Chad S. Boyd’s research while affiliated with Oregon Department of Agriculture and other places

What is this page?


This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.

Publications (140)


Assessing Conservation Readiness: The Where, Who, and How of Strategic Conservation in the Sagebrush Biome
  • Article

November 2024

·

5 Reads

Rangeland Ecology & Management

Katherine Wollstein

·

·

Chad Boyd

1-s2.0-S1550742424001246-mmc1.docx
  • Data
  • File available

October 2024

·

7 Reads

Chad S Boyd

·

Megan K Creutzburg

·

·

[...]

·

Download

Figure 1. (A) Median change in sagebrush ecological integrity (SEI) classification from current (2017-2021) to future (RCP 4.5, 2071-2100) climate conditions for the "default" modeling assumptions (dynamic wildfire, C 4 grass expansion, but no CO 2 effects on plant-level water-use efficiency). (B) Total area in the nine possible changes of SEI classification for two emissions scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5) and two time periods (2031-2060, 2071-2100). The bars with no hash marks (RCP4.5, 2071-2100) correspond to the areas shown in the map in panel a. Bars show the area based on calculating the median future SEI across 13 global climate models at each grid-cell. Error bars show the range in area based on using the 2nd lowest and 2nd highest SEI values across GCMs at each grid-cell. Note that while nine changes in sagebrush ecological integrity classification are possible, the "ORA becomes CSA" (black) and "CSA becomes ORA" (dark red) categories do not appear on the map (because they represent approximately zero area). Abbreviations: CSA, Core Sagebrush Area; GOA, Growth Opportunity Area; ORA, Other Rangeland Area.
Figure 4. Median percent changes in Q values for (A) big sagebrush, (B) perennial grasses and (C) annual grasses, and d) median absolute change in sagebrush ecological integrity (SEI), for RCP4.5 2071-2100. Note that the Q score of annuals is inversely related to the cover of annuals, so areas shown in red in panel c denote projected increasing annual cover (and thereby a decreasing "quality" score). Results are for the "default" modeling assumptions (dynamic wildfire, C 4 grass expansion, but no CO 2 effects on plant-level water-use efficiency).
Figure 5. The spatial effects of modeling assumptions. Maps show how future sagebrush ecological integrity (SEI), and future SEI classification are different when (A) wildfire is not incorporated in the model, (B) the extent of C4 (warm-season) grasses is not allowed to expand, and (C) when the effect of CO 2 fertilization is included in the model. (D) Total area of the categories shown in panels a-c. Median results for RCP4.5 2071-2100 are shown here.
Figure 6. The effects that modeling assumptions have on the total amount of area represented by nine types of changes in sagebrush ecological integrity (SEI) classification. Patterning in bars denotes simulations done with four different modeling assumptions. Results are shown for two emissions scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5) and time-periods (2031-2060 and 2071-2100). Bars show the area based on calculating the median future SEI across 13 global climate models at each grid-cell. Error bars show the range in area based on using the 2nd lowest and 2nd highest future SEI values across GCMs at each grid-cell. Note, y-axis ranges differ between panels. Abbreviations: CSA, Core Sagebrush Area; GOA, Growth Opportunity Area; ORA, Other Rangeland Area.
Climate Change Amplifies Ongoing Declines in Sagebrush Ecological Integrity

October 2024

·

91 Reads

·

7 Citations

Rangeland Ecology & Management

Understanding how climate change will contribute to ongoing declines in sagebrush ecological integrity is critical for informing natural resource management, yet complicated by interactions with wildfire and biological invasions. We assessed potential future changes in sagebrush ecological integrity under a range of scenarios using an individual plant-based simulation model, integrated with remotely sensed estimates of current sagebrush ecological integrity. The simulation model allowed us to estimate how climate change, wildfire, and invasive annuals interact to alter the potential abundance of key plant functional types that influence sagebrush ecological integrity: sagebrush, perennial grasses, and annual grasses. Our results suggest that climate driven reductions in sagebrush ecological integrity may occur over broader areas than increases in sagebrush ecological integrity. Declines in sagebrush ecological integrity were most likely in hot and dry regions while increases were more likely in cool and wet regions. The most common projected transitions of sagebrush ecological integrity classes were declines from Core Sagebrush Area to Growth Opportunity Area and from Growth Opportunity Area to Other Rangeland Area. Responses varied considerably across projections from different global climate models, highlighting the importance of climate uncertainty. However, our projections tended to be robust in areas that currently have the highest sagebrush ecological integrity. Our results provide a long-term perspective on the vulnerability of sagebrush ecosystems to climate change and may inform geographic prioritization of conservation and restoration investments. The results also suggest that ongoing threats, such as the continued invasion by annual grasses and increased wildfire frequency, are likely to be amplified by climate change, and imply that the current imbalance between capacity for conservation to address threats to sagebrush will grow as the climate warms.


Figure 1. A moderate positive correlation (Pearson's correlation coefficient, r = 0.45; P < 0.001) among 6 643 randomly sampled 30-m spatial points within the Great Basin from 2020 between the carbon security index and sagebrush ecological integrity models. The red line represents a 1:1 line.
Figure 3. Carbon Security Index time series from 1989 to 2020 separated by resistance and resilience categories (high = green, moderate = blue, and low = red) parameterized for the Holloway fire. Solid lines represent the piecewise linear regression modeled means, whereas the shading indicates the 95% confidence interval for each mean. The points along the lines are the actual Carbon Security Index calculated values. The three points with standard error bars at the bottom of the figure are the piecewise linear regression estimated breakpoints for each resistance and resilience category and indicate the start of a large decrease in carbon security.
Figure 4. Carbon Security Index (CSI) management map for the Great Basin in 2020.
The Carbon Security Index: A Novel Approach to Assessing How Secure Carbon Is in Sagebrush Ecosystems Within the Great Basin

October 2024

·

44 Reads

·

2 Citations

Rangeland Ecology & Management

Rangeland carbon is often conceptualized similarly to intensively managed agricultural lands, in that we need to sequester and store more carbon. Unlike intensively managed agricultural lands, rangeland soils cannot sequester more carbon due to pedogenic and climatic limitations that influence plant community and microbial community dynamics. This requires a new paradigm for rangeland carbon that focuses on maintaining carbon security following disturbances like fire and plant community conversions (e.g., annual grasslands and conifer woodlands). To attain this, we propose the creation of a Carbon Security Index (CSI). CSI is a unitless, scalable value that can be used to compare carbon security across range-land sites and over time and incorporates a plant fractional cover ratio, resistance and resilience, and wildfire probability. Using the Great Basin as a case study, we found that CSI decreased by 53% basin wide from 1989 to 2020. Using the Sagebrush Conservation Design's sagebrush ecological integrity categories across the Great Basin, we found that CSI in "core" areas remained relatively unchanged between 1998 and 2020 (decreased by 1%), whereas "growth opportunity" areas CSI began to change (decreased by 13%) and "other rangeland" areas CSI decreased by 67%. We found that CSI was able to act as an indicator for determining when carbon security would decrease several years prior to a wildfire disturbance, which then rapidly reduced CSI. Finally, we created a carbon security management map to help prioritize potential management for achieving greatest carbon security and locations for restoration. These results show that CSI provides landowners and land managers an opportunity to assess how secure their carbon is on the land and help them prioritize areas for restoration.


Figure 1. The Global Human Modification Index ( Theobald et al. 2020 ) and its relationship to the sagebrush biome of the United States of America. The sagebrush biome is the largest contiguous portion of the Lower 48 States with the lowest amount of human modification.
Figure 2. The overall percentage of each of the five components of sagebrush ecological integrity, which caused the landscape to decline from being classified as a Core Sagebrush Area from 2001 to 2020.
Figure 3. Location: (A) and change over time in size and extent (B) of Core Sagebrush Areas, Growth Opportunity Areas, and Other Rangeland Areas from 2001-2020 within the sagebrush biome of the United States of America. Warm colors (Yellow, Orange, and Red) represent losses to the Biome. Shades of Green represent increases. Colors that stay the same between panels A and B represent no change in status. Credit: Doherty et al. (2022) .
Figure 4. New spatial landcover products now make it possible to map the condition and degradation of sagebrush rangelands through space and time. The "Defend the Core" strategy leverages this technology to identify intact "cores" and emphasizes proactive management of these areas as a top priority ( NRCS 2020 ). Once preventative management has been provided to keep cores healthy, more aggressive restoration and management can then be implemented to grow cores through time. Credit: USDA-NRCS Working Lands for Wildlife.
Figure 5. A framework to align ecological values with social capacity and management leadership to deliver conservation at volume (Credit Wollstein et al., Chapter 18, 2024 ). Conservation at scale requires all three pillars: Ecological Importance, Social Capacity, and Conducive Administrative Conditions. That is, strategic conservation involves not only work in ecologically important areas; it's an approach that must also include efforts to support or enhance social capacity and conducive administrative conditions.
State of the Sagebrush: Implementing the Sagebrush Conservation Design to Save a Biome

October 2024

·

69 Reads

·

8 Citations

Rangeland Ecology & Management

This special issue of Rangeland Ecology and Management is dedicated to applying the Sagebrush Conservation Design (SCD) to improve conservation outcomes across the sagebrush biome in the face of pervasive ecosystem threats. This special issue provides new science and real-world examples of how we can implement the SCD to save a biome. The SCD is a tool to identify intact sagebrush areas and address the largest threats to the ecosystem. The SCD focuses on first protecting intact and functioning sagebrush ecosystems, called Core Sagebrush Areas, then works outward toward more degraded areas (i.e., “Defend the Core”). The premise behind the Defend the Core approach is simple: focus resources first on preventative actions that retain ecosystem services in Core Sagebrush Areas because they are more cost-effective and more likely to be successful. The opening article of this special issue creates a foundation for the 19 following papers, providing a coherent path for implementing the SCD. The overarching themes are: 1) Business-As-Usual Won't Save the Sagebrush Sea, 2) Better Spatial Targeting Can Improve Outcomes, 3) Conservation Planning is Needed to Develop Realistic Business Plans, 4) Targeted Ecosystem Management: Monitoring Shows Managing for Sagebrush Ecological Integrity is Working, 5) Maintaining Sagebrush Ecological Integrity is Ecologically Relevant, and 6) There is Only Hope if We Manage Change. The collective articles show that there is no shared plan to save the biome, yet a business plan for the biome could ensure realistic goals. The sagebrush biome still has vast expanses of open spaces with high ecological integrity at a scale that is rare in other ecological systems within the lower 48 states. If we focus on the common ground of the main drivers of ecosystem change, implementing the SCD and Defending the Core are viable strategies to help save a biome.



A Strategic and Science-Based Framework for Management of Invasive Annual Grasses in the Sagebrush Biome

August 2024

·

72 Reads

·

14 Citations

Rangeland Ecology & Management

In the last 20 years, the North American sagebrush biome has lost over 500 000 ha of intact and largely intact sagebrush plant communities on an annual basis. Much of this loss has been associated with expansion and infilling of invasive annual grasses (IAGs). These species are highly competitive against native perennial grasses in disturbed environments, and create fuel conditions that increase both the likelihood of fire ignition and the ease of wildfire spread across large landscapes. Given the current rate of IAG expansion in both burned and unburned rangelands, we propose a range-wide paradigm shift from op-portunistic and reactive management, to a framework that spatially prioritizes maintenance of largely intact, uninvaded areas and improvement of invaded habitats in strategic locations. We created a framework accompanied by biome-wide priority maps using geospatial overlays that target areas to MAINTAIN large, uninvaded areas as natural resource anchors through activities to prevent IAGs, IMPROVE areas where management success in restoring large, intact landscapes is most likely, and CONTAIN IAG infestations where necessary. We then offer three case studies to illustrate the use of these concepts and map products at multiple scales. Our map products operate at the biome scale using regional data sources and additional data sources will be needed to inform local conservation planning. However, the basic strategic management principles of (1) maintaining the intact and uninvaded areas that we can least afford to lose to IAGs, (2) improving areas where we have a reasonable likelihood of restoration success, and (3) containing problems where we must, are timely, relevant, and scalable from the biome to local levels. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of The Society for Range Management. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)





Citations (86)


... They also quantify a 58% decline in birds that accompanies the transition of Cores to ORAs in the last two decades. O'Connor et al. (2024) wraps up this section with a conceptual framework for measuring changes in carbon security through the proactive management of Core Sagebrush Areas. ...

Reference:

State of the Sagebrush: Implementing the Sagebrush Conservation Design to Save a Biome
The Carbon Security Index: A Novel Approach to Assessing How Secure Carbon Is in Sagebrush Ecosystems Within the Great Basin

Rangeland Ecology & Management

... A considerable but manageable portion of the sagebrush biome is at risk of future cropland conversion ( Fig. 2 , Table 3 ). In comparison to other primary threats in the sagebrush biome, such as invasive annual grasses, woodland expansion, wildfire, and climate change impacts Doherty et al., 2022a ;Holdrege et al., 2024 ), cropland conversion risk occurs over less area and is more clustered regionally. This presents an important conservation opportunity to focus land protections in areas of clustered cropland conversion risk on sagebrush rangelands. ...

Climate Change Amplifies Ongoing Declines in Sagebrush Ecological Integrity

Rangeland Ecology & Management

... The highest priority areas characterize areas that not only fall within CSAs but are desirable for treatment based on the other criteria in the analysis: they demonstrate lower conifer cover, less risk from invasive annuals both prior to and post-treatment and represent high landscape-level connectivity. In the absence of abundant resources to pursue sagebrush conservation efforts, these are factors that should be considered when planning conifer treatments ( Roundy et al., 2014 ;Bybee et al., 2016 ;Fick et al., 2022 ;Boyd et al., 2024 ;Naugle et al., 2024 ;Theobald et al., 2024 ). Indeed, the focus on targeting lower conifer cover areas within core landscapes as outlined here could potentially allow for more area to . ...

A Strategic and Science-Based Framework for Management of Invasive Annual Grasses in the Sagebrush Biome

Rangeland Ecology & Management

... Rangelands across the world have been degraded and overused, leading to unstable ecosystems in need of restoration (Harris 1991;Young & Allen 1997;Reynolds et al. 2007). Drill seeding native species to revegetate rangelands offers relatively high success rates but is not applicable on steep or rocky terrain (Roundy & Call 1988), and the associated disturbance may negatively impact restoration goals (Davies et al. 2024). When drill seeding is not feasible, the most accessible revegetation method is broadcasting seed. ...

Post-fire management decisions have consequences: Drill-seeding disturbance and effects of co-seeding introduced with native bunchgrasses

Global Ecology and Conservation

... In wet savanna such as Cerrado in Brazil this is quite normal [64]. In contrast, land use by farmers, activities of shepherds and livestock grazing can reduce the likelyhood, area and severity of wildfires [65]. ...

Ecological benefits of strategically applied livestock grazing in sagebrush communities

... Based on our findings, it is recommended that reclamation practitioners in arid and semi-arid sagebrush-steppe ecosystems of western North America continue to use diverse native seed mixes containing forbs and grasses as well as sagebrush. Additionally, these results may help inform habitat restoration within sagebrush-steppe ecosystems as there is a growing body of literature suggesting native vegetation species other than sagebrush are critical to overall ecosystem functionality [69]. ...

Sagebrush Ecosystems are More Than Artemisia: The Complex Issue of Degraded Understories in the Great Basin

Rangeland Ecology & Management

... Across large areas, such as the sagebrush region, variability in study designs, length and timing of grazing treatments, ranges of abiotic conditions, and herbivore species can make it difficult to generalize the impacts of grazing. In addition, water availability can vary widely over areas with the same dominant sagebrush plant species, potentially altering community response to grazing (Case et al., 2024;Schlaepfer et al., 2012). Changes in abiotic conditions that alter water availability, such as higher sand content or higher precipitation, are likely to influence plant community response to grazing or have interactive effects that are lost when treatment effects are averaged across sites (Huston & McBride, 2002). ...

Cross‐scale analysis reveals interacting predictors of annual and perennial cover in Northern Great Basin rangelands

... Laboratory studies consistently show positive results of AC seed technologies for limiting herbicide damage to seeded species (e.g., Madsen et al., 2014;Clenet et al., 2019;Brown et al., 2019). In contrast, some species seeded in field studies failed to establish enough individuals (see section below on failures) to evaluate if AC seed technology protected seeded species from herbicide effects (Clenet et al., 2020;Baughman et al., 2023Baughman et al., , 2024Davies et al., 2023a). Similar to the literature on AC seed technologies, SETs, in general, have greater positive effects in laboratory compared to field studies (Berto et al., 2024). ...

Evaluating different rates of activated carbon in commercially produced seed coatings in laboratory and field trials
  • Citing Article
  • March 2024

Restoration Ecology

... AC seed pellets can also be made with molds (Brown et al., 2023b). Seed coatings containing AC can be applied using a rotary method , a vortex method (Holfus et al., 2021), or commercially Duquette et al., 2024). The rotary method attaches AC to the seeds using a rotary coater and a binder . ...

Evaluating performance of three types of carbon seed coatings on seedling development

Restoration Ecology

... Water bodies slightly increased from 1,017 km 2 (1%) to 1,526 km 2 (1.5%), possibly due to increased melting and flooding events. Rangeland areas saw a notable decrease from 30,522 km 2 (30%) to 25,435 km 2 (25%), indicating significant degradation or conversion to other land uses ( Asif et al., 2023 ;Davies et al., 2024 ;Reed et al., 2007 ;Retallack et al., 2023 ). Vegetation cover, including forests and cultivated areas, reduced from 20,348 km 2 (20%) to 18,313 km 2 (18%), suggesting deforestation or agricultural losses. ...

Long-Term Effects of Revegetation Efforts in Annual Grass−Invaded Rangeland

Rangeland Ecology & Management