Quantifying restoration effectiveness using multi-scale habitat models: implications for sage-grouse in the Great Basin
Quantifying restoration effectiveness using multi-scale habitat models: implications for sage-grouse in the Great Basin
复制标题
DOI：
10.1890/es13-00278.1
复制
发表时间：
2014-03-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Wirth, Troy A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Arkle, Robert S.;Pilliod, David S.;Wirth, Troy A.
在保护范围广泛的濒危物种方面，一个经常性的挑战是了解哪些栖息地需要保护，以及我们是否有能力恢复退化的景观。对于大鼠尾草，松鸡（Centrocercus urophasianus），在美国西部的保护关注的物种，我们通过开发多尺度的经验模型，在211个随机定位的地块内的40万公顷的物种的范围内的占用来解决这个问题。然后，我们用这些模型来预测鼠尾草松鸡栖息地质量在826个地块与101个野火后播种项目实施1990年至2003年。我们还比较了恢复地点的条件，公布的栖息地指南。鼠尾草松鸡的占有率与小区和草地水平的矮蒿（Artemisia arbuscula，A。nova，A. tripartita）和大蒿属草原的流行，并与非本地植物和人类发展呈负相关。鼠尾草，松鸡占用率在处理地块的预测概率是低的平均值（0.09），并没有实质性的不同，没有被处理的烧伤面积。具有高质量栖息地的恢复地点往往发生在海拔较高的地方，年气温低，春季降水量高，植物多样性高。火灾后播种的313个地块，没有满足所有的蒿属植物繁殖栖息地的指导方针，但约50%符合林下指导方针，特别是多年生牧草。这种模式是类似的夏季栖息地。不到2%的处理地块符合冬季栖息地指南。恢复行动并没有增加被烧毁地区符合大多数准则标准的可能性。满足指南的概率受到纬度梯度、气候和地形的影响。我们的研究结果表明，鼠尾草松鸡是相对不太可能使用许多烧伤地区在20年内的火灾，无论治疗。林下栖息地条件更有可能是足够的比上层条件，但在大多数气候，建立杂类草和减少cheatgrass优势是不太可能的。重建山艾树覆盖将需要超过20年使用过去的恢复方法。考虑到目前的火灾频率和恢复能力，保护景观包含矮山艾树和大山艾树草原的混合，最小的人类发展，和低的非本地植物覆盖可能提供最好的机会，保护鼠尾草松鸡栖息地。
A recurrent challenge in the conservation of wide-ranging, imperiled species is understanding which habitats to protect and whether we are capable of restoring degraded landscapes. For Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), a species of conservation concern in the western United States, we approached this problem by developing multi-scale empirical models of occupancy in 211 randomly located plots within a 40 million ha portion of the species' range. We then used these models to predict sage-grouse habitat quality at 826 plots associated with 101 post-wildfire seeding projects implemented from 1990 to 2003. We also compared conditions at restoration sites to published habitat guidelines. Sage-grouse occupancy was positively related to plot- and landscape-level dwarf sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula, A. nova, A. tripartita) and big sagebrush steppe prevalence, and negatively associated with non-native plants and human development. The predicted probability of sage-grouse occupancy at treated plots was low on average (0.09) and not substantially different from burned areas that had not been treated. Restoration sites with quality habitat tended to occur at higher elevation locations with low annual temperatures, high spring precipitation, and high plant diversity. Of 313 plots seeded after fire, none met all sagebrush guidelines for breeding habitats, but approximately 50% met understory guidelines, particularly for perennial grasses. This pattern was similar for summer habitat. Less than 2% of treated plots met winter habitat guidelines. Restoration actions did not increase the probability of burned areas meeting most guideline criteria. The probability of meeting guidelines was influenced by a latitudinal gradient, climate, and topography. Our results suggest that sage-grouse are relatively unlikely to use many burned areas within 20 years of fire, regardless of treatment. Understory habitat conditions are more likely to be adequate than overstory conditions, but in most climates, establishing forbs and reducing cheatgrass dominance is unlikely. Reestablishing sagebrush cover will require more than 20 years using past restoration methods. Given current fire frequencies and restoration capabilities, protection of landscapes containing a mix of dwarf sagebrush and big sagebrush steppe, minimal human development, and low non-native plant cover may provide the best opportunity for conservation of sage-grouse habitats.