Countering Misinformation Concerning Big Sagebrush
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
United States Department of Agriculture Countering Misinformation Forest Service Concerning Big Sagebrush Rocky Mountain Research Station Research Paper Bruce L. Welch RMRS-RP-40 Craig Criddle July 2003 Abstract ________________________________________ Welch, Bruce L; Criddle, Craig. 2003. Countering Misinformation Concerning Big Sagebrush. Research Paper RMRS-RP-40. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 28 p. This paper examines the scientific merits of eight axioms of range or vegetative management pertaining to big sagebrush. These axioms are: (1) Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis) does not naturally exceed 10 percent canopy cover and mountain big sagebrush (A. t. ssp. vaseyana) does not naturally exceed 20 percent canopy cover; (2) As big sagebrush canopy cover increases over 12 to15 percent, bare ground increases and perennial grass cover decreases; (3) Removing, controlling, or killing big sagebrush will results in a two or three or more fold increase in perennial grass production; (4) Nothing eats it; (5) Biodiversity increases with removing, controlling, thinning, or killing of big sagebrush; (6) Mountain big sagebrush evolved in an environment with a mean fire interval of 20 to 30 years; (7) Big sagebrush is an agent of allelopathy; and (8) Big sagebrush is a highly competitive, dominating, suppressive plant species. Keywords: range management, sagebrush control, wildlife, biodiversity, allelopathy, fire, cover The Authors Bruce L. Welch is a Plant Physiologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station in Provo, UT. He earned a B.S. degree from Utah State University in 1965 and an M.S. degree in 1969 and Ph.D. degree in 1974 from the University of Idaho. He has been a Forest Service scientist since 1977. Craig Criddle is a member of the National Wildlife Federation, Downey, ID. Acknowledgments We thank the following for providing reviews of this manuscript: Mr. Stanley G. Kitchen; Drs. John W. Connelly, John K. Francis, E. Durant McArthur, David L. Nelson, Michael F. Whiting, Joel G. Peterson, Carl L. Wambolt, and Darrell J. Weber. Cover photographs by Dr. Bruce L. Welch Contents______________________ Page Introduction ......................................................................... 1 Axiom Number 1 ................................................................. 1 Axiom Number 2 ................................................................. 4 Axiom Number 3 ................................................................. 8 Axiom Number 4 ............................................................... 11 Axiom Number 5 ............................................................... 15 Axiom Number 6 ............................................................... 16 Axiom Number 7 ............................................................... 19 Axiom Number 8 ............................................................... 21 References ........................................................................ 22 You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your mailing information in label form through one of the following media. Please specify the publication title and number. Telephone (970) 498-1392 FAX (970) 498-1396 E-mail [email protected] Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm Mailing Address Publications Distribution Rocky Mountain Research Station 240 West Prospect Road Fort Collins, CO 80526 Countering Misinformation Concerning Big Sagebrush Bruce L. Welch Craig Criddle Introduction ____________________ values found in undisturbed relicts and kipukas; and third, what is the quality of the science that is used to The range management community has been con- support this axiom? ducting a war against big sagebrush (Artemisia There are numerous studies (see Peterson 1995 for tridentata) for 50 years or more (Cornelius and Gra- a review) that show animals of big sagebrush prefer ham 1951; Hamner and Tukey 1944; Hull and Vaughn living in big sagebrush canopy cover far above the 1951; Pechanec and Stewart 1944a; Woolfolk 1949). levels set by Miller and others (1994), Baxter (1996), During this period much rationalization has occurred and Winward (1991). In fact, Rasmussen and Griner to justify removing, thinning, controlling, or killing of (1938) noted that the highest sage grouse (Centrocercus big sagebrush. We call these rationalizations “range or urophasianus) nesting success in Strawberry Valley of vegetative management axioms.” In this paper, we central Utah occurred in mountain big sagebrush state the axiom, give one example of its use in the stands having 50 percent canopy cover. They esti- literature, and analyze whether it is based on science mated that some 270 acres of big sagebrush habitat or a reflection of Box’s (2000, p. 29) question to the was in the 50 percent canopy cover class. We have, in range management community: “Do our gods get in the same valley, measured big sagebrush canopy cover the way of our science?” In short, most, if not all, the at the same magnitude for three stands of 2 acres or sins attributed to big sagebrush by the range manage- less supporting broodless sage grouse hens, nesting ment community are the result of livestock grazing. habitat, and a male sage grouse loafing area. Ellis and others (1989) reported male sage grouse loafing in Axiom Number 1 ________________ areas with 31 percent (probably Wyoming) big sage- brush canopy cover. In addition, Katzner and Parker Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. (1997) reported that areas of high pygmy rabbits wyomingensis) does not naturally exceed 10 percent (Brachylagus idahoenesis) activity occurred in basin cover and mountain big sagebrush (A. t. ssp. vaseyana) big sagebrush stands having 51.1 percent canopy does not naturally exceed 20 percent cover. cover, and areas of medium activity occurred in Wyo- This axiom is best verbalized by Miller and others ming big sagebrush stands of 42.7 percent canopy (1994, p. 115): “In the early to mid 1800s, much of the cover. sagebrush steppe was probably composed of open Still, other sagebrush obligates such as sage thrasher stands of shrubs with a strong component of long- (Oreoscoptes montanus), Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella lived perennial grasses and forbs in the understory … breweri), and sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli) prefer Shrub canopy cover probably ranged between 5-10% big sagebrush canopy cover of 20 to 36 percent, which in the drier Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia is much higher than the maximum allowable amount tridentata ssp. wyomingensis) communities ..., to 10- by the so called “law or axiom” (Best 1972; Feist 1968; 20% on the more mesic sites, occupied by mountain Grinnell and others 1930; Knick and Rotenberry 1995; big sagebrush.” Speaking of the present, they noted Petersen and Best 1986, 1991; Reynolds and Trost (p. 119): “Wyoming big sagebrush cover has increased 1980, 1981; Winter and Best 1985). For sagebrush from less than 10% to 20%, and mountain big sage- species other than big sagebrush, Walcheck (1970) brush cover from less than 20% to 30% and 40%.” All reported that a population of Brewer’s sparrows were due to overgrazing. living in an area of silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana) We believe this axiom is challengeable on three having a canopy cover of 53 percent. Petersen and Best fronts: first, what do the animals that coevolved with (1985) studying nest site selection of sage sparrows, big sagebrush suggest to us concerning canopy cover; found that these birds nested where (probably Wyo- second, what are the big sagebrush canopy cover ming) big sagebrush cover was 23 percent in the vicinity of nests and 26 percent in the general study USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-40. 2003 1 area. Further, they noted that all nests were situated Big sagebrush canopy cover values on undisturbed in big sagebrush plants and that large, living shrubs relicts and kipukas does not support the axiom that were strongly preferred. Rotenberry (1980) found big sagebrush canopy cover increase due to overgraz- greater numbers of sage sparrow and western meadow ing. Daubenmire (1970) reported that big sagebrush lark (Sturnella neglecta) on sites where (probably canopy cover varied on his “virgin or near virgin Wyoming) big sagebrush canopy covers ranged from vegetation” study sites from 5 to 38 percent – the 25 to 30 percent than for sites with big sagebrush technique used by Daubenmire (1970) tended to un- canopy cover of 0 to 1 percent and 5 to 10 percent. Also, derestimate shrub cover by 3 to 5 percentage points Best (1972) and Feist (1968) found greater number of (Floyd and Anderson 1987). Brewer’s sparrows and sage thrashers in stands of We have measured, using the line intercept method (probably Wyoming) big sagebrush with canopy cover (300 ft), the cover of big sagebrush in four ungrazed at 36 percent than at 21 percent. kipukas and found that canopy cover ranged from 14 Thus, it appears to us that the axiom concerning to 34 percent (table 1). Basin big sagebrush (Artemisia sagebrush canopy cover as stated by Miller and other tridentata ssp. tridentata) was the dominant big sage- (1994) is based more on myth than ecological fact. brush in two of the kipukas, one located about 20 miles Table 1—Relation of big sagebrush cover to percent cover of perennial grass and bare ground based on Welch’s Y2K and Y2K+1 big sagebrush odyssey through Idaho, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Data on file at the Shrub Sciences