Geology topics

Amy Symstad

Publications and source records attributed to Amy Symstad.

25 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

USGS2021

Fire controls annual bromes in northern great plains grasslands—Up to a point

Concern about the impacts of two invasive annual brome grasses (cheatgrass and Japanese brome, Bromus tectorum L. and B. japonicus Thunb. ex Murray) on the mixed-grass prairie of North America's northern Great Plains (NGP) is growing. Cheatgrass is well known west of the NGP, where replacement of fire-intolerant, native sagebrush steppe by fire-prone, exotic annual grasslands is widespread. Consequently, fire is often not considered as a tool for controlling annual bromes. This should not be the case in the NGP, where mixed-grass prairie is adapted to frequent fires. Fire's efficacy may vary with the degree of invasion, though; suppressing postfire annual brome populations or enhancing the native plant community may improve postfire annual brome control in highly invaded areas. To test this, we performed an experiment at two sites to evaluate the relative effectiveness of prescribed fire alone, fire followed by imazapic application and fire followed by native seeding across a pretreatment invasion gradient of annual brome-to-native species cover ranging from 0.05 to 2.35. Fall-prescribed fire alone greatly reduced annual bromes, but by the second yr after treatment the effect was significant only at invasion ratios < 1.2. Postfire imazapic application reduced annual bromes even further than fire alone, but only for 1 yr at the less invaded site and only at invasion ratios > 1.2 in yr 2 at the other site. Native species cover and total species richness responded positively to all treatments, but the degree of their response varied along the invasion gradient, between sites, with time since treatment and among treatments. Also, at one site, fire yielded a lagged stimulation of short-lived, exotic forbs. Seeding had little effect. Fire is an effective tool for reducing annual bromes in the NGP at lower invasion levels, but more tools are needed for long-term, effective control at highly invaded sites.

Rangeland Ecology & Management↗

USGS2021

Supplemental vegetation monitoring plots at Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument to accelerate learning of the Annual Brome Adaptive Management (ABAM) model

The Annual Brome Adaptive Management (ABAM) project is a consortium of seven parks in the Northern Great Plains (NGP) working together to better understand how to control invasive annual grasses (including Bromus species) through an adaptive management approach. This approach is supported by a quantitative model that uses current data from standardized vegetation monitoring plots in all seven parks to annually update the model’s parameters and predictions regarding the effects of different management actions on invasive annual grasses and other components of the mixed-grass prairie plant community. This updating of the model is called “learning.” The original ABAM model has little information about the effects of the herbicide indaziflam on target invasive annual grasses and other components of the vegetation in conditions like those that frequently occur in ABAM parks (i.e., ungrazed). The purpose of this study is to provide some of that information and therefore accelerate the rate of learning accomplished in the adaptive management cycle.

Montana↗

USGS2020

A new decision support tool for collaborative adaptive vegetation management in northern Great Plains national parks

National Park Service (NPS) units in the northern Great Plains (NGP) were established to preserve and interpret the history of America, protect and showcase unusual geology and paleontology, and provide a home for vanishing large wildlife. A unifying feature among these national parks, monuments, and historic sites is mixed-grass prairie, which not only provides background scenery but is the very foundation of many park missions. As recognition of the prairie’s importance to park fundamental resources and values has grown, so too has the realization that invasive plants threaten these values by reducing native species diversity, altering food webs, and marring the visitor experience. Parks manage invasive species despite uncertainties in treatment effectiveness because management cannot wait for research to provide definitive answers. Under these circumstances, adaptive management (AM) is an appropriate approach. In the NGP, we formed a collaborative adaptive vegetation management team to apply AM towards reducing invasive species (with a focus on exotic annual grasses) and improving native vegetation conditions. In our AM framework, the team uses a Bayesian model built from NPS Inventory & Monitoring and Fire Effects monitoring data and experimental results to predict the effects of management actions on park management units, according to those units’ vegetation condition and management history. These predictions inform management decisions, which are then applied.

Parks Stewardship Forum↗

USGS2020

Managing invasive plants on Great Plains grasslands: A discussion of current challenges

The Great Plains of North America encompass approximately 1,300,000 km 2 of land from Texas to Saskatchewan. The integrity of these lands is under continual assault by long-established and newly-arrived invasive plant species, which can threaten native species and diminish land values and ecological goods and services by degrading desired grassland resources. The Great Plains are a mixture of privately and publicly owned lands, which leads to a patchwork of varying management goals and strategies for controlling invasive plants. Continually updated knowledge is required for efficient and effective management of threats posed by changing environments and invasive plants. Here we discuss current challenges, contemporary management strategies, and management tools and their integration, in hopes of presenting a knowledge resource for new and experienced land managers and others involved in making decisions regarding invasive plant management in the Great Plains.

Great Plains↗

USGS2019

Implications of climate scenarios for Badlands National Park resource management

Badlands National Park (BADL) hosts a myriad of natural and cultural resources, including bison and black-footed ferrets, the mixed grass prairie they live in, 37-75 million-year-old fossils, and historic buildings, trails, and roads. All are sensitive to climate, but anticipating precisely how each will be affected by climate change is difficult. In the face of this challenge, park resource managers must nevertheless make forward-looking decisions and take action to meet resource management goals. Fortunately, tools exist to identify strategies and actions likely to succeed under a range of potential future climate conditions. Two such tools—qualitative scenario planning and quantitative ecological simulation modeling—were used to anticipate management challenges and identify solutions for BADL and adjacent federal and tribal lands in the coming decades (through 2050). This brief summarizes and synthesizes results of this work. Although the brief focuses on BADL, it also includes several key insights gained from examining management approaches on adjacent lands.

South Dakota↗

USGS2019

Management opportunities and research priorities for Great Plains grasslands

The Great Plains Grassland Summit: Challenges and Opportunities from North to South was held April 10-11, 2018 in Denver, Colorado. The geographical focus for the summit was the entire Great Plains. The summit was designed to provide syntheses of information about key grassland topics of interest in the Great Plains; networking and learning channels for managers, researchers and stakeholders; and working sessions for sharing input and ideas about challenges and future research and management opportunities. The summit was convened to better understand Great Plains stressors and resource demands and how to manage them, and to discuss methods for improved collaboration among natural resource managers, scientists, and stakeholders. Over 200 stakeholders, who collectively were affiliated with all of the Great Plains states, attended the summit. Attendees included university researchers, government scientists, and individuals affiliated with federal and state agencies, tribes, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Plenary speakers provided syntheses of current knowledge on key topics to help stage working sessions on working lands, native plants and pollinators, native wildlife and biological diversity, invasive species, wildland and prescribed fire, energy development, and weather, water, and climate. The summit steering committee designed one suite of questions that were asked of participants in each working session. This report is a digest of the input from those who attended the seven working sessions and responded to the structured questions.

Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Misso↗

USGS2019

A draft decision framework for the National Park Service Interior Region 5 bison stewardship strategy

The Department of the Interior Bison Conservation Initiative calls for its bureaus to plan and implement collaborative American bison conservation and to ensure involvement by tribal, state, and local governments and the public in that conservation. Four independently managed and geographically separated National Park Service (NPS) units in Interior Region 5 (IR5) preserve bison and other components of a formerly contiguous Great Plains landscape. Management of bison in IR5 parks has historically been specific to each park, and livestock and range management science informed much of the decision making. In the past two decades, NPS has shifted away from managing bison from this livestock-based perspective towards a wildlife stewardship approach, including ensuring their long-term adaptive potential and considering them as just one part of a complex ecosystem. This shift requires a more holistic and cooperative approach to stewardship that is challenging not only because of limitations in funding and fluctuations in leadership priorities, but also because of the constraints imposed by the parks’ relatively small, fenced areas. The IR5 NPS Bison Stewardship Strategy (“Strategy”) will help the NPS to meet its responsibilities in cooperative stewardship of bison. The Strategy will serve to organize and consolidate the NPS’s legal and policy responsibilities within a framework of collectively defined values and objectives to support the careful and transparent decision-making processes that both guide and transcend park-specific planning. This report describes a preliminary decision framework for the Strategy, including the context, the fundamental objectives, and a range of alternative strategies developed and considered through two workshops and a series of conference calls with NPS personnel, stakeholders, and outside experts with an interest in IR5 NPS bison stewardship. Although not the Strategy itself, this framework serves as the Strategy’s starting point and identifies 14 fundamental objectives, falling in four major themes: Persistence of Wild and Healthy Bison 1. Maximize the long-term persistence of bison in IR5 parks 2. Maximize the long-term adaptive capacity of bison in North America 3. Maximize the wildness of the bison herds 4. Maximize humane treatment of bison, while allowing natural processes to occur Supporting Tribal Buffalo Culture 5. Improve relationships, trust, and communication with Tribes to enhance shared stewardship of bison within and beyond IR5 6. Maximize the number of live, healthy bison that can be transferred to tribal herds Persistence of Native Ecological Communities and Processes 7. Maximize structural and compositional heterogeneity of native prairie plant communities across space and time within each park 8. Maximize the abundance and diversity of animal species of special concern 9. Minimize the loss of native grassland within each park 10. Minimize the abundance of exotic plants in the park landscape 11. Maximize riparian area and wetland integrity Public Outreach 12. Maximize the number of healthy, wild bison that are visible to the public 13. Maximize the safety of visitors 14. Maximize public understanding of the past, present, and future of bison and Native Americans in the Great Plains The terms “minimize” and “maximize” in these objectives describe the desired direction for each individual objective. Finding the right balance among these objectives and any others identified in further work is one of the central challenges in developing the Strategy. To that end, this report also demonstrates and describes potential methods for evaluating how well alternative strategies would achieve each of the fundamental objectives.

Natural Resource Report↗