The Drought Calculator: Decision Support Tool for Predicting Forage Growth During Drought

Dunn, G. H.; Gutwein, Megan; Green, Timothy R.; Menger, A; Printz, Jeff

doi:10.2111/rem-d-12-00087.1

Cited by 9 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In response, USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) developed an online drought calculator to help ranchers assess forage availability (Dunn et al 2013). USDA's Risk Management Agency (RMA) also rolled out a pilot pasture, rangeland, forage (PRF) insurance policy for livestock producers, indexed to NOAA's gridded precipitation product (USDA Risk Management Agency 2015).…”

Section: Regional Climate Response Collaborativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regional Climate Response Collaboratives: Multi-Institutional Support for Climate Resilience

Averyt

Derner

Dilling

et al. 2018

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Federal investments by U.S. agencies to enhance climate resilience at regional scales grew over the past decade (2010s). To maximize efficiency and effectiveness in serving multiple sectors and scales, it has become critical to leverage existing agency-specific research, infrastructure, and capacity while avoiding redundancy. We discuss lessons learned from a multi-institutional “regional climate response collaborative” that comprises three different federally supported climate service entities in the Rocky Mountain west and northern plains region. These lessons include leveraging different strengths of each partner, creating deliberate mechanisms to increase cross-entity communication and joint ownership of projects, and placing a common priority on stakeholder-relevant research and outcomes. We share the conditions that fostered successful collaboration, which can be transferred elsewhere, and suggest mechanisms for overcoming potential barriers. Synergies are essential for producing actionable research that informs climate-related decisions for stakeholders and ultimately enhances climate resilience at regional scales.

show abstract

Section: Regional Climate Response Collaborativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regional Climate Response Collaboratives: Multi-Institutional Support for Climate Resilience

Averyt

Derner

Dilling

et al. 2018

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Drought Calculator (DC) was developed to help farmers and ranchers predict reductions in forage production due to drought for 11 western states. The DC is most useful in giving a quantitative prediction of forage growth potential (Dunn et al 2013). For this example, we used the New Mexico Drought calculator with historic and predicted precipitation for Otero County, New Mexico to estimate changes in forage production.…”

Section: Rangelandmentioning

confidence: 99%

County-level climate change information to support decision-making on working lands

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners across the USA make weather-and climate-related management decisions at varying temporal and spatial scales, often with input from local experts like crop consultants and cooperative extension (CE) personnel. In order to provide additional guidance to such longer-term planning efforts, we developed a tool that shows statistically downscaled climate projections of temperature and precipitation consolidated to the county level for the contiguous US. Using the county as a fundamental mapping unit encourages the use of this information within existing institutional structures like CE and other U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs. A Bquick-look^metric based on the spatial variability of climate within each county aids in the interpretation of county-level information. For instance, relatively higher spatial variability within a county indicates that more localized information should be used to support stakeholder planning. Changes in annual precipitation show a latitudinal dipole where increases are projected for much of the northern US while declines are projected for counties across the southern US. Seasonal shifts in countylevel precipitation are projected nationwide with declines most evident in summer months in most regions. Changes in the spatial variability of annual precipitation for most counties were less than 10 mm, indicating fairly spatially homogenous midcentury precipitation changes at the county level. Annual and seasonal midcentury temperatures are projected to increase across the USA, with relatively low change in the spatial variability (<0.3°C) of temperature across most counties. The utility of these data is shown for forage and almond applications, both indicating a potential decline in production in some future years, to illustrate use of countylevel seasonal projections in adaptation planning and decision-making.

show abstract

“…Although reasonable predictions of growing‐season forage production are possible with accurate knowledge of April–June precipitation (Dunn et al. ), herbivore density adjustments are difficult to make as the growing season progresses. One‐ and three‐month precipitation forecast maps (NOAA ) and GrassCast (Peck et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In our study region, April precipitation is key to initiating plant growth and establishing early‐season estimates of available forage (Dunn et al. ). Furthermore, if there is a precipitation deficit by the end of April, then it is likely that precipitation in later months will fail to fill the gap (Smith , Dunn et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This challenge is especially evident on the shortgrass steppe of central North America, where <30% of the annual precipitation occurs during the fall-winter preceding a growing season (Pielke and Doesken 2008), and livestock producers make herbivore density decisions during late winter/early spring without robust and accurate forecasts of impending growing-season conditions. Although reasonable predictions of growing-season forage production are possible with accurate knowledge of April-June precipitation (Dunn et al 2013), herbivore density adjustments are difficult to make as the growing season progresses. One-and threemonth precipitation forecast maps (NOAA 2019) and GrassCast ; available online) 5 are tools available to assist decision-making for livestock producers in North America, but these forecasts still have high uncertainty prior to the start of the growing-season (e.g., in April).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Large‐scale and local climatic controls on large herbivore productivity: implications for adaptive rangeland management

Raynor

Derner

Hoover

et al. 2020

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rangeland ecosystems worldwide are characterized by a high degree of uncertainty in precipitation, both within and across years. Such uncertainty creates challenges for livestock managers seeking to match herbivore numbers with forage availability to prevent vegetation degradation and optimize livestock production. Here, we assess variation in annual large herbivore production (LHP, kg/ha) across multiple herbivore densities over a 78‐yr period (1940–2018) in a semiarid rangeland ecosystem (shortgrass steppe of eastern Colorado, USA) that has experienced several phase changes in global‐level sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies, as measured by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). We examined the influence of prevailing PDO phase, magnitude of late winter (February–April) ENSO, prior growing‐season precipitation (prior April to prior September) and precipitation during the six months (prior October to current April) preceding the growing season on LHP. All of these are known prior to the start of the growing season in the shortgrass steppe and could potentially be used by livestock managers to adjust herbivore densities. Annual LHP was greater during warm PDO irrespective of herbivore density, while variance in LHP increased by 69% (moderate density) and 91% (high density) under cold‐phase compared to warm‐phase PDO. No differences in LHP attributed to PDO phase were observed with low herbivore density. ENSO effects on LHP, specifically La Niña, were more pronounced during cold‐phase PDO years. High herbivore density increased LHP at a greater rate than at moderate and low densities with increasing fall and winter precipitation. Differential gain, a weighted measure of LHP under higher relative to lower herbivore densities, was sensitive to prevailing PDO phase, ENSO magnitude, and precipitation amounts from the prior growing season and current fall–winter season. Temporal hierarchical approaches using PDO, ENSO, and local‐scale precipitation can enhance decision‐making for flexible herbivore densities. Herbivore densities could be increased above recommended levels with lowered risk of negative returns for managers during warm‐phase PDO to result in greater LHP and less variability. Conversely, during cold‐phase PDO, managers should be cognizant of the additional influences of ENSO and prior fall–winter precipitation, which can help predict when to reduce herbivore densities and minimize risk of forage shortages.

show abstract

The Drought Calculator: Decision Support Tool for Predicting Forage Growth During Drought

Cited by 9 publications

References 27 publications

Regional Climate Response Collaboratives: Multi-Institutional Support for Climate Resilience

Regional Climate Response Collaboratives: Multi-Institutional Support for Climate Resilience

County-level climate change information to support decision-making on working lands

Large‐scale and local climatic controls on large herbivore productivity: implications for adaptive rangeland management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About