Explore the vast range of titles available.

There is an urgent need to produce food sustainably and minimize negative environmental impacts using practices such as adaptive grazing to reverse the environmental degradation caused by industrial agriculture. Therefore, understanding the factors influencing farmers’ adoption of adaptive grazing practices is crucial for encouraging management practices that support ecosystem health and function. This case study was conducted with pasture-based beef farms in Michigan, USA. To understand adoption, we administered an online survey to develop context and inform an interview protocol. Subsequently, we conducted semi-structured follow-up interviews to gather in-depth qualitative information about how social norms, attitudes, perceptions of control and values impact: (1) farmers’ decisions to adopt adaptive management practices and (2) farmers’ overall wellbeing. Findings revealed that a combination of attitudes, perceptions of control and values significantly influenced farmers’ choices to use adaptive grazing practices. Social norms perpetuated by previous generations, attitudes about finances and stewardship, and values related to preserving traditions, played strong roles in shaping the selection of grazing management practices. Further, wellbeing was supported by spending time in nature and farmers generally reported high levels of wellbeing. Understanding these factors is essential for encouraging adoption of adaptive grazing, fostering resilience and environmental regeneration.

In 2006, Walker et al. published an article titled, “A Handful of Heuristics and Some Propositions for Understanding Resilience in Social-ecological Systems.” The article was incorporated into the Ecology and Society special feature, Exploring Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Walker et al. identified five heuristics and posed 14 propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems. At the time, the authors hoped the paper would promote experimentation, critique, and application of these ideas in resilience and social-ecological systems research. To determine the extent to which these propositions have achieved the authors’ hopes, we reviewed the scientific literature on social-ecological systems since the article was published. Using Scopus, we identified 627 articles that cited the Walker et al. article. We then identified and assessed the articles relative to each proposition. In addition, we conducted a more general Scopus review for articles that did not cite the Walker et al. article specifically but incorporated a proposition’s concepts. Overall, articles often cite Walker et al. as a reference for a definition of a heuristic or ecological resilience generally and not to reference a specific proposition. Nonetheless, every proposition was at least mentioned in the literature and used to advance resilience scholarship on social-ecological systems. Eleven propositions were tested by multiple articles through application of case studies or other research, and 7 of the 11 propositions were substantially discussed and advanced. Finally, three propositions were heavily critiqued either as concepts in resilience literature or in their application.

Soil health is typically evaluated using physical, chemical, and biological parameters. However, identifying cost-effective and interpretable metrics remains a challenge. The effectiveness of ecological outcome verification (EOV) in predicting soil health in grazing lands was assessed at 22 ranches. Sixty-four soil samples were analyzed using the Haney soil health test (HSHT) and phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA). Of 104 variables, 13 were retained following principal component analysis (PCA), including variables associated with plant community, carbon dynamics, and microbial community structure. Soils with enriched microbial and organic matter (SOM) characteristics supported a healthier ecological status, as corroborated by greater EOV scores. Water-extractable organic carbon (WEOC) was positively correlated to plant functional groups, whereas SOM was positively correlated with plant biodiversity and functional groups. Total bacteria were positively correlated with all EOV parameters. Microbial biomass (MB) was positively correlated with both water and energy cycle indexes, whereas arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) was positively correlated with the water cycle. From the multiple regression analyses, water infiltration emerged as a key predictor of soil respiration and WEOC. Overall, the ecological outcomes measured by EOV have the potential to serve as a proxy for soil health, providing a practical tool for producers to make informed land management decisions.

Livestock producers around the world are concerned about land degradation and the increase in extreme weather events such as more frequent flooding and droughts, as well as current rates of biodiversity loss, soil erosion, and desertification. One suggested change that could improve grassland sustainability is the use of adaptive grazing management approaches, however the ramifications of using an adaptive grazing approach have been understudied from a social perspective. In this dissertation I used a social-ecological systems approach to investigate the relationship between grazing management style and farmer wellbeing in Michigan’s pasture-based beef farms. I created a novel theoretical framework which integrated the Theory of Planned Behavior with the Theory of Basic Human Values at an individual farm scale to understand why farmers manage their animals the way they do. Further,. I explored the relationship between management style and the physical, psychological, and social wellbeing of farmers to better understand if certain management practices result in higher farmer wellbeing. I investigated wellbeing from a benefits-challenges perspective to acknowledge there will always be tradeoffs in the system. This focus on wellbeing is necessary because farmers often suffer from higher-than-average rates of mental illness and are one of the top three occupations most likely to die by suicide. Thus, it is imperative we determine if there are any management techniques that bolster wellbeing. I used a sequential mixed methods approach by coupling an online survey with follow up interviews from a subsample of the participants to better understand the range of grazing management practices being used on Michigan’s pasture-based beef farms, particularly how perceptions of control, attitudes, norms, and values influence the farmer’s choice of grazing management behaviors. I found pasture-based beef farmers managed their grazing animals either rotationally or adaptively, and that my theoretical framework can explain why there are differences in what drives the adoption of different grazing management styles. If we want to understand the adoption of adaptive grazing management as a tool for grassland restoration it is important to know what management strategies are used on the ground. Farmers who were managing rotationally were more likely to be a generational, family farm and the adaptive farmers were more likely to be an independent startup farm. Additionally, there were differences in the role of diversification between the two groups, mainly, adaptive farmers are more confident in their ability to create a highly diversified farm than their rotational counterparts I also found that Michigan’s pasture-based beef farmers did not report the low levels of wellbeing I expected, rather farmers across the management spectrum have high physical and psychological wellbeing. The largest challenge to wellbeing was in the social dimension where many farmers expressed feeling isolated. However, when the COVID-19 pandemic emerged farmers coped in ways that supported their wellbeing, including receiving financial support and spending additional time outdoors. These findings and my theoretical framework serve as an initial exploration into the wellbeing and management decisions of pasture-based beef farmers in Michigan that will hopefully be useful for future research on the wellbeing of farmers across the state and beyond.

Background Despite decades of study, current research on grazing management’s impacts on ecosystem health and its socioeconomic drivers remains too limited in scope and scale to enable adaptive, evidence-based decision making by producers. There is a pressing need for interdisciplinary research that collects ecosystem data at broader spatial and temporal scales while incorporating working farms and ranches. Such efforts are critical for informing grazing decisions and understanding grazinglands’ potential to deliver ecosystem services, including climate mitigation, water cycling, resilience, and rural livelihoods. Results The Metrics, Management, and Monitoring (3M) project addresses this need through a novel social-ecological framework that integrates biophysical, socioeconomic, and management data across U.S. grazinglands. The project combines controlled experiments at four intensively monitored “hubs” with data from 59 producer-managed farms and ranches. Its core objectives are to: (1) assess the social-ecological health of grazinglands across diverse ecoregions, (2) refine monitoring approaches to improve scalability and accuracy, and (3) integrate producer-led data to balance experimental rigor with real-world relevance. Over 50 scientists collaborate on 3M to evaluate how grazing strategies affect soil carbon, water dynamics, CO₂ fluxes, plant communities, productivity, social wellbeing, and producer economics. Conclusions These insights support the development of ecosystem models and decision-support tools to help producers make evidence-based choices. Beyond data generation, 3M offers a scalable research model that bridges ecological and social sciences to support adaptive, informed grazing management. This integrated framework provides a transferable template for studying any working landscape where human and ecological systems are deeply interconnected.