Greater sage-grouse habitat suitability 15-years post simulated fire event and sagebrush transplanting (2015-2030)
Dates
Publication Date
2024-07-16
Start Date
2015
End Date
2030
Citation
Heinrichs, J.A., O'Donnell, M.S., Orning, E.K., Pyke, D.A., Ricca, M., Coates, P.S., and Aldridge, C.L., 2024, Greater sage-grouse habitat suitability 15-years post simulated fire event and sagebrush transplanting (2015-2030): U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P9CGAY9L.
Summary
To assess the degree to which transplanting sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) could quickly restore former sage-grouse habitat and the strategies by which greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter, sage-grouse) habitat restoration is best accomplished, we linked vegetation transitions with habitat selection models to evaluate habitat recovery. Within our modeling extent (Tuscarora, Nevada), we simulated the fire-induced loss of habitat, planting of sagebrush seedlings, and the regrowth of sagebrush and other vegetation over 15 years. We used sagebrush growth equations and vegetation state transitions to return and grow vegetation within the burned and planted areas. Every year, we updated seasonal sage-grouse habitat selection [...]
Summary
To assess the degree to which transplanting sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) could quickly restore former sage-grouse habitat and the strategies by which greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter, sage-grouse) habitat restoration is best accomplished, we linked vegetation transitions with habitat selection models to evaluate habitat recovery. Within our modeling extent (Tuscarora, Nevada), we simulated the fire-induced loss of habitat, planting of sagebrush seedlings, and the regrowth of sagebrush and other vegetation over 15 years. We used sagebrush growth equations and vegetation state transitions to return and grow vegetation within the burned and planted areas. Every year, we updated seasonal sage-grouse habitat selection maps by re-applying pre-fire habitat selection equations to re-calculate the proportion of suitable habitat gained by sagebrush restoration efforts. We evaluated alternative planting designs to identify the key factors influencing habitat selection outcomes. Specifically, we varied the number of plants, patch sizes, densities, location of planting sites (i.e., random versus within sage-grouse nesting habitat), as well as post-transplant (30, 70, or 100%) survival. We assumed all planting occurred in a single year. We ranked the influence of these different planting factors on sage-grouse habitat recovery across restoration scenario. The following data reflect habitat conditions 15-years after a simulated fire and sagebrush revegetation. Here we provide the habitat recovery results of two different planting designs. We provide several example datasets from this project, including the following: tsf0tsf15_change_nontarg_me_ss_ld_bre10m.tif: Dataset representing a single-year (maximum-effort; me) habitat restoration effort where we used several small (ss) patches with low density (ld) planting of sagebrush. The planting was not targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects the change in simulated habitat conditions between 2015 and 2030. tsf0tsf15_change_targ_my_sm_hd_bre10m.tif: Dataset representing a multi-year (my) habitat restoration effort where we used several moderate (sm) patches with high density (hd) planting of sagebrush. The planting was targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects the change in simulated habitat conditions between 2015 and 2030. tsf15_nontarg_me_ss_ld_bre_hsi_10m_transf.tif: Dataset representing a single-year (maximum-effort; me) habitat restoration effort where we used several small (ss) patches with low density (ld) planting of sagebrush. The planting was not targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects simulated habitat conditions in 2030. tsf15_targ_my_sm_hd_bre_hsi_10m_transf.tif: Dataset representing a multi-year (my) habitat restoration effort where we used several moderate (sm) patches with high density (hd) planting of sagebrush. The planting was targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects simulated habitat conditions in 2030.
There are few data-driven approaches to identify efficient restoration strategies that maximize benefits to wildlife. To test the efficiency of alternative planting strategies in recovering multi-scale habitat needs for the greater sage-grouse in the Great Basin, we developed a spatial vegetation-habitat recovery model. We measured the amount and suitability of habitat at 15-years post-fire to indicate the degree to which wildlife-focused restoration could quickly regain sage-grouse habitat. Sagebrush transplant efforts are likely to shorten the time to habitat recovery; however, highly intensive planting projects are required to overcome high seedling mortality rates and cover the large areas required by sage-grouse. Optimizing site location, plant density, and patch size did not provide a consistent advantage in restoring a minimum threshold of habitat quality across the landscape. Here we provide results for two planting designs, contrasting the habitat gains from explicitly targeting all aspects of revegetation to sage-grouse needs with habitat gained from a non-targeted (opposite) approach.
Rights
This work is marked with Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).
