Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-7262s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-14T15:31:39.265Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Multi-decadal grazing effects on soil organic carbon and nitrogen concentrations in a semiarid rangeland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2026

Justin D. Derner*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Center for Agricultural Resources Research, Rangeland Resources and Systems Research Unit, USA
Kalyn M. Taylor
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Center for Agricultural Resources Research, Rangeland Resources and Systems Research Unit, USA
Matthew C. Mortenson
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Center for Agricultural Resources Research, Rangeland Resources and Systems Research Unit, USA
Catherine E. Stewart
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Center for Agricultural Resources Research, Soil Management and Sugar Beet Research Unit, USA
David Hoover
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Center for Agricultural Resources Research, Rangeland Resources and Systems Research Unit, USA
*
Corresponding author: Justin D. Derner; Email: justin.derner@usda.gov
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Grazing impacts on soil organic carbon (SOC) are vexingly difficult to predict due to intricate interactions among site-specific weather, vegetation and specified grazing treatments. This longitudinal study capitalizes on a multi-decadal grazing experiment in the semiarid northern mixed-grass prairie of the North American Great Plains with grazing treatments of season-long light and heavy stocking rates, and exclosures (non-grazed) established in 1982 and soils sampled in 1993, 2003 and 2013. Increasing grazing intensity from non-grazed to heavy grazed reduced annual aboveground standing crop biomass and shifted the plant community dominance from cool-season (C3) to warm-season (C4) perennial grasses. Concentrations of SOC and soil nitrogen (N) decreased from 1993 to 2013 for the 0-5, 5-15 and 15-30 cm depths for all grazing treatments, but grazing intensity did not affect SOC and N with the exception of greater N concentrations observed in the 0-5 cm depth with season-long light grazing. Annual precipitation decreased 4.2 mm yr-1 from 1982 to 2013; conversely, mean annual maximum and minimum temperatures did not change. Observed directional trends in precipitation may likely impact ecosystem functioning for soil SOC and N concentrations more than grazing-induced changes in plant communities and aboveground production in this semiarid rangeland resulting in reducing expectations of increased SOC and N with livestock grazing in semiarid rangeland ecosystems of the North American Great Plains.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Mean (± one SE) cool-season (C3) and warm-season (C4) aboveground standing crop biomass in mid-July (kg ha-1) for three grazing treatments (exclusion, continuous light and continuous heavy) from 2004 to 2012 in northern mixed-grass prairie near Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA

Figure 1

Figure 1. Annual precipitation (mm) at the USDA-ARS High Plains Grasslands Research Station near Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA, from 1982 (initial year of grazing treatments) to 2012, with three decadal increments (1982–1992, 1993–2002 and 2003–2012) showcased prior to the soil sampling events in May 1993, 2003, and 2013).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Directional trends in annual precipitation (mm), mean annual maximum temperature (°C) and mean annual minimum temperature (°C) at the USDA-ARS High Plains Grasslands Research Station near Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA, from 1981 (year prior to the initiation of grazing treatments) and 2013.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Soil organic carbon concentrations (mean ± one SE, g kg-1) as affected by grazing treatment (exclusion, continuous light, continuous heavy) at four soil depths (0–5, 5–15, 15–30 and 30–60 cm) for three experimental years (1993, 2003 and 2013) at the USDA-ARS High Plains Grasslands Research Station near Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. No significant pairwise comparisons occurred between grazing treatments within a given year.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Total soil nitrogen concentrations (mean ± one SE, g kg-1) as affected by grazing treatment (exclusion, continuous light, continuous heavy) at four soil depths (0-5, 5-15, 15-30 and 30-60 cm) for three experimental years (1993, 2003 and 2013) at the USDA-ARS High Plains Grasslands Research Station near Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. Asterisks indicate significant pairwise comparisons between grazing treatments within a given year. * Significant at P ≤ 0.1, ** Significant at P ≤ 0.05.

Figure 5

Table 2. Mean (± one SE) raw delta values for soil organic carbon concentration (SOC; g kg−1), total soil nitrogen concentration (Soil N; g kg−1), and soil carbon-to-nitrogen ratios (C:N Ratio) for four soil depths (0–5, 5–15, 15–30 and 30–60 cm) and three grazing treatments (exclusion, continuous light and continuous heavy)

Supplementary material: File

Derner et al. supplementary material

Derner et al. supplementary material
Download Derner et al. supplementary material(File)
File 24.5 KB

Author comment: Multi-decadal grazing effects on soil organic carbon and nitrogen concentrations in a semiarid rangeland — R0/PR1

Comments

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this manuscript entitled “Multi-decadal grazing effects on soil organic carbon and nitrogen concentrations in a semiarid rangeland” as a Research Paper for consideration of publication in Drylands. Assessing livestock grazing impacts on soil organic carbon and nitrogen in rangelands are difficult to categorize given complexity of interactions among long-term weather factors, vegetation characteristics, and soils, as well as site-specificity of conditions. Moreover, long-term studies in semiarid rangelands with consistent grazing treatments and repeated soil samplings are lacking to understand the influences of grazing with respect to environmental influences such as directional trends in long-term weather factors.

This study capitalizes on a multi-decadal grazing experiment in the semiarid North American Great Plains, northern mixed-grass prairie, with grazing season (June-late September) grazing treatments of season-long light and heavy stocking rates, and exclosure (non-grazed) established in 1982 and soils sampled in 1993, 2003, and 2013.

This work has not been published before, is not being considered for publication elsewhere and has been read and approved by all authors. Thanks again for the opportunity to submit this manuscript. If I can be of any assistance or if questions arise, please contact me using the information provided below.

Sincerely,

Justin Derner

USDA-ARS Rangeland Resources and Systems Research Unit

Review: Multi-decadal grazing effects on soil organic carbon and nitrogen concentrations in a semiarid rangeland — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

DRY-2025-0051

Multi-decadal grazing effects on soil organic carbon and nitrogen concentrations in a semiarid rangeland

The manuscript aligns to the scope of Drylands providing a rare rangeland longitudinal study of changes in soil carbon concentration, [SOC], and nitrogen, under grazing management. Soil sampling was undertaken at three points in time over 20 years, but the study spans some 30 years having the management treatments implemented almost 10-years prior to the first sampling. Grazing treatments (conservative stocking rates 35% lower and intense stocking rates 33% higher than recommended stocking rates) were compared to grazing exclusion. Importantly the study area was consistently managed under experimental conditions. While grazing resulted in changes to pasture biomass and community composition, grazing (intensity or no grazing) did not affect [SOC] and nitrogen, rather a downward trend at all soil depths was associated with rainfall. [SOC] was not baselined at the commencement of management change in 1982 nor was biomass measured and the third repeated soil sampling was preceded by low rainfall according to the authors (no rainfall records are provided). The latter may be driving most of the downward trend (in the upper soil increments).

The manuscript could be enhanced by seeking to leverage the opportunity for the findings to contribute to the broader literature. In order to achieve this, the manuscript would need to address the current limitations of the study and short-comings within the manuscript around two key areas:

• Identification of the limitations of the study

• Discussion around the interpretation and implications of the results (particularly a meaningful discussion of past, published results from the experimental site - see below)

Specific comments:

• A description of the experiemental site and an understanding of the spatial variability across the experimental area is limited. There is little information provided for the study area e.g. soil type, topography, hydrology and the size of the experimental field (paddocks) which makes it difficult to review the methodological approach. This may well appear in prior publications linked to the experimental site but should be at least summarized within Supplementary material. This is important given the placement of ‘movable’ transects in a flat topographic position to determine biomass and potential bias, however it is difficult to get a clear picture around this given the limited information provided about the potential variation across the experimental site/fields.

• Along with the variation in soil/pasture composition across the experimental areas, the size of the experimental fields may be important in terms of grazing distribution (and differences between treatments in dung and urine distribution and concentration – [N]). This may be particularly important for the low intensity grazing treatment. Again, while this may be found in Hart et al. (1988) and Derner and Hart (2007), cited in the manuscript, it is unclear within the current manuscript. This should be provided either in the experimental design section or as Supplementary information and addressed in the discussion.

• The authors should provide a rationale for sampling [SOC] at the beginning of the short pasture growth season when plants may be only just commencing growth? I have only a little experience of the pastures in the region, but if there was a higher proportion of palatable perennial shrubs/grasses, soil temperatures may each influence the [SOC]; it is also unclear why [SOC] soil sampling was not aligned to the pasture biomass assessment made in approx.. 30 days into a 115 days growth period? It would be good to allow the reader to understand this.

• It is unclear of the initial starting condition of the study area. The authors suggest it was potentialy not degraded - the ‘baseline’ in 1993 being described as ”very light grazing of livestock/wildlife” - this is evidenced by the relatively high [SOC] of treatments compared to the two other sampling times; what is uncelar is why continuous light grazing remained high (although not alway significant) relative to no grazing & heavy grazing (0-5 cm). Given the initial starting condition may influence the rate and trajectory of responses, for example if in 1983 the site was at maximum attainable [SOC] to the location, this should be discussed.

• The authors seem to identify several studies associated with the experimental study site (e.g. Taylor et al. (2025); Ingram et al. (2008); both of which I am unfamiliar) but there is a missed opportunity within the current manuscript to meaningfully integrate these results or to discuss the potential mechanisms which are driving the results. For example, Lines 259-263+: identify increased grazing intensity to be associated with a decrease in rates of microbial biomass and microbial community structure but how this may apply within the contest of the results of the present study is not discussed. How may the microbial biomass shifts have influenced the results? While multiple publications (e.g. McDonald et ai (2023)) have identified that grazing management will benefit the major drivers of [SOC] through increases in above and below ground biomass with the latter making a significant contribution to OM. Any relationship between the changes above and below-ground biomass (20% reduction over the multi-decadal study) and plant community shifts from C3 to C4 is not discussed. Are these compositional shifts potentially associated with differences in root:shoot ratios, plant growth rates or root dynamics which may be responsible for the trends? While Derner and Hart (2007) are cited for further details on the compositional changes it is unclear by these dynamics may be related to th results.

• I found it difficult to get a clear picture of what seasonal conditions were doing inbetween the three sampling points. Anomolies in rainfall could be elucidated by stacking rainfall graphs against the biomass and SOC/N results in a time series to aid the reader in understanding the results. In particular it is unclear how the low rainfall in 2012 (prior to the 2013 sampling) may have driven the downward trend across the time series.

Review: Multi-decadal grazing effects on soil organic carbon and nitrogen concentrations in a semiarid rangeland — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The authors of “Multi-decadal grazing effects on soil organic carbon and nitrogen concentrations in a semiarid rangeland” discuss the effects of three continuous grazing treatments on plant community composition, SOC content, and total soil N over a period of two decades. This is an important topic that provides insight to plant and soil dynamics under different grazing management strategies, which is pertinent to understanding the ability of rangelands to sequester soil C for climate change mitigation while simultaneously improving forage quantity and quality. These climate, ecological, and management benefits have been proposed throughout the literature but have only been occasionally statistically supported. The manuscript concluded that grazing alters plant communities but does not affect SOC nor total N, and that changes in SOC and N are more likely driven by decadal changes in precipitation. The authors focus on a few conclusion that are not necessarily supported by their experimental design and statistical analyses, however, this study does present important findings that benefit the intersectional fields on soil C cycling and land management. Overall, I think the manuscript presents compelling evidence for the relationships between grazing and plant and soil dynamics, but the general conclusions need to be more clearly developed and focus on statistical findings rather than literature speculation. Below are my suggestions for the manuscript:

General Comments

Introduction

• The introduction should be edited for clarity and flow from one topic to the next. For example, the first paragraph jumps back and forth between information on grazing and information on soil C without concretely linking them. It may be helpful to decide if the main focus of the manuscript is grazing in drylands, soil C in drylands, or dryland ecosystem function. From my perspective, the main topic is grazing in drylands. If so, organize the information in the intro into an information funnel where you introduce grazing in drylands and then explain how it influences soil C and plant community dynamics (among other factors) and what that means for global C cycling and cattle production.

• The introduction could also benefit from including more background information on why grazing in drylands could be beneficial, why it’s necessary, and why it’s complicated. You allude to all of these ideas, but their descriptions are vague. For example: drylands cover ~50% of terrestrial surfaces and make up much of the world rangelands, which makes grazing in them necessary for food production. And while grazing in drylands is often associated with soil C loss, improved management may also provide an avenue for large scale soil C sequestration due to the vastness of drylands and soils with high mineral content, while simultaneously improving forage quality and quantity. However, measuring soil C and N in drylands is complicated for numerous reasons such as fertile island effect, thousands of years of legacy grazing (whether by native megafauna managed by indigenous tribes or cattle management in the last few centuries), severe resource limitations, etc, and little empirical evidence exist to support grazing for soil C in drylands. You begin to describe these ideas, but they should be expanded upon. My thoughts are based on the following literature:

Hanan, N. P., Milne, E., Aynekulu, E., Yu, Q., & Anchang, J. (2021). A Role for Drylands in a Carbon Neutral World? Frontiers in Environmental Science, 9(November), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.786087

Lal, R. (2004). Carbon sequestration in dryland ecosystems. Environmental Management, 33(4), 528–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-9110-9

Lal, R. (2019). Carbon Cycling in Global Drylands. Current Climate Change Reports, 5(3), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-019-00132-z

Maestre, F. T., Eldridge, D. J., Soliveres, S., Kéfi, S., Delgado-Baquerizo, M., Bowker, M. A., … Berdugo, M. (2016). Structure and Functioning of Dryland Ecosystems in a Changing World. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 47(1), 215–237. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-121415-032311

Ding, J., & Eldridge, D. J. (2021). The fertile island effect varies with aridity and plant patch type across an extensive continental gradient. Plant and Soil, 459(1–2), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-020-04731-w

Osborne, B. B., Bestelmeyer, B. T., Currier, C. M., Homyak, P. M., Throop, H. L., Young, K., & Reed, S. C. (2022). The consequences of climate change for dryland biogeochemistry. New Phytologist, 15–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18312

Sanderman, J., Hengl, T., & Fiske, G. J. (2017). Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(36), 9575–9580. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706103114

Willard, Samuel, et al. “Examining climate benefits from rangeland and pasture management practices in the United States: opportunities, tradeoffs, and information gaps.” npj Sustainable Agriculture 3.1 (2025): 63.

Methods

• The methods lack crucial details and need to be included even if they are mentioned in previous studies conducted with this data set:

o How were changes in precipitation and temperature measured?

o How many pastures were included?

o How many replicates of each grazing treatment were included?

o Was the initial plant community in the exclosures representative of the respective pasture in 1982?

o How often was above ground biomass collected? Why was it not collected during some years?

o How were soil cores separated into depth increments?

• You may want to use a different term for “exclosure” when describing how you collected aboveground biomass as it’s slightly confusing for the reader to differentiate between the treatment and the annual biomass collection method.

• You draw conclusions on how changes in precipitation drive changes in SOC, but you do not include statistical model for this, making this a speculative conclusion based on other literature. Include a model to access this relationship, or avoid discussing precip as a driver of SOC change.

• You also draw conclusions on how changes in plant community composition drive changes in SOC, but you do not include statistical model for this. Therefore, this is also speculative. You have the data, and therefore, it’d be REALLY cool to include a model to access this relationship, or avoid discussing changes in plant community composition as a driver of SOC change all together.

• You have some very cool C:N ratio data. It would be insightful to include soil C:N as a response variable in your models because according to Table 2, it looks like continuous light grazing elicited the smallest change in C:N ratios in depth increments ranging from 0 – 30 cm. This implies that while the ecosystem may be losing N as a whole, continuous light grazing may buffer against N limitation compared to no grazing or heavy grazing.

Results

• Figure 2: Because the 30 – 60 cm depth increment has a significant interactive term (year x grazing) it would be helpful to include the p-value for grazing for the other depth increments.

• Figure 3: same as above, add grazing p-values

• It is imperative that you state your sample size in the methods because your results do show ecological trends (i.e. SOC and N are greater under continuous light grazing across numerous soils depths), which makes me wonder if you don’t have enough statistical power to observe significant differences.

Discussion

• You cannot say that grazing did not influence soil N concentrations because grazing did have a significant effect of soil N in the 0 – 5 cm depth increment, and that is very cool and interesting! Because the whole idea behind grazing for soil health is that grazing promotes tillering of grass roots (along with shoots) and rhizodeposition, both of which are substrates with lower C:N ratios. Since many fine roots reside in surface soils, this may be evidence of that.

• You did not include models accessing the effects of precipitation on microbial physiological function, nor did you measure microbial physiological function, therefore, you results do not “suggests that soil microbially-mediated processes may have a much larger influence than livestock grazing on SOC and N concentrations in dryland semiarid rangeland ecosystems...”. You may want to change this to a generic statement about “other ecological processes” and then list what is stated in the literature.

• Once again, you do not have statistical analyses to say that changes in vegetation do not cause changes in SOC. If you include a model that tests this relationship, then you can make these connections.

Specific Comments

Lines 50 – 52: This sentence is confusing, maybe split into two sentences that explains C and N decreased across all grazing treatments over two decades, and another sentence that you observed no differences between grazing treatments over two decades.

Line 79 - 82: explain why changes in plant communities might not result in SOC changes.

Line 83 – 84: explain why studies rarely have baseline measurements. It’s nearly impossible to have baseline measurements in many drylands due to historical grazing over the last hundreds to thousands of years.

Lines 85 – 91: Are there examples of studies that did find grazing effects on dryland SOC? Why do some studies observe grazing induced changes while others don’t? This is a good place to talk about why your study is so so important. Are only short-term studies finding differences in SOC between grazing treatments? Are only studies in more mesic systems finding differences? Or is it studies investigating rotational grazing and not contiuous grazing?

Lines 92 – 96: explain what a transition from C3 to C4 grasses might mean for SOC and N.

Lines 97 – 101: You may want to consider addressing that a moderate grazing intensity is not included, as much of the literature attributes “medium” or “moderate” GI with SOC gains.

Line 146: add “depth” after “60 cm”

Line 154: What type of acid did you use for fumigation?

Lines 166 – 168: This is a great point and I wish it were talked about more often in the management and soil C world!

Recommendation: Multi-decadal grazing effects on soil organic carbon and nitrogen concentrations in a semiarid rangeland — R0/PR4

Comments

Dear authors, thank you for submitting this relevant and interesting long-term study to Drylands. Two referees provided comprehensive, constructive reviews and many suggestions for improvement across all aspects of the paper: a more focused introduction, a better description of the sampling design and replicates within each treatment, or an explanation of the rationale for the differences in soil and plant sampling dates, and suggestions for further modelling and analyses to reduce speculation when discussing your results. I thus suggest major revisions to your work that address reviewers’ concerns.

Sincerely,

Cristina Armas

Decision: Multi-decadal grazing effects on soil organic carbon and nitrogen concentrations in a semiarid rangeland — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Multi-decadal grazing effects on soil organic carbon and nitrogen concentrations in a semiarid rangeland — R1/PR6

Comments

We have addressed the great suggestions by the two reviewers (we really appreciate their time, feedback, and efforts to assist this paper).

Recommendation: Multi-decadal grazing effects on soil organic carbon and nitrogen concentrations in a semiarid rangeland — R1/PR7

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Multi-decadal grazing effects on soil organic carbon and nitrogen concentrations in a semiarid rangeland — R1/PR8

Comments

No accompanying comment.