Expanding on Basis Risk Estimates for Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage Insurance

Basis risk or residual risk arising from disparity between an index’s estimate of losses and actual losses is inherent in index-based insurance products. We approximate basis risk as the false negative probability (FNP) within pasture, rangeland, and forage (PRF) rainfall index insurance for the south-central coastal region of California. We estimate the FNP on average that at least one of two selected coverage intervals will fail to provide an indemnity when a loss is realized at 48%. The average FNP is reduced to only 11% when considering whether both selected intervals fail to provide an indemnity when a loss is realized

Evidence synthesis as the basis for decision analysis: a method of selecting the best agricultural practices for multiple ecosystem services

Agricultural management practices have impacts not only on crops and livestock, but also on soil, water, wildlife, and ecosystem services. Agricultural research provides evidence about these impacts, but it is unclear how this evidence should be used to make decisions. Two methods are widely used in decision making: evidence synthesis and decision analysis. However, a system of evidence-based decision making that integrates these two methods has not yet been established. Moreover, the standard methods of evidence synthesis have a narrow focus (e.g., the effects of one management practice), but the standard methods of decision analysis have a wide focus (e.g., the comparative effectiveness of multiple management practices). Thus, there is a mismatch between the outputs from evidence synthesis and the inputs that are needed for decision analysis. We show how evidence for a wide range of agricultural practices can be reviewed and summarized simultaneously (“subject-wide evidence synthesis”), and how this evidence can be assessed by experts and used for decision making (“multiple-criteria decision analysis”). We show how these methods could be used by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in California to select the best management practices for multiple ecosystem services in Mediterranean-type farmland and rangeland, based on a subject-wide evidence synthesis that was published by Conservation Evidence (www.conservationevidence.com). This method of “evidence-based decision analysis” could be used at different scales, from the local scale (farmers deciding which practices to adopt) to the national or international scale (policy makers deciding which practices to support through agricultural subsidies or other payments for ecosystem services). We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of this method, and we suggest some general principles for improving evidence synthesis as the basis for multi-criteria decision analysis

Russian thistle (Salsola spp.) control in California rangelands over five years

Russian thistle, also known as tumbleweed (Salsola spp.), is a problematic invasive plant found on natural and working landscapes. On a California rangeland, we tested the singular and interactive treatments of grazing, herbicide and seeding to determine how these approaches might influence Salsola cover across a five year experiment. Total Salsola cover declined by 3% annually during the study. A single spring treatment of chlorsulfuron + 2,4-D followed by glyphosate applied in the fall just prior to seeding, and then 2,4-D the following spring, significantly reduced Salsola cover compared to the untreated control. Seeded forage species cover increased over time and was significantly higher than seeded native species cover five years after seeding. However, the seeding treatment had no effect on Salsola cover. Although grazing did not reduce Salsola cover, due to the beneficial effects of grazing on reducing other non-native species, this study supports the use of an integrated approach of herbicide application, grazing and seeding to achieve management goals on an arid working landscape.Open access articleThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Estimating Forage Loss from California Ground Squirrels in Central California Rangelands (Abstract)

California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus spp.) cause more economic damage to California rangelands than any other rodent (Baldwin et al. 2022). Burrow systems can undermine stock pond dams, ranch roads, and even hillslopes. However, forage loss is generally the primary concern. When asked, ranchers offer detailed qualitative descriptions of the damage ground squirrels cause and how it impacts the economic viability of their operations. Damage by ground squirrels can be particularly concerning because ranching operations are often on the margins of profitability. Unfortunately, few studies have quantified economic losses from ground squirrels. Additionally, ranchers commonly lease grazing land from public agencies. In many cases, agency employees have a limited understanding of ranching operations and generally do not allow for control of ground squirrels. Quantitative data on ground squirrel impacts to rangelands and ranching operations may help land management agencies better understand the challenges faced by their lessees and justify targeted management actions in the future. Therefore, we tested the amount of standing crop removed by ground squirrels across 16 sites on the Central Coast and interior central California 2019 and 2020. Sampling was conducted during a 4 to 6-week period in May and early-June. This timeframe coincided with the period after juvenile squirrels emerged from natal dens, which allowed us to quantify the collective impact that the entire ground squirrel population had on the landscape. We included four different ground squirrel density categories per site: minimal (0-1 squirrel), low (2-6 squirrels), medium (7-15 squirrels), and high (more than 15 squirrels). To quantify ground squirrels, we counted individuals in 0.4-ha plots using binoculars from an observation point outside the plots. We conducted five ground squirrel counts, repeated twice a day over three days for a total of 30 counts per plot, and used the highest number observed in analyses. We estimated standing crop (biomass of herbaceous vegetation) using the comparative yield method. We also evaluated precipitation and livestock grazing intensity in relation to forage production. We found that each ground squirrel reduced standing crop by 27.2 kg per ha. Precipitation also influenced forage production: each cm of precipitation yielded 16.6 kg per ha of additional available forage. In our model, identified effects of livestock grazing intensity; interaction between livestock grazing intensity and ground squirrel abundance; and interaction between precipitation and ground squirrel abundance on residual standing crop were not statistically significant. Although grazing intensity does influence vegetation biomass, we did not identify a significant relationship between the two, likely because we were limited to collecting grazing intensity data at the scale of the field, not at the scale of our survey plots. Despite their economic impacts, ground squirrels are critically important to California rangeland ecosystems. Ground squirrel burrows are documented to provide habitat for native wildlife including burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) and California tiger salamanders (Ambystoma californiense). Ground squirrel colonies are also known to be associated with increased native bird species richness, diversity, and abundance (Lenihan 2007). Because of these potential benefits to supporting native wildlife, active ground squirrel management should only be conducted on rangelands when ground squirrel damage exceeds levels considered tolerable by ranch managers. The level of damage considered intolerable will likely vary among managers of different sites. Results from this study could help ranchers and other land managers identify when such a threshold is exceede

Mineral status of California beef cattle

Optimal mineral nutrition is required for cattle reproduction, immune function, and structural development. Formal evaluation of the current mineral status of California beef cattle is currently lacking. In 2017, a survey was initiated that evaluated a panel of 10 different minerals in 14 counties across California. Samples were collected from 555 cattle at 50 different ranches. Region of the state significantly affected herd mineral status. Herd use of supplements was also significant, and increased most blood levels of the mineral(s) targeted for supplementation. Forage source was idiosyncratic on its effect of mineral status. Previous blood survey data showed selenium to be widely deficient in California cattle in the 1970s and 1980s, but in this case, it was generally adequate in all areas of California. This indicates a good producer understanding of where supplementation is needed. Copper deficiency was more widespread in the southern region when compared with further north. Zinc deficiency was seen ubiquitously statewide, with 36% of animals being deficient. Manganese has been largely ignored in California. This study is the first known documentation of manganese levels in the state. Sampling found 92% of cattle fell below critical manganese levels. However, further research to better define manganese critical levels is probably warranted. The status of other minerals is presented