Rangeland degradation assessment : a new strategy based on indigenous ecological knowledge of pastoralists

Introduction Conclusions References

land degradation and how their ecological knowledge can be used for rangeland degradation assessment. We interviewed pastoralists of two sites (Mirza-Baylu and Dasht) where part of both areas is located in Golestan National Park (NE Iran). A structured questionnaire was designed based on some indicators taken from literature and also primary discussions with pastoralists in order to evaluate land degradation. A qualita-10 tive Likert scale was used for scoring rangeland degradation indicators. The results revealed that pastoralist pay first attention to edaphic indicators than vegetative and other indicators. There were significant differences between inside and outside of the park in rangeland degradation indicators for both sites. The results show that the rangelands outside the park in both sites were degraded compare to inside the park especially in 15 the areas near to villages. It can be concluded that pastoralists own a vast amount of knowledge on the vegetation and grazing animal habits that can be used in rangeland degradation assessment and it is necessary to document their ecological indigenous knowledge and involve them in rangeland degradation assessment process.
Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | 2012; Berendse et al., 2012). Unfortunately, rangelands have undergone (and continue to undergo) rapid transformations as a result of factors such as overgrazing, deforestation, woody-plant encroachment, and invasion by non-native plant species (Wilcox and Thurow, 2006). Each of these factors has led to the reduction in the quantity or nutritional quality of the vegetation available for grazing that called rangeland degradation. 5 And this resulted also in higher soil and water losses (Cerdà, 1998;Kröpfl et al., 2013;Li et al., 2013).
It is believed that livestock grazing is associated with rangeland degradation. Grazing is the most important factor affecting vegetation and soil in all rangelands of the world, having critical impacts on the rangeland biodiversity and species composition 10 (Sharafatmandrad et al., 2014;Angassa, 2014), biological groups (Sharafatmandrad et al., 2014;Tarhouni et al., 2015), structure (Eckert and Spencer, 1987;Noy-Meir, 1979, 1993Walker and Noy-Meir, 1982), goods and services (Papanastasis et al., 2015), function (White, 1979;Sousa, 1984;Hobbs and Huenneke, 1992), soil erosion (Tadesse and Penden, 2002;Palacio et al., 2014;Mekuria and Aynekulu, 2013), nu-15 trient cycling (Frank et al., 1998;Ritchie and Tilman, 1995;Fernandez et al., 2008) and hydrological processes (Cerdà and Lavee, 1999;Hiernaux et al., 1999;Sharafatmandrad et al., 2010). However, there are evidences that grazing management activities, not grazing, is the main cause of rangeland degradation in arid and semi-arid environments (Gulelat, 2002). Pastoralism is a traditional range management activity, 20 which focuses mostly on the natural forage rather than cultivated fodder (Sandford, 1983). Pastoralists usually own a vast amount of knowledge on their grazing lands, attained through long experiences and observations in herding practices (Oba and Kotile, 2001;Mapinduzi et al., 2003). To combat rangeland degradation, it is recommended that rangeland management systems integrate community perceptions and practices 25 (Khwarae, 2006). Thus, the indigenous knowledge of the local communities can be used in conjunction with technical knowledge to manage natural resources (Khwarae, 2006). In many developing countries where rangelands are a dominant land type and critically important in livelihoods of a significant portion of the population, severe range-3001 land degradation can create significant social, economic, and environmental problems (Bedunah and Angerer, 2012). So scientific and indigenous knowledge should be integrated so that local communities be able to realize their capacity for monitoring and responding to the land degradation and environmental changes (Stringer and Reed, 2007). The resulting system for environmental management would improve the com-5 munities' livelihood and decrease rangeland degradation at the same time (Khwarae, 2006). That is interesting that pastoralists and ecologists are unanimous on most of the rangeland degradation indicators.
If we want rangeland degradation indicators to be applicable in land management, they must then be easy to use by local communities, accurate to assess environmental 10 sustainability and result in conservation (Reed et al., 2008). In the other hand, the involvement of the pastoralists in planning and implementing land conservation programs require conservationists and technicians to be aware of environmental indicators used by pastoralists for assessing rangeland degradation. There are too many studies that conveying combination of local and scientific ecological knowledge may contribute to 15 easy and accurate monitoring and management of natural resource changes by local communities (e.g., Folke et al., 2002;Thomas and Twyman, 2004;Fraser et al., 2006;Reed et al., 2007Reed et al., , 2008. Bottom-up or local participation approaches implicate that pastoralists have accumulated a wealth of knowledge over time, based on long-term experiences that 20 can complement scientific knowledge in environmental assessment and conservation (Richards, 1980). Recently it has become known that indigenous knowledge and local management play an important role in natural resource conservation (Warren, 1992;Berkes et al., 2000) and combat land degradation. Additionally, there is growing interest on how indigenous ecological knowledge and management practices can be used 25 in collaboration with standard scientific methods for improved understanding of the environment and its changes (Dahlberg, 2000;Reed et al., 2007).
The history of pastoralism in Iran goes back to several thousand years ago, but indigenous ecological knowledge of pastoralism is neglected in most studies related to the rangelands. So our main objective was to evaluate pastoralism' knowledge of rangeland degradation assessment, based on their perceptions and experiences. Our research questions were as fallow: (a) What are the pastoralist' land evaluation criteria?
(b) What indicators do the pastoralists use for degradation assessment? And 5 (c) is there a possibility to combine scientific land degradation indicators with the pastoralists one to assess rangeland degradation?
2 Materials and methods

Study area
The sites used for this study are parts of Golestan National Park located in Golestan 1058 m a.s.l.). In each site, under grazing parts outside the park are separated from the exclosure parts inside the park by a narrow road (Fig. 1). The Mirza-Baylu site is located at the eastern the park and is mostly flat, with slopes less than 5 %, and some hilly lands occur just in a few parts. In this site, outside the 20 Park, there is a village known Robat-e Qarebil, 5 km away from the Mirza-Baylu site. The mean annual temperature is 12.9 • C.The study site receives about 236 mm of annual precipitation. The site is dominated by relatively pure stands of the dwarf shrub Artemisia sieberi accompanied by some grasses. There are some saline parts in the site that are mostly occupied by halophytes such as Salsola dendroides, Phragmites Introduction

Tables Figures
Back Close

Full Screen / Esc
Printer-friendly Version

Interactive Discussion
Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | australis, Suaeda physophora and Anabasis aphylla. Also some rare species can be seen in the plains (e.g. Diaphanoptera stenocalycina). The Dasht site is located in the southern part of the Golestan National Park. Most of the site is hilly but there are also a few flat areas. The mean annual precipitation and the mean annual temperatures are 191 mm and 11 • C respectively. The vegetation of 5 this semi-steppe rangeland is consisting of grasses and shrubs, dominated by grasses Bromus danthonia, Festuca ovina, Eremopyrum bonaepartis and Phleum paniculatum and dwarf shrubs Acantholimon pterostegium and Artemisia kopedaghensis.
Regarding to grazing, inside the park is only grazed by wildlife but outside the park is grazed by the pastoralists herds consist of sheep and a few goats from early morning till 10 afternoon. The herds are in their own fields all the seasons specified by the Department of Natural Resources. Dry forages and agricultural residuals (straw and hay) are used as winter forage for livestock in the both study sites.

15
The pastoralists' first encounter is generally plagued by suspicion and fear because of government regulatory restrictions on rangeland use. As a first step, we tried to build a foundation of trust by connecting with educated ones, volunteering our personal information, showing interest in the pastoralism and lifestyle that were completely effective. The pastoralists have been then informed how important their indigenous knowledge is 20 and no research in the region will be fulfilled without their viewpoints and help. So we go through the explaining the research and its objectives and make sure that the pastoralists are convinced how effective would be the results in their profession, economic status, rangelands health assessment and management.
Descriptive research was used to obtain information. So data were collected using 25 both the documentary and field survey. By being present between the pastoralists, we have tried to gather data through participation and using Focus Group Discus- To understand pastoralists' perceptions of land degradation and its influence on rangeland conservation, the questions posed were: what do pastoralists think of a "good" or "bad" rangeland, and what indicators do the pastoralists use as signs of rangeland change from "good" to "bad", for the purposes of rangeland health and management (Roba, 2008)? The results of meetings and interviews were used to identify 15 indicators related to rangeland degradation.
The indicators taken from the literature were discussed in the pastoralists' interviews with their own language and terminology so that they could understand the exact concept of the indicators. As it was expected, most of them had the same indicators as taken from literatures but with their own language. So the duplicates were remove and 20 the new ones were added to the list. A structured questionnaire was designed based on the identified indicators to obtain data on rangeland degradation according to the Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands (LADA, 2011). So the indicators were assessed on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from very poor (0-20) to very good (80-100). Qualitative scale was used because of being more intuitive and easier to understand 25 for pastoralists but it was necessary to convert it to a quantitative scale to compare inside and outside the park.

Field assessment
For the Mirza-Baylu site, 28 × 8 m 2 quadrats were randomly located throughout the region, 12 quadrats inside and 16 quadrats outside the Park. For the Dasht site, 22 × 8 m 2 quadrats were randomly located throughout the region, 15 quadrats inside and 18 quadrats outside the Park. Each quadrats was assessed by the 3 selected pastoralists 5 (i.e. there were 3 replications). In total, 84 and 99 questionnaires were respectively filled for the Mirza-Baylu (36 inside and 48 outside the Park) and Dasht (45 inside and 54 outside the Park) sites. So the pastoralists were ranked the rangeland degradation indicators in each quadrats.

Data analyses
10 Each pastoralist was considered as a replication. The mean scores for each indicator was calculated and used to compare inside and outside the park. Comparisons were based on quantitative scale. Two-sample t tests were used for each site separately to determine if degradation indicators differed between two sites pastoralists. Indicators with significant differences were then compared for both sites as total to see if there is 15 any differences between inside and outside the park. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, Version 18) was used for data analysis.

Results
Based on literature and indigenous ecological knowledge of pastoralists, 18 degradation indicators were identified and used for questionnaires preparation ( vegetation indicators including of "decrease of vegetation productivity", "loss of phytodiversity", "removal of palatable plants", "decrease of ground cover" and "loss of litter mass" had higher scores inside the park while the soil indicators excepting "increase in bare soil" had lower scores inside the park (Table 2). In the Dasht site, total mean scores of indicators inside and outside the park were 5 3.318 and 2.899 respectively. The indicators with the most different scores inside and outside the park were "increase in bare soil", "loss of phytodiversity", "removal of palatable plants", and "loss of litter mass". However, the rangeland is in better condition inside the park. Although "decrease of vegetation productivity" was evaluated as a significant indicator but there was no much differences between inside and outside the 10 park. "decrease of vegetation productivity" had higher score inside the Park. Some indicators including "increase in soil looseness" and "decrease of soil sandiness" were given little importance in this site (Table 2). Soil and vegetation were fundamental to indigenous ecological knowledge of pastoralists on rangeland degradation assessment. Rangeland degradation was firstly de-15 scribed in terms of vegetation indicators by pastoralists. In the areas with high grazing pressure and lower productivity potential presumed to have more annual plants than perennial forage plants, accordingly indicators "increase in annual plants" and "decrease of shrubs" had higher and lower scores in Mirza-Baylu site inside the park respectively. Pastoralists believed that in the areas with high productivity potential, for-20 age plants are diverse which itself increases palatability. So livestock can find various types of forage. The soil looseness was test by pastoralists through being soil crusts held between the index finger and thumb. They believed that soil of the rangelands in good condition breaks more easily. Muddy soils occur in the some parts of rangelands with low productivity potential where infiltration rate is low and soil becomes water-25 logged. These areas are not suitable for the pastoral settlement in wet season. In the Mirza-Baylu site, there are large areas of inter-patches scattered on some hills mostly outside the park that is sign of pests (kind of mouse), feeding on the plants roots and making several holes on the soil surface. 3007 of palatable plants" were considered as the best indicators in the Dasht site (Table 3). Moreover, pastoralists of the both sites ranked "increase in bare soil", "loss of litter mass" and "increase in the distance between plants" as good indicators for assessing and evaluating degradation of their own rangelands.

10
Pastoralist's indigenous ecological knowledge on rangeland management is the result of their historical environmental management over time (Fernandez-Gimenez, 2000). As is generally known, local knowledge is a rich source of information about land degradation, environmental sustainability, and their indicators. Local ecological knowledge of pastoralists has the capability to be used for the natural resources management. This 15 capability will substantially increase if it is linked with a more general scientific understanding (Reed et al., 2008). The current research tried to integrate indigenous ecological knowledge on rangeland degradation with scientific ecological methods. This research shows that pastoralists can realize the biophysical changes in the rangeland ecosystems caused by livestock grazing and climate changes. Looking more closely 20 into the indicators list, it can be understood that pastoralists focus more on the soil indicators than the vegetation and other indicators as the signs of degradation. Therefore they were preferring these indicators for degradation assessment of their own rangelands during the discussions and interviews (Oba, 2012;Reed et al., 2008).
In the present study, in the Mirza-Baylu site, before field assessments and during discussions and interviews, pastoralists believed that there is not obvious difference between inside and outside the Park. They believed that to some extents outside the 3008 park has better condition and less degradation. They believed livestock grazing makes the plants to grow faster and leads to more vegetation diversity, freshness and palatability. In contrast, after field assessments, they had evaluated inside the park to have better condition than outside the park based on given scores to the indicators. It shows the difference between holistic and detailed assessments of pastoralists based on the 5 indicators scoring in this site. This can be studied more deeply in further researches.
Pastoralists of the Dasht site believed that increased risk of wildfires is a sign of upward trend in the rangeland condition and indicate the increase in vegetation cover. In fact, pastoralists focus more on ecologic aspect of wildfires.
Based on the results in both sites, the rangelands outside the park especially the 10 areas around the villages were degraded in comparison to inside the Park. Pastoralists pay first attention to soil indicators in assessing rangeland degradation. During the discussion with pastoralists, it was obvious that they are not seeing indicators related to livestock and their emphasis was given to vegetation, soil and other indicators. So this gap can be clearly seen in the indicators list. All pastoralists must be involved in the 15 planning and managing strategies with full participation, they have the most knowledge on the livestock grazing habits and vegetation of their environment and rangelands (Abate et al., 2010). Indigenous knowledge can provide possibility of rapid assessment of rangeland condition (Oba, 2012). Range scientists become more familiar with indigenous knowledge, its concepts and functions (Mapinduzi et al., 2003). 20 Generally, there are different approaches for assessing land degradation worldwide. There is no single best method to assess land degradation. Many researchers and scientists emphasize that land degradation assessment can be complex because more than one type of degradation may occur in any one place. Therefore, complexity makes it impossible to use the same tools, techniques and methods for assessing different 25 types of degradation. Many methods have been improved and justified to gather as much useful data as possible. However, development of any method requires people with good understanding of ecosystems and socio-economic drivers of land degradation. Developing and using simple but yet robust methods (e.g. classes of 0-5, very 3009 The traditional knowledge of local pastoralists in the both study sites was useful and important in the management of rangeland resources. Pastoralists have a wealth of interests for emphasizing on their own indicators to be more practical for the rangeland assessments. The pastoralists have a broad knowledge base covering materials from rangelands vegetation and animal habits to land characteristics. Controlling degrada-10 tion in grazing lands without considering the people who have a substantial role in that will be imperfect. So matching the scientific land degradation indicators with the ones pastoralists are believed in and understand, can lead to the successfully control of land degradation. Involvement of pastoralists and documenting their knowledge on rangelands can provide useful bases for the sustainable utilization and conservation of 15 natural rangelands. It is believed that such plans that are based on indigenous knowledge can be easily accepted by local people.

Printer-friendly Version
Interactive Discussion Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Sandford, S.: Management of Pastoral Development in the Third World, Overseas Development Institute, London, 1983. Sharafatmandrad, M., Mesdaghi, M., Bahremand, A., and Barani, H.: The role of litter in rainfall interception and maintenance of superficial soil water content in an arid rangeland in Khabr National Park in south-eastern Iran, Arid Land Res. Manag., 24, 213-222, 2010. 5 Sharafatmandrad, M., Sepehry, A., and Barani, H.: Plant species and functional types' diversity in relation to grazing in arid and semi-arid rangelands, Khabr National Park, Iran, J. Rangeland Sci., 4, 203-214, 2014. Sousa, W. P.: The role of disturbance in natural communities, Ann. Rev. Ecol. Sys., 15, 353-391, 1984.   Figure 1. Map of study area in Golestan National Park, Golestan Province, Iran. Dasht site was located in the southern park and Mirza-baylu site was located in the eastern park. The points are sampling plots.