Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site R025XY066NV
ASHY LOAM 10-12 P.Z.
Last updated: 4/25/2024
Accessed: 08/30/2026
-
Search
Major Land Resource Area or ecological site by name and/or ID.
PreviousSectionsNextGeneral information
Provisional. A provisional ecological site description has undergone quality control and quality assurance review. It contains a working state and transition model and enough information to identify the ecological site.
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 hills, rock pediments and fan piedmonts on all exposures. Slope gradients of 2 to 15 percent are typical. Elevations range from 5,200 to 6,200 feet.
The soils associated with this site are shallow to moderately deep and well to somewhat excessively drained. The soils are formed in residuum and alluvium derived from tuffaceous rocks or volcanic ash. Permeability is moderately slow to moderately rapid and runoff is low to very high. Available water holding capacity varies with soil texture and depth, ranging from very low to low. These soils are coarse to moderately fine textured and high in volcanic ash content.
The reference plant community is dominated by bluebunch wheatgrass, Thurber''s needlegrass and big sagebrush. Commonly associated plants are Nevada bluegrass, needleandthread and Indian ricegrass. Potential vegetative composition is about 70% grasses, 5% forbs and 25% shrubs and trees. Approximate ground cover (basal and crown) is 20 to 30 percent.Associated sites
F025XY059NV Gravelly Juniper
Similar sites
R025XY045NV ASHY LOAM 8-10 P.Z.
HECO26-ACHY codominant grasses
R025XY021NV SHALLOW LOAM 8-12 P.Z.
HECO26 minor grass; less productive site
R025XY019NV LOAMY 8-10 P.Z.
PONE3 and HECO26 minor grasses, if present
R025XY014NV LOAMY 10-12 P.Z.
HECO26, ELMA7, and ACHY minor grasses, if present
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree Not specified
Shrub (1) Artemisia tridentata
Herbaceous (1) Pseudoroegneria spicata
(2) Achnatherum thurberianumPhysiographic features
This site occurs on hills, rock pediments and fan piedmonts on all exposures. Slope gradients of 2 to 50 percent. Slope gradients of 2 to 15 percent are typical. Elevations are 5200 to 6200 feet.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Hill
(2) Fan piedmont
(3) Pediment
Elevation 5200 – 6200 ft Slope 4 – 50 % 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 10 to 12 inches. Mean annual air temperature is about 45 to 50 degrees F.
Mean annual precipitation across the range in which this ES occurs is 12.20".
Monthly mean precipitation: January 1.22”; February 0.92”; March 1.17”; April 1.20”; May 1.54”; June 1.11”; July 0.44”; August 0.45”; September 0.73”; October 0.86”; November 1.26”; December 1.29”.
*The above data is averaged from the Deeth and Tuscarora WRCC climate stations.Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (average) 80 days Freeze-free period (average) 100 days Precipitation total (average) 10 in BarLineFigure 1. Monthly precipitation range
BarLineFigure 2. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Figure 3. Annual precipitation pattern
Figure 4 Annual average temperature pattern
Climate stations used
-
(1) TUSCARORA [USC00268346], Tuscarora, NV
-
(2) DEETH [USC00262189], Deeth, NV
">Influencing water features
There are no influencing water features associated with this site.
Soil features
The soils associated with this site are shallow to moderately deep and well to somewhat excessively drained. The soils are formed in residuum and alluvium derived from tuffaceous rocks or volcanic ash. Permeability is moderately slow to moderately rapid and runoff is low to very high. Available water holding capacity varies with soil texture and depth, ranging from very low to low. These soils are coarse to moderately fine textured and high in volcanic ash content. Soil reaction is neutral to moderately alkaline. Potential for sheet and rill erosion is moderate to high depending on slope. The soil series associated with this site include: Ashart, Bluehill, and Tomsherry.
A representative soil series is Bluehill, classified as an ashy, glassy, mesic Vitrandic Haploxerept. These soils are moderately deep, somewhat excessively drained and formed in alluvium and residuum derived from volcanic ash. Reaction is slightly through strongly alkaline. Diagnostic horizons include an ochric epipedon that occurs from the soil surface to 7 inches. A cambic horizon occurs from 3 to 13 inches, and a calcic horizon occurs from 13 to 30 inches. Rock fragment content ranges from 0 to 15 percent.Table 4. Representative soil features
Surface texture (1) Silt loam
(2) Fine sandy loam
Family particle size (1) Loamy
Drainage class Well drained to somewhat excessively drained Permeability class Moderately slow to moderately rapid Soil depth 12 – 40 in Surface fragment cover <=3" 5 – 30 % Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(0-40in)3 – 4.8 in Calcium carbonate equivalent
(0-40in)0 – 10 % Electrical conductivity
(0-40in)0 – 2 mmhos/cm Sodium adsorption ratio
(0-40in)Not specified Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-40in)6.6 – 9 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)8 – 13 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 3 % 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. 2013). Biotic factors that influence resilience include site productivity, species composition and structure, as well as population regulation and regeneration (Chambers et al. 2013).
This ecological site is dominated by deep-rooted cool season, perennial bunchgrasses and long-lived shrubs (50+ years) with high root to shoot ratios. The dominant shrubs usually root to the full depth of the winter-spring soil moisture recharge, which ranges from 1.0 to over 3.0 meters (Comstock and Ehleringer 1992). Root length of mature sagebrush plants was measured to a depth of 2 meters in alluvial soils in Utah (Richards and Caldwell 1987). These shrubs have a flexible generalized root system with development of both deep taproots and laterals near the surface (Dobrowolski et al. 1990).
In the Great Basin, the majority of annual precipitation is received during the winter and early spring. This continental semiarid climate regime favors growth and development of deep-rooted shrubs and herbaceous cool season plants using the C3 photosynthetic pathway (Comstock and Ehleringer 1992). Winter precipitation and slow melting of snow results in deeper percolation of moisture into the soil profile. Herbaceous plants, more shallow-rooted than shrubs, grow earlier in the growing season and thrive on spring rains, while deeper-rooted shrubs lag in phenological development because they draw from deeply infiltrating moisture in snowmelt from the previous winter.
Periodic drought regularly influences sagebrush ecosystems and drought duration and severity has increased throughout the 20th century in much of the Intermountain West. Major shifts away from historical precipitation patterns have the greatest potential to alter ecosystem function and productivity. Species composition and productivity can be altered by the timing of precipitation and water availability within the soil profile (Bates et al 2006).
Variability in plant community composition and production depends on soil surface texture and depth. For example, Thurber’s needlegrass will increase on gravelly soils, whereas Indian ricegrass will increase with sandy soil surfaces, and bottlebrush squirreltail will increase with silty soil surfaces. A weak argillic horizon will promote production of bluebunch wheatgrass. Production generally increases with soil depth. The amount of sagebrush in the plant community is dependent upon disturbances such as fire, Aroga moth infestations, and grazing. Sandberg bluegrass more easily dominates sites where surface soils are gravelly loams or when there is an increase in ash in the upper soil profile.
Wyoming big sagebrush is the most drought tolerant of the big sagebrushes and is generally long-lived, deeming it 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.
Native insect outbreaks are also important drivers of ecosystem dynamics in sagebrush communities. Climate is generally believed to influence the timing of insect outbreaks, especially with regard to Aroga moth (Aroga websteri), a sagebrush defoliator. Aroga moth infestations have occurred in the Great Basin in the 1960s, early 1970s, and have been ongoing in Nevada since 2004 (Bentz, et al 2008). Thousands of acres of big sagebrush have been impacted, with partial to complete die-off of plants or entire stands of big sagebrush observed(Furniss and Barr 1975).
Perennial bunchgrasses generally have shallower root systems than shrubs in these systems, but root densities are often as high as or higher than those of shrubs in the upper 0.5 m but taper off more rapidly than shrubs. General differences in root depth distributions between grasses and shrubs result in resource partitioning in these shrub/grass systems.
The Great Basin sagebrush 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 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 pools via the decomposition of dead plant material following disturbance. The invasion of sagebrush communities by cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) has been linked to disturbances (fire, abusive grazing) that have resulted in fluctuations in resources (Chambers et al. 2007).
The introduction of annual weedy species, such as cheatgrass, may cause an increase in fire frequency and eventually lead to an annual state. Conversely, as fire frequency decreases, sagebrush will increase and with inappropriate grazing management, perennial bunchgrasses and forbs may be reduced.
The range and density of Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma)and singleleaf pinyon (Pinus monophylla) has increased since the middle of the nineteenth century (Tausch 1999, Miller and Tausch 2000). Causes for expansion of trees into sagebrush ecosystems include wildfire suppression, historic livestock grazing, and climate change (Bunting 1994).
At the upper range of this site's precipitation range, there is potential for infilling by Utah juniper and/or singleleaf pinyon. Infilling may also occur if the site is adjacent to woodland sites or other ecological sites with juniper present. Without disturbance in these areas, Utah juniper will eventually dominate the site and outcompete sagebrush for water and sunlight, severely reducing both the shrub and herbaceous understory (Miller and Tausch 2000, Lett and Knapp 2005). The potential for soil erosion increases as the woodland matures and the understory plant community cover declines (Pierson et al. 2010).
As ecological condition declines, big sagebrush and rabbitbrush increase as perennial grasses and forbs are reduced. Utah juniper will increase on this site where it occurs adjacent to these woodlands. Juniper will compete with other species for available light, moisture and nutrients. If juniper canopies are allowed to close, they can eliminate all understory vegetation.
This ecological site has low resilience to disturbance and low resistance to invasion. Increased resilience increases with elevation, aspect, increased precipitation and increased nutrient availability. Six possible stable states have been identified for this ecological site.
Fire Ecology:
Wyoming big sagebrush communities historically had low fuel loads and patchy fires that burned in a mosaic pattern were common at 10-70 year return intervals (Young et al. 1979, West and Hassan 1985, Bunting et al. 1987). Davies et al. (2006) suggest fire return intervals in Wyoming big sagebrush communities are around 50-100 years. Wyoming big sagebrush is killed by fire and only regenerates from seed. Recovery time for Wyoming big sagebrush may require 50-120 or more years (Baker 2006). The introduction and expansion of cheatgrass, however, has dramatically altered the fire regime (Balch et al. 2013) and restoration potential of Wyoming big sagebrush communities.
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 are factors in individual species’ responses. 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).
Burning has been found to decrease the vegetative and reproductive vigor of Thurber’s needlegrass (Uresk et al. 1976). Fire can cause high mortality and a reduction in the basal area and yield of Thurber’s needlegrass (Britton et al. 1990). The fine leaves and densely tufted growth form make this grass susceptible to subsurface charring of the crowns (Wright and Klemmedson 1965). Although timing of fire highly influences the response and mortality of Thurber’s needlegrass, smaller bunch sizes are less likely to be damaged by fire (Wright and Klemmedson 1965). Thurber’s needlegrass often survives fire and will continue growth or regenerate from tillers when conditions are favorable (Koniak 1985, Britton et al. 1990). Reestablishment on burned sites has been found to be relatively slow due to low germination and competitive ability (Koniak 1985). Cheatgrass has been found to be a highly successful competitor with seedlings of this needlegrass and may preclude reestablishment (Evans and Young 1978).
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.
Indian ricegrass is fairly fire tolerant (Wright 1985), likely due to its low culm density and below-ground plant crowns. Indian ricegrass has been found to reestablish on burned sites through seed dispersed from adjacent unburned areas (Young 1983, West 1994); thus, the presence of surviving, seed-producing plants is necessary for reestablishment of Indian ricegrass. Grazing management following fire to promote seed production and establishment of seedlings is important.
Sandberg bluegrass, 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 bunchgrasses. Reduced bunchgrass vigor or density provides an opportunity for Sandberg bluegrass expansion and/or cheatgrass and other invasive species to occupy interspaces, leading to increased fire frequency and potentially an annual plant community.
Depending on fire severity, rabbitbrush and horsebrush may increase after fire. Rubber rabbitbrush is top-killed by fire, but can resprout after fire and can also establish from seed (Young 1983). Yellow rabbitbrush is top-killed by fire, but sprouts vigorously after fire (Kuntz 1982, Akinsoji 1988). As cheatgrass increases, fire frequencies also increase to between 0.23 and 0.43 times a year; at this rate, even sprouting shrubs such as rabbitbrush will not survive (Whisenant 1990).State and transition model
Custom diagramStandard diagram
Figure 5. T. Stringham July 2015
Figure 6. T. Stringham July 2015
More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
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 3 submodel, plant communities
State 4 submodel, plant communities
State 5 submodel, plant communities
State 6 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference StateThe Reference State 1.0 is a representative of the natural range of variability under pristine conditions. The reference state has three general community phases; a shrub-grass dominant phase, a perennial grass dominant phase and a shrub dominant phase. State dynamics are maintained by interactions between climatic patterns and disturbance regimes. Negative feedbacks enhance ecosystem resilience and contribute to the stability of the state. These include the presence of all structural and functional groups, low fine fuel loads, and retention of organic matter and nutrients. Plant community phase changes are primarily driven by fire, periodic drought and/or insect or disease attack.
Community 1.1
Community PhaseThe reference plant community is dominated by bluebunch wheatgrass, Thurber's needlegrass and big sagebrush. Commonly associated plants are Nevada bluegrass, needleandthread and Indian ricegrass. Potential vegetative composition is about 70% grasses, 5% forbs and 25% shrubs and trees. Approximate ground cover (basal and crown) is 20 to 30 percent.
Figure 7. 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 420 560 700 Shrub/Vine 146 190 234 Forb 30 40 50 Tree 4 10 16 Total 600 800 1000 Community 1.2
Community PhaseThis community phase is characteristic of a post-disturbance, early to mid-seral community phase. Rabbitbrush, horsebrush, spiny hopsage and perennial grasses such as bluebunch wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass and squirreltail are common. Wyoming big sagebrush is killed by fire, therefore decreasing within the burned community. Sagebrush could still be present in unburned patches. Thurber’s needlegrass can experience high mortality from fire and may be reduced in the community for several years.
Community 1.3
Community PhaseBig sagebrush increases in the absence of disturbance. Decadent sagebrush dominates the overstory and the deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses in the understory are reduced either from competition with shrubs or from herbivory. Sandberg bluegrass will likely increase in the understory and may be the dominant grass on the site.
Pathway a
Community 1.1 to 1.2Fire would decrease or eliminate the overstory of sagebrush and allow for the perennial bunchgrasses to dominate the site. Fires would typically be small and patchy due to low fuel loads. A fire following an unusually wet spring or a change in management may be more severe and reduce sagebrush cover to trace amounts. A severe infestation of Aroga moth could also cause a large decrease in sagebrush within the community, giving a competitive advantage to the perennial grasses and forbs.
Pathway b
Community 1.1 to 1.3Long-term drought, time and/or herbivory favor an increase in big sagebrush over deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses. Combinations of these would allow the sagebrush overstory to increase and dominate the site, causing a reduction in the perennial bunchgrasses. Sandberg bluegrass may increase in density depending on the grazing management.
Pathway a
Community 1.2 to 1.1Time and lack of disturbance allows for sagebrush to reestablish.
Pathway a
Community 1.3 to 1.1Aroga moth infestation and or release from growing season herbivory may reduce sagebrush dominance and allow recovery of the perennial bunchgrass understory.
Pathway b
Community 1.3 to 1.2Fire would decrease or eliminate the overstory of sagebrush and allow for the perennial bunchgrasses to dominate the site. Fires would typically be small and patchy due to low fuel loads. A fire following an unusually wet spring or a change in management may be more severe and reduce sagebrush cover to trace amounts. A severe infestation of Aroga moth could also cause a large decrease in sagebrush within the community, giving a competitive advantage to the perennial grasses and forbs.
State 2
Current Potential StateThis state is similar to the Reference State 1.0. Ecological function has not changed, however the resiliency of the state has been reduced by the presence of invasive weeds. This state has the same three general community phases. Negative feedbacks enhance ecosystem resilience and contribute to the stability of the state. These include the presence of all structural and functional groups, low fine fuel loads and retention of organic matter and nutrients. Positive feedbacks decrease ecosystem resilience and stability of the state. These include the non-natives high seed output, persistent seed bank, rapid growth rate, ability to cross pollinate and adaptations for seed dispersal. Additionally, the presence of highly flammable, non-native species reduces State resilience because these species can promote fire where historically fire has been infrequent leading to positive feedbacks that further the degradation of the system.
Community 2.1
Community PhaseBig sagebrush, bluebunch wheatgrass, and Thurber’s needlegrass dominate the site. Indian ricegrass, Sandberg bluegrass, basin wildrye, squirreltail and perennial forbs are also common on this site. Non-native annual species are present in minor amounts.
Community 2.2
Community Phase
Figure 8. Ashy Loam 10-12” (R025XY066NV) Phase 2.2 T. K. Stringham, August 2011
This community phase is characteristic of a post-disturbance, early seral community phase. Rabbitbrush and perennial bunchgrasses such as bluebunch wheatgrass, Thurber's needlegrass, needleandthread and Indian ricegrass are common. Big sagebrush is killed by fire, therefore decreasing within the burned community. Sagebrush could still be present in unburned patches. Perennial forbs may increase or dominate after fire for several years. Thurber’s needlegrass can experience high mortality from fire and may be reduced in the community for several years. Annual non-native species generally respond well after fire and may be stable or increasing within the community. Rabbitbrush may dominate the aspect for a number of years following wildfire.
Community 2.3
Community Phase (at risk)Big sagebrush increases and the perennial understory is reduced. Decadent sagebrush dominates the overstory and the deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses in the understory are reduced either from competition with shrubs or from inappropriate grazing management. Sandberg bluegrass will likely increase in the understory and may be the dominant grass on the site. Utah juniper may be present. Annual non-native species present.
Pathway a
Community 2.1 to 2.2Fire would decrease or eliminate the overstory of sagebrush and allow for the perennial bunchgrasses to dominate the site. Fires would typically be small and patchy due to low fuel loads. A fire following an unusually wet spring or a change in management may be more severe and reduce sagebrush cover to trace amounts. A severe infestation of Aroga moth could also cause a large decrease in sagebrush within the community, giving a competitive advantage to the perennial grasses and forbs. Annual non-native species generally respond well after fire and may be stable or increasing within the community.
Pathway b
Community 2.1 to 2.3Time, long-term drought, grazing management that favors shrubs or combinations of these would allow the sagebrush overstory to increase and dominate the site, causing a reduction in the perennial bunchgrasses. However, Sandberg bluegrass and/or squirreltail may increase in the understory depending on the grazing management. Heavy spring grazing will favor an increase in sagebrush. Annual non-native species may be stable or increasing within the understory.
Pathway a
Community 2.2 to 2.1Absence of disturbance over time allows for the sagebrush to recover, or grazing management that favors shrubs.
Pathway a
Community 2.3 to 2.1Low severity fire or Aroga moth infestation creates sagebrush/grass mosaic. Other disturbances/practices include brush management with minimal soil disturbance; late-fall/winter grazing causing mechanical damage to sagebrush.
Pathway b
Community 2.3 to 2.2Fire would decrease or eliminate the overstory of sagebrush and allow for the perennial bunchgrasses to dominate the site. Fires would typically be small and patchy due to low fuel loads. A fire following an unusually wet spring or a change in management may be more severe and reduce sagebrush cover to trace amounts. A severe infestation of Aroga moth could also cause a large decrease in sagebrush within the community, giving a competitive advantage to the perennial grasses and forbs.
State 3
Shrub StateThis state has two community phases: a big sagebrush dominated phase and a rabbitbrush dominated phase. This state is a product of many years of heavy grazing during time periods harmful to perennial bunchgrasses. Sandberg bluegrass will increase with a reduction in deep rooted perennial bunchgrass competition and become the dominant grass. Sagebrush dominates the overstory and rabbitbrush may be a significant component. Sagebrush canopy cover is high and sagebrush may be decadent, reflecting stand maturity and lack of seedling establishment due to competition with mature plants. The shrub overstory and Sandberg bluegrass understory dominate site resources such that soil water, nutrient capture, nutrient cycling and soil organic matter are temporally and spatially redistributed.
Community 3.1
Community PhaseBig sagebrush dominates overstory and rabbitbrush may be a significant component. Sandberg bluegrass dominates the understory and squirreltail may also be a significant component of the plant community. Utah juniper may be present or increasing. Annual non-native species are present to increasing. Understory may be sparse, with bare ground increasing.
Community 3.2
Community PhaseSandberg bluegrass dominates the understory; annual non-natives are present but are not dominant. Trace amounts of sagebrush may be present. Rabbitbrush may dominate for a number of years following fire.
Pathway a
Community 3.1 to 3.2Fire would decrease or eliminate the overstory of sagebrush. A severe infestation of Aroga moth could also cause a large decrease in sagebrush within the community, giving a competitive advantage to the Sandberg bluegrass, forbs and sprouting shrubs. Heavy fall grazing causing mechanical damage to shrubs, and/or brush treatments with minimal soil disturbance, would greatly reduce the overstory shrubs and allow for Sandberg bluegrass to dominate the site.
Pathway a
Community 3.2 to 3.1Absence of disturbance over time would allow for sagebrush and other shrubs to recover.
State 4
Annual StateThis state has two community phases. The first is dominated by annual non-native species and the other is a shrub-dominated site. This state is characterized by the dominance of annual non-native species such as cheatgrass and tansy mustard in the understory. Sagebrush and/or rabbitbrush may dominate the overstory. Annual non-native species and squirreltail dominate the understory.
Community 4.1
Community PhaseAnnual non-native plants such as cheatgrass or tansy mustard dominate the site. This phase may have seeded species present if resulting from a failed seeding attempt.
Community 4.2
Community PhaseBig sagebrush remains in the overstory with annual non-native species, likely cheatgrass, dominating the understory. Trace amounts of desirable bunchgrasses may be present.
Pathway a
Community 4.1 to 4.2Time and lack of disturbance. Occurrence of this pathway is unlikely.
Pathway a
Community 4.2 to 4.1Fire allows for annual non-native species to dominate site.
State 5
Seeded StateThis state has three community phases: a grass-dominated phase, and grass-shrub dominated phase, and a shrub-dominated phase. This state is characterized by the dominance of seeded introduced wheatgrass species in the understory. Forage kochia and other desired seeded species including Wyoming big sagebrush, native and non-native forbs may be present.
Community 5.1
Community PhaseCrested wheatgrass and/or other seeded species dominate the community. Non-native annual species are present. Trace amounts of Wyoming big sagebrush may be present, especially if seeded.
Community 5.2
Community PhaseBig sagebrush increases and may become the dominant overstory. Seeded wheatgrass species dominate understory. Annual non-native species may be present in trace amounts.
Community 5.3
Community Phase (at risk)Sagebrush becomes the dominant plant. Perennial bunchgrasses in the understory are reduced due to increased competition. Annual non-native species may be increasing. Utah juniper may be present.
Pathway a
Community 5.1 to 5.2Time and lack of disturbance may be coupled with inappropriate grazing management.
Pathway a
Community 5.2 to 5.1Fire, brush management and/or Aroga moth infestation reduces sagebrush overstory and allows for seeded wheatgrasses or other seeded grasses to increase.
Pathway b
Community 5.2 to 5.3Continued inappropriate grazing management reduces bunchgrasses and increases density of sagebrush; usually a slow transition.
Pathway a
Community 5.3 to 5.1Fire or brush management with minimal soil disturbance would reduce sagebrush to trace amounts and allow for the perennial understory to increase.
State 6
Tree StateThis state has two community phases that are characterized by the dominance of Utah juniper and singleleaf pinyon in the overstory. Sagebrush and perennial bunchgrasses may still be present, but they are no longer controlling site resources. Soil moisture, soil nutrients, soil organic matter distribution and nutrient cycling have been spatially and temporally altered.
Community 6.1
Community PhaseJuniper trees dominate overstory, sagebrush is decadent and dying, deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses are decreasing. Recruitment of sagebrush cohorts is minimal. Annual non-natives may be present or increasing.
Community 6.2
Community PhaseUtah juniper dominates the site and tree leader growth is minimal; annual non-native species may be the dominant understory species and will typically be found under the tree canopies. Trace amounts of sagebrush may be present however dead skeletons will be more numerous than living sagebrush. Bunchgrasses may or may not be present. Sandberg bluegrass or mat forming forbs may be present in trace amounts. Bare ground interspaces are large and connected. Soil redistribution is evident.
Pathway a
Community 6.1 to 6.2Absence of disturbance over time allows for tree cover and density to further increase and out-compete the herbaceous understory species for sunlight and water.
Transition A
State 1 to 2Trigger: This transition is caused by the introduction of non-native annual weeds, such as cheatgrass, mustard and halogeton. Slow variables: Over time the annual non-native plants will increase within the community decreasing organic matter inputs from deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses resulting in reductions in soil water availability for perennial bunchgrasses. Threshold: Any amount of introduced non-native species causes an immediate decrease in the resilience of the site. Annual non-native species cannot be easily removed from the system and have the potential to significantly alter disturbance regimes from their historic range of variation.
Transition A
State 2 to 3Trigger: Inappropriate, long-term grazing of perennial bunchgrasses during growing season would favor shrubs and initiate transition to Community Phase 3.1. Fire would cause a transition to Community Phase 3.2. Slow variables: Long term decrease in deep-rooted perennial grass density resulting in a decrease in organic matter inputs and subsequent soil water decline. Threshold: Loss of deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses changes spatial and temporal nutrient cycling and nutrient redistribution, and reduces soil organic matter.
Transition B
State 2 to 4Trigger: Fire or a failed range seeding leads to plant community phase 4.1. Inappropriate grazing management that favors shrubs in the presence of non-native annual species leads to community phase 4.2. Slow variables: Increased production and cover of non-native annual species. Threshold: Cheatgrass or other non-native annuals dominate understory.
Restoration pathway A
State 3 to 2Brush management, herbicide or sub-soiling of Sandberg bluegrass and seeding of desired perennial bunchgrass.
Transition A
State 3 to 4Trigger: Fire or inappropriate grazing management can eliminate the Sandberg bluegrass understory and transition to community phase 4.1 or 4.2. Slow variable: Increased seed production and cover of annual non-native species. Threshold: Increased, continuous fine fuels modify the fire regime by changing intensity, size and spatial variability of fires. Changes in plant community composition and spatial variability of vegetation due to the loss of perennial bunchgrasses and sagebrush truncate energy capture and impact the nutrient cycling and distribution.
Restoration pathway B
State 3 to 5Brush management, herbicide of Sandberg bluegrass and seeding of crested wheatgrass and/or other desired species.
Transition B
State 3 to 6Trigger: Lack of fire allows for trees to dominate site; may be coupled with inappropriate grazing management that reduces fine fuels. Slow variables: Increased establishment and cover of juniper trees, reduction in organic matter inputs. Threshold: Trees overtop big sagebrush and out-compete shrubs for water and sunlight. Shrub skeletons exceed live shrubs with minimal recruitment of new cohorts.
Restoration pathway A
State 4 to 5Application of herbicide and seeding of desired species. Success for this restoration pathway is unlikely; probability of success is best immediately following fire.
Transition A
State 5 to 4Trigger: Fire. Slow variables: Increased production and cover of non-native annual species Threshold: Cheatgrass or other non-native annuals dominate understory
Transition B
State 5 to 6Trigger: Lack of fire allows for trees to dominate site; may be coupled with inappropriate grazing management that reduces fine fuels. Slow variables: Increased establishment and cover of juniper trees, reduced infiltration and increased runoff. Threshold: Trees overtop big sagebrush and out-compete shrubs for water and sunlight. Shrub skeletons exceed live shrubs with minimal recruitment of new cohorts.
Transition A
State 6 to 4Trigger: Catastrophic crown fire would reduce or eliminate trees to transition the site to 4.1. Tree removal when annual non-natives such as cheatgrass are present would also transition the site to state 4.0. Slow variable: Increased seed production and cover of annual non-native species. Threshold: Increased, continuous fine fuels modify the fire regime by changing intensity, size and spatial variability of fires. Changes in plant community composition and spatial variability of vegetation due to the loss of perennial bunchgrasses and sagebrush truncate energy capture and impact the nutrient cycling and distribution.
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 368–720 bluebunch wheatgrass PSSPS Pseudoroegneria spicata ssp. spicata 160–320 – Thurber's needlegrass ACTH7 Achnatherum thurberianum 120–200 – Indian ricegrass ACHY Achnatherum hymenoides 16–40 – thickspike wheatgrass ELLA3 Elymus lanceolatus 16–40 – needle and thread HECO26 Hesperostipa comata 16–40 – 2 Secondary Perennial Grasses 16–64 squirreltail ELEL5 Elymus elymoides 4–16 – basin wildrye LECI4 Leymus cinereus 4–16 – Sandberg bluegrass POSE Poa secunda 4–16 – Forb3 Secondary Perennial Forbs 16–80 basin wildrye LECI4 Leymus cinereus 4–16 – Douglas' dustymaiden CHDOD Chaenactis douglasii var. douglasii 4–16 – tapertip hawksbeard CRAC2 Crepis acuminata 4–16 – buckwheat ERIOG Eriogonum 4–16 – desertparsley LOMAT Lomatium 4–16 – phlox PHLOX Phlox 4–16 – globemallow SPHAE Sphaeralcea 4–16 – Shrub/Vine4 Primary Shrubs 120–240 basin big sagebrush ARTRT Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 60–120 – Douglas' dustymaiden CHDOD Chaenactis douglasii var. douglasii 4–16 – tapertip hawksbeard CRAC2 Crepis acuminata 4–16 – buckwheat ERIOG Eriogonum 4–16 – desertparsley LOMAT Lomatium 4–16 – phlox PHLOX Phlox 4–16 – globemallow SPHAE Sphaeralcea 4–16 – 5 Secondary Shrubs 12–24 yellow rabbitbrush CHVI8 Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus 8–16 – Tree6 Trees 4–16 yellow rabbitbrush CHVI8 Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus 4–16 – Utah juniper JUOS Juniperus osteosperma 4–16 – Table 7. Community 1.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 8. Community 1.3 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 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 13. Community 3.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 14. Community 4.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 15. Community 4.2 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 (%) Table 17. Community 5.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 18. Community 5.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 19. Community 6.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 20. Community 6.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Animal community
Livestock/Wildlife Interpretations:
This site is suited for livestock grazing. Considerations for grazing management include timing, intensity and duration of grazing.
Overgrazing leads to an increase in sagebrush and a decline in understory plants like bluebunch wheatgrass and Thurber’s needlegrass. Squirreltail or Sandberg bluegrass will increase temporarily with further degradation. Invasion of annual weedy forbs and cheatgrass could occur with further grazing degradation, leading to a decline in squirreltail and bluegrass and an increase in bare ground. A combination of overgrazing and prolonged drought leads to soil erosion, increased bare ground and a loss in plant production. Wildfire in sites with cheatgrass present could transition to cheatgrass-dominated communities. Without management, cheatgrass and annual forbs are likely to invade and dominate the site, especially after fire. Although trees are not part of the site concept, Utah juniper and/or singleleaf pinyon can also invade and eventually dominate this site.
Reduced bunchgrass vigor or density provides an opportunity for Sandberg bluegrass expansion and/or cheatgrass and other invasive species such as saltlover (Halogeton glomeratus), bur buttercup (Ceratocephala testiculata) and annual mustards 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.
Long-term disturbance response may be influenced by small differences in landscape topography. Concave areas hold more moisture and may retain deep-rooted perennial grasses whereas convex areas are slightly less resilient and may have more Sandberg bluegrass present.
Thurber's needlegrass is an important forage source for livestock and wildlife in the arid regions of the west (Ganskopp 1988). Thurber’s needlegrass begin growth early in the year and remain green throughout a relatively long growing season. This patern of development enables animals to use Thurber’s needlegrass when many other grasses are unavailable. Cattle prefer Thurber’s needlegrass in early spring before fruits have developed as it becomes less palatable when mature. Thurber’s needlegrasses are grazed in the fall only if the fruits are softened by rain. Although the seeds are not injurious, grazing animals avoid them when they begin to mature. Sheep, however, have been observed to graze the leaves closely, leaving stems untouched (Eckert and Spencer 1987). Heavy grazing during the growing season has been shown to reduce the basal area of Thurber’s needlegrass (Eckert and Spencer 1987), suggesting that both seasonality and utilization are important factors in management of this plant. A single defoliation, particularly during the boot stage, was found to reduce herbage production and root mass thus potentially lowering the competitive ability of Thurber’s needlegrass (Ganskopp 1988).
Bluebunch wheatgrass is considered one of the most important forage grass species on western rangelands for livestock. Although bluebunch wheatgrass can be a cruicial 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 reduced with clipping 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 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.
Nevada bluegrass is very palatable and is preferred by both domestic livestock and wildlife during the spring and early summer, with reported crude protein levels of over 17% (Monson et al. 2004). In today’s botanical climate, Nevada bluegrass and Sandberg bluegrass are no longer differentiated taxonomically, however the grasses typically grow in different ecological niches; Nevada bluegrass prefers locations with greater soil moisture during the growing season. Nevada bluegrass exhibits the characteristic of early spring growth, however in locations with sufficient soil moisture the growing season may be extended allowing the plant to increase in stature. Depending on soil moisture availability along with intensity, frequency and season of use, Nevada bluegrass may decrease under grazing pressure. Conversely, Sandberg bluegrass has been found to increase under grazing pressure due to its early dormancy and short stature (Tisdale and Hironaka 1981).
Basin big sagebrush is the least palatable of all the subspecies of big sagebrush.
Livestock browse Wyoming big sagebrush, but may use it only lightly when palatable herbaceous species are available.
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:
Basin big sagebrush is browsed by mule deer from fall to early spring, but is not preferred. Wyoming big sagebrush is preferred browse for wild ungulates. Pronghorn usually browse Wyoming big sagebrush heavily. Sagebrush-grassland communities provide critical sage-grouse breeding and nesting habitats. Open Wyoming sagebrush communities are preferred nesting habitat. 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. Leks are often located on low sagebrush sites, grassy openings, dry meadows, ridgetops, and disturbed sites. Sage-grouse prefer mountain big sagebrush and Wyoming big sagebrush communities to basin big sagebrush communities.
Bluebunch wheatgrass does not generally provide sufficient cover for ungulates; however, mule deer were frequently found in bluebunch-dominated grasslands.
Hydrological functions
Runoff is low to very high. Permeability is moderately slow to moderately rapid. Hydrologic soil groups are C and D.
Recreational uses
Aesthetic value is derived from the diverse floral and faunal composition and the colorful flowering of wild flowers and shrubs during the spring and early summer. This site offers rewarding opportunities to photographers and for nature study. This site is used for camping and hiking and has potential for upland and big game hunting.
Other products
Some Native American peoples used the bark of big sagebrush to make rope and baskets. Native Americans made tea from big sagebrush leaves. They used the tea as a tonic, an antiseptic, for treating colds, diarrhea, and sore eyes and as a rinse to ward off ticks. Big sagebrush seeds were eaten raw or made into meal.
Other information
Basin big sagebrush shows high potential for range restoration and soil stabilization. Basin big sagebrush grows rapidly and spreads readily from seed. Wyoming big sagebrush is used for stabilizing slopes and gullies and for restoring degraded wildlife habitat, rangelands, mine spoils and other disturbed sites. It is particularly recommended on dry upland sites where other shrubs are difficult to establish.
Supporting information
Type locality
Location 1: Elko County, NV Township/Range/Section T46N R70E S1 General legal description Approximately 6 miles south of the junction of the Nevada, Idaho and Utah state lines, Elko County, Nevada. Other references
Akinsoji, A. 1988. Postfire vegetation dynamics in a sagebrush steppe in southeastern Idaho, USA. Vegetatio 78:151-155.
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.
Barrington, M., S. Bunting, and G. Wright. 1988. A fire management plan for Craters of the Moon National Monument. Cooperative Agreement CA-9000-8-0005. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Range Resources Department. 52 p. Draft.
Bates, J. D., T. Svejcar, R. F. Miller, and R. A. Angell. 2006. The effects of precipitation timing on sagebrush steppe vegetation. Journal of Arid Environments 64:670-697.
Bentz, B., D. Alston, and T. Evans. 2008. Great Basin Insect Outbreaks. In: J. Chambers, N. Devoe, A. Evenden [eds]. Collaborative Management and Research in the Great Basin -- Examining the issues and developing a framework for action Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. p. 45-48.
Blaisdell, J. P. 1953. Ecological effects of planned burning of sagebrush-grass range on the upper Snake River Plains. US Dept. of Agriculture.
Blaisdell, J. P. and W. F. Mueggler. 1956. Sprouting of bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) following burning or top removal. Ecology 37:365-370.
Blaisdell, J. P., R. B. Murray, and E. D. McArthur. 1982. Managing intermountain rangelands-sagebrush-grass ranges. USDA Forest Serv. Intermountain Forest and Range Exp. Sta. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-134.
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.
Bradley, A. F. 1984. Rhizome morphology, soil distribution, and the potential fire survival of eight woody understory species in western Montana. University of Montana.
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. C., B. M. Kilgore, and C. L. Bushey. 1987. Guidelines for prescribed burning sagebrush-grass rangelands in the northern Great Basin. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station Ogden, UT, USA.
Burkhardt, J. W. and E. Tisdale. 1969. Nature and successional status of western juniper vegetation in Idaho. Journal of Range Management:264-270.
Busse, D., A. Simon, and M. Riegel. 2000. Tree-growth and understory responses to low-severity prescribed burning in thinned Pinus ponderosa forests of central Oregon. Forest Science 46:258-268.
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 17:1-16.
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.
Clark, R. G., M. B. Carlton, and F. A. Sneva. 1982. Mortality of bitterbrush after burning and clipping in eastern Oregon. Journal of Range Management 35:711-714.
Clements, C. D. and J. A. Young. 2002. Restoring antelope bitterbrush. Rangelands 24:3-6.
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.
Cook, J. G., T. J. Hershey, and L. L. Irwin. 1994. Vegetative response to burning on Wyoming mountain-shrub big game ranges.. Journal of Range Management 47:296-302.
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.
Driscoll, R. S. 1964. A Relict Area in the Central Oregon Juniper Zone. Ecology 45:345-353.
Dobrowolski, J. P., M. M. Caldwell, and J. H. Richards. 1990. Basin hydrology and plant root systems. In: C. B. Osmand, L. F. Pitelka, G. M. Hildy [eds]. Plant biology of the Basin and range. Ecological Studies. 80: 243-292.
Eckert Jr, R. E. 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.
Furniss, M. M. and W. F. Barr. 1975. Insects affecting important native shrubs of the northwestern United States General Technical Report INT-19. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Ogden, UT. p. 68.
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.
Ganskopp, D., L. Aguilera, and M. Vavra. 2007. Livestock forage conditioning among six northern Great Basin grasses. Rangeland Ecology & Management 60:71-78.
Garrison, G. A. 1953. Effects of Clipping on Some Range Shrubs. Journal of Range Management 6:309-317.
Houston, D. B. 1973. Wildfires in northern Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 54:1111-1117.
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.
Kasworm, W. F., L. R. Irby, and H. B. I. Pac. 1984. Diets of Ungulates Using Winter Ranges in Northcentral Montana. Journal of Range Management 37:67-71.
Kerns, B. K., W. G. Thies, and C. G. Niwa. 2006. Season and severity of prescribed burn in ponderosa pine forests: implications for understory native and exotic plants. Ecoscience 13:44-55.
Krall, J. L., J. R. Stroh, C. S. Cooper, and S. R. Chapman. 1971. Effect of time and extent of harvesting basin wildrye. Journal of Range Management 24:414-418.
Kuntz, D. E. 1982. Plant response following spring burning in an Artemisia tridentata subsp. vaseyana/Festuca idahoensis habitat type. University of Idaho.
Laycock, W. A. 1967. How heavy grazing and protection affect sagebrush-grass ranges. Journal of Range Management:206-213.
Leege, T. A. and W. O. Hickey. 1971. Sprouting of northern Idaho shrubs after prescribed burning. The Journal of Wildlife Management:508-515.
Majerus, M. E. 1992. High-stature grasses for winter grazing. Journal of soil and water conservation 47:224-225.
McArthur, E. D., A. Blaner, A. P. Plummer, and R. Stevens. 1982. Characteristics and hybridization of important Intermountain shrubs: 3. Sunflower family. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research Paper INT-177 43.
McConnell, B. R. 1961. Notes on some rooting characteristics of antelope bitterbrush. PNW Old Series Research Note No. 204:1-5.
McConnell, B. R. and J. G. Smith. 1977.
Influence of grazing on age-yield interactions in bitterbrush. Journal of Range Management 30:91-93.
Merrill, E. H., H. Mayland, and J. Peek. 1982. Shrub responses after fire in an idaho ponderosa pine community. The Journal of Wildlife Management 46:496-502.
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. R. J. T. 2000. The role of fire in juniper and pinyon woodlands: a descriptive analysis. Pages p. 15-30 in Proceedings of the invasive species workshop: the role of fire in the control and spread of invasive species., Tallahassee, Florida.
Miller, R. F. C., Jeanne C.; Pyke, David A.; Pierson, Fred B.; Williams, C. Jason 2013. A review of fire effects on vegetation and soils in the Great Basin Region: response and ecological site characteristics. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-308. Fort Collins CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, United State Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 126.
Mueggler, W. F. and J. P. Blaisdell. 1951. Replacing wyethia with desirable forage species. Journal of Range Management 4:143-150.
Murray, R. 1983. Response of antelope bitterbrush to burning and spraying in southeastern Idaho. Tiedemann, Arthur R.; Johnson, Kendall L., compilers. Research and management of bitterbrush and cliffrose in western North America. General Technical Report INT-152. Ogden, UT: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station:142-152.
Neuenschwander, L. 1980. Broadcast burning of sagebrush in the winter. Journal of Range Management:233-236.
Noste, N. V. and C. L. Bushey. 1987. Fire response of shrubs of dry forest habitat types in Montana and Idaho. General technical report INT.
Noy-Meir, I. 1973. Desert Ecosystems: Environment and Producers. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. Vol. 4:25-51.
Personius, T.L., C. L. Wambolt, J. R. Stephens and R. G. Kelsey. 1987. Crude Terpenoid Influence on Mule Deer Preference for Sagebrush. Journal of Range Management, 40:1 p. 84-88.
Richards, J. H. and M. M. Caldwell. 1987. Hydraulic lift: Substantial nocturnal water transport between soil layers by Artemisia tridentata roots. Oecologia 73:486-489.
Robberecht, R. and G. Defossé. 1995. The relative sensitivity of two bunchgrass species to fire. International Journal of Wildland Fire 5:127-134.
Sheehy, D. P. and A. Winward. 1981. Relative palatability of seven Artemisia taxa to mule deer and sheep. Journal of Range Management 34:397-399.
Smith, J. K. and W. C. Fischer. 1997. Fire ecology of the forest habitat types of northern Idaho. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.
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.
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.
Whisenant, S. G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho's Snake River Plains: ecological and management implications. Pages 4-10 in Symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off, and other aspects of shrub biology and management. General Technical Report, Intermountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service.
Wood, M. K., Bruce A. Buchanan, & William Skeet. 1995. Shrub preference and utilization by big game on New Mexico reclaimed mine land. Journal of Range Management 48:431-437.
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 Rangeland Fire Effects; A Symposium: Boise, ID, USDI-BLM.
Wright, H.A., L.F. Neuenschwander, and C.M. Britton. 1979. The role and use of fire in sagebrush-grass and pinyon-juniper plant communities: A state-of-the-art review. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-58. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 48 p.
Young, R.P. 1983. Fire as a vegetation management tool in rangelands of the Intermountain region. In: Monsen, S.B. and N. Shaw (eds). Managing Intermountain rangelands—improvement of range and wildlife habitats: Proceedings of symposia; 1981 September 15-17; Twin Falls, ID; 1982 June 22-24; Elko, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-157. Ogden, UT. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Pgs 18-31.
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.
Zschaechner, G. A. 1985. Studying rangeland fire effects: a case study in Nevada. Pages 66-84 in Rangeland fire effects, a symposium. Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho.
Contributors
RK
Approval
Kendra Moseley, 4/25/2024
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) GK BRACKLEY Contact for lead author State Rangeland Management Specialist Date 03/21/2011 Approved by Approval date Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on Annual Production Indicators
-
Number and extent of rills:
Rills are none to rare. A few rills can be expected on steeper slopes in areas subjected to summer convection storms or after wildfires. -
Presence of water flow patterns:
Water flow patterns are rare and short. Flow is disrupted by perennial grasses. -
Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes:
Pedestals are rare. Occurrence is usually limited to areas of water flow patterns. -
Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, lichen, moss, plant canopy are not bare ground):
Bare Ground 40-60% -
Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies:
None -
Extent of wind scoured, blowouts and/or depositional areas:
None -
Amount of litter movement (describe size and distance expected to travel):
Fine litter (foliage from grasses and annual & perennial forbs) expected to move distance of slope length during intense summer convection storms or rapid snowmelt events. Persistent litter (large woody material) will remain in place except during catastrophic events. -
Soil surface (top few mm) resistance to erosion (stability values are averages - most sites will show a range of values):
Soil stability values should be 3 to 6 on most soil textures found on this site. (To be field tested.) -
Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type of structure and A-horizon color and thickness):
Surface structure is typically weak medium platy or granular. Soil surface colors are browns and soils are typified by an ochric or mollic epipedon. Organic matter of the surface 2 to 4 inches is typically 1.25 to 3 percent dropping off quickly below. Organic matter content can be more or less depending on micro-topography. -
Effect of community phase composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration and runoff:
Perennial herbaceous plants (especially deep-rooted bunchgrasses [i.e., bluebunch wheatgrass] slow runoff and increase infiltration. Shrub canopy and associated litter break raindrop impact and provide opportunity for snow catch and accumulation on site. -
Presence and thickness of compaction layer (usually none; describe soil profile features which may be mistaken for compaction on this site):
None. Soil profiles with duripans, calcic, or argillic horizons are not to be interpreted as compacted. -
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:
Deep-rooted, cool season, perennial bunchgrassesSub-dominant:
tall shrubs (big sagebrush)>>deep-rooted, cool season perennial forbs >associated shrubs>shallow-rooted, cool season, perennial bunchgrasses>fibrous, shallow-rooted, cool season, perennial and annual forbsOther:
Additional:
-
Amount of plant mortality and decadence (include which functional groups are expected to show mortality or decadence):
Dead branches within individual shrubs common and standing dead shrub canopy material may be as much as 25% of total woody canopy; some of the mature bunchgrasses (<20%) have dead centers. -
Average percent litter cover (%) and depth ( in):
Between plant interspaces (20-30%) and litter depth is < ½ inch. -
Expected annual annual-production (this is TOTAL above-ground annual-production, not just forage annual-production):
For normal or average growing season (through mid-June) ± 800 lbs/ac; Spring moisture significantly affects total 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:
Invaders include cheatgrass, halogeton, Russian thistle, annual mustards and knapweeds. Utah juniper is an increase on this site. -
Perennial plant reproductive capability:
All functional groups should reproduce in average (or normal) and above average growing season years
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
