Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Index/Abstracts
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
  • Alerts
  • Free Issue
  • Call for Papers
  • Other Publications
    • UWP
    • Land Economics
    • Landscape Journal
    • Native Plants Journal

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Ecological Restoration
  • Other Publications
    • UWP
    • Land Economics
    • Landscape Journal
    • Native Plants Journal
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Ecological Restoration

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Index/Abstracts
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
  • Alerts
  • Free Issue
  • Call for Papers
  • Follow uwp on Twitter
  • Visit uwp on Facebook
Research ArticleResearch Article
Open Access

Crisis on the Prairies Revisited

Implementation of the Native Prairie Adaptive Management Program

Jill J. Gannon, Todd A. Grant, Sara C. Vacek, Cami S. Dixon and Clinton T. Moore
Ecological Restoration, March 2024, 42 (1) 64-76; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3368/er.42.1.64
Jill J. Gannon
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1201 Oakridge Drive, STE 300, Fort Collins, CO, 80525, .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: jill_gannon{at}fws.gov
Todd A. Grant
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NWRS, Upham, ND.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sara C. Vacek
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NWRS, Morris, MN.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cami S. Dixon
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Woodworth Station, Woodworth, ND.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Clinton T. Moore
University of Georgia, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, Athens, GA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Relative frequency of occurrence for A) native grass-forb, B) B. inermis, C) P. pratensis, and D) low shrub categories occurring on Service-owned prairies in North Dakota, South Dakota, and northeast Montana. Increasingly darker shading reflects an increasing frequency of occurrence. Increasingly larger circles reflect increasing size (ha) of prairie units composed of a greater number of transects. Counties are represented by solid lines. The division between the three states is indicated by a thicker solid line (adapted from Grant et al. 2020a: figure 2).

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Two stages of the Native Prairie Adaptive Management framework: the setup stage and the iterative stage. The setup stage consists of the foundational components of the decision framework that were developed between 2008 and 2010. The iterative stage consists of the recurrent steps of the annual decision-making, monitoring, and updating process.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Extent of the mixed-grass and tallgrass prairies within the northern Great Plains of the United States. The dashed line is the approximate demarcation of the mixed-grass (westerly) and tallgrass (easterly) grassland ecosystems. NPAM-enrolled units (n = 127) are located within the U.S. portion of the Prairie Pothole Region in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota, which includes two Service regions (3 and 6).

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Relative weights for the A) four competing mixed-grass models and the B) six competing tallgrass models as they change across annual updating cycles between 2009 and 2022. In 2009, beginning weights on the competing models were set equal at 0.25 and 0.167 for mixed-grass and tallgrass, respectively. In 2020, after revising model parameters with empirical data from 2009–2019, model weights for 2019 were set to equal and annual updating cycles started anew with the 2019–2020 paired data. The competing models represent primary uncertainties in managing prairies and were parameterized and evaluated separately by grassland ecosystem. Model 1 hypothesizes that all forms of defoliation are equally effective, regardless of prairie condition, and result in a more desired native cover than does a rest treatment. Models 2 through 4 are additive in nature such that each model incorporates the structure of the prior model, but advances a new premise regarding treatment effectiveness; the models focus on the impact of dominant invader, defoliation history, and invasion level, respectively. Tallgrass prairies included two additional models that share the same structure as Model 3, but vary in their prediction regarding effectiveness of grazing within the phenological window when B. inermis is dominant (Model 5) and effectiveness of defoliation actions outside of the phenological window compared to rest (Model 6).

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Mixed-grass decision policies of management recommendations based on expert-derived parameterized models. The two decision policies reflect A) equal weights of 0.25 first assigned to each of the four competing models in 2009 and B) updated weights of 0.56, 0.05, 0.14, and 0.25 on the four competing models in 2018 that evolved after nine annual updating cycles (2009–2018). The decision policy indicates the optimal management action (rest, graze, burn, or burn/graze combination) given the current state of a prairie unit and the current weight on the four competing models. The current state of a prairie unit is defined by its vegetation composition and defoliation history. We recognize four discrete states of native prairie cover (60–100%, 45–60%, 30–45%, and 0–30%) and four invasive dominance categories (SB=smooth brome, CO=co-dominant smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass, KB=Kentucky bluegrass, RM=remainder), which results in 16 potential vegetation states. Defoliation history is captured by an index of how recent and frequent non-rest actions took place over the previous seven years; the index is then broken into three defoliation history levels of low, medium, and high. Additionally, we recognize three timeframes that describe the number of years since a prairie unit last received a non-rest action: one year ago, two to four years ago, and five or more years ago. Feasible combinations of the three defoliation history levels and the three timeframes result in seven potential defoliation history states. Combining the 16 vegetation and seven defoliation history states produces 112 prairie states in which a prairie unit can occur at any point in time.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Mixed-grass decision policy of management recommendations based on empirically derived parameterized models built in 2020. The decision policy reflects equal weights of 0.25 on each of the four competing models. Figure design and components are the same as those in Figure 5; see Figure 5 caption for further description.

  • Figure 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7.

    Percent cover of native grasses and forbs for NPAM units during 2010–2021. Trend lines of both mixed-grass and tallgrass prairies show an approximate two percent increase in native plant cover over this period (adapted from Moore et al. 2020).

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Floristic composition (percent cover), based on mean values for each comparative era of inventory. The Full Study includes all Service-owned prairies in North Dakota, South Dakota, and northeast Montana, including those of the Dakota Complexes and Drift Prairies (Grant et al. 2020a). Dakota Complexes include five Service-owned administrative complexes in North and South Dakota (Grant et al. 2009). Drift Prairies describe prairies within the glacial drift plain physiographic region located at J. Clark Salyer and Des Lacs NWRs (Murphy and Grant 2005). Low shrubs are primarily Symphoricarpos occidentalis (western snowberry) and Elaeagnus commutata (silverberry). Weedy forbs are predominantly Melilotus spp. (sweet clover), Euphorbia esula (leafy spurge) and Cirsium arvense (Canada thistle).

    VariableFull StudyDakota ComplexesDrift Prairies
        Years1999–20082002–20061999–2002
        Hectares80,49444,6354,300
        Transectsn = 15,144n = 7,438n = 713
    Plant Group/Species
        Native grass-forb24.827.620.4
        B. inermis29.222.828.1
        P. pratensis25.425.920.0
        Low shrub10.316.522.8
        Weedy forbs  0.1  3.8  8.2

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
    • Gannon_SuppMat_S1_S3.pdf
    • Gannon_SuppMat_S4.pdf
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Ecological Restoration: 42 (1)
Ecological Restoration
Vol. 42, Issue 1
March 2024
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Ecological Restoration.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Crisis on the Prairies Revisited
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Ecological Restoration
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Ecological Restoration web site.
Citation Tools
Crisis on the Prairies Revisited
Jill J. Gannon, Todd A. Grant, Sara C. Vacek, Cami S. Dixon, Clinton T. Moore
Ecological Restoration Mar 2024, 42 (1) 64-76; DOI: 10.3368/er.42.1.64

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Crisis on the Prairies Revisited
Jill J. Gannon, Todd A. Grant, Sara C. Vacek, Cami S. Dixon, Clinton T. Moore
Ecological Restoration Mar 2024, 42 (1) 64-76; DOI: 10.3368/er.42.1.64
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • Phase I: Inventory Service-Owned Native Prairies in North Dakota and South Dakota
    • Phase II: Develop an Adaptive Management Framework to Guide Restoration of Service-Owned Prairies
    • Phase III: Implement the Adaptive Management Framework
    • Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Lessons Learned and Value of Early Post-Construction Monitoring of a Large Tidal Wetland Restoration Project
  • Strategic Pathways for Environmental Restoration
  • Evaluating Restoration Techniques for Degraded Steppe Rangelands
Show more Research Article

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • invasive species
  • Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis)
  • prairie management
  • restoration
  • smooth brome (Bromus inermis)
UW Press logo

© 2026 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

Powered by HighWire