The LTAR Grazing Land Common Experiment at the Central Plains Experimental Range: Collaborative adaptive rangeland management

• Published in: Journal of environmental quality 2024-11, Vol.53 (6), p.904-912
• Main Authors: Augustine, David J., Derner, Justin D., Porensky, Lauren M., Hoover, David L., Ritten, John P., Kearney, Sean P., Ma, Liwang, Peck, Dannele, Wilmer, Hailey
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Agriculture - methods; Animal Husbandry - methods; Animals; Birds; Cattle; Colorado; Conservation of Natural Resources - methods; Ecosystem; ecosystems; environmental quality; Grassland; grasslands; Herbivory; herds; landscapes; livestock production; range management; rangelands; species; stakeholders; steers; topography; vegetation structure; weight gain; wildlife habitats
• ISSN: 0047-2425; 1537-2537; 1537-2537
• DOI: 10.1002/jeq2.20599

Semiarid rangelands throughout the western Great Plains support livestock production and many other ecosystem services. The degree to which adaptive multi‐paddock (AMP) grazing management approaches can help achieve desired ecosystem services remains unclear. At the Central Plains Experimental Range in northeastern Colorado, a management‐science partnership with a diverse stakeholder group is comparing collaborative adaptive rangeland management (CARM), designed to incorporate AMP principles, to traditional rangeland management (TRM), consisting of season‐long grazing during the growing season. Each treatment was implemented on a set of 10, 130‐ha pastures paired by soils, topography, and plant communities to evaluate how CARM affects vegetation (composition and production), livestock production (steer weight gain), and wildlife habitat (vegetation structure for grassland birds). For the first 5 years of the experiment, CARM cattle were managed as a single herd using AMP grazing with planned year‐long rest in 20% of the pastures. Relative to TRM, CARM enhanced heterogeneity in vegetation structure across the landscape, benefiting two grassland bird species. However, this came at the cost of 12%–16% lower steer weight gains in CARM versus TRM and declining populations of a third bird species of conservation concern in both treatments. Here we discuss how increased understanding of ecological and social processes during the experiment's first 5 years led to changes in the CARM treatment and management objectives during the next 5 years. We also discuss how innovations in remote sensing, environmental sensors, ecosystem modeling, social learning, and economic analyses are being integrated into and supported by the CARM experiment. Core Ideas We compare typical season‐long grazing management (traditional rangeland management [TRM]) with collaborative adaptive rangeland management (CARM). The CARM treatment was co‐produced with a diverse group of stakeholders and employed adaptive rotational grazing. Relative to TRM, CARM enhanced vegetation heterogeneity and grassland bird habitat, but cut steer weights 12%–16%. Reduced weight gain in CARM arose from altered foraging behavior that reduced diet quality at high stock density. In response, stakeholders now employ two rotational herds in the CARM treatment to reduce stock density by 50%. Plain Language Summary The Long‐term Agroecosystem Research network consists of 18 sites distributed across the United States wh