Cool Moist Mountain Meadow (DECE/CAREX)
Scenario model
Current ecosystem state
Select a state
Management practices/drivers
Select a transition or restoration pathway
-
Transition T1.1
Invasion of non-native meadow grasses
More details -
Transition T2.1
Sustained improperly managed
More details -
Transition T2.2
Hydrologic alteration
More details -
Restoration pathway R3.1
Rehabilitation actions
More details -
Transition T3.1
Major hydrologic alteration
More details -
Restoration pathway R4.1
Rehabilitation actions
More details -
Restoration pathway R4.2
Rehabilitation actions and significant elapsed time
More details -
No transition or restoration pathway between the selected states has been described
Target ecosystem state
Select a state
Description
This represents the historical reference state in pristine conditions. Variability in depth to water table and seasonal fluctuations support native facultative wetland vegetation and vegetated communities include all historical functional and structural groups. The historical disturbance regime is intact and driven primarily by climate which influences drought and flood cycles. The resilience and resistance of the site is bolstered by negative feedbacks between vegetation establishment and hydrologic processes that maintains a dynamic equilibrium with geomorphological processes.
Description
This state is similar to the reference state yet includes a component of non-native species such as Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), common timothy (Phleum pretense), and meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis). Ecological process and function have not been altered fundamentally by this low level of invasion, yet resistance and resilience are decreased. Erosion processes are still within a historical range of variation, yet with continued vegetation loss the site risks a transition to an alternative state. Variability in depth to water table and seasonal fluctuations support native vegetation and vegetated communities include all historical functional and structural groups, yet composition and richness may be reduced. The historical disturbance regime is intact and driven primarily by climate which influences drought and flood cycles. The resilience and resistance of the site is bolstered by negative feedbacks between vegetation establishment and hydrologic processes that maintains a dynamic equilibrium with geomorphological processes. This state is common due to widespread invasion of non-native meadow grasses in the Western US.
Description
Soil compaction, trampling and sustained overutilization has altered vegetated composition and increased bare ground. Relative to the current potential state, composition of wetland facultative species has been altered and may include a greater composition of forbs such as long-stalk clover and western mountain aster. Much of the tufted hairgrass cover has been replaced by non-native grasses such as Kentucky bluegrass, timothy and meadow foxtail. The state may also be invaded by exotic annual grasses and forbs and exotic taprooted perennials such as Canada thistle. Soil erosion and vegetation pedestalling is often present. Banks are moderately stable, hydrology may be altered, with somewhat lowered water tables. This state may also include scenarios where an entrenched, confined floodplain has developed following restoration of an incised reach (from state 4 via restoration pathway 4.2).
Description
Where this site is hydrologically dependent on a stream network, sustained disturbance may lead to unstable stream banks and entrenched channels. Primary floodplains will become disconnected from the channel and evolve into terraces with significantly lowered water tables. This will often lead to the replacement of facultative wetland species such as tufted hairgrass and Kentucky bluegrass with drought adapted bunchgrasses and shrubs. Plant communities within this state will vary and may depend on adjacent vegetation types, water table levels, past disturbance history, drought and current management.
Mechanism
Sustained improperly managed grazing during times of year when soils are most susceptible to compaction, and when sedges are most prone to damage by trampling and over utilization.
Mechanism
This transition may be the result of several disturbances that lower water tables beyond depths that support facultative wetland vegetation, alter sediment supply and transport leading to scouring and channel incision, or directly increase flow velocities or flashiness. These may include: alteration of streamflow by irrigation or impoundment leading to a lowering of the water table during times of year when riparian woody vegetation is dependent; prolonged improperly managed livestock grazing; removal of beaver; direct manipulation of channel morphology (namely straightening for agricultural or development purposes); removal of large woody debris or large woody debris sources, from channels or adjacent forests and significant alterations of upland watershed vegetation altering peak discharge or sediment loads.
Mechanism
Restoration of hydrologic and biotic process and function through rehabilitation of channel and vegetation structure may be possible but will require considerable inputs, time and cost. This may require the placement of large woody debris, creation or removal of impoundments, alteration of water withdrawals, management changes to adjacent agricultural or grazing practices, or mechanical manipulation of stream channel courses among other intensive interventions. Restoration options will be highly site specific and may not be possible in many circumstances.
Mechanism
This transition may be the result of several disturbances that lower water tables beyond depths that support facultative wetland vegetation, alter sediment supply and transport leading to scouring and channel incision, or directly increase flow velocities or flashiness. These may include: alteration of streamflow by irrigation or impoundment leading to a lowering of the water table during times of year when riparian woody vegetation is dependent; prolonged improperly managed livestock grazing; removal of beaver; direct manipulation of channel morphology (namely straightening for agricultural or development purposes); removal of large woody debris or large woody debris sources, from channels or adjacent forests and significant alterations of upland watershed vegetation altering peak discharge or sediment loads.
Mechanism
Restoration of hydrologic and biotic process and function through rehabilitation of channel and vegetation structure may be possible but will require considerable inputs, time and cost. This may require the placement of large woody debris, creation or removal of impoundments, alteration of water withdrawals, management changes to adjacent agricultural or grazing practices, or mechanical manipulation of stream channel courses among other intensive interventions. Restoration options will be highly site specific and may not be possible in many circumstances.
Mechanism
Given time, if channel disturbances are removed and natural channel evolution processes are allowed to take place, the stream will form an entrenched floodplain at a lower depth than the original. The original floodplain will remain an elevated terrace, perched above the newly forming floodplain and supporting a lowered water table and drought adapted plant species. The resulting riparian area will be more confined and of significantly less extent than originally. The capacity of the basin to capture and regulate water will be reduced considerably.
Model keys
Briefcase
Add ecological sites and Major Land Resource Areas to your briefcase by clicking on the briefcase (
) icon wherever it occurs. Drag and drop items to reorder. Cookies are used to store briefcase items between browsing sessions. Because of this, the number of items that can be added to your briefcase is limited, and briefcase items added on one device and browser cannot be accessed from another device or browser. Users who do not wish to place cookies on their devices should not use the briefcase tool. Briefcase cookies serve no other purpose than described here and are deleted whenever browsing history is cleared.
Ecological sites
Major Land Resource Areas
The Ecosystem Dynamics Interpretive Tool is an information system framework developed by the USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, and New Mexico State University.