Other biodiversity: Use rotational grazing

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Study locations

Key messages

Amphibians (0 studies)

Birds (0 studies)

Invertebrates (0 studies)

Mammals (0 studies)

Plants (2 studies): One before-and-after study in grasslands in the USA found a higher cover of native plants after the adoption of rotational grazing. One replicated, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found that the density and mortality of a native plant species did not differ between plots with rotational or continuous grazing, but plants had more reproductive stems in plots with rotational grazing, in two of three years. This study also found that plants were larger under rotational grazing, in some comparisons, but smaller in other comparisons.

Reptiles (0 studies)

Implementation options (0 studies)

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A replicated, controlled study in 1998–2000 in grasslands in north-central California, USA, found no difference in purple needlegrass Nassella pulchra mortality or density between plots with rotational grazing or continuous grazing, but there were some differences in plant size and reproduction. Plants: Needlegrass mortality and density did not differ between plots with rotational grazing or continuous grazing (data reported as model results). Plants in rotationally-grazed plots had more reproductive stems than plants in continuously-grazed plots, in two of three years (1.3–1.8 vs 0.4–0.5). Plants were taller under light rotational grazing, but shorter under heavy rotational grazing, compared to continuous grazing, in one of three years (data not provided). There were no differences in plant stem diameter. Methods: Thirty 20 x 20 m plots were grazed from January (in 1998) or December (1999, 2000) until May at a stocking density of 0.75 animal units/ha. Rotationally-grazed plots were grazed until 25% (lightly grazed) or 50% (heavily grazed) of the plant biomass was removed, and then they were rested for 35 days. Continuously-grazed plots had animals at all times. Thirty individual plants were measured each year and plant density was estimated using 3–5 quadrats/plots (1 x 1 m quadrats).

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A before-and-after study in 2011–2013 in grasslands in central California, USA, found that native grasses increased in cattle pasture after the adoption of rotational grazing. Plants: More survey units had native grasses, two years after rotational grazing was adopted, compared to before (80% vs 8%). Average percentage cover increased to 3%, two years after rotational grazing was introduced, compared to 0% before (0–20% vs 0–10%). Methods: In 2011, cattle density in 74 plots (1–10 ha) was increased to 110–170 t/ha, with fields grazed for 1–7 days and rested for 70–120 days (depending on the time of year and pasture quality). Previously, larger fields were grazed for longer periods, with little rest between grazing periods. Vegetation cover was estimated each July, using transects of variable lengths.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Shackelford, G. E., Kelsey, R., Robertson, R. J., Williams, D. R. & Dicks, L. V. (2017) Sustainable Agriculture in California and Mediterranean Climates: Evidence for the effects of selected interventions. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Mediterranean Farmland

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Mediterranean Farmland
Mediterranean Farmland

Mediterranean Farmland - Published 2017

Mediterranean Farmland synopsis

What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust