State-and-Transition Models for Heterogeneous Landscapes: A Strategy for Development and Application

Bestelmeyer, Brandon T.; Tugel, Arlene J.; Peacock, George; Robinett, Daniel; Shaver, Pat L.; Brown, Joel R.; Herrick, Jeffrey E.; Sanchez, Homer; Havstad, Kris M.

doi:10.2111/08-146

Cited by 223 publications

(178 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

173

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ESD Database contains a series of reports that characterize (1) physiographic, climatic, water, and soil features, (2) potential plant communities and vegetation dynamics, and (3) site interpretations based on a hierarchical land classification system. At the apex of the hierarchy are major land resource areas (MLRAs; defined as ''an area of similar climate, physiography, dominant soil taxa, and consequently, land use and vegetation'' [Bestelmeyer et al 2009]). Two hundred twenty-six MLRAs have been classified within the US and mapped into 1805 distinct spatial polygons (note that a MLRA can be mapped more than once; USDA NRCS Geospatial Data Gateway, accessed March 09, 2012).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two hundred twenty-six MLRAs have been classified within the US and mapped into 1805 distinct spatial polygons (note that a MLRA can be mapped more than once; USDA NRCS Geospatial Data Gateway, accessed March 09, 2012). Within each MLRA are multiple ecological sites defined as ''a class of land based on recurring soil, landform, geological, and climate characteristics that differs from other such classes in (1) the production and composition of plant species under the disturbance regime of reference conditions, associated dynamic soil property levels, and ecosystem services provided and (2) responses to management and the processes of degradation and restoration'' (Bestelmeyer et al 2009 (type, taxonomy, etc. ), identifies whether it is the dominant component within a map unit, and labels it with the appropriate ecological site identifier.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…State-and-transition models still include aspects of the classical range model, but they feature multiple drivers in addition to grazing, multiple alternative stable states, and various trajectories of vegetation change (Briske et al 2003). More recently, state-and-transition models have incorporated concepts of thresholds, resilience, and heterogeneity into the models (Briske et al 2005, 2006, Bestelmeyer et al 2009.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

National‐scale assessment of ecological content in the world's largest land management framework

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Meeting the diverse sustainability targets of modern society has led to the development of national-level management frameworks meant to guide resource management actions and conservation funding decisions. In U.S. rangelands, state-and-transition models have been developed within the Ecological Site Description (ESD) Database as an application of alternative state theory and to move the discipline toward a more dynamic platform for resource management. After 15 years of development, and with government-mandated collaboration among federal agencies, these models are set to become one of the world's largest guiding frameworks for terrestrial ecosystem management. Yet, ESD state-andtransition models are being marketed for broad-scale application without a national-level critique evaluating their strengths and limitations. In this article, we conduct a national assessment of ESDs with a central focus on evaluating the specific details of ESD state-and-transition models. Importantly, we are not evaluating the conceptual underpinnings of the state-and-transition management framework, but rather its application. Specifically, we (1) quantify and summarize the information presented in ESD state-andtransition models; (2) determine whether ESDs fully meet U.S. Congress's goal of a nationally consistent system for defining, mapping, and interpreting ecological sites; (3) identify limitations and logical holes in ESD predictions; and (4) evaluate whether conservation funding priorities are consistent with output from ESDs. Our evaluation reveals multiple shortcomings in the application of the state-and-transition model concept within ESDs, primarily that they are highly subjective, inconsistent in design and application, focus on a single historical climax community, and overuse grazing as a driver of both ecological degradation and restoration. Considering that many of these limitations have been a consistent criticism of rangeland assessment procedures throughout the history of the discipline, state-and-transition models within ESDs will require major reconstruction beyond the current plans for revision if they are to meet society's demand for more effective management and utilization of rangeland resources. While ESDs were developed to link science and management in rangeland ecology, our assessment suggests well-intentioned management frameworks built upon expert opinion and qualitative inputs will not effectively shift ecosystem management from long-held practices rooted in community climax theory to modern scientific perspectives based on alternative state theory.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

National‐scale assessment of ecological content in the world's largest land management framework

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4) have been very important in these efforts to refine monitoring, revise objectives, and interpret results with stakeholders. State-and-transition models developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (Bestelmeyer et al 2009) have been especially useful at this site for enhancing communication among stakeholders with varying backgrounds. These models have helped identify ecological thresholds and drivers of change, such as the point at which loss of ground cover tends to dramatically increase soil erosion rates or the role of fire in maintaining open grasslands.…”

Section: Developing Shared Goals and Measurable Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Collaboration, Adaptive Management, and Scenario-Planning: Experiences at Las Cienegas National Conservation Area

Caves¹,

Bodner²,

Simms³

et al. 2013

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. There is growing recognition that public lands cannot be managed as islands; rather, land management must address the ecological, social, and temporal complexity that often spans jurisdictions and traditional planning horizons. Collaborative decision making and adaptive management (CAM) have been promoted as methods to reconcile competing societal demands and respond to complex ecosystem dynamics. We detail the experiences of land managers and stakeholders in using CAM at Las Cienegas National Conservation Area (LCNCA), a highly valued site under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The CAM process at Las Cienegas is marked by strong stakeholder engagement, with four core elements: (1) shared watershed goals with measurable resource objectives; (2) relevant and reliable scientific information; (3) mechanisms to incorporate new information into decision making; and (4) shared learning to improve both the process and management actions. The combination of stakeholder engagement and adaptive management has led to agreement on contentious issues, more innovative solutions, and more effective land management. However, the region is now experiencing rapid changes outside managers' control, including climate change, human population growth, and reduced federal budgets, with large but unpredictable impacts on natural resources. Although the CAM experience provides a strong foundation for making the difficult and contentious management decisions that such changes are likely to require, neither collaboration nor adaptive management provides a sufficient structure for addressing the externalities that drive uncontrollable and unpredictable change. As a result, LCNCA is exploring two specific modifications to CAM that may better address emerging challenges, including: (1) creating nested resource objectives to distinguish between those objectives that may be crucial to maintaining ecological resilience from those that may hinder a flexible response to climate change, and (2) incorporating scenario planning into CAM to explore how climate change may interact with other drivers and alter options for the future, to identify robust management actions, and to prioritize ecological monitoring efforts. The experiences at LCNCA demonstrate how collaboration and adaptive management can be used to improve social and environmental outcomes and, with modifications, may help address the full range of complexity and change that threatens to overwhelm even the best efforts to sustain public lands.

show abstract

“…3,4 One useful approach for minimizing site differences is the delineation of landscape variation based on ecological sites. 5 For example, applying experimental treatments, such as different stocking rates, within similar ecological sites helps limit natural variation. This is an approach researchers have generally used, often without a formal system in place.…”

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Field-Based Experimental Research to Compliment Contemporary Management

Svejcar¹,

Havstad²

2009

Rangelands

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

season grazing use of individual perennial grasses, such as bluebunch wheatgrass and black grama. We know those identifi ed limits have application to allotment and ranchscale management decisions for maintaining important forage species. Another example would be small-scale work on plant response to fi re. The nature of a fi re may change with scale, but the principles of plant response are consistent across scales. Those small-spatial-scale principles, in a sense, scale up quite effectively. However, there are also cases in which research is diffi cult to scale up. For example, we may know how individual plants respond to grazing, but animal preference and grazing distribution come in to play at larger scales to infl uence plant community response. We may manage to maintain individual species and still shift community structure. We believe this issue of scale deserves much more attention from researchers.There are reasons to be optimistic that we can overcome the obstacles to better integration of management and research. There have been and continue to be plenty of success stories. Some of the newer tools have helped us all gain a better appreciation and description of scale issues (global positioning systems and geographic information systems for example) and our analysis capabilities will only continue to improve. We believe that some of the tools for research on a larger scale will open the door for further collaborations between managers and researchers. We hope that the discussion that follows will 1) point out some of the limitations of traditional fi eld-based research and 2) provide suggestions for some of the approaches that might help us move forward. The Scientifi c MethodIt is constructive to initially discuss some of the approaches used by both researchers and managers. In this and the next section we will outline some of the steps used by each group. These following comments should apply to most natural I mproving both communication and collaboration between rangeland managers and researchers are among the objectives of this special issue of Rangelands. The impetus for this series of papers was the article by Briske et al., 1 which questioned the value of rotational grazing relative to continuous grazing for increasing plant and animal production. Although grazing and grazing systems are the focus, we suggest that the general principles contained in our discussion really should apply to a host of landscape-level issues.If we are to improve communication between managers and researchers (those who develop the science), it would be helpful for each group to understand limitations facing the other, so we are offering a perspective we share as scientists. We can say without reservation that rangeland research is expensive (usually requiring substantial labor inputs), slow, and has to be very targeted. We have the resources to tackle only a small portion of the problems stakeholders bring to our attention. We try to focus on developing general principles because we know we can study only a limited nu...

show abstract

State-and-Transition Models for Heterogeneous Landscapes: A Strategy for Development and Application

Cited by 223 publications

References 64 publications

National‐scale assessment of ecological content in the world's largest land management framework

National‐scale assessment of ecological content in the world's largest land management framework

Integrating Collaboration, Adaptive Management, and Scenario-Planning: Experiences at Las Cienegas National Conservation Area

Improving Field-Based Experimental Research to Compliment Contemporary Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About