Using a process-based model, ParopSys, to predict the impact of climate change on the eucalypt plantation pest Paropsis atomaria.

The eucalypt leaf beetle, Paropsis atomaria Olivier, is an increasingly important pest of eucalypt plantations in subtropical eastern Australia. A process-based model, ParopSys, was developed using DYMEXTM and was found to accurately predict the beetle populations. Climate change scenarios within the latest Australian climate model forecast range were run in ParopSys at three locations to predict changes in beetle performance. Relative population peaks of early generations did not change but shifted to earlier in the season. Temperature increases of 1.0 to 1.5 ºC or greater predicted an extra generation of adults at Gympie and Canberra, but not for Lowmead, where increased populations of late season adults were observed under all scenarios. Furthermore, an additional generation of late-larval stages was predicted at temperature increases of greater than 1.0 ºC at Lowmead. Management strategies to address these changes are discussed, as are requirements to improve the predictive capacity of the model.

The climate change risk management matrix for the grazing industry of northern Australia

The complexity, variability and vastness of the northern Australian rangelands make it difficult to assess the risks associated with climate change. In this paper we present a methodology to help industry and primary producers assess risks associated with climate change and to assess the effectiveness of adaptation options in managing those risks. Our assessment involved three steps. Initially, the impacts and adaptation responses were documented in matrices by ‘experts’ (rangeland and climate scientists). Then, a modified risk management framework was used to develop risk management matrices that identified important impacts, areas of greatest vulnerability (combination of potential impact and adaptive capacity) and priority areas for action at the industry level. The process was easy to implement and useful for arranging and analysing large amounts of information (both complex and interacting). Lastly, regional extension officers (after minimal ‘climate literacy’ training) could build on existing knowledge provided here and implement the risk management process in workshops with rangeland land managers. Their participation is likely to identify relevant and robust adaptive responses that are most likely to be included in regional and property management decisions. The process developed here for the grazing industry could be modified and used in other industries and sectors. By 2030, some areas of northern Australia will experience more droughts and lower summer rainfall. This poses a serious threat to the rangelands. Although the impacts and adaptive responses will vary between ecological and geographic systems, climate change is expected to have noticeable detrimental effects: reduced pasture growth and surface water availability; increased competition from woody vegetation; decreased production per head (beef and wool) and gross margin; and adverse impacts on biodiversity. Further research and development is needed to identify the most vulnerable regions, and to inform policy in time to facilitate transitional change and enable land managers to implement those changes.

The intrinsic plasticity of farm businesses and their resilience to change. An Australian example.

This paper examines the idea that plasticity in farm management introduces resilience to change and allows farm businesses to perform when operating in highly variable environments. We also argue for the need to develop and apply more integrative assessments of farm performance that combine the use of modelling tools with deliberative processes involving farmers and researchers in a co-learning process, to more effectively identify and implement more productive and resilient farm businesses. In a plastic farming system, farm management is highly contingent on environmental conditions. In plastic farming systems farm managers constantly vary crops and inputs based on the availability of limited and variable resources (e.g. land, water, finances, labour, machinery, etc.), and signals from its operating environment (e.g. climate, markets), with the objective of maximising a number of, often competing, objectives (e.g. maximise profits, minimise risks, etc.). In contrast in more rigid farming systems farm management is more calendar driven and relatively fixed sequences of crops are regularly followed over time and across the farm. Here we describe the application of a whole farm simulation model to (i) compare, in silico, the sensitivity of two farming systems designs of contrasting levels of plasticity, operating in two contrasting environments, when exposed to a stressor in the form of climate change scenarios;(ii) investigate the presence of interactions and feedbacks at the field and farm levels capable of modifying the intensity and direction of the responses to climate signals; and (iii) discuss the need for the development and application of more integrative assessments in the analysis of impacts and adaptation options to climate change. In both environments, the more plastic farm management strategy had higher median profits and was less risky for the baseline and less intensive climate change scenarios (2030). However, for the more severe climate change scenarios (2070), the benefit of plastic strategies tended to disappear. These results suggest that, to a point, farming systems having higher levels of plasticity would enable farmers to more effectively respond to climate shifts, thus ensuring the economic viability of the farm business. Though, as the intensity of the stress increases (e.g. 2070 climate change scenario) more significant changes in the farming system might be required to adapt. We also found that in the case studies analysed here, most of the impacts from the climate change scenarios on farm profit and economic risk originated from important reductions in cropping intensity and changes in crop mix rather than from changes in the yields of individual crops. Changes in cropping intensity and crop mix were explained by the combination of reductions in the number of sowing opportunities around critical times in the cropping calendar, and to operational constraints at the whole farm level i.e. limited work capacity in an environment having fewer and more concentrated sowing opportunities. This indicates that indirect impacts from shifts in climate on farm operations can be more important than direct impacts from climate on the yield of individual crops. The results suggest that due to the complexity of farm businesses, impact assessments and opportunities for adaptation to climate change might also need to be pursued at higher integration levels than the crop or the field. We conclude that plasticity can be a desirable characteristic in farming systems operating in highly variable environments, and that integrated whole farm systems analyses of impacts and adaptation to climate change are required to identify important interactions between farm management decision rules, availability of resources, and farmer's preference.

Assessing and reducing vulnerability to climate change: Moving from theory to practical decision-support

As climate change continues to impact socio-ecological systems, tools that assist conservation managers to understand vulnerability and target adaptations are essential. Quantitative assessments of vulnerability are rare because available frameworks are complex and lack guidance for dealing with data limitations and integrating across scales and disciplines. This paper describes a semi-quantitative method for assessing vulnerability to climate change that integrates socio-ecological factors to address management objectives and support decision-making. The method applies a framework first adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and uses a structured 10-step process. The scores for each framework element are normalized and multiplied to produce a vulnerability score and then the assessed components are ranked from high to low vulnerability. Sensitivity analyses determine which indicators most influence the analysis and the resultant decision-making process so data quality for these indicators can be reviewed to increase robustness. Prioritisation of components for conservation considers other economic, social and cultural values with vulnerability rankings to target actions that reduce vulnerability to climate change by decreasing exposure or sensitivity and/or increasing adaptive capacity. This framework provides practical decision-support and has been applied to marine ecosystems and fisheries, with two case applications provided as examples: (1) food security in Pacific Island nations under climate-driven fish declines, and (2) fisheries in the Gulf of Carpentaria, northern Australia. The step-wise process outlined here is broadly applicable and can be undertaken with minimal resources using existing data, thereby having great potential to inform adaptive natural resource management in diverse locations.