@proceedings {JRN55298, title = {Adapt (or succumb) to climate change on rangelands}, year = {2021}, month = {2/11/2021}, pages = {1}, abstract = {Climate change puts the livelihoods of rangeland users worldwide at risk. Rangelands sequester and store greenhouse gases, as well as provide ground cover critical to moderation of temperature; rangelands also provide a majority of the forage consumed by domestic livestock globally. Despite the importance of rangelands to climate regulation and to the food production system, rangelands continue to be degraded or converted to other forms of agriculture. The interacting feedbacks between degradation-conversion-climate interaction creates a {\textquotedblleft}wicked problem{\textquotedblright}. As rangeland scientists, managers, students, policy makers, and conservationists interested in providing leadership for the stewardship of rangelands based on sound ecological and management principles, it is our duty to address this challenge to ensure the long-term productivity and sustainability of rangeland ecosystems. For this plenary session we have invited four people who deal with climate change on a daily basis to present what they think are the critical needs in adapting. They will discuss their views on critical needs to respond to climate change and, more importantly, how to move those ideas into the mainstream of science, policy and land management. They will also respond to questions from the audience.}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Emile H. Elias and Emmott, Angus and Mahuer, Anna and Hailey Wilmer} } @conference {JRN55164, title = {Using ecological site information to develop drought response strategies}, booktitle = {Universities Council on Water Resources}, year = {2019}, month = {06/11/2019}, abstract = {

Ecological Sites (ES) are interpretive groupings of static soil properties with unique climate, geomorphic and edaphic properties.\  They can be mapped using National Cooperative Soil Survey tools and are supported by standardized, databased descriptions that include spatial biophysical attributes (eg soil depth, texture) and temporal behaviors (eg vegetation dynamics, disturbance responses).\  In this project, we used ecological site information to evaluate the potential impact of drought conditions and to develop potential response strategies in two Major Land Resource Areas (MLRAs).\  MLRA 69 in SE Colorado is characterized by mollisols, short grass prairie vegetation and extensive livestock grazing/dryland small grains.\  MLRA in SE Arizona is characterized by aridisols, desert shrub/oak woodland/desert grassland vegetation and is used for livestock grazing.\  We developed drought vulnerability assessment criteria to rank impacts on specific management units and to serve as a basis for developing strategic responses.\  The primary threat of drought in MLRA 69 is reduced livestock forage and mid-term suppression of forage production post-drought, including ranch-level economic impacts.\ \  Soils and vegetation are relatively well-adapted to drought and have substantial capacity for recovery, but economic stability is more fragile.\  MLRA 41 has experienced, and continues to, experience short, medium and long-term drought impacts.\  Short term impacts include reduced forage production; medium term impacts are primarily suppressed forage production post-drought; and long-term impacts include grass to shrub transitions and soil degradation.\  Within each MLRA, there were substantial differences among ES, both in terms of reduction of forage production and in long-term recovery post drought.\  These differences offer opportunities for managers to develop drought responses by selectively destocking management units as drought progresses and restocking post drought.

}, author = {Joel R. Brown and J.T. Reyes and Emile H. Elias and Caitriana Steele and Wyndham, A.} } @article {JRN54777, title = {Coping with historic drought in California rangelands: Developing a more effective institutional response}, journal = {Rangelands}, volume = {39}, year = {2017}, month = {04/2017}, chapter = {73}, abstract = {

Drought response is widely varied, depending on both the characteristics of the drought and the ability of individual ranchers to respond. \ Assistance from institutions during drought has not typically considered preemptive, during and post-drought response as a strategic approach which recognizes biophysical, sociological and economic complexities of drought. A USDA SW Climate Hub sponsored workshop brought together a range of representatives from institutions with drought response responsibilities to examine how those institutions could better support drought decision making.

}, doi = {doi:10.1016/j.rala.2017.01.002.}, url = {files/bibliography/17-014.pdf}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Alvarez, Pelayo and Byrd, Kristen and Helena Deswood and Emile H. Elias and S. Spiegal} } @proceedings {JRN54681, title = {The rangeland management and soil health connection}, year = {2017}, month = {01//2017}, address = {St. George, UT.}, abstract = {
Soil health is defined as the capacity of soil to function and provide ecosystem services to society. \ The importance of managing for the improvement and maintenance of soil health transcends political boundaries, generations, societies and languages. \ The challenge of communicating soil health concepts and motivating action lies in the incredible complexity of soil types, land uses, management practices and ecosystem services. \ Developing and implementing a successful institutional soil health effort requires credible approaches to determine baseline conditions, accurately measure change over management-relevant time, identify threats and establish relationships to human and natural drivers. \ While soil health indicators are a valuable addition to the assessment of rangelands, they are merely one of several necessary attributes required to develop a true picture. \ Developing and applying indicators of soil health (or any indicator) on rangelands is entirely context dependent. \ That context is provided by Ecological Sites and is organized, interpreted and communicated via Ecological Site Descriptions (particularly State and Transition Models). \ This approach will allow us to develop a protocol for the site specific assessment of the economic value of soil health improvement.\ 
}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Jeffrey E. Herrick} } @article {JRN54696, title = {An Introduction to the Special Issue {\textquotedblleft}Ecological Sites for Landscape Management"}, journal = {Rangelands}, volume = {38}, year = {2016}, month = {12/2016}, abstract = {

The December 2010 Rangelands {\textquotedblleft}Ecological Site Descriptions{\textquotedblright} \ was one of the most widely read issues ever published. The individual papers have been used by scientists, managers, policymakers, and educators to convey the importance of ecological site information to natural resource management and to improve understanding of this tool. The issue was successful in providing a focal point for a widely dispersed literature and practice by bringing together historical perspective, terminology, general guidance, and applications to a variety of range and forest ecosystems. At the time of the previous special issue on ecological sites, the three predominant land management agencies in the United States (Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service) had just signed the Interagency Memorandum of Understanding; the Interagency Rangeland Ecological Site Manual was about to be released and individual agencies were realigning inventory and monitoring programs and staffs.

}, doi = {10.1016/j.rala.2016.11.001}, url = {files/bibliography/16-033.pdf}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Brandon T Bestelmeyer} } @article {JRN54660, title = {Making soil health a part of rangeland management}, journal = {Journal of Soil and Water Conservation}, volume = {71:55A-60A}, year = {2016}, month = {04/2016}, abstract = {
Soil health describes the ability of a soil to function at its potential, specifically {\textquotedblleft}The capacity of a soil to function as a vital, living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals and humans{\textquotedblright}. The objectives of this paper are to 1) contextualize rangeland soil health by examining the common definition and how important concepts apply to rangelands, 2) review the recent progress and ongoing directions in applying soil and ecosystem health concepts to rangelands and 3) identify and better define opportunities to move soil health forward as an important part of rangeland management. Rangeland soil health assessment has a well-documented history and has continually improved (albeit sporadically) over the past 3 decades. \ We conclude, however, that these efforts need to expand to both new rangeland ecosystems and to new working groups. \ The existing approach to evaluation of rangeland soil health currently integrated into the Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (IIRH) approach has been sufficiently tested to provide the most logical basis for future work. \ This protocol is closely linked to a standard set of quantitative measurements and indicators, including soil aggregate stability, that have been adopted for use by both the NRCS National Resource Inventory and by the BLM national Assessment, Inventory and Monitoring initiative. This is the most cost-effective means of gaining the necessary information to test and refine site-specific indicators. We conclude that continued testing, and refinement, of these 17 indicators, and the associated quantitative methods, guided by site-specific reference sheets offers the greatest probability of gaining a systematic understanding of rangeland soil health. This attempt to improve the systematic understanding of rangeland soil health also requires an increased emphasis on the development of a common database for soil, vegetation and soil attributes derived from conservation program and technical assistance applications to refine the use of this approach. \ 
}, doi = {10.2489/jswc.71.3.55A}, url = {files/bibliography/16-031.pdf}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Jeffrey E. Herrick} } @article {JRN54685, title = {Using ecological site information to improve landscape management for ecosystem services}, journal = {Rangelands}, volume = {38:318-321}, year = {2016}, month = {12/2016}, abstract = {

People and their societies, have a complicated relationship with land. The unofficial patron saint of ecologists, Aldo Leopold, in {\textquotedblleft}The Sand County Almanac,{\textquotedblright} traced the modern human relationship with land from a purely economic to an ecologically based approach, culminating in his {\textquotedblleft} Land Ethic.{\textquotedblright} \ In this ground-breaking and influential essay, Leopold proposed that {\textquotedblleft}a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it.{\textquotedblright} \ The main idea embodied in this essay was that good land management was an individual and community responsibility that transcended pure economics. \ While Leopold focused primarily on the cooperative nature of the human relationship to land, a secondary, but just as important, part of the essay was that {\textquotedblleft}The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants and animals, or collectively, the land."

}, doi = {10.1016/j.rala.2016.10.011}, url = {files/bibliography/16-035.pdf}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Kris Havstad} } @conference {JRN54503, title = {Coping with historic drought in California rangelands}, booktitle = {California Rangeland Coalition Conference}, year = {2015}, month = {01/2016}, address = {Davis, CA}, abstract = {

The current drought in California is of historic proportion, both in its intensity and its effect on agriculture.\  Although storms of the 2015-16 winter rainfall season have provided modest drought relief, their effects on alleviating the multi-year drought are unknown. Short- and mid-term forecasts are not favorable and generally project an increase in variability as well. Although an increase in seasonal rainfall can be expected to result in increased forage production, the ability of grazing operations to respond at that timescale may be limited by economic constraints.\  The USDA Southwest Regional Climate Hub developed a Rangeland Vulnerability Assessment (VA) for California.\  In an effort to disseminate and implement the findings of the VA, we brought state-level technical and program specialists together with industry leaders to develop strategies for post drought actions that can assist producers in returning to sustainable grazing operations.\  The workshop objectives were to 1) Distribute and discuss the California Rangeland Vulnerability Assessment, and 2) Involve leaders from agencies that provide rangeland financial and technical assistance support to identify agency priorities for implementation of the VA\ .\  The participants identified three areas of major importance as a basis for improving the quality of technical and financial assistance.

}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Alvarez, Pelayo and Helena Deswood and Emile H. Elias and S. Spiegal} } @article {JRN54568, title = {Land Ecology Essay I: The siren song of the finish line}, journal = {Rangelands}, volume = {37}, year = {2015}, month = {12/2015}, pages = {241-243}, chapter = {241}, abstract = {

As the National Cooperative Soils Survey nears the completion of initial mapping and description activities, the options for next steps are being considered. One option is to deploy new and emerging mapping technologies for existing and refined concepts of soil behavior to create more precise maps of the spatial distribution of soil properties. Another option is to focus efforts on interpreting existing soils information for new land use and management options, and for a new group of users. We suggest that the greatest benefits are to be gained from a very localized, specific implementation of new mapping technologies and a major, broad effort on new interpretations of existing information, particularly the implementation of an Ecological Site Initiative.

}, doi = {10.1016/j.rala.2015.10.005}, url = {/files/bibliography/15-025.pdf}, author = {Joel R. Brown and David Smith} } @article {49933, title = {A site-based approach to delivering rangeland ecosystem services}, journal = {The Rangeland Journal}, volume = {33}, year = {2011}, month = {06/2011}, pages = {99-108}, chapter = {99}, abstract = {Rangeland ecosystems are capable of providing an array of ecosystem services important to the wellbeing of society. Some of these services (e.g. meat, fibre) are transported to markets and their quantity, quality and value are established via a set of widely accepted standards. Other services (e.g. climate mitigation, water quality, wildlife habitat) do not leave the land, but are, in fact, most valuable when they remain in situ. Determining their quantity, quality and value presents a challenge that must be met if there is to be a credible, accessible ecosystem services market for rangelands. In this paper we describe some of the ecosystem services that may be extracted from rangelands, discuss their unique ecological nature and relate those unique ecological properties to soil and vegetation attributes that can serve as a basis for measurement, both quality and quantity. We suggest the use of a soil/vegetation-based system in which similar climate, geomorphology and edaphic properties are grouped into ecological sites based on their response to disturbance. Within each ecological site, a unique state and transition model describes the dynamics of vegetation and soil surface properties, provides state indicators (vegetation structure, soil properties), predicts ecosystem services that may be derived at multiple scales, and organizes information related to management to achieve ecosystem service objectives, including sustainability.}, doi = {10.1071/RJ11006}, url = {/files/bibliography/11-011.pdf}, author = {Joel R. Brown and MacLeod, Neil} } @conference {50079, title = {Ecological site descriptions as a management tool: Results of an SRM workshop}, booktitle = {62nd Society for Range Management Annual Meeting}, year = {2009}, month = {02/2009}, pages = {1000-14}, publisher = {Society for Range Management}, organization = {Society for Range Management}, address = {Albuquerque, NM}, abstract = {

The Society for Range Management (SRM) sponsored a workshop in Park City, UT 23-25 October 2007. The workshop was designed to 1) provide attendees with basic information on the concepts and applications of Ecological Site Descriptions (ESDs) 2) explore opportunities to improve applications of ESDs to the management of fish and wildlife habitat, specifically greater sage grouse and 3) seek input on additional information and reorganization of ESDs to improve utility. The workshop organization consisted of a full day of introductory remarks from experts, a day of facilitated group discussion divided into geographic regions, one-half day of summary and synthesis and a one-half day field trip. Approximately 300 people attended the workshop. Recommendations from the group identified several important considerations for future ESD development: more flexibility in the description of vegetation attributes (patch structure), an increased emphasis on vertical vegetation structure, increased discussion of the landscape scale arrangement of habitat elements (states). In addition, the groups desired to see the ESD development process expanded to include a wider variety of expertise and stakeholders and a greater emphasis on standardization across soil survey, state and regional boundaries. The SRM ESD workshop was widely considered a success and provides a basis for the continued expansion of outreach via technically oriented regional workshops.

}, keywords = {abstract, ecological site descriptions, ESDs, SRM}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Gilgert, W. and T.A. Messmer and M. Brunson and J. Maestas} } @conference {50078, title = {Grazing systems research: Focusing on the managers-introduction}, booktitle = {62nd Society for Range Management Annual Meeting}, year = {2009}, month = {02/2009}, pages = {21-1}, publisher = {Society for Range Management}, organization = {Society for Range Management}, address = {Alb., NM}, abstract = {

Translating experimental results into management guidelines or as bases for specific decisions presents a substantial challenge for scientists, advisors and land managers. While inductive reasoning can be a valuable tool in developing general guidelines, particular wholly science-based relationships, taken out of context, may not translate well or may be misleading if improperly applied. For example, substantial effort has been expended on glasshouse, small plot and small paddock scale responses of individual plants, populations and communities to varying frequency and intensity of defoliation and other direct impacts of livestock grazing (trampling, dunging). There is little reason to suspect that these soil and vegetation responses are not scalable to commercial grazing applications if interpreted within the known and applicable bounds of climate and soils. Individual grazing animal attributes discerned experimentally, such as species and community selectivity, forage intake and nutrition related performance (gain/hd, gain/ha) are likewise valid at more extensive scales and generally applicable to policy and management decisions. Properties and relationships that emerge only at commercial scales, such as landscape scale animal distribution and forage selectivity, herd management (genetics, reproduction attributes, hygiene etc), financial management (investment portfolios), and range management (improvements, response to drought) must be investigated, analyzed and interpreted at coarser scales to have meaning. Research and development should clearly identify these variables, their tests and scaleable interpretations to identify their limits of application for management and decision making.

}, keywords = {abstract, grazing systems, mangers-introduction, SRM}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Kris Havstad} } @inbook {50077, title = {Integrating terrestrail sequestration into a greenhouse gas management plan}, booktitle = {Carbon Sequestration and Its Role in the Global Carbon Cycle}, series = {Geophysical Monograph Series 183}, year = {2009}, pages = {317-324}, publisher = {American Geophysical Untion}, organization = {American Geophysical Untion}, address = {Washington, DC}, abstract = {Terrestrial sequestration is the deliberate process of storing carbon in the soil or vegetation via the net effect of naturally occurring processes (photosynthesis, leading to storage in plants; humification and aggregation, leading to conversion of plant carbon to soil carbon; and respiration, which returns some plant and soil carbon to the atmosphere as CO2). Removing carbon from the atmosphere via terrestrial sequestration has been proposed as a critical element in the portfolio of actions to stabilize greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and avoiding undesirable climate change. One benchmark for integrating terrestrial sequestration into a GHG management plan might be to increase sequestration beyond {\textquotedblleft}business-as-usual{\textquotedblright} levels by an average of about 1-2 PgC/yr during the next 50 years. Assuming this benchmark is accomplished by a linear increase in sequestration rates, the integrated total over 50 years would be 25-50 PgC. Achieving this level of performance will require 1) improvements in existing understanding of sequestering processes, 2) more focused incentive programs to accelerate adoption and maintenance of sequestering practices and 3) an enhanced monitoring and verification effort to insure credibility.}, keywords = {carbon, proceedings, sequestration, terrestrail}, url = {/files/bibliography/09-030.pdf}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Sampson, N.}, editor = {McPherson, Brian J. and Sundquist, Eric T.} } @conference {50076, title = {Rangelands: Changes to improve the quality and performance of an important SRM journal}, booktitle = {62nd Society for Range Management Annual Meeting}, year = {2009}, month = {02/2009}, pages = {2000-14}, publisher = {Society for Range Management}, organization = {Society for Range Management}, address = {Alb., NM}, abstract = {

In 2008, an effort to improve the quality and financial performance of the journal RANGELANDS was begun. Reviews by the Society for Range Management (SRM) Board of Directors (BOD) appointed RANGELANDS Task Force (RTF) and the Advisory Council identified aspects of RANGELANDS critical to membership satisfaction: quality of publication, frequency of publication, subject matter. The RTF Report also identified opportunities for improved financial performance. As a result of the reports and discussion among the membership, the SRM BOD directed the RANGELANDS editor and steering committee to implement changes to RANGELANDS. Those changes include: 1. ensure that all manuscripts submitted to RANGELANDS are subjected to peer review under the direction of the editor; 2. seek more support from external sources for the publication of relevant, special-theme issues with invited authors to offset publication costs; 3. increase the amount of advertising, and; 4. work with publishers to reduce overhead costs. These changes are currently being implemented. The authors will be available to discuss further changes with membership to improve the quality and performance of this vital SRM communication instrument.

}, keywords = {abstract, rangelands, RTF, SRM, SRM journal}, author = {Joel R. Brown and E.L. Fredrickson} } @proceedings {50075, title = {Rotational grazing systems and grazing management research: Mapping the future}, year = {2009}, month = {December 13-16, }, pages = {CDROM}, address = {Sparks, NV}, abstract = {A recent publication reviewed a substantial amount of evidence generated from a geographically diverse effort by university and agency scientists over the past 6 decades to vestigate the impacts of rotational grazing on fundamental rangeland ecological processes. Their findings, and others as well, clearly indicate that varying frequency and intensity of defoliation by rotating grazing livestock does not significantly affect plant or animal production when other factors (stocking rate, season of use etc) are held constant. However, many producers, advisors and researchers have substantial observational evidence that rotational grazing can be an important tool in achieving ranch level goals. This symposium was organized to examine the current state of the knowledge, the range of objectives and goals that producers and conservation programs may have beyond production and opportunities for improving the transfer of research information among scientists, policy makers and producers.}, url = {/files/bibliography/10-010.pdf}, author = {Joel R. Brown and J. D. Derner and J.P. Dobrowolski and Kris Havstad} } @inbook {50179, title = {Carbon sequestration and sink resources in grazed lands}, booktitle = {International Rangleand Congress}, year = {2008}, note = {ProCite field[35]: Book Chapter}, month = {June 15, 2008}, pages = {240-247}, abstract = {Carbon storage in terrestrial sinks is attractive as a policy alternative in that 1) results can be achieved quickly 2) technologies for enhanced sequestration can be implemented without major economic impact and are generally associated with improved management of resources and more efficient production systems and 3) delivery infrastructure (extension, conservation programs) are in place and proven successful. However, the design and implementation of policies and programs to accelerate and realize the potential of terrestrial sequestration requires analyses that examine regional land use patterns, human activity systems and economic development objectives.}, keywords = {carbon, grazed lands, rangelands}, author = {Joel R. Brown} } @article {50174, title = {Climate change and rangelands: Responding rationally to uncertainty}, journal = {Rangelands}, volume = {30}, number = {3}, year = {2008}, month = {June 30, 2008}, pages = {3-6}, abstract = {Rangelands constitute a substantial portion of the earth{\textquoteright}s surface and contribute a wide variety of products and services to human well being. Global climate change will have an inordinate impact on rangelands because the productivity of grass and shrub dominated ecosystems is so closely linked to the short term expression of climate, weather. In general, most rangeland ecosystems and human activities associated with them are forecast to experience increasingly erratic precipitation and temperature patterns in the short and mid term future (20-100 years). Other aspects of global change, such as CO2 fertilization, invasive species and changes in land use, will also have significant effects on the ability of rangelands to meet human needs and desires.}, keywords = {climate change, rangelands}, url = {/files/bibliography/08-020.pdf}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Thorpe, J.} } @proceedings {50177, title = {Integrating terrestrail sequestration into a national greenhouse gas management program}, year = {2008}, month = {2008}, abstract = {Terrestrial sequestration is the deliberate process of storing carbon in the soil or vegetation via the net effect of naturally occurring processes (photosynthesis, leading to storage in plants; humification and aggregation, leading to conversion of plant carbon to soil carbon; and respiration, which returns some plant and soil carbon to the atmosphere as CO2). Removing carbon from the atmosphere via terrestrial sequestration has been proposed as a critical element in the portfolio of actions to stabilize greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and avoiding undesirable climate change. One benchmark for integrating terrestrial sequestration into a GHG management plan might be to increase sequestration beyond {\textquotedblleft}business-as-usual{\textquotedblright} levels by an average of about 1-2 PgC/yr during the next 50 years. Assuming this benchmark is accomplished by a linear increase in sequestration rates, the integrated total over 50 years would be 25-50 PgC. Achieving this level of performance will require 1) improvements in existing understanding of sequestering processes, 2) more focused incentive programs to accelerate adoption and maintenance of sequestering practices and 3) an enhanced monitoring and verification effort to insure credibility.}, keywords = {carbon, sequestration, terrestrail}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Sampson, N.} } @proceedings {50178, title = {Rangeland ecology and management in a changing world}, volume = {1}, year = {2008}, month = {June 30 - July 5}, pages = {41-45}, publisher = {Guangdong People{\textquoteright}s Publishing House}, address = {Hohhot, China}, abstract = {Rangeland ecological science and management over the past century has emphasized external human actions to supplement and direct natural ecological processes in the hope of achieving sustained production. The focus has usually been on an improve efficiency of production, generally achieved by adding fossil fuel based input, to increase consistency of harvest. The results have been relatively benign in the more mesic and fertile rangelands and unsuccessful to disastrous in the more arid and infertile areas. We suggest a broader view of the interactions of humans and rangelands, one that included people as a vital component within the system, might be a more realistic approach to achieving economic, ecological and social sustainability. An increase emphasis is necessary to develop new tools for capturing, organizing and communicating information and to provide testable hypotheses that can advance rangeland ecological science and management.}, keywords = {ecological disturbance, ecological site descriptions, multiscale management, state and transition models}, url = {/files/bibliography/08-022.pdf}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Brandon T Bestelmeyer and Kris Havstad} } @article {50176, title = {Rangelands and climate change: A synthesis and challenges}, journal = {Rangelands}, volume = {30}, number = {3}, year = {2008}, month = {June 30, 2008}, pages = {52-53}, abstract = {

Climate change, along with other aspects of global change, represents a great challenge to rangeland management in the coming century. Coping with this challenge requires collaboration among scientists, managers and policy makers to develop new tools and management systems. This collaboration should focus on meeting the need for 1) improved prediction of changes in climate and the subsequent effects on rangeland ecosystems at relevant spatial scales, 2) integrated monitoring systems and 3) the necessity of managers to respond with unprecedented speed and flexibility to changes in their operating environment.

}, keywords = {climate change, rangelands}, doi = {10.2111/1551-501X(2008)30[52:RACCAS]2.0.CO;2}, url = {/files/bibliography/08-021.pdf}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Thorpe, J.} } @article {50175, title = {Resolving critical issues for the development of ecological site descriptions: Summary of a symposium}, journal = {Rangelands}, volume = {30}, year = {2008}, month = {08/2008}, pages = {16-18}, chapter = {16}, abstract = {

The concepts, methods and procedures for describing rangelands help define the profession of range management. None of these is more important than the system for dividing rangelands into spatially distinct units for the purpose of classifying and managing. Range Sites and Range Condition and the ecological concepts on which they were based dominated research, policy and application virtually from the time SRM was formed (1948) until the late 1990s. In 1997, the revised version of the NRCS Range and Pasture Handbook first referred to Ecological Site Descriptions (ESDs) and gave basic guidance on definitions and procedures for implementation. The change from Range Sites to Ecological Sites is representative of two important changes in the profession: the incorporation of nonequilibrium ecology to describe rangeland dynamics in some ecosystems and the expansion of the array of ecosystem services provided by all rangelands.

}, keywords = {ecological site descriptions, ESD, journal}, doi = {10.2111/1551-501X(2008)30[16:RCIFTD]2.0.CO;2}, url = {/files/bibliography/08-053.pdf}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Brandon T Bestelmeyer} } @conference {50319, title = {Improving estimates of rangeland carbon storage}, booktitle = {60th Annual Meeting of the Society for Range Management}, year = {2007}, month = {February 9-16, 2}, pages = {Paper No. 55}, address = {Sparks/Reno, Nevada}, abstract = {Terrestrial carbon sequestration on rangelands has the potential to make a substantial contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) levels in the atmosphere and mitigate the effects of global climate change. This enhanced sequestration can be accomplished through the management of soils and vegetation, primarily on land that is used for production of domestic livestock and wildlife habitat. In most cases, management methods to increase sequestration rates are compatible with, and support, conservation and production objectives. The primary barriers to adoption of sequestering practices and 1) the short-term costs and risks associated with changing land use or land management regimes, 2) high spatial and temporal variability in the processes that drive carbon dynamics, and 3) lack of reliable measurement technologies and reliable models for prediction of long-term sequestration and related effects in many rangeland ecosystems. Our analysis of southwestern US rangelands identified limited opportunities to enhance sequestration on intact rangelands, due primarily to low and erratic rainfall. We also identified potentially significant gains in the conversion of existing cropland to permanent vegetative cover, especially in areas with more reliable precipitation and mollisols. Increasing carbon storage on southwestern US rangelands will require programs that encompass large areas and implementation of new technologies to validate the changes in carbon.}, keywords = {carbon, GHG, global climate, greenhouse gas, rangelands, terrestrial}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Angerer, J.} } @conference {50425, title = {Knowledge Gaps in Assess and Predicting Grazing System Performance: Art or Science?}, booktitle = {Society for Range Management 59th Annual Meeting}, year = {2006}, month = {February 12-17, }, pages = {50}, address = {Vancouver, British Columbia}, abstract = {The adoption of research techniques associated with tame pastures has improved the community scale understanding of rangeland grazing systems. While our undertanding of grazing behavior, diet selection and intake has benefited by a more intensive approach, there is little evidence that livestock performance is improved by any rest/rotation scheme compared with continuous moderate stocking. Likewise, individual and community-based investigations of plant response to defoliation have increased our understanding of the physiological and morphological basis for changes in species composition. The result is we have a solid understanding of soil, plant, and animal responses to grazing systems at the community scale, and have developed from that understanding a predictive capacity as the basis for management decisions. That understanding has not translated into a widespread improvement in management outcomes attributable to the grazing system per se. However, many advisors and practitioners continue to insist that grazing systems have achieved miraculous economic, ecological, and social results. Perhaps this incongruity stems from lack of quantification of how management changes with adoption and how a more intensive grazing system might directly enhance (or improve perception of) productivity or the environment. In spite of our science, beauty remains in the eye of the beholder. We suggest that a more meaningful approach to compare grazing schemes might be in terms of competing technologies, such as adoption rate, success/failure rate, implementation cost, and change in management effort and lifestyle. From a physical science perspective, what is their impact on variables such as water and soil quality and biological diversity at landscape and watershed scales where quantifiable public, rather than private, benefits accrue? While each practitioner may be an artist, the value of grazing systems can best be assessed and predicted by our profession using improved science at large scales with attributes more in the public interest.}, keywords = {grazing, rangeland, tame pastures}, author = {Joel R. Brown and A.J. Ash} } @proceedings {50535, title = {Rangelands and Global Change}, year = {2005}, note = {Global Issue Paper}, month = {July 1, 2005}, pages = {11}, publisher = {Society for Range Management}, address = {Lakewood, CO}, abstract = {GLOBAL CHANGE is any change in the global environment that may alter the capacity of the Earth to sustain life. Included are changes in changes in LAND USE and PRODUCTIVITY, ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY, CLIMATE, WATER RESOURCES and ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS (U.S. Global Change Research Act 1990). These changes can be attributed primarily to the growth in human population (\>6 billion in 1999) and their use of natural resources. There are two forms of responding to global change: mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation are actions taken to reduce the amount of change that occurs, while adaptation refers to actions that are taken to reduce the impact of change. RANGELANDS are lands on which the indigenous vegetation is predominantly grasses, grass-like plants, forbs or shrubs and is managed as a natural ecosystem and include grasslands, savannas, shrublands, deserts, tundras, marshes and meadows (Forage and Grazing Terminology Committee 1991). In the United States, over one-third (770 million acres) of the land area is classified as rangeland. Over half of rangelands are privately owned. In general, rangelands west of the Rocky Mountains are dominated by federal ownership, while those east of the Rockies are predominately privately-owned. There are notable exceptions, particularly along the west coast, where productivity is high enough to warrant private ownership. The significance of ownership is not in how rangelands should be treated in response to global change, but in the policies and programs that must be crafted and implemented to achieve those treatments. (http://www.rangelands.org/pdf/Global_Issue_Paper.pdf)}, keywords = {atmospheric, change, chemistry, global, issue paper, land use, management, producivity, range, society}, url = {/files/bibliography/05-009.pdf}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Blake, R.R. and McPherson, G.R. and Tate, K.W.} } @conference {50536, title = {Research Needs: Making vegetation dynamics a basis for vegetation management}, booktitle = {Society for Range Mangement 58th Annual Meeting}, year = {2005}, month = {February 5-11, 2}, pages = {194}, address = {Fort Worth, TX}, abstract = {The 1994 SRM Research Needs Symposium identified three important developments for vegetation science in the coming decade: 1) improved understanding of nonequilibrium dynamics, 2) new strategies for halting degradation and 3) sustainable restoration strategies. There has been remarkable progress toward achieving these goals in the last 10 years. However, continued progress in increasing the relevance of vegetation science to land management will require more than just broader application of existing techniques and principles. We suggest that the pursuit of four new objectives is critical. First, applications of nonequilibrium theory must turn from explaining observations to providing realistic predictions. Our understanding is sufficiently well-developed to go beyond retrospective explanations to predictive principles and tools, within the constraints of uncertaintly. Second, the concepts of vegetation resistance and resilience must be applied at multiple scales, both spatially and temporally to provide a context for land management decisions. Plant communities, landscapes and regions vary tremendously in their general rates and magnitudes of change and recovery. Third, rangeland vegetation science must expand to include dynamic soil:plant relationships as a means of improving predictions and providing a basis for extending research to real-world situations. Many sites in arid and semi- arid areas will not recover in management timeframes and effective land management requires principles to differentiate and set priorities. Finally, vegetation scientists must transcend traditional research:application boundaries to integrate vegetation science into policies and programs that guide land management. Regardless of the extent or precision of knowledge, without clear links to decision-making, it is irrelevant.}, keywords = {degradation, dynamics, nonequilibrium, restoration, SRM, strategies, sustainable}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Brandon T Bestelmeyer} } @proceedings {50638, title = {Key concepts to improve the utility of ecological site descriptions}, year = {2004}, note = {CDROM: USDA-NRCS}, month = {June 13-18, 2004}, pages = {CDROM}, address = {Jackson, WY}, abstract = {Ecological Site Descriptions (ESDs) represent a major change in the format and conceptual basis for interpreting observed changes on range, pasture and forest lands and for providing technical and financial support for the application of land management practices. With the acceptance of the possibility of multiple stable states and multiple pathways among those states, basic relationships between plants should become an important organizing factor in determining how fundamental soil units are grouped together and interpreted for management. In this paper, we propose that changes to soil-plant interactions, especially feedbacks, should be considered as important organizing factors in determining which soil properties are the basis of ESD organization. Although there are few accepted guidelines for making these decisions, realistic hypotheses and rigorous testing is possible to resolve many of the uncertainties.}, url = {/files/bibliography/04-048.pdf}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Brandon T Bestelmeyer} } @conference {50639, title = {A manager{\textquoteright}s dilemma: Making logical decisions at the local scale}, booktitle = {89th Annual Meeting, Ecological Society of America}, year = {2004}, month = {2004}, pages = {Abstract p. 66}, address = {Portland, OR}, abstract = {General principles for land management within a region are usually derived from the extrapolation of nontemporally replicated, plot-scale experiments. To successfully implement recommendations, land managers ultimately must restrict the spatial extent of action to match available resources. Overextending scarce resources, whether financial or intellectual, usually results in failure at best, and at worst can initiate catastrophic degrading processes. Realistically, the extent at which managerial control can be exercised seldom exceeds 10 km2, a scale at which factors external to site-specific applications have as much influence on outcomes as internal factors. It is virtually impossible to adapt concepts, principles or guidelines consistently to site-specific application without a well developed understanding of spatial and temporal variability in driving factors. Improving chances of management success requires a combination of deductive (applying general principles at a site specific level) and inductive (using local observations to seek explanations) reasoning. Managers often rely on general assertions regarding the dominant factors driving change across a region because there is little guidance available to understand scale dependence, factor interactions and variability and their consequences for management decisions. We suggest that institutional management guidance for making site-specific decisions is inadequate unless we also develop a framework for testing local observations against multiple, scale-dependent, competing hypotheses to predict responses.}, keywords = {applications, factors, land management, local scale, site-specific}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Brandon T Bestelmeyer and Jeffrey E. Herrick} } @article {50640, title = {Monitoring to detect change on rangelands: physical, social, and economic/policy drivers}, journal = {African Journal of Range and Forage Science}, volume = {21}, number = {2}, year = {2004}, month = {October 1, 2004}, pages = {115-121}, abstract = {Environmental drivers are factors that cause measurable changes in properties of biological communities. Examples of drivers can include environmental factors, such as rainfall variability and available soil nitrogen; management factors, such as livestock grazing practices and prescribed burning; government factors, such as tax laws and environmental policies; and societal factors, such as attitudes regarding property rights and public values. It is difficult to identify the impact of specific drivers on specific properties at specific times since drivers seldom operate independently, at similar scales, or in isolation from other drivers. Impacts of some drivers, especially nonecological, may not be quantifiable. Yet, any interest in understanding how systems will respond to specific drivers, such as grazing management practices, requires monitoring of system dynamics and pertinent environmental drivers at appropriate scales. For example, risk assessments, adaptive management analyses, or management by hypothesis require understanding linkages between environmental drivers and various management options on ecological properties of managed systems. Any type of predictive management strategy for proposing future options would require an understanding of biological responses to environmental stressors. Though our abilities to generate accurate predictions are currently limited, conceptual models of system response to drivers are improving. Continued incorporation and refinement of understanding and monitoring effects and interactions of different drivers will contribute to improvements in these predictive capacities. It is important to remember we are developing monitoring systems for the future, as well as for today.}, keywords = {biological, communities, drivers, environmental, monitoring}, url = {http://www.ajol.info/viewissue.php?jid=3\&id=1619$\#$Articles}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Kris Havstad} } @proceedings {50754, title = {Environmental drivers and monitoring of rangelands}, year = {2003}, month = {July 26-August 1}, pages = {668-674}, address = {Durban, South Africa}, abstract = {Environmental drivers are factors that cause measurable changes in properties of biological communities. Examples of drivers can include environmental factors such as rainfall variability and available soil nitrogen, management factors such as livestock grazing practices and prescribed burning, government factors such as tax laws and environmental policies, and societal factors such as attitudes regarding property rights and prevailing public values. It is difficult to identify the impact of specific drivers on specific properties at specific times since drivers seldom operate independently or singularly. Impacts of some drivers, especially nonecological, may not be readily quantifiable. Yet, any interest in understanding how systems will respond to specific drivers, such as a grazing management practice, requires monitoring of system dynamics and pertinent environmental drivers. For example, risk assessments and adaptive management analyses both require understanding linkages between environmental drivers and various management options on ecological properties of managed systems. Any type of predictive management strategy for proposing future options would require an understanding of biological responses to environmental drivers. Though our abilities to generate accurate predictions are currently limited, conceptual models of system responses to drivers are improving. Continued incorporation and refinement of our understanding and monitoring effects and interactions of different drivers will contribute to improvements in these predictive capacities. It is important to remember that we are developing monitoring systems for the future, as well as for today.}, url = {/files/bibliography/03-031.pdf}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Kris Havstad} } @article {51135, title = {Managing low-output agroecosystems sustainably: the importance of ecological thresholds}, journal = {Canadian Journal of Forest Research}, volume = {29}, year = {1999}, month = {1999}, pages = {1112-1119}, abstract = {Managing vegetation to achieve ecological, economic and social goals is difficult. Inherent complexity among ecosystem components and unpredictable climate often limit opportunities for converting cultural inputs to harvestable products. In addition, the long lag time between treatment and financial return makes capital investment in vegetation management economically risky. One tool that can assist land managers in dealing with these constraints is the identification of ecological thresholds and elucidation of processes that signal undesirable change long before it is entrained. This approach places a premium on detecting degrading processes and implementing management responses in the initial stages of land degradation and on limiting inputs to managerial expertise and manipulation of naturally occurring processes. We propose that research and implementation for sustainable land management should shift direction toward identifying ecological thresholds and should focus on developing low-input responses to avoid, rather than restore, land degradation.}, url = {/files/bibliography/644.pdf}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Jeffrey E. Herrick and Price, D.} } @article {51134, title = {Shrub invasion of grassland: recruitment is continuous and not regulated by herbaceous biomas or density}, journal = {Ecology}, volume = {80}, number = {7}, year = {1999}, month = {1999}, pages = {2385-2396}, keywords = {biomass, density, grassland, herbaceous}, url = {/files/bibliography/99-011.pdf}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Steven R. Archer} } @article {JRN54832, title = {State and transition models for rangelands. 2. Ecology as a basis for rangeland management: Performance criteria for testing models.}, journal = {Tropical Grasslands}, volume = {28}, year = {1994}, month = {1994}, pages = {206-213}, chapter = {206}, abstract = {

The \ objectives \ of \ this \ paper \ are \ to: \ propose criteria for testing the applicability of models for rangeland management; and test 2 competing models using those criteria. Predicting change accurately, detecting change, relevance to management and facilitating communication are the performance criteria. Competing models are the range condition model derived from Clement- sian ecology and the state and transition \ model based on \ non-equilibrium \ ecology. The ability of competing models to predict ecosystem change is assessed in terms of ecosystem organising processes and attributes \ such as competition, resistance and resilience, temporal thresholds and feedback. The ability to detect change is viewed in terms of detection at the community and land- scape scales. Relevance to management and com- munication are assessed within the context of effectively communicating the effects of manage- ment decisions on ecosystem processes to both traditional \ and non-traditional decision makers and a larger public constituency. \ Although \ the state and transition model is the most acceptable of the 2 competing models based on the criteria, improvements \ are needed. Most notable \ is the need for a spatial component in the application of the model for management purposes, and the need for attention to improved communication with a wide range of \ resource \ users.

}, keywords = {ecology, Performance criteria, rangeland management, rangelands, state and transition models, testing models.}, url = {https://www.tropicalgrasslands.asn.au/Tropical\%20Grasslands\%20Journal\%20archive/PDFs/Vol_28_1994/Vol_28_04_94_pp206_213.pdf}, author = {Joel R. Brown} } @article {51473, title = {How herbivory affects grazing tolerant and sensitive grasses in a central Texas grassland: Integrating plant response across hierarchical levels}, journal = {Oikos}, volume = {67}, year = {1993}, month = {1993}, pages = {291-298}, url = {/files/bibliography/93-001.pdf}, author = {Joel R. Brown and Stuth, J.W.} }