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 site occurs on mountain sideslopes on all exposures. Slopes range from 30 to 75 percent, but slope gradients of 30 to 50 percent are typical. Elevations are 9500 to about 10,800 feet.
The climate is subhumid, continental with cold, snowy and cool dry summers. Average annual precipitation is 24 to greater than 30 inches. Mean annual air temperature is 19 to 35 degrees F. The frost-free period is about 30 to 50 days.
The soils associated with this site are very deep and well drained. Soil profile is modified with 70 to 90 percent rock fragments predominately gravel. Soil surface is covered with approximately 65 percent gravel. The mollic epipedon is 7 to 16 inches in thickness. Permeability is moderate in the upper horizons and rapid to very rapid in lower horizons.
The reference state is dominated by mountain big sagebrush, slender wheatgrass and Letterman’s needlegrass. Production ranges from 600 to 1000 pounds per acre.
Associated sites
F028BY067NV POTR5/SYOR2/BRMA4-ELTR7
R028BY070NV MOUNTAIN LOAM 16+ P.Z.
Similar sites
R028BY024NV LOAMY BOTTOM 14+ P.Z.
LECI4 dominant grass; more productive site
R028BY033NV GRAVELLY CLAY 14+ P.Z.
PSSPS dominant grass
R028BY085NV CALCAREOUS LOAM 16+ P.Z.
PSSPS-ACHNA codominant grasses; more productive site
R028BY015NV LOAMY SLOPE 12-16 P.Z.
PSSPS dominant grass; more productive site
R028BY030NV LOAMY 12-16 P.Z.
PSSPS dominant grass; more productive site
R028BY070NV MOUNTAIN LOAM 16+ P.Z.
PSSPS dominant grass
R028BY079NV SHALLOW LOAM 10-14 P.Z.
PSSPS-ACHY codominant grasses; less productive site
R028BY029NV LOAMY 16+ P.Z.
BRMA codominant grass; more productive site
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree Not specified
Shrub (1) Artemisia tridentata var. vaseyana
Herbaceous (1) Elymus trachycaulus
(2) Achnatherum lettermaniiPhysiographic features
This site occurs on mountain backslopes and shoulders on all exposures. Slopes range from 30 to 75 percent, but slope gradients of 30 to 50 percent are typical. Elevations are 9500 to about 10,900 feet.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Mountain slope
Elevation 9500 – 10900 ft Slope 30 – 75 % Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
The climate associated with this site is semiarid, characterized by cold, moist winters and warm, dry summers.
Average annual precipitation ranges from 24 to greater than 30 inches. Mean annual air temperature is about 19 to 35 degrees F. The frost-free period is about 30 to 50 days.
There is no climate station available for this site.Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (average) 0 days Freeze-free period (average) 40 days Precipitation total (average) 30 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 very deep and well drained. The soils are formed in colluvium and residuum derived from quartzite. The soil profile is modified with 70 to 90 percent rock fragments predominately gravel. The soil surface is covered with approximately 65 percent gravel. The mollic epipedon is 7 to 16 inches in thickness. Permeability is moderate in the upper horizons and rapid to very rapid in lower horizons. The soil moisture regime is typic xeric and the soil temperature regime is cryic. The soil series associated with this site include: Steepshrub.
Steepshrub is classified as a loamy-skeletal, mixed superactive Xeric Haplocryolls. Surface texture is a very gravelly loam. A mollic epipedon occurs from 2 to 12 inches and a cambic horizon occurs from 12 to 23 inches. Clay content average from 8 to 24 percent. Reaction is slightly acid or neutral.Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Colluvium – quartzite
Surface texture (1) Very gravelly loam
Family particle size (1) Loamy
Drainage class Well drained Permeability class Slow Soil depth 72 – 84 in Surface fragment cover <=3" 35 – 65 % Surface fragment cover >3" 0 – 40 % Available water capacity
(0-40in)3.3 – 3.4 in Calcium carbonate equivalent
(0-40in)Not specified Electrical conductivity
(0-40in)0 – 2 mmhos/cm Sodium adsorption ratio
(0-40in)Not specified Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-40in)6.6 – 7.3 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)35 – 90 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 40 % 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).
The 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 m. (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 (Comstock and Ehleringer 1992). The perennial bunchgrasses generally have somewhat shallower root systems than the shrubs, but root densities are often as high as or higher than those of shrubs in the upper 0.5 m but taper off more rapidly than shrubs. General differences in root depth distributions between grasses and shrubs results in resource partitioning in these shrub/grass systems.
Mountain big sagebrush and gooseberry currant are generally long-lived; therefore it is not necessary for new individuals to recruit every year for perpetuation of the stand. Infrequent large recruitment events and simultaneous low, continuous recruitment is the foundation of population maintenance (Noy-Meir 1973). Survival of the seedlings is dependent on adequate moisture conditions. Aroga moth can partially or entirely kill individual big sagebrush plants (Furniss and Barr 1975), however it is unlikely that entire stands of sagebrush will be severely affected in sites at high elevations such as this.
The perennial bunchgrasses that are co-dominant with the shrubs include slender wheatgrass, Letterman's needlegrass, muttongrass, Columbia needlegrass, and mountain brome. These species generally have somewhat shallower root systems than the shrubs, but root densities are often as high as or higher than those of shrubs in the upper 0.5 m but taper off more rapidly than shrubs. 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 the winter. The invasibility of plant communities is often linked to resource availability. Disturbance can decrease resource uptake due to damage or mortality of the native species and depressed competition or can increase resource uptake by the decomposition of dead plant material following disturbance. The invasion of sagebrush communities by cheatgrass has been linked to disturbances (fire, abusive grazing) that have resulted in fluctuations in resources (Chambers et al 2007). Dobrowolski et al. (1990) cite multiple authors on the extent of the soil profile exploited by the competitive exotic annual cheatgrass. Specifically, the depth of rooting is dependent on the size the plant achieves and in competitive environments cheatgrass roots were found to penetrate only 15 cm whereas isolated plants and pure stands were found to root at least 1 m in depth with some plants rooting as deep as 1.5 to 1.7 m.
This ecological site has high resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasion. Resilience increases with elevation, aspect, precipitation, and nutrient availability. Long-term disturbance response may be influenced by small differences in landscape topography. Concave areas receive run-in from adjacent landscapes and consequently retain more moisture to support the growth of deep-rooted perennial grasses whereas convex areas where runoff occurs are slightly less resilient and may have more shallow-rooted perennial grasses (i.e. muttongrass). North slopes are also more resilient than south slopes because lower soil surface temperatures operate to keep moisture content higher on northern exposures. Two possible alternative stable states have been identified for this site.
Fire Ecology:
Presettlement fire return intervals in mountain big sagebrush communities varied from 15 to 25 years. Mountain big sagebrush is highly susceptible to injury from fire. It is often top-killed by fire and will not resprout. Fire kills gooseberry, however, regeneration is favored by fire because scarification of soil-stored seed generally enhances germination in gooseberry. The effects of fire on slender wheatgrass are dependent on its growth form. Tall, decadent plants with many leaves sustain the most fire damage, while those with short, sparse growth form, is the least likely to sustain damage to the root system during a fire. Little specific information is available on adaptations of Letterman's needlegrass to fire. It is morphologically similar to Columbia needlegrass, which is only slightly to moderately damaged by fire. Season of burn affects the plant's ability to survive a fire. Post-fire regeneration is through seeding and tillering.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 1
Reference StateReference State 1.0: The Reference State 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. Management should focus on maintaining high species diversity to promote site resiliency.
Community 1.1
Community PhaseThis community phase is dominated by mountain big sagebrush, slender wheatgrass and Lettermna's needlegrass. Potential vegetative composition is approximately 40% grasses, 10% forbs and 50% shrubs. Approximate ground cover (basal and canopy) is 60 to 70 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)Shrub/Vine 300 400 500 Grass/Grasslike 240 320 400 Forb 60 80 100 Total 600 800 1000 Community 1.2
Community PhaseMountain big sagebrush is reduced and the perennial bunchgrasses in the understory increase. Snowberry, goldenbush, and rabbitbrush are sprouting.
Community 1.3
Community PhaseMountain big sagebrush increases in the absence of disturbance or with grazing management that favors shrubs. Decadent sagebrush dominates the overstory and the deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses in the understory are reduced either from competition with shrubs or from grazing management.
Pathway a
Community 1.1 to 1.2Low severity fire creates sagebrush/grass mosaic; higher intensity fires significantly reduce sagebrush cover and lead to early/mid seral community dominated by grasses and forbs.
Pathway b
Community 1.1 to 1.3Absence of fire over time allows for sagebrush to increase; inappropriate grazing may also reduce fine fuels and lead to reduced fire frequency and increased shrub cover.
Pathway a
Community 1.2 to 1.1Absence of fire over time allows mountain big sagebrush to increase. Grazing management that favors shrubs may accelerate this transition.
Pathway a
Community 1.3 to 1.1Aroga moth infestation would reduce the mountain big sagebrush overstory and allow the perennial bunchgrasses to recover.
Pathway b
Community 1.3 to 1.2Fire would reduce the mountain big sagebrush and allow the perennial bunchgrasses to dominate the site.
State 2
Current Potential StateThis state is similar to the Reference State 1.0 with similar community phases. 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. 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 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. Management would be to maintain high diversity of desired species to promote organic matter inputs and prevent the dispersal and seed production of the non-native invasive species.
Community 2.1
Community PhaseThis community phase is dominated by mountain big sagebrush, slender wheatgrass and Lettermna's needlegrass. Potential vegetative composition is approximately 40% grasses, 10% forbs and 50% shrubs. Approximate ground cover (basal and canopy) is 60 to 70 percent. Annual non-native species are present in minor amounts.Cheatgrass is the species most likely to invade.
Community 2.2
Community PhaseMountain big sagebrush is reduced. Snowberry, goldenbrush and rabbitbrush may be sprouting or may dominate the overstory. Perennial bunchgrasses in the understory increase and dominate. Annual non-native species are stable to increasing.
Community 2.3
Community PhaseMountain 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 grazing management. Perennial forbs may increase with inappropriate herbivory. Annual non-natives are present.
Community 2.4
Community Phase (at risk)This phase is characterized by an increase of annual non-native species such as cheatgrass in the understory. Mountain big sagebrush and perennial bunchgrasses such as bluebunch wheatgrass still co-dominate. This site is unlikely to go to an Annual State due to the high resiliency of this site but this phase is very at risk of another fire. Years with heavy spring precipitation will cause an increase in the amount of cheatgrass in the understory. See potential resilience differences for notes on this phase.
Pathway a
Community 2.1 to 2.2Low severity fire creates sagebrush/grass mosaic; high intensity fires significantly reduce sagebrush cover and lead to early/mid seral community dominated by grasses and forbs.
Pathway b
Community 2.1 to 2.3Absence of fire over time allows for sagebrush to increase. Inappropriate grazing may also reduce fine fuels and lead to reduced fire frequency and increased shrub cover.
Pathway a
Community 2.2 to 2.1Time without disturbance allows for mountain big sagebrush to recover as well as other perennial bunchgrasses.
Pathway b
Community 2.2 to 2.4A disturbance such as fire or brush treatment, when applied in the presence of non-native annual grasses like cheatgrass allows these non-natives to increase in abundance. This pathway occurs in years with heavy spring precipitation.
Pathway a
Community 2.3 to 2.1An Aroga moth infestation that reduces shrub cover or a change in management that encourages growth of bunchgrasses allows for perennial bunchgrasses to increase. Release from drought conditions may also cause an increase in the amount of grasses.
Pathway b
Community 2.3 to 2.2Fire reduces mountain big sagebrush overstory and allows for perennial bunchgrasses to increase.
Transition A
State 1 to 2Trigger: Introduction of annual non-native species Slow variable: Over time the annual non-native plants 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.
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 240–320 Letterman's needlegrass ACLE9 Achnatherum lettermanii 120–160 – slender wheatgrass ELTR7 Elymus trachycaulus 120–160 – 2 Secondary Perennial Grasses 40–80 Columbia needlegrass ACNE9 Achnatherum nelsonii 4–24 – pine needlegrass ACPI2 Achnatherum pinetorum 4–24 – mountain brome BRMA4 Bromus marginatus 4–24 – oniongrass MEBU Melica bulbosa 4–24 – muttongrass POFE Poa fendleriana 4–24 – Forb3 Perennial 60–100 common yarrow ACMI2 Achillea millefolium 4–16 – rockcress ARABI Arabidopsis 4–16 – arrowleaf balsamroot BASA3 Balsamorhiza sagittata 4–16 – lupine LUPIN Lupinus 4–16 – Watson's penstemon PEWA Penstemon watsonii 4–16 – 4 Annual 8–16 Shrub/Vine5 Primary Shrubs 320–400 mountain big sagebrush ARTRV Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 240–280 – gooseberry currant RIMO2 Ribes montigenum 240–280 – 6 Secondary Shrubs 16–40 yellow rabbitbrush CHVIL4 Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. lanceolatus 8–16 – whitestem goldenbush ERDI14 Ericameria discoidea 8–16 – snowberry SYMPH Symphoricarpos 8–16 – 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 2.4 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Animal community
Livestock Interpretations: This site is suitable for livestock grazing. Considerations for grazing management including timing, intensity and duration of grazing.
The perennial bunchgrasses on this site provide valuable forage for all classes of livestock.
Stocking rates vary over time depending upon season of use, climate variations, site, and previous and current management goals. A safe starting stocking rate is an estimated stocking rate that is fine-tuned by the client by adaptive management through the year and from year to year. Inappropriate grazing management leads to a decline in perennial bunchgrasses and an increase in big sagebrush. Muttongrass many increase temporarily with further degradation. Invasion of annual weedy forbs and cheatgrass could occur with further grazing degradation, leading to an increase in bare ground. A combination of overgrazing and prolonged drought may lead to soil redistribution, increased bare ground and a loss in plant production.
Wildlife Interpretations:
This site provides valuable wildlife habitat for several species. Many wildlife species are dependent on the sagebrush ecosystem including the greater sage grouse, sage sparrow, pygmy rabbit and the sagebrush vole. Dobkin and Sauder (2004) identified 61 species, including 24 mammals and 37 birds, associated with the shrub-steppe habitats of the Intermountain West. Mountain big sagebrush is important to wildlife for both food and cover. Mountain big sagebrush is highly preferred and nutritious winter forage for mule deer, elk and pronghorn. Elk (Alces alces) and pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) prefer mountain big sagebrush over basin and Wyoming sagebrush (Beale and Smith 1970, Wambolt 1996). A study by Brown (1977) determined that desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelisoni) preferred big sagebrush over other shrub types; however, the variety was not noted. Welch and Wagstaff (1992) noted in a study near Provo, Utah, mountain big sagebrush was highly preferred winter forage of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) over other available forage. Other studies have determined, in the same study area, that mountain big sagebrush is preferred by both wintering domestic sheep as well as mule deer (Welch et al. 1986). The perennial grasses on this site provide valuable forage for several species of wildlife. Deer and elk make heavy use of muttongrass, especially in early spring when other green forage is scarce. Depending upon availability of other nutritious forage, deer may use muttongrass in all seasons. Muttongrass cures well and is an important fall and winter deer food in some areas. Letterman’s needlegrass also provides valuable forage for both livestock and wildlife (Taylor 2000).
Hydrological functions
Runoff is high. Permeability is slow.
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
Native Americans used big sagebrush leaves and branches for medicinal teas, and the leaves as a fumigant. Bark was woven into mats, bags and clothing. Currants (Ribes spp.) can be used for making jam, jelly, or pie. Some western Indian tribes used currants for making pemmican.
Other information
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. Letterman’s needlegrass has been used successfully in revegetating mine spoils. This species also has good potential for erosion control.
Supporting information
Type locality
Location 1: White Pine County, NV Township/Range/Section T17N R65E S11 UTM zone N UTM northing 704389 UTM easting 4358663 Latitude 39° 21′ 11″ Longitude 114° 37′ 40″ General legal description About 0.6 mile east of end of Berry Creek canyon road, White Pine 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:120-125.
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., 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.
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.
Busso, C. A. and J. H. Richards. 1995. Drought and clipping effects on tiller demography andgrowth of two tussock grasses in Utah. Journal of Arid Environments 29:239-251.
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.
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:138-141.
Crawford, J.A., R.A. Olson, N.E. West, J.C. Mosley, M.A. Schroeder, T.D. Whitson, R.F. Miller, M.A. Gregg, and C.S. Boyd. 2004. Ecology and management of sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. Journal of Range Management. 57: 2-19.
Dobrowolski, J.P., Caldwell, M.M. and Richards, J.H. 1990. Basin hydrology and plant root systems. In: Plant Biology of the Basin and Range. Springer-Verlag Pub., New York, NY.
Driscoll, R. S. 1964. A Relict Area in the Central Oregon Juniper Zone. Ecology 45:345-353.
Fire Effects Information System (Online; http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/).
Furniss, M. M. and W. F. Barr. 1975. Insects affecting important native shrubs of the northwestern United States. US Intermountain Forest And Range Experiment Station. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT INT-19.
Garrison, G. A. 1953. Effects of Clipping on Some Range Shrubs. Journal of Range Management 6:309-317.
Houghton, J.G., C.M. Sakamoto, and R.O. Gifford. 1975. Nevada’s Weather and Climate, Special Publication 2. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Mackay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno, NV.
Houston, D. B. 1973. Wildfires in northern Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 54:1111-1117.
Kitchen, S. G. and E. D. McArthur. 2007. Big and black sagebrush landscapes. Pages 73-95 in Fire ecology and mangement of the major ecosystems of southern Utah. Gen. Teck. Rep. RMRMS-GTR-202. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.
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.
Kuntz, D. E. 1982. Plant response following spring burning in an Artemisia tridentata subsp. vaseyana/Festuca idahoensis habitat type. Dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.
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.
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., T. J. Svejcar, and J. A. Rose. 2000. Impacts of western juniper on plant community composition and structure. Journal of Range Management:574-585.
Miller, R.F., J.C. Chambers, D.A. Pyke, F.B. Pierson, and C.J. Williams. 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, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 126 p.
Mueggler, W. F. 1975. Rate and Pattern of Vigor Recovery in Idaho Fescue and Bluebunch Wheatgrass. Journal of Range Management 28:198-204.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2004. The North American Monsoon. Reports to the Nation. National Weather Service, Climate Prediction Center. Available online: http://www.weather.gov/
Neuenschwander, L. 1980. Broadcast burning of sagebrush in the winter. Journal of Range Management: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 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, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Jan., 1987), pp. 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. 1981a. Relative palatability of seven Artemisia taxa to mule deer and sheep. Journal of Range Management:397-399.
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.
Taylor, Jennifer L. 2000. Achnatherum lettermanii. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/
Uresk, D. W., J. F. Cline, and W. H. Rickard. 1976. Impact of wildfire on three perennial grasses in south-central Washington. Journal of Range Management 29:309-310.
USDA-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.
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. Pages 18-31 in Managing intermountain rangelands - improvement of range and wildlife habitats. USDA, Forest Service.
Contributors
CJA
T.Stringham/P.Novak-EcheniqueRangeland 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) P.NOVAK-ECHENIQUE Contact for lead author State Rangeland Management Specialist Date 05/20/2013 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 may occur after summer convection storms or rapid snowmelt. These are short (<1m) and will heal during the next growing season. -
Presence of water flow patterns:
Waterflow patterns are none to rare. A few may occur after summer convection storms or rapid snowmelt. These are short (<1 m), meandering and not connected. -
Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes:
Pedestals are none to rare. Occurrence is usually limited to areas of waterflow patterns. A few small terracettes may occur on steeper slopes. -
Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, lichen, moss, plant canopy are not bare ground):
Bare ground is ± 15-25%, depending on amount of rock fragments -
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 large rainfall 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 4 to 6 on most soil textures found on this site. -
Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type of structure and A-horizon color and thickness):
Surface structure is platy or fine granular. Soil surface colors are dark browns and soils are typified by a mollic epipedon. Surface textures are very gravelly loams. Organic matter of the surface 2 to 3 inches is typically 1 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 (i.e., needlegrasses) 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):
Compacted layers are none. Subangular block structure is not to be interpreted as compacted layers. -
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:
Reference State: Deep-rooted, cool season, perennial bunchgrasses (slender wheatgrass, needlegrasses > tall shrubs (i.e., mountain big sagebrush)Sub-dominant:
shallow-rooted, cool season, perennial bunchgrasses > associated shrubs > deep-rooted, cool season, perennial forbs = fibrous, shallow-rooted, cool season, perennial and annual forbsOther:
grass-like plantsAdditional:
With an extended fire return interval the shrub component will increase at the expense of the herbaceous component. -
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):
Under canopy and within plant interspaces (± 35-50%) and depth of litter 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 (end of July) ±1200 lbs/ac; Favorable years ±1000 lbs/ac and unfavorable years ±600 lbs/ac -
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:
Potential invaders include cheatgrass and annual mustards. -
Perennial plant reproductive capability:
All functional groups should reproduce in average (or normal) and above average growing season years. Reduced growth will occur during extreme or extended drought periods.
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
