Pastoralism in the highest peaks: Role of the traditional grazing systems in maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem function in the alpine Himalaya

80. Carran RA, Ball PR, Theobald PW, Collins MEG. Soil nitrogen balances in urine-affected areas under two moisture regimes in Southland. New Zeal J Exp Agric. 1982; 10: 377–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03015521.1982.10427902 81. Steinauer EM, Collins SL. Effects of Urine Deposition on Small-Scale Patch Structure in Prairie Vege- tation. Ecology. 1995; 76: 1195–1205. https://doi.org/10.2307/1940926 82. Liu C, Song X, Wang L, Wang D, Zhou X, Liu J, et al. Effects of grazing on soil nitrogen spatial hetero- geneity depend on herbivore assemblage and pre-grazing plant diversity. Wan S, editor. J Appl Ecol. 2016; 53: 242–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12537 83. Hamilton EW, Frank DA. Can plants simulate soil microbes and their own nutrient supply? Evidence from a grazing tolerant grass. Ecology. 2001; 82: 2397–2402. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658 (2001)082[2397:CPSSMA]2.0.CO;2 84. Wilson CH, Strickland MS, Hutchings JA, Bianchi TS, Flory SL. Grazing enhances belowground car- bon allocation, microbial biomass, and soil carbon in a subtropical grassland. Glob Chang Biol. 2018; 24: 2997–3009. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14070 PMID: 29377461 85. Pandey CB, Singh JS. Rainfall and Grazing Effects on Net Primary Productivity in a Tropical Savanna, India. Ecology. 1992; 73: 2007–2021. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941451 86. Fay PA, Carlisle JD, Knapp Alan K., Blair JM, Collins SL. Productivity responses to altered rainfall pat- terns in a C4-dominated grassland. Oecologia. 2003; 137: 245–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442- 003-1331-3 PMID: 12845518

87. Castro SM, Sanchez-Azofeifa GA, Sato H. Effect of drought on productivity in a Costa Rican tropical dry forest. Environ Res Lett. 2018; 13: 045001. 88. Hector A. The Effect of Diversity on Productivity: Detecting the Role of Species Complementarity. Oikos. 1998; 82: 597. https://doi.org/10.2307/3546380 89. Kelemen A, To¨ro¨ k P, Valko´ O, Dea´k B, To´ th K, To´thme´re´ sz B. Both facilitation and limiting similarity shape the species coexistence in dry alkali grasslands. Ecol Complex. 2015; 21: 34–38. https://doi. org/10.1016/J.ECOCOM.2014.11.004 90. Guerrero-Ramı´rez NR, Craven D, Reich PB, Ewel JJ, Isbell F, Koricheva J, et al. Diversity-dependent temporal divergence of ecosystem functioning in experimental ecosystems. Nat Ecol Evol. 2017; 1: 1639–1642. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0325-1 PMID: 28970481 91. Sonkoly J, Kelemen A, Valko´ O, Dea´ k B, Kiss R, To´ th K, et al. Both mass ratio effects and community diversity drive biomass production in a grassland experiment. Sci Rep. 2019; 9: 1848. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41598-018-37190-6 PMID: 30755623 92. Reich PB, Tilman D, Isbell F, Mueller K, Hobbie SE, Flynn DFB, et al. Impacts of Biodiversity Loss Escalate Through Time as Redundancy Fades. Science (80-). 2012; 336: 589 LP– 592. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.1217909 PMID: 22556253 93. Stachowicz JJ. Mutualism, Facilitation, and the Structure of Ecological CommunitiesPositive interac- tions play a critical, but underappreciated, role in ecological communities by reducing physical or biotic

stresses in existing habitats and by creating new habitats on which many species depend. Bioscience. 2001; 51: 235–246. 94. Huston MA. Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: re-evaluating the ecosystem function of bio- diversity. Oecologia. 1997; 110: 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050180 PMID: 28307235 95. Loreau M. Separating Sampling and Other Effects in Biodiversity Experiments. Oikos. 1998; 82: 600– 602. https://doi.org/10.2307/3546381 96. Li X, Liu Z, Wang Z, Wu X, Li X, Hu J, et al. Pathways of Leymus chinensis Individual Aboveground Biomass Decline in Natural Semiarid Grassland Induced by Overgrazing: A Study at the Plant Func- tional Trait Scale. Wang W, editor. PLoS One. 2015; 10: e0124443. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0124443 PMID: 25942588 97. Brundage AL, Petersen WE. A Comparison Between Daily Rotational Grazing and Continuous Graz- ing. J Dairy Sci. 1952; 35: 623–630. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(52)93747-8 98. Teague WR, Dowhower SL. Patch dynamics under rotational and continuous grazing management in large, heterogeneous paddocks. J Arid Environ. 2003; 53: 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1006/JARE. 2002.1036 99. Vecchio MC, Bolaños VA, Golluscio RA, Rodrı´guez AM. Rotational grazing and exclosure improves grassland condition of the halophytic steppe in Flooding Pampa (Argentina) compared with continuous grazing. Rangel J. 2019; 41: 1–12. 100. Jacobo EJ, Rodrı´guez AM, Bartoloni N, Deregibus VA. Rotational Grazing Effects on Rangeland Veg-

etation at a Farm Scale. Rangel Ecol Manag. 2006; 59: 249–257. https://doi.org/10.2111/05-129R1.1 PLOS ONE Role of the traditional grazing systems in maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem function in alpine Himalaya PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245221 January 7, 2021 18 / 19