Natural Resources
Conservation Service
-
Search
Major Land Resource Area or ecological site by name and/or ID.
PreviousSectionsNextGeneral information
Draft. A draft ecological site description is either incomplete or has not undergone quality control and quality assurance review.
Classification relationships
This mixed oak site may include the following Oak Woodland Classes (Allen-Diaz et al. 1989): 1) Blue Oak/Grass, 2) Blue Oak-Coast Live Oak/Grass, 3) Mixed Oak/Grass, and 4) Mixed Oak-Black Oak/Grass. This site includes Blue Oak Woodland (BOW) and Coast Oak Woodland (COW) of the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System.
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree Not specified
Shrub Not specified
Herbaceous (1) Bromus
(2) AvenaPhysiographic features
This site can be found along the coast range from Mendocino County to the San Francisco Bay but is mostly in Mendocino County. This site occurs on hills and mountains with slopes are 9 to 75 percent.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Hill
Elevation 200 – 3500 ft Slope 9 – 75 % Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
The climate on this site is characterized by mild cool winters. The average January temperature is about 46 degrees F, the average July temperature is about 73 degrees F, and the mean annual temperature is about 54 degrees to 59 degrees F. The average annual precipitation ranges from 30 to 60 inches, with most falling as rain from October to April. Average monthly precipitation is presented in the maximum monthly precipitation row in the table below.
Precipitation and temperature are 1971-2000 means from the PRISM Group, Oregon Climate Service, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon (Daly 2006). Frost free period obtained from map unit descriptions (Soil Data Mart).
Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (average) 250 days Freeze-free period (average) 0 days Precipitation total (average) 60 in BarLineFigure 1. Monthly precipitation range
BarLineFigure 2. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
">Influencing water features
<br />
Intermittent and permanent streams drain these sites.Soil features
Exclose
Table 4. Representative soil features
Surface texture (1) Loam
Drainage class Moderately well drained Permeability class Moderate to slow Soil depth 31 – 36 in Available water capacity
(0-40in)5.1 in Ecological dynamics
This coastal grassland is dominated by annual grasses and forbs of European origin. Patches on shallow soils are
often dominated by filaree or other low growing forbs. Deep soils with higher water holding capacity are often
dominated by wild oats and other tall annual grasses.
As germination, seedling establishment and plant growth progress during the growing season, species
composition changes depending primarily on the timing and amount of precipitation and temperature (George et
al. 2001a). Consequently, understory and open grassland species composition varies seasonally and annually.
Unlike many perennial dominated grasslands, kinds and amounts (weight or cover) of herbaceous species are
not stable and annually predictable. Therefore, exact percentages by weight or ground cover are not reported as
is done in more stable perennial dominated ecosystems. Instead several species are listed, several of which can
be expected to dominate the composition in some years and be present in most years.
Total Annual Production and Growth Curve
Forage production and species composition is largely controlled by four factors: precipitation, temperature, soil characteristics and plant residue (George et al. 2001a). Precipitation and temperature control the timing and characteristics of four distinct phases of forage growth: break of season (germination and onset of growth), winter growth, rapid spring growth, and peak forage production. March and April are usually the months when 50 to 75 percent of the annual production occurs. The cold months of December and January often produce only 0 to 5 percent of the annual production. During cold weather seasonal and annual variation in production during each of these seasons contributes to the variable total annual production in the annual dominated understory and open grass patches. Annual forage production for normal, favorable and unfavorable years is 2000-2400 lb/a, 3000-3500 lb/a, and 1000-3700 lb/a years, respectively.
This ecological site commonly supports a blue oak dominated savanna of less than 30 percent canopy cover. In this savanna type understory production is usually greater under the trees than out in the open (George et al. 1996). However, as tree and shrub canopy cover increases beyond 50 percent herbage production may decrease.
Production curves are examples of monthly forage production for normal (2000 lb/a), favorable (3025 lb/a), and unfavorable (1050 lb/a) years. Annual plant growth begins with germination following the first fall rains (George et al. 2001a). Germination commonly begins within 1 week of receiving 0.5 to 1.0 inch of rainfall. This normally occurs late in October or early November. Temperatures commonly turn cold in mid-November. The longer the period between germination and the onset of cold temperatures the greater is fall herbage production. Early rains followed by an extended dry period can result in loss of most of the initial wave of germination. This is known as a “false break” and will be followed by a second germination wave when adequate rainfall resumes. The onset of rapid spring growth coincides with warming spring temperatures commonly in mid-February. The rapid spring growth period continues until soil moisture is depleted following the end of the rainy season. The longer the period from mid-February to soil moisture depletion, the greater is spring production.
State and transition model
More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
Click on state and transition labels to scroll to the respective textEcosystem states
State 1 submodel, plant communities
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 1
State 1: Historic StateCommunity 1.1
State 1: Historic StateState 1: The assumed historic state is a native grassland of annual and perennial grasses and forbs. In State 1, fire was more frequent and was not suppressed as is commonly the case in State 2.
T1.1a - similar to T2.1a with a native grass and forb grassland.
T1.2a – similar to T2.2a with a native grass and forb grassland.
T1a (State 1 to State 2): Invasion by exotic annual species, yearlong continuous grazing, drought, fire suppression and cultivation reduced or destroyed the native perennial grass and forb component of the assumed historic plant community (Burcham 1957, Bartolome 1987, Baker 1989). Apparently this is an irreversible transition in a time frame relevant to management. Restoration of native perennial herbaceous vegetation is a recurring management objective that has been largely unsuccessful. Researchers, managers and citizens groups have been unsuccessful at reversing the loss of native perennial grasses. Competition from invasive annuals and long dry summers apparently are insurmountable.
State 2
State 3: Annual GrasslandCommunity 2.1
State 3: Annual GrasslandState 3: Annual grassland with species composition fluctuating in response to weather, grazing, fire and fertility. Plant community 3.1 (PC 3.1) is dominated by wild oats (Avena spp), soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus) and ripgut brome (B. diandrus). Plant community 3.2 (PC 3.2) is dominated by filaree (Erodium spp) or other decumbent species. Plant community 3.3 (PC 3.3) is an annual grassland containing seeded annual legumes such as subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum) and vetch (Vicia spp.). Soil quality, especially fertility, declines following tree removal.
T3a (State 3 to State 2): Recovery from grassland conversions may take decades or may be irreversible depending on the intensity and type of brush control practices. Repeated fires and grazing help to maintain the grassland. Blue oaks and other woody plants may colonize adjacent open grasslands but seedlings are seldom found more than 30 m from existing tree or shrub canopy.
R3b (State 3 to State 5): Planting, weed control and protection of blue oak seedlings from animal damage can successfully restore blue oaks (McCreary 2001).
T3c (State 3 to State 6): Medusahead invades grassland. Light to moderate grazing allows build up of medusahead litter, excluding most other grassland species.
3.1a (PC 3.1 to PC 3.2): Filaree increases in response to low litter levels. Litter levels reduced by poor growing conditions, fire or heavy grazing. Long periods of inadequate rainfall within the growing season reduce grasses.
3.2a (PC 3.2 to PC 3.1): Annual grasses increase in filaree patches. Light to moderate grazing increases litter. Mulching effect of litter favors annual grass seedlings. Annual grasses shade filaree and other forb seedlings. Nitrogen fertilization favors increase in grasses.
3.1b (PC 3.1 to 3.3): Sulfur and/or phosphorus fertilization are required to maintain productive subterranean clover stands. Rose clover increases and spreads without fertilization. Close grazing helps to maintain legume composition.
3.2b (PC 3.2 to 3.3): Sulfur and/or phosphorus fertilization are required to maintain productive subterranean clover stands. Rose clover increases and spreads without fertilization. Close grazing helps to maintain legume composition.
3.3a (PC 3.3 to PC 3.1): Grasses increase with improved soil fertility and light grazing
3.3b (PC 3.3 to PC 3.2): With loss of fertility and close grazing annual legumes are replaced by filaree.
3c (State 3 to State 6): Medusahead invades grassland. Light to moderate grazing allows build up of medusahead litter, excluding most other grassland species.
Figure 3. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)
Table 5. Annual production by plant type
Plant type Low
(lb/acre)Representative value
(lb/acre)High
(lb/acre)Grass/Grasslike 800 2200 2800 Forb 200 500 500 Total 1000 2700 3300 Table 6. Ground cover
Tree foliar cover 0% Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover 0% Grass/grasslike foliar cover 80-100% Forb foliar cover 0-20% Non-vascular plants 0% Biological crusts 0% Litter 0-100% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 0% Surface fragments >3" 0% Bedrock 0% Water 0% Bare ground 0-20% Table 7. Canopy structure (% cover)
Height Above Ground (ft) Tree Shrub/Vine Grass/
GrasslikeForb <0.5 – – – 0-20% >0.5 <= 1 – – 80-100% – >1 <= 2 – – – – >2 <= 4.5 – – – – >4.5 <= 13 – – – – >13 <= 40 – – – – >40 <= 80 – – – – >80 <= 120 – – – – >120 – – – – Figure 4. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). CA1504 , North Coast annual rangeland (normal production year). Growth curve for a normal(average)production year resulting form the production year starting in October and extending through May. Growth curve is for oak-woodland and associated annual grasslands..
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J F M A M J J A S O N D 0 10 25 30 20 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 Figure 5. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). CA1505 , North Coast annual rangeland (favorable production year). Growth curve for a favorable production year resulting from the production year starting in October and extending into June. Growth curve is oak-woodlands and associated annual grasslands..
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J F M A M J J A S O N D 0 10 20 25 20 5 0 0 0 10 5 5 Figure 6. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). CA1506 , North Coast annual rangeland (unfavorable production year). Growth curve for an unfavorable production year resulting from the production year starting late and ending early. Growth curve is for oak-woodlands and associated annual grasslands..
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J F M A M J J A S O N D 0 15 30 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 Additional community tables
Table 8. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Grass/Grasslike2 Native perennial grass/grasslike 0 iris IRIS Iris 0 – purple needlegrass NAPU4 Nassella pulchra 0 – 8 Non-native cool season annual grass 0 barbed goatgrass AETR Aegilops triuncialis 0 – silver hairgrass AICA Aira caryophyllea 0 – oat AVENA Avena 0 – ripgut brome BRDI3 Bromus diandrus 0 – soft brome BRHO2 Bromus hordeaceus 0 – big quakinggrass BRMA Briza maxima 0 – red brome BRRU2 Bromus rubens 0 – bristly dogstail grass CYEC Cynosurus echinatus 0 – barley HORDE Hordeum 0 – medusahead TACA8 Taeniatherum caput-medusae 0 – annual fescue VUMY Vulpia myuros 0 – 11 Native perennial forb 0 California buttercup RACA2 Ranunculus californicus 0 – Forb12 Native annual forb 0 tarweed HEMIZ Hemizonia 0 – tarweed HEMIZ Hemizonia 0 – 13 Non-native perennial forb 0 bird's-foot trefoil LOCO6 Lotus corniculatus 0 – 14 Non-native annual forb 0 Italian plumeless thistle CAPY2 Carduus pycnocephalus 0 – thistle CIRSI Cirsium 0 – subterranean clover TRSU3 Trifolium subterraneum 0 – garden vetch VISA Vicia sativa 0 – thistle CIRSI Cirsium 0 – subterranean clover TRSU3 Trifolium subterraneum 0 – garden vetch VISA Vicia sativa 0 – Interpretations
Animal community
Wildlife
Deer and lagomorphs, browse oaks and rodents graze and browse in this community. Acorns are eaten by at least a dozen species of songbirds, several upland game birds, rodents, black-tailed deer, feral and domestic pig, and all other classes of livestock (Adams et al. 1992, Duncan and Clawson 1980, Sampson and Jespersen 1963). Acorns are a critical food source for deer (Burns and Honkala 1990). Studies in the central Sierra Nevada foothills showed that blue oak woodland is utilized by 92 species of birds, 60 of which nest there (Block and Morrison 1990). The California Wildlife Habitat Database (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988), maintained by California Department of Fish and Game, can provide extensive information on wildlife species that may occur in the habitat type on this site.
Of the 632 terrestrial vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) native to California, over 300 species use oak woodlands for food, cover and reproduction, including at least 120 species of mammals, 147 species of birds and approximately 60 species of amphibians and reptiles (Tietje et al. 2005). Common species on this site include California quail (Callipepla californicus), Beechey ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi), Botta pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae mewa), Blacktailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). The rich rodent and lagomorph population is an important food source for common predators including: bobcat (Lynx rufus californicus), coyote (Canis latrans) and the Pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis oreganus). The value of this site for food or cover changes seasonally with the vegetation. In habitat planning each plant community and each species needs must be considered individually and collectively.
Grazing and Browsing
The annual dominated understory of this plant community is used by domestic livestock and wildlife throughout the year. Historically and currently use has been primarily by cow-calf operations but stocker cattle are also grass fed on these plant communities. While sheep use may have been greater in the past it is currently limited. The main problem for livestock production on this site is lack of natural water sources during most of the year.
The plant communities on this site are suitable for grazing by all classes of livestock at any season. However, forage quality declines below the nutritional needs of many kinds and classes of livestock during the 6 to 8 month dry season. Matching the nutrient demands of livestock with the nutrients supplied by range forage is a balancing act for a considerable portion of each year (George et al. 2001b). The quality of range forage varies with plant species, season, location, and range improvement practices. Range forage is optimal for livestock growth and production for only a short period of the year. Early in the growing season, forage may be of high nutrient content, but high water content in the forage may result in rapid passage through the rumen and incomplete nutrient extraction. The browse value of common oak woodland species is listed in Sampson and Jespersen (1963).
Hydrological functions
The watersheds associated with these sites are drained by intermittent streams that only flow during the wet season and by perennial streams. In dry years these intermittent streams may not flow at all. Runoff on these soils is rapid and soil erosion hazard is high.
The soils of this ecological site are present at the UC Hopland Research and Extension Center in Mendocino County. Research at this station illustrates the loss of soil following conversion of the oak-woodland to a grassland. Removal of the deep rooted trees and shrubs reduces the amount of water extracted from the lower soil profile (Dahlgren et al. 2001).
Watershed studies have found that it take about 6 to 10 inches of precipitation to initiate stream flow.
Recreational uses
Hunting, horseback riding, bird watching, off-road driving and hiking are common recreational pursuits.
Wood products
Firewood cutting of blue oak, once prevalent, has decreased as voluntary and county regulatory actions to protect blue oaks. Interior live oak and madrone (Arbutus menziesiI) are harvested for firewood.
Other products
Native Americans have historically used and managed the blue oak woodlands for food and fiber.
Other information
Revegetation/Restoration Of Disturbed Areas
Oak Restoration:
Natural regeneration of oaks may be limited because of a number of factors that limit seed germination, seedling establishment and survival to the tree stage. Competition for soil moisture from the understory annual plants, acorn and seedling damage by rodents, livestock grazing and changed fire regimes are important factors that can reduce oak regeneration. Blue oaks may be limited because they are weak resprouters on some dry sites. Valley oaks may occur on this site and have been reported to have regeneration problems in some areas. Black oak regeneration is generally not a problem because they are strong resprouters. McCreary (2001) provides an extensive review of oak regeneration problems and practices on California’s oak woodlands.
Native Grass Restoration:
While, the soils on this ecological site support remnant native perennial grasses, competition from non-native annuals have often prevented successful natural and artificial re-introduction of native grasses.
Annual Legumes and Non-native Perennial Grasses:
Subterranean clover seedings have been highly successful on these soils but require phosphorus and sulfur to maintain high productivity. The high cost of seeding and fertilization has reduced the use of this practice. Introductions of non-native perennial grasses such as harding grass (Phalaris tuberosa) and summer dormant orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata) can be successful on this site but this practice is infrequently used (George et al. 1983).
Poisonous/Non-native Plants
Poisonous Plants:
Poisonous plants that may occur on this ecological site include lupine (Lupinus spp), and fiddleneck (Amsinkia spp), common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris), and hemlock (Cicuta spp). Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) is poisonous to horses. Livestock poisoning is usually a result of hungry animals being concentrated on toxic plants.
Invasive Species:
The understory and open grassland vegetation on this site is dominated by non-native annuals that invaded during the colonization of California. The species composition of the pre-colonization community is unknown. Several species have invaded and spread in these annual dominated communities including: medusahead (Taeneantherum caput-medusa), goatgrass (Aegilops triuncialis), starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), and tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea).
Supporting information
Inventory data references
JMHMenUpperhHorse 39.0075338 123.0793947 MlmendoJamesIIB 39.0299336 123.0921607 JMHMenJames1A 39.0375449 123.0915422 MlmendoJamesIID 39.0372092 123.0913197 JMHMenBuck1 38.9992391 123.0664798 MlmendoJamesIIC 39.0266520 123.0950809 JMHMenFoster1 38.9997811 123.0959681 JMHMenFoster2 39.0022116 123.0945601 JMHMenFosterBio2 38.9936651 123.0930593 MlmendoFosterBIO1 38.9993641 123.0957584 MlmendoVasser5 38.9873867 123.0818079
Other references
Adams, Theodore E., Peter B. Sands, William H. Weitkamp, and Neil K. McDougald. 1992. Oak seedling establishment on California rangelands. J. Range Manage. 45: 93-98.
Allen Diaz, Barbara, Rand R. Evett, Barbara A. Holzman, and Ayan J. Martin. 1989. Report on Rangeland Cover Type Descriptions for California Hardwood Rangelands. Forest and Rangeland Resources Assessment Program, Calif. Dep. of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, Calif. 318 pgs.
Baker, H.G. Sources of the naturalized grasses and herbs in California. In: Huenneke, L.F. and H.A. Mooney (ed.). 1989. Grassland Structure and Function: California Annual Grassland. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Pg 29-38.
Bartolome, J. W. 1987. California grassland and oak savannah. Rangelands 9. 122- 125.
Bartolome, J.W., W.F. Frost, N.K. McDougald and M. Connor. 2002. California guidelines for residual dry matter (RDM) management on coastal and foothill annual rangelands. Rangeland Monitoring Series. Publ. 8092, Div. of Agr. and Nat Res., Univ. of Calif. 8pp.
Blackburn, T.C. and K. Anderson. 1993. Before The Wilderness: Environmental Management By Native Californians. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, CA.
Block, William M. and Michael L Morrison. 1990. Wildlife diversity of the Central Sierra foothills. Calif. Agric. 44:19-22.
Burcham, L. T. 1957. California Rangeland. Div. Forestry, Sacramento, Calif. 261 pgs.
Burns, Russell M. and Barbara H. Honkala. 1990. Silvics of North America (Vol 2): Hardwoods. Agric. Handbook 654. USDA Forest. Service, Washington D.C. 877 p.
Callaway, R.M. and C.M. D’Antonio. 1991. Shrub facilitation of coast live oak establishment in central California. Madrono 38:158-169.
Callaway, R.M. and F.W. Davis. 1991. Vegetation dynamics, fire, and physical environment in coastal central California. Ecology 74:1567-1578.
Cole, K. 1980. Geological control of vegetation in the Purisima Hills, California. Madrono 27:79-89.
Corbin, Jeffrey D. and Carla M D’Antonio. 2004. Competition between native perennial and exotic annual grasses: Implications for an historical invasion. Ecology 85:1273-1283.
Dahlgren, R.A., K.W. Tate, D.J. Lewis, E.R. Atwill, J.M. Harper and B.H. Allen-Diaz. 2001. Watershed research examines rangeland management effects on water quality. California Agriculture 55:64-71.
Daly, Christopher. 2006. Guidelines for assessing the suitability of spatial climate data sets. Internat. J. of Climatology 26: 707–721.
Duncan, D. A. and W.J. Clawson. 1980. Livestock utilization of California's oak woodlands. In: Plumb, Timothy R., (technical coordinator). Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology, management, and utilization of California oaks. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-44. U.S. Dep. of Agr., For. Serv. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Berkeley, CA. Pgs. 306-313.
George, M.R., T.E. Adams, and W.J. Clawson. 1983. Seeded Range Plants for California. Leaflet No. 21344, Univ. of Calif. Div. of Agric. Sci. 23 pgs.
George, M. R., R. S. Knight, P. B. Sands, and M. W. Demment. 1989. Intensive grazing increases beef production. Calif. Agric. 43(5):16-19.
George, Mel, Jim Bartolome, Neil McDougald, Mike Connor, Charles Vaughn and Gary Markegard. 2001a. Annual Range Forage Production. ANR Publ. 8018, Div. of Agric. And Nat. Res., Univ. of Calif., Oakland, Calif. 9 pgs.
George, Melvin, Glenn Nader, Neil McDougald, Mike Connor, and Bill Frost. 2001b. Annual Rangeland Forage Quality. ANR Publ. 8022, Div. of Agric. And Nat. Res., Univ. of Calif., Oakland, Calif. 13 pgs.
Gordon, D.P., J.M. Whelker, J.M. Menke, and K.J. Rice. 1989. Neighborhood competition between annual plants and blue oak (Quercus douglasii) seedlings. Oecologia 79:533-51.
Haggerty, Patricia K. 1991. Fire effects in blue oak woodland. In: Standiford, R. (technical coordinators). Proceedings of the Symposium on Oak Woodlands and Hardwood Rangeland Management. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-126., Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Berkeley, CA. Pgs. 342-344
Harrison, A., E. Small, and H. Mooney. 1971. Drought relationships and distribution of two Mediterranean-climate California plant communities. Ecology 52: 869-875.
Mayer K. E., W. F. Laudenslayer. (Eds.) 1988. A guide to wildlife habitats of California. California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento.
McCreary, Douglas D. 2001. Regenerating rangeland oaks in California. ANR Publ. 21601, Div. of Agric. And Nat. Res., Univ. of Calif., Oakland, Calif. 62 pgs.
McClaran, M.P. 1986. Age structure of Quercus douglasii in relation to livestock grazing and fire. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. of Calif., Berkeley. 119 pp.
McDougald, N.K. W.E. Frost, and W.J. Clawson. 1991. Estimating the cost of replacing forage losses on annual rangeland. Leaflet 21494. Division of Agric. and Nat. Res., Univ. of Calif., Oakland, Calif.
McKell, C.C., A.M. Wilson and B.L. Kay. 1962. Effective burning of rangelands infested with medusahead. Weeds 10:125-131.
Mensing, Scott A. 1992. The impact of European settlement on blue oak (Quercus douglasii) regeneration and recruitment in the Tehachapi Mountains, California. Madrono. 39: 36-46.
Muick, Pamela C.; Bartolome, James W. 1987. Factors associated with oak regeneration in California. In: Plumb, Timothy R.; Pillsbury, Norman H., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium on multiple-use management of California's hardwood resources; 1986 November 12-14; San Luis Obispo, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-100. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 86-91.
Muick, Pamela C. Effects of shade and clipping on coast live and blue oak seedling mortality and growth in California annual grasslands. In: Pillsbury, N.H., Jared Verner, and W.D. Tietje (tech ed). 1997. Proceedings, Symposium on Oak Woodlands: Ecology, Management, and Urban Interface Issues. USDA Forest Service GTR-PSW GTR-160.
Murphy, A.L. and B. Crampton. 1964. Quality and yield of forage as affected by chemical removal of blue oak (Quercus douglasii). J. Range Manage. 17:142-144.
Murphy, A.L. and L.J. Berry. 1973. Range pasture benefits through tree removal. Calif. Agric. 27:8-10.
Parsons, D.J and T.K. Stohlgren. 1989. Effects of varying fire regimes on annual grasslands in the southern Sierra Nevada of California. Madroño, 36:154-168.
Pavlik, B.M., P.C. Muick, S. Johnson, and M. Popper. 1991. Oaks of California. Cachuma Press, Inc. Los Olivos, Calif. 184 pgs.
Plumb, Tim R. Response of oaks to fire. In: Plumb, Timothy R., (technical coordinator). 1979. Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology, management, and utilization of California oaks. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-44. U.S. Dep. of Agr., For. Serv. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Berkeley, CA. Pgs. 306-313.
Rice, Kevin J. and Erin K. Espeland. 2006. Genes on the Range: Population Genetics (in press).
Sampson, Arthur W. and Beryl S. Jespersen. 1963. California range brushlands and browse plants. Univ. of Calif. Div. of Agr. Sci., Berkeley, CA. 162 pgs.
Stephens, S.L. Fire history of mixed oak-pine forest in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, El Dorado County, Calif. In: Pillsbury, N.H., Jared Verner, and W.D. Tietje (ed). 1997. Proceedings, Symposium on Oak Woodlands: Ecology, Management, and Urban Interface Issues. USDA Forest Service GTR-PSW GTR-160
Tietje, William, Kathryn Purcell, and Sabrina Drill. Oak woodlands as wildlife habitat. In: Giusti, Gregory A., Douglas D. McCreary, and Richard B. Standiford (ed). 2005. A Planner’s Guide for Oak Woodlands, 2nd Ed. ANR Publ. 3491, Div. of Agric. and Nat. Res., Univ. of Calif., Oakland, Calif. pp 15-31.
Wells, P.V. 1962. Vegetation in relation to geological substratum and fire in the San Luis Obispo Quadrangle, California. Ecol. Monog. 32:79-103.
Contributors
Melvin George, JH
Rangeland health reference sheet
Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health is a qualitative assessment protocol used to determine ecosystem condition based on benchmark characteristics described in the Reference Sheet. A suite of 17 (or more) indicators are typically considered in an assessment. The ecological site(s) representative of an assessment location must be known prior to applying the protocol and must be verified based on soils and climate. Current plant community cannot be used to identify the ecological site.
Author(s)/participant(s) Contact for lead author Date Approved by Approval date Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on Annual Production Indicators
-
Number and extent of rills:
-
Presence of water flow patterns:
-
Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes:
-
Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, lichen, moss, plant canopy are not bare ground):
-
Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies:
-
Extent of wind scoured, blowouts and/or depositional areas:
-
Amount of litter movement (describe size and distance expected to travel):
-
Soil surface (top few mm) resistance to erosion (stability values are averages - most sites will show a range of values):
-
Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type of structure and A-horizon color and thickness):
-
Effect of community phase composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration and runoff:
-
Presence and thickness of compaction layer (usually none; describe soil profile features which may be mistaken for compaction on this site):
-
Functional/Structural Groups (list in order of descending dominance by above-ground annual-production or live foliar cover using symbols: >>, >, = to indicate much greater than, greater than, and equal to):
Dominant:
Sub-dominant:
Other:
Additional:
-
Amount of plant mortality and decadence (include which functional groups are expected to show mortality or decadence):
-
Average percent litter cover (%) and depth ( in):
-
Expected annual annual-production (this is TOTAL above-ground annual-production, not just forage annual-production):
-
Potential invasive (including noxious) species (native and non-native). List species which BOTH characterize degraded states and have the potential to become a dominant or co-dominant species on the ecological site if their future establishment and growth is not actively controlled by management interventions. Species that become dominant for only one to several years (e.g., short-term response to drought or wildfire) are not invasive plants. Note that unlike other indicators, we are describing what is NOT expected in the reference state for the ecological site:
-
Perennial plant reproductive capability:
Print Options
Sections
Font
AAAAOther
PrintThe Ecosystem Dynamics Interpretive Tool is an information system framework developed by the USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, and New Mexico State University.
Accessibility statement
