Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Ecological site R025XY017NV

CLAYPAN 12-16 P.Z.

Last updated: 4/24/2024
Accessed: 11/13/2024

Home / Esd catalog / MLRA 025X / Ecological site R025XY017NV

USC

Metric

General information

Provisional. A provisional ecological site description has undergone quality control and quality assurance review. It contains a working state and transition model and enough information to identify the ecological site.

MLRA notes

Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 025X–Owyhee High Plateau

The Owyhee High Plateau, MLRA 25, lies within the Intermontane Plateaus physiographic province. The southern half is found in the Great Basin while the northern half is located in the Columbia Plateaus. The southern section of the Owyhee High Plateau is characterized by isolated, uplifted fault-block mountain ranges separated by narrow, aggraded desert plains. This geologically older terrain has been dissected by numerous streams draining to the Humboldt River. The northern section forms the southern boundary of the extensive Columbia Plateau basalt flows. Deep, narrow canyons drain to the Snake River across the broad volcanic plain.

This MLRA is characteristically cooler and wetter than the neighboring MLRAs of the Great Basin. Elevation ranges from 3,000 to 7,550 feet on rolling plateaus and in gently sloping basins. It is more than 9,840 feet on some steep mountains. The average annual precipitation in most of this area is typically 11 to 22 inches. It increases to as much as 49 inches at the higher elevations. Precipitation occurs mainly as snow in winter. The supply of water from precipitation and streamflow is small and unreliable, except along major rivers. Streamflow depends largely on accumulated snow in the mountains.

The dominant soil orders in this MLRA are Aridisols and Mollisols. The soils in the area dominantly have a mesic or frigid temperature regime and an aridic, arid bordering on xeric, or xeric moisture regime. Most of the soils formed in mixed parent material. Volcanic ash and loess mantle the landscape. Surface soil textures are loam and silt loam, and have ashy texture modifiers in some cases. Argillic horizons occur on the more stable landforms.

Ecological site concept

This ecological site is on summits and side slopes of mountains. Soils associated with this site formed in residuum and colluvium derived from volcanic rocks. Soils are shallow and well drained with a high runoff potential. Slopes are generally less than 30 percent with elevations of 6,000 to 8,000 feet (1,829 to 2,438 meters). The soil profile is characterized by a dark surface horizon (mollic epipedon) and a horizon clay accumulation (argillic) within 8 inches (20cm). Important abiotic factors contributing to the presence of this ecological site include an abrupt boundary to an argillic horizon contributing to wet non-satiated conditions, linear-linear landform shape, and high runoff reducing the overall soil moisture storage. The reference plant community is dominated by low sagebrush and Idaho fescue.

Associated sites

R025XY009NV	SOUTH SLOPE 12-14 P.Z.
R025XY012NV	LOAMY SLOPE 12-16 P.Z.
R025XY024NV	MOUNTAIN RIDGE
R025XY027NV	LOAMY 12-14 P.Z.
R025XY047NV	CLAY SEEP

Similar sites

R025XY022NV	COBBLY CLAYPAN 8-12 P.Z. PSSPS-ACTH7 codominant grasses; less productive site; greater than 60% rock fragments on soil surface
R025XY024NV	MOUNTAIN RIDGE Much less productive site; soils are very shallow; convex-convex landform shape
R025XY018NV	CLAYPAN 10-12 P.Z. PSSPS-ACTH7 codominant grasses; occurs on fan remnants below 6,500'
R025XY010ID	CLAYPAN 12-16 Gravely loam surface with accumulation of clay within 11cm of surface.
R025XY416UT	Mountain Shallow Loam (Low Sagebrush) landscape and soil characteristics are similar to 025XY017NV

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Tree	Not specified
Shrub	(1) Artemisia arbuscula
Herbaceous	(1) Pseudoroegneria spicata

Download full description

Physiographic features

This ecological site is on summits and side slopes of mountains and hills. Slopes range from 4 to 50 percent, but are typically between 4 to 30 percent. Elevations range from 6,000-8,000 feet (1,829 to 2,438 meters). This site has high to very high runoff potential.

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Landforms	(1) Mountains > Mountain slope (2) Hills > Hillslope
Runoff class	High to very high
Flooding frequency	None
Elevation	6,000 – 8,000 ft
Slope	4 – 50%
Water table depth	150 in
Aspect	Aspect is not a significant factor

Climatic features

The climate associated with this site is defined by hot dry summers and cold snowy winters. This is site is characterized by less than 145 freeze-free days annually. Mean annual precipitation is typically 13 inches (33cm) with an effective precipitation between 12 to 16 inches (31 to 41cm). Averages snowfall is between 40 to 65 inches (101 to 165cm) per year.

* The above data is average from the Tuscarora and Wild Horse climate stations, NASIS and, the Western Regional Climate Center (wrcc.dri.edu).

Table 3. Representative climatic features

Frost-free period (characteristic range)	56-100 days
Freeze-free period (characteristic range)	97-146 days
Precipitation total (characteristic range)	11-14 in
Frost-free period (actual range)	50-100 days
Freeze-free period (actual range)	63-166 days
Precipitation total (actual range)	7-22 in
Frost-free period (average)	70 days
Freeze-free period (average)	145 days
Precipitation total (average)	13 in

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 1. Monthly precipitation range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 2. Monthly minimum temperature range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 3. Monthly maximum temperature range

Bar

Line

Figure 4. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature

Figure 5. Annual precipitation pattern

Figure 6. Annual average temperature pattern

Climate stations used

(1) TUSCARORA [USC00268346], Tuscarora, NV
(2) WILD HORSE RSVR [USC00269072], Deeth, NV

Soil features

The soils associated with this site are shallow, well drained, and formed in residuum and colluvium derived from volcanic rocks. Surface texture is typically cobbly loam or gravely loam. Soils are less than 20 inches (50cm) to bedrock with an abrupt boundary to an layer of clay accumulation (argillic horizon) 2 to 4 inches (5 to 10cm) from the soil surface. The soil profile is characterized by a dark surface horizon (mollic epipedon) and greater than 35 percent clay in the particle size control section and less than 35 percent rock fragments by volume distributed through out the upper soil profile.

Representative soil components associated with this ecological site include Ninemile, Chen, Cotant, Coser, and Igdell.

Table 4. Representative soil features

Parent material	(1) Colluvium – volcanic rock (2) Residuum – volcanic rock
Surface texture	(1) Cobbly, gravelly loam
Drainage class	Well drained
Permeability class	Slow to moderately slow
Depth to restrictive layer	12 – 20 in
Soil depth	12 – 20 in
Surface fragment cover <=3"	12 – 33%
Surface fragment cover >3"	2 – 14%
Available water capacity (Depth not specified)	2 – 3.2 in
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (Depth not specified)	6.1 – 7.8
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified)	14 – 33%
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified)	3 – 13%

Table 5. Representative soil features (actual values)

Drainage class	Not specified
Permeability class	Not specified
Depth to restrictive layer	10 – 40 in
Soil depth	10 – 40 in
Surface fragment cover <=3"	Not specified
Surface fragment cover >3"	Not specified
Available water capacity (Depth not specified)	Not specified
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (Depth not specified)	Not specified
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified)	Not specified
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified)	Not specified

Ecological dynamics

This ecological site is dominated by deep-rooted cool season, perennial bunchgrasses and long-lived shrubs (50+ years) with high root to shoot ratios. Community types with little sagebrush as the dominant shrub were found to have soil depths (and thus available rooting depths) of 71 to 81 centimeters in a study in northeast Nevada (Jensen 1990). These shrubs have a flexible generalized root system with development of both deep taproots and laterals near the surface (Comstock and Ehleringer 1992).

Periodic drought regularly influences sagebrush ecosystems and drought duration and severity have increased throughout the 20th century in much of the Intermountain West. Major shifts away from historical precipitation patterns have the greatest potential to alter ecosystem function and productivity. Species composition and productivity can be altered by the timing of precipitation and water availability with the soil profile (Bates et al. 2006).

Little sagebrush is fairly drought tolerant but also tolerates periodic wetness during some portion of the growing season. Little sagebrush is also susceptible to the sagebrush defoliator Aroga moth. Aroga moth can partially or entirely kill individual plants or entire stands of big sagebrush (Furniss and Barr 1975), but the research is inconclusive of the damage sustained by little sagebrush populations.

The perennial bunchgrasses that are dominant on this site include Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass. These species generally have shallower root systems than the shrubs, but root densities are often as high as or higher than those of shrubs in the upper 0.5 m but taper off more rapidly. Differences in root depth distributions between grasses and shrubs result in resource partitioning in these shrub/grass systems.

The Great Basin sagebrush communities have high spatial and temporal variability in precipitation both among years and within growing seasons. Prior to 1897, mean fire return intervals for little sagebrush communities have been estimated to be from 35 to over 100 years. Fire risk is greatest following a wet, productive year when there is greater production of fine fuels (Beardall and Sylvester 1976). Nutrient availability is typically low but increases with elevation and closely follows moisture availability. The invasibility of plant communities is often linked to resource availability. Disturbance can decrease resource uptake due to damage or mortality of the native species and depressed competition. It can also increase resource pools via the decomposition of dead plant material following disturbance. The invasion of sagebrush communities by cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) has been linked to disturbances (fire, abusive grazing) that have resulted in fluctuations in resources (Chambers et al. 2007). The introduction of annual weedy species, like cheatgrass, may cause an increase in fire frequency and eventually lead to an annual state. Conversely, as fire frequency decreases, sagebrush will increase and with inappropriate grazing management, the perennial bunchgrasses and forbs may be reduced.

As ecological condition declines, little sagebrush species and Douglas rabbitbrush become dominant with increases of bottlebrush squirreltail, Sandberg's bluegrass, and mat forming forbs in the understory. The potential invasive/noxious weeds are cheatgrass, rabbitbrush, snakeweed, and annual mustards.

This ecological site has low to moderate resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasion. Increased resilience increases with elevation, aspect, increased precipitation and increased nutrient availability.

State and transition model

More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
Click on state and transition labels to scroll to the respective text

Ecosystem states

T1	-	Introduction of annual non-native species.
T3	-	Repeated, widespread and severe fire.
R2	-	Seeding with native species/prescribed grazing

State 1
Reference State

The Reference State is a representative of the natural range of variability under pristine conditions. State dynamics are maintained by interactions between climatic patterns and disturbance regimes. Negative feedbacks enhance ecosystem resilience and contribute to the stability of the state. These include the presence of all structural and functional groups, low fine fuel loads, and retention of organic matter and nutrients. Plant community phase changes are primarily driven by fire, periodic drought and/or insect or disease attack.

Characteristics and indicators. Little sagebrush is killed by fire and does not sprout (Tisdale and Hironaka 1984). Establishment after fire is from seed, generally blown in and not from the seed bank (Bradley et al. 1992). Fire return intervals have been estimated at 100-200 years in black sagebrush-dominated sites (Kitchen and McArthur 2007) and likely is similar in the low sagebrush ecosystem. Historically, however, fires were probably patchy due to the low productivity of these sites.

Dominant plant species

little sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula), shrub
Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), grass
Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), grass
bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), grass

Community 1.1

This community phase is characteristic of a mid-seral plant community and is dominated by little sagebrush, bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue. Potential vegetative composition by weight is about 60 percent grasses, 15 percent forbs and 25 percent shrubs. Total vegetative cover averages 20 to 35 percent.

Figure 7. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)

Table 6. Annual production by plant type

Plant type	Low (lb/acre)	Representative value (lb/acre)	High (lb/acre)
Grass/Grasslike	240	420	540
Shrub/Vine	100	175	225
Forb	60	105	135
Total	400	700	900

Community 1.2

This community phase is characterized by a post-disturbance, early seral, plant community. Sagebrush and other shrubs are reduced, or patchy. Perennial bunchgrasses and forbs dominate the visual aspect of the plant community. Disturbance tolerant shrubs such as antelope bitterbrush will sprout from the root-crown following low and medium intensity wildfire and may begin to dominate the plant community 2 to 5 years post-disturbance.

Resilience management. Recovery time of little sagebrush following fire is variable (Young 1983). After fire, if regeneration conditions are favorable, little sagebrush recovers in 2 to 5 years; on harsh sites where cover is low to begin with and/or erosion occurs after fire, recovery may require more than 10 years (Young 1983). Bitterbrush sprouts from a region on the stem approximately 1.5 inches above and below the soil surface; the plant rarely sprouts if the root crown is killed by fire (Blaisdell and Mueggler 1956). Low intensity fires may allow for bitterbrush to sprout; however, community response also depends on soil moisture levels at time of fire (Murray 1983). Idaho fescue responds to fire variably depending on condition and size of the plant, season and severity of fire, and ecological conditions. Mature Idaho fescue plants are commonly reported to be severely damaged by fire in all seasons (Wright et al. 1979). Initial mortality may be high (in excess of 75%) on severe burns, but usually varies from 20 to 50% (Barrington et al 1988).

Community 1.3

Absence of disturbance allows sagebrush to mature and dominate the plant community. Perennial bunchgrasses and forbs are reduced in both vigor and productivity due to competition for light, moisture and nutrient resources.

Pathway 1.1a
Community 1.1 to 1.2

Wildfire. Low severity fire creates sagebrush/grass mosaic; higher intensity fires significantly reduce sagebrush cover and lead to early seral community dominated by grasses and forbs. Frequency and intensity of wildfire is primarily driven by cover and amount of herbaceous vegetation.

Pathway 1.1b
Community 1.1 to 1.3

Time, absence of disturbance and natural regeneration over time allows sagebrush to dominate site resources, resulting in reduced cover and productivity of native perennial bunchgrasses. This community phase pathway may be coupled with drought and/or herbivory further reducing herbaceous understory.

Pathway 1.2a
Community 1.2 to 1.1

Time, absence of disturbance and natural regeneration over time allows sagebrush to recover. Recovery of sagebrush depends on the availability of a local seed source (patches of mature shrubs) as well as precipitation patterns favorable for germination and seedling recruitment. Sagebrush seedlings are susceptible to less than favorable conditions for several years. Recovery time of little sagebrush following fire is variable (Young 1983). After fire, if regeneration conditions are favorable, little sagebrush recovers in 2 to 5 years; on harsh sites where cover is low to begin with and/or erosion occurs after fire, recovery may require more than 10 years (Young 1983).

Pathway 1.3a
Community 1.3 to 1.1

Low intensity, patchy wildfire or insect infestation would reduce sagebrush overstory creating a mosaic on the landscape. Sagebrush cover is reduced and perennial bunchgrasses and forbs increase, dominating disturbed patches due to an increase in light, moisture and nutrient resources.

Pathway 1.3b
Community 1.3 to 1.2

Wide spread wildfire removes sagebrush and allows perennial bunchgrasses and forbs to dominate.

State 2
Current Potential

This state is similar to the Reference State 1.0. Ecological function has not changed, however the resiliency of the state has been reduced by the presence of invasive weeds. This state has the same three general community phases. These non-natives can be highly flammable, and can promote fire where historically fire had been infrequent. Negative feedbacks enhance ecosystem resilience and contribute to the stability of the state. These include the presence of all structural and functional groups, low fine fuel loads and retention of organic matter and nutrients. Positive feedbacks decrease ecosystem resilience and stability of the state. These include the non-natives’ high seed output, persistent seed bank, rapid growth rate, ability to cross pollinate and adaptations for seed dispersal. Management would be to maintain high diversity of desired species to promote organic matter inputs and prevent the dispersal and seed production of the non-native invasive species.

Dominant plant species

little sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula), shrub
cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), grass
Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), grass
bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), grass

Community 2.1

This community phase is similar to the Reference State Community Phase 1.1, with the presence of non-native species in trace amounts.

Resilience management. The presence of non-native annuals has reduced site resilience. Management actions should focus on maintaining the presence of all functional and structural groups and minimizing wildfire and soil disturbing practices.

Community 2.2

This community phase is characteristic of a post-disturbance, early seral community where annual non-native species are present. Perennial bunchgrasses and forbs recover rapidly following wildfire. Annual non-native species are stable or increasing within the community. Disturbance tolerant shrubs typically recover 2 to 5 years post fire and may dominate the sites for many years.

Resilience management. Antelope bitterbrush is moderately fire tolerant (McConnell and Smith 1977). It regenerates by seed and resprouting (Blaisdell and Mueggler 1956, McArthur et al. 1982), though sprouting ability is highly variable and has been attributed to genetics, plant age, phenology, soil moisture and texture, and fire severity (Blaisdell and Mueggler 1956, Blaisdell et al. 1982, Clark et al. 1982, Cook et al. 1994). If cheatgrass is present, bitterbrush seedling success is much lower. The factor that most limits establishment of bitterbrush seedlings is competition for water resources with cheatgrass, an invasive species (Clements and Young 2002).

Community 2.3

This community phase is characterized by decadent sagebrush, reduced perennial bunchgrass and increasing bare ground. Annual non-natives species are stable or increasing due to lack of competition from perennial bunchgrasses.

Pathway 2.1a
Community 2.1 to 2.2

Fire reduces the shrub overstory and allows for perennial bunchgrasses to dominate the site. Fire may be patchy resulting in a mosaic pattern with patches of mature sagebrush remaining. Annual non-native species are likely to increase after fire.

Pathway 2.1b
Community 2.1 to 2.3

Time and lack of disturbance allows for sagebrush to increase and become decadent. Mature sagebrush is controlling the spatial and temporal distribution of moisture, nutrient and light resources. Native perennial bunchgrasses are reduced due to competition for these resources. Non-native annuals are stable to increasing.

Pathway 2.1a
Community 2.2 to 2.1

Time, lack of disturbance and natural regeneration of sagebrush. The establishment of little sagebrush depends on presence of seed source and favorable weather patterns. It may take decades for sagebrush to recover to pre-disturbance levels.

Pathway 2.3a
Community 2.3 to 2.1

Low intensity wildfire, insect infestation, or brush management with minimal soil disturbance reduces sagebrush overstory and releases herbaceous understory.

Pathway 2.3b
Community 2.3 to 2.2

Fire reduces or eliminates the overstory of sagebrush and allows for the understory perennial grasses and forbs to increase. Annual non-native species respond well to fire and may increase post-burn.

State 3
Annual State

Annual non-natives dominated site productivity and site resources. The dominance of non-native annuals control the spatial and temporal distribution of soil moisture, soil nutrients and energy resources. Remaining patches of sagebrush and/or perennial bunchgrass suffer from increased competition and narrowed fire return intervals.

Characteristics and indicators. This state experiences frequent fire due to increased cover and continuity of fine fuels. Fire is frequent enough to prevent the recovery of long-lived native perennials like sagebrush. Disturbance tolerant shrubs may be present or increasing depending on time since disturbance.

Dominant plant species

cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), grass

Community 3.1

This community phase in dominated by annual non-native plants such as cheatgrass. Sprouting shrubs such as antelope bitterbrush may also common. Patches of mature sagebrush may or may not be present.

Community 3.2

This community phase is characteristic of a post-wildfire community where annual non-natives are controlling site resources. Depending on season and/or intensity of fire the visually aspect of the site in dominated annual non-natives and bare ground. Site may be experiencing soil loss.

Resilience management. This community phases is high susceptible to frequent and repeated wildfire. Best management practices prevent sites from reaching this community phase. Management options are extremely limited.

Pathway 3.1a
Community 3.1 to 3.2

Fire reduces or eliminates the overstory shrubs and shallow-rooted perennials and allows for annual non-natives to increase

Pathway 3.2a
Community 3.2 to 3.1

Time and lack of fire allows for sagebrush/rabbitbrush to establish. Probability of sagebrush establishment is very unlikely and dependent on a near-by seed source from unburned patches of sagebrush.

State 4
Sagebrush State

Sagebrush dominates ecological functions.

Community 4.1
Low Sagebrush

Low sagebrush and rabbitbrush dominate. Sandberg bluegrass dominates understory with annual species present.

Community 4.2
Rabbitbrush

Sprouting rabbitbrush with a sagebrush trace. Sandberg bluegrass dominates with annual species increasing.

Pathway 4.1a
Community 4.1 to 4.2

Wildfire reduces the amount of sagebrush.

Pathway 4.1b
Community 4.2 to 4.1

Lack of disturbance will give sagebrush time to recover.

Transition T1
State 1 to 2

Trigger: Introduction of annual non-native species Slow variable: Over time the annual non-native plants increase within the community. Threshold: Any amount of introduced non-native species causes an immediate decrease in the resilience of the site. Annual non-native species cannot be easily removed from the system and have the potential to significantly alter disturbance regimes from their historic range of variation.

Transition T3
State 2 to 3

Trigger: Repeated, widespread and severe fire. Slow variables: Increased production and cover of non-native annual species over time. Threshold: Loss of deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses and shrubs truncates, spatially and temporally, nutrient capture and cycling within the community.

Restoration pathway R2
State 3 to 2

Seeding with native species followed by prescribed grazing Minimize soil disturbance and maximize non-native annual plant biomass removal during early spring. Combine prescribed grazing with seeding of native species. Continue to protect site from wildfire. Probability of success is extremely low.

Additional community tables

Table 7. Community 1.1 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production (lb/acre)	Foliar cover (%)
Grass/Grasslike
1				240–540
	Idaho fescue	FEID	Festuca idahoensis	135–290	–
	bluebunch wheatgrass	PSSP6	Pseudoroegneria spicata	60–160	–
	bluegrass	POA	Poa	15–30	–
	basin wildrye	LECI4	Leymus cinereus	10–20	–
	Thurber's needlegrass	ACTH7	Achnatherum thurberianum	10–20	–
	squirreltail	ELEL5	Elymus elymoides	10–20	–
Forb
2				60–135
	daggerpod	ANEU	Anelsonia eurycarpa	6–14	–
	phlox	PHLOX	Phlox	6–14	–
	milkvetch	ASTRA	Astragalus	6–14	–
	pussytoes	ANTEN	Antennaria	6–14	–
	desertparsley	LOMAT	Lomatium	6–14	–
	lupine	LUPIN	Lupinus	6–14	–
	buckwheat	ERIOG	Eriogonum	6–14	–
	goldenweed	PYRRO	Pyrrocoma	6–14	–
	balsamroot	BALSA	Balsamorhiza	6–14	–
	tapertip hawksbeard	CRAC2	Crepis acuminata	6–14	–
Shrub/Vine
3				100–225
	little sagebrush	ARAR8	Artemisia arbuscula	80–185	–
	rabbitbrush	CHRYS9	Chrysothamnus	5–10	–
	Utah serviceberry	AMUT	Amelanchier utahensis	5–10	–
	slender buckwheat	ERMI4	Eriogonum microthecum	5–10	–
	antelope bitterbrush	PUTR2	Purshia tridentata	5–10	–

Interpretations

Animal community

Livestock Interpretations:
This site is suited for livestock grazing. Considerations for grazing management include timing, intensity and duration of grazing. Targeted grazing could be used to decrease the density of non-natives.

In general, bunchgrasses best tolerate light grazing after seed formation. Britton and others (1979) observed the effects of harvest date on basal area of 5 bunchgrasses in eastern Oregon, including Idaho fescue, and found grazing from August to October (after seed set) has the least impact on these bunchgrasses. Therefore, abusive grazing during the growing season will reduce perennial bunchgrasses, with the exception of Sandberg bluegrass (Tisdale and Hironaka 1981). Abusive grazing by cattle or horses will also likely increase low sagebrush, rabbitbrush and some forbs such as arrowleaf balsamroot. Annual non-native weedy species may invade, such as cheatgrass and mustards, and potentially medusahead.

Reduced bunchgrass vigor or density provides an opportunity for Sandberg bluegrass expansion and/or cheatgrass and other invasive species to occupy interspaces. Bluegrass is a widespread, palatable forage grass that is one of the earliest grasses in the spring and is sought by domestic livestock and several wildlife species. Its production is closely tied to weather conditions; little forage is produced in drought years, making it a less dependable food source than other perennial bunchgrasses. Sandberg bluegrass increases under grazing pressure (Tisdale and Hironaka 1981) and is capable of co-existing with cheatgrass or other weedy species. Excessive sheep grazing favors Sandberg bluegrass; however, where cattle are the dominant grazers, cheatgrass often dominates (Daubenmire 1970). Thus, depending on the season of use, the grazer and site conditions, either Sandberg bluegrass or cheatgrass may become the dominant understory with inappropriate grazing management.

Idaho fescue provides important forage for many types of domestic livestock. The foliage cures well and is preferred by livestock in late fall and winter. Idaho fescue tolerates light to moderate grazing (Ganskopp and Bedell 1980) and is moderately resistant to trampling (Cole 1987). Heavy grazing may lead to replacement of Idaho fescue with non-native species such as cheatgrass (Mueggler 1984).

Bluebunch wheatgrass is moderately grazing-tolerant and is very sensitive to defoliation during the active growth period (Blaisdell and Pechanec 1949, Laycock 1967, Anderson and Scherzinger 1975, Britton et al. 1990). Herbage and flower stalk production was reduced with clipping at all times during the growing season; however, clipping was most harmful during the boot stage (Blaisdell and Pechanec 1949). Tiller production and growth of bluebunch was also greatly reduced when clipping was coupled with drought (Busso and Richards 1995). Mueggler (1975) estimated that low-vigor bluebunch wheatgrass may need up to 8 years rest to recover. Although an important forage species, it is not always the preferred species by livestock and wildlife.

Domestic sheep and, to a much lesser degree, cattle consume low sagebrush, particularly during the spring, fall, and winter (Sheehy and Winward 1981). Heavy dormant season grazing by sheep will reduce sagebrush cover and increase grass production (Laycock 1967). Severe trampling damage to supersaturated soils may occur if sites are used in early spring when there is abundant snowmelt. Trampling damage, particularly from cattle or horses, in low sagebrush habitat types is greatest when high clay content soils are wet. In drier areas that contain more gravelly soils, no serious trampling damage occurs, even when the soils are wet (Hironaka et al. 1983).

Stocking rates vary over time depending upon season of use, climate variations, site, and previous and current management goals. A safe starting stocking rate is an estimated stocking rate that is fine-tuned by the client by adaptive management through the year and from year to year.

Wildlife Interpretations:
Low sagebrush is considered a valuable browse plant for wildlife during the spring, fall and winter months. In some areas, it is of little value in winter due to heavy snow. Mule deer utilize and sometimes prefer low sagebrush, particularly in winter and early spring.
Idaho fescue is an important source of forage to pronghorn and deer in ranges of northern Nevada.

Hydrological functions

Infiltration of water is restricted once these soils are wetted and the site is subject to loss of water by runoff. Loss of the surface layer will result in decreased productivity of the site. Pedestalling of some grass plants is common during the winter due to frost heaving. Rills are none to rare. A few rills can be expected on steeper slopes in areas subjected to summer convection storms or rapid spring snowmelt. Fine litter (foliage from grasses and annual and perennial forbs) is expected to move the distance of slope length during intense summer convection storms or rapid snowmelt events. Persistent litter (large woody material) will remain in place except during catastrophic events. Perennial herbaceous plants (especially deep-rooted bunchgrasses) slow runoff and increase infiltration. Shrub canopy and associated litter break raindrop impact and provide opportunity for snow catch and accumulation on site.

Recreational uses

Aesthetic value is derived from the many varied and colorful wildflowers blooming on this site in the spring and early summer. This site has potential for upland game hunting, nature study and photography.

Other information

Low sagebrush can be successfully transplanted or seeded in restoration. Antelope bitterbrush has been used extensively in land reclamation. Antelope bitterbrush enhances succession by retaining soil and depositing organic material and in some habitats and with some ecotypes, by fixing nitrogen.

Supporting information

Inventory data references

NRCS-Range 417- 11 records
NV-ECS-1- 6 records
NV-4400-13(BLM)- 9 records
Old SS Manuscripts, Range Site Descriptions, etc.

Type locality

Location 1: Elko County, NV
Township/Range/Section	T35N R54E S26
General legal description	NW1/4,NW1/4 Section 26, T35N. R54E. MDBM. Approximately 12 miles north of Elko off east side of Mountain City highway, north slope of Adobe summit, Elko County, Nevada. This site also occurs in Humboldt County, Nevada.

Other references

Anderson, E. W. and R. J. Scherzinger. 1975. Improving quality of winter forage for elk by cattle grazing. Journal of Range Management 28: 120-125.

Baker, W. L. 2006. Fire and restoration of sagebrush ecosystems. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34: 177-185.

Barnett, J. K. and J. A. Crawford. 1994. Pre-laying nutrition of sage grouse hens in Oregon. Journal of Range Management 47: 114-118.

Barney, M. A. and N. C. Frischknecht. 1974. Vegetation changes following fire in the pinyon-juniper type of west-central Utah. Journal of Range Management 27 :91-96.

Barrington, M., S. Bunting, and G. Wright. 1988. A fire management plan for Craters of the Moon National Monument. Cooperative Agreement CA-9000-8-0005. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Range Resources Department. 52 p. Draft.

Bates, J. D., T. Svejcar, R. F. Miller, and R. A. Angell. 2006. The effects of precipitation timing on sagebrush steppe vegetation. Journal of Arid Environments 64: 670-697.

Beardall, L. E. and V. E. Sylvester. 1976. Spring burning of removal of sagebrush competition in Nevada. In: Tall Timbers Fire Ecology conference and proceedings. Tall Timbers Research Station. 14: 539-547.

Blaisdell, J. P., R. B. Murray, and E. D. McArthur. 1982. Managing intermountain rangelands - sagebrush-grass ranges. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-134. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. p. 41.

Blaisdell, J. P. and W. F. Mueggler. 1956. Sprouting of bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) following burning or top removal. Ecology 37:365-370.

Blaisdell, J. P. and J. F. Pechanec. 1949. Effects of herbage removal at various dates on vigor of bluebunch wheatgrass and arrowleaf balsamroot. Ecology 30:298-305.

Bradley, A. F., N. V. Noste, and W. C. Fischer. 1992. Fire ecology of forests and woodlands in Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-287. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. P. 128.

Britton, C.M., F.A. Sneva, and R.G. Clark. 1979. Effect of harvest date on five bunchgrasses of eastern Oregon. In: 1979 progress report: research in rangeland management. Special report 549. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Agricultural Experiment Station: Pgs 16-19. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, SEA-AR.

Britton, C. M., G. R. McPherson, and F. A. Sneva. 1990. Effects of burning and clipping on five bunchgrasses in eastern Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist 50:115-120.

Bunting, S. 1994. Effects of fire on juniper woodland ecosystems in the Great Basin. In: S. Monsen, S. Kitchen [eds] Proceedings - Ecology and management of annual rangelands. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-313. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. p. 53-55.

Busse, D., A. Simon, and M. Riegel. 2000. Tree-growth and understory responses to low-severity prescribed burning in thinned Pinus ponderosa forests of central Oregon. Forest Science 46:258-268.

Busso, C. A. and J. H. Richards. 1995. Drought and clipping effects on tiller demography and growth of two tussock grasses in Utah. Journal of Arid Environments 29: 239-251.

Caudle, D., J. DiBenedetto, M. Karl, H. Sanchez, and C. Talbot. 2013. Interagency Ecological Site Handbook for Rangelands. Available at: http://jornada.nmsu.edu/sites/jornada.nmsu.edu/files/InteragencyEcolSiteHandbook.pdf. Accessed 4 October 2013.

Chambers, J., B. Bradley, C. Brown, C. D’Antonio, M. Germino, J. Grace, S. Hardegree, R. Miller, and D. Pyke. 2013. Resilience to stress and disturbance, and resistance to Bromus tectorum L. invasion in cold desert shrublands of western North America. Ecosystems 17:1-16.

Chambers, J. C., B. A. Roundy, R. R. Blank, S. E. Meyer, and A. Whittaker. 2007. What makes Great Basin sagebrush ecosystems invasible by Bromus tectorum? Ecological Monographs 77:117-145.

Clark, R. G., M. B. Carlton, and F. A. Sneva. 1982. Mortality of bitterbrush after burning and blipping in eastern Oregon. Journal of Range Management 35:711-714.

Clements, C. D. and J. A. Young. 2002. Restoring antelope bitterbrush. Rangelands 24:3-6.

Cole, D.N. 1987. Effects of three seasons of experimental trampling on five montane forest communities and a grassland in western Montana, USA. Biological Conservation 40:219-244.

Comstock, J. P. and J. R. Ehleringer. 1992. Plant adaptation in the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau. Western North American Naturalist 52:195-215.

Conrad, C. E. and C. E. Poulton. 1966. Effect of a wildfire on Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass. Journal of Range Management 19: 138-141.

Cook, J. G., T. J. Hershey, and L. L. Irwin. 1994. Vegetative response to burning on Wyoming mountain-shrub big game ranges. Journal of Range Management 47: 296-302.

Currie, P. O., D. W. Reichert, J. C. Malechek, and O. C. Wallmo. 1977. Forage selection comparisons for mule deer and cattle under managed ponderosa pine. Journal of Range Management 30: 352-356.

Daubenmire, R. 1970. Steppe vegetation of Washington. Technical bulletin. Washington Agriculture Experiment Station. 131 pp.

Daubenmire, R. 1975. Plant succession on abandoned fields, and fire influences in a steppe area in Southeastern Washington. Northwest Science 49: 36-48.

Dayton, W. 1937. Range Plant Handbook. USDA, Forest Service. Bull.

Dobrowolski, J. P., M. M. Caldwell, and J. H. Richards. 1990. Basin hydrology and plant root systems. In: C. B. Osmand, L. F. Pitelka, G. M. Hildy [eds]. Plant biology of the basin and range. Ecological Studies. 80: 243-292.

Eckert, R. E., Jr. and J. S. Spencer. 1987. Growth and reproduction of grasses heavily grazed under rest-rotation management. Journal of Range Management 40: 156-159.

Evans, R. A. and J. A. Young. 1978. Effectiveness of rehabilitation practices following wildfire in a degraded big sagebrush-downy brome community. Journal of Range Management 31: 185-188.

Everett, R. L. and K. Ward. 1984. Early plant succession on pinyon-juniper controlled burns. Northwest Science 58: 57-68.

Furniss, M. M. and W. F. Barr. 1975. Insects affecting important native shrubs of the northwestern United States. General Technical Report INT-19. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Ogden, UT. p. 68.

Ganskopp, D. 1988. Defoliation of Thurber needlegrass: Herbage and root responses. Journal of Range Management 41:472-476.

Garrison, G. A. 1953. Effects of clipping on some range shrubs. Journal of Range Management 6:309-317.

Hironaka, M., M. A. Fosberg, and A. H. Winward. 1983. Sagebrush-grass habitat types of southern Idaho. Bulletin Number 35. University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, Moscow, ID.

Houghton, J.G., C.M. Sakamoto, and R.O. Gifford. 1975. Nevada’s weather and climate, Special Publication 2. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Mackay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno, NV.

Jensen, M.E. 1990. Interpretation of environmental gradients which influence sagebrush community distribution in northeastern Nevada. J. of Range Management 43:161-166.

Johnson, C.G., Jr., R.R. Clausnitzer, P.J. Mehringer, and C. Oliver. 1994. Biotic and abiotic processes of eastside ecosystems: the effects of management on plant and community ecology and on stand and landscape vegetation dynamics. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-322. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 66 p.

Kerns, B. K., W. G. Thies, and C. G. Niwa. 2006. Season and severity of prescribed burn in ponderosa pine forests: implications for understory native and exotic plants. Ecoscience 13: 44-55.

Kindschy, R. R., C. S. Undstrom, and J. D. Yoakum. 1982. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands - The Great Basin of southeastern Oregon: Pronghorns. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-145. Portland, OR. P. 18

Kitchen, S. G. and E. D. McArthur. 2007. Big and black sagebrush landscapes. In: S. Hood, M. Miller [eds.]. Fire ecology and management of the major ecosystems of southern Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRMS-GTR-202. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. P. 73-95.

Koniak, S. 1985. Succession in pinyon-juniper woodlands following wildfire in the Great Basin. The Great Basin Naturalist 45:556-566.

Kuntz, D.E. 1982. Plant response following spring burning in an Artemisia tridentata subsp. vaseyana/Festuca idahoensis habitat type. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 73 p. Thesis.

Laycock, W. A. 1967. How heavy grazing and protection affect sagebrush-grass ranges. Journal of Range Management 20: 206-213.

McConnell, B. R. and J. G. Smith. 1977. Influence of grazing on age-yield interactions in bitterbrush. Journal of Range Management 30: 91-93.

Miller, R. F. and R. J. Tausch. 2000. The role of fire in pinyon and juniper woodlands: A descriptive analysis. In Proceedings of the invasive species workshop: The role of fire in the control and spread of invasive species. Fire conference. P. 15-30.

Mueggler, W. F. 1975. Rate and pattern of vigor recovery in Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass. Journal of Range Management 28: 198-204.

Mueggler, W. F. and J. P. Blaisdell. 1951. Replacing wyethia with desirable forage species. Journal of Range Management 4: 143-150.

Murray, R. 1983. Response of antelope bitterbrush to burning and spraying in southeastern Idaho. In: Tiedemann, Arthur R.; Johnson, Kendall L., [eds.] Research and management of bitterbrush and cliffrose in western North America. General Technical Report INT-152. Ogden, UT: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station p. 142-152.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2004. The North American Monsoon. Reports to the Nation. National Weather Service, Climate Prediction Center. Available online: http://www.weather.gov

Richards, J. H. and M. M. Caldwell. 1987. Hydraulic lift: Substantial nocturnal water transport between soil layers by Artemisia tridentata roots. Oecologia 73:486-489.

Robberecht, R. and G. Defossé. 1995. The relative sensitivity of two bunchgrass species to fire. International Journal of Wildland Fire 5:127-134.

Sheehy, D. P. and A. H. Winward. 1981. Relative palatability of seven Artemisia taxa to mule deer and sheep. Journal of Range Management 34:397-399.

Tausch, R. J. 1999. Historic pinyon and juniper woodland development. In: Proceedings: Ecology and management of pinyon–juniper communities within the interior west RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT, USA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. P. 12-19.

Tausch, R. J. and N. E. West. 1988. Differential establishment of pinyon and juniper following fire. American Midland Naturalist 119: 174-184.

Tisdale, E. W. and M. Hironaka. 1981. The sagebrush-grass region: A review of the ecological literature. University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. Moscow, ID. P. 31.

Uresk, D. W., J. F. Cline, and W. H. Rickard. 1976. Impact of wildfire on three perennial grasses in south-central Washington. Journal of Range Management 29:309-310.

Urness, P. J. 1965. Influence of range improvement practices on composition, production, and utilization of Artemisia deer winter range in central Oregon. Oregon State University.

USDA-NRCS Plants Database (Online; http://www.plants.usda.gov).

Vose, J. M. and A. S. White. 1991. Biomass response mechanisms of understory species the first year after prescribed burning in an Arizona ponderosa-pine community. Forest Ecology and Management 40: 175-187.

Wood, M. K., Bruce A. Buchanan, & William Skeet. 1995. Shrub preference and utilization by big game on New Mexico reclaimed mine land. Journal of Range Management 48: 431-437.

Wright, H. A. and J. O. Klemmedson. 1965. Effect of fire on bunchgrasses of the sagebrush-grass region in southern Idaho. Ecology 46: 680-688.

Wright, H.A., L.F. Neuenschwander, and C.M. Britton. 1979. The role and use of fire in sagebrush-grass and pinyon-juniper plant communities: A state-of-the-art review. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-58. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 48 p.

Young, R.P. 1983. Fire as a vegetation management tool in rangelands of the intermountain region. In: Monsen, S.B. and N. Shaw (eds). Managing intermountain rangelands — Improvement of range and wildlife habitats: Proceedings of symposia; 1981 September 15-17; Twin Falls, ID; 1982 June 22-24; Elko, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-157. Ogden, UT. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Pgs 18-31.

Contributors

RK/GKB
Trevor Crandall/ Erin Hourihan

Approval

Kendra Moseley, 4/24/2024

Rangeland health reference sheet

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health is a qualitative assessment protocol used to determine ecosystem condition based on benchmark characteristics described in the Reference Sheet. A suite of 17 (or more) indicators are typically considered in an assessment. The ecological site(s) representative of an assessment location must be known prior to applying the protocol and must be verified based on soils and climate. Current plant community cannot be used to identify the ecological site.

Author(s)/participant(s)	GK BRACKLEY
Contact for lead author	State Rangeland Management Specialist
Date	06/22/2006
Approved by	Kendra Moseley
Approval date
Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on	Annual Production

Indicators

Number and extent of rills:
Rills are none to rare. A few rills can be expected on steeper slopes in areas subjected to summer convection storms or rapid spring snowmelt.
Presence of water flow patterns:
Water flow patterns are none to rare but can be expected in areas recently subjected to summer convection storms or rapid snowmelt, usually on steeper slopes. Flow patterns will be short (<1m), meandering and not connected.
Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes:
Pedestals are none to rare. Occurrence is usually limited to areas of water flow patterns.
Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, lichen, moss, plant canopy are not bare ground):
Bare Ground ± 40% depending on the amount of surface cover of rock fragments.
Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies:
None
Extent of wind scoured, blowouts and/or depositional areas:
None
Amount of litter movement (describe size and distance expected to travel):
Fine litter (foliage from grasses and annual & perennial forbs) expected to move distance of slope length during intense summer convection storms or rapid snowmelt events. Persistent litter (large woody material) will remain in place except during large rainfall events.
Soil surface (top few mm) resistance to erosion (stability values are averages - most sites will show a range of values):
Soil stability values should be 3 to 6 on most soil textures found on this site. (To be field tested.)
Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type of structure and A-horizon color and thickness):
Surface structure is typically thin to thick platy. Soil surface colors are dark browns or grayish browns and soils are typified by a mollic epipedon. Organic matter of the surface 2 to 4 inches is typically 1.25 to 3 percent dropping off quickly below. Organic matter content can be more or less depending on micro-topography.
Effect of community phase composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration and runoff:
Perennial herbaceous plants (especially deep-rooted bunchgrasses [Idaho fescue & bluebunch wheatgrass] slow runoff and increase infiltration. Shrub canopy and associated litter break raindrop impact and provide opportunity for snow catch and accumulation on site.
Presence and thickness of compaction layer (usually none; describe soil profile features which may be mistaken for compaction on this site):
Compacted layers are none. Subsoil argillic horizons are not to be interpreted as compacted.
Functional/Structural Groups (list in order of descending dominance by above-ground annual-production or live foliar cover using symbols: >>, >, = to indicate much greater than, greater than, and equal to):

Dominant:
Deep-rooted, cool season, perennial bunchgrasses

Sub-dominant:
low shrubs (low sagebrush)>deep-rooted, cool season, perennial forbs>shallow-rooted, cool season, perennial bunchgrasses>associated shrubs>fibrous, shallow-rooted, cool season, perennial and annual forbs

Other:

Additional:
Amount of plant mortality and decadence (include which functional groups are expected to show mortality or decadence):
Dead branches within individual shrubs common and standing dead shrub canopy material may be as much as 25% of total woody canopy; some of the mature bunchgrasses (<10%) have dead centers.
Average percent litter cover (%) and depth ( in):
Reference Plant Community: Between plant interspaces (20-35%) and litter depth is < 1/4 inch.
Expected annual annual-production (this is TOTAL above-ground annual-production, not just forage annual-production):
For normal or average growing season (through mid-June) ± 700 lbs/ac; Spring moisture significantly affects total production
Potential invasive (including noxious) species (native and non-native). List species which BOTH characterize degraded states and have the potential to become a dominant or co-dominant species on the ecological site if their future establishment and growth is not actively controlled by management interventions. Species that become dominant for only one to several years (e.g., short-term response to drought or wildfire) are not invasive plants. Note that unlike other indicators, we are describing what is NOT expected in the reference state for the ecological site:
Potential invaders include snakeweed, cheatgrass, and annual mustards.
Perennial plant reproductive capability:
All functional groups should reproduce in average (or normal) and above average growing season years. Reduced growth and reproduction occur during extreme or extended drought periods.