Ranchers’ Perceptions of Vegetation Heterogeneity in the Northern Great Plains

Abstract

to structurally homogenous rangelands that limit plant and animal biodiversity (Toombs et al. 2010; Becerra et al. 2013). Loss of heterogeneity is problematic because biodiversity (Fig. 1) is dependent on structural heterogeneity (MacArthur and MacArthur 1961; Hovick et al. 2014). Furthermore, biodiversity management is typically not considered in ranch management decisions (Knight et al. 2011). Th e lack of consideration of biodiversity in rangeland management was recently highlighted by a study that revealed temperate rangelands have the least intact biodiversity of any habitat type in the world compared to historical conditions (Newbold et al. 2016). Some range scientists are calling for a paradigm shift away from managing for grazing effi ciency to manag

Factors influencing ranchers’ intentions to manage for vegetation heterogeneity and promote cross-boundary management in the northern Great Plains

“…This was somewhat surprising given recent studies showing greater use of prescribed fires across the Great Plains (Twidwell et al 2013). Previous work examining ranchers' attitudes about visual characteristics of the landscape indicated that ranchers tended to value homogeneity, which they considered best for beef production and which leads to the "management to the middle" phenomenon (Becerra et al 2013, Fuhlendorf et al 2006, Sliwinski et al 2018). Management to the middle describes the reduction of heterogeneity in vegetation structure that can occur with grazing management that optimizes beef production.…”

“…Overall, the reliability of the scale for attitudes toward heterogeneity strategies was low (α = 0.63; Table 3), and reliability of some of the subscales was even lower, e.g., reliability of the scale measuring "composition and productivity of plant communities" was 0.32. Therefore, we used only the fire attitude and prairie dog attitude subscales (Table 1) instead of the full scale for attitudes toward heterogeneity strategies because these attitudes were shown to be important in a previous study we completed that qualitatively assessed producers' perceptions of heterogeneity (Sliwinski et al 2018). Fire is a significant ecological process (Fuhlendorf et al 2012 and prairie dogs are a keystone species that supports numerous other species (Smith andLomolino 2004, Davidson et al 2012); both are principal contributors to heterogeneity that have been largely removed from the northern Great Plains.…”

“…Even though there are still relatively large areas of mixed-grass prairie, these areas may not be capable of supporting historic levels of biodiversity because grassland management objectives on privately owned land do not include vegetation heterogeneity (With et al 2008). Typical management focuses on optimizing beef production (Ortega-S. et al 2013, Sliwinski et al 2018 by promoting preferred forage species and increasing the efficiency of the grazing process (Vallentine 2001). Additionally, fire and burrowing mammals such as prairie dogs have been reduced in an effort to maximize rangeland beef production (Freese et al 2010, Augustine and Derner 2012, Fuhlendorf et al 2012.…”

Similar Bird Communities Across Grazing Systems in the Nebraska Sandhills

“…Bare soil is avoided because of concerns about short‐ and long‐term consequences on forage production. On the opposite end of the spectrum, grass is not wasted; they manage for full use of forage resources to avoid economic inefficiencies associated with low use of vegetation cover (Sliwinski et al 2018 b ).…”

“…The federal government has also supported implementation of rotational grazing systems; most funds disbursed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service from 2004 to 2007 for conservation projects went towards improving livestock distribution through fencing and water infrastructure development (Toombs and Roberts 2009, Briske et al 2011). Thus, there has been a shift away from season‐long, continuous use of pastures to rotational grazing systems, which producers perceive as being more aligned with their production and stewardship goals (Sliwinski et al 2018 b ). Sliwinski et al (2018 c ), however, reported that grazing system had no effect on the variability of structure and composition of vegetation cover among grazing units, and abundance (number of individuals per ha) of 6 grassland birds did not vary among grazing systems.…”