Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T19:28:48.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of grazing and land use on stream-channel characteristics among small dairy farms in the Eastern United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2014

Genevieve Brand ,
Bruce Vondracek  and
Nicholas R. Jordan
Genevieve Brand
Affiliation:
Conservation Biology Graduate Program, University of Minnesota, 135 B Skok Hall, 2003 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA.
Bruce Vondracek*
Affiliation:
US Geological Survey, Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Minnesota, 1980 Folwell Ave., St. Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA.
Nicholas R. Jordan
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, 411 Borlaug Hall, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108-6026, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rotational grazing (RG) is a livestock management practice that rotates grazing cattle on a scale of hours to days among small pastures termed paddocks. It may beneficially affect stream channels, relative to other livestock management practices. Such effects and other beneficial effects on hydrology are important to RG's potential to provide a highly multifunctional mode of livestock farming. Previous comparisons of effects of RG and confinement dairy (CD) on adjoining streams have been restricted in scale and scope. We examined 11 stream-channel characteristics on a representative sample of 37 small dairy farms that used either RG or CD production methods. Our objectives were: (1) to compare channel characteristics on RG and CD farms, as these production methods are implemented in practice, in New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, USA; and (2) to examine land use on these farms that may affect stream-channel characteristics. To help interpret channel characteristic findings, we examined on-farm land use in riparian areas 50 m in width along both sides of stream reaches and whole-farm land use. In all states, stream-channel characteristics on RG and CD farms did not differ. Whole-farm land use differed significantly between farm types; CD farms allocated more land to annual row crops, whereas RG farms allocated more land to pasture and grassland. However, land cover in 50 m riparian areas was not different between farm types within states; in particular, many RG and CD farms had continuously grazed pastures in riparian areas, typically occupied by juvenile and non-lactating cows, which may have contributed sediment and nutrients to streams. This similarity in riparian management practices may explain the observed similarity of farm types with respect to stream-channel characteristics. To realize the potential benefits of RG on streams, best management practices that affect stream-channel characteristics, such as protection of riparian areas, may improve aggregate effects of RG on stream quality and also enhance other environment, economic and social benefits of RG.

Keywords

rotational grazingconfinement grazingriparian areasfarm scalepasturerow crops
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 30 , Issue 6 , December 2015 , pp. 524 - 536
Creative Commons
This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Boody, G., Vondracek, B., Andow, D., Krinke, M., Westra, J., Zimmerman, J., and Welle, P. 2005. Multifunctional agriculture in the United States. BioScience 55:27–38.Google Scholar
2 Winsten, J.R., Kerchner, C.D., Richardson, A., Lichau, A., and Hyman, J.M. 2010. Trends in the Northeast dairy industry: Large-scale modern confinement feeding and management-intensive grazing. Journal of Dairy Science 93:1759–1769.Google Scholar
3 Kriegl, T. and Frank, G. 2005. A ten year economic look at Wisconsin dairy systems. Center for Dairy Profitability, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences and Cooperative Extension, University of Wisconsin – Madison. Available at Web site http://cdp.wisc.edu/Milk%20Production%20Costs.htm (verified July 9, 2013).Google Scholar
4 Kauffman, J.T., Krueger, W.C., and Vavra, M. 1983. Impacts of cattle on streambanks in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Range Management 36:683–685.Google Scholar
5 Scrimgeour, G.J. and Kendall, S. 2003. Effects of livestock grazing on benthic invertebrates from a native grassland ecosystem. Freshwater Biology 48:347–362.Google Scholar
6 Razavian, D. 1990. Hydrologic responses of an agricultural watershed to various hydrologic and management conditions. Water Resources Bulletin 26:777–785.Google Scholar
7 Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in Streams: Sources, Biological Effects, and Control. American Fisheries Society Monograph no.7. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.Google Scholar
8 Olness, A., Smith, S.J., Rhoades, E.D., and Mensel, R.G. 1975. Nutrient and sediment discharge from agricultural watersheds in Oklahoma. Journal of Environmental Quality 4:331–336.Google Scholar
9 Lyons, J., Weigel, B.M., Paine, L.K., and Undersander, D.J. 2000. Influence of intensive rotational grazing on bank erosion, fish habitat quality, and fish communities in southwestern Wisconsin trout streams. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 55:271–276.Google Scholar
10 Sovell, L.A., Vondracek, B., Frost, J.A., and Mumford, K.G. 2000. Impacts of rotational grazing and riparian buffers on physicochemical and biological characteristics of southeastern Minnesota, USA, streams. Environmental Management 26:629–641.Google Scholar
11 Weigel, B.M., Lyons, J., Paine, L.K., Dodson, S.I., and Undersander, D.J. 2000. Using stream macroinvertebrates to compare riparian land use practices on cattle farms in southwestern Wisconsin. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 15:93–106.Google Scholar
12 Paine, L.K. and Ribic, C.A. 2002. Comparison of riparian plant communities under four land management systems in southwestern Wisconsin. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 92:93–105.Google Scholar
13 Bishop, P.L., Hively, W.D., Stedinger, J.R., Rafferty, M.R., Lojpersberger, J.L., and Bloomfield, J.A. 2005. Multivariate analysis of paired watershed data to evaluate agricultural best management practice effects on stream water phosphorus. Journal of Environmental Quality 34:1087–1101.Google Scholar
14 Haan, M.M., Russell, J.R., Powers, W.J., Kovar, J.L., and Benning, J.L. 2006. Grazing management effects on sediment and phosphorus in surface runoff. Rangeland Ecology and Management 59:607–615.Google Scholar
15 Magner, J.A., Vondracek, B., and Brooks, K.N. 2008. Grazed riparian management and stream channel response in southeastern Minnesota (USA) streams. Environmental Management 42:377–390.Google Scholar
16 Zaimes, G.N., Schultz, R.C., and Isenhart, T.M. 2008. Total phosphorus concentrations and compaction in riparian areas under different riparian land-uses of Iowa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 127:22–30.Google Scholar
17 Zaimes, G.N., Schultz, R.C., and Isenhart, T.M. 2008. Streambank soil and phosphorus losses under different riparian land-uses in Iowa. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 44:935–947.Google Scholar
18 Nellesen, S.L., Kovar, J.L., Haan, M.M., and Russell, J.R. 2011. Grazing management effects on stream bank erosion and phosphorus delivery to a pasture stream. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 91:385–395.Google Scholar
19 Raymond, K.L. and Vondracek, B. 2011. Relationships among rotational and conventional grazing systems, stream channels and macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 669:105–117.Google Scholar
20 Wang, L., Lyons, J., and Kanehl, P. 2006. Habitat and fish responses to multiple agricultural best management practices in a warm water stream. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 42:1047–1062.Google Scholar
21 Lyon, A., Bell, M.M., Gratton, C., and Jackson, R. 2011. Farming without a recipe: Wisconsin graziers and new directions for agricultural science. Journal of Rural Studies 27:384–393.Google Scholar
22 Quinn, J.M., Cooper, A.B., Davis-Colley, R.J., Rutherford, J.C., and Williamson, R.B. 1997. Land use effects on habitat, water quality, periphyton, and benthic invertebrates in Waikato, New Zealand, hill-country streams. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 31:579–597.Google Scholar
23 Trimble, S.W. 1997. Stream channel erosion and change resulting from riparian forests. Geology 25:467–469.Google Scholar
24 Montgomery, D.R. 1997. What's best on the banks? Nature 388:328–329.Google Scholar
25 Lyons, J., Thimble, S.W., and Paine, L.K. 2000a. Grass versus trees: Managing riparian areas to benefit streams of central North America. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36:919–930.Google Scholar
26 Parkyn, S.M., Davies-Colley, R.J., Halliday, N.J., Costley, K.J., and Croker, G.F. 2003. Planted riparian buffer zones in New Zealand: Do they live up to expectations? Restoration Ecology 11:436–447.Google Scholar
27 Sweeney, B.W., Bott, T.L., Jackson, J.K., Kaplan, L.A., Newbold, J.D., Standley, L.J., Hession, W.C., and Horwitz, R.J. 2004. Riparian deforestation, stream narrowing, and loss of stream ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101:14132–14137.Google Scholar
28 Kuhnle, R.A., Bingner, R.L., Foster, G.R., and Grissinger, E.H. 1996. Effects of land use changes on sediment transport in Goodwin Creek. Water Resources Research 32:3189–3196.Google Scholar
29 Jones, K.B., Neale, A.C., Nash, M.S., Van Remortel, R.D., Wickham, J.D., Riitters, K.H., and O'Neill, R.V. 2001. Predicting nutrient and sediment loadings to streams from landscape metrics: A multiple watershed study from the United States Mid-Atlantic Region. Landscape Ecology 16:301–312.Google Scholar
30 Vaché, K.B., Eilers, J.M., and Santelmann, M.V. 2002. Water quality modeling of alternative agricultural scenarios in the U.S. corn belt. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38:773–787.Google Scholar
31 Allan, J.D. 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: The influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Sytematics 35:257–284.Google Scholar
32 Moerke, A.H. and Lamberti, G.A. 2006. Relationships between land use and stream ecosystems: A multistream assessment in southwest Michigan. In Hughes, R.M., Wang, L., and Seelbach, P.W. (eds). Landscape Influences on Stream Habitats and Biological Assemblages. American Fisheries Society Symposium, Vol. 48. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. p. 323–338.Google Scholar
33 Wang, L., Seelbach, P.W., and Hughes, R.M. 2006. Introduction to landscape influences on stream habitats and biological assemblages. In Hughes, R.M., Wang, L., and Seelbach, P.W. (eds). Landscape Influences on Stream Habitats and Biological Assemblages. American Fisheries Society Symposium, Vol. 48. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. p. 1–23.Google Scholar
34 Wang, L., Seelbach, P.W., and Lyons, J. 2006. Effects of levels of human disturbance on the influence of catchment, riparian, and reach-scale factors on fish assemblages. In Hughes, R.M., Wang, L., and Seelbach, P.W. (eds). Landscape Influences on Stream Habitats and Biological Assemblages. American Fisheries Society Symposium, Vol. 48. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. p. 199–220.Google Scholar
35 Wilcock, R.J. 2008. Land-water interactions: Impacts on the aquatic environment. In McDowell, R.W. (ed.). Environmental Impacts of Pasture-based Farming, CABI International, Wallingford, UK. p. 75–97.Google Scholar
36 Nelson, K.C., Brummel, R., Jordan, N., and Manson, S. 2013. Social networks in coupled human and natural systems: The case of rotational grazing, weak ties, and U.S. eastern dairy landscapes. Agriculture and Human Values 31:245–259.Google Scholar
37 Simonson, T.D., Lyons, J., and Kanehl, P.D. 1994. Guidelines for evaluating fish habitat in Wisconsin streams. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report NC-164. 36 pp.Google Scholar
38 Pfankuch, D.J. 1975. Stream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability Evaluation. USDA Forest Service, R1-75-002. Government Printing Office #696-260/200, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
39 Asmus, B., Magner, J., Vondracek, B., and Perry, J. 2009. Physical integrity: The missing link in biological monitoring and TMDLs. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 159:443–463.Google Scholar
40 MPCA. 2007. MPCA stream habitat assessment (MSHA) protocol for stream monitoring sites. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Biological Monitoring Program. Available at Web site www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=6088, (verified October 22, 2013).Google Scholar
41 Williamson, R.B., Smith, R.K., and Quinn, J.M. 1992. Effects of riparian grazing and channelisation on streams in Southland, New Zealand. 1. Channel form and stability. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 26:241–258.Google Scholar
42 Quinn, J.M. and Hickey, C.W. 1990. Magnitude of effects of substrate particle size, recent flooding, and catchment development on benthic invertebrates in 88 New Zealand rivers. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 24:411–427.Google Scholar
43 Bevenger, G.S. and King, R.M. 1995. A Pebble Count Procedure for Assessing Watershed Cumulative Effects. Research Paper RM-RP-319. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.Google Scholar
44 Lisle, T.E. and Hilton, S. 1999. Fine bed material in pools of natural gravel bed channels. Water Resources Research 35:1291–1304.Google Scholar
45 Walser, C.A. and Bart, H.L. Jr. 1999. Influence of agriculture on in-stream habitat and fish community structure in Piedmont watersheds of the Chattahoochee River System. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 8:237–246.Google Scholar
46 Rankin, E.T. 1989. The qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI): rationale, methods and application. EPA, Ecological Assessment Section, Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Surface Water Division, Columbus, Ohio. Available at Web site http://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/documents/BioCrit88_QHEIIntro.pdf (accessed September 12, 2014).Google Scholar
47 McCune, B. and Mefford, M.J. 1999. PC-ORD. Multivariate analysis of ecological data. Version 5. MjM Software, Glenden Beach, OR.Google Scholar
48 R Development Core Team. 2009. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at Web site http://www.R-project.org (accessed September 12, 2014).Google Scholar
49 McCune, B. and Grace, J.B. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software Design, Glenden Beach, Oregon.Google Scholar
50 Clarke, K.R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18:117–143.Google Scholar
51 Karr, J.R. and Chu, E.W. 1999. Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
52 Braccia, A. and Voshell, J.R. Jr. 2007. Benthic macroinvertebrate responses to increasing levels of cattle grazing in Blue Ridge Mountain streams, Virginia, USA. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 131:185–200.Google Scholar
53 Webber, D.F., Mickelson, S.K., Ahmed, S.I., Russell, J.R., Powers, W.J., Schultz, R.C., and Kovar, J.L. 2010. Livestock grazing and vegetative filter strip buffer effects on runoff sediment, nitrate, and phosphorus losses. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 65:34–41.Google Scholar
54 Owens, L.B., Barker, D.J., Loerch, S.C., Shipitalo, M.J., Bonta, J.V., and Sulc, M. 2012. Inputs and losses by surface runoff and subsurface leaching for pastures managed by continuous or rotational stocking. Journal of Environmental Quality 41:106–113.Google Scholar
55 Trimble, S.W. and Mendel, A.C. 1995. The cow as a geomorphic agent, a critical review. Geomorphology 13:233–253.Google Scholar
56 Galzki, J.C., Birr, A.S., and Mulla, D.J. 2011. Identifying critical agricultural areas with three-meter LiDAR elevation data for precision conservation. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 66:423–430.Google Scholar
57 Sanderson, M.A., Feldmann, C., Schmidt, H.A., and Taube, F. 2010. Spatial distribution of livestock concentration areas and soil nutrients in pastures. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 65:180–189.Google Scholar
58 Wynn, T.M., and Mostaghimi, S. 2006. The effects of vegetation and soil type on streambank erosion, southwestern Virginia, USA. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 42:69–82.Google Scholar
59 Belsky, A.J., Matzke, A. and Uselman, S. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54:419–431.Google Scholar
60 Zampella, R.A., Procopio, N.A., Lathrop, R.G., and Dow, C.L. 2007. Relationship of land-use/land-cover patterns and surface-water quality in the Mullica River Basin. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43:594–604.Google Scholar
61 Wang, L., Lyons, J., Kanehl, P., and Gatti, R. 1997. Influences of watershed land use on habitat quality and biotic integrity in Wisconsin streams. Fisheries 22:6–12.Google Scholar
62 Goetz, S.J., Wright, R.K., Smith, A.J., Zinecker, E., and Schaub, E. 2003. IKONOS imagery for resource management: Tree cover, impervious surfaces, and riparian buffer analyses in the mid-Atlantic region. Remote Sensing and Environment 88:195–208.Google Scholar
63 Haase, R. and Nolte, U. 2008. The invertebrate species index (ISI) for streams in southeast Queensland, Australia. Ecological Indicators 8:599–613.Google Scholar
64 Stewart, J.S., Wang, L., Lyons, J., Horwatich, J.A., and Bannerman, R. 2001. Influences of watershed, riparian-corridor, and reach-scale characteristics on aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37:1475–1487.Google Scholar
65 Long, J.W. and Medina, A.L. 2006. Consequences of ignoring geologic variation in evaluating grazing impacts. Rangeland Ecology and Management 59:373–382.Google Scholar
66 Zaimes, G.N. and Schultz, R.C. 2011. Stream bed substrate composition adjacent to different riparian land-uses in Iowa, USA. Ecological Engineering 37:1692–1699.Google Scholar
67 Russelle, M.P., Entz, M.H., and Franzluebbers, A.J. 2007. Reconsidering integrated crop–livestock systems in North America. Agronomy Journal 99:325–334.Google Scholar
68 Wilson, G., Dalzell, B., Mulla, D., Porter, P., and Dogwiler, T. 2014. Estimating water quality effects of conservation practices and grazing land-use scenarios. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 69:330–342.Google Scholar
69 Lewis, D.J., Barham, B.L., and Robinson, B. 2011. Are there spatial spillovers in the adoption of clean technology? The Case of Organic Dairy Farming. Land Economics 87:250–267.Google Scholar