Livestock herbivory as tool for ecosystem management and … · 2020-02-12 · Symposium “Towards...

Symposium “Towards Precision Agro-Ecology for Sustainable Grazing”

Livestock herbivory as tool for ecosystem management

and restoration

Vânia Proença1, Inês Ribeiro1, Tiago Domingos1, Ivo Gama2, Daniel Oliveira1,

Nuno Rodrigues2, Leonor Themudo Barata1,3

1 MARETEC, LARSyS, Instituto Superior Técnico, Univ. Lisboa; 2 Terraprima; 3 LEAF, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Univ. Lisboa

Large herbivores and ecosystem dynamics

Species richness for extant large herbivores of Europe

Navarro et al. 2015, Rewilding Euopean Landscapes

Testing the use of livestock to manage vegetation

Operational Group SILVPAST

Goal: test and develop the implementation of silvo-pastoral mosaics, supported by remote sensing tools, to assist agricultural and forestry activities in areas of black oak (Quercus pyrenaica).

Team: Farmers (land owners),NGOs, Researchers

Silvo-pastoral mosaics :

i) Pastures in open areas, with livestock

ii) Forest parcels open to livestock

iii)Forest parcels closed to grazing

Study Area – Quinta da França

Test areaCattle GPS locationsJuly 2018

Control

Test

Fence

Use of space and habitat selection by cattle

Drone

Land cover0.6m

Land cover10m

NDVI summer10m

Bare Herb Shrub Tree10-30%

Tree>30%

0-0.2 0.2-0.4 0.4-0.6 0.6-0.8

Count of cattle presences

Land cover 10m

NDVI

Electivity

Use of space and habitat selection by cattle

Bare Herb Shrub Tree (10-30%) Tree (>30%)Bare Herb Shrub Tree

(10-30%)Tree (>30%)

0

0.4

0.8

0

0.4

0.8

All pixels

Cattle

ND

VI

ND

VI

Use of space and habitat selection by cattle

- Maxent to model use of space

- Most important variables:

- Distance to water- Distance to roads- Slope- NDVI

- Least important variables:

- Land cover (%)

Response to distance to water (m)

Response to summer NDVI

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 0

0.5

1

00.1

0.5

0.9

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Pro

bab

ility

of

pre

sen

ce

[distance to water not included]

2018 2019

0 – 0.25m

1.3 – 2m

0.5 – 1.3m

2 – 4m

> 4m

0.25 – 0.5m

0 – 0.25m

1.3 – 2m

0.5 – 1.3m

2 – 4m

> 4m

0.25 – 0.5m

Bare soil Grass Forb Shrub Tree

HeightHeight

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Effects on vegetation structure (1st year)

24 (100m2) quadrats=pixels 21 intercept points p/quadrat= 504 points

-58%-43%

-32%

• Decline of oak cover in the lower layers

2018 2019

0 – 0.25m

1.3 – 2m

0.5 – 1.3m

2 – 4m

> 4m

0.25 – 0.5m

0 – 0.25m

1.3 – 2m

0.5 – 1.3m

2 – 4m

> 4m

0.25 – 0.5m

Bare soil Grass Forb Shrub Tree

HeightHeight

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Effects on vegetation structure (1st year)

24 (100m2) quadrats=pixels 21 intercept points p/quadrat= 504 points

-100%

-82%, -88%

• Decline of tall grasses in the intermediate layers

• Decline of oak cover in the lower layers

2018 2019

0 – 0.25m

1.3 – 2m

0.5 – 1.3m

2 – 4m

> 4m

0.25 – 0.5m

0 – 0.25m

1.3 – 2m

0.5 – 1.3m

2 – 4m

> 4m

0.25 – 0.5m

Bare soil Grass Forb Shrub Tree

HeightHeight

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

+238%

Effects on vegetation structure (1st year)

24 (100m2) quadrats=pixels 21 intercept points p/quadrat= 504 points

• Increase of forbs in the ground layer• Changes to NDVI not conclusive yet

• Decline of oak cover in the lower layers

• Decline of tall grasses in the intermediate layers

To conclude…

Use of space:Distance to waterPresence of roads/trailsVegetation complexity

Effects on vegetation structure: Possible impacts on oak regenerationSimplification of structure at lower layersLimited control of shrub cover

This work was supported by FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC) through project UID/EEA/50009/2019

V.P. is supported by contract CEECIND/04469/2017 from FCT

Operational Group “GO SILVPAST” is an Operational Group financed by PDR 2020.