Transcript Powerpoint - Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable

INDICATORS FOR MAINTENANCE
OF PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY ON
RANGELANDS
R. Dennis Child
Professor and Head, Department of Rangeland Ecosystem
Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado
Sustainability

Rangeland providing goods and services for the
current and future generations.

Implies future generations can obtain their
desired mix.

Provides a wide variety depending on the mix
desired by society at a particular time.
Productive Capacity

More than forage based products.

Both market and non-market goods.

Must include non-consumptive goods.



Wildlife habitat
Open space
Criteria must consider temporal and spatial
scale.
Evaluating productive capacity of
rangeland must question:
“Capacity For What?”
Productive Capacity

An area of rangeland can produce a wide variety
of goods and services.

Some are mutually exclusive – Others
compatible to some degree.

Seldom is there a linear exchange ratio. (i.e.
mixed species grazing.)
Does Removal of Sheep Change
the Productive Capacity?
Has productive capacity for
recreation increased?
Other Questions:
 What
are the important products, goods,
and services that are being produced and
which ones can be monitored?
 How
can issues of fragility and resiliency
be considered?
 Is
it important to assess the cost and
benefits to society for producing these
products?
Questions Continued:

What products, goods, and services will be
desired and produced for future generations?

Can fragility and resiliency be considered?

Is it important to assess societal costs/benefits?

Should natural processes be monitored to
account for change in productive capacity?
Indicator #1
 Total
acres of rangeland within the context
of physiographic regions.
 Indicates
major shifts in land use that
disrupts the production of goods and
services from rangeland.
Provides base information for indicators.
 Also identified by Ecological Health and
Diversity.

Indicator #2

Percent of available rangeland that Is grazed
by livestock.

Provides information on land use patterns that
may shift production from one commodity to
another use. Considered:


Importance of Ecological State or Condition.
Other market and non-market goods.
Indicator #3

Number of domestic livestock on
rangeland by physiographic region.
(Cattle, sheep, goats, horses, and bison)

A direct measure of a consumptive use of
rangeland forage. Considered:


Wild horses and burrows.
Using AUMs
Indicator #4

Number of wildlife harvested by physiographic
region.

An indirect measure of wildlife numbers that
derive some proportion of their food and habitat
requirements from rangeland.



Recognized that wildlife don’t stay on rangeland.
Use major wildlife species (e.g. elk, deer, pronghorn,
gage grouse.)
Number harvested, hunters, and success ratios.
Indicator #5

Acres of invasive and noxious plants by
physiographic region.

A measure of the extent to which rangeland
productive capacity is altered through changes in
the composition of plant species.

Most states inventory weeds by county.

May overlap with Ecological Health and Diversity.
Indicator #6

Annual removal of non-forage products by
physiographic region.

An estimate of the wide variety of other
consumptive uses of rangeland.


E.g. Landscape material, mushrooms, seeds,
firewood.
Details to be worked out, could be difficult.
Indicator #7

Annual above ground biomass production by
physiographic region.

A measure that integrates the biotic and abiotic
factors that determine the annual production
from rangeland.


Standing crop a traditional measure.
Potential to be monitored remotely.
Correlation with the Roundtable on
Sustainable Forests Criteria/Indicators

Area of forestland and net area of forestland
available for timber production.

Total growing stock of both merchantable and
non-merchantable tree species on forestland
available for timber production.

The area and growing stock of plantations of
native and exotic species.
RSR Indicators Continued:

Annual removal of wood products compared to
the volume determined to be sustainable.

Annual removal of non-timber forest products
(e.g., fur bearers, berries, mushrooms, game),
compared to the level determined to be
sustainable.
Challenges And Opportunities

The first challenge will be to maintain
momentum gained.

The second challenge and/or opportunity will be
to link the work of this criterion group with the
other groups.
Conclusions and Future Work

Seven indicators have been developed thus far.

Indicators compared:
 With minutes taken at all five SRR meetings
 With indicators developed in the RSF

The next tasks:
 To develop linkages with other criterion
groups.
 To assess the feasibility of using these
indicators.