Natural Resources
Conservation Service
-
Search
Major Land Resource Area or ecological site by name and/or ID.
PreviousSectionsNextGeneral information
Draft. A draft ecological site description is either incomplete or has not undergone quality control and quality assurance review.
MLRA notes
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 028B–Central Nevada Basin and Range
MLRA 28B occurs entirely in Nevada and comprises about 23,555 square miles (61,035 square kilometers). More than nine-tenths of this MLRA is federally owned. This area is in the Great Basin Section of the Basin and Range Province of the Intermontane Plateaus. It is an area of nearly level, aggraded desert basins and valleys between a series of mountain ranges trending north to south. The basins are bordered by long, gently sloping to strongly sloping alluvial fans. The mountains are uplifted fault blocks with steep sideslopes. Many of the valleys are closed basins containing sinks or playas. Elevation ranges from 4,900 to 6,550 feet (1,495 to 1,995 meters) in the valleys and basins and from 6,550 to 11,900 feet (1,995 to 3,630 meters) in the mountains.
The mountains in the southern half are dominated by andesite and basalt rocks that were formed in the Miocene and Oligocene. Paleozoic and older carbonate rocks are prominent in the mountains to the north. Scattered outcrops of older Tertiary intrusives and very young tuffaceous sediments are throughout this area. The valleys consist mostly of alluvial fill, but lake deposits are at the lowest elevations in the closed basins. The alluvial valley fill consists of cobbles, gravel, and coarse sand near the mountains in the apex of the alluvial fans. Sands, silts, and clays are on the distal ends of the fans.
The average annual precipitation ranges from 4 to 12 inches (100 to 305 millimeters) in most areas on the valley floors. Average annual precipitation in the mountains ranges from 8 to 36 inches (205 to 915 millimeters) depending on elevation. The driest period is from midsummer to midautumn. The average annual temperature is 34 to 52 degrees F (1 to 11 degrees C). The freeze-free period averages 125 days and ranges from 80 to 170 days, decreasing in length with elevation.
The dominant soil orders in this MLRA are Aridisols, Entisols, and Mollisols. The soils in the area dominantly have a mesic soil temperature regime, an aridic or xeric soil moisture regime, and mixed or carbonatic mineralogy. They generally are well drained, loamy or loamyskeletal, and shallow to very deep.
Nevada’s climate is predominantly arid, with large daily ranges of temperature, infrequent severe storms and heavy snowfall in the higher mountains. Three basic geographical factors largely influence Nevada’s climate: continentality, latitude, and elevation. 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. The prevailing winds are from the west, and as the warm moist air from the Pacific Ocean ascend the western slopes of the Sierra Range, the air cools, condensation occurs and most of the moisture falls as precipitation. As the air descends the eastern slope, it is warmed by compression, and very little precipitation occurs. The effects of this mountain barrier are felt not only in the West but throughout the state, as a result the lowlands of Nevada are largely desert or steppes.
The temperature regime is also affected by the blocking of the inland-moving maritime air. Nevada sheltered from maritime winds, has a continental climate with well-developed seasons and the terrain responds quickly to changes in solar heating. Nevada lies within the midlatitude belt of prevailing westerly winds which occur most of the year. These winds bring frequent changes in weather during the late fall, winter and spring months, when most of the precipitation occurs.
To the south of the mid-latitude westerlies, lies a zone of high pressure in subtropical latitudes, with a center over the Pacific Ocean. In the summer, this high-pressure belt shifts northward over the latitudes of Nevada, blocking storms from the ocean. The resulting weather is mostly clear and dry during the summer and early fall, with occasional thundershowers. The eastern portion of the state receives noteworthy summer thunderstorms generated from monsoonal moisture pushed up from the Gulf of California, known as the North American monsoon. The monsoon system peaks in August and by October the monsoon high over the Western U.S. begins to weaken and the precipitation retreats southward towards the tropics (NOAA 2004).
Ecological site concept
This forested plant community occurs on cool, moist, mountains with no particular aspect. The plant community is dominated by quaking aspen and Rocky Mountain white fir. Spike-fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, mountain brome and slender wheatgrass are the principal understory grasses. Common juniper, serviceberry and snowberry are the principal understory shrubs. Common understory forbs are creeping barberry and geranium. An overstory canopy of 30 to 45 percent is assumed to be representative. Overstory tree canopy composition is about 70 to 90 percent quaking aspen, and about 10 to 30 percent white fir.
As written and mapped this site has a poorly developed soil-site concept. Quaking aspen soils should have a well developed mollic epipedon, the soil series Guiser does not. Consider this ES a state of 028BY067NV. The seedlings and saplings of white fir are shade tolerant and easily establish, even under dense shade. White fir is tolerant of a wide variety of soil and site characteristics allowing it to encroach on many plant communities.
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Populus tremuloides
(2) Abies concolorShrub (1) Juniperus communis
(2) Mahonia repensHerbaceous (1) Leucopoa kingii
(2) Bromus marginatusPhysiographic features
This forestland site occurs on cool, moist, mountains with no particular aspect. Slopes range from 15 to 75 percent, but are typically 30 to 75 percent. Elevations are 7700 to over 10,650 feet.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Mountain
Elevation 7700 – 10650 ft Slope 15 – 75 % Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
This site’s climate is semi-arid. In general it is characterized by cold, moist winters and warm, dry summers.
Average annual precipitation is about 25 inches. Mean annual air temperature is about 40 to 43 degrees F. The average growing season is 50 to 70 days.Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (average) 0 days Freeze-free period (average) 60 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
">Influencing water features
There are no influencing water features associated with this site.
Soil features
The soils associated with this site are generally deep to very deep and well drained. Soils are neutral to mildly alkaline. Rock fragments range from 60 to 80 percent. Runoff is high and permeability is moderate. Available water holding capacity is very low. The soil series associated with this site includes: Guiser.
The representative soil series is Guiser, a Loamy-skeletal, mixed, superactive Xerollic Haplocryalfs. Diagnostic horizons include an Ochric epipedon from the soil surface to 41 cm, and a Argillic horizon from 41 to 94 cm. Clay content in the particle control section averages 18 to 27 percent. Rock fragments range from 60 to 85 percent. Reaction is neutral or slightly alkaline. Effervescence is none. Lithology consists of quartzite and conglomerate.Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Colluvium – quartzite
Surface texture (1) Extremely cobbly loam
(2) Extremely cobbly sandy loam
(3) Extremely cobbly coarse sandy loam
Family particle size (1) Loamy
Drainage class Well drained Permeability class Moderate Soil depth 50 – 60 in Surface fragment cover <=3" 20 – 30 % Surface fragment cover >3" 15 – 35 % Available water capacity
(0-40in)2.5 – 2.6 in Calcium carbonate equivalent
(0-40in)Not specified Electrical conductivity
(0-40in)Not specified Sodium adsorption ratio
(0-40in)Not specified Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-40in)7 – 7.4 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)22 – 65 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)5 – 35 % Ecological dynamics
An ecological site is the product of all the environmental factors responsible for its development and it has a set of key characteristics that influence a site’s resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasives. Key characteristics include 1) climate (precipitation, temperature), 2) topography (aspect, slope, elevation, and landform), 3) hydrology (infiltration, runoff), 4) soils (depth, texture, structure, organic matter), 5) plant communities (functional groups, 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, and population regulation and regeneration (Chambers et al. 2013).
Quaking aspen is considered one of the most widely distributed forest plants in North America (Potter 2005). Mature aspen stands (80 to 100 years) can reach heights up to 100 feet depending on the site. Most stands contain a variety of medium-high shrubs and tall herbs in the understory (DeByle and Winokur 1985). Wildfire maintained the dynamics of these communities, but with fire suppression mature aspen stands can be susceptible to stand decline. Typically as stands begin to decline aspen suckers and saplings are able to regenerate the stand. As aspen trees mature and tree canopy begins to close the perennial understory becomes dominated by shade tolerant species. Conifers, when present, can eventually increase and overtop the aspen trees. The increase in conifers can be attributed to both fire suppression and grazing pressure by both livestock and wildlife (Potter 2005, Strand et al. 2009, Bartos and Campbell 1998). Using a habitat model Strand et al. 2009 computed aspen occurrence probability across the landscape of the Owyhee Plateau. They visited 41 sites where they modeled aspen occurrence; 37% they found dead aspen stems with no aspen regeneration, 51% had scattered aspen ramets and aspen was regenerating in forest gaps, and 12% there was no evidence that aspen had ever occurred on or near the site. Their aspen successional model theorized that non-producing aspen stands can be permanently converted to a conifer stand and the aspen clone can be lost. They estimated that over 60% of aspen woodlands have been or are in the process of converting to conifer woodlands within 80-200 years. Whether or not these stands can be converted back to aspen with disturbance is inconclusive.
There are many environmental factors that can contribute to stand decline or die-off. The major underlying cause can be attributed to tree and/or stand stress. Drought, low soil oxygen, and cold soil temperatures all limit soil water uptake and can contribute to xylem cavitation. Cavitation causes much of the aspen die-off but the created stress can also leave the stand open to secondary factors such as wood boring insects and fungal pathogens (Frey et al. 2004). Drought has been attributed to the decline and death of aspen trees, but also contributes to secondary factors such as insects (Frey et al. 2004).
Two stable states have been identified for this site, a third state may be possible where conifers have encroached and dominated the site. The research is inconclusive if these conifer dominated aspen stands can regenerate with fire.
Fire Ecology:
Wildfire is recognized as a natural disturbance that influenced the structure and composition of the historic climax vegetation of this woodland site. It is hypothesized that many of the fires that maintained these communities were set by the Native population, who used fire to manage plant communities for human benefit (Kay 1997). Specific fire intervals are dependent upon surrounding vegetation communities. Intense fires that kill the aspen overstory usually stimulate abundant suckering (DeByle and Winokur 1985). Although aspen stands rely on fire for successful regeneration, aspen stands don’t readily carry fire (Fechner and Barrows 1976, Debyle and Winokur 1985, Debyle et al. 1987). The tree itself is extremely fire sensitive (Baker 1925); with its thin bark most aspens are killed by fire, and those left with scarring are usually killed within the next growing season from rot and disease (Bradley et al. 1992,Davidson et al. 1959, Meinecke 1929). Periodic wildfires prevent over-mature aspen stands and maintain a naturally stratified mosaic of even-aged aspen communities in various stages of successional development. Uneven-aged stands form under stable conditions where the overstory gradually disintegrates with disease or age, and is replaced by aspen suckers. Historic heavy grazing has been attributed to the reduction of fine fuels within stands; without the fuels to burn fires seldom occur within aspen forests (DeByle and Winokur 1985).
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 2009).
Mountain snowberry is top-killed by fire, but resprouts after fire from rhizomes (Leege and Hickey 1971, Noste and Bushey 1987). Snowberry has been noted to regenerate well and exceed pre-burn biomass in the third season after fire (Merrill et al. 1982). Was currant, a minor component of this site, is known as a weak sprouter from the root crown but usually regenerates from soil stored seeds after fire. It is susceptible to fire kill and rarely survives fire (Crane and Fischer 1986). If balsamroot or mules ear is common before fire, these plants will increase after fire or with heavy grazing (Wright 1985).
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).
Mountain brome the dominate grass found on this site is a robust, coarse-stemmed, short lived perennial bunchgrass that can grow from 1 to 5 feet in height (Dayton 1937, Tilley et al. 2004). It is commonly seeded after wildfires due to its ability to establish quickly and reduce erosion (Tilley et al. 2004). Mountain brome significantly decreases after burning (Nimir and Payne 1978). Slender wheatgrass, a sub-dominate grass on this site, may increase after fire. In a study by Nimir and Payne (1978) slender wheatgrass increased significantly in burned than in non-burned sites, although the species did not appear in measurable quantities until mid-July.
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. Mutton grass, also a minor component on this site, is top killed by fire but will resprout after low to moderate severity fires. A study by Vose and White (1991) in an open sawtimber site, found minimal difference in overall effect of burning on mutton grass.
Long-term disturbance response may be influenced by small differences in landscape topography. Concave areas hold a little more moisture and may retain deep-rooted perennial grasses whereas convex areas are slightly less resilient and may have more Sandberg bluegrass present.State and transition model
Custom diagramStandard diagram
Figure 5. State and Transition Model
Figure 6. Legend
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 1
Reference StateThe Reference State 1.0 is a representative of the natural range of variability under pristine conditions. This site has four general community phases; a mature woodland phase, a sucker/sapling phase, an immature woodland phase and an over mature woodland/conifer 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, 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 visual aspect and vegetal structure are dominated by single-storied aspen that have reached or are near maximal heights for the site. Tree heights range from 60 to 80 feet, depending upon site. Tree canopy cover ranges from 25 to about 35 percent. Despite considerable understory forage production, the overstory trees compete with the undergrowth plants for moisture, light, nutrients, and space. Vegetative shoots and/or saplings of aspen occur in the understory, but they are inconspicuous and have a high mortality rate. Engelmann's spruce, Rocky Mountain fir, and other conifers may be present to increasing in the understory, because of their shade tolerance these trees can multiply and eventually dominate the site.
Forest overstory.MATURE FORESTLAND: The visual aspect and vegetal structure are dominated by quaking aspen with white fir as the sub-dominant tree. These trees have reached or are near maximal heights for the site. Tree canopy cover ranges from 30 to 45 percent. Understory vegetation is strongly influenced by tree competition, overstory shading, duff accumulation, etc. Few quaking aspen suckers seedlings occur in the understory. White fir canopy composition is 10 to 30 percent.
Forest understory. Understory vegetative composition is about 40 percent grasses, 7 percent forbs and 53 percent shrubs and young trees when the average overstory canopy is medium (30 to 45 percent). Average understory production ranges from 250 to 600 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 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 100 160 240 Shrub/Vine 88 140 210 Tree 45 72 108 Forb 17 28 42 Total 250 400 600 Community 1.2
Community PhaseHerbaceous vegetation dominates the site. Quaking aspen suckers are evident. If the aspen stand is healthy, this stage will only last from one to two years. However, if competing brush and herbaceous plants grow for a full season before aspen suckers emerge, or with excessive herbivory from large ungulates such as elk, a reduction in growth and survival of aspen suckers may occur. Early growth of quaking aspen suckers ranges from less than 1 foot to more than 3 feet per year for shoots having good competitive position. In the absence of disturbance, suckers develop into saplings (to 4½ feet in height) with a range in canopy cover of about 5 to 15 percent. Vegetation consists of grasses, forbs and a few shrubs in association with tree saplings.
Forest overstory.Herbaceous vegetation and woody shrubs dominate the site. Various amounts of quaking aspen suckers (less than 20 inches in height) may be present up to the point where they are obviously a major component of the vegetal structure.<br /> <br /> In the absence of disturbance, the quaking aspen suckers develop into saplings (20 inches to 4½ feet in height) with a range in canopy cover of about 5 to 10 percent.
Forest understory. Vegetation consists of grasses, forbs and shrubs in association with tree saplings. Understory production ranges from 700 to 1500 pounds per acre.
Community 1.3
Community PhaseThis stage is characterized by rapid growth of the aspen trees, both in height and canopy cover. Aspen stands are self-thinning, especially at young ages. After the canopy closes, trees stratify into crown classes quickly, despite genetic uniformity within clones. The visual aspect and vegetal structure are dominated by aspen ranging from about 10 to 20 feet in height, and having a diameter at breast height of about 2 to 4 inches. Understory vegetation is moderately influenced by a tree overstory canopy of about 40 to over 60 percent. Growth of the aspen begins to slow and there is a fairly continual adjustment of trees to growing space. As competition becomes intense enough to affect the diameter growth of dominants, mortality quickly reduces the number of trees in the lower crown classes. There are periodic surges in mortality, with a large number of trees dying within a short time. The visual aspect and vegetal structure are dominated by aspen mostly greater than 25 feet in height. Understory vegetation is moderately influenced by a tree overstory canopy of about 25 to 40 percent.
Forest overstory.The visual aspect and vegetal structure are dominated by quaking aspen greater than 4½ feet in height. White fir seedlings are present in the understory of the quaking aspen.Understory vegetation is moderately influenced by a tree overstory canopy of about 10 to 20 percent.
Forest understory. White fir seedlings are present in the understory of the quaking aspen. Understory production ranges from 500 to 1100 pounds per acre.
Community 1.4
Community PhaseIn the absence of wildfire or other naturally occurring disturbances, the tree canopy on this site can become very dense. This stage is normally dominated by aspen and/or conifers that have reached maximal heights for the site. Engelmann's spruce, Rocky Mountain fir, and other conifers may dominate the overstory canopy in over-mature, aspen stands. Aspen trees may be decadent. In the absence of disturbance, over-mature, even-aged aspen stands slowly die. Tree canopy cover is commonly more than 50 percent. Understory production is strongly influenced by the overstory, as is species composition. Shade tolerant forbs and a few grasses will dominate the understory.
Forest overstory.In the absence of wildfire or other naturally occurring disturbances, white fir canopy on this site can become very dense. Quaking aspen is sub-dominant. This stage is comprised mostly by trees that have reached maximal heights for the site. White fir canopy composition cover is at a maximum for the site and is commonly greater than 80 percent.
Forest understory. Understory vegetation is sparse to absent due to tree competition, overstory shading, duff accumulation, etc. There are few quaking aspen remaining in the overstory. Understory production ranges from 700 to 1500 pounds per acre.
Pathway a
Community 1.1 to 1.2Fire would reduce the mature aspen and allow for the suckers, saplings and the herbaceous understory to increase.
Pathway b
Community 1.1 to 1.4Time and lack of disturbance will allow for the conifer trees in the understory to mature and dominate the site.
Pathway a
Community 1.2 to 1.3Time and lack of disturbance, release from herbivory will allow for the aspen suckers to mature
Pathway a
Community 1.3 to 1.1Time and lack of disturbance, release from herbivory will allow for the aspen trees to mature.
Pathway b
Community 1.3 to 1.2Fire, insects, disease or wind damage can reduce the aspen canopy and the subsequent competition with the understory allowing the understory herbaceous community to increase. Excessive herbivory while trees are still within reach to browse may also reduce aspen growth.
Pathway a
Community 1.4 to 1.2Fire would decrease the conifer canopy and allow for the aspen suckers to increase.
State 2
Current Potential StateThis state is similar to the Reference State 1.0 with four similar community phases. Ecological function has not changed, however the resiliency of the state has been reduced by the presence of invasive weeds. Non-natives may increase in abundance but will not become dominant within this State. These non-natives can be highly flammable and can promote fire where historically fire had been infrequent. Negative feedbacks enhance ecosystem resilience and contribute to the stability of the state. These feedbacks 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.
Community 2.1
Community Phase
Figure 8. POTR5-ABCO (F028BY055NV) T. Stringham Aug 2014
This community phase is similar to the Reference State Community Phase 1.1, with the presence of non-native species in trace amounts such as common dandelion and cheatgrass. The visual aspect and vegetal structure are dominated by single-storied aspen that have reached or are near maximal heights for the site. Tree heights range from 60 to 80 feet, depending upon site. Tree canopy cover ranges from 25 to about 35 percent. Despite considerable understory forage production, the overstory trees do compete with the undergrowth plants for moisture, light, nutrients, and space. Vegetative shoots and/or saplings of aspen occur in the understory, but they are inconspicuous and have a high mortality rate.
Forest overstory.MATURE FORESTLAND: The visual aspect and vegetal structure are dominated by quaking aspen with white fir as the sub-dominant tree. These trees have reached or are near maximal heights for the site. Tree canopy cover ranges from 30 to 45 percent. Understory vegetation is strongly influenced by tree competition, overstory shading, duff accumulation, etc. Few quaking aspen suckers seedlings occur in the understory. White fir canopy composition is 10 to 30 percent.
Forest understory. Understory vegetative composition is about 40 percent grasses, 7 percent forbs and 53 percent shrubs and young trees when the average overstory canopy is medium (30 to 45 percent). Average understory production ranges from 250 to 600 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.
Community 2.2
Community PhaseHerbaceous vegetation dominates the site. Quaking aspen suckers are evident. If the aspen stand is healthy, these first two stages will only last from one to two years. However, if competing brush and herbaceous plants grow for a full season before aspen suckers emerge sucker survival and growth may be reduced. With excessive grazing from large ungulates such as elk and cattle, a reduction in growth and survival of aspen suckers may occur, this may last until season of grazing is changed, or grazing is reduced/excluded. Early growth of quaking aspen suckers ranges from less than 1 foot to more than 3 feet per year for shoots having good competitive position. In the absence of disturbance, suckers develop into saplings (to 4½ feet in height) with a range in canopy cover of about 5 to 15 percent. Vegetation consists of grasses, forbs and a few shrubs in association with tree saplings. Annual non-native species are stable to increasing within the community.
Forest overstory.Herbaceous vegetation and woody shrubs dominate the site. Various amounts of quaking aspen suckers (less than 20 inches in height) may be present up to the point where they are obviously a major component of the vegetal structure.<br /> <br /> In the absence of disturbance, the quaking aspen suckers develop into saplings (20 inches to 4½ feet in height) with a range in canopy cover of about 5 to 10 percent.
Forest understory. Vegetation consists of grasses, forbs and shrubs in association with tree saplings. Understory production ranges from 700 to 1500 pounds per acre.
Community 2.3
Community PhaseThis stage is characterized by rapid growth of the aspen trees, both in height and canopy cover. Aspen stands are self-thinning, especially at young ages. After the canopy closes, trees stratify into crown classes quickly, despite genetic uniformity within clones. The visual aspect and vegetal structure are dominated by aspen ranging from about 10 to 20 feet in height, and having a diameter at breast height of about 2 to 4 inches. Understory vegetation is moderately influenced by a tree overstory canopy of about 40 to over 60 percent. Growth of the aspen begins to slow and there is a fairly continual adjustment of trees to growing space. As competition becomes intense enough to affect the diameter growth of dominants, mortality quickly reduces the number of trees in the lower crown classes. There are periodic surges in mortality, with a large number of trees dying within a short time. The visual aspect and vegetal structure are dominated by aspen mostly greater than 25 feet in height. Understory vegetation is moderately influenced by a tree overstory canopy of about 25 to 40 percent.
Forest overstory.The visual aspect and vegetal structure are dominated by quaking aspen greater than 4½ feet in height. White fir seedlings are present in the understory of the quaking aspen.Understory vegetation is moderately influenced by a tree overstory canopy of about 10 to 20 percent.
Forest understory. White fir seedlings are present in the understory of the quaking aspen. Understory production ranges from 500 to 1100 pounds per acre.
Community 2.4
Community Phase
Figure 9. POTR5-ABCO (F028BY055NV) T. Stringham Aug 2014
Figure 10. POTR5-ABCO (F028BY055NV) T. Stringham Aug 2014
In the absence of wildfire or other naturally occurring disturbances, the tree canopy on this site can become very dense. This stage is normally dominated by aspen that have reached maximal heights for the site. Engelmann's spruce, Rocky mountain fir, and other conifers may comprise as much as 50 percent of the total tree canopy in stable, over-mature, aspen stands. Aspen trees have straight, clear stems with short, high-rounded crowns. In the absence of disturbance, over-mature, even-aged aspen stands slowly die. The aspen canopy opens up, and otherwise inconspicuous aspen suckers survive and grow in the openings not shaded by the remaining conifers. These suckers typically arise over a period of several years; the resulting stand is broadly even-aged. If broadly even-aged stands reach old age without disturbance, their deterioration is likely to extend over a longer period than before because of the range of tree ages. That, in turn, will result in a longer regeneration period and a new stand with an even greater range of ages. If this continues over several generations, all-aged stands will result. Tree canopy cover is commonly more than 50 percent. Understory production is strongly influenced by the overstory, as is species composition. Shade tolerant forbs and a few grasses will dominate the understory.
Forest overstory.In the absence of wildfire or other naturally occurring disturbances, white fir canopy on this site can become very dense. Quaking aspen is sub-dominant. This stage is comprised mostly by trees that have reached maximal heights for the site. White fir canopy composition cover is at a maximum for the site and is commonly greater than 80 percent.
Forest understory. Understory vegetation is sparse to absent due to tree competition, overstory shading, duff accumulation, etc. There are few quaking aspen remaining in the overstory. Understory production ranges from 700 to 1500 pounds per acre.
Pathway a
Community 2.1 to 2.2Fire would reduce the mature aspen and allow for the suckers, saplings and the herbaceous understory to increase. Annual non-natives are likely to increase after fire.
Pathway b
Community 2.1 to 2.4
Community Phase
Community PhaseTime and lack of disturbance will allow for the conifers in the understory to mature and dominate the site.
Pathway a
Community 2.2 to 2.3Time and lack of disturbance, changing of grazing season or grazing reduction/exclusion will allow for the aspen suckers to mature
Pathway a
Community 2.3 to 2.1Time and lack of disturbance release from browsing, will allow for the aspen trees to mature.
Pathway b
Community 2.3 to 2.2Fire, insects, disease or wind damage can reduce the aspen canopy and the subsequent competition with the understory allowing the understory herbaceous community to increase. Inappropriate grazing especially by sheep, and/or herbivory by large ungulates while trees are still within reach to browse may also reduce aspen growth.
Pathway a
Community 2.4 to 2.2Fire, or equivalent such as clearcutting/harvesting of the conifers would allow for the aspen suckers to increase.
State 3
Tree StateThis state is characterized by one community phase dominated by Rocky Mountain fir and Engelmann's spruce. Aspen may be present in trace amounts however trees are decadent and little to no regeneration is present. Understory vegetation is sparse. Negative feedbacks enhance ecosystem resilience and contribute to the stability of the state. These feedbacks include the dense canopy cover of conifer creating a shade rich environment that facilitates the germination and establishment of conifers and retards the growth and suckering of aspen. Positive feedbacks decrease ecosystem resilience and stability of the state. These include high fuel loads from canopy closure and dead and down wood leading to the potential for stand replacing fire.
Community 3.1
Community PhaseThis community phase is dominated by Rocky Mountain fir and Engelmann’s spruce. Aspen trees may be present but show decadence and are significantly reduced. Understory vegetation is reduced due to competition of the overstory canopy. Annual non-native species may be present.
Forest overstory.In the absence of wildfire or other naturally occurring disturbances, white fir canopy on this site can become very dense. Quaking aspen is sub-dominant. This stage is comprised mostly by trees that have reached maximal heights for the site. White fir canopy composition cover is at a maximum for the site and is commonly greater than 80 percent.
Forest understory. Understory vegetation is sparse to absent due to tree competition, overstory shading, duff accumulation, etc. There are few quaking aspen remaining in the overstory. Understory production ranges from 700 to 1500 pounds per acre.
Transition A
State 1 to 2Trigger: This transition is caused by the introduction of non-native annual plants, such as Kentucky bluegrass, thistles and common dandelion. Slow variables: Over time the annual non-native species will increase within the community. 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: Time and a lack of disturbance allow conifer trees to establish, grow and mature grown in understory. Slow variables: Over time the abundance and size of trees will increase. Threshold: Conifer canopy cover is greater than 60% of the stand and conifer height exceeds aspen height. Aspen are decadent and dying with little to no regeneration. Little understory vegetation remains due to competition with trees for site resources.
Restoration pathway A
State 3 to 2Additional 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 120–240 spike fescue LEKI2 Leucopoa kingii 40–96 – bluebunch wheatgrass PSSPS Pseudoroegneria spicata ssp. spicata 20–36 – mountain brome BRMA4 Bromus marginatus 20–36 – slender wheatgrass ELTR7 Elymus trachycaulus 20–36 – 2 Secondary Perennial Grasses/Grasslikes 8–40 Letterman's needlegrass ACLE9 Achnatherum lettermanii 4–20 – sedge CAREX Carex 4–20 – Forb3 Perennial 17–42 Shrub/Vine4 Primary Shrubs 40–96 creeping barberry MARE11 Mahonia repens 40–96 – 5 Secondary Shrubs 8–40 serviceberry AMELA Amelanchier 8–40 – snowberry SYMPH Symphoricarpos 8–40 – Tree6 Deciduous 20–36 quaking aspen POTR5 Populus tremuloides 20–36 – 7 Evergreen 40–72 common juniper JUCO6 Juniperus communis 20–36 – 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 1.4 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 10. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 11. Community 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 12. Community 2.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 13. Community 2.4 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 14. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Animal community
Domestic livestock, wild ungulates, rodents and hares utilize aspen stands and can have a measurable impact. A study by Krebill (1972) found that the majority of aspen decline within their study area was due to a combination of pathogenic fungi and insects which invade aspen trees damaged by big game (Krebill 1972). Browsing during the sapling stage reduces aspen growth, vigor and numbers (DeByle and Winokur 1985). Heavy browsing on aspen suckers may result in lower clone vigor to the point that suckering no longer takes place. Browsing pressure may allow aspen to regenerate but prevent the development of trees, and the aspen will grow instead as a dense shrub (Bradley et al. 1992). Because aspen stands are grazed by cattle and/or sheep and also have a significant population of wild ungulates, grazing management and game management are important for the health of aspen communities.
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 had no sign of sagebrush use. This same study found that juniper (mostly Juniperus horizontalis) constituted half of the diet of mule deer and approximately 1/6 of the late winter diets of elk and bighorn sheep (Kasworm et al. 1984).
Mountain brome increases with grazing (Leege et al. 1981). A study by Mueggler (1967), found that with clipping, mountain brome increased in herbage production when clipped in June. When clipped in July mountain brome increased due to reduced competition from forb species. The study also found that after three successive years of clipping mountain brome started to show adverse effects. Mountain brome is ranked as highly valuable as elk winter forage (Kufeld 1973).
Slender wheatgrass is a perennial bunchgrass that tends to be short lived, however it spreads well by natural reseeding (Monsen et al. 2004). It is widely used in restoration seedings (Monsen et al. 2004). Slender wheatgrass tends to persists for a longer time than other perennial grasses when subjected to heavy grazing (Monsen et al. 1996, Monsen et al. 2004). Slender wheatgrass is palatable and nutritious for livestock. It is also grazed by wild ungulates and used for cover by small birds and mammals (Tilley et al. 2011, Hallsten et al. 1987).
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.
Hydrological functions
Permeability is moderate. Runoff is high. Hydrologic soil group is B.
Recreational uses
Great aesthetic value is derived from the rich hues and textures of the aspen trees surrounded by the deep green of the white fir, especially in the fall. The diverse floral and fauna composition, and the colorful flowering of wildflowers during the summer enhance the beauty of this site. This site offers rewarding opportunities to photographers and for nature study. It has high value for hunting, camping, picnicking and family wood gathering.
Wood products
Principle uses of white fir are poles, fuelwood, and some lumber. The wood produced is generally of poor quality; however, this tree has good potential for the production of pulp, possibly boxwood, and other manufactured wood items.
PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY
This site has a low to medium site quality for tree production. Site index ranges from about 40 to 46 (Baker, F.S. 1925) for quaking aspen and 40 to 48 (Cochran, P.H. 1979) for the white fir.
Productivity Class: 5
CMAI*: Quaking aspen - 16 to 21 ft3/ac/yr;
1.1 to 1.5 m3/ha/yr.
White fir - 67 to 77 ft3/ac/yr;
4.7 to 5.4 m3/ha/yr.
*CMAI: is the culmination of mean annual increment or highest average growth rate of the stand in the units specified.
Fuelwood Production: White fir - 45 to 55 cords per acre for stands averaging 30 to 40 feet in height and 70 years of age. Quaking aspen - 5 to 20 cords per acre for stands averaging 50 to 60 feet in height and 60 to 80 years of age. There are about 203,000 gross Bristish Thermal Unists (BTUs) of heat energy per cubic foot of quaking aspen wood and about 208,000 gross BTUs per cubic foot of white fir wood. Firewood is commonly measured in cords, or a stacked unit equivalent to 128 cubic feet. Assuming an average of 75 cubic feet of solid volume wood per cord, there are about 16 million BTUs of heat value in a cord of white fir and about 15 million BTUs of heat value in a cord of quaking aspen.
Tree volume per acre:
White fir - 3600 to 4500 cu ft/ac for stands averaging 30 to 40 feet in height and 70 years of age.
Quaking aspen - 400 to 1600 cu ft/ac for stands averaging 50 to 60 feet in height and 60 to 80 years of age.
MANAGEMENT GUIDES AND INTERPRETATIONS
1. LIMITATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
a. Potential for sheet and rill erosion is moderate to severe depending on slope.
b. Severe equipment limitations due to steep slopes.
c. Proper spacing is the key to a well managed, multiple use and multi-product woodland.
2. ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS
a. Adequately protect from uncontrolled burning.
b. Protect soils from accelerated erosion.
c. Apply proper grazing management.
3. SILVICULTURAL PRACTICES
a. Harvest cut selectively (or in small patches size dependent upon site conditions) to enhance forage production.
1) Thinning and improvement cutting - Removal of poorly formed, diseased and low vigor trees.
2) Harvest cutting - Selectively harvest surplus trees to achieve desired spacing. Save large, healthy, full-crowned trees. Do not select only "high grade" trees during harvest.
b. Selective tree removal on suitable sites to enhance forage production and manage site reproduction.
c. Pest control - Use necessary and approved control for specific pests or diseases.
d. Fire hazard - Fire is usually not a problem in mature stands; however, even a light fire may kill thin-barked aspen trees.Other products
Poles for fences and buildings, fuelwood and some sawed lumber have been the traditional uses of quaking aspen. This tree has considerable potential for increased utilization. It makes excellent pulp. Some is used for the production of excelsior, door corestock and boxwood. An undesirable characteristic of the quaking aspen is its heavy drain on available water in the soil. White fir is a valuable ornamental tree. White fir is also used extensively in the Christmas tree industry. White fir needles were used to make tea by Native Americans.
Other information
Quaking aspens are used to stabilize soil and watersheds. The trees produce abundant litter that contains more nitrogen, phosphorus, potash and calcium than leaf litter of most other hardwoods. The litter decays rapidly, forming nutrient-rich humus that may amount to 25 tons per acre (oven-dry basis). The humus reduces runoff and aids in percolation and recharge of ground water. Mountain brome is an excellent native bunchgrass for seeding alone or in mixtures in disturbed areas, including depleted rangelands, burned areas, roadways, mined lands, and degraded riparian zones. Slender wheatgrass is widely used for revegetating disturbed lands. Slender wheatgrass is a short-lived perennial with good seedling vigor. It germinates and establishes quickly when seeded making it a good choice for quick cover on disturbed sites. It persists long enough for other, slower developing species to establish. It is especially valuable for use in saline soils. It has been used for rehabilitating mine spoils, livestock ranges, and wildlife habitat and watershed areas.
Supporting information
Type locality
Location 1: White Pine County, NV Latitude 38° 41′ 1″ Longitude 114° 49′ 51″ General legal description About 1 mile north of Mt. Grafton summit in an unsurveyed area, White Pine County, Nevada. Other references
Baker, F. S. 1925. Aspen in the Central Rocky Mountain Region. USDA-NRCS Montrose, CO.
Baker, F. S. 1925. Aspen in the central Rocky Mountain region. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bulletin 1291. Washington D.C. p. 47
Blaisdell, J. P. 1953. Ecological effects of planned burning of sagebrush-grass range on the upper Snake River Plains. Technical Bulletin 1075. US Dept. of Agriculture, Washington D.C. p. 39
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cochran, P.H. 1979. Gross Yields for Even-Aged Stands of Douglas Fir and White Fir East of the Cascades in Oregon and Washington. USDA-Forest Service Research Paper PNW-263, Pac NW For & Rng Exp Sta, Portland, Oregon.
Crane, M. F. and W. C. Fischer. 1986. Fire ecology of the forest habitat types of central Idaho. p. 86.
Daubenmire, R. 1970. Steppe vegetation of Washington. Technical Bulletin 62. Washington State University, College of Agriculture, Washington Agriculture Experiment Station, Pullman, WA.
Daubenmire, R. 1975. Plant succession on abandoned fields, and fire influences in a steppe area in southeastern Washington. Northwest Science 49:36-48.
Davidson, Ross W., T. Hinds, F. Hawksworth. 1959. Decay of aspen in Colorado. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Station Paper 45. Fort Collins, Colo. p. 14
DeByle, N. V., and R.P. Winokur, editors. 1985. Aspen: Ecology and Management in the Western United States. General Technical Report RM-119, Rocky Mtn For & Rng Exp Sta, FS, USDA.
DeByle, N.V., et al. 1989. Forage Quality in Burned and Un-burned Aspen Communities. Research Paper INT-404. Inter. Res. Sta., FS, USDA.
Debyle, Norbert V., and Robert P. Winokur, editors. 1985. Aspen: ecology and management in the western United States. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-119. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colo. p. 283
Debyle, N. V., C.D. Bevins, W.C. Fischer. 1987. Wildfire occurrence in aspen in the interior western United States. Western jounal of applied forestry 2: 73-76.
Dayton, W. 1937. Range Plant Handbook. USDA, Forest Service. Bull.
Eyre, F.H. (editor). 1980. Forest Cover Types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, D.C.
Fechner, G. H., and Barrows, J. S. 1976. Aspen stands as wildfire fuel breaks. Aspen bibliography. Paper 5029. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/aspen_bib/5029
Fire Effects Information System (Online; http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/).
Frey, B. R., V. J. Lieffers, E. H. Hogg, and S. M. Landhäusser. 2004. Predicting landscape patterns of aspen dieback: mechanisms and knowledge gaps. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34:1379-1390.
Hallsten, G.P., Q.D. Skinner, A.A. Beetle. 1987. Grasses of Wyoming. 3d ed. Laramie: University of Wyoming, Agricultural Experiement Station. 432 p.
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.
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/
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.
Kay, C. E. 1997. Is aspen doomed?. Aspen bibliography. Paper 1478.
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/aspen_bib/1478
Krebill, R. G. 1972. Mortality of aspen on the Gros Ventre elk winter range. Aspen Bibliography. Paper 5398. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/aspen_bib/5398
Kufeld, R. C. 1973. Foods eaten by the Rocky Mountain Elk. Journal of Range Management 26:106-113.
Leege, T. A., D. J. Herman, and B. Zamora. 1981. Effects of cattle grazing on mountain meadows in Idaho. Journal of Range Management 34:324-328.
Leege, T. A. and W. O. Hickey. 1971. Sprouting of northern Idaho shrubs after prescribed burning. The Journal of Wildlife Management 35:508-515.
Meinecke, E. P. 1929. Quaking aspen: A study in applied forest pathology. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin 155. Washington D.C. p. 34
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.
Monsen, S. B., R. Stevens, S. C. Walker, and N. E. West. 1996. The competitive influence of seeded smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyron intermedium) within aspen-mountain brush communities of central Utah. In: Rangelands in a Sustainable Biosphere: Proceedings of the Fifth International Rangeland Congress, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 23-28 July, 1995. Volume 1.
Monsen, S. B., R. Stevens, and N. L. Shaw. 2004. Grasses. Pp. 295-424 In: S.B. Monsen, R. Stevens [eds.] Restoring Western Ranges and Wildlands, vol. 2. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol-2. USDA: Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Mueggler, W. F. 1967. Response of mountain grassland vegetation to clipping in southwestern Montana. Ecology 48:942-949.
Neuenschwander, L. 1980. Broadcast burning of sagebrush in the winter. Journal of Range Management 33:233-236.
Nimir, M. B. and G. F. Payne. 1978. Effects of spring burning on a mountain range. Journal of Range Management 31:259-263.
Noste, N. V. and C. L. Bushey. 1987. Fire response of shrubs of dry forest habitat types in Montana and Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-239.
Potter, Donald A. 1998. Forested Communities of the Upper Montane in the Central and Southern Sierra Nevada. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-169. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research
Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 319 p.
Strand, Eva K., L. A. Vierling, S. C. Bunting, P. E. Gessler. 2009. Quantifying successional rates in western aspen woodlands: Current conditions, future predictions. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 1705-1715.
Stringham, T.K., P. Novak-Echenique, P. Blackburn, C. Coombs, D. Snyder and A. Wartgow. 2015. Final Report for USDA Ecological Site Description State-and-Transition Models, Major Land Resource Area 28A and 28B Nevada. University of Nevada Reno, Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 2015-01. p. 1524.
Tilley, D. J., D. Ogle, L. St. John, L. Holzworth, W. Crowder, and M. Majerus. 2004. Mountain Brome. USDA NRCS plant guide. USDA NRCS Plant Materials Center. USDA NRCS Idaho State Office, Idaho. p. 5
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.
USDA-NRCS Plants Database (Online; http://www.plants.usda.gov).
Vose, J. M. and A. S. White. 1991. Biomass response mechanisms of understory species the first year after prescribed burning in an Arizona ponderosa-pine community. Forest Ecology and Management 40:175-187.
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.
Young, R. P. 1983. Fire as a vegetation management tool in rangelands of the intermountain region. In S.B. Monsen, N. Shaw [eds.] Proceedings: Managing intermountain rangelands - improvement of range and wildlife habitats Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-157. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. P. 18-31.
Ziegenhagen, L. L. 2003. Shrub reestablishment following fire in the mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt. ssp. vaseyana (Rydb.) Beetle) alliance. Thesis. 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
RK
Rangeland health reference sheet
Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health is a qualitative assessment protocol used to determine ecosystem condition based on benchmark characteristics described in the Reference Sheet. A suite of 17 (or more) indicators are typically considered in an assessment. The ecological site(s) representative of an assessment location must be known prior to applying the protocol and must be verified based on soils and climate. Current plant community cannot be used to identify the ecological site.
Author(s)/participant(s) Contact for lead author Date Approved by Approval date Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on Annual Production Indicators
-
Number and extent of rills:
-
Presence of water flow patterns:
-
Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes:
-
Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, lichen, moss, plant canopy are not bare ground):
-
Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies:
-
Extent of wind scoured, blowouts and/or depositional areas:
-
Amount of litter movement (describe size and distance expected to travel):
-
Soil surface (top few mm) resistance to erosion (stability values are averages - most sites will show a range of values):
-
Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type of structure and A-horizon color and thickness):
-
Effect of community phase composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration and runoff:
-
Presence and thickness of compaction layer (usually none; describe soil profile features which may be mistaken for compaction on this site):
-
Functional/Structural Groups (list in order of descending dominance by above-ground annual-production or live foliar cover using symbols: >>, >, = to indicate much greater than, greater than, and equal to):
Dominant:
Sub-dominant:
Other:
Additional:
-
Amount of plant mortality and decadence (include which functional groups are expected to show mortality or decadence):
-
Average percent litter cover (%) and depth ( in):
-
Expected annual annual-production (this is TOTAL above-ground annual-production, not just forage annual-production):
-
Potential invasive (including noxious) species (native and non-native). List species which BOTH characterize degraded states and have the potential to become a dominant or co-dominant species on the ecological site if their future establishment and growth is not actively controlled by management interventions. Species that become dominant for only one to several years (e.g., short-term response to drought or wildfire) are not invasive plants. Note that unlike other indicators, we are describing what is NOT expected in the reference state for the ecological site:
-
Perennial plant reproductive capability:
Print Options
Sections
Font
AAAAOther
PrintThe Ecosystem Dynamics Interpretive Tool is an information system framework developed by the USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, and New Mexico State University.
Accessibility statement
