Upload
kiefer
View
20
Download
6
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Modeling Ecological and Economic Benefits of Post-Fire Revegetation in the Great Basin. Becky Niell. Brief Ecological History of Sagebrush-Steppe. Historically co-dominated by native bunchgrasses and sagebrush Cattle grazing (1850’s) decline of native bunchgrasses & increase in sagebrush - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Modeling Ecological and Economic Benefits of Post-Fire Revegetation
in the Great Basin
Becky Niell
Brief Ecological History of Sagebrush-Steppe
• Historically co-dominated by native bunchgrasses and sagebrush
• Cattle grazing (1850’s) decline of native bunchgrasses & increase in sagebrush
• Cheatgrass invasion (early 1900’s) increased fire frequency & changed successional patterns
• invasion of nonnative plant species• loss of native shrublands• increased fire frequency
• loss of native biodiversity• reduced forage for livestock• increased management costs• decreased water quality• reduced recreation values
Ramifications of Ecological Change
Aggressive management is needed ….
•Revegetation•Crested wheatgrass•Native seed
What to do……
Constrained by lack of information & high costs.
Need:“predictive models to forecast the potential effects of various management actions on resources”
“economic models that can put restoration costs and benefits into a framework that will support choosing among restoration alternatives as well as explaining benefits to the public and other constituents (BLM 2000).”
Markov chain model (quantitative, dynamic model)
State-and-transition model (conceptual model)
1. Predict long term vegetation change
2. Predict costs and benefits of revegetation strategies
2. Native Perennial Bunchgrass - Sagebrush
1. Native Perennial Bunchgrass Dominant
3. Sagebrush- Native Perennial Bunchgrass
4. Dense Sagebrush- Sparse Bunchgrass
Cheatgrass Understory
5. Dense Sagebrush w/ Cheatgrass Understory
6. Cheatgrass Dominant w/ Sagebrush
7. Cheatgrass w/ Sagebrush seedlings & rootsprouting shrubs
8. Cheatgrass Monoculture
10. Introduced Perennial Bunchgrass - Sagebrush
9. Introduced Perennial Bunchgrass Dominant
11. Sagebrush - Introduced Perennial Bunchgrass
Natural SuccessionFire EventFire Event with RevegetationState TransitionWyoming Big Sagebrush Vegetation in the Great Basin with
grazing and cheatgrass present. (8-10 inch precipitation zone)
Ranges are the highest and lowest estimates obtained from literature and expert opinion. Fire Frequency Average Fire Vegetation Type (i ) Vegetation Type
Parameter Frequency (years) of Fire Occurrence Following Fire ffire 1 25 - 100 1. Native perennial
bunchgrass dominant 1. Native perennial bunchgrass dominant
ffire 2 25 - 100 2. Native perennial bunchgrass - Sagebrush
1. Native perennial bunchgrass dominant
ffire 3 25 - 100 3. Sagebrush - Native perennial bunchgrass
1. Native perennial bunchgrass dominant
ffire 4 10 - 100 4. Dense sagebrush, sparse bunchgrasses, cheatgrass understory
7. Cheatgrass with shrub potential
ffire 5 2 - 15 5. Sagebrush dominant with cheatgrass understory
7. Cheatgrass with shrub potential
ffire 6 2 - 15 6. Cheatgrass dominant with sagebrush
7. Cheatgrass with shrub potential
ffire 7 2-15 7. Cheatgrass with shrub potential
8. Cheatgrass monoculture
ffire 8 2 - 15 8. Cheatgrass monoculture
8. Cheatgrass monoculture
ffire 9 40 - 100 9. Introduced perennial bunchgrass dominant
9. Introduced perennial bunchgrass dominant
ffire 10 40 - 100 10. Introduced perennial bunchgrass - sagebrush
9. Introduced perennial bunchgrass dominant
ffire 11 40 - 100 11. Sagebrush-introduced perennial bunchgrass
9. Introduced perennial bunchgrass dominant
represent the highest and lowest estimates obtained from literature and expert opinion. Average
Transition Transition pathwayParameter Time (years) from: to:
m 1,2 20 - 50 1. Native perennial bunchgrass dominant
2. Native perennial bunchgrass - Sagebrush
m 2,3 5 - 50 2. Native perennial bunchgrass - Sagebrush
3. Sagebrush - Native perennial bunchgrass
m 3,4 10 - 100 3. Sagebrush - Native perennial bunchgrass
4. Dense sagebrush, sparse bunchgrasses, cheatgrass understory
m 4,5 10 - 40 4. Dense sagebrush, sparse bunchgrasses, cheatgrass understory
5. Sagebrush dominant with cheatgrass understory
m 6,5 40 - 60 6. Cheatgrass dominant with sagebrush
5. Sagebrush dominant with cheatgrass understory
m 7,6 10 - 25 7. Cheatgrass with shrub potential
6. Cheatgrass dominant with sagebrush
m 9,10 20 - 30 9. Introduced perennial bunchgrass dominant
10. Introduced perennial bunchgrass - sagebrush
m 10,11 20 - 40 10. Introduced perennial bunchgrass - sagebrush
11. Sagebrush-introduced perennial bunchgrass
Average Transition Times Between Vegetation Types
Average Fire Frequencies
Markov Chain Model
K Successional states (chain states)Probability of moving from state i to state j in a given time period
(K x K) Transition matrix
(1xK) is allocation of the landscape across K successional states
Simulate vegetation change by:
150 year simulation of Cheatgrass Monoculture:
31 - 41%25%
35 - 51%
40 - 69% 78 - 89%
w/ revegetation
no revegetation
t = 0 t = 20 t = 150
No reveg.
Reveg.
Immediate Action Needed!!
Without revegetation:
Revegetation is not cheap: $25-100+ /acre (1.7 million acres burned in 1999)
40 – 69% of the landscape cheatgrass monoculture or worse in 20 years.
1/20 to 1/3 of landscape burning every year…
Costs….
So… What are economic and ecological
trade-offs of different post-fire revegetation strategies?
• Reducing cheatgrass monoculture• Maintaining native vegetation• Minimizing management costs
50 YEAR RESULTS:
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
NoRevegetation
Native SeedMix
CrestedWheatgrass
% o
f la
ndsc
ape
in y
ear
50
Area of Cheatgrass Monoculture (% of landscape)
Goal 1. Reduce Area of Cheatgrass Monoculture:
•No revegetation (71%)•Native seed (42%) *•CWG (42%) *
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
NoRevegetation
Native SeedMix
CrestedWheatgrass
% o
f La
ndsc
ape
in y
ear
50
Area of Native Vegetation (% of landscape)
Goal 2. Increase Area of Native Vegetation:
•No revegetation (10%)•Native seed (42%) *•CWG (10%)
Goal 3. MinimizeManagement Costs:
•No revegetation ($7.83/ac)•Native seed ($6.64/ac)•CWG ($6.00/ac) *
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
NoRevegetation
Native SeedMix
CrestedWheatgrass
Ave
rage
Ann
ual C
ost
($ /
100
acr
es)
Average Management Costs ($ / 100 ac.)
•Management costs = fire suppression costs + reveg. costs
Revegetation can cost 1.9 times more per acre than fire suppression and still cost less than no
revegetation in the long run!!
1) No revegetation Ecological and economic disaster
2) Post-fire revegetation was more effective than no revegetation for:
• achieving ecosystem objectives• reducing costs
3) The appropriate choice of seed mix depends on the prioritization of management objectives
• native seed costs more than crested wheatgrass seed• native seed was equally or more effective for achieving each ecosystem goal
4) Post-fire revegetation is not sufficient!
Conclusions:
Questions??