It’s been estimated that one third of all carbon stocks globally are stored within rangelands or other grassland/shrubland landscapes suitable for grazing by herbivores (Follett & Reed, 2010; Delonge et al., 2014). In particular, rangeland soils are capable of holding high levels of carbon due to their ecological and biogeochemical dynamics (Jackson et al., 2007). Furthermore, these grass/shrub-dominated lands have been found to be more resilient carbon sinks compared to forests in areas susceptible to wildfire because most of their carbon storage is underground (Dass et al., 2018). There remain questions as to the overall impacts and verifications of carbon sequestration on grazing lands that are currently being addressed. However, mitigation of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide appears to be partially achievable through land management on rangelands (Derner & Shuman, 2007). Management controls the potential as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Illustration of management impacts on native grassland systems related to carbon sequestration (Adapted from Shrestha, G. et al., 2018). Red negative indicates perceived/actual loss in carbon sequestration potential. Green positive indicates perceived/actual gain in carbon sequestration potential, and a ? indicates unknown/variable potentials.
As a result of ongoing development of understanding carbon dynamics on rangeland systems in relation to carbon sequestration, numerous efforts are active or being developed to ramp up markets for trading, and ecosystems are being defined as potential for carbon sequestration (Figure 2). Possibilities for marketing carbon and other ecosystem services continue to gain attention and could potentially become advantageous to rangeland managers who market carbon sequestration and other ecosystem services for financial benefit (Brunson & Huntsinger, 2008; Cooper et al., 2005). However, it should not be assumed that ranchers/landowners will automatically participate in these emerging markets, even if financial benefits can be determined. The assumption that “profit” is a primary motivation is a constraint as landowners have demonstrated before that drivers such as lifestyle and heritage may take precedence over straight profit as a motivator of participation in any markets generated from rangelands (Coppock and Birkenfeld, 1999; Fox & Carpenter, 2006; Peterson and Coppock, 2001; Sayre, 2004).
Figure 2. Distribution and estimates of carbon sequestration potential projected through 2050 (From Shrestha, G. et al., 2018)
Ecosystem goods and services are being considered as tangible products that can be generated from rangeland/grazingland systems and their subsequent markets are being created. Challenges remain in the quantification, verification and accounting of these products and in encouraging voluntary participation by landowners. However, for those who do choose to participate, these opportunities provide further diversification options to the traditional livestock/wildlife markets currently in place. With the demands of corporate shareholders holding corporations accountable for sustainability goals, landowners/managers have another opportunity to expand the products being produced by our grazing lands.
— William E. Fox, Ph.D., associate professor, Rangeland, Wildlife & Fisheries Management Department, Texas A&M AgriLife Research rangeland ecologist, Temple