Integrated Upland Monitoring in Canyonlands National Park Annual Report 2010 (Non-Sensitive Version)

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCPN/NRTR—2012/552.N ON THE COVER

Semidesert sand grassland in the Island in the Sky District, Canyonlands National Park. NPS photo. Integrated Upland Monitoring in Canyonlands National Park Annual Report 2010 (Non-Sensitive Version)

Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCPN/NRTR—2012/552.N

Prepared by Dana Witwicki Northern Colorado Plateau Network National Park Service P.O. Box 848 Moab, UT 84532

Editing and Design Alice Wondrak Biel Northern Colorado Plateau Network National Park Service P.O. Box 848 Moab, UT 84532

February 2012

U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science oﬃ ce in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public.

The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientiﬁ c studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series provides contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations.

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientiﬁ cally credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received informal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collec- tion, analysis, or reporting of the data.

Views, statements, ﬁ ndings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reﬂ ect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.

This report is available from the Northern Colorado Plateau Network website, http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/units/ncpn, as well as at the Natural Resource Publications Management web site, http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm.

Please cite this publication as:

Witwicki, D. 2012. Integrated upland monitoring in Canyonlands National Park: annual report 2010 (non-sensitive version). Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCPN/NRTR— 2012/552.N. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

NPS 164/112903, February 2012 ii Integrated Upland Monitoring in Canyonlands National Park: Annual Report 2010 Contents

Figures ...... v Tables ...... v Executive Summary ...... vii 1 Introduction ...... 1 2 Methods ...... 3 2.1 Integrated Upland Monitoring in Canyonlands National Park ...... 3 2.2 Integrated Upland Monitoring Procedures ...... 9 2.3 Database ...... 9

3 Results ...... 11 3.1 Monitored Plots ...... 11 3.2 Ecological Site Type Summaries ...... 11

4 Discussion ...... 21 5 Literature Cited ...... 23

Contents iii

Figures

Figure 2-1. Examples of ecological sites monitored in Canyonlands National Park ...... 5 Figure 2-2. Location of monitoring plots in Canyonlands National Park, 2010...... 7 Figure 2-3. Number of (A) grassland, (B) shallow blackbrush, and (B) PJ/blackbrush plots sampled each year based on 7-year rotating panel revisit designs for long-term upland monitoring at Canyonlands National Park...... 8 Figure 2-4. Plot layout for upland monitoring of grasslands and shrublands...... 9 Figure 3-1. Distribution of canopy gaps for (A) Grassland, (B) Shallow blackbrush, and (C) PJ/ blackbrush sites in Canyonlands National Park, 2010...... 18 Figure 3-2. Distribution of basal gaps for (A) Grassland, (B) Shallow blackbrush, and (C) PJ/blackbrush sites in Canyonlands National Park, 2010...... 19

Tables

Table 2-1. Description of ecological sites selected for monitoring in Canyonlands National Park...... 4 Table 3-1. Number of plots by ecological site type and ecological site monitored in Canyonlands National Park, 2006–2010...... 13 Table 3-2. Mean (range) number of plant species detected per monitoring plot by life form and ecological site type, Canyonlands National Park, 2010...... 13 Table 3-3. Mean (range) percent cover by life form for each ecological site type, Canyonlands National Park, 2010...... 14 Table 3-4. Mean (range) percent cover of dominant species by ecological site type, Canyonlands National Park, 2010...... 14 Table 3-5. Density of shrub species per hectare by ecological site type, Canyonlands National Park, 2010...... 15 Table 3-6. Mean (range) cover and density of exotic plant species by ecological site type detected in Canyonlands National Park, 2010...... 16 Table 3-7. Mean (range) percent cover of surface features by ecological site type, Canyonlands National Park, 2010...... 17 Table 3-8. Mean (range) canopy- and basal-gap size by ecological site type, Canyonlands National Park, 2010...... 17 Table 3-9. Mean (range) soil-aggregate stability measures by ecological site type, Canyonlands National Park, 2010...... 17

Contents v

Executive Summary

The goal of the Northern Colorado Plateau Network (NCPN) integrated upland monitoring eﬀ ort is to provide park managers with status and trend information on vegetation and soil attributes. This information is intended to determine natural variability of upland resources and provide early warning of resource degradation.

This report summarizes NCPN upland monitoring in Canyonlands National Park (NP) during 2010. It outlines goals and objectives of NCPN upland monitoring, methods of the upland monitoring protocol, and procedures for deﬁ ning and mapping target populations for monitoring. It also describes the results of this year’s eﬀ orts and plans for future monitoring.

In 2010, NCPN completed its ﬁ fth year of monitoring at Canyonlands NP, which was the second year of monitoring under the long-term operational sampling design. A total of 48 plots were monitored in Island in the Sky and Needles districts of the park, including 24 grassland plots, 12 shallow blackbrush plots, and 12 pinyon-juniper/blackbrush plots. Early monitoring data describe status of ecological site types; interpretation is limited until additional data are acquired and more rigorously analyzed.

Contents vii

1 Introduction nacled. In the forests, shrublands, and meadows of the mountain regions surrounding the Colorado Plateau, where numerous NCPN Uplands represent the vast majority of land park units are located, the role of biological area in national park units of the Northern soil crusts is less important because much of Colorado Plateau Network (NCPN). These the soil surface is covered by vegetation and upland areas include rock outcrops, bad- litter. lands, shrublands, grasslands, woodlands, forests, and subalpine meadows, with lo- Many upland ecosystems of the region are cal vegetation determined by soil type and characterized by low resistance and resil- depth, topography, climate, and disturbance ience. Even moderate disturbances can aff ect history. Upland vegetation supplies most re- vegetative composition and structure, and re- gional primary productivity, which translates covery to pre-disturbance conditions can be to energy for other trophic levels. The condi- relatively slow. Natural disturbance regimes tion of upland vegetation infl uences soil sta- of the region include extreme climatic events; bility and nutrient cycling, which in turn defi re, insect and disease outbreaks; herbivory; termines potential above-ground production and trampling (Miller 2005). Grazing, which of native plant species and the propensity for has been a traditional land use throughout invasion by non-native species. Vegetation much of the plateau, has resulted in shifts in also provides habitat for various organisms. vegetation composition (Harris et al. 2003) The ability of uplands to retain soil and nu- and ecological states (Miller et al. 2011) that trients, absorb and release water, and buff er persist for many decades or longer. Fire-re- high-runoff precipitation events also infl u- gime alteration (Whelan 1995) and invasion ences conditions in riparian areas. of exotic plants (Bock et al. 1986) have additionally contributed to these shifts. Increas- Upland ecosystems of the Colorado Plateau, ing recreational use and unauthorized social where the majority of NCPN park units are trailing threatens the integrity of upland sys- located, tend to be dominated by shrubs, tems through soil surface disturbance and re- perennial grasses, and small trees. Although sulting increases in soil erosion by water and these life forms play an integral role in defi n- wind. Additional pressure inside parks may ing the structure and function of Colorado also result from land use in adjacent areas. Plateau ecosystems (Whitford 2002), it is the highly-pinnacled biological soil crusts that Global climate change is expected to change make these these dryland systems unique. levels and seasonality of dominant precipita- Biological soil crusts are biotic communities tion events (Garfi n et al. 2010), and we are composed of cyanobacteria, algae, micro- only beginning to understand the implica- fungi, mosses, and lichens that occur on and tions for plateau ecosystems (Munson et al. within the upper few millimeters of the soil 2011a,b). Additional information on charac- surface (Belnap et al. 2003). Their presence teristics of Colorado Plateau ecosystems and stabilizes the soil surface and reduces suscep- ecological threats to the region is provided in tibility to wind and water erosion (Williams Miller (2005). et al. 1995). They also contribute to nutrient cycling by fi xing C (Lange 2003) and N (Ev- The overall goal of the NCPN integrated ans and Lange 2003; Belnap 2002) and aff ect upland monitoring program is to determine the availability of nutrients to plants (Harper long-term trends in vegetation, soil stability, and Belnap 2001). Biological soil crusts are and hydrologic function in the context of particularly sensitive to disturbances that af- changes in other ecological drivers, stressors, fect the soil surface, such as trampling and and processes. Monitoring will increase fun- off -road vehicle use (Rosentreter and Belnap damental understanding of upland systems 2003). and provide managers with early warning of undesirable change and information for In the basins neighboring the Colorado Pla- management decisions. Specifi c objectives teau, where several NCPN park units are of the integrated upland monitoring protocol located, biological soil crusts also play an are described below. important role but are less dramatically pin-

Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Determine status and trends in plant com- • soil aggregate stability munities, including: • canopy-gap size (as an indicator of wind • overall species richness erosion potential) • cover of vegetation by dominant species Determine status and trends in hydrologic and life form function, including: • density of shrubs by size class • basal-gap size • basal area and density of tree species Evaluation of upland monitoring data relative to other vital signs will help us to identify • canopy closure drivers and distinguish “natural” from an- • fuel volume and litter/duﬀ depth thropogenic change. Local weather-station data can be used to interpret responses, and • frequency of exotic invasive species remote sensing can be used to determine Determine status and trends in soil stability, change in vegetation at larger scales caused including: by land use or climate change. Historical upland monitoring data sets may be integrated • cover of biological soil crusts by mor- with data collected by the NCPN to allow phological group (cyanobacteria, lichen, earlier detection of trends. moss, and undiﬀ erentiated crust) • cover of other surface features (litter, rock, bare ground, etc.)

2 Integrated Upland Monitoring in Canyonlands National Park: Annual Report 2010 2 Methods ing procedures retained 58% (61,048 ha) of the original 104,818 ha area, and provided an accessible-area map. 2.1 Integrated Upland Monitoring in Canyonlands National Park 2.1.2.2 Selecting and mapping target ecological site types 2.1.1 Resource issues driving upland NCPN upland monitoring uses survey de- monitoring signs and ecological sites (SRM 1989, 1995) to defi ne target populations. An ecological During discussions with NCPN staff in 2005, site is defi ned by a combination of soil prop- park resource managers identifi ed the de- erties (texture, depth, water-holding capac- velopment and subsequent impacts of un- ity), geology, landform, climatic regime, and authorized social trails in grass- and shrub- potential vegetation. The spatial extent of dominated systems as their primary issue ecological sites is largely determined by soil of concern in park uplands. Managers were map units within the soil survey, although concerned about potential system degrada- the location of an ecological site within a tion due to trampling of physical and biologi- soil map unit is not explicit. Stratifying by cal crust, and subsequent increases in wind ecological site allows us to tease out varying and water erosion of soil. Due to various responses to anthropogenic and natural dis- limitations, the initial monitoring eff ort was turbances; however, ecological sites may be restricted to the Island in the Sky and Nee- aggregated and analyzed by vegetation type dles districts, which collectively comprise or ecological-site type for general summary about 77% (104,818 ha) of the park land area purposes. (136,610 ha). Ecological sites corresponding to grassland 2.1.2 Mapping and selecting target and shrubland systems were identifi ed from populations the Canyonlands Soil Survey (USDA SCS 1991). Given the anticipated limitations of 2.1.2.1 Accessibility NCPN monitoring, the four most spatial- Areas that posed safety threats, were inac- ly extensive grassland sites (Desert Sand, cessible within budgetary limitations, and/ Desert Sandy Loam, Semidesert Sand, and or were anthropogenic in nature were fi l- Semidesert Sandy Loam) and the two most tered out of the sampling frame. Areas lo- spatially extensive shrubland sites (Desert cated on slopes of >50% and/or isolated by Shallow Sandy Loam [Blackbrush] and Semi- steep slopes were eliminated. Due primarily desert Shallow Sandy Loam [Pinyon-Juni- to costs, areas accessible only by fl oating the per/Blackbrush]) were selected as target eco- Green and Colorado rivers were eliminated logical sites (Table 2-1 and Figure 2-1). Target from consideration. Accessibility and slope grassland sites accounted for approximately features were generated using the Landscape 18% of the accessible area, but that 18% ac- Accessibility Model (http://science.nature. counted for 83% of the accessible land area nps.gov/im/units/ncpn/Tools.cfm). reported to be grassland. Target shrubland sites comprised approximately 27% of total A 10-m buff er was applied to paved roads and accessible area, which accounted for 85% of a 50-m buff er applied to dwellings; buff ered accessible shrubland area. areas were then eliminated from further consideration. Monitoring near existing social We used predictive mapping software to map trails, transportation networks, and develop- the six target ecological sites in Canyonlands ments (e.g., campgrounds) was considered NP (Garman 2008; Garman et al. 2010). acceptable given the emphasis on monitoring the impacts of unauthorized social trails, and 2.1.3 Selection of monitoring locations the propensity for such trails to emanate from human-use areas. Creating relatively narrow Using the predicted ecological-site map, buff er widths and including trails in the spa- monitoring plots were selected using the tial data layers also helped accommodate the Generalized Random Tessellated Stratifi ed overarching monitoring goals. These fi lter- (GRTS) method (Stevens and Olsen 2004)

Chapter 2: Methods 3 Disturbance-mediated alternative states Decreased Indian ricegrass, needle and thread, dropseeds, increased sand sagebrush, snakeweed, and low rabbitbrush. Decreased Indian ricegrass and saltbush and increased snakeweed Mormon tea. Cheatgrass and Russian thistle may invade. Decreased bunchgrass and saltbush and increased snakeweed, prickly pear, and sand sage. Russian thistle juniper, may invade. Decreased bunchgrass and increased snakeweed, Mormon tea, and prickly Cheatgrass and Russian thistle pear. may invade. tea and increased blackbrush snakeweed. Cheatgrass and Russian thistle may invade. Decreased bunchgrass and increased blackbrush, and prickly pear. juniper, Cheatgrass and annual forbs may invade. Vegetative properties Vegetative Dominated by Indian ricegrass, dropseeds, and sand sagebrush Dominated by Indian ricegrass, galleta, dropseeds, and fourwing saltbush Dominated by Indian ricegrass, fourwing saltbush, and Mormon tea Dominated by Indian ricegrass, needle and thread, fourwing saltbush, and Mormon tea Dominated by blackbrush Decreased bunchgrasses and Mormon Dominated by blackbrush, and pinyon pine juniper, Geological properties Eolian deposits derived from sandstone Alluvium and/or eolian deposits derived from sandstone Eolian deposits derived from sandstone Alluvium and eolian deposits derived mainly from sandstone Residuum and eolian deposits from sandstone, limestone, and shale Residuum and/or eolian deposits from sandstone dunes and sand sheets Deep sandy loams on mesas, stream terraces, and broad valleys dunes and sand sheets Deep sandy loams on mesas and valleys Shallow sandy loams on structural benches and ledges on escarpments loams on benches and mesas Sheppard Deep sands on Bluechief, Nakai, Thoroughfare Mido Deep sands on Begay, Ignacio, Begay, Redbank Arches, Moenkopie Rizno Shallow sandy Soil Series Soil properties Ecological site name/ Number sagebrush) / DS115 Desert Sandy Loam (fourwing saltbush) / DSL118 Semidesert Sand (fourwing saltbush) / SDS212 Semidesert Sandy Loam (fourwing saltbush) / SDSL215 Desert Shallow Sandy Loam (blackbrush) / DSSL133 Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam (Utah / juniper-pinyon) SDSSL236 Table 2-1. Description of ecological sites selected for monitoring in Canyonlands National Park. Table Ecological site type Herbaceous Grassland Desert Sand (sand Shrubland Shallow blackbrush Pinyon-juniper/ blackbrush

4 Integrated Upland Monitoring in Canyonlands National Park: Annual Report 2010 Desert Sand Desert Sandy Loam Semidesert Sand

Semidesert Sandy Loam Desert Shallow Sandy Loam Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam

Figure 2-1. Examples of ecological sites monitored in Canyonlands National Park: Desert Sand (sand sagebrush), Desert Sandy Loam (fourwing saltbush), Semidesert Sand (fourwing saltbush), Semidesert Sandy Loam (fourwing saltbush), Desert Shallow Sandy Loam (blackbrush), and Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam (Utah juniper/pinyon). See Table 2-2 for descriptions of ecological sites.

Chapter 2: Methods 5 to create a spatially balanced design. Coor- (shallow blackbrush and pinyon-juniper dinates corresponded to the centroid of a (PJ)/blackbrush) containing one ecological plot. To accommodate rejection, 300 sites site each. were selected per ecological site. Within each ecological site, plots were established in as- 2.1.4.2 Terminology changes cending order of plot number. If a plot was The reader will note that ecological site rejected (e.g., due to incorrect ecological site type was referred to as “vegetation type” in type), the next sequentially ordered plot was the previous Canyonlands NP annual re- used. port (Witwicki 2010a) and that we switched terms to be consistent with the terminology used at Arches NP. Blackbrush is monitored 2.1.4 Pilot study and long-term at both Canyonlands and Arches NPs, but a sampling design diﬀ erent ecological site type is monitored at Upland monitoring was initiated at Canyon- each park. The vegetation type referred to as lands National Park in 2006. Eight monitor- “blackbrush” in the 2009 Canyonlands NP ing plots were established for each target upland annual report is now called “shallow ecological site except Desert Sand, which blackbrush” to help distinguish it from the was not sampled during pilot monitoring “deep blackbrush” ecological site type that is due to its low spatial extent across the land- monitored at Arches NP. scape. Plots were sampled for 2–3 years and variances of measures were used to evalu- 2.1.4.3 Revisit design ate power for trend of potential operational Each year, 24 grassland, 12 blackbrush, and sampling designs. Details of this analysis are 12 PJ/blackbrush plots are monitored (Figure provided in Witwicki (2010b). 2-3). A total of 252 plots are sampled over a seven-year revisit schedule. Half of the plots 2.1.4.1 Long-term sampling design are visited two years in a row and the other Based on the analysis of pilot data, a long- half are visited only one year before be- term operational sampling design was cre- ing rested for 5–6 years. This revisit strategy ated and implemented in 2009. To deal with maximizes our ability to detect trends while the cost of sampling extremely remote areas minimizing the impact on biological soil of the park, the sampling frame was further crusts in the park. limited to a 4-km (one-way) hiking distance. Ecological sites were lumped into broader Plots in the Needles backcountry, deﬁ ned groups with similar vegetation, precipitation, as the western part of the Needles district and soil depth that we are calling ecological accessed by driving very technical 4-wheel site types (Figure 2-2). drive roads either over Elephant Hill or down Bobby’s Hole, are considered the most All four grassland ecological sites were com- remote in the sampling design. These plots bined into a larger grassland sampling frame. have been lumped into panels 9 and 12 so Within that sampling frame, the number of that they are only visited in two of the seven plots assigned to a given ecological site type years of the revisit design. This was done to was proportional to the relative area of that minimize travel time and costs associated ecological site type in the overall sampling with accessing this remote part of the park frame. The two shrubland ecological sites and to maximize the number of plots that remained as separate ecological site types could be sampled overall.

6 Integrated Upland Monitoring in Canyonlands National Park: Annual Report 2010 2010 plots Grassland Shallow blackbrush PJ / blackbrush

0 2 4 8 12 16 Kilometers

Figure 2-2. Location of monitoring plots in Canyonlands National Park, 2010.

Chapter 2: Methods 7 A. Grassland Year

Panel 12345678910 1 66 66 2 66 66 3 66 6 4 66 5 66 6 66 7 666 8 12 12 9 12 12 10 12 12 11 12 12 12 13 12 14 12

B. Shallow blackbrush C. PJ/blackbrush Year Year

Panel 12345678910 Panel 12345678910 1 33 33 1 33 33 2 33 33 2 33 33 3 33 3 3 33 3 4 33 4 33 5 33 5 33 6 33 6 33 7 3337 333 8 668 66 9 669 66 10 6610 66 11 6 11 6 12 6 12 6 13 6 13 6 14 6 14 6

Figure 2-3. Number of (A) grassland, (B) shallow blackbrush, and (B) PJ/blackbrush plots sampled each year based on 7-year rotating panel revisit designs for long-term upland monitoring at Canyonlands National Park.

In grasslands, 24 plots are sampled each year among the 4 target grassland ecological sites, and 126 unique plots are sampled over 7 years. In shallow blackbrush and PJ/blackbrush, 12 plots are sampled each year in each ecological site type, and 63 unique plots are sampled in each ecological site type over 7 years.

8 Integrated Upland Monitoring in Canyonlands National Park: Annual Report 2010 2.2 Integrated Upland Monitoring of shrubs (by species and height class) and Procedures exotic perennials (by species) is recorded in a 1-m belt upslope of each transect. Canopy 2.2.1 Response design and basal-gap measures are acquired along each transect using line-intercept methods. The response design (methods used to col- Six surface-soil samples are taken along each lect observations) for integrated upland transect to assess soil-aggregate stability. Dis- monitoring in NCPN parks is based largely turbances observed on and around the site on rangeland monitoring procedures recom- are also recorded. mended by Herrick and colleagues (2005). All measures recorded along transects are sub-samples scaled to the plot level. The 2.3 Database plot-level measures are the primary values All observations recorded in the fi eld are used in summaries and statistical analyses. stored in an NCPN Access database. Qual- ity assurance and quality control (QA/QC) At each plot, observations are recorded along procedures include domain checking in da- three parallel, 50-m transects spaced 25 m ta-entry procedures, checks for missing val- apart (Figure 2-4). At the origin of each tran- ues, and logic checks. All spatial data used in sect, a photo is taken down the length of the selecting monitoring locations, the predicted transect toward the end point. Photos of bio- ecological site map, and the GRTS-generated logical soil crusts are also taken at a specifi ed sampling locations are GIS-ArcMap shape point along each transect. A point-intercept fi les and are stored with the Access database method is used to record percent cover of on NCPN servers. plant species and ground-cover attributes at 0.5-m intervals along each transect. Density

1-ha macroplot

0 Transect 1 50 m

centroid Three 50-m transects Slope 0 Transect 2 50 m } separated by 25 m

0 Transect 3 50 m

0 50 100 m Scale

Figure 2-4. Plot layout for upland monitoring of grasslands and shrublands.

Chapter 2: Methods 9

3 Results the areas of Canyonlands NP monitored by the network, and the NCPN does not speciﬁ - cally monitor them in this park. 3.1 Monitored Plots In 2010, forty-eight plots were monitored as 3.2.2 Cover by life form and dominant part of the long-term revisit design, including species 24 grassland, 12 shallow blackbrush, and 12 Percent cover of live and total vegetation by PJ/blackbrush plots (see Figure 2-2). Twelve life form is shown in Table 3-3. Live cover in- plots (one-quarter of the plots in each eco- cludes photosynthetic and live woody tissue. logical site type) were revisited, and 36 new Total cover additionally includes dead plants, plots were established among the three eco- dead parts of live plants, and senesced tissue logical site types. Six plots in the Needles that was alive earlier in the growing season. backcountry were sampled in 2010 (see Fig- ure 2-2). Table 3-1 summarizes plot visits by Live and total percent cover of dominant ecological site type, ecological site, and year species for each ecological site type are (tables start on page 13). shown in Table 3-4. Dominant species were selected using species predicted by ecologi- 3.2 Ecological Site Type Summaries cal site descriptions and species frequently Status and trend assessments are more mean- detected in plots. The percent cover of all ingful after many years of monitoring, and as species recorded for each plot is included in the number of monitoring plots increases. an electronic appendix that accompanies this More intensive evaluation of monitoring data report (cany10_species.xls). is slated to commence after the 2012 ﬁ eld season. 3.2.3 Shrub density

For this annual report, plot-level summaries Density of shrub species for each ecological of the measures listed in Chapter 1 were gen- site type is shown in Table 3-5. In grasslands, erated for each monitoring plot, then sum- fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) oc- marized by ecological site type. Summaries curred in the highest number of plots and are simply a mean and the range (minimum, winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata) had maximum) for a measured attribute. Given the highest density. Blackbrush (Coleogyne the limited data, measures were not statisti- ramosissima) occurred in all shallow black- cally compared among ecological site types. brush and PJ blackbrush plots and had the Qualitative comparisons of summary mea- highest shrub density in both ecological site sures could be misleading given the small types. In shallow blackbrush plots, shadscale number of plots visited each year. Compari- (Atriplex confertifolia) and Torrey’s jointfi r sons between years may also be misleading (Ephedra torreyana) also had high densities. because a diff erent set of plots is visited each year. The reader is cautioned not to draw 3.2.4 Exotic species wide-reaching conclusions from this initial set of results. Cover of exotic plant species is shown in Ta- ble 3-6. When exotic species were detected, cover was summarized for all plots in the 3.2.1 Species richness ecological site type. Species richness by life form is reported in Exotic species were detected at more grass- Table 3-2. Recorded species were compared land plots (50% of plots) than in the other to the NPSpecies database to determine ecological site types (25% of shallow black- fi rst-time observations in Canyonlands NP. brush plots and 8% of PJ/blackbrush plots). No new species were detected in the park Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) was detected in 2010. A voucher was created for foothills at the greatest number of plots but only in death camas (Zigadenus paniculatus). grasslands, with cover as high as 13.7%. Most No threatened or endangered species were other exotics were only detected a single plot, found on any plots in 2010. Threatened and and had cover less than 2%. The exception endangered plant species are not common in was cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), which

Chapter 3: Results 11 was detected in all vegetation types. The only 3.2.6 Canopy and basal gaps exotic perennial species detected, Kentucky Canopy- and basal-gap sizes are shown in Ta- bluegrass (Poa pratensis), was found at one ble 3-8. The distribution of gaps by size class grassland plot. is illustrated in Figures 3-1 and 3-2 (fi gures In 2010, NCPN upland sampling methods begin on page 18). did not include an invasive species walk; therefore, lack of detection does not mean 3.2.7 Soil aggregate stability that other exotic species were not present in Measures of soil aggregate stability are re- plots. In 2011, methods will be added to in- ported in Table 3-9. Soil stability numbers clude early detection of exotics. range from 1 (least stable) to 6 (most stable) and are correlated with current erosion re- 3.2.5 Biological soil crust and surface sistance and soil biotic integrity. They also features usually refl ect hydrologic function because Biological soil crust and surface-feature cov- stable soils are less likely to disperse and clog er are shown in Table 3-7. The surface cover soil pores during rainstorms. The numbers at grassland plots was predominantly undif- are aff ected by soil texture, so it is important ferentiated crust with substantial portions to limit comparisons to similar soils that have of litter and more developed biological soil comparable amounts of sand, silt, and clay. crust components. The surface cover at PJ/ Extremely sandy soils may not have maxi- blackbrush plots was similar, and it had high- mum soil stability values of 6. er cover of more developed biological soil crust components than any other ecological site type. Shallow blackbrush plots tended to have a surface cover of small rocks and undifferentiated crust.

12 Integrated Upland Monitoring in Canyonlands National Park: Annual Report 2010 Table 3-1. Number of plots by ecological site type and ecological site monitored in Canyonlands National Park, 2006–2010. Number of plots monitored 2006 2008 2007 2009 2010 (August– (April– (May–June) (May–June) (April–May) Ecological site type Ecological site* September) August) Grassland Desert Sand 0 0 0 1 2 Desert Sandy Loam 7 8 8 10 12 Semidesert Sand 7 8 8 4 2 Semidesert Sandy Loam 8 8 8 9 8 Shallow blackbrush Desert Shallow Sandy Loam 1 8 8 10 12 PJ/blackbrush Semidesert Shallow Sandy Loam 8 8 8 12 12 Total 31 40 40 46 48

* See Table 1 for description of ecological sites.

Table 3-2. Mean (range) number of plant species detected per monitoring plot by life form and ecological site type, Canyonlands National Park, 2010. Number of species detected Ecological site type Total Tree Shrub Perennial grass Annual grass Forb/Herb 10.0 0.3 2.8 3.3 0.3 3.3 Grassland (6–20) (0–2) (0–5) (1–5) (0–2) (0–7) 9.6 0.1 5.8 1.2 0.2 2.3 Shallow blackbrush (6–12) (0–1) (4–7) (1–2) (0–1) (0–5) 9.1 1.8 5.1 0.4 0.3 1.5 PJ/blackbrush (5–12) (1–2) (3–8) (0–2) (0–1) (0–2)

Chapter 3: Results 13 4.7 1.4 1.2 1.5 (0–8.3) 1.4 (0–6.3) 0.7 (0–4.0) 0.4 (0–2.7) 0.8 (0–3.3) 2.2 (0–8.7) 1.1 (0–2.7) 1.9 ( 0–6.3) 1.7 ( 0–4.7) 1.7 ( 0–3.7) 1.1 ( 0–3.0) 2.8 (0–12.7) 2.9 (0–13.7) 1.8 (0–15.0) 5.1 (0–26.3) 3.3 (0–10.0) 5.2 ( 2.3–9.0) 7.1 (0.3–27.7) 5.8 (0.7–13.0) (0–3.7) (0.3–3.0) (0.3–17.7) 2.7 0.9 1.0 Percent cover Percent (0–9.0) (0–3.0) (0–3.3) Live Total 0.6 0.1 0.1 (0–5.7) (0–0.7) (0–0.3) 0.5 0.1 0.1 (0–5.7) (0–0.7) (0–0.3) 1.9 0.5 15.1 (0–4.3) (0–2.7) (0.7–36.3) 3.1 0.8 0.1 (0–8.3) (0–1.7) (0–0.7) 9.0 10.8 11.3 (0–17.7) (5.3–16.0) (1.7–31.3) sp.” represents indistinguishable vegetative forms of these two grasses that were detected indistinguishable vegetative forms of these two grasses that were sp.” represents Stipa . “ 5.0 6.7 7.9 (0–12.0) (3.0–9.7) (1.3–21.0) r Shrub Perennial Native(0–3.0) 1.1 0.6 0.3 9.1 Stipa hymenoides (0–5.3) (0–4.0) (1.3–20.0) blue gramaMormon teabroom snakeweedgalletapricklypear Dwarf Shrubsand dropseed Graminoidneedle and thread Perennial ShrubIndian ricegrass Perennial Native Dwarf Shrub Native Graminoid Perennial Graminoid Graminoidblackbrush Perennial 0.1 (0–1.0) jointﬁ Torrey’s Graminoid Perennial Native Perennial Perennial 0.2 (0–1.0) galleta Native Perennial Native Native Native 2.0 (0–10.0) Mormon tea Native 0.2 (0–1.0) Utah juniper 0.3 (0–2.0) 0.4 (0–2.0) 0.7 (0–4.3) pricklypear Shrubtwo-needle pinyon 0.6 (0–2.3) Graminoid Perennial Shrub Perennial Native Tree Tree Dwarf Shrub Perennial Native Perennial 3.3 (1.0–6.3) Perennial Perennial Native Native 0.7 (0–1.7) Native Native 0.9 (0–2.3) 0.7 (0–2.7) 4.8 (0.3–11.0) 2.7 (0–7.3) fourwing saltbush Shrub Perennial Nativeshadscale 0.6 (0–2.7) blackbrush Shrub Perennial Shrub Native Perennial 1.1 (0–3.7) Native 5.1 (0–18.3) and 0.5 0.2 7.5 (0–5.3) (0–2.7) (1.0–17.3) Stipa comata c name Common name Life form Duration Nativity sp.* Graminoid Perennial Native 0.8 (0–3.3) 28.2 14.0 21.4 (7.7–32.3) (8.3–32.3) (16.0–42.3) Bouteloua gracilis Ephedra viridis Gutierrezia sarothrae Hilaria jamesii Opuntia species Sporobolus cryptandrus Stipa comata Stipa hymenoides Stipa Coleogyne ramosissima Ephedra torreyana Hilaria jamesii Ephedra viridis Juniperus osteosperma Opuntia species Pinus edulis Atriplex canescens Atriplex confertifolia Coleogyne ramosissima Total Tree Shrub grass Perennial Annual grass Forbs/Herb ge) percent cover of dominant species by ecological site type, Canyonlands National Park, 2010. ge) percent 8.6 11.4 16.2 Live Total Live Total Live Total Live Total Live Total Live Total (4.7–21.3) (4.0–22.3) (7.3–22.3) site type Ecological Table 3-4. Mean (ran Table Ecological site typeGrassland Scientiﬁ Shallow blackbrush PJ/blackbrush Table 3-3. Mean (range) percent cover by life form for each ecological site type, Canyonlands National Park, 2010. 3-3. Mean (range) percent Table Grassland Shallow blackbrush PJ/ blackbrush * Flowers or seeds are necessary to distinguish * Flowers or seeds are during upland monitoring.

14 Integrated Upland Monitoring in Canyonlands National Park: Annual Report 2010 Table 3-5. Density of shrub species per hectare by ecological site type, Canyonlands National Park, 2010.

No. of plots with Density (number of shrubs/ha) Scientifi c name Common name species present* Mean Minimum Maximum Grassland Artemisia fi lifolia sand sagebrush 1 72 0 1,733 Artemisia tridentata big sagebrush 3 72 0 800 Atriplex canescens fourwing saltbush 14 250 0 1,067 Chrysothamnus nauseosus rubber rabbitbrush 1 3 0 67 Chrysothamnus viscidifl orus green rabbitbrush 2 283 0 6,733 Coleogyne ramosissima blackbrush 4 61 0 800 Ephedra viridis Mormon tea 3 458 0 6,533 Eriogonum leptocladon sand wild buckwheat 1 131 0 3,133 Juniperus osteosperma Utah juniper 1 3 0 67 Krascheninnikovia lanata winterfat 10 1,092 0 12,933 Purshia mexicana cliffrose 1 6 0 133 Quercus gambelii Gambel oak 1 11 0 267 Sarcobatus vermiculatus greasewood 2 8 0 133 Shallow blackbrush Artemisia bigelovii Bigelow’s sagebrush 3 17 0 67 Artemisia spinescens budsage 1 44 0 533 Artemisia tridentata big sagebrush 1 6 0 67 Atriplex confertifolia shadscale 10 1,022 0 3,400 Brickellia microphylla littleleaf brickellbush 4 28 0 133 Brickellia oblongifolia Mojave brickellbush 2 39 0 400 Chrysothamnus nauseosus rubber rabbitbrush 6 56 0 333 Chrysothamnus viscidifl orus green rabbitbrush 1 11 0 133 Coleogyne ramosissima blackbrush 12 1,750 933 3,000 Ephedra torreyana Torrey’s jointfi r 12 406 133 867 Ephedra viridis Mormon tea 1 6 0 67 Eriogonum corymbosum crisp-leaf wild buckwheat 1 22 0 267 Juniperus osteosperma Utah juniper 1 6 0 67 Purshia mexicana cliffrose 3 22 0 133 Rhus trilobata skunkbush sumac 2 33 0 333 PJ/blackbrush Artemisia bigelovii Bigelow’s sagebrush 4 39 0 200 Artemisia tridentata big sagebrush 1 17 0 200 Atriplex canescens fourwing saltbush 4 33 0 133 Atriplex confertifolia shadscale 1 28 0 333 Chrysothamnus nauseosus rubber rabbitbrush 3 33 0 267 Chrysothamnus viscidifl orus green rabbitbrush 3 267 0 2,533 Coleogyne ramosissima blackbrush 12 2,439 133 9,333 Ephedra torreyana Torrey’s jointfi r 3 44 0 400 Ephedra viridis Mormon tea 6 211 0 1,267 Eriogonum microthecum slender wild buckwheat 1 17 0 200 Fraxinus anomala singleleaf ash 4 61 0 467 Juniperus osteosperma Utah juniper 9 144 0 600 Mahonia fremontii Fremont’s mahonia 2 22 0 200 Pinus edulis two-needle pinyon 3 22 0 133

Chapter 3: Results 15 Table 3-5. Density of shrub species per hectare by ecological site type, Canyonlands National Park, 2010, cont.

No. of plots with Density (number of shrubs/ha) Scientifi c name Common name species present* Mean Minimum Maximum Purshia mexicana cliffrose 3 122 0 933 Rhus trilobata skunkbush sumac 2 11 0 67 Symphoricarpos longifl orus long-fl ower snowberry 1 6 0 67

* In 2010, a total of 24 grassland, 12 shallow blackbrush, and 12 PJ/blackbrush plots were monitored.

Table 3-6. Mean (range) cover and density of exotic plant species by ecological site type detected in Canyonlands National Park, 2010. No. of plots Percent cover** Density (number with exotic of exotic species Live Total perennials/ha) Scientiﬁ c name Common name Life form Duration detected* Grassland 0.4 0.5 Bromus tectorum cheatgrass Graminoid Annual 4 NA (0–5.7) (0–5.7) 0.1 0.1 Erodium cicutarium stork’s bill Forb Annual 1 NA (0–1.3) (0–1.3) 0 0.03 Halogeton glomeratus halogeton Forb Annual 1 NA (0–0.7) 0.01 0.01 4 Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass Graminoid Perennial 1 (0–0.3) (0–0.3) (0–67) 0.04 1.3 Salsola tragus Russian thistle Forb Annual 9 NA (0–0.7) (0–13.7) Shallow blackbrush 0.1 0.1 Bromus tectorum cheatgrass Graminoid Annual 2 NA (0–0.7) (0–0.7) 0.03 0.03 Malcomia africana African mustard Forb Annual 1 NA (0–0.3) (0–0.3) PJ/blackbrush 0.03 0.03 Bromus tectorum cheatgrass Graminoid Annual 1 NA (0–0.3) (0–0.3)

* In 2010, a total of 24 Grassland, 12 Shallow blackbrush, and 12 PJ/Blackbrush plots were monitored. ** Mean and range are based on all plots within a vegetation type where an exotic species was detected.

16 Integrated Upland Monitoring in Canyonlands National Park: Annual Report 2010 9.4 3.2 (0–7.3) (0–27.3) (0–14.7) 0 0.3 0.9 5.8 (0–3.3) (0.3–13.0) 3.9 44.0 (0–2.0) (0–9.3) (3.3–67.7) 0 0.3 0.6 0.03 (0–2.7) (0–0.3) 3.2 1.8 3.9 7.6 236 601 569 (1.3–5.6) (1.0–4.8) (2.3–5.4) 23.3 31.4 (87–922) (7.3–51.7) (3.7–15.3) (344–933) (13.0–35.0) (119–1,145) 0.8 1.0 2.4 3.7 2.8 4.2 (0–2.3) (0–4.7) (0.7–5.0) (1.0–6.0) (1.0–5.3) (1.0–5.5) 181 308 271 (61–773) (78–545) (202–375) 5.7 7.6 0.4 3.4 1.9 4.0 (0–2.7) (0–20.3) (1.7–9.0) (1.3–5.5) (1.0–4.6) (2.7–5.4) Canyonlands National Park, 2010. 1.5 0.5 0.1 (0–5.0) (0–4.3) (0–0.7) 2.5 1.4 Table 3-8. Mean (range) canopy- and basal-gap size by Table ecological site type, Ecological site typeGrassland Canopy gap (cm) Basal gap (cm) Shallow blackbrush PJ/blackbrush 11.3 (0–7.3) Table 3-9. Mean (range) soil-aggregate stability measures by stability measures 3-9. Mean (range) soil-aggregate Table ecological site type, Canyonlands National Park, 2010. Ecological site typeGrassland TotalShallow blackbrush Protected* Unprotected* PJ/blackbrush (0–14.0) *Protected are samples collected under vegetation; unprotected are samples are samples collected under vegetation; unprotected are *Protected collected in the open. 1 (least stable) to 6 (most stable). Numbers range from (2.3–17.0) 50.4 34.0 40.4 (30.0–82.0) (15.0–74.3) (21.3–60.0) Crust, undifferentiated Cyanobacteria Lichen Moss soil Bare Litter debris Woody Small rockrock Large Bedrock Table 3-7. Mean (range) percent cover of surface features by ecological site type, Canyonlands National Park, 2010. cover of surface features 3-7. Mean (range) percent Table Ecological site type Grassland Shallow blackbrush PJ/ blackbrush

Chapter 3: Results 17 A) Grassland B) Shallow blackbrush

C) PJ/blackbrush Canopy and/or canopy gaps <20 cm 20–50 cm

51–100 cm

101–200 cm

>200 cm

Figure 3-1. Distribution of canopy gaps for (A) Grassland, (B) Shallow blackbrush, and (C) PJ/blackbrush sites in Canyonlands National Park, 2010.

18 Integrated Upland Monitoring in Canyonlands National Park: Annual Report 2010 A) Grassland B) Shallow blackbrush

C) PJ/blackbrush Plant bases and/or basal gaps <20 cm

20–50 cm

51–100 cm

101–200 cm

>200 cm

Figure 3-2. Distribution of basal gaps for (A) Grassland, (B) Shallow blackbrush, and (C) PJ/blackbrush sites in Canyonlands National Park, 2010.

Chapter 3: Results 19

4 Discussion In 2011, forty-eight plots will be monitored ac- cording to the full operational monitoring design, including 36 new plots that will be established. In general, data from 2010 were similar to data Continued discussion will occur with Canyon- from previous years. Three-quarters of the plots lands National Park resource staff to ensure that monitored in 2010 were newly established, and park expectations and needs are satisfi ed by it is important to remember that any diff erences NCPN integrated upland monitoring. A status between years could be due to the diff erent suite and trend report will be produced after the 2012 of plots sampled and not due to actual changes fi eld season. in ecological site types. This variation will be accounted for in status and trend analyses after plots have been revisited, and it is too early to draw conclusions from these preliminary data.

Chapter 4: Discussion 21

5 Literature Cited mineral uptake by associated vascular plants. Journal of Arid Environments 47(3):347–357. Belnap, J. 2002. Nitrogen fi xation in biological soil crusts from southeast Utah, Harris, T. A., G. P. Asner, and M. E. Miller. U.S.A. Biology and Fertility of Soils 2003. Changes in vegetation structure 35:128–135. after long-term grazing in pinyon–juniper ecosystems: Integrating imaging Belnap, J., B. Budel, and O. L. Lange. 2003. spectroscopy and fi eld studies. Ecosys- Biological soil crusts: Characteristics tems 6(4):368–383. and distribution. Pages 3–30 in J. Belnap and O. L. Lange, eds., Biological soil Herrick, J. E., J. W. Van Zee, K. M. Havs- crusts: Structure, function, and manage- tad, L. M. Burkett, and W. G. Whitford. ment (second edition). Ecological Stud- 2004. Monitoring manual for grassland, ies Series 150. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. shrubland, and savanna ecosystems. Published as 2 volumes. USDA Jornada Bock, C. E., J. H. Bock, K. L. Jepsen, and Experimental Range, Las Cruces, New J. C. Ortega. 1986. Ecological eff ects Mexico. of planting African lovegrass in Ari- zona. National Geographic Research Lange, O. L. 2003. Photosynthesis of soil- 2(4):456–463. crust biota as dependent on environmental factors. Pages 217–240 in J. Bel- Evans, R. D., and O. L. Lange. 2003. Biologi- nap and O. L. Lange, eds., Biological soil cal soil crusts and ecosystem nitrogen crusts: Structure, function, and manage- and carbon dynamics. Pages 263–279 in ment (second edition). Ecological Stud- J. Belnap and O. L. Lange, eds., Bio- ies Series 150. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. logical soil crusts: Structure, function, and management (second edition). Miller, M. E. 2005. The structure and Ecological Studies Series 150. Berlin: functioning of dryland ecosystems: Springer-Verlag. Conceptual models to inform long-term ecological monitoring. U.S. Geological Garfi n, G. M., J. K. Eischeid, M. T. Lenart, K. Survey Scientifi c Investigations Report L. Cole, K. Ironside, and N. Cobb. 2010. 2005-5197. Downscaling climate projections in to- pographically diverse landscapes of the Miller, M. E., R. T. Belote, M. A. Bowker, Colorado Plateau in the arid southwest- and S. L. Garman. 2011. Alternative ern United States. In C. van Riper III, states of a semiarid grassland ecosystem: B. F. Wakeling, and T. D. Sisk, eds., The Implications for ecosystem services. Colorado Plateau IV: Shaping conserva- Ecosphere 2(5):1–18. tion through science and management. Munson, S. M., J. Belnap, C. D. Schelz, M. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Moran, and T. W. Carolin. 2011a. On Garman, S. L. 2008. Northern Colorado the brink of change: plant responses to Plateau Network, integrated upland climate change on the Colorado Plateau. monitoring, Canyonlands National Ecosphere 2(6):1–15. Park, annual report, 2007. National Park Munson, S. M., J. Belnap, and G. S. Okin. Service Northern Colorado Plateau 2011b. Responses of wind erosion to Network, Moab, Utah. climate-induced vegetation changes on Garman, S. L., D. Witwicki, and A. Wight. the Colorado Plateau. Proceedings of 2010. Mapping ecological sites for long- the National Academy of Sciences of the term monitoring in national parks. In USA 108(10):3854–3859. van Riper III, C., B. F. Wakeling, and T. Rosentreter, R., and J. Belnap. 2003. Biologi- D. Sisk, eds., The Colorado Plateau IV: cal soil crusts of North America. Pages Shaping conservation through science 31–51 in J. Belnap and O. L. Lange, eds., and management. Tucson: The Univer- Biological soil crusts: Structure, func- sity of Arizona Press tion, and management (second edition). Harper, K. T., and J. Belnap. 2001. The Ecological Studies Series 150. Berlin: infl uence of biological soil crusts on Springer-Verlag.

Chapter 5: Literature Cited 23 Society for Range Management (SRM). Whitford, W. G. 2002. Ecology of desert sys- 1989. Glossary of terms used in range tems. San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press. management. Third edition. Society for Williams, J. D., J. P. Dombrowolski, D. A. Range Management, Denver, Colorado. Gillette, and N. E. West. 1995. Micro- ——. 1995. New concepts for assessment of phytic crust inﬂ uence on wind erosion. rangeland condition. Journal of Range Transactions of the American Society of Management 48:271–282. Agricultural Engineers 38:131–137. Stevens, D. L., and A. R. Olsen. 2004. Witwicki, D. 2010a. Integrated upland moni- Spatially balanced sampling of natural toring in Canyonlands National Park: resources. Journal of the American Sta- annual report 2009. Natural Resource tistical Association 99:262–278. Technical Report NPS/NCPN/NRTR— 2010/370.N. National Park Service, Fort U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conser- Collins, Colorado. vation Service (USDA SCS). 1991. Soil survey of Canyonlands area, Utah, parts Witwicki, D. 2010b. Variance and power for of Grand and San Juan counties. Salt trend assessment of pilot data: Inte- Lake City: U.S. Department of Agricul- grated upland monitoring, Canyonlands ture, Natural Resources Conservation National Park. Natural Resource Report Service. NPS/NCPN/NRR—2010/171. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Whelan, R. J. 1995. The ecology of ﬁ re. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

24 Integrated Upland Monitoring in Canyonlands National Park: Annual Report 2010 The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientiﬁ c and other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and afﬁ liated Island Communities.

NPS 164/112903, February 2012 National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 150 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 www.nature.nps.gov

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA™