Rangeland Ecology & Management最新文献

{"title":"Most Pinyon–Juniper Woodland Species Distributions Are Projected to Shrink Rather Than Shift Under Climate Change","authors":"Adam Noel ,&nbsp;Daniel R. Schlaepfer ,&nbsp;Brad J. Butterfield ,&nbsp;Megan C. Swan ,&nbsp;Jodi Norris ,&nbsp;Kim Hartwig ,&nbsp;Michael C. Duniway ,&nbsp;John B. Bradford","doi":"10.1016/j.rama.2024.09.002","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.rama.2024.09.002","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Pinyon–juniper (PJ) woodlands are among the most widespread ecosystems in rangelands of western North America, supporting diverse wildlife habitat, recreation, grazing, and cultural/spiritual enrichment. Anticipating future distribution shifts under changing climate will be critical to climate adaptation and conservation efforts in these ecosystems. Here, we evaluate drivers of PJ tree species’ distributions and project changes in response to future climate change. We developed species distribution models with dryland-focused predictors to project environmental suitability changes across the entirety of three pinyon and six juniper species ranges. We identify areas of robust suitability change by combining suitability projections from multiple emissions scenarios and time periods. PJ species’ suitabilities respond to many temperature and moisture covariates expected to change in the future. Projected responses among PJ species are highly variable, ranging from modest declines with concurrent gains for overall little net change to wide-ranging declines with no gains for overall range contractions. Environmental suitability is projected to decline broadly across the arid United States Southwest and remain relatively stable across the northern Great Basin and Colorado Plateau. Our results suggest unique responses of PJ species to future climate change. We found that species were projected to experience more losses than gains in suitability, for overall range shrinks rather than shifts. Land managers have the capacity to increase woodland resilience to drought, and our results can inform rangeland-wide management planning and conservation efforts in PJ woodlands.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49634,"journal":{"name":"Rangeland Ecology & Management","volume":"98 ","pages":"Pages 454-466"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142746832","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evaluation of the Gap Intercept Method to Measure Rangeland Connectivity","authors":"Sarah E. McCord ,&nbsp;Joseph R. Brehm ,&nbsp;Lea A. Condon ,&nbsp;Leah T. Dreesmann ,&nbsp;Lisa M. Ellsworth ,&nbsp;Matthew J. Germino ,&nbsp;Jeffrey E. Herrick ,&nbsp;Brian K. Howard ,&nbsp;Emily Kachergis ,&nbsp;Jason W. Karl ,&nbsp;Anna Knight ,&nbsp;Savannah Meadors ,&nbsp;Aleta Nafus ,&nbsp;Beth A. Newingham ,&nbsp;Peter J. Olsoy ,&nbsp;Nicole Pietrasiak ,&nbsp;David S. Pilliod ,&nbsp;Anthony Schaefer ,&nbsp;Nicholas P. Webb ,&nbsp;Brandi Wheeler ,&nbsp;Kristina E. Young","doi":"10.1016/j.rama.2024.09.001","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.rama.2024.09.001","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Characterizing the connectivity of materials, organisms, and energy on rangelands is critical to understanding and managing ecosystem response to disturbances. For over twenty years, scientists and rangeland managers have used the gap intercept method to monitor connectivity. However, using gap intercept measurements to infer ecosystem processes or inform management actions and conservation practices on rangelands has been limited because there are few tools and syntheses to help managers pragmatically interpret gap measurements. In this synthesis, we review the different ways the gap intercept method is conducted and highlight considerations when collecting and using gap intercept data. We discuss what is known about how gap intercept data can be used to assess wind and water erosion, biocrust abundance and composition, soil fertility, plant community dynamics, wildlife habitat characteristics, and fuel connectivity and fire behavior. Finally, we identify emerging opportunities regarding the collection and use of gap intercept data to assess rangeland connectivity, ecosystem function, and ecological processes. Through this synthesis we demonstrate the value of the gap intercept method, particularly “all-plant” (i.e., whole-community) canopy gap, in supporting assessments of rangeland condition and vulnerability, and in planning future management actions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49634,"journal":{"name":"Rangeland Ecology & Management","volume":"98 ","pages":"Pages 297-315"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142746800","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Diverse, Native-Plant Communities as Important Nesting Habitat for Chestnut-Bellied Scaled Quail","authors":"Fidel Hernández ,&nbsp;Richard H. Sinclair ,&nbsp;Holley N. Kline ,&nbsp;Eric D. Grahmann ,&nbsp;Timothy E. Fulbright ,&nbsp;David B. Wester ,&nbsp;Jeremy Baumgardt ,&nbsp;Michael Hehman","doi":"10.1016/j.rama.2024.09.007","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.rama.2024.09.007","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Habitat loss and fragmentation have been implicated in the decline of chestnut-bellied scaled quail (<em>Callipepla squamata castanogastris</em>) in southern Texas, U.S.A. Although a general affinity of the subspecies for native thornscrub is known, its specific habitat requirements are less studied, and no information exists regarding its demography. We conducted a study in southern Texas (<em>n</em> = 5 ranches; LaSalle and McMullen counties) to 1) quantify survival, reproduction, and occupancy of chestnut-bellied scaled quail and 2) characterize its nesting habitat to help inform future rangeland management. We captured and radio-collared individuals (<em>n</em> = 137) during Mar‒Aug 2013 and 2014 to estimate survival and reproduction and conducted call-count surveys (<em>n</em> = 60 points) during May‒August of both years to estimate occupancy and detection probability. We measured vegetation characteristics at nest sites (<em>n</em> = 53 nests) and paired random points to document habitat use. We documented seasonal survival (0.68‒0.85), clutch size (10‒11 eggs), and apparent nest success (38‒59%) that were within values reported for scaled quail in other portions of its geographic distribution. However, relative abundance was low (0.14‒0.25 calling males/point), as was occupancy (0.56‒0.73) and probability of detection (0.10‒0.32). Regarding nesting habitat, pricklypear (<em>Opuntia engelmannii</em> Salm-Dyck ex Engelm.) was the most common nesting substrate (68%; <em>n</em> = 53 nests), with pricklypear (95% CI β = 0.992‒1.105; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.09), woody plants (95% CI β = 1.001‒1.042; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.04), and native grasses (95% CI β = 0.993‒1.129; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.08) being important variables distinguishing nests from random sites. Nest survival was negatively influenced by non-native grass cover (95% CI β = -0.115 to -0.006). Preservation of diverse shrub and native-grass communities should receive high consideration when planning brush management in southern Texas if conservation of chestnut-bellied scaled quail is a goal.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49634,"journal":{"name":"Rangeland Ecology & Management","volume":"98 ","pages":"Pages 184-191"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142746884","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"From a Bird to a Biome: Exploring the Sage Grouse Initiative's Role in Defending and Growing Sagebrush Core Areas","authors":"David E. Naugle ,&nbsp;Jeremy D. Maestas ,&nbsp;Scott L. Morford ,&nbsp;Joseph T. Smith ,&nbsp;Kristopher R. Mueller ,&nbsp;Timothy Griffiths ,&nbsp;Thad Heater","doi":"10.1016/j.rama.2024.08.015","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.rama.2024.08.015","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI) administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has served as a primary delivery mechanism for Farm Bill investments in voluntary conservation of private rangelands in the western U.S. for fifteen years. Consistent with interagency efforts to extend conservation beyond sage-grouse to the entire sagebrush biome, the SGI has evolved to focus on conservation actions that benefit wildlife by addressing complex ecosystem problems undermining the resilience of working lands. Recent development of the Sagebrush Conservation Design (SCD) provides a common framework to coordinate the efforts of many partners invested in saving the biome's last remaining intact sagebrush ecosystems. In this forum paper, we explore the history of the SGI's strategic conservation on private lands relative to the SCD and reflect on how it could be used to improve future conservation delivery. From 2010 to 2022, NRCS contributed $423USD million in Farm Bill funds through SGI to easements, conifer removal, and invasive annual grass management with the shared goal of defending and growing Core, with most SGI actions occurring in Core (6–14%) and Growth (an additional 40–57%). The SCD's ecological integrity scores suggest that SGI-funded conifer removal has either reversed (7) or halted (2) the degradation attributable to conifer encroachment in nine focal landscapes. Concentrating conifer removals together was 20% more effective at restoring Core and Growth than the 5% gains realized among scattered, isolated treatments. Our evaluation also shows that invasive annuals are undermining the integrity of initial SGI investments and warrant more attention to defend and grow Core. Embracing the SCD could help the SGI more effectively achieve desired wildlife outcomes given the biological relevance of Cores to sage-grouse and sagebrush-obligate songbirds.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49634,"journal":{"name":"Rangeland Ecology & Management","volume":"97 ","pages":"Pages 115-122"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142438041","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Editorial Board/Journal Info","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/S1550-7424(24)00175-1","DOIUrl":"10.1016/S1550-7424(24)00175-1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49634,"journal":{"name":"Rangeland Ecology & Management","volume":"97 ","pages":"Page IFC"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142438043","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Modeling Cropland Conversion Risk to Scale-Up Averted Loss of Core Sagebrush Rangelands","authors":"Geoffrey Bedrosian ,&nbsp;Kevin E. Doherty ,&nbsp;Brian H. Martin ,&nbsp;David M. Theobald ,&nbsp;Scott L. Morford ,&nbsp;Joseph T. Smith ,&nbsp;Alexander V. Kumar ,&nbsp;Jeffrey S. Evans ,&nbsp;Matthew M. Heller ,&nbsp;John Patrick Donnelly ,&nbsp;John Guinotte ,&nbsp;David E. Naugle","doi":"10.1016/j.rama.2024.08.011","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.rama.2024.08.011","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Cropland conversion is anticipated to continue westward from the Great Plains into the sagebrush (<em>Artemisia</em> spp.) biome – the most intact biome remaining in the conterminous United States. However, relatively little is known about the extent and risk of cropland conversion to sagebrush ecosystems and the landscape scale benefits of easements in averting loss of ecological function. Therefore, our goals were to 1) quantify the cropland area of the sagebrush biome, 2) identify where the highest quality sagebrush rangelands are most at risk to future cropland conversion, and 3) estimate the ecological benefits of conservation easements to adjacent public lands. We found that croplands span 14.4 million ha in the sagebrush biome, 16.2 million ha in the historic range of the greater sage-grouse (<em>Centrocercus urophasianus</em>), and are clustered regionally. Our spatial risk model identified 3.7 million ha of high-quality sagebrush rangelands in need of conservation protections from cropland conversion, with higher risk areas clustered regionally (e.g., Northern Great Plains). Our estimates of previous losses to cropland conversion indicated that roughly 80% of at-risk high-quality sagebrush communities have already been tilled. Spatial data and online maps of our risk model are publicly available as planning tools for prioritizing conservation and restoration actions in support of the Sagebrush Conservation Design framework. Using a case study from north-central Montana, we demonstrated that private land easements are crucial for the preservation of Core Sagebrush Areas (CSAs). These easements were found to indirectly preserve an area of CSAs that is 3.6 times larger than the easements themselves. Notably, a significant portion of this conservation benefit—approximately 80%—occurred on public lands adjacent to the easements. Our findings establish a clear connection between investments in private land conservation and beneficial outcomes on nearby public lands, and that focused, permanent protection efforts can extend ecosystem function beyond easements.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49634,"journal":{"name":"Rangeland Ecology & Management","volume":"97 ","pages":"Pages 73-83"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142437973","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"An Assessment of Conservation Opportunities Within Sagebrush Ecosystems of US National Parks and Wildlife Refuges","authors":"Bill D. Sparklin ,&nbsp;Kevin E. Doherty ,&nbsp;Thomas J. Rodhouse ,&nbsp;Jeffrey J. Lonneker ,&nbsp;Jordan Spaak ,&nbsp;Todd B. Cross ,&nbsp;Jeffrey M. Warren","doi":"10.1016/j.rama.2024.09.005","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.rama.2024.09.005","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Strategic plans for landscape-scale conservation are preferable to ad-hoc decisions that lack evidence and cohesion. The Sagebrush Conservation Design (SCD) is a biome-wide geospatial decision-support framework for a “Defend the Core, Grow the Core” strategy. We mapped US National Parks and Refuges across the SCD to guide “defend and grow” investments. We summarized amounts of sagebrush “Core Sagebrush Areas” (CSAs) and “Growth Opportunity Areas” (GOAs) areas within Parks and Refuges and asked: 1) Where are the Parks and Refuges that contain substantial sagebrush resources and that are likely to retain these resources under future climate conditions? 2) What is the trend of loss across CSAs and GOAs within Parks and Refuges? 3) Do trends immediately surrounding Parks and Refuges correlate with those within? 4) Which Parks and Refuges contain the most CSAs and GOAs? 5) What will it cost to defend and grow CSAs in these places?</div><div>Approximately 127 000 ha (313 824 ac) or 75% of CSAs was lost from Parks and 87 000 ha (214 982 ac) or 25% was lost from Refuges since 1998. Climate change is likely to reduce CSAs and GOAs in the northeastern and southwestern biome periphery and at low elevations. Similar trends of loss were observed surrounding Parks and Refuges. This underscores the ‘outside-in’ nature of changes occurring in the biome as fires, conifer encroachment, and invasive grasses move rapidly through permeable landscapes. Ten Parks and 10 Refuges contain &gt;95% of CSAs and GOAs and exhibit climate durability under our examined future scenario, revealing how investments can be prioritized. Within this list, however, estimated costs of recommended actions (e.g., annual grass suppression) greatly exceeds plausible available amounts, emphasizing the need to use strategic prioritization within high-priority units. We examined application of the SCD for guiding “open” and “defined” investment decisions for Park and Refuge case studies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49634,"journal":{"name":"Rangeland Ecology & Management","volume":"97 ","pages":"Pages 94-106"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142437975","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Carbon Security Index: A Novel Approach to Assessing How Secure Carbon Is in Sagebrush Ecosystems Within the Great Basin","authors":"Rory C. O'Connor ,&nbsp;Chad S. Boyd ,&nbsp;David E. Naugle ,&nbsp;Joseph T. Smith","doi":"10.1016/j.rama.2024.08.005","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.rama.2024.08.005","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Rangeland carbon is often conceptualized similarly to intensively managed agricultural lands, in that we need to sequester and store more carbon. Unlike intensively managed agricultural lands, rangeland soils cannot sequester more carbon due to pedogenic and climatic limitations that influence plant community and microbial community dynamics. This requires a new paradigm for rangeland carbon that focuses on maintaining carbon security following disturbances like fire and plant community conversions (e.g., annual grasslands and conifer woodlands). To attain this, we propose the creation of a Carbon Security Index (CSI). CSI is a unitless, scalable value that can be used to compare carbon security across rangeland sites and over time and incorporates a plant fractional cover ratio, resistance and resilience, and wildfire probability. Using the Great Basin as a case study, we found that CSI decreased by 53% basin wide from 1989 to 2020. Using the Sagebrush Conservation Design's sagebrush ecological integrity categories across the Great Basin, we found that CSI in “core” areas remained relatively unchanged between 1998 and 2020 (decreased by 1%), whereas “growth opportunity” areas CSI began to change (decreased by 13%) and “other rangeland” areas CSI decreased by 67%. We found that CSI was able to act as an indicator for determining when carbon security would decrease several years prior to a wildfire disturbance, which then rapidly reduced CSI. Finally, we created a carbon security management map to help prioritize potential management for achieving greatest carbon security and locations for restoration. These results show that CSI provides landowners and land managers an opportunity to assess how secure their carbon is on the land and help them prioritize areas for restoration.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49634,"journal":{"name":"Rangeland Ecology & Management","volume":"97 ","pages":"Pages 169-177"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142437888","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Spatial Prioritization of Conifer Management to Defend and Grow Sagebrush Cores","authors":"Jason R. Reinhardt ,&nbsp;Jeremy D. Maestas ,&nbsp;David E. Naugle ,&nbsp;Geoffrey Bedrosian ,&nbsp;Kevin E. Doherty ,&nbsp;Alexander V. Kumar","doi":"10.1016/j.rama.2024.08.006","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.rama.2024.08.006","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Sagebrush ecosystems across the western U.S. are in decline due to numerous threats, including expansion of coniferous woodlands and forests. The interagency Sagebrush Conservation Design effort recently quantified sagebrush ecological integrity (SEI) to map remaining core sagebrush areas (relatively intact and functional sagebrush ecosystems) and understand spatial and temporal patterns of change relative to primary threats. Recent work has identified conifer expansion as the second leading cause of decline in sagebrush ecological integrity biome wide. Here, we sought to create a spatial prioritization of conifer management that maximizes return-on-investment to defend and grow core sagebrush areas. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was used to incorporate a series of biome-level inputs including SEI, invasive annual grass cover and risk, structural connectivity, and conifer cover and expansion vulnerability into a single prioritization based on collaborative expert input. Our analysis identifies priority areas for conifer management across the sagebrush biome, simulates conifer treatments based on those priorities, and estimates potential changes in SEI as a result of targeted treatment. At a broad scale, we found that the highest priority areas for conifer management were largely located east of the Rocky Mountains. This represents a departure from recent landscape-level trends of conifer management efforts in sagebrush systems, which were focused primarily on pinyon-juniper expansion in the Great Basin. A majority (52%) of the highest priority areas are managed by the Bureau of Land Management, followed by a large proportion (26%) of priority areas located on privately-owned land – particularly in Wyoming and Montana. Targeting simulated conifer treatments using our prioritization resulted in higher within-core targeting percentages (≥93%) than business-as-usual efforts (23.8%), which would result in a four- to eight-fold reduction in the time to treat priority areas within cores. Finally, we demonstrate that these simulated treatments, targeted with our prioritization, have the capacity to improve SEI in and around treatment areas. This work provides an actionable path to “Defend the Core” as outlined by the Sagebrush Conservation Design effort by helping conservationists more efficiently address conifer expansion in and around core sagebrush areas.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49634,"journal":{"name":"Rangeland Ecology & Management","volume":"97 ","pages":"Pages 51-60"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142437971","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Will It Burn? Characterizing Wildfire Risk for the Sagebrush Conservation Design","authors":"Michele R. Crist ,&nbsp;Karen C. Short ,&nbsp;Todd B. Cross ,&nbsp;Kevin E. Doherty ,&nbsp;Julia H. Olszewski","doi":"10.1016/j.rama.2024.08.014","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.rama.2024.08.014","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>For millennia, wildfire has helped shape the sagebrush biome of the western United States. Over recent decades, historical fire regimes have been altered by several factors, including contemporary climate and fuel conditions, leading to the loss or degradation of hundreds of thousands of hectares (ha) of sagebrush each year. In response to wildfire threats, extensive fuel treatment investments are proposed across the region. To help inform strategic and cost-effective investments, we conducted a quantitative assessment of wildfire risk for the sagebrush biome. We used a geospatial fire modeling approach, customized for the sagebrush biome, to estimate spatially explicit burn probability and expected average annual area burned within three Sagebrush Ecological Integrity classes under the Sagebrush Conservation Design: Core Sagebrush Areas (CSAs), Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs), and Other Rangeland Areas. We further used indices of ecological resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive grasses to characterize fire risk and recovery potential. Our approach indicates that nearly 530,000 ha are likely to burn in a typical contemporary fire year across the highest integrity Sagebrush Ecological Integrity classes (7% in CSAs and 31% in GOAs). Of the CSAs and GOAs likely to burn, nearly 9 000 and 66 000 ha, respectively, are expected to have low resilience or resistance and therefore highest loss potential. Cost-effective conservation investments should include wildfire protection for high-integrity sagebrush with low resilience or resistance. Protection objectives may be met with strategically placed fuel breaks intended to enhance fire prevention and containment efforts. Fuel treatments, including prescribed fire and mechanical activities outside of fuel breaks, are by contrast best suited for high-integrity areas with relatively high resilience and resistance. Those activities should be risk-informed and intended to maintain or improve ecological integrity and resilience to wildfire rather than to exclude fire altogether.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49634,"journal":{"name":"Rangeland Ecology & Management","volume":"97 ","pages":"Pages 84-93"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142437974","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}