a range perspective on managing vegetation for greater
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Additional funding from the
Colorado Agricultural
Experiment Station
A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater sage-grouse
Presented by Retta Bruegger
Regional Specialist, Range
(970) 988 - 0043
![Page 2: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Sage-grouse: Greater and Gunnison
• Gunnison listed as threatened
• Greater not listed• Up for review in 2020
![Page 3: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
What does this mean for your management today?
![Page 4: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
“Greater sage-grouse objectives and well-managed livestock operations are compatible because forage availability for livestock and hiding cover for Greater sage-grouse are both dependent on healthy plant communities.”
- Northwest Colorado Greater sage-grouse approved RMR Amendment
![Page 5: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Seasonal Habitat Desired Conditions for Greater Sage-grouse
Criteria
Percent grass cover
Percent forb cover
Percent sagebrush cover
Forb and grass height
Sagebrush height
From the Northwest Colorado Greater sage-grouse approved RMR Amendment
![Page 6: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
1. Decisions outcomes
Livestock Production Wildlife Habitat
![Page 7: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Potential is relative to soils, topography, and climate
2. No one-size fits all approach
![Page 8: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Potential Vegetation:Alkali Sage
RabbitbrushWestern Wheatgrass
Bluebunch Wheatgrass
Potential Vegetation:Idaho/Arizona FescueBearded wheatgrass
Needle grassSlender wheatgrass
Big Sagebrush
Typical Production:
1500 lbs/acre
Typical Production: 500 lbs/acre
Claypan Mountain Loam
Ecological site concept
![Page 9: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Mountain Loam
Mountain Loam
Aspen Woodland
Mountain Loam
Claypan
Landscapes are a patchwork of different ecological sites
![Page 10: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Study areas in Moffat County
Loamy
Sandy Land/ Rolling Loam
![Page 11: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Moffat County Observed West Moffat (52 plots)
Observed East Moffat (73 plots)
Percent grass cover 12% (2014) - 22% (2015) 62%
Percent perennial forb cover 1% (2014 -2015) 5% (but large range across sites)
Percent sagebrush cover 13% 20%
Sagebrush height 12.6 inches 20 inches
![Page 12: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Do brush treatments improve sage-grouse habitat and livestock grazing?
![Page 13: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Brush treatments are one option for management• Mow
• Herbicide
• “Drag”
• Improve grass production
• Improve wildlife habitat
![Page 14: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Study areas in Moffat County
Sandy Land/ Rolling Loam
![Page 15: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Mow – 1996
Drag – 1997 & 98
How do mechanical treatments differ from control plots?
Drag – 1997 & 98Photo: July 2013
![Page 16: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Control
Mow – 1996
Drag – 1997 & 98
Two mechanical treatments – Drag and Mow
Drag – 1997 & 98Photo: July 2013
Mow – 1996Photo: July 2013
![Page 17: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
* *
*
*
Mechanical Treatment Effects (15y later)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Grass Forb Shrub Forb Count Species Count
Ab
solu
te C
ove
r (%
)
Control
Mechanical
Mow
Drag
*
![Page 18: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Will brush treatments produce the effect I want?
Livestock Production Wildlife Habitat
![Page 19: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Take-homes
• No one-size-fits all! • We see different
responses in the different areas we sampled.
• Learn about the potential of allotments/ lands you manage.
• What is the current baseline for “desired criteria” on lands you manage?
![Page 20: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Resources for learning about your area• Colorado Cattleman's
Association and CRMI
• Web soil survey
• NRCS
• Past observations by yourself or others
• NW Colorado Learning from the Land
![Page 21: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Questions & Thank you!
• Please visit our website at:
http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/learning-from-the-land
• Contact Information:
Retta BrueggerRegional Specialist, RangeCSU Extension
[email protected](970) 988 -0043
• Project staff includes: Maria Fernandez-Gimenez, Cameron Aldridge, James Pritchett, John Ritten, Paul Meiman, Emily Kachergis, Corrie Knapp, Willow Hibbs, Jennifer Timmer, Crystal Tipton, and Christopher Dickey.
THANK YOU to:
• Participating ranchers in Routt, Moffat and Rio Blanco Counties.
• Participating staff from CPW, BLM, Forest Service and NRCS.
![Page 22: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Mountain Loam
Study areas in Routt County
Claypan
![Page 23: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Disturbance that reduces shrub cover (fire,herbicide) combined with recovery of the herbaceous understory under lower grazing pressure and/or more precipitation
Mt. Big Sagebrush-Diverse Understory
Dense or Eroding Mt. Big Sagebrush-Shrubland
Reduction of the herbaceous understory, caused by heavy grazing and/or drought, combined with lack of disturbance that reduces shrub cover.
Dense or Eroding Mt. Big SagebrushShrubland-
807 lbs/acreSpecies richness: 38.2
Invasives: 2.2%Erosiveness: 6.6
Sage Grouse habitat: .53Mule Deer habitat: .51
Mt. Big Sagebrush-Diverse Understory
1934 lbs/acreSpecies richness: 41.4
Invasives: 0%Erosiveness: 5.2
Sage Grouse habitat: .67Mule Deer habitat: .61
Mountain Loam – Ecological consequences
![Page 24: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Mt. Big Sagebrush-Diverse Understory
Dense or Eroding Mt. Big Sagebrush-Shrubland
Mountain Loam – Economic implications
• Not treating might be detrimental
• Profitable 30% of the time in simulation
• From Ritten et. al. 2011 Do Livestock and Ecosystem Services Compete? A State-and-Transition Approach. Presented at Range Beef Cow Symposium XXII, November 29, 30, and December 1, 2011, Mitchell, Nebraska.
![Page 25: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Claypan
500 lbs./acre
7,048 ft (average)
Mountain Loam
1,500 lbs./acre
7,048 ft (average)
Different sites have different outcomes
Sandy Land/ Rolling Loam
536 lbs./acre
6,579 ft (average)
![Page 26: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
2. No one-size fits all approach
Loamy 7-10’’Moffat County (Western)
Sandy Land and Rolling LoamMoffat County (Eastern)
Mountain Loam(Routt County)
Precipitation Higher, 14 -35’’ annual precipitation
Lower, 7-12’’ annual precipitation
![Page 27: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Seasonal habitat desired conditions for Greater sage-grouse
Criteria
Percent grass cover
Percent forb cover
Percent sagebrush cover
Forb and grass height
Sagebrush height
From the Northwest Colorado Greater sage-grouse approved RMR Amendment
![Page 28: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Mesic sites criteriaObserved (21 plots)
Desired for Mesic sites
Percent grass cover 34 % > 25% (brood rearing)
Percent forb cover 44 % > 15% (breeding and nesting)
Percent sagebrush cover
24 % 20- 30%
Forb and grass height
9 inches (GrassONLY)
> 6 inches
Sagebrush height 20 inches 13.8 to 31.4 inches
![Page 29: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Native Alkali Sagebrush Steppe
Native Grassland
Fire and/or spraying reduces shrub cover
Shrubs re-colonize over time
Native Alkali Sagebrush Steppe1192 lbs/acre
Species richness: 36.6Invasives: 0.7%Erosiveness: 8.5
Sage Grouse habitat: .47Mule Deer habitat: .26
Native Grassland960 lbs/acre
Species richness: 28.3Invasives: 0.5%Erosiveness: 8.0
Sage Grouse habitat:.24Mule Deer habitat: .11
Claypan – Ecological consequences
![Page 30: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Native Alkali Sagebrush Steppe
Native Grassland
Claypan – Is it worth it economically?
• Simulation model never economically “worth it” to spray claypan
• From Ritten et. al. 2011 Do Livestock and Ecosystem Services Compete? A State-and-Transition Approach. Presented at Range Beef Cow Symposium XXII, November 29, 30, and December 1, 2011, Mitchell, Nebraska.
Fire and/or spraying
Shru
bs
re-c
olo
niz
e o
ver
tim
e
![Page 31: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Data we Collected Data collected in plots, 164 ftby 164 ft5 transects• Site definition
• Metadata (soils & topography)
• Plant Community• Cover (basal and
foliar)• Production• Composition• Species richness
• Functionality• Gap intercept• Pedoderm class
• Wildlife abundance and habitat• Songbird and sage-
grouse surveys• Visual obstruction
• Site use• Utilization • Dung surveys
(horse, cow, elk, deer)
![Page 32: A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022012500/617939328d4f38382f470aeb/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Moffat County Observed WestMoffat (52 plots)
Observed EastMoffat (73 plots)
Desired for Arid Sites
Percent grass cover 12% (2014) - 22%(2015)
62% > 15% (brood-rearing)
Percent perennialforb cover
1% (2014 -2015) But not nesting and breeding habitat
5% (but large range across sites)
> 5% (breeding and nesting)
Percent sagebrush cover
13% 20% 10-25%
Sagebrush height 12.6 inches 20 inches 11.8 to 31.5 inches