FUNDED BY:

GNLCC

Benefits/tradeoffs of fuel control treatmentsWhat we have learned from SageSTEP so far

Bruce Roundy and Jim McIver

COLLABORATORS

Great Basin Biomes

Forest

WoodlandSage-Cheat

Salt Desert Shrub

Annual Precipitation

4’’ 12’’ 24’’

SageSTEP: Two Experiments

Wildfire is managing the landscape

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20100

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000National Interagency Fire Center data

FiresAcres

Nu

mb

er

of

fire

s

Ac

res

bu

rne

d

Extensive and intensive research

Shred study

Treatments: Sagebrush SteppeSage-Cheat Experiment

Prescribed fire

Mowing

Herbicide – Tebuthiuron (Spike 20P) applied aerially

Control

Plateau pre-emergence herbicide (applied by hand-spraying) crossed with all four treatments for cheatgrass control.

Treatments Woodland Experiment

Prescribed fire Chainsaw Cutting

Bull Hog (in Utah only)

Control

Prescribed Fire

SageSTEP: Multivariate

Social Acceptance

Economics

Soil Carbon

Runoff & Erosion

Sage-Obligate Birds

Insect Biodiversity

Vegetation

Fuels, Fire Behavior

Initial 3-year resultsSpecial open source issue- September 2014

• 13 articles• Introduction and synopsis• 4 vegetation response• 3 soils, hydrology• 1 butterflies• 1 birds• 1 remote sensing, image

analysis• 1 social acceptance and

public trust

Sage-cheat fuels

• Fire and mowing reduced woody fuels• Herb. fuels decreased then rebounded

Pyke et al. 2014 REM

Woodland fuels

Prescribed fire

Wildfire

Mechanical

Wildfire

Wildfire

Cut and drop

Shred

Courtesy Brad Jessop

Treatment fuel effects

1 hr 10 hr 100 hr 1000 hr0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

30% Pretreatment Tree Cover

Untreated or CutBurnShred

Wo

od

y t

ree

fu

els

(k

g/h

a)

Young et al 2014 IJWLF

Fuel size classes

Diameter (mm)1 hr ≤ 610 hr 6-25100 hr 26-761000 hr >76

Avoiding wildfire damage after mechanical treatments may require prescribed fire

B

A

B

A

B

A

B

CB

C

C

A

C

C

CC

A

AB

A

A

A

B

A

A

A

BC

AB

A

AB

B

AB

B

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Cover

loss

(%

)

Control

Burn

Cut

Shred

Stansbury cover loss (%) 1 year after Big Pole fire

Roundy unpublished

Sage-cheat vegetation response• Fire reduced tall

grass biomass first year, then recovered

• Imazapic decreased cheatgrass and perennial grass cover for 3 years

• Sandy soil, lower whc associated with cheatgrass

• Concern for grass under shrubs and fire

Pyke et al. 2014 REM Reisner et al 2013 JAERau et al. 2014 REM

Resilience theory and practice-expanded woodlands

From Briske et al. 2008. http://jornada.nmsu.edu/sites/default/files/briskeSRM08.pdf

Pre-treatment vegetation

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 800

50

100

150

200

250

Herbaceous biomass (kg/ha)

Tree cover (%)

0 20 40 60 800

10002000300040005000

Shrub biomass (kg/ha)

Tree cover (%)

00.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Relative cover (%)

CheatgrassForbShortTallShrubTree

Tree dominance index

Shrub cover

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10

5

10

15

20

25

30

3 Years since treated

ControlBurnCut

Tree dominance index

Sh

rub

co

ve

r (%

)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10

5

10

15

20

25

30

6 Years since treated

ControlBurnCut

Tree dominance index

Sh

rub

co

ve

r (%

)

Roundy et al 2014 REM (3rd year results)

Residual trees and sagebrush seedlings

Sagebrushseedlings

0 1 2 30

0.20.40.60.8

Sagebrush seedlings/m2

ControlBurnCut

Years since treatment

Miller et al. 2014 REM (3rd year results)

Bybee et al submitted

Untreated Shred Shred-seed0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

B

A

A

Sagebrush seedlings/m2

Perennial herbaceous cover

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

3 Years since treated

ControlBurnCut

Tree dominance index

Pe

ren

nia

l he

rba

ce

ou

s c

ov

er

(%)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

6 Years since treated

ControlBurnCut

Tree dominance index

Pe

ren

nia

l he

rba

ce

ou

s c

ov

er

(%)

Roundy et al 2014 REM (3rd year results)

Cheatgrass cover

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

3 Years since treated

ControlBurnCut

Tree dominance index

Ch

ea

tgra

ss

co

ve

r (%

)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

6 Years since treated

ControlBurnCut

Tree dominance index

Ch

ea

tgra

ss

co

ve

r (%

)

Roundy et al 2014 REM (3rd year results)

Shredding increases cheatgrass cover; seeding suppresses it

0 20 40 60 80 1000

5

10

15

20

25

30

35Expansion woodlands

UntreatedShreddedShredded-seeded

Tree cover (%)

Ch

ea

tgra

ss

co

ve

r (%

)

Bybee et al submitted

Tree reduction increases soil water, N and P resources

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 850

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

Spring wet daysPhase III

ControlBurnCutShred

Years since treatment

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8300

500

700

900

1100

1300

Spring wet degree daysPhase III

ControlBurnCutShred

Years since treatment

Roundy et al. 2014 REM 4th year results

Shredding increased:

• Time of soil water availability and temperatures

• Inorganic N

• Seedling biomass

Mound Interspace Mound Interspace Mound Interspace Mound Interspace0

50100150200250300350400450

Untreated Masticated

Spring-Summer Summer-Fall Winter All Seasons

Ino

rgan

ic N

(m

g m

-2 4

mo

-1) *

**

**

*

* *

Young et al. 2013FEM

Young et al. 2013REM

Roundy et al. 2014 REM

Young et al. 2014AESS

Treatment Effects on Available NitrogenTreeless Sagebrush Steppe

Rau et al. 2011. Transition from sagebrush steppe to annual influence on belowground carbon and nitrogen. Rangeland Ecology and Management 64:139-147

Percent of Potential Tree Cover

Percent of Potential Tree Cover

Carbon Management:Sequestration?

Tradeoff w/Vegetation?Rau, B.M. et al. 2012. Journal of Arid Environments 76:97-104.

Pierson, F.B. et al. 2010. Rangeland Ecology and Management 63:614-629. Pierson, F.B., et al. 2013.  Rangeland Ecology and Management 66:274-289.

Williams, C.J., et al. 2013. Ecohydrology, doi: 10.1002/eco.1364

Hydrology

Hydrology• Erosion was site-

specific• Shredded mulch

reduced erosion• Interspace grass

recovery is key

Pierson et al. 2014 REM

Object-based image analysis accurately estimates:

• Canopy fuels using NAIP imagery Hulet et al. 2014 REM

• Treated fuels using high resolution 0.06-m pixel color IR Hulet et al 2014 EM

Woodland Ecotone SagebrushBird Community

OnaquiMechanical tree reduction supported sagebrush

birds

Knick et al 2014REM

McIver and Macke 2014REM

Butterfly response

• Diversity increased with treatment

• Melissa blue increase associated with increased nectar for larvae

• Juniper hairstreak declined

Public Acceptance and Trust

Shindler et al. 2011. Rangeland Ecology and Management 64:335–343.Gordon et al. 2014. Public priorities for rangeland management: A

longitudinal panel study of residents in the Great Basin. Rangeland Ecology and Management, in review.

Onaqui CUT

Pre-Cut -- 2006 Post-Cut -- 2007

Post-Cut -- 2009

Immediately Post-fire

Longer-term Effects? – Stay Tuned

Re-measurement scheduled for 2015.

6 Yr Post-fire

Tradeoffs

• Imazapic reduces cheatgrass and p. grass• Fire reduces fuels but increases cheatgrass and

erosion• Mechanical treatments maintain shrubs,

increase perennial herbaceous, decrease erosion (shredding), but keep fuels, future tree reduction needed

• Near complete tree reduction supports sagebrush birds near open sagebrush

• Perennial grasses are key to resilience• What will site analyses tell us?

SageSTEP Outreach Coordinator:Lael Gilbert, Utah State University

sagestep.org