Increasing flexibility in rangeland management during drought

Abstract

Extreme droughts like the recent 2011-2013 drought impacting the central and western United States present a challenge to sustaining livestock ranching operations and the ecosystem goods and services they produce. Wyoming ranchers manage half of this drought-prone state and are at the forefront of this challenge. We examined Wyoming ranchers' drought management strategies and how ranch characteristics affect drought management flexibility, a key component of resilience, through a mail survey. We find that many survey respondents manage drought in similar ways, by selling livestock and buying feed, highlighting the market risks associated with drought. Ranches that are larger, include yearling livestock, use shorter grazing periods, and/or incorporate alternative on-ranch activities (e. g., hunting) use more drought management practices and thus have greater flexibility. Larger ranches experience fewer drought impacts, highlighting advantages of a larger resource base. Our findings suggest three components of national drought policy that encourages flexibility and thus increases resilience of ranches to drought: (1) encouraging forage-sharing mechanisms; (2) promoting income diversification that is independent of climatic variability; and (3) facilitating a shift to diversified livestock production systems. These measures could increase sustainability of ranching livelihoods and provision of ecosystem services despite predicted increases in intensity and duration of future droughts.

Full text

Increasing flexibility in rangeland management during drought
EMILY KACHERGIS,
1,5,
JUSTIN D. DERNER,
1
BETHANY B. CUTTS,
2
LESLIE M. ROCHE,
3
VALERIE T. EVINER,
3
MARK N. LUBELL,
4
AND KENNETH W. TAT E
3
1
USDA-ARS Rangeland Resources Research Unit, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009 USA
2
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801 USA
3
Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, California 95616 USA
4
Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis, California 95616 USA
Citation: Kachergis, E., J. D. Derner, B. B. Cutts, L. M. Roche, V. T. Eviner, M. N. Lubell, and K. W. Tate. 2014. Increasing
flexibility in rangeland management during drought. Ecosphere 5(6):77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES13-00402.1
Abstract. Extreme droughts like the recent 2011–2013 drought impacting the central and western United
States present a challenge to sustaining livestock ranching operations and the ecosystem goods and
services they produce. Wyoming ranchers manage half of this drought-prone state and are at the forefront
of this challenge. We examined Wyoming ranchers’drought management strategies and how ranch
characteristics affect drought management flexibility, a key component of resilience, through a mail survey.
We find that many survey respondents manage drought in similar ways, by selling livestock and buying
feed, highlighting the market risks associated with drought. Ranches that are larger, include yearling
livestock, use shorter grazing periods, and/or incorporate alternative on-ranch activities (e.g., hunting) use
more drought management practices and thus have greater flexibility. Larger ranches experience fewer
drought impacts, highlighting advantages of a larger resource base. Our findings suggest three
components of national drought policy that encourages flexibility and thus increases resilience of ranches
to drought: (1) encouraging forage-sharing mechanisms; (2) promoting income diversification that is
independent of climatic variability; and (3) facilitating a shift to diversified livestock production systems.
These measures could increase sustainability of ranching livelihoods and provision of ecosystem services
despite predicted increases in intensity and duration of future droughts.
Key words: adaptive capacity; agricultural policy; climate variability; ecosystem services; fragmentation; livestock
production; mixed-grass prairie; ranchers; resilience; sagebrush steppe; Wyoming, USA.
Received 3 January 2014; revised 16 March 2014; accepted 18 March 2014; final version received 23 May 2014; published
30 June 2014. Corresponding Editor: D. P. C. Peters.
Copyright: Ó2014 Kachergis et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original author and source are credited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
5
Present address: National Operations Center, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado 80225 USA.
E-mail: emily.kachergis@gmail.com
INTRODUCTION
Livestock ranching operations manage mil-
lions of hectares of US rangeland ecosystems.
These operations produce food and are increas-
ingly important for providing ecosystem services
as more rangelands are permanently converted
to development (Maestas et al. 2003, Brunson
and Huntsinger 2008). Droughts like the one that
began in 2011 and affected huge areas of the
central and western US (Fig. 1A) can trigger
undesirable ecological changes in rangelands,
reduce livestock production and provision of
ecosystem services, and threaten ranching liveli-
hoods. Increasing climate variability (IPCC 2007)
heightens the need for the livestock industry and
policy makers to move beyond reactive drought
management practices and policies (e.g., disaster
designations; Fig. 1B) and adapt to drought (Smit
and Wandel 2006, Howden et al. 2007, McKeon et
vwww.esajournals.org 1June 2014 vVolume 5(6) vArticle 77

al. 2009). Given that timing, duration, and
severity of future droughts, along with associat-
ed risks, are largely unpredictable, flexibility is a
key characteristic of management strategies for
adapting to drought that may increase resilience
of a ranching operation to future droughts (Fazey
et al. 2010). We draw on the experiences of
Wyoming ranchers, who encounter drought
more often than most of the US (Soule 1992), to
understand drought management and suggest
components of a proactive drought policy for US
rangelands.
Fig. 1. (A) Much of the United States experienced drought (orange: moderate; red: severe; purple: extreme) in
August 2012 according to the Palmer Drought Index, an indicator of long-term drought. (B) Most US counties
were eligible to receive drought disaster assistance after the 2012 drought, shown by drought disaster
designations (red) and contiguous areas (yellow) in February 2013. Source: NOAA National Climate Data
Center; USDA Farm Services Agency.
vwww.esajournals.org 2June 2014 vVolume 5(6) vArticle 77
KACHERGIS ET AL.

Drought management involves increasing re-
silience of the ranching operation to the risks
posed by a variable climate (Thurow and Taylor
1999, Howden et al. 2007, McKeon et al. 2009).
Livestock ranching operations are vulnerable to
production risk because forage production in
rangeland ecosystems is linked to growing
season precipitation which is highly variable
within and between years (Knapp and Smith
2001). Drought reduces the number of livestock
rangelands can support, individual animal pro-
ductivity, and supply of essential commodities
like irrigation water for hay production (Box 1).
In August 2012, severe or greater drought
affected 67%of livestock value in the US
(USDA ERS 2012), and cattle and calf numbers
were at their lowest level in 60 years as of
February 2013 (USDA NASS 2013). Failure to
graze rangelands properly during drought can
cause ecological degradation, including loss of
plant cover and accelerated soil erosion (Thurow
and Taylor 1999). Markets are a second, interre-
lated source of risk to agricultural operations
during drought. Many ranchers take similar
management actions when drought occurs (Box
1), causing major price fluctuations. For example,
when ranchers act in unison to sell livestock
during drought, livestock prices often fall. This
creates an incentive for ranchers not to reduce the
size of their herd, sometimes accelerating eco-
logical degradation (Stafford Smith et al. 2007).
Production risks coupled with market risks
impact profitability and are the major reason
agricultural operations fail during drought (Box
1; Stafford Smith et al. 2007).
Given that timing, duration and severity of
future droughts and associated risks are largely
unpredictable, flexibility in drought management
(e.g., ability to use multiple management options;
Box 1) allows ranching operations to adaptively
balanceforagedemandwithforagesupply,
reduce drought impacts, and ultimately increase
resilience (Ash and Stafford Smith 2003, Folke
2006, McKeon et al. 2009, Darnhofer et al. 2010,
Fazey et al. 2010). The ‘‘best’’ management
strategy during one drought may not be the best
strategy during the next drought. Thus, opera-
tions with more management options during
drought may have a greater capacity to endure
drought (McAllister et al. 2009). Drought prep-
aration includes efforts to reserve forage in case
of drought or vary stocking rate (the number of
animals grazing an area over time) with forage
supply (Box 1); responses to drought include
practices that reduce forage demand, increase
forage supply, and increase income from alter-
native sources (Box 1). Operation characteristics
may enhance or constrain ranchers’ability to use
drought management practices (Box 1; Fazey et
al. 2010). For example, a ranching operation with
more land could prepare for drought by grass-
banking and respond by moving livestock to
another, more productive location (McAllister et
al. 2009, Coppock 2011). Smaller operations may
lack the land, forage, and economic resources to
take these management actions.
Wyoming ranching operations experience
drought more often than other parts of the US
(Soule 1992) and thus are at the forefront of
rangeland drought management. Wyoming fea-
tures two major US rangeland ecosystems:
mixed-grass prairie and sagebrush steppe. Pre-
cipitation is low and variable. Wyoming experi-
enced mild drought in 33%and extreme drought
in 10%of growing season months from 1895 to
2011 (Palmer Drought Severity Index; data from
NOAA National Climatic Data Center). Past and
predicted increases in temperature suggest that
drought may become more frequent and intense
in the future (IPCC 2007, Shuman 2011). Wyom-
ing ranching operations are typical of ranching
operations in the western US: their land base
includes private and permitted lands (state,
federal); cow-calf pairs are the primary grazing
enterprise; and they incorporate other activities
that affect land management, including hunting
and energy development (Coppock 2011, Ka-
chergis et al. 2013).
Our goals are to: (1) describe the drought
management practices Wyoming ranchers use
and (2) understand how ranching operation
characteristics influence flexibility in drought
management and drought impacts. We surveyed
producer members of the Wyoming Stock Grow-
ers Association in January through March 2012,
just before the onset of severe drought in
Wyoming. We infer flexibility from the number
of drought management practices associated
with each operation characteristic. Our results
represent 307 operations that manage 3.4 million
hectares of Wyoming rangelands. We identify
actions ranchers can take to increase flexibility in
vwww.esajournals.org 3June 2014 vVolume 5(6) vArticle 77
KACHERGIS ET AL.

drought management and thus enhance the
resilience of rangeland ecosystems, livestock
production, ecosystem service provision, and
ranching operations to changing climate and
increasing weather variability. This toolbox of
flexible management strategies could inform
development of a proactive drought policy for
US rangelands as an alternative to reactive
drought declarations (Fig. 1B).
METHODS
We conducted a mail survey of producer
members of the Wyoming Stock Growers Asso-
Box 1
Drought operation characteristics, management, and impacts
as conceptualized by the Wyoming Rangeland Decision-Making Survey
We hypothesize that some ranching operation characteristics enable greater flexibility in
drought management and reduce impacts from drought. See Methods for an overview and
explanation of Wyoming ranch characteristics.
Operation characteristics that may increase flexibility in drought management and reduce
impacts from drought
Larger operations (total area in ha) may have greater flexibility and fewer impacts during
drought for several reasons: (1) access to greater and more heterogeneous forage resources, (2)
greater capital reserves, and (3) economies of scale.
Having other activities on the ranch (including extractive recreation [hunting], conventional
energy development, other agricultural production, alternative energy development, and non-
extractive recreation) increases revenue.
Lower livestock density (greater than 12 ha/AU, vs. 4–12 or less than 4 ha/AU ) ensures that
forage demand will rarely exceed forage supply.
Shorter grazing period length (moving livestock to another pasture after less than 1 mo or 1–3
mo) allows more control over livestock grazing (e.g. location, distribution) and provides
opportunities for grassbanking.
Having yearling livestock may allow a more flexible stocking rate that can be adjusted with
available forage and ultimately lead to greater profitability in variable climates.
Drought management strategies: How do ranches manage for drought impacts?
Preparation: (1) incorporate yearling livestock; (2) grassbank (stockpile forage); (3) stock
conservatively; (4) rest pastures; (5) use 1-3 mo weather predictions to adjust stocking rate.
Response: (1) purchase feed; (2) reduce herd size; (3) earn off-farm income; (4) rent additional
pasture; (5) apply for government assistance; (6 ) sell retained yearling livestock; (7 ) move
livestock to another location; (8) wean calves early; (9) place livestock in a feedlot.
Drought impacts: During the last drought, which of the following were impacted more
severely than expected?
(1) grazing capacity; (2) irrigation water availability; (3) winter feed availability; (4) calf
weaning weights; (5) livestock reproductive rates; (6 ) profitability.
(References: Foran and Stafford Smith 1991, Scoones 1995, Hall et al. 2003, Ash and Stafford
Smith 2003, Bastian et al. 2006, Stokes et al. 2006, McAllister et al. 2009, Ritten et al. 2010, Torell
et al. 2010, Coppock 2011)
vwww.esajournals.org 4June 2014 vVolume 5(6) vArticle 77
KACHERGIS ET AL.

ciation (WSGA), the largest ranching organiza-
tion in Wyoming. Producer members are growers
of livestock. Survey development is described by
Kachergis et al. (2013) and Lubell et al. (2013).
The survey was implemented in four stages
(Dillman 2007): (1) survey announcements, (2) a
questionnaire, (3) a replacement questionnaire,
and (4) legitimacy-building efforts via email and
print media. We mailed the survey to 749 WSGA
producer members. Eighteen percent of survey
respondents indicated they did not own or
manage livestock and were screened out of the
sample. We received 307 partially or fully
completed questionnaires for an adjusted re-
sponse rate of 50%.
Wyoming ranch characteristics revealed by the
survey provide context for our analysis of
drought management (see complete report in
Kachergis et al. 2013). The median ranch size was
4,220 ha, and operations ranged in size from 30
to 185,000 ha. As is traditional in the western US
(Coppock and Birkenfeld 1999), most (91%)
ranches ran cow-calf pairs, averaging 390 pairs
per ranch. Cows are run year-round, with calves
generally born in the spring and then weaned in
the fall. At this time, some heifer calves are kept
as replacements into the breeding cow herd and
the remaining heifer calves and steer calves are
sold or kept to run as stockers (or yearling cattle).
Almost half (44%) of ranches in Wyoming run
stockers, with some of these bought in the late
winter or spring, grazed on the ranch during the
summer, and then sold in the fall. Livestock
density varied across Wyoming ranches, with
40%each grazing at a density of less than 4 or 4 –
12 ha per animal unit (AU, equal to one 453 kg
cow with a calf ), whereas 20%of the ranches
grazed at greater than 12 ha/AU. Most ranches
moved livestock to a new pasture after less than
three months of grazing the current pasture (less
than one month: 42%; one to three months: 41%;
year-long or season-long grazing: 13%). Most
ranches (74%) had other resource use activities
which can provide additional income, with
hunting, conventional energy development, and
agricultural development most common. We
hypothesize that these basic characteristics of
ranching operations affect drought management
and impacts (Box 1).
Our analysis of survey responses focuses on (1)
drought management practices of Wyoming
ranchers and (2) relationships between ranch
characteristics, drought management practices,
and drought impacts (Box 1). We report summa-
ry statistics to describe survey respondents’
drought management strategies. To understand
how ranching operation characteristics influence
drought management and impacts, we use
multiple logistic regression with model averag-
ing in R (Version 2.15; R Foundation for
Statistical Computing; packages arm and Mu-
MIn). Logistic regression predicts the probability
of a binomial outcome (e.g., use of a drought
management practice), given predictor variables.
Model averaging makes inferences based on
weighted support from the best logistic regres-
sion models. Model averaging accounts for
multi-model uncertainty and produces more
reliable estimates of effect size than traditional
null hypothesis testing (Burnham and Anderson
2002, Grueber et al. 2011). We perform model
averaging in several steps: (1) generate a full
model set from each response variable and
predictor variables; (2) standardize input vari-
ables to a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of
0.5 (Gelman 2008); (3) select the best models
using a cutoff of 2AIC
c
(Burnham and Anderson
2002); and (4) compute a weighted average of
parameter estimates from the best models using
the natural average method (e.g., averaging
parameter estimates from models in which each
predictor appears). We report the odds ratio,
confidence interval, and relative importance
(sum of Akaike weights of models in which it
appears) for each predictor variable. In this
analysis, we only include complete observations,
and limit drought management practices to those
used by over 15%of ranchers. We infer flexibility
in managing drought from the number of
drought management practices associated with
each operation characteristic.
RESULTS
Drought management and impacts
Nearly all survey respondents reported expe-
riencing drought (95%;N¼291), generally within
the last decade (95%;N¼249). During the most
recent drought, 60%of survey respondents had a
drought management plan in place (N ¼274).
Most survey respondents use management prac-
tices to prepare for drought (81%;N¼279; Fig.
vwww.esajournals.org 5June 2014 vVolume 5(6) vArticle 77
KACHERGIS ET AL.

2A). Almost all survey respondents use manage-
ment practices to respond to drought (97%;N¼
279; Fig. 2A).
Despite preparation, survey respondents indi-
cated that the previous drought impacted aspects
of their ranching operations more severely than
expected(Fig.2B).Overhalfreportedthat
grazing capacity (75%;N¼281), profitability
(54%), and winter feed availability (53%) were
affected. Additional impacts were to irrigation
water availability (47%), calf weaning weights
(36%), and livestock reproductive rates (20%).
Forty percent indicated that drought will be
more influential in their management plans and
operations in the next 10 years than it has been in
the last 10 years (N ¼283).
Ranch characteristics influence
drought management
Ranching operation characteristics predict
which management practices ranchers use to
prepare for and respond to drought (Table 1;
Appendix: Tables A1 and A2). We infer manage-
ment flexibility from the number of drought
Fig. 2. (A) Drought management strategies Wyoming ranches use to balance forage demand with forage
supply, reported as the percentage of respondents who use each practice. (B) Drought impacts on Wyoming
ranches that were more severe than expected, with percentages of survey respondents who reported each impact.
vwww.esajournals.org 6June 2014 vVolume 5(6) vArticle 77
KACHERGIS ET AL.

management practices associated with each
operation characteristic; if a characteristic in-
creases use of many practices, it increases
flexibility. Ranches that have a larger land area,
use shorter grazing periods, incorporate yearling
livestock and/or include other activities (e.g.,
hunting, conventional energy development) are
more likely to use half or more of five manage-
ment practices to prepare for drought (Table 1).
Having yearling livestock and/or shorter grazing
periods (moving livestock at least once a month)
increase the likelihood of all drought preparation
practices; larger size predicts use of all practices
except incorporating yearling livestock; other
activities increase the likelihood of resting pas-
tures, incorporating yearling livestock, and grass-
banking. Stock density has few associations with
drought preparation.
Likewise, ranches that are larger and/or
incorporate other activities are more likely to
use half or more of the nine drought response
practices (Table 1). Other activities predict use of
all drought response practices; larger size pre-
dicts use of all responses except reducing herd
size and earning off-farm income. Shorter graz-
ing periods (moving livestock at least once in
three months) have few, positive effects on
drought response, and including yearlings has
mixed effects on drought responses. Higher stock
density is negatively associated with many
drought responses.
Ranch characteristics influence drought impacts
Ranching operation characteristics predict
whether or not a ranch experienced impacts
during the last drought that were more severe
than expected (Table 2; Appendix: Table A3).
Many drought impacts occurred more often on
ranches with characteristics that increase drought
management flexibility. Ranches that have higher
Table 1. Effects of ranch operation characteristics (top) on drought management practices (left) of Wyoming
ranches. A greater number of different drought management practices positively associated with a particular
characteristic implies increased flexibility in drought management.
Drought management
practice
Ranching operation characteristics
Larger
size (ha)
Having other
activities
Higher livestock densityShorter grazing periodàHaving
yearling
livestock4–12 ha/AU ,4 ha/AU 1–3 mo. ,1 mo.
Drought preparation
Stock conservatively þþþþ
Rest pastures þþ þ þþ
Incorporate yearling
cattle
þ þ þþ
Grassbank þþ  þ  þþ
Use weather predictions
to adjust stocking rate
þþþþ
Drought response
Reduce herd size þ
Purchase feed þþ  
Wean calves early þþ  
Rent additional pastures þþ 
Move livestock to
another location
þþ þ
Sell retained yearling
cattle
þþ þ þþ
Apply for government
assistance
þþ þ 
Earn additional off-farm
income
þ 
Place livestock in a
feedlot
þþ   þ þþ
Notes: Effects were identified using multiple logistic regression with model averaging. A plus sign (þ) indicates that the ranch
operation characteristic is positively associated with use of a practice (odds ratio greater than 1); a minus sign () indicates a
negative association (odds ratio less than 1). A blank cell indicates no relationship. All ranching operation characteristics are
from the ‘‘Operation Characteristics’’ and ‘‘Grazing Practices on Private Land that is not Irrigated’’ sections of the Wyoming
Rangeland Decision-Making Survey.
Density is relative to greater than 12 ha/AU. An animal unit (AU) is a 453-kg cow with a calf.
àGrazing period length is relative to continuous grazing through the entire growing season.
vwww.esajournals.org 7June 2014 vVolume 5(6) vArticle 77
KACHERGIS ET AL.

livestock density, employ shorter grazing peri-
ods, include yearling livestock and incorporate
other activities (e.g., hunting, conventional ener-
gy development) are more likely to report three
of six drought impacts. Ranches with these
characteristics report effects on profit and winter
feed; all characteristics but shorter grazing
periods are associated with impacts to grazing
capacity. In contrast, ranches with larger total
area are less likely to report two impacts, winter
feed and irrigation water. However, larger
ranches are more likely to report two other
impacts, profit and livestock reproductive rates.
DISCUSSION
We examine rangeland drought impacts and
management through the experiences of ranch-
ers, whose decisions affect ecosystem dynamics
and sustain ecosystem goods and services across
millions of hectares. The Wyoming Rangeland
Decision-Making Survey highlights the funda-
mental challenge of ranching operations to
balance forage demand from livestock with
highly variable forage supply (Fig. 2). The
greatest drought impact to ranching operations
is decreased grazing capacity, consistent with our
knowledge of rangeland ecosystems and beef
cattle ranching operations (Bastian et al. 2006,
Coppock 2011; Fig. 2B). Other severe drought
impacts identified by ranchers include profitabil-
ity, winter feed availability, and irrigation water.
Survey respondents use a variety of drought
management practices to handle impacts (Fig.
2A). The most popular strategies focus on
reserving forage supply, reducing herd size, and
buying feed, consistent with other studies (Bas-
tian et al. 2006, Coppock 2011; Fig. 2A). The fact
that many ranchers use similar drought manage-
ment practices, potentially triggering major price
fluctuations, highlights the market risks associ-
ated with drought. This reinforces the impor-
tance of flexibility in drought management
strategies for drought adaptation, as doing
something different may help a producer reduce
market risks.
A majority of Wyoming ranching operations
take a proactive approach to drought manage-
ment by planning for drought (60%) and/or by
using management practices to prepare before
drought occurs (81%). This may represent a
change in behavior related to record high
temperatures and frequent droughts in Wyoming
over the past decade (NOAA National Climatic
Data Center). Nearly all ranchers experienced
drought between 2002 and 2011. Ranchers may
have a heightened awareness of drought due to
these recent events, leading to changes in their
management. Indeed, 40%of ranchers said that
drought would influence their management
plans and operations more in the next 10 years
than it had in the prior 10 years. Other recent
surveys have shown that experiencing drought
changes management actions (Dunn et al. 2005,
Bastian et al. 2006, Coppock 2011). For example,
self-reported drought preparedness doubled 10
years after drought in Utah (Coppock 2011).
Larger ranch size and having other income-
generating activities on the ranch (e.g., hunting)
consistently increase the number of drought
Table 2. Effects of ranch operation characteristics (top) on drought impacts to Wyoming ranches (left). Negative
associations imply that characteristics may reduce impacts during drought.
Drought impact
Ranching operation characteristics
Larger
size (ha)
Having other
activities
Higher livestock density Shorter grazing period Having
yearling
livestock4–12 ha/AU ,4 ha/AU 1–3 mo. ,1 mo.
Grazing capacity þþ þ
Profitability þþ þ þ þ þþ
Winter feed availability þ þ þ þ þþ
Irrigation water availability þ þ þ 
Weaning weights þþþ
Reproductive rates þþ þ
Notes: Effects were identified using multiple logistic regression with model averaging. Symbols and units are as in Table 1. All
ranching operation characteristics are from the ‘‘Operation Characteristics’’ and ‘‘ Grazing Practices on Private Land that is not
Irrigated’’ sections of the Wyoming Rangeland Decision-Making Survey.
vwww.esajournals.org 8June 2014 vVolume 5(6) vArticle 77
KACHERGIS ET AL.

management practices used and thus flexibility
in drought management, both before and during
drought (Table 1). Additionally, having yearling
livestock and using shorter grazing periods are
associated with greater flexibility in drought
preparation (Table 1). Ranch size affords ecolog-
ical and economic benefits including heterogene-
ity of forage, greater capital, and economies of
scale (Scoones 1995, Stokes et al. 2006, Hobbs et
al. 2008, McAllister et al. 2009). Ranch size may
be particularly important in drought-prone
Wyoming, which has the largest ranches on
average in the US (data from 2007 National
Agricultural Census). Other activities on ranches
such as recreation, energy development, and
additional agricultural production provide in-
come and economic diversification. Nearly half
(44%) of survey respondents’operations incor-
porate yearling livestock in addition to cow-calf
pairs, partially because they can be used to
adaptively balance forage supply and forage
demand. Recent economic modeling efforts
suggest that yearlings provide increased flexibil-
ity and profitability in variable climates (Ritten et
al. 2010, Torell et al. 2010), especially when
stocking decisions are adjusted using seasonal
weather forecasts. Finally, using shorter grazing
periods enable ranchers to reserve forage supply
in ungrazed pastures, to be grazed if drought
occurs.
Ranch size reduces some drought impacts on
Wyoming ranches (Table 2), likely through
ecological and economic benefits discussed
above (Scoones 1995, Stokes et al. 2006, Hobbs
et al. 2008, McAllister et al. 2009). In contrast,
other operation characteristics that increase
flexibility also increase reported impacts (Table
2). The success of shorter grazing periods,
yearling livestock enterprises and other on-ranch
activities such as hunting also depend on forage
amount, suggesting that income from these
activities is also vulnerable to drought. Reducing
drought impacts may require (1) large ranch size
such that the resource base is sufficient during
drought, or (2) income diversification that is
independent of drought-related production and
market risks. For example, landowner agree-
ments that enable sharing of forage resources
(e.g., agistment in Australia; McAllister et al.
2006) may effectively increase ranch size with
benefits to ranchers during drought.
We speculate that increased flexibility in
drought management may lead to healthier and
more productive rangeland ecosystems and more
resilient ranching operations by improving the
dynamic balance between forage demand and
forage supply. The reverse, decline in rangeland
ecosystem health and failure of livestock enter-
prises during drought, is well-documented (e.g.,
Stafford Smith et al. 2007). Low plant productiv-
ity during drought leads to livestock consuming
a greater proportion of available rangeland
vegetation, potentially damaging grazed plants,
reducing total plant cover, and triggering accel-
erated soil erosion. In Wyoming, risk of ecosys-
tem degradation is greater in sagebrush steppe
(western part of the state) than the mixed-grass
prairie (eastern part of the state), because a
shorter evolutionary history of grazing has led to
plants that are less grazing tolerant (Coughenour
1985, Milchunas et al. 1988, Heitschmidt et al.
2005). Ecological degradation in turn heightens
production risks to ranching operations whose
income depends on forage that ecosystems
produce. Flexible drought management strate-
gies mitigate risks by better synchronizing
rangeland forage demand with dynamic supply
(Fig. 2). Native populations of large herbivores in
this region similarly fluctuate with climate-
induced changes in plant production (Frank
and McNaughton 1992). Ongoing work is ex-
ploring the link between ranch drought manage-
ment practices and ecosystem health through an
adaptive grazing management experiment, on-
ranch interviews and ecological monitoring (E.
Kachergis and J. D. Derner, unpublished data).
The Wyoming Rangeland Decision-Making
Survey demonstrates that ranch characteristics
increase flexibility in drought management and
reduce impacts from drought, thus enhancing
resilience of ranching operations and the ecosys-
tems they manage. These findings suggest
several proactive steps towards development of
a national drought policy for rangelands, includ-
ing: (1) encouraging forage-sharing mechanisms;
(2) promoting income diversification that is
independent of climatic variability; and (3)
facilitating a shift from cow/calf to diversified
livestock (i.e., both cow/calf and yearlings)
production systems. Given the likelihood of more
intense and longer duration future droughts,
improving drought management on ranches can
vwww.esajournals.org 9June 2014 vVolume 5(6) vArticle 77
KACHERGIS ET AL.

sustain provision of ecosystem goods and servic-
es not only in Wyoming but on hundreds of
millions of acres in the western US.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the Wyoming Stock Growers Association
membership and staff who made this project possible.
This manuscript benefited from thoughtful comments
from two anonymous reviewers. The Rangeland
Decision-Making Survey was funded by a grant from
the Western Sustainable Agriculture, Research, and
Education program (Project Number SW10-073).
LITERATURE CITED
Ash, A. J. and D. M. Stafford Smith. 2003. Pastoralism
in tropical rangelands: seizing the opportunity to
change. Rangeland Journal 25:113–127.
Bastian, C. T., S. Mooney, A. M. Nagler, J. P. Hewlett,
S. I. Paisley, M. A. Smith, W. M. Frasier, and W. J.
Umberger. 2006. Ranchers diverse in their drought
management strategies. Western Economic Forum
5:1–8.
Brunson, M. W. and L. Huntsinger. 2008. Ranching as a
conservation strategy: can old ranchers save the
new west? Rangeland Ecology & Management
61:137–147.
Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model
selection and multi-model inference: a practical
information-theoretic approach. Springer, New
York, New York, USA.
Coppock, D. L. 2011. Ranching and multiyear
droughts in Utah: production impacts, risk percep-
tions, and changes in preparedness. Rangeland
Ecology & Management 64:607–618.
Coppock, D. L. and A. H. Birkenfeld. 1999. Use of
livestock and range management practices in Utah.
Journal of Range Management 52:7–18.
Coughenour, M. B. 1985. Graminoid responses to
grazing by large herbivores: adaptations, exapta-
tions, and interacting processes. Annals of the
Missouri Botanical Garden 72:852–863.
Darnhofer, I., J. Fairweather, and H. Moller. 2010.
Assessing a farm’s sustainability: insights from
resilience thinking. International Journal of Agri-
cultural Sustainability 8:186–198.
Dillman, D. A. 2007. Mail and internet surveys: the
tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons,
Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.
Dunn, B., A. Smart, and R. Gates. 2005. Barriers to
successful drought management: Why do some
ranchers fail to take action? Rangelands 27:13–16.
Fazey, I., J. G. Gamarra, J. Fischer, M. S. Reed, L. C.
Stringer, and M. Christie. 2010. Adaptation strate-
gies for reducing vulnerability to future environ-
mental change. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 8:414– 422.
Frank, D. A. and S. J. McNaughton. 1992. The ecology
of plants, large mammalian herbivores, and
drought in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology
73:2043–2058.
Foran, B. D., and D. M. Stafford Smith. 1991. Risk,
biology, and drought management strategies for
cattle stations in central Australia. Journal of
Environmental Management 33:17–33.
Gelman, A. 2008. Scaling regression inputs by dividing
by two standard deviations. Statistics in Medicine
27:2865–2873.
Grueber, C. E., S. Nakagawa, R. J. Laws, and I. G.
Jamieson. 2011. Multimodel inference in ecology
and evolution: challenges and solutions. Journal of
Evolutionary Biology 24:699–711.
Hall, D. C., T. O. Knight, K. H. Coble, A. E. Baquet, F.
George, and G. F. Patrick. 2003. Analysis of beef
producers’risk management perceptions and de-
sire for further risk management education. Re-
view of Agricultural Economics 25:430–448.
Heitschmidt, R. K., K. D. Klement, and M. R.
Haferkamp. 2005. Interactive effects of drought
and grazing on Northern Great Plains rangelands.
Rangeland Ecology & Management 58:11–19.
Hobbs, N. T., K. A. Galvin, C. J. Stokes, J. M. Lackett,
A. J. Ash, R. B. Boone, R. S. Reid, and P. K.
Thornton. 2008. Fragmentation of rangelands:
implications for humans, animals, and landscapes.
Global Environmental Change 18:776–785.
Howden, S. M., J. F. Soussana, F. N. Tubiello, N.
Chhetri, M. Dunlop, and H. Meinke. 2007. Adapt-
ing agriculture to climate change. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences USA 104:19691–
19696.
IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007: the physical science
basis. Contribution of working group I to the
fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a
perspective for social-ecological systems analyses.
Global Environmental Change 16:253–267.
Kachergis, E., J. D. Derner, L. M. Roche, K. W. Tate,
M. N. Lubell, R. D. Mealor, and J. Magagna. 2013.
Characterizing Wyoming ranching operations: nat-
ural resource goals, management practices, and
information sources. Natural Resources 4:45–54.
Knapp, A. K., and M. D. Smith. 2001. Variation among
biomes in temporal dynamics of aboveground
primary production. Science 291:481–484.
Lubell, M. N., B. B. Cutts, L. M. Roche, M. Hamilton,
J. D. Derner, E. Kachergis, and K. W. Tate. 2013.
Conservation program participation and adaptive
rangeland decision-making. Rangeland Ecology
and Management 66:609–620.
vwww.esajournals.org 10 June 2014 vVolume 5(6) vArticle 77
KACHERGIS ET AL.

Maestas, J. D., R. L. Knight, and W. C. Gilgert. 2003.
Biodiversity across a rural land-use gradient.
Conservation Biology 17:1425–1434.
McAllister, R. R. J., I. J. Gordon, M. A. Janssen, and N.
Abel. 2006. Pastoralists’responses to variation of
rangeland resources in time and space. Ecological
Applications 16:572–583.
McAllister, R. R. J., D. M. S. Smith, C. J. Stokes, and F. J.
Walsh. 2009. Patterns of accessing variable resourc-
es across time and space: desert plants, animals
and people. Journal of Arid Environments 73:338–
346.
McKeon, G. M., et al. 2009. Climate change impacts on
northern Australian rangeland livestock carrying
capacity: a review of issues. Rangeland Journal
31:1–29.
Milchunas, D. G., O. E. Sala, and W. K. Lauenroth.
1988. A generalized model of the effects of grazing
by large herbivores on grassland community
structure. American Naturalist 132:87–106.
Ritten, J. P., W. M. Frasier, C. T. Bastian, and S. T. Gray.
2010. Optimal rangeland stocking decisions under
stochastic and climate-impacted weather. Ameri-
can Journal of Agicultural Economics 92:1242–1255.
Scoones, I. 1995. Exploiting heterogeneity: habitat use
by cattle in dryland Zimbabwe. Journal of Arid
Environments 29:221–237.
Shuman, B. 2011. Recent Wyoming temperature
trends, their drivers, and impacts in a 14,000-year
context. Climatic Change 112:429–447.
Smit, B., and J. Wandel. 2006. Adaptation, adaptive
capacity, and vulnerability. Global Environmental
Change 16:282–292.
Soule, P. T. 1992. Spatial patterns of drought frequency
and duration in the contiguous USA based on
multiple drought event definitions. International
Journal of Climatololgy 12:11–24.
Stafford Smith, D. M., G. M. McKeon, I. W. Watson,
B. K. Henry, G. S. Stone, W. B. Hall, and S. M.
Howden. 2007. Learning from episodes of degra-
dation and recovery in variable Australian range-
lands. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences USA 104:20690–20695.
Stokes, C. J., R. R. J. McAllister, and A. J. Ash. 2006.
Fragmentation of Australian rangelands: processes,
benefits, and risks of changing patterns of land use.
Rangeland Journal 28:83–96.
Thurow, T. L., and C. A. Taylor. 1999. Viewpoint: The
role of drought in range management. Journal of
Range Management 52:413–419.
Torell, L. A., S. Murugan, and O. A. Ramirez. 2010.
Economics of flexible versus conservative stocking
strategies to manage climate variability risk.
Rangeland Ecology & Management 63:415–425.
USDA ERS. 2012. US drought 2012: farm and food
impacts. US Department of Agriculture Economic
Research Service, Washington, D.C., USA. http://
www.ers.usda.gov/topics/in-the-news/
us-drought-2012-farm-and-food-impacts#.
UxJUXvldWSo
USDA NASS. 2013. Cattle. US Department of Agricul-
ture National Agricultural Statistics Service, Wash-
ington, D.C., USA. http://usda01.library.cornell.
edu/usda/nass/Catt//2010s/2013/Catt-02-01-2013.
pdf
vwww.esajournals.org 11 June 2014 vVolume 5(6) vArticle 77
KACHERGIS ET AL.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
APPENDIX
Table A1. Ranching operation characteristics affect drought preparation on Wyoming ranches according to the
Wyoming Rangeland Decision-Making Survey.
Drought preparation
practice
Ranching operation
characteristic Odds ratio
Odds ratio
confidence
interval
Relative variable
importance
Stock conservatively Size 1.4 0.8–2.3 0.28
N¼236 Yearlings 1.2 0.7–2.0 0.17
4 models Grazing period length, 1–3 mo 1.5 0.6–3.6 0.16
Grazing period length, ,1 mo 1.9 0.8–4.5 0.16
Rest pastures Grazing period length, 1–3 mo 1.3 0.5–3.2 1.00
N¼236 Grazing period length, ,1 mo 2.5 1.0–6.1 1.00
4 models Other activities 1.9 1.0–3.5 1.00
Size 1.4 0.8–2.5 0.43
Yearlings 1.4 0.8–2.3 0.40
Incorporate yearling
livestock
Yearlings 12.1 5.8–25.1 1.00
N¼236 Grazing period length, 1–3 mo 2.4 0.7–8.3 1.00
3 models Grazing period length, ,1 mo 4.2 1.2–14.4 1.00
Size 0.7 0.4–1.4 0.27
Other activities 1.3 0.6–3.0 0.23
Grassbank (stockpile
forage)
Other activities 2.6 1.1–6.2 1.00
N¼236 Yearlings 1.7 0.9–3.2 0.53
12 models Size 1.5 0.8–2.7 0.48
Density, 4 –12 ha/AU 0.7 0.3–1.9 0.40
Density, ,4 ha/AU 1.6 0.7–3.7 0.40
Grazing period length, 1–3 mo 0.7 0.2–2.3 0.23
Grazing period length, ,1 mo 1.4 0.5–4.1 0.23
Use weather predictions
to adjust stocking rate
Size 1.4 0.8–2.3 0.28
N¼236 Yearlings 1.2 0.7–2.0 0.17
4 models Grazing period length, 1–3 mo 1.5 0.6–3.6 0.16
Grazing period length, ,1 mo 1.9 0.8–4.5 0.16
Notes: Standardized variables were analyzed using multiple logistic regression with model averaging. All ranching operation
characteristics are from the ‘‘Operation Characteristics’’ and ‘‘Grazing Practices on Private Land that is not Irrigated’’ sections of
the Wyoming Rangeland Decision-Making Survey. Density is relative to greater than 12 ha/AU. An animal unit (AU ) is a 453-kg
cow with a calf. Grazing period length is relative to continuous grazing through the entire growing season.
vwww.esajournals.org 12 June 2014 vVolume 5(6) vArticle 77
KACHERGIS ET AL.

Table A2. Ranching operation characteristics affect drought response on Wyoming ranches according to the
Wyoming Rangeland Decision-Making Survey.
Drought response
practice
Ranching operation
characteristic Odds ratio
Odds ratio
confidence interval
Relative variable
importance
Reduce herd size Other activities 1.8 0.9–3.6 0.63
N¼236 Size 0.6 0.4–1.1 0.54
4 models
Purchase feed Density, 4 –12 ha/AU 0.9 0.4–1.9 1.00
N¼236 Density, ,4 ha/AU 0.4 0.2–0.8 1.00
3 models Other activities 1.5 0.8–2.7 0.38
Size 1.1 0.7–1.9 0.17
Wean calves early Density, 4 –12 ha/AU 0.6 0.3–1.2 1.00
N¼236 Density, ,4 ha/AU 0.4 0.2–0.8 1.00
4 models Other activities 1.6 0.9–2.8 0.51
Size 1.3 0.8–2.3 0.39
Rent additional pastures Size 1.6 0.9–2.9 0.79
N¼236 Other activities 1.6 0.9–3.0 0.72
4 models Yearlings 0.9 0.5–1.6 0.14
Move livestock to another location Size 1.5 0.9–2.6 0.52
N¼236 Other activities 1.5 0.8–3.0 0.35
6 models Yearlings 1.2 0.7–2.2 0.20
Sell retained yearling livestock Yearlings 3.5 1.8–6.6 1.00
N¼236 Other activities 1.2 0.6–2.5 0.18
4 models Grazing period length, 1–3 mo 1.9 0.6–6.3 0.18
Grazing period length, ,1 mo 2.3 0.7–7.5 0.18
Size 1.1 0.6–2.0 0.18
Apply for government assistance Other activities 3.6 1.5–8.7 1.00
N¼236 Density, 4 –12 ha/AU 1.8 0.8–4.2 0.80
3 models Density, ,4 ha/AU 0.8 0.3–1.9 0.80
Size 1.3 0.7–2.3 0.27
Earn off-farm income Other activities 3.4 1.3–9.3 1.00
N¼236 Yearlings 0.6 0.3–1.2 0.54
4 models Size 0.5 0.2–1.4 0.49
Place livestock in a feedlot Size 2.0 1.1–3.7 1.00
N¼236 Yearlings 2.2 1.0–4.8 0.90
7 models Grazing period length, 1–3 mo 2.9 0.6–13.9 0.43
Grazing period length, ,1 mo 1.4 0.3–7.1 0.43
Density, 4 –12 ha/AU 0.9 0.3–2.2 0.28
Density, ,4 ha/AU 0.4 0.1–1.2 0.28
Other activities 1.4 0.5–3.5 0.19
Note: Analyses and units are as in Table A1.
vwww.esajournals.org 13 June 2014 vVolume 5(6) vArticle 77
KACHERGIS ET AL.

Table A3. Ranching operation characteristics affect drought impacts to Wyoming ranches that were more severe
than expected according to the Wyoming Rangeland Decision-Making Survey.
Drought impact
Ranching operation
characteristic Odds ratio
Odds ratio
confidence interval
Relative variable
importance
Grazing capacity Density, 4 –12 ha/AU 1.7 0.7–3.9 0.28
N¼237 Density, ,4 ha/AU 0.9 0.4–2.1 0.28
4 models Yearlings 1.2 0.6 –2.1 0.16
Other activities 1.2 0.6–2.2 0.16
Profitability Other activities 2.0 1.1–3.7 1.00
N¼237 Density, 4–12 ha/AU 2.1 1.0– 4.3 0.71
10 models Density, ,4 ha/AU 1.1 0.5–2.3 0.71
Grazing period length, 1–3 mo 2.1 0.9–5.2 0.41
Grazing period length, ,1 mo 2.5 1.0–6.1 0.41
Yearlings 1.3 0.8–2.3 0.26
Size 1.3 0.8–2.3 0.26
Winter feed availability Other activities 2.5 1.4–4.6 1.00
N¼237 Size 0.7 0.4–1.2 0.33
6 models Grazing period length, 1–3 mo 2.2 0.9–5.4 0.32
Grazing period length, ,1 mo 1.6 0.6–3.9 0.32
Density, 4 –12 ha/AU 1.8 0.8–3.7 0.12
Density, ,4 ha/AU 1.4 0.7–2.9 0.12
Yearlings 1.1 0.6–1.9 0.10
Irrigation water availability Density, 4 –12 ha/AU 2.1 1.0– 4.6 1.00
N¼237 Density, ,4 ha/AU 3.8 1.7–8.2 1.00
4 models Other activities 1.2 0.7–2.2 0.19
Yearlings 0.9 0.5–1.5 0.18
Size 0.9 0.5–1.5 0.17
Calf weaning weights Grazing period length, 1–3 mo 2.2 0.9–5.7 0.28
N¼237 Grazing period length, ,1 mo 1.7 0.7–4.4 0.28
3 models Other activities 1.3 0.7–2.4 0.26
Livestock reproductive rates Size 1.5 0.9–2.6 0.44
N¼237 Other activities 1.2 0.6–2.5 0.26
5 models Yearlings 1.2 0.6 –2.1 0.12
Note: Analyses and units are as in Table A1.
vwww.esajournals.org 14 June 2014 vVolume 5(6) vArticle 77
KACHERGIS ET AL.