Effects of Livestock Exclusion on Stream Habitat and Aquatic Biota: A Review and Recommendations for Implementation and Monitoring

Abstract

AbstractTo inform riparian restoration, research, and monitoring and to provide management recommendations, we reviewed published studies evaluating the physical and biological effectiveness of livestock exclusion and grazing reduction on various metrics in riparian and aquatic areas. We identified 95 North American studies that reported the effects of livestock grazing reduction on physical habitat (channel morphology, mesohabitats, substrate, and bank stability), biological assemblages (riparian vegetation, macroinvertebrates, fish, and birds), and water quality metrics (temperature, nitrates, phosphorus, and turbidity). Most studies reported that methods to reduce or exclude livestock decreased channel width, width‐to‐depth ratio, bank erosion, soil bulk density, bare ground, water temperature, nitrogen, and phosphorus and increased riparian vegetation (cover, height, productivity, biomass, and abundance), riparian bird abundance, and young‐of‐the‐year fishes. Results for channel depth, instream substrate, mesohabitats, water depth, juvenile and adult fishes, and macroinvertebrates showed no consistent response to exclusion. Project success was influenced by the time since exclusion; whether there was complete exclusion or continued grazing; and local climate, geology, and soils. Apart from bank erosion and stability, most of the physical and biological metrics took more than a decade to respond to livestock exclusion. However, coupling exclusion with planting and other restoration measures decreased the recovery time. Complete exclusion of livestock produced more consistent improvements in riparian condition and other metrics than rest–rotation or other grazing management strategies. Understanding how physical and biological metrics respond to livestock exclusion will require (1) focused, long‐term studies using before–after or before–after, control–impact designs; and (2) monitoring of metrics that most consistently respond to exclusion. Ultimately, the design of exclusions should be driven by local climate, geology, biophysical conditions, and management history. Our results highlight the need for watershed‐scale approaches to excluding livestock from broad areas and the need for implementation monitoring to ensure that fencing and other exclusion measures continue to exclude livestock and produce the desired responses.