Who: USDA ARS and NDSU range and wildlife researchers, graduate students, and undergraduate technicians

What: Structural characteristics and community composition collected from southwestern North Dakota rangelands from 2017 through 2020

Where: Hettinger Research Extension Center in Hettinger, North Dakota USA

• 6, 65 ha patch-burn grazing pastures were the primary data collection locations

Why: These two files come from a patch-burn grazing study in southwestern North Dakota that were comparing an iteration of patch-burn grazing with cattle to a version of patch-burn grazing with sheep for the grazing component. Feel free to contact me at jonathan.spiess@usda.gov or jwspiess@gmail.com.

How: We used 0.5m x 0.5m quadrats to measure vegetation structure characteristics and community composition along 100m transects in patches (subsections) of larger pastures or management units. We measured 1 quadrat spaced every 10 m starting at 0 on both sides of the transect for 22 total quadrats per transect in patch-burn grazing pastures. Transects were distributed amongst patches of each pasture and management unit.

• Data were analyzed using a combination of mixed-effect models and ordinations to compare time since fire (TSF) and grazer type (cattle or sheep).

17_18_19_20vegFG.csv is the primary dataset for this paper and repository here. We collected vegetation structure and community composition data in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020.

• Columns Year through PastPatch are various grouping variables used throughout the analysis.
• • Pasture is the primary ID for a given unit
  • Block is the assigned set of pastures the pasture matches
  • TSF is the time since fire for a given location
  • Use is whether the pasture or management unit was managed for heterogeneity or homogeneity
  • Management is the grazer type for pbg pastures and hay or idle for management units
  • Patch is a subsection of the pasture or management unit
  • PastPatch is a combination of the pasture name with the patch number
• VOR: Visual Obstruction Reading was measured using a Robel pole marked and recorded in 0.25 dm increments. We took four readings per quadrat and calculated an average score from these.
• MaxLive and MaxDead: these were the tallest living and tallest standing dead plant material within the quadrat measured in 0.25 dm increments using the Robel pole.
• LitMean: We measured litter depth using a ruler to the nearest cm in the four corners of each quadrat. After 2017, we started recording all four measurements instead of just recording the average of the four measurements.
• BGCover: bare ground cover is any exposed soil surface than can be seen when looking down on the quadrat. We expected this to be higher in recently burned patches.
• GCover: ground litter cover is any visible horizontal ground litter than can be seen when looking down on the quadrat. We expected this to be higher in recently burned patches.
• LitCover: vertical litter cover is any visible standing or vertical litter than can be seen when looking down on the quadrat. We expected this to be lower in recently burned patches.
• Columns ACMI through VIAM are the 4 letter species codes used during data collection on a tablet to record cover by cover class. The tablet was programmed to autorecord a '0' for species that were not present in the quadrat.
• Columns NatForb through NatShrub are the calculated cover values for finer scale groupings based on native and introduced status.
• Columns Forb through Litter are additional calculated cover values.

RadGraph.csv was used to expedite making a community composition figure that is now in the supplemental materials for the paper.