Simulation model to estimate the stocking rate and carrying capacity in rangelands
We developed a simulation model to estimate the carrying capacity (CC) and stocking rate (SR) from different arid and semi-arid rangelands, using worksheets of Microsoft Excel, from the information available about the relationship between rainfall (mm) and forage production in dry matter per hectare...
| Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | article |
| Status: | Published version |
| Publication Date: | 2015 |
| Country: | México |
| Institution: | UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA CHAPINGO |
| Repository: | Revista Chapingo Serie Zonas Áridas |
| Language: | Spanish |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ojs2.revistas.chapingo.mx:article/999 |
| Online Access: | https://revistas.chapingo.mx/zonas_aridas/article/view/r.rchsza.2014.05.002 |
| Access Level: | Open access |
| Keyword: | Modelo de simulación capacidad de carga carga animal Simulation model carrying capacity stocking rate |
| Summary: | We developed a simulation model to estimate the carrying capacity (CC) and stocking rate (SR) from different arid and semi-arid rangelands, using worksheets of Microsoft Excel, from the information available about the relationship between rainfall (mm) and forage production in dry matter per hectare (DM·ha-1). We designed a qualitative model of range management, identifying the main stages within it to estimate CC and SR. The study was carried out in URUZA-UACh from October 2010 to October 2011. After calibration of the model, only two scenarios and two real-life situations were evaluated. For the latter, the percentage differences were 8.3 and -25.5 % compared to the reality for adjusted and unadjusted values respectively. The simulation model with regard to the real had differences of 20 %. It is considered that the model simulated the CC and SR, and the settings depending on the percentage of slope and distance from water. The results show that production varies between types of vegetation because of the variability of precipitation. It is observed that evaluated pasture productivity is very low because it can only support UAA 96.86, but with adjustments to % slope and distance from water, it decreases of 60.06 and 29.73. |
|---|