Search

Search for a Major Land Resource Area or ecological site by name and/or ID.

Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Ecological site R043BP823MT

Shallow Alpine Group

Last updated: 3/01/2024
Accessed: 11/13/2024

Home / Esd catalog / MLRA 043B / Ecological site R043BP823MT

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): 043B–Central Rocky Mountains

The Central Rocky Mountains (MLRA 43B) of Montana occupy some 28,850 square miles and exist primarily in Central and SW portions of the state. The climate is extremely variable with precipitation lows of 9 to 100 inches per year and frost free days of less than 30 to over 110 days. The geology of the region is also highly variable. The combination of variable climate and geology create a complex relationship of plant communities. MLRA 43B elevations typically exist between 6000 and 12,799 at Granite Peak (the highest point in Montana).

The Continental Divide runs through this MLRA effectively splitting its watershed to contribute to either the Missouri River to the East and the Columbia River to the West.

Ecological site concept

• Site does not receive any additional water
• Soils are
o Generally not saline or saline-sodic (limited extent)
o Soil shallow (less than 50cm deep to bedrock, lithic, or paralithic root restrictive layer)
o Not Strongly or violently effervescent within surface mineral 4”
o Soil is not ashy or medial textural family
o Stones and/or boulders cover >15% surface area or fragmental textural class
• Moisture Regime: Udic
• Temperature Regime: Cryic
• Dominant Cover: Non-forested land (typically associated with Krummholz vegetation)
• Elevation Range: 5000-10000 ft
• Slope Range: 0-70%

Associated sites

R043BP821MT	Upland Alpine Group The Upland Alpine is a neighboring site that shares similar plant communities and state and transition models however, the Upland Alpine Site will produce higher amounts annual production.
F043BP902MT	Shallow Cold Woodland Group The Shallow Cold Woodland is a neighboring forested site that shares landscape position.

R043BP821MT

Upland Alpine Group

The Upland Alpine is a neighboring site that shares similar plant communities and state and transition models however, the Upland Alpine Site will produce higher amounts annual production.

F043BP902MT

Shallow Cold Woodland Group

The Shallow Cold Woodland is a neighboring forested site that shares landscape position.

Similar sites

R043BP821MT	Upland Alpine Group The Upland Alpine is a neighboring site that shares similar plant communities and state and transition models however, the Upland Alpine Site will produce higher amounts annual production. The Shallow Alpine has a root restrictive layer within 20 inches of the soil surface.

R043BP821MT

Upland Alpine Group

The Upland Alpine is a neighboring site that shares similar plant communities and state and transition models however, the Upland Alpine Site will produce higher amounts annual production. The Shallow Alpine has a root restrictive layer within 20 inches of the soil surface.

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Tree	(1) Pinus albicaulis (2) Abies lasiocarpa
Shrub	(1) Juniperus horizontalis (2) Arctostaphylos uva-ursi
Herbaceous	(1) Poa alpina (2) Festuca idahoensis

Download full description

Physiographic features

Site is located at the top of mountain ridges and escarpments. Slopes are variable from nearly level to 70 percent. This site slope rare exceeds 25 percent.

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Landforms	(1) Mountains > Ridge (2) Mountains > Escarpment
Runoff class	High
Elevation	5,000 – 10,000 ft
Slope	70%
Aspect	Aspect is not a significant factor

Climatic features

• Representative Value (RV) of range of Effective Precipitation: 24+ inches
• Representative Value (RV) of range of Frost Free Days: <30 days

Site does not have climate stations but often receives high amounts of precipitation though due to short growing season plant production can be very low. Very little data exists outside of raster models.

Table 3. Representative climatic features

Frost-free period (average)	4 days
Freeze-free period (average)	30 days
Precipitation total (average)	35 in

Soil features

Soils are shallow having less than 20 inches (50 cm) to bedrock, lithic, or paralithic root restrictive layer). Soils are not ashy or medial. Textures vary based on local geology. Parent material is residuum.

Table 4. Representative soil features

Parent material	(1) Residuum – igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock
Surface texture	(1) Coarse sandy loam (2) Very gravelly, cobbly loam
Family particle size	(1) Loamy (2) Loamy-skeletal
Drainage class	Excessively drained to well drained
Permeability class	Very rapid to moderate
Depth to restrictive layer	20 in
Soil depth	20 in
Surface fragment cover <=3"	65%
Surface fragment cover >3"	20%
Available water capacity (0-20in)	0.2 – 2.3 in
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-20in)	5.6 – 8.4
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (0-20in)	60%
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (0-20in)	40%

Ecological dynamics

Shallow Alpine 43B (R043BP823MT)
1 - Reference State
1.1 Reference Community Phase: Short-stature grasses (typically bluegrasses), sedges, forbs (Dryas sp) and shrubs share nearly equal dominance of this site. Grouse whortleberry, bearberry and creeping juniper are most common shrubs. Minimal tree cover in form of krummholz limber pine, whitebark pine, and subalpine fir. Community is resistant to most disturbance (fire, grazing) due to remote locations and rocky nature of soil.

T1A Vegetation removal due to catastrophic event; namely fire, however drought, climate change, and grazing may occur.
R2A Time and stability for vegetation to re-establish

2 - Rock Covered State
2.1 Plant community is generally devoid of most species due to extreme fire. Grasses and fire resistant shrubs remain. Few trees remain as seed source for future communities.

State and transition model

Custom diagram

Standard diagram

More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models

Interpretations

Animal community

Site is considered poor for livestock due to low production and remote access and difficult terrain. Site is good to excellent for wildlife.

Recreational uses

hunting, hiking, camping, landscape viewing.

Wood products

Site is not suited to commercial production of wood products

Supporting information

Inventory data references

Information presented was derived from NRCS inventory data, literature, field observations, and personal contacts with range-trained personnel (i.e., used professional opinion of agency specialists, observations of land managers, and outside scientists).

Other references

• Barrett, H. 2007. Western Juniper Management: A Field Guide.
• Bestelmeyer, B., J.R. Brown, J.E. Herrick, D.A. Trujillo, and K.M. Havstad. 2004. Land Management in the American Southwest: a state-and-transition approach to ecosystem complexity. Environmental Management 34:38–51.
• Bestelmeyer, B. and J. Brown. 2005. State-and-Transition Models 101: A Fresh look at vegetation change.
• Blaisdell, J.P. 1958. Seasonal development and yield of native plants on the Upper Snake River Plains and their relation to certain climate factors.
• Colberg, T.J. and J.T. Romo. 2003. Clubmoss effects on plant water status and standing crop. Journal of Range Management 56:489–495.
• DiTomaso, J.M. 2000. Invasive weeds in Rangelands: Species, Impacts, and Management. Weed Science 48:255–265.
• Dormaar, J.F., B.W. Adams, and W.D. Willms. 1997. Impacts of rotational grazing on mixed prairie soils and vegetation. Journal of Range Management 50:647–651.
• Hobbs, J.R. and S.E. Humphries. 1995. An integrated approach to the ecology and management of plant invasions. Conservation Biology 9:761–770.
• Humphrey, L. David. 1984. Patterns and mechanisms of plant succession after fire on Artemisia-grass sites in southeastern Idaho Vegetation. 57: 91-101.
• Masters, R. and R. Sheley. 2001. Principles and practices for managing rangeland invasive plants. Journal of Range Management 38:21–26.
• McLean, A. and S. Wikeem. 1985. Influence of season and intensity of defoliation on bluebunch wheatgrass survival and vigor in southern British Columbia. Journal of Range Management 38:21–26.
• Miller, R.F., T.J. Svejcar, and J.A. Rose. 2000. Impacts of western juniper on plant community composition and structure. Journal of Range Management 53:574–585.
• Ross, R.L., E.P. Murray, and J.G. Haigh. July 1973. Soil and Vegetation of Near-pristine sites in Montana.
• Smoliak, S., R.L. Ditterlin, J.D. Scheetz, L.K. Holzworth, J.R. Sims, L.E. Wiesner, D.E. Baldridge, and G.L. Tibke. 2006. Montana Interagency Plant Materials Handbook.
• Stavi, I. 2012. The potential use of biochar in reclaiming degraded rangelands. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 55:1–9.
• Stringham, T.K., W.C. Kreuger, and P.L. Shaver. 2003. State and Transition Modeling: an ecological process approach. Journal of Range Management 56:106–113.
• Stringham, T.K. and W.C. Krueger. 2001. States, Transitions, and Thresholds: Further refinement for rangeland applications.
• Tirmenstein, D. 1999. Gutierrezia sarothrae. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/gutsar/all.html [2022, March 30].
• Walker, L.R. and S.D. Smith. 1997. Impacts of invasive plants on community and ecosystem properties. Pages 69–86 in Assessment and management of plant invasions. Springer, New York, NY.
• Whitford, W.G., E.F. Aldon, D.W. Freckman, Y. Steinberger, and L.W. Parker. 1989. Effects of Organic Amendments on Soil Biota on a Degraded Rangeland. Journal of Range Management 41:56–60.
• Wilson, A.M., G.A. Harris, and D.H. Gates. 1966. Cumulative Effects of Clipping on Yield of Bluebunch wheatgrass. Journal of Range Management 19:90–91.

Contributors

Petersen, Grant

Approval

Kirt Walstad, 3/01/2024

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)
Contact for lead author
Date	03/02/2024
Approved by	Kirt Walstad
Approval date
Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on	Annual Production

Indicators

Number and extent of rills:
Presence of water flow patterns:
Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes:
Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, lichen, moss, plant canopy are not bare ground):
Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies:
Extent of wind scoured, blowouts and/or depositional areas:
Amount of litter movement (describe size and distance expected to travel):
Soil surface (top few mm) resistance to erosion (stability values are averages - most sites will show a range of values):
Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type of structure and A-horizon color and thickness):
Effect of community phase composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration and runoff:
Presence and thickness of compaction layer (usually none; describe soil profile features which may be mistaken for compaction on this site):
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:

Sub-dominant:

Other:

Additional:
Amount of plant mortality and decadence (include which functional groups are expected to show mortality or decadence):
Average percent litter cover (%) and depth ( in):
Expected annual annual-production (this is TOTAL above-ground annual-production, not just forage annual-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:
Perennial plant reproductive capability:

Download reference sheet