{"id":38,"date":"2017-04-11T04:05:20","date_gmt":"2017-04-11T04:05:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.warnercnr.colostate.edu\/larryr\/?page_id=38"},"modified":"2017-04-11T04:12:08","modified_gmt":"2017-04-11T04:12:08","slug":"outline","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sites.warnercnr.colostate.edu\/larryr\/outline\/","title":{"rendered":"Outline"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n
\n
DRAFT<\/div>\n

RS300 – PRINCIPLES OF RANGE MANAGEMENT<\/span><\/b>I. Introduction – Why a discipline of Rangeland Ecosystem Science? (3 to 5) \u00a0<\/b><\/span>
\nA.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Range as a discipline<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Definitions<\/b><\/span>
\na.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Rangeland<\/b><\/span>
\ni.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 derived from one of many different ways to\u00a0 describe the surface character of the earth
\nii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 classifications are a way to communicate, both within and across disciplines
\niii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 a kind of land – historically based on use<\/b><\/span>
\nb.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Range Science – a body of knowledge derived from both inductive and deductive thought, and based on rules of evidence accepted by the \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 discipline.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

c.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Range Management<\/b><\/span>
\ni.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 application of human-derived practices and natural events to control processes that collectively produce an ecosystem state, or dynamic, valued by humans.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

ii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Managers<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 * choose collections of ideas and
\nparadigms for explaining variability
\naccepted by the discipline and
\ncultures involved
\n* set system boundaries, (i.e.,
\nmanagers choose appropriate
\ntemporal and spatial scales) based
\non the issues that require human
\nintervention
\n* operate within cultural, political and
\neconomics systems
\n* link biological and human systems<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 @ resolve disputes among people
\nand groups that hold traditional
\nand other cultural values
\n@ accommodate multiple cultural
\nvalues in NR planning and
\ndecision-making
\n@ facilitate communication among
\nstakeholders and clientele<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

B. Value of rangelands, rangeland uses and rangeland products<\/b><\/span>
\n1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Intrinsic values<\/b><\/span>
\na.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 biological diversity
\nb.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 sense of place
\nc.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 aesthetics
\nd.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 source of germplasm
\ne.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 habitat for endemic and transitory fauna<\/b><\/span>
\n2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Economic values – a source of wealth to privately held land and
\na source of revenue for governments<\/b><\/span>
\na.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 wildlife ranching and sale of wildlife products
\nb.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 livestock ranching and sale of livestock products
\nc.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 sale of recreational access to land
\nd.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 minerals<\/b><\/span>
\nC.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Historical context and future contribution<\/b><\/span>
\n1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 prehistoric context, including the evolution of flora and support
\nof various fauna<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 historic context, including the role of land disposal schemes and
\neconomic development<\/b><\/span>
\na.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The discipline grew out of a concern for sustainable
\nuses on grasslands and shrublands.
\nb.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Early experiments and demonstrations showed the
\nresponse of systems to management.
\nc.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Formation of a Society in 1948.
\nd.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Relation to other disciplines.<\/b><\/span>
\n3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Future contribution of the discipline is to continue to build
\nknowledge of system processes and sustainable uses.
\nManagement will be required for most rangeland uses to be
\nsustainable. The reason is mostly related to change in scale and
\ndampening of natural system modifiers like fire and grazing.<\/b><\/span>
\nII.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Characteristics and global distribution of rangelands – Structure of
\nterrestrial vegetation (4)<\/b><\/span>
\n\u00a0A.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Habitat factors that determine vegetation structure (based on the Holdredge
\nTriangle), including lifeform and life histories of vegetation.<\/b><\/span>
\n\u00a0 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Temperature, represented by latitude and altitude represent life
\nzones. Temperature determines the boundary above which
\nplants adapted to a life zone cannot survive<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Total available water drives systems within life zones. Total
\navailable water determines the lifeform of plants that dominate a
\nsite.<\/b><\/span>
\na.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Total precipitation and form<\/b><\/span>
\ni.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 total annual precipitation<\/b><\/span>
\n* frequency of low intensity vs
\nhigh intensity events <\/b><\/span>* distribution of events<\/b><\/span>
\n\u00a0ii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 seasonal distribution<\/b><\/span>
\nb.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 coincidence of precipitation and evaporation<\/b><\/span>
\n\u00a0 i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 vegetation use of stored water vs
\nwater from ephemeral events<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0ii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 interaction of water availability and
\nenvironmental conditions conducive
\nto growth or regrowth<\/b><\/span>
\n* influence of prolonged
\nperiods of reduced water
\nsupply – drought cycles <\/b><\/span>* influence of periods of
\nabove\u00a0 average water
\nsupply <\/b><\/span>* wet and dry intervals under
\ntemperatures too cold for
\ngrowth <\/b><\/span>* wet and dry intervals under
\ntemperatures suitable for
\nplant growth<\/b><\/span>
\nc.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Soils and relief<\/b><\/span>
\ni.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 water interception and evaporation
\nii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 infiltration rate and runoff
\niii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 water holding capacity and
\navailability
\niv.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 water transpiration and evaporation<\/b><\/span>
\n* radiant energy
\n* wind<\/b><\/span>
\nB.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Distribution of Rangeland types in the US and World<\/b><\/span>
\n1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Grasslands<\/b><\/span>
\na.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 tallgrass prairie and world homologues
\nb.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 midgrass prairie and world homologues
\nc.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 shortgrass prairie and world homologues
\nd.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 desert grass<\/b><\/span>
\ni.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Palouse
\nii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 California<\/b><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

e.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 annual<\/b><\/span>
\n2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Desert shrub<\/b><\/span>
\na.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 northern<\/b><\/span>
\ni.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 sagebrush-steppe
\nii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 salt desert<\/b><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

b.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 southern<\/b><\/span>
\n3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Shrub woodlands<\/b><\/span>
\na.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 mesquite
\nb.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 pinon-juniper
\nc.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 chaparral
\nd.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 mountain brush<\/b><\/span>
\n4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Temperate forests<\/b><\/span>
\na.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 juniper woodlands
\nb.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 ponderosa pine
\nc.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 fir, including transitional states
\nd.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 aspen
\ne.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 hardwood woodlands<\/b><\/span>
\n5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Tundra<\/b><\/span>
\nIII.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Plant Physiology and Morphology in Relation to Defoliation – Rangeland
\nvegetation is renewable (4 to 6)<\/b><\/span>A.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Plant morphogenesis and response to amount and timing of tissue removal
\n<\/b><\/span>1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 review of monocot and dicot anatomy and response to above and below
\nground tissue removal (e.g., herbivory or fire)
\n2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 below ground
\n<\/b><\/span>a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 root growth
\n<\/b><\/span>i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 annual growth cycle – time of root growth
\nii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 mortality and annual turnover, including use by below ground
\nfeeders and decomposition
\niii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 interaction with above ground tissue removal<\/b><\/span>b.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 modified stems – rhizomes
\n<\/b><\/span>i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 number
\nii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 initiation and time of emergence
\niii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 interaction with above ground tissue removal<\/b><\/span>2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 above ground<\/b><\/span>a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 plant growth
\n<\/b><\/span>i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 monocots vs dicots
\nii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 effect of tissue and meristem removal<\/b><\/span>b.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 reproduction
\n<\/b><\/span>i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 sexual
\n<\/b><\/span>* seed production<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 @ dispersal mechanisms in relation colonization of ecological
\ngaps
\n@ viability and requirements for germination and survival in
\nrelation to colonization of ecological gaps<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – rooting morphology and seedling emergence and root
\ndevelopment
\n– water availability
\n– temperature<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

* interaction of seed production and environment, including
\nherbivory and fire<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

ii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 asexual
\n<\/b><\/span>* tillers and the morphology of tillering
\n* rhizomes and the morphology of rhizome production
\n* stolons and the morphology of stolon production
\n* apomixis
\n* corms or bulbs<\/b><\/span>B.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Photosynthesis and Respiration – the organismal level of response
\n<\/b><\/span>1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Accumulation of above ground and below ground biomass is the difference
\nbetween total photosynthesis and respiration. The difference is net primary
\nproductivity.
\n<\/b><\/span>a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 photosynthesis is the process of capturing CO2<\/sub> from the atmosphere
\nin the presence of sunlight and incorporation of the carbon into
\nbiomass, structural and nonstructural. In the process, energy is
\ntransformed and captured in various chemical bonds. The process of
\nphotosynthesis is called assimilation.<\/b><\/span>i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 photosynthetic pathways – C3<\/sub> vs C4<\/sub><\/b><\/span>* photosynthetic efficiency<\/b><\/span>\u00a0\u00a0 – effect of temperature, water and the interaction of
\ntemperature and available water
\n– efficiency of N use <\/b><\/span>* form of carbon stored\/translocated, i.e., sugars vs starch<\/b><\/span>ii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 efficiency of energy capture in different leaves and stems<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

iii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 carbon mobilization – timing and units of storage
\n<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

b.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 respiration is the amount of energy used (heat lost) in the process of
\nchemical transformations and support of the living tissue. Tissue must
\nbe supported both during active growth and during periods of
\nnon-growth when no photosynthate is being produced.<\/b><\/span>2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Carbon is either fixed in structural biomass or remains mobile<\/b><\/span>a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 allocation above ground and below ground in response to stress
\nb.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 storage during periods of quiescence and mobilization to initiate
\ngrowth when growing conditions are favorable
\n<\/b><\/span>i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 annual carbon dynamics in monocots vs dicots – “U” and “V”
\nshaped replenishment and depletion curves in different tissues
\nii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 modification of carbon dynamics in response to tissue removal,
\ne.g., mechanical cutting, herbivory or fire<\/b><\/span>3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Individual plant response to defoliation and its ability to maintain equity
\nposition in the plant community is a function of
\n<\/b><\/span>a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 timing of defoliation in relation to morphological development
\n<\/b><\/span>i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 frequency or duration of defoliation
\nii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 intensity of defoliation (amount of photosynthetically active
\ntissue removed)
\niii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 opportunity for plants to compensate for defoliation
\n<\/b><\/span>* mobility of carbon in different tissues
\n* ability of different tissues to fix carbon (e.g., old vs young
\nleaves, flag leaf vs other leaves, stems vs leaves)
\n* environmental conditions conducive to growth or regrowth<\/b><\/span>b.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 associated plants and ability to compete for nutrients and water
\n<\/b><\/span>i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 generally, late seral plants have lower nutrient and water
\nrequirements than early seral plants
\nii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 generally, C4<\/sub> plants have lower nutrient requirements than C3<\/sub>
\nplants<\/b><\/span>IV.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Plant Ecology in Relation to Defoliation. Rangeland Vegetation is Dynamic.
\n(4 to 6)<\/b><\/span>\u00a0A.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Relationship of range management to plant ecology
\n<\/b><\/span>1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Range management is the application of human-derived practices and natural
\nevents to control processes that collectively produce an ecosystem state or
\ndynamic valued by humans.
\n<\/b><\/span>a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Management is goal directed. It implies management can define a
\ndesired future system state.
\nb.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Manipulation of ecosystem processes (i.e., directing energy flow and
\ncontrolling nutrient cycling) to control the number and strength of
\nnegative feedbacks in the system to maintain status; or, control the
\nreinforcing impact of positive feedbacks in the system, i.e., manage the
\ntrajectory of a transition toward a desired future state or prevent
\ntransition to a former state.<\/b><\/span>2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Management is adaptive, that is, it combines managerial experience with
\nmodels of vegetation dynamics to predict system response to a human
\nintervention or natural processes. (See section on monitoring)<\/b><\/span>B.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Vegetation dynamics – community and landscape levels of organization
\n<\/b><\/span>1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Variation in the dynamics of stand composition is explained by various
\nmodels of succession. One of the key organizing ideas in range management
\nis the range site. The range site represents the potential mix of plants that can
\noccupy a soil\/relief\/exposure. The site represents a level of potential primary
\nproductivity. Within that range of potential variation can exist a matrix of
\nplant communities at all stages of development, i.e., early to late seral.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Autogenic vs allogenic processes\/succession or primary vs secondary
\nsuccession.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ecosystem characteristics of developing (early seral) vs mature (late seral)
\ncommunities (from Odum 1969).
\n<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Community energetics
\n<\/b><\/span>i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Gross production\/community respiration (P\/R ratio)
\n<\/b><\/span>a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 developmental = Greater or less than 1
\nb.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 mature = Approaches 1<\/b><\/span>ii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Gross production\/standing crop biomass (P\/B ratio)
\n<\/b><\/span>@ developmental = High
\n@ mature = Low<\/b><\/span>iii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Biomass supported\/unit energy flow (B\/E ratio)
\n<\/b><\/span>@ developmental = Low
\n@ mature = High<\/b><\/span>iv.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Net community productivity (yield)
\n<\/b><\/span>@ developmental = High
\n@ mature = Low<\/b><\/span>v.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Food chains<\/b><\/span>
\n@ developmental = Linear, predominately grazing
\n@ mature = Weblike [Complex], predominately detritus<\/b><\/span>b.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Community structure
\n<\/b><\/span>i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Total organic matter
\n<\/b><\/span>@ developmental = Small
\n@. mature = Large<\/b><\/span>ii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Inorganic nutrients
\n<\/b><\/span>@ developmental = Extrabiotic
\n@ mature = Intrabiotic<\/b><\/span>iii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Species diversity-variety component
\n<\/b><\/span>@ developmental = Low
\n@ mature = High<\/b><\/span>iv.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Species diversity-equatability component
\n<\/b><\/span>@ developmental = Low
\n@ intermediate = Often highest
\n@ mature = High<\/b><\/span>v.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Biochemical diversity
\n<\/b><\/span>@ developmental = Low
\n@ mature = High<\/b><\/span>vi.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Stratification and spatial heterogeneity (pattern diversity)
\n<\/b><\/span>@ developmental = Poorly organized
\n@ mature = Well-organized<\/b><\/span>c.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Life history
\n<\/b><\/span>i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Niche separation
\n<\/b><\/span>@ developmental = Broad
\n@ mature = Narrow<\/b><\/span>ii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Size of organism
\n<\/b><\/span>@ developmental = Small
\n@ mature = Large<\/b><\/span>iii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Life cycles
\n<\/b><\/span>@ developmental = Short, simple
\n@ mature = Long, complex<\/b><\/span>d.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nutrient cycling
\n<\/b><\/span>i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mineral cycles
\n<\/b><\/span>@ developmental = Open
\n@ mature = Closed<\/b><\/span>ii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nutrient exchange rate, between organisms and environment
\n<\/b><\/span>@ developmental = Rapid
\n@ mature = Slow<\/b><\/span>iii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Role of detritus in nutrient regeneration
\n<\/b><\/span>@ developmental = Unimportant
\n@ mature = Important<\/b><\/span>e.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Selection pressure
\n<\/b><\/span>i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Growth form
\n<\/b><\/span>@ developmental = For rapid growth (“r” selected)
\n@ mature = For feedback control (“K” selected)<\/b><\/span>ii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Production
\n<\/b><\/span>@ developmental = Quantity
\n@ mature = Quality<\/b><\/span>f.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Overall homeostasis
\n<\/b><\/span>i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Internal symbiosis
\n<\/b><\/span>@ developmental = Undeveloped
\n@ mature = Developed<\/b><\/span>ii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nutrient conservation
\n<\/b><\/span>@ developmental = Poor
\n@ mature = Good<\/b><\/span>iii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Stability (resistance to internal perturbations)
\n<\/b><\/span>@ developmental = Poor
\n@ mature = Good<\/b><\/span>iv.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Entropy
\n<\/b><\/span>@ developmental = High
\n@ mature = Low<\/b><\/span>v.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Information
\n<\/b><\/span>@ developmental = Low
\n@ mature = High<\/b><\/span>4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Indicators of ecosystem stress (from Odum 1985)
\n<\/b><\/span>a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Trends Expected in Stressed Ecosystems
\n<\/b><\/span>i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Energetics
\n<\/b><\/span>@ Community respiration increases
\n@ P\/R (production\/respiration) becomes unbalanced (<or> 1)
\n@ P\/B and R\/B (maintenance:biomass structure) ratios increase
\n@ Importance of auxiliary energy increases
\n@ Exported or unused primary production increases<\/b><\/span>ii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nutrient Cycling
\n<\/b><\/span>@ Nutrient turnover increases
\n@ Horizonal transport increases and vertical cycling of nutrients
\ndecreases
\n@ Nutrient loss increases (system becomes more leaky)<\/b><\/span>iii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Community Structure
\n<\/b><\/span>@ Proportion of r-strategists increases
\n@ Size of organisms decreases
\n@ Lifespans of organisms or parts (leaves, for example)
\ndecrease
\n@ Food chains shorten because of reduced energy flow at
\nhigher trophic levels and\/or greater sensitivity of predators to
\nstress
\n@ Species diversity decreases and dominance increases; if
\noriginal diversity is low, the reverse may occur; at the
\necosystem level, redundancy of parallel processes
\ntheoretically declines.<\/b><\/span>iv.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 General System-Level Trends
\n<\/b><\/span>@. Ecosystem becomes more open (i.e., input and output
\nenvironments become more important as internal cycling is
\nreduced).
\n@ Autogenic successional trends reverse (succession reverts to
\nearlier stages)
\n@ Efficiency of resource use decreases
\n@ Parasitism and other negative interactions increases, and
\nmutualism and other positive interactions decreases
\n@ Functional properties (such as community metabolism) are
\nmore robust (homeostatic-resistant to stressors) than are
\nspecies composition and other structural properties<\/b><\/span>5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Models of succession and usefulness of different models to predict
\ncommunity response to human and natural disturbance (i.e., creation of gaps
\nor removal of organisms from the system) or system modifiers, like grazing
\nand fire.<\/b><\/span>C.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Application of knowledge of states and transitions to management of rangeland
\necosystems to achieve desired future conditions.
\n<\/b><\/span>1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 control nutrient cycles vis-a-vis disturbance and system modifiers, like fire
\nand grazing<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 control colonization
\n<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 following creation of a gap
\nb.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 within existing stands of vegetation<\/b><\/span>3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 modify plant performance and equity position of plants in association with
\nother plants vis-a-vis system modifiers, like fire and grazing.<\/b><\/span>V.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Secondary Productivity – Nutritional characteristics of rangeland forages and
\nanimal requirements to meet components of life cycles. (4)<\/b><\/span>A.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nutritional characteristics of rangeland forages and browse
\n<\/b><\/span>1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Methods of representing the nutritional value of foods
\n<\/b><\/span>a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 chemical vs nutritional entities
\nb.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 analytical methods<\/b><\/span>2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nutrients of concern (limiting nutrients) vary with different geology, soil
\ndevelopment processes and total precipitation.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Influence of plant phenology and environmental factors on nutrient of forages.
\n<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

B.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nutritional requirements of range animals
\n<\/b><\/span>1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 management objectives<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 kind and class of animal<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 age<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 physiological state
\n<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

C.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 feeding ecology
\n<\/b><\/span>1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 spatial choices
\n<\/b><\/span>i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 learning, memory and perception
\nii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 social interactions<\/b><\/span>2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 diet choices
\n<\/b><\/span>i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 avoidance of toxins and animal poisoning; mechanisms to avoid
\npoisoning.
\nii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 avoidance of lose situation – quality and quantity
\niii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 balance of familiar with novel plants, mixes to create optimal nutrient
\ningestion and nutrients as toxins<\/b><\/span>D.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Factors influencing rate and extent of ingestion and utilization
\n<\/b><\/span>1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Physiological
\n<\/b><\/span>i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Internal feedback mechanisms
\n<\/b><\/span>* short term
\n* long term<\/b><\/span>ii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Physiological requirements<\/b><\/span>2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Anatomical
\n<\/b><\/span>i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 gut anatomy – simple vs cecal digester vs ruminant
\nii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Extent of digestion is an interaction between rate of digestion and rate
\nof passsage
\n<\/b><\/span>* total fiber
\n* lignification of fiber
\n* limiting nutrients<\/b><\/span>3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Forage availability
\n<\/b><\/span>i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 animal requirement for free water
\nii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 animal mobility
\niii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 forage on offer – herbage allowance
\niv.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 landscape heterogeneity
\nv.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 variety of plant lifeforms
\nvi.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 animal behavior – home range, defense of territory, etc<\/b><\/span>VI.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Management for Proper Use – The number and kinds of organisms a site will
\nsupport are complex management issues. (4)<\/b><\/span>A.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Numbers of animals (stocking rate) or carrying capacity may be either an
\necological issue, an economic issue, or both.
\n<\/b><\/span>1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Issues of management using natural regulation to control animal numbers. Implies
\na closed system.
\n<\/b><\/span>a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Population is primarily regulated by food availability
\nb.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Population is primarily regulated by predation
\nc.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Population is regulated by both food availability and predation.<\/b><\/span>2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Issues of management using regulated numbers to achieve an ecological or
\neconomic goal<\/b><\/span>B.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Proper use is a reflection of societal values and managerial goals. Determination of the
\nproper numbers of animals is an iterative process.
\n<\/b><\/span>1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 suitability of the resource for use by different animals during different season.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 mix of animals and feeding ecology<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 scale
\n<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

C.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Communication of land and resource values and comparison to other systems requires
\na data base that can be used to derive information about the resource.
\n<\/b><\/span>1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Assessment. An ecological assessment is a judgement at a point in time of the
\nstatus of a system in relation to known functional relationship in the system,
\norganisms present and human values. Assessments are usually based on a set of
\ncriteria and indicators developed by scientists and interested stakeholders.
\nRepeated assessments should not be confused with monitoring.
\n<\/b><\/span>a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Criteria and indicators for assessment of system “health” at scales of
\nregions to nations.
\nb.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Criteria and indicators for assessment of system “health” at local and site
\nscales.<\/b><\/span>2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Inventories. Inventory is an enumeration or qualitative description of elements of
\nthe system valued by management or society. It provides a database for further
\nstratification and investigation of the resource. Repeated inventories may or may
\nnot be a kind of monitoring. Inventories may serve as a database for
\nclassification.
\n<\/b><\/span>a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 peak standing crop
\nb.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 cover
\nc.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 frequency
\nd.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 cover x frequency
\ne.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 density
\nf.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 species list and rating of abundance<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ecological classification. Ecological classification is usually based
\non the structure of the vegetation, because that reflects the potential
\nmix of life forms of plants, composition of the plant matrix, and
\npotential productivity of the site. Within a land management
\nresource area, sites with similar soils, relief and exposure can be
\nexpected to have similar production potential and respond in a
\nsimilar way to environment and human induced uses. Often
\nclassification is displayed as maps or electronically stored in a GIS
\nformat.<\/b><\/span>
\na.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 General classification based on correlation of
\nvegetation to soils, relief, exposure, depth to water,
\netc. The range site.
\nb.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Classification of vegetation within a range site that
\nrepresent different seral states.<\/b><\/span>
\n4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Measurements. Elements of the system (plants, animals, soil
\nparticles, microbes, water, etc) have attributes (length, width,
\ndensity, volume, color, hue, odor, etc) that can be measured or
\nindexed. Sometimes we want to know if things of value change as
\na result of a use or practice. Since it is impossible to measure every
\nindividual of each element of the system, samples that represent the
\npopulation of elements are measured at repeated intervals in time.
\nThat is one form of monitoring.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Monitoring<\/b><\/span>
\na.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Changes in elements in the system of value to
\nsocieties or management. Measurements made on
\ntemporal scales of years to decades.
\nb.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Monitoring indicators of change based on relationship<\/u>
\nbetween the indicator and element of interest.
\nObservations\/Notes on temporal scales of years.
\nc.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Monitoring indicators of response<\/u> of the system to a
\nuse or practice. Observation\/Notes on temporal
\nscales of days to seasons.<\/b><\/span>
\nC.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 On determining proper numbers.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Determining initial stocking rates<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 calculations based on productivity and accessibility,
\ningestion rates and harvest efficiency
\nb.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 comparison of the managed area to similar areas
\nmanaged for similar outputs
\nc.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Historical<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 proper use factors
\nii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Forage acre factors
\niii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Other<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

d.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 numbers based on the empirical relationship between
\nanimal demand (AUM)
\nand animal response.<\/b><\/span>
\ni.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The known relationship between
\nstocking rate (demand) and output per
\nunit area is useful at tactical levels of
\ndecision making (seasonal temporal
\nscales). Stocking rate is expressed as
\ndemand (AUM) per acre or per ton (or
\nthe reciprocal).
\nii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The known relationship between grazing
\npressure or herbage allowance is useful
\non operational scales of decision making
\n(daily to weekly temporal scales).
\nHerbage allowance is expressed as lb
\nof desirable, available forage per
\ndemand unit (usually AUD).
\nGrazing pressure is the reciprocal of
\nherbage allowance.
\niii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Harvest efficiency (ecological efficiency)
\nis the reciprocal of herbage allowance
\nexpressed as multiples of intake.<\/b><\/span>
\ne.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 numbers based on vegetation response to grazing
\nintensity<\/b><\/span>
\ni.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 vegetation response to grazing intensity
\nis site and species specific
\nii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 vegetation response to grazing intensity
\ndepends on management
\ninputs, e.g., herding or pasture rotation.<\/b><\/span>
\n2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Strategies for dealing with environmental uncertainty<\/b><\/span>
\na.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 At the tactical level of decision making, the manager
\nmight make a judgement about desired sex ratios or
\nthe proportion of the population (herd) composed of
\nproducing vs disposable animals.<\/b><\/span>
\ni.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the number of producing animals would
\nbe conservative in relation to “average”
\nstocking rate.
\nii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 grazing management would reserve
\nforage for times when demand
\nexceeds supply or have available
\ncomplimentary forages.
\niii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 management provides supplemental
\nfeed, i.e., food imported into the system<\/b><\/span>
\nb.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 At the operational level of decision making, the
\nmanger adjusts numbers based on projected food
\naccumulation rates and projected end-of-season use.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

VII.\u00a0\u00a0 Multiple Uses of Rangeland Resources – Decision making in complex biological
\nand social environments. (3)
\n<\/b><\/span>
\nA.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Review of major uses<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

B.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Review of intrinsic values and cultural traditions<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

C.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Conflict management and other collaborative management processes<\/b><\/span>
\nVIII.\u00a0 Rangeland ecosystem conversion, restoration, development and improvement – tools
\nto manage succession.<\/b><\/span>
\nA.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Conversion of natural rangeland ecosystems<\/b><\/span>
\n1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Many rangeland ecosystems have been converted to production of
\nmonocultures -agronomic crops. Society has deemed that a higher
\nuse of the land in response to food security.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Many rangelands have been “improved” by replacing natural
\nvegetation with introduced plants or mixtures of plants. Or,
\nnon-native plants have been introduced into natural stands, e.g.,
\nlegumes<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

B.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Restoration<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In some cases the natural vegetation has been removed or
\ndrastically disturbed by agriculture. Re-colonization is facilitated by
\npreparing a seedbed and mechanically distributing a seed mix that
\nmimics the potential vegetation on that site.<\/b><\/span>
\n2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Selective removal of unwanted or non-native plants with herbicides
\nor biological controls<\/b><\/span>
\nC.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Improvement for a specific use or to provide specific habitat – assume an
\necosystem functioning within the range of natural variability.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Change soil nutrient status<\/b><\/span>
\na.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Planned disturbance, natural or mechanical
\nb.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Fire
\nc.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Grazing<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Modify species performance and equity position of target species
\nin the stand by selectively allowing maximum ecological expression.<\/b><\/span>
\na.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Fire
\nb.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Grazing<\/b><\/span>
\n3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Modify species performance and equity position of target species in
\nthe stand by selective negative pressure.<\/b><\/span>
\na.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Fire
\nb.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Grazing<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

IX.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Contemporary Issues. (2)<\/b><\/span>
\nA.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Global change<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

B.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Endangered Species Act<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

C.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Clean Air and Water Acts<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

D.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Coastal Waters Act<\/b><\/span>
\nX.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Integrating topics and Exercises.<\/b><\/span>
\nA.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Restoration Ecology – rocky Mountain Arsenal – incorporated into section VI.
\n(3)<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

B.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Riparian Management – Sheep Creek (3<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

C.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Grazing Management – Meadow Springs Ranch (incorporated into section 6 &
\n7) (3)<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

D.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Field Trips<\/b><\/span>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

DRAFT RS300 – PRINCIPLES OF RANGE MANAGEMENTI. Introduction – Why a discipline of Rangeland Ecosystem Science? (3 to 5) \u00a0 A.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Range as a discipline 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Definitions a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Rangeland i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 derived from one of many different ways to\u00a0 describe the… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":117,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-38","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.warnercnr.colostate.edu\/larryr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/38","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.warnercnr.colostate.edu\/larryr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.warnercnr.colostate.edu\/larryr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.warnercnr.colostate.edu\/larryr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/117"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.warnercnr.colostate.edu\/larryr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/sites.warnercnr.colostate.edu\/larryr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/38\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":41,"href":"https:\/\/sites.warnercnr.colostate.edu\/larryr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/38\/revisions\/41"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.warnercnr.colostate.edu\/larryr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}