Prescribed fire may hold key to improving wildlife habitat in Eastern Nevada

Techniques like prescribed fire, targeted vegetation removal and reseeding can reduce wildfire risk while improving habitat for animals like Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep by creating more forage for grazing wildlife, according to new research in Restoration Ecology. The study finds that focusing these treatments strategically across fewer ecosystems and land ownerships increases their effectiveness. At subalpine elevations, carefully applied fire clears out older vegetation and encourages new plant growth that’s highly favorable to Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, mule deer and elk, improving forage in the short term, even though it temporarily reduces older forest conditions before the landscape fills back in over time.

Led by scientists from The Nature Conservancy in Nevada in partnership with Great Basin National Park, Bureau of Land Management, the Nevada Department of Wildlife and the U.S. Forest Service, the study used advanced landscape modeling to forecast how management decisions and climate change could shape about 400,000 acres of Eastern Nevada ecosystems, including forests, woodland, sagebrush and grasslands, over the next 50 years. Considering the challenges land managers face like multiple ownerships, budget constraints, limited equipment availability, treatment costs and success rates, the researchers simulated two management approaches across three climate scenarios.

In addition to the benefits of prescribed fire, the study found:

• Reducing dense woody fuels and invasive annual grasses lowers wildfire risk: Treatments using perennial grass and shrub species at lower elevations can decrease wildfire frequency and extent, particularly where non-native species contribute to more intense fires.
• Focusing restoration investments improves outcomes: Spreading limited resources too broadly leads to minimal improvement, while concentrating efforts on fewer ecosystems delivers more meaningful gains.
• What land managers plant matters: Native species help restore ecosystems, while introduced species may stabilize landscapes and provide food for grazing wildlife but do not improve overall ecological health.
• Not all areas benefit from intervention: Some ecosystems may not respond positively to treatments, highlighting the need for careful prioritization.

“A changing climate adds another layer of complexity,” said Louis Provencher, science director for The Nature Conservancy in Nevada. “It can make conditions drier while also increasing swings between wet and dry years, leading to more frequent fires and avalanches that reshape vegetation patterns and wildlife habitat in unexpected ways.”

The research also challenges how success is measured in restoration. Standard metrics often rely on how closely landscapes resemble the past. However, they can rate very different outcomes as equally degraded, even when their benefits for wildlife and ecosystem health differ. This highlights the need for more nuanced approaches.