Loamy, North Aspect, Grassland
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
-
No transition or restoration pathway between the selected states has been described
Target ecosystem state
Select a state
Description
State 1 Narrative:
State 1 represents grassland steppe with no invasive or exotic weed species. Grassland sites have no sagebrush and no bitterbrush. Rabbitbrush is present but a minor species in the reference State. All the functional, structural groups have one or more native species present.
Reference State Community Phases:
1.1 Bunchgrass Idaho fescue – bluebunch wheatgrass
1.2 Bunchgrass – Shrub Idaho fescue – bluebunch wheatgrass – rabbitbrush – rose
Community 1.1 , the reference Community is stable with a high cover of Idaho fescue/bluebunch wheatgrass and low cover of rabbitbrush.
Community 1.2 happens when the dominant bunchgrasses exhibit lower cover. As the bunchgrasses decline the rabbitbrush increases.
Dominant Reference State Species:
Idaho fescue with bluebunch wheatgrass as sub-dominant
At-risk Communities:
• All communities in the reference state are at risk of moving to State 2. The seed source of cheatgrass, chervil and other invasive species is nearby and blowing onto most sites annually
• Any community becomes at-risk of moving to State 3 when Idaho fescue and bluebunch have low vigor and annual bromes have colonized the site
• Any Loamy North Aspect community is at risk when fire kills Idaho fescue plants. The holes could quickly be filled by annual grass or invasive forbs.
Submodel
Description
State 2 Narrative:
Based on opportunity, State 2 is dominated by either introduced forbs or invasive annual grasses. Opportunity refers to what seed in the seedbank and moisture available from year to year. Soil disturbances by rodents or badgers allow invasive species to colonize.
In State 2 bunchgrasses which were dominant in the reference state are virtually missing and the other native, functional-structural groups have been altered.
Community Phases for State 2:
2.1 Introduced Forb - Shrub Yellow star-thistle, etc. – Rabbitbrush
2.2 Annual Grass – Shrub Cheatgrass, etc. – Rabbitbrush
Dominant Species in State 2:
Annual bromes, yellow star-thistle, chervil, rabbitbrush
Pathways within State 2
Result: there is a natural fluctuation between communities 2.1 and 2.2.
Primary Trigger: drier years favor the annual grasses while wetter years favor the introduced forbs/weeds
Ecological process: in State 2 the seedbank of annual grasses and introduced forbs/weeds is full. In any given year one or more invasive species will have the opportunity to expand to become dominant or co-dominant. The next year a different species may have a similar opportunity.
Submodel
Mechanism
T1 The transition from Reference State to State 2 can go two different directions. Depending on seed in the seedbank and precipitation, either annual grasses or introduced forbs can dominate the site. Also, in State 2 rabbitbrush and rose make a significant increase.
Primary Trigger: Heavy grazing pressure (heavy grazing intensity, season long grazing or frequent late spring grazing) to Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass.
Ecological process. Consistent defoliation pressure to Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass cause poor vigor and shrinking crowns. This creates opportunity for invasive species and rabbitbrush. The seedbank of annual grass seed and introduced weed seed is full. In any given year one or more invasive species will have the opportunity to expand to become dominant or co-dominant with rabbitbrush. The next year a different invasive species may have a similar opportunity. Drier years favor annual grasses and wetter years favor invasive forbs.
Indicators: increasing gaps between dominant bunchgrasses (Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass). Invasive species first become established on disturbed areas and then expand to become dominant.
Mechanism
Seeding is not an option for Loamy, north aspect, grassland as most locations are too steep to seed.
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.