You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Sustainability
  • Review
  • Open Access

23 October 2019

Socio-ecological Interactions in a Changing Climate: A Review of the Mongolian Pastoral System

,
,
,
and
1
Asian Demographic Research Institute, Shanghai University, No. 333 Nanchen Road, Baoshan District, Shanghai 200444, China
2
Environmental Systems and Engineering, School of Science and Engineering, Meisei University, 29-1006, 2-1-1 Hodokubo, Hino, Tokyo 191-8506, Japan
3
Graduate School of Environment and Information Sciences, Yokohama National University, 79-7 Tokiwadai, Hodogaya, Yokohama 240-8501, Japan
4
Tree Ring Laboratory, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964, USA
This article belongs to the Special Issue Climate Risk and Vulnerability Mapping

Abstract

Coping with climate change in socio-ecological systems is one of the most urgent issues facing the world. This is particularly true in socio-ecological systems, where climate not only influences social and ecosystem dynamics, but also modulates their interaction. In this paper, we presented a conceptual framework through a literature review and a trend analysis for assessing the impact of climate change that incorporates socio-ecological interactions. In particular, we focused on the Mongolian pastoral system, which has tightly coupled socio-ecological interactions, as a model for describing the framework. Our framework suggests that the flexibility in mobility of herders is the principal factor in determining the vulnerability of the socio-ecological system to climate change. The flexibility varies along a climatic gradient and socio-ecological interactions in each region have evolved to be suited to its local climate regime. Herders in northern and central regions of Mongolia move shorter distances, and less flexible, than those in southern (Gobi) region. Climatic hazards, on the other hand have been increasing across Mongolia with a trend toward warmer and drier conditions since the 1960s. We suggest that further warming and drying would have the greatest impact on northern and central regions due to lower flexibility in mobility among herders there coupled with the much higher livestock density in the regions. The findings support that maintaining flexibility of mobile herding will likely be crucial to reducing the vulnerability of the Mongolian pastoral system to climate change.

1. Introduction

Climate change represents one of the gravest threats to the world. Clear assessments of how climate change impacts ecosystems and society are crucial for effective adaptation and mitigation [1,2]. Most scientific studies typically examine the impact of climate change on either ecosystems or society, treating the two systems independently. However, in certain regions, the social and environmental systems themselves are tightly coupled [3,4,5,6]. This is especially true in the drylands of developing countries, where livelihoods are largely dependent on natural resources [5,7]. In such regions, thorough assessments of climate change, related impacts on socio-ecological systems are necessary to maintain a sustainable relationship between society and ecosystem.
The outcome of socio-ecological interactions in a changing climate may be complex [3,6]. Rangelands have been greatly influenced by political and social changes, such as the introduction of the market economy, land privatization and expansion of agriculture [8,9]. Such conditions often drive the systems to be more susceptible to climate change [8]. The objective of this paper is to propose a framework for assessing the impact of climate change from the perspective of socio-ecological interactions (Figure 1). We used the Mongolian pastoral system as a model for describing this framework because of the unique close interconnectedness between pastoral societies and their ecosystem in Mongolia.
Figure 1. Framework for assessing socio-ecological interactions under a changing climate. (a) Interactions between society and ecosystem in a changing climate. The size of the circle indicates the degree of exposure, which depends on the number of population, species or assets that would be affected by hazard. (b) Vulnerability of a socio-ecological system. The black arrows mean that the society (ecosystem) has a strong connection with the ecosystem (society). The dashed black arrows indicate a weak connection, and the gray dashed arrows indicate the loss of a connection. Combinations of arrows determine the strengths of the interactions and vulnerability of the social-ecological system.

2. Framework for Assessing the Impact of Climate Change on Socio-Ecological Systems

The impact of climate change is often quantified by the contribution and interaction between three primary components: hazard, exposure and vulnerability [1]. Within this three-component interactive framework, physical climatic conditions generally constitute the hazard. The exposure means presence of population, species and assets in places that could be adversely affected [1]. The vulnerability of society to the hazard corresponds to the vulnerability construct. Based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s framework, we introduced a new framework that explicitly incorporates socio-ecological interactions (Figure 1). Future climate change, such as decreased precipitation, may change the ecosystem state (E), for example by reducing ecosystem productivity, and society (S) must adapt to new climatic and ecosystem conditions (Figure 1a). Thus, the degree of vulnerability is determined by the flexibility of the society (S) to adapt to a new interaction state with the ecosystem (E) in the future state (Figure 1b). If the society is not flexible and is unable to establish a stable interaction regime with the new ecosystem, such as continued maintenance of high livestock numbers in less productive grassland during drought, the system will become vulnerable through the overuse of grassland. If the interaction between society and the ecosystem is diminished due to these unstable conditions, such as irreversible land degradation, the system will become highly vulnerable to collapse. In such a situation, many herders would be unable to keep their livestock, and eventually would give up being herders. Climate change would amplify the risk of such poverty or conflict in the situation. Therefore, society’s flexible and rapid response to new ecosystem conditions under climate change is key to reducing this vulnerability.

3. Study Site

Mongolia, a country located in north-east Asia, represents a coupled socio-ecological system [4,10,11]. Over 70% of Mongolian land is used by agriculture, largely in the form of nomadic pastoralism, which attempts to maximize both temporally and spatially scarce and variable vegetation resources [12,13]. Nomadism has proven to be a sustainable way of life in Mongolia for multiple millennia [14,15]. Importantly, both the Mongolian economy and livelihood herders depend on the natural resources of the ecosystem. In addition, Mongolia has a strong latitudinal climatic gradient, with the northern regions being wetter than the southern Gobi region, and also being characterized by a more stable precipitation regime (Figure 2a, Supplementary Materials Figure S1). Winter temperature also varied along the latitude, with northern regions being colder than the southern region (Figure 2b, Figure S2). Thus, an opportunity exists to examine the relationship between ecosystem and society along a climatic gradient. We divided the country into five regions based on environmental characteristics (Figure 2c). Mean annual precipitation in northern, central, Gobi, eastern and western regions are 31, 22, 12, 22 and 19 mm/month, respectively.
Figure 2. (a) Summer mean precipitation between 1960–2016 (b) Winter mean temperature between 1960–2016. (c) Five geographic regions in Mongolia. The red star indicates the location of Ulaanbaatar, the capital city of Mongolia.
The main vegetation types differ among regions: mountain forest steppe in the northern region, mountain steppe in the western region, steppe in the central and eastern regions and desert steppe in the Gobi region (Figure 3). Grasslands in Mongolia are mainly dominated by perennial grasses, forbs or shrubs [16]. Covers of shrubs are relatively large in desert steppe, and some tree species can be found in mountain forest steppe [16]. Diversity of plant species is higher in the mountain steppe than in the steppe and desert steppe [17].
Figure 3. Vegetation map in Mongolia. The map is from the Rangelands Atmosphere-Hydrosphere-Biosphere Interaction Study Experiment in Northeastern Asia (RAISE) Data Base http://raise.suiri.tsukuba.ac.jp/DVD/top/map.htm.

4. Materials and Methods

We first conducted a literature review to describe flexibility of mobile herds along a climate gradient that may relate with socio-ecological vulnerability to climate change (Figure 1). Then, we conducted a literature review and trend analysis to detect trends in climate (hazard), livestock population (exposure) and vegetation (ecosystem). We used the Thomson ISI Web of Science database to identify primary literature sources. We searched using the key words ‘trend’ and ‘Mongolia’ and ‘climate’ or ‘vegetation’ or ‘livestock’. We selected papers focusing on Mongolia (not Inner Mongolia). To describe pastoral mobility, we searched using the key words “herder” and “mobility” and “Mongolia”, but this returned few results. Therefore, we utilized other methods to collect relevant references.
For hazard trends, we focused on temperature, precipitation and drought index (scPDSI – Palmer Drought Severity Index). To compute mean temperature and precipitation, and trends in these variables, we used the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit’s (CRU) Ts v4.01 dataset [18], while for the scPDSI analysis we used the van der Schrier et al. (2013) dataset [19]. Both datasets are globally gridded at a 0.5° spatial resolution and cover the period between 1901 and 2016. The datasets are publicly accessible at CRU: https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/hrg/ and scPDSI: https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/drought/.
To analyze trends in vegetation, we used the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), as derived from satellite images. The NDVI dataset is part of the global 15-day University of Maryland Global Inventory Monitoring and Modeling System (GIMMS) NDVI 3g.v1 dataset, comprising data for the period 1981–2016 [20,21], and is accessible at https://ecocast.arc.nasa.gov/data/pub/gimms/3g.v1/. The data are derived from a series of images collected from different National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellites over the period 1981–2015, and have been corrected for calibration, geometrical view, volcanic aerosols (e.g., from El Chichon [1982–1984] and Mt. Pinatubo [1991–1993]) and other effects that are not related to vegetation change, such as cloud cover. The data are available in a 0.0727° × 0.0727° grid format [18,19]. We computed trends in both the climate and NDVI data on a grid-cell-by-grid-cell basis, by first calculating the seasonal means, and then, for each grid-cell, building a linear model and comparing the p-value of its F-statistic against that of a constant model.

7. Exposure: Changes in Population and Livestock Distributions

We focus on the spatial and temporal distributions of the Mongolian population and livestock numbers to examine trends in the exposure parameter. Livestock increased considerably in number and variety following the collapse of socialism in 1990 [13,40]. Livestock types are mainly sheep, goat, horse, cattle and camel. During the pre-1990 Soviet era, the government owned all livestock. After the introduction of capitalism in 1990, livestock ownership was privatized to individual herders. This prompted a great increase in the total livestock population size (Figure 6a). However, this increase in post-1990 livestock population size has been punctuated by large downturns, occurring in 2000–2001 and 2009–2010 [13]. Such livestock mortality events are known as “dzuds”, which translates to “winter disaster causing livestock mortality”. Dzuds are caused by both social and environmental factors [48,49]. The climatic variables most relevant to dzuds are cold winter temperatures and summer drought [50], and livestock mortality is associated with snowfall in winter and vegetation conditions in the previous summer [51]. Especially, drought conditions caused reduction of livestock weight, and livestock may not overcome the severe winter after the drought [52]. In addition to these physical factors, socio-economic factors such as regional poverty, weakened collective actions, loss of traditional knowledge and limited numbers of cross-level institutions may lead to poor pasture and animal conditions. Lack of coordinated pasture management and winter preparations may trigger and exacerbate dzud impacts [48,53]. Although the frequency of dzuds has increased since 1950 [48,49], so too has the number of livestock. Currently, the livestock population in Mongolia is approximately 61 million heads, which is the highest level since livestock census surveys began in 1950, and likely the highest it has ever been (Figure 6a) [13].
Figure 6. Temporal changes and spatial distribution of livestock population.
The central region of Mongolia contains the highest density of livestock (goat and sheep), measured as the number of livestock per square kilometer (Figure 6b). This distribution relates to the location of cities and access to the road networks. The three biggest cities in Mongolia, the capital Ulaanbaatar, and two other major cities, Eldenet and Orhon, are located in the central region. The accessibility of markets in these cities makes this region attractive to herders desiring to sell their livestock (meat, milk, skin, etc.). These socio-economic advantages help explain why livestock populations and herders are concentrated around big cities.
The number of herders relative to the rest of the population has been gradually decreasing since the 1990s, despite the increase in the total Mongolian population (Figure S5). About 26% of the population is currently a herder, while about 69% of the population lives in urban settlements, primarily in Ulaanbaatar [13]. Although the number of herders has decreased, the total number of livestock in the country has increased. Previous studies report that economically poor herders, who tend to have smaller herd sizes, find it harder to recover their losses compared to richer herders, who tend to have larger herds [54,55]. It is likely that the disparity between the rich and poor herders has increased with the introduction of the free market [22,56].
Livestock numbers have increased since 1970 (Figure 6a), especially in northern and central regions. This increase relates to socio-economic factors, such as easier access to roads and transportation [57], and environmental factors, such as access to better quality rangelands [48,49]. However, it remains unclear why the frequency of dzuds has been increasing since 1950 [49], and how climate trends will affect the frequency and intensity of dzuds. To clarify the impact of climate on livestock populations, studies should explore the complex interactions among climate, ecosystem, livestock and society.

9. Climate Change Impacts on the Socio-Ecological System in Mongolia

Pastoral mobility historically has been variable across regions with socio-ecological (pastoral society and grassland ecosystem) interactions traditionally being stable and adapted to the local certain climate regime (Figure 4 and Figure 8). On the other hand, climatic hazards are increasing across Mongolia with a trend toward warmer and drier conditions since the 1960s (Figure 5), which may affect the socio-ecological interaction especially in Northern and Central regions (Figure 8). Flexibility of mobile herding has traditionally been maintained in Gobi region in response to scarce and variable vegetation resources during drought, while it is less flexible in North and Central regions (Figure 4, Table 1). A continuation of hotter and drier trends would have the greatest impact on northern and central regions due to their less flexibility because it is difficult to use alternative grassland during drought. The exclusive management system that characterizes the northern and central regions relies on stable precipitation patterns to maximize livestock numbers. However, the climate trend is most prominent in the central region, wherein the summer temperature has increased (Figure 5a), while summer precipitation for JJA has decreased by ~17.74 mm (Figure 5b) and drought severity has increased since 1960 (Figure 5c). Moreover, livestock number has rapidly increased and high density in Central and Northern regions since the 1990s (Figure 6). That means many herders may get stuck in hazardous grassland with large number of livestock during drought, and that may cause unbalance interaction between herding society and ecosystem (Figure 8). For these reasons, we suggest that social-ecological systems in the northern and central regions are more vulnerable to an increase in drought intensity. Therefore, maintaining flexibility in mobility of herders during disaster periods will be an important measure to mitigate climate change impacts especially in northern and central regions of Mongolia.
Figure 8. Impact of climate change on socio-ecological systems in Mongolia.
Low flexibility of mobile herding in northern and central regions may cause the socio-ecological system to be highly vulnerable to future climate change. The Gobi region includes high flexibility to alternative grassland during drought. If people can maintain this flexibility, it would reduce the system’s vulnerability to future climate change.
While climatic hazard and exposure are increasing significantly in Mongolia, the trends in vegetation resources are not clear (Figure 7). Although some studies have attempted to examine vegetation patterns using satellite imagery, the resulting NDVI trends from 1982 to the present have been equivocal [34,42,58]. Assessment at the community level is challenging given the limited number of studies available. Although there are currently no significant clear trends for vegetation resources, temperature and drought conditions have increased significantly (Figure 5). Drier conditions may cause a reduction in vegetation and soil moisture, and that may in turn lead to an increase in dust outbreaks [83,84]. It will therefore be important for future studies to examine the effect of increased temperatures and drier conditions on the Mongolian rangeland ecosystem.
In addition to vulnerability, “resilience” also plays a role in determining the impacts of climate change [85]. Resilience is defined as the capacity of an ecosystem to resist and recover rapidly from environmental perturbations and still maintain its function [85,86]. Resilience of ecosystems can be expected to decrease from northern to southern areas in Mongolia, because biological diversity and soil quality generally decrease along this same geographical gradient. However, resilience can be modulated by the self-reinforcing mechanism of ecosystems. In plant communities in the Gobi region, for example, drought avoidance and tolerant traits would be selected for under conditions of severe aridity. Despite lower levels of biological diversity in this area, drought-adapted populations would likely show extreme tolerance (resilience) to drought stress. Studies have yet to examine the inherent variations in ecosystem resilience, or how climatic and anthropogenic factors may influence such resilience. Furthermore, we know little about how the ecological resilience of communities might mitigate the impacts of climate change, or to what extent resilience is necessary to sustain ecosystem functioning in the future. In Mongolia, efforts to understand resilience should focus on semi-arid regions, wherein drastic changes in plant communities would be a major threat to human livelihood. The northern and central regions are characterized by a large number of livestock and high plant productivity, thus, it is likely that they have relatively higher resilience to climatic hazards. In summary, future studies should consider resilience, and not just vulnerability, when evaluating regional responses to climate change.

10. Conclusions

Developing comprehensive strategies to cope with climate change is a challenging yet essential task. Human societies are tightly coupled to the ecosystem [3,5], and an understanding of the complex socio-ecological interactions is necessary to predict responses to climate change [6]. We suggest a conceptual framework that captures socio-ecological interactions to assess climate change impacts (Figure 1). We focused on the Mongolian pastoral system as a model for describing the framework. The socio-ecological system in the northern and central regions would be highly vulnerable to continued climate hazards, due to their low flexibility, which makes it difficult for herders to access alternative grassland during drought (Table 1, Figure 4 and Figure 8). Climatic hazard is increasing, as it is getting warmer and drier across Mongolia (Figure 5). Thus, maintaining the flexibility of mobile herding will be an important strategy to mitigate climate change impacts. The framework proposed herein provides a rationale for the inclusion of socio-ecological interactions in future efforts aimed at determining the impacts of climate change, especially in regions showing tight socio-ecological coupling.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/5883/s1, Figure S1: Seasonal mean precipitation over Mongolia in 1960–2016, Figure S2: Seasonal mean temperature over Mongolia in 1960–2016, Figure S3: Spatial temperature trends by season in 1960–2016, Figure S4: Spatial precipitation trends by season in 1960–2016, Figure S5: The number of pastoralist and non-pastoralist households, Table S1. Summary of climate trends in each region of Mongolia in 1960–2016.

Notes

This research partially comes from an abstract for American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting 2017 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AGUFMGC13B0777K.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.K., A.Y., T.S. and S.K.; methodology K.K. and M.P.R.; formal analysis, M.P.R.; resources, K.K. and M.P.R.; writing—original draft preparation, K.K., A.Y. and T.S.; writing—review and editing, M.P.R. and S.K.; visualization, M.P.R.; supervision, S.K.; funding acquisition, K.K. and M.P.R.

Funding

This research was funded by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 15J12081, National Science Foundation Office of Polar Programs (NSF-OPP) Arctic Social Sciences grant #1737788 and Research and Development Initiative, Chuo University, Japan.

Acknowledgments

We thank Park Williams (LDEO-CU) for assistance with NDVI analysis. LDEO contribution number #8357.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; p. 1132. [Google Scholar]
  2. World Economic Forum. The Global Risk Report 2018, 13th ed.; World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  3. Liu, J.; Dietz, T.; Carpenter, S.R.; Alberti, M.; Folke, C.; Morán, E.; Pell, A.N.; Deadman, P.; Kratz, T.; Lubchenco, J.; et al. Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems. Science 2007, 317, 1513–1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Reid, R.S.; Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E.; Galvin, K.A. Dynamics and Resilience of Rangelands and Pastoral Peoples around the Globe. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2014, 39, 217–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tian, L.; Gong, Q.; Chen, J. Coupled dynamics of socioeconomic and environmental systems in Tibet. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 034001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Keys, P.W.; Galaz, V.; Dyer, M.; Matthews, N.; Folke, C.; Nyström, M.; Cornell, S.E. Anthropocene risk. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 667–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sternberg, T. Moderating Climate Hazard Risk through Cooperation in Asian Drylands. Land 2018, 7, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nori, M.; Davies, J. Change of Wind or Wind of Change? Climate Change, Adaptation and Pastoralism; The World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism; International Union for Conservation of Nature: Nairobi, Kenya, 2007; Available online: http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/c__documents_and_settings_hps_local_settings_application_data_mozilla_firefox_profile.pdf (accessed on 23 October 2019).
  9. Wen, L.; Liu, S.; Zhang, X.; Yi, S.; Dong, S.; Lassoie, J.P.; Li, J.; Li, Y.; Li, X. Vulnerability of Worldwide Pastoralism to Global Changes and Interdisciplinary Strategies for Sustainable Pastoralism. Ecol. Soc. 2011, 16, 10. [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen, J.; John, R.; Zhang, Y.; Shao, C.; Brown, D.G.; Batkhishig, O.; Amarjargal, A.; Ouyang, Z.; Dong, G.; Wang, D.; et al. Divergences of Two Coupled Human and Natural Systems on the Mongolian Plateau. Bioscience 2015, 65, 559–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chen, J.; John, R.; Sun, G.; Fan, P.; Henebry, G.M.; E Fernández-Giménez, M.; Zhang, Y.; Park, H.; Tian, L.; Groisman, P.Y.; et al. Prospects for the sustainability of social-ecological systems (SES) on the Mongolian plateau: Five critical issues. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 123004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kaufmann, R.K.; Cleveland, C.J. Environmental Science; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2008; Volume 24, p. 7. [Google Scholar]
  13. National Statistics Office of Mongolia. Environment Mongolian Statistical Year Book; National Statistics Office of Mongolia: Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 2016; pp. 237–252.
  14. Honeychurch, W. The Late and Final Bronze Age Cultures of Mongolia, 1400–1700 BC. In Inner Asia and the Spatial Politics of Empire; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 109–156. [Google Scholar]
  15. Baroni, I.; Gantulga, J.; Magail, J.; Yeruul-Ernedne, C. Three thousand years of nomadism on the Tsatyyn ereg site in the heart of Mongolia. In The Intangible Elements of Culture in Ethnoarchaeological Research; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 151–159. [Google Scholar]
  16. Tuvshintogtokh, I. The Steppe Vegetation of Mongolia; Chinbat Sanchir: Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  17. Lapin, K.; Eipeldauer, A.; Folly, G.; Mank, D.; Bernhardt, K.-G. The Vegetation of North-Western Mongolia: Floristic Checklist and Conservation Status of Mongolian Grassland Flora. Mong. J. Boil. Sci. 2017, 15, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Harris, I.; Jones, P.D.; Osborn, T.J.; Lister, D.H. Updated high-resolution grids of monthly climatic observations—The CRU TS3.10 Dataset. Int. J. Climatol. 2014, 34, 623–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Van der Schrier, G.; Barichivich, J.; Briffa, K.R.; Jones, P.D. A scPDSI-based global data set of dry and wet spells for 1901-2009: Variations in the self-calibrating PDSI. J. Geophys. Res. D Atmos. 2013, 118, 4025–4048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pinzon, J.; Brown, M.E.; Tucker, C.J. Satellite time series correction of orbital drift artifacts using empirical mode decomposition. In Hilbert-Huang, Transform: Introduction and Applications; Huang, N., Ed.; World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.: Singapore, 2005; pp. 167–186. [Google Scholar]
  21. Tucker, C.J.; Pinzon, J.E.; Brown, M.E.; Slayback, D.A.; Pak, E.W.; Mahoney, R.; Vermote, E.F.; El Saleous, N. An Extended AVHRR 8-km NDVI Data Set Compatible with MODIS and SPOT Vegetation NDVI Data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2005, 26, 4485–4498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E. Sustaining the Steppes: A Geographical History of Pastoral Land Use in Mongolia. Geogr. Rev. 1999, 89, 315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Humphrey, C.; Sneath, D. The End of Nomadism? White Horse Press: Winwick, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  24. Honeychurch, W. The heartland of Inner Asia: Mongolia and steppe pastoral nomadism. In Inner Asia and the Spatial Politics of Empire; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 79–108. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kakinuma, K.; Okayasu, T.; Sasaki, T.; Jamsaran, U.; Okuro, T.; Takeuchi, K. Rangeland management in highly variable environments: Resource variations across the landscape mediate the impact of grazing on vegetation in Mongolia. Grassl. Sci. 2013, 59, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. McAllister, R.R.J.; Gordon, I.J.; Janssen, M.A.; Abel, N. Pastoralists’ responses to variation of rangeland resources in time and space. Ecol. Appl. 2006, 16, 572–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, J.; Brown, D.G.; Agrawal, A. Climate adaptation, local institutions, and rural livelihoods: A comparative study of herder communities in Mongolia and Inner Mongolia, China. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 1673–1683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Undargaa, S.; McCarthy, J.F. Beyond Property: Co-Management and Pastoral Resource Access in Mongolia. World Dev. 2016, 77, 367–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fernández-Giménez, M.E. The effects of livestock privatization on pastoral land use and land tenure in post-socialist Mongolia. Nomadic Peoples 2001, 5, 49–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Okayasu, T.; Okuro, T.; Jamsran, U.; Takeuchi, K. An intrinsic mechanism for the co-existence of different survival strategies within mobile pastoralist communities. Agric. Syst. 2010, 103, 180–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kakinuma, K.; Okayasu, T.; Jamsran, U.; Okuro, T.; Takeuchi, K. Herding strategies during a drought vary at multiple scales in Mongolian rangeland. J. Arid. Environ. 2014, 109, 88–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES). Integration of Climate Change Climate Change Adaptation into Sustainable Development in Mongolia; IGES: Kanagawa, Japan, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  33. Liu, Y.Y.; Evans, J.P.; McCabe, M.F.; De Jeu, R.A.M.; Van Dijk, A.I.J.M.; Dolman, A.J.; Saizen, I. Changing Climate and Overgrazing Are Decimating Mongolian Steppes. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e57599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Bao, G.; Bao, Y.; Sanjjava, A.; Qin, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Xu, G. NDVI-indicated long-term vegetation dynamics in Mongolia and their response to climate change at biome scale. Int. J. Clim. 2015, 35, 4293–4306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Vandandorj, S.; Munkhjargal, E.; Boldgiv, B.; Gantsetseg, B. Changes in event number and duration of rain types over Mongolia from 1981 to 2014. Environ. Earth Sci. 2017, 76, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cook, E.R.; Krusic, P.J.; Anchukaitis, K.J.; Buckley, B.M.; Nakatsuka, T.; Sano, M.; PAGES Asia2k Members. Tree-ring reconstructed summer temperature anomalies for temperate East Asia since 800 C.E. Clim. Dyn. 2013, 41, 2957–2972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Davi, N.; D’Arrigo, R.; Jacoby, G.; Cook, E.; Anchukaitis, K.; Nachin, B.; Rao, M.; Leland, C.; Rao, M. A long-term context (931–2005 C.E.) for rapid warming over Central Asia. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2015, 121, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Anchukaitis, K.J.; Wilson, R.; Briffa, K.R.; Büntgen, U.; Cook, E.R.; D’Arrigo, R.; Davi, N.; Esper, J.; Frank, D.; Gunnarson, B.E.; et al. Last millennium Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures from tree rings: Part II, spatially resolved reconstructions. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2017, 163, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Khishigbayar, J.; Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E.; Angerer, J.P.; Reid, R.; Chantsallkham, J.; Baasandorj, Y.; Zumberelmaa, D. Mongolian rangelands at a tipping point? Biomass and cover are stable but composition shifts and richness declines after 20 years of grazing and increasing temperatures. J. Arid. Environ. 2015, 115, 100–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fernández-Giménez, M.E.; Venable, N.H.; Angerer, J.; Fassnacht, S.R.; Reid, R.S.; Khishigbayar, J. Exploring linked ecological and cultural tipping points in Mongolia. Anthropocene 2017, 17, 46–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Xia, J.; Liang, S.; Chen, J.; Yuan, W.; Liu, S.; Li, L.; Cai, W.; Zhang, L.; Fu, Y.; Zhao, T.; et al. Satellite-based analysis of evapotranspiration and water balance in the grassland ecosystems of Dryland East Asia. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e97295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhao, X.; Hu, H.; Shen, H.; Zhou, D.; Zhou, L.; Myneni, R.B.; Fang, J. Satellite-indicated long-term vegetation changes and their drivers on the Mongolian Plateau. Landsc. Ecol. 2015, 30, 1599–1611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Choi, J.W.; Kim, I.G.; Kim, J.Y.; Kim, B.J.; Park, C.H.; Kim, D.W. The assessment of droughts in Northern China and Mongolian areas using PDSI and relevant large-scale environments. Int. J. Climatol. 2016, 36, 3259–3269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pederson, N.; Hessl, A.E.; Baatarbileg, N.; Anchukaitis, K.J.; Di Cosmo, N. Pluvials, droughts, the Mongol Empire, and modern Mongolia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 4375–4379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Hessl, A.E.; Pederson, N.; Byambasuran, O.; Anchukaitis, K.; Leland, C. How Unusual Was the 21st Century Drought in Mongolia? Placing Recent Extremes in an 1100-Year Context. In Proceedings of the Building Resilience of Mongolian Rangelands, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 9–10 June 2015; pp. 80–86. [Google Scholar]
  46. Hessl, A.E.; Anchukaitis, K.J.; Jelsema, C.; Cook, B.; Byambasuren, O.; Leland, C.; Nachin, B.; Pederson, N.; Tian, H.; Hayles, L.A. Past and future drought in Mongolia. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, e1701832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Park Williams, A.; Allen, C.D.; Macalady, A.K.; Griffin, D.; Woodhouse, C.A.; Meko, D.M.; Swetnam, T.W.; Rauscher, S.A.; Seager, R.; Grissino-Mayer, H.D.; et al. Temperature as a potent driver of regional forest drought stress and tree mortality. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 292–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E.; Batkhishig, B.; Batbuyan, B. Cross-boundary and cross-level dynamics increase vulnerability to severe winter disasters (dzud) in Mongolia. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2012, 22, 836–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Middleton, N.; Rueff, H.; Sternberg, T.; Batbuyan, B.; Thomas, D. Explaining spatial variations in climate hazard impacts in western Mongolia. Landsc. Ecol. 2015, 30, 91–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rao, M.P.; Davi, N.K.; D’Arrigo, R.D.; Skees, J.; Nachin, B.; Leland, C.; Lyon, B.; Wang, S.-Y.; Byambasuren, O. Dzuds, droughts, and livestock mortality in Mongolia. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 74012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Tachiiri, K.; Shinoda, M.; Klinkenberg, B.; Morinaga, Y. Assessing Mongolian snow disaster risk using livestock and satellite data. J. Arid. Environ. 2008, 72, 2251–2263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Batima, P. Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation in the Livestock Sector of Mongolia; AIACC Reports; Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology: Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  53. Soma, T.; Schlecht, E. The relevance of herders’ local ecological knowledge on coping with livestock losses during harsh winters in western Mongolia. Pastoralism 2018, 8, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Nakamura, H.; Dorjjadamba, R.; Sodnomdarjaa, D. The Impact of a Disaster on Asset Dynamics in the Gobi Region of Mongolia: An Analysis of Livestock Changes. J. Dev. Stud. 2017, 53, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Oniki, S.; Dagys, K. Recovery from a winter disaster in Töv Province of Mongolia. J. Arid. Environ. 2017, 139, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E.; Batbuyan, B. Law and Disorder: Local Implementation of Mongolia’s Land Law. Dev. Chang. 2004, 35, 141–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Saizen, I.; Maekawa, A.; Yamamura, N. Spatial analysis of time-series changes in livestock distribution by detection of local spatial associations in Mongolia. Appl. Geogr. 2010, 30, 639–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Miao, L.; Luan, Y.; Luo, X.; Liu, Q.; Moore, J.C.; Nath, R.; He, B.; Zhu, F.; Cui, X. Analysis of the Phenology in the Mongolian Plateau by Inter-Comparison of Global Vegetation Datasets. Remote Sens. 2013, 5, 5193–5208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hilker, T.; Natsagdorj, E.; Waring, R.H.; Lyapustin, A.; Wang, Y. Satellite observed widespread decline in Mongolian grasslands largely due to overgrazing. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2014, 20, 418–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Bao, G.; Qin, Z.; Bao, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Li, W.; Sanjjav, A. NDVI-Based Long-Term Vegetation Dynamics and Its Response to Climatic Change in the Mongolian Plateau. Remote Sens. 2014, 6, 8337–8358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tucker, C.J. Red and Photographic Infrared l, lnear Combinations for Monitoring Vegetation. Remote Sens. Environ. 1979, 8, 127–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Miao, L.; Fraser, R.; Sun, Z.; Sneath, D.; He, B.; Cui, X. Climate impact on vegetation and animal husbandry on the Mongolian plateau: A comparative analysis. Nat. Hazards 2016, 80, 727–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sheehy, D.P.; Damiran, D. Assessment of Mongolian Rangeland Condition and Trend 1997–2009; Final Report for the World Bank and The Netherlans-Mongolia Trust Fund for Environmental Reform (NEMO); International Center for Advancement of Pastoral Systems: Wallowa, OR, USA, 2012; p. 46. [Google Scholar]
  64. Nandintsetseg, B.; Shinoda, M. Assessment of drought frequency, duration, and severity and its impact on pasture production in Mongolia. Nat. Hazards 2013, 66, 995–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Jamiyansharav, K.; Fernández-Giménez, M.E.; Angerer, J.P.; Yadamsuren, B.; Dash, Z. Plant community change in three Mongolian steppe ecosystems 1994–2013: Applications to state-and-transition models. Ecosphere 2018, 9, e02145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Suzuki, K.; Tsendeekhuu, T.; Tungalag, R.; Kamijo, T.; Shinoda, M. Evaluation of Plant Species Compositional Changes during the Recent Decades in Mongolian Steppe. J. Arid Land Stud. 2018, 27, 127–134. [Google Scholar]
  67. NAMEM and MEGDT. National Report on the Rangeland Health of Mongolia; Government of Mongolia, National Agency for Meteorology and Environmental Monitoring and Ministry of Environment, Green Development and Tourism: Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 2015.
  68. Dulamsuren, C.; Hauck, M.; Leuschner, C. Recent drought stress leads to growth reductions in Larix sibirica in the western Khentey, Mongolia. Glob. Chang. Boil. 2010, 16, 3024–3035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Shinoda, M.; Nachinshonhor, G.; Nemoto, M. Impact of drought on vegetation dynamics of the Mongolian steppe: A field experiment. J. Arid. Environ. 2010, 74, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Spence, L.A.; Liancourt, P.; Boldgiv, B.; Petraitis, P.S.; Casper, B.B. Climate change and grazing interact to alter flowering patterns in the Mongolian steppe. Oecologia 2014, 175, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Spence, L.A.; Liancourt, P.; Boldgiv, B.; Petraitis, P.S.; Casper, B.B. Short-term manipulation of precipitation in Mongolian steppe shows vegetation influenced more by timing than amount of rainfall. J. Veg. Sci. 2016, 27, 249–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Liancourt, P.; Spence, L.A.; Boldgiv, B.; Lkhagva, A.; Helliker, B.R.; Casper, B.B.; Petraitis, P.S. Vulnerability of the northern Mongolian steppe to climate change: Insights from flower production and phenology. Ecology 2012, 93, 815–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sasaki, T.; Okayasu, T.; Jamsran, U.; Takeuchi, K. Threshold changes in vegetation along a grazing gradient in Mongolian rangelands. J. Ecol. 2008, 96, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sasaki, T.; Ohkuro, T.; Jamsran, U.; Takeuchi, K. Changes in the herbage nutritive value and yield associated with threshold responses of vegetation to grazing in Mongolian rangelands: Grazing impacts on the herbage nutritive value and yield. Grass Forage Sci. 2012, 67, 446–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Huang, K.; Yi, C.; Wu, D.; Zhou, T.; Zhao, X.; Blanford, W.J.; Wei, S.; Wu, H.; Ling, D.; Li, Z. Tipping point of a conifer forest ecosystem under severe drought. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 24011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E.; Allen-Diaz, B.; Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E.; Allen-Diaz, B. Testing a non-equilibrium model of rangeland vegetation dynamics in Mongolia. J. Appl. Ecol. 1999, 36, 871–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Sasaki, T.; Okayasu, T.; Ohkuro, T.; Shirato, Y.; Jamsran, U.; Takeuchi, K. Rainfall variability may modify the effects of long-term exclosure on vegetation in Mandalgobi, Mongolia. J. Arid. Environ. 2009, 73, 949–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Dangal, S.R.S.; Tian, H.; Lu, C.; Pan, S.; Pederson, N.; Hessl, A. Synergistic effects of climate change and grazing on net primary production of Mongolian grasslands. Ecosphere 2016, 7, e01274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Isbell, F.; Craven, D.; Connolly, J.; Loreau, M.; Schmid, B.; Beierkuhnlein, C.; Bezemer, T.M.; Bonin, C.; Bruelheide, H.; De Luca, E.; et al. Biodiversity increases the resistance of ecosystem productivity to climate extremes. Nature 2015, 526, 574–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Oliver, T.H.; Isaac, N.J.B.; August, T.A.; Woodcock, B.A.; Roy, D.B.; Bullock, J.M. Declining resilience of ecosystem functions under biodiversity loss. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 10122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Chuluun, J.; Kakinuma, K.; Ozaki, T.; Takatsuki, S. How Pastoralists in Mongolia Perceive Vegetation Changes Caused by Grazing. Nomad Peoples 2008, 12, 67–73. [Google Scholar]
  82. Sugihara, G.; May, R.; Ye, H.; Hsieh, C.-H.; Deyle, E.; Fogarty, M.; Munch, S. Detecting Causality in Complex Ecosystems. Science 2012, 338, 496–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Lee, E.-H.; Sohn, B.-J. Recent increasing trend in dust frequency over Mongolia and Inner Mongolia regions and its association with climate and surface condition change. Atmos. Environ. 2011, 45, 4611–4616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Munkhtsetseg, E.; Shinoda, M.; Gillies, J.A.; Kimura, R.; King, J.; Nikolich, G. Relationships between soil moisture and dust emissions in a bare sandy soil of Mongolia. Particuology 2016, 28, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Oliver, T.H.; Heard, M.S.; Isaac, N.J.; Roy, D.B.; Procter, D.; Eigenbrod, F.; Freckleton, R.; Hector, A.; Orme, C.D.L.; Petchey, O.L.; et al. Biodiversity and Resilience of Ecosystem Functions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015, 30, 673–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Brand, F. Critical natural capital revisited: Ecological resilience and sustainable development. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 605–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.