United States Department of Agriculture Meadows in the Sierra Forest Service Pacific Southwest Nevada of California: Forest and Range Experiment Station state of knowledge General Technical Report PSW-84 Raymond D. Ratliff The Author: RAYMOND D. RATLIFF, a range scientist, is assigned to the Station's range man­ agement research in California unit, headquartered at the Forestry Sciences Labora­ tory, Fresno, Calif. He earned bachelor of science (1959) and master of science (1961) degrees in range management at the University of California, and a doctorate (1979) at New Mexico State University. He joined the Station staff in 1961. Acknowledgments: I thank the following persons for their interest and help in defining goals and objectives for management of meadow resources, or for their review of the manuscript, or both: Leonard Topping, Madera County; John T. Stanley, Harvey & Stanley Associates Inc.; Jerry L. Neal, Robert Hall, and Rex Quinn, Sierra Club; Lewis E. Carpenter, Henry A. Doddridge, Ray Marxmiller, and Claude L. Brown, Fresno County Sportsmen's Club; Gordon C. Ashcraft and Ronald C. Bertram, California Department of Fish and Game; David J. Parsons and Steven H. DeBenedetti, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks; Richard Riegelhuth, Yosemite National Park; Gordon C. Heebner and James R. Shevock, Sequoia National Forest; and John (Ken) Stithem and Jerome DeGraff, Sierra National Forest. Also, I thank Stanley E. Westfall who since 1965 has been involved in meadow research. Publisher: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station P.O. Box 245, Berkeley, California 94701 September 1985 Meadows in the Sierra Nevada of California: state of knowledge Raymond D. Ratliff CONTENTS In Brief.................................................................................. ii Introduction ........................................................................ 1 Brief History ........................................................................ 1 Grazing by Livestock ...................................................... 1 Damage to Resources ...................................................... 2 Classification of Meadows .................................................. 2 Subformations .................................................................. 3 Series ............................................................................... 3 Associations .................................................................... 5 Meadow Soils .................................................................. 6 Series Descriptions .......................................................... 9 Productivity of Meadows ................................................. 16 Elevation ........................................................................ 17 Vegetation ...................................................................... 17 Range Condition ............................................................ 23 Fertilization .................................................................... 24 Utilization ...................................................................... 26 Management Problems .................................................... 26 Animal Activities .......................................................... 26 Lodgepole Pine .............................................................. 33 Fire ................................................................................ 36 Gully Erosion ................................................................ 38 Evaluating Range Conditions .......................................... 41 Established Methods ..................................................... 42 Condition Standards ...................................................... 43 Management Concepts ..................................................... 47 References ......................................................................... 48 i grazing were mostly fruitless. Effective control in the Forest Reserves began when grazing permits were required IN BRIEF ... by the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Meadows have improved, but local abuse can still be found. Recent concern over the conditions of meadows has resulted in studies by the Forest Service, U.S. Department Ratliff, Raymond D. Meadows in the Sierra Nevada of of Agriculture; the National Park Service, U.S. Depart­ California: state of knowledge. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW- ment of the Interior; and colleges and universities. Al­ 84. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range though much is yet to be learned, a body of technical Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture; knowledge focused on meadows of the Sierra Nevada is 1985. 52 p. now available, serving as a source for guides to meadow Retrieval Terms: meadow classification, meadow produc­ management. tivity, meadow management problems, meadow condi­ The basic unit for meadow classification is meadow tions and trends, mountain meadows, Sierra Nevada, site―an area of homogeneous species composition having California a general species composition different from that of adja­ cent areas. Meadow sites are grouped by physiographic Management of mountain meadows in the Sierra Nev­ properties; hydrologic or major floristic properties, or ada of California to maintain or restore geologic and bio­ both; and close floristic similarity into meadow subforma­ logic stability, while providing amenities, is a common goal tions, meadow series, and meadow site associations. of managers and users. Meadows are wetlands or semiwet­ Conditions favorable to accumulating fine-textured lands supporting a cover of emergent hydrophytes and materials and establishing a shallow water table are pre- mesophytes and dry herblands of the subalpine and alpine requisite to meadow development. A characteristic condi­ zones. These meadows are concentrated use points which, tion is a favorable drainage area-to-slope relationship: once destroyed, are not quickly replaced. large drainage areas with steep stream gradients do not American Indians had little adverse effect on meadows contain meadows. of the Sierra Nevada. Moderate to light grazing by native True pedogenic soil horizons are rarely found in soils of animals was probably common. Ranching―the first in­ Sierra Nevadan meadows. Four main depositional units dustry in California―expanded as the Spanish missions are present: pre-Holocene alluvium; a buried soil; stratified became established. Cattle were valued for their hides and sand; and interstratified layers of grus, peat, and sandy tallow. Sheep numbers remained low during the Spanish loam. Layers of known age in the fourth unit indicate a soil and Mexican periods. Then, the gold rush of 1849 ushered accumulation rate of about 1.8 inches (4.7 cm) per century. in a shift toward beef production, and large numbers of Herbage produced on Sierra Nevadan meadows in Cali­ sheep as well as cattle were used for meat. As mining fornia ranges from less than 300 lb per acre (336 kg/ ha) to decreased, sheep ranching for wool increased; by the over 4,000 lb per acre (4,484 kg/ha). High-elevation mea­ 1870's, California led the nation in wool production. dows in poor condition generally produce less herbage Summer grazing in the mountains began during than low-elevation meadows in better condition. Mesic droughts in the 1860's and 1870's. Sheep grazing soon meadows are usually more productive―although produc­ became the dominant use of the meadows. Today, how- tion varies more from year-to-year―than meadows at the ever, cattle have all but replaced sheep in the National extremes of the moisture gradient. Forests. Meadows respond to fertilization. Nitrogen can increase Overgrazing of meadows in the late 1800's and early yields dramatically. Phosphorus, however, has been more 1900's resulted in widespread deterioration. Early attempts consistent in increasing yields. Usually, nitrogen favors by the National Parks and Forest Reserves to regulate grasses and grasslikes and phosphorus favors legumes. ii Poor sites respond proportionally more to fertilization than • Rodent activities. Although rodent activities can good sites. markedly affect species composition and may induce ero­ Carbohydrate storage cycles of meadow species appear sion by channeling water, cultivation of the soil by rodents to follow the natural pattern: gradual decline in winter, is beneficial. Overgrazing emphasizes the negative effects sharp decline at the start of spring growth, and buildup of rodents, but rodents inflict little harm to meadows in during maturation. Defoliation in early spring or at flower­ good condition. ing is detrimental to many meadow species. Late defolia­ • Invasion by lodgepole pine. This autogenic process is tion, preventing carbohydrate accumulation in developing both aided and hindered by livestock disturbance. A min­ shoots, may damage some species. eral seedbed in a well-lit, warm, moist environment favors The need to leave some herbage ungrazed has long been lodgepole pine seed germination. Early snowmelt and long recognized. For meadow sites in the Sierra Nevada, the rule snow-free periods favor seedling establishment. Deep, of "graze half, leave half" is unsafe. Use of very wet or dry long-lasting snowpacks favor young trees. meadow sites should not exceed 35 percent; 45 percent use • Fire. A critical element of meadow history and main­ of more mesic sites is satisfactory. tenance is fire. Major fires in their watersheds affect Sierra Some of the more common conditions that can adversely Nevadan