Online Resource 4 Supplementary figures and tables
Vegetation and soil responses to livestock grazing in Central Asian grasslands - a review of Chinese literature
Yun Wang1*, Karsten Wesche1,2
1
Senckenberg Museum of Natural History Görlitz, P.O. Box 300154, 02806 Görlitz, Germany
2
German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Deutscher Platz 5e, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
*corresponding author: yun.wang@senckenberg.de
Fig. S1 Correlations between climate data extracted from the CMF-model and originally reported climate data from publications:
a) mean annual temperature (T), b) mean annual precipitation (P). Pearson correlation coefficient and sample sizes are indicated in
the figures
a)
b)
Fig. S2 Main environmental conditions for different vegetation types (DS = desert steppe; S = steppe; ADS = alpine desert steppe;
AS = alpine steppe; AM = alpine meadow; ASW = alpine swamp): a) precipitation (P) and its coefficient of variance (cvP), and b)
elevation (Elev) and temperature (T) (mean ± sd)
a)
b)
Fig. S3 Hypothetical shapes for six grazing response types (positive, negative, neutral, unimodal, reversed unimodal and
Vegetation or soil variables
fluctuating) of vegetation or soil variables along the grazing intensity gradient
Grazing intensity (from non-light to heavy grazing)
Positive
Negative
Neutral
Unimodal
ReversedUnimodal
Fluctuating
Fig. S4 Flowchart of study retrieval and selection: Extracting vegetation or soil indicators (a, yellow), combining them with
explanatory climate variables (b, blue) and quantifying grazing intensity (c, grey). From 103 publications (Appendix 1): a) We
separated independent experiments and combined datasets from same study sites (see more details in the method section), which
yielded 131 datasets including vegetation or soil variables. All reviewed studies and their main topics are plotted in Fig. 1; b) We
extracted 100 sites (see Appendix 2) with independent locations and retrieved climate data based on their coordinates and
elevation from the CMF database, resulting in 88 independent climate datasets (with annual precipitation and its interannual
variation and mean annual temperature; and c) Of the extracted 131 datasets, 30 studies reported specific information on the
amount of livestock that were grazing at a fixed area within a given time period, of which only 20 reported the estimated primary
productivity from the ungrazed plots and thus allowed for a reliable calculation of grazing pressure (shown in Fig. 3)
103
publications
b)
coordinates
(Appendix 2)
(Appendix1)
a)
100 sites
coordinates
88 climate
datasets
elevation
1) experiment separation
2) indicator combination
131
vegetation or
soil datasets
(Fig. 1)
c)
30 quantified
1) livestock density
2) grazing period
grazing intensity aboveground biomass
from fenced plots
20 studies
(Fig. 3)
Table S1 Pearson correlations among calculated relative grazing responses for different indicators under the heaviest grazing
regime (correlations stronger than r=|0.5| were highlighted)
Richness_GE
Cover_GE
AGB_GE
BGB_GE
rsRatio_GE pH_GE BD_GE SOC_GE tN_GE tP_GE aP_GE
Richness_GE
Cover_GE
0.31
AGB_GE
0.31
0.39
BGB_GE
-0.01
0.28
0.27
rsRatio_GE
-0.21
0.04
-0.11
0.80
pH_GE
0.08
0.18
0.01
-0.10
-0.14
BD_GE
0.26
-0.40
-0.14
-0.53
-0.79
0.02
0
0.27
0.32
0.62
0.29
-0.20
-0.31
tN_GE
-0.05
-0.05
0.28
0.70
0.30
0.07
-0.29
0.36
tP_GE
-0.31
-0.21
0.17
0.46
-0.14
0.14
-0.06
0.20
0.64
aP_GE
-0.21
-0.29
-0.08
0.63
0.03
-0.06
0.02
0.10
0.70
SOC_GE
0.71
Table S2 Pearson correlations among indicators (Abbreviations are the same as in Table 1) and environmental variables (Elev =
elevation, T = mean annual temperature, cvP = interannual variation of precipitation) for heavy (upper diagonal) and light grazing
conditions (lower diagonal). For details on grazing intensity see Method section in the main text. Correlations stronger than
r=|0.5|, r² = 0.25 are highlighted
Light/Heavy
Elev
T
P
cvP
Elev
Richness
Cover
AGB
BGB
rsRatio
pH
BD
-0.07
0.15
0.09
0.11
-0.22
-0.27
-0.21
0.26
0.40
-0.30
SOC
tN
-0.03
-0.24
-0.05
0.14
0.23
0.25
0.15
0.09
0.18
0.40
0.18
-0.09
-0.22
-0.11
-0.20
0.39
0.32
0.05
-0.50
-0.54
0.40
0.63
0.61
0.09
-0.45
-0.43
-0.32
-0.04
0.45
0.28
-0.24
-0.50
-0.53
-0.20
0.36
0.20
0.18
-0.05
-0.21
0.04
0.11
0.11
0.26
-0.34
0.65
0.57
0.05
-0.38
-0.55
0.76
0.77
0.60
0.20
0.55
-0.06
-0.36
-0.54
0.60
0.58
0.51
0.18
0.68
-0.10
-0.44
0.40
0.38
0.23
0.05
-0.29
-0.23
0.12
0.06
0.09
0.05
0.00
0.13
-0.20
-0.46
-0.27
-0.68
-0.69
-0.10
-0.23
0.84
0.49
0.42
0.68
0.44
T
-0.56
P
0.55
-0.37
cvP
-0.27
0.18
-0.69
Richness
-0.27
-0.23
0.09
-0.10
Cover
0.10
-0.25
0.54
-0.55
0.24
AGB
-0.04
-0.17
0.38
-0.42
0.19
0.50
BGB
0.18
-0.13
0.27
-0.42
-0.14
0.24
0.29
rsRatio
0.20
-0.12
0.12
-0.23
-0.37
-0.11
-0.12
0.82
pH
-0.31
0.36
-0.50
0.51
-0.22
-0.42
-0.39
-0.35
-0.45
BD
-0.16
0.27
-0.73
0.46
-0.03
-0.76
-0.70
0.13
0.29
0.22
SOC
0.18
-0.14
0.41
-0.26
-0.06
0.68
0.39
0.46
0.24
0.18
-0.66
tN
0.20
-0.32
0.50
-0.44
-0.07
0.74
0.47
0.38
0.36
0.01
-0.71
0.85
tP
0.23
-0.16
0.47
-0.43
0.05
0.53
0.41
0.72
0.72
-0.22
-0.23
0.53
0.54
aP
0.16
-0.27
0.07
-0.20
-0.31
0.26
0.21
0.08
0.02
-0.19
-0.27
0.60
0.49
tP
aP
-0.14
-0.15
Fig S5 Relative change in aboveground biomass by heavy grazing along the precipitation gradient
Fig S6 Relationships between absolute values of a) plant species richness, b) soil bulk density, c) aboveground biomass, d)
belowground biomass, e) root / shoot ratio, f) soil total N, and the most important environmental factors (based on Table 4) under
light (blue) and heavy (black) grazing conditions (corresponding to Fig. 4 for relative grazing effects)
a) plant species richness
d) belowground biomass
b) soil bulk density
e) root / shoot ratio
c) aboveground biomass
f) soil total N