Limy (Ly) LRU 01 Subset A
Scenario model
Current ecosystem state
Select a state
Management practices/drivers
Select a transition or restoration pathway
- Transition T1A More details
- Transition T1C More details
- Transition T1B More details
- Transition T1D More details
- Restoration pathway R2A More details
- Transition T2A More details
- Transition T2B More details
- Transition T2C More details
- Restoration pathway R3B More details
- Restoration pathway R3A More details
- Transition T3A More details
- Transition T3B More details
- Restoration pathway R4C More details
- Restoration pathway R4B More details
- Restoration pathway R4A More details
- Transition T4A More details
- Restoration pathway R5A More details
- Restoration pathway R5B More details
- Restoration pathway R5C More details
-
No transition or restoration pathway between the selected states has been described
Target ecosystem state
Select a state
Description
The Bunchgrass State of this ecological site consists of two known potential plant communities 1.1 Bluebunch Community and 1.2 Mixed Bluebunch Community. These are described below but are generally characterized by a mid-stature, cool-season grass community with limited shrub production. Community 1.1 is dominated by bluebunch wheatgrass and is considered the reference, while Community 1.2 has a co-dominance of bluebunch and needle and thread with an increase in green rabbitbrush and Wyoming big sagebrush. These communities may meld into each other due to the varying conditions that occur in Southwest Montana, particularly during dry cycles where the needle and thread growth cycle takes better advantage of the limited moisture.
Submodel
Description
This state is characterized by having less than 15 percent bluebunch wheatgrass by dry weight. It is represented by two communities that differ in the percent composition of needle and thread, production, and soil degradation. Production in this state can be similar to the Bunchgrass State (1). Some native plants tend to increase under prolonged drought and heavy grazing practices. A few of these species may include needle and thread, Sandberg bluegrass, scarlet globemallow, hairy goldenaster, and fringed sagewort. Microtopography, that was generally too small to delineate during soil mapping, will often exhibit increased canopy cover of Wyoming big sagebrush due to the slight addition of moisture increased.
The Lewis and Clark journals (Moulton 1988) talk about the areas around the Hogback north of Dillon and Horse Prairie west of Clark Canyon Reservoir: “The soil of the plains is a light yellow clay very meager and intermixed with a large proportion of gravel, producing nothing except the twisted or bearded grass, sedge and prickly pears”. Many of their travels were hampered because of the awns of needle and thread in their moccasins. This may suggest that there was extensive, repeated use prior to the Corps of Discovery expedition. Today, needle and thread dominates that area suggesting that transitioning from the Altered State back to the Bunchgrass State may require multiple years of recovery, reaffirming the Domaar 1997 study area.
Submodel
Description
A single plant community based on shortgrasses and rhizomatous grasses with mixed shrubs. Bare ground is common.
Submodel
Description
The Invaded State is identified as being in the exponential growth phase of invader abundance where control is a priority. Dominance (or relative dominance) of noxious or invasive species reduces species diversity, forage production, wildlife habitat, and site protection. A level of 20 percent invasive species composition by dry weight indicates that a substantial energy input will be required to create a shift to the grassland state (herbicide, mechanical treatment), even with a return to proper grazing management or favorable growing conditions. Prescriptive grazing can be used to manage invasive species. In some instances, carefully targeted grazing (sometimes in combination with other treatments) can reduce or maintain the species composition of invasive species.
These communities within this state will follow a path if the invasive or noxious species continue to thrive without mechanical, biological, or chemical control methods to exceed 20 percent of species composition by dry weight. The invasive nature of the weed outcompetes the present plant community. Once the weed reaches its maximum population level for this site, effective control is unlikely without massive resource inputs. After invading species have established and spread, ecological processes at the site may change (Walker and Smith 1997).
Submodel
Description
The Conifer Encroached State is still being researched however it may contain as many as 4 different communities. Due to limited available data for SW Montana, this state will remain provisional until more information is collected on the exact impacts on rangeland health.
Submodel
Mechanism
The Bunchgrass State (1) transitions to the Altered State (2) if bluebunch wheatgrass, by dry weight, decreases to below 15 percent or if bare ground cover is increased beyond 15 percent. The driver for this transition is the loss of taller bunchgrasses, which creates open areas in the plant canopy with bare soil. Soil erosion reduces soil fertility, which drives transitions to the Altered State. There are several other key factors signaling the approach of transition T1A: increases in soil physical crusting, decreases in cover of cryptogamic crusts, decreases in soil surface aggregate stability, and/or evidence of erosion including water flow patterns, development of plant pedestals, and litter movement. The trigger for this transition is improper grazing management and/or long-term drought, leading to a decrease in bluebunch wheatgrass composition to less than 15 percent and a reduction in total plant canopy cover.
Mechanism
The Bunchgrass State (1) transitions to the Degraded State (3) when bluebunch wheatgrass is removed from the plant community and needle and thread is subdominant among short-statured bunchgrasses such as Sandberg bluegrass. The trigger for this transition is the loss of taller bunchgrasses, which creates open spaces with bare soil. Soil erosion reduces soil fertility, causing a transition to a Degraded State. There are several other key factors signaling the approach of transition T1C: increases in soil physical crusting, decreases in cover of cryptogamic crusts, decreases in soil surface aggregate stability, and/or evidence of erosion including water flow patterns, development of plant pedestals, and litter movement. The driver for this transition is improper grazing management, intense or repeated fires, and/or heavy human disturbance. Rapid transition is generally realized where livestock are confined to small pastures for long periods of time.
Mechanism
Healthy plant communities are most resistant to invasion. However, regardless of grazing management, without some form of active weed management (chemical, mechanical, or biological control) and prevention, the Bunchgrass State (1) can transition to the Invaded State (4) in the presence of aggressive invasive species such as spotted knapweed, leafy spurge, and cheatgrass. This will occur even if the reference community is thriving. The Central Rocky Mountain Valleys tend to resist invasion by cheatgrass; however, repeated heavy grazing or intense human activities can open the interspaces of the bunchgrass community and allow for encroachment. Long-term stress conditions for native species (e.g., overgrazing, drought, and fire) accelerate this transition. If populations of invasive species reach critical levels, the site transitions to the Invaded State. The trigger for this transition is the presence of aggressive invasive species. The species composition by dry weight of invasive species approaches 10 percent.
Mechanism
5 percent canopy cover of conifer cover. The trigger is the presence of seeds and/or other viable material of invasive species.
Mechanism
The Altered State (2) has lost soil or vegetation attributes to the point that recovery to the Bunchgrass State (1) will require reclamation efforts such as soil rebuilding, intensive mechanical and cultural treatments, and/or revegetation. Low-intensity prescribed fires were used to reduce competitive increasers like needle and thread and Sandberg bluegrass. In areas prone to annual grass infestation, fire should be carefully planned or avoided. The drivers for this restoration pathway are reclamation efforts along with proper grazing management. The trigger is restoration efforts.
Mechanism
As improper grazing management continues, the vigor of bunch grasses will decrease and the shorter grasses and shrubs will increase, leading to the Degraded Shortgrass State (3). Prolonged drought will provide a competitive advantage to shrubs, allowing them to become co-dominant with grasses. Shrub canopy cover will increase above 15 percent. Key transition factors include: an increase in native shrub canopy cover; a reduction in bunchgrass production; a decrease in total plant canopy cover and production; increases in mean bare patch size; increases in soil crusting; decreases in the cover of cryptobiotic crusts; decreases in soil aggregate stability; and/or evidence of erosion, including water flow patterns and litter movement.
Mechanism
Invasive species can occupy the Altered State (2) and drive it to the Invaded State (4). The Altered State is at risk if invasive seeds and/or other viable material are present. The driver for this transition is more than 20 percent of the dry weight of invasive species. The trigger is the presence of seeds and/or other viable material from invasive species.
Mechanism
5 percent canopy cover of conifer cover. The trigger is the presence of seeds and/or other viable material of invasive species.
Mechanism
The Degraded State (3) has lost soil or vegetation attributes to the point that recovery to the Bunchgrass State (1) will require reclamation efforts, such as soil rebuilding, intensive mechanical treatments, and/or revegetation. Studies suggest (Whitford et al. 1989) that a mulch with a high carbon to nitrogen ratio, such as wood chips or bark, in low moisture scenarios can be beneficial for slow mobilization of plant-available nitrogen. Biochar may also be added to the system to improve Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) which should improve Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC), microbial activity, and hydrologic conductivity (Stavi 2012). The drivers for the restoration pathway are the removal of increaser species, restoration of native bunchgrass species, persistent management of invasives and shrubs, and proper grazing management. Without continued control, invasive and shrub species are likely to return (probably rapidly) due to the presence of seeds and/or other viable material in the soil and management-related increases in soil disturbance.
Mechanism
Since the bunchgrass plant community has been significantly reduced, restoration to the Altered State (2) is unlikely unless a seed source is available. If enough grass remains on the site, chemical and/or biological control, combined with proper grazing management, can reduce the amount of shrubs and invasive species and restore the site to the shortgrass community (2.2). Low-intensity fire can be utilized to reduce Wyoming big sagebrush competition and allow the reestablishment of grass species. Caution must be used when considering fire as a management tool on sites with fire tolerant shrubs such as rubber rabbitbrush, as these shrubs will sprout after a burn. Broom snakeweed and fringed sagewort may or may not re-sprout depending on conditions (USDA Forest Service, 2011).
Mechanism
Invasive species can occupy the Degraded State (3) and drive it to the Invaded State (4). The Degraded State is at risk of this transition occurring if invasive seeds or viable material are present. The driver for this transition is the presence of critical population levels (more than 20 percent dry weight of invasive species). The trigger is the presence of seeds or viable material from invasive species. This state has sufficient bare ground that the transition could occur simply due to the presence or introduction of invasive seeds or viable material. This is particularly true of aggressive invasive species such as spotted knapweed. This transition could be assisted by overgrazing (failure to adjust stocking rate to declining forage production), a long-term lack of fire, or an extensive drought.
Mechanism
5 percent canopy cover of conifer cover. The trigger is the presence of seeds and/or other viable material of invasive species.
Mechanism
Restoration of the Invaded State (4) to the Reference State (1) requires substantial energy input. The drivers for the restoration pathway are the removal of invasive species, restoration of native bunchgrass species, persistent management of invasive species, and proper grazing management. Without continued control, invasive species are likely to return (probably rapidly) due to the presence of seeds and/or other viable material in the soil and management-related practices that increase soil disturbance. If invaded by conifer encroachment, treatment depends on the condition of the rangeland. See Plant Community 4.1 for alternative measures of restoration.
Sites that have transitioned from the Degraded State (3) to the Invaded State (4) may be severely lacking in soil and vegetative properties that will allow for restoration to the Reference State. Hydrologic function damage may be irreversible, especially with accelerated gully erosion.
Mechanism
If invasive species are removed before remnant populations of bunchgrass are drastically reduced, the invading state (4) can revert to its altered state. The driver for the reclamation pathway is weed management without reseeding. Continued Integrated Pest Management (IPM) will be required as many of the invasive species that can occupy the Invaded State have extended dormant seed life. The trigger is invasive species control.
Mechanism
If invasive species are removed, the site could return to the Degraded State (3). Without sufficient remnant populations of preferred plants, the Invaded State (4) is not likely to return to any of the other states. The driver for the reclamation pathway is weed management without reseeding. The trigger is invasive species control. Due to a lack of ground cover, the invading species cause a significant increase in soil loss (Lacey et al. 1989).
Mechanism
5 percent canopy cover of conifer cover. The trigger is the presence of seeds and/or other viable material of invasive species.
Mechanism
Restoration efforts may simply focus on the removal of coniferous trees and shrubs to restore the Conifer Encroached State (5) to the reference state (1), depending on the level of conifer canopy cover and its impact on rangeland health.
If following and utilizing the phases established by Miller et al., management and restoration methods will vary. A majority of the conifer encroachment in MLRA 44B will fall into the early two phases of Miller's phases.
When conifers are removed through brush management and/or prescribed fire, Phase I may reveal none-to-slight to moderate deviations from rangeland health. If mechanical removal of conifers is utilized, no grazing management is needed, assuming relatively conservative management had been used prior to treatment. If prescribed fire is utilized, short-term grazing deferment and/or rest are suggested. In a short period of time, removing a Phase I encroachment will return the site to its original state. Proactive pest management is encouraged.
Phase II encroachment may require a more intensive mechanical removal of trees and shrubs, with prescribed fire not being a feasible method of control as this community may be at risk of catastrophic fire due to canopy density. Phase II displays a moderate departure from Reference, suggesting an overall instability of the site such as reduced herbaceous production, reduced functional/structural groups (e.g., reduced mid-statured bunchgrasses), increased rill frequency and length, and possibly more bare ground. Increased post-treatment grazing management may be necessary. Grazing management may be as simple as short-term growing season deferment; however, long-term rest may be necessary in the latter stages of Phase II encroachment. The latter stages of Phase II encroachment will likely require some short-term erosion mitigation, such as straw waddles, as well as range planting and/or critical area planting to re-establish any loss of native herbaceous plants, particularly mid-statured cool-season bunchgrasses.
Phase III encroachment canopy cover resembles forested sites with larger trees and shrubs. Prior to any prescribed burning, forest management style tree removal (removal of woody debris and logs from the site) will be required to prevent the fire from burning too hot. The result of a prescribed fire on this site is typically unknown as seed sources of native herbaceous plants are usually limited to small patches. Since the Limy ecological site for 44B LRU 01 Subset A is a dry site, herbaceous plants will likely have been depleted under a Phase III encroachment. This means there is an opportunity for large areas of bare ground, increased rilling, and in some cases, gully erosion. Post-treatment will require range planting and/or critical area seeding, erosion control, pest management, and possibly soil carbon amendments (biochar). Grazing management (primarily rest) will be required to ensure the establishment of any new seedlings.
Mechanism
The Conifer Encroached State (5) Phases I and II will generally resemble the Altered State (2) on this site. If following and utilizing the phases established by Miller et al., management and restoration methods will vary. A majority of the conifer encroachment in MLRA 44B will fall into the early two phases of Miller's phases.
When conifers are removed through brush management and/or prescribed fire, Phase I may show none-to-slight to moderate deviations from rangeland health. If mechanical removal of conifers is utilized, no grazing management is needed, assuming relatively conservative management had been used prior to treatment. If prescribed fire is utilized, short-term grazing deferment and/or rest are suggested. In a short period of time, removing a Phase I encroachment will return the site to its original state. Proactive pest management is encouraged.
Phase II encroachment may require a more intensive mechanical removal of trees and shrubs, with prescribed fire not being a feasible method of control as this community may be at risk of catastrophic fire due to canopy density. Phase II displays a moderate departure from Reference, suggesting an overall instability of the site such as reduced herbaceous production, reduced functional/structural groups (e.g., reduced mid-statured bunchgrasses), increased rill frequency and length, and possibly increased bare ground. Increased post-treatment grazing management may be necessary. Grazing management may be as simple as short-term growing season deferment; however, long-term rest may be necessary in the latter stages of Phase II encroachment. The latter stages of Phase II encroachment will likely require some short-term erosion mitigation such as straw waddles as well as range planting and/or critical area planting to re-establish any loss of native herbaceous plants, particularly mid-statured cool-season bunchgrasses.
Phase III encroachment canopy cover resembles forested sites with larger trees and shrubs. Prior to any prescribed burning, forest management style tree removal (removal of woody debris and logs from the site) will be required to prevent the fire from burning too hot. The result of a prescribed fire on this site is typically unknown as seed sources of native herbaceous plants are usually limited to small patches. Since the Limy ecological site for 44B LRU 1 Subset A is a dry site, herbaceous plants will likely have been depleted under a Phase III encroachment. This means there is an opportunity for large areas of bare ground, increased rilling, and in some cases, gully erosion. Post-treatment will require range planting and/or critical area seeding, erosion control, pest management, and possibly soil carbon amendments (biochar). Grazing management (primarily rest) will be required to ensure the establishment of any new seedlings.
Mechanism
The Conifer Encroached State (5) Phases I and II will generally resemble the Degraded State (2) on this site. If following and utilizing the phases established by Miller et al., management and restoration methods will vary. A majority of the conifer encroachment in MLRA 44B will fall into the early two phases of Miller's phases.
When conifers are removed through brush management and/or prescribed fire, Phase I may show none-to-slight to moderate deviations from rangeland health. If mechanical removal of conifers is utilized, no grazing management is needed, assuming relatively conservative management had been used prior to treatment. If prescribed fire is utilized, short-term grazing deferment and/or rest are suggested. In a short period of time, removing a Phase I encroachment will return the site to its original state. Proactive pest management is encouraged.
Phase II encroachment may require a more intensive mechanical removal of trees and shrubs, with prescribed fire not being a feasible method of control as this community may be at risk of catastrophic fire due to canopy density. Phase II displays a moderate departure from Reference, suggesting an overall instability of the site such as reduced herbaceous production, reduced functional/structural groups (e.g., reduced mid-statured bunchgrasses), increased rill frequency and length, and possibly increased bare ground. Increased post-treatment grazing management may be necessary. Grazing management may be as simple as short-term growing season deferment; however, long-term rest may be necessary in the latter stages of Phase II encroachment. The latter stages of Phase II encroachment will likely require some short-term erosion mitigation such as straw waddles as well as range planting and/or critical area planting to re-establish any loss of native herbaceous plants, particularly mid-statured cool-season bunchgrasses.
Phase III encroachment canopy cover resembles forested sites with larger trees and shrubs. Prior to any prescribed burning, forest management style tree removal (removal of woody debris and logs from the site) will be required to prevent the fire from burning too hot. The result of a prescribed fire on this site is typically unknown as seed sources of native herbaceous plants are usually limited to small patches. Since the Limy ecological site for 44B LRU 1 Subset A is a dry site, herbaceous plants will likely have been depleted under a Phase III encroachment. This means there is an opportunity for large areas of bare ground, increased rilling, and in some cases, gully erosion. Post-treatment will require range planting and/or critical area seeding, erosion control, pest management, and possibly soil carbon amendments (biochar). Grazing management (primarily rest) will be required to ensure the establishment of any new seedlings.
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.