scholarly journals Sustainable Use of Ecosystem Services Under Multiple Risks – A Survey of Commercial Cattle Farmers in Semi-Arid Rangelands in Namibia

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roland Olbrich ◽  
Martin F. Quaas ◽  
Stefan Baumgärtner
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Multiple Risks ◽  
Arid Rangelands ◽  
Semi Arid

scholarly journals Valuing Ecosystem Services in Semi‐arid Rangelands through Stochastic Simulation

2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Favretto ◽  
Eike Luedeling ◽  
Lindsay C. Stringer ◽  
Andrew J. Dougill
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Stochastic Simulation ◽  
Arid Rangelands ◽  
Semi Arid

scholarly journals Soil Diversity (Pedodiversity) and Ecosystem Services

Land ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena A. Mikhailova ◽  
Hamdi A. Zurqani ◽  
Christopher J. Post ◽  
Mark A. Schlautman ◽  
Gregory C. Post
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Taxonomic Diversity ◽  
Soil Survey ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Soil Taxonomy ◽  
Extrinsic Factors ◽  
Business Decision ◽  
Soil Diversity

Soil ecosystem services (ES) (e.g., provisioning, regulation/maintenance, and cultural) and ecosystem disservices (ED) are dependent on soil diversity/pedodiversity (variability of soils), which needs to be accounted for in the economic analysis and business decision-making. The concept of pedodiversity (biotic + abiotic) is highly complex and can be broadly interpreted because it is formed from the interaction of atmospheric diversity (abiotic + biotic), biodiversity (biotic), hydrodiversity (abiotic + biotic), and lithodiversity (abiotic) within ecosphere and anthroposphere. Pedodiversity is influenced by intrinsic (within the soil) and extrinsic (outside soil) factors, which are also relevant to ES/ED. Pedodiversity concepts and measures may need to be adapted to the ES framework and business applications. Currently, there are four main approaches to analyze pedodiversity: taxonomic (diversity of soil classes), genetic (diversity of genetic horizons), parametric (diversity of soil properties), and functional (soil behavior under different uses). The objective of this article is to illustrate the application of pedodiversity concepts and measures to value ES/ED with examples based on the contiguous United States (U.S.), its administrative units, and the systems of soil classification (e.g., U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Taxonomy, Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database). This study is based on a combination of original research and literature review examples. Taxonomic pedodiversity in the contiguous U.S. exhibits high soil diversity, with 11 soil orders, 65 suborders, 317 great groups, 2026 subgroups, and 19,602 series. The ranking of “soil order abundance” (area of each soil order within the U.S.) expressed as the proportion of the total area is: (1) Mollisols (27%), (2) Alfisols (17%), (3) Entisols (14%), (4) Inceptisols and Aridisols (11% each), (5) Spodosols (3%), (6) Vertisols (2%), and (7) Histosols and Andisols (1% each). Taxonomic, genetic, parametric, and functional pedodiversity are an essential context for analyzing, interpreting, and reporting ES/ED within the ES framework. Although each approach can be used separately, three of these approaches (genetic, parametric, and functional) fall within the “umbrella” of taxonomic pedodiversity, which separates soils based on properties important to potential use. Extrinsic factors play a major role in pedodiversity and should be accounted for in ES/ED valuation based on various databases (e.g., National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) databases). Pedodiversity is crucial in identifying soil capacity (pedocapacity) and “hotspots” of ES/ED as part of business decision making to provide more sustainable use of soil resources. Pedodiversity is not a static construct but is highly dynamic, and various human activities (e.g., agriculture, urbanization) can lead to soil degradation and even soil extinction.

Chemical composition and in vitro ruminal fermentation of common tree forages in the semi-arid rangelands of Swaziland

2008 ◽  
Vol 142 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 99-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Solomon Tefera ◽  
V. Mlambo ◽  
B.J. Dlamini ◽  
A.M. Dlamini ◽  
K.D.N. Koralagama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chemical Composition ◽  
Ruminal Fermentation ◽  
Arid Rangelands ◽  
Common Tree ◽  
Semi Arid

Adaptive management of stocking rates to reduce effects of drought on cow-calf production systems in semi-arid rangelands

2009 ◽  
Vol 100 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 43-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Díaz-Solís ◽  
W.E. Grant ◽  
M.M. Kothmann ◽  
W.R. Teague ◽  
J.A. Díaz-García
Keyword(s):  
Adaptive Management ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Arid Rangelands ◽  
Cow Calf ◽  
Effects Of Drought ◽  
Stocking Rates ◽  
Semi Arid

Assessment of static and dynamic geodiversity in the Sesia Val Grande UNESCO Global Geopark: constraints for a sustainable use of related abiotic ecosystem services

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristina Viani ◽  
Luigi Perotti ◽  
Federico Tognetto ◽  
Ilaria Selvaggio ◽  
Marco Giardino
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Environmental Changes ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Structural Data ◽  
Western Alps ◽  
Landscape Resistance ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Multitemporal Data ◽  
Geomorphological Evolution

<p>Geodiversity includes geological, geomorphological, hydrological and soil elements and processes. By analysing geodiversity we can offer static and dynamic views of abiotic landscapes on the Earth. The current state of geodiversity includes both relict, long-term features recalling the past of our planet earth and active landforms and processes whose monitoring is a key for interpreting relationships between geosphere, biosphere and human activities. If the long term geodiversity mainly represents distribution of litho-structural “static” constrains to environmental changes, recent and active environmental features may act as dynamic “proxies” for interpreting climate change.<br>Aim of this work is to analyse relevant examples of both static and dynamic geodiversity within the territory of the Sesia Val Grande UNESCO Global Geopark (Western Alps, Italy), in order to assess their role as georesources and to highlight possible sustainable use of related abiotic ecosystem services, including geoheritage. Geodiversity assessment has been performed by means of creation of geothematic maps and related factors analysed for better mountain environment understanding and management. <br>Starting with static geodiversity we collected, analysed and interpreted lithological and structural data in order to obtain information on distribution of georesources in the study area and to create a geothematic map on landscape resistance to erosion.<br>Thereafter we focused on two aspects related to dynamic geodiversity and their relationships with dramatic changes of the alpine landscape: glacial evolution and fluvial processes. On one hand, valley scale geomorphological evolution has been reconstructed by means of multitemporal data (e.g.: glacial landforms maps, glacier inventories) on evidences in the Sesia Valley. Obtained information crossed with national landslide inventory allowed to identify areas of strong glacial influence on slope stability (deep-seated gravitational slope deformation and landslides due to slope debutressing). Moreover, recent glacier withdrawal results in new glacier lakes increasing the hydrogeodiversity of the area and representing important potential georesources to be used. Finally, recent alluvial event (October 2020) has been considered for its high impact in reshaping fluvial environment and effects on both infrastructures and popular geosites along the Sesia river.<br>Results of this work are useful for the establishment of a proper Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework related to environmental issues due to global change in order to support educational activities and sustainable development of alpine “tourism hubs” included in the Sesia Val Grande UNESCO Global Geopark by the “ArcticHubs” H2020-EU.3.5.1 project.</p>

Utilization of marginal and arid rangelands for livestock and wildlife in Africa

1998 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 77-86
Author(s):  
C. R. Field
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Livestock Production ◽  
Human Populations ◽  
Private Land ◽  
Wildlife Tourism ◽  
Dry Seasons ◽  
Arid Rangelands ◽  
Wildlife Populations ◽  
Semi Arid

AbstractThe main uses to which marginal and arid rangelands are put involve livestock production, tourism based on wildlife and ethno-tourism, and agriculture, i.e. crop production. There is minimal dry land forestry, sometimes as agro-forestry. The emphasis placed on these three main uses varies according to the ecological potential (i.e. climate, topography and soils) and accessibility to the areas.Taking the Kenyan example, approximately 20% of the land is arid and used almost exclusively for livestock production while ethno-tourism runs a poor second in dry seasons because of inaccessibility. Current technology in Africa precludes extensive irrigation. Peak production of livestock is in the late wet season and early dry with marketing mostly in dry seasons. Over 50% of the land is semi-arid where all three uses are practised. Livestock production is still the most important and agriculture the least important, because rainfall is unreliable and erratic, wildlife populations are larger and so tourism is more important (e.g. Amboseli, Isiolo, Samburu). Agriculture occurs particularly in wet years and wet seasons.Although land is only very locally suited to agriculture, permanent water sources, rivers and springs may enable year round settlement. Farmers of non-pastoral backgrounds (and even some pastoralists) wish to follow their traditions and attempt cultivation. This is occasionally successful in above average years of rainfall (two years in five) on good soils but fails in dry years when it also deprives livestock of essential traditional dry season grazing reserves.Marginal areas occupy perhaps 12% of the land but are in high demand for all three use categories. Pastures are ideal for fattening livestock bred in more arid areas and they have a rapid turn-over. Wildlife populations are often at their highest in these areas, e.g. Laikipia, Mara and Nairobi park. Areas are relatively accessible on tarmac roads for year round viewing of wildlife. Agricultural resettlement has spilled over from higher potential lands where human populations are exceeding the carrying capacity.Increasing food requirements have led to a greater demand for efficient land use and to diversification into new areas, e.g. eco-tourism, ostrich farming or the intensification of traditional uses such as camel rearing.Lailipia District, situated mostly in marginal and semi-arid land is used as a case study. Here, successful conservation measures on mostly private land, which was formerly used by Maasai for subsistence pastoralism, has led to the largest population of wildlife in Kenya outside parks and reserves. At the same time land is used in part for crop production especially in the higher potential areas, but also wherever land is available for co-operative arable farmers to purchase. Livestock production remains however, the most widespread form of land use. The main seasonal variation in use is with crop production in the rains and game viewing in the dry seasons but extremes are less than in the lower rainfall areas.Recent preliminary analysis of the economics of various forms of land use in Laikipia indicate that in those limited areas where agriculture is reliable (e.g. irrigated areas near rivers) returns may be as high as US$ 132 to 166 per ha per annum. Wildlife tourism which prevails in less well watered areas may yield US$ 4 to 5 per ha, while conventional livestock rearing yields from US$ 0.2 to 1.4 per ha per annum. Game cropping is the least well developed and the least productive but is accepted as a necessity by the Kenya Wildlife Service, particularly with regard to zebra which compete with livestock for resources. It yields only US$ 0.2 to 0.4 per ha per annum.Wildlife and livestock occur together, except where there has been considerable outlay on electric fencing. Predators, especially lions and hyenas, are incompatible with livestock and together with certain wildlife which may act as disease vectors (e.g. buffalo) reduce income by US$ 0.5 per ha per annum. By contrast, the addition of camels, which are eco-friendly milk and meat producers, with no reduction of conventional stock, may increase livestock yields by US$ 0-4 per ha per annum.Combined wildlife tourism, cropping and livestock, including camels, may yield US$ 4.7 to 6.4 per ha per annum, which although still less than 5% of agricultural yield, is the best that may be achieved at present on a sustainable basis. Crop production is highly dependent on rainfall which becomes less predictable the more arid the land. It may not be sustainable in the long term in its present form.Current returns on investment are low for all forms of land use. Constraints to increasing returns are outlined. Research agendas need to be tailored to provide answers which could help minimize them. In particular, we need to refine our knowledge concerning the economics of the different options, both conventional and non-conventional.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document