Back

Climatic and non-climatic drivers of rangeland vegetation change in Nepal

Shrestha, U. B.; Joshi, S.

2026-07-10 ecology
10.64898/2026.07.09.737421 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Nepal's rangelands provide multiple benefits, including support for pastoral livelihoods and alpine biodiversity, regulation of water and soil nutrients, and sequestering carbon. Climate change and anthropogenic pressures are altering these rangelands, leading to vegetation and biodiversity change. However, national-scale assessments of rangeland change are limited in Nepal. This study quantified rangeland changes at multiple spatial scales and assessed the climatic and non-climatic drivers of rangeland change. About 80.7% of Nepal's high-altitude rangeland (> 2,000m) outside protected areas showed no significant change. Among areas exhibiting significant annual maximum NDVI trends, 383,281 ha (18.6%) showed positive and 14,702 ha (0.7%) showed negative trends, corresponding the ratio of increase in vegetation greenness and decline in vegetation greenness to 26:1. Climate predicted positive trends covered 627,184 ha (30.5%), whereas residual trends caused by non-climatic drivers covered 94,656 ha (4.6%). Climate induced negative trends covered 47,609 ha (2.3%) while residual trends were observed in 6,260 ha (0.3%). Negative trend pixels were concentrated mainly within the 3,000 to 5,000 m elevation band, with Karnali Province recording the highest proportional climate predicted decline in vegetation greenness (3.4%). At the municipality scale, rangeland change showed no significant relationship with grazing pressure derived from gridded livestock data, suggesting that grazing pressure alone did not explain the non-climatic vegetation signal. These spatially explicit, nationally consistent results identify where rangeland change is occurring and help distinguish climatic and non-climatic drivers of rangeland vegetation change, providing evidence to support targeted rangeland management under Nepal's federal governance structure.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 1%
46.3%
2
Global Ecology and Conservation
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.0%
50% of probability mass above
3
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 20%
4.9%
4
Conservation Science and Practice
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
5
Environmental Research Letters
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
6
Biological Conservation
46 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.4%
7
Landscape Ecology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
8
PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET
27 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
9
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.4%
10
Biotropica
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
11
Journal of Environmental Management
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
12
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
466 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
13
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.1%
14
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.1%
15
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 34%
1.1%
16
Sustainability
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
17
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
68 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
18
Biodiversity and Conservation
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
19
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 64%
0.9%
20
Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%
21
Viruses
332 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
22
One Health
29 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
23
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 34%
0.6%