Lincoln, Nebraska – Researchers from the Nebraska-Montana EPSCoR reported in the August 2024 issue of Man and nature that ranchers with certain social networks are more likely to burn grassland infested by trees than ranchers who observe the spread on their land.

The researchers based this finding on a 2021 survey of 4,500 Nebraska ranchers on the prevalence of red cedar in the state. Of the 571 ranchers who responded to the survey, 191 completed the social network portion. Of these latter respondents, 76 percent said they mechanically remove red cedar to manage their land, while 30 percent said they conduct controlled burns. Some who conducted fires also used mechanical removals.

Holly Nesbitt, the researcher who led the survey and reported the results to the journal, looked more closely at ranchers’ social networks to see if their connections could influence the decision between slash-and-burn and mechanical removal.

She found that ranchers who had primarily other ranchers in their social network were most likely to use fire. At the same time, ranchers whose social networks consisted of people with different occupations were also more likely to use fire.

Occupations were grouped into six categories in the survey: producer (rancher), scientist or researcher, head of a government agency, other conservation professional, farm financier, and other. The sixth category, “other,” included all occupations that were non-ranching and non-conservation related, such as teacher, retail clerk, pastor, service worker, and so on. So a rancher could have a network full of “other” contacts, and that network would not be considered occupationally diverse or similar to the rancher’s. That rancher would be an example of those less likely to use fire.

Another example of a rancher who would be less likely to burn land would be one who has few contacts and they all fall into the same category, such as scientists or conservation professionals.

The study found that ranchers who interacted primarily with other ranchers had two to nine contacts in their network, an average of four people. They tended to interact with each other frequently. Ranchers who had professionally diverse networks (such as a government agency head, a conservation expert, an agricultural financier, and some “others”) had one to 15 contacts, an average of six people.

The researchers hypothesized that ranchers who have primarily other ranchers in their network may be more inclined to conduct controlled fires because they have the support of that network and can pool their efforts to work across their entire land. Ranchers with diverse networks may be more inclined to conduct controlled fires because they receive more information and resources from diverse sources.

The researchers found that ranchers with limited social support and information access were less inclined to conduct controlled fires, even when red cedar forest expanded rapidly.

“We found that in some cases, these social connections were even more important than individual risk perceptions or what was happening in one’s environment in encouraging behavior that would mitigate impairment,” Nesbitt said.

Invasive red cedars cause many problems, including a reduction in the amount of grass used for grazing, habitat for grassland wildlife, and runoff and groundwater recharge.

Craig Allen, director of EPSCoR Nebraska-Montana, said controlled burning is currently considered the most effective method to control the spread of red cedar over large areas, such as occurs in the Great Plains. Mechanical removal is socially accepted and widely used, but is too expensive and insufficient to control the spread on a large scale, he said.

“If you remove the trees mechanically, you’re going to have to keep doing that unless you also take care of the source of those trees, which are mature, seed-bearing trees, and the seeds themselves,” Allen said. “Fire is much better for that, to kill the mature trees and especially to control young trees during germination and the seed bank.”

Ranchers face many barriers to conducting controlled fires, including obtaining permits, overcoming fears, and having the skills and equipment to fight fires safely. The researchers suggested that the support some networks provide to ranchers could reduce such barriers.

The researchers found in the study that the severity of tree infestation was an indicator of mechanical removal, but not of controlled burning.

Ranchers surveyed with large operations or more diverse sources of income were less likely to use machine removal. EPSCoR researchers said this may be due to a lack of time (especially among those working off-ranch), labor shortages and a lack of money to cover rising costs.

Nesbitt said those seeking to promote controlled fires can use this study to see the importance of social networks. She said the study points to two groups of ranchers they can try to reach out to: those with rancher networks and those with professionally diverse networks.

She suggested that they could use these social connections in their communications work instead of just talking about the risks of red cedar invasion and deforestation.

“It seems like it’s more effective than trying to make people understand their risk, because they know their risk and it’s not necessarily the reason for their behavior,” she said.

The full article on this EPSCoR study can be found at Social networks and transformative behavior in a grassland socioecological system – Nesbitt – People and Nature – Wiley Online Library. EPSCoR is the National Science Foundation’s established program to promote competitive research in 25 states plus Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.