Geology topics
Publications and source records attributed to Laura Cecilia Shriver.
The product is the 2026 newsletter for the USGS’s Restoration Assessment and Monitoring Program for the Southwest (RAMPS). The newsletter summarizes recent publications, provides updates, and highlights ongoing and upcoming RAMPS projects. Outlet: RAMPS listserve and Drupal page.
Ecological restoration—the process of assisting in the rehabilitation of a system that has been degraded or destroyed—can be used to address changing landscapes as our understanding of ecosystems and how to manage them improves (Gann et al. 2019). As a result, numerous research papers and guidebooks have been published to provide science-based recommendations for designing and deploying restoration projects, particularly in dryland systems. Despite these advances, many of these resources lack a range of cost estimates for restoration treatments (but refer to Kimball et al. 2015, Copeland et al. 2018, and Meldrum et al. 2025 for broad overviews). Restoration costs can vary widely based on treatment type, location deployed, level of degradation, and specific goals (e.g., Birch et al. 2010). Cost estimates could be used to inform development of site-specific management plans that are logistically and financially feasible. Here, we provide an overview of the estimated range of costs that could be associated with several manual dryland restoration treatments that aim to increase seeding success and soil health. We applied these treatments via RestoreNet—a collaborative network led by the U.S. Geological Survey that tests restoration treatments in collaboration with land managers, landowners, and rightsholders across the southwestern United States (Havrilla et al. 2020). Using actual material costs and labor requirements of RestoreNet partner treatments conducted at a small experimental scale (80 one-metersquared plots at five sites), we scaled up these estimates to a larger management-relevant scale (estimated cost and time per acre; Table 1, Fig. 1). These scaled projections may overestimate labor costs, as costs per acre tend to decline as spatial scale increases (Meldrum et al. 2025). We provide options that could potentially reduce treatment costs by using more cost-effective materials and mechanizing manual treatments to reduce labor costs (e.g., using bulk materials or heavy machinery instead of applying treatments by hand, described under each treatment below and summarized in Table 1). Estimated costs are in 2024–2026 U.S. dollars (based on estimated market rates in Arizona or the United States) and labor costs are calculated at an hourly wage of $15.15 per hour (Arizona minimum wage; Department of Labor 2026), which is slightly lower than Arizona hourly wages for farmworkers or greenhouse laborers. However, costs may change over time with changing market rates.
Introduction Seed-based restoration is widely implemented to recover degraded lands but often fails. Seed enhancement technologies may improve outcomes by shifting emergence to target favorable climate windows and serving as a bet-hedging strategy against increasingly variable precipitation patterns. Objectives To test the potential benefit of these technologies, we applied seed coatings designed to accelerate or delay emergence to four native Intermountain West perennial grasses that are commonly used for restoration. Methods We subjected seeds to six different watering regimes in the greenhouse that represented variation in precipitation timing and amount and compared the emergence, growth, and biomass of coated and uncoated seedlings. Results Seed coating designed to accelerate germination strongly increased emergence in species with high dormancy requirements, while seed coating designed to delay germination decreased emergence in species with low dormancy by about half and postponed emergence by up to 15 days. These coatings altered emergence timing regardless of watering regime, suggesting that seed coating could expand emergence windows under variable precipitation regimes. Seedling growth and total biomass were less dependent on seed coating and were more driven by the average amount of soil moisture provisioned to the developing plant. While seed coating designed to accelerate germination increased the emergence of two grass species, growth decreased during late periods of water availability, suggesting a trade-off in seedling performance. Conclusions Our results show promise for seed coatings to shift windows of emergence, but further field testing could improve our understanding of their effects in restoration settings.
Introduction Land managers often face the critical decision of what plant materials to select for ecological restoration. Selection depends on factors that span ecological conditions and human interventions in the restoration process, which can strongly influence the recovery of a degraded ecosystem. Objectives To improve the seed selection process, we compared scientific literature and guidance from five federal agencies to bridge seed selection “theory” and “practice” in the interior western and central United States. Methods We extracted recurring themes and keywords associated with abiotic, biotic, land management, and producer practices that influence seed selection and analyzed their proportional use between agency guidance and scientific literature. Results We identified significant overlap between key concepts in guidance and literature, highlighting the interconnectedness between science and management. However, nuanced patterns emerged across seed selection themes, including more focus in the literature on local adaptation and genetic structure, ramifications of introducing gene flow and artificial selection during plant production, and provenancing strategies to address changing climatic conditions. In contrast, agency guidance focused on genetically appropriate and environmentally suitable seed selection and practical concerns, including seed cost, availability, and diversity. Seed selection studies in the literature were concentrated in the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau, scattered in the Great Plains, and were largely experimental. Conclusions Our review suggests new opportunities for co-production of science and decision-making frameworks among researchers, land managers, and seed producers to inform seed selection guidance for restoration.
Restoring healthy, resilient, biodiverse ecosystems is crucial for our Nation’s future. Native plant communities provide essential environmental benefits, such as buffering against extreme weather, improving air, soil, and water quality, and habitat for wildlife. However, the limited availability of locally adapted native plants hampers effective ecological restoration. To address this need, the Plant Conservation Alliance released the National Seed Strategy in 2015 to foster coordination to increase the supply of native seeds for restoration on public, Tribal, state, and private lands. Developing and using native seeds nurtures a growing restoration economy that creates jobs, stimulates rural economies, and reduces risks from environmental hazards.
In this newsletter, we are excited to share our recent publication, Bridging theory and practice to inform seed selection for restoration , which is part of an ongoing collaborative effort with land managers and restoration practitioners to synthesize lessons learned and identify future research directions for native seed development and use in the U.S. We would also like to say thank you to Sarah Costanzo, who was instrumental to RAMPS field work for the past three years and is starting a PhD program in Environmental and Forest Sciences at the University of Washington. As always, please reach out with questions or collaboration opportunities for research and restoration in the Southwest.
Seed-based ecological restoration is an approach used to revegetate damaged and disturbed habitats by spreading seed with the expectation that germination will occur and plants will become established and flourish. Although restoration can enhance the health and productivity of landscapes by reinvigorating ecosystem services both directly and indirectly, successful restoration is difficult to achieve – particularly in arid systems (Copeland et al. 2018). Germination is a well known bottleneck to plant growth that prohibits successful restoration (James at al. 2011).
No abstract available.