Postfire growth of seeded and planted big sagebrush—strategic designs for restoring greater sage‐grouse nesting habitat

Abstract

Wildfires change plant community structure and impact wildlife habitat and population dynamics. Recent wildfire-induced losses of big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) in North American shrublands are outpacing natural recovery and leading to substantial losses in habitat for sagebrush-obligate species such as greater sage-grouse. Managers are considering restoration strategies that include planting container-grown sagebrush to improve establishment within areas using more conventional seeding methods. Although it is thought that planting sagebrush provides initial structural advantages over seeding, empirical comparisons of sagebrush growth are lacking between individuals established postfire using both methods. Using a Bayesian hierarchical approach, we evaluated sagebrush height and canopy area growth rates for plants established in 26 seeded and 20 planted locations within the Great Basin. We then related recovery rates to previously published nesting habitat requirements for sagegrouse. Under average weather conditions, planted or seeded sagebrush will require 3 or 4 years, respectively, and a relatively high density (≥2 plants/m 2) to achieve the minimum recommended canopy cover for sage-grouse (15%). Sagebrush grown in warmer and drier conditions met this cover goal months earlier. Although planted sagebrush reached heights to meet sagegrouse nesting requirements (30 cm) 1 year earlier than seeded plants, seeded individuals were approximately 19 cm taller with 410 cm 2 more canopy area than planted sagebrush after 8 years. However, big sagebrush establishment from seed is unreliable. Strategically planting small, high-density patches of container-grown sagebrush in historic sage-grouse nesting habitat combined with lower density seedings in larger surrounding areas may accelerate sage-grouse habitat restoration.

Protecting restoration investments from the cheatgrass‐fire cycle in sagebrush steppe

“…The loss of sagebrush, a foundational species of the American west, has ecological and socioeconomic consequences (Brunson & Tanaka, 2011; Coates et al, 2016). Efforts to restore sagebrush shrublands to prefire characteristics is underway but is difficult and can take decades (Brabec et al, 2015; Grant‐Hoffman & Plank, 2021; Pyke et al, 2020). Thus, protecting those areas with prior restoration investment so they have time to recover may be as important as protecting remaining intact sagebrush with strategically placed fire breaks, targeted invasive species and fine fuels management (i.e., mowing, grazing, herbicide), and suppression tactics (Ricca & Coates, 2020).…”

Assessing vegetation recovery from energy development using a dynamic reference approach

“…Interestingly, we projected relatively fast recovery among high quantiles at lower elevation sites (warm and dry ecotype) even after accounting for lower sagebrush cover among references (lower restoration target, but also slower growth than for sites with high sagebrush cover references). While there are reports of Wyoming big sagebrush communities recovering relatively quickly (9–35 years; Wambolt et al, 2001; Shinneman & McIlroy, 2016), our projections may reflect possible factors that facilitate recovery, such as favorable establishment conditions and successful restoration practices (Pyke et al, 2020). Indeed, we estimated faster recovery with recent apparent reclamation among high quantiles, but this effect dissipated with longer time periods, possibly because fitting spatio‐temporal dependence accounted for variation in the years since apparent reclamation smooth term.…”

“…Indeed, we found little of the landscape was projected to recover from a potential disturbance after 100 years among quantiles less than or equal to the median response, whereas much of the landscape recovered quickly (in <25 years) among high quantiles. These results suggest recovery in some areas could be expedited if restoration conditions are favorable (e.g., Germino et al, 2018; Pyke et al, 2020; Schlaepfer et al, 2014; Shinneman & Mcilroy, 2016; Shriver et al, 2018). Additionally, we increased our spatio‐temporal sample from previous analyses (1200 vs. 375 well pads in Monroe et al, 2020) with near‐annual remote sensing products and by including well pads disturbed long before the earliest remote‐sensing imagery.…”

“…These results suggest recovery in some areas could be expedited if restoration conditions are favorable (e.g., Germino et al, 2018;Pyke et al, 2020;Schlaepfer et al, 2014;Shinneman & Mcilroy, 2016;Shriver et al, 2018). Additionally, we increased our spatio-temporal sample from previous analyses (1200 vs. 375 well pads in Monroe et al, 2020) with near-annual remote sensing products and by including well pads disturbed long before the earliest remote-sensing imagery.…”

Near‐infrared spectroscopy aids ecological restoration by classifying variation of taxonomy and phenology of a native shrub

“…These restoration practices can alter taxonomic composition of plants (Carlucci et al 2020), associated communities (e.g. herbivores, Pyke et al 2020; fungi, Hovland et al 2019), land use and cover (Cox & Anderson 2004), and ecosystem health and services (Reynolds et al 2012). The high economic costs of restoration (Boyd & Davies 2012) demand better tools to properly classify and monitor plants and their functional traits for restoration.…”