Limy Subirrigated
Scenario model
Current ecosystem state
Select a state
Management practices/drivers
Select a transition or restoration pathway
-
Transition T1A
Introduction of exotic cool-season grasses
More details -
Transition T2A
Extended periods of non-use or very light grazing, heavy season-long grazing, no fire
More details -
Transition T2B
Long-term heavy grazing or annual haying
More details -
Restoration pathway R3A
Long term prescribed grazing with prescribed burning
More details -
Restoration pathway R4A
Successful range planting
More details -
Restoration pathway R4B
Failed range planting
More details -
Transition T4A
Cessation of annual cropping with EC>8, no range planting or failed range planting
More details -
Restoration pathway T5A
Cessation of cropping.
More details -
No transition or restoration pathway between the selected states has been described
Target ecosystem state
Select a state
Description
This state represents the natural range of variability that dominated the dynamics of this ecological site prior to European influence. The primary disturbance mechanisms for this site in the reference condition included frequent fire and grazing by large herding ungulates. Timing of fires and grazing, coupled with weather events, dictated the dynamics that occurred within the natural range of variability. These factors likely caused the community to shift both spatially and temporally between two community phases.
Characteristics and indicators
Because of changes in disturbances and other environmental factors (particularly the widespread occurrence of exotic species), the Reference State is considered to no longer exist.
Resilience management
If intact, the reference state should probably be managed with current disturbance regimes which has permitted the site to remain in reference condition, as well as maintaining the quality and integrity of associated ecological sites. Maintenance of the reference condition is contingent upon a monitoring protocol to guide management.
Submodel
Description
This state is similar to State 1: Reference State but has now been colonized by the exotic cool-season grasses (e.g., Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, quackgrass) which are now present in small amounts. Although the state is still dominated by native grasses, an increase in these exotic cool- season grasses can be expected.
These exotic cool-season grasses can be quite invasive on the site and are particularly well adapted to heavy grazing. They also often form monotypic stands. As these exotic cool-season grasses increase, both forage quantity and quality become increasingly restricted to late spring and early summer due to the monotypic nature of the stand, even though annual production may increase.
Native forbs generally decrease in production, abundance, diversity, and richness compared to that of State 1: Reference State.
These exotic cool-season grasses have been particularly and consistently invasive under extended periods of non-use or very light grazing, and no fire. To slow or limit the invasion of these exotic cool- season grasses, it is imperative that managerial techniques (e.g., prescribed grazing, prescribed burning) be carefully constructed, monitored, and evaluated with respect to that objective. If management does not include measures to control or reduce these exotic cool-season grasses, the transition to State 3: Invaded State should be expected.
Annual production of this state can be quite variable, in large part due to the amount of exotic cool- season grasses. However, as the exotic cool-season grasses increase, peak production will shift to earlier in the growing season.
.
Characteristics and indicators
The presence of trace amounts of exotic cool-season grasses indicates a transition from State 1 to State 2. The presence of exotic biennial or perennial leguminous forbs (i.e., sweet clover, black medic) may not, on their own, indicate a transition from State 1 to State 2 but may facilitate that transition.
Resilience management
To slow or limit the invasion of these exotic grasses, it is imperative that managerial options (e.g., prescribed grazing, prescribed burning) be carefully constructed and evaluated with respect to that objective.
Grazing management should be applied that enhances the competitive advantage of native grass and forb species. This may include: (1) grazing when exotic cool-season grasses are actively growing and native cool-season grasses are dormant; (2) applying proper deferment periods allowing native grasses to recover and maintain or improve vigor; (3) adjusting overall grazing intensity to reduce excessive plant litter (above that needed for rangeland health indicator #14 – see Rangeland Health Reference Worksheet); (4) incorporating early heavy spring utilization which focuses grazing pressure on exotic cool-season grasses and reduces plant litter, provided that livestock are moved when grazing selection shifts from exotic cool-season grasses to native grasses.
Prescribed burning should be applied in a manner that maintains or enhances the competitive advantage of native grass and forb species. Prescribed burns should be applied as needed to adequately reduce/remove excessive plant litter and maintain the competitive advantage for native species. Timing of prescribed burns (spring vs. summer vs. fall) should be adjusted to account for differences in annual growing conditions and applied during windows of opportunity to best shift the competitive advantage to the native species.
Submodel
Description
This state is the result of invasion and dominance by the exotic cool-season grasses (e.g., Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, quackgrass). Other exotic plants (e.g., leafy spurge) may also invade the site. These exotic cool-season grasses can be quite invasive on the site and are particularly well adapted to heavy grazing. They also often form monotypic stands. As these exotic cool-season grasses increase, both forage quantity and quality become increasingly restricted to late spring and early summer due to the monotypic nature of the stand, even though annual production may increase. Native forbs generally decrease in production, abundance, diversity, and richness compared to that of State 1: Reference State. Common forbs often include white heath aster, goldenrod, common yarrow, and white sagebrush. Native shrubs (e.g., willow, western snowberry), as well as native trees (e.g., plains cottonwood, quaking aspen) and exotics (e.g., Siberian elm, Russian olive), may also become prominent on the site. Once the state is well established, prescribed burning and grazing techniques have been largely ineffective in suppressing or eliminating these species, even though some short- term reductions may appear successful.
Annual production of this state may vary widely, in part due to variations in the extent of invasion by exotic cool-season grasses. However, as the exotic cool-season grasses increase, annual production will shift to earlier in the growing season.
Characteristics and indicators
This site is characterized by exotic cool-season grasses constituting greater than 30 percent of the annual production and native grasses constituting less than 40 percent of the annual production.
Resilience management
Light or moderately stocked continuous, season-long grazing or a prescribed grazing system which incorporates adequate deferment periods between grazing events and proper stocking rate levels will maintain this State. Application of herbaceous weed treatment, occasional prescribed burning and/or brush management may be needed to manage noxious weeds and increasing shrub (e.g., western snowberry) populations.
Submodel
Description
This state is highly variable depending on the level and duration of disturbance related to the T5A transitional pathway. In this MLRA, the most probable origin of this state is plant succession following cropland abandonment. This plant community will initially include a variety of annual forbs and grasses, some of which may be noxious weeds and need control. Over time, the exotic cool-season grasses (e.g., Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, and/or quackgrass) will likely predominate.
Characteristics and indicators
Tillage has destroyed the native plant community, altered soil structure and biology, reduced soil organic matter, and resulted in the formation of a tillage induced compacted layer which is restrictive to root growth. Removal of perennial grasses and forbs results in decreased infiltration and increased runoff.
Resilience management
Continued tillage will maintain the state. Control of noxious weeds will be required.
Submodel
Description
Increased salinity is the main driver for the transition to State 5: Salinized State of a Limy Subirrigated ecological site. Increased salinity levels favor salt tolerant vegetation and will make perennial vegetation establishment more difficult. This state also occurs along the upland boundary of wetlands. Long-term heavy grazing, annual haying, or total removal of vegetation (cropping) along the wetland edge increases evaporation with less transpiration bringing salts to the soil surface increasing surface salinity. This salinization process can be exasperated by cropping the discharge area around the wetland. Salinity increases greater than 8 dS/m favors foxtail barley, salt grass, and bare ground. The site remains somewhat poorly drained.
Annual production of this state may vary widely, in part due to salinity levels. As salinity increases, production decreases as does palatability of the species present (e.g., foxtail barley).
Characteristics and indicators
This state is characterized when salinity levels are greater than 8 dS/m and saline tolerant vegetation (such as foxtail barley, saltgrass, Nutall’s alkali grass, western wheatgrass, and bare ground) begin to dominate the site.
Resilience management
This state is very resilient to change. Salinity levels (E.C. >8 dS/m) are difficult to reduce allowing for non-salt tolerant grasses to establish. No known restoration pathways or technology currently exists to restore this site to State 2. At a minimum, salinity levels need to be reduced to less than 8 dS/m and native grasses (such as big bluestem, Indian grass, needlegrasses, and little bluestem) need to be present or planted on the site to transition to State 2. A transition to State 3 Invaded State will be a more likely pathway. Prior to implementation of any management or restoration techniques, such as range planting, salinity levels need to be determined.
Submodel
Mechanism
This is the transition from the State 1: Reference State to the State 2: Native/Invaded State due to the introduction and establishment of exotic cool-season grasses, typically Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, and/or quackgrass. The invasion of the site by these exotic cool-season grasses is expected with a corresponding decline in native warm-season and cool-season grasses. This transition may be exacerbated by chronic season-long or heavy late season grazing. Complete rest from grazing and suppression of fire can also hasten this transition. The threshold between states is crossed when Kentucky bluegrass, smooth bromegrass, quackgrass, or other exotic species became established on the site.
Constraints to recovery
Current knowledge and technology will not facilitate a successful restoration to Reference State.
Mechanism
This is the transition from the State 2: Native/Invaded State to State 3: Invaded State. This transition can occur with complete no-use and no grazing, light grazing, or heavy season-long grazing. Increasing plant litter under no grazing and no burning leads to an increase in the shade tolerant exotic cool-season grasses, particularly Kentucky bluegrass. Similarly, heavy grazing also benefits the grazing tolerant exotic species such as Kentucky bluegrass, and/or quackgrass.
Preliminary studies indicate this threshold may occur when Kentucky bluegrass (or perhaps smooth brome or quackgrass) exceeds 30% of the plant community and native grasses represent less than 40% of the plant community composition. Similar thresholds may exist for smooth brome and quackgrass. Once the threshold is crossed, grazing management alone cannot reduce the exotic cool-season grasses, and prescribed burning is difficult and largely ineffective in reducing the exotic cool-season grasses due to early green up and high moisture/humidity conditions. Burning is also difficult under heavy season-long grazing, due to low fuel loads.
Constraints to recovery
Variations in growing conditions (e.g., cool, wet spring) will influence effects of various management activities on exotic cool-season grass populations.
Mechanism
This is the transition from the State 2: Native/Invaded State to State 5: Salinized State results from long-term heavy grazing or annual haying. This leads to salinization of the site. Vegetation becomes characterized by foxtail barley, saltgrass, and areas of bare ground.
Constraints to recovery
Increased salinity at the soil surface will make it difficult to restore to a less salinized state.
Mechanism
This restoration pathway from State 3: Invaded State to State 2: Native/Invaded State may be accomplished with the implementation of long-term prescribed grazing and prescribed burning, assuming there is an adequate component of native grasses to respond to the treatments.
Both prescribed grazing and prescribed burning are likely necessary to successfully initiate this restoration pathway, the success of which depends upon the presence of a remnant population of native grasses in Community Phase 3.1. That remnant population, however, may not be readily apparent without close inspection. The application of several prescribed burns may be needed at relatively short intervals in the early phases of this restoration process, in part because many of the shrubs (e.g., western snowberry) sprout following one burn. Early season prescribed burns have been successful; however, fall burning may also be an effective technique.
The prescribed grazing should include adequate recovery periods following each grazing event and stocking levels which match the available resources. If properly implemented, this will shift the competitive advantage from the exotic cool-season grasses to the native cool-season grasses.
Context dependence
Grazing management should be applied in a manner that enhances/maximizes the competitive advantage of native grass and forb species over the exotic species. This may include the use of prescribed grazing to reduce excessive plant litter accumulations above that needed for rangeland health indicator #14 (see Rangeland Health Reference Worksheet). Increasing livestock densities may facilitate the reduction in plant litter provided length and timing of grazing periods are adjusted to favor native species.
Grazing prescriptions designed to address exotic grass invasion and favor native species may involve earlier, short, intense grazing periods with proper deferment to improve native species health and vigor. Fall (e.g., September, October) prescribed burning followed by an intensive, early spring graze period with adequate deferment for native grass recovery may shift the competitive advantage to the native species, facilitating the restoration to State 2: Native/Invaded.
Prescribed burning should be applied in a manner that enhances the competitive advantage of native grass and forb species over the exotic species. Prescribed burns should be applied at a frequency which mimics the natural disturbance regime, or more frequently as is ecologically (e.g., available fuel load) and economically feasible. Burn prescriptions may need adjustment to: (1) account for change in fine fuel orientation (e.g., “flopped” Kentucky bluegrass); (2) fire intensity and duration by adjusting ignition pattern (e.g., backing fires vs head fires); (3) account for plant phenological stages to maximize stress on exotic species while favoring native species (both cool- and warm-season grasses).
Mechanism
This Restoration Pathway from State 4: Go-Back State to the State 2: Native/Invaded State may be accomplished with a successful range planting. Following establishment, prescribed grazing, prescribed burning, haying, or use of herbicides will generally be necessary to achieve the desired result and control any noxious weeds.
It may be possible using selected plant materials and agronomic practices to approach something very near the functioning of State 2: Native/Invaded State. Application of chemical herbicides and the use of mechanical planting methods using adapted varieties of the dominant native grasses are possible and can be successful. After establishment of the native plant species, prescribed grazing should include adequate recovery periods following each grazing event and stocking levels which match the available resources; management objectives must include the maintenance of those species, the associated reference state functions, and continued treatment of exotic grasses.
Context dependence
A successful range planting will include proper seedbed preparation, weed control (both prior to and after the planting), selection of adapted native species representing functional/structural groups inherent to the State 1, and proper planting technique.
Management (e.g., prescribed grazing, prescribed burning) during and after establishment must be applied in a manner that maintains the competitive advantage for the seeded native species. Adding non-native species can impact the above and below ground biota. Elevated soil nitrogen levels have been shown to benefit smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass more than some native grasses. As a result, fertilization, exotic legumes in the seed mix, and other techniques that increase soil nitrogen may promote smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass invasion.
The method or methods of herbaceous weed treatment will be site specific to each situation; generally, the goal would be to apply the pesticide, mechanical control, or biological control (either singularly or in combination) in a manner that shifts the competitive advantage from the targeted species to the native grasses and forbs. The control method(s) should be as specific to the targeted species as possible to minimize impacts to non-target species.
Mechanism
This restoration pathway from State 4: Go-Back State to State 3: Invaded State may result from a failed range planting.
Context dependence
Failed range plantings can result from many causes (both singularly and in combination) including drought, poor seedbed preparation, improper planting methods, seeded species not adapted to the site, insufficient weed control, herbicide carryover, poor seed quality (purity & germination), and/or improper management.
Mechanism
This is the transition from the State 2: Native/Invaded State to State 5: Salinization State. It results from the cessation of annual cropping with E.C. >8 dS/m with no range planting or failed range planting.
Constraints to recovery
Increased salinity at the soil surface will make it difficult to restore to a less salinized state.
Mechanism
This transition from any plant community to State 4: Go-Back State. It is most commonly associated with the cessation of cropping without the benefit of range planting, resulting in a “go-back” situation. Soil conditions can be quite variable on the site, in part due to variations in the management/cropping history (e.g., development of a tillage induced compacted layer (plow pan), erosion, fertility, and/or herbicide/pesticide carryover). Thus, soil conditions should be assessed when considering restoration techniques.
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.