Woody plant encroachment

This is a good article. Click here for more information.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

bush encroachment at Waterberg Namibia
View of bush encroached land at the Waterberg Plateau Park in Otjozondjupa Region, Namibia

Woody plant encroachment (also called woody encroachment, bush encroachment, shrub encroachment, shrubification, woody plant proliferation, or bush thickening) is a natural phenomenon characterised by the increase in density of woody plants, bushes and shrubs, at the expense of the herbaceous layer, grasses and

native plants and not the spread of alien invasive species. It is thus defined by plant density, not species. Bush encroachment is often considered an ecological regime shift and can be a symptom of land degradation. The phenomenon is observed across different ecosystems and with different characteristics and intensities globally.[2]

Its causes include land-use intensification, such as high grazing pressure and the suppression of wildfires.

ecosystem services, especially biodiversity, animal habitat, land productivity and groundwater recharge. Across rangelands, woody encroachment has led to significant declines in productivity, threatening the livelihoods of affected land users. Various countries actively counter woody encroachment, through adapted grassland management practices, controlled fire and mechanical bush thinning.[3]

In some cases, areas affected by woody encroachment are classified as carbon sinks and form part of national greenhouse gas inventories. The carbon sequestration effects of woody plant encroachment are however highly context specific and still insufficiently researched. Depending on rainfall, temperature and soil type, among other factors, woody plant encroachment may either increase or decrease the carbon sequestration potential of a given ecosystem. In its Sixth Assessment Report of 2022, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that woody encroachment may lead to slight increases in carbon, but at the same time mask underlying land degradation processes, especially in drylands.[4]

Ecological definition and etymology

Woody plant encroachment is the increase in abundance of indigenous woody plants, such as shrubs and bushes, at the expense of herbaceous plants, grasses and forbs, in grasslands and shrublands. The term encroachment is thus used to describe how woody plants outcompete grasses during a given time, typically years or decades.[5][3] This is in line with the meaning of the term encroachment, which is "the act of slowly covering more and more of an area".[6] Among earliest published notions of woody plant encroachment are publications of R. Staples in 1945,[7] O. West in 1947[8] and Heinrich Walter in 1954.[9]

Although the terms are used interchangeably in some literature, woody plant encroachment is different from the spread of invasive species. As opposed to invasive species, which are deliberately or accidentally introduced species, encroacher species are indigenous to the respective ecosystem and their classification as encroachers depends on whether they outcompete other indigenous species in the same ecosystem over time. As opposed to alien plant invasion, woody plant encroachment is thus not defined by the mere presence of specific plant species, but by their ecological dynamics and changing dominance.[10][11]

In some instances, woody plant encroachment is a type of secondary succession. This applies to cases of land abandonment, for example when previous agricultural land is abandoned and woody plants re-establish.[12] However, this is distinctly different from woody plant encroachment that occurs due to global drivers, e.g. increased carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere, and unsustainable forms of land use intensification, such as overgrazing and fire suppression. Such drivers disrupt the ecological succession in a given grassland, specifically the balance between woody and herbaceous plants, and provide a competitive advantage to woody plants.[13] The resulting process that leads to an abundance of woody plants is sometimes considered an ecological regime shift (also ecological state transition) that can shift drylands from grassy dominated regimes towards woody dominated savannas. An increase in spatial variance is an early indicator of such regime shift.[14] Depending on the ecological and climatic conditions this shift can be a type of land degradation and desertification.[1] Progressing shrub encroachment is expected to feature a tipping point, beyond which the affected ecosystem will undergo substantial, self-perpetuating and often irreversible impact.[15]

Research into the type of woody plants that tend to become encroaching species is limited. Comparisons of encroaching and non-encroaching vachellia species found that encroaching species have a higher acquisition and competition for resources. Their canopy architecture is different and only encroaching tree species reduce the productivity of perennial vegetation.[16]

By definition, woody plant encroachment occurs in grasslands. It is thus distinctly different from reforestation and afforestation.[17] However, there is a strong overlap between vegetation greening, as detected through satellite-derived vegetation indices, and woody plant encroachment.[18][19] Grasslands and forests, as well as grasslands and shrublands, can be alternative stable states of ecosystems, but empirical evidence of such bistability is still limited.[20][21][14][22]

Causes

Woody encroachment is assumed to have its origins at the beginning of Holocene and the start of warming, with tropical species expanding their ranges away from the equator into more temperate regions. But it has occurred at unparalleled rates since the mid-19th century.[23][24][25] As such, it is classified as a type of grassland degradation, which occurs through direct and indirect human impact during the Anthropocene.[26]

Susceptibility of ecosystems

There is evidence that some characteristics of ecosystem render them more susceptible to woody encroachment than others. For example, coarse-textured soils promote woody plant growth, while fine-textured soils limit it. Moreover, the likelihood of woody encroachment is influenced by soil moisture and soil nutrient availability, which is why it often occurs on downslope locations and coolers slopes.[27] The causes of woody encroachment differ significantly under different climatic conditions, e.g. between wet and dry savanna.[28]

Various factors have been found to contribute to the process of woody plant encroachment. Both local drivers (i.e. related to land use practices) as well as global drivers can cause woody plant encroachment. Due to its strong link to human induced causes, woody plant encroachment has been termed a social-ecological regime shift.[29] Research shows that both legacy effects of specific events, as well as plant traits can contribute to encroachment.[30] There is still insufficient research on the interplay between the various positive and negative feedback loops in encroaching ecosystems.[31]

Land use

Where land is abandoned, the rapid spread of native bush plants is often observed. This is for example the case in former forest areas in the Alps that had been converted to agricultural land and later abandoned. In Southern Europe encroachment is thus linked to rural exodus.[32] In such instances, land use intensification, e.g. increased grazing pressure, is found to be effective against woody encroachment.[33] More recently, it is observed that land use cessation is not the only driver of woody encroachment in aforement regions, since the phenomenon occurs also where land continued to be used for agricultural purposes.[34]

In other regions, land use intensification, and the related fragmentation of landscapes, is the main cause of woody plant encroachment, especially in the following forms:

  • Overgrazing: In the context of land intensification, a frequently cited cause of woody plant encroachment is overgrazing, commonly a result of overstocking and fencing of farms, as well as the lack of animal rotation and land resting periods. Overgrazing plays an especially strong role in mesic grasslands, where bushes can expand easily when gaining a competitive advantage over grasses, while woody encroachment is less predictable in xeric shrublands.[35] Seed dispersal through animals is found to be a contributing factor to woody encroachment.[36][37][38] While overgrazing has in the past frequently been found to be a main driver of woody encroachment, it is observed that woody encroachment continues in the respective areas even after grazing reduced or even ceases.[39]
  • Absence of large mammals: linked to the introduction of rangeland agriculture as well as unsustainable hunting practices, the reduction of large mammals such as elephant and rhino are a contributing factor to woody encroachment.[1][40]
  • Fire suppression: A connected cause for woody plant encroachment is the reduction in the frequency of wildfires that would occur naturally, but are suppressed in frequency and intensity by land owners due to the associated risks and the fragmentation of landscapes.[41][42][43] When the lack of fire reduces tree mortality and consequently the grass fuel load for fire decreases, a negative feedback loop occurs.[44][15] It has been estimated that from a threshold of 40% canopy cover, surface grass fires are rare.[45][46] At intermediate rainfall, fire can be the main determinant between the development of savannas and forests.[47][48] In experiments in the United States it was determined that annual fires lead to the maintenance of grasslands, 4-year burn intervals lead to the establishment of shrubby habitats and 20-year burn intervals lead to severe woody plant encroachment.[49] Moreover, the reduction of browsing by herbivores, e.g. when natural habitats are transformed into agricultural land, fosters woody plant encroachment, as bushes grow undisturbed and with increasing size also become less susceptible to fire. Already one decade of land management change, such as the exclusion of fires and overgrazing, can lead to severe woody plant encroachment.[50] The global increase in atmospheric CO2 contributes to the reduction of wildfires, as it decreases flammability of grass.[51]
  • Competition for water: a positive feedback loop occurs when encroaching woody species reduce the plant available water, providing a disadvantage for grasses, promoting further woody encroachment.[52] According to the two-layer theory, grasses use topsoil moisture, while woody plants predominantly use subsoil moisture. If grasses are reduced by overgrazing, this reduces their water intake and allows more water to penetrate into the subsoil for the use by woody plants.[9][53] Moreover, research suggests that bush roots are less vulnerable to water stress than grass roots during droughts.[54]
  • Population pressure: population pressure can be the cause for woody plant encroachment, when large trees are cut as building material or fuel. This stimulates coppice growth and results in shrubbiness of the vegetation.

Climate change

See also: Effects of climate change on biomes

While changes in land management are often seen as the main driver of woody encroachment, some studies suggest that global drivers increase woody vegetation regardless of land management practices.[55][5] For example, a representative sampling of South African grasslands, woody plant encroachment was found to be the same under different land uses and different rainfall amounts, suggesting that climate change may be the primary driver of the encroachment.[40][56] Once established, shrubs suppress grass growth, perpetuating woody plant encroachment.[57]

Predominant global drivers include the following:

  • Atmospheric CO2: climate change has been found to be a cause or accelerating factor for woody plant encroachment.[58] This is because increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations fosters the growth of woody plants. Woody plants with C3 photosynthetic pathway thrive under high CO2 concentrations, as opposed to grasses with C4 photosynthetic pathway.[59][60][61][62] Also tolerance to herbivory is found to be enhanced during the plants' recruitment stage under increased CO2 concentrations.[63]
  • Rainfall patterns: a frequently cited theory is the state-and-transition model. This model outlines how rainfall and its variability is the key driver of vegetation growth and its composition, bringing about woody plant encroachment under certain rainfall patterns. For example, if rainfall intensity increases, deep soil water typically increases, which in turn benefits bushes more than grasses.[64][65] Both the amount of rainfall and its timing are important and distinct factors.[66] Changes in precipitation can foster woody encroachment. Increased precipitation can foster the establishment, growth and density of woody plants. Also decreased precipitation can promote woody plant encroachment, as it fosters the shift from mesophytic grasses to xerophytic shrubs.[67]
  • Global warming: woody encroachment correlates to warming in the tundra, while it is linked to increased rainfall in the savanna.[68] Species such as Vachellia sieberiana thrive under warming irrespective of the competition with grasses.[69] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its report "Global warming of 1.5°C" states that high-latitude tundra and boreal forests are at particular risk of climate change-induced degradation, with a high likelihood of shrub encroachment under continued warming.[70] In other ecosystems, such as sub-Sahara grasslands, rising aridity may cause woody plants to be more prone to hydraulic failure.[66][71]
  • Droughts: droughts contribute to woody plant encroachment, if they reduce the perennial grass cover and the latter recovers slowly, providing shrubs with an competitive advantage with regard to the acquisition of deep-soil water.[72][73] Drought, in combination with high levels of grazing pressure, can function as the tipping point for an ecosystem, causing woody encroachment.[31]

Impact on ecosystem services

Woody encroachment constitutes a shift in plant composition with far-reaching impact on the affected ecosystems. While it is commonly identified as a form of land degradation, with severe negative consequences for various

ecosystem services, such as biodiversity, groundwater recharge, carbon storage capacity and herbivore carrying capacity, this link is not universal. Impacts are dependent on species, scale and environmental context factors and shrub encroachment can have significant positive impacts on ecosystem services as well.[74][75] There is a need for ecosystem-specific assessments and responses to woody encroachment.[3]

Generally, the following context factors determine the ecological impact of woody encroachment:[76]

  • Prevailing land use: While positive ecological effects can occur in unmanaged landscapes or certain land-uses, negative ecological effects are observed especially in landscapes used for livestock grazing.[3][77]
  • Density of woody plants: Plant diversity and ecosystem multifunctionality typically peaks at intermediate levels of woody cover and high woody covers generally have negative impacts.[78][79][3]
  • Environmental conditions: Arid ecosystems show more negative responses to woody encroachment than non-arid ecosystems.[80][78][19] In arid ecosystems woody encroachment is sometimes regarded as a form of land degradation and an expression of desertification[81] Due to its ambiguous role in these dry ecosystems, it has been termed "green desertification".[82] To the contrary, in ecosystems of the Mediterranean region and in Alpine grasslands, encroachment can enhance ecosystem functionality and reverse desertification trends.[83][84] An key difference is that during woody encroachment the herbaceous cover in the inter-canopy zones can remain intact, while during desertification these zones degrade and turn into bare soil devoid of organic matter.[85]

Affected ecosystem services fall into the category of provisioning (e.g. forage value), regulating (e.g. hydrological regulation, soil stability) and supporting (nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration, biodiversity, primary production).[86]

Biodiversity

Woody encroachment causes widespread declines in the diversity of herbaceous vegetation through competition for water, light, and nutrients

species abundance and richness. However, these encroached habitats and their species assemblages may become more sensitive to droughts.[4][92] As encroachment is not a stable state, but characterised by changing bush densities, it is important to identify how different density threshold affect plant and animal species.[93]

Cheetah habitat can be reduced by woody plant encroachment

Evidence of biodiversity losses includes the following:

Groundwater recharge and soil moisture

Water balance

Woody plant encroachment is frequently linked to reduced groundwater recharge, based on evidence that bushes consume significantly more rainwater than grasses and encroachment alters water streamflow.[125] Woody encroachment generally leads to root elongation in the soil[126] and the downward movement of water is hindered by increased root density and depth.[127][128][129][130] The impact on groundwater recharge differs between sandstone bedrocks and karst regions as well as between deep and shallow soils.[127]

Besides groundwater recharge, woody encroachment increases tree transpiration and evaporation of soil moisture, due to increased canopy cover.[131] Woody encroachment leads to the drying up of stream flows.[132] Further, woody plant control can effectively improve the connectivity of water resources.[133] Although this is strongly context dependent, bush control can be an effective method for the improvement of groundwater recharge.[134]

While water loss is common in closed canopy woodlands (i.e. sub-humid conditions with increased evapotranspiration) in semiarid and arid ecosystems recharge can also improve under encroachment, provided there is good ecohydrological connectivity of the respective landscape.[135]

There is limited understanding how hydrological cycles through woody encroachment affect carbon influx and efflux, with both carbon gains and losses possible.[125] Moreover, there is evidence that woody encroachment enhances bedrock weathering, with unclear consequences for soil erosion and subsurface water flows.[136]

However, concrete experience with changes in groundwater recharge is largely based on anecdotal evidence or regionally and temporally limited research projects.[137] Applied research, assessing the water availability after brush removal, was conducted in Texas, US, showing an increase in water availability in all cases.[138][139] Studies in the United States moreover find that dense encroachment with Juniperus virginiana is capable of transpiring nearly all rainfall, thus altering groundwater recharge significantly.[140][141] An exception is shrub encroachment on slopes, where groundwater recharge can increase under encroachment.[52][142] Further studies in the US indicate that also stream flow is significantly hampered by woody plant encroachment, with the associated risk of higher pollutant concentrations.[143][144]

Studies in South Africa have shown that approximately 44% of rainfall is captured by woody canopies and evaporated back in to the atmosphere under woody encroachment. This effect is strongest with fine-leaved species and in events of lower rainfall sizes and intensities. It was found that up to 10% less rain enters the soil overall under woody encroachment.[145] A meta-analysis of studies in South Africa further finds that woody encroachment has low water loss effect in areas with limited rainfall.[146] Streamflow can increase after targeted removal of invasive and encroaching species, as showcased in South Africa.[147]

Carbon sequestration

The impact of bush control on the carbon sequestration and storage capacity of the respective ecosystems is an important management consideration. Against the background of global efforts to mitigate climate change, the carbon sequestration and storage capacity of natural ecosystems receives increasing attention. Grasslands constitute 40% of Earth's natural vegetation[148] and hold a considerable amount of the global Soil Organic Carbon.[149] Shifts in plant species composition and ecosystem structure, especially through woody encroachment, lead to significant uncertainty in predicting carbon cycling in grasslands.[150][151] Research on the changes to carbon sequestration under woody plant encroachment and its control is still insufficient.[152][153] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that woody plant encroachment generally leads to increased aboveground woody carbon, while below-ground carbon changes depend on annual rainfall and soil type. The IPCC points out that carbon stock changes under bush encroachment have been studied in Australia, Southern Africa and North America, but no global assessment has been done to date.[4]

Total ecosystem carbon: considering above-ground biomass alone, encroachment can be seen as a

fluvial erosion that in turn leads to the loss of previously stabilised organic carbon from legacy grasslands.[165] Moreover, encroached ecosystems are more likely than open grasslands to lose carbon during droughts.[166] Among the ecosystems expected to lose carbon storage under woody encroachment is the tundra.[167]

Factors relevant for comparisons of carbon sequestration potentials between encroached and non-encroached grasslands include the following: above-ground net primary production (ANPP), below-ground net primary production (BNPP), photosynthesis rates, plant respiration rates, plant litter decomposition rates, soil microbacterial activity. Also plant biodiversity is an important indicator, as plant diversity contributes more to soil organic carbon than the quantity of organic matter.[168]

  • Above-ground carbon: woody plant encroachment implies an increase in woody plants, in most cases at the expense of grasses. Considering that woody plants have a longer lifespan and generally also more mass, woody plant encroachment typically implies an increase in above-ground carbon storage through
    biosequestration. Studies however find that this is dependent on climatic conditions, with aboveground carbon pools decreasing under woody encroachment where mean annual precipitation is less than 330mm and increasing where precipitation is higher.[169][80] A contributing factor is that woody encroachment decreases above-ground plant primary production in mesic ecosystems.[80]
  • Below-ground carbon: globally, the
    soil organic carbon.[170] An important factor is that under woody plant encroachment the increased photosynthetic potential is largely offset by increased plant respiration and respective carbon losses.[174] In tropical savanna soils, most soil organic carbon is derived from grass, not woody plants.[175][176] For example, research in South Africa found that soil organic carbon from tree input matched grass-derived soil organic carbon only after 70 years of fire exclusion, challenging the view that increased tree density leads to SOC improvements.[177]
Soil organic carbon changes need to be viewed at landscape level, as there are differences between under canopy and inter canopy processes. When a landscape becomes increasingly encroached and the remaining open grassland patches are overgrazed as a result, soil organic carbon may decrease.[178][74] In South Africa, woody plant encroachment was found to slow decomposition rates of litter, which took twice the time to decay under woody plant encroachment compared to open savannas. This suggests a significant impact of woody encroachment on the soil organic carbon balance.[179] In pastoral lands of Ethiopia, woody plant encroachment was found to have little to no positive effect on soil organic carbon and woody encroachment restriction was the most effective way to maintain soil organic carbon.[180] In the United States, substantial soil organic carbon sequestration was observed in deeper portions of the soil, following woody encroachment.[181]
An important factor is that rooting depth increases with woody encroachment, on average by 38 cm and up to 65 cm.[182] Deeper rooting may promote the accumulation of organic carbon in the deep soil layers, but at the same time also lead to a positive priming effect, i.e. the stimulation of microbial activity and decomposition of organic matter.[183] The trajectory of deep soil carbon under woody encroachment will depend on the balance of increased SOC accumulation and priming losses.[184]
A meta-analysis of 142 studies found that shrub encroachment alters soil organic carbon (0–50 cm), with changes ranging between -50 and 300 percent. Soil organic carbon increased under the following conditions: semi-arid and humid regions, encroachment by leguminous shrubs as opposed to non-legumes, sandy soils as opposed to clay soils. The study further concludes that shrub encroachment has a mainly positive effect on top-soil organic carbon content, with significant variations among climate, soil and shrub types.[185] There is a lack of standardised methodologies to assess the effect of woody encroachment on soil organic carbon.[153]

Land productivity

Woody plant encroachment directly impacts land productivity, as widely documented in the context of animal carrying capacity. In the western United States, 25% of rangelands experience sustained tree cover expansion, with estimated losses for agricultural producers of $5 billion since 1990. The forage lost annually is estimated to be equal to the consumption of 1.5 million bison or 1.9 million cattle.[186] In Northern America, each 1 percent of increase in woody cover implies a reduction of 0.6 to 1.6 cattle per 100 hectares.[187] In the Southern African country Namibia it is assumed that agricultural carrying capacity of rangelands has declined by two-thirds due to woody plant encroachment.[188] In East Africa there is evidence that an increase of bush cover of 10 percent reduced grazing by 7 percent, with land becoming unusable as rangeland when the bush cover reaches 90 percent.[189][190]

Tourism potential

Touristic potential of land is found to decline in areas with heavy woody plant encroachment, with visitors shifting to less encroached areas and better visibility of wildlife.[191][192]

Rural livelihoods

While the ecological effects of woody encroachment are multifold and vary depending on encroachment density and context factors, woody encroachment is often considered to have a negative impact on rural livelihoods. In Africa 21% of the population depend on rangeland resources. Woody encroachment typically leads to an increase in less palatable woody species at the expense of palatable grasses. This reduces the resources available to pastoral communities and rangeland based agriculture at large.[193] Woody encroachment has negative consequences on livelihoods especially arid areas,[76] which support a third of the world population's livelihoods.[194][195] Woody plant encroachment is expected to lead to large scale biome changes in Africa and experts argue that climate change adaptation strategies need to be flexible to adjust to this process.[196]

Others

In the United States, woody encroachment has been linked to the spread of tick-borne pathogens and respective disease risk for humans and animals.

Arctic tundra, shrub encroachment can reduce cloudiness and contribute to a raise in temperature.[199] In Northern America, significant increases in temperature and rainfall were linked to woody encroachment, amounting to values up to 214mm and 0.68 °C respectively. This is caused by a decrease in surface albedo.[200]

Targeted bush control in combination with the protection of larger trees is found to improve

scavenging that regulates disease processes, alters species distributions, and influences nutrient cycling.[201]

Studies of woody plant encroachment in the Brazilian savanna suggest that encroachment renders affected ecosystems more vulnerable to climate change.[202]

Quantification and monitoring

There is no static definition of what is considered woody encroachment, especially when encroachment of indigenous plants occurs. While it is simple to determine vegetation trends (e.g. an increase in woody plants over time), it is more complex to determine thresholds beyond which an area is to be considered as encroached. Various definitions as well as quantification and mapping methods have been developed.

In Southern Africa, the BECVOL method (Biomass Estimates from Canopy Volume) finds frequent application. It determines Evapotranspiration Tree Equivalents (ETTE) per selected area. This data is used for comparison against climatic factors, especially annual rainfall, to determine whether the respective area has a higher number of woody plants than is considered sustainable.[88]

support-vector machines classification, can lead to high accuracy in identifying shrubs.[207] The probability of woody plant encroachment for the African continent has been mapped using GIS data and the variables precipitation, soil moisture and cattle density.[208] An exclusive reliance on remote sensing data bears the risk of wrongly interpreting woody plant encroachment, e.g. as beneficial vegetation greening.[209] Google Earth images have been successfully used to analyse woody encroachment in South Africa.[210] The Bush Information System of Namibia, is based on synthetic-aperture radar satellite data.[211]

Rephotography is found to be an effective tool for the monitoring of vegetation change, including woody encroachment[212][213] and forms the basis of various encroachment assessments.[56]

Methods to overcome the limited availability of photographic evidence or written records include the assessment of pollen records. In a recent application, vegetation cover of the past 130 years in a woody plant encroachment area in Namibia was established.[214]

Vegetation mapping tools developed for the use by individual land users and support organisations include the American Rangeland Analysis Platform,[215][216] and the Namibian Biomass Quantification Tool.[217]

Restoration

bush control
Landscape in Namibia with land after selective bush thinning (foreground) and severe bush encroachment (background)
Boer Goat
Goats can function as a natural measure against woody plant encroachment or the re-establishment of seedlings after bush thinning.

Brush control is the active management of the density of woody species in grasslands. Although woody encroachment in many instances is a direct consequence of unsustainable management practices, it is unlikely that the introduction of more sustainable practices alone (e.g. the management of fire and grazing regimes) will achieve to restore already degraded areas. Encroached grasslands can constitute a stable state, meaning that without intervention the vegetation will not return to its previous composition.[218]

For decisions on appropriate control measures, it is essential that both local and global drivers of woody encroachment, as well as their interaction, are understood.[219] Restoration must be approached as a set of interventions that iteratively move a degraded ecosystem to a new system state.[220] Responsive measures, such as mechanical removal, are needed to restore a different balance between woody and herbaceous plants.[221] Once a high woody plant density is established, woody plants contribute to the soil seed bank more than grasses[222] and the lack of grasses presents less fuel for fires, reducing their intensity.[44] This perpetuates woody encroachment and necessitates intervention, if the encroached state is undesirable for the functions and use of the respective ecosystems. Most interventions constitute a selective thinning of bush densities, although in some contexts also repeat clear-cutting has shown to effectively restore diversity of typical savanna species.[223][224] In decision making on which woody species to thin out and which to retain, structural and functional traits of the species play a key role.[225] Bush control measures must go hand in hand with grazing management, as both are crucial factors influencing the future state of the respective ecosystems.[226] State and Transition Models have been developed to provide management support to land users, capturing ecosystem complexities beyond succession, but their applicability is still limited.[227][228]

The restoration of degraded grasslands can bring about a wide range of ecosystem service improvements.[229] It can therewith also strengthen the drought resilience of affected ecosystems.[72] Bush control can lead to biodiversity improvements regardless of the predominant land use.[230]

Types of interventions

The term bush control, or brush management, refers to actions that are targeted at controlling the density and composition of bushes and shrubs in a given area. Such measures either serve to reduce risks associated with woody plant encroachment, such as wildfires, or to rehabilitate the affected ecosystems. It is widely accepted that encroaching indigenous woody plants are to be reduced in numbers, but not eradicated. This is critical as these plants provide important functions in the respective ecosystems, e.g. they serve as habitat for animals.

restoration ecology
and are primarily guided by ecological parameters, followed by economic indicators.

Three different categories of control measures can be distinguished:

  • Preventive measures: application of proven good management practices to prevent the excessive growth of woody species, e.g. through appropriate stocking rates and rotational grazing in the case of rangeland agriculture.[233] It is generally assumed that preventative measures are a more cost-effective method to combat woody encroachment than treating ecosystems once degradation has occurred.[234] Certain land uses and animal species can aid in preventing woody plant encroachment, for example elephants.[41][235] Research on degradation tipping points, suggests soil organic carbon and carbon isotopes as early-warning indicators in potentially encroached areas.[236]
  • Responsive measures: the reduction of bush densities through targeted bush harvesting or other forms of removal (bush thinning).
  • Maintenance measures: repeated or continuous measures of maintaining the bush density and composition that has been established through bush thinning.[121][237]

There is an increasing focus on the carbon sequestration impact, which differs among control measures. The application of chemicals, for example, can lead to higher carbon losses than mechanical shrub thinning.[238]

Control measures

Prescribed Fire
Fire fighter administering prescribed fire as management tool to remove woody encroachment near Mt. Adams, Washington, US

Natural bush control

The administration of controlled fires is a commonly applied method of bush control.[42][239][240][241][242] The relation between prescribed fire and tree mortality, is subject of ongoing research.[243] The success rate of prescribed fires differs depending on the season during which it is applied.[244][245][246][247] In some cases, fire treatment slows down woody encroachment, but is unsuccessful in reversing it.[22] Optimal fire management may vary depending on vegetation community, land use as well as frequency and timing of fires.[248] Controlled fires are not only a tool to manage biodiversity, but can also be used to reduce GHG emissions by shifting fire seasonality and reducing fire intensity.[249]

Fire was found to be especially effective in reducing bush densities, when coupled with the natural event of droughts.[250] Also the combination of fire and browsers, called pyric herbivory, is shown to have positive restoration effects.[251][252] Cattle can in part substitute for large herbivores.[253] Moreover, fires have the advantage that they consume the seeds of woody plants in the grass layer before germination, therefore reducing the grasslands sensitivity to encroachment.[254] Prerequisite for successful bush control through fire is sufficient fuel load, thus fires have a higher effectiveness in areas where sufficient grass is available. Furthermore, fires must be administered regularly to address re-growth. Bush control through fire is found to be more effective when applying a range of fire intensities over time.[255] Fuel load and therewith the efficacy of fires for bush control can reduce due to the presence of herbivores.[256]

Long-term research in the South African savanna found that high-intensity fire did reduce encroachment in the short-term, but not in the mid-term.[257][258] In a cross-continental collaboration between South Africa and the US, a synthesis on the experience with fire as a bush control method was published.[259]

Rewilding ecosystems with historic herbivores can further contribute to bush control.[260][261]

Variable livestock grazing can be used to reduce woody encroachment as well as re-growth after bush thinning. A well documented approach is the introduction of larger herds of goats that feed on the wood plants and thereby limiting their growth.[262][263][264][265][266] There is evidence that some rural farming communities have used small ruminants, like goats, to prevent woody plant encroachment for decades.[267] Further, intensive rotational grazing, with resting periods for pasture recovery, can be a tool to limit woody encroachment.[268] Overall, the role of targeted grazing systems as biodiversity conservation tool is subject of ongoing research.[269]

Chemical bush control

Wood densities are frequently controlled through the application of herbicides, in particular arboricides. Commonly, applied herbicides are based on the active ingredients tebuthiuron, ethidimuron, bromacil and picloram.[270] In East Africa, first comprehensive experiments on the effectiveness of such bush control date back to 1958–1960.[271] There is however evidence that applied chemicals can have negative long-term effects and effectively prevent the recruitment of desired grasses and other plants.[272] The application of non-species-specific herbicides is found to result in lower species richness than the application of species-specific herbicides.[273] Further, aboricide application can negatively affect insect populations and arthropods, which in turn is a threat for bird populations.[274] Scientific trials in South Africa showed that the application of herbicides has the highest success rate when coupled with mechanical bush thinning.[273]

Mechanical bush control

Worker in protective gear uses a chainsaw to selectively fell and cut bushes

Cutting or harvesting of bushes and shrubs with manual or mechanised equipment. Mechanical cutting of woody plants is followed by stem-burning, fire or browsing to suppress re-growth.

soil degradation and faster recovering of shrubs.[276] Bush that is mechanically harvested is often burnt on piles,[277] but can also serve as feedstock for value addition, including firewood, charcoal, animal feed,[278] energy and construction material. Mechanical cutting is found to be effective, but requires repeat application.[279][280] When woody branches are left to cover the degraded soil, this method is called brush packing.[281] Some forms of mechanical woody plant removal involve uprooting, which tends to lead to better results in terms of the restoration of the grass layer, but can have disadvantages for chemical and microbiological soil properties.[282]

Economics

As woody encroachment is often widespread and most rehabilitation efforts costly, funding is a key constraint. In the case of mechanical woody plant thinning, i.e. the selective harvesting, the income from downstream value chains can fund the restoration activities.

An example of highly commercialised encroacher biomass use is charcoal production in Namibia.[283] There are also efforts to use encroaching woody species as source of alternative animal fodder. This involves either making use of the leaf material of encroaching species,[284][285][286][287][288] or milling the entire plant.[278][289]

In the same vein, the

Sustainable Aviation Fuel in South Africa.[290]

Also Payment for Ecosystem Services and specifically Carbon Credits are increasingly explored as a funding mechanism for the control of woody encroachment. Savanna fire management is found to have potential to generate carbon revenue, with which rangeland restoration in Africa can be funded.[291]

Challenges

Grassland restoration has generally received less attention than forest restoration during recent decades.[220]

Literature emphasises that a restoration of woody plant encroachment areas to a desired previous non-encroached state is difficult to achieve and the recovery of key-ecosystem may be short-lived or not occur. Intervention methods and technologies must be context-specific to achieve their intended outcome.[292][23][293] Current efforts of selective plant removal are found to have slowed or halted woody encroachment in respective areas, but are sometimes found to be outpaced by continuing encroachment.[294][295] A meta-analysis of 524 studies on ecosystem responses to both encroachment and the removal of woody plants, finds that most efforts to restore the respective ecosystems fail, while the success rate predominantly depends on encroachment stage and plant traits.[296] It was further found that different control methods have different effects on specific ecosystem services. For example, mechanical removal of woody plants can enhance forage value, while reducing hydrological regulation. In contrast, chemical removal can enhance hydrological regulations at the expense of plant diversity. This implies that there are trade-offs to be considered for each set of control measures.[86]

When bush thinning is implemented in isolation, without follow-up measures, grassland may not be rehabilitated. This is because such once-off treatments typically target small areas at a time and they leave plant seeds behind enabling rapid re-establishment of bushes. A combination of preventative measures, addressing the causes of woody plant encroachment, and responsive measures, rehabilitating affected ecosystems, can overcome woody plant encroachment in the long-run.[254][297][298][237]

In grassland conservation efforts, the implementation of measures across networks of private lands, instead of individual farms, remains a key challenge.[294][299] Due to the high cost of chemical or mechanical removal of woody species, such interventions are often implemented on a small scale, i.e. a few hectares at a time. This differs from natural control processes before human land use, e.g. widespread fires and vegetation pressure by free roaming wildlife. As a result, the interventions often have limited impact on the continued dispersal and spread of woody plants.[240]

Countering woody encroachment can be costly and largely depends on the financial capacity of land users. Linking bush control to the concept of Payment for ecosystem services (PES) has been explored in some countries.[300]

Managing the woody cover alone does not guarantee productive ecosystems, as also the cover and diversity of desired grass species must form part of the management considerations.[301]

Relation to climate change mitigation and adaptation

Amount of carbon stored in Earth's various terrestrial ecosystems, in gigatonnes[302]

National carbon accounting and related tradeoffs

Grassland conservation can make a significant contribution to global carbon sequestration targets, but compared to sequestration potential in forestry and agriculture, this is still insufficiently explored and implemented.[303] Detailed accounting for the effect of woody encroachment on global carbon pools and fluxes is unclear.[304] Given scientific uncertainties, it varies widely how countries factor woody encroachment and the control thereof into their national Greenhouse Gas Inventories.

In early

Gg CO2 to the national carbon sink,[312] while it has been highlighted that especially the loss of grass roots leads to losses of below-ground carbon, which is not fully compensated by gains of above-ground carbon.[313]

It is suggested that the classification of encroached grasslands and savannas as carbon sinks may often be incorrect, underestimating soil organic carbon losses.[314][164] Beyond difficulties to conclusively quantify the changes in carbon storage, promoting carbon storage through woody encroachment can constitute a trade-off, as it may reduce biodiversity of savanna endemics and core ecosystem services, like land productivity and water availability.[315][91][316]

Several tradeoffs must be considered in land management decisions, such as a possible carbon-biodiversity tradeoff.[317][318][319] It can have severe negative consequences, if woody encroachment or the invasion of alien woody species, is accepted and seen as a way to increase ecosystem CO2 sink capacities.[320][321][322][220] In its 2022 Sixth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) identifies woody encroachment as a contribution to land degradation, through the loss of open ecosystems and their services. The report further stipulates that while there may be slight increases in carbon, woody encroachment at the same time masks negative impacts on biodiversity and water cycles and therewith livelihoods.[323]

Carbon focused restorations approaches remain vital and can be balanced with the need enhance other ecosystem services through spatially mixed management strategies, leaving encroached patches and in thinned areas.[238]

Conflicting climate change mitigation measures

Woody encroachment can be exacerbated when affected ecosystems became the target of misguided afforestation efforts.[324] It is found that grasslands are frequently misidentified as degraded forests and targeted by afforestation efforts.[324][325][326][327] According to an analysis of areas identified to have forest restoration potential by the World Resources Institute, this includes up to 900 million hectares grasslands.[328] In Africa alone, 100 million hectares of grasslands are found to be at risk by misdirected afforestation efforts. Among the areas mapped as degraded forests are the Serengeti and Kruger National Parks, which have not been forested for several million years.[17] Over half of all tree-planting projects in Africa are implemented in savannah grasslands.[324]

Research in Southern Africa suggests, that tree planting in such ecosystems does not lead to increased soil organic carbon, as the latter is predominantly grass-derived.[177] Also the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that mitigation action, such as reforestation or afforestation, can encroach on land needed for agricultural adaptation and therewith threaten food security, livelihoods and ecosystem functions.[70]

Encroachment control as adaptation measure

Some countries, for example South Africa, acknowledge inconclusive evidence on the emissions effect of bush thinning, but strongly promote it as a means of climate change adaptation.[329] Geographic selection of intervention areas, targeting areas that are at an early stage of encroachment, can minimise above-ground carbon losses and therewith minimise the possible trade-off between mitigation and adaptation.[152] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reflects on this trade-off: "This variable relationship between the level of encroachment, carbon stocks, biodiversity, provision of water and pastoral value can present a conundrum to policymakers, especially when considering the goals of three Rio Conventions: UNFCCC, UNCCD and UNCBD. Clearing intense woody plant encroachment may improve species diversity, rangeland productivity, the provision of water and decrease desertification, thereby contributing to the goals of the UNCBD and UNCCD as well as the adaptation aims of the UNFCCC. However, it would lead to the release of biomass carbon stocks into the atmosphere and potentially conflict with the mitigation aims of the UNFCCC." The IPPC further lists bush control as relevant measure under ecosystem-based adaptation and community-based adaptation.[4]

Global extent

Further information: List of ecoregions affected by woody plant encroachment
Depiction of terrestrial biomes around the world

Woody encroachment occurs on all continents, affecting and estimated total area of 500 million hectares (5 million squarekilometres).[19] Its causes, extent and response measures differ and are highly context specific.[330][2] Ecosystems affected by woody encroachment include closed shrublands, open shrublands, woody savannas, savannas, and grasslands. It can occur not only in tropical and subtropical climates, but also in temperate areas.[19] Woody encroachment occurs at 1 percent per decade in the Eurasian steppes, 10–20 percent in North America, 8 percent in South America, 2.4 percent in Africa and 1 percent in Australia.[1][331][2]

In Sub-Saharan Africa, woody vegetation cover has increased by 8% during the past three decades, mainly through woody plant encroachment. Overall, 750 million hectares of non-forest biomes experienced significant net gains in woody plant cover, which is more than three times the area that experienced net losses of woody vegetation.[332] In around 249 million hectares of African rangelands, long-term climate change was found to be the key driver of vegetation change.[193] Across Africa, 29 percent of all trees are found outside classified forests. In some countries, such as Namibia and Botswana, this percentage is above 80 percent and likely linked to woody encroachment.[333] In Southern Africa, woody encroachment has been identified as the main factor of greening, i.e. of the increase in vegetation cover detected through remote sensing.[18][334]

In Southern Europe an estimated 8 percent of land area has transitioned from grazing land to woody vegetation between 1950 and 2010.[335]

In the Eurasian Steppe, the largest grassland globally, climate change linked woody plant encroachment has been found to occur at around 1% per decade.[331]

In the Arctic Tundra, shrub plant cover has increased by 20 percent during the past 50 years. During the same time period, shrub and tree cover increased by 30 percent in the savannas of Latin America, Africa and Australia.[68]

See also

References

  1. ^
    S2CID 133015720
    , retrieved 8 March 2021
  2. ^
    S2CID 205143730
    .
  3. ^
    PMID 21592276
    .
  4. ^ a b c d IPCC, 2019: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems; Shukla, P. R.; Skea, J.; Calvo Buendia, E.; Masson-Delmotte, V.; Pörtner, H.-O.; Roberts, D. C.; Zhai, P.; Slade, R.; Connors, S.; Van Diemen, R.; Ferrat, M.; Haughey, E.; Luz, S.; Neogi, S.; Pathak, M.; Petzold, J.; Portugal Pereira, J.; Vyas, P.; Huntley, E.; Kissick, K.; Belkacemi, M.; Malley, J. (eds.). In press.
  5. ^
    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2028.2008.01051.x
    .
  6. OCLC 1281928091
    .
  7. ^ Staples, R. R. (1945). "Veld Burning". Rhodesian Agricultural Journal. 42: 44–52.
  8. OCLC 709537921
    .
  9. ^
    S2CID 12772783
    .
  10. S2CID 251633819
    .
  11. ISSN 0256-6702
    .
  12. S2CID 158252929
    .
  13. ISSN 1999-4907
    .
  14. ^
    S2CID 51991418
    .
  15. ^ a b T. M. Lenton, D.I. Armstrong McKay, S. Loriani, J.F. Abrams, S.J. Lade, J.F. Donges, M. Milkoreit, T. Powell, S.R. Smith, C. Zimm, J.E. Buxton, E. Bailey, L. Laybourn, A. Ghadiali, J.G. Dyke (eds), 2023, The Global Tipping Points Report 2023. University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
  16. S2CID 236264479
    .
  17. ^
    S2CID 202568025
    .
  18. ^
    S2CID 59325553
    .
  19. ^
    S2CID 239685781
    .
  20. PMID 33109722
    .
  21. S2CID 40149918
    .
  22. ^
    S2CID 210625723
    .
  23. ^
    PMID 19501450
    .
  24. ISBN 978-0-12-631260-7
    , retrieved 10 December 2021
  25. S2CID 247276999
    .
  26. S2CID 251265576
    .
  27. PMID 37876417
    .
  28. PMID 28116524
    .
  29. ISSN 2071-1050
    .
  30. doi:10.1101/2023.07.11.548581
    .
  31. ^
    S2CID 253299539
    .
  32. S2CID 37743448
    .
  33. S2CID 248585159
    .
  34. S2CID 255631889
    .
  35. JSTOR 2405265
    .
  36. ISSN 0012-9658
    .
  37. JSTOR 1478971
    .
  38. ^ Vukeya, L. R., Mokotjomela, T. M., Malebo, N. J., & Saheed, O. (2022). Seed dispersal phenology of encroaching woody species in the Free State National Botanical Garden, South Africa. African Journal of Ecology, 00, 1– 13.
  39. S2CID 235484735
    .
  40. ^
    PMID 27502384
    .
  41. ^
    S2CID 81059843
    .
  42. ^
    ISSN 0072-5560
    .
  43. S2CID 221167343
    .
  44. ^
    S2CID 55609611
    .
  45. S2CID 53330863
    .
  46. PMID 35733267
    .
  47. S2CID 11100977
    .
  48. PMID 21463328
    .
  49. S2CID 53136300
    .
  50. PMID 31964935
    .
  51. S2CID 244674525
    .
  52. ^
    PMID 32415221
    .
  53. JSTOR 2404383
    .
  54. ^ O'Keefe K, Keen R, Tooley E, Bachle S, Nippert JB, Mc Culloh K (October 2021). "Hydraulic Responses of Shrubs and Grasses to Fire Frequency and Drought in a Tallgrass Prairie Experiencing Bush Encroachment". Department of Ecosystem Science & Management, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY USA.
  55. S2CID 86028800
    .
  56. ^
    S2CID 85329588
    .
  57. S2CID 52054984
    .
  58. S2CID 4346885
    .
  59. S2CID 84054899
    – via Wiley.
  60. PMID 32015858
    .
  61. doi:10.3390/su10072221
    .
  62. doi:10.5194/bg-2020-169
    .
  63. ISSN 0269-8463
    .
  64. ISSN 1758-678X
    .
  65. S2CID 251074635
    .
  66. ^
    doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3914432/v1
    . Retrieved 7 February 2024.
  67. ISBN 978-0984949908
    .
  68. ^
    S2CID 213403864
    .
  69. S2CID 236563738
    .
  70. ^ a b IPCC, 2018: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In Press.
  71. PMID 37103433
    .
  72. ^
    S2CID 256483101
    .
  73. S2CID 235708531
    .
  74. ^
    doi:10.1071/BT14137
    – via CSIRO.
  75. ISBN 978-3-031-34037-6
    , retrieved 13 October 2023
  76. ^
    PMID 28239303
    .
  77. ISSN 0021-8901
    .
  78. ^
    PMID 25914607
    .
  79. S2CID 5548695
    .
  80. ^
    S2CID 85993435
    .
  81. S2CID 33033125
    .
  82. ^ Conant, Francis P. (1982). Thorns paired, sharply recurved: Cultural controls and rangeland quality in East Africa. In Spooner, B., and Mann, H. (eds.), Desertification and Development; Dryland Ecology in Social Perspective. Academic Press, London.
  83. PMID 19638041
    .
  84. S2CID 266097074
    .
  85. ISSN 1543-5938
    .
  86. ^
    S2CID 266141009
    .
  87. S2CID 88200701
    .
  88. ^
    PMID 15921528
    .
  89. doi:10.1111/geb.12675
    .
  90. ^ a b "Cutting Trees Gives Sage-Grouse Populations a Boost, Scientists Find". Audubon. 10 June 2021. Retrieved 19 June 2021.
  91. ^
    PMID 28875172
    .
  92. S2CID 89899420
    .
  93. ^
    ISSN 1085-3278
    .
  94. PMID 35815499
    .
  95. S2CID 228882177
    .
  96. PMID 22690619
    .
  97. S2CID 251372205
    .
  98. doi:10.1637/0003-0031-185.1.32 (inactive 31 January 2024).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of January 2024 (link
    )
  99. S2CID 231590340
    .
  100. PMID 26379249
    .
  101. ^
    ISSN 2673-4834
    .
  102. S2CID 224961400
    .
  103. S2CID 252155630
    .
  104. S2CID 233685264
    .
  105. S2CID 233936552
    .
  106. S2CID 224951614
    .
  107. ISSN 0006-3207
    .
  108. ISSN 2296-701X
    .
  109. doi:10.38201/btha.abc.v53.i1.11
  110. S2CID 209587435
    .
  111. ^ Baker, Kate K. (2003). A synthesis of the effect of woody vegetation on grassland nesting birds. Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science 82:233–236.
  112. ISSN 0006-3207
    .
  113. ^ Schultz, Philippa (2007). Does bush encroachment impact foraging success of the critically endangered Namibian population of the Cape Vulture Gyps coprotheres? MSc. Thesis, University of Cape Town, South Africa.
  114. doi:10.1637/0003-0031-185.1.77 (inactive 31 January 2024).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of January 2024 (link
    )
  115. S2CID 203719982
    .
  116. PMID 24816839
    .
  117. doi:10.1016/j.rama.2016.07.008
    .
  118. ^ "Endangered Species Act listing proposed for lesser prairie-chicken". agri-pulse.com. Retrieved 19 June 2021.
  119. S2CID 234250627
    .
  120. S2CID 85924528
    .
  121. ^
    S2CID 232105321
    .
  122. doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00810.x
    .
  123. S2CID 262087707
    .
  124. S2CID 213753973
    .
  125. ^
    JSTOR 3450949
    .
  126. doi:10.1002/essoar.10511330.1
    .
  127. ^
    ISSN 2073-4441
    .
  128. ISSN 2073-4441
    .
  129. S2CID 135170525
    .
  130. ISSN 0012-9658
    .
  131. S2CID 140598852
    .
  132. S2CID 265006263
    .
  133. S2CID 263905502
    .
  134. doi:10.3390/w10060736
    .
  135. ISSN 2296-665X
    .
  136. S2CID 262055469
    .
  137. doi:10.13031/2013.10415
    .
  138. OCLC 385192401
    .
  139. S2CID 243916768
    .
  140. S2CID 128895494
    .
  141. ^ Russell, Adam (29 December 2022). "Woody thickets prevent water recharge in aquifer". AgriLife Today. Retrieved 24 July 2023.
  142. ^ "Shrub encroachment on grasslands can increase groundwater recharge". UC Riverside News. Retrieved 19 June 2021.
  143. S2CID 248159372
    .
  144. S2CID 253138665
    .
  145. PMID 36937063
    .
  146. S2CID 261384881
    .
  147. ISSN 0022-1694
    .
  148. S2CID 128460031
    .
  149. ^ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2017. Livestock solutions for climate change. Available from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i8098e.pdf
  150. doi:10.7930/soccr2.2018.ch10
    .
  151. S2CID 85836088
    .
  152. ^
    S2CID 53450745
    .
  153. ^
    S2CID 239044811.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of February 2024 (link
    )
  154. S2CID 232355402
    .
  155. S2CID 93294785
    .
  156. ^ Stafford, R., Chamberlain, B., Clavey, L., Gillingham, P. K., McKain, S., Morecroft, M. D., Morrison-Bell, C. and Watts, O. (Eds.) (2021). Nature-based Solutions for Climate Change in the UK: A Report by the British Ecological Society Archived 17 December 2021 at the Wayback Machine. London, UK. Available at: www.britishecologicalsociety.org/nature-based-solutions
  157. doi:10.5061/dryad.hhmgqnkk4, retrieved 3 October 2022[permanent dead link
    ]
  158. ^
    doi:10.1029/2010JG001506
    .
  159. S2CID 4428502
    .
  160. ^ Duke University (2002). "Trees Encroaching Grasslands May Lock Up Less Carbon Than Predicted". ScienceDaily. Retrieved 6 February 2021.
  161. ^
    S2CID 14566976
    .
  162. S2CID 7947435
    .
  163. S2CID 238828736
    .
  164. ^
    ISSN 1752-993X
    .
  165. S2CID 56116211
    .
  166. S2CID 5031098
    .
  167. S2CID 232323007
    .
  168. PMID 37857640
    .
  169. ISSN 0148-0227
    .
  170. ^
    PMID 33235254
    .
  171. S2CID 86413227
    .
  172. S2CID 211046655
    .
  173. PMID 30341313
    .
  174. S2CID 5021641
    .
  175. S2CID 260269140
    .
  176. doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu22-802
    .
  177. ^
    S2CID 262101052
    .
  178. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2004.11.014
    – via ScienceDirect.
  179. S2CID 3722515
    .
  180. PMID 26461478
    .
  181. S2CID 90089120
    .
  182. S2CID 234150252
    . Retrieved 3 February 2024.
  183. S2CID 97202867
    .
  184. ISSN 0022-0477
    .
  185. PMID 27388145
    .
  186. ISSN 0021-8901
    .
  187. PMID 25136084
    .
  188. ^ De Klerk, J.N. (2004). Bush Encroachment in Namibia. Report on Phase 1 of the Bush Encroachment Research, Monitoring and Management Project. Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Windhoek.
  189. S2CID 21986173
    .
  190. OCLC 870274791
    .
  191. doi:10.4102/koedoe.v55i1.1106
    .
  192. ISSN 2331-1886
    .
  193. ^
    S2CID 236563063
    .
  194. S2CID 234474418
    .
  195. OCLC 20294746
    .
  196. S2CID 222255994
    .
  197. ^ Noden, Bruce H.; Tanner, Evan P.; Polo, John A.; Fuhlendorf, Sam D. (June 2021), Invasive woody plants as foci of tick-borne pathogens: eastern redcedar in the southern Great Plains, Journal of Vector Ecology, 46 (1), 12–18
  198. S2CID 244436096
    .
  199. S2CID 54037132
    .
  200. S2CID 131616235
    .
  201. S2CID 238722540
    .
  202. S2CID 248140397
    .
  203. doi:10.1006/jare.2002.1103
    .
  204. S2CID 245726355
    .
  205. ISSN 0303-2434
    .
  206. ISSN 2072-4292
    .
  207. S2CID 252107151
    .
  208. ISSN 1556-5068
    .
  209. ^ "A decision analysis framework for development planning and performance measurement: application to land restoration investments". World Agroforestry | Transforming Lives and Landscapes with Trees. January 2021. Retrieved 30 December 2021.
  210. ISSN 0303-2434
    .
  211. ISSN 2072-4292
    .
  212. ISSN 1022-0119
    .
  213. ISBN 978-1-80064-260-7
    , retrieved 5 October 2021
  214. S2CID 233680350
    .
  215. ^ Platform, Rangeland Analysis. "Rangeland Analysis Platform". Rangeland Analysis Platform. Retrieved 1 November 2023.
  216. ^ Walker, Kayla (16 December 2022). "Rangeland Analysis Platform Offers Ranchers Decision Support". tsln.com. Retrieved 1 November 2023.
  217. ^ "Biomass Quantification Tool – Namibia Biomass industry Group (N-BiG)". 16 June 2021. Retrieved 1 November 2023.
  218. S2CID 235543749
    .
  219. ^ Farmer´s Weekly (6 July 2023). "Is fire really the answer to bush encroachment?". Farmer's Weekly. Retrieved 7 July 2023.
  220. ^
    S2CID 251349859
    .
  221. S2CID 85568312
    .
  222. ISSN 0006-3568
    .
  223. S2CID 236300850
    .
  224. PMID 15135951
    .
  225. S2CID 226048407
    .
  226. ISSN 0016-7061
    .
  227. ISBN 978-3-319-46707-8
    , retrieved 10 January 2022
  228. ^ "Overview of State & Transition Models | Rangelands Gateway". rangelandsgateway.org. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
  229. S2CID 244397677
    .
  230. S2CID 252966565
    .
  231. ^ Kambongi, T.; Heyns, L.; Rodenwoldt, D.; Edwards, Sarah (8 February 2021). "A description of daytime resting sites used by brown hyaenas (Parahyaena brunnea) from a high-density, enclosed population in north-central Namibia". Namibian Journal of Environment. 5.
  232. S2CID 232326817
    .
  233. S2CID 84555081
    .
  234. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.04.007
    .
  235. ISSN 0140-1963
    .
  236. ISSN 2352-0094
    .
  237. ^
    S2CID 246980476
    .
  238. ^
    ISSN 2666-7193
    .
  239. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12738
    .
  240. ^
    doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12063
    .
  241. S2CID 205657781
    .
  242. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2014.04.003
    .
  243. S2CID 238697145
    .
  244. S2CID 239715704
    .
  245. S2CID 233925111
    .
  246. S2CID 245205310
    .
  247. S2CID 247102250
    .
  248. ISSN 1036-9872
    .
  249. PMID 27216516
    .
  250. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00567.x
    .
  251. ISSN 0072-5560
    .
  252. S2CID 235743852
    .
  253. S2CID 214311300
    .
  254. ^ a b Twidwell, Dirac; Fogarty, Dillon T. (2021). "A guide to reducing risk and vulnerability to woody encroachment in rangelands" (PDF). University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
  255. S2CID 234344199
    .
  256. S2CID 264398347
    .
  257. S2CID 256966724
    .
  258. ISSN 0021-8901
    .
  259. S2CID 246886163
    .
  260. PMID 29222494
    .
  261. ISSN 2150-8925
    .
  262. doi:10.5424/sjar/2013112-3673
    .
  263. ISSN 1613-9801
    .
  264. ^ Adding 500 Goats to Our Ranch — Regenerating the Ranch Ep 5, retrieved 3 November 2022
  265. S2CID 34949701
    .
  266. ISSN 0167-8809
    .
  267. OCLC 772636262
    .
  268. S2CID 259498001
    .
  269. S2CID 237350103
    .
  270. ^ Smit, G. Nico; Ritcher, C.G.F.; Aucamp, A. J. (1999). Bush encroachment: An approach to understanding and managing the problem. In Veld management in South Africa, ed. N.M. Tainton. Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press.
  271. JSTOR 2402141
    .
  272. S2CID 247612180
    .
  273. ^
    S2CID 251431666
    .
  274. ISSN 0167-8809
    .
  275. S2CID 220881346
    .
  276. S2CID 69811475
    .
  277. S2CID 239071453
    .
  278. ^
    ISBN 978-981-99-2427-1
    , retrieved 13 July 2023
  279. ^ Wedel, Emily; Nippert, Jesse B.; Swemmer, Anthony (October 2021). "Lowveld Savanna Bush Cutting Alters Tree-Grass Interactions". Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization.
  280. S2CID 261057553
    .
  281. S2CID 232410555
    .
  282. S2CID 264554762
    .
  283. ^ "From Bush to Charcoal: the Greenest Charcoal Comes from Namibia". fsc.org. Retrieved 2 November 2022.
  284. S2CID 181815372
    .
  285. ISSN 2221-4062
    .
  286. S2CID 224888779
    .
  287. S2CID 146092219
    .
  288. S2CID 88654358
    .
  289. ^ Shiimi, Dorthea K. (2020). A financial analysis of producing pellets from the encroacher bush Senegalia Mellifera as a potential livestock feed: A cost benefit analysis approach (Thesis thesis). University of Namibia.
  290. ^ "Fuel for the future". wwf.org.za. Retrieved 2 November 2022.
  291. S2CID 245104726
    .
  292. doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12314
    .
  293. S2CID 234820208
    .
  294. ^
    doi:10.3390/su12208321
    .
  295. S2CID 53664983
    .
  296. S2CID 255039027
    .
  297. S2CID 233367081
    .
  298. ISSN 0015-752X
    .
  299. S2CID 261401145
    .
  300. PMID 25617787
    .
  301. ISSN 1424-2818
    .
  302. doi:10.2737/WO-GTR-95
    .
  303. OCLC 890677450
    .
  304. ^
    S2CID 31060636
    .
  305. ISBN 978-0-89118-859-9
    , retrieved 7 March 2021
  306. PMID 10417385
    .
  307. ^ Thijs, Ann (2014). Biotic and abiotic controls on carbon dynamics in a Central Texas encroaching savanna (Thesis).
  308. PMID 11830663
    .
  309. S2CID 86267916
    .
  310. S2CID 55134760
    .
  311. S2CID 265381125
    .
  312. ^ Thompson, M. (2018). "South African National Land-Cover 2018 Report & Accuracy Assessment". Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries South Africa.
  313. S2CID 85575373
    .
  314. S2CID 14566976
    .
  315. S2CID 205143287
    .
  316. S2CID 246429735
    .
  317. S2CID 263625526
    .
  318. ISSN 0261-3077
    . Retrieved 15 October 2023.
  319. S2CID 263633184
    .
  320. S2CID 235564362
    .
  321. ^ "When it comes to carbon capture, tree invasions can do more harm than good". Mongabay Environmental News. 21 June 2021. Retrieved 10 July 2021.
  322. ^ Welz, Adam (June 2013). "The Surprising Role of CO2 in Changes on the African Savanna". Yale E360. Retrieved 30 September 2021.
  323. doi:10.1017/9781009325844.020
  324. ^
    S2CID 267682492
    .
  325. S2CID 24535948
    .
  326. S2CID 212851776
    .
  327. S2CID 266467077
    .
  328. ISSN 1525-3244
    .
  329. ^ Turpie, Jane; Botha, Pieter; Coldrey, Kevin; Forsythe, Katherine; Knowles, Tony; Letley, Gwyneth; Allen, Jessica; De Wet, Ruan (2019). "Towards a Policy on Indigenous Bush Encroachment in South Africa" (PDF). Department of Environmental Affairs.
  330. PMID 28890126
    .
  331. ^
    S2CID 233663989
    .
  332. PMID 29891933
    .
  333. PMID 37130845
    .
  334. PMID 23878342
    .
  335. ISSN 1726-4189
    .

Sources

External links

Websites

Articles

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woody_plant_encroachment&oldid=1220710545"