Strategic and Tactical Prediction of Forage Production in Northern Mixed-Grass Prairie
Issue Date
2006-11-01Keywords
decision support toolsGreat Plains Framework for Agricultural Resource Management (GPFARM)
modeling
Northern Great Plains
peak standing crop
precipitation
simulation models
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Andales, A. A., Derner, J. D., Ahuja, L. R., & Hart, R. H. (2006). Strategic and tactical prediction of forage production in northern mixed-grass prairie. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 59(6), 576-584.Publisher
Society for Range ManagementJournal
Rangeland Ecology & ManagementAdditional Links
https://rangelands.org/Abstract
Predictions of forage production derived from site-specific environmental information (e.g., soil type, weather, plant communitycomposition, and so on) could help land managers decide on appropriate stocking rates of livestock. This study assessed the applicability of the Great Plains Framework for Agricultural Resource Management (GPFARM) forage growth model for both strategic (long-term) and tactical (within-season) prediction of forage production in northern mixed-grass prairie. An improved version of the model was calibrated for conditions at the USDA-ARS High Plains Grasslands Research Station in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Long-term (1983-2001) simulations of peak standing crop (PSC) were compared to observations. Also, within-season (1983) forecasts of total aboveground biomass made for 1 March onward, 1 April onward, 1 May onward, and 1 June onward were compared to observations. The normal, driest, and wettest weather years on record (1915-1981) were used to simulate expected values, lower bounds, and upper bounds of biomass production, respectively. The forage model explained 66% of the variability in PSC from 1983 to 2001. The cumulative distribution function (CDF) derived from long-term simulated PSC overestimates cumulative probabilities for PSC.1 500 kg ha-1. The generated CDF could be used strategically to estimate long-term forage production at various levels of probability, with errors in cumulative probability ranging from 0.0 to 0.16. Within-season forecasts explained 77%-94% of biomass variability in 1983. It was shown that monthly updating of the forage forecast, with input of actual weather to date, improves accuracy. Further development and testing of the forage simulation model will focus on the interactions between forage growth, environmental perturbations (especially drought), and grazing.Type
textArticle
Language
enISSN
0022-409Xae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.2111/06-001R1.1