Fertilizing western rangelands for ungulate conservation: An assessment of benefits and risks

ABSTRACT Intensive natural gas development causes habitat loss that reduces nutritional carrying capacity for ungulates and other species of conservation concern. To offset habitat loss from energy development, wildlife managers are experimenting with large‐scale sagebrush fertilization on western p...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Nicole M. Korfanta, Megan L. Mobley, Ingrid C. Burke
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2015-03-01
Series:Wildlife Society Bulletin
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.519
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850255299065151488
author Nicole M. Korfanta
Megan L. Mobley
Ingrid C. Burke
author_facet Nicole M. Korfanta
Megan L. Mobley
Ingrid C. Burke
author_sort Nicole M. Korfanta
collection DOAJ
description ABSTRACT Intensive natural gas development causes habitat loss that reduces nutritional carrying capacity for ungulates and other species of conservation concern. To offset habitat loss from energy development, wildlife managers are experimenting with large‐scale sagebrush fertilization on western public rangelands. We synthesize what is known about basic sagebrush ecosystem biogeochemistry and ungulate nutritional ecology to anticipate the benefits and risks of this emerging mitigation tool. Under some environmental conditions, fertilization can temporarily increase sagebrush biomass, and potentially, the nutritional carrying capacity of mule deer limited by digestible energy. However, nitrogen additions are costly and pose environmental risks when applied to arid and semi‐arid systems. Fertilization may promote weed invasions, changes to biogeochemical cycles, and potentially irreversible ecosystem shifts that reduce shrub communities. Fertilization also creates excess nitrogen at 2–8 × natural background levels and increases greenhouse gases, ozone pollution precursors, downwind nitrogen deposition, and freshwater degradation. Considering these risks and recognizing that potential benefits are short‐term, uncertain, and expensive to achieve, the practice of sagebrush fertilization may pose a net conservation cost. © 2015 The Authors. Wildlife Society Bulletin published by The Wildlife Society.
format Article
id doaj-art-ae644257ea6941e49e460b1d2ed9c281
institution OA Journals
issn 2328-5540
language English
publishDate 2015-03-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Wildlife Society Bulletin
spelling doaj-art-ae644257ea6941e49e460b1d2ed9c2812025-08-20T01:56:53ZengWileyWildlife Society Bulletin2328-55402015-03-013911810.1002/wsb.519Fertilizing western rangelands for ungulate conservation: An assessment of benefits and risksNicole M. Korfanta0Megan L. Mobley1Ingrid C. Burke2William D. Ruckelshaus Institute of Environment and Natural Resources University of Wyoming Department 3971 Laramie WY 82071 USAHelga Otto Haub School of Environment and Natural Resources Department of Botany University of Wyoming Laramie WY 82071 USAHelga Otto Haub School of Environment and Natural Resources Department of Botany Department of Ecosystem Science and Management University of Wyoming Laramie WY 82071 USAABSTRACT Intensive natural gas development causes habitat loss that reduces nutritional carrying capacity for ungulates and other species of conservation concern. To offset habitat loss from energy development, wildlife managers are experimenting with large‐scale sagebrush fertilization on western public rangelands. We synthesize what is known about basic sagebrush ecosystem biogeochemistry and ungulate nutritional ecology to anticipate the benefits and risks of this emerging mitigation tool. Under some environmental conditions, fertilization can temporarily increase sagebrush biomass, and potentially, the nutritional carrying capacity of mule deer limited by digestible energy. However, nitrogen additions are costly and pose environmental risks when applied to arid and semi‐arid systems. Fertilization may promote weed invasions, changes to biogeochemical cycles, and potentially irreversible ecosystem shifts that reduce shrub communities. Fertilization also creates excess nitrogen at 2–8 × natural background levels and increases greenhouse gases, ozone pollution precursors, downwind nitrogen deposition, and freshwater degradation. Considering these risks and recognizing that potential benefits are short‐term, uncertain, and expensive to achieve, the practice of sagebrush fertilization may pose a net conservation cost. © 2015 The Authors. Wildlife Society Bulletin published by The Wildlife Society.https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.519Artemisia sppBromus tectorumenergy mitigationfertilizationmule deernitrogen
spellingShingle Nicole M. Korfanta
Megan L. Mobley
Ingrid C. Burke
Fertilizing western rangelands for ungulate conservation: An assessment of benefits and risks
Wildlife Society Bulletin
Artemisia spp
Bromus tectorum
energy mitigation
fertilization
mule deer
nitrogen
title Fertilizing western rangelands for ungulate conservation: An assessment of benefits and risks
title_full Fertilizing western rangelands for ungulate conservation: An assessment of benefits and risks
title_fullStr Fertilizing western rangelands for ungulate conservation: An assessment of benefits and risks
title_full_unstemmed Fertilizing western rangelands for ungulate conservation: An assessment of benefits and risks
title_short Fertilizing western rangelands for ungulate conservation: An assessment of benefits and risks
title_sort fertilizing western rangelands for ungulate conservation an assessment of benefits and risks
topic Artemisia spp
Bromus tectorum
energy mitigation
fertilization
mule deer
nitrogen
url https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.519
work_keys_str_mv AT nicolemkorfanta fertilizingwesternrangelandsforungulateconservationanassessmentofbenefitsandrisks
AT meganlmobley fertilizingwesternrangelandsforungulateconservationanassessmentofbenefitsandrisks
AT ingridcburke fertilizingwesternrangelandsforungulateconservationanassessmentofbenefitsandrisks