An Assessment of State-and-Transition Models: Perceptions Following Two Decades of Development and Implementation

Abstract State-and-transition models (STMs) are being developed for many areas in the United States and represent an important tool for assessing and managing public and private rangelands. Substantial resources have been invested in model development, yet minimal efforts have been made to evaluate the utility of STMs for rangeland assessment and management. We interviewed 47 rangeland professionals, equally divided between managers and researchers, in four ecoregions to determine their perceptions of the purpose, development, and strengths and weaknesses of STMs to assess the status of the STM framework. Our analysis identified three primary perspectives regarding the purpose of STMs: a decision-making tool for land managers, a means to represent the complex dynamics of rangeland ecosystems, and an effective communication tool. These diverse views of STM purposes were associated with differing perspectives concerning model development that identified five major issues in need of further development and refinement: 1) the relative importance of management practices and ecological processes in driving transitions, 2) the criteria used to define thresholds, 3) the appropriate level of model complexity, 4) the respective roles of expert knowledge and ecological data in model development, and 5) processes for model review and revision. We recommend greater dialogue among researchers and managers to further clarify STM terminology and develop standard protocols for model development and validation. Mechanisms are critically needed to assure peer review and revision of existing models so that STMs are continually updated to reflect current understanding of rangeland dynamics.

[1]  Corrine Noel Knapp,et al.  Using Participatory Workshops to Integrate State-and-Transition Models Created With Local Knowledge and Ecological Data , 2011 .

[2]  C. Warren,et al.  Discovering Qualitative Methods: Field Research, Interviews, and Analysis , 2004 .

[3]  M. Reed.  Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review , 2008 .

[4]  P. Gell,et al.  Local knowledge and environmental management: a cautionary tale from Lake Ainsworth, New South Wales, Australia , 2007, Environmental Conservation.

[5]  William,et al.  State and transition modeling : An ecological process approach , 2003 .

[6]  Andrew T. Hudak,et al.  Rangeland Mismanagement in South Africa: Failure to Apply Ecological Knowledge , 1999 .

[7]  Steven Mackinson,et al.  Integrating Local and Scientific Knowledge: An Example in Fisheries Science , 2001, Environmental management.

[8]  M. Bollig,et al.  Environmental Change and Pastoral Perceptions: Degradation and Indigenous Knowledge in Two African Pastoral Communities , 1999 .

[9]  Richard J. Hobbs,et al.  Models for Ecosystem Dynamics as Frameworks for Restoration Ecology , 2009 .

[10]  Tony J. Svejcar,et al.  Managing Complex Problems in Rangeland Ecosystems , 2009 .

[11]  Windy K. Kelley.  Rangeland managers' adoption of innovations, awareness of state and transition models, and management of Bromus tectorum: A survey of ranchers and natural resource professionals in Wyoming and Colorado , 2010 .

[12]  F. Provenza.  Viewpoint: Range Science and Range Management Are Complementary but Distinct Endeavors , 1991 .

[13]  S. Aronson,et al.  May sheep safely graze? , 2006, Medicine and health, Rhode Island.

[14]  Corrine Noel Knapp,et al.  Knowledge in Practice: Documenting Rancher Local Knowledge in Northwest Colorado , 2009 .

[15]  J. Derner,et al.  Origin, Persistence, and Resolution of the Rotational Grazing Debate: Integrating Human Dimensions Into Rangeland Research , 2011 .

[16]  Brandon T Bestelmeyer,et al.  Land Management in the American Southwest: A State-and-Transition Approach to Ecosystem Complexity , 2004, Environmental management.

[17]  Tamzen K. Stringham,et al.  Recommendations for Development of Resilience-Based State-and-Transition Models , 2008 .

[18]  M. Westoby,et al.  Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. , 1989 .

[19]  David D. Briske,et al.  A Unified Framework for Assessment and Application of Ecological Thresholds , 2006 .

[20]  Tamzen K. Stringham,et al.  Infiltration, Runoff, and Sediment Yield in Response to Western Juniper Encroachment in Southeast Oregon , 2008 .

[21]  W. Neuman,et al.  Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches , 2002 .

[22]  B. Bestelmeyer.  Threshold Concepts and Their Use in Rangeland Management and Restoration: The Good, the Bad, and the Insidious , 2006 .

[23]  K. Gross,et al.  Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology. , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[24]  Homer Sanchez,et al.  Practical Guidance for Developing State-and-Transition Models , 2010 .

[25]  Monique Rocca,et al.  Indicators of ecosystem function identify alternate states in the sagebrush steppe. , 2011, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[26]  S. Mackinson,et al.  Integrating Local and Scientific Knowledge: An Example in Fisheries Science , 2001, Environmental management.

[27]  D. D Smeins.  State-and-Transition Models, Thresholds, and Rangeland Health: A Synthesis of Ecological Concepts and Perspectives , 2005 .

[28]  N. Sayre.  Viewpoint: The Need for Qualitative Research to Understand Ranch Management , 2004 .