rangeland ceap findings
Post on 18-Jan-2016
68 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
ESSM
TAMU RANGELAND CEAP FINDINGS
BRIEFING TO RCA
RANGELAND CEAP WRITING TEAM LEADERS
David Briske, Prescribed Grazing
Stuart Hardegree, Planting/Seeding
Sam Fuhlendorf, Prescribed Burning
Steve Archer, Brush Management
Roger Sheley, Invasive Plant Management
Paul Krausman, Wildlife Habitat Management
Mel George, Riparian Habitat Management
Leonard Jolley, CEAP Administrator
David D. Briske, Academic Coordinator
ESSM
TAMU Rangeland CEAP FrameworkRangeland CEAP Framework
Natural Resource TopicsNatural Resource Topics
CONSERVATION PRACTICECONSERVATION PRACTICE
SoilSoil PlantsPlantsAnimals Animals
wildwildAnimals Animals domesticdomestic WaterWater AirAir LandscapeLandscape
Economic and Economic and Social (Ecosystem Social (Ecosystem
Services)Services)Prescribed Grazing Prescribed Grazing
Prescribed BurningPrescribed Burning
Brush ManagementBrush Management
Rangeland plantingRangeland planting
Riparian herbaceous coverRiparian herbaceous cover
Upland Wildlife Habitat ManagementUpland Wildlife Habitat Management
Pest Management (plants, insects)Pest Management (plants, insects)
ESSM
TAMU Context for Rangeland CEAP
Science incomplete and provides partial solutions Effectiveness of management decisions unknown Research findings not readily incorporated in CPSs Research community willing to constructively engage
in conservation planning and assessment• Awareness that change is required in rangeland profession• Appreciation for the necessity of CEAP• Recognition that NRCS is an important vehicle to change
ESSM
TAMU Prescribed Grazing
Findings Stocking rate is a key management variable Forage inventories requires greater emphasis New technologies to support management tools Infrastructure emphasized over management
• Grazing management overrides grazing systems
Implications Support landowner decision making
• Poorly documented portion of conservation planning
ESSM
TAMU Planting/Seeding
Findings Marginally successful; < 20%with native species Two phase approach recommended
• Introduced species stabilize site followed by native species
Precipitation strongly determines success and overrides technology
Effective weather forecasting is vital for success
Implications Carefully evaluate application given marginal success
ESSM
TAMU Prescribed Burning
Findings Woody plant control is frequently realized, but
exceptions do exist Negative herbaceous plant effects disappear in 2-3
yrs, if they occur Results consistent across varied eco-regions
Implications Effective ecological tool for woody plant management
ESSM
TAMU Brush Control
Findings Grass response positive 2 yrs post; peak 5 yrs post Retreatment interval: 4-12 yrs mesquite; 20-30 yrs
sagebrush; > 50 yrs creosote bush Erosion not consistently reduced Recommendations over-generalized across eco-regions Some assumptions regarding water are unfounded
ESSM
TAMU Brush Control-Water
Reduced ET and increased ground water recharge No effect in arid southwest Support for juniper and sagebrush in northwest Support for juniper and mesquite in southern plains
Increased stream flow Shown for only small watersheds receiving winter rain
Implications Refinement of science and CPS required
ESSM
TAMU Invasive Plant Management
Findings Both CPS and science are poorly developed Long-term risk of practice failure is very high Restoration success 20% with introduced species,
less with natives
Implications Science and CPS require greater emphasis
ESSM
TAMU Wildlife Habitat
Findings Both CPS and science are poorly developed Insufficient information to make generalizations for
most species groups Species show negative, positive or no response Vegetation structure is a key habitat variable
Implications Science and CPS require greater emphasis
ESSM
TAMU Riparian Habitat
Findings Livestock exclusion promotes riparian recovery Reduced livestock density decreases nutrient and
pathogen loads Off-stream water development, supplement
placement, and herding promote recovery
Implications Livestock number and time in habitat is critical
ESSM
TAMU CEAP Recommendations
Incorporate findings into conservation practice standards
Expand practice standards to include ecosystem services
Engage the scientific community in this process
top related