Skip to main content
ARS Home » Plains Area » Fort Collins, Colorado » Center for Agricultural Resources Research » Rangeland Resources & Systems Research » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #342385
Title: A narrower gap of grazing intensity. Reply to Fetzel et al. 2017. Seasonality constrains to livestock grazing intensity

Author
item IRISARRI, J. GONZALO - University Of Buenos Aires
item AGUIAR, SEBASTIAN - University Of Buenos Aires
item OESTERHELD, MARTIN - University Of Buenos Aires
item Derner, Justin
item GOLLUSCIO, RODOLFO - University Of Buenos Aires

Submitted to: Global Change Biology
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 6/9/2017
Publication Date: 9/12/2017
Citation: Irisarri, J., Aguiar, S., Oesterheld, M., Derner, J.D., Golluscio, R. 2017. A narrower gap of grazing intensity. Reply to Fetzel et al. 2017. Seasonality constrains to livestock grazing intensity. Global Change Biology. 23:3965-3966. doi:10.1111/gcb.13800.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13800

Interpretive Summary: A recent article (Fetzel et al. 2017) assessed observed and potential grazing intensity across the globe with their results estimating the value below 15% for most of the world. This reply paper presents seven examples from around the globe showcasing that grazing intensity values are mostly above the 15% value presented in Fetzel et al. 2017. Discrepancies in the grazing intensity values include: 1) an overestimation of annual productivity by Fetzel et al., and 2) underestimations of livestock consumption due to numbers of livestock and/or area of rangeland. In summary, the underestimations of consumption and an overestimation of annual productivity likely were the causal factors in the underestimation of grazing intensity values.

Technical Abstract: Fetzel et al. (2017) globally mapped the gap between observed and potential grazing intensity (GI): the ratio between consumption by livestock and ANPP. Fetzel et al. (2017) estimated grazing land, forage production and livestock demand at a half-degree resolution. They mapped GI below 15% for most of the world. Here we present some independent tests of their predictions and show that observed GI reported in the literature is consistently higher than observed GI reported by Fetzel et al. (2017). Consequently, the gap between forage produced and consumed may be narrower.