Progress 09/01/13 to 08/31/16
Outputs
Target Audience:Target audiences for this project are land managers (federal, state, non-profit), academic researchers, and private landowners in the west. Throughout the project, multiple meetings have been held with all of these target audiences as we worked to implement grazing treatments, complete vegetation monitoring, and report results. Changes/Problems:Although we managed to successfully implement most aspects of our proposed project, we were unable to implement fall grazing in Arizona due to logistical constraints. Moreover, as explained above, we did not implement burning treatments in 2016 because experimental greenstrips were still too young to function as fuelbreaks. However, we did secure additional funding so that these burning treatments can be applied at a future date. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?In Arizona, we worked with Grand Canyon Trust to co-organize five volunteer trips and one class project in connection with this project. Two volunteer trips were composed of college-age students and organized through the Grand Canyon Semester at Northern Arizona University (NAU). These students (about 20) helped us to seed the project in October and November 2014. The students learned about invasive species challenges, experimental design, restoration ecology, seeding methods, and plant species identification. The third volunteer trip involved about 20 high school students from the Spring Street International School (Friday Harbor, WA). These volunteers, who were primarily from underrepresented groups, helped to monitor our plots in June 2015. The students learned about invasive species challenges, restoration ecology, experimental design, fuel continuity, vegetation sampling methods, and plant species identification. The fourth volunteer trip involved about 15 college-age students from Prescott College, who assisted with the effort to monitor cheatgrass exclusion by resident, adult bunchgrasses in fall 2015. These students learned about invasive species challenges, restoration ecology, vegetation sampling methods, and plant species identification. The final volunteer trip involved about 8 adult volunteers who helped monitor grazing utilization in April 2016. Volunteers learned about invasive species, restoration ecology, plant species identification, targeted grazing, and how to estimate utilization of vegetation by cattle. We also collaborated with Grand Canyon Trust and Professor Buck Sanford to provide sites for NAU's Conservation Biology class project in Fall 2015. NAU students sampled soils from project sites and performed chemical analyses on these samples to determine how fire history impacts soil chemistry. These students will learned about the greenstrips project, soil sampling methods, and soil chemistry analysis methods. We employed nine separate field technicians (including three women) to set up the project in 2014, plant the project in Fall 2014 and monitor the project in summer 2014, 2015 and 2016. Technicians were intensively trained in restoration ecology, experimental design, fuel continuity, vegetation sampling methods, and plant species identification. Two ARS-funded technicians (both women) have also been involved in data entry and analysis. Finally, we have provided multiple on-the-ground training and development opportunities for land managers directly involved with decision-making at these sites, including employees of Grand Canyon Trust, USFS Kaibab Ranger District, and Newmont TS Ranch. These managers have been active participants in project implementation and monitoring. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?We presented results at joint stakeholder meetings in Arizona in November 2015, April 2016, and November 2016, and in Nevada in May 2016. We presented seedling emergence data at the Biennial Conference of Science and Management on the Colorado Plateau and Southwest Region at NAU in October 2015, and we have been invited to present second-year results at the Society for Range Management meeting in St. George, UT in February 2017. Multiple manuscripts are in preparation and will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals. We have worked with Grand Canyon Trust to produce three blog articles reporting on this project. We have had numerous meetings with project collaborators and stakeholders, including public and private land managers. We also shared preliminary seed coating results with Aquatrols, a private company involved in developing seed coating methods. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We will continue to analyze data and will submit peer-reviewed publications. We will report findings at a joint stakeholder meeting in November 2016, at the Society for Range Management meeting in February 2017, and at subsequent meetings and scientific conferences. Using leveraged funding, we will continue to implement grazing treatments in Nevada and we will re-monitor vegetation at all sites in summer 2019.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
We completed all of the following tasks in service of this project: In summer 2014 we took baseline data on plant community composition, fuel continuity, and standing biomass across all sites in both sites. We also sprayed roundup on all experimental greenstrips in 2014. We fenced fifteen grazing enclosures, each 45-50 acres in size, to use for targeted grazing treatments. Fences were constructed in 2014-2015 in Nevada and 2015-2016 in Arizona. All project sites were seeded in October and November 2014. Due to low rainfall in Nevada during winter 2014-2015, we applied approximately 6 mm of supplemental water to Nevada plots between March 23 and March 29, 2015. Winter precipitation in Arizona was average and therefore it was not necessary to apply supplemental water. At both sites, we retreated all herbicide-only plots in spring 2015 and spring 2016. We leveraged USFS labor to complete herbicide treatments in Arizona. Targeted grazing treatments were applied in fall 2015 (Nevada only) and spring 2016 (both states). Residual standing biomass was measured or estimated in all plots (both grazed and ungrazed) immediately following each grazing event. In summer 2015 and summer 2016 we monitored seedling emergence, plant community composition, fuel continuity, and standing biomass across both states and all experimental treatments. To complete seeding, fence construction, targeted grazing treatments and vegetation monitoring efforts, we leveraged volunteer labor from the Grand Canyon Trust, volunteer equipment and labor from the USFS Kaibab Ranger District and the Newmont TS Ranch, and supplemental funding from Arizona Game and Fish Department and Nevada. During 2014 and 2015 vegetation monitoring in Arizona, we observed adult individuals of the five grass species that we had planted in our experimental fuelbreaks. We noted that different species seemed to have differing abilities to exclude cheatgrass from their immediate vicinity (<50 cm from plant base). This observation relates directly to our Objective 2b (Which plant materials are most effective at resisting cheatgrass?). We therefore organized a separate, volunteer-based data collection effort in fall 2015 to investigate this pattern more thoroughly. In summer 2016 we discovered that, due to drought conditions,seedlings in our experimental greenstrips were still too small to function as fuel breaks. Moreover, we found that a single year of targeted grazing was not enough to create measurable or consistent impacts on plant communities or fuel loads. Therefore, we secured extended funding to continue implementing targeted grazing treatments at the Nevada site for three more years (in both Fall and Spring) and to re-monitor vegetation in summer 2019, when it will be possible to accurately measure the long-term outcomes of our planting and grazing treatments. At this time, we will implement the controlled burning treatments that were originally proposed for 2016. Moreover, the Grand Canyon Trust has expressed interest in supporting parallel monitoring and controlled burning treatments in Arizona during the same growing season (summer 2019), though we will be unable to continue targeted grazing treatments in Arizona. We are still entering and analyzing data from our final monitoring effort in summer 2016. These data will be reported in several peer-reviewed journal articles that are currently in preparation. Below, we summarize the lessons learned from this project. At our highly invaded Great Basin site, we found that seed rate, spatial planting arrangement (mixtures vs. monoculture strips), seed coating technologies, and grazing treatments had strong and interactive effects on seedling densities. Plots planted with a doubled seed rate had 50% more seedlings than those planted with an average seed rate. Within high seed rate plots, mixed plantings had 40% more seedlings than monoculture strip plantings (33±4 seedlings per m2 in mixed, high rate plots). Ungrazed plots had 40% and 90% more seedlings than spring- and fall-grazed plots, respectively. However, results were primarily driven by one planted species (Elymus trachycaulus) which was both highly successful and susceptible to grazing. Seed coating had inconsistent and highly interactive effects on seedling success. At our minimally invaded Colorado Plateau site, planted seedling densities were much lower (1-2 per m2) and planting techniques had weaker effects. Seedling establishment in Arizona was likely limited by biotic resistance from established native perennials (grasses, shrubs and forbs). Ultimately, this is a good thing from the perspective of ecosystem resistance to invasion. Seed rates and spring grazing both had positive effects on second-year seedling densities in Arizona, while seed coating had negative effects. Our herbicide treatment (two years of plateau application in early spring) was highly successful in Arizona. This treatment did not kill native perennials but did remove almost all of the cheatgrass from herbicide plots. Given the relatively high densities of native perennials on site and the high densities of native perennial seedlings found outside of herbicide plots (~7 per m2 in unplanted controls), it seems likely that established native plants could colonize the spaces vacated by cheatgrass after spraying. When comparing among different resident adult perennial grasses in Arizona, we found that resident Elymus elymoides was most effective at competing with cheatgrass. This species could be prioritized for future restoration efforts.
Publications
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2017
Citation:
Porensky, L.M., E.A. Leger and B.L. Perryman. 2017. Greenstrips: Spatially Strategic, High-input Restoration To Avoid Broad-scale Forage and Habitat Losses In Invaded Rangelands. Invited Oral Presentation to be given at the Society for Range Management Annual Meeting, St. George, UT, Jan 29-Feb 2.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2015
Citation:
Porensky, L.M., E.A. Leger, B.L. Perryman, M.D. Madsen, M. Williamson. 2015. Innovative techniques for weakening cheatgrass-wildfire feedbacks in the Colorado Plateau and Great Basin. 13th Biennial Conference of Science & Management on the Colorado Plateau & Southwest Region, Flagstaff, AZ, October 5 8.
|
Progress 09/01/14 to 08/31/15
Outputs
Target Audience:Target audiences for this project are land managers (federal, state, non-profit), academic researchers, and private landowners in the west. During this reporting period, multiple planning meetings were held with all of these target audiences as we worked to complete monitoring and plan for grazing treatments. Changes/Problems:Implementing our grazing treatments as planned has been a challenge at the Arizona site. Due to a number of causes, fencing and grazing costs have been much higher than originally budgeted. As a result of these changes, we may need to drop the fall grazing treatment at this site and focus on implementing only the spring grazing treatment. Stakeholders and scientists in the region feel that the spring grazing treatment will have larger effects on cheatgrass than the fall grazing treatment, and so if needed we will focus our efforts on the treatment most likely to succeed. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?In Arizona, we co-organized three separate volunteer trips in connection with this project during the 2014-2015 reporting period. Two volunteer trips were composed of college-age students and organized through the Grand Canyon Semester at Northern Arizona University (NAU). These students helped us to seed the project in October and November 2014. The students learned about invasive species challenges, experimental design, restoration ecology, seeding methods, and plant species identification. The third volunteer trip involved high school students from the Spring Street International School (Friday Harbor, WA). These volunteers, who were primarily from underrepresented groups, helped to monitor our plots in June 2014. The students learned about invasive species challenges, restoration ecology, experimental design, fuel continuity, vegetation sampling methods, and plant species identification. We employed five separate field technicians to plant the project in Fall 2014 and monitor the project in summer 2015. Technicians were trained in restoration ecology, experimental design, fuel continuity, vegetation sampling methods, and plant species identification. Two ARS-funded technicians have also been involved in data entry and analysis. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?We reported results at a joint stakeholder meeting in Arizona in November of 2014. We presented seedling emergence data at the Biennial Conference of Science and Management on the Colorado Plateau and Southwest Region at NAU in October 2015. We have had numerous meetings with project collaborators and stakeholders, including public and private land managers. We have also shared preliminary seed coating results with Aquatrols, a private company involved in developingseed coating methods. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We will take data on cheatgrass exclusion by resident adult bunchgrasses in October 2015 using volunteer labor. A student group from NAU will collect soil samples from our sites and perform soil chemistry analyses in fall 2015. These students will learn about the greenstrips project, soil sampling methods, and soil chemistry analysis methods. We will graze the experiment in Spring 2016. Residual standing biomass will be measured in all plots (both grazed and ungrazed) immediately following each grazing event. We will continue to analyze 2014 baseline data and 2015 monitoring data during the next reporting period, and will submit peer-reviewed publications related to these data. We will report findings at a joint stakeholder meeting in November 2015 and at subsequent meetings and scientific conferences.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
The project was seeded in October and November 2014. Due to low rainfall in Nevada during winter 2014-2015, we applied approximately 6 mm of supplemental water to Nevada plots between March 23 and March 29, 2015. Winter precipitation in Arizona was average and therefore it was not necessary to apply supplemental water. At both sites, we retreated all herbicide-only plots in spring 2015. We leveraged USFS labor to complete herbicide treatments in Arizona. In summer 2015 we monitored seedling emergence, plant community composition, fuel continuity, and standing biomass across both states and all experimental treatments. Monitoring took place over two months. We began to analyze monitoring data in summer 2015. During 2014 and 2015 monitoring in Arizona, we observed adult individuals of the five grass species that we planted in our experimental fuelbreaks. We noted that different species seemed to have differing abilities to exclude cheatgrass from their immediate vicinity (<50 cm from plant base). This observation relates directly to our Objective 2b (Which plant materials are most effective at resisting cheatgrass?). We therefore organized a separate data collection effort to investigate this pattern more thoroughly. During summer 2015 we also made preparations to implement grazing treatments at both sites in Fall 2015. Fencing is complete in Nevada and was initiated in summer 2015 in Arizona.
Publications
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2015
Citation:
Porensky, L.M., E.A. Leger, B.L. Perryman, M.D. Madsen, M. Williamson. 2015. Innovative techniques for weakening cheatgrass-wildfire feedbacks in the Colorado Plateau and Great Basin. 13th Biennial Conference of Science & Management on the Colorado Plateau & Southwest Region, Flagstaff, AZ, October 5 8
|