CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 47Rangeland Management and Livestock EcologyRangeland and Wildlife ManagementClimate change impacts on agriculture

Adaptive rangeland decision-making and coping with drought

Open access
Roche, Leslie·2016·Sustainability
DOI 10.3390/su8121334
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Grazinglands support the livelihoods of millions of people around the world, as well as supply critical ecosystem services. Communities reliant on rain-fed rangelands are potentially the most vulnerable to increasing climate variability given their dependence on highly climate-sensitive resources. Droughts, which are gradual natural hazards, pose substantial and recurrent economic and ecological stresses to these systems. This study examined management decision-making based on survey responses of 479 California ranchers to: (1) identify the types of drought strategies in-place across California’s rangelands and the operation variables driving strategy selection; and (2) examine how individual drought adaptation is enhanced by decision-making factors. Four types of in-place drought strategies were identified and ordered along a gradient of increasing intensity (number) of practices used. Significant background variables driving strategy selection were operation experience with drought, type of livestock operation, grazing system, and land ownership types. Information resource networks, goal setting for sustainable natural resources, and management capacity all acted to enhance individual drought adaptation—defined here by active drought planning and the number of both reactive and proactive drought practices used. Overall, analyses revealed that flexibility in management is a key component of adapting to and coping with drought. Climate policy planning should take into account the diversity of strategies that have been developed by ranchers for multiple generations and within the context of their unique operations, as well as support these working landscapes via a range of adaptation and mitigation options to reduce vulnerability across all types of operations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/su8121334

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Past studies have failed to robustly inform the long-term GHG impacts of AMP grazing, largely due to the scarcity of studies measuring SOC over time.

    “Past studies have failed to robustly inform its long-term GHG impacts.This gap is largely due to the scarcity of studies measuring SOC over time, primarily because AMP's adaptive nature limits its study in traditional agricultural research (Roche, 2016;Teague et al., 2013).”

    From Impact of 10 years of adaptive multi-paddock grazing on soil carbon and beef's greenhouse gas footprint in the US Upper Midwest (2026) · cites this paper as Roche, 2016

    The Conclusions (page unavailable) call for management-scale, participatory research, but do not say that AMP grazing is difficult to study using traditional methods. Searches for soil organic carbon, SOC, greenhouse-gas impacts, and longitudinal measurements found no passage addressing the claimed research gap or its proposed cause. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 52

  1. Havstad, K.M.; Peters, D.P.C.; Skaggs, R.; Brown, J.; Bestelmeyer, B.; Fredrickson, E.; Herrick, J.; Wright, J. Ecological services to and from rangelands of the United States. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64, 261-268. [CrossRef] · DOI
  2. Sayre, N.F.; McAllister, R.R.J.; Bestelmeyer, B.T.; Moritz, M.; Turner, M.D. Earth stewardship of rangelands: Coping with ecological, economic, and political marginality. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2013, 11, 348-354. [CrossRef] · DOI
  3. Asner, G.P.; Elmore, A.J.; Olander, L.P.; Martin, R.E.; Harris, A.T. Grazing systems, ecosystem responses, and global change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2004, 29, 261-299. [CrossRef] · DOI
  4. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014.
  5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2014-Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability- Contributions of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014.
  6. Marshall, N.A.; Stokes, C.J.; Webb, N.P.; Marshall, P.A.; Lankester, A.J. Social vulnerability to climate change in primary producers: A typology approach. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 186, 86-93. [CrossRef] · DOI
  7. Walsh, J.; Wuebbles, D.; Hayhoe, K.K.J.; Kunkel, K.; Stephens, G.; Thorne, P.; Vose, R.; Wehner, M.; Willis, J.; Anderson, D.; et al. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Assessment; U.S. Global Change Research Program: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; pp. 19-67. Available online: http://s3.amazonaws. com/nca2014/low/NCA3_Full_Report_02_Our_Changing_Climate_LowRes.pdf?download=1 (accessed on 14 December 2016).
  8. Roche, L.M.; Derner, J.D.; Cutts, B.B.; Lubell, M.N.; Tate, K.W. On-ranch grazing strategies: Context for the rotational grazing dilemma. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 68, 248-256. [CrossRef] · DOI
  9. Roche, L.M.; Schohr, T.K.; Derner, J.D.; Lubell, M.N.; Cutts, B.B.; Kachergis, E.; Eviner, V.T.; Tate, K.W. Sustaining working rangelands: Insights from rancher decision making. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 68, 383-389. [CrossRef] · DOI
  10. Wilmer, H.; York, E.; Kelley, W.K.; Brunson, M.W. "In every rancher's mind": Effects of drought on ranch planning and practice. Rangelands 2016, 38, 216-221. [CrossRef] · DOI
  11. Haden, V.; Niles, M.T.; Lubell, M.; Perlman, J.; Jackson, L.E. Global and local concerns: What attitudes and beliefs motivate farmers to mitigate and adapt to climate change? PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e52882. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  12. Niles, M.T.; Lubell, M.; Haden, V.R. Perceptions and responses to climate policy risks among California farmers. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 1752-1760. [CrossRef] · DOI
  13. Guinn, J.M. Exceptional years: A history of California floods and drought. Hist. Soc. South. Calif. 1890, 1, 33-39. [CrossRef] · DOI
  14. Lubell, M.; Cutts, B.; Roche, L.M.; Hamilton, M.; Derner, J.D.; Kachergis, E.; Tate, K.W. Conservation program participation and adaptive rangeland decision-making. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 66, 609-620. [CrossRef] · DOI
  15. Hoffman, M.; Lubell, M.; Hillis, V. Network-smart extension could catalyze social learning. Calif. Agric. 2015, 69, 113-122. [CrossRef] · DOI
  16. Didier, E.A.; Brunson, M.W. Adoption of range management innovations by Utah ranchers. J. Range Manag. 2004, 57, 330-336. [CrossRef] · DOI
  17. Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239-260. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  18. Lubell, M.; Fulton, A. Local diffusion networks act as pathways to sustainable agriculture in the Sacramento River Valley. Calif. Agric. 2007, 61, 131-137. [CrossRef] · DOI
  19. Huntsinger, L.; Hopkinson, P. Viewpoint: Sustaining rangeland landscapes: A social and ecological process. J. Range Manag. 1996, 49, 167-173. [CrossRef] · DOI
  20. Rissman, A.R.; Sayre, N.F. Conservation Outcomes and Social Relations: A Comparative Study of Private Ranchland Conservation Easements. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2012, 25, 523-538. [CrossRef] · DOI
  21. Lubell, M.; Hillis, V.; Hoffman, M. Innovation, Cooperation, and the Perceived Benefits and Costs of Sustainable Agriculture Practices. Ecol. Soc. 2011, 16, 23. [CrossRef] · DOI
  22. Lai, P.H.; Kreuter, U.P. Examining the direct and indirect effects of environmental change and place attachment on land management decisions in the Hill Country of Texas, USA. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 104, 320-328. [CrossRef] · DOI
  23. Marshall, N.A.; Smajgl, A. Understanding Variability in Adaptive Capacity on Rangelands. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 66, 88-94. [CrossRef] · DOI
  24. Kachergis, E.; Derner, J.D.; Cutts, B.B.; Roche, L.M.; Eviner, V.T.; Lubell, M.N.; Tate, K.W. Increasing flexibility in rangeland management during drought. Ecosphere 2014, 5, 1-14. [CrossRef] · DOI
  25. Coppock, D.L.; Birkenfeld, A.H. Use of livestock and range management practices in Utah. J. Range Manag. 1999, 52, 7-18. [CrossRef] · DOI
  26. Dunn, B.; Smart, A.; Gates, R. Barriers to successful drought management: Why do some ranchers fail to take action? Rangelands 2005, 27, 13-16. [CrossRef] · DOI
  27. Dillman, D.A. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007.
  28. Sorice, M.G.; Haider, W.; Conner, J.R.; Ditton, R.B. Incentive structure of and private landowner participation in an endangered species conservation program. Conserv. Biol. 2011, 25, 587-596. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  29. Rogers, E. Diffusion of Innovations; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003; p. 576.
  30. Ferranto, S.; Huntsinger, L.; Getz, C.; Nakamura, G.; Stewart, W.; Drill, S.; Valachovic, Y.; DeLasaux, M.; Kelly, M. Forest and rangeland owners value land for natural amenities and as financial investment. Calif. Agric. 2011, 65, 184-191. [CrossRef] · DOI
  31. Lacey, J.R.; Wight, J.R.; Workman, J.P. Investment rationale for range improvement practices in Eastern Montana. J. Range Manag. 1985, 38, 2-6. [CrossRef] · DOI
  32. Napier, T.L.; Tucker, M.; McCarter, S. Adoption of conservation production systems in three Midwest watersheds. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2000, 55, 123-134.
  33. Bryce, S.A.; Omernik, J.M.; Larsen, D.P. Ecoregions-A geographic framework to guide risk characterization and ecosystem management. Environ. Pract. 1999, 1, 141-155. [CrossRef] · DOI
  34. Fazey, I.; Gamarra, J.G.P.; Fischer, J.; Reed, M.S.; Stringer, L.C.; Christie, M. Adaptation strategies for reducing vulnerability to future environmental change. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2010, 8, 414-422. [CrossRef] · DOI
  35. McAllister, R.R.J.; Smith, D.M.S.; Stokes, C.J.; Walsh, F.J. Patterns of accessing variable resources across time and space: Desert plants, animals and people. J. Arid Environ. 2009, 73, 338-346. [CrossRef] · DOI
  36. Linzer, D.A.; Lewis, J.B. poLCA: An R package for polytomous variable latent class analysis. J. Stat. Softw. 2011, 42, 1-29. [CrossRef] · DOI
  37. De'ath, G.; Fabricius, K.E. Classification and regression trees: A powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology 2000, 81, 3178-3192. [CrossRef] · DOI
  38. Herr, A. Statistics for categorical surveys-A new strategy for multivariate classification and determining variable importance. Sustainability 2010, 2, 533-550. [CrossRef] · DOI
  39. Roche, L.M.; Latimer, A.M.; Eastburn, D.J.; Tate, K.W. Cattle grazing and conservation of a meadow- dependent amphibian species in the Sierra Nevada. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e35734. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  40. Stata Corporation. Stata Statistical Software: Release 13.1, Stata Press: College Station, TX, USA, 2013.
  41. Wilhite, D.A.; Sivakumar, M.V.K.; Pulwarty, R. Managing drought risk in a changing climate: The role of national drought policy. Weather Clim. Extremes 2014, 3, 4-13. [CrossRef] · DOI
  42. Briske, D.D.; Joyce, L.A.; Polley, H.W.; Brown, J.R.; Wolter, K.; Morgan, J.A.; McCarl, B.A.; Bailey, D.W. Climate-change adaptation on rangelands: Linking regional exposure with diverse adaptive capacity. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2015, 13, 249-256. [CrossRef] · DOI
  43. Brown, J.R.; Kluck, D.; McNutt, C.; Hayes, H. Assessing drought vulnerability using a socioecological framework. Rangelands 2016, 38, 162-168. [CrossRef] · DOI
  44. Thurow, T.L.; Thurow, A.P.; Garriga, M.D. Policy prospects for brush control to increase off-site water yield. J. Range Manag. 2000, 53, 23-31. [CrossRef] · DOI
  45. Kreuter, U.P.; Tays, M.R.; Conner, J.R. Landowner willingness to participate in a Texas brush reduction program. J. Range Manag. 2004, 57, 230-237. [CrossRef] · DOI
  46. McClaran, M.P.; Butler, G.J.; Wei, H.Y.; Ruyle, G.D. Increased preparation for drought among livestock producers reliant on rain-fed forage. Nat. Hazards 2015, 79, 151-170. [CrossRef] · DOI
  47. Marshall, N.A.; Stokes, C.J. Influencing adaptation processes on the Australian rangelands for social and ecological resilience. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 14. [CrossRef] · DOI
  48. Marshall, N.A. Assessing resource dependency on the rangelands as a measure of climate sensitivity. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2011, 24, 1105-1115. [CrossRef] · DOI
  49. Robertson, M.; Murray-Prior, R. Five reasons why it is difficult to talk to Australian farmers about the impacts of, and their adaptation to, climate change. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2016, 16, 189-198. [CrossRef] · DOI
  50. Smith, M.S.; Horrocks, L.; Harvey, A.; Hamilton, C. Rethinking adaptation for a 4 degrees C world. Phililos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 2011, 369, 196-216. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  51. Kachergis, E.; Derner, J.D.; Roche, L.M.; Tate, K.W.; Lubell, M.; Mealor, R.; Magagna, J. Characterizing Wyoming ranching operations: Natural resource goals, management practices and information sources. Nat. Resour. 2013, 4, 45-54. [CrossRef] · DOI
  52. Coles, A.R.; Scott, C.A. Vulnerability and adaptation to climate change and variability in semi-arid rural southeastern Arizona, USA. Nat. Resour. Forum 2009, 33, 297-309. [CrossRef] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roche, L.
Affiliations
University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Roche, Leslie
ORCID
Roche, Leslie
Venue
Sustainability
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2016-12-17
Volume
8
Issue
12
Pages
1334
ISSN
2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/su8121334
OpenAlex
W2567038271
Cited by
47
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2
FWCI
3.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
U.S. Department of Agriculture (2009-38415-20265)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Rangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Climate change impacts on agriculture
Keywords
drought adaptation, rangeland management, ranchers, decision-making, drought coping strategies, climate variability, goal setting, management capability, managerial flexibility, livestock farms, land ownership, California rangelands

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review