Collaborative adaptive management (CAM) is hypothesized to benefit management of rangeland ecosystems, but the presumed benefits have seldom been quantified, and never in a multipaddock rotational grazing system. Here, we evaluated average daily weight gain (ADG) of livestock (kg steer⁻¹ d⁻¹) in four grazing management treatments during the summers of 2016−2018 in a semiarid shortgrass steppe. These four treatments had the same stocking rate but differed in stocking densities. The three lowest stocking densities were implemented using nonadaptive grazing management, while the highest stocking density was implemented using CAM by an 11-member Stakeholder Group. Three of the four treatments used multipaddock rotational grazing. Growing season precipitation varied from drought in 2016 to near average in 2017 and dry in 2018. During nondrought years, ADG under nonadaptive grazing declined linearly as stocking density increased from low to high. This relationship was not significant during drought (2016). CAM increased absolute livestock production by 0.13 to 0.19 kg steer⁻¹ d⁻¹ in nondrought years, or a 23−25% relative increase in ADG. This benefit of CAM arose from the Stakeholder Group's ability to rotate cattle in response to spatiotemporal heterogeneity across the landscape—i.e., the ability to graze the “right pastures at the right time.” Multiplying the additional grazing season livestock gains achieved through CAM by the monetary value of gains ($ kg⁻¹) resulted in an estimated additional gross revenue return from CAM of $48.16 to $55.54 per steer annually, as compared with revenues from nonadaptive multipaddock rotational grazing under nondrought conditions. These results indicate that CAM, supported with substantial and timely monitoring data, can minimize decreases in livestock production associated with high stocking densities used in multipaddock rotation systems. However, in this experimental context, the economic benefits of increased livestock production associated with CAM were likely insufficient to offset the substantial cost of this approach.

假设协同适应管理（CAM）可以使牧场生态系统受益，但很少能对所推定的利益进行量化，而且从来没有在多牧场轮流放牧系统中实现过。在这里，我们在半干旱短草草原上，于2016-2018年夏季评估了四种放牧管理方法中牲畜的平均日增重（kg steer ^-1 d ^-1）。这四种处理的放养率相同，但放养密度不同。三种最低库存密度是使用非自适应实现的放牧管理，而由11个成员组成的利益相关者组织使用CAM实现了最高放养密度。四种处理方法中的三种使用多围场轮牧。生长季节的降水量有所不同，从2016年的干旱到2017年的接近平均水平，再到2018年变干。在非干旱年份，非适应性放牧下的ADG随种群密度从低到高增加而线性下降。在干旱期间（2016年），这种关系并不明显。CAM使牲畜绝对生产增加了0.13至0.19 kg牛转向^-1 d ^-1在非干旱年份，或平均日增重相对增加23-25％。CAM的这一优势源于利益相关者组织具有响应景观时空异质性而旋转牛的能力，即“在正确的时间正确放牧”的能力。通过CAM获得的额外放牧季节牲畜收益乘以收益的货币价值（$ kg ^-1），与不适应收入相比，每年每头公牛的CAM附加总收益估计为48.16美元至55.54美元。在非干旱条件下的多牧场轮流放牧。这些结果表明，在大量及时的监测数据的支持下，CAM可最大程度地减少与多牧场轮换系统中使用的高放养密度有关的牲畜减产。但是，在此实验环境中，与CAM相关的牲畜生产增加所带来的经济利益可能不足以抵消这种方法的巨额成本。