DOI: 10.5061/dryad.31zcrjf1s
title: Data from: A decision support tool using an open-source methodology for identifying Woody encroachment and Juniper species vulnerability in the Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma, USA

description: As a result of 20th century farming practices, fire suppression, grazing
 pressures, federal agriculture policies, drought, and related factors,
 juniper trees have experienced a dramatic increase in abundance across the
 Great Plains region, including millions of acres in Oklahoma. This
 invasive vegetation poses a significant threat to the environment, soil
 health, cultural resources, and economies within the Cross Timbers region
 of the Chickasaw Nation in south-central Oklahoma. To combat these
 negative impacts, the Chickasaw Nation (CN) has undertaken a proactive
 approach to evaluate the extent of juniper encroachment within the CN
 treaty territory (CNTT) and to use this information to make an economic
 case to landowners for the implementation of both prescribed burns and
 juniper removal in general. This article describes the creation of a
 species-focused evaluation methodology, model, and decision-support tool,
 called the Juniper Evaluation Tool (JET), that is simple, open-source, and
 applicable at an appropriate spatial scale to assist landowners, land
 managers, and CN resource managers in targeting best management practices
 and slow the encroachment of juniper tree species. The JET, a product of a
 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Conservation Innovation
 Grant (CIG), builds on the methods and functions of other planning tools,
 such as the Rangeland Analysis Platform (RAP) and the Rangeland Brush
 Estimation Toolbox (RaBET), but the outputs are tailored to parcel level
 management for watershed conservation planning in the CNTT. The JET aims
 to be a resource that is replicable, scalable, and actionable, and may
 provide the basis for an expanded tool that can be applied in other parts
 of Oklahoma and the Great Plains.
description: # Data from: A decision support tool using an open-source methodology for
 identifying Woody encroachment and Juniper species vulnerability in the
 Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma, USA Dataset DOI:
 [10.5061/dryad.31zcrjf1s](https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.31zcrjf1s) ##
 Description of the data and file structure **A.** Download the
 **Ecology_Evolution_Manuscript_Files.zip** folder and extract all files,
 which include one folder and 24 individual files. The following is a
 description of all the files extracted from the
 Ecology_Evolution_Manuscript_Files.zip folder: **FOLDER** **1. FINAL
 Validation Data** This folder contains the shapefile (and associated
 files) of all the validation data used for the model accuracy assessment.
 It can be opened in QGIS, ArcGIS Pro or any other spatial analysis program
 that can handle shapefiles. A Universal Transverse Mercator projection in
 zone 14 and the 1983 North American Datum was used for the shapefile. The
 landcover types for the 1, 443 validation points in the shapefile are as
 follows:  0 -- Non-Juniper Tree (bare ground, unimproved roadway, pasture,
 crop land, deciduous tree species, etc.) 3 -- Edge Juniper Trees (an
 individual juniper tree in a linear pattern, usually along a fence,
 roadway or edge of a property boundary) 4 -- Lone Juniper Tree (an
 isolated individual juniper tree) 5 -- Stand of Junipers (more than 6
 juniper trees near or next to each other) 6 -- Group of Junipers (less
 than 6 junipers trees near or next to each other) **FILES** **1. County
 Encroachment Level_JET Data Export.xlsx** This spreadsheet contains one
 tab (County Level_JET Download) that has data that was exported from the
 Juniper Evaluation Tool (JET) and lists the amount of juniper species by
 county. Rows include the 13 counties represented in the study area.
 Columns A - G include: County Name – the name of each county represented
 in the study area.  County Area (Acres) – the area of each county in
 acres. Tree Cover Area (Acres) - the distribution of total tree cover in
 acres by county (calculated directly from the juniper tree species
 distribution model output and includes woodland transition acres). Tree
 Cover (%) - the percentage of tree cover by county (calculated as a
 percent between tree cover and county acres). Woodland Transition (Acres)
 - the distribution of juniper species in acres by county (calculated
 directly from the juniper tree species distribution model and a subset of
 total tree cover acres). Woodland Transition (%) - the percentage of the
 distribution of juniper species by county (calculated as a percent between
 the woodland transition acres and county acres). Percent Juniper Cover
 with Respect to Tree Cover - the percentage of juniper cover found amongst
 the tree cover by county (i.e., what percent of the tree cover is made up
 of juniper species) (calculated as a percent between woodland transition
 area and tree cover area). **2. County Encroachment Level_JET Data
 Export.csv** This spreadsheet contains one tab (County Encroachment
 Level_JET D) and is a *.csv version of County Encroachment Level_JET Data
 Export.xlsx. **3. Watershed Encroachment Level_JET Data Export.xlsx** This
 spreadsheet contains one tab (Watershed Level_JET Download) that has data
 that was exported from the Juniper Evaluation Tool (JET) and lists the
 amount of juniper species by watershed. Rows include the 41 watersheds
 represented in the study area. The first table (rows 1-42) is an
 alphabetized list and the second table (rows 43-84) is the same table
 sorted by column G. Columns A – G include: Watershed Name - the name of
 each watershed represented in the study area. Watershed Area (Acres) – the
 area of each watershed in acres. Tree Cover Area (Acres) - the
 distribution of total tree cover in acres by watershed (calculated
 directly from the juniper tree species distribution model output and
 includes woodland transition acres). Tree Cover (%) - the percentage of
 tree cover by watershed (calculated as a percent between tree cover and
 watershed acres). Woodland Transition (Acres) - the distribution of
 juniper species in acres by watershed (calculated directly from the
 juniper tree species distribution model and a subset of total tree cover
 acres). Woodland Transition (%) - the percentage of the distribution of
 juniper species by watershed (calculated as a percent between the woodland
 transition acres and watershed acres). Percent Juniper Cover with Respect
 to Tree Cover - the percentage of juniper cover found amongst the tree
 cover by watershed (i.e., what percent of the tree cover is made up of
 juniper species) (calculated as a percent between woodland transition area
 and tree cover area). **4. Watershed Encroachment Level_JET Data
 Export.csv** This spreadsheet contains one tab (Watershed Encroachment
 Level_JE) and is a *.csv version of Watershed Encroachment Level_JET Data
 Export.xlsx. **5. GEE CODE LINK.docx** This document contains the link to
 the google earth engine (GEE) code used to create the model for the JET.
 **6. GEE CODE LINK.pdf** This document contains the link to the google
 earth engine (GEE) code used to create the model for the JET. **7.
 NRCS_CIG_Accuracy_Assessment.xlsx** This spreadsheet contains one tab (All
 Field & Aerial Data) of validation data used for the accuracy
 assessment with calculations provided.  **A.** Data $A$:$C$1:1443 contains
 1,443 rows of validation data and corresponds to the files in the FINAL
 Validation Data.zip folder. The three columns include: ·       Land Cover
 Code 0 -- Non-Juniper Tree (bare ground, unimproved roadway, pasture, crop
 land, deciduous tree species, etc.) 3 -- Edge Juniper Trees (an individual
 juniper tree forming a linear pattern, usually along a fence, roadway or
 edge of a property boundary) 4 -- Lone Juniper Tree (an isolated
 individual juniper tree) 5 -- Stand of Junipers (more than 6 juniper trees
 near or next to each other) 6 -- Group of Junipers (less than 6 junipers
 trees near or next to each other) ·       Land Cover Type Non- Cedar =
 Non-Juniper Tree (bare ground, unimproved roadway, pasture, crop land,
 deciduous tree species, etc.) Edge = Edge Juniper Trees (an individual
 juniper tree forming a linear pattern, usually along a fence, roadway or
 edge of a property boundary) Lone = Lone Juniper Tree (an isolated
 individual juniper tree) Stand = Stand of Junipers (more than 6 juniper
 trees near or next to each other)\ Group = Group of Junipers (less than 6
 junipers trees near or next to each other) ·       Sample_1 (0= non
 juniper 1 = juniper) The woodland transition area data from the model
 output in the Juniper Evaluation Tool (JET) was intersected with the
 1,443-validation land cover type points to produce this column containing
 zeros and ones, representing non juniper and juniper output, respectively.
 This column was used in the accuracy assessment tables (Data $E$:$T$55).
 **B.** Data $E$:$K$3:6 (Validation Data Table) This table was generated
 using the data ($A$:$C$1:1443) in the table, specifically columns B and C.
 **C.** Data $N$:$T$2:45 (Accuracy Assessment Raw Data Table) This table
 was generated using the data in the Validation Data Table ($E$:$K$3:6).
 The reference data was entered in by hand from the Validation Data Table
 and User’s Accuracy (UA) and Producer’s Accuracy (PA) values calculated
 with formulas (provided in cell). Overall Accuracy (OvAc) and the Kappa
 Coefficient (KHAT) were also calculated with formulas (provided in each
 cell). Lone, Edge, Group, Stand and Combined assessment data was
 calculated. **D.** Data $E$:$I$13:19 (Producer’s and User’s Accuracy
 Table) This table was generated from the cells in the Accuracy Assessment
 Raw Data Table ($N$:$T$2:45). **E.** Data $E$:$F$23:26 (Grouped Overall
 Accuracy Table) This table was generated from the cells in the Validation
 Data Table ($E$:$K$3:6). It shows the combined results of each point class
 and removing one until the stand point class remains. **F.** Data
 $H$:$J$22:27 (Overall Accuracy and Kappa Coefficient by Class Table) This
 table was generated from the cells in the Accuracy Assessment Raw Data
 Table ($N$:$T$2:45). **G.** Data $E$:$L$31:36 (Manuscript Data, Table 7)
 This table is a cleaned up version of the Validation Data Table (B. Data
 $E$:$K$3:6) for the manuscript. **H.** Data $E$:$K$40:46 (Manuscript Data,
 Table 8) This table is a cleaned up combined version of the Producer’s and
 User’s Accuracy Table (D. Data $E$:$I$13:19) and the Overall Accuracy and
 Kappa Coefficient by Class Table (F. Data $H$:$J$22:27) for the
 manuscript. **I.** Data $E$:$F$51:55 (Manuscript Data, Table 9) This table
 is a cleaned up version of the Grouped Overall Accuracy Table (E. Data
 $E$:$F$23:26 for the manuscript. **8. NRCS_CIG_Accuracy_Assessment.csv**
 This spreadsheet contains one tab (NRCS_CIG_Accuracy_Assessment) and is a
 *.csv version of NRCS_CIG_Accuracy_Assessment.xlsx. **9. RAP vs JET Tree
 Cover Time Series Statistics.xlsx** This spreadsheet contains 15 tabs of
 data downloaded from the Rangeland Analysis Platform (RAP) 30-meter
 vegetation cover data
 ([https://rangelands.app/](https://rangelands.app/)). This data was used
 to compare the RAP tool with the JET (e.g. Comparison tab). The yellow
 highlight in the TRE column for each county tab shows percent tree cover
 for 2021-22 and averaged to produce the value further down in the column.
 These data were then compiled the Comparison tab for analysis.  Each
 individual tab is explained in further detail below: **A.** Bryan County
 This tab contains the entire county data downloaded from the RAP tool. The
 TRE column represents percent tree cover. Because only part of the county
 is in the study area, the county was clipped to represent the portion
 within the study area and then downloaded. The highlighted data in yellow
 represents data from 2021 and 2022 and was used for comparison to the JET
 since this matches the two years used in the model. The number at the
 bottom of the TRE column represents the average of both years, 2021 and
 2022. **B.** Carter County This tab contains the entire county data
 downloaded from the RAP tool. The TRE column represents percent tree
 cover. The highlighted data in yellow that represents data from 2021 and
 2022 and was used for comparison to the JET as this data matches the data
 used in the model. The number at the bottom of the TRE column represents
 the average of both years, 2021 and 2022. **C.** Coal County This tab
 contains the entire county data downloaded from the RAP tool. The TRE
 column represents percent tree cover. Because only part of the county is
 in the study area, the county was clipped to represent the portion within
 the study area and then downloaded. The highlighted data in yellow
 represents data from 2021 and 2022 and was used for comparison to the JET
 since this matches the two years used in the model. The number at the
 bottom of the TRE column represents the average of both years, 2021 and
 2022. **D.** Garvin County This tab contains the entire county data
 downloaded from the RAP tool. The TRE column represents percent tree
 cover. The highlighted data in yellow that represents data from 2021 and
 2022 and was used for comparison to the JET as this data matches the data
 used in the model. The number at the bottom of the TRE column represents
 the average of both years, 2021 and 2022. **E.** Grady County This tab
 contains the entire county data downloaded from the RAP tool. The TRE
 column represents percent tree cover. Because only part of the county is
 in the study area, the county was clipped to represent the portion within
 the study area and then downloaded. The highlighted data in yellow
 represents data from 2021 and 2022 and was used for comparison to the JET
 since this matches the two years used in the model. The number at the
 bottom of the TRE column represents the average of both years, 2021 and
 2022. **F.** Jefferson County This tab contains the entire county data
 downloaded from the RAP tool. The TRE column represents percent tree
 cover. Because only part of the county is in the study area, the county
 was clipped to represent the portion within the study area and then
 downloaded. The highlighted data in yellow represents data from 2021 and
 2022 and was used for comparison to the JET since this matches the two
 years used in the model. The number at the bottom of the TRE column
 represents the average of both years, 2021 and 2022. **G.** Johnston
 County This tab contains the entire county data downloaded from the RAP
 tool. The TRE column represents percent tree cover. Because only part of
 the county is in the study area, the county was clipped to represent the
 portion within the study area and then downloaded. The highlighted data in
 yellow represents data from 2021 and 2022 and was used for comparison to
 the JET since this matches the two years used in the model. The number at
 the bottom of the TRE column represents the average of both years, 2021
 and 2022. Two sets of data are shown for comparison. **H.** Love County
 This tab contains the entire county data downloaded from the RAP tool. The
 TRE column represents percent tree cover. The highlighted data in yellow
 that represents data from 2021 and 2022 and was used for comparison to the
 JET as this data matches the data used in the model. The number at the
 bottom of the TRE column represents the average of both years, 2021 and
 2022. **I.** Marshall County This tab contains the entire county data
 downloaded from the RAP tool. The TRE column represents percent tree
 cover. The highlighted data in yellow that represents data from 2021 and
 2022 and was used for comparison to the JET as this data matches the data
 used in the model. The number at the bottom of the TRE column represents
 the average of both years, 2021 and 2022. **J.** McClain County This tab
 contains the entire county data downloaded from the RAP tool. The TRE
 column represents percent tree cover. The highlighted data in yellow that
 represents data from 2021 and 2022 and was used for comparison to the JET
 as this data matches the data used in the model. The number at the bottom
 of the TRE column represents the average of both years, 2021 and 2022.
 **K.** Murray County This tab contains the entire county data downloaded
 from the RAP tool. The TRE column represents percent tree cover. The
 highlighted data in yellow that represents data from 2021 and 2022 and was
 used for comparison to the JET as this data matches the data used in the
 model. The number at the bottom of the TRE column represents the average
 of both years, 2021 and 2022. **L.** Pontotoc County This tab contains the
 entire county data downloaded from the RAP tool. The TRE column represents
 percent tree cover. Because only part of the county is in the study area,
 the county was clipped to represent the portion within the study area and
 then downloaded. The highlighted data in yellow represents data from 2021
 and 2022 and was used for comparison to the JET since this matches the two
 years used in the model. The number at the bottom of the TRE column
 represents the average of both years, 2021 and 2022. **M.** Stephens
 County This tab contains the entire county data downloaded from the RAP
 tool. The TRE column represents percent tree cover. Because only part of
 the county is in the study area, the county was clipped to represent the
 portion within the study area and then downloaded. The highlighted data in
 yellow represents data from 2021 and 2022 and was used for comparison to
 the JET since this matches the two years used in the model. The number at
 the bottom of the TRE column represents the average of both years, 2021
 and 2022. **N.** CN Data This tab contains the data for the entire study
 area downloaded from the RAP tool. The TRE column represents percent tree
 cover. The highlighted data in yellow that represents data from 2021 and
 2022 and was used for comparison to the JET as this data matches the data
 used in the model. The number at the bottom of the TRE column represents
 the average of both years, 2021 and 2022. **O.** Comparison This tab
 contains all the TRE column (i.e. percent tree cover) data copied from the
 previous tabs represented by year and county, rows and columns,
 respectively. The highlighted data in yellow represents data from 2021 and
 2022 and was used for comparison to the JET as this data matches the data
 used in the model. The numbers at the bottom of each column represents the
 average of both years, 2021 and 2022. These averages were used to compare
 the tree cover data between the RAP tool and the JET. A summary of this
 comparison is represented in various ways in the following data block
 ($R$:$AF$1:56). The table (Table 2) was used in the supplemental material
 document. The t-Stat and p-value from the paired two sample for means
 t-test was used in the manuscript. **10. RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics_BryanCountySheet.csv** This spreadsheet is a *.csv version of
 the Bryan County sheet in the RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics.xlsx file. **11. RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics_CarterCountySheet.csv** This spreadsheet is a *.csv version of
 the Carter County sheet in the RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics.xlsx file. **12. RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics_CoalCountySheet.csv** This spreadsheet is a *.csv version of
 the Coal County sheet in the RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics.xlsx file. **13. RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics_GarvinCountySheet.csv** This spreadsheet is a *.csv version of
 the Garvin County sheet in the RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics.xlsx file. **14. RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics_GradyCountySheet.csv** This spreadsheet is a *.csv version of
 the Grady County sheet in the RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics.xlsx file. **15. RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics_JeffersonCountySheet.csv** This spreadsheet is a *.csv version
 of the Jefferson County sheet in the RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics.xlsx file. **16. RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics_JohnstonCountySheet.csv** This spreadsheet is a *.csv version
 of the Johnston County sheet in the RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics.xlsx file. **17. RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics_LoveCountySheet.csv** This spreadsheet is a *.csv version of
 the Love County sheet in the RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics.xlsx file. **18. RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics_MarshallCountySheet.csv** This spreadsheet is a *.csv version
 of the Marshall County sheet in the RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics.xlsx file. **19. RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics_McClainCountySheet.csv** This spreadsheet is a *.csv version of
 the McClain County sheet in the RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics.xlsx file.  **20. RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics_MurrayCountySheet.csv** This spreadsheet is a *.csv version of
 the Murray County sheet in the RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics.xlsx file. **21. RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics_PontotocCountySheet.csv** This spreadsheet is a *.csv version
 of the Pontotoc County sheet in the RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics.xlsx file. **22. RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics_StephensCountySheet.csv** This spreadsheet is a *.csv version
 of the Stephens County sheet in the RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics.xlsx file. **23. RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics_CN DataSheet.csv** This spreadsheet is a *.csv version of the
 CN Data sheet in the RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series Statistics.xlsx
 file. **24. RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics_ComparisonSheet.csv** This spreadsheet is a *.csv version of
 the Comparison sheet in the RAP vs JET Tree Cover Time Series
 Statistics.xlsx file.   **B.** Download the **GEE_Model_Files.zip** folder
 and extract all files which include five folders. These folders contain
 the spatial data that were uploaded to Google Earth Engine because the
 data was not available in their online data repository. The following is a
 description of all the folders extracted from the GEE_Model_Files.zip
 folder: **FOLDERS**  **1. Canopy_Height_Model** This folder contains 21
 LiDAR-derived *.tif images used in the model as discussed in the
 manuscript. **2. LULC** This folder contains two land use land cover *.tif
 images used in the model as discussed in the manuscript. **3.
 Municipal_Parcels** This folder contains the shapefile (and associated
 files) of municipal parcels used in the model as discussed in the
 manuscript. **4. Roadways** This folder contains the shapefile (and
 associated files) of roadways used in the model as discussed in the
 manuscript. **5. Study_Area** This folder contains the shapefile (and
 associated files) of the study area (i.e., the Chickasaw Nation Treaty
 Territory) used in the first step of the model as discussed in the
 manuscript. 
 
 **C.** Download the **Figures.zip** folder and extract the two
 Figurefolders. These folders contain all figures contained within the
 manuscript and the supplemental document. The following is a description
 of the folders extracted from the Figures.zip folder: **1. Manuscript
 Figures** This folder contains all manuscript figures and tables in
 various file formats and sizes. Please ask the authors for permission
 before use. Standard naming convention is used (e.g. Figure 1, Figure 2,
 Table 1, Table 2, etc.). **2. Supplemental Figures** This folder contains
 all supplemental document figures and tables in various file formats and
 sizes. Please ask the authors for permission before use. Standard naming
 convention is used (e.g. Figure 1, Figure 2, Table 1, Table 2, etc.).  
 
 ### Files and variables #### File: Ecology_Evolution_Manuscript_Files.zip
 **Description:** Provided in the previous "Data description"
 section. ## Code/software Microsoft Word and Excel Viewer, Photo Viewer,
 QGIS or ArcGIS Pro, Browser to view Google Earth Engine Code