Greater sage-grouse habitat suitability 15-years post simulated fire event and sagebrush transplanting (2015-2030)
To assess the degree to which transplanting sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) could quickly restore former sage-grouse habitat and the strategies by which greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter, sage-grouse) habitat restoration is best accomplished, we linked vegetation transitions with...
Gespeichert in:
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Dataset |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | |
container_title | |
container_volume | |
creator | Julie A Heinrichs Michael O'Donnell Elizabeth K Orning David A Pyke Mark Ricca Peter S Coates Cameron Aldridge |
description | To assess the degree to which transplanting sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) could quickly restore former sage-grouse habitat and the strategies by which greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter, sage-grouse) habitat restoration is best accomplished, we linked vegetation transitions with habitat selection models to evaluate habitat recovery. Within our modeling extent (Tuscarora, Nevada), we simulated the fire-induced loss of habitat, planting of sagebrush seedlings, and the regrowth of sagebrush and other vegetation over 15 years. We used sagebrush growth equations and vegetation state transitions to return and grow vegetation within the burned and planted areas. Every year, we updated seasonal sage-grouse habitat selection maps by re-applying pre-fire habitat selection equations to re-calculate the proportion of suitable habitat gained by sagebrush restoration efforts. We evaluated alternative planting designs to identify the key factors influencing habitat selection outcomes. Specifically, we varied the number of plants, patch sizes, densities, location of planting sites (i.e., random versus within sage-grouse nesting habitat), as well as post-transplant (30, 70, or 100%) survival. We assumed all planting occurred in a single year. We ranked the influence of these different planting factors on sage-grouse habitat recovery across restoration scenario. The following data reflect habitat conditions 15-years after a simulated fire and sagebrush revegetation. Here we provide the habitat recovery results of two different planting designs. We provide several example datasets from this project, including the following: tsf0tsf15_change_nontarg_me_ss_ld_bre10m.tif: Dataset representing a single-year (maximum-effort; me) habitat restoration effort where we used several small (ss) patches with low density (ld) planting of sagebrush. The planting was not targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects the change in simulated habitat conditions between 2015 and 2030. tsf0tsf15_change_targ_my_sm_hd_bre10m.tif: Dataset representing a multi-year (my) habitat restoration effort where we used several moderate (sm) patches with high density (hd) planting of sagebrush. The planting was targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects the change in simulated habitat conditions between 2015 and 2030. tsf15_nontarg_me_ss_ld_bre_hsi_10m_transf.tif: Dataset representing a single-year (maximum-effort; me) habitat restoration effort where we used several small ( |
doi_str_mv | 10.5066/p9cgay9l |
format | Dataset |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>datacite_PQ8</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_datacite_primary_10_5066_p9cgay9l</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_5066_p9cgay9l</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-datacite_primary_10_5066_p9cgay9l3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVjj0OgkAQhbexMGriEabEAl0gkFAbfw5gTwYYYJNlIbODCbcXjR7A6hXvvS-fUvtIH1OdZacxr1qcc7tWfGNCIQaPLYUtD5Mn6LA0ggJ-WqI01sgMURrOhOxhHPzSmH6yy6-GxjABPckJoKs_mJIn34EwOj9adGJcC0GsF0KsE33YqlWD1tPumxsVXC-P8z2sUbAyQsXIpkeei0gXb93ip5v8MX0BalRN1g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Publisher</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>dataset</recordtype></control><display><type>dataset</type><title>Greater sage-grouse habitat suitability 15-years post simulated fire event and sagebrush transplanting (2015-2030)</title><source>DataCite</source><creator>Julie A Heinrichs ; Michael O'Donnell ; Elizabeth K Orning ; David A Pyke ; Mark Ricca ; Peter S Coates ; Cameron Aldridge</creator><creatorcontrib>Julie A Heinrichs ; Michael O'Donnell ; Elizabeth K Orning ; David A Pyke ; Mark Ricca ; Peter S Coates ; Cameron Aldridge</creatorcontrib><description>To assess the degree to which transplanting sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) could quickly restore former sage-grouse habitat and the strategies by which greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter, sage-grouse) habitat restoration is best accomplished, we linked vegetation transitions with habitat selection models to evaluate habitat recovery. Within our modeling extent (Tuscarora, Nevada), we simulated the fire-induced loss of habitat, planting of sagebrush seedlings, and the regrowth of sagebrush and other vegetation over 15 years. We used sagebrush growth equations and vegetation state transitions to return and grow vegetation within the burned and planted areas. Every year, we updated seasonal sage-grouse habitat selection maps by re-applying pre-fire habitat selection equations to re-calculate the proportion of suitable habitat gained by sagebrush restoration efforts. We evaluated alternative planting designs to identify the key factors influencing habitat selection outcomes. Specifically, we varied the number of plants, patch sizes, densities, location of planting sites (i.e., random versus within sage-grouse nesting habitat), as well as post-transplant (30, 70, or 100%) survival. We assumed all planting occurred in a single year. We ranked the influence of these different planting factors on sage-grouse habitat recovery across restoration scenario. The following data reflect habitat conditions 15-years after a simulated fire and sagebrush revegetation. Here we provide the habitat recovery results of two different planting designs. We provide several example datasets from this project, including the following: tsf0tsf15_change_nontarg_me_ss_ld_bre10m.tif: Dataset representing a single-year (maximum-effort; me) habitat restoration effort where we used several small (ss) patches with low density (ld) planting of sagebrush. The planting was not targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects the change in simulated habitat conditions between 2015 and 2030. tsf0tsf15_change_targ_my_sm_hd_bre10m.tif: Dataset representing a multi-year (my) habitat restoration effort where we used several moderate (sm) patches with high density (hd) planting of sagebrush. The planting was targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects the change in simulated habitat conditions between 2015 and 2030. tsf15_nontarg_me_ss_ld_bre_hsi_10m_transf.tif: Dataset representing a single-year (maximum-effort; me) habitat restoration effort where we used several small (ss) patches with low density (ld) planting of sagebrush. The planting was not targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects simulated habitat conditions in 2030. tsf15_targ_my_sm_hd_bre_hsi_10m_transf.tif: Dataset representing a multi-year (my) habitat restoration effort where we used several moderate (sm) patches with high density (hd) planting of sagebrush. The planting was targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects simulated habitat conditions in 2030.</description><identifier>DOI: 10.5066/p9cgay9l</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>U.S. Geological Survey</publisher><subject>biota ; environment ; Fire ; Greater sage-grouse ; Habitat selection ; Planting design ; Sagebrush ; State-and-transition model ; Transplant ; Vegetation restoration ; Vegetation transition</subject><creationdate>2024</creationdate><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0000-0001-7733-5034 ; 0000-0003-3926-6941 ; 0000-0002-3488-003X ; 0000-0003-2672-9994 ; 0000-0002-4578-8335 ; 0000-0002-1376-729X ; 0000-0003-1576-513X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>780,1892</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://commons.datacite.org/doi.org/10.5066/p9cgay9l$$EView_record_in_DataCite.org$$FView_record_in_$$GDataCite.org$$Hfree_for_read</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Julie A Heinrichs</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michael O'Donnell</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elizabeth K Orning</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>David A Pyke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mark Ricca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peter S Coates</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cameron Aldridge</creatorcontrib><title>Greater sage-grouse habitat suitability 15-years post simulated fire event and sagebrush transplanting (2015-2030)</title><description>To assess the degree to which transplanting sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) could quickly restore former sage-grouse habitat and the strategies by which greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter, sage-grouse) habitat restoration is best accomplished, we linked vegetation transitions with habitat selection models to evaluate habitat recovery. Within our modeling extent (Tuscarora, Nevada), we simulated the fire-induced loss of habitat, planting of sagebrush seedlings, and the regrowth of sagebrush and other vegetation over 15 years. We used sagebrush growth equations and vegetation state transitions to return and grow vegetation within the burned and planted areas. Every year, we updated seasonal sage-grouse habitat selection maps by re-applying pre-fire habitat selection equations to re-calculate the proportion of suitable habitat gained by sagebrush restoration efforts. We evaluated alternative planting designs to identify the key factors influencing habitat selection outcomes. Specifically, we varied the number of plants, patch sizes, densities, location of planting sites (i.e., random versus within sage-grouse nesting habitat), as well as post-transplant (30, 70, or 100%) survival. We assumed all planting occurred in a single year. We ranked the influence of these different planting factors on sage-grouse habitat recovery across restoration scenario. The following data reflect habitat conditions 15-years after a simulated fire and sagebrush revegetation. Here we provide the habitat recovery results of two different planting designs. We provide several example datasets from this project, including the following: tsf0tsf15_change_nontarg_me_ss_ld_bre10m.tif: Dataset representing a single-year (maximum-effort; me) habitat restoration effort where we used several small (ss) patches with low density (ld) planting of sagebrush. The planting was not targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects the change in simulated habitat conditions between 2015 and 2030. tsf0tsf15_change_targ_my_sm_hd_bre10m.tif: Dataset representing a multi-year (my) habitat restoration effort where we used several moderate (sm) patches with high density (hd) planting of sagebrush. The planting was targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects the change in simulated habitat conditions between 2015 and 2030. tsf15_nontarg_me_ss_ld_bre_hsi_10m_transf.tif: Dataset representing a single-year (maximum-effort; me) habitat restoration effort where we used several small (ss) patches with low density (ld) planting of sagebrush. The planting was not targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects simulated habitat conditions in 2030. tsf15_targ_my_sm_hd_bre_hsi_10m_transf.tif: Dataset representing a multi-year (my) habitat restoration effort where we used several moderate (sm) patches with high density (hd) planting of sagebrush. The planting was targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects simulated habitat conditions in 2030.</description><subject>biota</subject><subject>environment</subject><subject>Fire</subject><subject>Greater sage-grouse</subject><subject>Habitat selection</subject><subject>Planting design</subject><subject>Sagebrush</subject><subject>State-and-transition model</subject><subject>Transplant</subject><subject>Vegetation restoration</subject><subject>Vegetation transition</subject><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>dataset</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>dataset</recordtype><sourceid>PQ8</sourceid><recordid>eNqVjj0OgkAQhbexMGriEabEAl0gkFAbfw5gTwYYYJNlIbODCbcXjR7A6hXvvS-fUvtIH1OdZacxr1qcc7tWfGNCIQaPLYUtD5Mn6LA0ggJ-WqI01sgMURrOhOxhHPzSmH6yy6-GxjABPckJoKs_mJIn34EwOj9adGJcC0GsF0KsE33YqlWD1tPumxsVXC-P8z2sUbAyQsXIpkeei0gXb93ip5v8MX0BalRN1g</recordid><startdate>2024</startdate><enddate>2024</enddate><creator>Julie A Heinrichs</creator><creator>Michael O'Donnell</creator><creator>Elizabeth K Orning</creator><creator>David A Pyke</creator><creator>Mark Ricca</creator><creator>Peter S Coates</creator><creator>Cameron Aldridge</creator><general>U.S. Geological Survey</general><scope>DYCCY</scope><scope>PQ8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7733-5034</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3926-6941</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3488-003X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2672-9994</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4578-8335</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1376-729X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1576-513X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>2024</creationdate><title>Greater sage-grouse habitat suitability 15-years post simulated fire event and sagebrush transplanting (2015-2030)</title><author>Julie A Heinrichs ; Michael O'Donnell ; Elizabeth K Orning ; David A Pyke ; Mark Ricca ; Peter S Coates ; Cameron Aldridge</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-datacite_primary_10_5066_p9cgay9l3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>datasets</rsrctype><prefilter>datasets</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>biota</topic><topic>environment</topic><topic>Fire</topic><topic>Greater sage-grouse</topic><topic>Habitat selection</topic><topic>Planting design</topic><topic>Sagebrush</topic><topic>State-and-transition model</topic><topic>Transplant</topic><topic>Vegetation restoration</topic><topic>Vegetation transition</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Julie A Heinrichs</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michael O'Donnell</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elizabeth K Orning</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>David A Pyke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mark Ricca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peter S Coates</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cameron Aldridge</creatorcontrib><collection>DataCite (Open Access)</collection><collection>DataCite</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Julie A Heinrichs</au><au>Michael O'Donnell</au><au>Elizabeth K Orning</au><au>David A Pyke</au><au>Mark Ricca</au><au>Peter S Coates</au><au>Cameron Aldridge</au><format>book</format><genre>unknown</genre><ristype>DATA</ristype><title>Greater sage-grouse habitat suitability 15-years post simulated fire event and sagebrush transplanting (2015-2030)</title><date>2024</date><risdate>2024</risdate><abstract>To assess the degree to which transplanting sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) could quickly restore former sage-grouse habitat and the strategies by which greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter, sage-grouse) habitat restoration is best accomplished, we linked vegetation transitions with habitat selection models to evaluate habitat recovery. Within our modeling extent (Tuscarora, Nevada), we simulated the fire-induced loss of habitat, planting of sagebrush seedlings, and the regrowth of sagebrush and other vegetation over 15 years. We used sagebrush growth equations and vegetation state transitions to return and grow vegetation within the burned and planted areas. Every year, we updated seasonal sage-grouse habitat selection maps by re-applying pre-fire habitat selection equations to re-calculate the proportion of suitable habitat gained by sagebrush restoration efforts. We evaluated alternative planting designs to identify the key factors influencing habitat selection outcomes. Specifically, we varied the number of plants, patch sizes, densities, location of planting sites (i.e., random versus within sage-grouse nesting habitat), as well as post-transplant (30, 70, or 100%) survival. We assumed all planting occurred in a single year. We ranked the influence of these different planting factors on sage-grouse habitat recovery across restoration scenario. The following data reflect habitat conditions 15-years after a simulated fire and sagebrush revegetation. Here we provide the habitat recovery results of two different planting designs. We provide several example datasets from this project, including the following: tsf0tsf15_change_nontarg_me_ss_ld_bre10m.tif: Dataset representing a single-year (maximum-effort; me) habitat restoration effort where we used several small (ss) patches with low density (ld) planting of sagebrush. The planting was not targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects the change in simulated habitat conditions between 2015 and 2030. tsf0tsf15_change_targ_my_sm_hd_bre10m.tif: Dataset representing a multi-year (my) habitat restoration effort where we used several moderate (sm) patches with high density (hd) planting of sagebrush. The planting was targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects the change in simulated habitat conditions between 2015 and 2030. tsf15_nontarg_me_ss_ld_bre_hsi_10m_transf.tif: Dataset representing a single-year (maximum-effort; me) habitat restoration effort where we used several small (ss) patches with low density (ld) planting of sagebrush. The planting was not targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects simulated habitat conditions in 2030. tsf15_targ_my_sm_hd_bre_hsi_10m_transf.tif: Dataset representing a multi-year (my) habitat restoration effort where we used several moderate (sm) patches with high density (hd) planting of sagebrush. The planting was targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects simulated habitat conditions in 2030.</abstract><pub>U.S. Geological Survey</pub><doi>10.5066/p9cgay9l</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7733-5034</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3926-6941</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3488-003X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2672-9994</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4578-8335</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1376-729X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1576-513X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext_linktorsrc |
identifier | DOI: 10.5066/p9cgay9l |
ispartof | |
issn | |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_datacite_primary_10_5066_p9cgay9l |
source | DataCite |
subjects | biota environment Fire Greater sage-grouse Habitat selection Planting design Sagebrush State-and-transition model Transplant Vegetation restoration Vegetation transition |
title | Greater sage-grouse habitat suitability 15-years post simulated fire event and sagebrush transplanting (2015-2030) |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T19%3A43%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-datacite_PQ8&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=unknown&rft.au=Julie%20A%20Heinrichs&rft.date=2024&rft_id=info:doi/10.5066/p9cgay9l&rft_dat=%3Cdatacite_PQ8%3E10_5066_p9cgay9l%3C/datacite_PQ8%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |