Coping Strategies During Drought: The Case of Rangeland Users in Southwest Iran

RALA-00134; No of Pages 10

1

5Q4 6

F

4

By Shahram Moghaddas Farimani, Valiollah Raufirad, Richard Hunter, Philippe Lebailly, and Steven Van Passel

O

3

Coping Strategies During Drought: The Case of Rangeland Users in Southwest Iran

R O

2

7

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

31 32 Q5 33 34 35 36 37 38 Q6 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

R

O

Rangelands xx(x):1—10 doi 10.1016/j.rala.2017.06.004 © 2017 The Society for Range Management.

D

C

27 28 29 30

N

26

Keywords: sustainable rangeland management, rangeland improvement, indigenous knowledge, stocking rate, grazing capacity, drought.

rought is a common natural hazard in arid and semi-arid regions. It is a prolonged period of abnormally low rainfall that negatively affects land managers, ranching enterprises, and pastoral systems. 1 Drought may be the most complex but least understood of all natural hazards, and it directly affects more people globally than any other natural hazard. 2 Heim (2002) divides drought into four categories based on myriad localized effects on human and natural phenomena: meteorological, agricultural, hydrological, and socioeconomic. Drought is a normal, recurrent feature of climate that may occur anywhere, even if its characteristics and impacts vary significantly from one region to the next. 3 Thus, an objective evaluation of drought conditions in a particular area is the first step for planning 2017

U

25

P

D

14

natural resource protection and allocation to prevent and mitigate the negative impacts of future occurrences. 2 In recent decades, the frequency of drought in arid and semi-arid regions such as West Asia, North Africa, Eastern Australia, and Southwestern United States has been increasing. 2,3 This climatic phenomenon has negatively affected agriculture (e.g., crop and livestock production) and natural resources (e.g., rangelands and surface waters). Rangeland users (RUs) in arid and semi-arid regions consider drought to be a significant problem because it can lead to forage production losses between 30% and 100%. Rangelands within advanced economies are not immune to this hazard. For example, from 2014 to 2015, drought caused an 80% forage production loss in San Luis Obispo County, California. 4 The widespread droughts of the early 1990s in particular had a major detrimental impact on rangelands and livestock production. 4–6 A drought usually entails a number of different and interconnected social, economic, and environmental consequences. For example, a drought will significantly affect rangeland activities, and in developing countries in arid and semi-arid regions, it can be a primary cause of poverty and emigration. 2 Arid and semi-arid regions are characterized by wide deviations in annual precipitation that make them highly susceptible to drought. 6 Turning the focus to Iran specifically, in the past 40 years, the country has experienced 27 droughts. Drought is clearly not an unusual climatic hazard in Iran, but it nonetheless remains a phenomenon that has not been fully considered in the country, despite the clear challenges that drought presents for RUs’ livelihoods and environmental management policy making. 7 Droughts in Iran affect large numbers of people, causing tremendous economic losses and social hardships as well as severe environmental damage. 7 According to statistics reported by the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance/Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters International Disaster Database, drought was the major natural disaster affecting Iran between 1900 and 2008. 8 Global and regional climate change is expected to increase the frequency of drought in Iran. South and southwest Iran, including Fars province, are highly susceptible to frequent and

E

13

T

12

of rangeland users (RUs) in Fars province in southwest Iran. • Our findings reveal that in the RUs experience, the most effective drought coping strategies include reducing stocking rates and the gradual reduction of inefficient, old, and sick livestock. • The data also indicate that RUs promote rangeland resilience during a drought through range protection/exclosures, seeding, and broadcast seeding. • This study therefore suggests that the indigenous knowledge of RUs could improve existing training and extension programs by providing localized environmental contexts for developing coping strategies before, during, and after drought.

C

11

• This study assesses the drought coping strategies

E

10

On the Ground

R

8 9

1

46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101

Effects of Drought on Rangelands

103

Drought affects rangeland ecosystems in many ways. For rangeland managers, the most concerning impact is lowered soil moisture levels that inhibit plant growth and thereby reduce forage yields. 11 In arid and semi-arid regions, such as West Asia and North Africa (WANA), rangelands with less than 200 mm of average annual precipitation are the main source of forage for small ruminants. 12 It then follows that drought is one of the most important factors influencing livestock production in the rangelands of semi-arid regions. The most direct impact of a precipitation defecit on RUs' livelihoods in WANA is the dessication of hydrological resources, which reduces forage for sustaining livestock. 5,6 The effects of drought may appear more rapidly on pastures that have coarse-textured soils (i.e., sands and gravels) due to poor moisture storage and lower water holding capacity. 13 These soil characteristics directly influence the condition of rangeland resources that are essential for livestock productivity and, consequently, for the livelihoods of RUs. 12 Reduced forage yields during drought cause a decline in nutrient availability for livestock. This has significant adverse effects on livestock production, including reduced weight gains due to increased energy expenditure while foraging, poor body condition in livestock by fall, an increase in disease susceptibility, and higher wintering costs. 14 Minimizing these effects requires formulating management strategies during drought that can provide essential information for SRM. Such information is critical for drought management policy makers, who often must prioritize limited resources when designing vulnerability-reducing interventions. 15

110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131

C

109

E

108

R

107

R

106

N C O

105

U

104

T

102

132

Rangeland Management During Drought

133

RUs may employ a variety of drought risk management options to minimize drought’s effects. More options (e.g., moderate use of rangelands, reduced stocking levels, deferred grazing, and so on) allow for greater flexibility to reduce damage to a rangeland’s soils and vegetation, the health of livestock, and the RUs’ livelihoods. 16 Although there is no

134 135 136 137 138

2

Rangeland Improvement during and after Drought

190

Once a drought has ended, rangeland managers must allow the pasture to recover so that grasses can resume growing and

192

F

91

O

90

R O

89

139

P

88

“cookbook” approach to drought risk management, many of these points are principles of range management that can be relevant to all RUs. Other suggestions may not be practical for some operations for a variety of reasons, such as legality concerns and the cost-benefit analysis. No one knows better than the RUs themselves which management strategies are viable and will be most effective in their localized contexts. Past attempts at range management during drought have tended to exhibit a reactive, crisis management approach. Such attempts have therefore been ineffective, ineffectively coordinated, and poorly timed in both developed and developing countries. 17 Although drought is complex and remains poorly understood, scientists worldwide have developed and tested early warning indicators of drought and drought mitigaton strategies (e.g., groundwater extraction, cisterns and water harvesting systems, 6 reserve pastures, rotational grazing, drought planning, 18 increased preparation for drought such as operation experience with drought, type of livestock operation, grazing system 19 ). Moreover, some countries (Australia, New Zealand) and regions (East and Southern Africa) have developed drought risk management approaches (e.g., the standardized precipitation index, field monitoring, and remote sensing systems) for their agro-pastoral sectors. However, in arid and semi-arid regions, including in Iran, national-level implementation of these approaches remains largely stalled due to insufficient funding and an entrenched patchwork of local strategies for drought risk management. 6 The lack of integration of the various approaches to drought risk management (e.g., sustainable land management, water resource management, food security, etc.) at the national level is often highlighted as a weakness. Yet local approaches tend to better emphasize vulnerability factors in relation to livelihood strategies and efforts to manage rangelands during drought. 7 This is because RUs possess highly localized knowledge of their rangeland ecosystems and how these ecosystems respond during drought conditions. 20 This knowledge has allowed them to develop their own adaptive capacities to cope with recurring droughts and sustain livestock production. 21,22 Hazell et al. (2001) summarize the strategies that some agro-pastoralist societies arid and semi-arid regions have developed. Some of these strategies include 1) mobile or transhumant grazing practices that reduce the risk of having insufficient forage in any particular location, 2) reciprocal grazing arrangements with more distant communities for access to their resources over dry periods, 3) adjustment of herd sizes and stocking rates to match available natural feed resources, 4) keeping extra animals that can be easily liquidated in a drought, either for food or cash, 5) diversification of crops and the storage of surplus grain, straw, and forage for use in dry years, and 6) diversification among animal species and breeds within species. 22

D

87

intense droughts. 9 Fars is one of Iran’s leading provinces for livestock production, yet drought has had numerous deleterious effects on its rangeland ecosystem. 10 As such, this paper’s first objective is to review earlier research that underpins our current understanding of the impacts of drought on rangelands, including rangeland management strategies before, during, and after drought. Following that, we present a descriptive-analytical study that assesses the drought coping strategies of RUs in Fars province in southwest Iran. We briefly contexualize our study area and describe our data collection and sampling methods before detailing our findings on drought coping strategies and rangeland improvement (RI) activities. Lastly, we discuss the broader implications of this study’s results for sustainable rangeland management (SRM) during drought in arid and semi-arid regions.

E

86

Rangelands

140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189

191 193

F O R O P

200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215

216

Rangelands in Fars Province

217

Fars province has an area of 133,299 km 2 and covers 8.1% of the total area of Iran. Average annual precipitation ranges from 100 mm in the province’s southern reaches to more than

218 219

220

Socioeconomic Attributes of the Qashqaei Tribe

228

All RUs in this study belong to the Qashqaei tribe in Fars province, Iran. The Qashqaei tribe is one of the Iranian tribes with Turkic ethnic origins. Most tribal members are nomads and RUs. Although they are found in many Iranian provinces, the Qashqaei are most heavily concentrated in Fars province. Almost all tribal members are bilingual in the Turki and Persian languages. The RUs we sampled ranged in age from 18 to 80 years, and the average age was 47 years (SD = 17). Two groups of RUs were studied: 1) rural RUs (67.7%) who utilize rural rangelands and 2) nomads (23.3%) who use highlands and lowlands. The minimum, maximum, and average size of rural rangelands were, respectively, 90; 8,000; and 2,010 ha, and for nomad rangelands 15; 35,000; and 1,710 ha. In addition to herding, agriculture and horticulture were the main economic activites for RUs. The average irrigation land of RUs was 3.8 ha, and the average of their dry farmland was 23.23 ha. The distribution of respondents according to their gardens shows that the average irrigation garden of RUs was about 3 ha and the average dry garden was less than 1 ha. Rangelands used by the Qashqaei tribe fall into three categories: highlands (summer rangelands), lowlands (winter

229

E

T

C

199

400 mm in its far north. Fars is one of Iran’s most important provinces for livestock production. 2 According to the De Martonne (1926) aridity index, since the early 1980s the entire province has been classified as arid or semi-arid (Fig. 1). Rangelands cover 8.9 million hectares (ha) of the province. According to the Natural Resource Organization of Fars Province, nomads use 60% of the rangelands and rural people occupy the remaining 40%.

221 222 Q7 223 224 225 226 227

E

198

R

197

R

196

forage production can reach pre-drought levels. One of the most important strategies to enhance a rangeland’s drought resilience and recovery is called rangeland improvement (RI). RI is an activity to build up vegetative features that promote soil and water conservation and animal grazing. 12 RI is applied in an area according to its climate, topography, soil, and vegetation conditions. 23 After drought, RUs may adopt different approaches to RI, including “range protection/ exclosure,” which can be implemented during drought, and “seeding,” “broadcast seeding,” and “hill drop planting, i” which should be applied after drought. 24 Adequate post-drought RI activities will provide long-term benefits to livestock operations by improving soil moisture and vegetative production and creating a more stable, reliable forage supply. The above review clarifies how although drought can greatly damage rangeland ecosystems, there are many RI stategies that RUs can adopt to promote SRM. Previous studies in WANA have largely neglected examining these local-scale RI strategies as they relate to drought in arid and semi-arid regions. This study identifies the main local-scale RI strategies that RUs adopt in Fars province, Iran, to cope with drought and thereby improve SRM.

N C O

195

U

194

D

Figure 1. The location of the study area, Fars Province, in southwestern Iran.

i

This means planting 2, 3, or more seeds in shallow holes at regular intervals and then covering them with dirt “hills” less than 1.5 inches high. This method of manual range improvement is implemented using hand tools. This technique is labor intensive but feasible where labor is plentiful and relatively cheap.

2017

3

230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250

257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272

Sampling Method

274

We selected 118 RUs using a multi-stage stratified random sampling method. The sample size was calculated based on Cochran’s formula 26: n¼

282 283 284 285 286 287 288

where n is the sample, N is the population (8,460), T is the t student (t = 1.96; prob = 0.95), s is the standard deviation of 30 respondents in the pilot study (0.9), and d is the preferred likelihood accuracy (0.161). Independent variables were socioeconomic attributes (Tables 1 and 2), and dependent variables included 17 coping strategies used by RUs during drought (Table 3) and 11 RI operations after drought (Table 4). To properly distribute the sample among different counties (Shiraz, Khormbid, Lamerd, and Noorabad Mamasani), the elicited sample was drawn on each group proportionally:

E

281

n n c ¼ Nc   N 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300

ð2Þ

where nc is the sample size of each county (42 Shiraz, 17 Khormbid, 15 Lamerd, and 44 Noorabad Mamasani), Nc is the total number of RUs within each county (3,018 Shiraz, 1,227 Khormbid, 1,060 Lamerd, and 3,155 Noorabad Mamasani), n is the total sample size (118), and N is the total number of RUs within the four counties (8,640). Data were collected using questionnaires and in-person interviews with the RUs. We began by contacting the representatives of the RUs in these four counties (Shiraz, Khormbid, Lamerd, and Noorabad Mamasani) and desribing

U

290 289 291

ð1Þ

R

280 Q8

N 2 d þ ðtsÞ2

¼ 118

R

278 277 279

N ðtd Þ

2

C

276

N C O

275

T

273

ii

AU is defined by Glossary of Terms Used in Range Management (2002)

4

F

256

O

255

R O

254

to them the study’s purpose and methodology. Next, the representatives of the RUs spoke with the other RUs and presented the opportunity for their collaboration in this study. Finally, we conducted in-person interviews with the RUs and filled in the questionnaires based on their answers. A panel of experts consisting of executive officers and researchers from various rangeland organizations approved the content of the questionnaire, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α = 0.92) confirmed its reliability. The questions included socioeconomic factors (e.g., age, educational level; Tables 1 and 2), 17 coping strategies (Table 3), and 11 RI operations (Table 4) to deal with drought. RUs were asked to express their opinions with regard to the effect of each socioeconomic factor on the use of particular coping strategies and RI operations and the importance of coping strategies and RI operations during and after drought using a Likert continuum (1: “no,” 2: “little,” 3: “somewhat,” 4 “much,” and 5 “very much”). For example, we asked them “In your opinion, to what extent does ‘age’ affect the use of coping strategies and RI operations during and after drought by RUs?” and “Which coping strategy and RI operation do you use during and after drought?” The response rate was high (95%), although 5% of RUs were unable to answer all the questions. We analyzed the data using statistical testing, including Mann-Whitney, chi-square, and correlation coefficient. 27,28 These tests explored the most important coping strategies applied by RUs during drought. Based on Bart et al. (2004) and Siegel (1956), Table 1 provides information regarding the output of the actual Mann-Whitney U test. This table provides information on which group/individual has the most statistically significant mean rank. A statistically significant relationship was found among those RUs who have off-range employment and use SRM strategies (Table 1). In other words, RUs who have other jobs, including in the agricultural and horticultural sectors, use SRM coping strategies much more than the others (those users who do not have jobs other than herding). The results also show no significant difference (P ≤ 0.05) between the ownership type of rangeland (individual/collective) or a rangeland’s dominant vegetation type (including forbs, shrubs, and trees) and the use of SRM strategies. On the other hand, the results (Table 2) reveal that there is a significant difference in the use of SRM strategies between RUs in the towns of Khormbid and Noorabad Mamasani and the towns of Shiraz and Lamerd. However, there was no significant difference between the educational level and coping strategies of the RUs. The results (Table 5) also indicate that there was a negative and significant correlation between “age” and “use of SRM strategies by RUs.” A positive significant correlation was found between “rangeland size” and “use of SRM strategies by RUs.” Finally, there is a significant positive correlation between “exclosuring rangeland based on drought/non-drought condition” and “use of SRM strategies by RUs.” As mentioned, some socioeconomic attributes, such as age, are important variables in determing the use of SRM strategies by RUs in Fars province. The results reveal that

P

253

rangelands), and rural rangelands (those rangelands only used by rural residents). Although the permitted animal unit (AU) ii of the province’s rangelands is 2,671,000 AU (mainly sheep and goats), the rangelands are actually used by 7,731,000 AU. 25 The rangelands are therefore stocked with nearly three times the recommended number of animals. This can lead to overgrazing that causes severe enivronmental degradation, which in turn exacerbates the damaging effects of chronic and acute droughts. 14,24 In such situations, RUs’ traditional drought risk management strategies (e.g., gradual reduction of inefficient, elderly and sick livestock, using hay feeding and supplementary feeds, applying suitable grazing season, reducing the number of livestock on rangelands) have enabled them to survive and produce in challenging environments and through dry periods. These strategies are considered SRM strategies because both human and animal populations were relatively low and the rangeland was expansive and easily accessible. This study enhances our knowledge of the strategies used by RUs most frequently during and after drought. It also investigates whether personal attributes (e.g., age, educational level) correlate with the employment of particular strategies by RUs.

D

252

E

251

Rangelands

301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 Q9 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357

t1:1 t1:2

Table 1. Means comparison of use of SRM strategies by RUs and their type of rangelands

t1:3

Dependent variable

Category

Mean rank

Rural

43.19

Nomads

44.17

Yes

47.34

No

32.80

Gardening is the main income source for respondents

Yes

56.91

No

36.48

Respondents dominant rangeland species: forbs

Yes

38.06

No

31.00

Respondents dominant rangeland species: shrubs

Yes

Respondents dominant rangeland species: trees

Yes

Agriculture is the main income source for respondents

t1:8 t1:10 t1:4 t1:12

Use of SRM strategies by rangeland users

t1:14

No

No

O

t1:6

39.48

R O

Respondents living conditions

U

P value

778.5

0.867

446

, 0.024* y

467

0.000**

F

Independent variables

Q1

33.83 35.34 38.09

275

0.308

554.5

0.258

590

0.588

641

0.658

t1:5 t1:7 t1:9 t1:11 t1:13 t1:15

z

Class 1 and 2§

P

t1:16

Rangeland type of respondents

t1:18

E

14.33

Collective

11.77

62

0.406

t1:19

* P 0.05. y P 0.01. z Class 1 consists of rangelands with excellent and good condition. § Class 2 consists of rangelands with fair condition. || Class 3 consists of rangelands with poor and very poor condition (Moghaddam, 2007).

361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372

R

360

older RUs are less likely than younger RUs to use SRM strategies during drought. This may be because many older RUs are illiterate with scant formal education and therefore are more likely to be unfamilliar with the concept of SRM. Also, having other jobs along with herding may be important for the younger RUs to be aware of SRM strategies. This means that if the government or other organizations related to rangelands try to create off-range jobs for the RUs, they will be more likely to use SRM strategies when drought occurs. This is in line with previous research that also found socioeconomic attributes to be explanatory variables in determining who undertakes SRM. 29,30 This may increase our understanding of how environmental and socioeconomic factors interact and thereby help avoid repeating some of the costly failures of past interventions into pastoral systems. 5

N C O

359

U

358

R

E

t1:22 t1:23 t1:24

Individual

T

Q2

The ownership type of rangeland

t1:17

37.07

C

t1:20

D

Class 3

||

39.32

373

SRM Coping Strategies

374

RUs in the study area mainly apply 17 drought coping strategies (Table 3). The most commonly applied coping strategy (69.3% of the respondents) is “gradual reduction of inefficient, elderly, and sick livestock.” Most of the RUs stated that they often sell their livestock in dry years, but none

375 376 377 378

2017

reported buying other livestock. This strategy is followed by two other important strategies: “using hay feeding and supplementary feeds” (56%) and “applying suitable grazing season” (54.5%). Nearly half of the respondents (48.9%) believe that “reducing the number of livestock on rangelands” can be a useful coping strategy. “Applying range readiness” (allowing time to pass before livestock re-enter the range) was used by 47.9% of the RUs during drought. This study’s findings have important implications for SRM applications during drought. Congruent with previous research, 31,32 the findings reveal that in Fars province, the most commonly practiced SRM strategy during moderate drought is to gradually sell off inefficient, elderly, and sick livestock. RUs make these reductions in response to the decrease in forage that drought instigates. The profits from these sales help the RUs to afford supplementary feed for their remaining animals, which is priced higher than normal during a drought. 33 Severe and/or prolonged drought prompts RUs to sell off larger numbers of animals than they would prefer to sell for the same reasons, especially once RUs do not have any other resources (such as farmlands) to provide sufficient forage. Not selling animals during a drought would risk losing them to starvation if supplementary feed becomes no longer

5

379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401

t2:1 t2:2

Table 2. Means comparison of use of SRM strategies by rangeland users and their demographic and socioeconomic attributes

t2:3

Dependent variable

Mean rank

Khormbid

65.75

Lamerd

47.93

Noorabad Mamasani

49.67

Shiraz

27.6

Illiterate

54.76

Elementary school

53.67

High school

38.26

Diploma

39.39

t2:12

Associate’s degree

30.67

t2:13

Master of science

t2:7 t2:4 t2:9

Use of SRM strategies by rangeland users

t2:10 t2:8 t2:11

Education level

403 404 405

10.720

0.057

P

29.10

pre-drought livestock numbers could be feasible if RUs in Fars province adopted “conservative” maximum stocking rates that are determined by the number of animals the range can support in dry years. Instead, they follow an “opportunistic” approach to stocking rates that see their herd sizes fluctuate in

C

T

406

affordable. This scenario becomes more likely the longer a drought persists. Trying to sustain pre-drought livestock numbers without sufficent supplementary feed might also cause permanent range degradation when the grazing pressure peaks at the moment starvation begins. However, maintaining

0.000*

D

402

* P 0.01.

21.037

E

t2:14

O

t2:6

P value

R O

Region

X2

F

Category

t2:5

Independent variables

Table 3. Main coping strategies to deal with drought according to RUs

Q3

t3:3

SRM strategies

t3:4

Gradual reduction of inefficient, elderly, and sick livestock

t3:5

Mean

SD

69.3

3.62

1

37.57

Using hay feeding and supplementary feeds

56

3.37

1

42.73

t3:6

Applying suitable grazing season

54.5

3.03

2

54.12

t3:7

Reducing the number of livestock on rangelands

48.9

3.34

1

35.63

t3:8

Applying range readiness

47.9

3.37

1

42.73

t3:9

Applying controlled grazing system

43.8

2.80

2

56.78

t3:10

Avoiding free grazing system

42.5

2.47

2

76.52

t3:11

Applying range capacity of livestock on rangelands

41.6

2.84

2

53.53

t3:12

Resting rangelands for a season

32.3

1.91

2

95.29

t3:13

Using drought resistant seeds

22.9

1.72

2

109.88

t3:14

Planting with a short growing season

19.8

1.63

2

109.81

t3:15

Planting drought resistant forage plants

18.8

1.26

2

135.71

t3:16

Using precipitation storage operations

16.6

1.49

2

123.49

t3:17

Converting dry farmland to pastures

6.2

0.91

1

149.45

t3:18

Utilization of groundwater resources

4.2

0.46

1

219.56

t3:19

Controlling pests and plant diseases

1.4

0.54

1

218.52

t3:20

Controlling weed plants on rangelands

1.2

0.38

1

215.79

U

N C O

R

R

E

%

CV

t3:21 Scale: 0: None, 1: Very little, 2: Little, 3: Somewhat, 4: Much, 5: Very much.

6

Rangelands

407 408 409 410 411

t4:1 t4:2

Table 4. Main RI activities to deal with drought according to RUs

t4:3

RI operations

Agree

t4:4

Disagree

Number

%

Number

%

Range protection/enclosure

81

68.4

37

31.6

t4:6

Seeding

51

43.2

67

56.8

t4:7

Broadcast seeding

48

41.1

70

58.9

t4:8

Hill drop planting

40

33.7

78

66.3

t4:9

Seedling

37

31.6

81

68.4

t4:10

Planting

37

31.6

81

68.4

t4:11

Working hay fields

33

28.4

85

71.6

t4:12

Broadcast fertilization

30

25.3

t4:13

Watershed management operations

30

25.3

t4:14

Planting crops

26

22.1

t4:15

Seed harvesting

14

11.6

419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429

O R O

74.7

88

74.7

92

77.9

104

88.4

P

88

D

demand for forage. 36 Failing to achieve this balance can be catastrophic. For example, as a result of drought in 2000, Iranian herders sold roughly 80% of their livestock, and an estimated 800,000 livestock perished. 10,33 RUs in the study area do have suitable irrigation land, dry farmland, and gardens, which if well managed can provide livestock with suppelmentary feed during drought. Access to such resources can thus be considered as a complementary component of RUs’ production system by providing them with a kind of “resource patch” during drought. This SRM coping strategy can be developed by a combination of factors, including their access to rangelands and farmlands. Hence, the use of such a suitable strategy can allow RUs to design unique management scenarios that will increase both their livestock profitability and rangeland sustainability. This result confirms the conclusions of previous studies that have described how selling surplus stock or providing supplementary feed to livestock can function to reduce losses. 5,37

E

418

T

417

C

416

E

415

R

414

R

413

response to forage production, which itself modulates according to fluctuating precipitation receipts. 34,35 One suggestion for breaking the drought-sale cycle so common in Fars province is for RUs to gradually amass herds with fewer but more drought-resistant livestock species. For example, because goats consume less forage than most other livestock, RUs can acquire goats to reduce their losses in drought years. 31 Another approach proposed by Karrou and El Mourid would have RUs in arid and semi-arid regions use micro-credit to replace their livestock after drought and buy micro-insurance to help shield them from animal losses. 6 The index-based insurance currently available in Mongolia is one such model to possibly emulate. If this approach is refined and expanded, it may very likely be adopted widely among RUs in arid and semi-arid regions. The second most widely used SRM strategy involved “using hay feeding and supplementary feeds.” One of the most pressing challenges that RUs in arid zones must confront during drought is balancing forage production with the

N C O

412

F

t4:5

t5:1 t5:2

Table 5. The correlation coefficients between age, rangeland size, exclosuring rangeland and use of SRM strategies by rangeland users

t5:3

Variable

t5:4

Rangeland size

R

P value

Highlands

0.07

0.73

t5:5

Lowlands

0.24

0.38

t5:6

Rural rangelands

0.54

0.00*

Drought condition

0.27

0.17

Non-drought condition

0.48

0.01*

t5:7

U

Use of SRM strategies by rangeland users

The amount of exclosured rangeland

t5:8 t5:9

The number of AU

0.08

0.56

t5:10

Age of rangeland users

-0.42

0.00*

t5:11

* P 0.01.

2017

7

430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447

460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484

Rangeland Improvement Activities

486

This study also investigated the RUs’ perceptions of possible methods to improve their rangelands. We found that the most important RI activity during drought was “range protection/exclosure iii” (Table 4). Over two-thirds (68.4%) of RUs had implemented this RI activity. The next two important activities were “seeding” and “broadcast seeding,” which were used by 43.2% and 41.1% of RUs, respectively. The least important RI activities were “seed harvesting” (11.6%), “planting crops” (22.1%), and “watershed mangement operations” (25.3%). Forage decreases during and immediately after a drought, and continued grazing pressure may severely degrade the rangeland. The improvement of the rangeland during and after drought must therefore be a priority for RUs. Our results indicate that the best RI operation during drought is “range

488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500

U

485 487

iii

8

A range from which animals are excluded by fencing or other means.

Conclusion

540

Although drought is complex and remains little understood, the RUs of Fars province, Iran, have innnovated many strategies to cope with drought. If RUs do not adopt SRM activities during drought, they will face the painful dilemma of either reducing stocking rates or damaging their rangelands in the future. RUs in some areas of arid and semi-arid regions (such as in southwest Iran) have developed and applied coping strategies to manage SRM during and after (RI operations) drought. Because drought is one of the most existential threats facing pastoralists in arid and semi-arid regions, they can use similar SRM strategies to cope with drought in their own local contexts. Such strategies may prevent or reduce the effects of drought and grant RUs access to more rangeland resources. Such strategies also increase forage production during drought, reduce the impacts of drought on livestock and the

541

F

459

O

458

R O

457

P

456

501

D

455

protection/exclosure.” The rise in air temperature and decrease in soil moisture usually associated with drought increase the vulnerability of rangelands to degradation. Rangeland exclosures could help RUs in arid and semi-arid regions reduce this vulnerability by faciliating the restoration of nutritious and palatable plant species and the protection of a stable soil cover. In Iran, the Forests, Range and Watershed Management Organization (FRWMO) is tasked with developing appropriate rules to ensure sustainable land-use practices that consider both ecological situations and the rights and needs of RUs. The rules that the FRWMO promulgate pertain to range protection, rehabilitation, and sustainable future development and use. For example, the FRWMO issues grazing permits to RUs according to the specific ecological carrying capacity of a particular rangeland. These permits are open to annual revision based upon changing environmental conditions (Moghaddam 2007). 33 This permitting system has a positive effect on vegetation by reducing grazing pressure during periods of high vulnerability, such as drought. Previous studies have confirmed that rangeland exclosures and informed limits on stocking rates improve vegetative production, density, and canopy cover. 38,44–47 Nevertheless, although range protection/exclosure can be the best RI operation before, during, and after a drought, this operation cannot be significant in the short term (especially in overgrazed rangelands). 38 Also, during periods when exlosures are necessary, RUs will require assurance of access to other rangelands—their own lands or governmental lands—before establishing an exclosure. 33 However, because range protection/exclosure in the study area should be implemented for 5 to 10 years to be fully effective, 48 many RUs may not be willing to set aside any part of the range for so long; therefore, the range protection/exclosures that are established may be too transient to be meanginful. As a result, RUs are naturally quite interested in other practices that operate in the short or medium terms (1–2 years). 23,49 In this context, after range protection the Rus, in our study considered “seeding,” “broadcast seeding,” and “hill drop planting” to be the most important RI operations.

E

454

T

453

C

452

E

451

R

450

Other SRM strategies that RUs practice during drought are “applying suitable grazing season,” “applying range readiness,” “applying controlled grazing system,” and “avoiding free grazing system.” Applying a suitable grazing season in Fars province refers to the tranhumance between summer and winter rangelands that is based on seasonal ecological conditions. These ecological conditions are collectively known as range readiness and include plant physiology and soil conditions. 36 Because of their higher elevation, the growing season of the summer rangelands starts later in the year than the winter rangelands. However, economic pressures in Iran and other developing nations have seen RUs bring their herds into summer rangelands ever earlier and thereby damage these areas. 33 Applying a controlled grazing system and avoiding a free grazing system are other important SRM strategies. According to previous research, 33,39,40 because Iranian RUs follow a free grazing system, their herds’ movements are not constrained in time and space. As a result, foraging occurs suboptimally. Some parts of a rangeland will be overgrazed and degraded while other parts will experience only light grazing. Overgrazing and soil trampling will be most pronounced around watering holes, particulary during drought. 41 For this reason, our study found that a commonly applied drought coping strategy is to implement a more controlled grazing system to more evenly spread foraging activities across the range than happens in a free grazing system. 33 All of the above strategies refer to one of the most important challenges in rangelands: “grazing management.” Grazing management involves controlling the grazing pressure in any particular location by adhering to predetermined stocking rates. 31 Although RUs in global locations have implemented grazing management, it has never been well implemented in arid and semi-arid regions. 6 Applying grazing management can allow RUs to achieve an optimum use of grazing resources to maximize livestock production without irreparably harming their rangelands. 36,42,43

R

449

N C O

448

Rangelands

502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 Q10 518 519 520 521 522 Q11 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539

542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555

562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575

References

577 578

1. PEREIRA, L.S., I. CORDERY, AND I. IACOVIDES. 2002. Coping with water scarcity. UNESCO IHP VI. Technical Documents in Hydrology No. 58. Paris, France: UNESCO. 2. NAFARZADEGAN, A.R., M. REZAEIAN ZADEH, M. KHERAD, H. AHANI, A. GHAREHKHANI, M.A. KARAMPOOR, AND M.R. KOUSARI. 2012. Drought area monitoring during the past three decades in Fars province, Iran. Quat Int 250:27-36. 3. BROWN, J., P. ALVAREZ, K. BYRD, H. DESWOOD, E. ELIAS, AND S. SPIEGAL. 2017. Coping with historic drought in California rangelands: Developing a more effective institutional response. Rangelands 39:73-78. 4. MACON, D.K., S. BARRY, T. BECCHETTI, J.S. DAVY, M.P. DORAN, J.A. FINZEL, H. GEORGE, J.M. HARPER, L. HUNTSINGER, R.S. INGRAM, AND D.E. LANCASTER. 2016. Coping with drought on California rangelands. Rangelands 38:222-228. 5. K ELLEY, W.K., J.D. SCASTA, AND J.D. DERNER . 2016. Advancing knowledge for proactive drought planning and enhancing adaptive management for drought on rangelands: Introduction to a special issue. Rangelands 38:159-161. 6. KARROU, M., AND M. EL MOURID. 2008. Drought management and planning strategies in semi-arid and arid agro-pastoral systems of West Asia and North Africa: A review. In: & LopezFrancos A, editor. Drought management: scientific and technological innovations. Zaragoza: CIHEAM. p. 179-184. 7. ASADI ZARCH, M.A., H. MALEKINEZHAD, M.H. MOBIN, M.T. DASTORANI, AND M.R. KOUSARI. 2011. Drought monitoring by Reconnaissance Drought Index (RDI) in Iran. Water Resour Manage 25:348-3504. 8. OFFICE OF FOREIGN DISASTER ASSISTANCE/CENTRE FOR RESEARCH ON THE EPIDEMIOLOGY OF DISASTERS, 2013. International Disaster Database. Brussels, Belgium: Universite Catholique de Louvain. Available at: , http://www.emdat.be. 9. SHAHABFAR, A., AND J. EITZINGER. 2013. Spatio-temporal analysis of droughts in semi-arid regions by using meteorological drought indices. Atmosphere 4:94-112. 10. KHORASANIZADEH, S. 2011. Drought in Iran, Programme Specialist, Regional Centre on Urban Water ManagementTehran (under the auspices of UNESCO).

589 590

591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606

607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614

C

E

R

587 588

R

585 586

N C O

583 584

U

581 582

T

576

579 Q12 580

F

561

O

560

R O

559

2017

11. O'CONNOR, T.G. 2010. Transformation of a savanna grassland by drought and grazing. Range Forage Sci 12:53-60. 12. YOUNG, S.S., AND S.E. SILVERN. 2009. How to prepare an electronic version of your article. In: Jones BS, & Smith RZ, editors. Introduction to the Electronic Age. New York, NY, USA: E-Publishing Inc.. p. 281-304. 13. NEFZAOUI, A., H. KETATA, AND M. EL MOURID. 2012. In: Young SS, & Silvern SE, editors. Agricultural technological and institutional innovations for enhanced adaptation to environmental change in North Africa. International perspectives on global environmental change. InTech. p. 488. 14. LACEY, J. 1992. Dealing with Dought on range. MSU drought guide: Montana State University. 15. DOMEHRI, A.R. 2000. Study on effect of improvement and reclamation operations on rangelands condition [thesis]. Faculty of Natural Resources: Tarbiat Modares University. 16. HANSELKA, C.W., AND L.D. WHITE. 1986. Rangeland in dry years: Drought effects on range, cattle, and management in livestock and wildlife management during drought. In: & Brown RD, editor. Livestock and wildlife management during drought. Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M University, Kingsville. 17. WANG, J.G. 2006. Agricultural-pastoral ecology and traditional Mongolian society. Jinan, China: Shandong People’s Press (in Chinese). 18. ROCHE, L.M. 2016. Adaptive rangeland decision-making and coping with drought. Sustainability 8:1334. 19. MCCLARAN, M.P., G.J. BUTLER, H. WEI, AND G.D. RUYLE. 2015. Increased preparation for drought among livestock producers reliant on rain-fed forage. Nat Hazards 79:151-170. 20. LI, W.J., AND Y.B. LI. 2012. Managing rangeland as a complex system: how government interventions decouple social systems from ecological systems. Ecol Soc 17:9-23. 21. XIE, Y.N., AND W.J. LI. 2008. Why do herders insist on Otor? Maintaining mobility in Inner Mongolia. Nomadic Peoples 12:35-52. 22. HAZELL, D., R. CUNNINGHAM, D. LINDENMAYER, B. MACKEY, AND W. OSBORNE. 2001. Use of farm dams as frog habitat in an Australian agricultural landscape: Factors affecting species richness and distribution. Biol Conserv 102:155-169. 23. AZARNIVAND, H., AND M.A. ZARE CHAHUKY. 2007. Range improvement. Tehran, Iran: Tehran University Press. 24. JAVADI, S.A., S.J. MOSAVIAN, M. JAFARI, AND S.M. MOSAVIAN. 2012. Determination of proper reclamation method in rangeland ecosystem of Khuzestan Province. APCBEE Proc 1:283-286. 25. NATURAL RESOURCE ORGANIZATION OF FARS PROVINCE, 2015. Available at: , http://www.mehrnews.com/news/20106062015. 26. AZADI, H., P. HO, AND L. HASFIATI. 2011. Agricultural land conversion drivers: A comparison between less developed, developing and developed countries. Land Degrad Dev 22:596604. 27. BART, I., M.A. FLINGER, AND W.L. NOTZ. 2004. Sampling and statistical methods for behavioral ecologists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 28. SEIGEL, S. 1956. Nonparametric statistics the behavioral sciences. Tokyo: McGraw-Hill. 29. HOSSEININIA, G., H. AZADI, K. ZARAFSHANI, D. SAMARI, AND F. WITLOX. 2013. Sustainable rangeland management: Pastoralists’ attitudes toward integrated programs in Iran. J Arid Environ 92:26-33. 30. MAHLER, R.L., B. SHAFII, S. HOLLENHORST, AND B.J. ANDERSEN. 2008. Public perceptions on the ideal balance between natural resource protection and use in the Western USA. J Extentions 46. 31. ZHANG, C., L. WENJUN, AND F. MINGMING. 2013. Adaptation of herders to droughts and privatization of rangeland-use rights in

P

558

range, and hasten recovery once the drought subsides. Among these strategies, those that are needed in the short term to improve rangelands (e.g., the gradual reduction of inefficient, elderly, and sick livestock) are more important from the RUs’ point of view. Accordingly, it is necessary to reconsider and develop short-term strategies to approach SRM during drought. Moreover, because the damage that results from drought may take a long time to ameliorate, long-term strategies (protection/exclosure) along with the short-term ones should be considered as complementary tools for SRM. To expand upon this study’s localized findings, our methodology of documenting and analyzing various SRM strategies should be replicated in other regions with different socioeconomic and climatic contexts. Future research projects can also build upon this one by including additional lines of inquiry, such as whether these strategies, especially long-term ones such as range protection/exclosure, are socially and economically acceptable and implementable among all of the RUs and what alternative livelihoods may be practical for RUs while their rangelands are under exclosure.

D

557

E

556

9

615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 Q14 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 Q15 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675

676 677 678 679

687 688 689 690 691 692

34.

35.

693 694 695 696 697 698 699

36.

37.

700 701 702 703

38.

704

705 706 707

39.

708 709

C E R R N C O U 10

710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740

T

741

F

33.

O

685 686

R O

683 684

40. RAUFIRAD, V., A. EBRAHIMI, AND H. AZADI. 2015. Animal preference and external plant attributes: Application of principle component analysis. J Biodivers Environ Sci 6:22-33. 41. WILLIAMS, W.J., D.J. ELDRIDGE, AND B.B. ALCHIN. 2008. Grazing and drought reduce cyanobacterial soil crusts in an Australian Acacia woodland. J Arid Environ 72:1064-1075. 42. FOMUM, S.W., P.F. SCOGINGS, L. DZIBA, AND I.V. NSAHLAI. 2015. Seasonal variations in diet selection of Nguni goats: Effects of physical and chemical traits of browse. Range Forage Sci 32:193-201. 43. KOC, A., W.H. SCHACHTB, AND H.I. ERKOVAN. 2015. The history and current direction of rangeland management in Turkey. Rangelands 37:39-46. 44. VAJARI, M., S.M. RAZVI, AND A.M. JALALI. 2012. A survey on effects of enclosure on vegetation dynamic of rangelands of Guilan province. Agric Crop Sci 4:92-97. 45. BROWN, J.R., D. KLUCK, C. MCNUTT, AND M. HAYES. 2016. Assessing drought vulnerability using a socioecological framework. Rangelands 38:162-168. 46. CRIMMINS, M.A., AND M.P. MCCLARAN. 2016. Where do seasonal climate predictions belong in the drought management toolbox? Rangelands 38:169-176. 47. KNUTSON, C., AND B. FUCHS. 2016. New tools for assessing drought conditions for rangeland management. Rangelands 38:177-182. 48. GHAIEMI, M.T., AND A.A. SANDGOL. 2008. The study of exclusion period for Salmas rangeland improvement in West Azarbaijan. Range Desert Res 15:13-25. 49. MOGHADDAM, M. 2007. Range and Range Management. Tehran: Tehran University Press.

P

32.

the arid Alxa Left Banner of Inner Mongolia. J Environ Manage 126:182-190. DIAZ-SOLIS, H., W.E. GRANT, M.M. KOTHMANN, W.R. TEAGUE, AND J.A. DIAZ-GARCIA. 2009. Adaptive management of stocking rates to reduce effects of drought on cow-calf production systems in semi-arid rangelands. Agric Syst 100:43-50. TAHMASEBI, A. 2013. Pastoral vulnerability to socio-political and climate stresses: the Shahsevan of north Iran. Vol. 22. LIT Verlag Munster. SANDFORD, S., AND I. SCOONES. 2006. Opportunistic and conservative pastoral strategies: Some economic arguments. Ecol Econ 58:1-16. CAMPBELL, B.M., I.J. GORDON, M.K. LUCKERT, L. PETHERAM, AND S. VETTER. 2006. In search of optimal stocking regimes in semi-arid grazing lands: One size does not fit all. Ecol Econ 60:75-85. ENCINIAS, M., AND S.T. SMALLIDGE. 2009. Management of rangelands and cattle in drought-prone areas of the Southwest, Las Cruces, NM. Guide B-816. SAMUELS, I., N. ALLSOPP, AND M.T. HOFFMAN. 2013. How could herd mobility be used to manage resources and livestock grazing in semi-arid rangeland commons? Range Forage Sci 30:85-89. BAGHERIRAD, E., M. MESDAGHI, N. AHMAD, AND M. ABDULLAH. 2015. Nutritional quality and quantity of available forages relative to demand: A case study of the Goitered Gazelles of the Golestan National Park, Iran. Rangelands 37:68-80. RAUFIRAD, V., H. AZADI, A. EBRAHIMI, AND S. BAGHERI. 2016. Determining rangeland-species palatability: Application of principle component analysis. Rangelands 38:105-112.

D

681 682

E

680

Rangelands