Change in greater sage-grouse habitat suitability 15-years post simulated fire event and non-targeted sagebrush transplants (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
Here, we present changes in greater sage-grouse nesting habitat suitability that represents habitat before a simulated fire event and post-fire event after simulating the planting of sagebrush. The planting design used here reflects 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. 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 [...]
Summary
Here, we present changes in greater sage-grouse nesting habitat suitability that represents habitat before a simulated fire event and post-fire event after simulating the planting of sagebrush. The planting design used here reflects 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. 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 the change of nesting habitat conditions 15-years after a simulated fire and sagebrush revegetation. Here, we provide the habitat recovery results for one of many different planting designs assessed for this project.
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.
