Animal community

Animal Community – Wildlife Interpretations

Landscape

The MLRA 56A landscape is characterized by a nearly level glacial lake plain bordered on the east and west by outwash plains, till plains, gravelly beaches, and dunes. MLRA 56A 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 natural tall-grass prairie vegetation with bur oak, green ash, and willow growing in drainageways. This area is formed in silty and clayey lacustrine sediments from the former Glacial Lake Agassiz. 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 to the Red River of the North. MLRA 56A is located within the boundaries of the Prairie Pothole Region and is an ecotone between the humid east and the sub-humid west regions. The primary land use is annual cropland (~80%). The Red River Valley is known for its exceptional fertility with major crops including corn, soybeans, small grains, and sugar beets.

By the mid-19th century, the majority of the Red River Valley had been converted from 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. The major soils are poorly drained with extensive areas of saline soils. Tile drainage systems have been or are being extensively installed throughout MLRA 56A for sub-surface field drainage to enhance annual crop production.

The east and west side of the Red River Valley formed in a complex pattern of sandy beach material, stratified inter-beach material, lacustrine silts, and lake washed glacial till. The soils vary from excessively drained on ridges to very poorly drained organic basins. Surface ditches serve to drain some of the area, although much of the area lacks adequate drainage for maximum crop production. Calcareous fens and saline seeps can occur at the base of beach ridges and result in rare plant communities. Native vegetation was mixed- and tall-grass prairie with scattered woodland and brush.

Historic Communities/Conditions within MLRA 56A:

The northern tall- and mixed-grass prairie was a disturbance-driven ecosystem with fire, herbivory, and climate functioning as the primary ecological drivers (either singly or often in combination). Frequent and expansive flooding along the Red River and its tributaries provided abundant opportunities for Native Americans to harvest wild rice. American bison roamed MLRA 56A wintering along the Red River and migrating west into MLRA 55A and 55B for parts of the season. Many species of grassland birds, small mammals, insects, reptiles, amphibians, and large herds of roaming American bison, elk, and pronghorn were historically among the inhabitants adapted to this region. Roaming herbivores, as well as several small mammal and insect species, were the primary consumers linking the grassland resources to large predators (such as the wolf and American black 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 from the region is the Rocky Mountain locust.

Present Communities/Conditions within MLRA 56A:

MLRA 56A has the most conversion to cropland of any MLRA within Region F-Northern Great Plains. European influence has impacted remaining grassland and shrubland by domestic livestock grazing, elimination of fire, removal of surface and subsurface hydrology via artificial drainage, and other anthropogenic factors influencing plant community composition and abundance.

Extensive drainage has taken place. Streams have been straightened (removing sinuosity) and riparian zones have been converted to annual crop production. These anthropogenic impacts have reduced flood water detention and retention on the landscape, increasing storm water runoff, sediment, and nutrient loading to the Red River and its tributaries. The installation of instream structures has reduced aquatic species movement within the MLRA.

Annual cropping is the main factor contributing to habitat fragmentation, reducing habitat quality for area-sensitive species. These influences fragmented the landscape, reduced, or eliminated ecological drivers (fire), and introduced exotic species including smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, and leafy spurge which 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.

Included in this MLRA are approximately 70,000 acres of the United States Forest Service, Sheyenne National Grassland (southern portion of MLRA) with an additional 65,000 acres of intermingled privately owned land of sandy soils providing a large tract of intact tall grass prairie within the MLRA. United Fish and Wildlife Service refuges and waterfowl production areas, along with and state wildlife management areas cover approximately 67,000 acres within the MLRA. Two of three largest cities in North Dakota are located within the MLRA.

USDA conservation programs have seeded thousands of cropland acres in riparian zones to native herbaceous vegetation. Natural succession is replacing the planted native herbaceous vegetation to native woody vegetation re-establishing native wooded riparian areas on previously cropland. Most of the plantings have been along the Red River and its tributaries in the northern portions of the MLRA within the United States. These areas are privately owned and protected from annual agricultural production with perpetual conservation easements.

Some characteristic wildlife species in this area are:

Birds: Mallard, blue-winged teal, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, ring-necked pheasant, western meadowlark, killdeer, eastern and western kingbird, American crow, common yellowthroat, downy and hairy woodpecker, clay-colored sparrow, vesper sparrow, Savannah sparrow, and brown-headed cowbird.

Mammals: Northern short-tailed shrew, white-tailed jackrabbit, snowshoe hare, 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, raccoon, American badger, striped skunk, white-tailed deer, North American beaver, and moose.

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

Presence of wildlife species is often determined by ecological site characteristics including grass and forb species, hydrology, aspect, and other associated ecological sites. The home ranges of most 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 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 and their young. Extensive use of insecticides for specialty crops (such as potatoes, sugar beets, and other crops) has greatly reduced insects within this MLRA.

Species of Concern within MLRA 56A:

The following is a list of species considered “species of conservation priority” in the North Dakota State Wildlife Action Plan (2015); “species of greatest conservation need” in the Minnesota State Wildlife Action Plan, Conservation Focus Areas, Target Species (2015) and the South Dakota State Wildlife Action Plan (2014); and “species listed as threatened, endangered, or petitioned” under the Endangered Species Act within MLRA 56A at the time this section was developed:

Invertebrates: Arogos skipper, Assiniboia skipper, Dakota skipper, dusted skipper, Leonard’s skipper, monarch butterfly, Poweshiek skippering, red-tailed leafhopper, regal fritillary, and Uhler’s Arctic.

Birds: American kestrel, American bittern, bobolink, American white pelican, bald eagle, black-billed cuckoo, chestnut-collared longspur, Dickcissel, grasshopper sparrow, greater prairie-chicken, Henslow’s sparrow, LeConte’s sparrow, loggerhead shrike, marbled godwit, Nelson’s sparrow, northern harrier, northern pintail, red-headed woodpecker, sharp-tailed grouse, short-eared owl, Swainson’s hawk, upland sandpiper, western meadowlark, willet, Wilson’s phalarope, and yellow rail.

Mammals: Arctic shrew, big brown bat, eastern spotted skunk, gray fox, little brown bat, northern grasshopper mouse, plains pocket mouse, prairie vole, pygmy shrew, Richardson’s ground squirrel, and river otter.

Amphibians/Reptiles: Canadian toad, common snapping turtle, northern prairie skink, and plains hognose snake.

Fish: Blacknose shiner, blue sucker, burbot, chestnut lamprey, finescale dace, hornyhead chub, largescale stoneroller, logperch, northern pearl dace, northern redbelly dace, pearl dace, shortnose gar, sickle-fin chub, sliver chub, silver lamprey, trout-perch, and yellow bullhead.

Mussels: Black sandshell, creek heelsplitter, creeper, mapleleaf, pink heelsplitter, pink papershell, threeridge, and Wabash pigtoe.

Grassland Management for Wildlife in MLRA 56A:

Management activities within the community phase pathways have both short and long term positive and negative impacts on wildlife. Community phase, transitional, and restoration pathways are keys to long-term management within each State and between States. Significant inputs must occur to cross the threshold between States (e.g., State 3.0 to 2.0) requiring substantial economic inputs and management (grazing intensity, reseeding, prescribed fire, woody vegetation removal, etc.). Timing, intensity, and frequency of these inputs can have dramatic positive or negative effects on vegetative structure impacting local wildlife species’ habitats. Ranchers and other land managers must always consider the long-term beneficial effects of management on the habitat in comparison to potential short-term negative effects to 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 (Wet Meadow, Subirrigated Sands) can be located adjacent to ecological sites that support trees (Choppy Sands and Loamy Overflow).

Management of these complex ecological sites can provide a heterogeneous or a homogenous landscape. Grassland bird use reduces as the plant community transitions to a homogenous state or increases in woody vegetation. Managers need to recognize ecological sites and the complexes they occur in to properly manage the landscape. A management regime for one ecological site may negatively impact an adjacent site (e.g., alteration of a grazing regime within a Choppy Sands ecological site 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. Managers also must consider habitat provided by adjacent/intermingled ecological sites for species with home ranges or life requisites that cannot be provided by one ecological site.

With populations of many grassland-nesting birds in decline, it is important to maintain these ecological sites in a 1.0 Reference State or the 2.0 Native/Invaded State. Plant communities optimal for a guild of grassland species serve as a population source where the birth rate exceeds mortality. Species may use marginal plant communities; however, these sites may function as a population sink where mortality exceeds the birth rate.

Understanding preferred vegetative stature and sensitivity to woody encroachment is necessary to manage for the specific grassland species. Various grass heights may be used for breeding, nesting, or foraging habitat. While most species use varying heights, many have a preferred vegetative stature height. The following chart provides preferred vegetative stature heights and sensitivity to woody vegetation encroachment.

To see the chart please follow the hyperlink. (
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/ND/56A_Wet_Meadow_Narrative_FINAL_Ref_FSG.pdf )

Wet Meadow Wildlife Habitat Interpretation:

Wet Meadow ecological sites are poorly drained soils located in depressions, on low-lying flats, and on floodplains. Associated ecological sites include Clayey, Limy Subirrigated, Loamy Overflow, Saline Lowland, Loamy, Sodic Subirrigated, Subirrigated, Subirrigated Sands, Shallow Marsh, and Choppy Sands. This complex of ecological sites provides habitat for many edge- sensitive, grassland bird species preferring medium- 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 sparrow and sedge wren. Sharp-tailed grouse and greater prairie chicken 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 sites support Great Plains white fringed orchids. However, extended periods of high moisture will result in some Wet Meadow sites being ponded for a sustained period. This results in the site being too wet to support Great plains white fringed orchids (i.e., 1.3 and 2.3 phases).

Wet Meadow ecological sites may be found in five plant community states (1.0 Reference State, 2.0 Native/Invaded State, 3.0 Invaded State 4.0 Invaded Wooded State, and 5.0 Go- Back State) within a local landscape. Multiple plant community phases exist within State 1.0 and 2.0. Today, these states occur primarily in response to precipitation (extended periods of above normal precipitation and drought), fire, grazing, non-use, and other anthropogenic disturbances.

Since 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 the T2B Transitional Pathway to State
3.0 or the T3A Transitional Pathway to State 4.0. Native wildlife generally benefits from the heterogeneous grasslands found States 1.0 and 2.0 that include diverse grass and forb species of varying stature and density. Plant communities within State 2.0 are dependent upon long-term changes in precipitation, compounded by grazing intensity and frequency and mechanical treatment. The transition to wetter or drier conditions results in a plant community that is either taller (wetter) in stature (such as Plant Community Phase 2.3 Cattails/Rushes/Willows) or shorter (drier) in stature (such as 2.2 Spikerushes/Foxtail Barley/Sedges).

Success along Restoration Pathway R3A from State 3.0 to State 2.0 and R4A from State 4.0 to State 2.0 is very difficult and is dependent upon presence of a remnant native grass population and degree of management treatments applied. Return to State 2.0 will also be very dependent on the wet or dry cycles during restorations treatments.

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.

1.0 Reference State

Community Phase 1.1 Sedges/Northern Reedgrass: 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 will use this site when swamp milkweed or tall or meadow blazing star occupy this site.

During long-term periods of above normal precipitation, this Wet Meadow ecological site provides habitat for a diverse suite of aquatic invertebrates providing an important trophic link between macrophytes and vertebrates that depend upon them as food. The vegetative structure provided by shallow, heavily 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, willet, etc). During multiyear periods of above normal precipitation, this site will provide waterfowl and shorebird habitat. Prescribed burning 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 or greater prairie chicken lek sites or nesting habitat. However, it does provide winter cover and escape 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 food, thermal, protective, and escape cover for small and large herbivores.

Amphibians and Reptiles: This ecological site can provide habitat for the northern leopard frog and Canadian toad. Depending on the duration of surface water, this site may provide breeding habitat. Successful egg laying and tadpole development habitat is dependent upon 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-on 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 Prairie Cordgrass/Switchgrass/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 a quality 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 increases in forbs which provides increased pollen and nectar sources and increased bare ground for ground- nesting insects.

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 mid-to tall-statured herbaceous vegetation found in a mesic vs. hydric habitats.

Mammals: A mix of wetland and tall-statured vegetation provides quality thermal, protective, escape, and winter habitat for big game animals and other, smaller herbivores. Depending on the degree of saturation and/or ponding, use may be limited by some species. Tall- to mid-statured vegetation provides suitable food for small and large herbivores.

Amphibians and Reptiles: Drying of the soil during periods of prolonged, below normal precipitation removes saturated soil and/or ponded water. Use by northern leopard frog and Canadian toad will decrease. This plant community may provide forage 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.

Community Phase 1.3 Cattails/Rushes/Sedges: This plant phase is a result of a community pathway initiated during several years of above average precipitation which raises the water table and increases ponding frequency and duration. The resultant wetland plant community (with some open water) favors water birds, including waterfowl. The forb community decreases as cattails and high-statured rushes dominate the plant community. Willow species may begin to invade the site.

Invertebrates: Saturated or ponded soils reduce forb species, resulting in a decrease in pollen and nectar sources for insects and a total loss of ground nesting habitat. A potential increase in willow species provides an early season pollinator source. Saturated soils and ponded water favor aquatic invertebrates.

Birds: Increases in ponded water provides habitat for dabbling ducks and shore birds, including a quality food source of aquatic invertebrates.

Mammals: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.2. However, wetting of the soils removes all habitat for subterranean mammals, such as the plains pocket gopher, inhabiting MLRA 56A.

Amphibians and Reptiles: Several years of above average precipitation raises the water table and increases ponding frequency and duration. Use by northern leopard frog and Canadian toad will increase. Breeding habitat will be dependent upon the depth and duration of ponded water for egg laying and tadpole development.

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

2.0 Native/Invaded State

Community Phase 2.1 Sedges/Northern Reedgrass/Willows: This plant community develops through Transition Pathway T1A, due to changes in management and the presence of exotic species (such as 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. Except for the increase of willow species, this phase functions at a high level for native wildlife. However, managers need to recognize the invasiveness of willow species and develop management strategies to avoid moving to State 3.0 dominated by willow. Managers should consider management within the State 2.0 Community Phase Pathways to avoid transitioning to State 3.0.

Invertebrates: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.1.

Birds: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.1. Depending on the degree of willow invasion, bird species that avoid woody vegetation will not find suitable habitat.

Mammals: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.1. Willow species will provide deer and moose browse and escape, thermal, and winter cover for large mammals.

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

Community Phase 2.2 Spikerushes/Foxtail Barley/Sedges: 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 wetland species tolerant of drier conditions; grazing/mechanical impact favors species (such as foxtail barley, spikerushes, mountain rush and curly dock). The forb community shifts to annual forbs, reducing pollinator habitat.

Invertebrates: 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, areas of 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 habitat.

Mammals: A shift to mid- to short-grass species and drier soil conditions reduces habitat for large mammals (such as white-tailed deer, elk, and moose) while still providing vegetative cover for small mammals. Depending on forb availability and dryness of the site, the plains pocket gopher may occupy this site. Thermal, escape, and winter cover is no longer provided for larger ungulates.

Amphibians and Reptiles: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.1, dependent on degree of salinity. Extended periods of drought may increase salinity levels, decreasing use by amphibians and reptiles.

Fish and Mussels: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.2.

Community Phase 2.3 Cattails/Rushes/Willows: This plant phase is a result of a community pathway initiated during several years of above average precipitation which raises the water table and increases ponding frequency and duration. The resultant wetland plant community (with some open water) favors water birds, including waterfowl. Reduced fire frequency favors willow species.

Invertebrates: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.3.

Birds: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.3. However, depending on the degree of willow invasion, use by grassland nesting birds and waterbirds will decrease as willow species invasion increases.

Mammals: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.3 with increased thermal, escape, and winter cover for large mammals due to the increased presence of willow species.

Amphibians and Reptiles: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.3.

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

3.0 Invaded State

Community Phase 3.1 Exotic Cool-Season Grasses/Foxtail Barley/Sedges/Willows: This plant community phase occurs during periods of below average precipitation lowering the water table, coupled with increased animal impact and/or mechanical disturbance. This combination favors disturbance-tolerant non-native species (such as quackgrass, foxtail barley, redtop, Canada thistle, leafy spurge, and Kentucky bluegrass). Management along Restoration Pathway R3A will require prescribed burning and prescribed grazing and extensive time to bring forb and grass diversity back to this plant community phase. The resultant plant community may resemble Community Phase 2.1 in appearance.

Invertebrates: Amount and availability of pollen is limited to willows, providing only an early season source of pollen. Aquatic invertebrates become very limited due to the lack of saturated soils or ponded water. This plant community will not provide life requisites for Dakota skippers, Regal fritillary, or monarch butterflies.

Birds: 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 habitat. Waterfowl use will be limited; shorebirds may find some forage opportunities during precipitation events.

Mammals: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 2.2.

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 3.2 Foxtail Barley/Saltgrass/Bare Ground: This community phase results from long-term heavy grazing with or without drought which causes an increased movement of salts in the soil. Compared to Community Phase 3.1, there has been marked increases in foxtail barley and saltgrass with corresponding decreases in the exotic cool-season grasses, sedges, willows, and other less salt tolerant plants.

Invertebrates: Salinizing sites will have limited pollen and nectar available but may provide adequate bare soil for ground nesting bees, dependent upon degree of a salinity. During periods of drought, aquatic invertebrates become limited due to the lack of saturated soils or ponded water and increase in salinity. This plant community will not provide life requisites for Dakota skippers, Regal fritillary, or monarch butterflies.

Birds: Heavy grazing along with increased salinity (via Community Pathway 3.1A) results in mid-to short-statured herbaceous vegetation found in a mesic, saline vs. fresh water, hydric habitat. Waterfowl use will be limited; shorebirds may find some forage opportunities during precipitation events.

Mammals: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 2.2.

Amphibians and Reptiles: Increase salinity levels decrease use by amphibians and reptiles.

Fish and Mussels: Increased salinity levels may lead to an increase of salinized water leaving this site negatively impacting adjacent water bodies.

4.0 Invaded Wooded State

Community Phase 4.1 Willows: The elimination of fire via Transitional Pathway T2A allows for sandbar and Bebb willow to dominate this site. Shade tolerant sedges and rushes dominate the understory. Restoration to State 2.0 via Restoration Pathway R4A 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 56A. Season-long pollen and nectar availability becomes limited on this site.
However, willows provide an early season pollen source for native bees and honeybees. Overall, pollinator plant diversity is low, limiting season-long nectar and pollen production.

Birds: Depending on degree of invasion by willows, grassland nesting birds that are sensitive to woody vegetation encroachment will discontinue use of this community phase. Bird species preferring woodland edge may begin to use this site.

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: Provides similar life requisites as Community Phase 1.1.

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

5.0 Go-Back State

Community Phase 5.1 Annual/Pioneer Perennial/Exotics: These plant communities are the result of severe soil disturbance (such as cropping, drainage recreational activity, or concentrated livestock activity for a prolonged period). Following cessation of disturbances, the resulting plant community is dominated by early pioneer annual and perennial plant species. Plant species composition and production are highly variable. 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 the presence of insects. Milkweed can be an early pioneering pollinator species and host plant for monarch butterflies. Tall stature provided by some annual weeds offers thermal cover and seeds throughout winter for deer, small mammals, and over-wintering birds. The response by wildlife species will be dependent upon plant community composition, vegetative stature, patch size, and management activities (such as prescribed grazing, burning, inter-seeding, haying, or noxious weed control).

Successful restoration cannot be accomplished without full restoration of hydrology. Successful restoration of native species along Transition Pathway R5A can result in a native grass and forb community in Native/Invaded State 2.0. Over time (with no management), the exotic cool-season perennial grasses (Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, and/or quackgrass) generally become established and dominate the community. Failed range planting, via Transition Pathway R4B, can result in an invaded plant community Invaded State 3.0.

Animal Community – Grazing Interpretations

This site is well adapted to managed grazing by domestic livestock. The predominance of herbaceous plants across all plant community phases best lends these sites to grazing by cattle, but other domestic grazers with differing diet preferences may also be a consideration depending upon management objectives. Often, the current plant community does not entirely match any particular plant community (as described in the ecological site description). Because of this, a resource inventory is necessary to document plant composition and production. Proper interpretation of this inventory data will permit the establishment of a safe, initial stocking rate for the type and class of animals and level of grazing management. More accurate stocking rate estimates should eventually be calculated using actual stocking rate information and monitoring data.

When interpreting plant production in regard to 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 prescribed grazing management. “Degree of utilization” is defined as the proportion of the current year’s 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 very slow to rapid; runoff potential varies from negligible too high 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, type and success 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, change in ecological site designation is necessary and proceed accordingly.

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.

Recreational uses

Hunting and Bird Watching: The United States Fish and Wildlife Service manages approximately 4,000 acres of National Wildlife Refuges for hiking and bird watching and approximately 24,000 acres of Waterfowl Production Areas for public hunting, hiking, and bird watching. States within MLRA 56A manage approximately 39,000 acres of wildlife management areas for multiple use including hunting, fishing, hiking, birdwatching, berry picking, and other non-motorized uses. Of the 39,000 acres, approximately 21,400 are in Minnesota with approximately 16,000 acres in North Dakota and approximately 1,700 acres in South Dakota.

In North Dakota, the United States Forest Service manages 70,000 acres on the Sheyenne National Grassland for multiple uses including camping, hunting, photography, backpacking birdwatching, biking, horseback riding, and other non-motorized recreation. The Sheyenne National Grassland is also managed for livestock grazing. The Choppy Sands and Sands ecological sites dominate the Grassland. It is the only National Grassland in the tallgrass prairie region of the United States. The grassland provides habitat for greater prairie chickens as well as several other sensitive species, such as the Dakota skipper and regal fritillary. It also contains one of largest populations of the western prairie fringed orchid which is listed as a threatened species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Fishing: Approximately 20 lakes are managed for public fishing MLRA 56A. Most of these lakes offer boat docks and ramps. These lakes contain various sport fish including walleye, northern pike, yellow perch, crappie, and bluegill. The Red River runs from south to north through the center of the MLRA. The Red River is best known for channel catfish but also has walleye, sauger, northern pike, and smallmouth bass. The Red River is 550 miles long from its source in the southern end of the MLRA near Breckenridge, Minnesota to Lake Winnipeg in Manitoba, Canada. Between North Dakota and Minnesota, there are 32 public access points along the Red River with 18 having boat ramps.

Camping: Four state parks or recreation areas provide of modern and primitive camping facilities. Minnesota hosts the Buffalo River State Park and Red River State Park. North Dakota hosts the Icelandic State Park and Turtle River State Park. These Parks provide hiking, biking, birding, canoeing, and wildlife viewing opportunities. Many local parks and private parks provide modern and primitive camping opportunities. Limited primitive camping is also available on North Dakota Game and Fish Department Wildlife Management Areas.

Hiking/Biking/Horseback Riding: Hiking is permitted on most state and federally owned lands. Developed hiking and biking trails can be found the four state parks. The Grand Forks Greenway has over 22 miles of trails while municipalities along the Red River have extensive walking and hiking trails. A 30-mile segment of the North Country National Scenic Trail leads hikers through the Sheyenne National Grassland’s unique landforms and plant communities. This trail has three trailheads along its route; it is a graveled, marked trail. The entire North Country National Scenic Trail stretches from Crown Point, New York to Lake Sakakawea near Garrison, North Dakota.

Canoeing/Kayaking: The Red River has six designated canoe/kayaking trails. Public access, with limited rentals, is available at these segments. Sheyenne River Water Trail has a segment within the MLRA Sheyenne National Grasslands. Canoe/kayak rentals are available at Icelandic State Park.

Wood products

No appreciable wood products are present on this site.

Other products

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

Other information

• A few areas mapped as Arveson soils (I309A and I310A) are forested in Pembina County. These areas need investigation to determine if the soils are correctly mapped. These soils are likely not poorly drained and may better fit the Limy Subirrigated ecological site. If confirmed as poorly drained, some discussion of the forested state should be added to the Wet Meadow ESD.
• 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 may be needed on the ‘Aspen Parkland’ phases of soil map units included in this site. The presence of aspen is not discussed in the site narratives. ‘Aspen Parkland’ map units occur in the eastern part of the MLRA:
o Hamar loamy fine sand, Aspen Parkland, 0 to 1 percent slopes (map unit prn9)
o Rosewood fine sandy loam, Aspen Parkland, 0 to 1 percent slopes (map unit prpb)
• 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 drainageways. The impact of occasional or frequent flooding on these areas needs evaluation.
• 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.
• NASIS revisions needed:
o Currently, numerous poorly drained components are linked to the Clayey ES. Ecological sites are supposed to reflect unaltered hydrologic conditions; therefore, these components should be linked to Wet Meadow. Soil series to review and relink are:
 Clearwater
 Eagepoint
 Fargo
 Foxlake
 Hegne
 McDonaldsville
 Mustinka
 Northcote
 Noyes
 Reis
 Ryan, thick solum
 Viking
Care is required in relinking as some of these soils have moderately saline components, also.
o Nineteen components (1 major) of Dovray, very poorly drained are currently linked to Wet Meadow; these need to be relinked to Shallow Marsh.
o Two major components of Endoaquolls, moderately saline occur in a borrow area map unit. If these are disturbed soils, they should probably be relinked from Saline Lowland to Non-site.
o Two components (1 major) of Flom, very poorly drained are currently linked to Wet Meadow; these need to be relinked to Shallow Marsh.
o Two components (1 major) of Kratka, very poorly drained are currently linked to Wet Meadow; these should be relinked to Shallow Marsh. Both components occur in the Minnesota part of MLRA 56A.
o Three components (1 major) of Lallie, very poorly drained are currently linked to Wet Meadow; these should be relinked to Shallow Marsh.
o Two components (1 major) of non-saline Ludden soils are currently linked to Saline Lowland; these need to be relinked to Wet Meadow. One component of Ludden is not linked to an ecological site; it should be linked to Wet Meadow.
o Five components (1 major) of Northcote, very poorly drained are currently linked to Wet Meadow in NASIS; these should be relinked to Shallow Marsh.
o Four components (3 major) of Roliss, very poorly drained are currently linked to Wet Meadow; these should be relinked to Shallow Marsh.
o One minor component of Strathcona, very poorly drained is currently linked to Wet Meadow; this should be relinked to Shallow Marsh.

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. Those involved in developing this site description include: Stan Boltz, NRCS State Rangeland Management Specialist; Bernadette Braun, USFS Rangeland Management Specialist; Stacey Swenson, USFS Rangeland Management Specialist; Jeff Printz, NRCS State Rangeland Management Specialist; Dr. Kevin Sedivec, Extension Rangeland Management Specialist; Dr. Shawn Dekeyser, North Dakota State University; Rob Self, The Nature Conservancy; Lee Voigt, NRCS Area Rangeland Management Specialist; Dr. Mark Gonzales, USFS Hydrologist; David Dewald, NRCS State Biologist; Keith Anderson, NRCS Soil Scientist, Fred Aziz; NRCS Area Resource Soil Scientist; and Steve Sieler, NRCS Soil Scientist.

Other references

Bansal, S. et. al. 2019. Typha (cattail) invasion in North America wetlands: biology, regional problems, impacts, ecosystem services, and management. Wetlands 39:645-684.

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., 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

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

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.

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.

Ewing, J. 1924. Plant Succession on the Brush Prairie in Northwestern Minnesota. Journal of Ecology 12:228-266.

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/trel06-5.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none

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.

Hansen, K. 1996. The Vegetation of the Sheyenne National Grassland: An Ecological Classification. USFS.

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)

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.

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

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.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Field guide to the native plant communities of Minnesota – the prairie parkland and tallgrass aspen parklands provinces. Minnesota DNR.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Ecological System Summaries and Class Factsheets – Wetland Grasslands, Shrublands, and Marshes. https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/npc/wetlandgrassland.html

Nelson, W.T. 1986. Grassland habitat type classification of the Sheyenne National Grasslands of southeastern North Dakota. M.S. thesis. North Dakota State University. 139 pages.

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 https://www.parkrec.nd.gov/

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.

Ralston, R.D., and R.L. Dix. 1966. Green herbage production of native grasslands in the Red River Valley-1965. Proceedings ND Academy of Science 20:57-66.

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. 2011. Mammals of North Dakota. North Dakota Institute for Regional Studies, Fargo, ND. 461 pages.

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

Seiler, G.J. and W.T. Barker. 1985. Vascular flora of Ransom, Richland, and Sargent Counties, North Dakota. The Prairie Naturalist 17:193-240.

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-Sediment-Removal-on-Prairie-Pothole-Wetland-Plant-Communities/10.3375/043.036.0110.full

Spaeth, K.E., Hayek, M.A., Toledo, D., and Hendrickson, J. 2019. Cool Season Grass Impacts on Native Mixedgrass Prairie Species in the Norther 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.

Stroh, R. K. 2002. Native Woodlands Habitat Type Classification for the Sheyenne National Grassland, North Dakota. North Dakota State University.

Swingen, M., R, M. Walker, R. Baker, G. Nordquist, T. Catton, K. Kirschbaum, B. Dirks, and N. Dietz. 2018. Northern Long-eared Bat Roost Tree Characteristics 2015-2017. Natural Research Institute, University of Minnesota Duluth, Technical Report NRRI/TR-2018/41, 88p.

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. National Range and Pasture Handbook, September 1997

USDA, NRCS. National Soil Information System, Information Technology Center, 2150 Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526. (https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/tools/?cid=nrcs142p2_053552)

USDA, NRCS. National Water and Climate Center, 101 SW Main, Suite 1600, Portland, OR 97204-3224. (https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/wcc/home/)

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.

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.

Wanek, W. J., and R. L. Burgess. 1965. Floristic Composition of the Sand Prairies of Southeastern North Dakota. Proceedings North Dakota Academy of Science 19:26-40.

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: Keith Anderson, Fred Aziz, Stan Boltz, David Dewald, Jonathan Fettig, Alan Gulsvig, Mark Hayek, Chuck Lura, Jeff Printz, Steve Sieler, Lee Voigt, and Hal Weiser.

Approval

Suzanne Mayne-Kinney, 5/21/2025

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge Dr. Shawn DeKeyser, Dr. Kevin Sedivec, NDSU; Bernadette Braun, Dr. Mark Gonzales, Jamie Kienzle, Stacy Swenson, USFS; and Rob Self, The Nature Conservancy; for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Print Options