Questionnaire phase 2, very rough draft

I'm posting this just to give you an idea of what the phase 2 survey might look like. It is strongly based on steve's threshold framework, maybe too much detail but can always be pruned back some. So there are plenty of errors...but let me know do you like the general direction, or do you have some broad brush comments at this point?

Another thing:

now that you have a rough draft of phase 2, and at least an idea of what it will look like.... I would like more finalized comments on phase 1, and the two Wupatki ecosite s&t models. Basically I want to know am I clear by you guys to initiate phase 1 of the surveys? I've got 3 respondents willing to do it now, which is enough to get going. If so I'll give them a last edit and send them off.

let me know-M

{like the phase one survey, here I will have a paragraph-length summary of key concepts which will be addressed in the survey. This will be a simplified, bare-bones, version of Steve’s threshold framework}

Please review the revised state-and-transition model. These have been reviewed and revised according.

{Insert S&T Model here}

Please complete the following questionnaire. There are a small number of required questions (indicated by ***). We cannot use your survey response if any of these are omitted. The other questions are not required but we value your thoughts, and appreciate as many answers as you are willing to give.

1.Please identify the at-risk (of transition to degraded states) phase and vulnerable phase within the reference condition. [Currently the model structure implies that the grazed grassland phase is at-risk].

1. The current model is correct, ungrazed grasslands are not at-risk, and grazed grasslands are at-risk.
2. Both phases are at-risk.
3. None of the phases are at-risk.

2. We believe that the resistant properties of the non-vulnerable phase result from a negative feedback wherein grass cover has a positive effect on fire-return interval, and fire return interval has a negative impact in tree or shrub establishment, which in turn has a positive effect on grass dominance. Do you agree or disagree, and what are the other major feedback mechanisms that confer resistance to transition in the non-vulnerable state.

a. agree, no additional feedbacks.

b. disagree, additional feedbacks (please describe)

c. agree, additional feedbacks (please describe)

d. disagree, no additional feedbacks.

The grass-fire-shrub negative feedback is the only major negative feedback conferring resistance to the non-vulnerable phase of the reference state.

b. The grass-fire-shrub negative feedback is important but there are other key feedbacks (please describe

Now please consider some questions regarding specific transitions in the model:

Transition 7.

3. An at-risk phase, can transition to another state if appropriate triggers are engaged. We currently believe that, transition 7 has two possible triggers: fire suppression, and fuels reduction by grazing animals. Indicate if you tend to believe this, and indicate any other triggers which may be important in initiating transition 7.

a. agreed, these are the two main ones

b. disagree, one or both of these is not a trigger of this transition (please explain briefly)

c. agreed, these are two important triggers, but there are additional ones (explain)

d. disagree, one or both of these is not a trigger of this transition (explain), AND there are additional triggers (explain).

4. A transition can be loosely divided into a preventative threshold, or restoration threshold. The preventative portion is the part where resilience properties of the at-risk phase can promote ecosystem recovery if the trigger(s) identified in question 4 are disengaged. Regarding transition 7, we believe that the primary property conferring resilience is the resprouting ability of the native rhizomatous grasses. Do you agree, and are there others we should be aware of.

a. agree, no other

b. disagree, others include:

c) agree, others include:

d) disagree, no others

5. In the preventative threshold phase, there may be management practices which will allow resiliency mechanisms to work, returning the ecosystem back into the reference or potential state. We believe these practices include cessation of grazing if active, and not suppressing grassland wildfires when possible [if they can sustain themselves]. Do you agree, and are there others?

a) agree, no other

b) disagree, others include:

c) agree, others include:

d) disagree, no others

6. ***We have compiled a list of monitorable, measureable indicators which may be informative in determining if a threshold sequence is in the preventative or restoration phase. Some are part of the National Park Service’s vital signs and are currently being monitored, others are not but perhaps should be refined and added. These pertain to the amount of above ground fine fuels available to sustain wildfire, and the connectivity of these variables. They are:

6-1.Total basal cover including litter

6-2. Average length of bare patches

6-3. Average length of combustible patches (dashed line indicates how length would be measured)

[fig here]

Do you agree that these are valuable indicators, and which others should we consider.

a) agree, no other

b) disagree (explain), others include:

c) agree, others include:

d) disagree (explain), no others

7. ***For each indicator identified in 6, including any written in by you please estimate the value below which the resiliency mechanisms (e.g. resprout of rhizomatous grasses) alone would be insufficient to allow a return to the reference state is a trigger were disengaged. If you listed new indicators make similar estimates for them using the other boxes.

[We do not expect respondents to know the true answer, rather we are asking them to make educated guesses. Make the best guess you can. To help you answer, current average basal cover of plants and litter (ungrazed since 1996) is about 8-10. Average length of bare patches is xxx, and we have no information on average length of combustible patches.]

1. 6-1. (answer in percentage)
2. 6-2 (answer in cm)
3. 6-3 (answer in cm)
4. Other 1 (respondent identified)
5. Other 2 (respondent identified)
6. Other 3 (respondent identified)

8) ***Please estimate your overall confidence in the estimates provided in question 7.

[Please answer on a subjective scale of 0 – 100% certainty. Enter any value in this range. To help you answer: 0% means “It’s anyone’s guess, these estimates are no better than any other estimates”, 50% means “Because these estimates are reasonable I would tend to believe it until evidence to the contrary is presented”, 100% means “The estimates are so well-supported by evidence and accumulated knowledge, that I am certain it is correct.”]

9) If your level of confidence in any particular estimate differs from the value above please estimate your confidence for that estimate in the appropriate box. In case you are estimating a confidence in a state or transition suggested by you in questions 2 and 4, please use the “other” boxes to identify it.

[If you don’t provide an answer here, we will assume that your confidence in all ases is the same as question 8]

7. 6-1. (answer in percentage)
8. 6-2 (answer in cm)
9. 6-3 (answer in cm)
10. Other 1 (respondent identified)
11. Other 2 (respondent identified)
12. Other 3 (respondent identified)

***10)Please take a moment to think of any scientist or other person, who is to your knowledge the best qualified to estimate the values you estimated in question 7. This person could be yourself, or any other person. “Best” qualified may or may not mean highly qualified; sometimes no one is highly qualified. Now, in the hypothetical scenario that this person had made these question 7 estimates, using all of the data, knowledge and experience available to them, estimate how much confidence you would have that it is the correct model of the most important ecosystem states, processes and dynamics of the ecosite in question.

[Please answer on a subjective scale of 0 – 100% certainty. Enter any value in this range. To help you answer: 0% means “It’s anyone’s guess, any person could produce equally good or bad estimates”, 50% means “Because these estimates are reasonable I would tend to believe it until evidence to the contrary is presented”, 100% means “The estimates are so well-supported by evidence and accumulated knowledge, that I am certain it is correct.]

11) If during a threshold sequence, an ecosystem state surpasses these values it may move into the restoration portion. Negative feedback mechanisms may become dominant again, stabilizing the ecosystem into a new degraded state, in the case of the transition, the savannized state. At this point, only active restoration practices can achieve a return to reference conditions. We believe that applicable active restoration practices include those which remove the invading woody plants. Do you agree, and are there others?

a) agree, no other

b) disagree (explain), others include:

c) agree, others include:

d) disagree (explain), no others

[repeat process for each key management-relevant threshold]

Thank you for taking time out of your schedule to complete this questionnaire, we greatly appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you would be willing to do the same type of survey for additional ecosites which might fall under your area of expertise.