沙漠研究 19-1, 81- 84 (2009 )Journal of Arid Land Studies“Desert Technology IX ”
Refereed Paper

Hierarchical Framework for Rangeland Management-A Case Study in Inner MongoliaQian ZHANG1, 2, Wenjun LI2
Abstract: Compared with equilibrial theory, which attributes vegetation change to livestock
grazing rate simply, non-equilibrial theory has paid much importance on the impact of abiotic
factors on vegetation growth. In fact, both stocking rate and abiotic factors are key variables
for vegetation growth. However, it is very difficult to choose proper paradigm for themanagement of an ecosystem because the definition of equilibrial or non-equilibrial ecosystem
is always depending on scales. By analyzing NDVI data and collecting related data on
rangeland management and water resources through herders’ interviews, this article tries toestablish a hierarchical framework for rangeland management in Xilingol Prefecture to
combine equilibrial and non-equilibrial theories in order to provide reference for animalhusbandry development and explore root reasons for rangeland degradation.
Keywords: Equilibrial ecosystem, Hierarchical framework, Inner Mongolia, Non-equilibrial
ecosystem, Rangeland management

1. Introduction
Since 1984, Livestock and Rangeland Double-Contract Responsibility System (LRDCRS) has been
implemented in pastoral areas of Inner Mongolia. The rangeland was divided into small pieces anddistributed to herders’ households because it was perceived that a herder would protect his rangeland when
he had property rights on rangeland. Therefore, the traditional nomadism was crumbled and herders’livestock are limited in herders’ contracted rangeland. In fact, the LRDCRS cannot be implemented
without two assumptions: invariable abiotic factors and stable and uniform vegetation growth. Based onthese two assumptions, a stable stocking rate can be evaluated and carrying capacity management can be
implemented on every herder’s contracted rangeland. However, rangeland degradation has become more
and more serious in Inner Mongolia. About 38.7 million ha natural rangeland, 44.4% of total rangelandof Inner Mongolia, degraded and desertified at moderate to heavy degree, and rangeland productivity
decreased by 30-70% (Joint Research Team of rangeland Ecology, 2003). Meanwhile, many herders havefallen into poverty. Livestock population per capita in 24 pastoral counties decreased from 108 SSU in1998 to 33 in 2004 (Dalintai, 2006). To explore root reasons for these problems, it is necessary to rethinkproduction system of rangeland animal husbandry to test if the institutional arrangement can match
rangeland ecosystem characters.
For the characters of rangeland ecosystem, the debate between equilibrium and non-equilibrium
paradigms has developed to the requirement to combine these two theories because both of them areneeded in management practices (Illius et al., 1999; Briske, 2003). Different from equilibrium paradigm,
which has minimized the importance of climatic variability and episodic events on ecosystem behaviors(Ellis and Swift, 1988; Wu and Loucks, 1995), non-equilibrium paradigm has minimized ecosystemregulation and stability and placed greater emphasis on external disturbances as drivers of ecosystembehaviors (Briske, 2003). However, neither paradigm alone is comprehensive enough to explain
ecosystem dynamics effectively. Vegetation dynamics is impacted by both grazing and climate
variability (Fernandez-Gimenez and Allen-Diaz, 1999). In fact, the theoretical explanations of theequilibrium and non-equilibrium paradigms explicitly emphasize the importance of scale in theirdetermination (Wiens, 1989; Levin, 1992; O’Neill, 2001). Stability at larger scales implies a ‘stableequilibrium state’ (Illius and O’Connor, 1999). The hierarchical patch dynamics paradigm may be seen
as a way of unifying these two perspectives across multiple scales of space and time (Wu and Loucks,
1

Center for Rural Environmental Social Studies, Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. No. 5,Jiannei Dajie, Beijing 100732, P. R. China.
2
College of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Peking University. Beijing 100871, P. R. China.
Email: zhangqian@cass.org.cn; wjlee@pku.edu.cn (corresponding author). The research is supported by Nature
Science Foundation of China (40871252).

82

Fig. 1. Location of Xilingol Prefecture in
Inner Mongolia.

1995).
However, how to establish thishierarchical framework to provide guidance forpractical management is still a problem.

Fig. 2. Comparison between average NDVI of2001/1989/1998 and the average NDVI of
22 years. Data source: Environmental andEcological Science Data Center for WestChina.

2. Materials and Methods
Our case study is Xilingol Prefecture, which locates in the middle of Inner Mongolia (Fig 1). Thearea of Xilingol Prefecture is 203,000 km2 and the population was 975,000 in 2004. The precipitation inmost area of Xilingol Prefecture is 200 mm to 350 mm, and it is more than 400 mm in east point and lessthan 150mm in part of western region. Because water resource is the most important resource for dryland,
the hierarchical framework is established based on water resource in three spatial scales. For large scaleof whole prefecture, the relationship between vegetation growth and precipitation is tested by using NDVI(1982-2003) and precipitation data (1971-2005) collected by 13 weather stations in Xilingol Prefecture.
For middle and small scales, the data collected from Herders’ interviews in July of 2007, which wasconducted in Baiyintala Gacha (Mongolian word for village) in northwest of Xilingol prefecture.
3. Results and Discussion
Water resource has different heterogeneity on different spatial and temporal scales. According to therequirement of animal husbandry management in Xilingol Prefecture, the hierarchical framework is
composed of three levels: large scale, middle scale and small scale.
3.1 Large scale: the whole Xilingol Prefecture
On large scale of the whole prefecture, the precipitation exerted important impacts on vegetation
growth. The precipitation of 1998 ismuch higher widely in Xilingol Prefecture. Table 1. Correlation analysis of NDVI and Precipitation indifferent counties of Xilingol Prefecture (1982-2003).
In some regions, the precipitation is 200
mm more than average level of 22 years(1982-2003). However, in 1989 and 2001,
there is very little rain in most areas ofXilingol Prefecture. Figure 2 shows thatNDVI changed to a large degree due to thehighly variable precipitation.
Thecorrelation analysis of NDVI andprecipitation in different counties inXilingol Prefecture also shows the sameresult (Table 1).
In all counties of
Xilingol Prefecture, NDVI has highlyrelated with precipitation.

83

3.2 Middle scale: the radius is 25 km to Table 2. Information on receiving ‘aoter’ in Baiyintala Gacha.
hundreds km
On middle scale, it is always possible forherders to find resort place in drought because ofhigh spatial heterogeneity of precipitation within
this scale. In fact, pervasive drought or wetness
throughout Xilingol Prefecture, like 1989 and 1998
in Fig. 2, is very rare. In most years, theprecipitation distribution is similar to the status in2001 in Fig. 2: some regions had good rain and others had little rain. According to our interview inBaiyintala Gacha in western region of Xilingol Prefecture, there is a serious drought in 2006, which
compelled herders moving their herds to other places to avoid drought (‘aoter’ in Mongolian). Most
herders found rangeland available in the same county, which were over 25 km far away. Of course,herders in Baiyintala Gacha do not always need to go ‘aoter’. They also received ‘aoter’ when they had
abundant rain (Table 2). Therefore, for middle scale, there is high heterogeneity of rainfall within thisscale. But seeing the middle scale as a whole, the total vegetation productivity is comparatively stable
and herders can always find available resource to avoid drought impacts within middle scale.
3.3 Small scale: the radius is less than 25 km
On small spatial scale, water resource is very limited to meet livestock drinking requirement.
Figure 3 shows rangeland map of two herders’ groups in Baiyintala Gacha. The rangeland on the left is 4
km wide and 10 km long, and the rangeland on the right is 8 km wide and 8 km long. Seeing rangeland ofherders’ groups as a whole, there is at least one water well in every group, and also some water puddles.
After rainfall, livestock can drink water from puddles. If there is no rain for long time, they can drink
from water well. In this way, livestock can get enough water resource if they are grazed within the wholegroup rangeland. However, under the LRDCRS, rangeland was distributed to individual households (fourhouseholds in left map and five households in right map). Some households, such as Bayaer and Taoga,
are very lucky to have water wells, but other households can only have puddles or even no water resources,
such as Xiao Xinjiletu, Huaer and Gangsuhe. As we know, it is impossible to dig water well in every
household in drylands due to limited distribution of groundwater and high cost. Therefore, it is very
difficult for them to meet water requirement of livestock in daily management.
Based on the hierarchical framework of water resources established in Xilingol Prefecture, theheterogeneity of water resources on different scales has been explained, which can provide theoretical basis
for rangeland management and animal husbandry development. First of all, on large scale of Xilongol
Prefecture, according to the correlation analysis of precipitation and vegetation growth, precipitation hasexerted most important impacts on vegetation growth. Therefore, for policy makers, it is urgent to attachmuch importance on precipitation in the process of rangeland management. Moreover, it is impossible toachieve the goal of rangeland restoration by using current dominant methods, which only depends on thedecrease of livestock population andforage plantation. Secondly, on middle
scale with radius of 25 km to hundreds
km, there is high heterogeneity ofprecipitation
withinthisscale.
Drought happens frequently andrandomly in some areas, which compels
herders go ‘aoter’ to avoid loss oflivestock.
Meanwhile, rainfall isabundant for other regions, which canprovide forage for these ‘aoter’
livestock.
Therefore, seeing frommiddle scale as a whole, the total
Fig. 3. Rangeland map of herders’ groups in Baiyintala Gacha.
precipitation is comparatively stable and84

livestock confronted with drought can always find resort places to survive. For animal husbandry, it isnecessary to provide possibility to move herds within middle scale to help herders maintain their herds,
which is the basic asset of their livelihood. Thirdly, on small scale with radius less than 25 km, livestock
can find stable water resource provision on this scale under normal weather conditions. However, ifrangeland is divided into small pieces, it is very difficult for individual household to find enough water
because the heterogeneity of groundwater is very high in these small pieces. Therefore, in daily
management of animal husbandry, there is a minimum unit for rangeland use, e.g. rangeland of herders’group, to meet basic livestock requirement for water and achieve stable development of animal husbandry.
Compared the assumptions of LRDCRS with this hierarchical framework of water resources, it isobvious that the LRDCRS is implemented based on over-simplified or even incorrect ecosystem characters.
In arid and semi-arid areas in Xilingol Prefecture, it is impossible to have invariable abiotic factors. The
precipitation fluctuates to a large degree and the CV of precipitation has exceeded 30 percent in someregions. Under this condition, it is also impossible to have stable and uniform vegetation growth.
However, the implementation of LRDCRS had divided rangeland into small pieces and made it impossible
to move herds. The extensive use of individual sites as management units has probably contributed to theperception that non-equilibrium vegetation dynamics occur more frequently than if larger land areas had
been evaluated (Landsberg et al., 2002). Therefore, herders have been confronted with increased risk andrangeland has been used improperly, which led to degradation. For the LRDCRS, there are four aspects
need to be re-thought urgently. First of all, carrying capacity management should be carried out on large
scale or middle scale, which has stable total vegetation productivity, rather than on individual household’s
rangeland. Secondly, for livestock management, it is important to pay attention on its moving anddistribution according to the change of precipitation distribution rather than only focusing on total livestock
population. Thirdly, it is more reasonable to combat frequent drought by moving herds rather thantransport high-price forage to feed livestock in drought. At last, the only way to decrease cost of livestock
breeding is herders’ cooperation, including rangeland use, livestock management, marketing and so on.
4. Conclusions
In conclusion, institutional arrangement must be designed based on natural resource heterogeneity andecosystem characters. Otherwise, the institutional change will cause destructive results even though it isstarted with a good will. Based on the hierarchical framework of water resource in Xilingol Prefecture,
there are three recommendations for rangeland management. On large scale, rangeland management
policy should pay more attention on the impact of precipitation on vegetation. On middle scale, moving
strategy to combat drought should be facilitated by local government to minimize herders’ loss. On smallscale, it is necessary to promote herders’ cooperation to ensure groundwater availability in daily
management of livestock breeding.
ReferencesBriske D. D., Fuhlendorf S. D., Smeins F.E. (2003): Vegetation dynamics on rangelands: a critique of the current paradigms. Journalof Applied Ecology, 40: 601-614
Dalintai (2006): Uniting Herders’ Households and Rotating Grazing to Protect Rangeland Culture in Xilingol League, Inner
Mongolia. Project proposal of Tsuuria Center for the Study of Ecology in Inner Mongolia's Pastoral Region. (in Chinese)
Ellis J.E., Swift D.M. (1988): Stability of African pastoral ecosystems: Alternate paradigms and implications for development.
Journal of Range Management, 41: 450-459.
Fernandez-Gimenez M.E., Diaz B.A. (1999): Testing a non-equilibrium model of rangeland vegetation dynamics in Mongolia.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 36: 871-885.
Illius A.W., O’Connor T.G. (1999): On the relevance of nonequilibrium concepts to arid and semiarid grazing systems. EcologicalApplications, 9: 798-813.
Joint Research Team of Rangeland Ecology (2003): It is urgent to combat desertification and build green barrier: the investigation ofrangeland ecology and restoration in Inner Mongolia. Research World, 3: 14-18. (in Chinese)
Landsberg J., James C.D., Maconochie J., Nicholls A.O., Stol J., Tynan R. (2002): Scale-related effects of grazing on native plantcommunities in an arid rangeland region of South Australia. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39: 427-444
Levin S.A. (1992): The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology, 73: 1943-1967.
O’Neill R.V. (2001): Is it time to bury the ecosystem concept? Ecology, 82: 3275-3284.
Wiens J.A. (1989): Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology, 3: 385-397.
Wu Jianguo, Loucks Orie L. (1995): From Balance of Nature to Hierarchical Patch Dynamics: A Paradigm shift in Ecology. The
Quarterly Review of Biology, 70: 439-466