2020
DOI: 10.5070/p536349865
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A new decision support tool for collaborative adaptive vegetation management in northern Great Plains national parks

Abstract: A new decision support tool for collaborative adaptive vegetation management in northern Great Plains national parks activities; invasive plants, animals, and diseases have continued to spread to wildlands; and extreme weather events are becoming more frequent as the earth continues to warm. Although the traditional NPS approach of trying to maintain ecosystems within their historic range of variability may no longer be relevant, national

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Typically, these are speciesspecific endeavours that integrate rates of spread and phenology of a given invasive species and also often include budgeting and scheduling scenarios to determine optimal longterm management strategies (Adams and Setterfield 2015). However, such approaches rarely consider the "connectivity conundrum" (Ashton et al 2020;Saffariha et al 2023, but see Minor and Gardner 2011). These modelling exercises focus on determining optimal timing and extent of ecological monitoring (Bonneau et al 2018), expenditure on efforts focused on eradication (Adams and Setterfield 2015), and generally assessing the cost of labour and other resources required to carry out the work within a management cycle (Baker et al 2017).…”
Section: Scheduling and Budgeting Considerationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Typically, these are speciesspecific endeavours that integrate rates of spread and phenology of a given invasive species and also often include budgeting and scheduling scenarios to determine optimal longterm management strategies (Adams and Setterfield 2015). However, such approaches rarely consider the "connectivity conundrum" (Ashton et al 2020;Saffariha et al 2023, but see Minor and Gardner 2011). These modelling exercises focus on determining optimal timing and extent of ecological monitoring (Bonneau et al 2018), expenditure on efforts focused on eradication (Adams and Setterfield 2015), and generally assessing the cost of labour and other resources required to carry out the work within a management cycle (Baker et al 2017).…”
Section: Scheduling and Budgeting Considerationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The development of anthropogenic activities in badlands and the associated trade-offs require policies and strategies that ensure conservation of the ecosystems and the ES they provide, while meeting human needs (Wilcox et al, 2011). Despite the protection of these ecosystems as UNESCO World Heritage sites (e.g., Canada's Dinosaur Provincial Park) (Zgłobicki et al, 2018), National Parks (e.g., badlands National Park in South Dakota) (Ashton et al, 2020) and Natural Parks and Protected Landscapes (e.g., Bardenas Reales in Spain) (Desir & Marín, 2013), there are still numerous badlands that are not considered a conservation priority, so their integration into land management and environmental policies remains a challenge, especially at the local scale.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%