We compared animal and vegetation responses of a 13 600-ha area under holistic grazing management (HGM) with a similar area under continuous grazing (CGM) in a Patagonian station. Limitations were a dry 2012−2016 experimental period, poorer soils, and grazing of native guanacos (Lama guanicoe) in the HGM area. Forage standing crop in this area before the experience was lower and remained so during the study: (194 ± 31 HGM vs. 244±33 kg dry matter^.ha⁻¹ CGM). Six monitoring sites showed similar and remarkable (though mostly nonsignificant) vegetation improvements in total cover (10.6% HGM vs. 10.9% CGM) and cover of short palatable grasses (21.4% vs. 23.9%, respectively). Species richness showed small changes (−1 vs. −6%), bare soil interpatches decreased (−11.9 vs. −5.4%), and land function indicators of Stability (5.4% vs. 9.9%), Infiltration (12.4% vs. 12.0%), and Nutrient recycling (4.2% vs. 20.6%) increased. Tussock cover changed significantly with grazing management, as it decreased −6% (ns) in HGM and grew 42% (P = 0.03) under CGM, probably due to coarse tussock forage consumption in HGM. Sheep under HGM were 15% lighter (43.9 ± 0.5 HGM vs. 51.7 ± 0.5 kg^.ewe⁻¹ CGM P < 0.001), ewes scored 28% lower body condition (1.60 vs. 2.25, P < 0.001), and lambing rates were 36% lower (48.3 ± 2.1% vs. 74.2 ± 1.9%). Rotation ended in 2015 as a consequence of low lambing rates, and sheep body condition and reproductive rates recovered to similar values in both areas. Positive vegetation changes in both areas may be driven by residual effects of destocking 3 decades ago and show that improvement is possible using moderate stocking rates. Although it could be argued that rest periods of HGM may be positive in the long term, its negative effects on animal production should be addressed, and fast regeneration using intense management in these severely restricted habitats should not be expected. Slow, persistent progress under careful management seems achievable under both grazing systems.

我们在巴塔哥尼亚站比较了在整体放牧管理（HGM）下的13600公顷区域与在连续放牧（CGM）下的类似区域的动物和植被反应。局限性是干旱的2012-2016年试验期，土壤较差以及放牧HGM地区的本地骆驼（Lama guanicoe）。在体验之前，这方面的牧草现存量较低，在研究期间一直如此：（194±31 HGM与244±33千克干物质^。哈哈^-1CGM）。六个监测点的植被总覆盖率（HGM分别为10.6％和CGM的10.9％）和短可口草的覆盖率分别为21.4％和23.9％，显示出相似和显着（尽管大部分不显着）的植被改善。物种丰富度显示出较小的变化（-1对−6％），裸土间斑减少（-11.9对−5.4％），土地功能指标的稳定性（5.4％对9.9％），入渗（12.4％对1.9％）。 12.0％），养分回收（4.2％比20.6％）增加。在放牧管理下，s的覆盖率发生了显着变化，在HGM下，其下降了6％（ns）， 在CGM下增长了42％（P = 0.03），这可能是因为HGM的草消耗量较大。HGM下的绵羊体重减轻了15％（43.9±0.5 HGM对51.7±0.5 kg ^。母羊^-1 CGM P<0.001），母羊的身体状况得分低28％（1.60 vs. 2.25，P <0.001），羔羊率降低36％（48.3±2.1％vs .74.2±1.9％）。由于产羔率低，轮换在2015年结束，绵羊的身体状况和繁殖率在两个地区恢复到相似的水平。这两个地区积极的植被变化可能是由3年前的去库存化残余效应驱动的，表明使用适度的去库存率可以改善这种情况。尽管可以争论的是，长期以来，HGM的休息期可能是积极的，但应解决其对动物生产的负面影响，并且不应期望在这些严格限制的栖息地中通过密集管理来实现快速再生。在这两种放牧制度下，在谨慎管理下缓慢，持续地取得进展似乎是可以实现的。