Animal community

Animal Community – Wildlife Interpretations

Landscape

The MLRA 55B landscape is characterized by mostly nearly level to gently rolling till plains with some steep slopes adjacent to streams and many poorly defined drainage channels. The continental drainage divide occurs in the east central part of the MLRA. The MLRA is located within the Prairie Pothole Region with temporary, seasonal, and semi-permanent wetlands throughout the MLRA. The MLRA includes areas of eskers, kames, and ground moraines. MLRA 55B is considered to have a continental climate with cold winters and hot summers, low humidity, light rainfall, and much sunshine. Extremes in temperature are common and characteristic of the MLRA. This area supports mid- to tall-grass prairie vegetation with American elm, bur oak, green ash, and willow species growing along the riparian zones of river systems found throughout the MLRA. Complex intermingled ecological sites create diverse grass/shrub land habitats interspersed with varying densities of linear, slope, depressional, and in-stream wetlands associated with headwater streams and tributaries of the James, Pipestem, Maple, Goose, Sheyenne, Wild Rice, and Elm Rivers. MLRA 55B is located within North and South Dakota and within the boundaries of the Prairie Pothole Region.

Three Hydrologic Unit Areas make up this MLRA. Approximately 6% drains into the Mouse River into MLRA 55A, with the balance split between the James and Sheyenne Rivers.

By the mid-19th century, over 76% of the MLRA had been converted from mid- to tall-grass prairie to annual crop production. To alleviate crop production loss from wetlands and overland flow, a system of shallow surface ditches, judicial ditches, and road ditches removes surface water in spring and during high rainfall events. Tile drainage systems have been or are being installed extensively throughout MLRA 55B for sub-surface field drainage to enhance annual crop production.

Historic Communities/Conditions within MLRA 55B:

The northern tall- and mixed-grass prairie were disturbance-driven ecosystems with fire, herbivory, and climate functions as the primary ecological drivers (either singly or often in combination). American bison roamed MLRA 55B, wintering along the Mouse River in MLRA 55A and migrating through MLRA 55B and into MLRA 56A. Many species of grassland birds, small mammals, insects, reptiles, amphibians, elk, moose, pronghorn, white-tailed deer, and large herds of American bison were historically among the inhabitants adapted to this region. Roaming herbivores, as well as several small mammals and insect species, were the primary consumers linking the grassland resources to large predators (such as the wolf, American black bear, grizzly bear) and smaller carnivores (such as the coyote, bobcat, red fox, and raptors). Extirpated species include free- ranging American bison and gray wolf (breeding). Extinct is the Rocky Mountain locust.

Present Communities/Conditions within MLRA 55B:

This area supports natural prairie vegetation characterized by western wheatgrass, green needlegrass, needle and thread, and blue grama. Little bluestem is an important species on the more sloping and shallower soils. Prairie cordgrass, northern reedgrass, big bluestem, and wheat sedge (aka slough sedge) are important species on wet soils. Western snowberry, leadplant, and prairie rose are commonly interspersed throughout the area.

Over 80% of MLRA 55B has been converted to annual crop production. These influences fragmented the landscape, reduced or eliminated ecological drivers (fire), and introduced exotic plant species including smooth brome, crested wheatgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, and leafy spurge; this further impacted plant and animal communities. The loss of the bison and fire as primary ecological drivers greatly influenced the character of the remaining native plant communities and the associated wildlife, moving towards a less diverse and more homogeneous landscape. Annual cropping is the main factor contributing to habitat fragmentation, reducing habitat quality for area- sensitive species.

Hydrological manipulation is extensive throughout the MLRA. Extensive wetland and subsurface tile drainage have taken place. Straightened segments of ephemeral and intermittent tributary streams of the James, Wild Rice, and Sheyenne River have reduced sinuosity, created oxbows, and enabled the conversion of riparian ecological sites to annual crop production. These anthropogenic impacts have reduced flood water detention and retention on the landscape. The results have been increasing storm water runoff sediment and nutrient loading to the James and Sheyenne Rivers and their tributaries (along with lakes and reservoirs within the MLRA). Large dams on the James, Pipestem and Sheyenne rivers, along with installation of instream structures have reduced aquatic species movement within the MLRA.

National wildlife refuges, waterfowl production areas, state wildlife management areas, and North and South Dakota Department of Trust Lands provide herbaceous and woody cover for wildlife. In addition, the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the United States Bureau of Reclamation manage three man-made reservoirs - Jamestown Reservoir, Pipestem Reservoir, and Lake Ashtabula for flood control, also providing fish habitat and adjacent uplands for wildlife cover. Lonetree Wildlife Management Area (WMA) is the largest state managed wildlife area covering 32,800 acres. Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge is the largest refuge consisting of 16,000 acres.

Characteristic wildlife species in this area are:

Birds: Common goldeye, bufflehead, broad-winged hawk, alder flycatcher, mourning warbler, mallard, blue-winged teal, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, killdeer, eastern and western kingbird, western meadowlark, American crow, common yellowthroat, clay-colored sparrow, vesper sparrow, red-necked grebe, Savannah sparrow, downy and hairy woodpeckers, black-capped chickadee, white-breasted nuthatch, and brown-headed cowbird.

Mammals: Northern short-tailed shrew, white-tailed jackrabbit, Franklin’s ground squirrel, thirteen- lined ground squirrel, northern pocket gopher, plains pocket gopher, western harvest mouse, deer mouse, meadow vole, meadow jumping mouse, western jumping mouse, coyote, red fox, racoon, American badger, striped skunk, white-tailed deer, elk, moose, beaver, muskrat, mink, weasel, woodchuck, and red, eastern gray and fox squirrels.

Reptiles/Amphibians: American toad, Great Plains toad, northern leopard frog, chorus frog, tiger salamander, plains garter snake, smooth green snake, wood frog, and common garter snake.

Presence of wildlife species is often determined by ecological site characteristics including grass and forb species, tree and shrub species, hydrology, aspect, and other associated ecological sites. The home ranges of a majority of species are usually larger than one ecological site or are dependent upon more than one ecological site for annual life requisites. Ecological sites offer different habitat elements as the annual life requisites change. Habitat improvement and creation must be conducted within the mobility limits of a known population for the species.

Insects play an important role in providing ecological services for plant community development. Insects that are scavengers or aid in decomposition provide the food chain baseline sustaining the carnivorous insects feeding upon them. Many insects provide the ecological services necessary for pollination, keeping plant communities healthy and productive. Insects provide a protein food source for numerous species including grassland-nesting birds, woodpeckers, woodland edge and interior species, and their young. Extensive use of insecticides for specialty crops such as soybeans, corn, and other crops has greatly reduced insects within this MLRA.

Species of Concern within MLRA 55B:

The following is a list of species considered “species of conservation priority” in the North Dakota State Wildlife Action Plan (2015) and South Dakota State Wildlife Action Plan (2014); and species listed as “threatened, endangered, or petitioned” under the Endangered Species Act within MLRA 55B at the time this section was developed:

Invertebrates: Dakota skipper, Iowa skipper, monarch butterfly, northern sandy tiger beetle, Ottoe skipper, Poweshiek skipperling, regal fritillary, yellow-banded bumble bee, and western bumble bee.

Birds: America avocet, American bittern, American kestrel, American white pelican, Baird’s sparrow, bald eagle, black-billed cuckoo, black tern, bobolink, burrowing owl, canvasback, chestnut-collared longspur, Dickcissel, ferruginous hawk, Franklin’s gull, grasshopper sparrow, horned grebe, lark bunting, LeConte’s sparrow, lesser scaup, marbled godwit, Nelson’s sparrow, northern goshawk, northern harrier, northern pintail, osprey (migration), peregrine falcon (migration), piping plover (migration), red knot (migration), sharp-tailed grouse, short-eared owl, Swainson’s hawk, upland sandpiper, western meadowlark, willet, Wilson’s phalarope, whooping crane (migration), and yellow rail.

Mammals: Arctic shrew, big and little brown bats, Franklin’s ground squirrel, northern river otter, plains pocket mouse, pygmy shrew, Richardson’s ground squirrel, and silver-haired bat.

Amphibians and Reptiles: Canadian toad, plains hognose snake, smooth green snake, and snapping turtle.

Fish and Mussels: Black sandshell, blacknose shiner, Carmine shiner, creek heelsplitter, creeper, deertoe, fragile papershell, mapleleaf, northern pearl dace, northern redbelly dace, pink heelsplitter, threeridge, trout-perch, yellow sandshell, and Wabash pigtoe.

Grassland Management for Wildlife in MLRA 55B

Management activities within the community phase pathways impact wildlife but are essential for maintenance of healthy grassland ecosystems. Community phase, transitional, and restoration pathways are keys to long-term management within each State and between States. Timing, intensity, and frequency of these inputs can have dramatic positive or negative effects on local wildlife species. Ranchers and other land managers must always consider the long-term beneficial management effects of grassland and woodland resources in comparison to typically short-term negative effects to the habitats of individual species.

Ecological sites occur as intermingled complexes on the landscape with gradual or sometimes abrupt transitions. Rarely do ecological sites exist in large enough acreage to manage independently. Ecological sites supporting a dominance of herbaceous vegetation (Loamy/Sandy) can be located adjacent to ecological sites that support medium to tall shrubs (Invaded Wooded States). Conversely, ecological sites that are dominated by short- to mid-statured grasses (Claypan) can be adjacent to sites with bare soil only supporting minor amounts of short grasses and forbs (Thin Claypan).

Management of these complex ecological sites can provide a heterogeneous or a homogenous landscape. Grassland bird use declines as the plant community transitions to a homogenous state. Managers must recognize ecological sites and the complexes in which they occur to properly manage the landscape. A management regime for one ecological site may negatively impact adjacent site; for example, alteration of a grazing regime within the Invaded Wooded State ecological sites to encourage understory growth may encourage exotic cool-season grasses to increase or dominate an adjacent ecological site.

Life requisites and habitat deficiencies are determined for targeted species. Deficiencies need to be addressed along community phase, transitional, and restoration pathways as presented in specific state-and-transition models. Ecological sites should be managed and restored within the site’s capabilities to provide sustainable habitat for targeted species or species guilds. Managers also need to consider vegetative associations provided by adjacent/intermingled ecological sites for species with home ranges or life requisites that may not be provided by one ecological site.

Grassland-nesting birds use various grass heights for breeding, nesting, foraging, or winter habitat. While most species use varying heights, many have a preferred vegetative stature height or sensitivity to woody vegetation. Understanding the sensitivity of grassland species to woody vegetation and preferred vegetative structure enables managers to determine which grassland-nesting bird species avoid grassland habitats adjacent to woody dominated plant community phases. The following chart provides sensitivity to woody vegetation and preferred vegetative stature heights.

For the table:
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/ND/55B_Wet_Meadow_Narrative_FINAL_Ref_FSG.pdf

Wet Meadow Wildlife Habitat Interpretation:

Wet Meadow ecological sites are poorly drained soils located in depressions and on floodplains. Associated ecological sites include Clayey, Limy Subirrigated, Loamy, Loamy Overflow, Saline Lowland, Shallow Marsh, Subirrigated, and Subirrigated Sands. This complex of ecological sites provides habitat for many edge-sensitive grassland bird species preferring short- to tall-statured vegetation.

Wet Meadow habitat features and components commonly support grassland-nesting birds, notably birds utilizing wetland vegetation habitats (such as Nelson’s and LeConte’s sparrow) and sedge wren. Sharp-tailed grouse use this site for wintering and escape cover. Insects rely on associated forbs and grasses for survival and serve as food sources for birds and their young, and as forage for small and large herbivores.

Wet Meadow ecological sites may be found in seven plant community states within a local landscape. Multiple plant community phases exist within this ecological site dependent upon water levels, saturation, water and soil chemistry, and management. Today, these states occur primarily in response to precipitation (extended periods of above average precipitation or drought), water chemistry, fire, grazing, non-use, and other anthropogenic disturbances.

Because there is no known restoration pathway from State 2.0 to State 1.0, it is important to intensively manage using tools in State 1.0 and State 2.0 Community Phase Pathways to prevent further plant community degradation along Transitional Pathways to invaded plant communities of other States. Native wildlife, dependent upon shallow wetlands as found in the Wet Meadow ecological site, generally benefit from the heterogeneous grasslands/graminoids found in Community Phases in States 1.0 and 2.0. Plant communities within State 2.0 are dependent upon long-term changes in precipitation (compounded by grazing intensity and frequency). The transition to wetter or drier conditions results in a plant community that is either taller (wetter) in stature, such as Plant Community Phase 2.1 Sedges/Prairie Cordgrass or shorter (drier) in stature, such as 2.3 Foxtail Barley/Mountain Rush-Spikerush/Bare Ground.

Management along community phase, transition, or restoration pathways should focus upon attainable changes. Short- and long-term monetary costs must be evaluated against short- and long- term ecological services in creating and maintaining habitat of sufficient quality to support a sustainable population density.

Hydrological manipulation (surface or tile drainage, pumping, surface water diversion, etc.) modifies this ecological site’s functions, having a significant negative impact to wetland dependent wildlife (such as invertebrates, amphibians, and water birds). Without restoring hydrologic function (which may include range seeding), managers need to reference state and transition models within those sites. Hydrology will need to be fully restored in Wet Meadow and Shallow Marsh ecological sites for these sites to properly function. It is recommended that managers review the appropriate State and Transition Models prior to wetland restoration.

1.0 Reference State

Community Phase 1.1 Sedges/Prairie Cordgrass: This plant community offers quality vegetative cover for wetland wildlife; every effort should be made to maintain this ecological site within this community phase. This phase retains high functionality through continued maintenance including prescribed grazing with adequate recovery period, as well as prescribed fire. Prescribed fire maintains a grass-dominated plant community providing habitat for wetland bird species sensitive to woody vegetation.

Invertebrates: Insects play a role in maintaining the forb community and provide a forage base for grassland birds, wetland birds, and rodents. This plant community contains a variety of forbs providing season-long pollen and nectar. However, due to wet soils, ground nesting pollinator species do not prefer this site. Dakota skippers, regal fritillaries, or monarch butterflies may use this site when swamp milkweed, New England aster, or goldenrods occupy this site.

Wet Meadow ecological sites provide habitat for a diverse suite of aquatic invertebrates providing an important trophic link between macrophytes and vertebrates that depend upon them as food. Rapid warming during spring snowmelt allows the invertebrate population to flourish. The vegetative structure provided by shallow, vegetated wetlands increases the abundance of aquatic invertebrates compared to less vegetated sites.

Birds: This plant community provides quality nesting, foraging, and escape habitats favored by mid- to tallgrass-nesting birds especially those species preferring wetter (hydric) habitats (such as Nelson’s sparrow, northern harrier, sedge wren, American avocet, Wilson’s phalarope, etc.). This site provides waterfowl pair bonding sites, early season invertebrate food sources, and early season shorebird habitat. The rapid warming during spring snowmelt provides water birds an abundant invertebrate protein source for egg laying. Prescribed fire maintains a grass-dominated plant community providing habitat for bird species sensitive to woody vegetation. This plant community does not provide suitable areas for sharp-tailed grouse lek sites or nesting habitat. However, it does provide winter cover and escape habitat and brood-rearing habitat. This site provides good hunting opportunities for grassland raptors, especially northern harrier.

Mammals: The diversity of grasses and forbs provide high nutrition levels for small and large herbivores. Tall- to mid-statured vegetation provides suitable food, thermal, protective, and escape cover for small and large herbivores. In addition, it provides foraging opportunities for raccoon, skunks, coyotes and other mammals that use wetlands and wetland edges for food resources.

Amphibians and Reptiles: This ecological site can provide habitat for the northern leopard frog and Canadian toad. Dependent upon the duration of surface water, this site may provide breeding habitat. Successful egg-laying and tadpole development habitat is dependent up depth and duration of ponded water.

Fish and Mussels: This ecological site can be directly associated with streams, rivers, or water bodies. This site receives run-on hydrology from adjacent ecological sites and provides hydrology to shallow ground water and other surface waterbodies. Management on Wet Meadow sites, in conjunction with neighboring run-off sites, will have a direct effect on aquatic species in streams and/or tributaries receiving water from Wet Meadow sites. Optimum hydrological function and nutrient cycling limit potential for sediment yield and nutrient loading to the adjacent aquatic ecosystems from Community Phase 1.1.

Community Phase 1.2 Fowl Bluegrass/Spikerushes-Mountain Rush/Forbs: This plant community phase occurs during periods of below average precipitation lowering the water table. The lower water table allows the plant community to shift towards upland species (such as switchgrass and mid- statured grass-likes, mountain rush, and spikerushes). The forb community remains robust favoring pollinator insects. This plant community provides an excellent food source for grassland nesting birds.

Invertebrates: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.1. However, drying of the soil during periods of prolonged, below average precipitation allows for increase in forbs providing increased pollen and nectar sources and increase bare ground for ground-nesting insects. The diverse suite of aquatic invertebrates found in Community Phase 1.1 is reduced and may only be found in spring during periods of snowmelt runoff.

Birds: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.1. However, decreased surface water reduces invertebrate production and use by waterfowl and shorebirds. The drying of the soil during periods of prolonged, below average precipitation provides additional opportunities for grassland nesting birds that use mid-to tall-statured herbaceous vegetation found in a mesic vs. hydric habitats.

Mammals: Shorter statured vegetation decreases thermal, protective, escape, and winter habitat for large ungulates.

Amphibians and Reptiles: Drying of the soil during periods of prolonged, below average precipitation removes saturated soil and/or ponded water. Use by northern leopard frog and Canadian toad will decrease. This plant community may provide foraging but breeding habitat will be lost for egg-laying and tadpole development without ponded water.

Fish and Mussels: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.1.

2.0 Native/Invaded State

Community Phase 2.1 Sedges/Prairie Cordgrass: This plant community develops through Transition Pathway T1 due to changes in management and the presence of non-native species (such as reed canarygrass, redtop, Kentucky bluegrass, field sowthistle and Canada thistle). This plant community phase has a very similar appearance and function to the Plant Community 1.1 with a wide array of forbs providing nectar and pollen sources for pollinating species. Managers should consider management within the State 2.0 Community Phase Pathways to avoid transitioning to other states within this ecological site.

Invertebrates: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.1.

Birds: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.1.

Mammals: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.1.

Amphibians and Reptiles: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.1.

Fish and Mussels: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.1.

Community Phase 2.2 Fowl Bluegrass/Spikerushes-Mountain Rush/Forbs: This plant community phase occurs with heavy season-long grass coupled with periods of below average precipitation lowering the water table. Grazing tolerant rush and spikerush species increase while prairie cordgrass and sedges decline.

Invertebrates: Heavy season-long grazing does not allow flowering plants to recover, limiting pollen and nectar resources for bees and other pollinating insects. In addition, a shift from perennial to annual forbs reduces season long pollen and nectar sources for pollinating insect species. Prolonged periods of reduced precipitation favor ground nesting pollinators; however, increased compaction from mechanical impacts or increased livestock presence negatively impacts ground nesting pollinator opportunities. This shift to drier soil conditions reduces or eliminates aquatic invertebrates.

Birds: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.2. In addition, the drying of the soil during periods of prolonged, below average precipitation provides additional opportunities for grassland nesting birds that use mid-to short-statured herbaceous vegetation found in a mesic vs. hydric habitats.

Mammals: A shift to mid- to short-grass species and drier soil conditions reduces habitat for large mammals, while still providing vegetative cover for small mammals. Thermal, escape, and winter cover becomes limited for larger ungulates.

Amphibians and Reptiles: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.2.

Fish and Mussels: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.1.

Community Phase 2.3 Foxtail Barley/Mountain Rush-Spikerushes/Bare Ground: This plant community phase occurs with heavy season-long grazing, coupled with periods of below average precipitation, lowering the water table with increasing salinity. Grazing tolerant foxtail barley begins to dominate the site. Grazing tolerant rush and spikerush species increase along with bare ground.

Invertebrates: Pollinator friendly forbs decrease as salinity and foxtail barley increase limiting pollen and nectar availability. Bare ground increases but few ground nesting species, if any within MLRA 55B, use saline soils for nesting sites. This shift to drier soil conditions reduces or eliminates aquatic invertebrates.

Birds: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.1. In addition, the drying of the soil during periods of prolonged, below average precipitation provides additional opportunities for grassland nesting birds that use short-statured herbaceous vegetation found in a mesic vs. hydric habitats.

Mammals: A shift to short-grass species and drier soil conditions reduces habitat for large mammals, while still providing vegetative cover for small mammals. Thermal, escape, and winter cover is no longer provided for larger ungulates.

Amphibians and Reptiles: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.2.

Fish and Mussels: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.1.

3.0 Wooded State

Community Phase 3.1 Willows: The elimination of fire or mechanical disturbance, via Transitional Pathway T2, allow for willows such as sandbar and Bebb willow to dominate this site. Shade tolerant sedges and rushes dominate the understory. Restoration to State 2.0 via Restoration Pathway R3A requires a combination of mechanical and herbicide application coupled with repeated prescribed burns.

Invertebrates: The invasion of woody vegetation reduces habitat for pollinator insects within MLRA 55B. Season-long pollen and nectar availability is limited on this site due to an understory of sedges and rushes. However, willow species provide an early season pollen source for native and honeybees. Overall, pollinator plant diversity is low, limiting season-long nectar and pollen production.

Birds: Dependent on degree of invasion by willow, grassland nesting birds which are sensitive to woody vegetation encroachment will discontinue use of this community phase. Shrub tolerant grassland birds may continue to use this site. Willow species provide thermal and escape cover for year-long residents, such as sharp-tailed grouse. Willow thickets provide habitat for brown-headed cowbirds increasing nest parasitism on adjacent grassland nesting bird communities.

Mammals: Shrubs will provide increased year-round cover for white-tailed deer, moose, and elk. Mammals, such as porcupines, that prefer woody habitat will use this site.

Amphibians and Reptiles: Willow species should not impact use of this ecological site by the Canadian Toad.

Fish and Mussels: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.1.

4.0 Invaded/Saline State

Community Phase 4.1 Foxtail Barley/Exotic Grasses/Exotic Forbs: This plant community phase occurs during periods of below average precipitation lowering the water table and increasing salinity. Coupled with increased animal impact, disturbance-tolerant non-native species (such as foxtail barley, quackgrass, Canada thistle, and field sowthistle) dominate this plant community phase. Foxtail barley will dominate with increased salinity. Extended periods of above average precipitation along Restoration Pathway R4A can move this plant community back to State 2.0.

Invertebrates: Canada thistle and field sowthistle provide mid- to late-season pollen. This plant community has a low diversity with limited early- to mid-season forbs. Bare ground increases but few ground nesting species, if any within MLRA 55B, use saline soils for nesting sites. This shift to drier soil conditions reduces or eliminates aquatic invertebrates.

Birds: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 2.3.

Mammals: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 2.2.

Amphibians and Reptiles: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.2.

Fish and Mussels: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.1.

5.0 Invaded/Fresh Water State

Community Phase 5.1 Exotic Grasses/Exotic Forbs/Sedges/Rushes: This plant community phase occurs during periods of below average precipitation lowering the water table with water chemistry remaining fresh. Coupled with increased animal impact, disturbance-tolerant non-native species (such as quackgrass, Canada thistle, and field sowthistle) dominate this plant community phase. Foxtail barley will not dominate the site unless water chemistry increases in salinity. Extended periods of above average precipitation along Restoration Pathway R5A can move this plant community back to State 2.0.

Invertebrates: Canada thistle and field sowthistle provide mid- to late-season pollen. This plant community has a low diversity with limited early- to mid-season forbs. Bare ground increases for ground nesting species. This shift to drier soil conditions reduces or eliminates aquatic invertebrates.

Birds: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 2.2.

Mammals: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 2.2.

Amphibians and Reptiles: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.2.

Fish and Mussels: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.1.

6.0 Invaded/Eutrophication State

Community Phase 6.1 Hybrid Cattail or Reed Canarygrass: Community Phase: Eutrophication and sedimentation of the site, often due to tillage on or adjacent to the site, transitions this plant community to one dominated by hybrid cattails or exotic strains/hybrids of reed canarygrass. Hybrid cattail or reed canary grass generally develop into monotypic stands out-competing other grasses, graminoids, or forbs. Extended periods of above average precipitation along with mechanical treatment, sediment removal, prescribed burning, and reseeding via Restoration Pathway R6A can move this plant community back to State 2.0.

Invertebrates: Saturated to ponded soils favor aquatic invertebrates. Monotypic stands of hybrid cattail or reed canarygrass limit forb species, providing a decrease in pollen and nectar sources for insects. Restoration efforts, including prescribed grazing, can reduce hybrid cattail and reed canarygrass while increasing forb diversity. The initial flush of forbs may be Canada thistle and field sowthistle resulting from restoration efforts, especially prescribed grazing.

Birds: Monotypic stands of hybrid cattail or reed canarygrass reduce water bird use. LeConte’s and Nelson’s sparrow and yellow rail favor this plant community. American bittern may use this site. Restoration efforts, including prescribed grazing, can reduce hybrid cattail and reed canary grass; this increases open water providing foraging and breeding habitat for dabbling ducks and shore birds including an excellent food source of aquatic invertebrates.

Mammals: Monotypic stands of hybrid cattail or reed canarygrass provide winter cover for large herbivores including white-tailed deer and moose. Depending on degree of ponding or saturation, this plant community may provide season-long escape cover for white-tailed deer. This plant community provides foraging opportunities for raccoon, skunks, coyotes and other mammals that use wetlands and wetland edges for food resources. Tall- to mid-statured vegetation provides suitable food and thermal, protective, and escape cover for small and large herbivores.

Amphibians and Reptiles: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.1.

Fish and Mussels: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.1.

7.0 Go-Back State

Community Phase 7.1 Annual/Pioneer Perennial/Exotics: Following cropland abandonment, these plant communities are dominated by early pioneer annual and perennial plant species. Plant species composition and production are highly variable, but will consist of Canada thistle, field sowthistle, other annual weeds (dock, smartweed, barnyard grass, etc.), quackgrass, foxtail barley, slough grass, and pioneering spikerush species. Weedy plants can provide pollinator habitat along with spring and summer cover for many mammals and birds, and their young. Dense weed cover can keep soils moist, increasing insect presence. Tall stature provided by some weeds offers thermal cover and seeds throughout winter. The response by wildlife species will be dependent upon plant community composition, vegetative stature, patch size, and management activities (such as wetland restoration, sediment removal, prescribed grazing, burning, inter-seeding, haying, or noxious weed control).

Successful wetland restoration and seeding of native species along Transition Pathway R7A can result in a native grass and forb community in State 2.0. Management activities within State 2.0 are needed to avoid a transition out of State 2.0. Unsuccessful wetland restoration or unsuccessful native forb and grass seeding may lead to States 4.0, 5.0 or 6.0 dependent upon site hydrological modifications and restoration, salinity, and other site related issues.

Animal Community – Grazing Interpretations

Note: When interpreting plant production regarding stocking rate, several things must be taken into consideration. Annual production is highly variable and subject to wide fluctuations; palatability is generally low, seasonally quite variable; and access to the forage can be limited due to water levels. As a result, caution must be exercised so that the stocking rate is based on a realistic inventory or a reasonable estimate of usable forage. More accurate stocking rate estimates should eventually be calculated using actual stocking rate information and monitoring data.

NRCS defines prescribed grazing as “managing the harvest of vegetation with grazing and/or browsing animals with the intent to achieve specific ecological, economic, and management objectives”. As used in this site description, the term ‘prescribed grazing’ is intended to include multiple grazing management systems (e.g., rotational grazing, twice-over grazing, conservation grazing, targeted grazing, etc.) provided that, whatever management system is implemented, it meets the intent of prescribed grazing definition.

The basic grazing prescription addresses balancing forage demand (quality and quantity) with available forage, varying grazing and deferment periods from year-to-year, matching recovery/deferment periods to growing conditions when pastures are grazed more than once in a growing season, implementation of a contingency (e.g., drought) plan, and a monitoring plan. When the management goal is to facilitate change from one plant community phase or state to another, then the prescription needs to be designed to shift the competitive advantage to favor the native grass and forb species.

Grazing levels are noted within the plant community narratives and pathways in reference to grazing/prescribed grazing management. “Degree of utilization” is defined as the proportion of the current years forage production that is consumed and/or destroyed by grazing animals (may refer to a single plant species or a portion or all the vegetation). “Grazing utilization” is classified as slight, moderate, full, close, and severe (see the following table for description of each grazing use category). The following utilization levels are also described in the Ranchers Guide to Grassland Management IV. Utilization levels are determined by using the landscape appearance method as outlined in the Interagency Technical Reference “Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements” 1734-3.

Utilization Level % Use Description
Slight (Light) 0-20 Appears practically undisturbed when viewed obliquely. Only choice areas and forage utilized.

Moderate 20-40 Almost all of accessible range shows grazing. Little or no use of poor forage. Little evidence of trailing to grazing.

Full 40-60 All fully accessible areas are grazed. The major sites have key forage species properly utilized (about half taken, half left). Points of concentration with overuse limited to 5 to 10 percent of accessible area.

Close (Heavy) 60-80 All accessible range plainly shows use and major sections closely cropped. Livestock forced to use less desirable forage, considering seasonal preference.

Severe > 80 Key forage species completely used. Low-value forages are dominant.

Hydrological functions

Under unaltered hydrologic conditions, the site is dominated by soils in hydrologic group D; where significantly impacted by drainage practices, these soils are in hydrologic group A/D, B/D, or C/D depending upon soil texture. Infiltration varies from slow to rapid; runoff potential varies from negligible to medium for this site depending on surface texture, slope percent, slope shape, and ground cover. In many cases, areas with greater than 75% ground cover have the greatest potential for high infiltration and lower runoff. An exception would be where shortgrasses form a dense sod and dominate the site. Areas where ground cover is less than 50% have the greatest potential to have reduced infiltration and higher runoff (refer to Section 4, NRCS National Engineering Handbook for runoff quantities and hydrologic curves).

Hydrological manipulation (surface or tile drainage, pumping, surface water diversion, etc.) modifies this ecological site. Under natural conditions, this ecological site includes a wide range of soil textures; after hydrologic manipulation, soil texture often becomes a more significant factor in vegetative response. If the degree of manipulation allows soil texture to influence the plant community or if altered soil properties (i.e., salinization or the addition of fill material) results in vegetation change, a transition to a completely different ecological site may have occurred. The transition to an altogether different ecological site will depend upon severity of altered hydrology, soil properties, and corresponding vegetation. Due to the many variables (e.g., hydrology, success and type of drainage, etc.), impacts to the ecological site will be site-specific. As a result, each situation will require field investigation to determine what, if any changes in ecological site designation is necessary and proceed accordingly.

Without restoring hydrologic function (which may include range planting), managers need to reference state and transition models within those sites. Hydrology will need to be fully restored in Wet Meadow and Shallow Marsh ecological sites for these sites to properly function. It is recommended that managers review the appropriate State and Transition Models prior to wetland restoration.

Recreational uses

Hunting and Bird Watching: National wildlife refuges, waterfowl production areas, state wildlife management areas (WMA), and North Dakota and South Dakota Department of Trust Lands provide herbaceous and woody cover for wildlife. National Wildlife Refuges and waterfowl production areas are owned and managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and are available for public hunting, hiking, and bird watching. In addition, the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the United States Bureau of Reclamation manage three man-made reservoirs - Jamestown Reservoir (2,036 acres), Pipestem Reservoir (1,027 acres), and Lake Ashtabula (5,174 acres) for flood control, also providing fish habitat and adjacent uplands for wildlife cover. Lonetree WMA is the largest state managed wildlife area covering 32,800 acres. Numerous WMAs in North Dakota and Game Production Areas in South Dakota are found within this MLRA. The largest refuges managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife service are Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex consists of 75,000 acres and Tewaukon National NWR covers 8,363 acres.

Fishing: Approximately 100 lakes are managed for public fishing within MLRA 55B. Most of these lakes offer boat docks and ramps. These lakes contain various sport fish including walleye, northern pike, yellow perch, catfish, trout, crappie, and bluegill. Many of these lakes are known for excellent round-around walleye and yellow perch fishery.

Camping: Fort Ramson State Park, Pipestem Reservoir, Jamestown Reservoir, Spiritwood Lake, Clausen Springs, Little Yellowstone, Richmond Lake State Recreation Area, Mina Lake State Recreation Area, and other public and private campgrounds are found within the MLRA. Limited, primitive camping is available on wildlife management areas. Ft. Ransom State Park (North Dakota), located along the Sheyenne River has a designated horse park with 15 miles of trails.

Hiking/Biking/Horseback Riding: Horseback riders, hikers, and biker can enjoy over 15 miles of multi-use trails at Fort Ransom State Park. The Jamestown Reservoir (5 miles), Pipestem Reservoir (8 miles) and Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge (9.4 miles) maintain hiking trails. The Lonetree Wildlife Management Area has a 32-mile segment of the North Country Trail. It is designed for hiking and non-motorized travel including mountain bikes or horseback riding.

Canoeing/Kayaking: The Sheyenne River offers 278 miles of canoeing/kayaking from May-July. A kayak kiosk is located at Valley City and canoe/kayak rentals are available at Fort Ransom State Park. The James River has a canoe trail starting in Grand Rapids and canoeing down to the James River Dam site in LaMoure; no rentals are available.

Auto Tour: A 63-mile scenic drive starts north of Valley City and heading south through Sheyenne River Valley. Audubon National Wildlife Refuge offers a 5.5-mile auto-tour route winding through both prairie grassland and wetland habitats of the lower portion of the James River Valley.

Wood products

There are no significant wood products found on this site.

Other products

Seed harvest of native plant species can provide additional income on this site.

Other information

Site Development and Testing Plan
• Further investigation is needed on the wide range of landforms and soil textures (and associated properties) and their relationship to hydrology/plant dynamics.
• Further documentation may be needed for plant communities in all states. Plant data has been collected in previous range-site investigations, including clipping data. However, most of this data is from areas of Typic Calciaquolls; a unique, provisional ESD (Limy Wet Meadow) has been proposed for these highly calcareous soils. Vegetative data for non-calcareous soils in Wet Meadow needs review and more data likely needs to be collected. If geo-referenced sites meeting Tier 3 standards for either vegetative or soil data are not available, representative sites will be selected for further investigation.
• Further investigation is needed on areas of this site associated with flood plains. Lamoure and Ludden soils occur on flood plains of the rivers. Lowe soils occur in upland drainageways. The impact of occasional or frequent flooding on these areas needs evaluation. MLRA map units needing investigation are:
 Forman-Buse-Lowe, occasionally flooded loams, 0 to 15 percent slopes (map unit 2sl3w)
 Forman-Buse-Lowe, occasionally flooded loams, 0 to 35 percent slopes (map unit 2sl3x)
 Lamoure silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded (map unit 2q5pf)
 Lamoure silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded (map unit 2q3vb)
 Lamoure-Fluvaquents, channeled complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded (map unit 2q5pj)
 Larson, very stony-Lowe loams, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded (map unit 2q5sk)
 Lowe clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded (map unit 2q5p8)
 Lowe loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occasionally flooded (map unit 2q5p9)
 Lowe-Fluvaquents, channeled complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded (map unit 2q5pc)
 Moritz-Lowe, occasionally flooded loams, 0 to 2 percent slopes (map unit 2sd3w)
 Ludden silty clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded (map unit 2q3vc)
• Further investigation of areas of this site occurs on lake beaches. Minnewaukan soils are periodically inundated for extended periods. When the progressive soil surveys were completed, these soils were not inundated; currently many of these areas are inundated and have been for many consecutive years. Spatial data revisions may be needed. The MLRA map units needing investigation are:
 Lallie, saline-Minnewaukan complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes (map unit 2q5n3)
 Minnewaukan loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (map unit 2q5cn)
• Further evaluation and refinement of the State-and-Transition model may be needed to identify disturbance driven dynamics. Additional states and/or phases may be required to address grazing response.
• Site concepts will be refined as the above noted investigations are completed.
• The long-term goal is to complete an approved, correlated Ecological Site Description as defined by the National Ecological Site Handbook.

This ESD is the best available knowledge. The site concept and species composition table have been used in the field and tested for more than five years. It is expected that as additional information becomes available revisions may be required.

Inventory data references

Information presented here has been derived from NRCS and other federal/state agency clipping and inventory data. Also, field knowledge of range-trained personnel was used. All descriptions were peer reviewed and/or field-tested by various private, state and federal agency specialists.

Other references

Barker, W.T. and W. C. Whitman. 1988. Vegetation of the Northern Great Plains. Rangelands 10(6): 266-272. Bluemle. J.P. 2016. North Dakota’s geologic legacy. North Dakota State University Press. 382 pages.

Boyd, L. 2001. Wildlife use of wetland buffer zones and their protection under the Massachusetts wetland protection act. University of Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources Conservation. 148 pages.

Briske, D.D. (editor). 2017. Rangeland systems – processes, management, and challenges. Springer Series on Environmental Management. 661 pages.

DeKeyser, E.S., G. Clambey, K. Krabbenhoft, and J. Ostendorf. 2009. Are changes in species composition on central North Dakota rangelands due to non-use management? Rangelands 31:16-19

DeKeyser, E.S., D.R. Kirby, and M.J. Ell. 2003. An index of plant community integrity: development of the methodology for assessing prairie wetland plant communities. Ecological Indicators 3:119-133. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X03000153

Dix, R.L. and F.E. Smeins. 1967. The prairie, meadow, and marsh vegetation of Nelson County, North Dakota. Canadian Journal of Botany 45:21-57.

Dornbusch, M.J., R.F. Limb, and C.K. Gasch. 2018. Facilitation of an exotic grass through nitrogen enrichment by an exotic legume. Rangeland Ecology & Management 71:691-694.

Dyke, S.R., S.K. Johnson, and P.T. Isakson. 2015. North Dakota state wildlife action plan. North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Bismarck, ND. 468 pages.

Ehrenfeld, Joan G. 2002. Effects of exotic plant invasions on soil nutrient cycling processes. Ecosystems 6:503-523.

Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; designation of critical habitat for the Dakota skipper and Poweshiek skipperling; Vol. 79 No. Final Rule October 1, 2015, 50 CFR Part 17.

Ereth, C., J. Hendrickson, D. Kirby, E. DeKeyser, K. Sedevic, and M. West. Controlling Kentucky bluegrass with herbicide and burning is influenced by invasion level. Invasive Plant Science and Management 10: 80-89.

Gilbert, M.C. et. al. 2006. A regional guidebook for applying the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions of prairie potholes. US Army corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Vickburg, MS. 170 pages. https://wetlands.el.erdc.dren.mil/pdfs/trel06-.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none

Gilgert, W.; and S. Zack. 2010. Integrating multiple ecosystem services introduction ecological site descriptions. Rangelands: 32:49-54.

Grant, T.A. and R.K. Murphy. 2005. Changes on woodland cover on prairie refuges in North Dakota, USA. Natural Areas Journal 25:359-368.

Heitschmidt, R. K., K. D. Klement, and M. R. Haferkamp. 2005. Interactive effects of drought and grazing on Northern Great Plains rangelands. Rangeland Ecology and Management 58:11-19.

Hendrickson, J.R., P. S. Johnson, M. A. Liebig, K. K. Sedivec, and G. A. Halvorson. 2016. Use of ecological sites in managing wildlife and livestock: an example with prairie dogs. Rangelands

Hendrickson, J.R., S.L. Kronberg, and E.J. Scholljegerdes. 2020. Can targeted grazing reduce abundance of invasive perennial grass (Kentucky Bluegrass) on native mixed-grass prairie? Rangeland Ecology and Management, 73:547-551.

Higgins, K.F. 1984. Lightning fires in grasslands in North Dakota and in pine-savanna lands in nearby South Dakota and Montana. J. Range Manage. 37:100-103.

Higgins, K.F. 1986. Interpretation and compendium of historical fire accounts in the Northern Great Plains. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Resource Publication 161. 39 pages.

Higgins, K.F., A.D. Kruse, and J.L. Piehl. 1989. Effects of fire in the Northern Great Plains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Cooperative Extension Service South, Dakota State University. Extension Circular 761. 48 pages.

High Plains Regional Climate Center, University of Nebraska, 830728 Chase Hall, Lincoln, NE 68583-0728. (http://hprcc.unl.edu)

Israelsen, K. 2009. Herbicide, salinity, and flooding tolerance of foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum L.) and desirable pasture grasses. M.S. thesis. Utah State University. 95 pages. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1515&context=etd

Johnson, Sandra. 2015. Reptiles and amphibians of North Dakota. North Dakota Game and Fish Department. 64 pages.

Jordan, N. R., D.L. Larson, and S.C. Huerd. 2008. Soil modification by invasive plants: effects on native and invasive species of mixed-grass prairies. Biological Invasions 10:177-190.

Kantrud, H. A., G. L. Krapu, and G. A. Swanson. 1989. Prairie basin wetlands of the Dakotas: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biol. Rep. 85(7.28). 116 p.

Mader, E., M. Shepherd, M. Vaughan, and S.H. Black. 2011. Attracting native pollinators: protecting North America's bees and butterflies. Accessed at https://xerces.org, May 1, 2017.

North Dakota Division of Tourism, Accessed on February 25, 2019. Available at https://www.ndtourism.com/sports-recreation

North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department, Accessed on February 25, 2019. Available at http://www.parkrec.nd.gov/recreationareas/recreationareas.html

Palit, R., G. and E.S. DeKeyser. 2022. Impacts and drivers of smooth brome (Bromus inermis Leyes.) invasion in native ecosystems. Plants: 10,3390. https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/11/10/1340

Palit, R., G. Gramig, and E.S. DeKeyser. 2021. Kentucky bluegrass invasion in the Northern Great Plains and prospective management approaches to mitigate its spread. Plants: 10,817. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10040817

Printz, J.L. and J.R. Hendrickson. 2015. Impacts of Kentucky bluegrass invasion (Poa pratensis) on Ecological Processes in the Northern Great Plains. Rangelands 37(6):226-232.

Redmann, Robert E. 1975. Production ecology of grassland plant communities in western North Dakota. Ecological Monographs 45:83-106.

Reeves, J.L., J.D. Derner, M.A. Sanderson, J.R. Hendrickson, S.L. Kronberg, M.K. Petersen, and L.T. Vermeire. 2014. Seasonal weather influences on yearling beef steer production in C3-dominated Northern Great Plains rangeland. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 183:110-117.

Royer, R. A., 2003. Butterflies of North Dakota: an atlas and guide. Minot State University, Minot, ND.

Seabloom, R. 2020. Mammals of North Dakota. North Dakota Institute for Regional Studies, Fargo, ND. 470 pages.

Sedivec, K.D., J.L. Printz. 2014. Ranchers guide to grassland management IV. NDSU Extension Service publication R1707.

Seelig, B. and S. DeKeyser. 2006. Wetland function in the northern prairie pothole region. North Dakota State University Extension Service. WQ-1313. 28 pages. https://erams.com/static/wqtool/PDFs/Wave%20Papers/wq1313.pdf

Severson, K. E. and C. Hull Sieg. 2006. The nature of eastern North Dakota: pre-1880 historical ecology. North Dakota Institute for Regional Studies.

Smith, C., E.S. DeKeyser, C. Dixon, R. Kobiela, and A. Little. Effects of sediment removal on prairie pothole wetland plant communities in North Dakota. Natural Area Journal 36:48-58.
https://bioone.org/journals/natural-areas-journal/volume-36/issue-1/043.036.0110/Effects-of-%20Sediment-Removal-on-Prairie-Pothole-Wetland-Plant-Communities/10.3375/043.036.0110.full

South Dakota Dept. of Game, Fish and Parks. 2014. South Dakota wildlife action plan. Wildlife Division Report 2014-03.

Spaeth, K.E., Hayek, M.A., Toledo, D., and Hendrickson, J. 2019. Cool season grass impacts on native mixedgrass prairie species in the Northern Great Plains. America’s grassland conference: working across boundaries. The Fifth Biennial Conference on the Conservation of America’s Grasslands. Bismarck, ND. 20-22 August.

Stewart. R.E. and H.A. Kantrud. 1971. Classification of natural ponds and lakes in the glaciated prairie region. Resource Publication 92. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 57 pages. https://pubs.usgs.gov/rp/092/report.pdf

Tidwell, D., D.T. Fogarty, and J.R. Weir. 2021. Woody encroachment in grasslands, a guide for understanding risk and vulnerability. Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service publication E- 1054. 32 pages.

Toledo, D., M. Sanderson, K. Spaeth, J. Hendrickson, and J. Printz. 2014. Extent of Kentucky bluegrass and its effect on native plant species diversity and ecosystem services in the northern great plains of the United State. Invasive Plant Science and Management 7(4): 543-552.

USDA, NRCS. 2021. National range and pasture handbook, (https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084)

USDA, NRCS. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.

USDA, NRCS. National Soil Information System, 100 Centennial Mall North, Room 152, Lincoln, NE 68508- 3866. (https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/tools/?cid=nrcs142p2_053552)

USDA, NRCS. National Water & Climate Center, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd, Suite 802, Portland, OR 97232-1274. (https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/)

USDA, NRCS. 2001. The PLANTS database, Version 3.1 (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA.

USDA, NRCS, Various published soil surveys.

USDI BLM.1999. Utilization studies and residual measurements. Interagency Technical Reference 1734-3.

Vepraskas, M.J. and C.B. Croft (editors). 2015, Wetland soils genesis, hydrology, landscapes, and classification. C, Second Edition. CRC Press
.
Vinton, M.A. and E.M. Goergen. 2006. Plant-soil feedbacks contribute to the persistence of Bromus inermis in tallgrass prairie. Ecosystems 9: 967-976.

Wasko, J. 2013. Distribution and environmental associations throughout southwestern Manitoba and southeastern Saskatchewan for cattail species Typha latifolia, and T. angustifolia, and for the hybrid T. x glauca. M.S. thesis. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg. 274 pages. https://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/bitstream/handle/1993/23553/wasko_jennifer.pdf?sequence=1

Contributors

ND NRCS: David Dewald, Jonathan Fettig, Alan Gulsvig, Mark Hayek, Chuck Lura, Jeff Printz, Steve Sieler, and Hal Weiser

Approval

Suzanne Mayne-Kinney, 4/25/2025

Print Options