DOCSLIB.ORG

Rangeland Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rangeland Management RANGELANDS 17(4), August 1995 127 Changing SocialValues and Images of Public Rangeland Management J.J. Kennedy, B.L. Fox, and T.D. Osen Many political, economiç-and'ocial changes of the last things (biocentric values). These human values are 30 years have affected Ar'ierican views of good public expressed in various ways—such as laws, rangeland use, rangeland and how it should be managed. Underlying all socio-political action, popularity of TV nature programs, this socio-political change s the shift in public land values governmental budgets, coyote jewelry, or environmental of an American industrial na4i hat emerged from WWII to messages on T-shirts. become an urban, postindutr society in the 1970s. Much of the American public hold environmentally-orientedpublic land values today, versus the commodity and community The Origin of Rangeland Social Values economic development orientation of the earlier conserva- We that there are no and tion era (1900—1969). The American public is also mentally propose fixed, unchanging intrinsic or nature values. All nature and visually tied to a wider world through expanded com- rangeland values are human creations—eventhe biocentric belief that nature has munication technology. value independent of our human endorsement or use. Consider golden eagles or vultures as an example. To Managing Rangelands as Evolving Social Value begin with, recognizing a golden eagle or vulture high in flight is learned behavior. It is a socially taught skill (and not Figure 1 presents a simple rangeland value model of four easily mastered)of distinguishingthe cant of wings in soar- interrelated systems: (1) the environmental/natural ing position and pattern of tail or wing feathers. After learn- resource system of biosphere elements, including humans, ing to recognize one bird from the other, there is a norma- rangelands, wildlife or watersheds; (2) the social system of tive or evaluative reaction to these birds—whether it be human attitudes, values, behavior, institutions,and technol- positive, negative, or neutral. No humans are born knowing ogy; (3) the economic system that focuses on institutions how to 1) recognize or 2) react to these animals in the air. and behavior related to the allocation of land, labor, and Both are socially learned behavior, and human reaction to a capital; and (4) the political system of policy, laws, courts, golden eagle often differs if one were raised and socialized and public agencies. on a Wyoming sheep ranch or in a California suburb. In the Rangeland social values originate in only one of these last half of this century, most Americans have had their systems—the social system. Rangeland values, are environmental perceptions and values shaped in the latter expressed to natural resource managers (and the rest of social environment. society) by three systems: the economic, social, and politi- Of course rangeland values are not formed in isolation cal. We propose the belief, disturbing to some people, that within the social system, but as that system interacts with the environmentalsystem itself neither originates nor the environmental and other systems (Figure 1). Rangeland expresses rangeland social value. Only human interaction values also evolve, as do most social values. Rural agricul- with rangelands originates social values, whetherthis is based on consumptive use (utilitarian values) or is derived simply through appreciation of natural systems and living Authorsare respectively with the Forest Resources Department, Utah State University, LoganUtah 84322-5215; Range, Air, Watershed and Ecology staff, USDA-Forest Service RegionalOffice, Missoula, Montana 59807; and Range Staff, Lewis andClark NF, GreatFalls, Montana 59403. Acknowledgments: The managingnatural resources as social value and other theories presented here have been developed with longterm research sup- port of the Department of Forest Resources,Utah State University, Logan, 84322-5215; the USDA-Forest Service (Chief's Olfice), Washington, DC, 20250; the Blue Mountains Natural Resourcenstitute, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850; plus the Vice President for Research and the Utah Agriculture ExperimentStation (Project 712),Utah State University, Logan, UT (Paper 4544). This article was developed in a BLM and USFS-sponsoredshortcourse: Socio-Economic Aspects of Raneland Management (BLM Phoenix Training Center, Feb. 1993) with the involvement of 29 mid-career professionals, includ- ing two of the authors ofthis paper. The first version of this article wasthen pre- senled at the Society for Range Management annual meeting, Colorado Fig. 1. Interacting systems in which natural resource values originate Springs, CO(14-16 February 1994). andare communicated to society. 1 128 RANGELANDS 17(4), August 1995 tural societies, for example, tend to have different interac- in crop production, where biological diversity was often the tions with rangelands than do urban societies, often result- enemy. Some wildlife was good (game), while other wildlife ing in different perceptions, values, and uses. Many mod- was positioned at the negative end of a value continuum ern controversies over rangeland or wildlife issues are con- (e.g., varmints or predators). Then and now, ruraVagricul- flictsof agricultural (utilitarian) and urban (biocentric)values tural value systems generally emphasize the practical, utili- about human relationshipswith and the use of nature (e.g., tarian value of nature. This is reinforced in logging, ranch- 1080 poisoning of predators, managing wild horses, ripari- ing or mining employment,and in common rural recreation- an management).None of these rangeland or nature value al pursuits like hunting, fishing, trapping or rodeos orientations fall from heaven, nor do they have different ori- (Kennedy 1973, Williamson 1992). gins. They are part of a continuum of nature values that America became an industrial society in the last part of originates in the minds of individuals and groups (social the nineteenth century, with increasing socio-politicalcon- system) as their changing perceptions and human needs cern for predictable long-term flows of natural resource interact with the environmental,political, and economic sys- commodities for our factories and cities. The conservation tems. movement (1900—1969), with its promise of sustained-yield Children in the agricultural stage of American socio-eco- timber or forage flows and harvestable game surpluses, nomic development (1600 to post-civil war) mostly formed well accommodatedthis socio-political need. Natural their values in a blood and blister intimacy with nature. As resource agencies, plus forest and game managementpro- Table 1 illustrates, American agricultural youth (especially fessions, were created (Hays 1959). Recreational,aesthet- males) were usually raised with a gun, trap or axe in ic and biocentric values were an important component of hand—and in communities where utilitarian values domi- some early conservation visionaries, centered largely in nated. They learned that plants and animals had value pri- urban areas and championed by people such as John Muir. marily in how well they satisfied immediate human survival Yet these values did not become a dominantforce in natur- and economic needs. The highest valued land was usually al resource management until the 1960s, with the emer- Table 1. Twooften-conflictIng sets ofnatural resource of envIronmentuses and values. Issues Rural, agricultural cultures Urban industrial or (especially) post-industrial cultures 1. Settingswhere nature *cuftingfirewood Watching television or valuesare learned Farming and ranching Walt Disney films *Protecting crops and Reading books animals fromweeds, Recreation experiences insects of predators (e.g., camping) 2. Popular outdoor *Hunting Hiking and nature study recreational activities *Fishing Camping, auto-touring and learning *Trapping Bird-watching environments Rodeo activities *Biology or science courses 3. Dominant values and Practical, utilitarian Romantic, biocentric, attitudes towardthe valuesdominate intrinsicvalues dominate naturalenvironment Economic worth of Nature does not haveto thingsparamount be used or sold to have Focus on material and value instrumental values *These valuesare often Thesevalues oftenseem viewedas impractical and selfish, exploitative and unrealistic in a crass in a biocentric utilitarian value context value context 4. Dependence on nature •Agriculture, ranching or Professional, clerical, for a livelihood logging occupations manufacturing and other *Fur pelts, game meatand types ofjobs that often crop/domestic animal do not use natural production requires resources in raw, wildlife harvestand unprocessed condition control Jobsare distant and *Self identity (especially indirectly dependent on formales) tied tonature using nature or natural dominating and resources exploiting occupation or recreation (e.g., Did you get your buck?) RANGELANDS 17(4), August 1995 129 gence of an urban, postindustrial society and the advent of 1993). But such expression of social value is the subject of the environmentalmovement. the next section. The range management profession (the SRM began in 1948) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) were establishing themselves in the 1950s and 1960s. Yet their The Expression of Rangeland Social Value value systems and cherished symbols (e.g., SRM Trail Public have been conditioned to Boss) were firmly rooted in traditional conservation and rangeland managers rural values of a era. An BLM respond to values
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity Advisory Panel
    l-'" of nc/:\!IOIOO _.. _­ ... u"' "'"'" ... _ -'-- Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland w, in'... ' .....7 and Rangeland Productivity August 1982 NTIS order #PB83-125013 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 82-600596 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 Foreword This Nation’s impressive agricultural success is the product of many factors: abundant resources of land and water, a favorable climate, and a history of resource- ful farmers and technological innovation, We meet not only our own needs but supply a substantial portion of the agricultural products used elsewhere in the world. As demand increases, so must agricultural productivity, Part of the necessary growth may come from farming additional acreage. But most of the increase will depend on intensifying production with improved agricultural technologies. The question is, however, whether farmland and rangeland resources can sustain such inten- sive use. Land is a renewable resource, though one that is highly susceptible to degrada- tion by erosion, salinization, compaction, ground water depletion, and other proc- esses. When such processes are not adequately managed, land productivity can be mined like a nonrenewable resource. But this need not occur. For most agricul- tural land, various conservation options are available, Traditionally, however, farm- ers and ranchers have viewed many of the conservation technologies as uneconom- ical. Must conservation and production always be opposed, or can technology be used to help meet both goals? This report describes the major processes degrading land productivity, assesses whether productivity is sustainable using current agricultural technologies, reviews a range of new technologies with potentials to maintain productivity and profitability simultaneously, and presents a series of options for congressional consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • A Career in Rangeland Management
    Who Hires Rangeland Professionals? Federal Agencies: U.S. Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Bureau of Land Management, A Career in Agricultural Research Service, National Park Service, Environmental Protection Agency, etc. State Governments: State land agencies, fish and wildlife Rangeland departments, natural resource departments, state cooperative extension, etc. Private Industry: Ranch managers, commercial consulting firms, other commercial companies including mining, agri- Management cultural, real estate, etc. Colleges and Universities: Teaching, research and extension. All photos courtesy of USDA NRCS For More Information The Society for Range Management (SRM) is a professional and scientific organization whose members are concerned with studying, conserving, managing and sustaining the varied resources of rangelands. We invite you to contact us at: Society for Range Management 445 Union Blvd, Suite 230 Lakewood, CO 80228 303-986-3309 www.rangelands.org • [email protected] A Wide Range of Opportunities Society for Range Management 445 Union Blvd., Suite 230 Lakewood, CO 80228 303-986-3309 www.rangelands.org 1000-903-2500 Overview of Rangeland Management Rangeland Management Education Rangeland management is a unique discipline that blends Many colleges and universities offer range science and science and management for the purpose of sustaining this management courses as part of various agriculture or natural valuable land. The primary goal of range management is to resource science degree programs. Schools that offer actual protect and enhance a sustainable ecosystem that provides degrees in range ecology, science or management are shown forage for wildlife and livestock, clean water and recreation in bold type. on public land. In order to achieve these results, professionals Angelo State University may use a variety of techniques such as controlled burning Arizona State University and grazing regimes.
    [Show full text]
  • Rangeland Resources Management Muhammad Ismail, Rohullah Yaqini, Yan Zhaoli, Andrew Billingsley
    Managing Natural Resources Rangeland Resources Management Muhammad Ismail, Rohullah Yaqini, Yan Zhaoli, Andrew Billingsley Rangelands are areas which, by reason of physical limitations, low and erratic precipitation, rough topography, poor drainage, or extreme temperature, are less suitable for cultivation but are sources of food for free ranging wild and domestic animals, and of water, wood, and mineral products. Rangelands are generally managed as natural ecosystems that make them distinct from pastures for commercial livestock husbandry with irrigation and fertilisation facilities. Rangeland management is the science and art of optimising returns or benefits from rangelands through the manipulation of rangeland ecosystems. There has been increasing recognition worldwide of rangeland functions and various ecosystem services they provide in recent decades. However, livestock farming is still one of the most important uses of rangelands and will remain so in the foreseeable future. Rangeland Resources and Use Patterns in Afghanistan Afghanistan’s rangelands are specified as land where the predominant vegetation consists of grasses, herbs, shrubs, and may include areas with low-growing trees such as juniper, pistachio, and oak. The term ‘rangeland resources’ refers to biological resources within a specific rangeland and associated ecosystems, including vegetation, wildlife, open forests (canopy coverage less than 30%), non- biological products such as soil and minerals. Today, rangelands comprise between 60-75% of Afghanistan’s total territory, depending on the source of information. Rangelands are crucial in supplying Afghanistan with livestock products, fuel, building materials, medicinal plants, and providing habitat for wildlife. The water resources captured and regulated in Afghan rangelands are the lifeblood of the country and nourishes nearly 4 million ha of irrigated lands.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change and Rangelands: Responding Rationally to Uncertainty by Joel R
    Climate Change and Rangelands: Responding Rationally to Uncertainty By Joel R. Brown and Jim Thorpe ccording to most estimates, rangeland ecosys- have a dominant infl uence on productivity, stability, and tems occupy about 50% of the earth’s terrestrial profi tability. surface. By itself, this estimate implies range- The interaction between scientists and managers is lands are important to humans, but their impor- critical to understanding and managing the relationships Atance extends far beyond their global dominance. Globally, critical to healthy rangeland ecosystems. While scientists rangelands provide about 70% of the forage for domestic uncover new relationships governing ecosystem behavior, livestock. For many societies, livestock are critical to sur- managers are ultimately responsible for implementing prac- vival. Rangelands also provide a host of ecosystem services tices to ensure continued heath of the systems they manage. technology or other land types cannot provide. Among the One of the most important scientifi c contributions of the most important of these services is climate regulation, or past decade is an enhanced understanding of earth’s climate the ability to sequester and store greenhouse gases such as system and human impacts on climate. Through a collab- carbon dioxide. orative effort, scientists have communicated the links The ability of any rangeland to provide any ecosystem between humans and climate. Policy makers and the public service is dependent, primarily, upon the rangeland’s condi- are generally aware that humans have an infl uence on tion. Degraded rangelands are poor providers of ecosystem climate—an infl uence that is likely to increase in the services, regardless of the commodity.
    [Show full text]
  • Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines
    Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management for Montana and the Dakotas Note: These standards and guidelines apply to the Butte, Dillon, and Missoula Field Offices Preamble The Butte Resource Advisory Council (BRAC) has developed standards for rangeland health and guidelines for livestock grazing management for use on the Butte District of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The purpose of the S&Gs are to facilitate the achievement and maintenance of healthy, properly functioning ecosystems within the historic and natural range of variability for long-term sustainable use. BRAC determined that the following considerations were very important in the adoption of these S&Gs: 1. For implementation, the BLM should emphasize a watershed approach that incorporates both upland and riparian standards and guidelines. 2. The standards are applicable to rangeland health, regardless of use. 3. The social and cultural heritage of the region and the viability of the local economy, are part of the ecosystem. 4. Wildlife is integral to the proper function of rangeland ecosystems. Standards Standards are statements of physical and biological condition or degree of function required for healthy sustainable rangelands. Achieving or making significant progress towards these functions and conditions is required of all uses of public rangelands as stated in 43 CFR 4180.1. Baseline, monitoring and trend data, when available, should be utilized to assess compliance with standards. Butte STANDARD #1: Uplands are in proper functioning condition. • As addressed by the preamble to these standards and as indicated by: Physical Environment - erosional flow patterns; - surface litter; - soil movement by water and wind; - soil crusting and surface sealing; - compaction layer; - rills; - gullies; - cover amount; and - cover distribution.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Management and Reports
    2270 Page 1 of 7 FOREST SERVICE MANUAL NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS (WO) WASHINGTON, DC FSM 2200 - RANGELAND MANAGEMENT CHAPTER 2270 - INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND REPORTS Amendment No.: 2200-2020-9 Effective Date: Duration: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. Approved: Date Approved: Associate Deputy Chief Posting Instructions: Amendments are numbered consecutively by title and calendar year. Post by document; remove the entire document and replace it with this amendment. Retain this transmittal as the first page(s) of this document. The last amendment to this title was 2200-2019-6 to 2260. New Document 2270 7 Pages Superseded Document(s) 2270 5 Pages by Issuance Number and (Amendment 2200-2005-06, 07/19/2005) Effective Date 2270 4 Pages (Amendment 2200-2003-1, 01/24/2003) Digest: 2270.4 - Establishes code, caption, and sets forth responsibilities for Director of Forest Management, Rangeland Management, and Vegetation Ecology; /grassland/prairie supervisors. 2271 - Changes caption from “Forest Service Range Information System” to “Reporting Requirements”. Removes obsolete references to Forest Service Range Management Information System (FSRAMIS), as this system is no longer in use, and replaces it with Rangeland Information Management System (RIMS). 2271.04a - 04c - Adds reporting requirement responsibilities for Regional Foresters, Forest/Grassland/Prairie Supervisors, and District Rangers. WO AMENDMENT 2200-2020-9 2270 EFFECTIVE DATE: Page 2 of 7 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSM 2200 - RANGELAND MANAGEMENT CHAPTER 2270 - INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND REPORTS Digest--Continued: 2271.1 - Changes caption from “Forest Service Rangeland Management Information System Applications” to “Forest Service Rangeland Management Automated Systems” and sets forth direction, and expands discussion of system application responsibilities for all four organizational levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Rangeland Rehydration Manual
    Rangeland Rehydration Manual 2 Manualby Ken Tinley & Hugh Pringle Rangeland Rehydration 1 Field Guide 1 a. b. c. Frontispiece: Geomorphic succession - breakaway land surface replacement sequences (similar at all scales). (a) Laterite breakaway of ‘old plateau’ sandplain surface (Kalli LS) supporting wattle woodlands of wanyu and mulga. (b) Small breakaway of erosion headcut in the duplex soil of a footslope. (c) Micro breakaway of topsoil the same height as the camera lens-cap. In each example the upper oldest land surface is eroding back and contracting. Newest land surface is the lower pediment in (a), and the exposed subsoils in (b) and (c). 2 3 Rangeland Rehydration 2: Manual by Ken Tinley & Hugh Pringle 3 Rangeland Rehydration: Manual First Printed: December 2013 Second Printing (with corrections): March 2014 Initially prepared by Red House Creations www.redhousecreations.com.au and Durack Institute of Technology www.durack.edu.au Final document by Printline Graphics Fremantle WA Project Development Co-ordinator Bill Currans Rangelands NRM www.rangelandswa.com.au Digital or hardcopies of these two handbooks can be ordered from Printline in Fremantle, Western Australia 6160. Phone: (08) 9335 3954 | email: [email protected] | web: www.printline.com.au Ken Tinley - [email protected] Hugh Pringle - [email protected] Disclaimer: The findings and field evidence from across the rangelands, statements, views, and suggestions in this Field Guide are those of the authors, or others referred to, and may not accord with any officially held views or political positions. Photos and illustrations, except where otherwise acknowledged, are by Ken Tinley. Cover photo by Janine Tinley.
    [Show full text]
  • Emerging Issues in Rangeland Ecohydrology: Vegetation Change and the Water Cycle
    Emerging Issues in Rangeland Ecohydrology: Vegetation Change and the Water Cycle Item Type text; Article Authors Wilcox, Bradford P.; Thurow, Thomas L. Citation Wilcox, B. P., & Thurow, T. L. (2006). Emerging issues in rangeland ecohydrology: vegetation change and the water cycle. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 59(2), 220-224. DOI 10.2111/05-090R1.1 Publisher Society for Range Management Journal Rangeland Ecology & Management Rights Copyright © Society for Range Management. Download date 01/10/2021 09:03:40 Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ Version Final published version Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/643426 Rangeland Ecol Manage 59:220–224 | March 2006 Forum: Viewpoint Emerging Issues in Rangeland Ecohydrology: Vegetation Change and the Water Cycle Bradford P. Wilcox1 and Thomas L. Thurow2 Authors are 1Professor, Rangeland Ecology and Management Department, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2126; and 2Professor, Renewable Resources Department, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071-3354. Abstract Rangelands have undergone—and continue to undergo—rapid change in response to changing land use and climate. A research priority in the emerging science of ecohydrology is an improved understanding of the implications of vegetation change for the water cycle. This paper describes some of the interactions between vegetation and water on rangelands and poses 3 questions that represent high-priority, emerging issues: 1) How do changes in woody plants affect water yield? 2) What are the ecohydrological consequences of invasion by exotic plants? 3) What ecohydrological feedbacks play a role in rangeland degradation processes? To effectively address these questions, we must expand our knowledge of hydrological connectivity and how it changes with scale, accurately identify ‘‘hydrologically sensitive’’ areas on the landscape, carry out detailed studies to learn where plants are accessing water, and investigate feedback loops between vegetation and the water cycle.
    [Show full text]
  • Rangeland Ecosystem Goods and Services: Values and Evaluation of Opportunities for Ranchers and Land Managers by Kristie Maczko, John A
    Society for Range Management Rangeland Ecosystem Goods and Services: Values and Evaluation of Opportunities for Ranchers and Land Managers By Kristie Maczko, John A. Tanaka, Robert Breckenridge, Lori Hidinger, H. Theodore Heintz, William E. Fox, Urs P. Kreuter, Clifford S. Duke, John E. Mitchell, and Daniel W. McCollum lthough the US Department of Agriculture’s privately owned.3 Public and private land ranchers and the 2005 public commitment to use market-based rangeland resources they manage provide commodity, amenity, incentives for environmental stewardship and and spiritual values4 that are vital to the well-being of ranch- cooperative conservation focused land managers’ ing operations, the communities in which they operate, and Aattention on the concept of ecosystem goods and services the nation as a whole. As society attempts to satisfy multiple (EGS), this was not a new idea. Much earlier in the 20th demands with limited resources, availability of quantifi ed century, Aldo Leopold embraced the value of open space, data about stocks and supplies of rangeland ecosystem calling for preservation of New Mexico’s Gila Wilderness services to serve as a basis for rancher decision-making also Area and later urging Americans to espouse a “land ethic” becomes more important. that recognized the unique contributions of wildlands and Expanding ranch operations to manage for multiple agricultural landscapes to the American ethos. Theodore goods and services beyond traditional cattle production can Roosevelt preserved millions of acres of the
    [Show full text]
  • Rangeland Soil Quality—Introduction
    Rangeland Sheet 1 Soil Quality Information Sheet Rangeland Soil Quality—Introduction USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service May 2001 What is rangeland? reflected in soil properties that change in response to management or climate. Rangeland is land on which the native vegetation is predominantly grasses, grasslike plants, forbs, or shrubs. This What does soil quality affect on land includes natural grasslands, savannas, shrub lands, most deserts, tundras, areas of alpine communities, coastal marshes, rangeland? and wet meadows. • Plant production, reproduction, and mortality • Erosion • Water yields and water quality • Wildlife habitat • Carbon sequestration • Vegetation changes • Establishment and growth of invasive plants • Rangeland health How are soil quality and rangeland health related? Rangeland health and soil quality are interdependent. Rangeland health is characterized by the functioning of both the soil and the plant communities. The capacity of the soil to function affects ecological processes, including the capture, What is rangeland health? storage, and redistribution of water; the growth of plants; and the cycling of plant nutrients. For example, increased physical Rangeland health is the degree to which the integrity of the crusting decreases the infiltration capacity of the soil and thus soil, the vegetation, the water, and the air as well as the the amount of water available to plants. As the availability of ecological processes of the rangeland ecosystem are balanced water decreases, plant production declines, some plant species and sustained. may disappear, and the less desirable species may increase in abundance. Changes in vegetation may precede or follow What is soil? changes in soil properties and processes. Significant shifts in vegetation generally are associated with changes in soil Soil is a dynamic resource that supports plants.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography
    Bibliography Abella, S. R. 2010. Disturbance and plant succession in the Mojave and Sonoran Deserts of the American Southwest. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 7:1248—1284. Abella, S. R., D. J. Craig, L. P. Chiquoine, K. A. Prengaman, S. M. Schmid, and T. M. Embrey. 2011. Relationships of native desert plants with red brome (Bromus rubens): Toward identifying invasion-reducing species. Invasive Plant Science and Management 4:115—124. Abella, S. R., N. A. Fisichelli, S. M. Schmid, T. M. Embrey, D. L. Hughson, and J. Cipra. 2015. Status and management of non-native plant invasion in three of the largest national parks in the United States. Nature Conservation 10:71—94. Available: https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.10.4407 Abella, S. R., A. A. Suazo, C. M. Norman, and A. C. Newton. 2013. Treatment alternatives and timing affect seeds of African mustard (Brassica tournefortii), an invasive forb in American Southwest arid lands. Invasive Plant Science and Management 6:559—567. Available: https://doi.org/10.1614/IPSM-D-13-00022.1 Abrahamson, I. 2014. Arctostaphylos manzanita. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Fire Effects Information System (Online). plants/shrub/arcman/all.html Ackerman, T. L. 1979. Germination and survival of perennial plant species in the Mojave Desert. The Southwestern Naturalist 24:399—408. Adams, A. W. 1975. A brief history of juniper and shrub populations in southern Oregon. Report No. 6. Oregon State Wildlife Commission, Corvallis, OR. Adams, L. 1962. Planting depths for seeds of three species of Ceanothus.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Stewardship on Rangelands: a Manager's Handbook
    Water Stewardship on Rangelands© A Manager’s Handbook Acknowledgements Acknowledgements This handbook was funded with the generous financial support of the Dixon Water Foundation. We are grateful to the Department of Environment and Society at Utah State University for additional financial support and to the students (listed below) in the department’s 2007 capstone course, Collaborative Problem-Solving for Environment and Natural Resources, for their significant and invaluable contributions in developing the approach and early drafts. This project could not have been completed without the support and participation of those who live and work in Spring Valley. In particular we are grateful to Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Eldrige, Mr. and Mrs. Hank Vogler, Troy Eldrige, Rick and Maggie Orr (NRCS), Curt Leet (NRCS), and Julie Thompson (ENLC) for spending time helping us get to know Spring Valley and the Tippett Pass allotment. We thank the Southern Nevada Water Authority, specifically Joe Guild, Zane Marshall, and Scott Leedham, for the time they spent discussing the project, sharing their knowledge, and providing us with valuable information. We sincerely appreciate the efforts of the members, employees, and friends of Carrus Land Systems who reviewed and contributed to this handbook, including Sheldon Atwood, Ben Baldwin, Roger Banner, Rick Danvir, Daniel K. Dygert, Diana Glenn, Bill Hopkin, Derek Johnson, Spring Valley, Nevada Mark Kossler, Charlie Orchard, Robert Peterson, Eric Sant, and Gregg Simonds. Photo: Nicole McCoy Lastly, this project would not have been possible without the initiative, enthusiastic participation, and valuable insights from Agee Smith and his family. Student Contributors Spencer Allred • Harold Bjork • Michael Bodrero • James Brower • Austin Catlin • Collin Covington • Mark Ewell • Jeremy Ivie • Gilbert Jackson • Matt Jemmett • Derek Johnson • Heather Phillips • John Reese • Laredo Rich • Steve Truelson • Doug Viehweg • Josh Winkler Nicole McCoy, Ph.D.
    [Show full text]