Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Rangeland Ecology & Management”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources
USGS2017

Multiscale guidance and tools for implementing a landscape approach to resource management in the Bureau of Land Management

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is implementing a landscape approach to resource management (hereafter, landscape approach) to more effectively work with partners and understand the effects of management decisions. A landscape approach is a set of concepts and principles used to guide resource management when multiple stakeholders are involved and goals include diverse and sustainable social, environmental, and economic outcomes. Core principles of a landscape approach include seeking meaningful participation of diverse stakeholders, considering diverse resource values in multifunctional landscapes, acknowledging the tradeoffs needed to meet diverse objectives in the context of sustainable resource management, and addressing the complexity of social and ecological processes by embracing interdisciplinarity and considering multiple and broad spatial and temporal perspectives. In chapter 1, we outline the overall goal of this report: to provide a conceptual foundation and framework for implementing a landscape approach to resource management in the BLM, focusing on the role of multiscale natural resource monitoring and assessment information. In chapter 2, we describe a landscape approach to resource management. BLM actions taken to implement a landscape approach include a major effort to compile broad-scale data on natural resource status and condition across much of the west. These broadscale data now provide a regional context for interpreting monitoring data collected at individual sites and informing decisions made for local projects. We also illustrate the utility of using multiscale data to understand potential effects of different resource management decisions, define relevant terms in landscape ecology, and identify spatial scales at which planning and management decisions may be evaluated. In chapter 3, we describe how the BLM Rapid Ecoregional Assessment program and Assessment, Inventory and Monitoring program may be integrated to provide the multiscale monitoring data needed to inform a landscape approach. We propose six core, broad-scale indicators of natural resource status and condition: the amount, spatial distribution, patch size and connectivity of ecosystems and wildlife habitats, and the pattern of existing development across the landscape. Additional supplemental broad-scale indicators may include fire return intervals, distributions of invasive species, and vulnerability of ecosystems to a changing climate. Landscape intactness is an additional derived indicator that is calculated from one or more of the core and supplemental broad-scale indicators. We then outline a process for assessing broad-scale indicators that is consistent with the overall BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring process, facilitating development of a multiscale natural resource monitoring program. Finally, we describe how broad-scale indicators of natural resource status and condition may guide field monitoring implemented through the BLM Assessment, Inventory and Monitoring program and help address complex management questions. In chapter 4, we consider the specific question of assessing the ecological integrity of rangelands across the western United States. We first define ecological integrity and its relation to land health. We then suggest that a combination of six local-scale indicators collected through field sampling at individual sites and five complementary broad-scale indicators together provide information on the composition, structure, and function of rangelands. The terrestrial monitoring indicators collected at the level of individual field sites are the amount of bare ground, vegetation composition (including invasive plants and plants of management concern), vegetation height, and the proportion of the soil surface in large intercanopy gaps. The broad-scale indicators are vegetation amount, distribution, patch size, connectivity, and productivity, along with the pattern of terrestrial development. Our suggested approach to quantifying ecological integrity focuses specifically on informing management of public lands for multiple resource uses, and illustrates how existing data collected through BLM monitoring and assessment programs may be used together to provide multiscale information on land condition across broad extents. In chapter 5, we develop a method for quantifying landscape intactness and apply this method to the western United States. Our multiscale index of landscape intactness is designed to be defensible, decomposable, and easy to understand. The foundation of the multiscale index of landscape intactness is the surface disturbance footprint of anthropogenic development, including energy and urban development, roads and railroads, cultivated croplands, surface mines and quarries, and energy transmission lines and pipelines. The index represents a gradient of anthropogenic influence as represented by development summarized at two spatial scales of analysis: 2.5 and 20 kilometers. We provide several example applications of the index, illustrating how these data may inform natural resource decisions at the spatial extent of BLM field and district offices, states, ecoregions, and the western United States. We find that 19.2 percent of lands managed by the BLM across the 17 western states of the conterminous United States had the highest landscape intactness. The largest intact areas occur on public lands at high elevations or in the Great Basin. We believe the frameworks, processes, and analyses provided in this report will improve the ability of the BLM to identify and evaluate potential direct and indirect effects of management actions (such as habitat restoration and renewable energy development), and assist the BLM in further implementing a landscape approach to resource management.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2021

Campfire Conversations at the 2020 annual meeting: Insights & lessons learned from “cuss-and-discuss” rather than “chalk-and-talk”

• The 2020 SRM Annual Meeting piloted “Campfire Conversation,” round-table discussions styled after the World Café approach. • The event attracted 280 attendees and enabled multidirectional knowledge exchange (i.e., “cuss and discuss”), rather than one-way “chalk-and-talk.” Attendees participated in three 20-minute facilitated round-table discussions around three topics they selected from a menu of 13 timely rangeland issues. • Change was a common theme for many Campfire Conversations, including social, climatic, ecological, management, and policy changes. • Participants highlighted a desire for SRM to grow as an organization by enhancing members’ opportunities and resources for multidirectional knowledge exchange among students, scientists, practitioners, and policy-makers; cross-generational mentorship; cross-disciplinary training; diverse ways of knowing; and greater inclusivity and connection to the SRM. • A post-event analysis of the Campfire Conversation event revealed valuable lessons for organizing successful World Café-style sessions at future SRM meetings, including virtual meetings.

The Rangelands Journal↗
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↗
USGS2015

Adapting California’s ecosystems to a changing climate

Significant efforts are underway to translate improved understanding of how climate change is altering ecosystems into practical actions for sustaining ecosystem functions and benefits. We explore this transition in California, where adaptation and mitigation are advancing relatively rapidly, through four case studies that span large spatial domains and encompass diverse ecological systems, institutions, ownerships, and policies. The case studies demonstrate the context specificity of societal efforts to adapt ecosystems to climate change and involve applications of diverse scientific tools (e.g., scenario analyses, downscaled climate projections, ecological and connectivity models) tailored to specific planning and management situations (alternative energy siting, wetland management, rangeland management, open space planning). They illustrate how existing institutional and policy frameworks provide numerous opportunities to advance adaptation related to ecosystems and suggest that progress is likely to be greatest when scientific knowledge is integrated into collective planning and when supportive policies and financing enable action.

BioScience↗
USGS2002

Rangeland health attributes and indicators for qualitative assessment

Panels of experts from the Society for Range Management and the National Research Council proposed that status of rangeland ecosystems could be ascertained by evaluating an ecological site's potential to conserve soil resources and by a series of indicators for ecosystem processes and site stability. Using these recommendations as a starting point, we developed a rapid, qualitative method for assessing a moment-in-time status of rangelands. Evaluators rate 17 indicators to assess 3 ecosystem attributes (soil and site stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity) for a given location. Indicators include rills, water flow patterns, pedestals and terracettes, bare ground, gullies, wind scour and depositional areas, litter movement, soil resistance to erosion, soil surface loss or degradation, plant composition relative to infiltration, soil compaction, plant functional/structural groups, plant mortality, litter amount, annual production, invasive plants, and reproductive capability. In this paper, we detail the development and evolution of the technique and introduce a modified ecological reference worksheet that documents the expected presence and amount of each indicator on the ecological site. In addition, we review the intended applications for this technique and clarify the differences between assessment and monitoring that lead us to recommend this technique be used for moment-in-time assessments and not be used for temporal monitoring of rangeland status. Lastly, we propose a mechanism for adapting and modifying this technique to reflect improvements in understanding of ecosystem processes. We support the need for quantitative measures for monitoring rangeland health and propose some measures that we believe may address some of the 17 indicators.

Journal of Range Management↗
USGS2017

Seventy-five years of vegetation treatments on public rangelands in the Great Basin of North America

On the Ground Land treatments occurring over millions of hectares of public rangelands in the Great Basin over the last 75 years represent one of the largest vegetation manipulation and restoration efforts in the world. The ability to use legacy data from land treatments in adaptive management and ecological research has improved with the creation of the Land Treatment Digital Library (LTDL), a spatially explicit database of land treatments conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The LTDL contains information on over 9,000 confirmed land treatments in the Great Basin, composed of seedings (58%), vegetation control treatments (24%), and other types of vegetation or soil manipulations (18%). The potential application of land treatment legacy data for adaptive management or as natural experiments for retrospective analyses of effects of land management actions on physical, hydrologic, and ecologic patterns and processes is considerable and just beginning to be realized.

California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah↗
USGS2018

Effects of feral horse herds on plant communities across a precipitation gradient

Feral horses are widespread in the western United States, with the majority of feral horse herds found in the Great Basin. There is a federal mandate to manage these herds in order to maintain “ecological balance”; however, understanding of the specific effects of feral horse grazing on rangeland plant communities in this region is incomplete. To address this research gap, we utilized long-term grazing exclosures and fenceline contrasts to evaluate the impacts of feral horses on several plant community variables (diversity, richness, dominance, and biomass) and species composition. Because the effects of grazing can vary with site precipitation and productivity, we selected 5 sites from 4 different rangeland types (Great Basin Desert, Colorado Plateau, Rocky Mountain grassland, and mixed grass prairie) that spanned a mean annual precipitation gradient of 229 to 413 mm. Our results did not reveal a significant effect of feral horse grazing on plant community composition, species richness, diversity, evenness, or dominance. In contrast, total aboveground herbaceous biomass and grass biomass were significantly reduced with feral horse grazing, but these effects did not vary with mean annual precipitation. Our results suggest that, at least at the sites we studied, feral horses have affected the plant community by reducing herbaceous biomass but have not caused plant community shifts. Additional multisite studies, preferably with standardized exclosures and larger sample sizes, would increase our understanding of feral horse grazing effects and inform management of feral horse herds in the western United States.

Colorado, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Utah↗
USGS2000

Cassin's Sparrow (Aimophila cassinii) status assessment and conservation plan

Executive Summary Cassin’s Sparrow ( Aimophila cassinii ) is a grassland species endemic to the southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico. Its behavior and ecology have been shaped by these arid ecosystems and the health of its populations is dependent on the availability of grasslands that contain a shrub component. Populations of many grassland birds have experienced dramatic declines due to the loss and deterioration of grassland habitats, and there has been concern about the trends in Cassin’s Sparrow populations. Without better information about population trends, ecology, and effects of management activities, and without a stronger emphasis on grassland management, Cassin’s Sparrows and other grassland species may continue to experience declines. Little information exists about historic Cassin’s Sparrow population levels, and current population estimates for states in the breeding range are unknown. Significant survey-wide declines are documented by the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) between 1966 and 1996. However, closer examination of these data suggest that the survey-wide trends are driven by population declines in the Edwards Plateau and South Texas Brushlands in Texas. No other areas within the core of its range or on the periphery show consistent, significant trends. In fact, there is consensus that in the core of its range in New Mexico Cassin’s Sparrow remains the most abundant breeding bird in grasslands with a shrub component. Understanding of population patterns in this species is complicated by large yearly fluctuations in distribution and numbers at any particular location, apparently in response to precipitation. This is particularly obvious in the periphery of its range. These dramatic fluctuations have hampered a clear assessment of population status, and our understanding has been confounded by the fact that the timing of BBS data collection does not always coincide with the peak breeding season of this species. The lack of information about the Cassin’s Sparrow’s status, ecology, and response to management activities, and the apparent declines indicated by BBS data, have been cause for concern. Habitat disturbance and degradation, mainly due to grazing and rangeland management practices such as shrub control, fire management, and planting of exotics, pose threats to Cassin’s Sparrow populations, as does habitat conversion through suburban development and agriculture. There is evidence that heavy grazing negatively affects populations, but the information is primarily available from the southwestern portion of its range (Arizona) and may not be applicable throughout the Cassin’s Sparrow’s entire range. Any management practice that results in complete removal of the shrub component, or loss of grass cover and an increase in shrub density beyond a threshold preferred by the species, also poses a threat. Lack of standardized or coordinated studies of Cassin’s Sparrow ecology and response to management practices in different geographic portions of its range has made it difficult to assess its status and make specific management recommendations. Limited data are available from the wintering grounds, and from its range (both breeding and wintering) in Mexico. The greatest needs are for determining of the causes of significant declines where they occur, determining of the effects of various management activities on Cassin’s Sparrow throughout its range, improved assessments of population and trends, and a better understanding of the annual population and distribution dynamics of this species, which shows such dramatic annual distributional fluctuations.

Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma,Texas, New Mex↗
USGS2025

An accuracy assessment of satellite-derived rangeland fractional cover

Satellite-derived maps of vegetation cover provide detailed information about vegetation spatiotemporal patterns and are increasingly used to better understand and manage rangelands. Despite their utility, questions remain regarding the regional and site level accuracy for these maps, especially compared to field-collected data. We conducted an accuracy assessment of the Rangeland Analysis Platform (RAP), using over 17,000 field plots sampled through nationwide rangeland vegetation monitoring programs in the continental U.S. We observed higher overall nationwide map error compared to previous validations of RAP, and absolute error (Mean Absolute Error [MAE] and Root Mean Square Error [RMSE]) was highest for perennial herbaceous and bare ground and lowest for trees (MAE range = 2.98 –10.22 %). There were also differences in map agreement with field data across ecoregions. Generally, map agreement was highest in the Great Basin and lowest in the Great Plains and Desert Southwest. Additionally, we assessed the suitability of using RAP in riparian and wetland areas, which are absent in the current version’s training. Errors for bare ground in riparian areas were lower than errors of upland accuracy assessments (upland MAE = 10.22 %, riparian MAE = 7.22 %), but for all other functional groups, riparian error was higher (ΔMAE range: 0.21 – 20.49 %). We examine how our results could inform regional applications of fractional cover data while considering error and uncertainty and identify areas for potential model improvement. Our findings inform the use of RAP regionally and provide a technique for evaluating other vegetation mapping products for use in rangeland management.

Ecological Indicators↗
USGS2023

The Landscape Data Commons: A system for standardizing, accessing, and applying large environmental datasets for agroecosystem research and management

Understanding where, when, and why agroecosystems are changing requires quality information about ecosystems that span land tenure, ecological processes, and spatial scales. Over the past two decades, land management agencies and research groups have adopted a suite of standardized methods for monitoring rangelands, which have been implemented at over 85,000 monitoring locations globally. However, the ability to use these data to understand agroecosystem dynamics and change across scales and across land ownership has been limited because, until now, these data have not been available in a harmonized, accessible format for analyses, modeling, and decision-support tools. We present the Landscape Data Commons, a cyberinfrastructure platform that harmonizes and aggregates standardized agroecosystem data, enables linkages to models, and facilitates analysis and interpretation of data within decision-support tools. The Landscape Data Commons provides a community platform for users to contribute data and develop next-generation tools to support agroecosystem management through the 21st century.

Agricultural & Environmental Letters↗
USGS2023

Combining resilience and resistance with threat-based approaches for prioritizing management actions in sagebrush ecosystems

The sagebrush biome is a dryland region in the western United States experiencing rapid transformations to novel ecological states. Threat-based approaches for managing anthropogenic and ecosystem threats have recently become prominent, but successfully mitigating threats depends on the ecological resilience of ecosystems. We used a spatially explicit approach for prioritizing management actions that combined a threat-based model with models of resilience to disturbance and resistance to annual grass invasion. The threat-based model assessed geographic patterns in sagebrush ecological integrity (SEI) to identify core sagebrush, growth opportunity, and other rangeland areas. The resilience and resistance model identified ecologically relevant climate and soil water availability indicators from process-based ecohydrological models. The SEI areas and resilience and resistance indicators were consistent—the resilience and resistance indicators showed generally positive relationships with the SEI areas. They also were complementary—SEI areas provided information on intact sagebrush areas and threats, while resilience and resistance provided information on responses to disturbances and management actions. The SEI index and resilience and resistance indicators provide the basis for prioritizing conservation and restoration actions and determining appropriate strategies. The difficulty and time required to conserve or restore SEI areas increase as threats increases and resilience and resistance decrease.

Conservation Science and Practice↗
USGS2017

Managing the livestock– Wildlife interface on rangelands

On rangelands the livestock–wildlife interface is mostly characterized by management actions aimed at controlling problems associated with competition, disease, and depredation. Wildlife communities (especially the large vertebrate species) are typically incompatible with agricultural development because the opportunity costs of wildlife conservation are unaffordable except in arid and semi-arid regions. Ecological factors including the provision of supplementary food and water for livestock, together with the persecution of large predators, result in livestock replacing wildlife at biomass densities far exceeding those of indigenous ungulates. Diseases are difficult to eradicate from free-ranging wildlife populations and so veterinary controls usually focus on separating commercial livestock herds from wildlife. Persecution of large carnivores due to their depredation of livestock has caused the virtual eradication of apex predators from most rangelands. However, recent research points to a broad range of solutions to reduce conflict at the livestock–wildlife interface. Conserving wildlife bolsters the adaptive capacity of a rangeland by providing stakeholders with options for dealing with environmental change. This is contingent upon local communities being empowered to benefit directly from their wildlife resources within a management framework that integrates land-use sectors at the landscape scale. As rangelands undergo irreversible changes caused by species invasions and climate forcings, the future perspective favors a proactive shift in attitude towards the livestock–wildlife interface, from problem control to asset management.

Book chapter↗
USGS2004

Guidelines for managing lesser prairie-chicken populations and their habitats

Lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) populations have declined by >90% since the 1800s. These declines have concerned both biologists and private conservation groups and led to a petition to list the lesser prairie-chicken as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Most of the land in the current range of the lesser prairie-chicken is privately owned, and declines have been primarily attributed to anthropogenic factors. Conversion of native rangeland to cropland and excessive grazing have been implicated as leading causes in the species' decline. Periodic drought probably has exacerbated these problems. Little research on habitat requirements was conducted prior to 1970. Despite recent advances in the knowledge of lesser prairie-chicken ecology, no comprehensive guidelines for management of the species have been published. In these guidelines, we provide a synopsis of our current knowledge of lesser prairie-chicken habitat requirements and suggest management strategies to monitor, maintain, and enhance lesser prairie-chicken populations.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2011

Range-wide assessment of livestock grazing across the sagebrush biome

Domestic livestock grazing occurs in virtually all sagebrush habitats and is a prominent disturbance factor. By affecting habitat condition and trend, grazing influences the resources required by, and thus, the distribution and abundance of sagebrush-obligate wildlife species (for example, sage-grouse Centrocercus spp.). Yet, the risks that livestock grazing may pose to these species and their habitats are not always clear. Although livestock grazing intensity and associated habitat condition may be known in many places at the local level, we have not yet been able to answer questions about use, condition, and trend at the landscape scale or at the range-wide scale for wildlife species. A great deal of information about grazing use, management regimes, and ecological condition exists at the local level (for individual livestock management units) under the oversight of organizations such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). However, the extent, quality, and types of existing data are unknown, which hinders the compilation, mapping, or analysis of these data. Once compiled, these data may be helpful for drawing conclusions about rangeland status, and we may be able to identify relationships between those data and wildlife habitat at the landscape scale. The overall objective of our study was to perform a range-wide assessment of livestock grazing effects (and the relevant supporting data) in sagebrush ecosystems managed by the BLM. Our assessments and analyses focused primarily on local-level management and data collected at the scale of BLM grazing allotments (that is, individual livestock management units). Specific objectives included the following: 1. Identify and refine existing range-wide datasets to be used for analyses of livestock grazing effects on sagebrush ecosystems. 2. Assess the extent, quality, and types of livestock grazing-related natural resource data collected by BLM range-wide (i.e., across allotments, districts and regions). 3. Compile and synthesize recommendations from federal and university rangeland science experts about how BLM might prioritize collection of different types of livestock grazing-related natural resource data. 4. Investigate whether range-wide datasets (Objective 1) could be used in conjunction with remotely sensed imagery to identify across broad scales (a) allotments potentially not meeting BLM Land Health Standards (LHS) and (b) allotments in which unmet standards might be attributable to livestock grazing. Objective 1: We identified four datasets that potentially could be used for analyses of livestock grazing effects on sagebrush ecosystems. First, we obtained the most current spatial data (typically up to 2007, 2008, or 2009) for all BLM allotments and compiled data into a coarse, topologically enforced dataset that delineated grazing allotment boundaries. Second, we obtained LHS evaluation data (as of 2007) for all allotments across all districts and regions; these data included date of most recent evaluation, BLM determinations of whether region-specific standards were met, and whether BLM deemed livestock to have contributed to any unmet standards. Third, we examined grazing records of three types: Actual Use (permittee-reported), Billed Use (BLM-reported), and Permitted Use (legally authorized). Finally, we explored the possibility of using existing Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Ecological Site Description (ESD) data to make up-to-date estimates of production and forage availability on BLM allotments. Objective 2: We investigated the availability of BLM livestock grazing-related monitoring data and the status of LHS across 310 randomly selected allotments in 13 BLM field offices. We found that, relative to other data types, the most commonly available monitoring data were Actual Use numbers (permittee-reported livestock numbers and season-of-use), followed by Photo Point, forage Utilization, and finally, Vegetation Trend measurement data. Data availability and frequency of data collection varied across allotments and field offices. Analysis of the BLM's LHS data indicated 67 percent of allotments analyzed were meeting standards. For those not meeting standards, livestock were considered the causal factor in 45 percent of cases (about 15 percent of all allotments). Objective 3: We sought input from 42 university and federal rangeland science experts about how best to prioritize rangeland monitoring activities associated with ascertaining livestock impacts on vegetation resources. When we presented a hypothetical scenario to these scientists and asked them to prioritize monitoring activities, the most common response was to measure ground and vegetation cover, a variable that in many cases (10 of 13 field offices sampled) BLM had already identified as a monitoring priority. Experts identified several other traditional (for example, photo points) and emerging approaches (for example, high-resolution aerial photography) to monitoring. Objective 4: We used spatial allotment data (described in Objective 1) and remotely sensed vegetation data (sagebrush cover, herbaceous vegetation cover, litter and bare soil) to assess differences in allotment LHS status ("Not met" vs. "Met"; if "Not met" - livestock-caused vs. not). We then developed logistic regression models, using vegetation variables to predict LHS status of BLM allotments in sagebrush steppe habitats in Wyoming and portions of Montana and Colorado. In general, we found that more consistent data collection at the local level might improve suitability of data for broad-scale analyses of livestock impacts. As is, data collection methodologies varied across field offices and States, and we did not find any local-level monitoring data (Actual Use, Utilization, Vegetation Trend) that had been collected consistently enough over time or space for range-wide analyses. Moreover, continued and improved emphasis on monitoring also may aid local management decisions, particularly with respect to effects of livestock grazing. Rangeland science experts identified ground cover as a high monitoring priority for assessing range condition and emphasized the importance of tracking livestock numbers and grazing dates. Ultimately, the most effective monitoring program may entail both increased data collection effort and the integration of alternative monitoring approaches (for example, remote sensing or monitoring teams). In the course of our study, we identified three additional datasets that could potentially be used for range-wide analyses: spatial allotment boundary data for all BLM allotments range-wide, LHS evaluations of BLM allotments, and livestock use data (livestock numbers and grazing dates). It may be possible to use these spatial datasets to help prioritize monitoring activities over the extensive land areas managed by BLM. We present an example of how we used spatial allotment boundary data and LHS data to test whether remotely sensed vegetation characteristics could be used to predict which allotments met or did not meet LHS. This approach may be further improved by the results of current efforts by BLM to test whether more intensive (higher resolution) LHS assessments more accurately describe land health status. Standardized data collection in more ecologically meaningful land units may improve our ability to use local-level data for broad-scale analyses.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2021

Ecological potential fractional component cover based on Long-Term satellite observations across the western United States

Rangelands have immense inherent spatial and temporal variability, yet land condition and trends are often assessed at a limited number of spatially “representative” points. Spatially comprehensive, and quantitative, Ecological Potential (EP) data provide a baseline for comparison to current rangeland vegetation conditions and trends. Here, we define EP as potential fractional cover (bare ground, herbaceous, litter, shrub, and sagebrush) represented in the least disturbed areas and most productive years of the Landsat satellite archive (1985-present) for each 30-m pixel. We produce EP maps across rangelands in the western United States by training regression tree models using Rangeland Condition Monitoring Assessment and Projection (RCMAP) time-series fractional cover maps in ecologically intact sites (with limited annual herbaceous cover, no recent disturbance or vegetation treatment, and less bare ground cover than expected). As independent predictor variables in these models, we use digital soils and topography data and six bimonthly composites of the 90th percentile of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and associated spectral bands from the 1985–2020 Landsat archive. EP predictions were successful in capturing biophysical gradients present in the independent variables and depicting potential cover in the absence of disturbance; we found no influence of fires or land treatments in the data. Next, we compared EP to contemporary (2018) cover, to create departure maps that can be used as a screening tool indicating degradation and providing an early warning of vegetation state change. Finally, we used a dichotomous key to convert the 1985 and 2018 RCMAP cover and EP cover into vegetation states important to land management decisions (invaded sagebrush steppe , annual grasslands, etc.). We found that in 1985, 21.2% of the study area had a different vegetation state than EP, and this percentage increased to 24.2% by 2018. More than 50% of the EP native sagebrush steppe was converted to an annual grassland, perennial grassland, or non-sagebrush shrub by 2018, and an additional 7% was classified as invaded sagebrush steppe, at risk of transition to another state. EP products provide a spatio-temporal reference of vegetation conditions from the last three decades across rangelands in the western United States. Use of the EP reference can improve adaptive management practice by providing monitoring and control data, which are often lacking, and assist in differentiating treatment effect from confounding factors.

western United States↗
USGS2015

Western juniper management: assessing strategies for improving greater sage-grouse habitat and rangeland productivity

Western juniper ( Juniperus occidentalis subsp. occidentalis ) range expansion into sagebrush steppe ecosystems has affected both native wildlife and economic livelihoods across western North America. The potential listing of the greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) under the U.S. Endangered Species Act has spurred a decade of juniper removal efforts, yet limited research has evaluated program effectiveness. We used a multi-objective spatially explicit model to identify optimal juniper removal sites in Northeastern California across weighted goals for ecological (sage-grouse habitat) and economic (cattle forage production) benefits. We also extended the analysis through alternative case scenarios that tested the effects of coordination among federal agencies, budgetary constraints, and the use of fire as a juniper treatment method. We found that sage-grouse conservation and forage production goals are somewhat complementary, but the extent of complementary benefits strongly depends on spatial factors and management approaches. Certain management actions substantially increase achievable benefits, including agency coordination and the use of prescribed burns to remove juniper. Critically, our results indicate that juniper management strategies designed to increase cattle forage do not necessarily achieve measurable sage-grouse benefits, underscoring the need for program evaluation and monitoring.

California, Oregon, Nevada↗
USGS2023

Waterfowl and wetland birds

The future of wetland bird habitat and populations is intrinsically connected with the conservation of rangelands in North America. Many rangeland watersheds are source drainage for some of the highest functioning extant wetlands. The Central and Pacific Flyways have significant overlap with available rangelands in western North America. Within these flyways, the importance of rangeland management has become increasingly recognized by those involved in wetland bird conservation. Within the array of wetland bird species, seasonal habitat needs are highly variable. During the breeding period, nest survival is one of the most important drivers of population growth for many wetland bird species and rangelands often provide quality nesting cover. Throughout spring and fall, rangeland wetlands provide key forage resources that support energetic demands needed for migration. In some areas, stock ponds developed for livestock water provide migration stopover and wintering habitat, especially in times of water scarcity. In the Intermountain West, drought combined with water demands from agriculture and human population growth are likely headed to an ecological tipping point for wetland birds and their habitat in the region. In the Prairie Pothole Region, conversion of rangeland and draining of wetlands for increased crop production remains a significant conservation issue for wetland birds and other wildlife. In landscapes dominated by agricultural production, rangelands provide some of the highest value ecosystem services, including water quality and wetland function. Recent research has shown livestock grazing, if managed properly, is compatible and at times beneficial to wetland bird habitat needs. Either directly, or indirectly, wetland bird populations and their habitat needs are supported by healthy rangelands. In the future, rangeland and wetland bird managers will benefit from increased collaboration to aid in meeting ultimate conservation objectives.

Book chapter↗