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

net/publication/274393093

Continuous versus rotational grazing, again: Another perspective from

meta-analysis

Conference Paper · February 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 162

2 authors:

Kristina Michelle Wolf Marc Horney

HT Harvey & Associates California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
29 PUBLICATIONS   64 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   80 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Changes in soil C and N after 20 years of different cropping and management practices in a Mediterranean (California) climate View project

Summer water manipulation to flush weeds in restored grasslands View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kristina Michelle Wolf on 04 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Continuous versus rotational grazing, again:
Another perspective from meta-analysis

A quantitative analysis of
Briske et al. 2008
Kristina Wolf, U.C. Davis, Restoration Ecology
Marc Horney, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

68th Society for Range Management Annual Meeting

February 5, 2015
 Outline
 Background
• Grazing systems – what’s all the fuss?
• 2008 synthesis paper methods and results
 Meta-analysis
• Investigate results and contributing factors
o Is there a difference?
o What factors are driving observed patterns?
• Meta-analysis methods
• Results
• Conclusions & recommendations

2
 Outline
 Background
• Grazing systems – what’s all the fuss?
• 2008 synthesis paper methods and results
 Meta-analysis
• Investigate results and contributing factors
o Is there a difference?
o What factors driving observed patterns?
• Meta-analysis methods
• Results
• Conclusions & recommendations
3
 Rotational Grazing (RG)
• many different systems
• more ecologically and
economically sustainable?

Continuous Grazing (CG)

from Anderson 1988

4
 RG
Rotational Grazing (RG)
• many different systems
• more ecologically and
economically sustainable?

CG
Continuous Grazing (CG)

from Anderson 1988

5
 Outline
Background
• Grazing systems – what’s all the fuss?
• 2008 synthesis paper methods and results
Meta-analysis
• Goal: investigate results and contributing factors
• Meta-analysis methods
• Results
• Conclusions & recommendations

6
• Synthesis of 47 papers comparing RG to CG
• 3 responses
1) Animal Production (kg gain/head)  AP / head
2) Animal Production (kg gain/ha)  AP / ha
3) Plant Production (kg DM/ha)  PP / ha

7
• Synthesis of 47 papers comparing RG to CG
• 3 responses
CG equal to or
1) Animal Production (kg gain/head)  AP / head better than RG
2) Animal Production (kg gain/ha)  AP / ha most of the time
3) Plant Production (kg DM/ha)  PP / ha
“These experimental results conclusively demonstrate that
rotational grazing is not superior to continuous grazing
across numerous rangeland ecosystems.”
8
 2008 Method: Vote-Counting
• A simple, straight-forward comparison of RG to CG
• Tallies the number of “significant” studies as a percent of total
studies to determine if there is an effect
AP / head: 19/38 studies found no significant difference = 50%

Why do something else?

• Non-significant results still hold information
o 19 studies with p-values of 0.265  fail to find evidence of an effect
o Combination gives a p-value < 0.000001  effect!
• Meta-analysis can tap into non-significant results to:
o Is CG > RG, or RG > CG, and when?
o Tease apart influential variables across a range of ecosystems and
grazing regimes
o May reveal previously obscured patterns and important factors
9
Borenstein et al. 2009
 Outline
 Background
• Grazing systems – what’s all the fuss?
• 2008 synthesis paper methods and results
Meta-analysis
• Goal: Investigate results and influential
factors
• Meta-analysis methods
• Results
• Conclusions & recommendations
10
 Meta-analysis Methods
• Each experiment treated as a sample
• Removed studies with no quantitative data
• Removed studies counted 2+ times
• Data from text, tables, graphs, figures
Three response variables:
1) Animal Production (kg/head)  AP / head
2) Animal Production (kg/ha)  AP / ha
3) Plant Production (kg DM/ha)  PP / ha
• Generated index of effect size = Response Ratio
Response Ratio (RR)
RG
CG 11
Borenstein 2009, Hedges et al. 1999, Tummers 2006
 Eleven Predictors Tested
Climate Time
Years of Treatment
Annual Precipitation (mm)
Length of RG Rest Periods (days)
Seasonality (Precipitation)
Length of RG Graze Periods (days)
Seasonality (Temperature)
Length of Grazing Season (Year, Season)

Stocking Rate Experimental Design

Stocking Rate for RG > CG Study Size (Hectares, “Scale”)
Stocking Rate (low, moderate, high) Number of Replicates

12
 Statistical Analysis for Three Responses
1) Is there a difference between RG and CG?
Test for µ of RG/CG = 1 non-parametric t-test
RG > 1 RG higher
CG < 1 CG higher
2) What factors influence the response?
Generalized linear model for three responses
– Regression w/ Gaussian or Gamma (link = “log”) distribution
– Final model
• Meets assumptions
• Best “fit”
• Lowest AIC for model selection
• Most parsimonious (least complex)
13
R Core Team 2012
 Outline
 Background
• Grazing systems – what’s all the fuss?
• 2008 synthesis paper methods and results
Meta-analysis
• Goal: Investigate results and influential factors
• Meta-analysis methods
• Results: 1) AP/Head 2) AP/Ha 3) PP/Ha
• Conclusions & recommendations

14
Continuous > Rotational Grazing for Animal Production / Head
0.93
CG RG

Test that RG = CG
p < 0.0001 0.93
CG outperforms RG by ~ 7%

15
 Animal Productivity (Head)
AP / Head ~ Hectares + Seasonality (Temp) +
Grazing Season + Replicates

Top 4 Predictors p-value Effect on Response Ratio

* Inclusion of reps Size of Study
reduces variation to 0.03 Increases with size
(Hectares)
reveal other trends
Seasonality
* Decrease variation and < 0.001 Increases with seasonality
(Temperature)
better mean estimates
Grazing Season Increases under yearlong
* More reps = higher RR 0.07
(Season/Year) systems

Reps* 0.01 Increases with reps

16
Better performance of CG is more evident in smaller pastures
RG may perform better at larger scales, need more replicates
Hectares: p = 0.03

17
Better performance of CG is stronger in more constant environments
RG may perform better in more variable environments
Seasonality: p < 0.0001

18
Better performance of CG is stronger in more constant environments
RG may perform better in more variable environments
Seasonality: p < 0.0001

19
Continuous > Rotational Grazing for Animal Production / ha

CG RG

0.95
Test that RG = CG
p < 0.0001
CG outperforms RG by ~ 5%

20
 Animal Productivity (Ha)
AP/ha ~ Hectares + Stocking Rate RG>CG +
Reps + Days Grazing + Precipitation

Predictor p-value Effect on Response Ratio

Stocking Rate (RG:CG) 0.01 Equal > Higher

Days Grazing 0.02 Increases with length of RG graze period

Precipitation 0.008 Decreases with more rainfall

Hectares 0.006 Similar to AP/Head

Reps < 0.004 Similar to AP/Head

21
 RG performs better relative to CG when the
two treatment stocking rates are the equal
Stocking Rate RG:CG
RG:CG for Animal Productivity/Ha (kg)
0.9

p = 0.01
0.8
0.7

Equal Stocking Rate Higher

22
Equal or Higher for RG:CG
Better performance of CG relative to RG is more
evident when RG graze periods are shorter
Graze Period: p = 0.02

23
Better performance of CG relative to RG is more
evident when RG graze periods are shorter
Graze Period: p = 0.02

24
Better performance of CG is stronger in wetter environments
RG may perform better in more arid environments
Precipitation: p < 0.001

25
Better performance of CG is stronger in wetter environments
RG may perform better in more arid environments
Precipitation: p < 0.001

26
Better performance of CG is stronger in wetter environments
RG may perform better in more arid environments
Precipitation: p < 0.001

27
 Outline
Background
• Grazing systems – what’s all the fuss?
• 2008 synthesis paper methods and results
Meta-analysis
• Goal: Investigate results and influential factors
• Meta-analysis methods
• Results
• Conclusions & recommendations

28
 Summary of Conclusions
• In general, not a major deviation from conclusions of the
2008 Synthesis Paper
Across all Stocking Rates:
Response Synthesis Wolf and Horney 2015
Variable Paper 2008
AP (kg head-1) 50% CG = RG Evidence for CG > RG
42% CG > RG Estimate < 1
8% RG > CG
AP (kg ha-1) 50% CG = RG Evidence for CG > RG
34% CG > RG Estimate < 1
16% RG > CG
PP (kg DM ha-1) 83% CG = RG Evidence for RG > CG
4% CG > RG Estimate > 1
13% RG > CG
Significant Predictors
(+ effect)
• Greater size (ha/scale)
• Higher seasonality (temp)
• More reps
• SR for CG < RG
• Increased days of grazing
• Less precipitation
• Greater size (ha/scale)
• More reps
• BUT no significant
predictors
• Not likely a good estimate of
plant productivity
• Often estimated utilization
29
 Suggested Future Direction
• Large number of studies at small scales in
constant environments
– Results of this analysis suggest the possibility of higher
productivity for RG at large scales in drier, more
variable climates  worth investigating!
• Meta-analysis “from the ground up”
– Broaden search method
• Increase spatiotemporal representation
• Seek unpublished data to reduce publication bias
– Inclusion criteria stricter, more explicit
• Explicit experimental design and methods
• Mean, SE, and n for all years  weighted estimate
– Larger sample size for more even distribution of studies
across climates and scales to improve estimates and
reduce number of confounding factors
30
Borenstein et al. 2009, Harrison 2011, Hedges et al. 1999
 “Continued advocacy for rotational grazing as a superior
strategy of grazing on rangelands is founded on perception and
anecdotal interpretations, rather than an objective assessment
of the vast experimental evidence.” (2008 Synthesis Paper)
• Strong evidence for what happens at small scales
• Ranching happens at large scales and must consider
additional factors
– Long-term range quality
– Floral and faunal diversity
– Economics, Cultural considerations
1) New meta-analysis  2) More research?
Need to know what is happening
under real world conditions

31
kmwolf@ucdavis.edu
KristinaMWolf.com 32
 References
• Borenstein, M., L. V. Hedges, J. P. T. Higgins, and H.R. Rothstein. 2009. Introduction to
meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hoboken, NJ.
• Briske, D. D., J. D. Derner, J. R. Brown, S. D. Fuhlendorf, W. R. Teague, K. M. Havstad,
R. L. Gillen, A. J. Ash, and W. D. Willms. 2008. Rotational grazing on rangelands:
reconciliation of perception and experimental evidence. Rangeland Ecology &
Management 61:3-17.
• Harrison, F. 2011. Getting started with meta-analysis. Methods in Ecology and
Evolution 2:1-10.
• Hedges, L. V., J. Gurevitch, and P. S. Curtis. 1999. The meta-analysis of response ratios
in experimental ecology. Ecology 80:1150-1156.
• Quantum GIS Development Team. 2013. Quantum GIS Geographic Information System
Version 1.8.0. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. Available at
http://qgis.osgeo.org.
• R Core Team. 2012. RStudio: Integrated development environment for R (Version
0.97.312) [Computer software]. Boston, MA. Retrieved Jan 20, 2013. Available from
http://www.rstudio.org/.
• Tummers, B. 2006. DataThief III. Available from http://datathief.org/.
• WorldClim 2013. Bioclim 2.5 arcminutes resolution generic grids. WorldClim Global
Climate Data, Version 1.4 Release 3. Available at http://worldclim.org/.

33
 Meta-analysis Studies
• Anderson, D. M. 1988. Seasonal stocking of Tobosa managed under continuous and rotation grazing.
Journal of Range Management 41:78-83.
• Barnes, D. L. and R. P. Denny. 1991. A comparison of continuous and rotational grazing on veld at two
stocking rates. Journal of the Grassland Society of Southern Africa 8:168-173.
• Biondini, M. E., and L. Manske. 1996. Grazing frequency and ecosystem processes in a northern mixed
prairie, USA. Ecological Applications 6:239-256.
• Cassels, D. M., R. L. Gillen, F. T. McCollum, K. W. Tate, and M. E. Hodges. 1995. Effects of grazing
management on standing crop dynamics in tallgrass prairie. Journal of Range Management 48:81-84.
• Derner, J. D. and R. H. Hart. 2007a. Grazing-induced modifications to peak standing crop in northern
mixed-grass prairie. Rangeland Ecology & Management 60:270-276.
• Derner, J. D. and R. H. Hart. 2007b. Livestock and vegetation responses to rotational grazing in short-
grass steppe. Western North American Naturalist 67:359-367.
• Fisher, C. E., and P. T. Marion. 1951. Continuous and rotation grazing on buffalo and tobosa grassland.
Journal of Range Management 4:48-51.
• Fourie, J. H., D. P. J. Opperman, and B. R. Roberts. 1985. Influence of stocking rate and grazing systems
on available grazing in the northern cape. Journal of the Grassland Society of Southern Africa 2:24-26.
• Fourie, J. H., E. A. N. Engels, and B. R. Roberts. 1986. Herbage intake by cattle on the Tarchonanthus
veld in the Northern Cape as affected by stocking rate and grazing system. Journal of the Grassland
Society of Southern Africa 3:85-89.
• Gillen, R. L., F. T. McCollum, K. W. Tate, and M. E. Hodges. 1998. Tallgrass prairie response to grazing
system and stocking rate. Journal of Range Management 51:139-146.
• Hart, R. H., M. J. Samuel, P. S. Test, and M. A. Smith. 1988. Cattle vegetation and economic responses to
grazing systems. Journal of Range Management 41:282-286.
• Heady, H. F. 1961. Continuous vs. specialized grazing systems: a review and application to the California
annual type. Journal of Range Management 14:182-193.
34
 Meta-analysis Studies
• Heitschmidt, R. K., S. L. Dowhower, and J. W. Walker. 1987. Some effects of a rotational grazing treatment
on quantity and quality of available forage and amount of ground litter. Journal of Range
Management 40:318-321.
• Hepworth, K. W., P. S. Test, R. H. Hart, J. W. Waggoner, and M. A. Smith. 1991. Grazing systems, stocking
rates, and cattle behavior in southeastern Wyoming. Journal of Range Management 44:259-262.
• Hirschfeld, D. J., D. R. Kirby, J. S. Caton, S. S. Silcox, and K. C. Olson. 1996. Influence of grazing
management on intake and composition of cattle diets. Journal of Range Management 49:257-263.
• Holechek, J. L., T. J. Berry, and M. Vavra. 1987. Grazing system influences on cattle performance on
mountain range. Journal of Range Management 40:55-59.
• Hubbard, W. A. 1951. Rotational grazing studies in western Canada. Journal of Range Management 4:25-29.
• Jacobo, E. J., A. M. Rodriguez, J. L. Rossi, L. P. Salgado, and V. A. Deregibus. 2000. Rotational stocking and
production of Italian ryegrass on Argentinean rangelands. Journal of Range Management 53:483-488.
• Kothmann, M. M., G. W. Mathis, and W. J. Waldrip. 1971. Cow-calf response to stocking rates and grazing
systems on native range. Journal of Range Management 24:100-105.
• Kreuter, U. P., G. M. Brockett, A. D. Lyle, N. M. Tainton, and D. I. Bransby. 1984. Evaluation of veld
potential in east Griqualand using beef cattle under two grazing management systems. Journal of the
Grassland Society of Southern Africa 1:5-10.
• Manley, W. A., R. H. Hart, M. J. Samuel, M. A. Smith, J. W. Waggoner, and J. T. Manley. 1997. Vegetation,
cattle, and economic responses to grazing strategies and pressures. Journal of Range Management 50:638-
646.
• McCollum, F. T., R. L. Gillen, B. R. Karges, and M. E. Hodges. 1999. Stocker cattle response to grazing
management in tallgrass prairie. Journal of Range Management 52:120-126.
• Owensby, C. E., E. F. Smith, and K. L. Anderson. 1973. Deferred-rotation grazing with steers in Kansas-
Flint-Hills. Journal of Range Management 26:393-395.
• Wood, M. K. and W. H. Blackburn. 1984. Vegetation and soil responses to cattle grazing systems in the Texas
Rolling Plains. Journal of Range Management 37:303-308.
35
 Geographic Scope
24 randomly selected papers from Briske et al. 2008

QGIS 2013, WorldClim 2013 36

Temporal Scope

37
 Stocking Rate
does not
significantly
impact the ratio
of RG:CG
 Isn’t Stocking Rate Important?
Hypothetical Animal Production Response Ratios of RG:CG for
over Three Stocking Rates Hypothetical Animal Production
85 over Three Stocking Rates

Response ratio of RG:CG weight gains

weight gain (kgs head-1)

80 1.1

RG
CG
75 1.0

70 0.9
Response
Ratio

65 0.8

Stocking Rate Stocking Rate

Illustration of stocking rate as significant and non-significant factor for production and response ratios.
 Hypothetical illustration to show that stocking rate may impact animal production, but may not significantly
alter response ratios for animal production. 39
 RR = ratio of weight gain for RG systems to CG systems; CG = continuous grazing, RG = rotational grazing
 Studies counted 2 + times
• One study spanned 25 years, but was reported as 4 separate
studies totaling 48 years
o Derner & Hart 2007a
o reported values for PP only
o Hart et al. 1988 & Manley et al. 1997
o stated no differences between CG and RG for AP and PP, but no
values reported
o Hepworth et al. 1991
o reported on animal behavior only
 Studies counted 2 + times
• One study spanned 25 years, but was reported as 4 separate
studies totaling 48 years
o Derner & Hart 2007a
• Gillen et al. 1998 and Cassels et al. 1999 – both
o reported values for PP only
reported on PP for 1989-1993
o Hart et al. 1988 & Manley et al. 1997
• Hubbard 1951 reported on AP for 1949-1950, and
o stated no differences between CG and RG for AP and PP, but no
Smoliak
values 1960 reported on AP for 1949-1957
reported
o Therefore,
o Hepworth et al. 19913 experiments were counted 8 times
o reported on animal behavior only
*Some* Assumptions & Operational Definitions
Stocking Rate
• Assumed SR categories of “low”, “intermediate”, and “high” were appropriate to the
site.
• For studies with > 1 SR level – but that did not use “low” and “high”, used the lowest SR
as “low” and the highest SR as “high” (e.g., if used intermediate and very high SRs,
assigned intermediate = “low” and very high = “high”.
• For studies with treatments at only one SR, these data were included only in one-sample
t-tests and/or regression analyses.
• If multiple SRs were used, but only the mean response across all SRs was reported, the
SR was categorized as “intermediate” unless authors stated it was of a different average
SR category
• If SR category was not assigned by the author(s), research was conducted of the
literature and/or internet to determine the SR category based on grazing research and
established methods in similar biomes/areas.
• If no SR information was provided (category or densities), it was assumed to be an
“intermediate” SR and treated as such.
• For studies in which the RG SR was greater than the CG SR, the two grazing systems
were compared at the higher SR level .
Animal Productivity
• If multiple weights were taken over a year, the final weight at end of each grazing or
growing season were used.
42
 Continued assumptions and definitions
Plant Productivity
• If multiple plant measurements were taken over a year, these were averaged.
• If plant materials were separated out by condition (live, dead, previous year’s growth, etc.)
these were totaled.
• If condition of plant material was not reported, assumed the reported values were for “total”.
• If multiple range “types” were included in a study (e.g., lowland vs. upland), productivity
values for each were added and averaged across the number of types within each treatment.
• In general, “weeds” were omitted from productivity means in all studies; if plant types not
reported, it was assumed that “weeds” were not included in measurements.
Other
• Assumed weather (esp. rainfall) and topography were sufficiently similar across treatments
within a study to not have significantly different effects on the dependent variables.
• Means were averaged across all years for each study; if the average for all years was not
provided, data from the final year of treatment were used.
• If data from all years were not reported (or data was not collected for a year(s) within a study),
only those years for which data were reported were used to calculate the mean response(s).
• If studies were duplicated (same site, treatments, etc.), study with the most complete dataset
was used; if no values were reported from duplicate studies, that paper was not used in the
meta-analysis.
• If 2+ RG categories were compared to one CG treatment, these were treated as two separate
samples with individual response ratios (RRs) with case ID’s a,b,…,n.
• If the study was included in the Briske et al. (2008) paper but did not provide sufficient data
(or any data) to allow for calculation of RRs, it was dropped from this analysis. If Briske et al.
did not evaluate the response for a particular RG system, but data were provided in the study,
it was included in this analysis.
43
Continuous > Rotational Grazing for Animal Production / ha

CG RG

Hypothesis test
that RG = CG
0.95 p < 0.0001
Test that RG = CG
CG > RG
p < 0.0001 0.92
CG > RG

44
 2008 Synthesis Results
AP / Head AP / Ha PP / Ha
No difference 50% 50% 83%
RG > CG 8% 16% 13%
CG > RG 42% 34% 4%
How you group data may alter the interpretation

Plant Productivity / Ha
• 87% equal or greater PP/ha for CG

45
 2008 Synthesis Results
AP / Head AP / Ha PP / Ha
No difference 50% 50% 83%
RG > CG 8% 16% 13%
CG > RG 42% 34% 4%

How you group data may alter the interpretation

Plant Productivity / Ha
• 87% equal or greater for CG
• 96% equal or greater for RG
• The “equal” (non-significant) result holds
power and information not tapped by
vote-counting 46
Better performance of CG is more evident with smaller plots
RG may perform better at larger scales, need more replicates
Hectares: p = 0.006

47
Rotational > Continuous Grazing for Plant Production / ha
CG RG Test that RG = CG
p < 0.0001
RG > CG
1.02

48
Rotational > Continuous Grazing for Plant Production / ha
CG RG Test that RG = CG
p < 0.0001
RG > CG
1.02
• No significant predictors for regression
 “Productivity” in response to the
treatments rarely actually measured
o Most often measured residual DM =
utilization
o Clipped at end of season
o Permanent exclosures clipped;
never impacted by the grazing
treatment
• Cattle gain more (per head and ha) under CG
 less plant biomass left behind
• Doesn’t tell us much about treatment effects
on plant productivity

49
View publication stats