Not all Fuel-Reduction Treatments Degrade Biocrusts: Herbicides Cause Mostly Neutral to Positive Effects on Cover of Biocrusts

In response to increasing fire, fuel‐reduction treatments are being used to minimize large fire risk. Although biocrusts are associated with reduced cover of fire‐promoting, invasive grasses, the impact of fuel‐reduction treatments on biocrusts is poorly understood. We use data from a long‐term experiment, the Sagebrush Steppe Treatment Evaluation Project, testing the following fuel‐reduction treatments: mowing, prescribed fire, and the use of two herbicides: one commonly used to reduce shrub cover, tebuthiuron, and one commonly used to combat cheatgrass, imazapic. Looking at sites with high cover of biocrusts prior to treatments, we demonstrate positive effects of the herbicide, tebuthiuron on lichens with an increase in cover of 10% and trending towards slightly negative effects on moss cover. Across plots, imazapic trended towards a decrease in lichen and moss cover without being statistically significant. Mowing and prescribed fire reduced cover of mosses, with the latter leading to greater declines across sites (declines of 18% vs. 32%). Reductions in moss cover mirrored gains in cover of bare soil, which is associated with increased risk of invasion by grasses responsible for increasing fire risk. We demonstrate that the use of herbicides simultaneously reduces fuels and maintains greater cover of lichens and mosses compared with other fuel‐reduction treatments, possibly reducing risk of invasion by annual grasses that are responsible for increasing fire risk

Testing a Mahalanobis Distance Model of Black Bear Habitat Use in the Ouachita Mountains of Oklahoma

Regional wildlife–habitat models are commonly developed but rarely tested with truly independent data. We tested a published habitat model for black bears (Ursus americanus) with new data collected in a different site in the same ecological region (i.e., Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas and Oklahoma, USA). We used a Mahalanobis distance model developed from relocations of black bears in Arkansas to produce a map layer of Mahalanobis distances on a study area in neighboring Oklahoma. We tested this modeled map layer with relocations of black bears on the Oklahoma area. The distributions of relocations of female black bears were consistent with model predictions. We conclude that this modeling approach can be used to predict regional suitability for a species of interest

Restoration Handbook for Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystems with Emphasis on Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat—Part 3. Site Level Restoration Decisions

Sagebrush steppe ecosystems in the United States currently (2016) occur on only about one-half of their historical land area because of changes in land use, urban growth, and degradation of land, including invasions of non-native plants. The existence of many animal species depends on the existence of sagebrush steppe habitat. The greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) depends on large landscapes of intact habitat of sagebrush and perennial grasses for their existence. In addition, other sagebrush-obligate animals have similar requirements and restoration of landscapes for greater sage-grouse also will benefit these animals. Once sagebrush lands are degraded, they may require restoration actions to make those lands viable habitat for supporting sagebrush-obligate animals, livestock, and wild horses, and to provide ecosystem services for humans now and for future generations. When a decision is made on where restoration treatments should be applied, there are a number of site-specific decisions managers face before selecting the appropriate type of restoration. This site-level decision tool for restoration of sagebrush steppe ecosystems is organized in nine steps. ●Step 1 describes the process of defining site-level restoration objectives. ●Step 2 describes the ecological site characteristics of the restoration site. This covers soil chemistry and texture, soil moisture and temperature regimes, and the vegetation communities the site is capable of supporting. ●Step 3 compares the current vegetation to the plant communities associated with the site State and Transition models. ●Step 4 takes the manager through the process of current land uses and past disturbances that may influence restoration success. ●Step 5 is a brief discussion of how weather before and after treatments may impact restoration success. ●Step 6 addresses restoration treatment types and their potential positive and negative impacts on the ecosystem and on habitats, especially for greater sage-grouse. We discuss when passive restoration options may be sufficient and when active restoration may be necessary to achieve restoration objectives. ●Step 7 addresses decisions regarding post-restoration livestock grazing management. ●Step 8 addresses monitoring of the restoration; we discuss important aspects associated with implementation monitoring as well as effectiveness monitoring. ●Step 9 takes the information learned from monitoring to determine how restoration actions in the future might be adapted to improve restoration success

Restoration Handbook for Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystems with Emphasis on Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat—Part 1. Concepts for Understanding and Applying Restoration

Sagebrush steppe ecosystems in the United States currently occur on only about one-half of their historical land area because of changes in land use, urban growth, and degradation of land, including invasions of non-native plants. The existence of many animal species depends on the existence of sagebrush steppe habitat. The greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) is a landscape-dependent bird that requires intact habitat and combinations of sagebrush and perennial grasses to exist. In addition, other sagebrush-obligate animals also have similar requirements and restoration of landscapes for greater sage-grouse also will benefit these animals. Once sagebrush lands are degraded, they may require restoration actions to make those lands viable habitat for supporting sagebrush-obligate animals. This restoration handbook is the first in a three-part series on restoration of sagebrush ecosystems. In Part 1, we discuss concepts surrounding landscape and restoration ecology of sagebrush ecosystems and greater sage-grouse that habitat managers and restoration practitioners need to know to make informed decisions regarding where and how to restore specific areas. We will describe the plant dynamics of sagebrush steppe ecosystems and their responses to major disturbances, fire, and defoliation. We will introduce the concepts of ecosystem resilience to disturbances and resistance to invasions of annual grasses within sagebrush steppe. An introduction to soils and ecological site information will provide insights into the specific plants that can be restored in a location. Soil temperature and moisture regimes are described as a tool for determining resilience and resistance and the potential for various restoration actions. Greater sage-grouse are considered landscape birds that require large areas of intact sagebrush steppe; therefore, we describe concepts of landscape ecology that aid our decisions regarding habitat restoration. We provide a brief overview of restoration techniques for sage-grouse habitat restoration. We conclude with a description of the critical nature of monitoring for adaptive management of sagebrush steppe restoration at landscape- and project-specific levels

Restoration Handbook for Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystems with Emphasis on Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat—Part 2. Landscape Level Restoration Decisions

Sagebrush steppe ecosystems in the United States currently (2015) occur on only about one-half of their historical land area because of changes in land use, urban growth, and degradation of land, including invasions of non-native plants. The existence of many animal species depends on the existence of sagebrush steppe habitat. The greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) is a landscape-dependent bird that requires intact habitat and combinations of sagebrush and perennial grasses to exist. In addition, other sagebrush-obligate animals also have similar requirements and restoration of landscapes for greater sage-grouse also will benefit these animals. Once sagebrush lands are degraded, they may require restoration actions to make those lands viable habitat for supporting sagebrush-obligate animals. Land managers do not have resources to restore all locations because of the extent of the restoration need and because some land uses are not likely to change, therefore, restoration decisions made at the landscape to regional scale may improve the effectiveness of restoration to achieve landscape and local restoration objectives. We present a landscape restoration decision tool intended to assist decision makers in determining landscape objectives, to identify and prioritize landscape areas where sites for priority restoration projects might be located, and to aid in ultimately selecting restoration sites guided by criteria used to define the landscape objectives. The landscape restoration decision tool is structured in five sections that should be addressed sequentially. Each section has a primary question or statement followed by related questions and statements to assist the user in addressing the primary question or statement. This handbook will guide decision makers through the important process steps of identifying appropriate questions, gathering appropriate data, developing landscape objectives, and prioritizing landscape patches where potential sites for restoration projects may be located. Once potential sites are selected, land managers can move to the site-specific decision tool to guide restoration decisions at the site level

eHabitat, a multi-purpose Web Processing Service for ecological modeling

The number of interoperable research infrastructures has increased significantly with the growing awareness of the efforts made by the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). One of the Societal Benefit Areas (SBA) that is benefiting most from GEOSS is biodiversity, given the costs of monitoring the environment and managing complex information, from space observations to species records including their genetic characteristics. But GEOSS goes beyond simple data sharing to encourage the publishing and combination of models, an approach which can ease the handling of complex multi-disciplinary questions. It is the purpose of this paper to illustrate these concepts by presenting eHabitat, a basic Web Processing Service (WPS) for computing the likelihood of finding ecosystems with equal properties to those specified by a user. When chained with other services providing data on climate change, eHabitat can be used for ecological forecasting and becomes a useful tool for decision-makers assessing different strategies when selecting new areas to protect. eHabitat can use virtually any kind of thematic data that can be considered as useful when defining ecosystems and their future persistence under different climatic or development scenarios. The paper will present the architecture and illustrate the concepts through case studies which forecast the impact of climate change on protected areas or on the ecological niche of an African bird

Paclitaxel, vinorelbine and 5-fluorouracil in breast cancer patients pretreated with adjuvant anthracyclines

We investigated the activity and toxicity of a combination of vinorelbine (VNB), paclitaxel (PTX) and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) continuous infusion administered as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer patients pretreated with adjuvant anthracyclines. A total of 61 patients received a regimen consisting of VNB 25 mg m−2 on days 1 and 15, PTX 60 mg m−2 on days 1, 8 and 15 and continuous infusion of 5-FU at 200 mg m−2 every day. Cycles were repeated every 28 days. Disease response was evaluated by both RECIST and World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. Objective responses were recorded in 39 of 61 patients (64.0%) assessed by WHO and in 36 of 50 patients (72.0%) assessable by RECIST criteria. Complete remission occurred in 15 (24.6%) and 14 patients (28.0%), respectively. The median time to progression and overall survival of entire population was 10.6 and 27.3 months, respectively, and median duration of complete response was 14.8 months. The dose-limiting toxicity was myelosuppression (leucopenia grade 3/4 in 52.5% of patients). Grade 3/4 nonhaematologic toxicities included mucositis/diarrhoea in 13.1%, skin in 3.3% and cardiac in 1.6% of patients. Grade 2/3 neurotoxicity was observed in five patients (7.2%). The VNB, PTX and 5-FU continuous infusion combination regimen was active and manageable. Complete responses were frequent and durable