Physiographic features

This site occurs on piedmont slopes, fan remnants and inset fans on all aspects. Slopes typically range from 2 to 15 percent. Elevations are 5800 to 7200 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 inches. Mean annual air temperature is 44 to 50 degrees F. The average growing season is about 100 to 120 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 well drained and somewhat excessively drained. The soils are modified with a high volume of gravels, cobbles or stones throughout the profile. These soils are droughty and have a very low to low available water holding capacity. Runoff is very low to low. The soil series associated with this site include: Ultramont and Ungene.

The representative soil series is Ultramont, a Coarse-loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic Durinodic Xeric Haplocambids. Diagnostic horizons include an ochric epipedon from the soil surface to 18 cm, a cambic horizon zone from 10 to 38 cm, durinodes from 38to 109 cm, and a identifiable secondary carbonates zone from 38 to 109 cm. Clay content in the particle control section averages 8 to 18 percent. Sand content is 40 to 50 percent medium sand through very coarse sand.
Rock fragments range from 10 to 15 percent, mainly fine (2 to 5 mm diameter) gravel. Reaction is moderately alkaline. Effervescence is strong. Lithology consists of fragments is mainly coarse-grained andesite. This soil is usually dry, moist in winter and early spring and for 10 to 20 days cumulative between July and October due to convection storms; aridic soil moisture regime that borders on xeric.

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.Indian ricegrass is highly palatable to all classes of livestock in both green and cured condition. It supplies a source of green feed before most other native grasses have produced much new growth. Needleandthread provides highly palatable forage, especially in the spring before fruits have developed. Needlegrasses are grazed in the fall only if the fruits are softened by rain. When actively growing, galleta provides good to excellent forage for cattle and horses and fair forage for domestic sheep. Although not preferred, all classes of livestock may use galleta when it is dry. Domestic sheep show greater use in winter than summer months and typically feed upon central portions of galleta tufts, leaving coarser growth around the edges. Galleta may prove somewhat coarse to domestic sheep. Livestock browse Wyoming big sagebrush, but may use it only lightly when palatable herbaceous species are available. Spiny hopsage provides a palatable and nutritious food source for livestock, particularly during late winter through spring. Domestic sheep browse the succulent new growth of spiny hopsage in late winter and early spring. Shadscale is a valuable browse species, providing a source of palatable, nutritious forage for a wide variety of livestock. Shadscale provides good browse for domestic sheep. Shadscale leaves and seeds are an important component of domestic sheep and cattle winter diets. Budsage is palatable and nutritious forage for domestic sheep in the winter and spring although it is known to cause mouth sores in lambs. Budsage can be poisonous or fatal to calves when eaten in quantity. Budsage, while desired by cattle in spring, is poisonous to cattle when consumed alone.
Overgrazing leads to an increase in sagebrush and a decline in understory plants like Indian ricegrass and needle-and-thread 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 singleleaf 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. Excessive sheep grazing favors galleta or Sandberg bluegrass; however, where cattle are the dominant grazers, cheatgrass often dominates (Daubenmire 1970). Thus, 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 preferred browse for wild ungulates. Pronghorn usually browse Wyoming big sagebrush heavily. Sagebrush-grassland communities provide critical sage-grouse breeding and nesting habitats. 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. Sage-grouse prefer mountain big sagebrush and Wyoming big sagebrush communities to basin big sagebrush communities. Spiny hopsage provides a palatable and nutritious food source for big game animals. Spiny hopsage is used as forage to at least some extent by domestic goats, deer, pronghorn, and rabbits. Shadscale is a valuable browse species, providing a source of palatable, nutritious forage for a wide variety of wildlife particularly during spring and summer before the hardening of spiny twigs. It supplies browse, seed, and cover for birds, small mammals, rabbits, deer, and pronghorn antelope. Budsage is palatable, nutritious forage for upland game birds, small game and big game in winter. Budsage is rated as "regularly, frequently, or moderately taken" by mule deer in Nevada in winter and is utilized by bighorn sheep in summer, but the importance of budsage in the diet of bighorns is not known. Bud sage comprises 18 – 35% of a Pronghorn’s diet during the spring where it is available. Chukar will utilize the leaves and seeds of bud sage. Budsage is highly susceptible to effects of browsing. It decreases under browsing due to year-long palatability of its buds and is particularly susceptible to browsing in the spring when it is physiologically most active. Indian ricegrass is eaten by pronghorn in "moderate" amounts whenever available. In Nevada it is consumed by desert bighorns. A number of heteromyid rodents inhabiting desert rangelands show preference for seed of Indian ricegrass. Indian ricegrass is an important component of jackrabbit diets in spring and summer. In Nevada, Indian ricegrass may even dominate jackrabbit diets during the spring through early summer months. Indian ricegrass seed provides food for many species of birds. Doves, for example, eat large amounts of shattered Indian ricegrass seed lying on the ground. Needleandthread is moderately important spring forage for mule deer, but use declines considerably as more preferred forages become available. Desert bighorn sheep of the Mojave Desert utilize galleta as forage. Galleta provides moderately palatable forage when actively growing and relatively unpalatable forage during dormant periods. Galleta provides poor cover for most wildlife species.
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 sagebrush, 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 preferred browse are available (Beale and Smith 1970, Ngugi et al. 1992). Mule deer and elk will also browse sagebrush intensively in winter. In fact, studies have noted dead sagebrush stands associated with elk browsing (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).
Shrubs are important to bighorn 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.
Sagebrush communities are important for maintaining lagomorph and rodent populations. Pygmy rabbits, sagebrush obligates, use sites with big sagebrush at a higher intensity than lower sagebrush sites (Heady and Laundre 2005). A study by Larrison and Johnson (1973) captured more deer mice in big sagebrush communities than in any other plant community. Thus, suggesting that deer mice prefer these plant communities for cover over other plant communities.
Native birds also prefer Wyoming big sagebrush habitats. A study by Welch (1991) found sage grouse feed on Wyoming big sagebrush over basin big sagebrush. However, sagebrush habitat should be managed for sage 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 sagebrush; 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 use a variety of associated understory plants that occur in big sagebrush habitat. For example: sage grouse, sagebrush vole, Merriam’s shrew and Preble’s shrew use grasses associated with big sagebrush for nesting, cover and forage. 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

Rills and waterflow patterns are none to rare. A few can be expected on steeper slopes in areas subjected to summer convection storms or rapid spring snowmelt.

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 camping and 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. Seeds of shadscale were used by Native Americans of Arizona, Utah and Nevada for bread and mush. 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. Needleandthread grass is useful for stabilizing eroded or degraded sites.

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