/
Blog Posts
Page History
| HTML |
|---|
<div class="banner_general_fiche"><div class="table-wrap"><table class="ficheTable" style="width: 99.1985%;"><colgroup><col style="width: 60%;"><col style="width: 20%;"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td class="confluenceTd"><h1 style="text-align: center;" title="" id="banner_title"></h1></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div>
<script>
var title = $('#title-text').find('a').text();
var mytitle = title.replace('_',' ');
$('#banner_title').text(mytitle + ' Fiche');
</script>
<style>
.banner_general_fiche {
height: 194px;
padding-right: 20px;
background-color: #00afef;
}
.banner_general_fiche h1 {
position: relative;
font-size: 1.7 !important;
font-family: corbel;
color: #ffffff !important;
letter-spacing: -0.01em;
font-weight: normal;
line-height: 1.25;
top: 64px;
font-weight: bold;
margin-left: 30px;
}
#banner_title {
text-transform: uppercase;
}
.table-wrap {
overflow-x: hidden;
overflow-y: hidden;
}
.banner_general_fiche td {
border: 0px !important;
height: 170px;
width: 100%;
}
.content-wrapper {
font-family: corbel;
position: relative;
}
</style>
<style>
.highlight-green {
color: #000000;
background-color: #92d050 !important;
}
table.confluenceTable td.confluenceTd.highlight-green>p {
background-color: #92d050 !important;
}
.highlight-red {
color: #000000 !important;
background-color: #ff0000 !important;
}
table.confluenceTable td.confluenceTd.highlight-red>p {
background-color: #ff0000 !important;
}
.highlight-yellow {
color: #000000;
background-color: #ffc000 !important;
}
table.confluenceTable td.confluenceTd.highlight-yellow>p {
background-color: #ffc000 !important;
}
.highlight-grey {
color: #000000 !important;
background-color: #a4a4a4 !important;
}
table.confluenceTable td.confluenceTd.highlight-grey>p {
background-color: #a4a4a4 !important;
}
#Agroforestry_GENERAL-GENERALFICHE-AGROFORESTRY {
color: #F8F8FF !important;
}
#main-content { font-family: corbel; }
.wiki-content img.confluence-embedded-image { cursor: default !important;}
</style> |
Data extracted in December2021 September 2021
Fiche created in December 2023
Note to the reader: This general fiche summarises all the environmental and climate impacts of GRASSLAND CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION found in a systematic review of 10 synthesis research papers[1]. These papers were selected from an initial number of 1022 obtained through a systematic literature search strategy, according to the inclusion criteria reported in section 4. The impacts reported here are those for which there is scientific evidence available in published synthesis papers, what does not preclude the farming practice to have other impacts on the environment and climate still not covered by primary studies or by synthesis papers.
The synthesis papers review a number of primary studies ranging from 13 to 259. Therefore, the assessment of impacts relies on As each synthesis research paper involves a number of primary research papers - ranging from 13 to 259, the assessment of impacts relies on a large number of results from the primary studies, obtained mainly in field experiments (carried out in situations close to real farming environment), and conditions, or sometimes in lab experiments or from model simulations.
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE FARMING PRACTICE
...
Description
...
- Description:
- Grasslands are
...
- areas of land predominantly covered by communities of grass-like plants and forbs and may include sparsely occurring trees and shrubs.
...
- In the Eurostat classification, percentages of area covered by such canopies are limited to less than 10 % in the case of trees and to less than 20
...
- % in the case of shrubs (i.e., low woody plants capable of reaching heights of up to 5 metres)[2
...
...
- ] However, in the scientific literature reviewed here, grasslands are usually more broadly defined and might not fully meet such canopy limits.
- This
...
- review includes a wide variety of
...
- grassland types: savannah, grassy deserts, seasonally flooded grasslands, prairies, meadows, pastures, rangelands, salt-marshes, bioenergy perennial grasslands, calcareous grasslands and wooded grasslands. Grasslands differ in terms of:
...
- management intensity
...
- (natural, semi-natural, improved and intensively managed
...
- ); management history: permanent and temporary
...
- ; successional stage
...
- (old successional and secondary grasslands
...
- ); biomes and climates
...
- (semi-arid, temperate, tropical, Mediterranean, tundra, alpine, subalpine, artic and subartic).
...
- Fodder crops
...
- are not included as grasslands.
...
- Grassland
...
- conservation refers to the preservation (i.e., no transformation to other land uses) of old successional natural grasslands.
...
- Old successional natural
...
- grasslands are grasses and forbs communities with no major human-induced structural or functional alterations so that their current management closely resembles historical, endogenous disturbance regimes (e.g., grazing intensity and fire frequency).[4
...
- ] In the scientific literature, these ecosystems are also referred as old-growth, ancient, remnant or native grasslands.
...
- Grassland
...
- restoration includes active and passive restoration methods usually aiming at enhancing plant community diversity, what is then expected to have cascading positive effects in higher trophic levels.[5
...
- ]
- This review includes several
...
- restoration methods: sowing of seed mixtures, addition of soil and hay, reintroduction of grazing and burning as active restoration methods, and abandonment of agricultural use as passive restoration method. In this review, we
...
- only consider the restoration of former grassland areas degraded by agricultural use (i.e., degradation due to mining or other land uses are excluded). We
...
- define secondary grasslands as the herbaceous communities that assemble after destruction (here, by agricultural use) of old successional natural grasslands
...
- , where the restoration efforts are conducted
...
- Key
...
- descriptors:
- For the exploration
...
- of grassland conservation, this
...
- review includes the spatial comparison between preserved old successional natural grasslands (intervention) and nearby secondary grasslands, either restored or degraded, as
...
- comparator.
- For the exploration
...
- of grassland restoration, this
...
- review includes spatial and temporal comparisons between restored grasslands (intervention) and croplands or secondary grasslands after crop abandonment as controls. Spatial comparisons are those conducted simultaneously between restored grasslands and nearby croplands (or secondary grasslands after crop abandonment). Temporal comparisons are those conducted in the same site before (when land use was cropland or abandoned cropland) and after restoration into grassland.
- In this review,
...
- grassland restoration includes restoration into different types of grasslands, including perennial bioenergy grasslands.
- This review does not include grazing or other management practices (i.e, soil amendment and fertilisation, mowing, increasing grass species richness) conducted in grasslands, which are assessed in separate sets of fiches.
...
2.
...
EFFECTS OF THE FARMING PRACTICE ON CLIMATE AND
...
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
We reviewed the impacts of the conservation of old successional natural grasslands compared to secondary grassland (Table 1) and the restoration of grasslands in replacement of croplands or of secondary grasslands (Table 2).
The tables table below show shows the number of synthesis papers with statistical tests reporting positive, negative or no effect, based on the statistical comparison of the intervention and the controli) a significant difference between the Intervention and the Comparator, that is to say, a significant statistical effect, which can be positive or negative; or ii) a non-statistically significant difference between the Intervention and the Comparator. In addition, we include the , if any, the number of systematic reviews synthesis papers reporting relevant results , if any, but without statistical test of the effects (“uncertain”). The numbers between parentheses indicate the number of synthesis papers with a quality score of at least 50%. Details on quality criteria . Details on the quality assessment of the synthesis papers can be found in the methodology section of this WIKI.
Out of the 10 selected synthesis papers selected, 9 reported included studies conducted in Europe while one did not report the geographical origin of the studies included. All the synthesis papers have a quality score higher , and 10 have a quality score higher than 50%.
Table 1: Summary of effects. Impacts of the conservation of old successional natural grassland compared to secondary grassland.
...
Impact
...
Positive
...
Negative
...
No effect
...
Uncertain
...
Increase biodiversity
...
2 (2)
...
0
...
1 (1)
...
0
...
Increase pollination
...
0
...
0
...
1 (1)
...
0
...
Increase carbon sequestration
...
1 (1)
...
0
...
0
...
0
Table 2. Impacts of the restoration of grassland compared to cropland or secondary grassland.
...
Impact
...
Comparator
(Land use previous to restoration)
...
Positive
...
Negative
...
No effect
...
Uncertain
...
Increase biodiversity
...
Cropland
...
1 (1)
...
0
...
2 (2)
...
0
...
Decrease GHG emissions
...
Cropland
...
1 (1)
...
0
...
0
...
0
...
Decrease nutrient leaching and run-off
...
Cropland
...
1 (1)
...
0
...
0
...
0
...
Increase pollination
...
Secondary grassland
...
1 (1)
...
0
...
0
...
0
...
Increase soil nutrients
...
Cropland
...
0
...
1 (1)
...
0
...
0
...
Increase carbon sequestration
...
Cropland
...
3 (3)*
...
0
...
0
...
0
...
Secondary grassland
...
0
...
1 (1)**
...
0
...
0
Number of synthesis papers reporting positive, negative or non-statistically significant effects on environmental and climate impacts. The number of synthesis papers reporting relevant results but without statistical test of the effects are also provided. When not all the synthesis papers reporting an effect are of high quality, the number of synthesis papers with a quality score of at least 50% is indicated in parentheses. Some synthesis papers may report effects for more than one impact, or more than one effect for the same impact.
|
|
|
| Statistically tested | Non-statistically tested | ||
Impact | Metric | Intervention | Comparator | Significantly positive | Significantly negative | Non-significant | |
Increase Biodiversity | Biodiversity | Grassland restoration | Cropland | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Natural grassland conservation | Secondary grasslands | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
Increase Carbon sequestration | Soil organic carbon | Grassland restoration | Cropland | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Grassland restoration (to perennial bioenergy grassland) | Cropland | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Grassland restoration (to perennial bioenergy grassland) | Secondary grasslands | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||
Natural grassland conservation | Secondary grasslands | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Decrease GHG emissions | GHG emissions | Grassland restoration | Cropland | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Decrease Nutrient leaching and run-off | Nutrient loss | Grassland restoration | Cropland | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Increase Pollination | Pollination | Grassland restoration | Degradated grassland | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Natural grassland conservation | Restored grassland | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
Increase Soil nutrients | Soil nutrients | Grassland restoration | Cropland | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
3. FACTORS INFLUENCING THE EFFECTS ON CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The factors significantly influencing the size and/or direction of the effects on the impacts, according to the synthesis papers included in this review, are reported below. Details about the factors can be found in the summaries of the meta-analyses available in this WIKI.
Table 2: List of factors reported to significantly affect the size and/or direction of the effects on environmental and climate impacts, according to the synthesis papers reviewed. The reference number of the synthesis papers where those factors are explored is given in parentheses.
Impact | Factors |
Biodiversity | Age of secondary grassland (Ref2) and Presence of remnant vegetation (Ref8) |
Carbon sequestration | Abandonment time (Ref5), Climate (Ref5), Initial SOC stock (Ref5) and Soil sampling depth (Ref10) |
Pollination | Pollinator taxa (Ref3), Restoration method (Ref3) and Time since treatment (Ref3) |
4. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW SEARCH STRATEGY
Table 3: Systematic review search strategy - methodology and search parameters.
Parameter | Details |
Keywords | WOS: TS=("grazing |
*In one of these synthesis papers the previous cropland use is restored into perennial bioenergy grassland.
**In this review paper the previous secondary grassland use is restored into perennial bioenergy grassland.
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE KEY FACTORS INFLUENCING THE SIZE OF THE EFFECT
Only the factors explicitly studied in the reviewed synthesis papers with a significant effect are reported below. Details regarding the factors can be found in the Summaries of the meta-analyses.
...
Impact
...
Factors
...
Increase biodiversity
...
Age of secondary grassland (ref 2), Presence of remnant vegetation (ref 9)
...
Increase pollination
...
Pollinator taxa (ref 3), Time since treatment (ref 3), Restoration method (ref 3)
...
Increase carbon sequestration
...
Abandonment time (ref 6), Climate (ref 6), Initial soil organic carbon stock (ref 6), Soil sampling depth (ref 11)
4. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW SEARCH STRATEGY
Keywords
*" OR "grassland*" OR "pasture*" OR "rangeland")) AND TS=(("meta-analy*" OR "systematic* review*" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis" OR "research synthesis") |
|
Time reference | No time |
restriction. |
Databases |
Web of Science and Scopus |
: run |
on 21 September 2021 |
Exclusion criteria |
The main criteria that led to the exclusion of a synthesis paper |
The search returned 1022 synthesis papers potentially relevant for the practice object of our fiche. From the 1022 potentially relevant synthesis papers, 661 were excluded after reading the title and abstract, and 351 after reading the full text according to the above-mentioned criteria. Finally, 10 synthesis papers were selected for grassland conservation and restoration.
5. LIST OF SYNTHESIS PAPERS INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW
are: |
5. SYNTHESIS PAPERS INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW
Table 4: List of synthesis papers included in this review. More details can be found in the summaries of the meta-analyses.
Ref Num | Author(s) | Year | Title | Journal | DOI |
Ref1 |
Ref. Num
Authors
Year
Title
Reference
DOI
Zhang, YS; Pan, BB; Lam, SK; Bai, E; Hou, PF; Chen, DL |
2021 |
Predicting the ratio of nitrification to immobilization to reflect the potential risk of nitrogen loss worldwide |
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 55(11), 7721-7730. |
10.1021/acs.est.0c08514 |
Ref2 | Nerlekar, AN; Veldman, JW |
2020 |
High plant diversity and slow assembly of old-growth grasslands |
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 117(31), 18550-18556. |
10.1073/pnas.1922266117 |
Ref3 | Sexton, AN; Emery, SM |
2020 |
Grassland restorations improve pollinator communities: A meta-analysis |
JOURNAL OF INSECT CONSERVATION, 24(4), 719-726. |
10.1007/s10841-020-00247-x |
Ref4 | Wu, JJ; Chen, Q; Jia, W; Long, CY; Liu, WZ; Liu, GH; Cheng, XL |
2020 |
Asymmetric response of soil methane uptake rate to land degradation and restoration: Data synthesis |
GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, 26(11), 6581-6593. |
10.1111/gcb.15315 |
Ref5 | Kampf, I; Holzel, N; Storrle, M; Broll, G; Kiehl, K |
2016 |
Potential of temperate agricultural soils for carbon sequestration: A meta-analysis of land-use effects |
SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 566, 428-435. |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.067 |
Ref6 | Harris, ZM; Spake, R; Taylor, G |
2015 |
Land use change to bioenergy: A meta-analysis of soil carbon and GHG emissions |
BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY, 82, 27-39. |
10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.05.008 |
Ref7 | MacDonald, GK; Bennett, EM; Taranu, ZE |
2012 |
The influence of time, soil characteristics, and land-use history on soil phosphorus legacies: A global meta-analysis |
GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, 18(6), 553-565. |
10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02653.x |
Ref8 | Felton, A; Knight, E; Wood, J; Zammit, C; Lindenmayer, D |
2010 |
A meta-analysis of fauna and flora species richness and abundance in plantations and pasture lands |
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 143(3), 545-554. |
10.1016/j.biocon.2009.11.030 |
Ref9 | Attwood, SJ; Maron, M; House, APN; Zammit, C |
2008 |
Do arthropod assemblages display globally consistent responses to intensified agricultural land |
GLOBAL ECOLOGY AND BIOGEOGRAPHY, 17(5), 585-599.
10.1111/j.1466-8238.2008.00399.x
10
Guo, LB; Gifford, RM
2002
Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis
GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, 8(4), 345-360.
use and management? | GLOBAL ECOLOGY AND BIOGEOGRAPHY, 17(5), 585-599. | 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2008.00399.x | |||
Ref10 | Guo, LB; Gifford, RM | 2002 | Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis | GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, 8(4), 345-360. | 10.1046/j.1354-1013.2002.00486.x |
Disclaimer: These fiches present a large amount of scientific knowledge synthesised to assess farming practices impacts on the environment, climate and productivity. The European Commission maintains this WIKI to enhance public access to information about its initiatives. Our goal is to keep this information timely and accurate. If errors are brought to our attention, we will try to correct them. However, the Commission accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever with regard to the information on these fiches and WIKI.
[1] Synthesis research papers include either meta-analysis or systematic reviews with quantitative results. Details can be found in the methodology section of the WIKI.
[2] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Shrubland
[3] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Grassland
[4] Nerlekar & Veldman. 2020. High plant diversity and slow assembly of old-growth grasslands. PNAS 117, 18550–18556.
[5] Sexton & Emery. 2020. Grassland restorations improve pollinator communities: a meta-analysis. Journal of Insect Conservation 24, 719–726.