Sustainable Environment

An international journal of environmental health and sustainability

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: [Link]

Grazing management and carbon sequestration in

the Dry Lowland Rangelands of Southern Ethiopia

Mekuria Argaw Denboba

To cite this article: Mekuria Argaw Denboba (2022) Grazing management and carbon
sequestration in the Dry Lowland Rangelands of Southern Ethiopia, Sustainable Environment, 8:1,
2046959, DOI: 10.1080/27658511.2022.2046959

To link to this article: [Link]

© 2022 The Author(s). This open access

article is distributed under a Creative
Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Published online: 16 Mar 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 883

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

[Link]
SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT
2022, VOL. 8, NO. 1, 1–24
[Link]

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT & CONSERVATION | RESEARCH ARTICLE

Grazing management and carbon sequestration in the Dry Lowland Rangelands

of Southern Ethiopia
Mekuria Argaw Denboba
Center for Environmental Science, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Rangelands occupy more than half of the terrestrial ecosystems and their management has Received 03 November 2021
a significant impact on the global carbon cycle. They are often managed for pasture and forage Accepted 21 February 2022
for livestock. This study examined impact of grazing management practices on biomass and KEYWORDS
carbon stock in dry lowland rangelands. A systematic transect sampling was applied to measure Bush clearing; carbon stock;
vegetation data, and to collect soil and herbaceous samples from the field. Allometric and species- enclosures; management
specific equations were used to determine the woody biomass. Herbaceous biomass and soil practice; Rangeland
carbon were analyzed in a laboratory. The results showed that herbaceous vegetation accounted management
for 5–15% of the total carbon stock while the woody vegetation accounted only for 0.3–1% of the
total carbon stock. The soil is the largest carbon pool holding more than 90 % of the total carbon.
Enclosures and bush clearing favored more herbaceous growth and changed the vegetation
dynamics. As a result, the grasslands sequestered significantly high (P < 0.05) amount of soil
carbon compared to the bush lands and the tree savannah. The management practices improved
total carbon sequestration by 12.2%—26% in the system. There is high seasonal dynamics in the
herbaceous carbon with a significant increase (P < 0.5) during the wet season. Soil carbon showed
an inverse relationship with stem density, soil bulk density and slope. Rainfall and altitude have
a positive influence on soil carbon. Total carbon stock in the managed rangelands was 19.8%
higher than in the unmanaged rangelands. It can be concluded that enclosures and bush clearing
enhance soil carbon sequestration. At the estimated annual sequestration rate of 1.6–3.5 t CO2
e ha−1 yr−1 into the soil and 2.2–5.6 t CO2e ha−1 yr−1 into the total carbon stock in the system, the
rangelands can make significant contribution to climate change mitigation.

1. Introduction
(Bai et al., 2008). Overgrazing is singled out as key factor
Rangelands are uncultivated lands that are primarily contributing to 7.5 % of rangeland degradation
used for grazing and browsing of livestock and wild (Onatibia & Aguiar, 2016). In Africa, 10.4% of grass­
animals (Follet and Reed, 2010, Spangler et al., 2011). lands are “overgrazed”, and much of this is found in
Rangelands globally cover over half of the terrestrial Eastern and southern Africa (Conant & Paustian, 2002).
ecosystems, and hold significant importance for societal Overgrazing affects soil organic carbon by reducing
well-being (Engler et al., 2018; Lipper et al., 2010). In biomass return to the soil (Angasa et al., 2012). It
Africa, 43% of the total inhabited areas are rangelands exposes the soil for erosion (Chartier et al., 2013), causes
(Bationo et al., 2015), and millions of pastoralists and soil compaction, increases runoff, reduces infiltration
agro-pastoralists rely on these resources for their liveli­ (Chartier et al., 2011) and limits plant productivity in
hoods (J. Ellis & Galvin, 1994). Rangelands are rapidly rangelands (Onatibia & Aguiar, 2016). Grazing manage­
decreasing due to degradation caused by anthropogenic ment has a direct impact on primary productivity and
and natural factors (Angasa and Oba, 2010; Chartier carbon stock dynamics in rangelands (Bagchi & Ritchie,
et al., 2013; Musa et al., 2016; Birhane, 2017; Engler, 2010; Bationo et al., 2015; Onatibia & Aguiar, 2016;
2018). Fast growing human and livestock population Raiesi & Riahi, 2014). Grazing management also
exerted huge pressure on the resources and in some increases forage production, improves resource use effi­
cases resulted in habitat change and ecological transfor­ ciency and arrests degradation (Bailey et al., 2019).
mation (Spottiswoode et al., 2009). A decade ago, the Nevertheless, the impact on carbon sequestration and
global Land Degradation Assessment in Dry Lands storage is often neglected (Hiernaux et al., 1999).
reported severe degradation of 16% of the rangelands Rehabilitating overgrazed rangeland into moderate

CONTACT Mekuria Argaw Denboba [Link]@[Link] Center for Environmental Science, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Reviewing editor: Philip Louis Staddon Environmental Science, University of Gloucestershire, UNITED KINGDOM
© 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the
license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional
restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
2 M. A. DENBOBA

status could improve carbon sequestration by loss of herbaceous cover increased invasive infestation
a conservative rate of 0.21MgCha−1 yr−1 (Conant & by 20–50% and reduced grassland cover by 37% in three
Paustian, 2002). Grazing management alters vegetation decades (Sintayehu et al., 2006). In order to improve the
composition and structure (Argaw et al., 1999; Bailey rangeland resources in Borana, Enclosures, bush clear­
et al., 2019), and the dynamics in carbon pools (Raiesi & ing and other management practices have been imple­
Riahi, 2014; Conant et al., 2017). Grasslands with trees mented in the past decades (Skinner, 2010; Napier and
can store 30 t C ha−1 in Above Ground Biomass (AGB) Solomon, 2011). The vegetation types and the composi­
while grasslands without trees store only 1.8 t C ha−1 tion in rangelands can be changed or modified because
(Grace et al., 2006). of grazing management and other natural factors
Modification of the woody or herbaceous vegetation (Aynekulu et al., 2017; Dalle et al., 2006). If stem density
strongly affects the carbon pools. Not only management and canopy cover of woody species changes, so does the
but also natural factors such as climate, topography, soil herbaceous cover and the carbon stock (Abule et al.,
and vegetation types influence carbon dynamics (Dalle 2005). This is a phenomenon in the Borana rangelands
et al., 2014; Peri et al., 2016). The impacts of various because of enclosures and bush clearing (Dalle et al.,
management practices on carbon stock are well docu­ 2006). The woody components in Enclosures are regu­
mented (Lipper et al., 2010; Dean et al., 2014; Peri et al., larly removed (Angassa and Oba, 2010), through
2016; Conant et al., 2017; Maillard et al., 2017), while mechanical means and burning to suppress encroaching
those of Enclosures and bush clearing are not ade­ bushes/trees (Coppock, 1994) and to invigorate grass
quately addressed (Bikila et al., 2016; Yayneshet et al., growth. Burning is still an important tool for bush
2009). These two practices are increasingly adopted to control in Borana rangelands (Skinner, 2010). Grazing
rehabilitate rangelands in Sub-Saharan Africa management through livestock exclusion and bush
(Verdoodt et al., 2009; Angasa et al., 2012; Aynekulu clearing affects carbon sequestration (Bagchi & Ritchie,
et al., 2017). Enclosures vary in size, purpose and own­ 2010). Besides, environmental factors such as climate,
ership in different places (Feyisa et al., 2017). Small topography, vegetation types influence carbon stocks
private enclosures are used for grazing of calves, sick (Leeuw and Tothill, 1990; Schuman et al., 2002). The
animals, and as source of hey for cut-and-carry, while aim of the study was to investigate the impact of enclo­
large enclosures are often communal and commercial sures and bush clearing grazing management practices
(Angassa and Oba, 2010). Studies showed that on carbon sequestration in arid and semi-arid range­
Enclosures store more AGB and soil carbon than open lands of Borana. The null hypothesis is that manage­
grazing lands (Milne et al., 2015; Yayneshet & Treydte, ment practices such as enclosures and bush clearing do
2015). not have significant impact on the different carbon
The Borana rangelands in southern Ethiopia suffered pools and carbon stock of the grazing system. The
from bush encroachment and agricultural clearing alternative hypothesis is that management practices
(Dalle et al., 2006; Angassa and Oba, 2010). Population can enhance carbon sequestration in the grazing sys­
increase and expansion of Enclosures triggered intense tems. The research tries to answer the questions “Do
grazing in limited areas, leading to bush encroachment management practices make a difference in the carbon
and changes in species composition (Birhane et al., stock of the different carbon pools in the grazing sys­
2017). The desirable herbaceous perennials are replaced tems?” and “What factors contribute to carbon
by annuals and woody species (Dalle et al., 2005). The enhancement in the grazing systems?”. Understanding
herbaceous perennials are very important for livestock the impact of management practices on carbon seques­
because they are always ready to green up and grow in tration contributes to better management of rangelands
events of small quantities of rainfall (Coppock, 1994; and climate change mitigation.
Sintayehu et al., 2006). On the contrary, annuals require
more rain over extended periods of time to thrive com­
pared to perennials. Hence, perennials are more reliable 2. Materials and methods
source of green forage at critical times of the year.
2.1. Study area description and location
Because of the shift from desirable forage grasses to
encroaching bushes (Abule et al., 2007), the land avail­ The study was conducted in the Yabelo and LIben
able for grazing is increasingly reduced and livestock Woredas (i.e. districts) in the Borana rangelands of
have a limited communal grazing area (Angassa and Southern Ethiopia located in between 38° E to 40° E and
Oba, 2010). The carrying capacity is overstretched and 4° N to 6° N (Figure 1). Since grazing management prac­
livestock are forced to graze in smaller plots for longer tices, particularly seasonal grazing, enclosures and bush
periods of time (Bailey et al., 2019). Overgrazing and clearing are widely implemented in Yabelo and Liben
 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT 3

Figure 1. Location Map of the Study Area.

districts, the Gomole and Dida Dheeda management units 2.2. Description of the vegetation
with respective area of 695,000 ha and 340,000 ha, were
It is imperative to describe the characteristic vegetation
selected from the districts. They are about 85 km apart.
types before sampling. From the descriptions and classi­
The management practices have been applied for more
fication of the semi-arid tropical savannah rangelands in
than three decades (Angasa and Oba, 2010). The range­
literature (Pratt and Gwyne, 1977; Breuer, 2012; Pfister
land systems are traditionally sub-divided into dry and wet
et al., 2013; White, 1983), three vegetation types were
seasons grazing sub-units. The vegetation in Gomole is
identified in the study area of the Borana rangelands.
characterized by Acacia woodland in the lower plains and The first is Tree Savannah (TS), characterized by sparsely
dry evergreen Juniper thickets in the upper altitudes. The dispersed trees of different species with a relatively dense
study focused on the dry lowland rangelands. The agro- herbaceous cover. This is similar to wooded grassland in
ecology is moist kolla and topography is undulating plains Pratt and Gwyne (1977), having dense grass cover with
(Ridgewell et al., 2007). The mean annual rainfall in scattered trees of < 20% canopy cover. The second is Bush
Gomole is 560 mm; soils are sandy and poor in organic land (BUL), which has thickets of bushes and shrubs with
matter. The Dida Dheeda rangeland unit has 700 mm very thin and sparse herbaceous cover on the soil surface.
annual rainfall and it is flat terrain (Dalle et al., 2006) The canopy is relatively high with <40% cover. Third is
with dense grass cover and sparse trees of Acacia and Grassland (GL) vegetation type, with open grass fields
shrub species. The natural vegetation is well managed interspersed with few trees covering < 2% of the canopy.
with Ranches and large Enclosures. Soils are black and The ground surface is densely covered by herbs and forbs.
deep clay in some areas while red and sandy in others The sampling was done in these vegetation types.
(Aynekulu et al., 2017). The open grazing fields are
degraded and restricted to the undulating foothills. In
both grazing systems, management practices such as 2.3. Management status and seasonal grazing
Enclosure of degraded areas, clearing of bushes, segregat­ units
ing dry and wet season grazing units, encouraging hey The rangeland vegetation was categorized by manage­
production for cut-and-carry, and water well rehabilita­ ment status and seasonal grazing. The rangelands under
tions were implemented in the past decades. protection through Enclosures, ranches, sanctuaries,
4 M. A. DENBOBA

controlled grazing and hay production were considered distributed at 200-m interval along transect lines
as managed grazing lands. The managed rangelands (Figure 2). The first quadrate was laid 100 m away
have been under management for the last 30 years and from the edge of the vegetation. A total of 200 quadrates
above (Angasa and Oba, 2010). Those rangelands that (100 in each site) were laid along 40 different size trans­
are openly/freely accessed by community members, ects in each study site.
overgrazed and eroded were considered unmanaged
rangelands. The field sampling was conducted based 2.4.1. Woody vegetation data measurement
on this category. Traditionally, rangelands in Borana Vegetation data were measured in the dry and wet
are divided as wet season and dry season grazing seasons. In each 30 m x 30 m quadrat plot, trees and
lands. The division is due to the uneven spatial distribu­ shrubs were first identified by the local names and
tion of water sources for livestock. In the dry season, botanical names if known. Each tree was measured for
livestock are kept near permanent water sources (ponds, DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) at 1.3 meter height
wells and rivers) so that they don’t travel long distances and each shrub was measured for DSH (Diameter at
in search of water. In the wet season, livestock are taken Stump Height), at 20 cm from the soil surface. Height of
far away from permanent water sources to areas with trees and shrubs were measured using Sunnto clin­
better pasture and water is available from rains. This ometers. For unidentified trees and shrubs, leaf and
seasonal grazing pattern influences the carbon stock flower specimens collected, pressed and dried for iden­
dynamics in the different pools. Therefore, seasonally tification at the national Herbarium in Addis Ababa
grazed rangelands were sampled separately within the University. For the wet season sampling, plot coordi­
managed and unmanaged grazing lands. nates were recorded using Garmin III GPS.

2.4.2. Herbaceous vegetation sampling

2.4. Vegetation and soil sampling
A sub-quadrate plot of 1 m X 1 m was used to collect
Measurement of woody vegetation attributes (diameter samples of the above ground herbaceous vegetation at
and height), herbaceous biomass and soil samples col­ the corners within the main quadrate plot. All the her­
lection was carried out by applying a systematic transect baceous biomass in the sub-quadrat was collected using
sampling technique. Transect sizes varied from 0.5 to spade and pocket knife. Each sample was measured for
3 km depending on the size of the sampled area and fresh weight using hand-held digital-scale balance.
barriers along the traverse. Distance between transects A 100 g sub-sample was placed in a plastic bag with
was 500 m. Data measurement and sampling were done the sample labels for analysis at the soil laboratory of
in quadrate plots of 30 m X 30 m, systematically Water Works Design Enterprise in Addis Ababa. The
Transects

Quadrate Plots for woody vegetation

Sub-quadrate
Plants sampling
Herbaceous

30 m

30 m Soil sampling points

Figure 2. Schematic diagram showing transects and plots layout for woody vegetation, herbaceous vegetation and soil sampling.
 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT 5

herbaceous sub-samples were dried and ground for Where BGB is belowground biomass and AGB is above­
moisture content analysis and oven dry weight measure­ ground biomass (t ha−1)
ment in the laboratory. The ground sub-samples were
placed in an oven at a temperature of 75 °C to determine 2.4.6. Herbaceous vegetation biomass estimation
the oven dry weight. Herbaceous cover was estimated The above ground biomass of the herbaceous vegetation
using a 1 m X 1 m quadrate frame. was determined from the oven dry weight of the herbac­
eous sub-samples, which is converted to total dry bio­
2.4.3. Soil sampling mass weight per unit area (t ha−1) using the equation
Soil samples were collected from four corners and the shown below (Pearson et al., 2005).
center of the main plot using a 30 cm soil auger. The five Oven dry weight of the sub sample
sub-samples were mixed together and after removing the Total Dry Biomass ¼
Wet weight of the sub sample
rocks, 1 kg composite soil sample was submitted for ana­ X Wet weight of total sample
lysis. Soil core samples were collected using a bulk core
sampler of 10 cm diameter and 5 cm length at the soil The total biomass density (t ha−1) was calculated using
depth of 10 cm and 30 cm from the soil surface. The auger the expansion factor of 10,000 m2/area of the plot, which
samples and core samples were analyzed for organic matter is 900 m2. The below ground biomass of the herbaceous
content and bulk density, respectively, at the soil laboratory vegetation was determined using the default expansion
of the Water Works Design Enterprise in Addis Ababa. factor of Root/shoot ratio for semi-arid dry tropical
grassland, which is a value of 2.8 (IPCC, 2003 Good
2.4.4. Dry and wet season sampling Practice Guideline, GPG; IPCC, 2006, GPG).
The field sampling campaign was carried out in the dry
and wet seasons to examine the seasonal dynamics of 2.4.7. Carbon stock estimation in woody and
the carbon stock in the different pools. The dry season herbaceous biomass
sampling was conducted in the period between March The total carbon stock in the woody and herbaceous
and May. The wet season sampling was conducted vegetation was calculated from the total biomass by
between end of August and September. During the wet using the default biomass expansion factor of 0.475, as
season sampling, sampling quadrates were located using given in the in the IPCC (2003) Good Practice Guideline.
the spatial coordinates recorded in the dry season using
a Garmin III GPS. Measurements were made in the 2.4.8. Soil organic carbon estimation
same locations and plots. The percent soil organic carbon was determined in the
laboratory using the Walkley Black method. The total
2.4.5. Woody biomass estimation soil carbon stock density was calculated using the mea­
The above-ground biomass of trees and shrubs was sured bulk density of the soil and sampling depth
estimated using general allometric equation for trees (Pearson et al., 2005). The soil carbon density was cal­
and species-specific equations for lowland shrubs estab­ culated as follows:
lished by the national biomass inventory of Ethiopia, i.e. SOCðsoilcarbonstockdensityÞ ¼ %OCXBDXDepth (4)
“Manual for Woody Biomass Inventory for Ethiopia”
Where SOC is the soil organic carbon (t ha−1) in the
(MoA, 2000). The following allometric equations
sub-sample and the BD is the bulk density (kg m3) of the
(Equ. 1) and species-specific (Equ.2) were used to deter­
soil and depth is the soil sampling depth, which is 30 cm.
mine the above ground biomass of trees and shrubs
(Brown, 1997; MoA, 2000; Pearson et al., 2005):
2.4.9. Total carbon stock estimation
2
ð0:535þlog10ð πxr Þ The total carbon stock density in the rangeland was
Y ¼ 10 (1)
estimated by summing up the carbon stock in the dif­
Y ¼ ð0:4861XDSH Þ þ ð0:1659XDSHexp2:2Þ (2) ferent carbon pools of the rangeland as shown below.
�
Where Y is above ground biomass (ABG), DSH is dia­ TC tha 1 ¼ CWV þ CHV þ CS (5)
meter at stump height and r is radius or DBH/2. The Where TC is total carbon in 1 ha of the rangeland, CWV
below-ground biomass of trees and shrubs was calcu­ is carbon in the woody vegetation, CHV is carbon in the
lated using the allometric equation developed for tropi­ herbaceous vegetation and CS is carbon in the soil pool.
cal tree and shrub species (Pearson et al., 2005): The atmospheric carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) of
BGB ¼ EXPð 1:0587 þ ð0:8836XlnAGBÞÞ (3) the total carbon mass was calculated by multiplying the
6 M. A. DENBOBA

total mass of carbon by the atomic weight ratio of Table 1. Type, status and number of stems of trees and shrubs
carbon and oxygen, which is 44/12 or 3.67. recorded in Gomole
Local name No. of Status in the
(Oromifa) Scientific name stems rangelanda
2.5. Statistical analysis Trees
Hamessa Commiphora 279 Encroacher
Data were organized and analyzed using SPSS soft­ africana
Fulensa Acacia 166 Encroacher
ware20.0. Variations in carbon stock in the different drepanolobium
carbon pools, herbaceous cover and soil carbon among Wacho Acacia seyal 109 Encroacher
Tedecha Acacia tortilis 86 Native
the managed and unmanaged systems, among the dif­ Handeraka Lannea floccosa 64 Encroacher
ferent vegetation types, the seasonal grazing systems Rukesa Combretum molle 33 Native
Burkuke Acacia nilotica 31 Encroacher
were tested using ANOVA. Mean separation tests were Halkebesa Acacia etbaica 23 Native
conducted using the LSD (Least Significant Difference) Bedena Balanites aegyptiaca 21 Native
Hale/Halo Acacia bussei 17 Encroacher
technique in the SPSS. The relationship and trend ana­ Chalanka Commiphora 17 Native
lysis between soil carbon density and other variables abyssinica
such as stem density, herbaceous cover, soil bulk den­ Dakera Boswellia neglecta 16 Encroacher
Shrubs
sity, slope and other environmental variables were Measa Euclea schimperi 107 Native
assessed using scatter plot dispersion. Debobesa Rhus vulgaris 72 Native
Girme/Jireme Dichrostachys 67 Encroacher
cinerea
Hamaresa Acacia brevispica 57 Encroacher
3. Results Sebensa Acacia mellifera 55 Encroacher
Welchamela Unknown 40 Native
Haroresa Grewia bicolor 25 Native
3.1. Gomole grazing system Tatesa Rhus natalensis 24 Encroacher
Butiye Ormocarpum 16 Native
3.1.1. The woody species composition mimosoides
The Gomole rangeland unit has diverse composition of Deka Grewia tenax 14 Native
Lukaluke Steganotaenia 11 Encroacher
trees and shrubs, most of which are non-native to the araliacea
locality (encroacher) species (Table 1). A total of 1350 a
Native and Encroacher status was determined based on the opinion of
stems of trees and shrubs were recorded with a density farmers
of 150 stems ha−1. Commiphora africana, Acacia drepa­
nolobium and Acacia seyal were the most aggressive
encroacher tree species recorded in the rangeland unit. in the above, below and total carbon stock of the woody
Over 58% of the tree species were identified as non- vegetation (Figure 4, same letters indicate no variation).
native encroachers in the rangeland (Table 1). The Wet season grazing lands accumulate significantly high
dominant shrubs were the native or non-encroacher carbon stock compared to the dry season grazing lands
species of Euclea schimperi and Rhus vulgaries (P < 0.001, Figure 4). There was no significant variation in
(Table 1). The top three encroacher shrubs were the above, below ground, and total carbon stock measured
Acacia brevispica, Acacia mellifera and Dichrostachys in the dry and wet seasons (P > 0.1; Figure 4).
cinerea in that order (Table 1). About 45.4% of the
recorded shrubs are known encroachers in the 3.1.3. Herbaceous cover and carbon stock by
rangeland. management status
The herbaceous cover is an important factor for the
3.1.2. Carbon stock in the woody vegetation carbon stock in the above and below ground bio­
The average total carbon stock in the woody biomass mass. A significantly high herbaceous vegetation
was less than 0.4 t ha−1 (Figure 3). There was signifi­ cover was recorded in the managed rangelands
cantly higher (P < 0.001) woody biomass carbon in the (P < 0.0001, Figure 5). The average herbaceous
unmanaged rangelands than in the managed rangelands cover was 67 % in the managed rangelands while it
(Figure 3). This could possibly be related to the contin­ was only 22% in the unmanaged rangelands. It is
uous removal of undesirable encroacher bushes, shrubs evident that grazing management effectively contri­
and trees in the managed rangelands. In the enclosures, butes to a significant increase in herbaceous cover in
bushes are regularly removed manually and large sized the managed rangelands. The herbaceous cover
stems are thinned. Only 60 stems with a DBH of > 15 cm remained low in the unmanaged rangelands during
were recorded in the managed rangelands compared to the dry and wet seasons compared to the managed
162 stems with a DBH of > 15 cm in the unmanaged rangelands (Figure 5). Since the wet season triggers
rangelands. There was no seasonal variation (P > 0.001) growth, the herbaceous cover was significantly
 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT 7

0.3 Carbon stock in the woody vegetation by

management status
Above ground
0.25 Below ground d
d
Total carbon
Carbon stock (t ha-1) 0.2 b
b
c
0.15 c
a a

0.1

0.05 f f
e e

0
Managed Unmanaged Managed Unmanaged
Dry season sampling Wet season sampling

Figure 3. Carbon stock in the woody vegetation by management status measured in the dry and wet seasons (letters on error bars
indicate significant difference at α = 0.001).

0.3 Carbon stock by seasonal grazing Above ground

management
Below ground
0.25 Total carbon f
f
Carbon stock (t ha-1)

0.2 e
e
d d
0.15
a a

0.1

0.05 c c
b b

0
Dry season Wet season Dry season Wet season
grazing grazing grazing grazing
Dry season sampling Wet season sampling

Figure 4. Carbon stock in the woody vegetation by seasonal grazing management measured in the dry and wet seasons (letters on
error bars indicate significant difference at α = 0.001).

improved in the unmanaged rangelands during the herbaceous vegetation was 5.7 t ha−1 and 4.1 t ha−1 in
wet season (Figure 5). the managed and unmanaged rangelands, respectively.
The carbon stock in the herbaceous vegetation showed The seasonal sampling showed a significant increase in
similar pattern to the biomass. The total carbon stock in the herbaceous carbon stock in both the managed and
the managed rangelands was significantly higher unmanaged rangelands (P < 0.05, Figure 6). The increase
(P < 0.05) than in the unmanaged rangelands in the wet season was about 55% in both the managed and
(Figure 6). The average total carbon stock in the unmanaged rangelands.
8 M. A. DENBOBA

Herbaceous cover by management status

a
70
a
60

Herbaceous cover (%) 50

40
b
30

20 c

10

0
Managed Unmanaged Managed Unmanaged
Dry season sampling Wet season sampling

Figure 5. Herbaceous vegetation cover in the managed and unmanaged rangelands measured in the dry and wet seasons (letters on
error bars indicate significant difference at α = 0.05).

Carbon stock in herbaceous vegetation by management

status
10 g
9
Carbon stock (t ha-1)

Above ground
8 f
Below ground f
7
Total carbon
6 e
5
4
3 c c
b b b
2 b
a a
1
0
Managed Unmanaged Managed Unmanaged
Dry season sampling Wet season sampling

Figure 6. Carbon stock in the herbaceous vegetation in managed and unmanaged rangelands in the dry and wet seasons (letters on
error bars indicate significant difference at α = 0.05).

3.1.4. Herbaceous cover and carbon stock by (TS) and the grassland (GL) vegetation in the dry season
vegetation type (P < 0.05, Figure 7). The herbaceous cover significantly
In rangelands, the type and density of the woody vege­ increased in the wet season by 27%, 11% and 15% in the
tation determines the cover and growth of the herbac­ BUL, GL and TS, respectively (P < 0.05, Figure 7) with
eous vegetation beneath the canopy. Dense bushy a significant variation among the vegetation types.
vegetation is poor in herbaceous cover because it hin­ The average total carbon stock of the herbaceous
ders the growth of grasses under its canopy due to biomass measured in the woody vegetation types was
obstruction of light and moisture competition. The her­ 3.3 t ha−1 in the BUL, 5.4 t ha−1 in the TS and 6.7 t ha−1
baceous cover in the bush land (BUL) was significantly in the GL. In the dry season, the carbon stock was
lower by 30% and 60% compared to the tree savannah significantly less in the BUL by an amount of 64% and
 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT 9

Hebaceous cover by vegetation type

100 in dry and wet seasons d

90

Herbaceous vegetation cover (%)

c
80
70 c
60
b
50
40
30
e
20
a
10
0
BUL GL TS BUL GL TS
Dry season sampling Wet season sampling

Figure 7. Herbaceous cover by vegetation types (BUL = bush land; GL = grassland; TS = tree Savannah) measured in the dry and wet
seasons (letters on error bars indicate significant difference at α = 0.05).

37% from the GL and the TS, respectively (P < 0.05, the soil carbon was significantly (P < 0.05) higher in
Figure 8). In all the three vegetation types, the herbac­ the managed rangelands than in the unmanaged
eous vegetation carbon significantly increased in the wet rangelands (Table 2). The soil carbon within the
season by a magnitude of 39%-58%, with a significant same management system did not show seasonal
variation among the vegetation types (P < 0.05, variation (Table 2). The GL vegetation had
Figure 8). a significantly higher soil carbon than the BUL and
the TS in the dry season. The TS showed signifi­
3.1.5. Soil carbon stock cantly higher carbon stock than the BUL and GL in
The average total carbon stored in the soil was 42 t the wet season (P < 0.001, Table 2). The dry season
ha−1. In both the dry and wet season measurements, grazing lands accumulated significantly higher soil

Carbon stock in the herbaceous biomass

10 under canopy of woody vegetation types g
g
9
Above ground f
8 f
Below ground
7
Carbon stock (t ha-1)

Total carbon f
6
e e
5
4 d
3 d
d d
b b
2 b
c c
1 a a

0
BUL GL TS BUL GL TS
Dry season sampling Wet season sampling

Figure 8. Carbon stock in the herbaceous biomass in the woody vegetation types (BUL = bush land; GL = grassland; TS = tree
Savannah) measured in the dry and wet seasons (letters on error bars indicate significant difference at α = 0.05).
10 M. A. DENBOBA

Table 2. Mean (±SE) soil carbon stock in Gomole rangeland encroacher species were A. drepanolobium and
grazing system by management status, woody vegetation A. seyal followed by A. nilotica and C. africana
types and seasonal grazing as measured in the dry and wet (Table 3). From the shrub species, L. floccosa was
seasons (n = 94)
the top encroacher species after R. vulgaries,
Dry Season Wet Season
Management status Sampling Sampling M. senegalensis and A. mellifera (Table, 3).
Managed 44.78 (±1.62)a* 42.95 (±2.23)a
Unmanaged 38.91 (±1.84)b 39.83 (±2.07)b 3.2.2. Carbon stock in the woody vegetation
F-value 5.496 5.745
Sig. 0.021 0.005 As the woody component is very thin in this grazing
Vegetation type system, the average carbon stock was less than 0.20 t
BUL 42.84 (±1.89)a 32.43 (±2.41)c
GL 46.50 (±5.07)d 39.21 (±3.55)a ha-1, showing that the woody contribution to the
TS 40.02 (±1.92)a 45.88 (±2.02)d carbon stock in this system is minimal. In the man­
F-value 0.757 9.193
Sig. 0.521 0.000 aged rangelands, a significantly higher carbon stock
Seasonal grazing was recorded in the dry season (P < 0.05, Figure 10)
management
Dry season grazing lands 46.21 (±1.71)d 42.02 (±2.20)b
compared to the unmanaged rangelands. The wet
Wet season grazing lands 38.03 (±1.69)a 40.51(±2.11)a season measurement did not show significant varia­
F-value 11.221 5.287 tion of the carbon stock (P > 0.05, Figure 10) in the
Sig. 0.001 0.007
* Superscript letters denote significant differences at α = 0.05 and 0.01
managed and unmanaged rangelands. Apparently,
levels. this could be a result of regular bush clearing in
the managed system to facilitate herbaceous growth
during the wet season.
carbon than the wet season grazing lands (P < 0.01, The carbon stock in the seasonal grazing lands cor­
Table 2). responded with the managed and unmanaged range­
lands (Figure 11). The dry season grazing lands in the
3.1.6. Total carbon stock and annual sequestration Dida Dheeda grazing system are mostly enclosures,
rate in the Gomole rangeland system strictly used in a controlled manner for grazing and
The average total carbon stock in the above and below hey production, and hence had significantly high carbon
ground biomass of the vegetation and in the soil pool stock (P < 0.5, Figure 11). The number and types of
was 46.67 t ha−1. The results generally show that the grazing animals, the grazing intensity are controlled.
contribution of the woody vegetation to the total carbon However, on the contrary, the wet season measurement
stock and sequestration in rangelands is insignificant did not show any significant variation between the dry
compared to the herbaceous and soil carbon pool. The and wet season grazing lands, which might likely be
herbaceous biomass is critically important to improve resulted from measurement errors. It is unrealistic that
the carbon sequestration potential of rangelands. This is the woody vegetation does show significant change in
also evident from the analysis that the total average one season.
carbon stock in the grasslands was higher than in the
bush lands and tree savannahs (Figure 9). Management 3.2.3. Carbon stock in the herbaceous vegetation
has improved the total carbon stock in the system by The herbaceous cover was higher in both the dry and
about 12.2%. In the managed rangelands, the annual wet seasons in the managed and unmanaged range­
rate of carbon sequestration in the last 10 years in the lands of the Dida Dheeda. The average cover was
soil and in the total carbon pool has been 1.6 and 88% in the managed rangeland and 48% in the
2.2 tCO2e ha−1 yr−1, respectively. unmanaged rangelands. There was no seasonal varia­
tion in the herbaceous cover of the managed range­
land (P > 0.05, Figure 12). However, a significant
3.2. Dida Dheeda grazing system
increase was observed in the unmanaged rangeland
3.2.1. Woody species composition in the wet season (P < 0.05, Figure 12). This is highly
The Dida Dheeda grazing system is dominated by likely due to the fact that the rangelands recover
grasslands with very few scattered trees and shrubs from the heavy grazing in the dry season and vigor­
compared to the Gomole grazing system. The unit is ously restore the herbaceous cover.
largely managed under enclosures of private and Enclosures and other management practices signifi­
commercial nature. A total of 496 stems of trees cantly improved the herbaceous carbon stock in the
and shrubs were recorded from the sampled areas Dida Dheeda rangeland system (P < 0.001, Figure 13).
(Table 3), with a density of 55 stems/ha, which is 65 Management significantly improved herbaceous carbon
% less compared to that of Gomole. The two most stock in both the dry and wet seasons (P < 0.001,
 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT 11

50
Average total carbon by management

Total Carbon stock (t ha-1)

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Herbaceou
Woody Total
s Soil carbon
vegetation carbon
vegetation
Managed 0.1475 5.725 43.865 49.7375
Unmanaged 0.2265 4.055 39.37 43.6515

50
Average total carbon by vegetation type
45
Total carbon stock (t ha-1)

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Woody Herbaceous
Soil carbon Total carbon
vegetation vegetation
Bush land 0.2235 3.345 37.635 41.2035
Grassland 0.2285 6.67 42.855 49.7535
Tree savannah 0.1765 5.45 42.95 48.5765

Figure 9. Total carbon stock by management and vegetation types averaged over seasonal measurements in the Gomole grazing
system.

Figure 13). Although the herbaceous carbon stock was P < 0.05). The seasonal difference was insignificant
significantly low in the unmanaged rangelands, among the vegetation types.
a significant increase was observed in the wet season. The average carbon stock in the herbaceous vegeta­
Woody vegetation types extensively vary in their tion was 2.2 t ha−1 in the BUL, 9 t ha−1 in the GL and
undercover growth due to the variation in canopy 3.9 t ha−1 in the TS. The BUL vegetation type generally
cover. Hence, there was a significant variation in the suppresses undergrowth and often retains minimum in
herbaceous cover and the carbon stock among the herbaceous cover under the canopy, which might be
vegetation types. Compared to the TS and BUL a result of light obstruction and root competition by
vegetation, the GL showed a significantly high her­ the woody vegetation. In the wet season, the cover and
baceous cover in both seasons by an average of 33% carbon stock slightly improved in the grasslands and in
from the TS and 58% from the BUL (Figure 14; the bush lands (Figure 15).
12 M. A. DENBOBA

Table 3. The common tree and shrub species and total number (P < 0.5) and the BUL had the least soil carbon
of stems recorded from the sampled areas in the Dida Dheeda (Table 4). The seasonal measurements did not show
grazing system any variation. The dry season grazing lands had
Local name No. of Status in the
(Oromifa) Scientific name stems rangeland** significantly higher soil carbon than the wet season
Trees grazing lands (P < 0.5, Table 4).
Wacho Acacia seyal 213 Encroacher
Fullensa Acacia 98 Encroacher
drepanolobium 3.2.5. Total carbon stock and annual sequestration
Birdesa Terminalia brownii 34 Native rate in the Dida Dheeda grazing system
Rukesa Combretum molle 17 Native
Badana Balanites 13 Native
The woody biomass is the least contributor to the
aegyptiaca carbon sequestration potential of the rangelands. The
Burkuke Acacia nilotica 11 Encroacher average total carbon stock in the woody, herbaceous
Hamessa Commiphora 5 Encroacher
africana and soil pool are in the order of 0.18 t ha−1, 6.1 t
Shrubs ha−1 and 47.7 t ha−1. The total average carbon stock
Butiye Ormocarpum 39 Native
mimosoides in the biomass (above and below ground) and soil
Handaraka Lannea floccosa 30 Encroacher pool of the rangeland is 54 t ha−1 (Figure 16), which
Meassa Euclea schimperi 13 Native
Debobesa Rhus vulgaris 12 Encroacher is 14% higher than that of the Gomole rangeland.
Jima harre Maytenus 8 Encroacher Management makes a greater contribution to the
senegalensis
Sebensa Acacia mellifera 2 Encroacher
improvement of the carbon sequestration potential
Keraro Acokanthera 1 Native of rangelands. In the Dida Dheeda rangeland,
venenata which is largely under managed system, the total
** Native and Encroacher status was determined based on the opinion of
farmers
carbon stock is 26% (or about 17 t ha−1) higher in
the managed rangelands than that of the unmanaged
rangelands (Figure 16). The GL sequestered greater
3.2.4. Carbon stock in the soil pool amount of carbon followed by TS and BUL
The average soil carbon stock was 47.7 t ha−1. (Figure 16). The GL is, thus, the primary contributor
Management and vegetation types contributed to to the carbon sequestration potential of rangelands.
the variation in the soil carbon. A significantly Moreover, management intervention considerably
higher mean soil carbon was recorded in the mana­ and progressively improves the sequestration poten­
ged rangelands than in the unmanaged rangelands tial of rangelands regardless of the seasons. In the
(Table 4, P < 0.05). No seasonal variation was managed rangelands, the annual rate of carbon
observed within the same management system sequestration in the last ten years was 3.3 and 5.6 t
(Table 4). The vegetation types varied in their soil CO2e ha−1 yr−1 into the soil and into the total carbon
carbon. The GL had significantly high soil carbon pool, respectively.

0.3 Carbon stock in the woody vegetation by Above ground

management status Below ground
Total carbon
Carbon stock (t ha-1)

0.25
c c

c
0.2 a
a
a
f
0.15
d

0.1

0.05 b b b
e

0
Managed Unmanaged Managed Unmanaged
Dry season sampling Wet season sampling

Figure 10. Carbon stock in the woody vegetation by management status in Dida Dheeda rangeland grazing system measured in the
dry and wet seasons (letters on error bars indicate significant difference at α = 0.05).
 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT 13

0.3 Above ground

Carbon stock in the woody vegetation
by grazing management Below ground
0.25 Total carbon
c

Carbon stock (t ha-1)

c
c
0.2 a a
a
d
0.15
d

0.1

b b b
0.05 b

0
Dry season Wet season Dry season Wet season
grazing grazing grazing grazing
Dry season sampling Wet season sampling

Figure 11. Carbon stock in the woody vegetation by seasonal grazing management in Dida Dheeda grazing system measured in the
dry and wet seasons (letters on error bars indicate significant difference at α = 0.05).

Herbaeous cover by management status

100
a a
90
Herbaceous cover (%)

80
70
60 c
50 b
40
30
20
10
0
Managed Unmanaged Managed Unmanaged
Dry season sampling Wet season sampling
Figure 12. Herbaceous vegetation cover in the managed and unmanaged rangelands in Dida Dheeda grazing system measured in the
dry and wet seasons (letters on error bars indicate significant difference at α = 0.001).

4. Discussion et al., 2017; Gobelle & Gure, 2018; Sandhage-Hofmann

et al., 2020). In the Gomole and Dida Dheeda grazing
4.1. Grazing management practices and effect on
systems, encroacher species were dominant and covered
carbon sequestration
45–58 % of the total recorded species. Encroacher spe­
The results in this study suggest that bush encroach­ cies suppress the growth and composition of native
ment remains a serious challenge in the Borana range­ species of grasses and forbs (Abule et al., 2005), and
lands, as it continues to affect rangelands in arid and managing the encroaching shrub/tree species improves
semi-arid landscapes in Africa and elsewhere (Archer herbaceous biomass. The results conform to the findings
14 M. A. DENBOBA

Herbaceous carbon stock by management status

Above ground
12
h Below ground
Total carbon
10
c
Carbon stock (t ha-1) g
8
b
6

j
4
f f
a a
2 e
i
d
0
Managed Unmanaged Managed Unmanaged
Dry season sampling Wet season sampling

Figure 13. Herbaceous vegetation carbon stock in the managed and unmanaged rangelands in Dida Dheeda rangeland grazing
system in the dry and wet seasons (α = 0.001).

Herbaceous cover by vegetation type

100
b
90 b
Herbaceous cover (%)

80
70 c
e
60 f
50
40
30
20 a
10
0
BUL GL TS BUL GL TS
Dry season sampling Wet season sampling

Figure 14. Herbaceous vegetation cover in the woody vegetation types in the dry and wet seasons in Dida Dheeda (α = 0.05).

reported in similar studies (Belay et al., 2013; Dalle et al., soil components. The high carbon stock in the herbac­
2006; Gobelle & Gure, 2018) for the southern Ethiopia eous component and a significantly low carbon stock in
rangelands. The results proved that the hypothesis does the woody component in the managed system likely
not hold true and management practices induce signifi­ resulted from selective thinning of the encroaching
cant changes in the carbon stock of the above and below shrub/tree stems in the enclosures (Gobelle & Gure,
ground carbon pools. The main management factors, 2018).
i.e. bush clearing and enclosures, significantly altered The soil was found to be the largest carbon pool
the carbon dynamics in the herbaceous, woody and storing 89–95% of the total carbon stock in the southern
 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT 15

12 Herbaceous carbon stock by

vegetation type g
Above ground
10 Below ground
Total carbon
Carbon stock (t ha-1)
f
f
8

i
6
e
e
4 e d
d d
d
h
2
c c c
b c
a
0
BUL GL TS BUL GL TS
Dry season sampling Wet season sampling

Figure 15. Carbon stock in the herbaceous vegetation in different vegetation types in the dry and wet seasons in Dida Dheeda
(α = 0.05).

Table 4. Mean (±SE) soil carbon stock (t ha−1) in rangelands by feeding using cut-and-carry system (Feyisa et al., 2017).
management status, vegetation types and seasonal grazing Besides, Enclosures favor herbaceous growth by redu­
management in the dry and wet seasons in Dida Dheeda grazing cing woody stems through bush clearing; and favor
system (n = 55)
biomass return to the surface soil. In Gomole and
Management Dry Season Sampling Wet Season Sampling
Managed 52.62 (±1.0)a 52.45 (±2.51)a
Dida Dheeda grazing systems, the total carbon stock in
Unmanaged 44.53 (±2.08)b 41.45 (±3.06)b the managed rangelands was 10% and 18% higher than
F_ value 15.735 7.772 in the unmanaged/ open grazing lands, respectively.
Sig. 0.000 .008
Vegetation Types
This agrees with a study by Yusuf et al. (2015) in
BUL 42.96 (±4.3)b 39.82 (±4.56)c Borana rangelands, who reported 49 t ha−1 more carbon
GL 51.75 (±0.98)a 53.54(±2.70)a in Enclosures than in open grazing lands. Annually,
TS 49.73 (±2.38)a 45.16 (±3.57)b
F_ value 4.041 3.983 Enclosures in Gomole and Dida Dheeda grazing sys­
Sig. 0.023 0.027 tems sequestered 1.6 tCO2e ha−1 yr−1 to the soil carbon
Seasonal grazing management and 3.5 tCO2e ha−1 yr−1 to the total carbon, respectively.
Dry season grazing land 52.62 (±1.0)a 52.45 (±2.5)a
Wet season grazing land 44.52 (±2.08)b 41.45 (±3.05)b Similar studies on rangeland Enclosures in China found
F_ value 15.735 7.772 an increase of carbon sequestration by a rate of 2.35–
Sig. 0.000 0.008
a 4.33 t CO2e ha−1 yr−1 after excluding grazing from
Superscript letters denote significant differences at α = 0.05 and 0.001 levels.
degraded grasslands (Li et al., 2007; Zhou et al., 2007).
After studying soil carbon sequestration potential in
rangelands. The results conform with studies that overgrazed grasslands, Conant and Paustian (2002) con­
reported 90–98% of the total carbon in rangelands cluded that reducing grazing pressure and implement­
being stored in the soil pool (Schuman et al., 2002; ing moderate intensity can improve carbon
Tennigkeit and Wilke, 2008). Much of this is found in sequestration in grassland soils.
the top 30 cm soil (Wang et al., 2018), which is prone to The notable effect of Enclosures was in the herbac­
disturbances and perturbation. Grazing management eous biomass in both the Gomole and Dida Dheeda
practices alter above ground biomass and the top soil, rangelands. An increase of 55% biomass or 0.37 t ha−1
both of which determine the carbon dynamics in the in Gomole and 40% biomass or 3.4 t ha−1 in Dida
rangelands (Aynekulu et al., 2017). In Borana range­ Dheeda was recorded in the managed rangelands com­
lands, Enclosures are the most common management pared to the unmanaged. A similar study by Angasa and
practices, and help to limit grazing pressure by avoiding Oba (2010) in Borana rangeland reported 64% more
free grazing, reducing stocking rate and allowing stall herbaceous biomass in enclosures than in open-grazed
16 M. A. DENBOBA

70 Average total carbon by management status

Average total carbon stock (t ha-1)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Woody Herbaceous
Soil Total carbon
vegetation vegetation
Managed 0.2135 9.34 52.535 62.0885
Unmanaged 0.1615 2.825 42.99 45.9765

Average total carbon stock by vegetation type

70
Average total carbon stock (t ha-1)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Woody Herbaceous
Soil Carbon Total carbon
vegetation vegetation
BUL 0.156 2.23 41.39 43.776
GL 0.2425 9.02 52.645 61.9075
TS 0.1275 3.95 47.445 51.5225

Figure 16. Total carbon stock by management and vegetation type averaged over seasonal measurements in the Dida Dheeda grazing
system.

rangelands. Yusuf et al. (2015) recorded a significantly fall and organic matter return to the soil. The results in
high above and below ground herbaceous biomass and this study showed a positive linear relationship between
carbon in enclosures than in open-grazed lands in herbaceous biomass cover and soil carbon sequestration
Borana. Not only in the arid and semi-arid rangelands in Gomole and Dida Dheeda (Figure 17). Whereas, an
but also similar results were reported for wet highlands. inverse relationship was observed between soil carbon
After studying 5–15 years of Enclosure in northern and soil bulk density in both sites (Figure 18). The soil
Ethiopia rangelands, Yayneshet et al. (2009) observed bulk density is important indicator for soil physical
200% increase in herbaceous biomass compared to the quality and organic matter availability. Increased soil
unenclosed rangelands. Naturally, an increase in her­ organic matter lowers the bulk density, increases soil
baceous cover and biomass enhances soil cover, litter pore spaces and improves air and water movement in
 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT 17

80
Gomole
70

Soil carbon density (t ha-1)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Herbaceous biomass cover (%)

80
Dida Dheeda
70
Soil carbon density (t ha-1)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Herbaceous biomass cover (%)

Figure 17. Relationship between soil carbon stock and herbaceous biomass cover in the Gomole and Dida Dheeda grazing systems.

the soil facilitating microbial activity for decomposi­ reserved for times of critical feed shortage, droughts
tion and carbon release to the soil. This suggests that and extended dry season. These are rangelands close
management through enclosures improves the soil to permanent or reliable water sources, settlements
carbon stock (Raiesi & Riahi, 2014). Enclosures enable and rivers. Distance from water source is very impor­
changes in the plant composition by favoring peren­ tant for grazing management. Thus, the dry season
nial grasses (i.e. C4 grasses), which are sturdy warm- grazing rangelands are de facto managed rangelands.
climate plants (Coppock, 1994) and store large They are exposed to light or moderate grazing by
amount of carbon in the root biomass and later small number of livestock. However, the wet season
release the carbon to the soil through decomposition grazing rangelands are unmanaged rangelands, which
(McSherry & Ritchie, 2013). are open for free access grazing. These rangelands are
Enclosures in Borana serve as a system of seasonal exposed to heavy grazing, high stocking rate and
grazing management. Enclosed rangelands are uncontrolled bush encroachment (Angassa et al.,
18 M. A. DENBOBA

80

70 Gomole

Soil carbon density (t ha-1)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Soil bulk density (g/cm3)

80
Dida Dheeda
70
Soil carbon density (t ha-1)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Soil bulk density (g/m3)

Figure 18. Relationship between soil carbon stock and soil bulk density in the Gomole and Dida Dheeda grazing systems.

2012). Although some studies claim that grazing and the herbaceous biomass was 10–20% higher in Dida
enhances soil carbon through effect of livestock drop­ Dheeda. Unlike in Dida Dheeda, large part of the range­
pings and trampling (Aynekulu et al., 2017), our land in Gomole is unmanaged and freely grazed by
results show a reduced soil carbon stock and high livestock, resulting in expansion of encroacher species
woody stem density compared to the enclosed or of shrubs and trees in the rangeland. Tefera et al. (2007)
dry season grazing rangelands. studied woody stem density in Borana rangelands and
Another important rangeland management practice reported highest stem density of encroacher species in
in the Borana rangelands is Bush clearing. Farmers the free-grazed communal lands (i.e. unmanaged range­
remove encroaching bushes, undesirable and low forage lands) and the least was recorded in the traditional
value species from the managed rangelands (mainly in enclosures, in which encroacher species such as
enclosures or private Kallos and ranches. High stem A. brevisica was completely removed from the tradi­
density was recorded in Gomole than in Dida Dheeda, tional enclosures (Kallos).
 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT 19

Bush clearing reduces stem density and enhances in rainfall regime of 200–400 mm and 1.7–3.7 t ha−1 in
herbaceous biomass, depending on environmental fac­ 600–800 mm rainfall regime. Schuman et al. (2002)
tors such as climate and soil types. Drought and poor reported an increasing trend in soil organic carbon
soils may inhibit vegetation growth in arid environ­ with a change of rainfall from 200 mm to 350 mm in
ments. An inverse relationship was observed between semi-arid grassland in the central US. Conant and
stem density and herbaceous biomass cover in both Paustian (2002) tried to model global scale soil carbon
study sites. As stem density increased, herbaceous bio­ sequestration in degraded rangelands and found that
mass cover declined. A similar relationship was reported greater amount of soil carbon sequestration took place
by Yusuf et al. (2015) in Borana and Abule et al. (2005) in high rainfall and wet areas than in low rainfall and
in Afar rangelands. Both studies claimed that low her­ dry areas. Altitude is another factor that showed positive
baceous cover and low organic carbon stock was directly relationship with soil carbon sequestration. Much of the
associated with high encroacher tree density. Leeuw and carbon is concentrated in the mid altitude areas than the
Tothill (1990), in their assessment of the carrying capa­ low and high altitude areas. The low altitude areas
city of African rangelands, found that increasing density exhibited low soil carbon stock and only few outliers
of woody stems in rangelands substantially decreased were observed in the higher altitude areas (Figure 19).
the total dry matter production of herbaceous vegeta­ Topography (slope) is another factor that affects soil
tion. The reduction ranged from 10% to 80% as reported carbon sequestration in a number of ways. Slope influ­
in Kenya, Mali and Botswana for 40–90% increase in the ences runoff and facilitates erosion of top soil (carbon-
woody stem density (Leeuw and Tothill,1990). rich soil). An inverse relationship was observed between
Although the woody components in rangelands are slope and soil carbon sequestration (Fig. 21). The soil
important providers of browse, our finding shows insig­ carbon stock showed a declining trend with an increas­
nificant contribution to the total carbon sequestration. ing slope in the landscape. This might be attributed to
Our study also showed that, it is not the mere number of the soil type, top soil cover, soil erosion, rooting depth,
stems that actually matter for the total carbon seques­ aspect and others (Ardo & Olsson, 2003). The topogra­
tration in the system; rather the stem size is important. phy of the sampled rangelands in Gomole was undulat­
Few larger size stems can sequester and store more ing with slope of 0–30%. In Dida Dheeda, the landscape
carbon than large number of small size stems in the was gently flat with a slope range of 0–7% (Fig. 21).
rangelands. However, in both cases, large amount of the soil carbon
was concentrated in the gentle to flat slope range (below
7%) (Fig.21). In Dida Dheeda, the rangeland has good
4.2. Management practices, environmental factors
herbaceous biomass cover, soil is loamy and slope is flat,
and carbon sequestration
which might collectively prevent soil erosion, runoff and
Although management practices improve biomass carbon loss from the landscape. Soils with high clay
return and soil carbon sequestration, climate deter­ content generally store high organic carbon
mines primary production, organic matter return and (Tennigkeit and Wilke, 2008). Hence, it can be techni­
decomposition processes (Conant & Paustian, 2002; cally assumed that carbon stock change in a landscape
Tennigkeit and Wilke, 2008; Spangler et al., 2011; could be a result of multiple environmental factors and
Dalle et al., 2014). The study areas varied in terms of not merely from change in management practices even
mean annual rainfall, with 560 mm in Gomole and though slope is inversely related (Fig. 21).
700 mm in Dida Dheeda. The soil carbon values were Literature generally suggests that generalizations on
higher in the Dhedaa grazing system than in Gomole the impact of woody plant encroachment on ecosystem
grazing system (Figure 19). Although this is subject to carbon balance are contentious and inconclusive for
further study and verification, soil carbon sequestration lack of sufficient data and information at the regional
in the study area is positively and significantly influ­ scale (Archer et al., 2017). Archer et al. (2017) further
enced by annual rainfall (Figure 19). As it was observed argue that results on robust conclusions are constrained
in both the biomass and carbon stock values, manage­ by the methodologies used to estimate soil organic car­
ment practices improved the soil carbon sequestration bon pools and how the soil pools respond to disturbance
in the high rainfall areas, i.e. in Dida Dheeda rangelands and management practices such as drought, wildfire,
by 18% or 9.5 t ha−1. This result agrees with findings of prescribed burning and bush clearing. Similarly, at eco­
Leeuw and Tothill (1990), who reviewed various litera­ system and habitat levels, there are conflicting reports of
tures on dry matter production and mean annual rain­ increase in carbon stock in some ecosystems and
fall in west and Eastern Africa. They reported an a decline in others. For instance, Sandhage-Hofmann
increasing dry matter production from 0.6 to 2.3 t ha−1 et al. (2020) found an increase in soil carbon in a woody
20 M. A. DENBOBA

70

60

Soil Carbon stock (t ha-1)

50

40

30

20

10

0
560 mm (Gomole) 700 mm (Dida Dheeda)
Mean Annual Rainfall (mm)

80
Gomole
70

60
Soil carbon density (t ha-1)

50

40

30

20

10

0
1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100
Altitude (m)

80
Dida Dheeda
70

60
Soil carbon density (t ha-1)

50

40

30

20

10

0
1300 1400 1500 1600 1700
Altitude (m)

Figure 19. Relationship between soil carbon stock, rainfall and altitude in the Gomole and Dida Dheeda grazing systems.
 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT 21

plant encroached grazing land in South Africa. On the topography/slope are linearly and inversely related to
contrary, Belay et al. (2013) reported no change in the soil carbon. With a steady increase of annual rate of
carbon stock in bush encroached rangeland compared carbon sequestration, the rangelands greatly contri­
to non-encroached parts in South Ethiopia. An interest­ bute to climate change mitigation.
ing comparative study by Gobelle and Gure (2018)
found that carbon stock was higher in the order of
Public Interest Statement
encroached > thinned-encroached > non-encroached
rangelands. This shows that managing encroaching Lowland range lands are home for significant num­
trees through removal (thinning) indeed reduces the bers of pastoral and agro-pastoral communities in
carbon stock, which supports our finding here. Our Africa and these range lands are often neglected in
findings indicate that managing encroaching species putting the right management in place. Free and
through removal and restricting livestock through open grazing of livestock has persisted for genera­
enclosures reduces above ground biomass from tions and left some of the critical range lands under
bushes/trees but enhances carbon stock in the herbac­ serious state of degradation. Over grazing and bush
eous component and the soil carbon stock. On top of encroachment are the main causes of degradation.
management interventions, environmental factors play Traditionally, enclosures are applied to manage the
role in enhancing carbon stock in the above and below grazing systems and to control bush encroachment
ground biomass. through mechanical removal. Such practices change
the vegetation composition and structure, the soil
5. Conclusion organic matter and carbon dynamics. These manage­
ment practices not only improve pasture for livestock
Grazing management practices alter the composition, but also significantly increase carbon sequestration in
structure and biomass dynamics in the above ground the soil as well as in the range land systems.
vegetation of the lowland rangelands. Significant num­ Managing range lands have a long term positive
bers of Encroaching bushes and trees exist in the impact for climate change mitigation.
standing vegetation and still cause serious threats to
forage availability for livestock. Enclosures reduce the
grazing pressure and clearing the encroaching bushes Acknowledgements
and trees improve herbaceous cover and growth. The author would like to thank the two PhD students
These practices are widely implemented in the (Tulu and Abraham) who have helped in the collection
Gomole and Dida Dheeda grazing systems of the of the field data and organizing the soil and biomass
Borana rangelands. As the woody stems are continu­ samples for laboratory analysis. The lab technicians at
the Water Works Design Enterprise provided all the neces­
ously removed from the enclosures, the woody vegeta­
sary support and cooperation in analyzing the samples and
tion is the least contributor to the total carbon delivering the results. The local experts and farmers excel­
sequestration in the system while the herbaceous com­ lently facilitated the field work and they deserve sincere
ponent is the largest contributor next to the soil car­ thanks and appreciation.
bon. The vegetation types differ in their carbon stocks.
The bush lands stored less amount of soil carbon
Disclosure statement
compared to the tree savannah and the grasslands.
However, the grasslands sequestered the largest No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
amount of soil carbon in the grazing system. This
could be perhaps attributed to the high root biomass
Funding
growth of the warm-climate (C4) perennial grasses
that thrived after the enclosures. The rangeland soil The author received no direct funding for this research.
is the main carbon pool and holds more than 90% of
the total carbon. Management practices significantly
Notes on contributor
improved carbon sequestration in the grazing systems,
mainly by enhancing soil carbon. The soil carbon and Mekuria Argaw is an associate professor of Ecology and
the woody biomass did not show seasonal variation. Environmental Sciences, at the Center for Environmental
Science, College of Natural and Computational Science,
As the data was a single season observation, the result
Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. He teaches
could be different if seasonal observations are MSc and PhD courses, advises and mentors PhD and MSc
increased. Woody stem density, soil bulk density and students. He has 20 years of teaching experience and authored
22 M. A. DENBOBA

and co-authored peer reviewed journal articles in wide range paper: Targeted livestock grazing: Prescription for healthy
of environmental topics. rangelands. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 72(6),
865–877. [Link]
Bationo, A., Reid, R., & Sift, D. (2015). Current types of grazing
Data availability statement lands in Sub-Saharan Africa and associated management
practices. In E. Milne, D. Hoag, & R. Bowen (Eds.),
The data that support the findings of this study are available Grazing lands, livestock and climate resilient mitigation in
from the corresponding author, MA upon reasonable request. Sub-Saharan Africa: Part 1. The state of the science. IUCN
100 .
Belay, T. A., Totland, Ø., & Moe, S. R. (2013). Ecosystem
References responses to woody plant encroachment in a semiarid
savanna rangeland. Plant Ecology, 214(10), 1211–1222.
Abule, E., Smith, G. N., & Snyman, H. A. (2005). The influ­ [Link]
ence of woody plants and livestock grazing on grass species Bikila, N. G., Tessema, Z. K., & Abule, E. G. (2016). Carbon
composition, yield and soil nutrients in the Middle Awash sequestration potentials of semi-arid rangelands under tra­
Valley of Ethiopia. Journal of Arid Environments, 60(2), ditional management practices in Borana, Southern
343–358. [Link] Ethiopia. Journal of Arid Environments, 233 , 108–114 doi:
Abule, E., Snyman, H. A., & Smit, G. N. (2007). Rangeland [Link]
evaluation in the middle Awash valley of Ethiopia: II. Birhane, E., Treydte, A. C., Eshete, A., Solomon, N., &
Woody vegetation. Journal of Arid Environments, 70(2), Hailemariam, M. (2017). Can rangelands gain from
272–292. [Link] bush encroachment? Carbon stocks of communal graz­
Angassa, A., & Oba, G. (2010). Effects of grazing pressure, age ing lands invaded by Prosopis juliflora. Journal of Arid
of enclosures and seasonality on bush cover dynamics and Environments, 141, 60–67. [Link]
vegetation composition in southern Ethiopia. Journal of denv.2017.01.003
Arid Environments, 74(1), 111–120. [Link] Breuer, B. (2012). Effects of vegetation type and species compo­
1016/[Link].2009.07.015 sition on carbon stocks in Semi-arid Ethiopian Savanahs
Angassa, A., Sheleme, B., Oba, G., Treydte, A. C., [MSc thesis], University of Hohenheim.
Linstädter, A., & Sauerborn, J. (2012). Savanna land use Brown, S. (1997). Estimating biomass and biomass change of
and its effect on soil characteristics in southern Ethiopia. tropical forests: A primer. FAO Forestry Paper 134, FAO,
Journal of Arid Environments, 81, 67–76. [Link] Rome, Italy.
1016/[Link].2012.01.006 Chartier, M. P., Rostagno, C. M., & Pazos, G. E. (2011). Effects
Archer, S. R., Andersen, E. M., Predick, K. I., Schwinning, S., of soil degradation on infiltration rates in grazed semiarid
Steidl, R. J., & Woods, S. R. (2017). Woody plant encroach­ rangelands of northeastern Patagonia, Argentina. Journal of
ment: Causes and consequences. In D. D. Brieske (Ed.), Arid Environments, 75(7), 656–661. [Link]
Rangeland systems: Processes, management and challenges. 1016/[Link].2011.02.007
Springer Open 643 . [Link] Chartier, M. P., Rostagno, C. M., & Videla, L. S. (2013).
46709-2 Selective erosion of clay, organic carbon and total nitrogen
Ardo, J., & Olsson, L. (2003). Assessment of soil organic in grazed semiarid rangelands of northeastern Patagonia,
carbon in semi-arid Sudan using GIS and the CENTURY Argentina. Journal of Arid Environments, 88, 43–49. https://
model. Journal of Arid Environments, 54(4), 633–651. [Link]/10.1016/[Link].2012.08.011
[Link] Conant, R.T., Cerri, C.E.P., Osborne, B.B., and Paustian, K.
Argaw, M., Teketay, D., & Olsson, M. (1999). Soil seed flora, 2017. Grassland management impacts on soil carbon
germination and regeneration pattern of woody species in stocks: a new synthesis. Ecological Applications, 27 (2),
an Acacia woodland of the Rift Valley in Ethiopia. Journal 662–668.
of Arid Environments, 43(4), 411–435. [Link] Conant, R. T., & Paustian, K. (2002). Potential soil carbon
1006/jare.1999.0532 sequestration in overgrazed grassland ecosystems. Global
Aynekulu, E., Mekuria, W., Tsegaye, D., Feyissa, K., Biogeochemical Cycles, 16(4), 1143. [Link]
Angassa, A., de Leeuw, J., & Shepherd, K. (2017). Long- 2001GB001661
term livestock exclosure did not affect soil carbon in south­ Coppock, D. L. (1994). The Borana Plateau of Southern
ern Ethiopian rangelands. Geoderma, 307, 1–7. [Link] Ethiopia: Synthesis of pastoral research, development and
org/10.1016/[Link].2017.07.030 change, 1980-91, ILCA Systems Study. International
Bagchi, S., & Ritchie, M. E. (2010). Introduced grazers can Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA), Addis Ababa.
restrict potential soil carbon sequestration through impacts Dalle, G., Maass, B. L., & Isselstein, J. (2005). Plant commu­
on plant community composition. Ecology Letters, 13 , nities and their species diversity in the semi-arid rangelands
959–968. [Link] of Borana lowlands, southern Oromia, Ethiopia.
Bai, Z. G., Dent, D. L., Olsson, L., & Schaepman, M. E. (2008). Community Ecology, 6(2), 167–176. [Link]
Global assessment of land degradation and improvement 1: 1556/ComEc.6.2005.2.5
Identification by remote sensing. Report 2008/01, ISRIC – Dalle, G., Maass, B. L., & Isselstein, J. (2006). Rangeland
World Soil Information. condition and trend in the semi-arid Borana lowlands,
Bailey, D. W., Mosley, J. C., Estell, R. E., Cibils, A. F., southern Oromia, Ethiopia. African Journal of Range &
Horney, M., Hendrickson, J. R., Walker, J. W., Forage Science, 23(1), 49–58. [Link]
Launchbaugh, K. L., & Burritt, E. A. (2019). Synthesis 10220110609485886
 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT 23

Dalle, G., Maass, B. L., & Isselstein, J. (2014). Relationships Maillard, E., McConkey, B. G., & Angers, D. A. (2017).
between vegetation composition and environmental Increased uncertainty in soil carbon stock measurement
variables in the Borana Rangelands, Southern Oromia, with spatial scale and sampling profile depth in world
Ethiopia. SINET: Ethiopian Journal of Science, 37(1), 1– grasslands: A systematic analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems
12 [Link] & Environment, 236, 268–276. [Link]
111055 . agee.2016.11.024
De Leeuw, P. N., & Tothill, J. ca. (1990 ()). The concept of McSherry, M., & Ritchie, M. (2013). Effects of grazing on
rangeland carrying capacity in sub-saharan Africa: Myth or grassland soil carbon: A global review. Global Change
reality? Pastoral Development Network, ODI. Biology, 19(5), 1347–1357. [Link]
Dean, C., Kirkpatrick, J. B., Harper, R. J., & Eldridge, D. J. Milne, E., Hanan, N., Neely, C., & Williams, S. (2015). Carbon
(2014). Optimising carbon sequestration in arid and semi­ impacts of grazingland management systems and practices in
arid rangelands. Ecological Engineering, 74, 148–163. Sub-Saharan Africa. In E. Milne, D. Hoag, & R. Bowen
[Link] (Eds.), Grazing lands, livestock and climate resilient mitiga­
Ellis, J., & Galvin, K. A. (1994). Climate patterns and land-use tion in Sub-Saharan Africa: Part 1. The state of the science.
practices in the dry zones of Africa. BioScience, 44(5), IUCN 100 .
340–349. [Link] MoA. (2000). Manual for inventory of the woody biomass for
Engler, J. O., Abson, D. J., Feller, R., Hanspach, J., & von Ethiopia. TECSULT Inc.
Wehrden, H. (2018). A social-ecological typology of range­ Mussa, M., Hashim, H., & Teha, M. (2016). Rangeland degra­
lands based on rainfall variability and farming type. Journal dation: Extent, impacts, and alternative restoration techni­
of Arid Environments, 148, 65–73. [Link] ques in the Rangelands of Ethiopia. Tropical and
jaridenv.2017.09.009 Subtropical Agro-ecosystems, 19(Review paper), 305–318
Feyisa, K., Beyene, S., Angassa, A., Said, M.Y., Leeuw, J., Abebe, [Link]
A., Megersa, B. 2017. Effects of enclosure management on Rangeland_degradation_Extent_impacts_and_alternative_
carbon sequestration, soil properties and vegetation attri­ restoration_techniques_in_the_rangelands_of_Ethiopia .
butes in East African rangelands. Catena, 159, 9–19. Napier, A., & Desta, S. (2011). Review of pastoral Rangeland
Follett, R. F., & Reed, D. A. (2010). Soil carbon sequestration Enclosures in Ethiopia, PLI policy project; supported by
in grazing lands: Societal benefits and policy implications. Feinstein International Center. Tufts University and USAID.
Rangeland Ecology & Management, 63(1), 4–15. [Link] Onatibia, G. R., & Aguiar, M. R. (2016). Continuous moderate
org/10.2111/08-225.1 grazing management promotes biomass production in
Gobelle, S. K., & Gure, A. (2018). Effects of bush encroach­ Patagonian arid rangelands. Journal of Arid Environments,
ment on plant composition, diversity and carbon stock in 125, 73–79. [Link]
Borana rangelands, Southern Ethiopia. International Pearson, T., Wolker, S., & Brown, S. (2005). . In Source Book
Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation, 10(5), 230–245. for land use, land use change and forestry projects. Winrock
[Link] International and the BioCarbon fund (Winrock
Grace, J., Jose, S. J., Meir, P., Miranda, H. S., & Motes, R. A. International 57) .
(2006). Productivity and carbon fluxes of tropical Savannas. Peri, P. L., Ladd, B., Lasagno, R. G., & Pastur, G. M. (2016).
Journal of Biogeography, 33, 387–400. [Link] The effects of land management (grazing intensity) vs. the
1111/j.1365-2699.2005.01448.x effects of topography, soil properties, vegetation type, and
Hiernaux, P., Bielderst, C.L., Valentin, C., Bationo, A. and climate on soil carbon concentration in Southern
Fernandez-Rivera, S. 1999. Effects of livestock grazing Patagonia. Journal of Arid Environments, 134, 73–78.
on physical and chemical properties of sandy soils in [Link]
Sahelian rangelands. Journal of Arid Environments, 41, Pfister, J., Asch, F., Said, M., & Giese, M. (2013). Estimation of
231–245. carbon sequestration potential under different vegetation
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2003). types in the Borana Rangelands, Ethiopia. Tropentag. 17-
Good practice guidance for land use, land- use change and 19 September 2013, Stuttgart-Hohenheim, “Agricultural
forestry IPCC/IGES (IPCC). J. Penman, M. Gytarsky, development within the rural-urban continuum”.
T. Hiraishi, T. Krug, D. Kruger, R. Pipatti, L. Buendia, Pratt, D. J., & Gwynne, M. D. (1977). Rangeland management
K. Miwa, T. Ngara, K. Tanabe, & F. Wagner, Eds. and ecology in East Africa (pp. 310). Hodder and Stoughton.
IPCC. (2006). Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inven­ Raiesi, F., & Riahi, M. (2014). The influence of grazing
tories – A primer, prepared by the national greenhouse gas ex-closure on soil C stocks and dynamics, and ecological
inventories programme. H. S. Eggleston, K. Miwa, indicators in upland arid and semi-arid rangelands.
N. Srivastava, & K. Tanabe, eds. [Link]. Ecological Indicators, 41, 145–154. [Link]
Li, X. G., Wang, Z. F., Ma, Q. F., & Li, F. M. (2007). Crop 1016/[Link].2014.01.040
cultivation and intensive grazing affect organic C pools and Ridgewell, A., Mamo, G., & Flintan, F. (2007). Gender &
aggregate stability in arid grassland soil. Soil and Tillage Pastoralism (Vol. 1). Rangeland & Resource Management
Research, 95(1–2), 172–181. [Link] in Ethiopia.
2006.12.005 Sandhage-Hofmann, A., Löffler, J., Kotzé, E., Weijers, S.,
Lipper, L., Dutilly-Diane, C., & McCarthy, N. (2010). Wingate, V., Wundram, D., Weihermüller, L., Pape, R., du
Supplying carbon sequestration from West African Preez, C. C., & Amelung, W. (2020). Woody encroachment
Rangelands: Opportunities and barriers. Rangeland and related soil properties in different tenure-based manage­
Ecology and Management, 63(1), 155–166. [Link] ment systems of semiarid rangelands. Geoderma, 372,
10.2111/REM-D-09-00009.1 114399. [Link]
24 M. A. DENBOBA

Schuman, G. E., Janzen, H. H., & Herrick, J. E. (2002). Soil Kenya. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,
carbon dynamics and potential carbon sequestration by 129, 332–339
rangelands. Environmental Pollution, 116(3), 391–396. Wang, B., Waters, C., Orgill, S., Cowie, A., Clark, A., Li
[Link] Liu, D., Simpson, M., McGowen, I., & Sides, T. (2018).
Sintayehu, M., Gizachew, L., & Coppock, D. L. (2006). Estimating soil organic carbon stocks using different mod­
Changes in land cover and soil conditions for the Yabelo elling techniques in the semi-arid rangelands of eastern
District of the Borana Plateau, 1973-2003 UC . In Research Australia. Ecological Indicators, 88, 425–438. [Link]
Brief 06-06-PARIMA. Global livestock collaborative research org/10.1016/[Link].2018.01.049
support program (pp. 4). University of California, Davis. White, F. 1983. The vegetation of africa, a descriptive
Skinner, D. (2010). Rangeland management for improved pas­ memoir to accompany the UNESCO/AETFAT/UNSO
toralist livelihoods: The Borana of Southern Ethiopia. M. vegetation map of Africa (3 Plates, Northwestern
A. thesis, Oxford Brookes University. Africa, Northeastern Africa, and Southern Africa
Spangler, L., Vance, G. F., Schuman, G. E., & Derner, J. D. 1:5,000,000. UNESCO.
(2011). Rangeland Sequestration Potential Assessment. Final Yayneshet, T., Eik, L. O., & Moe, S. R. (2009). The effects of
Report.U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy exclosures in restoring degraded semi-arid vegetation in
Technology Laboratory (NETL). communal grazing lands in northern Ethiopia. Journal of
Spottiswoode, C. N., Wondafrash, M., Gabremichael, M. N., Arid Environments, 73(4–5), 542–549. [Link]
Abebe, Y. D., Mwangi, M. A. K., Collar, N. J., & 1016/[Link].2008.12.002
Dolman, P. M. (2009). Rangeland degradation is poised to Yayneshet, T., & Treydte, A. C. (2015). A meta-analysis
cause Africa’s first recorded avian extinction. Animal of the effects of communal livestock grazing on vegeta­
Conservation. 21, 1–9. [Link] tion and soils in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Arid
2009.00246.x Environments, 116, 18–24. [Link]
Tefera, S., Snyman, H. A., & Smit, G. N. (2007). Rangeland denv.2015.01.015
dynamics of southern Ethiopia: (2). Assessment of woody Yusuf, H. M., Treydte, A. C., Sauerborn, J., & Balestrini, R.
vegetation structure in relation to land use and distance (2015). Managing semi-arid rangelands for carbon storage:
from water in semi-arid Borana rangelands. Journal of Grazing and woody encroachment effects on soil carbon
Environmental Management, 85(2), 443–452. [Link] and nitrogen. PLoS ONE, 10(10), e0109063. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2006.10.008 10.1371/[Link].0109063
Tennigkeit, T., & Wilkes, A. (2008). An assessment of the Zhou, Z. Y., Sun, O., Huang, J. H., Li, L. H., Liu, P., &
potential for carbon finance in Rangelands. ICRAF China, Han, X. G. (2007). Soil carbon and nitrogen stores and
Working Paper No. 68. storage potential as affected by land-use in an
Verdoodt, A., Mureithi, S.M., Ye, L., Ranst, E.V. 2009. agro-pastoral ecotone of northern China.
Chronosequence analysis of two enclosure manage­ Biogeochemistry, 82(2), 127–138. [Link]
ment strategies in degraded rangeland of semi-arid 1007/s10533-006-9058-y