This collection includes both ASU Theses and Dissertations, submitted by graduate students, and the Barrett, Honors College theses submitted by undergraduate students. 

Displaying 1 - 4 of 4
Filtering by

Clear all filters

Description

Prairie dogs were once abundant across the plains and grasslands of the Western half of the United States. Four of the five subspecies are found in the United States and have lost 98% of their historical abundance since 1870 due to extermination campaigns, habitat loss, and plague. This species is

Prairie dogs were once abundant across the plains and grasslands of the Western half of the United States. Four of the five subspecies are found in the United States and have lost 98% of their historical abundance since 1870 due to extermination campaigns, habitat loss, and plague. This species is threatened by extinction and already extirpated across most of its range and yet given very little federal or state protection, except for the Utah prairie dog. This leaves most conservation efforts to grassroots and non-profit conservation organizations. This paper looks at the framework used by conservation organizations within conservation campaigns to communicate the need for prairie dog conservation efforts. Thirty-six organizations were found and six frames were identified. The most common frames emphasized prairie dogs’ role as a keystone species and addressed concerns surrounding cattle ranching and prairie dogs and plague transmission. Other frames were used occasionally and showcase underutilization of a wider variety of targeted frames. This paper is the first of its kind to analyze how prairie dog conservation is being communicated through framing theory. This field is under-researched and has the potential to grow and be helpful to future campaigns as they develop communication strategies and create partnerships with other like-minded organizations.

ContributorsOrtiz, Elizabeth (Author) / Lee, Nicole (Thesis director) / Ball, Becky (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Social and Behavioral Sciences (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor)
Created2023-05
ContributorsOrtiz, Elizabeth (Author) / Lee, Nicole (Thesis director) / Ball, Becky (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Social and Behavioral Sciences (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor)
Created2023-05
ContributorsOrtiz, Elizabeth (Author) / Lee, Nicole (Thesis director) / Ball, Becky (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Social and Behavioral Sciences (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor)
Created2023-05
165449-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Arid and semiarid ecosystems (known as drylands) cover 45% of global land area and are predicted to expand to encompass half of the world’s land area by the end of the century. Litter decomposition plays a large role in nutrient and carbon cycling in dryland ecosystems, yet it remains poorly

Arid and semiarid ecosystems (known as drylands) cover 45% of global land area and are predicted to expand to encompass half of the world’s land area by the end of the century. Litter decomposition plays a large role in nutrient and carbon cycling in dryland ecosystems, yet it remains poorly understood. Models that accurately predict decomposition in mesic ecosystems fail to accurately describe decomposition in drylands due to differing drivers of decomposition but also because litter in drylands accumulates around litter retention elements (LREs). LREs can be any object or surface that inhibits the movement vectors (e.g., wind) that push litter across drylands, creating a “pool” of litter around the LRE. Litter pooling increases the amount of mixing between litter and soil, creating a microclimate more conducive to microbial decomposition. Due to the increase in microbial decomposition, the decomposition rate for litter around LREs can be markedly different than that of litter not in LREs. To further understand how much litter accumulates in LREs, I studied the differences in litter accumulation between LREs and open areas in five drylands across the Southwestern United States. To do this, I visually analyzed photos of 424 litterbags to determine the cover percentages of four different types of organic litter (grass, broadleaf, reproductive, woody) and rock litter. Visual analysis of litterbags consisted of manually delineating the percent coverage of each of these litter categories. Litterbags had been placed in both open intercanopy areas as well as woody sub-canopy areas in which the plant canopy acted as the LRE. Additionally, 45 of these litterbags were randomly selected for analysis in the computer program FIJI (FIJI is Just ImageJ) to assess the litter area find the percent difference between visual and digital analysis. Areas underneath woody sub-canopies accumulated far more organic matter litter over time than open areas between canopies did but displayed a similar amount of rock litterbag cover. Shrub microsites also displayed far more varied litterbag cover percentages than open microsites. Data also suggested that litter does not always accumulate underneath shrubs or open intercanopy areas and may dissipate as time progresses. These results support the idea that litter accumulation varies throughout drylands, and that soil and litter mix frequently in LREs such as under woody plant canopies. The percent difference between FIJI analysis and visual analysis was generally negative, reflecting that visual estimation of litterbag cover was typically smaller than digital estimates. Cumulatively, litter was shown to accumulate much more around LREs and even move from them – supporting the idea that litter decomposition models need to account for litter movement in drylands to be accurate.
ContributorsNelson, Benjamin (Author) / Throop, Heather (Thesis director) / Ball, Becky (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor)
Created2022-05