Geology topics

David E. Naugle

Publications and source records attributed to David E. Naugle.

13 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2025

Sentinel-2 based estimates of rangeland fractional cover and canopy gap class for the western United States

Rangelands are extensive ecosystems, providing important ecosystem services while undergoing continuous change. As a result, improved monitoring technologies can help better characterize vegetation change. Satellite remote sensing has proven effective in this regard, tracking vegetation dynamics at broad and fine scales. We leveraged the spatial, spectral, and temporal resolution of Sentinel-2 satellites to estimate fractional cover and canopy gap across rangelands of the western United States. We produced annual, 10 m spatial resolution estimates of fractional cover and canopy gap size class for years 2018 to 2024. Fractional cover estimates include that of common plant functional types (annual forb and grass, bareground, littler, perennial forb and grass, shrub, tree) and select genera (including invasive annual grass species, pinyon-juniper species, and sagebrush species); canopy gap size classes include gap sizes 25 to 50, 51 to 100, 101 to 200, and greater than 200 cm. We make these data available as Cloud Optimized GeoTIFFs, organized as 75 × 75 km tiles covering the 17 western states of the United States.

western United States↗

USGS2025

Reconciling scale using the Resist-Accept-Direct (RAD) Framework to improve management of woody encroachment in grasslands

Implementing strategies to navigate large-scale ecological transitions in grasslands is one of this century's greatest conservation challenges. In the US Great Plains, managing areas impacted by woody transitions have been reactive, short-lived, costly, and ineffective. Along with current technological innovation in rangeland monitoring, the promise of early warning science is to provide managers with sufficient time to be better prepared for novel signals of ecological change. Combining the science of early warning signals and frameworks such as the Resist – Accept – Direct (RAD) can provide land managers with guidelines to identify proactive strategies when facing ecological change. Using this approach, we found that opportunities to resist woody transitions decreased from 84 % to 60 % between 1990 and 2020 over the entire biome but remained highest in the northern and western Great Plains, which contributes to large scale conservation targets. These are key areas to prioritize resist opportunities. In contrast, 11 % of the biome exhibited early warning transition signals across all hierarchical scales by 2020, a fourfold increase since 1990. Lastly by 2020, 30 % of the biome exhibited early warning signals across multiple but not all scales. Here, efforts may be more effective when management is directed to conserve fragmented grassland legacies within a woody-dominated matrix and avoid large-scale monocultures of problematic encroaching woody species. Our multi-scale study indicates that 1) anchoring to the last remaining grassland core areas with no early warning of transitions and 2) strategically investing in these intact grasslands may provide the best results for grassland conservation.

Great Plains↗

USGS2025

Sentinel-2 based estimates of rangeland fractional cover and canopy gap class for the western United States

Rangelands are extensive ecosystems, providing important ecosystem services while undergoing continuous change. As a result, improved monitoring technologies can help better characterize vegetation change. Satellite remote sensing has proven effective in this regard, tracking vegetation dynamics at broad and fine scales. We leveraged the spatial, spectral, and temporal resolution of Sentinel-2 satellites to estimate fractional cover and canopy gap across rangelands of the western United States. We produced annual, 10 m spatial resolution estimates of fractional cover and canopy gap size class for years 2018 to 2024. Fractional cover estimates include that of common plant functional types (annual forb and grass, bareground, littler, perennial forb and grass, shrub, tree) and select genera (including invasive annual grass species, pinyon-juniper species, and sagebrush species); canopy gap size classes include gap sizes 25 to 50, 51 to 100, 101 to 200, and greater than 200 cm. We make these data available as Cloud Optimized GeoTIFFs, organized as 75×75 km tiles covering the 17 western states of the United States.

BioRxiv↗

USGS2024

Closing the conservation gap in the sagebrush biome: Spatial targeting and coordination are needed for conservation to keep pace with sagebrush losses

Core sagebrush areas (CSAs), patches of high sagebrush ecological integrity, continue to decline despite significant conservation and restoration investments across the sagebrush biome. Historically, conservation decisions in the biome have been driven by wildlife species-specific demands, but increasing recognition of the scale of threats and the pace of ecosystem degradation has compelled a shift towards threat-based ecosystem management. Therefore, there is a need to evaluate the scale of conservation implementation relative to the rate of degradation or loss from specific threats to the biome to assess whether a conservation deficit exists. To this end, we: 1) quantified and compared the average hectares of conservation practices implemented annually relative to the hectares of CSA loss attributed to each threat; 2) evaluated the relative amount of conservation actions in core sagebrush areas, growth opportunity areas, and other rangeland areas; and 3) assessed how much additional conservation may be needed to stop CSA declines. We then quantified how better spatial targeting and enhanced coordination might reduce the total additional amount of future conservation needed, and evaluated how an influx of resources can close the conservation gap, or the deficit between the conservation needed to offset annual loss and degradation and the capacity for conservation implementation. We found that current rates of conservation (e.g., hectares treated annually) are markedly lower than rates of CSA loss (∼10% of average annual loss). Furthermore, most conservation actions, ∼90% for some treatment types, occurred outside of CSAs likely reducing the efficacy of these conservation actions at retaining and restoring intact sagebrush rangelands. Additionally, we found that conservation efforts will need to increase by more than an order of magnitude (at least 10x) annually to halt CSA declines. However, through better spatial targeting of conservation actions, the increase in conservation needed to stop CSA loss could be reduced by 70% or more. This analysis demonstrates the divergent futures that may await the sagebrush biome pending key decisions regarding conservation targeting, stakeholder cooperation, and the strategic addition of resources.

Rangeland Ecology and Management↗

USGS2023

Sage-grouse

In this chapter, we summarize the ecology and conservation issues affecting greater ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) and Gunnison ( C . minimus ) sage-grouse, iconic and obligate species of rangelands in the sagebrush ( Artemisia spp.) biome in western North America. Greater sage-grouse are noted for their ability to migrate, whereas Gunnison sage-grouse localize near leks year-round. Seasonal habitats include breeding habitat where males display at communal leks, nesting habitat composed of dense sagebrush and herbaceous plants to conceal nests, mesic summer habitats where broods are reared, and winter habitat, characterized by access to sagebrush for cover and forage. While two-thirds of sage-grouse habitat occurs on public lands, private land conservation is the focus of national groups including the USDA-NRCS Sage-Grouse Initiative. Sage-grouse are a species of great conservation concern due to population declines associated with loss and fragmentation of more than half of the sagebrush biome. Wildlife and land management agencies have been increasingly proactive in monitoring trends in sage-grouse populations (e.g., lek count index), adapting regulations to reduce harvest on declining populations, and in designing and implementing conservation policies such as core areas to conserve sage-grouse habitats and populations. Much of the remaining sagebrush habitat is threatened by altered fire regimes, invasive annual grasses and noxious weeds, encroaching piñon ( Pinus edulis and monophylla )-juniper ( Juniperus spp.) woodlands, sagebrush conversion, anthropogenic development, and climate change. Several diseases affect sage-grouse, but to date, disease has not been a widespread cause of declines. Proper livestock grazing and limited hunting appear to be sustainable with sage-grouse, whereas improper grazing, increasing free-roaming equid populations, and sagebrush conversion are primary concerns for future conservation. Research has identified additional concerns for sage-grouse including effects from fence collisions, predation from common ravens ( Corvus corax ), and reduced habitat effectiveness resulting from grouse avoidance of anthropogenic infrastructure. There is a need for future research evaluating sage-grouse habitat restoration practices following improper rangeland management, habitat alteration from invasive species and fire, effects on small and isolated populations, and effects from diseases.

Book chapter↗

USGS2023

The ties that bind the sagebrush biome: Integrating genetic connectivity into range-wide conservation of greater sage-grouse

Conserving genetic connectivity is fundamental to species persistence, yet rarely is made actionable into spatial planning for imperilled species. Climate change and habitat degradation have added urgency to embrace connectivity into networks of protected areas. Our two-step process integrates a network model with a functional connectivity model, to identify population centres important to maintaining genetic connectivity then to delineate those pathways most likely to facilitate connectivity thereamong for the greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ), a species of conservation concern ranging across eleven western US states and into two Canadian provinces. This replicable process yielded spatial action maps, able to be prioritized by importance to maintaining range-wide genetic connectivity. We used these maps to investigate the efficacy of 3.2 million ha designated as priority areas for conservation (PACs) to encompass functional connectivity. We discovered that PACs encompassed 41.1% of cumulative functional connectivity—twice the amount of connectivity as random—and disproportionately encompassed the highest-connectivity landscapes. Comparing spatial action maps to impedances to connectivity such as cultivation and woodland expansion allows both planning for future management and tracking outcomes from past efforts.

western United States↗

USGS2022

Guiding principles for using satellite-derived maps in rangeland management

On the Ground Rangeland management has entered a new era with the accessibility and advancement of satellite-derived maps. Maps provide a comprehensive view of rangelands in space and time, and challenge us to think critically about natural variability. Here, we advance the practice of using satellite-derived maps with four guiding principles designed to increase end user confidence and thereby accessibility of these data for decision-making.

Idaho↗

USGS2021

Improving Landsat predictions of rangeland fractional cover with multitask learning and uncertainty

Operational satellite remote sensing products are transforming rangeland management and science. Advancements in computation, data storage and processing have removed barriers that previously blocked or hindered the development and use of remote sensing products. When combined with local data and knowledge, remote sensing products can inform decision‐making at multiple scales. We used temporal convolutional networks to produce a fractional cover product that spans western United States rangelands. We trained the model with 52,012 on‐the‐ground vegetation plots to simultaneously predict fractional cover for annual forbs and grasses, perennial forbs and grasses, shrubs, trees, litter and bare ground. To assist interpretation and to provide a measure of prediction confidence, we also produced spatiotemporal‐explicit, pixel‐level estimates of uncertainty. We evaluated the model with 5,780 on‐the‐ground vegetation plots removed from the training data. Model evaluation averaged 6.3% mean absolute error and 9.6% root mean squared error. Evaluation with additional datasets that were not part of the training dataset, and that varied in geographic range, method of collection, scope and size, revealed similar metrics. Model performance increased across all functional groups compared to the previously produced fractional product. The advancements achieved with the new rangeland fractional cover product expand the management toolbox with improved predictions of fractional cover and pixel‐level uncertainty. The new product is available on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app/), an interactive web application that tracks rangeland vegetation through time. This product is intended to be used alongside local on‐the‐ground data, expert knowledge, land use history, scientific literature and other sources of information when making interpretations. When being used to inform decision‐making, remotely sensed products should be evaluated and utilized according to the context of the decision and not be used in isolation.

Methods in Ecology and Evolution↗

USGS2020

Vegetation sampling and management

What is the utility of vegetation measurements for wildlife managers? In the prairie, savanna, tundra, forest, steppe, and wetland regions of the world, mixtures of plant species provide wildlife with food, cover and, in some circumstances, water; the 3 essential habitat elements necessary to sustain viable wildlife populations. We define habitat in reference to use of a vegetation type by an animal (e.g., deer habitat) and vegetation type when referring to differences in vegetation stands (e.g., marsh vegetation type versus tall grass prairie vegetation type; Hall et al. 1997). In strict definition, the variety of wildlife using plants ranges from snails and voles (Microtus spp.) to bison (Bison bison) and elephants (Loxodonta spp.) in uplands and from mosquitoes and ducks to muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus) and manatees (Trichechus manatus) in wetlands. Through evolutionary processes, some wildlife species are totally dependent on vegetation for all annual life requirements, whereas other species use vegetation only for cover or food. Regardless of the role of vegetation in the sustenance of wildlife, any management or research project that requires evaluation of wildlife and vegetation type relationships on a unit of land will necessitate some form of vegetation measurement. The term vegetation can refer to a single plant or species on a specific site or a community in the landscape. Vegetation may occur naturally or be introduced, and may be live or dead. Uses of vegetation measurements are many: (1) evaluation of vegetation response to management practices, (2) estimation of carrying capacity and/or forage production, (3) characterization of cover and habitat components for an endangered species, or (4) long-term monitoring of the general trend of plant vigor or vegetation type condition. Surveying and measuring quantity and quality of vegetation within habitats are basic to wildlife research and management. Grassland, shrubland, and woodland vegetation types are comprised of populations in which individual plants are usually too numerous to inventory completely. Consequently, wildlife biologists usually use sampling techniques to make inferences about the total plant population within a given vegetation type. Vegetation sampling methodologies have evolved within several ecological disciplines (e.g., plant ecology, forestry, rangeland science) and for a variety of management or research objectives (e.g., estimating forage for ungulates, describing habitat use by passerine birds). Description of every method that has been used to sample vegetation is beyond the scope of this chapter. We describe how to measure vegetation structure, which Dansereau (1957) defined as the spatial organization (distribution) of individuals that form a stand. We have organized this chapter into a description of basic methods of vegetation sampling with examples of how those methods have been applied or modified in wildlife research and management. We assume the investigator/reader has adequate knowledge of the concepts of wildlife ecology, primary habitat requirements of wildlife species under study, and ability to systematically identify the species of wildlife and vascular plants within the geographical area of investigation.

Book chapter↗

USGS2017

Mapping tree canopy cover in support of proactive prairie grouse conservation in western North America

Invasive woody plant expansion is a primary threat driving fragmentation and loss of sagebrush ( Artemisia spp.) and prairie habitats across the central and western United States. Expansion of native woody plants, including conifer (primarily Juniperus spp.) and mesquite ( Prosopis spp.), over the past century is primarily attributable to wildfire suppression, historic periods of intensive livestock grazing, and changes in climate. To guide successful conservation programs aimed at reducing top-down stressors, we mapped invasive woody plants at regional scales to evaluate landscape level impacts, target restoration actions, and monitor restoration outcomes. Our overarching goal was to produce seamless regional products across sociopolitical boundaries with resolution fine enough to depict the spatial extent and degree of woody plant invasion relevant to greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) conservation efforts. We mapped tree canopy cover at 1-m spatial resolution across an 11-state region (508 265 km 2 ). Greater than 90% of occupied lesser prairie-chicken habitat was largely treeless for conifers (< 1% canopy cover), whereas > 67% was treeless for mesquite. Conifers in the higher canopy cover classes (16 − 50% and > 50% canopy cover) were scarce (< 2% and 1% canopy cover), as was mesquite (< 5% and 1% canopy cover). Occupied habitat by sage-grouse was more variable but also had a relatively large proportion of treeless areas ( x − "> x− = 71, SE = 5%). Low to moderate levels of conifer cover (1 − 20%) were fewer ( x − "> x− = 23, SE = 5%) as were areas in the highest cover class (> 50%; x − "> x− = 6, SE = 2%). Mapping indicated that a high proportion of invading woody plants are at a low to intermediate level. Canopy cover maps for conifer and mesquite resulting from this study provide the first and most geographically complete, high-resolution assessment of woody plant cover as a top-down threat to western sage-steppe and prairie ecosystems.

Rangeland Ecology and Management↗

USGS2011

Conservation of greater sage-grouse- a synthesis of current trends and future management

Recent analyses of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) populations indicate substantial declines in many areas but relatively stable populations in other portions of the species? range. Sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) habitats neces-sary to support sage-grouse are being burned by large wildfires, invaded by nonnative plants, and developed for energy resources (gas, oil, and wind). Management on public lands, which con-tain 70% of sagebrush habitats, has changed over the last 30 years from large sagebrush control projects directed at enhancing livestock grazing to a greater emphasis on projects that often attempt to improve or restore ecological integrity. Never-theless, the mandate to manage public lands to provide traditional consumptive uses as well as recreation and wilderness values is not likely to change in the near future. Consequently, demand and use of resources contained in sagebrush land-scapes plus the associated infrastructure to sup-port increasing human populations in the western United States will continue to challenge efforts to conserve Greater Sage-Grouse. The continued widespread distribution of sage-grouse, albeit at very low densities in some areas, coupled with large areas of important sagebrush habitat that are relatively unaffected by the human footprint, sug-gest that Greater Sage-Grouse populations may be able to persist into the future. We summarize the status of sage-grouse populations and habitats, provide a synthesis of major threats and chal-lenges to conservation of sage-grouse, and suggest a roadmap to attaining conservation goals.

Book chapter↗

USGS2010

Prairie wetland complexes as landscape functional units in a changing climate

The wetland complex is the functional ecological unit of the prairie pothole region (PPR) of central North America. Diverse complexes of wetlands contribute high spatial and temporal environmental heterogeneity, productivity, and biodiversity to these glaciated prairie landscapes. Climatewarming simulations using the new model WETLANDSCAPE (WLS) project major reductions in water volume, shortening of hydroperiods, and less-dynamic vegetation for prairie wetland complexes. The WLS model portrays the future PPR as a much less resilient ecosystem: The western PPR will be too dry and the eastern PPR will have too few functional wetlands and nesting habitat to support historic levels of waterfowl and other wetland-dependent species. Maintaining ecosystem goods and services at current levels in a warmer climate will be a major challenge for the conservation community.

BioScience↗

USGS2005

Vulnerability of northern prairie wetlands to climate change

The prairie pothole region (PPR) lies in the heart of North America and contains millions of glacially formed, depressional wetlands embedded in a landscape matrix of natural grassland and agriculture. These wetlands provide valuable ecosystem services and produce 50% to 80% of the continent's ducks. We explored the broad spatial and temporal patterns across the PPR between climate and wetland water levels and vegetation by applying a wetland simulation model (WETSIM) to 18 stations with 95-year weather records. Simulations suggest that the most productive habitat for breeding waterfowl would shift under a drier climate from the center of the PPR (the Dakotas and southeastern Saskatchewan) to the wetter eastern and northern fringes, areas currently less productive or where most wetlands have been drained. Unless these wetlands are protected and restored, there is little insurance for waterfowl against future climate warming. WETSIM can assist wetland managers in allocating restoration dollars in an uncertain climate future.

Alberta, Iowa, Manitoba, Minnesota, Montana, Nebra↗