Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Ecological site F025XY068NV

JUSC2/ARTRV/FEID/PSSP

Accessed: 08/31/2026

Home / esd CATALOG / MLRA 025X / ecological site F025XY068NV

USC

Metric

General information

Draft. A draft ecological site description is either incomplete or has not undergone quality control and quality assurance review.

MLRA notes

Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 025X–Owyhee High Plateau

MLRA 25 lies within the Intermontane Plateaus physiographic province. The southern half is in the Great Basin Section of the Basin and Range Province. This part of the MLRA is characterized by isolated, uplifted fault-block mountain ranges separated by narrow, aggraded desert plains. This geologically older terrain has been dissected by numerous streams draining to the Humboldt River. The northern half of the area lies within the Columbia Plateaus geologic province. This part of the MLRA forms the southern boundary of the extensive Columbia Plateau basalt flows. Deep, narrow canyons drain to the Snake River which incise the broad volcanic plain. The Humboldt River, route of a major western pioneer trail, crosses the southern half of this area. Reaches of the Owyhee River in this area have been designated as National Wild and Scenic Rivers.
Nevada’s climate is predominantly arid, with large daily ranges of temperature, infrequent severe storms, heavy snowfall in the higher mountains, and great location variations with elevation. Three basic geographical factors largely influence Nevada’s climate: continentality, latitude, and elevation. Continentality is the most important factor. The strong continental effect is expressed in the form of both dryness and large temperature variations. Nevada lies on the eastern, lee side of the Sierra Nevada Range, a massive mountain barrier that markedly influences the climate of the State.

Ecological site concept

This site occurs on moderately steep to steeply sloping canyon sideslopes dissecting basaltic tablelands. Slopes range from 30 to 75 percent, but are typically 30 to 50 percent. Elevations are 4000 to 6500 feet. The average growing season is 70 to 100 days.

Soil depth to basalt bedrock is very shallow to shallow. Soils have more than 35 percent rock fragments by volume distributed through their profile. These soils are extremely stony, bouldery and/or cobbly on the surface. Available water capacity is low to very low. Runoff is high and permeability is moderate.

The reference plant community dominated by Rocky Mountain juniper. Mountain or basin big sagebrush are the principal understory shrubs. Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass are the most prevalent understory grasses. Overstory tree canopy composition is 100 percent Rocky Mountain juniper. An overstory canopy of 20 to 35 percent is assumed to be representative of tree dominance on this site in the pristine environment.

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Tree	(1) Juniperus scopulorum
Shrub	(1) Artemisia tridentata subsp. vaseyana
Herbaceous	(1) Festuca idahoensis (2) Pseudoroegneria spicata

Download full description

Physiographic features

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Landforms	(1) Canyon
Elevation	4000 – 6500 ft
Slope	30 – 75 %
Aspect	Aspect is not a significant factor

Climatic features

The climate associated with this site is semiarid, characterized by cold, moist winters and warm, dry summers.
The average annual precipitation ranges from 14 or more inches. Mean annual air temperature is typically <45 degrees F. The average growing season is 70 to 100 days.

Mean annual precipitation across the range in which this ES occurs is 18.58".

Monthly mean precipitation: January 1.65”; February 1.68”; March 1.98”; April 2.43”; May 2.41”; June 1.62”; July 0.61”; August 0.63”; September 0.84”; October 1.41”; November 1.51”; December 1.79”.

*The above data is averaged from the Jarbridge 4N and Lamoille PH WRCC climate stations.

Table 3 Representative climatic features

Frost-free period (average)	80 days
Freeze-free period (average)	110 days
Precipitation total (average)	20 in

Bar

Line

Figure 1. Monthly precipitation range

Bar

Line

Figure 2. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature

Figure 3. Annual precipitation pattern

Figure 4 Annual average temperature pattern

Climate stations used

(1) JARBIDGE 7 N [USC00264039], Jackpot, NV
(2) LAMOILLE YOST [USC00264394], Spring Creek, NV

Soil features

Soil depth to basalt bedrock is very shallow to shallow. Soils have more than 35 percent rock fragments by volume distributed through their profile. These soils are extremely stony, bouldery and/or cobbly on the surface. Available water capacity is low to very low. Runoff is high and permeability is moderate.

Ecological dynamics

An ecological site is the product of all the environmental factors responsible for its development and has a set of key characteristics that influence a site’s resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasives. Key characteristics include 1) climate (precipitation and temperature), 2) topography (aspect, slope, elevation, and landform), 3) hydrology (infiltration and runoff), 4) soils (depth, texture, structure, and organic matter), 5) plant communities (functional groups and productivity), and 6) natural disturbance regime (fire, herbivory, etc.) (Caudle et al. 2003). Biotic factors that influence resilience include site productivity, species composition and structure, and population regulation and regeneration (Chambers et al. 2013).

The Great Basin vegetative communities have high spatial and temporal variability in precipitation both among years and within growing seasons. Nutrient availability is typically low but increases with elevation and closely follows moisture availability. The moisture resource supporting the greatest amount of plant growth is usually the water stored in the soil profile during the winter. The invasibility of plant communities is often linked to resource availability. Disturbance can decrease resource uptake due to damage or mortality of the native species and depressed competition. It can also increase resource uptake via the decomposition of dead plant material following disturbance. The invasion of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) has been linked to disturbances (fire, abusive grazing) that have resulted in fluctuations in resources (Chambers et al. 2007). Dobrowolski et al. (1990) cite multiple authors on the extent of the soil profile exploited by the competitive exotic annual. The depth of rooting is dependent on the size the plant achieves and in competitive environments, cheatgrass roots were found to penetrate only 15 cm, whereas isolated plants and pure stands were found to root at least 1 m in depth with some plants rooting as deep as 1.5 to 1.7 m.

This ecological site is dominated by long-lived mountain mahogany, deep-rooted cool season perennial bunchgrasses, and long-lived shrubs (50+ years) with high root to shoot ratios. Pinyon pine is present in small amounts. As pinyon pine canopy increases, Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass decline. The dominant shrubs have a flexible generalized root system with development of both deep taproots and laterals near the surface (Comstock and Ehleringer 1992). The perennial bunchgrasses generally have somewhat shallower root systems than the shrubs, but root densities are often as high as or higher than those of shrubs in the upper 0.5 meters. Differences in root depth distributions between grasses and shrubs result in resource partitioning in these shrub/grass systems.

Curl-leaf mountain mahogany is a multi-branched, evergreen shrub or tree extending from 3 to over 20 feet in height. The rooting of mountain mahogany is spreading and limited by the depth to bedrock. Youngberg and Hu (1972) reported in an Oregon study that curl-leaf mountain mahogany produces nitrogen-fixing root nodules and asserted that nodulated plants had the highest amounts of nitrogen in the leaves. It is the most widely distributed species of Cercocarpus and is the only species of the genus that extends as far north and west as Washington. Most often curl-leaf mountain mahogany stands occur on warm, dry, rocky ridges or outcrops where fire would be an infrequent occurrence (USDA 1937). Dealy (1975) and Scheldt (1969) found that mahogany trees were larger and older on fire-resistant rocky sites and were the seed source if fire destroyed the non-rocky portion of the site.
Curl-leaf mahogany plants are long-lived and can reach 1,300+ years of age (Schultz 1987, Schultz et al. 1990). As mahogany stands increase in average age, average canopy volume and height of the individuals present also increases. As average canopy height and volume increase, stand density declines (Schultz et al 1991). Stands with a closed or nearly closed canopy often have few or no young curl-leaf mahogany (i.e., recruitment) in the understory (Schultz et al. 1990, 1991) despite high seed density beneath trees (Russell and Schupp 1998, Ibanez and Schupp 2002). Intraspecific competition reduces the growth rates of all age classes below the potential growth rates for the species. Competition may also increase mortality in the younger plants.

Curl-leaf mahogany plants are very self-compatible for pollination and most developing seed matures and is viable (Russell et al. 1998). The deep litter throughout stands with high canopy cover appears to facilitate seed germination but retard seedling survival due to poor contact between the root and the soil (Schultz et al. 1996, Ibanez and Schupp 2001). Reproduction in large stands with high canopy cover occurs most often in canopy gaps where a tree has died and an increase in exposure of bare ground occurs, or around the perimeter of the stand under sagebrush plants where there is less, typically shallow litter cover (Schultz 1987, Schultz et al. 1991).

Mahogany stands are susceptible to drought, frost, and invasion by non-native species, especially cheatgrass. Cheatgrass affects mahogany seedling growth by competing for water resources and nutrients (Ross 1999).
In pristine conditions, singleleaf pinyon should be subdominant or codominant with curl-leaf mountain mahogany on this site.

Historically, the pinyon component would be kept in check by natural disturbance regimes. In the Great Basin, old-growth trees have been found to typically grow on rocky shallow or sandy soils that support little understory vegetation to carry a fire (Holmes et al. 1986, Miller and Rose 1995, West et al. 1998). Increases in pinyon establishment is attributed to a number of factors, the most important being: 1) the cessation of the aboriginal burning (Tausch 1999), 2) the change in climate with rising temperatures (Heyerdahl et al. 2006), 3) the reduced frequency of fire likely driven by the introduction of domestic livestock, 4) a decrease in wildfire frequency along with improved wildfire suppression efforts, and 5) potentially increased CO2 levels favoring woody plant establishment (Tausch 1999, Bunting 1994). In Utah, Nevada, and Oregon, trees established prior to 1860 accounted for only two percent or less of the total population of pinyon and juniper (Miller et al. 2008). The research strongly suggests that for over 200 years prior to settlement, woodlands in the Great Basin were relatively low density with limited rates of establishment (Miller et al. 2008, Miller and Tausch 2001) and that conifer canopy cover of 10 to 25 percent may be more representative of these sites in pristine condition. Increases in pinyon and juniper densities post-settlement were the result of both infill in mixed age tree communities and expansion into shrub-steppe communities. However, the proportion of old-growth can vary depending on disturbance regimes, soils and climate. Some ecological sites are capable of supporting persistent woodlands, likely due to specific soils and climate resulting in infrequent stand replacement disturbance regimes.

Singleleaf pinyon is a long-lived tree species with wide ecological amplitudes (Tausch et al 1981, Weisberg and Dongwook 2012, West et al 1998). Maximum age of pinyon exceeds 1000 years. Stands with maximum age classes are only found on steep rocky slopes with no evidence of fire (West et al 1975). Singleleaf pinyon is slow-growing and very intolerant to shade with the exception of young plants, usually first year seedlings (Tueller and Clark 1975). Singleleaf pinyon seedling establishment is episodic. Population age structure is affected by drought, which reduces seedling and sapling recruitment more than other age classes. The ecotones between singleleaf pinyon woodlands and adjacent shrublands and grasslands provide favorable microhabitats for singleleaf pinyon seedling establishment since they are active zones for seed dispersal, nurse plants are available, and singleleaf pinyon seedlings are only affected by competition from grass and other herbaceous vegetation for a couple of years.

The pinyon jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus) and other members of the seed-caching corvids play an important role in pinyon pine regeneration. These birds cache the seeds in the soil for future use. Those seeds that escape harvesting by the birds and rodents have the opportunity to germinate under favorable soil and climatic conditions (Lanner 1981). A mutualistic relationship exists between the trees that produce food and the animals that disperse the seeds, thereby insuring perpetuation of the trees. Large crops of seeds may stimulate reproduction in birds, especially the pinyon jay (Ligon 1974).

Pinyon growth is dependent mostly upon soil moisture stored from winter precipitation, mainly snow. Much of the summer precipitation is ineffective, being lost in runoff after summer convection storms or by evaporation and interception (Tueller and Clark 1975). Pinyon is highly resistant to drought, which is common in the Great Basin. Tap roots of pinyon have a relatively rapid rate of root elongation and are thus able to persist until precipitation conditions are more favorable (Emerson 1932).

Infilling by younger trees increases canopy cover, causing a decrease in understory perennial vegetation and an increase in bare ground. As pinyon trees increase in density so does their litter. Furthermore, infilling shifts level biomass from ground fuels to canopy fuels which have the potential to significantly impact fire behavior. The more pinyon-dominated this site becomes, the less likely it is to burn under moderate conditions, resulting in frequent high intensity fires (Gruell 1999, Miller et al. 2008). Additionally, as the understory vegetation declines in vigor and density with increased canopy, the seed and propagules of the understory plant community also decrease significantly. The increase in bare ground allows for the invasion of non-native annual species such as cheatgrass. With intensive wildfire, the potential for conversion to annual exotics is a serious threat (Tausch 1999, Miller et al. 2008).

Specific successional pathways after disturbance in this ecological site are dependent on a number of variables, such as plant species present at the time of disturbance and their individual responses to disturbance, past management actions, type and size of disturbance, available seed sources in the soil or adjacent areas, and site and climatic conditions throughout the successional process.

Phillips (1909) recognized that the pinyons are more resistant to disease than most of the conifers with which it associates. Hepting (1971) lists several diseases affecting pinyon including: foliage diseases, a tarspot needle cast, stem diseases such as blister rust and dwarf mistletoe, root diseases and trunk rots, red heart rot, and but rot. The pinyon ips beetle (Ips confuses) and pinyon needle scale (Matsucoccus acalyptus) are both native insects to Nevada that attack pinyon pines throughout their range. The pinyon needle scale weakens trees by killing needles older than one year. Small trees are sometimes killed by repeated feeding and large trees are weakened to the point that they are attacked by the pinyon ips beetle. The beetle typically kills weak and damaged trees (Phillips 2014). During periods of long-term drought, the impact of these two insects on singleleaf pinyon can be substantial.

Mahogany seeds require bare mineral soil to germinate; litter depths over 0.25 inches can impede recruitment (Gruell 1985, Schultz et al. 1991, Ibáñez et al. 1998, Ibáñez 2002). Cheatgrass thus affects mahogany growth by competing for water resources and reducing the amount of bare soil in an area (Ross 1999). Multiple sources (Schultz et al. 1996, Ibáñez et al. 1998) found that mahogany seedlings germinate abundantly under the canopy of adult plants but rarely successfully establish there due to shading and higher litter amounts. In addition, Schultz et al. (1996) found that seedlings had significantly higher long term success in areas dominated by sagebrush canopy than in areas under mahogany canopy or in interspaces. Some hypothesize that the light shading and hydraulic lift provided by sagebrush may create a microsite facilitating mahogany recruitment (Gruell 1985, Ibáñez et al. 1998).

Mountain big sagebrush is generally long-lived; therefore it is unnecessary for new individuals to recruit every year for perpetuation of the stand. Simultaneous low, continuous recruitment and infrequent large recruitment events are the foundation of population maintenance (Noy-Meir 1973). Survival of the seedlings is dependent on adequate moisture conditions.

The perennial bunchgrasses that are co-dominant with the shrubs include Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass. Other common grasses include Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda) and basin wildrye (Leymus cinereus).

Idaho fescue is a perennial cool-season bunchgrass. It produces an extensive fibrous system (Ogle et al. 2008). In a greenhouse study, about 35% of the biomass of Idaho fescue was located within the root system, and between 59-65% of root biomass was located within the top 10 cm of soil (Goodwin et al. 1999). It is fairly drought-tolerant and is moderately shade-tolerant (Ogle et al. 2008). It is capable of persisting under dense canopies of mountain mahogany for longer periods of time than the other bunchgrasses on this site. Idaho fescue has been found to be more capable of suppressing non-native annual species such as cheatgrass than other perennial bunchgrasses, especially when in a mature stand (Borman et al. 1991). This is in part due to its dense, shallow root system that competes well with cheatgrass, but also due to its ability to emerge in the fall and grow at favorable times during the winter (Daubenmire 1975, Borman et al. 1991).

Mountain big sagebrush is generally long-lived, therefore it is unnecessary for new individuals to recruit every year for perpetuation of the stand. Simultaneous low, continuous recruitment and infrequent large recruitment events are the foundation of population maintenance (Noy-Meir 1973). Survival of the seedlings is dependent on adequate moisture conditions.

The amount and nature of the understory vegetation in a forestland is highly responsive to the amount and duration of shade provided by the overstory canopy. Significant changes in kinds and abundance of plants occur as the canopy changes, often regardless of grazing use. Some changes occur slowly and gradually as a result of normal changes in tree size and spacing. Other changes occur dramatically and quickly, following intensive forestland harvest, thinning, or fire.

This ecological site has low to moderate resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasion. Resilience increases with elevation, aspect, increased precipitation and increased nutrient availability.

Major Successional Stages of Forestland Development:

HERBACEOUS: Vegetation is dominated by grasses and forbs under full sunlight. This stage is experienced after a major disturbance such as crown fire. Skeleton forest (dead trees) remaining after fire or residual trees left following harvest have little or no affect on the composition and production of the herbaceous vegetation.

SHRUB-HERBACEOUS: Herbaceous vegetation and woody shrubs dominate the site. Various amounts of tree seedlings (less than 20 inches in height) may be present up to the point where they are obviously a major component of the vegetal structure.

SAPLING: In the absence of disturbance, the tree seedlings develop into saplings (20 inches to 4½ feet in height) with a range in canopy cover generally less than 10 percent. Vegetation consists of grasses, forbs and shrubs in association with tree saplings.

IMMATURE FORESTLAND: The visual aspect and vegetal structure are dominated by Rocky Mountain juniper greater than 4½ feet in height. The upper crown of dominant and codominant trees are cone or pyramidal shaped. Seedlings and saplings are present in the understory. Understory vegetation is moderately influenced by a tree overstory canopy of about 10 to 25 percent.

MATURE FORESTLAND: The visual aspect and vegetal structure is dominated by Rocky Mountain juniper that have reached or are near maximal heights for the site. Dominant trees average greater than five inches in diameter at one-foot stump height. Upper crowns are typically either irregularly or smoothly flat-topped or rounded. Tree canopy cover is about 30 percent.

OVER-MATURE FORESTLAND: This stage is dominated by Rocky Mountain juniper that have reached maximal heights for the site. Dominant and codominant trees average greater than five inches in diameter at one-foot stump height. Upper crowns are typically irregularly flat-topped or rounded. Understory vegetation is strongly influenced by tree competition, overstory shading, duff accumulation, etc. Tree canopy cover is at a maximum for the site and is commonly more than 45 percent.

Fire Ecology:
Little information is available regarding fire regimes specific to Rocky Mountain juniper, although fire return intervals probably range from 10 to 50 years. Due to its thin bark and compact crown, Rocky Mountain juniper trees up to 3-4 feet tall are easily killed by fire. Mountain big sagebrush is also highly susceptible to injury from fire. Plants are readily killed in all seasons, even light severity fires. Mountain big sagebrush plants top-killed by fire will not resprout. Burning bluebunch wheatgrass may remove most of the aboveground biomass but does not usually result in plant mortality. Bluebunch wheatgrass is generally favored by burning. Burning stimulates flowering and seed production. However, season of burning affects mortality. Idaho fescue grows in a dense, fine-leaved tuft. Fires tend to burn within the accumulated fine leaves at the base of the plant and may produce temperatures sufficient to kill some of the root crown. Mature Idaho fescue plants are commonly reported to be severely damaged by fire in all seasons.

The fire return interval in curl-leaf mountain mahogany dominated sites is not well-documented. On this site, fire frequency most likely depends on surrounding vegetation and would generally be rare. Lightning-ignited fires are common but typically do not affect more than a few individual trees. Replacement fires are uncommon to rare (100-600 years) and occur primarily during extreme fire behavior conditions. Spreading, low-intensity surface fires have a very limited role in molding stand structure and dynamics. Surface spread is more likely to occur in higher-density woodlands growing on more productive sites (Romme et al 2007). Pre-settlement fire return intervals in the Great Basin National Park, Nevada were found to have a mean range between 50 to 100 years with north-facing slopes burning every 15 to 20 years and rocky landscapes with sparse understory burning very infrequently (Gruell 1999). Woodland dynamics are largely attributed to long-term climatic shifts (temperature, amounts and distribution of precipitation) and the extent and return intervals of fire (Miller and Tausch 2001). Limited data exists that describes fire histories across woodlands in the Great Basin. The infilling of younger pinyon into the old-growth stands and the expansion of trees into the surrounding sagebrush steppe ecological sites has increased the abundance and landscape level continuity of fuels, which in turn has increased the risk of loss of increased fire severity and size (Miller et al. 2008).

Mahogany will persist longest in rocky areas where it is protected from fire. Because of their thicker bark, mature trees can often survive low-severity fires (Gruell 1985). Curl-leaf mountain mahogany is considered a weak sprouter after fire. It is usually moderately to severely damaged by severe fires and the recovery time of these sites is variable; some measurements show that stands lack recruitment for up to 30 years post-fire (Gruell 1985).

Singleleaf pinyons are most vulnerable to fire when less than four feet tall, however mature trees do not self-prune their dead branches allowing for accumulated fuel in the crowns. This characteristic and the relative flammability of the foliage make individual mature trees susceptible to fire (Bradley et al. 1992). With the low production of the understory vegetation and low density of trees per acre, high severity fires within this plant community were not likely and rarely became crown fires (Bradley et al. 1992, Miller and Tausch 2001). Singleleaf pinyon pines reestablish by seed from nearby seed sources or surviving seeds. Singleleaf pinyon trees have relatively short-lived seeds with little innate dormancy that form only temporary seed banks with most seeds germinating the spring following dispersal (Meewig and Bassett 1983). Density of pinyon seeds in the seed bank is dependent upon the current year’s cone crop. Singleleaf pinyons are known to have favorable cone production every two to three years, thus the potential for a large temporary seed bank is high during mast years and likely low during non-mast years (Chambers et al. 1999). The role of nurse plant requirements between the two tree species is important to post-fire establishment. Chambers et al. (1999) found that singleleaf pinyon seedlings rarely establish in interspaces or open environments.

Initial response of native understory species following fire correlates closely with pinyon canopy cover. In general, research indicates that understory response to disturbance is most productive when crown cover is at or below 20%; beyond 30%, there is a rapid decline in understory species and soil seed reserves (Huber et al. 1999).

Mountain big sagebrush is killed by fire (Neuenschwander 1980, Blaisdell et al. 1982) and does not resprout (Blaisdell 1953). Post-fire regeneration occurs from seed and will vary depending on site characteristics, seed source, and fire characteristics. Mountain big sagebrush seedlings can grow rapidly and may reach reproductive maturity within 3 to 5 years (Bunting et al. 1987). Mountain big sagebrush may return to pre-burn density and cover within 15-20 years following fire, but establishment after severe fires may proceed more slowly and can take up to 50 years (Bunting et al. 1987, Ziegenhagen 2003, Miller and Heyerdahl 2008, Ziegenhagen and Miller and Rose 2009).

The effect of fire on bunchgrasses relates to culm density, culm-leaf morphology, and the size of the plant. The initial condition of bunchgrasses within the site along with seasonality and intensity of the fire all factor into the individual species response. For most forbs and grasses the growing points are located at or below the soil surface providing relative protection from disturbances which decrease above ground biomass, such as grazing or fire. Thus, fire mortality is more correlated to duration and intensity of heat which is related to culm density, culm-leaf morphology, size of plant and abundance of old growth (Wright 1971, Young 1983). Season and severity of the fire as well as post-fire soil moisture availability will influence plant response.

Fire will remove aboveground biomass from bluebunch wheatgrass but plant mortality is generally low (Robberecht and Defossé 1995) because the buds are underground (Conrad and Poulton 1966) or protected by foliage. Uresk et al. (1976) reported burning increased vegetative and reproductive vigor of bluebunch wheatgrass. Thus, bluebunch wheatgrass is considered to experience slight damage to fire but is more susceptible in drought years (Young 1983). Plant response will vary depending on season, fire severity, fire intensity and post-fire soil moisture availability.

Idaho fescue response to fire varies with condition and size of the plant, season and severity of fire, and ecological conditions. Mature Idaho fescue plants are commonly reported to be severely damaged by fire in all seasons (Wright et al. 1979). Initial mortality may be high (in excess of 75%) on severe burns, but usually varies from 20 to 50% (Barrington et al. 1989). Rapid burns have been found to leave little damage to root crowns, and new tillers are produced with onset of fall moisture (Johnson et al. 1994). However, Wright et al. (1979) found the dense, fine leaves of Idaho fescue provided enough fuel to burn for hours after a fire had passed, thereby killing or seriously injuring the plant regardless of the intensity of the fire. Idaho fescue is commonly reported to be more sensitive to fire than the other prominent grass on this site, bluebunch wheatgrass (Conrad and Poulton 1966). Robberecht and Defossé (1995) suggested the latter was more sensitive, however. They observed culm and biomass reduction with moderate fire severity in bluebunch wheatgrass, whereas a high fire severity was required for this reduction in Idaho fescue. In addition, given the same fire severity treatment, post-fire culm production was initiated earlier and more rapidly in Idaho fescue (Robberecht and Defossé 1995).

Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), a minor component of this ecological site, has been found to increase following fire likely due to its low stature and productivity (Daubenmire 1975). Sandberg bluegrass may retard reestablishment of deeper rooted bunchgrass.

The introduction of annual weedy species like cheatgrass may cause an increase in fire frequency and eventually lead to an annual dominated community. Conversely, without fire, big sagebrush will increase and the potential for re-establishment of pinyon and juniper also increases. Without fire or changes in management, pinyon and juniper will dominate the site and mountain big sagebrush will be severely reduced. The herbaceous understory will also be reduced, though muttongrass and Sandberg bluegrass may be found in trace amounts. The potential for soil erosion increases as the understory plant community declines. Catastrophic wildfire in pinyon-juniper controlled sites may lead to an annual weed dominated state.

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 text

State 1
Reference State

Community 1.1
Community Phase

The reference plant community dominated by Rocky Mountain juniper. Mountain or basin big sagebrush are the principal understory shrubs. Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass are the most prevalent understory grasses. Overstory tree canopy composition is 100 percent Rocky Mountain juniper. An overstory canopy of 20 to 35 percent is assumed to be representative of tree dominance on this site in the pristine environment.

Forest overstory.MATURE FORESTLAND: The visual aspect and vegetal structure is dominated by Rocky Mountain juniper that have reached or are near maximal heights for the site. Dominant trees average greater than five inches in diameter at one-foot stump height. Upper crowns are typically either irregularly or smoothly flat-topped or rounded. Tree canopy cover is about 30 percent.

Forest understory. Understory vegetative composition is about 0 percent grasses, 5 percent forbs and 35 percent shrubs and young trees when the average overstory canopy is medium (20 to 35 percent). Average understory production ranges from 100 to 400 pounds per acre with a medium canopy cover. Understory production includes the total annual production of all species within 4½ feet of the ground surface.

Figure 5. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)

Table 4. Annual production by plant type

Plant type	Low (lb/acre)	Representative value (lb/acre)	High (lb/acre)
Grass/Grasslike	60	150	240
Shrub/Vine	20	50	80
Tree	15	37	60
Forb	5	13	20
Total	100	250	400

Community 1.2
Community Phase

Community 1.3
Community Phase

Community 1.4
Community Phase

Pathway a
Community 1.1 to 1.2

Pathway a
Community 1.2 to 1.3

Absence of disturbance over time

Pathway a
Community 1.3 to 1.2

Fire

Pathway b
Community 1.3 to 1.4

Absence of disturbance over time

Pathway a
Community 1.4 to 1.1

Absence of disturbance over time

Pathway b
Community 1.4 to 1.2

Fire

State 2
Current Potential State

Community 2.1
Community Phase

Community 2.2
Community Phase

Community 2.3
Community Phase

Community 2.4
Community Phase

Pathway a
Community 2.1 to 2.2

Crown/high severity fire

Pathway a
Community 2.2 to 2.3

Absence of disturbance over time

Pathway a
Community 2.3 to 2.2

Fire

Pathway b
Community 2.3 to 2.4

Absence of disturbance over time

Pathway a
Community 2.4 to 2.1

Absence of disturbance over time

Pathway b
Community 2.4 to 2.2

Fire

State 3
Annual Plant State

Community 3.1
Community Phase

Community 3.2
Community Phase

Pathway a
Community 3.1 to 3.2

Absence of disturbance over time allows for sprouting shrubs to recover

Pathway a
Community 3.2 to 3.1

Fire

State 4
Over Mature Woodland State

Community 4.1
Community Phase

State 5
Eroded State

Community 5.1
Community Phase

Transition A
State 1 to 2

Introduction of non-native annual species

Transition B
State 1 to 4

Time and lack of disturbance

Transition A
State 2 to 3

Catastrophic fire

Transition B
State 2 to 4

Absence of disturbance over time or a decrease in understory competition due to inappropriate grazing would allow for the Utah juniper trees to increase

Transition A
State 3 to 5

Multiple fires

Restoration pathway A
State 4 to 2

Thinning of trees and seeding or recovery of understory species

Transition A
State 4 to 3

Catastrophic fire

Transition B
State 4 to 5

Absence of disturbance over time allows for an increase in tree canopy cover and a conintual decline in understory

Additional community tables

Table 5. Community 1.1 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production ()	Foliar cover (%)
Grass/Grasslike
1	Primary Perennial Grasses			62–142
	bluebunch wheatgrass	PSSPS	Pseudoroegneria spicata ssp. spicata	25–60	–
	Idaho fescue	FEID	Festuca idahoensis	25–60	–
	bluegrass	POA	Poa	12–22	–
2	Secondary Perennial Grasses			2–12
	squirreltail	ELEL5	Elymus elymoides	2–12	–
Forb
3	Perennial			2–12
	phlox	PHLOX	Phlox	2–12	–
Shrub/Vine
4	Primary Shrubs			25–60
	mountain big sagebrush	ARTRV	Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana	25–60	–
5	Secondary Shrubs			2–12
	yellow rabbitbrush	CHVI8	Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus	2–12	–
Tree
6	Trees			25–60
	Rocky Mountain juniper	JUSC2	Juniperus scopulorum	25–60	–

Table 6. Community 1.2 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production ()	Foliar cover (%)

Table 7. Community 1.3 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production ()	Foliar cover (%)

Table 8. Community 1.4 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 (%)

Table 10. Community 2.2 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production ()	Foliar cover (%)

Table 11. Community 2.3 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production ()	Foliar cover (%)

Table 12. Community 2.4 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production ()	Foliar cover (%)

Table 13. Community 3.1 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production ()	Foliar cover (%)

Table 14. Community 3.2 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production ()	Foliar cover (%)

Table 15. Community 4.1 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production ()	Foliar cover (%)

Table 16. Community 5.1 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production ()	Foliar cover (%)

Interpretations

Animal community

Livestock/Wildlife Grazing Interpretations:
This site is suited to cattle and sheep grazing during the summer and fall. Many areas are not used because of steep slopes, rock outcrops and lack of adequate water. Considerations for grazing management include timing, intensity and duration of grazing. Attentive grazing management is required due to steep slopes and erosion hazards. Stocking rates vary with such factors as kind and class of grazing animal, season of use and fluctuations in climate. Actual use records for individual sites, a determination of the degree to which the sites have been grazed, and an evaluation of trend in site condition offer the most reliable basis for developing initial stocking rates. Selection of initial stocking rates for given grazing units is a planning decision. This decision should be made only after careful consideration of the total resources available, evaluation of alternatives for use and treatment, and establishment of objectives by the decisionmaker.

The forage value rating is not an ecological evaluation of the understory as is the range condition rating for rangeland. The forage value rating is a utilitarian rating of the existing understory plants for use by specific kinds of grazing animals. The amount and nature of the understory vegetation in a forestland is highly responsive to the amount and duration of shade provided by the overstory canopy. Significant changes in kinds and abundance of plants occur as the canopy changes, often regardless of grazing use.

Inappropriate grazing management during the growing season will cause a decline in understory plants such as Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass. Reduced bunchgrass vigor or density provides an opportunity for Sandberg bluegrass, mat forming forbs, and/or cheatgrass and other invasive species to occupy interspaces. Sandberg bluegrass increases under grazing pressure (Tisdale and Hironaka 1981) and is capable of co-existing with cheatgrass. Excessive sheep grazing favors Sandberg bluegrass; however, where cattle are the dominant grazers, cheatgrass often dominates (Daubenmire 1970). Thus, depending on the season of use, the grazer and site conditions, either Sandberg bluegrass or cheatgrass may become the dominant understory with inappropriate grazing management.

Mountain big sagebrush is eaten by domestic livestock but has long been considered to be of low palatability, and a competitor to more desirable species. Despite low palatability, mountain big sagebrush is eaten by sheep, cattle, goats, and horses. Chemical analysis indicates that the leaves of big sagebrush equal alfalfa meal in protein, have a higher carbohydrate content, and yield twelvefold more fat (USDA-Forest Service 1937).

Idaho fescue provides important forage for many types of domestic livestock. The foliage cures well and is preferred by livestock in the late fall and winter. Idaho fescue tolerates light to moderate grazing (Ganskopp and Bedell 1980) and is moderately resistant to trampling (Cole 1987), though it decreases under heavy grazing by livestock (Eckert and Spencer 1986, Eckert and Spencer 1987) and wildlife (Gaffney 1941). Heavy grazing may lead to replacement of Idaho fescue with non-native species such as cheatgrass (Mueggler 1984).

Bluebunch wheatgrass is considered of of the most important forage grass species on western rangelands for livestock. Although bluebunch wheatgrass can be a crucial source of forage, it is not necessarily the most highly preferred species. Bluebunch wheatgrass is moderately grazing-tolerant and is very sensitive to defoliation during the active growth period (Blaisdell and Pechanec 1949, Laycock 1967, Anderson and Scherzinger 1975). Herbage and flower stalk production was shown to be reduced at all times during the growing season; however, clipping was most harmful during the boot stage (Blaisdell and Pechanec 1949, Britton et al. 1990). Tiller production and growth of bluebunch wheatgrass was greatly reduced when drought was coupled with clipping (Busso and Richards 1995). Mueggler (1975) estimated that low-vigor bluebunch wheatgrass may need up to 8 years rest to recover. Bluebunch wheatgrass does not generally provide sufficient cover for ungulates; however, mule deer were frequently found in bluebunch-dominated grasslands.

Wildlife Interpretations:
This ecological site contains two species that are very important for wildlife: curl-leaf mountain mahogany and singleleaf pinyon. This site has high value for mule deer season long, and is also utilized by upland game species including rabbits, sage grouse, blue and ruffed grouse. The pinyon jay is dependent upon sites supporting pinyon pine trees. It is also used by various song birds, rodents, reptiles and associated predators natural to the area. Feral or wild horses will use this site year around.

Mountain mahogany is an important cover and browse species for big game such as elk (Cervus canadensis), mule deer (Odocoileus heminous), pronghorn antelope (Antilocarpra americana), and bighorn sheep (Ovis nelson) (Furniss et al 1988, Lanner 1983). Curl-leaf mountain mahogany is excellent browse for deer throughout the year (Sampson and Jesperson 1963, Olsen 1992); fecal pellets were observed to contain curl-leaf mountain mahogany year-round, with the highest frequency of leaves found in winter (Gucker 2006). Mule deer will also use curl-leaf mountain mahogany for cover (Steel et al. 1981). Domestic livestock will browse this plant to varying degrees in all seasons except summer. It is not uncommon for these trees to develop a “hedged” appearance after years of regular browsing by wildlife.
This site also provides breeding and hunting grounds for mountain lions (Puma concolor) (Steele et al. 1981, Gucker 2006). Lions used curl-leaf mountain mahogany vegetation as an important site for caching kills. Logan and Irwin (1985) noted that of 52 mountain lion caches, 33 percent were located in curl-leaf mountain mahogany vegetation. A variety of small mammals consume curl-leaf mountain mahogany seeds (Gucker 2006, Wildlife Action Plan Team 2012). Curl-leaf mountain mahogany leaves and fruits have also been found in bushy-tailed woodrat (Neotoma cinerea) middens (Gucker 2006).

Bird species utilize mountain mahogany habitat types heavily. Virginia’s warblers (Oreothylypis virginae) were recorded in their second highest densities in the state in mountain mahogany habitats. This habitat type also provides important nesting sites for dusky flycatchers (Empidonax oberholseri), rock wrens (Salpinctes obsoletus), and American kestrels (Falco sparverius) (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2012).

Pinyon pines provide a diversity of habitat for wildlife. Although the foliage of pinyon varies in palatability among fauna, pinyon nuts are preferred by many species. Ungulates will use pinyon trees for cover and graze the foliage. The understory species also provide critical browse for deer. The trees provide important cover for mule deer, elk, wild horses, mountain lion, bobcat (Lynx rufus) and pronghorn (Gottfried and Severson 1994, Coates and Schemnitz 1994, Logan and Irwin 1985, Evans 1988).

Mule deer will eat singleleaf pinyon and juniper foliage, using the foliage moderately in winter, spring, and summer (Kufeld et al. 1973). Deep snows in higher elevation forest zones force mule deer and elk down into pinyon-juniper habitats during winter. This change in habitat allows mule deer and elk to browse the dwarf trees and shrubs (Gottfried and Severson 1994).

The diet of pronghorn antelope varies considerably, though singleleaf pinyon was shown to comprise 1 to 2 percent of their winter diet. Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis nelson) may utilize pinyon-juniper habitat, but only where the terrain is rocky and steep (Gottfried et al. 2000). Gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), bobcats, coyotes (Canis latrans), weasels (Mustela frenata), skunks (Mephitis spp.), badgers (Taxidea taxus), and ringtail cats (Bassariscus astutus) search for prey in pinyon-juniper habitat woodlands (Short and McCulloch 1977).

The pinyon mouse (Peromyscus truei) is a pinyon obligate and uses this species for cover and food (Hoffmeister 1981). Other small mammals include the porcupine (Hystricomorph hystricidae), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), Nuttall’s cottontail (S. nuttallii), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), Great Basin pocket mouse (Perognathus parvus), chisel-toothed kangaroo rat (Dipodomys microps), and desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida) (Turkowski and Watkins 1976).
Many bird species are associated with pinyon habitat; some are permanent residents, some summer residents, and some winter residents, depending upon location. For birds and bats, the woodland provides structure for nesting and roosting as well as locations for foraging. Singleleaf pinyon provides a number of cavities and the stringy, fibrous bark provides quality nesting material as well as the food provided by the tree’s seeds and berries (Short and McCulloch 1977). Several bird species are obligates including the gray flycatcher (Epidonax wrightii), scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), plain titmouse (Parus inornatus ridgwayi), and gray vireo (Vireo vicinior). Semi-obligates include the black-chinned hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri), ash-throated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens), pinion jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus), American bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), black-throated gray warbler (Dendroica nigrescens), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), lark sparrow (Chondestes grammacus) and black-chinned sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla) (Balda and Masters 1980). Ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis), a conservation priority species due to recent population declines in Nevada, nest in older trees of sufficient size and structure to support their large nest platforms. (Holechek 1981).

Mountain big sagebrush is a highly preferred winter forage for mule deer: In a study by Personius et al. (1987), mountain big sagebrush was the most preferred sagebrush species. Fecal samples from ungulates in Montana showed that bighorn sheep, mule deer, and elk all consumed mountain big sagebrush in small amounts in winter, while cattle showed no sign of sagebrush use. Reliance on the big sagebrush ecosystem by many wild animals for both food and cover has been documented and reviewed extensively. Many wildlife species are dependent on the sagebrush ecosystem including the greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli), pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) and the sagebrush vole (Lemmiscus curtatus). Dobkin and Sauder (2004) identified 61 species, including 24 mammals and 37 birds, associated with the shrub-steppe habitats of the Intermountain West. In addition, sagebrush-grassland communities provide critical sage-grouse breeding and nesting habitats. Meadows surrounded by sagebrush may be used as feeding and strutting grounds. Sagebrush is a crucial component of their diet year-round, and sage-grouse select sagebrush almost exclusively for cover. Sage-grouse prefer mountain big sagebrush and Wyoming big sagebrush communities to basin big sagebrush communities.

Idaho fescue is an important source of forage for pronghorn and deer in ranges of northern Nevada.

Hydrological functions

The hydrologic cover condition of this site is fair in a representative stand. The average runoff curve is 90 for group D soils.

Recreational uses

The trees on this site provide a welcome break in an otherwise open landscape. It has potential for hiking, cross-country skiing, camping, and deer and upland game hunting.

Wood products

Rocky Mountain juniper wood is very durable. Its primary uses have been for posts and fuelwood. It probably has considerable potential in the charcoal industry and possibly in wood fiber products.

PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY

This site has a very low site quality for tree production. Site indexes for Rocky Mountain juniper range from about 20 to 40 (Howell, 1946).

Productivity Class: 0.1
CMAI*: 1.3 to 3.3 ft3/ac/yr;
0.10 to 0.20 m3/ha/yr.
Culmination is estimated to be > 100 years.
*CMAI: is the culmination of mean annual increment or highest average growth rate of the stand in the units specified.

Fuelwood Production: About 1 to 5 cords per acre for stands averaging 5 inches in diameter at 1 foot height. There are about 274,000 gross BTUs heat content per cubic foot of Rocky Mountain juniper. Solid wood volume in a cord varies but usually ranges from 65 to 90 cubic feet. Assuming an average of 75 cubic feet of solid wood per cord, there are about 20.6 million BTUs of heat value in a cord of Rocky Mountain juniper.

Posts: About 20 to 40 posts per acre in stands of medium canopy.

MANAGEMENT GUIDES AND INTERPRETATIONS

1. LIMITATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
a. Severe equipment limitations due to steep slopes and extreme surface stoniness.
b. Protect soils from accelerated erosion.

2. ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS
a. Adequately protect from uncontolled burning.
b. Protect soils from accelerated erosion.
c. Apply proper grazing management.

3. SILVICULTURAL PRACTICES
Silvicultural treatments are not reasonably applied on this site due to poor site quality and severe limitations for equipment and tree harvest.

Other products

The berries from Rocky Mountain juniper have been used by Indians for food.

Other information

Mountain big sagebrush is easily propagated from seed under greenhouse, nursery, and common garden conditions and has been successfully seeded directly into field sites.

Table 17. Representative site productivity

Common name	Symbol	Site index low	Site index high	CMAI low	CMAI high	Age of CMAI	Site index curve code	Site index curve basis	Citation
Rocky Mountain juniper	JUSC2	20	40	1	3	–	–	–

Supporting information

Type locality

Location 1: Elko County, NV
Township/Range/Section	T47N R58E S4
General legal description	Along Buck Creek below Barton Ranch headquarters. Nevada side of Idaho/Nevada state line on south side of creek, Elko County, Nevada.

Other references

Anderson, E. W. and R. J. Scherzinger. 1975. Improving quality of winter forage for elk by cattle grazing. Journal of Range Management 28: 120-125.

Arno, S. F. and A. E. Wilson. 1986. Dating past fires in curlleaf mountain-mahogany communities. Journal of Range Management:241-243.

Baker, W.L. and D.J. Shinneman, 2004. Fire and Restoration of pinyon-juniper woodlands in the western United States. A review. Forest Ecology and Management 189:1-21.

Balda, R. P. and N. Masters. 1980. Avian Communities in the pinyon-juniper woodland: A descriptive analysis. In: DeGraaf, R. M., technical coordinator. Management of western forests and grasslands for nongame birds: Workshop proceedings. 1980 February 11-14; Salt Lake City, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-86. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. p. 146-169.

Barrington, M., S. C. Bunting, G. Wright, C. P. S. Unit, and I. Moscow. 1989. A fire management plan for Craters of the Moon National Monument. Cooperative Park Studies Unit.

Beardall, L. E. and V. E. Sylvester. 1976. Spring burning of removal of sagebrush competition in Nevada. Pages 539-547 In: Proceedings - Tall Timbers Fire ecology conference and fire and land management symposium. Tall Timbers Research Station.

Bich, B. S., J. L. Butler, and C. A. Schmidt. 1995. Effects of differential livestock use on key plant species and rodent populations within selected Oryzopsis hymenoides/Hilaria jamesii communities of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. The Southwestern Naturalist 40:281-287.

Blaisdell, J. P. 1953. Ecological effects of planned burning of sagebrush-grass range on the Upper Snake River Plains. Technical bulletin 1075. US Department of Agriculture. p. 39

Blaisdell, J. P. and J. F. Pechanec. 1949. Effects of herbage removal at various dates on vigor of bluebunch wheatgrass and arrowleaf balsamroot. Ecology 30: 298-305.

Blaisdell, J. P., R. B. Murray, and E. D. McArthur. 1982. Managing intermountain rangelands - sagebrush-grass ranges. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-134. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. p. 41

Booth, D. T., C. G. Howard, and C. E. Mowry. 2006. 'Nezpar' Indian ricegrass: Description, justification for release, and recommendations for use. Rangelands Archives 2: 53-54.

Borman, M. M., W. C. Krueger, and D. E. Johnson. 1991. Effects of established perennial grasses on yields of associated annual weeds. Journal of Range Management 44: 318-322.

Bradley, A. F., N. V. Noste, and W. C. Fischer. 1992. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-287: Fire ecology of forests and woodlands in Utah. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. p. 128

Britton, C. M., G. R. McPherson, and F. A. Sneva. 1990. Effects of burning and clipping on five bunchgrasses in eastern Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist 50: 115-120.

Bunting, S. 1994. Effects of fire on juniper woodland ecosystems in the Great Basin. In: Monsen, S.B. and S.G. Kitchen (compilers). Proceedings - Ecology and management of annual rangelands, 18-22 May 1992, Boise, ID. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-313.

Bunting, S. C., B. M. Kilgore, and C. L. Bushey. 1987. Guidelines for prescribed burning sagebrush-grass raneglands in the northern Great Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-231. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station Ogden, UT, USA. p. 33

Burkhardt, J. W. and E. W. Tisdale. 1969. Nature and successional status of western juniper vegetation in Idaho. Journal of Range Management 22:264-270.

Busso, C. A. and J. H. Richards. 1995. Drought and clipping effects on tiller demography and growth of two tussock grasses in Utah. Journal of Arid Environments 29:239-251.

Caudle, D., J. DiBenedetto, M. Karl, H. Sanchez, and C. Talbot. 2013. Interagency Ecological Site Handbook for Rangelands. Available at: http://jornada.nmsu.edu/sites/jornada.nmsu.edu/files/InteragencyEcolSiteHandbook.pdf.
Accessed 4 October 2013.

Chambers, J., B. Bradley, C. Brown, C. D’Antonio, M. Germino, J. Grace, S. Hardegree, R. Miller, and D. Pyke. 2013. Resilience to stress and disturbance, and resistance to Bromus tectorum L. invasion in cold desert shrublands of western North America. Ecosystems: 1-16.

Chambers, J.C., B.A. Roundy, R.R. Blank, S.E. Meyer, and A. Whittaker. 2007. What makes Great Basin sagebrush ecosystems invasible by Bromus tectorum? Ecological Monographs 77:117-145.

Chambers, J.C., E.W. Schupp and S.B. Vander Wall. 1999. Seed dispersal and seedling establishment of pinyon and juniper species within the pinyon-juniper woodland. In: Proceedings: Ecology and management of pinyon–juniper communities within the interior West. Ogden, UT, USA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, RMRS-P-9. p. 29-34.

Coates, K.P. and S.D. Schemnitz. 1994. Habitat use and behavior of male mountain sheep in foraging associations with wild horses. Great Basin Naturalist. 54: 86-90.

Comstock, J. P. and J. R. Ehleringer. 1992. Plant adaptation in the Great Basin and Colorado plateau. Western North American Naturalist 52: 195-215.

Conrad, C. E. and C. E. Poulton. 1966. Effect of a wildfire on Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass. Journal of Range Management 19:138-141.

Daubenmire, R. 1970. Steppe vegetation of Washington. 131 pp.

Daubenmire, R. 1975. Plant succession on abandoned fields, and fire influences in a steppe area in southeastern Washington. Northwest Science 49:36-48.

Dealy, E.J. 1975. Ecology of curl-leaf mountain-Mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius Nutt) in eastern Oregon and adjacent areas. Unpublished dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Dobkin, D.S. and J.D. Sauder. 2004. Shrub steppe landscapes in jeopardy. Distributions, abundances, and the uncertain future of birds and small mammals in the intermountain West. High Desert Ecological Research Institute, Bend, Oregon. USA.

Dobrowolski, J.P., Caldwell, M.M. and Richards, J.H. 1990. Basin hydrology and plant root systems. In: Plant biology of the basin and range. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag Pub.

Eckert, R. E., Jr. and J. S. Spencer. 1986. Vegetation response on allotments grazed under rest-rotation management. Journal of Range Management: 166-174.

Eckert, R. E., Jr. and J. S. Spencer. 1987. Growth and reproduction of grasses heavily grazed under rest-rotation management. Journal of Range Management 40: 156-159.

Emerson, F.W. 1932. The tension zone Between the grama grass and pinyon-juniper associations in northeastern New Mexico. Ecology: 13: 347-358.

Evans, R. A. and J. A. Young. 1978. Effectiveness of rehabilitation practices following wildfire in a degraded big sagebrush-downy brome community. Journal of Range Management 31: 185-188.

Evans, Raymond A. 1988. Management of pinyon-juniper woodlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-249. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 34 pp.

Everett, R. L. and K. Ward. 1984. Early plant succession on pinyon-juniper controlled burns. Northwest Science 58:57-68.

Fire Effects Information System [Online]. http://www.fs.fed.us/feis

Frischknecht, N.C. 1975. Native faunal relationships within the pinyon-juniper ecosystem. Pp. 55-65. In: Proceedings of the pinyon-juniper ecosystem: A symposium. May 1975. Utah State University. Logan, UT.

Furniss, M. M. and W. F. Barr. 1975. Insects affecting important native shrubs of the northwestern United States. US Intermountain Forest And Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report INT-19. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ogden UT. p. 64.

Furniss, M. M., D. C Ferguson, K. W Voget, J. W. Burkhardt, A.R. Tiedemann, J. L. Oldemeyer. 1988. Taxonomy, life history, and ecology of a mountain-mahogany defoliator, Stamnodes animata (Pearsall), in Nevada. Fish and Wildlife Research 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 26 p.

Gaffney, W. S. 1941. The effects of winter elk browsing, South Fork of the Flathead River, Montana. The Journal of Wildlife Management 5: 427-453.

Gese, E.M., O.J. Rongstad and W.R. Mytton 1988. Home range and habitat use of coyotes in southeastern Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management 52: 640-646.

Goodwin, J. R., P.S. Doescher, L.E. Eddleman, and D. B. Zobel. 1999. Persistence of Idaho fescue on degraded sagebrush-steppe. Journal of Range Management 52: 187-198.

Gottfried, G.J. and K.E. Severson. 1994. Managing pinyon-juniper woodlands. Rangelands 16: 234-236.

Gottfried, G.J.; Folliott, P.F.; Baker, M.B., Jr. 2000. Measurement of historical inventory locations to assess changes in forest and woodlands in Arizona. In: Cook, J.E.; Oswald, B.P. (comp). First Biennial North American Forest Ecology Workshop. June 24-26, 1997; North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 51-52 p.

Gruell, G., S. C. Bunting, and L. Neuenschwander. 1985. Influence of fire on curlleaf mountain-mahogany in the intermountain west. Pages 58-72 in Fire's effects on wildlife habitat - symposium proceedings. General Technical Report INT-186. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Missoula, Montana.

Gruell, G.E. 1999. Historical and modern roles of fire in pinyon-juniper. In: S. B. Monsen, R. Stevens [comps.] Proceedings: ecology and management of pinyon–juniper communities within the interior west. RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT, USA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 24-28.

Gucker, C. L. 2006. Cercocarpus ledifolius. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/

Hepting, G.H. 1971. Diseases of forest and shade trees of the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 386. 658 pp.

Heyerdahl, E.K., Miller, R.F, and Parsons, R.A. 2006. History of fire and douglas-fir establishment in a savanna and sagebrush grassland mosaic, southwestern Montana, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 230: 107-118.

Hironaka, M., M. A. Fosberg, and A. H. Winward. 1983. Sagebrush-grass habitat types of southern Idaho. Bulletin Number 35. University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, Moscow, ID.

Hoffmeister, D.F. 1981. Mammalian species: Peromyscus truei. The American Society of Mammologists 161:1-5.

Holechek, J. L. 1981. Brush control impacts on rangeland wildlife. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 36: 265-269.

Holmes, R.L., R.K., Adams, H.C. Fritts. 1986. Tree ring chronologies of western North America: California, eastern Oregon and northern Great Basin. Chronology Series VI. Laboratory of Tree Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 183 pp.

Houghton, J.G., C.M. Sakamoto, and R.O. Gifford. 1975. Nevada’s weather and climate, special publication 2. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Mackay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno, NV.

Houston, D. B. 1973. Wildfires in northern Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 54: 1111-1117.

Howell, J., 1940. Pinyon and juniper: A preliminary study of volume, growth, and yield. Regional Bulletin 71. Albuquerque, NM: USDA, SCS; 90p.

Huber, A., S. Goodrich, K. Anderson. 1999. Diversity with successional status in the pinyon-juniper/mountain mahogany/bluebunch wheatgrass community type near Dutch John, Utah. In: S. B. Monsen, R. Stevens [comps.] Proceedings: Ecology and management of pinyon-juniper communities within the interior west; 1997 September 15-18. RMRS-P-9. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Proceedings. p. 114-117.

Hurst, W.D. 1975. Management strategies within the pinyon-juniper ecosystem. Pp. 187-192. Proceedings of the pinyon-juniper ecosystem: A symposium. Utah State University, Logan, UT.
Ibáñez, I., and Eugene W. Schupp. 2002. Effects of litter, soil surface conditions, and microhabitat on Cercocarpus ledifolius Nutt. seedling emergence and establishment. Journal of Arid Environments 52: 209-222.

Ibáñez, I., and Schupp, E. W. 2001. Positive and negative interactions between environmental conditions affecting Cercocarpus ledifolius seedling survival. Oecologia 129(4):543-550.

Ibáñez, I., E. W. Schupp, and J. L. Boettinger. 1998. Successional history of a curlleaf mountain mahogany stand: A hypothesis. McArthur ED, Ostler WK, Wambolt CL (comps) Proceedings: Shrubland ecotones: 12-14.

Johnson, C. G., R. R. Clausnitzer, P. J. Mehringer, and C. Oilver. 1994. Biotic and abiotic processes of eastside ecosystems: The effects of management on plant and community ecology, and on stand and landscape vegetation dynamics. Forest Service general technical report. Forest Service, Portland, OR (United States). Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Kitchen, A.M., E.M. Gese, and E.R. Schauster. 2000. Changes in coyote activity patterns due to reduced exposure to human persecution. Canada Journal of Zoology. 78:853-857

Kufeld, R.C., O.C. Wallmo and C. Feddema. 1973. Foods of the Rocky Mountain mule deer. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper RM-111. P. 31.

Lanner, R.M. 1981. The pinon pine – A natural and cultural history. University of Nevada Press, Reno, NV.

Lanner, Ronald M. 1983. Trees of the Great Basin: A natural history. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 215 p.

Laycock, W. A. 1967. How heavy grazing and protection affect sagebrush-grass ranges. Journal of Range Management 20: 206-213.

Ligon, J. D. 1974. Green cones of the pinyon pine stimulate late breeding in the pinyon jay. Nature 250 (5461): 80-82.

Logan, K. A., Irwin, L. L. 1985. Mountain lion habitats in the Big Horn Mountains, Wyoming. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13: 257-262.

Meewig, R.O. and R.L. Bassett. 1983. Pinyon-Juniper. In: R. Burns [comp.] Silvicultural systems for the major forest types of the United States. Pp. 84-86. Agric. Handbook. 455, Washington, D.C., USA.

Miller, R. F. and E. K. Heyerdahl. 2008. Fine-scale variation of historical fire regimes in sagebrush-steppe and juniper woodland: An example from California, USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire 17:245-254.

Miller, R.F. and R.J. Tausch. 2001. The role of fire in pinyon and juniper woodlands: a descriptive analysis. In: Galley, K.E.M., Wilson, T.P. eds. Invasive species: The role of fire in the control and spread of invasive species symposium. Miscellaneous Publication No. 11, Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. 15-30.

Miller, R.F. and T.J. Rose. 1995. Historic expansion of Juniperus occidentalis (western juniper) in Southeastern Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist. 55: 37-45.

Miller, R.F. and T.J. Rose. 1999. Fire history and western juniper encroachment in sagebrush steppe. Journal of Range Management. 52: 550-559.

Miller, R.F., R.J. Tasuch, E.D. McArthur, D.D. Johnson and S.C. Sanderson. 2008. Age structure and expansion of pinon-juniper woodlands: A regional perspective in the intermountain west. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-69. Fort Collins CO: U.S. Department of Agriulture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 15

Miller, R.F., R.J. Tausch and W. Waichler. 1999. Old-growth juniper and pinyon woodlands. In: Monsen, S.D. and R. Stevens. Comps. Proceedings: Ecology and management of pinyon-juniper communities within the interior west; 1997 September 15-18; Provo, UT. USDA, Forest Service RMRS-P-9: 375-384 Logan Ut.

Mueggler, W. F. 1975. Rate and pattern of vigor recovery in Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass. Journal of Range Management 28:198-204.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2004. The North American Monsoon. Reports to the Nation. National Weather Service, Climate Prediction Center. Available online: http://www.weather.gov/

Neuenschwander, L. 1980. Broadcast burning of sagebrush in the winter. Journal of Range Management 33: 233-236.

Noy-Meir, I. 1973. Desert ecosystems: Environment and producers. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 25-51.

Ogle, D., J. Henson, and M. Stannard. 2008. Plant Guide for Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis Elmer). USDA, NRCS, Idaho and Washington State Offices and the National Plant Data Center, Boise, ID.

Olsen, R. 1992. Mule deer habitat requirements and management in Wyoming. B-965. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Cooperative Extension Service.

Phillips, F. J. 1909. A study of Pinyon Pine. Bot. Gaz. 48: 216-223.

Phillips, G. 2014. Pinyon needle scales. Nevada Divison of Forestry, 2478 Fairview Drive, Carson City, Nevada.

Quinones, F. A. 1981. Indian ricegrass evaluation and breeding. Bulletin 681. Page 19. New Mexico State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, Las Cruces, NM.

Robberecht, R. and G. Defossé. 1995. The relative sensitive of two bunchgrass species to fire. International Journal of Wildland Fire 5:127-134.

Romme, W., C.Allen, J. Bailey, W.Baker, B. Bestelmeyer, P. Brown, K. Eisenhart, L. Floyd-Hanna, D. Huffman, B.Jacobs, R. Miller, E. Muldavin, T. Swetnam, R. Tausch, and P. Weisberg. 2007. Historical and modern disturbance regimes of pinon-juniper vegetation in the western U.S. 13pp.

Ross, C. 1999. Population dynamics and changes in curlleaf mountain mahogany in two adjacent Sierran and Great Basin Mountain Ranges. University of Nevada, Reno.

Russell, S. K., Schupp, E. W., & Tepedino, V. J. 1998. Reproductive biology of curlleaf mountain mahogany, Cercocarpus ledifolius (Rosaceae): Self-compatibility, pollen limitation, and wind pollination. Plant Species Biology, 13(1): 7-12.

Sampson, A.W. and B.S. Jespersen. 1963. California range brushlands and browse plants. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, California Agricultural Experiment Station, Extension Service. 162 p.

Scheldt, R.S. 1969. Ecology and utilization of curl-leaf mountain mahogany in Idaho. Unpublished thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow.

Schultz, B. W., R. J. Tausch, and P. T. Tueller. 1996. Spatial relationships among young Cercocarpus ledifolius (curlleaf mountain mahogany). Western North American Naturalist 56:261-266.

Schultz, B. W., R. Tausch, and P. T. Tueller. 1991. Size, age, and density relationships to curlleaf mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolus) populations in western and central Nevada: competitive implications. Western North American Naturalist 51: 183-191.

Schultz, B.W. 1987. Ecology of curlleaf mountain mahogany(Cercocarpus ledifolius) in western and central Nevada: Population structure and dynamics. Unpublished master's thesis. Universitv of Nevada Reno. III pp.

Schultz, B.W., P.T. Tueller, and R.J. Tausch. 1990. Ecology of curl-leaf mahogany in western and central Nevada: Community and population structure. Journal of Range Management 43(1): 13-20.

Schupp, E.W., J.C. Chambers, S.B. Vander Wall, J.M. Gomez, M. Fuentes. 1999. Piñon and juniper seed dispersal and seedling recruitment at woodland ecotones. In: E. D. McArthur, K. W. Ostler, L. Carl [comps.] Proceedings: Shrubland ecotones; 1998 August 12-14; Ephraim UT. Proc. RMRS-P-11. Ogden UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 66-70

Sheehy, D. P. and A. H. Winward. 1981. Relative palatability of seven Artemisia taxa to mule deer and sheep. Journal of Range Management 34: 397-399.

Short, H.L. and C.Y. McCulloch. 1977. Managing pinyon-juniper ranges for wildlife. USDA For. Ser. Gen Tech Rept. RM-47. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 10 pp.

Steele, R., R. D. Pfister, R. A. Ryker, J. A. Kittams. 1981. Forest habitat types of central Idaho. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-114.

Tausch, R. J. 1999. Historic pinyon and juniper woodland development. In: S. B. Monsen, R. Stevens [comps.] Proceedings: Ecology and management of pinyon-juniper communities within the interior west; 1997 September 15-18. RMRS-P-9. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Proceedings. p. 12-19.
Tausch, R. J. and N. E. West. 1988.

Differential Establishment of pinyon and juniper following fire. American Midland Naturalist 119: 174-184.

Tausch, R.J., N.E. West, and A.A. Nabi. 1981. Tree age and dominance patterns in Great Basin pinyon-juniper woodlands. Journal of Range Management 34: 259-264.

Tisdale, E. W. and M. Hironaka. 1981. The sagebrush-grass region: A review of the ecological literature. University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station.

Turkowski, F. J. and R. K. Watkins. 1976. White-throated woodrat (Neotoma albigula) habitat relations in modified pinyon-juniper woodland of southwestern New Mexico. Journal of Mammalogy. 57: 586-591.

Uresk, D. W., J. F. Cline, and W. H. Rickard. 1976. Impact of wildfire on three perennial grasses in south-central Washington. Journal of Range Management 29: 309-310.

USDA–Forest Service. 1937. Range Plant Handbook. Dover Publications, New York. 816 p.
Weisberg, P.J. and W.K. Dongwook. 2012. Old Tree Morphology in Singleleaf Pinyon Pine (Pinus monophylla). Forest Ecology and Management 263: 67-73.

USDA-NRCS. 2000. National Forestry Manual - Part 537. Washington, D.C.

West, N. E. 1994. Effects of fire on salt-desert shrub rangelands. In: S. B. Monsen [ed.] Proceedings - Ecology and management of annual rangelands, General Technical Report INT-313. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Boise, ID. p. 71-74

West, N.E. R.J. Tausch and P.T. Tueller. 1998. A management oriented classification of pinyon-juniper woodlands in the Great Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-12. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 42

West, N.E., K.H. Rea, and R.J. Tausch. 1975. Basic synecological relationships in juniper-pinyon woodlands. Pp 41-52.

Proceedings of the pinyon-juniper ecosystem: A symposium. Utah State University, Logan, UT.
Wildlife Action Plan Team. 2012. Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno, NV.

Wright, H. A. 1971. Why squirreltail is more tolerant to burning than needle-and-thread. Journal of Range Management 24: 277-284.

Wright, H. A. 1985. Effects of fire on grasses and forbs in sagebrush-grass communities. Pages 12-21 in: K. Sanders, J. Durham [eds.] Rangeland Fire Effects; A Symposium: Boise, ID, USDI-BLM.

Wright, H. A. and J. O. Klemmedson. 1965. Effect of fire on bunchgrasses of the sagebrush-grass region in southern Idaho. Ecology 46: 680-688.

Wright, H. A., C. M. Britton, and L. F. Neuenschwander. 1979. The role and use of fire in sagebrush-grass and pinyon-juniper plant communities: A state-of-the-art review. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture.

Young, R. P. 1983. Fire as a vegetation management tool in rangelands of the intermountain region. In S. B. Monsen and N. Shaw [TECH CORDS.]. Proceedings: Managing intermountain rangelands - Improvement of range and wildlife habitats. Twin Falls, ID: USDA, Forest Service INT-GTR-157. p. 18-31.

Youngberg, C.T. and L. Hu. 1972. Root nodules on mountain mahogany. Forest Science 18: 211-212.

Ziegenhagen, L. L. 2003. Shrub reestablishment following fire in the mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt. ssp. vaseyana (Rydb.) Beetle) alliance. M.s. Oregon State University.

Ziegenhagen, L. L. and R. F. Miller. 2009. Postfire recovery of two shrubs in the interiors of large burns in the intermountain west, USA. Western North American Naturalist 69: 195-205.

Contributors

RRK

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:

Download reference sheet

Natural ResourcesConservation Service

Ecological site F025XY068NV

JUSC2/ARTRV/FEID/PSSP

Accessed: 08/31/2026

Search

General information

MLRA notes

Ecological site concept

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Natural Resources
Conservation Service