Search

Invasive grasses reduce habitat quality for multiple taxa and can negatively impact forage quality for livestock. Large-scale experimental studies are needed to inform more effective grassland restoration that is grounded in practice. To this end, we studied the control of a common but highly invasive cool-season grass using a landscape-scale experiment, employing an adaptive management framework. The study design included three patches (average 8.7 ha) at each of seven sites. Treatments included 1) herbicide (glyphosate), 2) herbicide and native seeding, and 3) control. Four sites were grazed by domestic cattle using adaptive stocking. We sampled vegetation composition and structure during one pretreatment year (2014) and four post-treatment years (2015–2018). Our primary objective was to evaluate how these one-time treatments affected the cover of tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus)and native grasses and forbs. Tall fescue cover was reduced after a one-time glyphosate application, and this reduction was maintained over 4 years on grazed and ungrazed sites. We observed increases of warm-season grasses after herbicide and seeding, with the strongest restoration observed on ungrazed sites. Native grasses did not differ strongly between treatments on grazed sites, where there was a resurgence of nonfescue exotic grasses. Percent cover of native forbs was near zero before seeding but ranged from low to moderate levels afterward. Our results indicate a one-time application of herbicide can be used to reduce but not eradicate the invasive grass tall fescue, although other exotic grasses may replace tall fescue, especially on grazed sites. For plant community restoration to be successful, sites should be rested from grazing to give native seedings time to establish. Although eradication of invasive grasses is often infeasible in productive landscapes, restoring at least some native vegetation has the potential to protect ecosystem services provided by grasslands.

To advance the dialogue to define sustainable working landscapes, it is essential to include the perceptions, knowledge, and factors guiding decision making. We surveyed livestock producers in the Grand River Grasslands region of southern Iowa and northern Missouri, United States, to gain insight into key factors shaping decision making and perspectives on effective management practices in the eastern Great Plains, focusing in particular on demographic and social change and producer willingness to reduce stocking rate as a conservation practice. First, a longitudinal evaluation of livestock producer demographics in 2007 and 2017 revealed individuals were older and were renting grazing land to a greater extent than in 2007. Second, when making land management decisions, producers in 2017 focused on economic concerns more than environmental concerns compared with more balanced views in 2007. For those who prioritized the environment over economics, this prioritization was related to both higher levels of education and a willingness to reduce stocking rate (livestock production) if there is a positive conservation outcome. In contrast, a lower willingness to reduce stocking was associated with increasing rental acreage and prevalence of an invasive cool-season grass that responds favorably to heavy grazing (tall fescue, Schedonorus arundinaceusSchreb.). Regardless, about 37% of cattle producers representing ∼40% of the land area surveyed were at least moderately willing to reduce stocking rates to achieve a conservation outcome. In conclusion, our findings suggest that producers’ need to gain income from livestock may limit the willingness to enact a conservation practice similar to reduced stocking rates. However, there is clearly conservation receptiveness from a segment of the producer community, which indicates potential for improved conservation.

Invasive grasses reduce native plant diversity in North America's tallgrass prairies and are commonly controlled using herbicide followed by seeding of native plants. Despite the long-term development of plant communities after seeding, evaluations of restoration outcomes rarely exceed 2 yr. Further, plant community development may be influenced by grazing by domestic cattle, a dominant land use in working landscapes that typify the Great Plains, yet this relationship is seldom explored. In the eastern Great Plains, we evaluated plant community characteristics over 8 yr in tallgrass prairies invaded by tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus) after treatment with herbicide followed by seeding native plants. We compared 16 restoration sites seeded once between spring 2014 and 2021 to 2 unrestored, invaded sites and 3 high-diversity reference sites that were not restored. Domestic cattle grazed six restoration sites and one unrestored, invaded site; the remaining sites were ungrazed. In July 2021, we quantified the dominance and cover of herbaceous plants and the composition and richness of seeded species. Annual forb dominance, seeded species establishment and composition, native forb cover, and seeded species richness of older restorations closely resembled references. However, grazed restorations resembled high-quality references less closely than ungrazed restorations. Future studies should consider identifying high-quality reference sites that are grazed because ungrazed references may represent inappropriate target conditions for grazed restorations. The similarities we observed between older restorations and references highlight the importance of long-term evaluations when quantifying restoration outcomes and indicate that treatment with herbicide followed by native seeding has long-lasting positive effects for restoring native plant communities in invaded tallgrass prairies. Enhancing the practicality and effectiveness of restoration efforts in working landscapes is key to supporting grassland restoration.

Science has a history of excluding marginalized groups, including people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, and other marginalized gender and sexual identities (LGBTQ+), and recent calls urge the wildlife sciences to address disparities. Literature on inclusion in the life sciences generally has focused on personal affirmation and has neglected comprehensive discussion of barriers rooted in historical, structural, and sociocultural context. In our literature review, we construct a narrative highlighting the intersections between historic LGBTQ+ exclusion in society and wildlife science due to current policy trends, pressures of cis‐heteronormativity, and survival barriers on LGBTQ+ people in wildlife sciences in the United States. Wildlife scientists must have competency on LGBTQ+ marginalization topics to advance inclusion in our discipline, and this should include comprehension of historic and current legislation and social perceptions. To bolster inclusion efforts, we recommend thoughtful data collection on experiences of LGBTQ+ people within the wildlife sciences. To address root causes of exclusion, institutions and organizations should address disparities in financial support, housing, and physical and mental health resources as part of LGBTQ+ advocacy, in addition to interpersonal efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]