MT Mule Deer Symposium

[Ben Lamb]

Sorry I wasn't more clear. Did they provide the causes for the decrease in nutrition in the forage? Change to a lower quality species? Same species, but they are less nutritious than in the past?

Main causes are warmer temps and drier conditions leading to less nutritional value.

They do talk about increased predation on the migratory elk as well, but when you don't get young cows reproducing, nothing matters in terms of predation because you never replenish the herd.

Here's the link to the web page: http://www.wyocoopunit.org/index.php/kauffman-group/search/absaroka-elk-ecology-project/

Nectar- as it relates to this study, it's due to climate change and drought primarily.

 

[1_pointer]

Ben- Thanks for the forage quality info! I may try to get into the details of the report as that is pretty interesting.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben- Thanks for the forage quality info! I may try to get into the details of the report as that is pretty interesting.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. I'm not a scientist, just play one on tv, but this seems to be a re-occuring theme in a lot of discussions with biologists.

 

[1_pointer]

I briefly looked at the link you provided and some of the links that are imbedded within that link. Please take my summation/review with a grain of salt as I'm not really considered a scientist by many because I studied/worked in range...

In short, I think they need to hire some veg people for the study! What little I gleaned is that the growing season is shorter and they are attributing that to lower 'vigor' of cow elk. While their data shows that to be the case, it's a pretty short time span (10yrs) for there to be really any, IMO, definitive trends assessed. Shorter greenup appears to be an effect due to its relationship to elk habitat use in time and space. However, I don't think greenup time alone tells the how story as to nutrional value of the forage.

No where did I see any results of the actual nutriitonal quality of the forage nor did I see any data on the amount of forage production. Green up dates alone will not give you that information. Lower quality forage can be sufficient if more of it is available. I would like to see them do an actual forage quality and forage production study. I think this would allow them to have a better handle on the causative agent. So, I think it's hard to say just based on green up that nutritional content of forage has decreased (see my quote of your post above) as it has not been determined. What they have determined, at least for the past 10yrs is that the timing of the flush of new forage is different and have correlated that with lower pregnancy rates. That is nothing that management can really alter, but if the trend does continue I would think the elk will.

Now if they did a forage nutrition and production study which showed those two things to be declining those are attributes that management may be able to alter. For instance, if the decrease is due to a change of species treatments can be applied to favor the more nutritious. If it's the age of plants there (old, 'wolfy' grass is less nutritious than younger age classes) maybe a burn to reset the successional clock could help. Etc...

Sorry for the tangent and 1/2 coherent analysis.

One thing the study did reinforce for me is that it's largely about the habitat...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Excellent!

Earlier green up combined with drier climate means less nutritional content in forage - generally speaking though, correct?

A project like this would be incredibly useful in conjunction with the predation studies going on in MT. If only there were a non-profit specifically focused on elk or mule deer to help fund such an expansive and definitive study.

If only.

 

[TheTone]

I know of one study that was being done in Idaho looking at forage quality and usage (what specific plants are the does eating and what is the nutrional value of them) as it relates to fawning locations. I haven't heard much about it though in a couple years, not sure where it may be at.

 

[1_pointer]

Excellent!

Earlier green up combined with drier climate means less nutritional content in forage - generally speaking though, correct?
A project like this would be incredibly useful in conjunction with the predation studies going on in MT. If only there were a non-profit specifically focused on elk or mule deer to help fund such an expansive and definitive study.

If only.

Not necessarily, but that is what they are inferring IMO. However, I did not find anywhere the data showing the quality or amount of the forage, hence the need for some veg boots on the ground. That data doesn't come from satellites, though too many (even veg guys) try to do that.

Earlier green up could result in more forage as it could be extending the time for favorable growing conditions. Grasses in this are are largely cool season species. As such, they have evolved to green up early in the year and then pretty much shut down when temps get higher. You also have to take into account timing when talking about "drier". For instance, if you have a water year that is 80% of average, but you get that water at the right time it is very possible to produce better than average forage for that year. For these types of grasses snow is important, but 1" of rain in mid-May is way more important that just about any snow you get and definitely more important that 1" of rain in Aug. So, it could be "drier" but that moisture is falling at a favorable time increasing production.

The above deals with amounts of forage, the nutritional content is a whole 'nuther kettle of fish. I would guess that it would track with production, but you'd have to get the numbers. Forage needs are based on quality and amount. The above deals with the amount and short of a drastic shift in species composition I'd be surprised if the quality changes due to the conditions. Said another way, I'd like to know if the shift to earlier green up and drier conditions is causing a shift in species composition? I did not see even a hint at that answer in my review of the links.

Long story short, I'd have to say "Maybe" even if only generally...

 

[1_pointer]

Some of this information for plant production and forage quality may be already had at one of the USDA forage and range labs. However, often times those guys and the wildlife guys don't talk all that much.

 

[Ben Lamb]

How big a factor is soil in all of this?

 

[1_pointer]

Very big. Probably bigger than climate.

In a "previous life" I worked in an area where everything was the same and the sites actually co-mingled. The deeper, less rocky soil produced rough 2X the amount of vegetation as the shallower, rockier soil. Species lists were pretty much the same, however the species composition (relative production of each species) was noticably different. It's the same reason there are farms in some places and not others. That said, the effects of earlier greenup and drier conditions will be the same on the same soils.

If I could go back in time I would have spent more time and effort in school, especially grad school, in soils classes.

Another analogy on the importance of quality of forage. Ranch manager I worked with in UT moved to FL to manage a ranch. In FL they grew many times more pounds of forage than what was growing along the UT/WY border. However, the cattle had to eat a lot more forage in FL to put on the same gains as those in UT. The nutrition content was higher in UT and the water content lower. Therefore the cattle spent longer feeding in a given day in FL and pooped alot more than they did in UT. 'Course in FL they didn't have to travel near as far to food or water in a given day either...

More flies in the ointment, fall precipitation prior to freezing temperatures can quite often be used to predict the relative production of forage the following year. This is due to the growth characteristics of cool season (C3 for you plant nerds ) grass species. Think winter wheat...

 

[TheTone]

You're making my head hurt pointer. Man I've gotten dumb and forgotten a lot of things since I got out of school.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Very big. Probably bigger than climate.

How would changing climate patterns effect soil productivity?

 

[1_pointer]

How would changing climate patterns effect soil productivity?

The most appropriate next question should be, how is the climate changing? Will it be warmer/drier or cooler/wetter? That would greatly change the outcome.

Short answer, they wouldn't in a time scale that is useful to humans. Soils form/change, literally, on geologic time scales. Some of the prairies (now mostly row crops) in the midwest were similar in vegetation and climate to artic tundra approx. 10,000 years ago. It took literally thousands of years for them to become prairie and to therefore build the soil that feeds the world.
That said, a change in moisture regime and therefore plant production/species could have an effect in a shorter time frame. For example, a change from a perennial plant species to an annual plant species dominated landscape could change the erosion rates/incidents to a level that would reduce soil productivity.

Agriculture can speed this process up, as evidenced by the Dust Bowl years. The same thing could and has happened in natural systems, but again not in a time scale that would be pertinent to current management IMO. The reverse is also somewhat true. An abandoned field in Illinois was restored as prairie even though it was historically decidous hardwood forest. It developed prairie like soil conditions in about 60years.

 

[1_pointer]

An oldie but a goodie in regards to man and erosion/soil health...

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1043789.pdf

 

[Ben Lamb]

The most appropriate next question should be, how is the climate changing? Will it be warmer/drier or cooler/wetter? That would greatly change the outcome.

Short answer, they wouldn't in a time scale that is useful to humans. Soils form/change, literally, on geologic time scales. Some of the prairies (now mostly row crops) in the midwest were similar in vegetation and climate to artic tundra approx. 10,000 years ago. It took literally thousands of years for them to become prairie and to therefore build the soil that feeds the world.
That said, a change in moisture regime and therefore plant production/species could have an effect in a shorter time frame. For example, a change from a perennial plant species to an annual plant species dominated landscape could change the erosion rates/incidents to a level that would reduce soil productivity.

Agriculture can speed this process up, as evidenced by the Dust Bowl years. The same thing could and has happened in natural systems, but again not in a time scale that would be pertinent to current management IMO. The reverse is also somewhat true. An abandoned field in Illinois was restored as prairie even though it was historically decidous hardwood forest. It developed prairie like soil conditions in about 60years.

Sounds like you're a wolf lover.

Given the increases in temp over the last 20 years, and the decidedly drastic changes that are occurring in precip delivery (bigger storms, more volatile, etc) would it be a sound hypothesis that the timeline you have outlined could accelerate along with the changing climate?

 

[1_pointer]

I'd love to shoot a wolf!

I don't think that would be a sound hypothesis. I think the climate has been as, if not more, volatile in the past as it currently is. Heck, where I am now sitting was covered in ice many hundreds of feet thick 10,000 years ago!

When it comes to soil, 20years is a minuscule blip and the changes we have seen in human history, let alone our lifetime, pale in comparison with what the soils have been through. One part of Indiana I'm working in has been all of the following: a lake, a boreal forest, a swampy forest, and a grassland resembling that now found in the Southwest since the recession of the Illinois glacier. So even if it did accelerate the process, you're great-great-great (not sure how many to put) grandkids will not see an appreciable change in soil productivity soley due to the change in climate.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Interesting.

Do you think that a comprehensive look at nutritional content within forage on these lands would be helpful in future management action?

 

[shoots-straight]

Every time I'm out hunting or hiking in the hills, I try and add to the biomass that's on the forest floor for healthy plant species.

 

[1_pointer]

Interesting.

Do you think that a comprehensive look at nutritional content within forage on these lands would be helpful in future management action?

That in conjunction with production may be helpful in explaining the reduced amount of fat/condition of cow elk going into winter. IIRC from the link you provided that is a key factor in calving success. Something's causing the reduction in condition and I'm far from convinced that 7 days earlier green up is the culprit. My guess is there's more 'meat' already fleshed out on that subject that's just not listed on the report synopsis on the website or that I did look close enough to find it.

 

[1_pointer]

Every time I'm out hunting or hiking in the hills, I try and add to the biomass that's on the forest floor for healthy plant species.

I walk way too much with my head down! If you start carrying a softball with you I'll really know you are a 'range geek'!