Nexus of grazing management with plant and soil properties in northern China grasslands

Abstract

Grasslands provide habitats for living organisms and livelihoods for ~800 million people globally. Many grasslands in developing countries are severely degraded. Some measures have been taken to curb the trend of degradation for decades. It is important to determine how decade-long rejuvenation efforts affected grassland ecosystems. We identified 65 data-rich studies based on six criteria, from >2500 relevant publications, and generated a dataset with 997 rows and 12 variables. The dataset covers different grazing intensities (grazing exclusion, light, moderate, and heavy grazing) and their impacts on plant traits (vegetation coverage, aboveground and root biomass, and plant diversity) and soil physiochemical properties (bulk density, moisture content, organic C, total and available N, total and available P, C:N ratio, and pH). The dataset could be used to (i) quantify the effectiveness of rejuvenation processes by determining the impact on plant community and soil properties, (ii) perform comprehensive analyses to elucidate large-picture effects of grazing management and rejuvenation, and (iii) analyze the impact of grass-climate-soil-human interactions on grassland ecosystem sustainability.

Fig. 1

Geographic locations of the selected studies for the Data Descriptor. The selected locations/sites (indicated by blue dots) cover the major grassland areas in China from the semi-desert and arid northwest to semiarid and humid northeast regions.

Fig. 2

Workflow chart for generating dataset output. Brown boxes represent the number of articles (n_i, where i = 0, 1… or 6), included or excluded, step-by-step, based on the selection criteria; dark green boxes denote the articles selected for the present Data Descriptor. The six selection criteria are briefly described.

Fig. 3

Six types of grasslands in the four ecological zones in China. Ti (where i = 1, 2….0.6) in each of the six types represents the number of treatments × studies × years; Ni (where i = 1, 2….0.4) in each of the four ecozones represents the number of treatments × studies × years.

Fig. 4

Distribution patterns in percent vegetation coverage between ‘grazing’ and ‘non-grazing’. Mean difference ≥0 means the results favor ‘non-grazing’, ≤0 means the results favor ‘grazing’, and a value of 0 means no difference between the two grazing practices. The distribution pattern shows the 95% confidence interval.

Fig. 5

Distribution patterns in aboveground plant biomass between ‘grazing’ and ‘non-grazing’. Mean difference ≥0 means aboveground plant biomass yield favors ‘non-grazing’, ≤0 means the result favors ‘grazing’, and a value of 0 means no difference between the two practices. The distribution pattern shows the 95% confidence interval.

Fig. 6

Distribution patterns in root biomass between ‘grazing’ and ‘non-grazing’. Mean difference ≥0 means root biomass yield favors ‘non-grazing’, ≤0 means the result favors ‘grazing’, and a value of 0 means no difference in root biomass between the two practices. The distribution pattern shows the 95% confidence interval.

Fig. 7

Distribution patterns in plant diversity between ‘grazing’ and ‘non-grazing’. Mean difference ≥0 means plant diversity favors ‘non-grazing’, ≤0 means the result favors ‘grazing’, and a value of 0 means no difference in plant diversity between the two practices. The distribution pattern shows the 95% confidence interval.