Dataset Information

Does cattle and sheep grazing under best management significantly elevate sediment losses? Evidence from the North Wyke Farm Platform, UK

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Intensive livestock grazing has been associated with an increased risk of soil erosion and concomitant negative impacts on the ecological status of watercourses. Whilst various mitigation options are promoted for reducing livestock impacts, there is a paucity of data on the relationship between stocking rates and quantified sediment losses. This evidence gap means there is uncertainty regarding the cost–benefit of policy preferred best management.

Methods

Sediment yields from 15 hydrologically isolated field scale catchments on a heavily instrumented ruminant livestock farm in the south west UK were investigated over ~ 26 months spread across 6 years. Sediment yields were compared to cattle and sheep stocking rates on long-term, winter (November–April), and monthly timescales. The impacts of livestock on soil vegetation cover and bulk density were also examined. Cattle were tracked using GPS collars to determine how grazing related to soil damage.

Results

No observable impact of livestock stocking rates of 0.15–1.00 UK livestock units (LU) ha−1 for sheep, and 0–0.77 LU ha−1 for cattle on sediment yields was observed at any of the three timescales. Cattle preferentially spent time close to specific fences where soils were visually damaged. However, there was no indication that livestock have a significant effect on soil bulk density on a field scale. Livestock were housed indoors during winters when most rainfall occurs, and best management practices were used which when combined with low erodibility clayey soils likely limited sediment losses.

Conclusion

A combination of clayey soils and soil trampling in only a small proportion of the field areas lead to little impact from grazing livestock. Within similar landscapes with best practice livestock grazing management, additional targeted measures to reduce erosion are unlikely to yield a significant cost-benefit.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11368-021-02909-y.

SUBMITTER: Pulley S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8550719 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Land-use and land-cover change associated with agriculture is one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss. In heavily modified agricultural landscapes, grazing lands may be the only areas that can provide essential resources for native grassland species. Management decisions, such as choice of livestock species, affect the extent to which grazing lands provide suitable habitat for native species such as pollinators.Our study compared how sheep versus cattle herbivory affected floral resources and butterfly abundance across low-diversity, former Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) pastures managed with patch-burn grazing.Across all years (2017-2019), flowering species richness and abundance were significantly higher in cattle pastures than sheep pastures. On average, we recorded 6.9 flowering species/transect in cattle pastures and 3.8 flowering species/transect in sheep pastures. The average floral abundance per transect was 1278 stems/transect in cattle pastures and 116 stems/transect in pastures grazed by sheep.Similarly, we observed higher butterfly species richness, diversity, and abundance in cattle than in sheep pastures. In cattle pastures, we observed an average of 75 butterflies and 6.75 species per transect, compared with an average of 52 butterflies and 3.37 species per transect in sheep pastures. However, the butterfly community composition did not significantly differ between grazing treatments likely because agricultural-tolerant, habitat generalists comprised the majority of the butterfly community. Five generalist butterflies comprised 92.3% of observations; Colias philodice was the most abundant (61% of observations). Speyeria idalia and Danaus plexippus, two butterflies of conservation concern, comprised less than 0.5% of butterfly observations.Our results, which are among the first attempt quantifying butterfly use of post-CRP fields grazed by livestock, show that increased precipitation and cattle grazing promoted higher forb abundance and richness. However, additional interventions may be needed to enhance floral resources to sustain and improve pollinator diversity in these landscapes.

Project description:Water quality impairment by elevated sediment loss is a pervasive problem for global water resources. Sediment management targets identify exceedance or the sediment loss 'gap' requiring mitigation. In the UK, palaeo-limnological reconstruction of sediment loss during the 100-150 years pre-dating the post-World War II intensification of agriculture, has identified management targets (0.20-0.35 t ha-1 yr-1) representing 'modern background sediment delivery to rivers'. To assess exceedance on land for grazing ruminant farming, an integrated approach combined new mechanistic evidence from a heavily-instrumented experimental farm platform and a scaling out framework of modelled commercial grazing ruminant farms in similar environmental settings. Monitoring (2012-2016) on the instrumented farm platform returned sediment loss ranges of 0.11-0.14 t ha-1 yr-1 and 0.21-0.25 t ha-1 yr-1 on permanent pasture, compared with between 0.19-0.23 t ha-1 yr-1 and 0.43-0.50 t ha-1 yr-1and 0.10-0.13 t ha-1 yr-1and 0.25-0.30 t ha-1 yr-1 on pasture with scheduled plough and reseeds. Excess sediment loss existed on all three farm platform treatments but was more extensive on the two treatments with scheduled plough and reseeds. Excessive sediment loss from land used by grazing ruminant farming more strategically across England, was estimated to be up to >0.2 t ha-1 yr-1. Modelled scenarios of alternative farming futures, based on either increased uptake of interventions typically recommended by visual farm audits, or interventions selected using new mechanistic understanding for sediment loss from the instrumented farm platform, returned minimum sediment loss reductions. On the farm platform these were 2.1 % (up to 0.007 t ha-1 yr-1) and 5.1 % (up to 0.018 t ha-1 yr-1). More strategically, these were up to 2.8 % (0.014 t ha-1 yr-1) and 4.1 % (0.023 t ha-1 yr-1). Conventional on-farm measures will therefore not fully mitigate the sediment loss gap, meaning that more severe land cover change is required.