@conference {50709,
	title = {Transitions in rangeland evaluations},
	booktitle = {57th Annual Meeting, Society for Range Management},
	year = {2004},
	month = {January 25, 2004},
	pages = {296},
	address = {Salt Lake City, UT},
	abstract = {Historically, rangeland evaluations have been concerned with the inventory and monitoring of upland physical and biological characteristics. Vascular plant composition was a critical measure for determining rangeland condition and trend. Managers used key areas and key forage species to determine if livestock and wildlife adequately used the available land area and its forage. Over the years, the principle reasons for evaluating rangelands have remained the same. They are to determine the current status and trend of the natural resources on rangelands. However, we began to recognize that the traditional rangeland condition classification system and the successional model on which it was based had severe limitations when applied to many semiarid and arid rangelands. We reevaluated our views of succession and the relationship between those views and the status of rangelands. We broadened our areas of concern from only uplands to including wetlands and riparian areas. In addition, we looked beyond the impacts of only our primary use of an individually fenced unit, which was often livestock grazing, to multiple uses and units within a watershed or multiple watersheds within a basin. New assessment techniques are attempting to link abiotic with biotic factors and to integrate them into evaluations of ecosystem status on rangelands. Remote sensing tools now provide a means to evaluate larger areas. Future evaluations will examine the sustainability of rangelands, but they will need to develop acceptable measures of not just biological and physical factors, but also social and economicfactors relating to rangelands.},
	author = {D.A. Pyke and Jeffrey E. Herrick}
}
@article {50708,
	title = {Transitions in rangeland evaluations: a review of the major transitions in rangeland evaluations during the last 25 years and speculation about future evaluations},
	journal = {Rangelands},
	volume = {25},
	number = {6},
	year = {2004},
	month = {January 1, 2004},
	pages = {22-30},
	abstract = {Historically, rangeland evaluations have been concerned with the inventory and monitoring of upland physical and biological characteristics.  Vascular plant composition was a critical measure for determining rangeland condition and trend.  Managers used key areas and key forage species to determine if livestock and wildlife appropriately used the available land area and its forage.  Over the years, the principle reasons for evaluating rangelands have remained the same.  They are to determine the current status and trend of the natural resources on rangelands.  However, we began to recognize that the traditional rangeland condition classification system and the successional model on which it was based had severe limitations when applied to many semiarid and arid rangelands.  We reevaluated our views of succession and the relationship between those views and the status of rangelands.  We broadened our areas of concern from uplands only to include wetlands and riparian areas.  In addition, we looked beyond the impacts of only our primary use of an individually fenced unit, which was often livestock grazing, to multiple uses and units within a watershed or multiple watersheds within a basin. New assessment techniques are attempting to link abiotic with biotic factors and to integrate them into evaluations of ecosystem status on rangelands.  Remote sensing tools now provide a means to evaluate larger areas.  Future evaluations will examine the sustainability of rangelands, but they will need to develop acceptable measures of not just biological and physical factors, but also social and economic factors relating to rangelands.},
	keywords = {evaluations, rangeland, transitions},
	author = {D.A. Pyke and Jeffrey E. Herrick}
}
@article {50805,
	title = {Transitions in rangeland evaluations: A review of the major transitions in rangeland evaluations during the last 25 years and speculation about future evaluations},
	journal = {Rangelands},
	volume = {25},
	number = {6},
	year = {2003},
	note = {Trade Journal},
	month = {2003},
	pages = {22-30},
	abstract = {<p>New technologies in remote sensing allow us to view land changes over much larger areas than in the past. Our increased understanding of the importance of linkages among the living components (all of the interacting organisms) and non-living components (e.g., soils, air, and water) of rangelands and processes occurring within rangelands (e.g., nutrient and water cycling as well as energy flow) has led to the development of new approaches for evaluating rangelands. We even occasionally try to include social, economic, and legal aspects of rangelands in evaluations. This article is an opportunity to review the major transitions in rangeland evaluations during the last 25 years and realize how much change has occurred in our approaches. It also provides an opportunity to speculate about the future evaluations.</p>
},
	keywords = {future, rangelands, remote sensing, Trade journal, transition},
	url = {/files/bibliography/04-030.pdf},
	author = {D.A. Pyke and Jeffrey E. Herrick}
}
@proceedings {50806,
	title = {What is the standard for rangeland health assessments?},
	year = {2003},
	month = {July 26-August 1},
	pages = {764-766},
	address = {Durban, South Africa},
	abstract = {Rangeland health encompasses the maintenance of complex ecological processes on rangelands over time.  In an attempt to provide a rapid, moment-in-time assessment of rangeland health, we developed the Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health approach that uses 17 observable indicators to assess 3 attributes of rangeland health, soil and site stability, hydrologic functioning and biotic integrity.  In the initial published version, the standard for comparison for assessing an evaluation area was the Ecological Site Description, the description of physical and biotic characteristics of lands that produce distinctive types and amounts of vegetation and that respond similarly to management.  Multiple reference areas provided visual representations of the ecological site and were used to supplement ecological site descriptions or as the standard when ecological site descriptions were not available.  We developed an ecological reference worksheet to provide a consistent standard for assessing rangeland health regardless of the availability of a formal ecological site description or a series of reference areas.  This worksheet should be completed by a group of experts familiar with the range of variation in soil, hydrologic and biologic indicators.  When possible, data similar to that found in ecological site descriptions should be used to generate the range of variation expected for a functioning site.  Once the standard range of variation is described, the group should describe the four categories of expected deviations from this standard using generic descriptions of these categories as a guide.  We believe this change will allow this technique to be used by experts throughout the world.},
	keywords = {assessments, ecological processes, rangeland health, standard},
	author = {D.A. Pyke and Jeffrey E. Herrick and P. L. Shaver and M. Pellant}
}
@article {50929,
	title = {Rangeland health attributes and indicators for qualitative assessment},
	journal = {Journal of Range Management},
	volume = {55},
	number = {6},
	year = {2002},
	month = {November 1, 2002},
	pages = {584-597},
	abstract = {Panels of experts from the Society for Range Management and the National Research Council proposed that status of rangeland ecosystems could be ascertained by evaluating an ecological site{\textquestiondown}s potential to conserve soil resources and by a series of indicators for ecosystem processes and site stability.  Using these recommendations as a starting point, we developed a rapid, qualitative method for assessing a moment-in-time status of rangelands.  Evaluators rate 17 indicators to assess 3 ecosystem attributes (soil and site stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity) for a given location.  Indicators include rills, water flow patterns, pedestals and terracettes, bare ground, gullies, wind scour and depositional areas, litter movement, soil resistance to erosion, soil surface loss or degradation, plant composition relative to infiltration, soil compaction, plant functional/structural groups, plant mortality, litter amount, annual production, invasive plants, and reproductive capability.  In this paper, we detail the development and evolution of the technique and introduce a modified ecological reference worksheet that documents the expected presence and amount of each indicator on the ecological site.  In addition, we review the intended applications for this technique and clarify the differences between assessment and monitoring that lead us to recommend this technique be used for moment-in-time assessments and not be used for temporal monitoring of rangeland status.  Lastly, we propose a mechanism for adapting and modifying this technique to reflect improvements in understanding of ecosystem processes.  We support the need for quantitative measures for monitoring rangeland health and propose some measures that we believe may address some of the 17 indicators.},
	url = {http://jrm.library.arizona.edu/jrm/GetFileServlet?file=file:///data1/pdf/TheJournalOfRangeManagement/Volume55/Number6/azu_jrm_v55_n6_584_597_m.pdf\&type=application/pdf},
	author = {D.A. Pyke and Jeffrey E. Herrick and P. L. Shaver and M. Pellant}
}
