Next Article in Journal
Transaction Risks and Governance Choice for the Urban-Rural Transfer of Development Right in China: The Case of Chengdu
Previous Article in Journal
Differentiated Climate Drivers of Carbon and Water Use Efficiencies Across Land Use Types in the Yellow River Basin, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 14
Issue 8
10.3390/land14081617
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Rotational Grazing on Soil Quality and Animal Behavior in an Integrated Crop–Livestock (ICL) System on Small Subtropical Farms

by
Valdemir Antoneli
1,
Leticia Martini Gamba
1,
Joao Anésio Bednarz
1,
Maria Paz Corrales Marmol
2,
Michael Vrahnakis
3,*,
Aristeidis Kastridis
3 and
George N. Zaimes
4
1
Department of Geography, Campus of the Irati, Unicentro University, Paraná 84500-000, Brazil
2
Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, Autonomous University of San Sebastian, San Lorenzo 2160, Paraguay
3
Department of Forestry, Wood Sciences and Design, University of Thessaly, GR-43131 Karditsa, Greece
4
Laboratory of Geomorphology, Edaphology & Riparian Areas (GERi Lab), Democritus University of Thrace, GR-66100 Drama, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2025, 14(8), 1617; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14081617
Submission received: 14 July 2025 / Revised: 31 July 2025 / Accepted: 6 August 2025 / Published: 8 August 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The usage of land on small farms in subtropical regions varies with climatic conditions. Agricultural cultivation typically occurs during the spring and summer (of the southern hemisphere), with tobacco being the primary crop on most small farms. During these seasons, livestock graze in pastures and woodlots. After the tobacco harvest (March), farmers plant winter cover crops, and by May, livestock is moved from the pastures to the agricultural areas. This study aimed to examine how grazing influences soil density, water infiltration rates, and animal behavior across different land types (pasture, native forest, eucalyptus reforestation, and agriculture) during the tobacco-growing season, and the off-season when grazing occurs on agricultural lands. It was found that forage availability and climatic conditions determined grazing duration in pastures and forests, under Integrated Crop–Livestock (ICL) systems. Higher forage volume in the agriculture area reduced grazing time and increased resting periods. Eucalyptus reforestation areas had the best soil conditions due to minimal grazing occurring there. An increase in soil bulk density and a decrease in water infiltration rates were observed at the end of the grazing period in both pasture and woodland areas. Year-round ICL systems appear to enhance soil quality through fallow periods, improving forage availability, soil moisture retention, and water infiltration as well.

1. Introduction

In subtropical climates, land use in small farms is characterized by extensive agricultural systems [1], where technology and mechanization in farming are limited. Animals are always raised in these systems, typically grazing on pasture and forest lands, and during certain periods of the year (off-season for crops), they also graze on agricultural lands. Such management systems allow relatively small farms to be utilized to their full potential, increasing profitability, and are characterized as an Integrated Crop–Livestock (ICL) system.
Worldwide, several alternative agricultural practices have emerged that are profitable for small farms, which include agroecological production [2], crop diversification [3], agroforestry systems [4,5], and the cultivation of cash crops, such as tobacco [6]. In the subtropical zone, tobacco cultivation has become an important source of income for small farms. With approximately 2.5 ha, it is possible to generate enough profit to sustain rural livelihoods on an annual basis [6]. It is worth noting that tobacco cultivation is a seasonal activity in the southern hemisphere, with planting in September and harvesting in March (this cycle may vary depending on the region). From April to August, the period is referred to as the off-season, during which agricultural activities decline, leading to alternate land use throughout the year, thus allowing for the implementation of ICL farming. During the off-season, oats (like Avena strigosa) are seeded on the agricultural land, in a density of approximately 80 kg ha−1, to serve as a pasture during the winter. During tobacco cultivation, animals graze on natural pastures and woodlands. This ICL farming system has been widely adopted in small farms in South America; in southern Brazil, the system is being accepted, as most of the summer croplands are left fallow during the winter due to climatic conditions [7].
It is important to note that ICL systems aim to develop sustainable interactions between their activities (crops, pastures, and animals) [8] with the goal of improving environmental conditions and farm profitability [9]. The adoption of an ICL system can enhance production processes, increasing labor efficiency, economic stability, and risk reduction. This system shows potential for increasing profitability and improving environmental conditions [10]. Numerous studies have been conducted in recent years on ICL systems, addressing topics, such as carbon sequestration [11,12,13], carbon’s role in soil aggregates [14], sustainable land use [15], soil quality [16,17], soil properties [18], soil organic carbon stocks [19], synergy between agricultural production and environmental quality [20], and economic profitability [21].
However, the implementation of ICL systems in areas designated for tobacco cultivation remains underexplored, mainly due to the specific dynamics of this agricultural activity. The intense variation in management practices throughout the tobacco production cycle leads to changes in soil quality, often associated with high levels of degradation [22,23]. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate how different land types—such as pastures, agricultural areas, native forest woodlots, and reforested areas—influence parameters such as grazing time, soil bulk density, and water infiltration rate. The study’s hypothesis was that grazing time would vary according to land type, being longer in pastures and shorter in native forests and reforested areas due to differences in forage availability. Additionally, it was expected that cattle would make little use of eucalyptus areas because of the low forage supply, and that animals tend to spend more time resting in agricultural areas.

2. Materials and Methods

The study was conducted between May 2023 and April 2024, with two data collection campaigns: one at the beginning of the grazing period and another at the end, after the animals were removed. During this period, forage availability was estimated, animal behavior was monitored, soil samples were collected to evaluate bulk density and moisture, and water infiltration rates were measured.

2.1. Study Area

The small farm used in this research is located in the Boa Vista River Basin, municipality of Guamiranga, S.E. Paraná region, Brazil, (25°08′22″ S, 50°53′30″ W, elevation 815 m a.s.l.). It is situated on the Paraná sedimentary basin and on the western edge of the Second Paraná Plateau. These areas have steep reliefs and shallow soils. This farm was chosen due to its representativeness of the characteristic small farms in the basin, where approximately 75% of the farms rely on tobacco cultivation, as their main source of income.
The study area of the farm is 9 ha, consisting of 2.5 ha of ombrophile mixed native Araucaria forest, 1 ha of Eucalyptus reforestation with perennial grassland, 2.3 ha of pasture (perennial grassland), and 3.2 ha of agricultural land (Figure 1). In the pasture, native forest, and eucalyptus reforestation, animals are raised extensively, including 15 dairy cattle and 2 horses used for agricultural activities.
During the tobacco planting season, from September to March (spring and summer), the animals are confined to pasture and forest lands, with a stocking rate of approximately 2.5 AU ha−1. After the tobacco cultivation ends in March, the soil is tilled, and the annual bristle oat (Avena strigosa) is sown at a seed density of approximately 80 kg ha−1. From May to August, the animals were confined to the agricultural land in a rotational grazing system. The area is divided into 4 fenced plots of approximately 0.7 ha. The animals remain in each plot for about 10 days. The stocking rate in the agricultural area is 4.6 AU ha−1. During this period, the pasture and forest lands are not subjected to grazing (Table 1).
The woodland component (native forest) of the ICL system is composed of tree species such as Araucaria angustifolia, Campomanesia xanthocarpa, Casearia sylvestris, Ocotea puberula, and Rapanea ferruginea. The pasture provides forage mostly from the dominant subtropical perennial grass bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) [24].
Growing Eucalyptus grandis is a common practice among local tobacco producers, as they use its wood to generate energy for drying tobacco leaves. The average wood consumption per tobacco harvest is approximately 60 m3 (approximately 50 trees). Eucalyptus reforestation is typically organized on small plots, within the animal grazing areas. There is a rotation for cutting Eucalyptus trees for firewood during the tobacco season, with a cycle of approximately 8 years (local farmer, pers.com).
According to the meteorological data for the period 2000–2022, the region’s climate is classified as Cfb–Humid Subtropical without a dry season, with summer temperatures not exceeding 22 °C, and frost occurring during the colder months (Figure 2). During the cold period, frosts occur that influence the agricultural dynamics of the region. The historical average temperature recorded in the region is 21.0 °C during summer, 17.5 °C in autumn, 13.6 °C in winter, and 17.9 °C in spring, indicating seasonal variation characteristic of a subtropical climate. The annual average rainfall is 1623.1 mm, with precipitation relatively evenly distributed across the seasons: 29.7% occurs in summer, 21.1% in autumn, 20.6% in winter, and 28.5% in spring. As a result, there is no clearly defined dry or rainy season. On average, a rainfall event is recorded every 10 days.
The dominant soil type, present in all land types, is cambisols. Slopes are homogenous and medium-inclined, ranging from 9 to 13% (Table 2). Soil pH presents slight differences among land types, ranging from 5.6 to 6.1. Native forest presents a higher mean soil organic matter (42.1 g/kg−1) (%)) and pasture a lower value (30.4 g/kg−1) (%)). The soil texture was clay loam for native forest and clay for the remaining land types.

2.2. Sample Collection

Two data collections were conducted; at the beginning (May 2023) and the end (August 2024) of the grazing period. Soil density, antecedent soil moisture, and water infiltration rate in the soil were estimated. In both campaigns, 6 randomly selected collection points were identified in each land type (Figure 1). Soil density and moisture samples were collected at depths of 0–10, 10–20, 20–30, and 30–40 cm, totaling 24 samples per collection for each land-use type. The infiltration rate was measured at the same points where soil samples were collected, again with 6 repetitions per area, totaling 24 infiltration measurements per collection.

2.3. Animal Daily Behavior

Throughout the study, the animals’ grazing behavior was monitored. Two individuals (cattle) were selected each day for monitoring, and their daily behavior was tracked by means of a GPS attached to their collars. Horses were not included in our evaluation, as they were primarily engaged in agricultural activities most of the time. In each season, 4 monitoring days were selected, totaling 16 days of evaluation. The monitoring of animal behavior was conducted from the moment the animals left the stables for the pastures (in the morning) until they returned in the afternoon. The monitoring period was approximately 10 h. The animals were observed throughout the day, and a stopwatch was used to record the time spent in each area (pasture and forest). Additionally, the locations and times when the animals rested were recorded.

2.4. Forage Availability

Forage availability was expressed as above-ground biomass (AGB) of fresh forage. Data collection surveys were conducted to assess AGB in native pastures, forest lands, and oat crops. All available AGB within a 1 × 1 m2 area was collected from all land types and immediately weighed. AGB was expressed in kg ha−1. Two data collection surveys were conducted: one before livestock were introduced into pastures and forests (August 2023) and another immediately after livestock were removed from pastures and forests (May 2024). In the agricultural land, data were collected at the beginning and ending of the grazing period (May and August 2023, respectively). In each campaign, samples were collected from 10 points in each land type. The oat volume was collected before livestock was introduced and after the end of grazing activity.

2.5. Soil Bulk Density

Soil density was determined using the volumetric ring method [25]. Undisturbed soil samples were collected using an iron ring with a volume of 100 cm3. Each sample was taken to the laboratory for analysis, weighed, and placed in an oven to dry at 105 °C. After 24 h, the samples were removed and weighed again. To calculate the bulk density, the mass of the soil was divided by the volume of the ring (g cm−3). A total of 24 soil bulk density samples were collected in each survey (both surveys 48). There were six randomly selected samples for each land use.

2.6. Water Infiltration and Antecedent Moisture

To evaluate water infiltration in the soil across different land types, a manual double-ring infiltrometer was used, consisting of two cylinders—one with a diameter of 400 mm and the other with 900 mm—along with a graduated burette to measure the volume of water added to the inner cylinder (400 mm). The purpose of the outer ring (900 mm) is to generate only vertical flow in the smaller ring (400 mm), reducing the lateral flow of water into the soil. The measurement duration was 1 h, with readings taken every 5 min. The surface soil moisture on the data collection days was measured using a soil moisture sensor HOBOnet T11 model, with 10 repetitions at each measurement point. Next to the randomly selected points for bulk density, infiltration measurements were taken. Two surveys were conducted (September 2023 and March 2024). It is important to note that the infiltration measurements were taken 10 days after the last rainfall event, in order to standardize antecedent soil moisture.

2.7. Data Analysis

An analysis of variance (ANOVA, one-way) was employed to compare bulk density, soil water infiltration, forage quantity, and animal behavior among land uses. A Tukey test was used to determine the statistical significance of the comparison of means between land uses at the level of 5%. In addition, we applied the Pearson model correlation analysis between parameters of forage volume (t ha−1), grazing time (h), rest time (h), soil bulk density (g cm−3), soil moisture (%), and soil water infiltration rate (mm h−1) in native pasture, forests, and agricultural land.

3. Results

3.1. Animal Grazing Dynamics

The grazing time in spring was 10.25 h per day. Of this total time, 47.6% of the time was spent in pastures, 29.9% in the forest, 5.3% in eucalyptus reforestation, and 17.2% in resting (lying down) (Figure 3). Of the total rest time, 74% occurred in the pasture and 26% in the forest. The time animals spent grazing during the summer was 10.42 h. In this period, 39.2% of the time was spent in pastures, 35.4% in the forest, 10.3% in eucalyptus reforestation, and 15.1% resting. Of the total resting time, 82% was spent in the forest and 18% in the pasture.
In May, the animals were transferred to the agricultural land for grazing. They were left there for grazing until August, when the farmer started preparing the soil for tobacco cultivation again. The daily routine of the animals grazing in the agricultural land was similar to that in native pastures. During the night, they were confined to the stables, and in the morning, they were taken out to graze. The animals were confined only to the agricultural land, without having access to the pasture and native forest. The time that animals spent in the agricultural area in the autumn was 9.50 h (Figure 4). Of this total time, 46.5% was for grazing, while 53.5% was for resting. The average grazing time for the animals during winter was 9.28 h. When comparing animal behavior between the two seasons, it was observed that in autumn, animals rested for 5.01 h (52.7%) and grazed for 4.53 h (47.8%) (Figure 4). In contrast, during winter, the pattern was reversed, with the majority of the time allocated to grazing (6.18 h or 65.5%) and a shorter duration spent resting.

3.2. Forage Availability

Forage availability at the beginning of the grazing period (September) showed a significant variation among land types (Figure 5). The Eucalyptus reforestation indicated the lowest biomass values, followed by the forest and pastures.
Forage availability in the pasture was 81% lower at the end compared to the beginning of the grazing period (Figure 5). A significant reduction was also observed in the native forest, with a 42.1% decrease between the two periods. In contrast, no significant variation was observed in the eucalyptus reforestation area, with forage availability remaining relatively stable—50.7% at the beginning and 49.3% at the end of the grazing period. The greatest variation occurred in the agricultural land, where the availability of forage (oats) at the beginning of the grazing period was 4.2-times lower than at the end (Figure 5). Our findings indicate that the forage availability at the end of grazing in the agricultural area was similar to the values found in the pastures after grazing.

3.3. Soil Bulk Density

At the end of the grazing period, an increase in soil bulk density was observed down to a depth of 30 cm in the pasture area, with the most pronounced change occurring in the surface layer, which showed an 83.2% increase compared to the beginning of the period (Figure 6). This variation was progressively decreasing with increasing depth. The smallest change in soil density between the two periods was recorded in the eucalyptus reforestation area. In contrast, the greatest variation was observed in the agricultural land, followed by the pasture, forest, and eucalyptus reforestation areas. In agricultural land specifically, soil bulk density at the end of the grazing period was 58% higher than at the beginning, although no significant variation was observed below the 20 cm depth. In the eucalyptus reforestation area, soil density remained stable in the upper layers (0–20 cm), with no significant changes between the two sampling periods.

3.4. Water Infiltration and Antecedent Moisture

The highest water infiltration rate was observed in the Eucalyptus reforestation (76.8 mm h−1) at the beginning of the grazing period (September), while the lowest rate was found in the agricultural land at 29.8 mm h−1 at the end of the animals’ grazing (March) (Figure 7). The agricultural area exhibited the greatest variation in total infiltration rate between the two periods. At the beginning of grazing, total infiltration in agriculture was 59.5 mm h−1, while at the end of grazing, it decreased to 29.8 mm h−1 (a reduction of 99.6%). The forest showed less variation in infiltration rate between the two periods, being 5.5% higher at the beginning of grazing compared to the end of grazing.
The infiltration rate showed significant variation for up to 40 min of monitoring in agricultural land; after this period, the values were similar. In forest and pasture, this variation occurred for up to 15 min, indicating similarity after that period. The eucalyptus reforestation did not show significant variation between the two collection periods (Figure 7). The total soil moisture throughout the profile did not show significant variation at the significance level of 5%. The highest soil moisture rate was observed in the Eucalyptus reforestation (32 mm h−1), followed by the native forest (28.5 mm h−1, approx.) and agricultural land (27.3 mm h−1), while the pasture had the lowest soil moisture (22 mm h−1).

3.5. Relationships Between Variables

The correlation coefficients revealed that forage volume appeared to be the factor with the greatest influence on grazing time (r = 0.867, p < 0.001), soil density (r = 0.621, p < 0.01), and infiltration rate (r = 0.739, p < 0.001) (Table 3). On the contrary, forage availability showed no significant correlation with soil moisture in forest and agricultural areas (r = 0.259, p > 0.05). Eucalyptus reforestation showed the lowest correlation coefficients compared to other land-use types. The weakest correlations were observed between animal behavior dynamics and both soil physical conditions and forage availability. In contrast, the strongest correlations were found between soil physical properties, infiltration, and moisture.

4. Discussion

Numerous studies around the world have indicated the influence of climate and geographic location on pasture availability [26,27]. In subtropical regions, low temperatures during the colder months reduce pasture productivity and availability [28,29], leading animals to move more in search of food, thereby altering the environmental conditions of the soil. Reduced forage availability during the colder months leads smallholder farmers to use agricultural land as pasture during the winter. This practice allows the recovery of native pastures, which remain fallow without grazing during this period.
Our findings show that during spring and summer, animals exhibited different behaviors. The time they spent in pastures during spring was 8% higher than in summer. On the other hand, the time spent in the forest during [26,27] spring was 6% lower. In subtropical forests, deciduous species (which lose their leaves in winter) are present that increase the ground cover on the forest floor. This condition can increase the shading of the undergrowth, altering its morphophysiological characteristics [30]. There was also a significant variation in the resting time, which was 92% higher in spring compared to summer. Concerning resting locations, in spring, most resting time was in open pastures, while in summer, most resting time was in the native forest. This animal behavior is probably due to two reasons. Forage availability in summer is generally less than in spring; animals spend more time looking for fresh green forage and also become more relaxed in open pastures. The greater the pasture availability in spring, the lower the mobility of animals within the forest. In this case, when there was less availability of pasture, the animals increased their grazing time to compensate for the lower rumen fill and satiety [31].
Rainfall distribution during the study period did not appear to significantly influence grazing dynamics, likely due to its relatively uniform pattern throughout the year. Historical climate data for the region indicate the absence of a well-defined dry or rainy season, with precipitation occurring, on average, every 10 days. In contrast, temperature fluctuations directly affected forage availability, influencing cattle behavior particularly in terms of grazing and resting time [32]. In the summer, the forage availability of pastures decreased, and animals used the forest more in search of food and also for protection [33]. In addition, the thermal stress is higher in summer than in spring; thus, animals more frequently rest in forests.
In summary, the variation in animal mobility among the seasons can be attributed to climatic conditions. During the warmer periods, animals tend to use the forest for resting, alleviating thermal stress [34]. Pastures associated with woodlots provide forage, shade, and shelter for animals, thus improving their thermal comfort during the hottest hours of the day [35], as well as on cold and rainy days [36,37]. Forests used for extensive livestock grazing consist of small areas with sparse trees (woodlots) with no woody understory and herbaceous plants.
The limited time that animals spent in eucalyptus reforestation was due to the lack of forage. The density of the planting, the layer of litter on the surface, and the competition for water and nutrients hindered the development of grasses [38]. During the evaluation of the animal behavior, it was observed that the eucalyptus reforestation was used mostly for shelter, during certain hours of the day.
In agricultural lands (autumn and winter), the behavior of animals differed in relation to pastures. In autumn, the resting time of animals was higher than their grazing time. This condition is related to forage availability, which during autumn was four-times higher compared to summer (end of grazing in the agricultural land). Therefore, forage availability affects grazing time [39,40].
The dynamics of animal grazing in terms of grazing and resting times in different land types altered soil density and water infiltration rate. Our findings indicate that at the end of grazing activity in the pasture (in summer), there was an increase in soil density of about 83%, while in the forest, the alteration was only observed in the surface layer of the soil. In eucalyptus reforestation, the data showed no differences in both periods, due to low forage availability that led to low visitation and movement of animals in these areas. During spring, the variation in soil density in pastures was indirectly regulated by the greater forage availability and the shorter time animals were present. In summer, animal movement times have the same pattern; however, soil density in the forest was lower than in pastures.
The forest maintains soil moisture, and through the accumulation of litter and organic matter on the soil surface, it alters the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil [41]. Conventional soil preparation in tobacco crops reduces soil density and surface compaction [42]. In the current study, a leveling harrow was used, which only disturbs the surface layer of the soil (~15 cm deep) [43,44]. The findings showed that the soil density at the beginning of grazing in the agricultural land was 53% lower than that at the end of the grazing season. However, this variation was observed only up to a depth of 15 cm. Beyond this depth, the soil maintained the same density.
Soil compaction, due to trampling and reduced pasture availability, can lead to higher exposure of the soil surface, interfering with hydrological and geomorphological dynamics [45]. Changes in the physical structure of the soil affect the water retention rate in soils, reduce water infiltration, and enhance surface runoff and soil loss [46,47,48]. The data of this study appeared to be higher than those found in the literature under tobacco cultivation [6,49]. Our findings suggest that agricultural machinery should be used to remove the compacted soil layer left by animal trampling in preparation for the next crop.
Rotational systems with grazing and fallow periods, like the regime utilized by ICL farming, could be a significant alternative for reducing the impact of grazing animals on soil physical properties. It seems to allow for greater recovery of forage compared to continuous grazing systems found in the literature [50], which could contribute to improving soil structure and hydrological dynamics. These improvements reflect on the profitability of the herding activity and underpin the significance of ICL as a sustainable farming system towards soil integrity in subtropical regions. This system should be promoted and utilized in rural areas of Brazil where most people have small farms.
This study investigates the influence of animal behavior on soil quality within an Integrated Crop–Livestock (ICL) system implemented on a small farm engaged in tobacco cultivation. Emphasis was placed on evaluating the effects of intermittent grazing, considering the unique characteristics of such systems. Observations focused on daytime animal behavior, as livestock were confined to stables during nighttime hours.
The findings underscore the importance of animal management practices in maintaining soil health and suggest that behavioral patterns can serve as indicators of system sustainability. The study also highlights key directions for future research, including variations in stocking density, full-time behavioral monitoring, the role of vegetation structure in pasture quality and thermal comfort, pre-grazing soil conditions shaped by tobacco cultivation, and the influence of forage diversity on animal behavior. These insights contribute to a deeper understanding of the complex interactions between livestock management and soil conservation in diversified agricultural systems.

5. Conclusions

Pasture productivity and availability, along with climatic conditions, influenced grazing time in pasture and forest areas in subtropical regions under an ICL system. Greater forage availability resulted in shorter grazing periods and longer resting times for the animals. The best soil conditions were found in eucalyptus reforestation areas, due to limited animal access. In contrast, intensive grazing in agricultural areas during the tobacco off-season increased soil compaction and reduced water infiltration rates.
The ICL system, with pasture rotation and fallow periods, improved soil quality by increasing water infiltration and forage availability. This integrated approach proved to be a promising strategy for enhancing environmental sustainability and farm profitability. This is a system that should be promoted by policy makers to be adopted in rural areas that have many small farms. However, further research is needed, especially in tobacco-growing areas where soil degradation is more pronounced.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.A., L.M.G. and J.A.B.; methodology, V.A. and J.A.B.; validation, V.A., L.M.G. and J.A.B.; formal analysis, L.M.G.; investigation, V.A.; resources, V.A.; data curation, V.A. and J.A.B.; writing—original draft preparation, V.A., M.P.C.M. and M.V.; writing—review and editing, M.V., A.K., G.N.Z. and M.P.C.M.; visualization, V.A.; supervision, V.A.; project administration, V.A. and M.V.; funding acquisition, V.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Araucaria, Foundation Paraná Government, grant number Public Call No. 09/2021. Agreement 378/2021.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Kirkman, K.P.; Fynn, R.W.S.; McGranahan, D.; O’Reagain, P.J.; Dugmore, T. Future-proofing extensive livestock production in subtropical grasslands and savannas. Anim. Front. 2023, 13, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Durham, T.C.; Mizik, T. Comparative economics of conventional, organic, and alternative agricultural production systems. Economies 2021, 9, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mazzocchi, C.; Orsi, L.; Ferrazzi, G.; Corsi, S. The dimensions of agricultural diversification: A spatial analysis of Italian municipalities. Rural. Sociol. 2020, 85, 316–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kokkora, M.I.; Vrahnakis, M.; Kleftoyanni, V. Soil quality characteristics of traditional agroforestry systems in Mouzaki area, central Greece. Agrofor. Syst. 2022, 96, 857–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tsiakiris, R.; Stara, K.; Kazoglou, Y.; Kakouros, P.; Bousbouras, D.; Dimalexis, A.; Dimopoulos, P.; Fotiadis, G.; Gianniris, I.; Kokkoris, I.P.; et al. Agroforestry and the climate crisis: Prioritizing biodiversity restoration for resilient and productive Mediterranean landscapes. Forests 2024, 15, 1648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Antoneli, V.; Bednarz, J.A.; Thomaz, E.L. Tobacco harvest phase is critical to runoff and soil loss in conventional tillage system. Soil Use Manag. 2023, 1, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Moraes, A.d.; Carvalho, P.C.d.F.; Lustosa, S.B.C.; Lang, C.R.; Deiss, L. Research on Integrated Crop-Livestock Systems in Brazil. Rev. Ciência Agronômica 2014, 45, 1024–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Martin, G.; Moraine, M.; Ryschawy, J.; Magne, M.A.; Asai, M.; Sarthou, J.P.; Duru, M.; Therond, O. Crop–livestock integration beyond the farm level: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 36, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tey, Y.S.; Brindal, M. Factors Influencing Farm Profitability. In Sustainable Agriculture Reviews; Lichtfouse, E., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; Volume 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Paul, B.K.; Epper, C.A.; Tschopp, D.J.; Long, C.T.M.; Tungani, V.; Burra, D.; Hok, L.; Phengsavanh, P.; Douxchamps, S. Crop-livestock integration provides opportunities to mitigate environmental trade-offs in transitioning smallholder agricultural systems of the Greater Mekong Subregion. Agric. Syst. 2022, 195, 103285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Brewer, K.M.; Gaudin, A.C.M. Potential of crop-livestock integration to enhance carbon sequestration and agroecosystem functioning in semi-arid croplands. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2020, 149, 107936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Assmann, J.M.; Anghinoni, I.; Martins, A.P.; Costa, S.E.V.G.D.A.; Cecagno, D.; Carlos, F.S.; Carvalho, P.C.D.F. Soil carbon and nitrogen stocks and fractions in a long-term integrated crop–livestock system under no-tillage in southern Brazil. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 190, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Liu, L.; Zheng, H.; Liu, Z.; Ma, Y.Z.; Han, H.; Ning, T. Crop–Livestock integration via maize straw recycling increased carbon sequestration and crop production in China. Agric. Syst. 2023, 210, 103722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bansal, S.; Chakraborty, P.; Kumar, S. Crop–livestock integration enhanced soil aggregate-associated carbon and nitrogen, and phospholipid fatty acid. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 2781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. dos Reis, J.C.; Rodrigues, G.S.; de Barros, I.; Rodrigues, R.d.A.R.; Garrett, R.D.; Valentim, J.F.; Kamoi, M.Y.T.; Michetti, M.; Wruck, F.J.; Rodrigues-Filho, S.; et al. Integrated crop-livestock systems: A sustainable land-use alternative for food production in the Brazilian Cerrado and Amazon. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 283, 124580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Buller, L.S.; Bergier, I.; Ortega, R.; Moraes, A.; Bayma-Silva, G.; Zanetti, M.R. Soil improvement and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions for integrated crop–livestock systems: Case study assessment in the Pantanal savanna highland, Brazil. Agric. Syst. 2015, 137, 206–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Simões, V.J.L.P.; de Souza, E.S.; Martins, A.P.; Tiecher, T.; Bremm, C.; da Silva Ramos, J.; Duarte Farias, G.; de Faccio Carvalho, P.C. Structural soil quality and system fertilization efficiency in integrated crop-livestock system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2023, 349, 108453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Vanolli, B.d.S.; Dias, H.B.; da Luz, F.B.; Lamparelli, R.A.C.; Magalhães, P.S.G.; Cherubin, M.R. Crop–Livestock Integrated Systems Improve Soil Health in Tropical Sandy Soils. Agronomy 2025, 15, 378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vogado, R.F.; de Souza, H.A.; Sagrilo, E.; de Brito, L.D.C.R.; Matias, S.S.R.; Neto, M.L.T.; de Oliveira Junior, J.O.L.; de Andrade, H.A.F.; Leite, L.F.C. Soil organic carbon stocks and fractions under integrated systems and pasture in the cerrado of Northeast Brazil. Catena 2024, 243, 108196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lemaire, G.; Franzluebbers, A.; Carvalho, P.C.d.F.; Dedieu, B. Integrated crop–livestock systems: Strategies to achieve synergy between agricultural production and environmental quality. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 190, 4–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Alderkamp, L.M.; van Zandbrink, R.M.E.; Meulman, F.; van Middelaar, C.E.; de Olde, E.M.; Hoes, A.; de Roo, N. Social aspects of integrated crop-livestock systems: Key for future policy. Animal 2025, 19, 101564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Roy, A.; Mostafa, M. Impact Assessment of Tobacco Cultivation on Soil Ecosystem Using Multi-Evaluation Techniques. Asian J. Environ. Res. 2024, 1, 217–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Thomaz, E.; Antoneli, V. Long-term soil quality decline due to the conventional tobacco tillage in Southern Brazil. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2022, 68, 719–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Antoneli, V.; Pulido Fernández, M.; de Oliveira, T.; Lozano-Parra, J.; Bednarz, J.A.; Vrahnakis, M.; García-Marín, R. Partial grazing exclusion as strategy to reduce land degradation in the traditional Brazilian faxinal system: Field data and farmers’ perceptions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. EMBRAPA. Manual de Métodos de Análise de Solo, 2nd ed.; Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Solos: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1997. (In Portugues) [Google Scholar]
  26. Chang-Fung-Martel, J.; Harrison, M.; Rawnsley, R.; Smith, A.; Meinke, H. The impact of extreme climatic events on pasture-based dairy systems: A review. Crop Pasture Sci. 2017, 68, 1158–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Giridhar, K.; Samireddypalle, A. Impact of Climate Change on Forage Availability for Livestock. In Climate Change Impact on Livestock: Adaptation and Mitigation; Sejian, V., Gaughan, J., Baumgard, L., Prasad, C., Eds.; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2015; pp. 97–112. [Google Scholar]
  28. Churchill, A.C.; Zhang, H.; Fuller, K.J.; Amiji, B.; Anderson, I.C.; Barton, C.V.M.; Carrillo, Y.; Catunda, K.L.M.; Chandregowda, M.H.; Igwenagu, C.; et al. Pastures and climate extremes: Impacts of cool season warming and drought on the productivity of key pasture species in a field experiment. Front Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 836968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Curtis, A.K.; Scharf, B.; Eichen, P.A.; Spiers, D.E. Relationships between ambient conditions, thermal status, and feed intake of cattle during summer heat stress with access to shade. J. Therm. Biol. 2017, 63, 104–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Geremia, E.V.; Crestani, S.; Mascheroni, J.D.C.; Carnevalli, R.A.; Mourão, G.B.; da Silva, S.C. Sward structure and herbage intake of Brachiaria brizantha cv. Piatã in a crop-livestock-forestry integration area. Livest. Sci. 2018, 212, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Galli, J.R.; Cangiano, C.A.; Pece, M.A.; Larripa, M.; Milone, D.; Utsumi, S.; Laca, E. Monitoring and assessment of ingestive chewing sounds for prediction of herbage intake rate in grazing cattle. Animal 2018, 12, 973–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Turner, M.D.; Schlecht, E. Livestock mobility in sub-Saharan Africa: A critical review. Pastoralism 2019, 9, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Herbut, P.; Hoffmann, G.; Angrecka, S.; Godyń, D.; Corrêa Vieira, F.M.; Adamczyk, K.; Kupczyński, R. The effects of heat stress on the behaviour of dairy cows—A review. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2021, 21, 385–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Deniz, M.; Schmitt Filho, A.L.; Hötzel, M.J.; de Sousa, K.T.; Pinheiro Machado Filho, L.C.; Sinisgalli, P.A. Microclimate and pasture area preferences by dairy cows under high biodiversity silvopastoral system in Southern Brazil. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2020, 64, 1877–1887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. de Sousa, K.T.; Deniz, M.; Vale, M.M.d.; Dittrich, J.R.; Hötzel, M.J. Influence of microclimate on dairy cows’ behavior in three pasture systems during the winter in south Brazil. J. Therm. Biol. 2021, 97, 102873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Magalhães, C.A.; Zolin, C.A.; Lulu, J.; Lopes, L.B.; Furtini, I.V.; Vendrusculo, L.G.; Zaiatz, A.P.S.R.; Pedreira, B.C.; Pezzopane, J.R. Improvement of thermal comfort indices in agroforestry systems in the southern Brazilian Amazon. J. Therm. Biol. 2020, 91, 102636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Pezzopane, J.R.M.; Bosi, C.; Nicodemo, M.L.F.; Santos, P.M.; Gomes da Cruz, P.; Parmejiani, R.S. Microclimate and soil moisture in a silvopastoral system in southeastern Brazil. Bragantia 2015, 74, 110–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chapman, D.F.; Person, J.A.; Cosgrove, G.P.; Barker, D.J.; Marotti, D.M.; Venning, K.J.; Rutter, S.M.; Hill, J.; Thompson, A.N. Impacts of spatial patterns in pasture on animal grazing behavior. Intake Perform 2007, 47, 399–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Launchbaugh, K.L. Grazing animal behavior. Forages 2020, 2, 827–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Paciullo, D.S.C.; Fernandes, P.B.; Carvalho, C.A.B.; Morenz, M.J.F.; Lima, M.A.; Maurício, R.M.; Gomide, C.A.M. Pasture and animal production in silvopastoral and open pasture systems managed with crossbred dairy heifers. Livest. Sci. 2021, 245, 104426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Waring, B.G.; Adams, R.; Branco, S.; Powers, J.S. Scale-dependent variation in nitrogen cycling and soil fungal communities along gradients of forest composition and age in regenerating tropical dry forests. New Phytol. 2016, 209, 845–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Orzech, K.; Wanic, M.; Załuski, D. The effects of soil compaction and different tillage systems on the bulk density and moisture content of soil and the yields of winter oilseed rape and cereals. Agriculture 2021, 11, 666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Horn, R. Time dependence of soil mechanical properties and pore functions for arable soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2004, 68, 1131–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Reichert, J.M.; Suzuki, L.E.A.S.; Reinert, D.J.; Horn, R.; Håkansson, I. Reference bulk density and critical degree-of-compactness for no-till crop production in subtropical highly weathered soils. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 102, 242–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tufekcioglu, M.; Schultz, R.C.; Zaimes, G.N.; Isenhart, T.M.; Tufekcioglu, A. Riparian Grazing Impacts on Streambank Erosion and Phosphorus Loss Via Surface Runoff. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2013, 49, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Donovan, M.; Monaghan, R. Impacts of grazing on ground cover, soil physical properties and soil loss via surface erosion: A novel geospatial modelling approach. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 287, 112206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Löbmann, M.T.; Tonin, T.; Stegemann, J.; Zerbe, S.; Geitner, C.; Mayr, A.; Wellstein, C. Towards a better understanding of shallow erosion resistance of subalpine grasslands. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 276, 111267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pilon, C.; Moore, P.A.; Pote, D.H.; Pennington, J.H.; Martin, J.W.; Brauer, D.K.; Raper, R.L.; Dabney, S.M.; Lee, J. Long-term effects of grazing management and buffer strips on soil erosion from pastures. J. Environ. Qual. 2017, 46, 364–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Antoneli, V.; Rebinski, E.A.; Bednarz, J.A.; Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Keesstra, S.D.; Cerdà, A.; Pulido Fernández, M. Soil erosion induced by the introduction of new pasture species in a faxinal farm of Southern Brazil. Geosciences 2018, 8, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bilotta, G.S.; Brazier, R.E.; Haygarth, P.M. The impacts of grazing animals on the quality of soils, vegetation, and surface waters in intensively managed grasslands. Adv. Agron. 2007, 94, 237–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 14 01617 g001
Figure 1. The location of the study area. The soil sampling points correspond to black dots. The colors represent the areas occupied by four land types.
Figure 1. The location of the study area. The soil sampling points correspond to black dots. The colors represent the areas occupied by four land types.
Land 14 01617 g001
Land 14 01617 g002
Figure 2. The pluviothermic diagram with the monthly average precipitation (mm) and temperature (°C) for the period 2000–2022. Vertical lines represent the standard error of the mean (n = 23).
Figure 2. The pluviothermic diagram with the monthly average precipitation (mm) and temperature (°C) for the period 2000–2022. Vertical lines represent the standard error of the mean (n = 23).
Land 14 01617 g002
Land 14 01617 g003
Figure 3. Daily time (h) animals spent for grazing in different land types and for resting. Vertical bars represent the standard error of the mean, n = 16. Same letters show no significant statistical variation at the 5% level between the two grazing periods (spring and summer).
Figure 3. Daily time (h) animals spent for grazing in different land types and for resting. Vertical bars represent the standard error of the mean, n = 16. Same letters show no significant statistical variation at the 5% level between the two grazing periods (spring and summer).
Land 14 01617 g003
Land 14 01617 g004
Figure 4. The time (h) animals spent for grazing and resting in the agricultural land. Vertical bars represent the standard error of the mean (n = 16).
Figure 4. The time (h) animals spent for grazing and resting in the agricultural land. Vertical bars represent the standard error of the mean (n = 16).
Land 14 01617 g004
Land 14 01617 g005
Figure 5. Forage availability, expressed as fresh AGB (t ha−1) estimated at the beginning (A) and the end (B) of the grazing period in four land types. Same letters show no significant statistical variation at the 5% level between the two grazing periods. Lowercase letters compare the values of availability for each land type in the grazing period. Uppercase letters compare the values of availability for each land type between the two periods. Vertical bars represent the standard error of the mean (n = 16).
Figure 5. Forage availability, expressed as fresh AGB (t ha−1) estimated at the beginning (A) and the end (B) of the grazing period in four land types. Same letters show no significant statistical variation at the 5% level between the two grazing periods. Lowercase letters compare the values of availability for each land type in the grazing period. Uppercase letters compare the values of availability for each land type between the two periods. Vertical bars represent the standard error of the mean (n = 16).
Land 14 01617 g005
Land 14 01617 g006
Figure 6. Comparison of soil bulk density between the beginning and the end of grazing: (A) agricultural area; (B) pasture; (C) native forest; (D) Eucalyptus reforestation. Same letters horizontally, show no statistically significant variation at the 5% level between the two grazing periods. Horizontal bars represent the standard error of the mean, n = 16.
Figure 6. Comparison of soil bulk density between the beginning and the end of grazing: (A) agricultural area; (B) pasture; (C) native forest; (D) Eucalyptus reforestation. Same letters horizontally, show no statistically significant variation at the 5% level between the two grazing periods. Horizontal bars represent the standard error of the mean, n = 16.
Land 14 01617 g006
Land 14 01617 g007
Figure 7. Water infiltration rate in soil under different land types ((A) agriculture, (B) forest, (C) pasture, (D) reforestation). Water infiltration was measured for 1 h. Vertical bars represent the standard error of the mean, n = 6.
Figure 7. Water infiltration rate in soil under different land types ((A) agriculture, (B) forest, (C) pasture, (D) reforestation). Water infiltration was measured for 1 h. Vertical bars represent the standard error of the mean, n = 6.
Land 14 01617 g007
Table 1. The monthly allocation of farming activities (grey bars) in the studied ICL system during one year.
Table 1. The monthly allocation of farming activities (grey bars) in the studied ICL system during one year.
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
Cultivation
Tabacco
Avena
Land type used by grazing animals
Pasture
Forest
Agriculture
Note: Information on the dynamics of agricultural activities and changes in land use and occupation during the research was provided by the farmer.
Table 2. Soil characteristics of each land type (number of soil samples n = 6 at a depth of 0–10).
Table 2. Soil characteristics of each land type (number of soil samples n = 6 at a depth of 0–10).
VariablesLand Type
Native ForestPastureAgricultureEucalyptus Reforestation
Slope (%)1013910
Soil typeCambisol haplicCambisol haplicCambisol haplicCambisol haplic
Sand (%)25 ± 0.1926 ± 0.2126 ± 0.2328 ± 0.21
Silt (%)37 ± 0.1130 ± 0.1629 ± 0.1932 ± 0.17
Clay (%)38 ± 0.3444 ± 0.2945 ± 0.1840 ± 0.15
Soil pH5.6 ± 0.025.9 ± 0.016.1 ± 0.015.8 ± 0.01
Soil OM (g/kg−1) (%)42.1 ± 0.3830.4 ± 0.1231.6 ± 0.0933.6 ± 0.1
Table 3. The Pearson correlation coefficients between parameters of forage volume (t ha−1), grazing time (h), rest time (h), soil bulk density (g cm−3), soil moisture (%), and soil water infiltration rate (mm h−1) in native pasture, forests, and agricultural land.
Table 3. The Pearson correlation coefficients between parameters of forage volume (t ha−1), grazing time (h), rest time (h), soil bulk density (g cm−3), soil moisture (%), and soil water infiltration rate (mm h−1) in native pasture, forests, and agricultural land.
Native Pasture
Forage
(t ha−1)		Animals Grazing (h)Animals
Rest (h)		Bulk Density
(g cm−3)		Soil Moisture (%)Infiltration Rate (mm h−1)
Forage1.00
Animals grazing0.867 ***1.00
Animals rest0.821 ***0.721 **1.00
Bulk density0.621 **0.792 ***0.532 *1.00
Soil moisture0.761 ***0.442 *0.2320.749 **1.00
Infiltration rate0.739 ***0.721 **0.3140.813 ***0.843 ***1.00
Native Forest
Forage
(t ha−1)		Animals Grazing (h)Animals
Rest (h)		Bulk Density
(g cm−3)		Soil Moisture (%)Infiltration Rate (mm h−1)
Forage1.00
Animals grazing0.567 **1.00
Animals rest0.801 ***0.581 **1.00
Bulk density0.438 *0.492 *0.682 **1.00
Soil moisture0.2590.0290.3090.891 ***1.00
Infiltration rate0.426*0.2930.2070.828 ***0.813 ***1.00
Agricultural Land
Forage
(t ha−1)		Animals Grazing (h)Animals
Rest (h)		Bulk Density
(g cm−3)		Soil Moisture (%)Infiltration Rate (mm h−1)
Forage1.00
Animals grazing0.906 ***1.00
Animals rest0.873 ***0.688 **1.00
Bulk density0.647 **0.725 **0.482 *1.00
Soil moisture0.2590.2890.3490.821 ***1.00
Infiltration rate0.426 *0.2930.2070.801 ***0.792 **1.00
Eucalyptus Reforestation
Forage
(t ha−1)		Animals Grazing (h)Animals
Rest (h)		Bulk Density
(g cm−3)		Soil Moisture (%)Infiltration Rate (mm h−1)
Forage1.00
Animals grazing0.867 ***1.00
Animals rest0.2590.341 *1.00
Bulk density0.349 *0.738 **0.355 *1.00
Soil moisture0.638 **0.2810.2410.409 *1.00
Infiltration rate0.406 *0.590**0.2280.372 *0.898 ***1.00
Significant correlations: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Antoneli, V.; Martini Gamba, L.; Bednarz, J.A.; Corrales Marmol, M.P.; Vrahnakis, M.; Kastridis, A.; Zaimes, G.N. Effect of Rotational Grazing on Soil Quality and Animal Behavior in an Integrated Crop–Livestock (ICL) System on Small Subtropical Farms. Land 2025, 14, 1617. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14081617

AMA Style

Antoneli V, Martini Gamba L, Bednarz JA, Corrales Marmol MP, Vrahnakis M, Kastridis A, Zaimes GN. Effect of Rotational Grazing on Soil Quality and Animal Behavior in an Integrated Crop–Livestock (ICL) System on Small Subtropical Farms. Land. 2025; 14(8):1617. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14081617

Chicago/Turabian Style

Antoneli, Valdemir, Leticia Martini Gamba, Joao Anésio Bednarz, Maria Paz Corrales Marmol, Michael Vrahnakis, Aristeidis Kastridis, and George N. Zaimes. 2025. "Effect of Rotational Grazing on Soil Quality and Animal Behavior in an Integrated Crop–Livestock (ICL) System on Small Subtropical Farms" Land 14, no. 8: 1617. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14081617

APA Style

Antoneli, V., Martini Gamba, L., Bednarz, J. A., Corrales Marmol, M. P., Vrahnakis, M., Kastridis, A., & Zaimes, G. N. (2025). Effect of Rotational Grazing on Soil Quality and Animal Behavior in an Integrated Crop–Livestock (ICL) System on Small Subtropical Farms. Land, 14(8), 1617. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14081617

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop