Rangeland condition and feed resources in Metema District, North ...

at the landscape scale; short temporal scales (the initial response of a community to
protection or release from grazing may not represent the long-term response) and the
pool of species that are present or able to disperse to the protected area. There was no
significant (P < 0.05) difference in the soil erosion, compaction, age distribution, seedling
count, and hedge effects between the two farming systems (Table 29). Generally, these
parameters suggested that the condition of the enclosure sites is in a good condition. The
number of livestock that graze in the enclosure areas limits the grazing pressure and had
a positive effect on rangeland condition. This is considered as a means to protect and
conserve local resource under threat from increasing human and livestock population
pressure and interventions.
Table 29. Range condition score (LSM ± SE) in enclosure grazing areas by farming system in
Metema
Parameter CBFS SBFS
Grass species composition score 7.80 ± 0.61a 8.11 ± 0.50a
Basal cover 6.91 ± 0.46a 7.03 ± 0.37a
Litter cover 6.0 ± 0.33a 7.05 ± 0.27a
Soil erosion 3.88 ± 0.16b 4.89 ± 0.20a
Soil compaction 4.93 ± 0.38a 3.64 ± 0.31a
Age distribution of grasses 3.70 ± 0.44a 3.67 ± 0.35a
Seedling distribution 4.0 ± 0.21a 4.64 ± 0.17a
Woody density score 3.5 ± 0.28a 3.0 ± 0.23a
Canopy cover score 2.75 ± 0.61a 3.46 ± 0.50a
Hedging 2.20 ± 0.41a 2.43 ± 0.33a
Total range condition score 46.65 ± 0.78a 46.93 ± 0.63a
Range condition Good Good
Woody density 2316.7 ± 244.68a 2340.0 ± 199.78a
Canopy cover 64.05 ± 7.27a 71.93 ± 3.44a
CLFS: cotton–livestock farming system; SLFS: sesame–livestock farming system.
Means with different superscripts in a row differ significantly (P