IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i16p12456-d1218433.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Simulation of the Impact of Rangeland Management Strategies on Soil Health, Environmental Footprint, Economic Impact, and Human-Edible Nutrient Conversion from Grasslands in the Central and Northern Great Plains of the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Merri E. Day

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA)

  • Minfeng Tang

    (Beef Cattle Institute, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA)

  • Phillip A. Lancaster

    (Beef Cattle Institute, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA)

  • Deann Presley

    (Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA)

  • Dustin L. Pendell

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA)

  • Walter H. Fick

    (Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA)

  • Luca Doro

    (Blackland Research and Extension Center, Texas AgriLife Research, Temple, TX 76502, USA)

  • Adam Ahlers

    (Department of Horticulture and Natural Resources, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA)

  • Andrew Ricketts

    (Department of Horticulture and Natural Resources, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA)

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine the impact of combinations of management practices on the sustainability of rangelands in different ecoregions across the Great Plains. Six study sites were selected in Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota, encompassing the Flint Hills, High Plains, and Sandhills ecoregions. Twelve rangeland management scenarios were developed from combinations of stocking density (light, moderate, heavy), grazing management (continuous, rotational), and fire regime (no burn, spring burn) along with a no-management scenario. Each scenario was simulated at each site using established computer models: Agricultural Policy/Environmental eXtender model, Integrated Farm System Model, and Impact Analysis for Planning. Additionally, human-edible nutrient conversion was computed. A sustainability index was developed to encompass the three sustainability pillars (i.e., environmental, economic, and social) into a single value. Unmanaged rangelands generally had less soil (20%), nitrogen (30%), and phosphorus (50%) losses, although this was not consistent across ecoregions, and similar or greater soil carbon deposition than grazed rangelands. There was an interaction among stocking density, grazing management, fire regime, and ecoregion for many indicators of soil health, greenhouse gas emissions, economic activity, and human-edible nutrient conversion. The scenarios with the greatest overall sustainability index value had moderate to high index values for each of the three pillars (people, planet, profit). In conclusion, the ranking of rangeland management practices based on sustainability indicators was inconsistent across ecoregions, indicating that the optimal management system to improve sustainability of rangelands is not the same for all ecoregions.

Suggested Citation

  • Merri E. Day & Minfeng Tang & Phillip A. Lancaster & Deann Presley & Dustin L. Pendell & Walter H. Fick & Luca Doro & Adam Ahlers & Andrew Ricketts, 2023. "Simulation of the Impact of Rangeland Management Strategies on Soil Health, Environmental Footprint, Economic Impact, and Human-Edible Nutrient Conversion from Grasslands in the Central and Northern G," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-43, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:16:p:12456-:d:1218433
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/16/12456/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/16/12456/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cheng, G. & Harmel, R.D. & Ma, L. & Derner, J.D. & Augustine, D.J. & Bartling, P.N.S. & Fang, Q.X. & Williams, J.R. & Zilverberg, C.J. & Boone, R.B. & Hoover, D. & Yu, Q., 2021. "Evaluation of APEX modifications to simulate forage production for grazing management decision-support in the Western US Great Plains," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    2. Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Wyatt, Wayne & Venuto, Brad & Blouin, David & Boucher, Robert W., 2008. "The Roles of Labor and Profitability in Choosing a Grazing Strategy for Beef Production in the U.S. Gulf Coast Region," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(1), pages 1-13, April.
    3. Zilverberg, Cody J. & Angerer, Jay & Williams, Jimmy & Metz, Loretta J. & Harmoney, Keith, 2018. "Sensitivity of diet choices and environmental outcomes to a selective grazing algorithm," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 390(C), pages 10-22.
    4. Beauchemin, Karen A. & Henry Janzen, H. & Little, Shannan M. & McAllister, Tim A. & McGinn, Sean M., 2010. "Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western Canada: A case study," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 371-379, July.
    5. Wang, Tong & Richard Teague, W. & Park, Seong C. & Bevers, Stan, 2018. "Evaluating long-term economic and ecological consequences of continuous and multi-paddock grazing - a modeling approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 197-207.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fang, Q.X. & Harmel, R.D. & Ma, L. & Bartling, P.N.S. & Derner, J.D. & Jeong, J. & Williams, J.R. & Boone, R.B., 2022. "Evaluating the APEX model for alternative cow-calf grazing management strategies in Central Texas," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    2. White, Robin R. & Brady, Michael & Capper, Judith L. & Johnson, Kristen A., 2014. "Optimizing diet and pasture management to improve sustainability of U.S. beef production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 1-12.
    3. Che, Yuyuan & Feng, Hongli & Hennessy, David, 2021. "Assessing Peer Effects and Subsidy Impacts in Technology Adoption: Application to Grazing Management Choices with Farm Survey Data," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315123, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. A, Tadesse & Jeong, Jaehak & Green, Colleen H.M., 2022. "Modeling landscape wind erosion processes on rangelands using the APEX model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 467(C).
    5. Che, Yuyuan & Feng, Hongli & Hennessy, David A., 2023. "Will adoption occur if a practice is win-win for profit and the environment? An application to a rancher's grazing practice choices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    6. Pogue, Sarah J. & Kröbel, Roland & Janzen, H. Henry & Alemu, Aklilu W. & Beauchemin, Karen A. & Little, Shannan & Iravani, Majid & de Souza, Danielle Maia & McAllister, Tim A., 2020. "A social-ecological systems approach for the assessment of ecosystem services from beef production in the Canadian prairie," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    7. Chowdhury, Iftekhar Uddin Ahmed & Wang, Tong & Jin, Hailong & Smart, Alexander J., 2020. "Exploring the Determinants of Perceived Benefits of Rotational Grazing in the U. S. Great Plains," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304487, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Raymond L. Desjardins & Devon E. Worth & Xavier P. C. Vergé & Dominique Maxime & Jim Dyer & Darrel Cerkowniak, 2012. "Carbon Footprint of Beef Cattle," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(12), pages 1-23, December.
    9. Dakpo, K Hervé & Lansink, Alfons Oude, 2019. "Dynamic pollution-adjusted inefficiency under the by-production of bad outputs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(1), pages 202-211.
    10. María I. Nieto & Olivia Barrantes & Liliana Privitello & Ramón Reiné, 2018. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Beef Grazing Systems in Semi-Arid Rangelands of Central Argentina," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-22, November.
    11. Dyer, James A & Verge, Xavier P. C. & Desjardins, Raymond L. & Worth, Devon E., 2014. "A Comparison of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions From the Sheep Industry With Beef Production in Canada," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 3(3).
    12. Alemu, Aklilu W. & Amiro, Brian D. & Bittman, Shabtai & MacDonald, Douglas & Ominski, Kim H., 2017. "Greenhouse gas emission of Canadian cow-calf operations: A whole-farm assessment of 295 farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 73-83.
    13. Jessica Gilreath & Tryon Wickersham & Jason Sawyer, 2022. "Comparison of Methodologies Used to Estimate Enteric Methane Emissions and Warming Impact from 1920 to 2020 for U.S. Beef Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-15, December.
    14. Whitt, Christine & Wallander, Steven, 2022. "Rotational Grazing Adoption by Cow-Calf Operations," USDA Miscellaneous 333532, United States Department of Agriculture.
    15. Alemu, Aklilu W. & Janzen, Henry & Little, Shannan & Hao, Xiying & Thompson, Donald J. & Baron, Vern & Iwaasa, Alan & Beauchemin, Karen A. & Kröbel, Roland, 2017. "Assessment of grazing management on farm greenhouse gas intensity of beef production systems in the Canadian Prairies using life cycle assessment," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 1-13.
    16. Boaitey, Albert & Goddard, Ellen & Mohapatra, Sandeep, 2019. "Environmentally friendly breeding, spatial heterogeneity and effective carbon offset design in beef cattle," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 35-45.
    17. Edward C. Rhodes & Douglas R. Tolleson & Jay P. Angerer, 2022. "Modeling Herbaceous Biomass for Grazing and Fire Risk Management," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-13, October.
    18. Forte, Annachiara & Zucaro, Amalia & De Vico, Gionata & Fierro, Angelo, 2016. "Carbon footprint of heliciculture: A case study from an Italian experimental farm," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 99-111.
    19. Hünerberg, Martin & Little, Shannan M. & Beauchemin, Karen A. & McGinn, Sean M. & O’Connor, Don & Okine, Erasmus K. & Harstad, Odd M. & Kröbel, Roland & McAllister, Tim A., 2014. "Feeding high concentrations of corn dried distillers’ grains decreases methane, but increases nitrous oxide emissions from beef cattle production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 19-27.
    20. Tanure, Soraya & Nabinger, Carlos & Becker, João Luiz, 2013. "Bioeconomic model of decision support system for farm management. Part I: Systemic conceptual modeling," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 104-116.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:16:p:12456-:d:1218433. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.