Physiographic features

This site occurs on fan remnants, inset fans, and hills on all exposures. Slopes range from 0 to 15 percent, but slope gradients of 2 to 15 percent are typical. Elevations are 4500 to 7400 feet.

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Climatic features

Nevada’s climate is predominantly arid, with large daily ranges of temperature, infrequent severe storms, heavy snowfall in the higher mountains, and great location variations with elevation. Three basic geographical factors largely influence Nevada’s climate: continentality, latitude, and elevation. Continentality is the most important factor. The strong continental effect is expressed in the form of both dryness and large temperature variations. Nevada lies on the eastern, lee side of the Sierra Nevada Range, a massive mountain barrier that markedly influences the climate of the State. The prevailing winds are from the west, and as the warm moist air from the Pacific Ocean ascend the western slopes of the Sierra Range, the air cools, condensation occurs and most of the moisture falls as precipitation. As the air descends the eastern slope, it is warmed by compression, and very little precipitation occurs. The effects of this mountain barrier are felt not only in the West but throughout the state, with the result that the lowlands of Nevada are largely desert or steppes. The temperature regime is also affected by the blocking of the inland-moving maritime air. Nevada sheltered from maritime winds, has a continental climate with well-developed seasons and the terrain responds quickly to changes in solar heating.
Nevada lies within the mid-latitude belt of prevailing westerly winds which occur most of the year. These winds bring frequent changes in weather during the late fall, winter and spring months, when most of the precipitation occurs. To the south of the mid-latitude westerlies, lies a zone of high pressure in subtropical latitudes, with a center over the Pacific Ocean. In the summer, this high-pressure belt shifts northward over the latitudes of Nevada, blocking storms from the ocean. The resulting weather is mostly clear and dry during the summer and early fall, with scattered thundershowers. The eastern portion of the state receives significant summer thunderstorms generated from monsoonal moisture pushed up from the Gulf of California, known as the North American monsoon. The monsoon system peaks in August and by October the monsoon high over the Western U.S. begins to weaken and the precipitation retreats southward towards the tropics (NOAA 2004).

Average annual precipitation is 8 to 10(11) inches. Mean annual air temperature is 44 to 50 degrees F. The average growing season is about 90 to 140 days.


Mean annual precipitaion at the LUND, NEVADA climate station (264745) is 10.04 inches.

January 0.78; February 0.85; March 1; April 0.98: May 0.95; June 0.82; July 0.69;
August 0.87; September 0.77; October 0.92;
November 0.69; December 0.73.

Table 3. Representative climatic features

Influencing water features

There are no influencing water features associated with this site.

Soil features

The soils associated with this site are moderatly deep to very deep and are formed in mixed alluvium. Gravels may be present throughout the profile. Water intake rates are moderately slow to rapid and available water holding capacity is very low to moderate. Runoff is very low to very high and the soils are well to somewhat excessively drained. The soils series associated with this site include: Annabella, Biblesprings, Cath, Crestline, Dakent, Devildog, Handpah, Heist, Huilepass, Kunzler, Medburn, Oupico, Patter, Qwynn, Ragnel, Ratleflat, Richinde, Rouette, Sevenmile, Springbar, Ungene, Veet, Watoopah, Yotes, Zafod, and Zoda.

The representative soil series is Medburn, a coarse-loamy, mixed, superactive, calcareous, mesic Xeric Torriorthent. The soils formed in alluvium and lacustrine sediments derived dominantly from igneous and sedimentary rock. The soils have an ochric epipedon from the soil surface to approximately 8 inches. Subsoil textures are fine sandy loams and the soil is well drained to somewhat excessively drained. Reaction is moderately to strongly alkaline throughout. Clay content in the particle-size control section is 5 to 18 percent. Effervescence is strongly to violently effervescent. Rock fragments ranch from 0 to 25 percent. The soil moisture regime is aridic bordering on xeric. The soil temperature regime is mesic.

Table 4. Representative soil features

Animal community

Livestock Interpretations:
This site is suitable for livestock grazing. Considerations for grazing management including timing, intensity and duration of grazing. Targeted grazing could be used to decrease the density of non-natives. Overgrazing leads to an increase in sagebrush and a decline in understory plants like Indian ricegrass and needleandthread grass. Squirreltail or galleta grass will increase temporarily with further degradation. Invasion of annual weedy forbs and cheatgrass could occur with further grazing degradation, leading to a decline in squirreltail and an increase in bare ground. A combination of overgrazing and prolonged drought leads to soil erosion, increased bare ground and a loss in plant production. Wildfire in sites with cheatgrass present could transition to cheatgrass dominated communities. Without management cheatgrass and annual forbs are likely to invade and dominate the site, especially after fire. Although trees are not part of the site concept, Utah juniper and/or Pinyon can invade and eventually dominate this site.
Needleandthread grass is most commonly found on warm/dry soils (Miller et al. 2013). It is not grazing tolerant and will be one of the first grasses to decrease under heavy grazing pressure (Smoliak et al. 1972, Tueller and Blackburn 1974). Heavy grazing is likely to reduce basal area of these plants (Smoliak et al. 1972). With the reduction in competition from deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses, shallower rooted grasses such as Sandberg bluegrass and galleta grass and forbs may increase (Smoliak et al. 1972).

Indian ricegrass is a deep-rooted, cool season perennial bunchgrass that is adapted primarily to sandy soils. Indian ricegrass is a preferred forage species for livestock and wildlife (Cook 1962, Booth et al. 2006). This species is often heavily utilized in winter because it cures well (Booth et al. 2006). It is also readily utilized in early spring, being a source of green feed before most other perennial grasses have produced new growth (Quinones 1981). Booth et al (2006) also notes that the plant does well when utilized in winter and spring. Cook and Child (1971), however, found that repeated heavy grazing reduced crown cover, which may reduce seed production, density, and basal area of these plants. Additionally, heavy early spring grazing reduces plant vigor and stand density (Stubbendieck et al. 1985). In eastern Idaho, productivity of Indian ricegrass was at least 10 times greater in undisturbed plots than in heavily grazed ones (Pearson 1976). Yet, Cook and Child (1971) found significant reduction in plant cover even after 7 years of rest from heavy (90%) and moderate (60%) spring use. The seed crop may be reduced where grazing is heavy (Bich et al. 1995). Tolerance to grazing increases after May, thus spring deferment may be necessary for stand enhancement (Pearson 1964, Cook and Child 1971); however, utilization of less than 60% is recommended. In summary, adaptive management is required to manage this bunchgrass well.

Reduced bunchgrass vigor or density provides an opportunity for galleta and/or Sandberg bluegrass expansion and/or cheatgrass and other invasive species such as halogeton to occupy interspaces. Increased cheatgrass cover leads to increased fire frequency and potentially an annual plant community. Galleta and/or Sandberg bluegrass increases under grazing pressure (Jameson 1962, Tisdale and Hironaka 1981) and is capable of co-existing with cheatgrass. Depending on the season of use, the type of grazing animal, and site conditions, either galleta or Sandberg bluegrass or cheatgrass may become the dominant understory with inappropriate grazing management.
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:
Wyoming big sagebrush is the preferred sub-species of sagebrush among wild ungulates. Pronghorn, elk, mule deer and bighorn sheep will browse Wyoming big sagebrush in winter months. (Bray et al. 1991). Studies have found Wyoming big sagebrush to be an important browse in pronghorn diets, especially in winter. Wyoming big sage, and other big sagebrush varieties comprised approximately 75% to 90% of Pronghorn antelope diet in the winter months across western ranges. The shrub is a staple for the pronghorn throughout the year; however, it is not browsed as heavily in the summer months when other browse are more palatable (Beale and Smith 1970, Ngugi et al. 1992). Mule deer and elk will browse sagebrush intensively in winter. In fact, studies have noted dead sagebrush stands associated with elk (Wambolt 1996). Further, mule deer and elk will browse Wyoming big sagebrush over basin big and black sagebrush, according to a ten year study in Montana (Wambolt 1996). In Nevada, early and midseral basin big sagebrush provide forage and protection from predators for mule deer (Nevada Wildlife Action Plan 2012).
Graminoids make up the majority of bighorn sheep diet (Wagner and Peek 2006, Peek et al. 1979); however, shrubs are important to sheep diet, as these plants are higher in protein when grasses senesce in the winter months (Wagner and Peek 2006). A study by Brown (1977) determined that big sagebrush was preferred over other shrub types; however, The variety of the big sagebrush was not noted.
Pygmy rabbits are sagebrush obligates and a study by Heady and Laundre found the lagamorphs use sites with big sagebrush at a higher intensity than with lower sagebrush (Heady and Laundre 2005). Sagebrush communities are important for maintaining lagomorph populations. A study by Larrison and Johnson (1973) captured Deer mice big sagebrush communities more than any other plant community, suggesting the mice prefer these plant communities for cover over other plant communities. Although no specific variety of big sagebrush was mentioned in the study.
A study by Welch (1991) found sage grouse prefer to feed on Wyoming big sagebrush over basin big sagebrush. Sagebrush-grassland communities provide critical sage-grouse breeding and nesting habitats. Open Wyoming sagebrush communities are preferred nesting habitat. Meadows surrounded by sagebrush may be used as feeding and strutting grounds. Sagebrush is a crucial component of their diet year-round, and sage-grouse select sagebrush almost exclusively for cover. Leks are often located on low sagebrush sites, grassy openings, dry meadows, ridgetops, and disturbed sites. Sage-grouse prefer mountain big sagebrush and Wyoming big sagebrush communities to basin big sagebrush communities. However, sagebrush habitat should be maintained for sagebrush grouse as they prefer to use medium-height sagebrush communities for habitat (Gregg et al. 1994). Birds such as Brewer’s sparrows, are considered dependent on sagebrush communities for cover and will nest in Wyoming big sagebrush. Thus when Wyoming big sagebrush communities are converted to agriculture fields, Brewer’s sparrow populations can decline due to loss of habitat (Knick et al. 2003). In fact, mature basin big sagebrush are used as nesting structures, protection from predators and as thermal cover by sage grouse, the loggerhead shrike, the sage and Brewer’s sparrow and the sage thrasher (Nevada Wildlife Action Plan 2012).
Several reptiles and amphibians are distributed throughout the sagebrush steppe in the west in Nevada, where big sagebrush is known to grow (Bernard and Brown 1977). Studies have not determined if reptiles and amphibians prefer certain species of sage; however, researchers agree that maintaining habitat where big sagebrush and reptiles and amphibians occur is important. In fact, wildlife biologists have noticed declines in reptiles where sagebrush steppe habitat has been seeded with introduced grasses (West 1999 and ref. therein).
Wildlife that utilize flora that occur in big sagebrush habitat types include: sage grouse, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, sagebrush vole, Merriam’s shrew and Preble’s shrew. These animals use the grasses associated with big sagebrush for nesting, cover and forage. Similarly, big sagebrush sandy soil sites provide burrowing opportunities and protection from predators for burrowing owls, dark and pale kangaroo mice. Big sagebrush that occur on woodland and rock ecotones provide nesting and foraging habitat for the ferruginous hawk. Also, animals such as the ferruginous hawk, bald eagle, prairie flacon, desert horned lizard greater and pygmy short-horned lizard feed on animals that inhabit basin big sagebrush habit types (Nevada Wildlife Action Plan 2012).

Hydrological functions

Permeability is slow to rapid. Runoff is very low to very high. Hydrologic Soil Groups are B,C and D. Rills are none to rare. Water flow patterns are none to rare and limited to steeper slopes in areas subjected to summer convection storms or rapid snowmelt. Water flow patterns, if present, are short in length and not connected. Pedestals are rare. Should pedestals occur, they are confined to areas of water flow. Frost heaving of shallow rooted plants should not be considered as pedestalling. Perennial herbaceous plants (especially deep-rooted bunchgrasses [i.e., Indian ricegrass & needleandthread] 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 diverse floral and faunal composition and the colorful flowering of wild flowers and shrubs during the spring and early summer. This site offers rewarding opportunities to photographers and for nature study. This site is used for hiking and has potential for upland and big game hunting.

Other products

Native Americans made tea from big sagebrush leaves. They used the tea as a tonic, an antiseptic, for treating colds, diarrhea, and sore eyes and as a rinse to ward off ticks. Big sagebrush seeds were eaten raw or made into meal. Some Native American peoples traditionally ground parched seeds of spiny hopsage to make pinole flour. Indian ricegrass was traditionally eaten by some Native Americans. The Paiutes used seed as a reserve food source.

Other information

Wyoming big sagebrush is used for stabilizing slopes and gullies and for restoring degraded wildlife habitat, rangelands, mine spoils and other disturbed sites. It is particularly recommended on dry upland sites where other shrubs are difficult to establish. Spiny hopsage has moderate potential for erosion control and low to high potential for long-term revegetation projects. It can improve forage, control wind erosion, and increase soil stability on gentle to moderate slopes. Spiny hopsage is suitable for highway plantings on dry sites in Nevada. Winterfat adapts well to most site conditions, and its extensive root system stabilizes soil. However, winterfat is intolerant of flooding, excess water, and acidic soils. Needleandthread is useful for stabilizing eroded or degraded sites. Bottlebrush squirreltail is tolerant of disturbance and is a suitable species for revegetation.

Type locality

Other references

Akinsoji, A. 1988. Postfire vegetation dynamics in a sagebrush steppe in southeastern Idaho, USA. Vegetatio 78:151-155.

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

Baker, W. L. 2011. Pre-euro-american and recent fire in sagebrush ecosystems. Pages 185-201 in S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly, editors. Greater sage-grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Balch, J. K., B. A. Bradley, C. M. D'Antonio, and J. Gómez-Dans. 2013. Introduced annual grass increases regional fire activity across the arid western USA (1980–2009). Global Change Biology 19:173-183.

Bich, B.S., J.L. Butler, and C.A. Schmidt. 1995. Effects of differential livestock use of key plant species and rodent populations within selected Oryzopsis hymenoides/Hilaria jamesii communities in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. The Southwestern Naturalist 40(3):281-287.

Booth, D. T., C. G. Howard, and C. E. Mowry. 2006. 'Nezpar'Indian ricegrass: description, justification for release, and recommendations for use. Rangelands Archives 2:53-54.

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

Bunting, S.C., B.M. Kilgore, and C.L. Bushey. 1987. Guidelines for prescribed burning sagebrushgrass rangelands in the northern Great Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-231. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 33 p.

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. 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.

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:1-16.

Comstock, J and J. Ehleringer. 1992. Plant adaptation in the Great Basin and Colorado plateau. Western North American Naturalist 52(3):195-215.

Cook, C. W. 1962. An Evaluation of Some Common Factors Affecting Utilization of Desert Range Species. Journal of Range Management 15:333-338.

Cook, C.W. and R.D. Child. 1971. Recovery of desert plants in various states of vigor. Journal of Range Management 24(5):339-343.

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

Davies, K. W., J. D. Bates, and R. F. Miller. 2006. Vegetation Characteristics across Part of the Wyoming Big Sagebrush Alliance. Rangeland Ecology & Management 59:567-575.

Dobrowolski, J.P., Caldwell, M.M. and Richards, J.H. 1990. Basin hydrology and plant root systems. In: Plant Biology of the Basin and Range. Springer-Verlag Pub., New York, NY.

Fire Effects Information System (Online; http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/).

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.

Jameson, Donald A. 1962. Effects of burning on a galleta-black grama range invaded by juniper. Ecology. 43(4): 760-763.

Lett, M. S. and A. K. Knapp. 2005. Woody Plant Encroachment and Removal in Mesic Grassland: Production and Composition Responses of Herbaceous Vegetation. The American Midland Naturalist 153:217-231.

Miller, R. F. R. J. T. 2000. The role of fire in juniper and pinyon woodlands: a descriptive analysis. Pages p. 15-30 in Proceedings of the invasive species workshop: the role of fire in the control and spread of invasive species., Tallahassee, Florida.

Miller, R. F., J. C. Chambers, D. A. Pyke, F. B. Pierson, and C. J. Williams. 2013. A review of fire effects on vegetation and soils in the Great Basin Region: response and ecological site characteristics.

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/

Noy-Meir, I. 1973. Desert Ecosystems: Environment and Producers. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4:25-51.

Pearson, L.C. 1964. Effect of harvest date on recovery of range grasses and shrubs. Agronomy Journal 56:80-82.

Pearson, L.C. 1976. Primary production in grazed and ungrazed desert communities of eastern Idaho. Ecology 46(3):278-285.

Pierson, F. B., C. J. Williams, P. R. Kormos, S. P. Hardegree, P. E. Clark, and B. M. Rau. 2010. Hydrologic Vulnerability of Sagebrush Steppe Following Pinyon and Juniper Encroachment. Rangeland Ecology & Management 63:614-629.

Quinones, F.A. 1981. Indian ricegrass evaluation and breeding. Bulletin 681. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 19 p.

Richards, J.H. and M.M. Caldwell. 1987. Hydralulic lift: Substantial nocturnal water transport between soil layers by Artemisia tridentate roots. Oecologia 73(4):486-489.


Smoliak, S., J. F. Dormaar, and A. Johnston. 1972. Long-Term Grazing Effects on Stipa-Bouteloua Prairie Soils. Journal of Range Management 25:246-250.

Stringham, T.K., P. Novak-Echenique, P. Blackburn, C. Coombs, D. Snyder and A. Wartgow. 2015. Final Report for USDA Ecological Site Description State-and-Transition Models, Major Land Resource Area 28A and 28B Nevada. University of Nevada Reno, Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 2015-01. p. 1524.

Stubbendieck, J., J.T. Nichols, and K.K. Roberts. 1985. Nebraska range and pasture grasses (including grass-like plants). E.C. 85-170. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service. 75 p.

Tisdale, E.W. and M. Hironaka. 1981. The sagebrush-grass region: a review of the ecological literature. Bull. 33. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. 31 p.

Tueller, P. T. and W. H. Blackburn. 1974. Condition and Trend of the Big Sagebrush/Needleandthread Habitat Type in Nevada. Journal of Range Management 27:36-40.

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

West, N.E. 1994. Effects of fire on salt-desert shrub rangelands. In: Monsen, S.B. and S.G. Kitchen (compilers). Proceedings--ecology and management of annual rangelands; 1992 May 18-22; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: Pgs 71-74.

West, N.E. and M.A. Hassan. 1985. Recovery of sagebrush-grass vegetation following wildfire. Journal of Range Management 38(2):131-134.

Wright, H. A. 1971. Why Squirreltail Is More Tolerant to Burning than Needle-and-Thread. Journal of Range Management 24:277-284.

Wright, H. A. 1985. Effects of fire on grasses and forbs in sagebrush-grass communities. Pages 12-21 in Rangeland Fire Effects; A Symposium: Boise, ID, USDI-BLM.

Wright, H. A. and J. O. Klemmedson. 1965. Effect of Fire on Bunchgrasses of the Sagebrush-Grass Region in Southern Idaho. Ecology 46:680-688.

Young, J.A., R.E. Eckert, Jr., R.A. Evans. 1979. Historical perspectives regarding the sagebrush ecosystem. In: The sagebrush ecosystem: a symposium: Proceedings; 1978 April; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 1-13.

Young, R.P. 1983. Fire as a vegetation management tool in rangelands of the Intermountain Region. In: Monsen, S.B. and N. Shaw (compilers). Managing Intermountain rangelands--improvement of range and wildlife habitats: Proceedings; 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
T. Stringham/P.Novak-Echenique