Mound - Intermound Complex
Scenario model
Current ecosystem state
Select a state
Management practices/drivers
Select a transition or restoration pathway
- Transition T1 More details
- Restoration pathway R2 More details
-
No transition or restoration pathway between the selected states has been described
Target ecosystem state
Select a state
Description
State 1 Narrative:
State 1 for both components of this complex represents communities with no invasive species present. Very Shallow sites rarely burn, and in most cases, receives minimal grazing. So, these sites are mostly very stable, remaining in State 1 regardless of climate or management. Similarity Index scores are typically higher on Very Shallow than other ecological sites on the landscape.
At-risk communities
• All communities in the reference state for both Very Shallow and Loamy Mound are at risk of invasive species. The seed source for annual bromes or other invasive annual seed blows onto most sites annually.
• Community 1.1 for Very Shallow and Community 1.1 for Loamy Mound have high bunchgrass cover and are at low risk of shifting to State 2
• Community 1.2 on both components – forb – low shrub on the Very Shallow component and heavy sagebrush on the Loamy Mound component are at high risk of shifting to
State 2
Submodel
Description
State 2: Forbs & Annual Grasses for Very Shallow
Very Shallow
State 2 represents the rare situation where Very Shallow is dominated by forbs, or annual grasses. Invasive annual grasses, which are common & frequently dominant on Loamy ecological sites, do not compete as well on Very Shallow sites.
In most instances the Very Shallow component remains virtually unchanged while the Loamy Mound may shift to Community Phases 1.2 or even to State 2.
State 2: Annual Grasses for Loamy Mound
Loamy Mound
State 2 on Loamy Mound represents a highly disturbed community. Heavy soil disturbances from rodents or badgers, &/or heavy grazing pressure from rodents, rabbits or livestock (heavy to severe grazing intensity, chronic critical period grazing or season long grazing) causes mortality of bunchgrasses (basin wildrye, bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue. As bunchgrasses decline, annual grasses colonize and eventually become dominant. For mounds with sagebrush, shrubs will increase alongside the annual grasses.
Submodel
Mechanism
Transitions for Very Shallow component:
T1 Result: Shift from Reference State Community Phase 1.1 to Community Phase 2.1, resulting in the shift of functional groups to forbs and/or invasive annual grasses.
Primary Trigger: Extensive spring grazing with heavy use to Sandberg bluegrass. Plant vigor declines and most or all Sandberg bluegrass plants are lost from the community. The soil is more open to evaporation, to wind and water erosion, and facilitates plant community changes from Community 1.2 to Community 2.1.
Secondary Triggers: a micro-burst of cheatgrass could put Community 1.2 at risk. The trampling of Very Shallow soils, displacing and disturbing the surface soil structure by grazing animals could also trigger transition to State 2.
Ecological process: mortality of Sandberg bluegrass frees resources in the surface soils that allows native forbs to increase, while introduced annual species (forbs and grasses) colonize and expand. A micro-burst of annual grasses could allow even pristine sites to be invaded. Community 1.2 is the community most at risk and is also the pathway for crossing the threshold from State 1 to State 2.
Indicators: Declining vigor and cover of Sandberg bluegrass, declining soil biotic crust and, increasing gaps between perennial bunchgrasses.
Transitions for Loamy Mound component:
T1 Result: Shift from Loamy Mound Community 1.2 across a threshold to Community 2.1, which is dominated by annual grasses.
Ecological process: Generally, with grazing activity livestock trail across Very Shallow component to graze the Loamy Mound component. Very Shallow receives minimal grazing while the Loamy Mound can be grazed heavily. As grazing increases livestock trails are evident on the Very Shallow, but the Loamy Mounds are hammered.
Primary trigger on Loamy Mound: heavy soil disturbances from rodents/rabbits &/or heavy grazing pressure from rodents, rabbits or livestock (heavy to severe grazing intensity, chronic critical period grazing or season long grazing). Mortality of bunchgrasses occur (basin wildrye, bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue. As bunchgrasses decline, annual grasses and tumble mustard or Russian thistle colonize and eventually become dominant. For mounds with sagebrush, shrubs will increase alongside the annual grasses.
Secondary trigger on Loamy Mounds: Drought cycle coupled with heavy grazing.
Indicators on Loamy Mound: Reduced vigor of bunchgrasses, colonization by annual grasses, increasing canopy gaps for perennials species, increasing sagebrush cover.
Mechanism
Very Shallow Component
Recovery from State 2 is considered non-reversible. Refer to Very Shallow PESD R008XY001WA for more narrative regarding recovery.
Loamy Mound component
While the restoration of Loamy Mounds is possible, treatment actions may be both impractical and costly. Each mound is spatially separated from other mounds and it is possible that different mounds could require different treatments.
References:
Boling M., Frazier B., Busacca, A., General Soil Map of Washington, Washington State University, 1998
Daubenmire, R., Steppe Vegetation of Washington, EB1446, March 1968
Davies, Kirk, Medusahead Dispersal and Establishment in Sagebrush Steppe Plant Communities, Rangeland Ecology & Management, 2008
Environmental Protection Agency, map of Level III and IV Ecoregions of Washington, June 2010
Miller, Baisan, Rose and Pacioretty, “Pre and Post Settlement Fire regimes in mountain Sagebrush communities: The Northern Intermountain Region
Natural Resources Conservation Service, map of Common Resource Areas of Washington, 2003
Rapid Assessment Reference Condition Model for Wyoming sagebrush, LANDFIRE project, 2008
Rocchio, Joseph & Crawford, Rex C., Ecological Systems of Washington State. A Guide to Identification. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, October 2015. Pages 156-161 Inter-Mountain Basin Big Sagebrush.
Rouse, Gerald, MLRA 8 Ecological Sites as referenced from Natural Resources Conservation Service-Washington FOTG, 2004
Soil Conservation Service, Range Sites for MLRA 8 from 1980s and 1990s
Tart, D., Kelley, P., and Schlafly, P., Rangeland Vegetation of the Yakima Indian reservation, August 1987, YIN Soil and Vegetation Survey
Model keys
Briefcase
Add ecological site groups 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 site groups
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.