Vegetative changes on protected versus grazed desert grassland ranges in Arizona

  • Published source details Smith D.A. & Schmutz E.M. (1975) Vegetative changes on protected versus grazed desert grassland ranges in Arizona. Journal of Range Management, 28, 453-458.


A comparison of long-term vegetation changes was made between a protected (non livestock grazed) and heavily livestock grazed desert grassland range at Page-Trowbridge Experimental Ranch in southeastern Arizona (southwest USA).

The study sites comprised two adjacent 320 acre (129.5 ha) areas of desert grassland. One was conservatively grazed from 1923 to 1941 and protected from livestock grazing thereafter. The other was part of a heavily grazed range.
Each area was divided into eight 40-acre (16.2-ha) blocks and a 50 foot (15.24 m) line transect established in each. Ten samples were systematically taken (from a random start point) giving 80 samples per area. Using the line intercept method, perennial grasses and forbs (basal cover and species frequency of occurrence) were measured at ground level, and trees and shrubs at the crown, in 1941 and 1969.

Basal cover of perennial forbs changed little in both areas (<0.3% in1941 and 1969). Grasses increased significantly, although remaining at low overall cover values (grazed: 1941 - <0.3% 1969 - 1.2%; protected: 1941 - 1.7% 1969 - 3.1%).

Crown cover of trees and shrubs increased significantly (primarily due to increases in velvet mesquite Prosopis juliflora var. velutina), the increase being most marked in the protected area (grazed: 1941 - 8.8% 1969 - 9.8%; protected: 1941 - 3.9% 1969 - 8.0%)
Two grasses, Arizona cottontop Digitaria californica and sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula, and the herbaceous perennial Wright buckwheat Eriogonum wrightii were dominant in the understory on the protected range, and these, along with other species indicated improving and ‘intermediate’ range condition.
On the grazed range, Rothrock grama Bouteloua rothrockii, poverty threeawns Aristida divaricnta and A.hamulosa (indicating an improving trend), burroweed Haplopappus tenuisectus (poisonous to mammals) and annuals dominated the understory; the area was classed as in ‘low’ range condition,
Without a change in management, the authors suggest that it is probable that mesquite will continue to increase on both areas.
Note: If using or referring to this published study, please read and quote the original paper, this can be viewed at:


Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust