Ecological site R102CY058NE

3. Invasive dominant

4. Annual/pioneer

States 1, 5 and 2 (additional transitions)

1.1. Big bluestem-Little bluestem (Andropogon gerardii-Schizachyrium scoparium)

T1A	-	Reduced native grass competitiveness due to excessive defoliation intensity and frequency or drought
T1B	-	Severe disturbance
T1C	-	Cedar encroachment leading to woody plant dominance
R2A	-	Reduced invasive grass competitiveness allows for natives to dominant site
T2A	-	Reduced native competitiveness allows for introduced grass colonization and expansion
T2B	-	Severe disturbance; opportunistic species dominant
T2C	-	Cedar encroachment leading to woody plant dominance
T3A	-	Reduced invasive grass competitiveness allows for natives to increase
T3B	-	Severe disturbance; opportunistic species dominate
T3A	-	Cedar encroachment leading to woody plant dominance
R4A	-	Reduced invasive grass competitiveness allows for natives to dominant site
R5A	-	Restoration of plant community to native grasses

State 1 submodel, plant communities

1.2. Little bluestem-Sideoats grama (Schizachyrium scoparium-Bouteloua curtipendula)

1.1A	-	Reduced tallgrass vigor due to excessive defoliation intensity and frequency; drought.
1.2A	-	Improved tallgrass vigor with adequate rest periods; return of normal precipitation.

State 2 submodel, plant communities

2.1. Subdominant Smooth brome-Kentucky bluegrass (Bromus inermis-Poa pratensis)

2.2. Codominant Smooth brome-Kentucky bluegrass (Bromus inermis-Poa pratensis)

2.1A	-	Cool-season grasses increase
2.2A	-	Native warm-season grasses increase in dominance

State 1
Native tallgrass

This state comprises the communities within the range of natural variability under historic conditions and disturbance regimes. Patterns created by wildlife use and fire would have created a mosaic of communities across the landscape; however, tall and/or mid warm-season grasses would remain dominant, with a subdominant contribution from native cool-season grasses, forbs, and shrubs. The cool-season contribution increases with latitude, with species such as needleandthread and green needlegrass becoming more prevalent northward. Fire and bison herbivory were the dominant disturbance regimes that historically maintained the tallgrass dominance with a diverse forb component. Furthermore, bison grazing was closely linked to fire patterns as the animals preferred grazing burned areas offering lush regrowth devoid of decadence and of higher nutritive quality. Thus, historic plant communities were subjected to occasional burning and grazing, with substantial rest/recovery periods as the fuel load rebuilt to eventually start the process again. Fire return intervals of 3-4 years served to suppress woody species, particularly non-sprouting eastern redcedar. The degree to which observed conditions represent this state largely depends on how closely the management has mimicked these past disturbance effects.

Dominant plant species

big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), grass
little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), grass

Community 1.1
Big bluestem-Little bluestem (Andropogon gerardii-Schizachyrium scoparium)

Figure 8. Loamy Upland 1.1

This is the reference plant community and can be found on areas that are managed to allow for adequate recovery periods following defoliation or drought stress. In addition to tallgrass vigor, suppression of woody species either through natural (e.g. fire) or artificial (e.g. chainsaw) methods is necessary to maintain herbaceous dominance. The plant community consists of 75-90% grasses and grass-likes, 5-10% forbs and 1-5% shrubs. Dominant grasses include big bluestem, little bluestem, porcupinegrass, and sideoats grama. Other grasses and grass-likes are indiangrass, blue grama, prairie junegrass, and sedges. Forb species are diverse and include prairieclovers, scurfpeas, and goldenrods. Common shrubs include leadplant and New Jersey tea (Kaul 2006, Steinauer 2010, USDA/NRCS 2012). This plant community is diverse, stable, and productive with nutrient and water cycles, and energy flow functioning near full potential. Plant litter is properly distributed with negligible movement off-site and natural plant mortality is very low. This community is resistant to many disturbances except continuous season-long heavy grazing, tillage, or non-use. Broadcast herbicide application will dramatically reduce non-target forb diversity and abundance. Total annual production, during an average year, ranges from 2400 to 4300 pounds per acre air-dry weight and will average 3500 pounds.

Dominant plant species

big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), grass
little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), grass

Figure 9. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)

Table 5. Annual production by plant type

Plant type	Low (kg/hectare)	Representative value (kg/hectare)	High (kg/hectare)
Grass/Grasslike	2354	3335	3923
Shrub/Vine	168	294	448
Forb	168	295	448
Total	2690	3924	4819

Figure 10. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). NE1021, 102C Warm-season. Warm-season grass, MLRA 102C.

Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
J	F	M	A	M	J	J	A	S	O	N	D
0	0	2	7	18	23	26	16	6	2	0	0

Community 1.2
Little bluestem-Sideoats grama (Schizachyrium scoparium-Bouteloua curtipendula)

Figure 11. Loamy Upland 1.2

This community largely resembles central Great Plains mixed-grass prairies where rainfall is more limiting and overall conditions are relatively drier. Tallgrasses remain an important component, but midgrasses - typically sideoats grama and little bluestem - dominate site structure and function. While still within the range of natural variability, energy capture, nutrient cycling, and hydrology are not functioning at their full potential relative to the reference condition. Reduced photosynthetic biomass does not capture as much light energy, less lignified plant material produces lower quality litter (e.g. less persistent, more easily transported), and reduced soil protection impairs the site''s ability to capture and retain moisture.

Dominant plant species

little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), grass
sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), grass

Figure 12. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). NE1021, 102C Warm-season. Warm-season grass, MLRA 102C.

Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
J	F	M	A	M	J	J	A	S	O	N	D
0	0	2	7	18	23	26	16	6	2	0	0

Pathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2

Big bluestem-Little bluestem (Andropogon gerardii-Schizachyrium scoparium)

Little bluestem-Sideoats grama (Schizachyrium scoparium-Bouteloua curtipendula)

Events which remove tallgrass growing points and photosynthetic tissues without adequate recovery periods will shift community composition towards shorter statured species, particularly little bluestem and sideoats grama. Likewise, shortgrasses such as hairy and/or blue grama may also proliferate. As cattle grazing pressure increases/persists, rhizomatous grasses may assume a more sodbound growth habit which can further reduce overall diversity and adversely affect both infiltration and litter. Periods of extended drought can have similar impacts on species composition and bring about a shift towards mixed/shortgrass prairie species more tolerant of drier conditions.

Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1

Little bluestem-Sideoats grama (Schizachyrium scoparium-Bouteloua curtipendula)

Big bluestem-Little bluestem (Andropogon gerardii-Schizachyrium scoparium)

Management that provides adequate recovery periods and does not annually prevent tallgrass seedset or otherwise impair vigor will facilitate a return to community phase 1.1. In the case of dought, the return to more typical precipitation patterns will promote shift towards tallgrass species.

State 2
Native/invaded mix

This state can manifest three ways: 1) the appearance of introduced cool-season grasses, 2) the expansion of deciduous shrubs and/or trees, or 3) some combination of these. Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome are the primary cool-season grass invaders in this region, commonly found in roadsides, disturbed areas, and pastures intentionally seeded for cool-season forage. Management practices and/or environmental conditions that are not favorable to native grass vigor may allow introduced grasses to invade the site thereby decreasing native diversity and abundance, particularly of forbs. In the absence of the historic fire regime, woody deciduous species may also expand to become an influential component of the community. The invasive component tends to have very high reslience, is extremely difficult to eradicate, and what might be considered a new "contemporary" range of natural variability is seen as competition between the native grasses and introduced/woody species for space and resources.

Dominant plant species

little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), grass
sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), grass
smooth brome (Bromus inermis), grass
Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), grass

Community 2.1
Subdominant Smooth brome-Kentucky bluegrass (Bromus inermis-Poa pratensis)

While native grasses still dominate the site, introduced cool-season species have established a foothold in the system and can be found interspersed throughout the stand. The stand may still have a native tallgrass appearance overall, but bluegrass and/or brome can be easily found. Deciduous shrub/tree species may also have begun to expand into areas where they did not persist historically, but the overall appearance can vary depending on the propagation method of a particular species. Seed propagated species, such as Siberian elm, tend to colonize further from the parent plant and affect larger areas, but in lower densities. In contrast, rhizomatous species such as smooth sumac tend to progress as a higher-density encroachment spreading directly from the parent plants.

Dominant plant species

little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), grass
sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), grass
smooth brome (Bromus inermis), grass
Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), grass

Figure 13. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). NE1022, Warm-season dominant, cool-season subdominant.

Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
J	F	M	A	M	J	J	A	S	O	N	D
0	0	2	9	19	23	24	13	7	3	0	0

Community 2.2
Codominant Smooth brome-Kentucky bluegrass (Bromus inermis-Poa pratensis)

This community is comprised of a relatively even mix of native grasses and invasive species overall. This may manifest as a well-distributed interspersion of natives and invaders, as distinct patches wherein competitors dominate locally, or some combination. Forb diversity and abundance is further diminished.

Dominant plant species

little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), grass
smooth brome (Bromus inermis), grass
sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), grass
Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), grass

Figure 14. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). NE1023, Warm-season, cool-season codominant.

Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
J	F	M	A	M	J	J	A	S	O	N	D
0	0	3	10	23	26	16	10	7	4	1	0

Pathway 2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.2

Management and/or environmental conditions have afforded a persisting competitive advantage to introduced cool-season grasses, and they begin to dominate the ecological dynamics of the site. The robust invasive component is able to quickly and effectively exploit opportunities to outcompete and displace natives. Repeated summer use of an area will place the bulk of stressor impacts on native plants, reducing native vigor and allowing invaders to thrive. Likewise, a climate pattern limiting natural moisture to the spring and fall months coincides with peak cool-season growth and may support a similar process.

Pathway 2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1

The native component remains in an abundance that can facilitate a return towards more historic conditions if management is modified to shift stressor impacts to the invasive species, and promote warm-season grass vigor. Environmental conditions and/or disturbance regimes that strongly favor warm-season grasses can also trend the site towards the reference.

State 3
Invasive dominant

Introduced cool-season invasion has progressed to the point that native species comprise a negligible portion of the community and the aggressively rhizomatous invasives preclude native germination and seedling survival. The native component may be completely absent, and the site resembles a seeded pasture. Alternatively, the dominant invasives may be deciduous woody species. Woody competitiveness for sunlight, water, space, and other resources continues to increase as desirable herbaceous species are shaded out, crowded out, or otherwise suppressed.

Dominant plant species

smooth brome (Bromus inermis), grass
Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), grass

Community 3.1
Smooth brome-Kentucky bluegrass (Bromus inermis-Poa pratensis)

Figure 15. Loamy Upland 3.1

This community is typically composed of smooth brome with bluegrass interspersed among the brome tillers. Warm-season natives, if present, are sparse yet often conspicuous due to pronounced differences in growth habits and metabolic pathways. Community structure and function have been dramatically simplified relative to the reference condition, and very few biotic functional groups are represented in amounts that would influence ecological function. The invasive grass root skein provides good site stability; however, replacement of the deeper roots and complex bunchgrass canopy with the shallower roots and erect tiller canopy of the invaders results in reduced interception and infiltration rates.

Dominant plant species

smooth brome (Bromus inermis), grass
Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), grass

Figure 16. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). NE1024, Cool-season. Smooth brome/Kentucky bluegrass.

Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
J	F	M	A	M	J	J	A	S	O	N	D
0	0	4	13	25	28	8	6	9	5	2	0

State 4
Annual/pioneer

Nutrient cycling, hydrologic function, and/or soil stability have been severely altered, and possibly compromised. This is a highly variable state in which the specific plants observed will depend largely on the original community and the nature of the disturbance. This condition encompasses (but is not necessarily limited to) events such as severe fire impacts, heavy continuous grazing, heavy nutrient inputs, and abandoned cropland.

Dominant plant species

snow on the mountain (Euphorbia marginata), other herbaceous
ragweed (Ambrosia), other herbaceous
Texas croton (Croton texensis), other herbaceous
nightshade (Solanum), other herbaceous
thistle (Cirsium), other herbaceous

Community 4.1
Variable native and introduced

Figure 17. Loamy Upland 4.1

This community is heavily dominated by annual plants that thrive in disturbed areas and often includes snow-on-the-mountain, annual ragweed, Texas croton, nightshades, and/or hoary verbena. It is also particularly vulnerable to noxious weed invasion with the most common species being plumeless, musk, and Canada thistles. Leafy spurge becomes more common northward in the MLRA.

Dominant plant species

snow on the mountain (Euphorbia marginata), other herbaceous
ragweed (Ambrosia), other herbaceous
Texas croton (Croton texensis), other herbaceous
nightshade (Solanum), other herbaceous
thistle (Cirsium), other herbaceous

State 5
Evergreen dominant

Left unchecked, the spatial extent of eastern redcedar encroachment has expanded, and the individual trees have grown substantially. The areas under and near individual cedars experience profoundly altered function through shading, evergreen litter, and suppressed herbaceous understory. The woody overstory now dictates certain disturbance responses, and prescribed fire options become increasingly problematic as any fire will be largely carried by the volatile evergreen canopy instead of the herbaceous understory.

Dominant plant species

eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana), tree

Community 5.1
Eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana)

Figure 18. Loamy Upland 5.1

Cedars have reached stature and abundance that is beyond the range of natural variability, and the remaining herbaceous component is restricted to cedar interspaces. Evergreen canopy and litter serve to dramatically increase interception, capture, and eventual evaporation of precipitation thereby further reducing the resources available for grasses and forbs. Without intervention, woody canopy will progress towards complete closure under which herbaceous species will eventually disappear completely.

Dominant plant species

eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana), tree

Transition T1A
State 1 to 2

In the presence of introduced cool-season grasses, environmental conditions and/or management that reduces native vigor and stand resilience, and frees up resources (space, sunlight, nutrients, water) will allow for colonization of Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome. Likewise, similar processes may also allow for deciduous woody shrubs and trees such as smooth sumac, roughleaf dogwood, and Siberian elm to expand.

Transition T1B
State 1 to 4

There are many possible triggers for this transition that may occur as acute events (e.g. plowing) or cumulative impacts of chronic events (e.g. long-term undermanaged grazing.) The absence of deep-rooted perennial cover exposes the site to topsoil loss, open nutrient cycle, and free space which collectively allow for opportunistic annual species to dominate.

Transition T1C
State 1 to 5

The presence of an invasion source coupled with fire exclusion allows cedar seeds to germinate and establish within the herbaceous stand. This typically begins near fencerows, woody draws, etc, and accelerates outward as propagules increase. Lack of intervening action allows cedar expansion to continue, and tree sizes to increase. Cedar will eventually modify site function in ways that promote further encroachment such as rainfall interception and stemflow, heavy duff litter, and shading of the herbaceous understory.

Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1

Eradication of introduced cool-season grasses from this site will require long-term, targeted management efforts to create an adverse environment during the spring and late fall when bluegrass and brome are most actively growing, with favorable conditions during the summer to promote native warm-season species. Targeted practices such as prescribed burning, flash grazing, and herbicide are often employed at strategic times of the year to set back undesirable species. The combination of practices should strive to mimic the historic disturbance regimes to which the desirable native species are best adapted.

Transition T2A
State 2 to 3

If the conditions which initiated and fomented the colonization and expansion of cool-season invasion are not removed or mitigated, stand composition will continue to shift in this direction and begin to resemble a monoculture of bluegrass and/or brome. Due to the dense rhizomatous root mat of brome and bluegrass, native species suffer decreasing opportunities to contribute propagules, and individual plants lost are not replaced by desirable natives.

Transition T2B
State 2 to 4

Transition T2C
State 2 to 5

Transition T3A
State 3 to 2

Aggressive intervening actions will be required to simultaneously recolonize native grasses and suppress vigor in undesirable species. Restoration follows the same principles as the R2A pathway, but may also require native range seeding if the latent seedbank is inadequate.

Transition T3B
State 3 to 4

Transition T3A
State 3 to 5

Restoration pathway R4A
State 4 to 1

With favorable weather and site stability, it may take just a few years for the site to naturally return to a perennial community. Range seeding can “jump start” the recolonization of desirable species and may re-establish a near reference grass community; although, forb diversity may take longer to recover. Depending on the nature of the disturbance(s), additional ameliorative efforts may be necessary to mitigate accelerated erosion and weedy competition until the seeded perennial community has stabilized. It is possible for a disturbance and/or subsequent processes (e.g. accelerated erosion) to profoundly, and even permanently, alter fundamental soil properties in such a way that the site may never again exhibit its historic structure or function without extraordinary restoration inputs.

Restoration pathway R5A
State 5 to 1

Tree mortality is required to restore a grassland state, however the herbaceous response will depend on many factors such as method(s) used, mortality rates, and the remnant herbaceous species. Mechanical and chemical methods can remove cedars but will have little if any notable impact on the herbs. Reintroducing the historic fire regime will provide the most profound and beneficial effects, and seasonal timing and burn intensity can have significant influence on the herbaceous outcome. As a general rule, hot spring burns will not only kill trees but also stress shallower-rooted invasive cool-season grasses and promote a ahift in favor of the reference community.

Additional community tables

Table 6. Community 1.1 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production (kg/hectare)	Foliar cover (%)
Grass/Grasslike
1	Tall warm-season			1765–2354
	big bluestem	ANGE	Andropogon gerardii	785–1177	–
	switchgrass	PAVI2	Panicum virgatum	196–392	–
	Indiangrass	SONU2	Sorghastrum nutans	196–392	–
	composite dropseed	SPCO16	Sporobolus compositus	0–196	–
	prairie dropseed	SPHE	Sporobolus heterolepis	0–196	–
2	Mid warm-season			981–1961
	little bluestem	SCSC	Schizachyrium scoparium	588–1177	–
	sideoats grama	BOCU	Bouteloua curtipendula	196–588	–
	purple lovegrass	ERSP	Eragrostis spectabilis	0–196	–
3	Shortgrasses			0–392
	blue grama	BOGR2	Bouteloua gracilis	0–392	–
	buffalograss	BODA2	Bouteloua dactyloides	0–196	–
4	Cool-season			336–1177
	porcupinegrass	HESP11	Hesperostipa spartea	0–588	–
	needle and thread	HECO26	Hesperostipa comata	0–392	–
	western wheatgrass	PASM	Pascopyrum smithii	196–392	–
	Scribner's rosette grass	DIOLS	Dichanthelium oligosanthes var. scribnerianum	0–196	–
	fall rosette grass	DIWI5	Dichanthelium wilcoxianum	0–196	–
	Canada wildrye	ELCA4	Elymus canadensis	0–196	–
	prairie Junegrass	KOMA	Koeleria macrantha	0–196	–
	green needlegrass	NAVI4	Nassella viridula	0–196	–
5	Grass-like			196–392
	heavy sedge	CAGR4	Carex gravida	0–196	–
	sun sedge	CAINH2	Carex inops ssp. heliophila	0–196	–
	Mead's sedge	CAME2	Carex meadii	0–196	–
	sedge	CAREX	Carex	0–196	–
Forb
6	Forb			196–392
	Baldwin's ironweed	VEBA	Vernonia baldwinii	39–196	–
	hoary verbena	VEST	Verbena stricta	0–118	–
	western yarrow	ACMIO	Achillea millefolium var. occidentalis	0–118	–
	Cuman ragweed	AMPS	Ambrosia psilostachya	0–118	–
	candle anemone	ANCY	Anemone cylindrica	0–118	–
	field pussytoes	ANNE	Antennaria neglecta	0–118	–
	white sagebrush	ARLU	Artemisia ludoviciana	0–118	–
	groundplum milkvetch	ASCR2	Astragalus crassicarpus	0–118	–
	false boneset	BREU	Brickellia eupatorioides	0–118	–
	white prairie clover	DACA7	Dalea candida	0–118	–
	purple prairie clover	DAPU5	Dalea purpurea	0–118	–
	Illinois ticktrefoil	DEIL2	Desmodium illinoense	0–118	–
	blacksamson echinacea	ECAN2	Echinacea angustifolia	0–118	–
	Maximilian sunflower	HEMA2	Helianthus maximiliani	0–118	–
	stiff sunflower	HEPA19	Helianthus pauciflorus	0–118	–
	dotted blazing star	LIPU	Liatris punctata	0–118	–
	rush skeletonplant	LYJU	Lygodesmia juncea	0–118	–
	stiff goldenrod	OLRI	Oligoneuron rigidum	0–118	–
	western marbleseed	ONBEO	Onosmodium bejariense var. occidentale	0–118	–
	purple locoweed	OXLA3	Oxytropis lambertii	0–118	–
	prairie groundsel	PAPL12	Packera plattensis	0–118	–
	silverleaf Indian breadroot	PEAR6	Pediomelum argophyllum	0–118	–
	large Indian breadroot	PEES	Pediomelum esculentum	0–118	–
	large beardtongue	PEGR7	Penstemon grandiflorus	0–118	–
	upright prairie coneflower	RACO3	Ratibida columnifera	0–118	–
	prairie blue-eyed grass	SICA9	Sisyrinchium campestre	0–118	–
	compassplant	SILA3	Silphium laciniatum	0–118	–
	Missouri goldenrod	SOMI2	Solidago missouriensis	39–118	–
	white heath aster	SYER	Symphyotrichum ericoides	0–118	–
	aromatic aster	SYOB	Symphyotrichum oblongifolium	0–118	–
Shrub/Vine
7				196–392
	Jersey tea	CEHE	Ceanothus herbaceus	0–196	–
	prairie rose	ROAR3	Rosa arkansana	0–196	–
	western snowberry	SYOC	Symphoricarpos occidentalis	0–196	–
	smooth sumac	RHGL	Rhus glabra	0–118	–
	leadplant	AMCA6	Amorpha canescens	0–118	–

Interpretations

Animal community

This site is well adapted to managed grazing by domestic livestock. The predominance of herbaceous plants across all plant community phases best lends these sites to grazing by cattle but browsing livestock such as goats or sheep that will more heavily utilize invasive forbs and brush. Carrying capacity and production estimates are conservative estimates that should be used only as guidelines in initial stages of grazing lands planning.

Often, the plant community does not entirely match any particular plant community (as described in the ecological site description). Because of this, a resource inventory is necessary to document plant composition and production. Proper interpretation of this inventory data will permit the establishment of a safe, initial stocking rate for the type and class of animals and level of grazing management. Grazing by domestic livestock is one of the major income-producing industries in the area. Rangeland in this area may provide year-long forage for cattle, sheep, or horses. During the dormant period, the protein levels of the forage may be lower than the minimum needed to meet livestock (primarily cattle and sheep) requirements.

Suggested stocking rates (carrying capacity*) for cattle under continuous season-long grazing under normal growing conditions are listed below:

- 1.1 Big bluestem-Little bluestem; 3500 lbs/acre production and 0.96 AUM/acre

- 1.2 Little bluestem-Sideoats grama; 3000 lbs/acre production and 0.82 AUM/acre

- 2.1 Subdominant smooth brome-KY bluegrass; 2700 lbs/acre production and 0.74 AUM/acre

- 2.2 Codominant smooth brome-KY bluegrass; 2400 lbs/ac and 0.66 AUM/acre with 50% or more introduced cool-season component

- 3.1 Smooth brome-KY bluegrass; 2750 lbs/ac and .75 AUM/ac, unfertilized, non-irrigated naturalized community. Refer to Forage Suitability Groups for cool-season pasture under a higher management level.

*Carrying capacity based on continuous season-long grazing by cattle under average growing conditions, 25% harvest efficiency. Air dry forage requirements based on 3% of animal body weight, or 912 lbs/AU/month.

If grazing distribution problems occur, stocking rates must be reduced to maintain plant health and vigor. Carrying capacity and production estimates are conservative estimates that should be used only as guidelines in the initial stages of the conservation planning process. Utilizing a rotational grazing system that allows for adequate rest and recovery will increase plant vigor and carrying capacity. Often, the current plant composition does not entirely match any particular plant community (as described in this ecological site description). Because of this, a field visit is recommended to document plant composition and production. More precise carrying capacity estimates can be calculated based on actual site information along with animal preference data, particularly when livestock other than cattle are involved. With consultation of the land manager, more intensive grazing management may result in improved harvest efficiencies and increased carrying capacity.

Supporting information

Inventory data references

Information presented here has been derived from RANGE-417 archives, Rangeland NRI, and other inventory data. Field observations from range-trained personnel were also used. In addition to the multitude of NRCS field office employees and private landowners that helped with site visits and local knowledge, those involved in developing this site include:

Nebraska NRCS:
Nadine Bishop, State Rangeland Management Specialist
Patrick Cowsert, Resource Soil Scientist
Cassidy Gerdes, Biologist
Dirk Schultz, Soil Conservationist
Dan Shurtliff, Asst State Soil Scientist

South Dakota NRCS:
Stan Boltz, State Rangeland Management Specialist
Shane Deranleau, Area Rangeland Management Specialist
Kevin Luebke, State Biologist

Iowa NRCS:
Jess Jackson, Area Grazing Specialist

Minnesota NRCS:
Lance Smith, Area Grazing Specialist

MLRA Office 10:
Stu McFarland, Ecological Site Inventory Specialist, QC
Stacey Clark, Ecological Site Inventory Specialist, QA
Michael Whited, Soil Data Quality Specialist
Jo Parsley, Soil Scientist/10-3 MSSO Leader

National Soil Survey Center:
Mike Kucera, National Agronomist, Soil Quality & Ecosystems
Steve Peaslee, GIS Specialist, Soil Survey Interpretations

Nebraska Game & Parks Commission:
Gerry Steinauer, Botanist
Scott Wessel, Biologist
Russ Hamer, Biologist
Rebekah Jessen, Biologist

Nebraska Forest Service:
Steve Rasmussen, District Forester

Other references

Bestelmeyer, Brandon, et al. 2010. Practical Guidance for Developing State-and-transition Models. Rangelands 32:6 pp 2-64. Wheat Ridge, CO: Society for Range Management.

Fenneman, Nevin M. 1916. Physiographic Subdivision of the United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers.

Helzer, Chris. 2010. The Ecology and Management of Prairies in the Central U.S. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Press/The Nature Conservancy.

Kaul, Robert B., David Sutherland, and Steven Rolfsmeier. 2006. The Flora of Nebraska. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska – Lincoln (Conservation and Survey Division, School of Natural Resources.)

NOAA/UNL – High Plains Regional Climate Center. Historical Data Summaries: http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/data/historical/

Omernik, J.M. 1997. Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, v.77, no. 1, p.118-125.

Steinauer, Gerry and Steve Rolfsmeier. 2010. Terrestrial Ecological Systems and Natural Communities of Nebraska. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Natural Heritage Program and Nebraska Game and Parks Commission.

USDA/USFS. 2007. Ecological Subregions: Sections and Subsections for the Conterminous United States. Washington, DC: USDA - Forest Service.

USDA/SCS. 1977. Rangeland Resources of Nebraska. Lincoln, NE: Society for Range Management. USDA/NRCS. 2011. ESD User Guide. Fort Worth, TX: Central National Technology Support Center.

USDA/NRCS 2006. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.

USDA/NRCS. 2012. Field Office Technical Guide (Nebraska, Natural Resources Information, Statewide Soil and Site Information, Rangeland Interpretations, Nebraska Range Site Descriptions – Vegetative Zones 3 and 4), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Nebraska Ecological Sciences.

Contributors

Greg Clark (Greg.Clark@usda.gov) Soil Survey Office Leader, USDA-NRCS, Stanton NE
Stu McFarland

Approval

Suzanne Mayne-Kinney, 6/28/2024

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)	Stu McFarland, Nadine Bishop
Contact for lead author
Date	08/01/2013
Approved by	Suzanne Mayne-Kinney
Approval date
Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on	Annual Production

Indicators

Number and extent of rills:
None.
Presence of water flow patterns:
None; possibly slight, very short, and disconnected as slope approaches upper limit for this site.
Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes:
None.
Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, lichen, moss, plant canopy are not bare ground):
<5% as very small (<3”) patches, however, bare ground can be expected to be much higher if litter has been consumed by recent fire.
Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies:
None.
Extent of wind scoured, blowouts and/or depositional areas:
None.
Amount of litter movement (describe size and distance expected to travel):
None; possibly slight with very short movement of the smallest litter class as slope approaches upper limit for this site.
Soil surface (top few mm) resistance to erosion (stability values are averages - most sites will show a range of values):
Soil stability rating of 6
Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type of structure and A-horizon color and thickness):
A mollic epipedon is present. Refer to the Official Series Description for the range of characteristics of site-specific soils.
Effect of community phase composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration and runoff:
Robust herbaceous canopy provides nearly 100% coverage reducing raindrop energy, and abundant litter slows overland flow for improved infiltration.
Presence and thickness of compaction layer (usually none; describe soil profile features which may be mistaken for compaction on this site):
None.
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:
warm-season tallgrasses >>

Sub-dominant:
warm-season midgrasses >

Other:
cool-season grasses > grasslikes = forbs = shrubs

Additional:
Amount of plant mortality and decadence (include which functional groups are expected to show mortality or decadence):
Very little to no evidence of perennial decadence or mortality.
Average percent litter cover (%) and depth ( in):
However, litter cover could be much lower if consumed by recent fire.
Expected annual annual-production (this is TOTAL above-ground annual-production, not just forage annual-production):
Production ranges from 2,400 - 4,300 lbs/ac (air-dry weight) depending on climatic conditions. The reference representative value production is 3500 lbs/ac (air-dry weight).
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:
Eastern redcedar, Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, plumeless thistle, musk thistle, Canada thistle, smooth sumac, roughleaf dogwood, buckbrush, and Siberian elm are some of the more common invaders. Other species of concern that may be encountered include: absinth wormwood, sulfur cinquefoil, downy and Japanese brome, perennial sow thistle, spotted and diffuse knapweeds, and Autumn olive. Refer to state and county weed agencies for a comprehensive list.
Perennial plant reproductive capability:
Flowering, seed production, and rhizomatous/stoloniferous growth are apparent and not hindered by plant stress/reduced vigor.

Download reference sheet

Click on box and path labels to scroll to the respective text.

Ecosystem states

3. Invasive dominant

4. Annual/pioneer

States 1, 5 and 2 (additional transitions)