Using resilience and resistance concepts to manage threats to sagebrush ecosystems, Gunnison sage-grouse, and Greater sage-grouse in their eastern range: A strategic multi-scale approach

Chambers, Jeanne C.; Beck, Jeffrey L.; Campbell, Steven; Carlson, John C.; Christiansen, Thomas J.; Clause, Karen J.; Dinkins, Jonathan B.; Doherty, Kevin E.; Griffin, Kathleen A.; Havlina, Douglas W.; Henke, Kenneth F.; Hennig, Jacob D.; Kurth, Laurie L.; Maestas, Jeremy D.; Manning, Mary E.; Mayer, Kenneth E.; Mealor, Brian A.; McCarthy, Clinton; Perea, Marco A.; Pyke, David A.

doi:10.2737/rmrs-gtr-356

Cited by 15 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 148 publications

(298 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The CoreSage H + MH and M resilience and resistance areas comprised 22% of the study area and are high priorities for protective management aimed at minimizing disturbance, maintaining ecosystem connectivity, and preventing development of uncharacteristic fire regimes. Strategies may include reducing or eliminating disturbances from land uses and development, establishing conservation easements, practicing early detection and rapid response to invasives, and proactive fire management (Chambers, Bradley, et al, 2014; Chambers et al, 2016; Chambers, Beck, et al, 2017; Chambers, Brooks, et al, 2019; Crist et al, 2019). CoreSage areas with ML and L resilience and resistance comprised 6 to 8% of the study area, occurred primarily in the western ecoregions, and are considered among the highest priorities for protective management.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Climate and soil water availability were chosen as indicators of resilience and resistance because they are primary determinants of vegetation dynamics in sagebrush ecosystems (Chenoweth et al, 2022; Gremer et al, 2015; Lauenroth et al, 2014; Schlaepfer et al, 2012) and strongly influence species invasions and fire risk (Chambers, Brooks, et al, 2019). Prior indicators of resilience and resistance based on soil climate regimes (soil temperature and moisture) have been widely used to develop prioritization strategies for fire prevention and management, invasive species management, habitat conservation, and restoration (Chambers, Pyke, et al, 2014; Chambers et al, 2016; Chambers, Beck, et al, 2017; Chambers, Maestas, et al, 2017; Chambers, Allen, et al, 2019; Chambers, Brooks, et al, 2019; Crist et al, 2019; Ricca et al, 2018; Rodhouse et al, 2021), and are indicative of treatment outcomes (Riginos et al, 2023). These prior indicators are useful in illustrating current resilience and resistance, but are static in nature, change across state boundaries due to differences in soil mapping protocols, and have algorithms that prevent accurate projections of climate change effects (Bradford et al, 2019).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To develop a spatially explicit approach for prioritizing management actions across sagebrush landscapes, we combined a new threat‐based model of current ecological conditions or integrity (Doherty, Theobald, Bradford, et al, 2022) with new resilience and resistance indicators of the potential to recover from disturbances and resist plant invasion (Chambers et al, 2023a). Previous prioritization schemes used contiguous cover of big sagebrush ( Artemisia tridentata ), a widespread, keystone plant species, to indicate current ecological conditions, and a combined index of resilience and resistance based on soil temperature and moisture regimes, to inform selection of areas for conservation and restoration actions (Chambers, Pyke, et al, 2014; Chambers et al, 2016; Chambers, Beck, et al, 2017; Chambers, Maestas, et al, 2017; Chambers, Allen, et al, 2019; Chambers, Brooks, et al, 2019; Maestas et al, 2016). Recognition of the need to better account for the factors that contribute to current ecological conditions motivated development of the sagebrush ecological integrity (SEI) index (Doherty, Theobald, Bradford, et al, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Chambers,

Brown,

Bradford

et al. 2023

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Chambers,

Brown,

Bradford

et al. 2023

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Understanding biological effectiveness before scaling up range‐wide restoration investments for Gunnison sage‐grouse

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Imperiled species recovery is a high‐stakes endeavor where uncertainty surrounding effectiveness of conservation actions can be an impediment to implementation at necessary scales, especially where habitat restoration is required. Gunnison sage‐grouse (Centrocercus minimus) represents one such species in need of large‐scale habitat restoration. It is a federally threatened sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) obligate bird with a limited range in Colorado and Utah. Threats to recovery of Gunnison sage‐grouse include conifer expansion into sagebrush along with additional habitat loss and degradation attributed to human development and agricultural conversion. Recovery of Gunnison sage‐grouse and other sensitive species can be aided by spatial tools that forecast plausible outcomes of conservation actions. We illustrate this by using a novel framework for predicting outcomes of proactive tree removal and subsequent sagebrush restoration for the Gunnison sage‐grouse. To assess threats on Gunnison sage‐grouse lek presence, we developed a spatially explicit breeding habitat model to compare active lek and random pseudo‐absence locations from 2015. Models identified land cover, climatic, and abiotic variables at landscape‐level scales (0.56 and 4 km) most important for predicting breeding habitat. Our model correctly differentiated between lek and pseudo‐absence locations 94% of the time. All but one of the active leks (n = 94) were in areas with >0.65 probability of lek occurrence. Using this probability value as a threshold, we predicted 15% of the current grouse range as high‐quality breeding habitat. Simulated removal of trees in areas with ≤30% tree canopy cover (0.56‐km scale) increased extent of high‐quality habitat fourfold (59%). Hypothetical restoration of sagebrush cover in the same areas increased habitat quality an additional 11%. Our breeding habitat model indicated that targeted tree removal and sagebrush restoration have potential to improve Gunnison sage‐grouse breeding habitat. While our habitat treatment scenarios were not meant to be prescriptive, they highlight that considerable uplift in Gunnison sage‐grouse breeding habitat may be possible across much of its range with cooperation from multiple stakeholders and illustrates the utility of this approach for predicting biological return on investment.

show abstract

Greater sage‐grouse response to bentonite mining

Pratt

Beck

2019

J Wildl Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; sage-grouse) has undergone range contraction and population decline because of anthropogenic land surface disturbances; yet, there is little information on the effects of mining on sage-grouse populations. In the Bighorn Basin of Montana and Wyoming, USA, bentonite mining is a growing source of surface disturbance that contributes to loss of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) habitat. We evaluated the response of sage-grouse to active and reclaimed bentonite mining, relative to nesting, brood-rearing, adult breeding, and adult winter habitat, through resource selection and habitat-specific mortality risk analyses, based on female sage-grouse (n ¼ 321) monitored with telemetry from 2011-2015. A greater proportion of our monitored sample was exposed to mining disturbance during winter (65%) than during other seasons (range ¼ 25%-34%). We observed avoidance of all mining disturbance for selection of nesting habitat (n ¼ 378 nests), adult breeding habitat (n ¼ 1,978 locations), and adult winter habitat (n ¼ 1,365 locations). Evidence was inconclusive for avoidance of mining for brood-rearing habitat (n ¼ 754 locations). We also observed increased adult breeding season mortality risk (n ¼ 62 mortality events; n ¼ 285 female sage-grouse) associated with active mining disturbance but observed no effect on nest success (n ¼ 207 mortality events; n ¼ 378 nests). Evidence was inconclusive for increased mortality risk associated with broods (n ¼ 48 mortality events; n ¼ 157 broods) and adults during winter (n ¼ 31 mortality events; n ¼ 220 female sage-grouse). Stakeholders in the Bighorn Basin should be flexible and proactive to minimize the negative effects of bentonite mining on sage-grouse habitat use and demographic rates. Stakeholders should prioritize the conservation of winter habitats because of the influence on a greater proportion of the population and because of the lower regulatory priority given to winter habitat and they should strive to perfect mining reclamation to return disturbed sites back to pre-disturbance conditions to minimize long-term effects of the mines on sage-grouse. Ó 2019 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Using resilience and resistance concepts to manage threats to sagebrush ecosystems, Gunnison sage-grouse, and Greater sage-grouse in their eastern range: A strategic multi-scale approach

Cited by 15 publications

References 148 publications

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

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

Understanding biological effectiveness before scaling up range‐wide restoration investments for Gunnison sage‐grouse

Greater sage‐grouse response to bentonite mining

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About