Holistic Grazing (split from Cliven Bundy thread)

[Reality Check]

Citation 9: Evolution in steppe with few large hooved mammals

Let us go through the citations one by one so that you can explicitly show that the citations do not support the paper, Red Baron Farms.
Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems

Lands west of the Continental Divide of the USA, including the Great Basin, Sonoran, Mojave, and Colorado Plateau deserts, along with the Palouse Prairie grasslands of eastern Washington, western Montana, and northern Idaho, did not evolve with significant grazing pressure from bison (Bison bison) [9, 12, 13].

Citation 9: R. N. Mack and J. N. Thompson, “Evolution in steppe with few large hooved mammals,” American Naturalist, vol. 119, no. 6, pp. 757–773, 1982

Abstract:
The morphology of rhizomatous and caespitose grasses reflects the two extremes to which perennial grasses have evolved at least in partial response to continuous high versus low selection pressure by large congregating mammals. In North America steppe of the Bouteloua Province east of the Rockies is dominated by a mix of mainly rhizomatous C3 and C4 grasses which have long been associated with large herds of Bison and more recently with cattle. Introduction of cattle into these grasslands had much less effect on community structure than did livestock introduction into steppe of the Agropyron Province west of the Rockies which lacked large herds of mammals throughout the Holocene (and perhaps earlier). The underlying cause of native ungulate sparseness may have been related to the moisture cycle of the Prevailing Westerlies, which may have largely excluded C4 species, thereby severely controlling Bison numbers. ...

The abstract states that the west of the Rockies lacked large herds of mammals - i.e. support for no "significant grazing pressure from bison".

 

[Red Baron Farms]

That is where the lie comes in, Red Baron Farms. You have not shown that the references do not support the paper.

I can read

Read maybe, understand? Doubtful. A source that claims a declining bison population is not even close to supporting "Not all of today’s grasslands, arid, and semiarid systems evolved with herds of large, hooved animals." First off Bison are not the only large herding herbivores in North America. Secondly the decline coincided with a gradual deterioration of the grassland. Thirdly in order to decline they had to be there in the first place.

That's a correlation.

Next step is to figure out causation. Since this was happening long before Livestock, you can't blame them as causation in that time period. But there were humans around, and they most certainly did hunt Bison and many other large herding animals. Some to extinction. So it is absolutely possible humans caused the decline in bison, which in turn caused the deterioration of the grassland in a trophic cascade.

However, that's not the only possible causation. It could work the opposite way. The decline in the grassland could have caused the decline in the bison and human hunting wasn't the cause.

So you test it. And Savory and many others tested this substituting livestock, but managed in a way to simulate the large wild herds' behavior. Bingo success, grassland recovery, and even wild herbivore recovery. It is strong evidence that a major causation of the decline of the grasslands was caused by the decline of the herbivores and not the other way around.

So you test the other view and remove all cattle, and even cull the wild herds remaining. But oops, the grasslands continue to decline, in some cases at an accelerated rate. That is strong evidence against Belsky's ideas that herbivores show no benefit to the plants they graze.

 

[Reality Check]

Read maybe, understand?...

Try reading and acknowledging that citation 9 states that the west of the Rockies lacked large herds of mammals, i.e. support for no "significant grazing pressure from bison", Red Baron Farms: Citation 9: Evolution in steppe with few large hooved mammals

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Try reading and acknowledging that citation 9 states that the west of the Rockies lacked large herds of mammals, i.e. support for no "significant grazing pressure from bison", Red Baron Farms: Citation 9: Evolution in steppe with few large hooved mammals

Citation 9 says:

The underlying cause of native ungulate sparseness may have been related to the moisture cycle of the Prevailing Westerlies, which may have largely excluded C4 species, thereby severely controlling Bison numbers.

It says MAY
It's a testable hypothesis. Test it and you find that is very unlikely. As I explained to you several times.

Furthermore it ignores the large herds of deer, sheep and antelope which were also present. So that source does not support Belsky's paper (finished by others after her death) at all.

 

[Reality Check]

Citation 9 says:...

You may want to read that again, Red Baron Farms. As you said before "Read maybe, understand? Doubtful."

The underlying cause of native ungulate sparseness may have been related to the moisture cycle of the Prevailing Westerlies, which may have largely excluded C4 species, thereby severely controlling Bison numbers.

In bold is the observation of a lack of native ungulate such as bison, i.e. Citation 9: "Evolution in steppe with few large hooved mammals" supports the assertion of no "significant grazing pressure from bison" in grasslands west of the Rockies.
In italics is a possible cause of this sparseness - thus the mays.
In red is again that that boson numbers were limited.
This is explaining a possible cause of the observation in the previous sentence:

Introduction of cattle into these grasslands had much less effect on community structure than did livestock introduction into steppe of the Agropyron Province west of the Rockies which lacked large herds of mammals throughout the Holocene (and perhaps earlier).

Thus the abstract contains 3 phrases that support the assertion
* "lacked large herds of mammals"
* "native ungulate sparseness"
* "severely controlling Bison numbers"

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You may want to read that again, Red Baron Farms. As you said before "Read maybe, understand? Doubtful."

In bold is the observation of a lack of native ungulate such as bison, i.e. Citation 9: "Evolution in steppe with few large hooved mammals" supports the assertion of no "significant grazing pressure from bison" in grasslands west of the Rockies.
In italics is a possible cause of this sparseness - thus the mays.
In red is again that that boson numbers were limited.

Why would I need to read it again? There is no dispute that the western grasslands ecosystems were in decline and have been for many years. Still are in fact. Not just the animals but also the grasses themselves. Even the insect biodiversity. The whole trophic community. But that is a correlation, it isn't evidence of causation. Citation 9 makes a hypothesis about causation as well. The problem is that when that hypothesis gets tested, there is strong evidence it is not the primary cause.

 

[Reality Check]

Why would I need to read it again?

Because "Read maybe, understand? Doubtful" and getting more doubtful, Red Baron Farms !
Because you do still not understand that Citation 9: "Evolution in steppe with few large hooved mammals" supports the assertion of no "significant grazing pressure from bison" in grasslands west of the Rockies, Red Baron Farms.
Because you do not seem to understand the clear English in the abstract as I pointed out:

In bold is the observation of a lack of native ungulate such as bison, i.e. Citation 9: "Evolution in steppe with few large hooved mammals" supports the assertion of no "significant grazing pressure from bison" in grasslands west of the Rockies.
In italics is a possible cause of this sparseness - thus the mays.
In red is again that that boson numbers were limited.
This is explaining a possible cause of the observation in the previous sentence:

Thus the abstract contains 3 phrases that support the assertion
* "lacked large herds of mammals"
* "native ungulate sparseness"
* "severely controlling Bison numbers"

There is no dispute that the western grasslands ecosystems were in decline ...

A nitpick: I do dispute that word "decline" - they were changing. From our perspective they were declining (less suitable for ranching). From the perspective of plants and animals moving into the grasslands it was a bonanza of new niches.
However we are discussing the fact that there was no "significant grazing pressure from bison" in grasslands west of the Rockies is supported by this paper, not its cause.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

A nitpick: I do dispute that word "decline" - they were changing. From our perspective they were declining (less suitable for ranching). From the perspective of plants and animals moving into the grasslands it was a bonanza of new niches.

Excuse me? So by your definition the whole mass extinction event we are currently experiencing could be considered a good thing...for the ones that remain? WOW

I knew you were trolling, I just didn't realise to the degree you would stoop.

 

[Reality Check]

Excuse me? ...

Excuse me but can you understand what you wrote, Red Baron Farms?

There is no dispute that the western grasslands ecosystems were in decline and have been for many years. ...

No mass extinctions mentioned ! Of course there would have been some extinctions and some new species. Which has nothing to do with the evidence that there was no "significant grazing pressure from bison" in grasslands west of the Rockies.

Can I take it that that derail about my nitpick means that you now understand that Citation 9: "Evolution in steppe with few large hooved mammals" supports the assertion of no "significant grazing pressure from bison" in grasslands west of the Rockies.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Excuse me but can you understand what you wrote, Red Baron Farms?

No mass extinctions mentioned !

Can I take it that that derail about my nitpick means that you now understand that Citation 9: "Evolution in steppe with few large hooved mammals" supports the assertion of no "significant grazing pressure from bison" in grasslands west of the Rockies.

No Reality Check. Not even close. Your assertion makes no reference to time or change through time. Quite a myopic view actually. You could claim that Bison numbers declined until they eventually were extirpated though. And you could claim the habitat also slowly deteriorated concurrent to that gradual extirpation. But it wouldn't have a thing at all to do with debunking HM, because HM also agrees that the extirpation of the large herbivore herds and/or changes made in their behavior can in the right climatic conditions cause the gradual deterioration of the grassland.

 

[Reality Check]

No Reality Check. ...snipped imaginary part of assertion...

Not even close, Red Baron Farms:

• It is not my assertion .
• That is not the assertion in Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems !
• That is not the HM assumption that is being addressed !

Citation 9: "Evolution in steppe with few large hooved mammals" supports the assertion of no "significant grazing pressure from bison" in grasslands west of the Rockies.

HM Assumption: Western North American Ecosystems Are Adapted to Herds of Large Hooved Animals
Assertion:

Lands west of the Continental Divide of the USA, including the Great Basin, Sonoran, Mojave, and Colorado Plateau deserts, along with the Palouse Prairie grasslands of eastern Washington, western Montana, and northern Idaho, did not evolve with significant grazing pressure from bison (Bison bison) [9, 12, 13].

Evidence: Citation 9: "Evolution in steppe with few large hooved mammals". And Citation 12. And Coition 13. Which we have not even got to yet!

It is simple enough, Red Baron Farms. The evidence we have discussed so far (1 citation!) supports that there were not enough large hooved mammals west of the Rockies during the Holocene (the passage of time you are missing) to provide significant grazing pressure enough for evolution of grasslands.

ETA: If you want to derail into a so far hypothetical decline of bison numbers west of the Rockies during the Holocene then you need to firstly present the evidence for the decline and then present the evidence for the HM explanation for that decline. The papers the Savory wrote on the subject? Maybe in a new thread?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

It is simple enough, Red Baron Farms. The evidence we have discussed so far (1 citation!) supports that there were not enough large hooved mammals west of the Rockies during the Holocene (the passage of time you are missing) to provide significant grazing pressure enough for evolution of grasslands.

And you are so geared up to try and manufacture so called "evidence" against HM that you have painted yourself into this corner. That's what happens when you try and force the evidence to fit your bias, you end up with ridiculous statements like "there were not enough large hooved mammals west of the Rockies during the Holocene to provide significant grazing pressure enough for evolution of grasslands".

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped fact less text...

Which, Red Baron Farms, unfortunately leaves you unable to understand or in denial of Citation 9: "Evolution in steppe with few large hooved mammals" supports the assertion of no "significant grazing pressure from bison" in grasslands west of the Rockies.

So we will go onto the next citation.

 

[Reality Check]

Citation 12: The western limits of the range of the American bison

Let us go through the citations one by one so that you can explicitly show that the citations do not support the paper, Red Baron Farms.
Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems

Lands west of the Continental Divide of the USA, including the Great Basin, Sonoran, Mojave, and Colorado Plateau deserts, along with the Palouse Prairie grasslands of eastern Washington, western Montana, and northern Idaho, did not evolve with significant grazing pressure from bison (Bison bison) [9, 12, 13].

Citation 12. R. Daubenmire, “The western limits of the range of the American bison,” Ecology, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 622–624, 1985
You quoted from it:

Archaeologists hold that at least two species of Bison occurred west of the Rockies at the close of the Wisconsin glaciation .....snip..... It became extinct as a wild species west of the Rockies early in the 19th century.

However this quote is mined too much (see below) - the "it" is not those "two species of Bison"!
The text starts with:

It is an intriguing fact that the American bison (Bison bison) which at the start of the 19th century occurred by the millions in steppe habitat east of the Rocky Mountains, was unable to permanently colonize the steppe to the west of the mountains, despite the continuity of such vegetation across South Pass in Wyoming. In recent centuries the few herds that wandered through that mountain gap penetrated various distances but did not survive long.

and goes onto

Archaeologists hold that at least two species of Bison occurred west of the Rockies at the close of the Wisconsin glaciation (Schroedl 1973) These lingered on until xerothermic (= Hypsithermal = Altithermal) time, then were replaced by the modern species. Although Boson bison soon became well established west of the Rockies, achieving its maximum, abundance there ~ 3000-1500 yr BP (Butler 1978), it seems never to have reached the high population densities it achieved west of the mountains (Schroedl 1973). Later its numbers west of the mountains diminished more or less progressively until at the time of the Caucasian invasion its continued presence there became dependent on rather short-lived recruitments thorough the Wyoming gap in the mountains. It became extinct as a wild species west of the Rockies early in the 19th century.

This states that the eastern densities of bison were always less than the western and supports that there was no "significant grazing pressure from bison (Bison bison)" (my emphasis added - significant grazing pressure would be densities comparable to western densities).

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Which, Red Baron Farms, unfortunately leaves you unable to understand or in denial of Citation 9: "Evolution in steppe with few large hooved mammals" supports the assertion of no "significant grazing pressure from bison" in grasslands west of the Rockies.

So we will go onto the next citation.

No Reality check. What you did is back yourself into a corner with this statement: "there were not enough large hooved mammals west of the Rockies during the Holocene to provide significant grazing pressure enough for evolution of grasslands".

First flaw is you completely ignore the change through time during the Holocene of the herbivore pressure. You also completely ignore the change through time of the grasslands during the Holocene. (decline of both) Further you ignore that the maximum aridity is not coexistent with the minimum of either grassland or herbivore density. In other words there were times with higher numbers of herbivores and Higher grassland/savanna expanse and health, at the same time as lower rainfall. This is evidence that there was a different causation than Belsky supposes, but is evidence that instead Savory's ideas about trophic communities are closer to what is seen in the historical record. ie that the decline in the large herds of herbivores preceded the decline in habitat. (Most likely due to hunting pressure)

But the really ironic part is that you claim "there were not enough large hooved mammals west of the Rockies" Agreed. And the way to fix that is to bring them back. Now it is important that the behavior is right. Just adding numbers isn't enough. The behavior is also just as important. For herbivores behavior is largely dependant on predators. (also likely hunted by humans) This explains it pretty well:



Now there are a couple things you can learn from the Yellowstone case studies. First of all, not only did the grassland improve, but also the riparian areas, and even the forests, and even the rivers themselves. You can learn that it is the behavior, not the total numbers that matter. And of course you learn that total biomass of the whole ecosystem, and well as biodiversity increase, if that behavior is changed. These basic principles are what Savory uses, by controlling both the numbers and the behavior of domestic animals used as a proxy where "there were not enough large hooved mammals" to maintain the health of the biome, causing it to decline into desert.

 

[Reality Check]

No Reality check. ..irrelevant rant snipped...

Citation 9: "Evolution in steppe with few large hooved mammals" supports the assertion of no "significant grazing pressure from bison" in grasslands west of the Rockies.
remains as an example of an inability to understand/denial of science, Red Baron Farms.

We have moved onto: Citation 12: The western limits of the range of the American bison which states that the eastern densities never reached the high western densities. Once again support for no "significant grazing pressure from bison" in grasslands west of the Rockies.

Please do not derail again about the causes of bison decline, the unsupported assertion that the decline of bison lead to desertification, that fantasy that Savory's HM is supported science, videos = scientific literature, etc., Red Baron Farms. This is just about the numbers of bison east of the Rockies versus the numbers of bison west of the Rockies.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Please do not derail again about the causes of bison decline, the unsupported assertion that the decline of bison lead to desertification, etc., Red Baron Farms. This is just about the numbers of bison east of the Rockies versus the numbers of bison west of the Rockies.

You are the one on a derail. This is about HM and Savory's claims that livestock can be used, if managed properly, to reverse desertification. So far all the evidence you have presented not only doesn't debunk HM, some of it actually supports HM. Which was my claim from the get go about the Belsky paper.

Think about it. The citation claims bison numbers were low. (extinction of one species and extirpation of another) It also claims the grassland had low biodiversity due to almost all C4 species dying out. Dung beetles dying out, I can add more..Rocky Mountain grasshoppers extinct, Certain native earth worms extinct or severely endangered, several mega fauna extinctions... Plus it continues. Even some populations of desert adapted species are endangered. Even some fish. That's how trophic cascades work. I suppose you won't be happy until large portions of the West are like the Sahara.

 

[Reality Check]

You are the one on a derail. ...a bit of a rant snipped...

This thread is about Savory's unsupported HM, Red Baron Farms. We both know that the scientific evidence for Savory's unsupported HM is mixed. Thus it is a derail to mention Savory's unsupported HM in every reply to a post wile mostly ignoring the contents of that post.

The current subject is a single paper called Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems
I am keeping on the subject of that paper and its citations. That has been the subject of the thread for the last week. That is not a derail .

One more try to get back on the track of looking at every single reference in that paper (1 down, 118 more to go !)
Citation 12: The western limits of the range of the American bison which states that the eastern densities never reached the high western densities. Once again support for no "significant grazing pressure from bison" in grasslands west of the Rockies.

ETA:

Think about it. The citation claims bison numbers were low. ...

Think about it, Red Baron Farms: You agree that numbers were low. That supports no "significant grazing pressure".

 

[Reality Check]

Which was my claim from the get go about the Belsky paper.

What Belsky paper?
She wrote many papers, four (out of 119 citations) of which are cited in Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems by John Carter, Allison Jones, Mary O’Brien, Jonathan Ratner, and George Wuerthner.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

ETA:
Think about it, Red Baron Farms: You agree that numbers were low. That supports no "significant grazing pressure".

What it supports is Savory's observation that undergrazing can actually cause desertification. Not proof mind you. Because there are many possible causes of desertification. But it certainly doesn't debunk anything about HM. In no way shape or form does it in anyway mean HM doesn't work, or evidence it can't work.