Search Results: %252525257Bsearch_term_string%252525257D
As we approach the Decade of Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030), there is renewed focus on improving wetland restoration practices to reestablish the habitat and climate mitigation functions and services that wetlands provide. A first step in restoring these functions and services is to reestablish the native vegetation structure and composition through strategic seed-based approaches. These approaches should be driven by ecological, genetic, and evolutionary principles, along with consideration for economics, logistics, and other social constraints. Effective seed-based approaches must consider the chosen species, seed sourcing, dormancy break and germination requirements, seed enhancement technologies, potential invaders, seeding densities, and long-term monitoring. Choice of species should reflect historical plant communities and future environmental conditions, species that support functional goals including invasion resistance, and seed availability constraints. Furthermore, seeds should be sourced to ensure ample genetic diversity to support multifunctionality and evolutionary capacity while also considering the broad natural dispersal of many wetland species. The decision to collect wild seeds or purchase seeds will also impact species choice and genetic diversity, which can have cascading effects for functional goals. To ensure seedling establishment, seed dormancy should be addressed through dormancy breaking treatments and the potentially narrow germination requirements of some species will require targeted sowing timing and location to align with safe sites. Other seed enhancements such as priming and coatings are poorly developed for wetland restoration and their potential for improving establishment is unknown. Because wetlands are highly invasion prone, potential invaders and their legacies should be addressed. Seeding densities should strike a balance between outcompeting invaders and preserving valuable seed resources. Invader control and long-term monitoring is key to improving revegetation and restoration. Here, we review scientific advances to improve revegetation outcomes, and provide methods and recommendations to help achieve the desired goals. Gaps in knowledge about seed-based wetland restoration currently exist, however, and untested practices will certainly increase risks in future efforts. These efforts can be used to better understand the ecological, genetic, and evolutionary processes related to wetland seeds, which will bring us one step closer to seed-based restoration of functions and services needed for human and ecological communities.
View article.
Based on our review of the scientific evidence, a range of proactive management actions are justified and necessary to keep pace with changing climatic and wildfire regimes and declining forest heterogeneity after severe wildfires. Science-based adaptation options include the use of managed wildfire, prescribed burning, and coupled mechanical thinning and prescribed burning as is consistent with land management allocations and forest conditions. Although some current models of fire management in wNA are averse to short-term risks and uncertainties, the long-term environmental, social, and cultural consequences of wildfire management primarily grounded in fire suppression are well documented, highlighting an urgency to invest in intentional forest management and restoration of active fire regimes.
Access article.
This study assessed causal relationships between conifer encroachment and sagebrush restoration (conifer removal and seeding native plants) on small mammal communities over 11 yr using a Before-After-Control–Impact design. Sagebrush habitat supported an additional small mammal species, twice the biomass, and nearly three times higher densities than conifer-encroached habitat. Sagebrush restoration increased shrub cover, decreased tree cover, and density but failed to increase native herbaceous plant density. Restoration caused a large increase in the non-native, invasive annual cheatgrass. Counter to prediction, small mammal diversity did not increase in response to sagebrush restoration, but restoration maintained small mammal density in the face of ongoing conifer encroachment. Piñon mice, woodland specialists with highest densities in conifer-encroached habitat, were negatively affected by sagebrush restoration. Increasing cheatgrass due to sagebrush restoration may not negatively impact small mammal diversity, provided cheatgrass density and cover do not progress to a monoculture and native vegetation is maintained. The consequences of conifer encroachment, a long-term, slow-acting impact, far outweigh the impacts of sagebrush restoration, a short-term, high-intensity impact, on small mammal diversity. Given the ecological importance of small mammals, maintenance of small mammal density is a desirable outcome for sagebrush restoration.
View article.
Here, we used two complementary models to explore spatial and temporal relationships in the potential of big sagebrush regeneration representing (1) range-wide big sagebrush regeneration responses in natural vegetation (process-based model) and (2) big sagebrush restoration seeding outcomes following fire in the Great Basin and the Snake River Plains (regression-based model). The process-based model suggested substantial geographic variation in long-term regeneration trajectories with central and northern areas of the big sagebrush region remaining climatically suitable, whereas marginal and southern areas are becoming less suitable. The regression-based model suggested, however, that restoration seeding may become increasingly more difficult, illustrating the particularly difficult challenge of promoting sagebrush establishment after wildfire in invaded landscapes. These results suggest that sustaining big sagebrush on the landscape throughout the 21st century may climatically be feasible for many areas and that uncertainty about the long-term sustainability of big sagebrush may be driven more by dynamics of biological invasions and wildfire than by uncertainty in climate change projections. Divergent projections of the two models under 21st century climate conditions encourage further study to evaluate potential benefits of re-creating conditions of uninvaded, unburned natural big sagebrush vegetation for post-fire restoration seeding, such as seeding in multiple years and, for at least much of the northern Great Basin and Snake River Plains, the control of the fire-invasive annual grass cycle.
View article.
We used data from a 5-year grazing experiment in the Northern Great Plains of the US. We tested whether grazing management treatments affect SIC, and whether grazing-induced SOC accrual was potentially offset by SIC loss. The experiment had a randomised complete block design and pretreatment data. Response variables were SOC and SIC stocks (0–60 cm depth). Moderate summer grazing (control) is regionally common and treatments that may alter soil stocks included: no grazing, severe summer grazing, moderate autumn grazing, and severe autumn grazing. We also tested for a negative relationship between SOC and SIC across all soil cores (n = 244). Severe grazing (summer and autumn) increased SOC by 0.83 and 0.88 kg × m−2 relative to moderate summer grazing, respectively. However, no treatments affected SIC. Conversely, we found an overall weak but significant (r2 = 0.04, P = 0.002), near one-to-one negative relationship between SIC and SOC stocks of soil cores. Our findings suggest severe grazing can increase SOC without affecting SIC, at least over the short term (5 years). This finding mirrors results from an observational study elsewhere in the Northern Great Plains that also failed to detect grazing effects on SIC. Long-term grazing experiments (>5 years) with pretreatment data may be required to detect grazing effects on SIC.
Over the past decade, Mark Briggs and co-editor, W.R. Osterkamp (retired, USGS), along with 55 stream restoration experts have collaborated on a stream restoration guidebook entitled Renewing Our Rivers: Stream Corridor Restoration in Dryland Regions. The guidebook highlights the main steps in developing a restoration response for damaged stream ecosystems that will have the most likelihood to be successful and viable in the long-term. As part of this webinar, Mark will introduce us to the guidebook, authors, case studies and lessons gained from stream restoration experiences in Australia, Mexico, and U.S. The flow of the presentation will follow the guidebook’s chapters, which reflect the arc of developing a thoughtful and long-term viable stream restoration response and include such themes as:
- Developing realistic and thoughtful restoration goals and objectives
- Assessing the hydrologic and physical conditions of a drainage basin
- Adapting your stream restoration project to climate change
- Quantifying and securing environmental flow
- Implementing your restoration project
- Monitoring and evaluation
- Going long: considerations to ensure your stream corridor restoration effort continues to grow
In this webinar, Stuart Hardegree, Plant Physiologist, USDA ARS Northwest Watershed Research Center, Boise, ID, discusses weather variability and forecasting tools for short- and long-term restoration planning in the Great Basin.
This webinar, presented by Jim McIver, Research Ecologist at Oregon State University, is a compilation of some of the more important short-term results of SageSTEP experiments through the third year after treatment. The results come from evaluations made at 18 study sites, measuring ecosystem response to prescribed fire, clearcutting, tree shredding, mowing, and herbicides.
Webinar registration.
Webinar flyer.
Summary. The goal of this webinar is to take an in‑depth look at two of the most influential long‑term fire research efforts supported by the Joint Fire Science Program: the Fire and Fire Surrogate (FFS) Study and the Sagebrush Steppe Treatment Evaluation Project (SageSTEP). These landmark studies provide rare, decades‑long insights into how different fuel treatments and fire management strategies shape ecosystem resilience, fuel dynamics, vegetation structure, and wildlife habitat.
In this webinar, we will highlight why long-term research sites are integral in understanding ecosystem response and for informing management decisions today.
We will explore key findings from several FFS locations – Blodgett Forest Research Station (CA), Lubrecht Experimental Forest (MT), Green River Game Land (NC), and Ohio Hills (OH)—as well as the network of SageSTEP sites across the sagebrush biome.
Agenda (10 min presentations, followed by Q & A):
Introduction to JFSP, FSEN, the Fire and Fire Surrogate Study, and the SageSTEP Project Molly Hunter, Joint Fire Science Program
Green River Game Land Study Site Don Hagan, Clemson University
Ohio Hills Study Site Bryce Adams, Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service
Lubrecht Experimental Forest Study Site Sharon Hood, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service
Blodgett Forest Research Station Study Site Scott Stephens, University of California – Berkeley
SageSTEP Project Lisa Ellsworth, Oregon State University and Beth Newingham, Agricultural Research Service
Overarching Themes/Q & A
Webinar recording.
It seems the effects of climate change were all too clear in 2021. Yet, we know more change is expected. When trying to adapt to a changing climate, with all the inherent uncertainties about how the future may play out, resource managers often turn to scenario planning as a tool. Managers use scenario planning to explore plausible ways the climate may change, allowing them to work with climate change uncertainty rather than being paralyzed by it. Once identified, scenarios of the future are used to develop proactive measures to prepare for and adapt to scenarios of change.
A key part of scenario planning is generating a list of potential future climates we may deal with. These ‘climate futures’ serve as the foundation of each scenario explored in the planning process. For example, managers consider how they would respond to a warm, wet versus a hot, dry future. This webinar will describe and compare three approaches to generate the climate futures that feed into the scenario planning process. In doing so, this work identifies an approach to developing climate futures that captures a broad range of climate conditions (a key ingredient to developing scenarios) across both near and long-term planning horizons.