A guide to the process of Mitchell grass recovery

In western Queensland, severe drought conditions began in late 2001 and did not generally ease until the 2008/09 summer. Despite the ability of Mitchell grass plants to become dormant during drought, a large proportion of plants appeared to be dead rather than drought-dormant by the end of the 2002/03 summer. Tillers and remaining leaves were blackened and unpalatable to livestock. The term Mitchell grass dieback was coined by producers and other observers to describe what had occurred, although most were confident that the grass would recover with the breaking of the drought. Mitchell grass plants generally failed to respond to widespread average summer rains in early 2004 (> 250 mm). Observation suggested that moisture had penetrated to a soil depth of about 60 cm and a response from plants was expected. When there was no general response, research into the reasons for this was initiated (NBP.348 'Mitchell grass death in Queensland: extent, economic impact and potential for recovery'; 2005-07). This included an investigation of discrete areas of pasture that had responded to the 2003-04 summer rain. Further declines in condition of Mitchell grasslands occurred between winter 2005 and winter 2006 and, by 2006, field surveys indicated that 53% of this pasture community was in poor (C) condition, primarily due to dieback. Measurements at some sites suggested practices such as wet season spelling and burning can pre-condition Mitchell grass pasture for greater resistance to drought-induced dieback. However, the casual mechanisms and the effective timing and frequency of these practices remained unclear.

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.