Here, we present changes in greater sage-grouse nesting habitat suitability that represents habitat before a simulated fire event and post-fire event after simulating the planting of sagebrush. The planting design used here reflects the multi-year (my) habitat restoration effort where we used several moderate (sm) patches with high density (hd) planting of sagebrush. The planting was targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects the change in simulated habitat conditions between 2015 and 2030. To assess the degree to which transplanting sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) could quickly restore former sage-grouse habitat and the strategies by which greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter, sage-grouse) habitat restoration is best accomplished, we linked vegetation transitions with habitat selection models to evaluate habitat recovery. Within our modeling extent (Tuscarora, Nevada), we simulated the fire-induced loss of habitat, planting of sagebrush seedlings, and the regrowth of sagebrush and other vegetation over 15 years. We used sagebrush growth equations and vegetation state transitions to return and grow vegetation within the burned and planted areas. Every year, we updated seasonal sage-grouse habitat selection maps by re-applying pre-fire habitat selection equations to re-calculate the proportion of suitable habitat gained by sagebrush restoration efforts. We evaluated alternative planting designs to identify the key factors influencing habitat selection outcomes. Specifically, we varied the number of plants, patch sizes, densities, location of planting sites (i.e., random versus within sage-grouse nesting habitat), as well as post-transplant (30, 70, or 100%) survival. We assumed all planting occurred in a single year. We ranked the influence of these different planting factors on sage-grouse habitat recovery across restoration scenario. The following data reflect the change of nesting habitat conditions 15-years after a simulated fire and sagebrush revegetation. Here, we provide the habitat recovery results for one of many different planting designs assessed for this project.

Here, we present changes in greater sage-grouse nesting habitat suitability that represents habitat before a simulated fire event and post-fire event after simulating the planting of sagebrush. The planting design used here reflects a single-year (maximum-effort; me) habitat restoration effort where we used several small (ss) patches with low density (ld) planting of sagebrush. The planting was not targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects the change in simulated habitat conditions between 2015 and 2030. To assess the degree to which transplanting sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) could quickly restore former sage-grouse habitat and the strategies by which Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter, sage-grouse) habitat restoration is best accomplished, we linked vegetation transitions with habitat selection models to evaluate habitat recovery. Within our modeling extent (Tuscarora, Nevada), we simulated the fire-induced loss of habitat, planting of sagebrush seedlings, and the regrowth of sagebrush and other vegetation over 15 years. We used sagebrush growth equations and vegetation state transitions to return and grow vegetation within the burned and planted areas. Every year, we updated seasonal sage-grouse habitat selection maps by re-applying pre-fire habitat selection equations to re-calculate the proportion of suitable habitat gained by sagebrush restoration efforts. We evaluated alternative planting designs to identify the key factors influencing habitat selection outcomes. Specifically, we varied the number of plants, patch sizes, densities, location of planting sites (i.e., random versus within sage-grouse nesting habitat), as well as post-transplant (30, 70, or 100%) survival. We assumed all planting occurred in a single year. We ranked the influence of these different planting factors on sage-grouse habitat recovery across restoration scenario. The following data reflect the change of nesting habitat conditions 15-years after a simulated fire and sagebrush revegetation. Here, we provide the habitat recovery results for one of many different planting designs assessed for this project.

Here, we present changes in greater sage-grouse nesting habitat suitability that represents habitat before a simulated fire event and post-fire event after simulating the planting of sagebrush. The planting design used here reflects a single-year (maximum-effort; me) habitat restoration effort where we used several small (ss) patches with low density (ld) planting of sagebrush. The planting was not targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects the change in simulated habitat conditions between 2015 and 2030. To assess the degree to which transplanting sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) could quickly restore former sage-grouse habitat and the strategies by which Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter, sage-grouse) habitat restoration is best accomplished, we linked vegetation transitions with habitat selection models to evaluate habitat recovery. Within our modeling extent (Tuscarora, Nevada), we simulated the fire-induced loss of habitat, planting of sagebrush seedlings, and the regrowth of sagebrush and other vegetation over 15 years. We used sagebrush growth equations and vegetation state transitions to return and grow vegetation within the burned and planted areas. Every year, we updated seasonal sage-grouse habitat selection maps by re-applying pre-fire habitat selection equations to re-calculate the proportion of suitable habitat gained by sagebrush restoration efforts. We evaluated alternative planting designs to identify the key factors influencing habitat selection outcomes. Specifically, we varied the number of plants, patch sizes, densities, location of planting sites (i.e., random versus within sage-grouse nesting habitat), as well as post-transplant (30, 70, or 100%) survival. We assumed all planting occurred in a single year. We ranked the influence of these different planting factors on sage-grouse habitat recovery across restoration scenario. The following data reflect the change of nesting habitat conditions 15-years after a simulated fire and sagebrush revegetation. Here, we provide the habitat recovery results for one of many different planting designs assessed for this project.

Here, we present changes in greater sage-grouse nesting habitat suitability that represents habitat before a simulated fire event and post-fire event after simulating the planting of sagebrush. The planting design used here reflects a single-year (maximum-effort; me) habitat restoration effort where we used several small (ss) patches with low density (ld) planting of sagebrush. The planting was not targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects the change in simulated habitat conditions between 2015 and 2030. To assess the degree to which transplanting sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) could quickly restore former sage-grouse habitat and the strategies by which Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter, sage-grouse) habitat restoration is best accomplished, we linked vegetation transitions with habitat selection models to evaluate habitat recovery. Within our modeling extent (Tuscarora, Nevada), we simulated the fire-induced loss of habitat, planting of sagebrush seedlings, and the regrowth of sagebrush and other vegetation over 15 years. We used sagebrush growth equations and vegetation state transitions to return and grow vegetation within the burned and planted areas. Every year, we updated seasonal sage-grouse habitat selection maps by re-applying pre-fire habitat selection equations to re-calculate the proportion of suitable habitat gained by sagebrush restoration efforts. We evaluated alternative planting designs to identify the key factors influencing habitat selection outcomes. Specifically, we varied the number of plants, patch sizes, densities, location of planting sites (i.e., random versus within sage-grouse nesting habitat), as well as post-transplant (30, 70, or 100%) survival. We assumed all planting occurred in a single year. We ranked the influence of these different planting factors on sage-grouse habitat recovery across restoration scenario. The following data reflect the change of nesting habitat conditions 15-years after a simulated fire and sagebrush revegetation. Here, we provide the habitat recovery results for one of many different planting designs assessed for this project.

Here, we present greater sage-grouse nesting habitat suitability 15-years after simulating a fire and planting of sagebrush. The planting design used here reflects a single-year (maximum-effort; me) habitat restoration effort where we used several small (ss) patches with low density (ld) planting of sagebrush. The planting was not targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects simulated habitat conditions in 2030. To assess the degree to which transplanting sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) could quickly restore former sage-grouse habitat and the strategies by which greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter, sage-grouse) habitat restoration is best accomplished, we linked vegetation transitions with habitat selection models to evaluate habitat recovery. Within our modeling extent (Tuscarora, Nevada), we simulated the fire-induced loss of habitat, planting of sagebrush seedlings, and the regrowth of sagebrush and other vegetation over 15 years. We used sagebrush growth equations and vegetation state transitions to return and grow vegetation within the burned and planted areas. Every year, we updated seasonal sage-grouse habitat selection maps by re-applying pre-fire habitat selection equations to re-calculate the proportion of suitable habitat gained by sagebrush restoration efforts. We evaluated alternative planting designs to identify the key factors influencing habitat selection outcomes. Specifically, we varied the number of plants, patch sizes, densities, location of planting sites (i.e., random versus within sage-grouse nesting habitat), as well as post-transplant (30, 70, or 100%) survival. We assumed all planting occurred in a single year. We ranked the influence of these different planting factors on sage-grouse habitat recovery across restoration scenario. The following data reflect nesting habitat conditions 15-years after a simulated fire and sagebrush revegetation. Here, we provide the habitat recovery results for one of many different planting designs assessed for this project.

Here, we present greater sage-grouse nesting habitat suitability 15-years after simulating a fire and planting of sagebrush. The planting design used here reflects a single-year (maximum-effort; me) habitat restoration effort where we used several small (ss) patches with low density (ld) planting of sagebrush. The planting was not targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects simulated habitat conditions in 2030. To assess the degree to which transplanting sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) could quickly restore former sage-grouse habitat and the strategies by which greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter, sage-grouse) habitat restoration is best accomplished, we linked vegetation transitions with habitat selection models to evaluate habitat recovery. Within our modeling extent (Tuscarora, Nevada), we simulated the fire-induced loss of habitat, planting of sagebrush seedlings, and the regrowth of sagebrush and other vegetation over 15 years. We used sagebrush growth equations and vegetation state transitions to return and grow vegetation within the burned and planted areas. Every year, we updated seasonal sage-grouse habitat selection maps by re-applying pre-fire habitat selection equations to re-calculate the proportion of suitable habitat gained by sagebrush restoration efforts. We evaluated alternative planting designs to identify the key factors influencing habitat selection outcomes. Specifically, we varied the number of plants, patch sizes, densities, location of planting sites (i.e., random versus within sage-grouse nesting habitat), as well as post-transplant (30, 70, or 100%) survival. We assumed all planting occurred in a single year. We ranked the influence of these different planting factors on sage-grouse habitat recovery across restoration scenario. The following data reflect nesting habitat conditions 15-years after a simulated fire and sagebrush revegetation. Here, we provide the habitat recovery results for one of many different planting designs assessed for this project.

Here, we present greater sage-grouse nesting habitat suitability 15-years after simulating a fire and planting of sagebrush. The planting design used here reflects the multi-year (my) habitat restoration effort where we used several moderate (sm) patches with high density (hd) planting of sagebrush. The planting was targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects simulated habitat conditions in 2030. To assess the degree to which transplanting sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) could quickly restore former sage-grouse habitat and the strategies by which greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter, sage-grouse) habitat restoration is best accomplished, we linked vegetation transitions with habitat selection models to evaluate habitat recovery. Within our modeling extent (Tuscarora, Nevada), we simulated the fire-induced loss of habitat, planting of sagebrush seedlings, and the regrowth of sagebrush and other vegetation over 15 years. We used sagebrush growth equations and vegetation state transitions to return and grow vegetation within the burned and planted areas. Every year, we updated seasonal sage-grouse habitat selection maps by re-applying pre-fire habitat selection equations to re-calculate the proportion of suitable habitat gained by sagebrush restoration efforts. We evaluated alternative planting designs to identify the key factors influencing habitat selection outcomes. Specifically, we varied the number of plants, patch sizes, densities, location of planting sites (i.e., random versus within sage-grouse nesting habitat), as well as post-transplant (30, 70, or 100%) survival. We assumed all planting occurred in a single year. We ranked the influence of these different planting factors on sage-grouse habitat recovery across restoration scenario. The following data reflect nesting habitat conditions 15-years after a simulated fire and sagebrush revegetation. Here, we provide the habitat recovery results for one of many different planting designs assessed for this project.

Here, we present greater sage-grouse nesting habitat suitability 15-years after simulating a fire and planting of sagebrush. The planting design used here reflects the multi-year (my) habitat restoration effort where we used several moderate (sm) patches with high density (hd) planting of sagebrush. The planting was targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects simulated habitat conditions in 2030. To assess the degree to which transplanting sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) could quickly restore former sage-grouse habitat and the strategies by which greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter, sage-grouse) habitat restoration is best accomplished, we linked vegetation transitions with habitat selection models to evaluate habitat recovery. Within our modeling extent (Tuscarora, Nevada), we simulated the fire-induced loss of habitat, planting of sagebrush seedlings, and the regrowth of sagebrush and other vegetation over 15 years. We used sagebrush growth equations and vegetation state transitions to return and grow vegetation within the burned and planted areas. Every year, we updated seasonal sage-grouse habitat selection maps by re-applying pre-fire habitat selection equations to re-calculate the proportion of suitable habitat gained by sagebrush restoration efforts. We evaluated alternative planting designs to identify the key factors influencing habitat selection outcomes. Specifically, we varied the number of plants, patch sizes, densities, location of planting sites (i.e., random versus within sage-grouse nesting habitat), as well as post-transplant (30, 70, or 100%) survival. We assumed all planting occurred in a single year. We ranked the influence of these different planting factors on sage-grouse habitat recovery across restoration scenario. The following data reflect nesting habitat conditions 15-years after a simulated fire and sagebrush revegetation. Here, we provide the habitat recovery results for one of many different planting designs assessed for this project.

To assess the degree to which transplanting sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) could quickly restore former sage-grouse habitat and the strategies by which greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter, sage-grouse) habitat restoration is best accomplished, we linked vegetation transitions with habitat selection models to evaluate habitat recovery. Within our modeling extent (Tuscarora, Nevada), we simulated the fire-induced loss of habitat, planting of sagebrush seedlings, and the regrowth of sagebrush and other vegetation over 15 years. We used sagebrush growth equations and vegetation state transitions to return and grow vegetation within the burned and planted areas. Every year, we updated seasonal sage-grouse habitat selection maps by re-applying pre-fire habitat selection equations to re-calculate the proportion of suitable habitat gained by sagebrush restoration efforts. We evaluated alternative planting designs to identify the key factors influencing habitat selection outcomes. Specifically, we varied the number of plants, patch sizes, densities, location of planting sites (i.e., random versus within sage-grouse nesting habitat), as well as post-transplant (30, 70, or 100%) survival. We assumed all planting occurred in a single year. We ranked the influence of these different planting factors on sage-grouse habitat recovery across restoration scenario. The following data reflect habitat conditions 15-years after a simulated fire and sagebrush revegetation. Here we provide the habitat recovery results of two different planting designs. We provide several example datasets from this project, including the following: tsf0tsf15_change_nontarg_me_ss_ld_bre10m.tif: Dataset representing a single-year (maximum-effort; me) habitat restoration effort where we used several small (ss) patches with low density (ld) planting of sagebrush. The planting was not targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects the change in simulated habitat conditions between 2015 and 2030. tsf0tsf15_change_targ_my_sm_hd_bre10m.tif: Dataset representing a multi-year (my) habitat restoration effort where we used several moderate (sm) patches with high density (hd) planting of sagebrush. The planting was targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects the change in simulated habitat conditions between 2015 and 2030. tsf15_nontarg_me_ss_ld_bre_hsi_10m_transf.tif: Dataset representing a single-year (maximum-effort; me) habitat restoration effort where we used several small (ss) patches with low density (ld) planting of sagebrush. The planting was not targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects simulated habitat conditions in 2030. tsf15_targ_my_sm_hd_bre_hsi_10m_transf.tif: Dataset representing a multi-year (my) habitat restoration effort where we used several moderate (sm) patches with high density (hd) planting of sagebrush. The planting was targeted for nesting habitat, and the data reflects simulated habitat conditions in 2030.

Evaluating factors that affect recovery of canopy-forming, foundational species is needed to guide effective treatment implementation aimed at mitigating their loss due to the changing fire regimes being experienced in semi-arid shrub-steppe of the Western USA. Most inferences on factors influencing recovery are based on one-time measurements taken as a snapshot in time, usually focused on the short-term initial establishment phase or outcomes observed decades after. We measured factors associated with the secondary establishment of big sagebrush in nearly 2000 plots across a heterogeneous landscape five years after a megafire (115,000 ha) and the diverse mosaic of restoration treatments implemented and compare these findings to previously published inferences on initial, first-year germination patterns observed on the same plots.