Shallow Stony, South Aspect, Columbia Hills
Scenario model
Current ecosystem state
Select a state
Management practices/drivers
Select a transition or restoration pathway
- Transition T1 More details
- Restoration pathway R1 More details
- Transition T2 More details
-
No transition or restoration pathway between the selected states has been described
Target ecosystem state
Select a state
Description
Note: most sites on the south side of Columbia Hills have already crossed the threshold into State 3. But this is not true for Shallow stony, south aspect, Columbia Hills.
State 1 Narrative:
State 1 represents grassland steppe with no invasive or exotic weed species. Each functional, structural group has one or more native species. Communities with a dominance of annual grasses have never been seen on Shallow Stony, south aspect, Columbia Hills. The south side of the Columbia Hills has no sagebrush or bitterbrush, and except for a spot along the Columbia River, the south side of the Columbia Hills also has no rabbitbrush.
The Reference Community 1.1 is dominated by bluebunch wheatgrass with native buckwheat species prominent.
Reference State Community Phases:
1.1 Reference Bluebunch wheatgrass-Eriogonum species
At-risk Communities:
• Any community in the reference state is at risk of moving to State 2. The seed source of cheatgrass is nearby and blowing onto most sites annually.
• Reference community is quite stable as it receives limited grazing pressure and rarely burns
• State 3 has not been seen on Shallow Stony sites in the Columbia Hills
Submodel
Description
Note: most sites on the south side of Columbia Hills have already crossed the threshold into State 3. But this is not true for Shallow Stony, south aspect, Columbia Hills.
State 2 Narrative:
State 2 represents grassland steppe with minor inclusion of invasive annual grasses such as cheatgrass. All the native functional, structural groups would be represented by one or more species.
Cheatgrass will colonize Shallow Stony, south aspect, Columbia Hills sites on the south side of the Columbia Hills, and retain, a presence in the community. In State 2 cheatgrass in a minor component. But once a community has been invaded by cheatgrass the chance of going back to State 1 is small.
Community Phases for State 2:
2.1 Bunchgrass Bluebunch wheatgrass
Dominate Species in State 2: bluebunch wheatgrass and buckwheat species
Submodel
Description
State 3: Annual Grasses
Note: most sites on the south side of Columbia Hills have already crossed the threshold into State 3. But this has not been seen for Shallow Stony, south aspect, Columbia Hills.
State 3 Narrative:
State 3 represents sites that are dominated by invasive annual species and has crossed a biological threshold. State 3 is rare for Shallow stony, south aspect, Columbia Hills sites. The main species include cheatgrass, mustard, prickly lettuce and diffuse knapweed.
Community Phases for State 3:
3.1 Annual Grass cheatgrass
Submodel
Mechanism
T1 Result: transition from Reference State to State 2 (grassland steppe w/ a few annuals). The Reference State does not have invasive species. State 2 is the same as Reference State but with minor addition of invasive annual grasses such as cheatgrass.
Primary Triggers: A high moisture year causes a micro-burst of cheatgrass and is the principle means of colonization. Loss of soil biological crusts contributes to the invasion. Also, soil disturbances (rodents, badgers) create openings in the community and encourage weed germination.
Ecological process: Most sites in the Reference State have cheatgrass seed as the seed blows onto the sites annually. Cheatgrass is a prolific seeder and the seed is waiting for enough moisture to germinate and to compete with the native species for space, light and moisture. When there is more moisture available than the plant community can utilize, even pristine communities in the Reference State are susceptible to colonization by cheatgrass. The addition of cheatgrass to the community is generally a temporary condition on Shallow Stony sites.
Indicators: The occurrence of annual grasses on sites where they had been absent.
Mechanism
State 2 is considered non-reversible. Due to shallow soil depth, surface rock and rock within the soil profile, and the equipment limitations thereof, seeding is not practical for the Shallow Stony ecological site.
Restoration of bluebunch wheatgrass, sagebrush, native forbs and the soil biotic crust would be very problematic at best on Shallow Stony. Seeds must germinate. Seedlings and plugged plants need soil moisture and time to become established. In most years, seeds and plugs may not have a chance as site conditions on Shallow Stony can change quickly. Drying winds and bright sun can turn a snowy or muddy site into a hard crust before plants are established. So, the timing of all recovery efforts would have an extremely narrow window of opportunity on Shallow Stony. Perhaps the only avenue for recovery would be to plant plugs of native species which is a very costly and risky proposition.
Mechanism
T2 Result: Shift from State 2 to State 3 which is dominated by annuals. This state is rare and has not been seen on Shallow Stony sites. This transition occurs once there is more invasive species cover than bluebunch wheatgrass cover.
Primary Trigger: Chronic heavy grazing, season-long grazing, or late spring grazing causes poor vigor and bluebunch wheatgrass has a significant reduction in cover.
Ecological Process: Consistent defoliation pressure to bluebunch wheatgrass causes poor plant vigor, shrinking crowns and mortality. With more and more of the soil surface and upper soil rooting surface open, opportunistic weeds take advantage of the available niche space to colonize and expand. The invasive annual grasses in State 2 communities make a dramatic increase to dominate the community.
Indicators: Decreasing cover of bluebunch wheatgrass and increasing cover of invasive annual species. Increasing distance between perennial species. Decreasing soil organic matter, soil water retention, limited water infiltration and percolation in the soil profile.
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.