterranean basin. Vegetatio 87: 151-173.
Bathurst, J.C., J. Sheffield, C. Vicete, S.M. White and N. Romano, 2002. Modelling large
scale hydrology and sediment yield with sparse data: the Agri Basin, southern
Italy. In: Mairota, P., Thornes, J.B. and Geeson, N. (eds), Atlas of mediterenean
environments in Europe. The desertification context, pp. 397-415, John Wiley &
Sons, N.Y., Toronto, Chichester.
Brock, B.L. and C.E. Owensby, 2000. Predictive models for grazing distribution: a GIS
approach. Journal of Range Management 53: 39-46.
Burkhardt, J.W., 1996. Herbivory in the intermountain west. Idaho Forest, Wildlife and
Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho, Moscow. Station Bulletin 58.
Burrough P.A. and R.A. McDonnell, 1998. Section two: Data Models and Axioms:
Formal Abstractions of Reality. In: Burrough P.A. and R.A. McDonnell (eds),
Principles of Geographical Information Systems. pp. 16-34. Oxford University
Press, London, N.Y.
Busso, C.A. and J.H. Richards. 1995. Drought and clipping effects on tiller demography
and growth of two tussock grasses in Utah. J. Arid Environ. 29:239–251.
Casimiro, P.C., 2006. Agriculture Encroachment and Socio-Economic Changes
DeSurvey project p. 3.
Castilo, V., A. Arnoldussen, S. Bautista, P. Bazzoffi, G. Crescimanno, A. Imeson, R.
Jarman, M. Robert and J.L. Rubio, 2004. Working Group on Soil Erosion Task

38
 Group 6 on Desertification Final Report. EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL ENVIRONMENT.
Collins, S.L., A.K. Knapp, J.M. Briggs, J.M. Blair and E.M. Steinauer, 1998. Modulation
of Diversity by Grazing and Mowing in Native Tallgrass Prairie. Science 280:
745-747.
Cook, C.W., 1966. Factors affecting utilization of mountain slopes. Journal of Range
Management 19:200-204.
Coughenour, B.M., 1991. Spatial components of plant-herbivore interactions in pastoral,
ranching and native ungulate ecosystems. Journal of Range Management 44: 530-
542.
Dafis, S., 1986. Forest Ecology. Forest and Fire. pp. 214-218. Giahoudi & Giapouli
Publications, Thessaloniki (in Greek).
Dunjó Denti, G., 2004. Developing a desertification indicator system for a small
Mediterranean catchment: a case study from the Serra de Rodes, Alt Emporda,
Catalunya, NE Spain. PhD Thesis, Univ. Girona, pp 323.
DESERTLINKS website: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/desertlinks.
Eldridge, D.J., 1995. Predicting the effects of vegetation cover on soil hydrology. Proc.
5th International Rangeland Congress, Salt Lake City, pp. 132-133. USGD.
Enne, G, Pulina, M, d’Angelo, M., Previtali, F., Madrau, S., Caredda, S. and A.H.D.
Francesconi, 2002. Agro-pastoral activities and land degradation in
Mediterranean areas: Case study of Sardinia. In: Geeson, N.A., Brandt, C.J. and
Thornes, J.B. (eds), Mediterranean Desertification: a mosaic of processes and
responses, pp.7-11, Wiley & Sons, N.Y., Toronto, Chichester.
Ewen, J. and G. Parkin, 1996. Validation of catchment models for predicting land-use
and climate change impacts: 1. Methodology. Journal of Hydrology 175: 53-594.
Ewen, J., G. Parkin and P.E. O’Connell, 2000. SHETRAN: distributed river basin flow
and transport modeling system. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineers. Journal of Hydrological Engineering, 5: 250-258.
Frank, D.A. and S.J. McNaughton, 1992. The ecology of plants, large mammalian
herbivores and drought in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 73:2043-2058.
Ghossub, R.S., 2003. Impact of piospheric points on Mediterranean Rangelands. MSc
Thesis. Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Chania, Greece.
Gillen, R.L., W.C. Krueger and R.F. Miller, 1984. Cattle distribution on mountain

39
 rangeland in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Range Management 19:200-204.
Grove, A.T., 1996. The historical context: Before 1850. In: Brandt, J. and Thornes, J.
(eds), Mediterranean Desertification and Land use, pp. 13–28, Wiley & Sons,
Chichester, England,
Hellali, H. and A.S. Nastis. 1998. Effect of vegetation cover modification by grazing on
water runoff in a sandy-loamy grassland. In: Papanastasis, V.P. and D. Peter, D
(eds): Proc. of the International Workshop “Ecological Basis of livestock grazing
in Mediterranean ecosystems”, held in Thessaloniki 23-25 Oct. 1997, pp. 154-
158, European Commision.
Hill, J., 1996. An introduction to the study of Desertification processes in Mediterranean
areas. In: Hill, J., (ed). Final Report of the Demon -1 Project. Report EUR 16448,
pp. 1-8, European Commision.
Holechek, J.L., 1988. An approach for setting the stocking rates. Rangelands 10: 10-14.
Hootsmans, R., A.F. Bouwman, R. Leemans and E. Kreileman., 2001. Modeling land
degradation in IMAGE 2. RIVM Report 481508009. Bilthoven: National
Institute of Public Health and the Environment.
Ibrahim, F., 1993. A Reassessment of the human dimension of desertification.
GeoJournal 31: 5-10.
Jorgensen, S.E., 1988. Fundamentals of ecological modeling. Developments in
Environmental Modelling 9. Elsevier Publishers.
Kirkby, M.J., R.J. Abrahart, J.C. Bathrst, C.G. Kilsby, M.L. Mcmahon, C.P. Osborne, J.B.
Thornes, and F.I. Woodward, 2002. MEDRUSH: A basin-scale physically based
model for forecasting runoff and sediment yield. In: Geeson, N.A., Brandt, C.J.
and Thornes, J.B. (eds), Mediterranean Desertification: a mosaic of processes and
responses, pp.203-227. Wiley & Sons, N.Y., Toronto, Chichester.
Koc, A., 2001. Autumn and spring drought periods affect vegetation on high elevation
rangelands of Turkey. Journal Rangeland Management 54: 622–627.
Kosmas, C., Danalatos, N.G., Cammeraat, L.H., Chabart, M., Diamantopoulos, J.,
Farand, R., Gutierrez, L., Jacob, A., Marques, H., Martinez-Fernandez, J., Mizara,
A., Moustakas, N., Nicolau, J.M., Oliveros, C., Pinna, G., Puddu, R.,
Puigdefabregas, J., Roxo, M., Simao, A., Stamou, G., Tomasi, N., Usai, D., Vacca,
A., 1997. The effect of land use on runoff and soil erosion rates under
Mediterranean conditions. Catena 29: 45-69.
Kosmas, C., J. Poesen and H. Briassouli, 1999. Key indicators of desertification at the

40
 ESA scale. In: Kosmas C., Kirkby M., Geeson N. (eds), The Medalus project:
Mediterranean desertification and land use. Manual on key indicators of
desertification and mapping environmentally sensitive areas to desertification. pp.
11-30. European Commision.
Kosmas, C., N.G. Danalatos and St. Gerontidis, 2000. The effect of land parameters on
vegetationperformance and degree of erosion under Mediterranean conditions.
Catena 40: 3-17.
Kruse, W.H., 1970. Temperature and moisture stress affect germination of Gutierrezia
sarothrae. Journal Rangeland Management 23: 143B 144.
Lal, R., G.F. Hall, and F.P. Miller, 1989. Soil Degradation: I Basic Processes. Land
Degradadation & Rehabilitation 1: 51-69.
Le Houreou, H.N. and C.H. Hoste, 1977. Rangeland production and annual rainfall
relations in the Mediterranean basin and in the African Sahelo-Sudanian zone.
Journal Rangeland Management 30:181-189.
Leemans R. and A. Kleidon, 2002. Regional and Global Asswwment of the Dimensions
of Desertification. In: Reynolds J.F. and Smith D.M. (eds), Global
Desertification: Do Human Cause Deserts? pp 215 -231, Dahlem University
Press.
Legg, C., V.P. Papanastasis, D. Heathfield, M. Arianoutsou, A. Kelly, R. Muetzelfeldt and
S. Mazzoleni, 1998. Modelling the impact of grazing on vegetation in the
Mediterranean: the approach of the ModMED Project. In: Papanastasis V.P. and
Peter, D. (eds), Proc. of the International Workshop “Ecological Basis of
livestock grazing in Mediterranean ecosystems”, held in Thessaloniki 23-25 Oct.
1997, pp. 189-199. European Commision.
MA, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Desertification Synthesis. Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. URL
http://www.inweh.unu.edu/inweh/MA/Desertification-Synthesis.pdf
Maier, A.M., L. Barry, R. Perryman, A. Olson, and A.L. Hild, 2001. Climatic influences
on recruitment of 3 subspecies of Artemisia tridentate. Journal Rangeland
Management 54:699-703.
Mandelbrot, B. 1982. The Fractal Geometry of Nature. Freeman, NY.
Mark, E.M., 2004. The structure and Functioning of Dryland Ecosystems – Conceptual
Models to Inform the Vital-Sign Selection Process. USGS.

41
Martin E.M., 1992. Data Analysis, Data Modeling and Classification. Software
Engineering Series. ISBN 0-07-042634-1.
Martínez-Fernández, J., Romero-Díaz, M.A. and F. Belmonte, 1996. Evaluation of
vegetation and pedological characteristics in field with different ages of
abandonment: a case study in Murcia (Spain). In: JL Rubio and A.Calvo (eds) Soil
Degradation and Desertification in Mediterranean Environments. Geoforma
Ediciones Logroño pp 279-290
Mazzoleni, S. and C. Legg, 1998. MODMED: Modelling vegetation dynamics and
degradation in Mediterranean ecosystems. In: Mairota, P., Thornes, J.B. and
Geeson, N. (eds). Atlas of mediterenean environments in Europe. The
desertification context, pp. 14-18, John Wiley & Sons, N.Y., Toronto, Chichester.
McNaughton, S.J., 1984. Grazing lawns: animals in herds, plant form and co evolution.
American Naturalist 124: 863-886.
McNaughton, S.J., 1993. Grasses and grazers, science and management. Ecological
Applications 3:17-20.
Milchunas, D.G. and W.K. Lauenroth, 1993. Quantitative effects of grazing on
vegetation and soils over a global range of environments. Ecological Monographs
63: 327-366.
Moolai, F.M. and A.U. Mallik, 1998. Morphological plasticity and regeneration strategies
of velvet leaf blueberry (Vaccinium myrtilloides Michx.) following canopy
disturbance in boreal mixedwood forests. Forest Ecology and Management 111:
35-50.
Mueggler, W.F. 1965. Cattle distribution on steep slopes. Journal of Range Management
18: 225-257.
Nastis, A.S., 1998. Plant – animal interactions. In: Papanastasis V.P. and Peter, D. (eds),
Proc. of the International Workshop “Ecological Basis of livestock grazing in
Mediterranean ecosystems”, held in Thessaloniki 23-25 Oct. 1997, pp. 200-209.
European Commision.
Naveh Z., 1975. The Evolutionary significance of fire in the Mediterranean region.
Vegetatio 29: 199-208.
Noy-Meir, I., 1998. Effects of grazing on Mediterranean grasslands: the community level.
In: Papanastasis V.P. and Peter, D. (eds), Proc. of the International Workshop
“Ecological Basis of livestock grazing in Mediterranean ecosystems”, held in
Thessaloniki 23-25 Oct. 1997, pp. 27-37. European Commision.

42
Okin, G.S., 2002. Toward a unified view of biophysical land degradation processes in
arid and semi-arid land. In: Reynolds J.F. and Smith D.M. (eds), Global
Desertification: Do Human Cause Deserts? pp 95-109, Dahlem University Press.
Papanastasis, V.P., 1977. Fire ecology and management of phrygana communities in
Greece. In: Mooney, H.A., and Conrad, C.E. (eds), Proc. of the ‘Symposium on
the environmental consequensces of fire and fuel management in mediterranean
ecosystems’ California 1-5 Aug. 1977, pp. 476-482. USDA Gen. Tec. Rep. WO-3.
Papanastasis, V.P., 1982. Grassland productivity in relation to air temperature and
precipitation in northern Greece. Dasiki Ereyna III-Annex (in Greek).
Papanastasis, V.P. and V.I. Noitsakis, 1992. Rangeland Ecology (in greek). Giahoudi &
Giapouli Publications, Thessaloniki.
Papanastasis, V.P., S. Kyriakakis, G. Kazakis, M. Abid and A. Doulis, 2003. Plant cover
as a tool for monitoring desertification in mountain Mediterranean rangelands.
Management of Environmental Quality 14:69-81.
Pinchak, W.E., A. Michael, R. Smith, H. Hart and W.J. Waggoner, 1991. Beef cattle
distribution on foothill range. Journal of Range Management 44: 267-275.
Postiglione, L., C. Ruggiero, M. Fagnano, G. Landi and M.Pisante, 1998. In: Mairota, P.,
Thornes, J.B. and Geeson, N. (eds), Atlas of mediterenean environments in
Europe. The desertification context, pp. 148. John Wiley & Sons, N.Y., Toronto,
Chichester.
Pulina, G., M. Cappio-Borlino, and A.H.D. Francesconi, 1998. Grazing in Mediterranean
ecosystems: a complex approach as addressed in the EU MEDALUS project. In:
Papanastasis, V.P. and Peter, D., (eds), Proc. of the International Workshop
“Ecological Basis of livestock grazing in Mediterranean ecosystems”, held in
Thessaloniki 23-25 Oct. 1997, pp. 173-188. European Commision.
Rebollo, S. and A. Gomez-Sal. 1998. Recent changes in transhumance systems: effects on
mountain pasture management and conservation. In: Papanastasis, V.P. and D.
Peter, D (eds), Proc. of the International Workshop “Ecological Basis of
livestock grazing in Mediterranean ecosystems”, held in Thessaloniki 23-25 Oct.
1997, pp. 312-317. European Commision.
Regev, U., A.P. Gutierrez, S.J. Schreiber and D. Zilberman, 1998. Biological and
economical foundations of renewable resources exploitation. Ecological
Economics 26: 227-242.

43
Roath, L.R. and W.C. Krueger, 1982. Cattle grazing and influence on a forested range.
Journal of Range Management 35: 332-338.

Roxo, M.J. and P.C. Casimiro, 1998. Human impact on land degradation in the inner
Alentejo, Mertola, Portugal. In: Mairota, P., Thornes, J.B. and Geeson, N. (eds),
Atlas of mediterenean environments in Europe. The desertification context, pp.
106-109. John Wiley & Sons, N.Y., Toronto, Chichester.

Skidmor K. A., 2002. Taxonomy of environmental models in the spatial sciences. In:
Skidmor K. A. (ed), Environmental Modeling with GIS and Remote Sensing, pp.
8-23. Taylor and Francis, London.
Smoliak, S., 1956. Influences of climatic conditions on forage production of shortgrass
rangeland. Journal Rangeland Management 9:89-91.
Squires, V.R., 1998. Desertified watersheds: impact of grazing and some management
interventions. In: Papanastasis, V.P. and Peter, D., (eds), Proc. of the
International Workshop “Ecological Basis of livestock grazing in Mediterranean
ecosystems”, held in Thessaloniki 23-25 Oct. 1997, pp. 120-132. European
Commision.
Stuth, J. and G.E. Maraschin, 2000. Sustainable management of rangelands of pasture
and rangelands. In: Lemaire, G, Hodgson, J., de Moraes, A., Nabinger, C. and de
F. Carvalho, P.C. (eds), Grassland ecophysiology and grazing ecology, pp 105-
109. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Thornes, J.B., 1995. Mediterranean desertification and the vegetation cover: Physical and
socioeconomic aspects. In: Fantechi, R., Balabanis, P. and Rubio, J.L. (eds),
Desertification in a European context, pp. 169-194. Luxembourg, Directorate-
General Science, Research and Development. European Commision.
Thornes, J.B., 1996. Desertification in the Mediterranean. In: Brandt, J. and Thornes, J.
(eds), Mediterranean Desertification and Land Use, pp. 1–12. Wiley, Chichester,
England.
Thornes, J.B., 1999. Mediterranean Desertification: The Issues. In: Balabanis, P., Peter,
D., Ghazi, A. and M. Tsogas M. (eds), Proceedings of the international
conference “Mediterranean Desertification – Research results and Policy
implications” 29 Oct. – 1. Nov 1996, Crete/Greece. pp.9-16, Office of the
Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxemburg.

44
Thornes, J.B., 2002. The envolving context of Mediterranean Desertification. In: Geeson,
N.A., Brandt, C.J. and Thornes, J.B. (eds), Mediterranean Desertification: a
mosaic of processes and responses, pp. 5-11. Wiley & Sons, N.Y., Toronto,
Chichester.
Trabaud L. and J.F. Galtier, 1996. Effects of fire frequency on plant communities and
landscape pattern in the Massif de Aspres (southern France). Landscape Ecology
11: 215-224.

Tsioras, P.A., G. Tsiourlis, V.P. Papanastasis, P.C. Casimiro and G. Xanthopoulos, 2006.
A report on trends and relationships between climate changes, livestock
husbandry, agricultural activities, fire and desertification in marginal lands.
AUTH-Rangeland Ecology Laboratory, E.U. DeSurvey project, p83.
Tsiourlis G. and Konstantinidis P., 2005. Desertification as a result of climate and
anthropogenic pressures: a literature review. NAGREF-Forest Research Institute,
E.U. DeSurvey project, p39.
Van Dyne, G.M., 1979. Reflections and projections. In: Breymeyer, A.J. and Van Dyne,
G.M. (eds), Grasslands, Systems Analysis and Man, pp. 881-921. Cambridge univ.
Press.
Verstraete M. M. and S.A. Schwartz, 1991. Desertification and global change. Vegetatio
91: 3-13.
Wainwright J. and M. Mulligan, 2004. Modeling and model building. In: Wainwright J.
and M. Mulligan, M. (eds), Environmental Modeling, Finding Simplicity in
Complexity, pp. 5-12. Wiley & Sons, N.Y.
Walker, M.D., P.J. Webber, E.H. Arnold, and D. Ebert-May, 1994. Effects of interannual
climate variation on aboveground phytomass in alpine vegetation. Ecology
75:393–408.
Wight, J.R. and R.J. Hanks, 1981. A water-balance, climate model for range herbage
production. Journal Rangeland Management 34:307-311.
Xanthopoulos G., V. Gouma, A. Zerva, E. Daskalakou and A. Economou, 2006. The
relation of fire to desertification in Mediterranean forest ecosystems: a literature
review. NAGREF -Institute of Mediterranean Forest Ecosystems and Forest
Products Technology, Athens, Greece E.U. DeSurvey project, p.23.

45