This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain.

METHODS FOR IMPROVING MOUNTAIN COMMUNITIES Richard E. Eckert, Jr.

ABSTRACT: Mountain meadow communities are not Under season-long , generally are producing to their potential. This paper describes areas of livestock concentration. Roath and five ways to improve these communities for live­ Krueger (l982a) reported that although the riparian stock, , and site stability. Methods zone constituted only l .9 percent of the area of discussed are weed control and seeding, iris one allotment, it produced 81 percent of the control, tree and transplants, check dams, vegetation removed by cattle. Fecal analysis and grazing management. from cattle grazing an allotment in northern Nevada showed that animals obtained up to 88 percent of their diet, depending on season of use, INTRODUCTION from species found on the range site that occupies less than l percent of the allotment. 1 Mountain meadow communities occur adjacent to streams and springs in mountainous terrain. Because of past mismanagement, many meadow Deep fertile and good moisture from a communities are not producing to potential for seasonal water table contribute to a vegetative livestock or wildlife, nor is the present cover composition much different from, and with a protecting the site. The degree of mismanagement productive potential much greater than, adjacent is reflected by different seral stages found today. upland . Most meadow communities are Meadows in a very low seral stage are characterized classified as Wet Meadow Range Sites by the Soil by channel entrenchment and head cutting, loss of Conservation Service. Sites in a high seral stage desirable species, increase and invasion by un­ are dominated by tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia desirable species, and loss of productivity. cespitosa). Sites in lower seral stages are Meadows in a mid seral stage have a remnant stand dominated by Kentucky bluegrass (), of desirable species but productivity is suppressed Nevada bluegrass (P. nevadensis), slender wheat­ by herbaceous weeds such as Rocky Mountain iris. grass (Agropyron trach caulum), meadow barley Meadows in a high seral stage have a full stand (Hordeum brachyantherum , mat muhly (Muhlenbergia of desirable species, but maximum productivity richardsonis), sedges ( sp.) and rushes is reduced because of improper grazing management. (Juncus sp.). Common are Rocky Mountain i~ris missouriensis), western yarrow In this paper, research on improvement of meadow (Achil~lanulosa), common dandelion (Taraxacum communities for livestock, wildlife, and site officinale), mountain dandelion (Agoseris sp.) stability is reviewed and updated with the results and cinquefoil (Potentilla sp.). Communities are of meadow restoration work conducted in Nevada small, ranging from several hundred square feet from 1964 to 1972. to several hundred acres. However, species composition and productive potential make these areas important sources of forage and water for WEED CONTROL AND SEEDING livestock (Phillips 1965; Cook 1966) and (Patton and Judd 1970; Ames 1977; Hubbard Good weed control is essential for establishment 1977). of a productive stand of seeded species. Cornelius and Talbot (1955), Plummer and others (1955), Rummell and Holscher (1955), Eckert and others (1973a), and Eckert (1975) all found that weedy Richard E. Eckert, Jr. is a Range Scientist with vegetation such as sedge, poverty weed (Iva the USDA Agricultural Research Service at the axillaris), and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) was Renewable Resources Center, University of Nevada, best controlled by a summer-fallow treatment. Reno. Eckert and others (1973a) described the reduction in competition that is possible with an effective summer fallow (table 1). This method of weed control is usually accomplished by plowing in late spring or early summer when sod-forming species have begun growth and after weed seeds have ger­ minated. Prior to seeding in the fall, the sod is broken down and a seedbed prepared by use of a disk harrow or similar equipment.

i 1Richard E. Eckert, Jr. Reno, NV: Data on file at USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Renewable I Resource Center; 1980. I 67 Table l .--Yield of competitive vegetation during the seedling year on the check and summer fallow treatments on cheatgrass-poverty weed and sedge sites.

Weed Species yield control treatments Cheatgrass Sedge

Cheatgrass-poverty weed site ------lb/acre------Check 13000a Ob Summer fallow 1800a Ob Sedge site Check Oa 580a Summer fallow 320a Ob

1 species means within site followed by different letters are significantly different at the 0.1 probability level as determined by Duncan's multiple range test. Success of seeding in deep furrows has been Alfalfa and sainfoin averaged l plant per 3.6 and demonstrated by Eckert and Evans (1967) in the 2.8 ft (l .1 and 0.8 m) of row, respectively. Based sagebrush type, by Hull (1970) at high elevations, on estimated herbage production and quality, such and by Eckert and others (1973a) in mountain a legume stand appears to satisfy the quantity and meadows. Deep furrows can be made with shovel­ quality food requirements for a sage grouse popu­ type openers or with a rangeland drill equipped lation studied by Oakleaf (1971). with deep-furrow arms (Asher and Eckert 1973). On a cheatgrass-poverty weed site, pubescent and Species and cultivars used to revegetate mountain intermediate wheatgrasses were the most productive meadows should be adapted to the site and to the species (table 2). On a sedge site, pubescent proposed use of the new vegetation. Stewart and wheatgrass was the most productive seeded species. others (1939), Pickford and Jackman (1944), Both wheatgrasses produced more on the cheatgrass­ Cornelius and Talbot (1955), Plummer and others poverty weed site than on the sedge site. Stands (1955), and Rumm~ll and Holscher (1955) suggested were mostly full and most environmental factors srecies adapted to meadow communities throughout were similar. However, depth to the water table the western United States. Eckert and others varied considerably (table 2). Capillary rise (l973a) evaluated seedling stands and productivity above a 4.7 ft (1 .4 m) water table could increase of Amur intermediate (Agropyron intermedium), Luna the amount of soil moisture available to plants pubescent (~. intermedium var. trichophorum), on the ch~atgrass-poverty weed site. On the sedge Primar slender wheatgrass; Regar bromegrass site, a deep gully lowered the water table and the (Gromus biebersteinii); Alta tall fescue (Festuca capillary fringe to below rooting depth early in arundlnacea); Eski sainfoin (Onobr}chis viciifolia); the growing season so that the productive potential and Ladak alfalfa (Medicago sativa . These species was reduced from a meadow environment to a dryland were planted in the fall, in furrows, on a summer­ environment. fallow weed control treatment. Legumes were evaluated as possible food plants for sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Seedings were made on two sites: one dominated by cheatgrass and IRIS CONTROL poverty weed; the other by sedges. Iris is a common plant of native meadows and Acceptable stands of pubescent and intermediate . However, dense stands can be a serious wheatgrasses were obtained on both sites. The problem on poorly managed meadows. Iris is unpal­ cheatgrass-poverty weed site averaged 2.0 plants/ atable to livestock (Pryor and Talbert 1958), ft of row (6.6 plants/m of row) while the sedge reduces forage production through competition, and site averaged 3.2 pfr (10.5 pmr). However, stands has no value as a wildlife food plant (Gullion 1964). of Regar bromegrass, Alta fescue, and slender Rootstocks enable the plant to withstand heavy wheagrass were much poorer on the former site and trampling and to spread rapidly when competitive averaged only 0.7 pfr (2.3 pmr) compared with vegetation is weakened (Dayton 1960). 3.1 pfr (10.2 pmr) on the latter site. This difference was probably due to the greater amount Pryor and Talbert (1958), Cords (1960, 1972), and of competitive vegetation on the cheatgrass­ Robocker (1966) indicated the superiority of 2,4-D poverty weed site than on the sedge site (table 1). for iris control but none of these authors eval­ This response indicates that meadow improvement by uated the effects of this treatment on non-target seeding should be done before a site is severely species. Eckert and others (1973b) and Eckert depleted to the cheatgrass-poverty weed stage. (1975) evaluated both iris control and the response of nontarget grass and species.

68 Table 2.--Yield of seeded and native species 3 years after seeding on cheatgrass-poverty weed and sedge sites.

Yield Species or cultivar Cheatgrass/poverty weed site Sedge site ------lb/acre------Luna pubescent wheatgrass 14230ax 3l20ay Amur intermediate wheatgrass 4000ax 2240by Regar bromegrass 41 Ocy l720cx Alta tall fescue 40dx 690dy Primar slender wheatgrass 121 Ob Native slender wheatgrass ~323a Native sedge 2290

Range in water table depth (ft) from June-August 4.7-6.8 4.7-12.0 Annual (in) 23.4

1Means are compared among species and between sites. Means followed by different letters (a through d) vertically or by different letters (x or y) horizontally are significantly different at the 0.05 probability level as determined by Duncan•s multiple range test. 2 Native species were not included in the experimental design. Yields were taken from near-by stands and are presented for comparative purposes. Excellent iris control was obtained by one appli­ In addition, total forb yield and species yield cation of 2 lb/acre (2.2 kg/ha) to 4 lb/acre can be misleading, because sage grouse do not (4.5 kg/ha) of low volatile ester of 2,4-D from consume the entire plant but rather remove certain mid-June or early July. Iris at time parts. Klebenow and Gray (1968) found that sage of treatment ranged from late vegetative to late grouse chicks preferred the buds and seeds of bloom. The 2 ib/acre (2.2 kg/ha) treatment in dandelion over leaves and stems. We do not know early July gave from 73 to 85 percent control. the total forb production necessary to supply the This treatment appears near the minimum concentra­ required intake of favored plant parts. tion of herbicide needed for excellent iris control. Since certain sage grouse food plants are adversely Iris control significantly increased total yield affected by 2,4-D, the land manager must be know­ (table 3) and yield of individual grass and grass­ ledgeable of vegetation conditions on each proposed like species in years after treatment (table 4). project area. In this way he can decide whether Iris control on sites dominated by Nevada blue­ or not to treat iris-infested sites, how large an grass resulted in a yield response of 558 lb/acre area to treat, and what effects on sage grouse (625 kg/ha) by this species the first year after food plants to expect. treatment compared to the check of 106 lb/acre (119 kg/ha). During the following 4 years, yield varied between 160 and 502 lb/acre (179 and 562 TREE AND SHRUB TRANSPLANTS kg/ha) on the check and between 520 and 1100 lb/acre (582 and 1232 kg/ha) on treated plots. Some stream banks and meadows now support woody Slender wheatgrass responded slowly, however, after species and there is evidence that trees and 5 years, production was 800 lb/acre (896 kg/ha). were more prevalent in the past. Reestablishment of such species is one method to stabilize stream Oakleaf (1971) calculated that a sage grouse channels and check dams, to create wildlife habitat, population of eight birds/acre (20 birds/ha) would and to increase esthetic values (Yoakum and Das­ consume about 10 lb of forbs per acre (ll kg/ha) mann 1980). during meadow occupancy. On this basis, total forb production the year after treatment (table 5) was minimal. Total production the second year appeared adequate for sage grouse needs. However, even though the total forb yield may exceed 10 lb/acre (ll kg/ha), forb composition may not be adequate for good sage grouse habitat.

69 Table 3.--Production of grass, grasslike, and forb species on treated and check plots for 5 years after iris control.

Production Year Treated Check ------lb/acre------1966 1490a 210b 1967 1780a 830b 1968 780a 290b 1969 l820a 700b 1970 2300a 940b

1Treatment means for total production within year followed by different letters are significantly different at the 0.05 probability level as determined by Duncan•s multiple range test.

Table 4.--Production of grass, grasslike, and forb species on treated and check plots in the fifth year after iris control.

Production Species Treated Check ------lb/acre------Slender wheatgrass 1aooa 470b Nevada bluegrass 960a 490b Meadow barley 350a 20b Other grasses 160a Oa Sedge 2~ 1~ Iris 150b 760a Common dandelioh 3~ 4~ Western yarrow l30a 140a Other forbs l30a 20a

1Treatment means for production by species followed by different letters are significantly different at the 0.05 probability level as determined by Duncan•s multiple range test.

Table 5.--Forb production the year of treatment and for 2 years after iris control.

Production

1969 1970 1971 Species Check Check Treated Check Treated ------lb/acre------1 Common dandelion 160 270a 1 Ob 60a 30a Western yarrow 250 260a 30b 160a 20b

1Treatment means for forb species within years followed by different letters are significantly different at the 0.05 probability level as determined by Duncan•s multiple range test.

70 Tree and shrub species for introduction into Water control structures, such as check dams, may meadow commun i ties were eva l uated by Eckert (1975). be one method to halt channe l cutting, prevent Species tested were American plum (Prunus amer icana) , further site deterioration, and i mprove meadow black chokecherry (Prunus virginiana var. melano­ condition. Structures should (1) reduce t he carpa), cardinal ol~laeagnus umbe lla t~ channel gradi ent and erosive power of the stream, common bladdersenna (Co lutea arborescens), common (2) collect sediment to fill t he channel , and lilac (Syr i nga vu l aris), ol dman wormwood (3) rai se the water table in the adjacent riparian (Artemisia abrotanum , golden willow (Salix aurea ) , zone . Russian olive (El aeagnus an ustifol i a) , Siberian peashrub (Cara ana arborescens , and Tatarian Check dams were evaluated in Nevada from 1965 to honeysuckle Lonicera tatarica). 1973 (Eckert 1975). All st ructure~ were designed to impound abou t 1 acre ft (1233 m ) of water. Materials for pl anting in 1 yea r were ob tained as T~10 structures did not hol d water through July or bare- root nursery stock. Plants were dug in March August . One dam held ~1ater through the summer in and Apr il, "heeled in" at a cool, shady l ocation all years (fi g. 1) . Two structures di d not hold and pl anted in June ~1hen the site was accessible. water the first 2 years after construction but di d Plummer and others (1968) strongly recommended co ntain some water through the summer and fall of spring planting unless suppl emental water is the other 7 years . The sma ll average amount of avai l abl e. Container- grown plants were tested in sed iment collected behi nd the structures each yea r 2 years. Pl ants were obtained as bare-root nursery indicated that cha nnel f illing can be a very s l o~1 stock (1 to 2 years old) in March and April, pl aced process. The exception wou l d be i n years of in 1-gal l on containers, and planted in June . catastrophic runoff, such as in 1973, when 4 ft (1 .2 m) of sediment filled one reservoir . About 75 percent of the transplants on barren stream banks or on check dams seeded to crested wheatgrass survi ved through the 6-year evaluation period. None of the plantings in a dense cover of native grasses and sedges survi ved through the second year. On barren stream banks and check dams, 55 percent of the trees and shrubs trans­ pl anted 6ft (1 .8 m) above the water line survived the first year, but none survived the second year. Survival of transplants on banks 1 and 2 ft (0.3 to 0.6 m) above the water line was 90 percent. However, plants nearer the water 1~er e mo re vi goro us. None of the transpl ants next to reservoirs persi sted. Go l den wil low and Siberian peashrub were t he most successful species on both the stream banks and dam faces . Bladdersenna persisted for 6 years, but did not develop as did go l den wil l ow or Si berian peashrub. The other species tested did not survive the evaluation period. Transplants were protected from 1 ivestock use for 6 years. Figure 1 .--An effective check dam in a 7-ft Af ter this time, cattle would graze nearby plots deep channel . of seeded grasses but onl y lightly browse Siberian peashrub and bladdersenna . Go lden willow was not bro~1s ed . Direct evalua t ion of t he effects of structures on the water table coul d not be made because no measurements were taken before construction. CHANNEL STABILIZATION However , water-table measurements i n relation to channel dep t h, proximity to the cha nnel, and water Mountain meadows deve loped on alluvial fill along control structures gave an indirect evaluation water courses where the slope gradient and stream (Eckert 1975) . By early summer, the water table velocity decreased. As sed i ment was deposited, in a 12ft (4 . 5 m) deep channe l without an effecti ve vegetation developed from the edges and more dam was below the root zone of herbaceous spec ies. sedi ment was trapped, until the basin was filled This si te was a dryland environment dominated by and completely vegetated with a mes ic plant sedge and cheatgrass, with some bi g sagebrush community (Robertson and Ken nedy 1954) . These (Artemisia sp . ) and rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnu s sedi ments are themselves subject to erosion. sp . ) . After a deep channel i s cut, an effective Climatic changes, damages to upstream \~atershed, dam was necessary to restore the ~later table to and geologic changes such as land tilting all the level required by mesic meadow species. A increase stream flow, sediment l oad, and erosion higher and more stati c water l evel resul ted from potential. In resource management, we want to a reservoir influence than from a stream infl uence . ma intain meadow integrity for li vestock fo rage, 1~ildlife habitat, watershed stabili ty, and esthetics.

71 GRAZING MANAGEMENT A number of stream channels have been fenced to evaluate complete protection as a means for Whether meadow communities have native or improved managing and restoring the riparian system includ­ vegetation, some form of management is necessary ing meadow communities. However, most results to prevent the livestock concentration and heavy about meadow improvement are based on observations use during the growing season that occurs under and photographs. Without some quantification of season-long grazing. Some of the management vegetation trend, one could logically question techniques discussed may have no documented value whether the differences observed are due to changes for improving vegetation conditions of meadow in species composition or only utilization effects. communities, the focus of this paper. This does not imply that the same techniques are not valuable Three literature sources were examined for results for improving some other parts of the riparian of quantitative studies of management systems on , such as stream channels and stream banks. meadow communities. These sources were: Hickey (1967), McDaniel and Allison (1980), and Allison We lack information about the kinds of grazing and Wood (1981 ). Only one reference was found. management appropriate for meadow communities and Johnson (1965) studied the effects of rotation, about species responses to different management rest-rotation, and season-long grazing on a schemes. This knowledge gap is due to two factors: mountain range in Wyoming. Vegetation of meadow a general lack of interest in grazing systems communities on this range consisted of sedges, research until recent years and an indifference rushes, Kentucky bluegrass, tufted hairgrass, about the conditions on small riparian areas as and bluejoint reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis). compared to large upland sites. This situation On the basis of vegetation changes from 1958 to has now changed because of .emphasis on grazing 1961, the author concluded that either rotation management as a method for range improvement and or rest-rotation management would benefit cattle because of the legal requirements for proper range. Under these two management systems management of riparian . utilization was reduced without any reduction in the number of animals grazed, grazing use was more Although the emphasis on management of riparian uniform, total cover increased, cover of desirable ecosystems has increased, few results are available forage species increased, and cover of poor forage because of the time required to produce these species decreased. When all changes were analyzed, results. The results available can be catagorized range improvement appeared to be more rapid under 1 1 as: word of mouth , qua 1 ita ti ve i nforma ti on, and rest-rotation management than under simple rotation quantitative data. We have all heard agency grazing. However, both types of management were personnel or ranchers comment on the value of a superior to season-long grazing. I question certain kind of grazing management for the riparian whether an adequate interpretation of grazing zone on a certain allotment or ranch. When trial systems can be made on the basis of a 3-year study. and error systems are used, some kind of quantita­ tive information should be collected to add to our Additional information on management of meadow minimal knowledge of the subject. communities was found in the literature. Hayes (1978) evaluated the effects of rest-rotation The Camp Creek Study in central (Winegar grazing on high mountain meadows in central Idaho 1977) is an example of qualitative information from 1975 to 1977. Emphasis was on streambank about vegetation response to fencing. This study stability. One meadow managed under rest-rotation was not intended to be a research project. The management since 1962 appeared to be a stable channel was fenced in 1965 and various species were community in good condition. The condition of a planted or seeded. After 9 years the introduced meadow managed under rest-rotation grazing since species had become established and native species 1973 ranged from fair to good. The presence of had shown excellent growth. Of the 45 species several species common to high-condition meadows indentified within the protected area, only 17 were and establishment of vegetation along trails and known to be present before fencing. No information around watering sites indicate improving range on changes in plant cover, yield, or density was condition. No data were presented, however, to presented. validate vegetation trend from the start of rest­ rotation management through 1976. Duff (1979) made a qualitative evaluation of vegetation recovery in a fenced riparian area. Ratliff (1972) measured herbage yield and species Grasses and willows showed a favorable response composition under free choice and rest-rotation after 4 years of non-use. However, after only 6 management in mountain meadows of northeastern weeks of grazing by trespass cattle, the vegetation California. The five-unit system was based on was degraded to pre-exclosure conditions. After the growth and reproductive requirements of Idaho 4 more years of rest, grasses, sedges, and willows fescue. The significantly greater herbage yield had recovered again. Few data were presented on of 512 lb/acre (573 kg/ha) on the rest-rotation vegetation changes inside the exclosure, but no treatment was due to a significant increase in data were given for the continuously grazed areas. production of grass-like species. Management on the area began in 1954, but the author did not state when the yield and composition data were co 11 ected.

72 Three studies dealt with management of Kentucky The effects of late-season use on meadow vegetation bluegrass in Oregon. Kentucky bluegrass has become in Wyoming was evaluated by clipping to simulate established as the dominant species in native grazing (Pond 1961). Herbage removal at a l-inch meadow communities as the result of and (2.5 em) stubble height every 2 weeks during the subsequent site deterioration (Volland 1978). This growing season decreased the density and productivity species is also the dominant species on high ele­ of native grasses and sedges. Herbage removal at vation meadows throughout the western United States. the end of the growing season had little effect Volland (1978) stated that maximum production by on the density of native species, but production Kentucky bluegrass cannot be achieved under season­ was reduced. long use. He found that complete protection by fencing increased yield through the sixth year. Kauffman (1982) studied the synecological effects But, yield after ll years of rest was not different of late-season grazing on different riparian than on adjacent areas of season-long use. Based communities under actual cattle use. Comparisons on these results, the author concluded that resting were made between late season use (late August a management unit for 6 consecutive years was not to mid-September) and non-use in enclosures over a practical way to regain vigor and productivity a 3-year period. Unfortunately, a season-long of this species. He suggested a management system grazing treatment was not part of the study. Late­ of alternate periods of rest and grazing to promote season use resulted in utilization of Kentucky leaf development of the tillers, reduce flowering bluegrass of 55 to 79 percent on dry meadows and of tillers, and maintain plant vigor. The 67 to 78 percent on moist meadows. Production on phenological time to accomplish this on his study meadow types fluctuated over the years, but there area was mid-May. If the t·ime to 9\"ai.c is similar was a significant increase in yield on the ungrazed on other areas in the West, cattle management wi 11 areas. This increase in production was due to be difficult because of accessibility problems higher yield by sedges. '3arly in the spring and because of damage to wet ·iC i ~ . Kauffman concluded that some of the negative effects of grazing occurred because the moist and dry meatlows ~oath and Krueger (l982a) studied the influence were most heavily grazed during the late-use period. c~ cattle grazing on a mountain riparian zone in Some of the positive effects of late-season use i}·,~gon on both the dry and wet meadow types. included minimal compaction of the soil which was :.. :>:!tucky bluegrass was the most important herbaceous drier than in early summer, maintenance of plant species. Mountain alder (Alnus incana), willow, vigor because of high carbohydrate reserves at time and red-osier dogwood (Cornus st(:)fOnTiera) were of grazing, and higher nutritive value of forage the important shrubs. Utilization of shrubs was than on upland sites. lowest when herbaceous vegetation was lush but tended to increase as the season progressed and Several studies that have appeared in abstracts herbaceous vegetation matured. The authors are probably nearing completion. These, I hope, theorized thpt a management system which used the will provide additional quantitative information herbaceous component early in a deferred system for the management of meadow communities. Until would benefit the shrub component. This action more data are available, management actions for could have a negative effect on the herbaceous meadow communities can only be based on what we species, although Kentucky bluegrass grazed at know now, together with a large amount of 72 to 76 percent utilization over a 2-year period professional judgement. showed few negative cover or vigor effects. A late season of use would minimize negative effects on the herbaceous species but could increase PUBLICATIONS CITED utilization of shrubs. A longer study period is needed to test the assumptions made by the authors Allison, Christopher D.; Wood, M. Karl. A and to follow changes in the stand of Kentucky bibliography of literature related to grazing bluegrass grazed at these high intensities. systems. Range Improvement Task Force Report 10; Las Cruces, N.M.: New Mexico State University; Roath and Krueger (l982b) conducted a 2-year study 1981. 58 p. of cattle grazing and behavior on a forested range in Oregon that contained a small acreage of meadow Ames, Charles R. Wildlife conflicts in riparian communities dominated by Kentucky bluegrass. Based management grazing. In: Johnson, R. Roy; Jones, on home-range groups of cattle, the authors Dale A., eds. Importance, Preservation and suggested two cattle-management techniques to Management of Riparian Habitat: proceedings; reduce grazing pressure on the riparian zone. 1977 July 9; Tucson, AZ: Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43. Cattle known to belong to the home-range group on Washington, DC: U.S. Department of , the riparian zone could be culled from the herd Forest Service; 1977: 49-51. and the home-range group on the uplands kept for breeding purposes. New animals could be herded to Asher, Jerry E.; Eckert, Richard E., Jr. Development, upland areas and behaviorally-bonded to these areas testing, and evaluation of the deep-furrow drill if forage, water, and salt were available. arm assembly for the rangeland drill. J. Range Manage. 26: 377-379; 1973. Claire and Storch (in press) suggested the use of special pastures for separating grazing use in the riparian zone from grazing on the uplands. Grazing usually would be deferred until late in the growing season.

73 Claire, Errol W.; Storch, Robert L. Streamside Hickey, Wayne C., Jr. A discussion of grazing management and livestock grazing: An objective management systems and some pertinent literature. look at the situation. In: Menke, John W., ed. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Livestock Interactions with Wildlife, Fish and Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region Office. Their Environments: proceedings; 1977 May 3-5; 1967. Unnumbered pages. Sparks, NV. (Unpublished) Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Hubbard, John P. Importance of riparian ecosystems: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Biotic considerations. In: Johnson, R. Roy; Station. Jones, Dale H., eds. Importance, Preservation and Management of Riparian Habitat: proceedings; Cook, C. Wayne. Factors affecting utilization of 1977 July 9; Tucson, AZ: Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43. mountain slopes by cattle. J. Range Manage. 19: Washington, D.C: Department of Agriculture. 200-204; 1966. Forest Service; 1977: 14-18. Cords, Howard P. Control of wild iris. Bull. 199. Hull, A.C., Jr, Grass seedling emergence and survival Reno, NV: Univ. of Nevada Agricultural Experiment from furrows. J. Range Manage. 23: 421-424; 1970. Station; 1960; 4 p. Johnson, W.M. Rotation, rest-rotation, and season­ Cords, Howard P., ed. Nevada weed control long grazing on a mountain range in Wyoming. recommendations. Reno, NV: Univ. of Nevada Res. Pap. RM-14. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Depart­ College of Agriculture; 1972; C-117. 41 p. ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Moun ta i n Sta t i on ; 1 96 5 . 16 p . Cornelius, Donald R.; Talbot, M.W. Rangeland improvement through seeding and weed control Kauffman, John Boone. Synecological effects of on east slope Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade cattle grazing on riparian ecosystems. Corvallis, Mountains. Agric. Handb. 38. Washington, D.C: OR: Oregon State University; 1982. 283 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1965. 51 p. Dissertation. 1yton, William A. Notes on western range forbs; Klebenow, Donald A.; Gray, Gene M. Food habits of ~quisetaceae through Fumariaceae. Agric. Handb. juvenile sage grouse. J. Range Manage. 21: ~1 . Washington, D. C: U.s·. Department of 80-83; 1968. '' v-iculture; 1960. 254 p. McDaniel, Kirk C. Allison, Christopher D. eds. ' Donald A. Riparian recovery on Big Creek, Grazing Management Systems for Southwest th County, Utah. In: Cope, Oliver B., ed. : proceedings; 1980 April 1-2; Grazing and Riparian/Stream Ecosystems: pro­ Albuquerque, N.M. Las Cruces, N.M.: Range ceedings; 1978 November 3-4; Denver, CO: Trout Imp. Task Force, New Mexico St. Univ. 1980: 183 p, Unlimited, In~.; 1979: 91 p. Oakleaf, Robert J. The relationship of sage grouse Eckert, Richard E., Jr. Improvement of mountain to upland meadows in Nevada. Job Final Report. meadows in Nevada. Reno, NV: U.S. Department Project W-48-2, R-Study VII. Reno, NV: Nevada of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Dept. of Fish and Game; 1971. 64 p. 1975. 45 p. Patton, David R.; Judd, B. Ira. The role of wet Eckert, Richard E., Jr.; Bruner, Allen D.; Klomp, meadows as a wildlife habitat in the southwest. Gerard J.; Peterson, Frederick F. Mountain J. Range Manage. 23: 272-275; 1970. meadow improvement through seeding. J. Range Manage. 26: 200-203; l973a. Phillips, T.A. The influence of slope gradient~ distance from water and other factors on live­ Eckert, Richard E,, Jr.; Bruner, Allen D.; Klomp, ~tock distribution on National Forest cattle Gerard J.; Peterson, Frederick F. Control of allotments of the Intermountain Region. Range Rocky Mountain iris and vegetative response on Improvement Notes 10. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department mountain meadows. J. Range Manage. 26: 352-355; of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain l973b. Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1965: 9-19. Eckert, Richard E., Jr.; Evans, Raymond A. A Pickford, G.D.; Jackman, E.R. Reseeding eastern chemica 1-fa 11 ow technique for cont-ro 1 of downy Oregon summer ranges. Circular 159. Corvallis, brome and establishment of perennial grasses OR: Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station; on rangeland. J. Range Manage. 20: 35-41; 1967. 1944. 48 p. Gullion, Gordon W. 1964. Wildlife uses of Nevada Plummer, A. Perry; Christensen, Donald R.; Monsen, plants. Contributions toward a of Nevada. Stephen B. 1968. Restoring big game ranges in Beltsville, MD: National Arboretum. U.S. Depart­ Utah. Publication 68-3. Salt Lake City, UT: ment of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Utah Division of Fish and Game; 1968. 183 p. Service; 1964. 173 p. Plummer, A. Perry, Hull, A.C., Jr.; Stewart, George; Hayes, Frank A. Streambank stability and meadow Robertson, Joseph H. Seeding rangelands in Utah, condition in relation to livestock grazing in Nevada, southern Idaho, and western Wyoming. mountain meadows in central Idaho. Moscow, ID: Agric. Handb. 7, Washington, D.C: U.S. Dep~rt­ Univ. of Idaho; 1978. 91 p. Dissertation. ment of Agriculture; 1955. 73 p.

74 Pond, Floyd W. Effects of three intensities of clipping on the density and production of meadow vegetation. J. Range Manage. 14: 34-38; 1961. Pryor, Murry R.; Talbert, R.E. Iris missouriensis: A serious pest. Bulletin XLVIr:-5acramento, CA: Department of Agriculture, State of California, Bureau of Rodent and Weed Control and Seed Inspection; 1958: l-4. Ratliff, Raymond D. Livestock grazing not detri­ mental to meadow wildflowers. Research Note PSW- 270. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1972. 4 p. Roath, Leonard Roy; Krueger, William C. Cattle grazing influence on a mountain riparian zone. J. Range Manage. 35: 100-103; l982a. Roath, Leonard Roy; Krueger, William C. Cattle grazing and behavior on a forested range. J. Range Manage. 35: 332-338; l982b. Robertson, Joseph H.; Kennedy, P.B. Half-century changes on northern Nevada ranges. J. Range Manage. 7: 117-122; 1954. Robocker, Willard C. Wild iris. In: Chemical Control of Range Weeds. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior; 1966. 39 p. Rummell, RobertS.; Holscher, Clark E. Seeding summer ranges in eastern Oregon and Washington. Farmers Bulletin 2091. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department ?f Agriculture; 1955. 34 p. Stewart, George; Walker, R.H.; Price, Raymond. Reseeding rangelands of the Intermountain Region. Farmer's Bulletin 1823. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1939. 25 p. Volland, Leonard A. Trends in standing crop and species composition of a rested Kentucky bluegrass meadow over an ll year period. In: Hyder, Donald N., ed. lst International Ranqeland Conqress: proceedings; August 14-18; Denver, CO: Society for Range Management; 1978: 526-529. Winegar, Harold H. Camp Creek channel fencing - plant, wildlife, soil, and water responses. Rangeman's J. 4: 10-12; 1977. Yoakum, James; Dasmann, William; Sanderson, H. Reed; Nixon, Charles M.; Crawford, Hewlette S. Habitat improvement techniques. In: Schemnitz, Sanford D. ed. Wildlife Management Techniques Manual, 4th ed. Washington, D.C: The Wildlife Society; 1980: 330-403.

75