Environmental Management

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 441–450 | Cite as

Spatial Variability in Cost and Success of Revegetation in a Wyoming Big Sagebrush Community

  • Chad S. BoydEmail author
  • Kirk W. Davies


The ecological integrity of the Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt. ssp. wyomingensis Beetle and A. Young) alliance is being severely interrupted by post-fire invasion of non-native annual grasses. To curtail this invasion, successful post-fire revegetation of perennial grasses is required. Environmental factors impacting post-fire restoration success vary across space within the Wyoming big sagebrush alliance; however, most restorative management practices are applied uniformly. Our objectives were to define probability of revegetation success over space using relevant soil-related environmental factors, use this information to model cost of successful revegetation and compare the importance of vegetation competition and soil factors to revegetation success. We studied a burned Wyoming big sagebrush landscape in southeast Oregon that was reseeded with perennial grasses. We collected soil and vegetation data at plots spaced at 30 m intervals along a 1.5 km transect in the first two years post-burn. Plots were classified as successful (>5 seedlings/m2) or unsuccessful based on density of seeded species. Using logistic regression we found that abundance of competing vegetation correctly predicted revegetation success on 51 % of plots, and soil-related variables correctly predicted revegetation performance on 82.4 % of plots. Revegetation estimates varied from $167.06 to $43,033.94/ha across the 1.5 km transect based on probability of success, but were more homogenous at larger scales. Our experimental protocol provides managers with a technique to identify important environmental drivers of restoration success and this process will be of value for spatially allocating logistical and capital expenditures in a variable restoration environment.


Annual grass Artemisia tridentate Restoration Wildfire Perennial grass 



The authors wish to thank the Burns District of the Bureau of Land Management, particularly Jeff Rose, for their support of this project. The authors appreciate helpful reviews of an earlier draft by Jeremy James and Matt Madsen.


  1. Abella SR, Engel EC, Lund CL, Spencer JE (2009) Early post-fire plant establishment on a Mojave Desert burn. Madroño 56:137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyd CS, Davies KW (2010) Shrub microsite influences post-fire perennial grass establishment. Rangeland Ecology and Management 63:248–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyd CS, Svejcar TJ (2009) Managing complex problems in rangeland ecosystems. Rangeland Ecology and Management 62:491–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks ML, D’Antonio CM, Richardson DM, Grace JB, Keeley JE, DiTomaso JM, Hobbs RJ, Pellant M, Pyke D (2004) Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. Bioscience 54:677–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chambers JC, Roundy BA, Blank RR, Meyer SE, Whittaker A (2007) What makes Great Basin sagebrush ecosystems invasible by Bromus tectorum? Ecological Monographs 77:114–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. D’Antonio CM, Vitousek PM (1992) Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annual Reviews in Ecology and Systematics 23:63–87Google Scholar
  7. Davies KW (2008) Medusahead dispersal and establishment in sagebrush steppe plant communities. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61:110–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies KW, Svejcar TJ (2008) Comparison of medusahead-invaded and noninvaded Wyoming big sagebrush steppe in southeastern Oregon. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61:623–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davies KW, Bates JD, Miller RF (2007a) Environmental and vegetation relationships of the Artemisia tridentata spp. wyomingensis alliance. Journal of Arid Environments 70:478–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davies KW, Bates JD, Miller RF (2007b) Short-term effects of burning Wyoming big sagebrush steppe in southeast Oregon. Rangeland Ecology and Management 60:515–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drenovsky RE, Martin CE, Falasco MR, James JJ (2008) Variation in resource acquisition and utilization traits between native and invasive perennial forbs. American Journal of Botany 95:681–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eiswerth ME, Krauter K, Swanson SR, Zielinski M (2009) Post-fire seeding on Wyoming big sagebrush ecological sites: regression analyses of seeded nonnative and native species densities. Journal of Environmental Management 90:1320–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Epanchin-Niell R, Englin J, Nalle D (2009) Investing in rangeland restoration in the arid west, USA: countering the effects of an invasive weed on the long-term fire cycle. Journal of Environmental Management 91:370–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gee GW, Bauder JW (1986) Particle-size analysis. In: Klute A (ed) Methods of soil analysis, Part 1: physical and mineralogical methods. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 383–411Google Scholar
  15. Hardegree SP, Van Vactor SS (2004) Microclimatic constraints and revegetation planning in a variable environment. Weed Technology 18:1213–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hardegree SP, Flerchinger GN, Van Vactor SS (2003) Hydrothermal germination response and the development of probabilistic germination profiles. Ecological Modeling 167:305–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herrick JE (2005) Comments and letters to the editor. Soil Science Society of America Journal 69:925–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herrick JE, Jones TL (2002) A dynamic cone penetrometer for measuring soil penetration resistance. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66:1320–1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hironaka M, Sindelar BW (1975) Growth Characteristics of squirreltail seedlings in competition with medusahead. Journal of Range Management 28:283–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hull AC (1974) Species for seeding arid rangeland in southern Idaho. Journal of Range Management 27:216–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Humphrey LE, Schupp EW (2004) Competition as a barrier to establishment of a native perennial grass (Elymus elymoides) in alien annual grass (Bromus tectorum) communities. Journal of Arid Environments 58:405–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. James JJ, Drenovsky RE (2007) A basis for relative growth rate differences between native and invasive forb seedlings. Rangeland Ecology and Management 60:395–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. James JJ, Svejcar T (2010) Limitations to postfire seedling establishment: the role of seeding technology, water availability, and invasive plant abundance. Rangeland Ecology and Management 63:491–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Knapp PA (1996) Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) dominance in the Great Basin Desert. Global Environmental Change 6:37–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knutson KC, Pyke DA, Wirth TA, Pilliod DS, Brooks ML, Chambers JC (2009) A chronosequence feasibility assessment of emergency fire rehabilitation records within the Intermountain Western United States: Final Report to the Joint Fire Science Program—Project 08-S-08: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1099Google Scholar
  26. Krueger-Mangold JM, Sheley RL, Svejcar TJ (2006) Toward ecologically-based invasive plant management on rangeland. Weed Science 54:597–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lysne CR, Pellant M (2004) Establishment of aerially seeded big sagebrush following southern Idaho wildfires. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Technical Bulletin 2004-01, BoiseGoogle Scholar
  28. Mack R (1981) Invasion of Bromus tectorum L. into Western North America: an ecological chronicle. Agro-Ecosystems 7:145–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Melgoza G, Nowak RS, Tausch RJ (1990) Soil water exploitation after fire: competition between Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) and two native species. Oecologia 83:7–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miller RF, Eddleman LL (2000) Spatial and temporal changes of sage grouse habitat in the sagebrush biome. Technical Bulletin 151. Oregon State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller H, Clausnitzer CD, Borman MM (1999) Medusahead. In: Sheley RL, Petroff JK (eds) Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, pp 271–281Google Scholar
  32. Mosley JC, Bunting SC, Manoukian ME (1999) Cheatgrass. In: Sheley RL, Petroff JK (eds) Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Oregon State University Press, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  33. NRCS (2007) Soil survey.
  34. Oregon Climatic Service (2007).
  35. Pellant M, Abbey B, Karl S (2004) Restoring the Great Basin desert, U.S.A.: integrating science, management and people. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 99:169–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pyke DA, Knick ST (2005) Plant invaders, global change and landscape restoration. African Journal of Range and Forage Science 22:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ratzlaff TD, Anderson JE (1995) Vegetal recovery following wildfire in seeded and unseeded sagebrush steppe. Journal of Range Management 48:386–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Richards RT, Chambers JC, Ross C (1998) Use of native plants on federal lands: policy and practice. Journal of Range Management 51:625–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. SAS Institute Inc. (1999) SAS procedures guide, release 8.0. SAS Institute. CaryGoogle Scholar
  40. Sheley RL, Bingham BS, Svejcar TJ (2008) Crested wheatgrass defoliation intensity and season on medusahead invasion. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61:211–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stringham TK, Krueger WC, Shaver PL (2003) State and transition modeling: an ecological process approach. Journal of Range Management 56:106–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Technicon Instrument Corporation (1977) Individual/simultaneous determinations of nitrogen and (or) phosphorus in BD acid digests: industrial method No. 329–74W. TIC, TarrytownGoogle Scholar
  43. U.S. Department of the Interior (2004) Burned area emergency stabilization and rehabilitation.
  44. Vasquez E, Sheley R, Svejcar T (2008a) Creating invasion resistant soils via nitrogen management. Invasive Plant Science and Management 1:304–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vasquez E, Sheley R, Svejcar T (2008b) Nitrogen enhances the competitive ability of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) relative to native grasses. Invasive Plant Science and Management 1:287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Whisenant SG (1990) Changing fire frequencies in Idaho’s Snake River Plains: ecological and management implications. In: McArthur ED, Romney EM, Smith SD, Tueller PT (eds) Symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off, and other aspects of shrub biology and management. Las Vegas, NVGoogle Scholar
  47. Young K, Mangold J (2008) Medusahead outperforms squirreltail through interference and growth rate. Invasive Plant Science and Management 1:73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC (outside the USA) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.USDA-Agricultural Research ServiceEastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center (EOARC)BurnsUSA

Personalised recommendations