rangeland ceap findings

of 12/12
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

Post on 18-Jan-2016

59 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

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 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Slide 1David Briske, Prescribed Grazing
Leonard Jolley, CEAP Administrator
*
Prescribed Grazing
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
*
Formally initiated in June 07 and organized synthesis around highest priority NRCS conservation practices based on National Conservation Practice Standards
Results in a groundswell of support within the rangeland community with 40 rangeland scientists and 20 NRCS professionals working for the past 3 yrs.
Goal to evaluate efficacy of CPS on the basis of published experimental data and this has resulted in an unprecedented data based within the rangeland profession; Leonard has done admirable job as orcastrator.
ESSM
TAMU
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
Forage inventories requires greater emphasis
New technologies to support management tools
Infrastructure emphasized over management
Implications
ESSM
TAMU
Planting/Seeding
Findings
Two phase approach recommended
Precipitation strongly determines success and overrides technology
Effective weather forecasting is vital for success
Implications
ESSM
TAMU
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
ESSM
TAMU
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
ESSM
TAMU
No effect in arid southwest
Support for juniper and sagebrush in northwest
Support for juniper and mesquite in southern plains
Increased stream flow
Implications
ESSM
TAMU
Long-term risk of practice failure is very high
Restoration success 20% with introduced species, less with natives
Implications
ESSM
TAMU
Insufficient information to make generalizations for most species groups
Species show negative, positive or no response
Vegetation structure is a key habitat variable
Implications
ESSM
TAMU
Reduced livestock density decreases nutrient and pathogen loads
Off-stream water development, supplement placement, and herding promote recovery
Implications
ESSM
TAMU
Expand practice standards to include ecosystem services
Engage the scientific community in this process