Thresholds and hotspots for shrub restoration following a heterogeneous megafire
Reestablishing foundational plant species through aerial seeding is an essential yet challenging step for restoring the vast semiarid landscapes impacted by plant invasions and wildfire-regime shifts. A key component of the challenge stems from landscape variability and its effects on plant recovery.
We assessed landscape correlates, thresholds, and tipping points for sagebrush presence from fine-scale sampling across a large, heterogeneous area burned the previous year, where we were able to quantify soil surface features that are typically occluded yet can strongly affect recovery patterns.
Hypothesis testing and binary-decision trees were used to evaluate factors affecting initial sagebrush establishment, using 2171 field plots (totaling ~ 2,000,000 m2 sampled) over a 113,000-ha region.
Sagebrush established in 50% of plots where it was seeded, a > 12-fold greater establishment frequency than in unseeded areas. Sagebrush establishment was enhanced in threshold-like ways by elevation (> 1200 m ASL), topographic features that alter heatload and soil water, and by soil-surface features such as “fertile islands” that bore the imprint of pre-fire sagebrush. Sagebrush occupancy had a negative, linear relationship with exotic-annual grass cover and parabolic relationship with perennial bunchgrasses (optimal at 40% cover).
Our approach revealed interactive, ecological relationships such as novel soil-surface effects on first year establishment of sagebrush across the burned landscape, and identified “hot spots” for recovery. The approach could be expanded across sites and years to provide the information needed to explain past seeding successes or failures, and in designing treatments at the landscape scale.
KeywordsSagebrush Restoration Landscape Legacies Fire Mixed model Classification tree
Funding was provided by JFSP (Grant 16-1-03-13) with support from the Great Basin Landscape Conservation Cooperative, US Geological Survey (USGS) Fire program, USGS/BLM SageSuccess project and contribution of USGS data funded by the BLM’s ESR program. Cindy Fritz, Peter Torma, Cara Hastings and other BLM staff helped with planning, logistics, and comments on the research. The Soda Fire Field Crew assisted with field data collection. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
MG conceived of the project, obtained the funding, led the writing, and contributed to all phases of the work. DB performed the modeling and co-led the writing. RA, MF, CA, and BD assisted in designing the sampling plan; MF, CA, and BD led the field sampling and data organization. All authors contributed to writing and gave final approval for publication.
- Applestein C, Germino MJ, Fisk MJ (accepted) Vegetation community response to landscape scale post-fire herbicide (imazapic) application. Invasive Plant Sci ManagGoogle Scholar
- Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R Package Version 1:1–23Google Scholar
- Brabec MM, Germino MJ, Shinneman DJ, Pilliod DS, McIlroy SK, Arkle RS (2015) Challenges of establishing big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) in rangeland restoration: effects of herbicide, mowing, whole-community seeding, and sagebrush seed sources. Rangel Ecol Manag 68:432–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Burkett LM, Bestelmeyer BT, Tugel AJ (2011) A field guide to pedoderm and pattern classes. Version 2.2. http://jornada.nmsu.edu/files/FieldGuidePedodermPattern.pdf
- Chambers JC (2000) Seed movements and seedling fates in disturbed sagebrush steppe ecosystems: implications for restoration. Ecol Appl 10:1400–1413Google Scholar
- Hulvey KB, Leger EA, Porensky LM, Roche LM, Veblen KE, Fund A, Shaw J, Gornish ES (2017) Restoration islands: at tool for efficiently restoring dryland ecosystems? Restor Ecol. Online firstGoogle Scholar
- McArthur ED, Plummer AP (1978) Biogeography and management of native western shrubs—a case study, section Tridentatae of Artemisia. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs 2:229–243Google Scholar
- Therneau TM, Atkinson B, Ripley MB (2010) The rpart packageGoogle Scholar