Opportunistic Management for Rangelands Not at Equilibrium

ing and summarizing knowledge about range dynamics without distorting it. The amount of detail lost in a particular description would depend on how many states and transitions were recognized. We are proposing the state-and-transition formulation because it is a practicable way to organize information for management, not because it follows from theoretical models about dynamics. In consequence, we consider management rather than theoretical criteria should be used in deciding what states to recognize in a given situation. As a general rule, one would distinguish 2 states only if the difference between them represented an important change in the land from the point of view of management. For example, variation due to seasonal phenology of the plants would not normally be subdivided into states, while important changes in the underlying botanical composition would be recognized. It follows that a given rangeland could be described in terms of a greater or lesser number of states and transitions, depending on the nature and objectives of management and on the state of existing knowledge. There would not be a single correct description. Under the state-and-transition formulation, knowledge about a given rangeland should be organized and expressed in the follow-