Animal community

--Wildlife Interpretation--
Small herds of mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and elk may be seen grazing/browsing on these sites, especially when near water sources and in winter months. The hot climate and lack of water favors small mammals, which have an easier time finding shelter, food, and water. Many species of rats, mice, squirrels, bats, and chipmunks can be observed, along with coyotes and foxes. On sites where Utah juniper is invading or where Utah juniper sites are adjacent, birds are the most visible wildlife species that can be observed; however sightings may be rare due to the sparseness of tree canopies. Species may include juniper titmice, scrub jays, pinyon jays, and black throated gray warblers, and sparrows. Lizards are the most visible and can be observed during the day. Species may include the northern whiptail, desert spiny, and the colorful western collard lizard (NPS.gov, 2008). Plant Community 5.1 (cheatgrass monoculture) is especially difficult for wildlife use because forage and structural diversity is limited.

--Grazing Interpretations--
This site provides good year round grazing conditions for livestock due to its accessibility and available nutritious forage. Yet, this site may lack natural perennial water sources, which will influence the suitability for livestock grazing. Indian ricegrass, mesa dropseed, needle-and-thread, James galleta, sandhill muhly, and sand dropseed provide good forage year round for all classes of livestock. Shrubs, including fourwing saltbush, Cutler jointfir, and sand sagebrush provide livestock with browse year round. Cutler's jointfir is typically only grazed in the fall and winter due to its poor nutritional value in the spring and summer. Forb composition and annual forage production depend primarily on precipitation amounts and thus create challenges for those making livestock grazing management decisions. Forb composition should be monitored for species diversity, as well as poisonous or injurious plant communities which may be detrimental to livestock if grazed. Before making specific grazing management recommendations, an onsite evaluation must be made.

Hydrological functions

The soils associated with this ecological site are generally in Hydrological Soil Group A. On these sites runoff potential is low and infiltration rates are high, depending on slope and ground cover/health (National Engineering Handbook). Hydrological groups are used in equations that estimate runoff from rainfall. These estimates are needed for solving hydrologic problems that arise in planning watershed-protection and flood-prevention projects and for designing structures for the use, control and disposal of water. In areas similar to the reference state where ground cover is adequate infiltration is greater and runoff potential is lower. In areas where ground cover is less than 50%, infiltration is reduced and runoff potential is increased. Heavy use by domestic livestock affects hydrology in two ways. Heavy grazing can alter the hydrology by decreasing plant cover and increasing bare ground. Fire can also affect hydrology, but its impact is variable. Fire intensity, fuel type, soil, climate, and topography can each have different influences. Fires can increase areas of bare ground and hydrophobic layers that reduce infiltration and increase runoff. (National Range and Pasture Handbook, 2003)

Recreational uses

Recreation activities include aesthetic value and good opportunities for hiking, horseback riding, hunting, and off-road vehicle use. Due to the high erosion potential after a surface disturbance, care should be taken when planning recreational activities. Camp sites are usually limited due to lack of sheltering trees or rock outcrop.

Wood products

None

Other information

--Threatened and Endagered Species--
This section will be populated as more information becomes available.

--Poisonous/Toxic Plant Species--
The toxic plant associated with this site include broom snakeweed and Russian thistle.

Broom snakeweed contains steroids, terpenoids, saponins, and flavones that can cause abortions or reproductive failure in sheep and cattle, however cattle are most susceptible. These toxins are most abundant during active growth and leafing stage. Cattle and sheep will typically only graze broom snakeweed when other forage is unavailable and generally in winter when toxicity levels are at their lowest (Knight and Walter, 2001).

Russian thistle can cause nitrate and to a lesser extent oxalate poisoning, which affects all classes of livestock. The buildup of nitrates in these plants is highly dependent upon environmental factors, such as after a rain storm during a drought, cool/cloudy days, and soils high in nitrogen and low in sulfur and phosphorus, all which cause increased nitrate accumulation. Nitrate collects in the stems and can persist throughout the growing season. Clinical signs of nitrate poisoning include drowsiness, weakness, muscular tremors, increased heart and respiratory rates, staggering gait, and death. Conversely, oxalate poisoning causes kidney failure; clinical signs include muscle tremors, tetany, weakness, and depression. Poisoning generally occurs when livestock consume and are not accustomed to grazing oxalate-containing plants. Animals with prior exposure to oxalates have increased numbers of oxalate-degrading rumen microflora and thus are able to degrade the toxin before clinical poisoning can occur. (Knight and Walter, 2001)

Sand sagebrush is potentially toxic to horses, but not to cattle, sheep, goats, and wild ruminants. Sand sagebrush contains both sesquiterpene lactones and monoterpenes that affect the nervous systems, similar to locoweed poisoning. Horses which consume sand sagebrush for several days will exhibit ataxia, the tendency to fall down, and other abnormal behaviors. Horses will recover one to two months after they stop consuming sand sagebrush and are fed a nutritious diet. Some horses may be able to gradually adapt to sagebrush consumption. The principle toxins in sagebrush vary considerably in quantity, they are found to be greater in the fall and winter months, when this plant is most likely consumed by horses when other, more palatable, forage is not available. (Knight and Walter, 2001)

--Invasive Plant Communities--
Generally, as ecological conditions deteriorate and perennial vegetation decreases due to disturbance (fire, over grazing, drought, off road vehicle overuse, erosion, etc.) annual forbs and grasses will invade the site. Of particular concern in semi-arid environments are cheatgrass, Russian thistle, kochia, halogeton, and annual mustards. The presence of these species depends on soil properties and moisture availability; however, these invaders are highly adaptive and can flourish in many locations. Once established, complete removal is difficult but suppression may possible.

Cheatgrass, mustard and Russian thistle are common invaders to this site, especially in lower areas that concentrate nutrients and moisture. In some cases cheatgrass has been able to establish into an intact perennial grass and shrub community, but disturbed communities are more susceptible to invasion and domination. If growing conditions are conducive to invaders and the disturbance is not removed, these plants can create dense monocultures that can alter the nutrient cycling, erosion rates, and the fire regime of the area.

Fire Ecology
The ability for an ecological site to carry fire depends primarily on the present fuel load and plant moisture content. Fire was a typical disturbance in the historic climax plant community for this ecological site. The natural fire return interval is 30-100 years, where fires typically occur in the fall. When the natural plant community is burned, perennial shrubs decrease and many successional stages can occur. Refer to the “Community Phase Data” section of this report. When the site is degraded by the presence of invasive plants, the fire return interval may be shortened due to increased flashy fuels. The shortened fire return interval in the presence of invasive annual species is often sufficient to suppress the native plant community.

Inventory data references

The data collected in 2005-2007 were in conjunction with the soil survey update for Arches and Canyonlands National Park. The vegetation data was collected in associated with a soil pit and geo-referenced. All the data is stored as hard copy files and in electronic format in the NRCS Utah State Office.

Other references

Baily, R.G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United Sates. Available http://www.fs.fed.us/land/ecosysmgmt/ecoreg1_home.html. Accessed February 27, 2008.

Belnap, J. and S.L. Phillips. 2001. Soil biota in an ungrazed grassland: response to annual grass (Bromus tectorum) invasion. Ecological Applications. 11:1261-1275

Chapin, S.F., B.H. Walker, R.J. Hobbs, D.U. Hooper, J.H. Lawton, O.E. Sala, and D. Tilman. 1997. Biotic control over the functioning of ecosystems. Science. 277:500-504

Cox R.D. and V.J. Anderson. 2004. Increasing native diversity of cheatgrass-dominated rangeland through assisted succession. Journal of Range Management. 57:203-210,

Howard, Janet L. 2003. Atriplex canescens. In: Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed on February 25, 2008.

Howard, Janet L. 1992. Salsola kali. In: Fire Effects Information System.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed on March 3, 2008.

Knight, A.P. and R.G. Walter. 2001. A guide to plant poisoning of animals in North America. Teton NewMedia. Jackson, WY.

National Engineering Handbook. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available: http://www.info.usda.gov/CED/Default.cfm#National%20Engineering%20Handbook. Accessed February 25, 2008.

NRCS. 2003. National Range and Pasture Handbook. Fort Worth, TX, USA: US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 190-VI-NRPH.

NPS.gov. 2008. Canyonlands National Park. Nature and Science. Available: http://www.nps.gov/cany/naturescience/. Accessed on January 4, 2008.

Tilley, D.J. 2007. Reintroducing native plants to the American West. Aberdeen Plant Materials Center, Aberdeen, ID, USA: US Department of Agriculture. Available: http://plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/idpmc/publications.html. Accessed February 22, 2008.

Utah Climate Summaries. 2008. Available: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmut.html. Accessed on February 25, 2008.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 2007. Utah’s federally (US F&WS) listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species. Available: http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/ViewReports/te_list.pdf. Accessed on February 25, 2008.

Woods, A.J., D.A. Lammers, S.A. Bryce, J.M. Omernik, R.L. Denton, M. Domeier, and J.A. Comstock. 2001. Ecoregions of Utah (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,175,000).

Contributors

V. Keith Wadman

Print Options