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.
Associated sites
R022AY010NV MOUNTAIN SHOULDERS 30+ P.Z.
R022AY012NV BARREN SLOPE 20+ P.Z.
R022AY021NV SOUTH SLOPE 30+ P.Z.
R022AY031NV LOAMY SLOPE 30+ P.Z.
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree Not specified
Shrub (1) Artemisia arbuscula
Herbaceous (1) Achnatherum pinetorum
(2) Koeleria macranthaPhysiographic features
This site occurs on high convex, wind swept summits and shoulders of mountains and moraines. Slopes Range from 4 to 50 percent, but slope gradients of 8 to 30 percent are most typical. Elevations are 7000 to over 11000 feet.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Mountain slope
(2) Moraine
Flooding frequency None Ponding frequency None Elevation 7000 – 11000 ft Slope 4 – 50 % Ponding depth 0 in Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
The climate on this site is subhumid-continental, characterized by cold, moist winters, and cool dry summers. The average annual precipitation ranges from 16 to 50 inches, mostly occurring as snow. The linear to convex slope shapes associated with this site cause some of the precipitation to be removed from the site because of wind action, thus reducing the moisture available for plant growth. The mean annual air temperature ranges from 36 to 43 degrees F. The average frost free growing season is 30 to 60 days.
Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (average) 60 days Freeze-free period (average) 0 days Precipitation total (average) 50 in BarLineFigure 1. Monthly precipitation range
BarLineFigure 2. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
">Influencing water features
There are no influencing water features associated with this site.
Soil features
The soils that support this ecological site are typically shallow to very deep and are well drained. They formed in residuum and colluvium derived from volcanic or granitic rocks and from mixed glacial till. Surface layers are moderately coarse with greater than 35 percent rock fragments. Subsoil layers range from moderately coarse to moderately fine textured and are modified by over 35 percent rock fragments. These soils have a mollic epipedon that ranges from 7 to 16 inches thick. The soil series associated with this site are Conwayridge, Grandridge, Hawkridge, and Longday.The soil families associated with this site are Typic Cryorthents.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Residuum – granite
Surface texture (1) Extremely gravelly loam
(2) Very gravelly coarse sandy loam
(3) Very stony sandy loam
Family particle size (1) Loamy
Drainage class Well drained Permeability class Moderate to moderately rapid Soil depth 14 – 63 in Surface fragment cover <=3" 30 – 70 % Surface fragment cover >3" 8 – 20 % Available water capacity
(0-40in)1 – 4 in Calcium carbonate equivalent
(0-40in)Not specified Electrical conductivity
(0-40in)Not specified Sodium adsorption ratio
(0-40in)Not specified Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-40in)6.1 – 7.3 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)18 – 41 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)3 – 25 % Ecological dynamics
As ecological condition declines, low sagebrush, rabbitbrush, and other woody plants increase in prevalence as perennial grasses decline in the understory.
Fire ecology:
Prior to 1897, mean fire return intervals for low sagebrush communities have been estimated to be from 35 to over 100 years. Fire most often occurs during wet years with high forage production. Low sagebrush is very susceptible to fire damage. Low sagebrush is usually killed by fire and does not re-sprout. The recovery in burned areas is usually via small, light, wind-dispersed seed for all low sagebrush subspecies. Partially injured low sagebrush may re-grow from living branches, but sprouting does not occur.
Perennial needlegrasses tend to be among the least fire resistant bunchgrass due to the densely tufted stems. Prairie junegrass is reported as showing little or no damage to moderate damage from fire. The small stature of prairie Junegrass and coarse textured foliage aid in protection of these meristematic tissue areas. Possessing coarsely textured foliage and a small clump size also limits the potential for fire damage.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 1
Reference StateCommunity 1.1
Reference Plant Community
The reference plant community is characterized by an open canopy of soft-woody shrubs and a dense understory of perennial grasses. The representative plant community is dominated bluegrasses, and low sagebrush. Potential vegetative composition is about 45% grasses, 10% forbs and 45% shrubs. Approximate ground cover (basal and crown) is 5 to 20 percent.
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 67 135 225 Shrub/Vine 68 135 225 Forb 15 30 50 Total 150 300 500 Additional community tables
Table 6. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Grass/Grasslike1 Primary Perennial Grasses 105–165 pine needlegrass ACPI2 Achnatherum pinetorum 60–90 – prairie Junegrass KOMA Koeleria macrantha 45–75 – 2 Secondary Perennial Grasses/Grasslike 15–30 mock goldenweed STENO7 Stenotus 6–15 – Letterman's needlegrass ACLE9 Achnatherum lettermanii 2–9 – western needlegrass ACOCO Achnatherum occidentale ssp. occidentale 2–9 – sedge CAREX Carex 2–9 – squirreltail ELEL5 Elymus elymoides 2–9 – bluegrass POA Poa 2–9 – Forb3 Primary Perennial Forbs 6–15 little sagebrush ARAR8 Artemisia arbuscula 60–120 – mock goldenweed STENO7 Stenotus 6–15 – 4 Secondary Perennial Forbs 6–30 milkvetch ASTRA Astragalus 2–6 – buckwheat ERIOG Eriogonum 2–6 – phlox PHLOX Phlox 2–6 – Shrub/Vine5 Primary Shrubs 105–135 little sagebrush ARAR8 Artemisia arbuscula 105–135 – 6 Secondary Shrubs 6–30 Utah serviceberry AMUT Amelanchier utahensis 3–6 – mormon tea EPVI Ephedra viridis 3–6 – whitestem goldenbush ERDID Ericameria discoidea var. discoidea 3–6 – spiny hopsage GRSP Grayia spinosa 3–6 – antelope bitterbrush PUTR2 Purshia tridentata 3–6 – roundleaf snowberry SYRO Symphoricarpos rotundifolius 3–6 – Interpretations
Animal community
Livestock Interpretations:
This site is suited to livestock grazing. Grazing management should be keyed to pine needlegrass production. Domestic sheep and to a much lesser degree cattle consume low sagebrush, particularly during the spring, fall and winter. Pine needlegrass provides a palatable and nutritious feed for livestock during the spring and early summer. All classes of livestock species utilize prairie Junegrass. Rapid seasonal development of prairie Junegrass provides good, early-spring forage for livestock.
Stocking rates vary over time depending upon season of use, climate variations, site, and previous and current management goals. A safe starting stocking rate is an estimated stocking rate that is fine tuned by the client by adaptive management through the year and from year to year.
Wildlife Interpretations:
Low sagebrush is considered a valuable browse plant during the spring, fall and winter months. In some areas it is of little value in winter due to heavy snow. Mule deer utilize and sometimes prefer low sagebrush, particularly in winter and early spring. Low sagebrush and big sagebrush are important cover for sage-grouse throughout its range. Low sagebrush has some value as cover, especially for small birds and mammals. Sage-grouse use low sagebrush communities for nesting, roosting, and resting sites, as well as for escape cover. It is also moderately palatable to bighorn sheep during the summer, fall, and winter. Pine needlegrass provides a palatable and nutritious feed for wildlife during the spring and early summer. Prairie Junegrass is also utilized by bighorn sheep, mountain goats, elk, and mule deer in the spring and in fall after curing. Although, due to scattered distribution, prairie Junegrass does not maintain a significant role in the diet of most wildlife species The short stature and scattered distribution of prairie Junegrass provide minimum coverage for larger birds and mammals.Hydrological functions
Runoff is low to very high and permeability is moderate to moderately rapid.
Other information
Low sagebrush can be successfully transplanted or seeded in restoration. Prairie Junegrass can recolonize areas that have been subjected to severe water stress. Recolonization by prairie Junegrass provides protective cover to help subsequent post-drought, successional plant species growth.
Supporting information
Type locality
Location 1: Alpine County, CA Latitude 38° 30′ 30″ Longitude 119° 20′ 33″ General legal description Toiyabe National Forest. Other references
Fire Effect Information System (Online; http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/).
USDA-NRCS Plants Databse (Online; http://plants.usda.gov/).Contributors
ALC/GKB
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
