• Browsing the Literature

      Germino, M. (Society for Range Management, 2019-12)
    • Significance of Seed Caching by Rodents for Key Plants in Natural Resource Management

      Longland, W.S.; Dimitri, L.A. (Society for Range Management, 2019-12)
    • Ecological Sites: Can they be Managed to Promote Livestock Production?

      Reynolds, A.Q.; Derner, J.D.; Augustine, D.J.; Porensky, L.M.; Wilmer, H.; Jorns, T.; Briske, D.D.; Scasta, J.D.; Fernández-Giménez, M.E.; CARM Stakeholder Group (Society for Range Management, 2019-12)
      We assessed diet quality and livestock weight gains for shortgrass steppe pastures dominated by Loamy Plains or Sandy Plains ecological sites. When growing season precipitation is “normal,” livestock gains are higher on Sandy Plains ecological sites, and diet quality is not limiting livestock production. Conversely, when growing season precipitation declines by ≥ 20%, digestible organic matter, but not crude protein, influences livestock gains. These negative effects on livestock gains are more pronounced for the Loamy Plains ecological site. Pastures with multiple ecological sites may provide range managers greater forage diversity for livestock and higher livestock gains during dry growing seasons.
    • Using WebGIS to Develop a Spatial Bibliography for Organizing, Mapping, and Disseminating Research Information: A Case Study of Quaking Aspen

      Howell, R.G.; Petersen, S.L.; Balzotti, C.S.; Rogers, P.C.; Jackson, M.W.; Hedrich, A.E. (Society for Range Management, 2019-12)
      Spatial data is valuable to researchers for locating studies that occur in a particular area of interest, or one with similar attributes. Without a standard in publishing protocol, spatial data largely goes unreported, or is difficult to find without searching the publication. Assigning location data and displaying points on a public web map makes locating publications based on spatial location possible.
    • Highlights

      Sheley, R.; Grove, A.; Aycrigg, J. (Society for Range Management, 2019-12)
    • Editors Choice from Rangeland Ecology and Management

      Bailey, D.; Mosley, J.C.; Estell, R.E.; Cibils, A.F.; Horney, M.; Hendrickson, J.R.; Walker, J.W.; Launchbaugh, K.L.; Burritt, E.A. (Society for Range Management, 2019-12)
    • Collaborative Approaches to Strengthen the Role of Science in Rangeland Conservation

      Bestelmeyer, B.T.; Burkett, L.M.; Lister, L.; Brown, J.R.; Schooley, R.L. (Society for Range Management, 2019-10)
      The use of science to inform conservation practices is limited by broad generalities generated from limited sampling alongside narrow ecosystem service perspectives. Collaborative science approaches featuring “social-ecological system” perspectives are being used as a means to improve the utility of science. We review our approach to collaborative science to improve brush management outcomes in rangelands in the Chihuahuan Desert. Expanding the use and utility of collaborative science requires stable support via targeted funding and technical expertise, as well as web-based tools and mobile applications that link specific locations to science information and conservation practice guidelines.
    • Editors Choice from Rangeland Ecology and Management

      Meehan, Miranda A.; O’Brien, Peter L. (Society for Range Management, 2019-10)
    • Browsing the Literature

      Germino, Matt (Society for Range Management, 2019-10)
    • CEAP Quantifies Conservation Outcomes for Wildlife and People on Western Grazing Lands

      Naugle, D.E.; Maestas, J.D.; Allred, B.W.; Hagen, C.A.; Jones, M.O.; Falkowski, M.J.; Randall, B.; Rewa, C.A. (Society for Range Management, 2019-10)
      Maximizing efficiency and effectiveness of limited resources to conserve America's vast western grazing lands requires a science-based approach. Working Lands for Wildlife, USDA's approach for conserving America's working lands, co-produces scientific tools and quantifies outcomes that help guide future implementation and improve delivery. Quantifying outcomes in conservation provides accountability for investments, and illustrates to readers the role of science in working lands conservation. Together, diverse partners continue expanding into new technologies to further enhance the productivity, profitability, and sustainability of valuable grazing lands.
    • An Effects Assessment Framework for Dry Forest Conservation

      Cannon, J.B.; Gannon, B.M.; Feinstein, J.A.; Wolk, B.H. (Society for Range Management, 2019-10)
      Large patches of dry conifer forests have burned as high intensity crown fire, threatening life, property, and natural resources. Conservation practices such as mechanical thinning can reduce crown fire potential while promoting other benefits such as restoring forest heterogeneity, reducing post-fire erosion risk, and improving wildlife habitat. We report on a pilot study to apply landscape-scale effects modeling in the Colorado Front Range as a potential framework for forestlands CEAP. Spatially explicit estimates of conservation benefits to multiple resources provide a quantitative means to evaluate competing projects and to prioritize conservation outreach.
    • Conservation Effects Assessment Project–Grazing Lands: An Introduction to the Special Issue

      Fox, W.; Angerer, J.; Tolleson, D. (Society for Range Management, 2019-10)
      Knowledge derived from grazing lands assessment programs provides the foundation for the development of conservation policy and informs local, regional, and national entities on benefits associated with investments in conservation and land management. Conservation Effects Assessment Project – Grazing Lands provides a baseline for informing decision-makers at all levels of the impacts and potential values of conservation practice application. Comprehensive assessment at multiple scales provides opportunities for understanding the impacts of land management and conservation programs on approximately 600 million acres of grazing lands in the United States.
    • Conservation Effects Assessment Project: Assessing Conservation Practice Effects on Grazing Lands

      Metz, L.J.; Rewa, C.A. (Society for Range Management, 2019-10)
      The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) is responsible for assessing and reporting on the effects of conservation practices provided through Farm Bill programs. Effects on resources, economics, and production capacity are assessed statistically through a combination of modeling, direct measurement, benefit transfer, and producer surveys. Results from CEAP-Grazing Land projects help guide NRCS conservation planning and policy, and provide grazing land managers with additional resources for successful management of their soil, water, air, plant, animal, and economic resources. A summary of projects and project status is provided.
    • Response To “A Rebuttal To 'Reinterpreting The 1882 Bison Population Collapse'”

      Stoneberg Holt, S.D. (Society for Range Management, 2019-08)
      The generally accepted ancestral bison herd size, the existing records and estimates of bison slaughter, and the contention that bison were hunted to extinction do not add up. Defending the hypothesis that bison were slaughtered to extinction requires adding unreasonable millions to the slaughter estimates or reducing the projected ancestral bison herd to about five million. A more reasonable approach is to assume bison were also dying at a high rate because of other factors, such as disease. I believe the disease rate was exacerbated by the loss of intelligent human grazing management practiced by the Original American First Nations.
    • Browsing the Literature

      Germino, Matt (Society for Range Management, 2019-08)
    • A Rebuttal to “Reinterpreting the 1882 Bison Population Collapse”

      Irving, B. (Society for Range Management, 2019-08)
      The historical North American bison harvest in the 1800s was not sustainable. Bison harvest was not sustainable in two eras: the wave of bison harvest in front of European civilization (before 1830) and in what has been called the era of systematic destruction (1830–1883).
    • Editors Choice from Rangeland Ecology and Management

      Hovland, M.; Mata-González, R.; Schreiner, R.P.; Rodhouse, T.J. (Society for Range Management, 2019-08)