When Hooves Meet Water: The Surprising Science of Wetland Grazing

Part 2 of 4: Katahdin Sheep and Wetland Management in Florida

When Hooves Meet Water

Here's a sentence that probably makes environmentalists nervous: "Let's put livestock in the wetlands."

I know, I know. It sounds wrong. Wetlands are delicate ecosystems, right? Fragile. Easily damaged. The last thing they need is a herd of animals trampling through, chomping on vegetation, stirring up mud. We should fence them off, protect them, and keep the grazers out.

Except that's not what the science says.

Not even close.

Welcome to Part 2 of our series, where we're going to explore research that challenges everything you thought you knew about wetland management. We're talking peer-reviewed studies from Florida, Australia, Europe, and the UK. Research that consistently shows something counterintuitive: carefully managed livestock grazing isn't just compatible with healthy wetlands—it can actually improve them.

Before we talk about whether Katahdin sheep could play a role in Florida's wetlands, we need to understand what happens when livestock and wetlands intersect. And fair warning: some of this research is going to surprise you.

The Florida Studies Nobody Expected

Let's start in our own backyard. Central Florida, to be specific.

Researchers spent fourteen years—fourteen years—studying forty seasonal wetlands scattered across both semi-natural and intensively managed pastures. They wanted to understand how cattle grazing, prescribed fire, and management intensity affected wetland plant communities. These weren't short-term observations. This was the kind of long-haul research that reveals patterns you'd never see in a single growing season.

The results challenged conventional wisdom in ways that made people uncomfortable.

Wetlands where cattle were excluded? Plant diversity actually decreased over time. The researchers observed as certain species took over, resulting in near-monocultures. West Indian marsh grass—listed as invasive in Florida—spreads aggressively in fenced wetlands, forming vast stands of single-species dominance. The kind of ecological simplification that ecologists typically try to prevent.

Meanwhile, grazed wetlands maintained more diverse plant communities. More species. More complexity. More ecological resilience.

This isn't some fringe study. It was published in a respected journal, and the implications are significant: removing grazing can fundamentally alter wetland plant communities, and not always in beneficial ways. The lead researcher noted that cattle exclusion "significantly affected species diversity and composition," with effects persisting for over a decade.

Now, before you rush out and throw cattle into every wetland, hold on. Context matters enormously here. The grazed wetlands followed best management practices. The grazing wasn't random or uncontrolled. But the core finding stands: in certain wetland types, strategic grazing maintains diversity better than complete exclusion.

That's worth sitting with for a moment.

Lessons from Australia's Ephemeral Wetlands

Halfway around the world, Australian researchers tackled a different question in the Murray-Darling Basin's Thegoa Lagoon.

This wetland cycles between wet and dry phases—filled during floods, exposed during droughts. Historically, farmers grazed sheep opportunistically when the wetland dried out. Seemed logical, right? Use the forage when it's available, move the animals when water returns.

But what was happening to the seed bank buried in the mud?

The researchers compared sediments from grazed and ungrazed areas, subjecting them to different water depths to see what would germinate. The results painted a nuanced picture. Grazing did reduce seed density and species richness in the soil. The physical action of hooves and the consumption of seeds and plants changed what lay dormant in the mud.

However—and this is crucial—when grazing was removed completely, pest plants like Cuscuta campestris (dodder) increased dramatically. The absence of grazing created its own problems. The researchers concluded that managed drawdown and controlled grazing could be valuable tools, but only when thoughtfully applied.

The Australian research highlights something important: grazing isn't inherently good or bad for wetlands. It's a tool. And like any tool, the outcome depends entirely on how you use it.

What the British Are Learning About Their Ponds

The UK's Freshwater Habitats Trust has been studying grazed ponds and wetlands for years, and their findings keep reinforcing a surprising conclusion: low-intensity livestock grazing is often overlooked as a conservation tool.

Their research consistently shows that grazed waterbodies typically have higher conservation value than ungrazed ones.

Why? Two mechanisms, both elegantly simple.

First: grazing. Animals nibble and tear vegetation, creating the short, varied structure that many wetland species need. They prevent aggressive plants like Bulrush from overwhelming margins and shallow water. Without grazing pressure, dominant species tend to take over, shading out smaller, rarer plants that need open conditions.

Second: poaching. That's the technical term for what hooves do to wet ground—churning it, creating depressions, exposing bare mud. Sounds destructive, right?

It's not. Not for wetlands anyway.

Many rare wetland plants depend on poached ground. Species like Brown Galingale, Coral Necklace, and Starfruit need bare, wet margins to establish. They evolved with large herbivores—aurochs, wild horses, bison—that created these exact conditions for millennia. Remove the grazers, and you remove the disturbance regime these plants require to survive.

The New Forest in England provides a living example. This area supports extraordinary freshwater biodiversity, including rare and endangered plants. A major reason? Free-roaming ponies and cattle, descendants of centuries of traditional grazing. The depressions their hooves create, the dung they produce, the vegetation patterns they maintain—all of it contributes to what researchers call "pristine, unpolluted" habitat conditions.

Traditional practice, it turns out, was onto something.

The European Perspective: When Herders and Conservationists Agree

A fascinating study from European wetlands took a different approach. Instead of just measuring plants and animals, researchers interviewed both conservationists and traditional herders. They wanted to know: What indicators of wetland health matter to each group? And do their goals conflict?

The results were surprisingly harmonious.

Both groups valued many of the same outcomes. Herders wanted useful forage grasses and fewer tall-growing marsh species. Conservationists wanted wetland birds, protected plant species, habitat heterogeneity, and patches of open vegetation. As grazing intensity increased along a gradient from ungrazed to heavily grazed, 73% of the vegetation attributes changed in a "positive" direction for both groups.

Here's the kicker: There were no opposing preferred trends. Not a single indicator where herders and conservationists wanted opposite outcomes.

The study concluded that "patchy, occasionally and locally intense or heavy wetland grazing by livestock in these landscapes was beneficial for herding and conservation alike."

This matters because wetland management often becomes contentious. Farmers versus environmentalists. Production versus protection. But this research suggests those tensions might be artificial. When grazing is done right—variable intensity, rotational patterns, seasonal adjustments—it can serve multiple goals simultaneously.

What "Done Right" Actually Means

Okay, so strategic grazing can benefit wetlands. But what does "strategic" actually mean in practice?

The literature points to several consistent principles:

Timing is everything. Most guidance emphasizes grazing wetlands during drier periods and removing livestock when ground becomes too wet. This prevents excessive poaching—too much disturbance that damages root systems and creates erosion rather than beneficial heterogeneity. The UK guidance specifically warns against grazing "during the wettest times of the year" to avoid soil compaction and vegetation damage.

Intensity matters more than you'd think. Light, continuous grazing often doesn't create the vegetation structure many species need. Conversely, heavy continuous grazing can damage the system. What works best? Variable intensity. Patches of heavier use mixed with lighter areas. The heterogeneity itself becomes valuable.

Exclusion periods have their place. Some systems benefit from complete rest during critical periods. Flowering seasons, for instance. Nesting times. When grazing sheep specifically, a 4-8 week summer exclusion can protect flower production since sheep selectively eat blooms.

Adjacent uplands are crucial. When wetlands are grazed alongside drier land, livestock naturally move between them based on conditions. They graze the wetland but rest and defecate on firmer ground. This creates a nutrient flow pattern that can actually reduce nutrients in sensitive wetland areas while maintaining forage productivity.

Species selection influences outcomes. Different animals graze differently. Cattle use their tongues to pull and tear. Sheep nibble close with their teeth, reaching vegetation cattle ignore. Mixed grazing—multiple species together—often produces better results than single-species operations.

The Mechanism Behind the Magic

Let's talk about why this works at a fundamental level.

Wetlands evolved with disturbance. For millions of years, large herbivores—megafauna that would dwarf today's cattle—grazed, wallowed, migrated through these landscapes. Wetland plants and animals evolved within this context. They adapted to hoof traffic, selective grazing, nutrient redistribution, and vegetation mosaics created by herds.

When we remove all grazing, we're not preserving some pristine natural state. We're actually creating an unnatural absence of disturbance. Without it, competitive plants dominate. Seed banks decline. Habitat structure simplifies. The diversity we're trying to protect erodes slowly, year by year.

Livestock can't perfectly replicate ancient aurochs or wild horses. But they can approximate some of those ecological functions. The trampling that creates microhabitats. The selective grazing that maintains open structure. The nutrient cycling from dung. The seed dispersal through fur and hooves.

It's not about livestock being "good" for wetlands in some abstract sense. It's about them filling an ecological role that's been empty since we removed the wild herds.

What This Means for Florida

Florida's wetlands face unique pressures. Altered hydrology. Invasive species. Nutrient loading. Climate change impacts. Traditional management tools—herbicides, mechanical clearing, prescribed burning—all have limitations. They're expensive. They require specialized equipment and trained personnel. They can have unintended ecological consequences.

What if there was a complementary approach? Not a replacement for existing methods, but an additional tool in the toolbox?

The research we've explored suggests it's worth investigating. Cattle grazing has already proven beneficial in some Florida wetland types. The principles documented in European and UK studies could translate. The Australian research provides cautionary notes about what to avoid.

But what about sheep specifically? And what about Katahdin sheep in particular?

That's where things get interesting. And uncertain. Because while we have solid research on livestock grazing in wetlands generally, and excellent documentation of Katahdin sheep in Florida pastures, we don't have studies combining both.

We have two puzzle pieces that look like they should fit together. We just haven't actually tried connecting them yet.

In Part 3, we're going to examine Florida's specific wetland challenges—the invasive species, the regulatory framework, the management dilemmas that keep land managers up at night. We'll look at what's being tried now and where the gaps are.

Because before we can ask whether Katahdin sheep could help, we need to understand exactly what problems need solving.

The Question Hanging in the Air

As I've been diving into this research over the past months, talking with wetland managers, reading ecological studies, watching how different grazers interact with wet landscapes, I keep coming back to a simple observation:

We know strategic livestock grazing can benefit wetlands. The science is solid across multiple continents and decades of research. We know Katahdin sheep thrive in Florida's challenging environment. They're proven. They're here.

The question isn't whether each piece works independently. The question is whether anyone's actually trying to put them together.

And if not—why the hell not?

Research Sources

• Boughton, E.H., et al. (2021). "Long-term response of wetland plant communities to management intensity, grazing abandonment, and prescribed fire." Ecology and Evolution

• Nielsen, D.L., et al. (2007). "Impact of sheep grazing on the soil seed bank of a managed ephemeral wetland." Australian Journal of Botany

• Freshwater Habitats Trust. (2025). "Livestock grazing: a natural tool for freshwater conservation?"

• Kelemen, A., et al. (2020). "Conservation and herding co-benefit from traditional extensive wetland grazing." Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment

• USDA NRCS. "Managing Wetland Vegetation" technical guide

• UK Rural Payments Agency. "Supporting guidance for Wetland Management"

Next up: Part 3 – "Florida's Wetland Challenges: What Needs Solving"

Where we examine the invasive species, altered hydrology, and management puzzles facing Florida's 11 million acres of wetlands—and the gaps in our current solutions.