s

DATE OCUMENTS COLLECTIOM

C CT 1 5 1981

MONTANA STATE LIBRARY

J 30 E Lyndale Ave.

He'Bna, Montana 5969!

THIRD ANNUAL REPORT

Technical Report
No, 7

mOHTAMA OEPARTmCMT Or MATUKAL RESOURCES & COMSERVATIOM

FACILITY SITIMO MARCH 1901

DfiRC

Montana Slale Library

3 0864 1004 6219 4

Circle West Vegetation Monitoring Study

Third Annual Report
for the period
August 15-25, 1980

Circle West Technical Report No. 7

R. Prodgers
under contract to the
Facility Siting Division
Montana Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation
32 South Ewing
Helena, Montana 59620

March 1981

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ii

LIST OF TABLES iv

LIST OF APPENDICES vi

INTRODUCTION 1

METHODS 3

Aerial Production 3

Frequency and Canopy-Coverage 3

Species Density 3

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS 4

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 5

Aerial Production 5

Frequency and Canopy-Coverage 5

Species Density 23

DISCUSSION 30

Anomalies 30

Implications 30

RECOMMENDATIONS 32

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 34

LITERATURE CITED 35

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of Circle West vegetation exclosures 2

Figure 2. Net aerial production in Stco/Bogr-Caf i, Bogr-Cafi/Stco,

and Stco-Agsm/Bogr communities, 1977-1980 10

Figure 3. Net aerial production in Bogr, BogrMgsm and Agsm/Bogr

communities, 1977-1980 10

Figure 4. Net aerial production in Ansc, Ansc-Agsp, and Agsp/

Bogr-Cafi communities, 1977-1980 11

Figure 5. Net aerial production in Dist, Dist-Agsm, and Arca/Agsm/

Bogr communities, 1977-1980 11

Figure 6. Net aerial production of two grasses in the Agsm/Bogr

community, 1977-1980 12

Figure 7. Net aerial production of two grasses in the Bogr/Agsrr'

community, 1977-1980 12

Figure 8. Net aerial production of two grasses in the Stco/Bogr-

Cafi community, 1977-1980 13

Figure 9. Net aerial production of three species in the Bogr-Cafi/

Stco community, 1977-1980 13

Figure 10. Net aerial production of three grasses and

hemicryptophytes in the Stco-Agsm/Bogr community,

1977-1980 14

Figure 11. Net aerial production of three species in the Agsp/Bogr-

Cafi community, 1977-1980 14

Figure 12. Net aerial production of three species in the Arca/Agsm/

Bogr community, 1977-1980 15

Figure 13. Net aerial production of Agropyron smithii in five

communities, 1977-1980 15

Figure 14. Net aerial production of Bouteloua gracilis in seven

communities, 1977-1980 16

Figure 15. Net aerial production of Stipa comata in three

communities, 1977-1980 16

Figure 16. Net aerial production of Carex filifolia in three

communities, 1977-1980 17

Figure 17. Net aerial production of Distichlis stricta in two

communities, 1977-1980 17

Figure 18. Species density in the Dist community, 1978-1980 24

ii

I

List of Figures (contirmed)

Figure 19. Species density in the Bogr community, 1978-1980 24

Figure 20, Species density in the Agsm/Bogr community,

1978-1980 25

Figure 21. Species density in the Stco/Bogr-Caf i community,

1978-1980 25

Figure 22. Species density in the Bogr /Agsm community, 1978-1980 26

Figure 23. Species density in the Bogr-Caf i/Stco community,

1978-1980 26

Figure 24. Species density in the Dist-Agsm community, 1978-1980 27

Figure 25. Species density in the Agsp/Bogr-Caf i community,

1978-1980 27

Figure 25. Species density in the Arca/Agsm/Bogr community,

1978-1980 28

Figure 27. Species density in the Stco-Agsm/Bogr community, 1978-1980.28

Figure 28. Species density in the Ansc community, 1978-1980 29

Figure 29. Species density in the Ansc-Agsp community, 1978-1980 29

Xll

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Distichlis striata Community Productivity 6

Table 2. Distichlis stricta - Agropyron smithii Community

Productivity 6

Table 3. Bouteloua gracilis Community Productivity 6

Table 4. Agropyron smithii/Bouteloua gracilis Community

Productivity 7

Table 5. Bouteloua gracilis/Agropyron smithii Community

Productivity 7

Table 6. Stipa comata/Bouteloua gracilis - Carex f ilifolia

Community Productivity 7

Table 7. Bouteloua gracilis - Carex f ilifolia/Stipa comata

Community Productivity 8

Table 8. Stipa comata - Agropyron smithii/Bouteloua gracilis

Community Productivity 8

Table 9. Andropogon scoparius Community Productivity 8

Table 10. Andropogon scoparius - Agropyron spicatum Community

Productivity 9

Table 11. Agropyron spicatum/Bouteloua gracilis - Carex filifolia

Community Productivity 9

Table 12. Artemisia cana/Agropyron smithii/Bouteloua gracilis

Community Productivity 9

Table 13. Botanical composition of communities based upon average

canopy-coverage and frequency 18

Table 14. Boqr/Agsm Community Canopy-Coverage and Frequency 20

Table 15. Agsm/Bogr Community Canopy-Coverage and Frequency 20

Table 16. Arca/Agsm/Bogr Community Canopy-Coverage and Frequency. . .20

Table 17. Stco/Bogr-Caf i Community Canopy-Coverage and Frequency .. .20

Table 18. Bogr-Cafi/Stco Community Canopy-Coverage and Frequency. . .21

Table 19. Stco-Agsm/Bogr Community Canopy-Coverage and Frequency. . .21

Table 20. Ansc Community Canopy-Coverage and Frequency 21

Table 21. Agsp/Bogr-Cafi Community Canopy-Coverage and Frequency. . .21

IV

\

List of Tables (continued)

I

Table 22. Ansc-Agsp Comnnmity Canopy-Coveraqe and Frequency 22

Table 23. Bogr Community Canopy-Coverage and Frequency 22

Table 24. Dist Community Canopy-Coveraqe and Frecjuency 22

Table 25. Dist-Agsm Community Canopy-Coverage and Frequency 22

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. Plant species listed by family 36

Appendix B. Plant species listed by life form 45

VI

INTRODUCTION

The Circle West vegetation studies, established to describe existing
vegetation and to monitor the long-term productivity and canopy-coverage of
selected plant communities in McCone County, Montana, began in 1976 at the
request of Dreyer Brothers, Inc.

The Circle West Vegetation Baseline Study (Prodgers 1978) identified
community types for the study area through cluster analysis of 1976 vegetation
data. Community types were described botanical ly and associated sites were
characterized. Using this information, thirteen exclosures (figure 1) were
chosen for long-term monitoring in order to provide a data base for assessment
of strip mine reclamation success and possible air pollution effects.
Productivity and canopy-coverage were measured at these exclosures from 1977 to
1979 (Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 1979a, b). The
data reported here represent the results of the third annual monitoring study
conducted in August 1980. These results are compared with those of the 1977
baseline study, and the 1978 and 1979 monitoring studies.

-1-

R. 44 E.

R 45 E.

' ■ <f '^"■■* i/ ' ■"// ^ '^'- '^^ ''■■^' VH' •'

y^-j

1^

w-

'" ' W''" tWi'' ■•■■ ■^

FIGURE I. LOCATION OF CIRCLE WEST VEGETATION EXCLOSURES

(NOTE: Exclosure 13, Bogr-Caf i/Stco, is located off the map in the
southwest corner, Sec. 8, T. 20 N. R. 46 E.)

■2-

METHODS
Aerial Production

Twelve permanently-fenced exclosures (figure 1) were sampled during the 1980
study. (Note: exclosure No. 9, Juho/Ansc-Agsp, is shown on figure 1 but was
not sampled in 1980.) In 1980, productivity sampling procedures were the same
as those used in 1977, 1978, and 1979. The number of samples taken per
exclosure was determined from previous data. Sampling took place from August 15
through August 25, 1980.

After clipping, four exclosures were opened for grazing to reduce litter
accumulation from previous years. These exclosures contained the following
communities: Dist-Agsm, Arca/Agsra/Bogr , Stco/Bogr-Caf i , and Bogr-Caf i/Stco.
Because of excessive litter buildup, grazing of other exclosures was desired,
but livestock were not present in many pastures containing exclosures.
Livestock use of exclosures was monitored frequently; nevertheless, this use
ranged from very light (Bogr-Caf i/Stco) to heavy (Stco/Bogr-Cafi) . All
exclosures were closed to grazing by autumn 1980.

Frequency and Canopy-Coverage

Within each exclosure, twenty permanently-located 20 cm x 50 cm plots were sampled
for frequency and plant canopy-coverage using a modification of the technique
described by Daubenmire (1959). Unlike Daubenmire's technique, cover classes
were not used, but plant canopy-coverage for each species was estimated as
accurately as possible. The same series of plots were sampled in 1980 as in
previous years. These plots have never been clipped. Color transparencies of
each plot were taken at the time of sampling.

Species Density

Canopy-coverage data were used to determine species number for each
community type. In each exclosure, the average number of species per plot
(species density) and the number of species per set of 20 plots were calculated
using the 1977-1980 data.

-3-

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS

On the average, the study area receives about 14 inches of precipitation
annually. However, precipitation varies greatly between years and between sites
near the study area (Prodgers 1978). Because convective storms, rather than
cyclonic storms, often account for much of the spring-summer precipitation,
neither records at Circle (23 kilometers southeast of the study area) nor Fcrt
Peck (60 kilometers north-northwest of the study area) accurately represent
precipitation at the study area. Plans to establish meteorological stations at
the study area have not materialized.

In 1977, which was a very dry year, some exclosures suffered from heavy
grasshopper infestation. The winter of 1977-78 was severe and resulted in
above-average snowfall. The spring and summer of 1978 were extremely wet and
were followed by another winter of heavy snowfall. These conditions ameliorated
the effects of the rather dry year of 1979. The winter of 1979-80 was quite
dry, and by summer 1980, the area was in a severe drought. The study area
sustained very little grasshopper damage in 1978, 1979, and 1980.

The study area received an estimated 1.5 inches of precipitation from
January through July 1980. In early August, about 1.5 inches of rain fell.
Vegetation was still responding to this precipitation at the time of clipping.
Once again. Circle precipitation records failed to reflect conditions in the
study area. At Circle, May-June precipitation was 2.35 inches, while April-July
precipitation was 4.15 inches. Such differences in rainfall illustrate the need
for on-site monitoring of the water balance.

-4-

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Aerial Production

Tables 1 through 12 and figures 2 through 5 summarize productivity and
litter accumulation for the 1977-1980 study period. Means are expressed in
kilograms per hectare with 90% confidence limits. (For pounds per acre,
multiply kilogram per hectare values by 0.892.) When data from both halves of
each exclosure were compared, all exclosures were found to be internally
homogeneous at the .05 probability level, which further supports the hypothesis
(DNRC 1979a) that high precipitation increases heterogeneity for these
communities. During the four-year study period, aerial production has varied,
for the most part, with precipitation. Aside from the great variability in
productivity, plant community types with similar production in some years can
have quite different production in other years, and the ranking of community
types by production can change dramatically.

Species have evolved different strategies to cope with the factors affecting
survival and reproduction, so changes in species composition as well as total
production are not remarkable. Six communities were selected to portray some
effects of climatic conditions on species composition (figures 6 through 12).
The response of mid-grasses is far more variable than the response of short-
grasses. However, this phenomenon may be explained better in terms of root
structure or phenology than plant height. (In reviewing figures 6 through 17,
the reader should note that the number of samples taken each year was based on
statistical requirements concerning total production, not statistical
requirements for each major species.)

Not only does aerial production vary among species, it also varies within
certain species in different communities and on different sites. Effectiveness
of precipitation may be modified by slope position, horizontal configuration,
edaphic factors, interception, and precipitation intensity and duration. When
moisture is available, competition affects production of each species
differently, depending upon the species composition of the community. Figures
13 through 17 portray the variable responses of some major species in different
communities. Production of Bouteloua gracilis is amazingly variable; this high
variability is corroborated by canopy-coverage data.

Frequency and Canopy-Coverage

Table 13 shows canopy-coverage data for 1980. Tables 14 through 25
summarize canopy-coverage and frequency of major species for the study period.

Plant canopy-coverage has varied with precipitation, but not synchronously
with production due to the obvious differences in measurement techniques.
Because the same plots were sampled each year, these data may clarify changes
suggested by the production data, if it is not clear whether the suggested
changes are real or an artifact of sampling.

The following discussion compares data from 1978, a very wet year, and
1980, a very dry year, to demonstrate the contrast in species composition based
upon canopy -cove rage. Canopy-coverage estimation is not a precise
measurement , and sampling error may be + 10% or more for single-stem grasses.

-5-

Table 1. Oistichlis stricta Community Productivity (kq/ha)

Pi St Litter I P roductfyTty"

1977 970+ 95 430+ fi4 970* 95

1978 1055± 123 41 e-: 88 1075*-. 1 16

1979 1226t 141 348t 147 1230.': 137

1980 1477t 167 1147t 474 1 526± 148

Table 2. Oistichlis stricta - Agropyron smithii Community Productivity (kq/ha)

Dist

Aqsm

Hemi

Litter

L Productivity

1977

676 ± 138

72 ±

21

51± 20

1071± 195

81 3± 122

1978

1393 t 177

418 ±

106

167± 55

521+ 77

2071+ 230

1979

856 t 174

252 ±

75

I64± 39

1432± 229

1248i: 211

1980

585 ± 114

108 ±

30

92+ 37*

2434+ 507

778+ 97

* Includinq Routeloua qracil is and lesser amounts of Stipa comata , Cajrex
fil ifol ia, and Koeleria cristata. Elsewhere in this exclosure is a qrowinq
patch of Spartina gracilis.

Table 3. Bouteloua gracilis Community Productivity (kq/ha)

Boqr Litter Z Productivity

1977
1978
1979
1980

1 70± 15

38+ 38

198t 26

51 3± 175

375+ 67

778+ 248

606+ 107

458± 192

632*: no

199± 22

790+ 457

199+ 22

-6-

Tahle 4. Aqronvron smithi iV^outeloua qracilis Communitv Proflucti vity (kn/ha)

Aasm

Ronr

Litter

Z Productivity

1977

U4t 48

44±

14

S78± 177

202± SO

1Q78

in^?+ 137

4U±

78

36 3± 68

167?± 148

1979

464± 75

130+

?5

994 t 190

674+ 75

1930

7.2± 4.0

193±

9S

1187± 172

217± 95

Table 5. Rnuteioiia aracil is/Aaropyron snithii Comniiinity Productivity fkq/ha)

Roor

Aqsm

Litter

Z Prodiictivitv

1977
1^78
1979
1980

12 ± 4

203 + 53

134 ± 25

258 ± 66

3.6 ± 2.2
1610 + 235
528 + 64
72+38

38 ± 10

280 ± 48

1460 + 203

1758 ± 345

16 ± 6.3

1Q55 ± 258

674 ± 68

331 ± 53

Table 6. Stipa comata/Routelnua gracil is - Carex fili^olia Comniimitv Productivity

(kq/ba)

Stco

Roqr

Litter

E Productivity

1977

189 + 25

22 +

7

162 ±

31

218 ±

26

1978

856 + 111

54 +

23

120 ±

3*^

1141 ±

104

1979

312 ± 73

54 +

11

536 +

137

7^8 t

70

1980

383 + 133

86 ±

39

1020 ±

249

633 ±

96

Table 7. Routeloua gracilis - Carex fi lifol ia/Stipa coma t a Connuni tv Productivity

(kq/hf

Boqr

Ca fi

Stco

Litter
247 ± 51

T. Productivity

1977

131 t 9

95 ± 15

138 ±

28

406 ± 42

1978

253 ± 53

183 t 51

662 t

126

267 •; 67

l:?QO '; ]9>^

1979

228 ± 92

170 t 85

334 ±

107

558 t 162

840 .': 116

1980

248 ± 48

86 t 58

136 +

73

763 ± 175

505 i: 114

Table 8. Stipa conata - Aqropyron smithii/Bouteloua gracilis Community Productivity

(kq/h

Stco

Agsm

Boqr

Hemi

Litter

Z Productivit

1977

97 ± 16

68 ±

24

70 ± 20

56 ± 17

417 + 75

334 ± 40

1978

354 ± 103

421 t

107

93 ± 43

342 ± 100

356 ± 97

1420 i 128

1979

194 ± 73

370 ±

136

140 ± 38

118 + 43

914 ± 330

886 ± 132

1980

84 ± 28

103 ±

35

90 ± 46

52 ± 32*

1231 ± 145

344 ± 43

* Mostly

Carex fili

fol ia.

Table 9. Andropogon scoparius Community Productivity (kg/ha)

Ansc

Hemi

Litter

Z Productivity

1977

800 ±

170

68 ±

24

1084 ± 211.

840 ± 155

1978

698 ±

107

194 ±

64

660 ± 134

1049 ± 120

1979

954 ±

236

120 ±

29

734 ± 243

1056 ± 305

1980

161 t

27

132 ±

42

1247 ± 362

339 ± 39

Table 10. Andropoqon scoparius - Agropyron spicatum Community Productivity

(kq/ha)

Ansc Aqsp Hemi Litter z Productivity

1977 10? t 69 182 t 41 ^OB*- 38 946 ± 193 560 ± 78

1978 128 ± 98 315 ± 101 513!: 99 438 t 148 1 1 52 i 155

1979 104 + 102 268 ± 88 394± 102 774 i 194 902 t 143

1980 26 t 26 132 t 50 261t 105* 1051 t 264 465 t 78

* Mostly Muhlenberqia cuspidata, Aristida longiseta, and to a lesser extent
Stipa comata.

Table 11. Aqropyron spicatum/Bouteloua qracil is - Carex fil ifol ia

Community Productivity (kq/ha)

Aqsp Boqr Cafi Hemi Cham* Litter z Productivity

1977 116± 23 39+ 16 36± 1 1 44± 1 5 142± 71 727± 168 372± 45

1978 51 7^ 133 SS^. 36 78i 22 365± 79 183+ 67 306± 76 1284t 95

1979 596± 99 48+ 19 52± 1 1 86+ 38 96+ 33 520+ 78 866+ 132

1980 143+ 56 74+ 52 30± 9 51± 34 1 34± 85.6 102U 342 441± 71

* Biomass of Guiterrezia sarothrae. Phlox hoodii, and Certoides lanata.

Table 12. Artemisia cana/Agropyron smithii/Bouteloua qracil is

Community Productivity (kg/ha)

Area Aqsm Boqr Hemi Litter E Productivity

1977 398t 163 115+ 31 134+ 37 80± 33 753+ 262 800± 172

1978 6021: 145 666+ 61 262+ 65 258± 82 633± 185 2024± 175

1979 698+ 352 656+ 119 418+104 138 1752+ 615 1970+ 313

1980 278+ 122 132± 47 321 ± 101 52 6929t 3621 763± 156

1500-

1300-

1100-

o 900-

■* 700-

500-

300-

100-

• Stco/Bogr-Cofi

• Bogr-Cofi/Stco

•••.....•Stco-Agsm/Bogr

I

T

1977 1978

—I 1

1979 1980

2I00-,

1900-

• Bogr

• Bogr/Agsm

• Agsm/Bogr

1977

1978 1979

Figure 2. Net aerial production in

Stco/Bogr-Cafi, Bogr-Caf i/Stco,
and Stco-Agsm/Bogr communities,
1977-1980.

Figure 3. Net aerial production
in Bogr, Bogr/Agsm and
Agsm/Bogr communities,
1977-1980.

■10-

1500-1
1300-
1100-
900-
700-
500-
300-
100-

> Ansc

• Ansc-Agsp

• Agsp/Bogr-Cafi

Figure 4.

— 1 1 1 1

1977 1978 1979 1980

Net aerial production in
Ansc, Ansc-Agsp, and
Agsp/Bogr-Cafi conmunities ,
1977-1980.

2500-

2300-

2100-

1900-

1700-

1500-

o 1300-

■* 1100-

900-

700-

500-

300-

100-

• Dist

• Dist-Agsm

• Arca/Agsm/Bogr

1 1 1 1

1977 1978 1979 1980

Figure 5. Net aerial production
in Dist, Dist-Agsm,
and Arca/Agsm/Bogr
communities, 1977-1980.

■11-

■ Agsm
Bogr

1100-1

1000-

900-

800-

700-

600-

500

400-

300-

200-

100-

1800-1

1600-

1400-

1200-

1000-

800-

600-

400-

200-

1977 1978 1979

1980

Figure 6. Net aerial production of
two grasses in the
Agsin/Bogr community,
1977-1980.

Figure 7. Net aerial production
of two grasses in the
Bogr/Agsm community,
1977-1980.

■12-

■Stco

• Bogr

900-1

800-

700-

600-

500-

400-

300-

200-

100-

stco

• —

—

Bogr

• —

Cofi

700-1

600-

500-

400-

300-

200-

100-

> •—

T

T

T

T

T

T

1977 1978 1979 1980

1977 1978 1979 1980

Figure 8. Net aerial production of two
grasses in the Stco/Bogr-Caf i
community, 1977-1980.

Figure 9. Net aerial production
of three species in
the Bogr-Cafi/Stco
community, 1977-1980.

-13-

Stco

• Agsm

*— Bogr

«...

500-1

400-

300-

200-

100-

Hemicryptophytes
(mostly Cafi)

T

T

1977

1978 1979

1980

•

— Agsp

•

— Bogr

•

— Cafi

600-1

500-

400-

300-

200-

100-

—1 1 —

1977 1978

1979

1980

Figure 10. Net aerial production of three
grasses and hemicryptophytes
in the Stco-Agsm/Boqr community,
1977-1980.

Figure 11. Net aerial production
of three species in
the Agsp/Bogr-Cafi
community, 1977-1980.

-14-

700-

600-

500-

400-

300-

200-

100-

//

• • • • • 'Agsm/Bogr

• — Bogr/Agsm

» Stco-Agsm/Bogr

• Arca/Agsm/Bogr

• Dist-Agsm

T

T

1977 1978

— I 1

1979 1980

1 r

1978 1979

Figure 12. Net aerial production of three
species in the Arca/Agsm/Bogr
community, 1977-1980.

Figure 13. Net aerial production
of Agropyron smith! i
in five communities,
1977-1980.

-15-

700 ^

600-

500-

400-

300

200-

100-

•• Agsm/Bogr

• Bogr/Agsm

• Sfco/Bogr-Cofi

• Bogr-Cafi/Stco

• St CO- Agsm/Bogr

• Agsp/Bogr-Cafi

• Arca/Agsm/ Bogr

• Bogr

900-1

800-

700-

600-

500-

400-

300-

200-

100-

-i 1 r

1977 1978 1979 1980

• Stco/Bogr-Cofi

• Bogr-Cofi/Stco

*— • — Stco-Agsm/Bogr

1 1

1977 1978

1979

1980

Figure 14. Net aerial production of

Bouteloua gracilis in seven
communities, 1977-1 980.

Figure 15. Net aerial production
of Stipa comata in
three communities,
1977-1980.

-16-

400-1

300-

200-

100-

•Bogr-Cafi/Stco

•- Stco-Agsm/Bogr -X-

• Agsp/Bogr-Cafi

* Includes minor amounts of
other hemicryptophytes.

1500-

1400-

1300-

1200-

1100-

1000-

900-

800-

700-

600-

500-

400-

300-

200-

100-

Dist

Dist- Agsm

1977

1978

1979

1980

—I 1 1 1

1977 1978 1979 1980

Figure 16. Net aerial production of Carex
filifolia in three conimunities,
1977-1980.

Figure 17. Net aerial production
of Distichlis stricta
in two comitiunities,
1977-1980.

■17-

•^ 01

4J >

t- O

1/1 o

O I

& >>

E a

o o

tj c

o >

ooin oo-^-* -^^cir c inoc

— .— ^ ,.,_u-) mcvjcvj oj ^vc.—

u

lA

^^<\j ^.— .— — o^- -^ e\jr^.—

c

«t

c — o oc c c oj .— c .— esj c

^

,^^

o

o

•*->

m

trt

•

^

O

ir>

,„^

o ^* o ^ — -^ '-^

o m o U-) ^^ o o

I ^.

. — ^. f— f^ m po ro

O E L

u »/i cn

^ n o ^ ro X ^

*J CT O

C>0 «t OQ

— o cr oc o o .—

.— CSJ j

^,_^

c

--^ o

o .—

L.

^^ in

Cn

O

• CT>

m

o in

,,_^

^-» o

O O LO o *—

t

-4J E

tf) V)

LP ^ 00 0> •

-r- CD

• . . • C\J

O ««

r^ 1— n c ^

.— ^-N.

in o o m o o

^ 1

m f— o^ (Ti ** in

Q, L f-

</> C >*-

f— 00 ^ r-^ in t£j

cr o 03

■t CQ CJ

.— ro cm ^ m

C\J CV'

O —

-^ O o

■«>^

U-) ^ o

E s-

^o .^^ ^

cn cr

.^ *£J ^^

o- o

in • «s-

<Xi CD

. CO

ro PO 00

^-^ *— »

o c ^--

o o o

"^

r— r- CM

«- E

C (/>

r^ OC C\J

o ai

oD «s:

CTi ^ .—

ro

,_

in LO «:j- mo - — 'in in m ---^- — - o m . —

1

r^m-^- csjCMin.— cvrn mm .— cvm

U Q.

cn 1/1

r-cr • ^m.— ccom moo .— om

C Cr

■< <i

o^in— — ^oc—- CO oc o.— CM

o ^-^

^-^ c c ^^^

o 1— c m m o

1 "^

<\J r- «d- .— 1—

e — o

cr.*.- u

m . r^ r-^ m m

o n ■*->

• cv . • . .

CO cj t/^

o c\j cc .— CM o

^,^^ . ^

o c

o o -^

*^^ 1

.— r— in

o e -r-

u cr<4-

m C r-

4-> O <tJ

• • •

i/i cc o

m r^ o

,,-^

^.v. "*«^

o c o c mo-— ^-o

<o E i-

r— CTicocM co.~m in.—

u tn cr

I- cr o

. — CTimo m< — CO mm

■X «*: cc

00 UDO<— ^OOC OO

^ CM

»/< d -3-3 oi

B

LOi

=

S c 'd 3

3

E

3

tJl 3

•--1 t/^MM 'dl'cji'oll -1=1,

n

L

4-> U

fd

(J -^ .^ .^ o

TO

in E

t^-S

+-= "3^ _j '^

o

4-^

ns

<V C

■c

^ o -d , .-

^

O 3

o +3 fd

Ol

«t-

-C

fO

Q

trt 3

> -.-1 d d <Tji c

»-

r— -^

L TO . +J

(J

QJ

+->

u

O

■ t- <T3

O

C7

O tA

. ^ q 3^ ■- TO

>

.— TO

Llr-

TOi TO ■*-) C TO

c

p_

u

CL cn c

13

■C =3

Q. TO^»-i 4->|.— >

^

4J^-

TO| QJi ml t/t in +j

3

E

a.

in

1/1 C fW

L

L

3 4->

in tJ Ol O »—

o.

> 3

int TO

4-) C — . U

</i (/>

Ol O

■o

«♦-

.- TO

, cr. TO

t-H*-l >

o

.-c

1 a

C '^1 TO

I- TO

cr

E

c

<T>

•— "J

in , **-

, -.-1 (n

c

(/)

c

in

TO| O -^

ol^

3

TO

c

c o

«

'O

ti

TO

r—

=5 '^ —

TO — , c

a-

•r-

3

■>—

TO|» — ' U Nt

Q.

■^

1

(D

o

O C71

t-

m

TO .—1 3l ■.-

■-i OJ

■*-'

(/)

<Ui O OJ

TO

OJ

E

OJ

u

>% o

ITJ

■o

in

in

W

in

**- TO C >

3

>*-i o

in

Q

E J=

u

TO Ol t.

I.

in

in

>^

H ex

C

. (^^1 O

C

, , c

3 U

TO

1 t-

L.

QJ

<L>

r—

2

d o

C

4->

C:

'i

E

E

t-

TO OJ E

TO

X X

X (/I

c

+J

TOi 0)

<U

3

t-

■O

o

O l-

(U

tfl

0)

<D

QJ

OJ

OJ

t^ J-J TO

O,

CD OJ

<U >T.

in ■*->

O

t_ '.-

C7

4->

O

jr

L.

t~ -o

4-1

■r- 4->

■I-)

■M

4J

4~>

4-> Z) .—

E

U U

1- H «-| in

s=

L.

3l-»->

a;

in

TO

cr

u

cr

cr c

c

»-! t-

t_

(-

L.

tn

in O TO

TO

TO TO

TO x:!-.-)-.-

u

3

TOI 3

o

<U

•^

>J

•a:

<t

«C

1*3:

*^

<f

<f

<C

«t

<«

ct

■tICD O

C_J

CJ)I<_>

o

'O

O

lO

UJ

LkJ

cj'cj}

^

— i

1

_i

1

-18-

■o
a

3
C

+J

C

o
u

— '— o c

o

c

c

ir o c" c

iCt

«J

CJ

.—

^

ir- u" oc cr

iA

C

^

o

c

mo ro C

<

f^ *.C

-—•>—.

o o

o o

m

CNJ

4-»

cc c«

(/I

Ot

•

^ 00

o

o

IT) .—

— ,— ^-s

o o o

IT"

O CO

O E u

u (/I cr

^

O in en

+j o- o

•

l>^ «I CD

r—

00 O r^

— ^O

o o

ir»

o —

rv.

t>

— ^UD

cr.

^ •

O

•

oo

1

*—

CO 00

__

^-. ^^o o

••— ^

O

li-> o o o

IT)

C\J

m U-) ,_ ,_

■M E

bO t/)

OO

^

oc tr> cr .—

•1- cr

•

o «r

o

o

CO

, ^^

^—

^^ o o

ID -— . O O

■^^ t

o

s

o

r~~ ir> . — . —

c. t- ••-

CVJ

CO

»/) cr t«_

'S- LP CTi o

cr o (o

^*

CVJ

C\J

Ct CD (_J

•

^ o k£ o^

*""

in

o

^ r- "^

, ,,

-— o o

c o o

OJ ,— f—

E t-

yi cri

r- r- cc

cr o

• • •

<C iE

m ^ ui

r- O

cr <*_ ^j
O m 4->

CD LJ CO

ro 1 — .—
o ^ o

o o

-— .'--— o o
O O LD f— r—
ir> CM r— •— -^

'— '*— ^ — -r^ oc

o tr> CO > •

- • . cr. ID

cr. r— o CM "Tj

— - — >o o
-— »m in o o

in CM CM .— r—

OC o lo r- CO

Ifl

TS

«3| W

L

ojI c

(U

c

a>

u

t-

c

u

=3

F

o

o

3

u

iA

v»l

n

o

<u

e

cr ^

1 tJj X

-19-

Table 14. Boqr/Aqsn Community Canopy-Coveraqe aivi Fre<niency

1978 1979 1980

Boqr 44.5 (100)1/ 41.3 (100) 34.8 (100)

Aqsm 47.0 (100) ?3.5 (100) 9.7 (100)

Litter 6.4 (100) 34.5 (100) 64.0 (100)

Table 15. Aqsn/Boqr Community Canopy-Coveraqe and Frequency

1_978 1_979 1980

Aqsm 48.8 (100)1/ 37.5 (100) 3.5 (65)

Boqr ?8.a (100) 36.7 (100) 33.6 (100)

Litter 15.3 (100) 45.3 (100) 75.8 (TOO)

Table 16. Arca/Aqsm/Boqr Community Canopy-Coveraqe and Frequency

T_978 1_979 1980

Area 43.? (85)1/ 37.? (80) 46.9 (90)

Aqsm 35.5 (100) ??.0 (95) 8.1 (100)

Boqr 33.0 (70) 21.7 (75) 26.5 (85)

Litter 75.5 (100) 65.5 (100) 88.8 (100)

Table 17. Stco/Boqr-Caf i Community Canopy-Coveraqe and Frequency

1978 1979 1980

Stco 66.8 (100)1/ 48.0 (100) 46.2 (100)

Bo.qr 8.6 (80) 10.7 (100) 17.0 (100)

Cafi — -- 0.1 (5)

Aqsm — 10.0 (100) 6.5 (100)

Litter 9.1 (100) 23.8 (100) 38.9 (100)

1/Canopy-coveraqe (Frequency)

•20-

Table 1!^. Boqr-Caf i/Stco Community Canopy-Coverage and Frequency

1978 1979 1980

Boqr 37,0 (100)1/ 29.8 (100) 22.8 (100)

Cafi 16.1 (95) 12. S (100) 8.7 (100)

Stco 43.3 (100) 37.8 (100) 26.6 (100)

Litter 24.0 (100) 21.8 (100) 45.5 (100)

Table 19. Stco-Aqsm/Roqr Community Canopy-Coveraqe and Frequency

1978 1979 1980

Stco , 27.3 (100)1/ 16.0 (80) 18.0 (100)

Aqsm 24.0 (100) 21.2 (100) 11.6 (TOO)

Boqr 19.8 (100) 12.7 (95) 20.0 (100)

Cafi 20.7 (90) 13.6 (80) 8.4 (75)

Litter 26.5 (100) 35.7 (100) 77.3 (100)

Table 20. Ansc Community Canopy-Coveraqe and Frequency

1978 1979 1980

Ansc 55.5 (lOO)L/ 60.2 (100) 41.4 (100)

Litter 59.5 (100) 41.3 (100) 60.0 (100)

Table 21. Aqsp/Boqr-Caf i Community Canopy-Coveraqe and Frequency

1978 1979 1980

Aqsp 3Q.5 (100)1/ 34.3 (100) 23.8 (100)

Bo-]r 20.8 (85) 12.1 (80) 20.4 (90)

Cafi 7.8 (95) 6.1 (95) 5.7 (95)

Stco 10.5 (60) 8.0 (60) 11.4 (75)

Outsar 10.8 (35) 4.3 (55) 3.6 (50)

Litter 40.5 (100) 32.5 (100) 69.0 (100)

—' Canopy-coveraqe (Freqiiency)

Table 22. Ansc-Aqsp Community Canopy-Coveraqp and Frequency

^978 1_979 1980

Ansc 12.1 (55)2/ '3-"' C^*^) '^•'^ (5^)

Aqsp 12.5 (55) 8.8 (55) ^. / (75)

Arilon 7.0 (25) 7.8 (30) 11.5 (40)

.Stco 10.3 (45) 5.2 (35) 9.0 (SO)

Muhcus 9.7 (60) 9.4 (60) 9.0 (60)

Cafi 16.5 (65) 12.4 (70) 8.5 (55)

Litter 50.5 (100) 21.8 (100) 45.8 (100)

Table 23. Boqr Community Canopy-Coveraqe and Frequency

1978 1979 1980

Bogr 93.2 (100^/ 81.0 (100) 59.5 (100)

Agsm 3.8 (100) 2.0 (15) 0.1 (10)

Litter 34.5 (100) 22.8 (100) 81.6 (100)

Table 24. Dist Community Canopy-Coveraqe and Frequency

1978 1979 1980

Dist 57.3 (1001]/ 43.3 (100)* 54.3 (100)

Litter 24.5 (100) 26.3 (100) 13.3 (100)

* This anomalously low value appears to be the result of underestimation
(source: color transparencies).

Table 25. Dist-Aqsm Community Canopy-Coveraqe and Frequency

1_978 1_979 1980

Dist 43.4 (1001]/ 29.8 (100)* 42.5 (100)

Aqsm 23.2 (100) 11.8 (85) 7.5 (100)

Litter 73.5 (100) 62.0 (100) 87.1 (100)

* This anomalously low value appears to be the result of underestimation
(source: color transparencies).

]_/ Canopy-coveraqe (Frequency)

-22-

Even so, many significant changes are suggested (see tables 14 through 25). In
stands where Bouteloua gracilis was a dominant species, canopy-coverage
decreased by an average of 24?4 in five exclosures ,and increased by an average of
38% in three others. Overall, canopy-coverage decreased an insignificant 3%.
Carex filifolia coverage decreased by an average of 44% in three exclosures
where it is a major species. Stipa comata decreased by an average of 34% in
three exclosures, but did not change significantly in two others where Agropyron
spicatum was a dominant. Except for the variable response of B_^ gracil is , these
results are not surprising in view of weather variations. Coverage of Artemisia
cana did not change significantly. Andropogon scoparius coverage decreased by
an average of 39% in two exclosures. Agropyron spicatum coverage decreased by
an average of 31% in two exclosures. Coverage of Distichlis stricta did not
decrease significantly.

With the exception of B_^ gracilis . the behavior of the major range grasses
previously mentioned is rather consistent. However, Agropyron smithii coverage
decreased by an average of 74% in five exclosures, a far greater decrease than
shown by any other major grass. In the Agsm/Bogr exclosure, coverage of A^
smithii decreased by 97%.

The observed variation in coverage is thought to have been caused by changes
in the amount of water available to vegetation relative to the amount needed.
It is true that decreasing plant coverage is correlated with increasing litter,
but litter accumulation is thought to be a manifestation of climatic conditions
and livestock exclosures , and only a secondary cause of the coverage changes.
Another wet year coupled with weather measurements in the study area would prove
or disprove this hypothesis.

Species Density

Species density is the simplest measure of diversity. Figures 18 through 29
portray, for each community type, the average number of species per 0.1 m" plot
and the number of species encountered in twenty such plots.

Using canopy-coverage data for all communities combined, the average number
of species per plot decreased 19?o between 1978 and 1979 and 25% between 1978 and
1980. Species density decreased 5% in all communities between 1979 and 1980,
even though it showed an increase in four communities. Canopy-coverage and the
derived measure of species density appear to be less sensitive to climatic
conditions than productivity.

In the course of mapping the expanded study area, a number of species not
previously encountered were collected and identified. Appendix A is a revised
species list for the Circle West study area. Possibly most exciting is the
occurrence of Rorippa calycina (Engelm. Rydb. var. calycina) , a plant recently
classified as threatened in Endangered and Threatened Plants of the United
States (Ayensu and DeFlllips 1978). However, a report entitled 'An Enumeration
of Species of Federal Concern--Listed, Proposed, or Candidate Under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, 25 April 1980," indicates that the status of
Rorippa calycina has changed from "threatened" to "species whose status is
insufficiently known and need more study." Final determination of the status of
this species can be expected soon.

■23-

Species per 0.1 m' plot

Species per 0.1 m^ plot

Species per 20 plots

10-1

9-

8-

7-

6-

a.
(ft

5-

4-

3-

2-

— I 1 1

1978 1979 1980

I0-,

9 -

0) O -

a.
to

4-

3-

2-

• Species per 20 plots

1978

— I \

1979 1980

Figure 18. Species density in the Dist
community, 1978-1980.

Figure 19. Species density in the

Bogr community, 1978-1980.

-24-

Species per 0.1 m^ plot

Species per 0.1 m^ plot

> Species per 20 plots

lU -

9 -

8-

T

\

\

7-

\
\

\

\

6-

\

\

V)

\

o

\

■^ 5-

^

o.

CO

\
\

• \

\ \

4-

\ •

3-

• •

2-

1-
n _

U — '

1 1 1

lO-i

9-

8-

7-

6-

5-

4 -

3-

2-

Species per 20 plots

T

\

T

1978

1979 1980

1978 1979 1980

Figure 20. Species density in the Ag.sm/Boqr
community, 1978-1980.

Figure 21. Species density

in the Stco/Bogr-Caf i
community, 1978-1980.

Species per 0.1 m^ plot

10

9-

8-

7-

6-

Q.
CO

5-

4-

3-

2-

I-

► Species per 20 plots

\

\

— I 1 1

1978 1979 1980

20-1

18-

16-

14-

i lOH

a.

8-

6-

4-

2-

■ Species per 0.1 m^ plot

> Species per 20 plots

X

T

1978 1979 1980

Figure 22. Species density in the Bogr/Agsm
community, 1978-1980.

Figure 23. Species density in the

Bogr-Caf i/Stco community,
1978-1980.

-26-

Species per 0.1 tn^ plot

18-1

16-

14

12-

10-

a.

CO g_

6-

4-

• Species per 20 plots

\

\

I I I

1978 1979 1980

18-1

16-

14-

12 -

10-

CL

CO

8-

6-

4-

2 -

• Species per 0.1 m^ plot

• Species per 20 plots

\

— I 1 1

1978 1979 1980

Figure 24. Species density in the Dist-Agsm
community, 1978-1980.

Figure 25. Species density in the
Agsp/Bogr-Caf i
cominunity, 1978-1980.

-27-

20 n

18-

16

14-

12-

^ 10
o.
V)

8-

6-

4-

2-

Species per 0.1 m^ plot

Species per 20 plots

Species per 0.1 m^ plot

W-"

1978

— I \

1979 1980

20-1 • Species per 20 plots

18-

16-

14-

12 -

^ lOH

a.

8-

6-

4-

— I 1

1978 1979

1980

Figure 26. Species density in the

Arca/Agsm/Bogr community,
1978-1980.

Figure 27. Species density in the
Stco-Agsm/Bogr
community, 1978-1980.

-28-

Species per 0.1 m^ plot

Species per 0.1 m^ plot

30

27-

24

21

18-

15-

12-

9-

3-

• Species per 20 plots

1978

— \ 1

1979 1980

o.

CO

30-1

27-

24-

21 -

18

15-

12 -

9-

6-

3-

•x

• Species per 20 plots

(

\
\
\
\
\
\
S

T

T

1978 1979

1980

Figure 28. Species density in the

Ansc community, 1978-1980.

Figure 29. Species density in the
Ansc-Agsp community,
1978-1980.

-29-

DISCUSSION

Anomalies

Most of the variations in vegetation described in this report appear to be
related to variations ir climatic conditions. Some apparent anomalies may be
clarified by a few remarks .

In the Distichlis stricta community, which is anomalous in that D^ stricta
productivity showed a marked increase from 1977 to 1980, D^ stricta seems to be
a phreatophyte, with production not closely tied to precipitation. Production
has tended to increase as a function of livestock exclosure. In the D^ stricta ■

Agropyron smithii community, D^ stricta production has varied with
precipitation. The D_^ stricta - Agropyron smithii community occupies a higher
topographic position and plants probably root above the capillary fringe.

The Bouteloua gracilis and Andropogon scoparius communities had lower
production than expected in 1978 due, apparently, to cool temperatures. This
may have resulted in greater soil moisture availability in 1979, and
consequently higher production.

High winds resulted in snow accumulation in coulees during the winter of
1978-79. This may have led to the unexpectedly high production of the Artemisia
cana/Agropyron smithii/ Bouteloua gracilis community in 1979.

Implications

The high variability of the data presented here has many implications. The
plant communities studied exhibit a great deal of resiliency. Air pollution
impact assessments based solely on a comparative approach may fail to
demonstrate air pollution impacts if they occur. Classifications of vegetation
based upon data collected in one year may not be suitable in another phase of
the moisture cycle. Vegetation maps portraying actual vegetation may be subject
to annual changes. Range condition estimates based upon species composition
also may be subject to rather dramatic annual change, even in the absence of
livestock grazing. This point is not always considered.

Coupland and others (1960) pointed out that climatic effects should be
incorporated into range condition estimates. From a long-term (1932-1945) study
of the effects of grazing and weather on prairie vegetation near Miles City,
Montana, Reed and Peterson (1961) concluded that, "Major trends in nearly all
vegetation characteristics were set by the major cycles of weather, and the rate
of change within these trends was largely influenced by intensity of grazing."
The Soil Conservation Service (1976) recently sanctioned more flexible range
condition rating procedures, which subjectively incorporate climatic effects.
Range condition evaluations are further complicated by the mapping of soil
complexes which often contain several range sites.

To illustrate some effects of climatic conditions on range conditions, two
exclosures in areas mapped as soil series (not complexes) were evaluated in
strict accordance with the SCS Technicians' Guide to Range Sites, Condition
Classes and Recommended Stocking Rates in Soil Conservation Districts of the
Sedimentary Plains of Montana, 10-14" Precipitation Zone.

-30-

The Bogr/Agsm exclosure (silty range site) rated a solid fair condition in
1311 , a year in which grasshopper damage may have lowered the rating. In 1978
and 1979, the protected vegetation appeared to be in excellent condition with
about 90% of the theoretical climax community composition present. In 1980, a
year of drought but few grasshoppers, the condition seemed to return to fair;
about 30% of the theoretical climax was present.

The Agsm/Bogr exclosure occupies a clayey range site. This exclosure rated
a good (almost excellent) condition in 1977, 1978^ 1979, despite great
variability in productivity values. However, in 1980, the condition slipped to
poor, with less than 15% of the theoretical climax present. Changes of this
magnitude under exclosure conditions indicate a need to incorporate the effects
of climatic fluctuations on both early and late successional vegetation into
range condition estimates.

-31-

RECOMMENDATIONS

Some understanding of the water balance could help explain variations in
vegetation parameters. The most important measurements related to water balance
are: available soil moisture, precipitation, average temperature and day
lengths, and a measure or calculation of evaporation or evapotranspiration.

The amount of soil moisture available to plants is the moisture content of
the soil minus the permanent wilting percentage. Soil moisture is determined by
weighing fresh soil samples (by depth intervals), drying the samples at 105
degrees C, and weighing the dry samples. Soil moisture should be measured
monthly from April to September. The permanent wilting percentage can be
approximated (for non-saline soils) by measuring the soil moisture remaining
after samples have been subjected to 15 atmospheres of pressure and allowed to
drain.

Good candidates for available moisture determination include the following
communities: Stco-Agsm/Bogr (which has a good mix of dominant species),
Bogr/Agsm (representative of the flatter lowlands), Agsp/Bogr-Caf i
(representative of uplands with a cool-season, mid-grass dominant, and warm-
land, cool-season, short-grass subdominants) , Ansc (warm-season mid-grass), and
Arca/Agsm/Bogr (sagebrush and water run-in areas). After initial preparation,
field work will take about one day per month and can be performed by a local
resident after a training session. Samples can be processed at the University
of Montana.

Precipitation should be measured at the Dreyer Ranch headquarters year-
round, and near the exclosures on Nelson Creek from April to September.
(Approximate cost for equipment, less shipping: standard rain and snow gauge,
$160; stand, $40; wind screen, $240.) Temperature should be recorded on a
thermograph at Dreyer Ranch headquarters from April to September. (Approximate
cost for equipment, less shipping: Dickson Minicorder (4-inch, 7-day, key-
wound), $140 plus charts, or Weathertronics circular thermograph (as above),
$150 plus charts; small louvered shelter (without support), $80.

More precise productivity measurements are recommended to improve the power
of conclusions and to allow quantification of the relationship between climatic
conditions and vegetation. In 1977, about twenty-four samples were taken in each
exclosure. The number of plots sampled in 1978 was determined from 1977 data by
calculating the number of plots necessary to obtain a sample mean within 20% of
the population mean at the 80% probability level. Through similar calculations,
the number of plots clipped in 1979 was determined from 1977 and 1978 data.

To improve sampling precision, more stringent criteria were imposed In 1980, by
determining the number of samples necessary to obtain a sample mean within 20%
of the population mean at the 90% probability level, using 1979 data with
reference to the number of samples taken in 1977 and 1978.

In the future, even more stringent criteria should be employed in
determining sample size. Communities sampled for available soil moisture should
be sampled for productivity to attain a sample mean within 10% of the population
mean at the 90% probability level. Other exclosures should be sampled to attain
an 80% probability of being within 10% of the population mean. Productivity
data from 1977 through 1980, with the possible omission of data severely
affected by grasshoppers, should be used to calculate the number of samples to

-32-

be clipped in 1981. At a future date, exclosure effects may need to be
evaluated by comparing frequency, density, and basal area measurements
(depending on the species involved) within and outside exclosures.

Considerations in designing air pollution monitoring studies are described
elsewhere (Prodgers 1981).

Controlled grazing of exclosures should continue as needed to control
excessive litter accumulation. Livestock should be put into the selected
exclosures for a brief period of time, the effects monitored, and the cattle
removed when the desired level of grazing has been attained.

An effort should be made to gather more information on the distribution of
Rorippa calycina in the permit area.

-33-

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks go to the Mike McKeever family who made field work more pleasant than
it might have been. Taxonomic assistance from Dave Ramsden and Klaus
Lackschewitz was much appreciated. Technical editing was performed by William
Phippen and Larry Thompson of DNRC. Graphs and mapping were done by June Virag
of DNRC' s Cartography Bureau.

-34-

LITERATURE CITED

Ayensu, E., and R. DeFillips. 1978. Endangered and threatened plants of the
United States. Smithsonian Inst, and World Wildlife Fund. 403 pp.

Coupland, R. , N. Skoglund, and A. Heard. 1960 Effects of grazing in the
Canadian mixed prairie. Int. Grassland Congr. Proc. 8:212-215.

Daubenmire, R. 1959. A canopy-coverage method of vegetation analysis.
Northwest Sci. 33(l):43-64.

, 1968. Plant communities. Harper &. Row, New York. 300 pp.

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. 1979a. Circle West
vegetation monitoring study. First Annual Report for the period August 14-26,
1978. Circle West Tech. Rep. No. 3.

. 1979b. Circle West vegetation monitoring study. Second Annual Report

for the period August 14-24, 1979. Circle West Tech. Rep. No. 5.

Pfister, R. , and S. Arno. 1980. Classifying forest habitat types based on
potential climax vegetation. For. Sci. 26(l):52-70.

Prodgers , R. 1978. Circle West vegetation baseline study. Circle West Tech.
Rep. No. 1. Montana Dept . Nat. Res. & Cons., Helena.

. 1981. Monitoring air pollution impacts to prairie vegetation and cereal

grains. Unpublished MS.

Reed, M. , and R. Peterson. 1961. Vegetation, soil and cattle responses to
grazing on northern Great Plains range. USDA For. Serv. Tech. Bull. No. 1252.
79 pp.

Soil Conservation Service. 1976. National Range Handbook. A USDA publication.

■35-

Appendix A. Plant species listed by family

Aceraceae

Acer nequndo L.

Amaranthaceae

Amaranthus qraecizans L.
AmaranthuT poweim "^ats.

Anacardiaceae

Rhus radicans L.
RTuJs trilobata Nutt.

Apocynaceae

Apocynnum androsaemifol I'um L.
Apocynum~cannab1nu'n L.

Asclepiadaceae

Asclepias speciosa Torr.
Asclepias syriaca L.
Asdepias" verticniata L.

Boraginaceae

Cryptantha celosioides (Eastw.) Pays.
Hackeli'a floribunda (Lehm) Jtn.
Lappula echinata GH 1 b .
Lappula redowskii (Hornem) Greene
Lithospermum incisum Lehm.

Cactaceae

Coryphantha yiyipara (Nutt.) Britt. ^ Brown
Opunt-ia frTgilis (Nutt.) Haw.
Opuntia polyacantha Haw.

Campanulaceae

Campanula rotundi folia L.

Capparidaceae

Cleome serrulata Pursh.

Polanisia trachysoerma T. ^ G.

Capri fol iaceae

Symphoricarpos occidental is Hook.

■36-

Caryophyl laceae

Cerastium arven^p L.
Paronychfa sessj_rrQiJIli Nutt.

denoDodiacpae

Atriplex arqent.ea Nutt:.

fttriplex canescens (Pursh) Nutt.

Atri n1 ex confprti tol i a (Torr. ^ Freni.^ Wats.

Atri'DlPX Hi Pica HTiitt.l '"^acb>'.

Atriplex nuttanii Wats.

Rassia hyssopji'ol ia (Pall.) Kuntze

ChenopoHium album L.

ChpnopoHjum fremontii Wats.

Chenopodiuni leptophyllum (Mon.) Watts.

Corispermum hyssopifol ium L.

Eurotia lanata (Pursb) Moq.

Kochia scoparia (I.) Sc^rad.

Salicornia rubra A. Nels.

Sal sol a kTli L.

Sarcobatus vermiculatus (Hook.) Torr.

Suaeda deoressa Pursh

Suaeda intermedia Wats.

Commel inaceae

Tradescantia occidental is (Rritt.) Smyth.
Comoositae

Achillea millefolium L.

Agoseris qiauca (*^5*^^ ^^^ '

Ambrosia artemisiifol ia L.

Antennaria pa rvi folia Mutt.

Antennana micronhyTTa Rydb.

ArctiiiiD mTnus (Hill) Bernh .

Arctium TaTppa L.

Artemisia camnestris L ,

ArtemfiTa" cana Pursh

Artemisia" dracunculus I.

Artemisia friqida Will d .

ArtemisTa lonqifol ia Nutt.

Artemisia ludoviciana Nutt.

Artemisia tridentata Nutt.

Aster brachyactis Riake

Aster falcatus Lindl .

Bidens~vli1qata Greene

Chrysopsis viHosa (Pursh) Nutt.

Chrysothamnus nauseosus (Pall.) Rritt.

Chrysothamnus vTscidiflorus (Hook.) Nutt.

Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.

Cirsium "undulatum (Nutt.) Spreng.

Cirsium vulgare TSavi ) Tenore

Conyza canadensis (L.) Crom.

Echinacea pallida" Nutt.

-37-

Compositae (Continued)

Eriqeron compositus Pursh

Er-fgeron pumilus ffutt.

Gnaphalium palustre Mutt.

6n'nde1i'a~squarrosa (Prush) Dunal

Gutierrezia sarothrae fPursh) Rritt. and Rusby

Haplopappus spjnuToIus (Pursh) D.C.

Haplopappus acauVjs (Nutt.) Gray

HFIianthus "annuus L.

Helianthus' laetiflorus Pers.

HelianthuT maximlliami Schrud

Helianthus petiolaris Nutt.

Helianthus rigidus ITTass. ) Desf.

Hymenopappus iFilifolius Hook

Hymenoxys acaulis (Pursh) Parker

Hymenoxys richardsonii (Hook.) Cockerel!

Iva axillaris Pursh

Lac"tuca ludoviciana (Mutt.) D.C.

Lactuca pulchella fPursh.) D.C.

Lactuca serriola L.

Liatris punctata Hook.

Lygodesmia juncea^ (Pursh.) D. Don

Machaeranthera canescens (Pursh) Gray

Machaerantliera grrndelioides (Nutt.) Keck, and Cronq.

Machaeranthera tanacetitoMa H.B.K.

Ratibida columnifera (Nutt.)" Woot. X Standi.

Senecio canus Hook.~

Senecio integerrimus Nutt.

Solidaqo missourienTis Nutt.

Soli dago mollis Barti .

Solidaqo nana Nutt.

Soli dago ngida L.

Sonchus asper (L.) Hill

Sonchus uliginosus R i eb .

Taraxacum officinale Weber

Tetradymia canescens D.C.

Tragopogon dubius ^op.

XanthiumTtrumarium L.

Convolvulaceae

Convolvulus arvensis L.
Cornaceae

Cornus stolonifera Michx.
Cruci ferae

Alyssum alyssoides L.
Camelina microcarpa Andrz.
Descurainia pinnaTa (Walt.) Britt.
Erysimum asperum (Nutt.) D.C.
Erysimum cheiranthoides L.
Lepidium densiflorum Schrad.
Lesquerella a1pina~TNutt.) Wats.

■38-

C rue 1 ferae (Continue'')

Lesquerella lu^oviciana (Nutt.) Wats.

^oripoa caTvcina (Enqlem.) Ryrlbera var. calycina

Roripna sinuata (Mutt.) A. S. Hitchc.

S i symb r i urn a 1 1 i s s i Tium (L.) 8ritt.

Thlaspj ?rvense L.

Ciinressaceae

Juniperuf. corrmum's L.
Tunioerus horizontal is Moench
Jum'perus scopulorum Sarg.

ryo?ra.:eae

Carex brevior (Dewey) Mack.

Carex eTeocharis (C. stenophylla Wahl.)

Carex fil ifol fa Nutt.

Carex Tanuginosa '-^icbx.

Carex parryana Dewey

Carex praegracil is W. Roott

Carex sartwelli'i Dewey

Carex xerantica Railey

Eleochans acicularis ( L . ) R . * S .

EleocharTs palustrjs ( 1. . L ) R . ^ S .

^I'rpus acutus Muh1 ,

Scirpus americanus Pers.

Scirpus heterochaTetus Chase

Scirpus maritimus L.

Elaeaqnaceae

Sherpherdia argentea (Pursh) Nutt.

Eqiiisetaceae

Equisetum arvense L.
Fa"uisetum fluviatile L.
Equisetum laevigatum A. Rr.
Equisetum pratense Ehrb.

Euphorbiaceae

Euphorbia qlyptosperma Enqelin.
Euphorbia" robusta (Fngelm.) Small
"Euphorbia serpyllifol ia "^ers.

Hramineae

Aqropyron caninum (L.) Reauv.
Agronyron crista'fus (L.) Gaertn.
Aqropyron" dasystachyum (Hook.) Scribn.
Aqropyron intermedium (Host) Beauv.
Aqropyron smith ii Rydb.

-39-

Gramineae (Cont'd.)

Aqropyron spicatum (Pursh.) Scrihn. ^ Smith

/i^ostis scahra wmil.

Alopecurus pratensis L.

Andropoqon scooarius ^''iichx.

An'stida lonoiseta SteiM .

Avena fatua L.

Avena sativa L.

Beckmannia syziqachne (Steud.) Fernald

Boute1oua~curtipendu1a (Michx.) Torr.

ftouteloua gracilis (ffTB.K.) Laq. ex. Steiid.

Bromus inermis Leys.

Br onus japomcus Thunb.

Bromus tectorum L.

6uch1oe'~^cty1oides (Mutt.) Enqelm

Calamaqrostis canadensis (Michx.) Beauv.

Ca1amaqrostls montanensis Scribn.

CalamaqrosTTs negiecta (Ehrh.) Gaertn.

Cal amovi 1 faTongi f o1 1 a (Hook.) Scribn.

Distich1is~stricta (Torr.) Rydb.

Echi'nochloa crusoalli (L.) Beauv.

Elymus canadensis L.

Elymus qiaucus BuTckl .

Festuca~octof1ora Walt.

Hordeum jubatum U.

Hordeum vulqare L.

Koe1eria~cristata (L.) Pers.

Muhlenberaia asperifolia (Nees ^ Meyen) Parodi

MuhlenberqTa cuspidata (Torr.) Rydb.

Muhlenberqia racemosa (Michx.) B.S.P.

Hinroa souarrosa (Nutt.) Torr.

Oryzopsis hymenoides (R. & S.) Richer

Panicum capillare L.

Panicum virqatum L.

Phalaris arundinacea L.

Poa arida Vasey

Foa canbyi (Scribn.) Piper

Poa cusickii Vasey

l^oa gracillima Vasey

Poa junci^olia Scribn.

Poa pa1ustrir~L.

Poa pratensis L.

Poa sandbergfi Vasey

Polypogon monspeliensis (L.) Desf.

Puccinellia airoides"Wutt.) Wats X Coult.

SchedonnanTus paniculatus (Mutt.) Trel .

Sitanion hystrix (Nutt.) Sm i th

Spartina gracilis Trin.

Spartma pectinata Link.

Sporobolus airoides (Torr.) Torr.

Sporobolu? cryptan'?rus (Torr.) Gray

Stipa coma ta Trin. ^"Rupr.

Stipa viridula Trin.

Triticum aestivum L.

-40-

GrossuTarlacpae

'^ibes americanum Mill.
Rihe<; aureum Pursh
Ribes cereum Dounl .
Ribes" setosum LinHl .

Haloraaaceae

Myriophylliim hippuroides Niitt.
Iridaceae

Si syrinchium anoustifol 1um Miller

Juncaceae

Juncus balticus Willd.
Juncus bufomus L.

Juncaqinaceae

Triolochin maritimum L .

Labiatae

Hedeoma drummondii Benth.
Hedeoma hispida PITrsh.
Lycopus amencanus Muhl .
Mentha arvensis L.
Monarda fistulosa L.
Nepeta catana L.
Salvia reflexa Hornem.

Leguminosae

Astragalus canadensis L.
Astragalus" crassicarpus Nutt.
Astragalus ?asy glottis F i sch .
Astragalus gilvif Torus Sheld.
AstragaluT kentrophyta Gray
Astragalus lotiflorus Hook .
Astragalus missounensis Nutt.
AstragaluT oectinatus Douql .
Astragalus purshii Dougl . (uncollected)
AstraqaliJ? spatulatus Sheld.
Astragalus striatusTNutt. )
Glycyrrhiza leoidota (Nutt.) Pursh
Lupinus lepidus Dougl .
"Medicagp Itioulina L.
Medicago sativa L".
Mel i lotus alba Desr.
Mel i lotus officinalis (L.) Lam.
Oxytroni? besseyi (Rydb.) Rlank.
Oxytropis lambertii Pursh

-41-

Lequminosae (Continuefl)

Petal ostemon candi'dum Michx.
Petal ostemon purpureum (Vent.) Rydh.
PToralea arq"ophy11a Pursh
Psoralea escu1enta~Piirsh
Psoralea lancenlata Pursh
Thermopsis rhombi folia Mutt.
TrifoliuiTTrepens L.
Vicia americana Muh1 .

Lil iaceae

Allium textile Nel s. ^ Macbr.
Calcchortus nuttallii T. A Gi.
$mi1acina'~?te1]ata (L.) Desf.
Streptopus amplexTfol ius (L.) n.C.
Yucca qiauca Nutt.
Ziqadenus venenosus

Linaceae

Linum perenne L.
Linum rigidum Pursh.

Loasaceae

Mentzelia decapetala (Pursh) Urb. ^ Gilq.

Malvaceae

Malva pa rv1 flora L.

Sphaeralcea cocci nea (Pursh) Rydb.

Oleaceae

Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh.

Onaqraceae

Gaura coccinea (Nutt.) Pursh
Oenothera caespitosa Nutt.
Oenothera serru1ata~Nutt.

Orobanchaceae

Orobanche ludoviciana Nutt.

Plantaqinaceae

Plantaqo aristata Michx.
Plantaqo major L.
Plantaqo patagonica Jacq.

-42-

Polemoniaceae

CoTTonria 1 inearis Nutt.
Phinx aTyssi folia Greene
Phlox hoodii Rich.
Phlox lonqi folia Mutt.

PoTyqalaceae

Polygala alba Nutt.

Polyqonaceae

Erioqonum annuum Nutt.
Erioqonu"m cernuum Nutt.
Enoqonum flavum Nutt.
Eriogonum pauciflorum Pursh
Polygonum aviculare L.
Polygonum, lapathofol ium L.
Polygonum persicaria L.
Rumex maritimus L.
Rumex salicifoTius Weinm.

Polypodiaceae

Cystopteris fragilis (L.) Bernh.
Potamoqetonaceae

Potamoqeton spp.

Ranunculaceae

Anemone nuttall iana D.C.
Clematis lingustfcTfolia Nutt.
fielphinium bi color Nutt.
Ranunculus cymbal aria Pursh
Thalictrum venu1osum~Tre1 .

Rosaceae

Amelanchier ainifol ia Nutt.
Crataegus Hounlasii Li ndl .
Sium triflorum Pursh
Geum macrophyTlus Willd.
PotentiHa anserTna L.
Potentilla arguta Pursh
PotentilTa norveqica L.
Potentilla paradoxa~Nutt.
Potentilla pensyl vanica L.
Prunus vTrqiniana L.
Rosa acicularis Li ndl .
Rosa arkansana Porter
Rosa nutkana Presi .

-43-

Rubiaceae

Galium aparine L.

Salicaceae

Populus deltoides Marsh.
SaTlx exiqua Nutt.
Sa1ix spp.

Santalaceae

Comandra umhellata (L.) Nutt.

Scrophulan'aceae

Orthocarpus 1 uteus Nutt.
Fenstemon albidus Nutt.
Penstemon" gracilis Nutt.

Selaqinellaceae

Selaqinella densa Rydb.
Solanaceae

Solanum rostratum Dunal
Typhaceae

Typha latifolia L.

Umbelli ferae

Lomatium cous (Wats.) Coult. X Rose
Lomatium" onentale Coult. ^ Rose

Urticaceae

Parietan'a pennsylvam'ca Muh1 .
Urtica dToica L.

Verbenaceae

Verbena bracteata Lag. & Rodr.
Violaceae

Viola nuttallii Pursb.

-44-

Appendix B. Plant species listed by life form

Therophytes

Annuals

Alysun alvssoides*
Amaranthus araecizans
Ai^ia ran thus nowenii
Anhrosia arteinisi i fol ia
Aster brachyactis
Atriplex arqentea
Atriplex dioica*
Avena fatua
Avena sativa
Bassia hyssoni folia
Ridens vulqata
^romus janoniciis
Broniis tectorun
Canelina nicrocarpa
Chenopodium album
Chenopodium fremontii*
Chenopodi'um leptonhyllum
Cleome serrulata*
Col Ionia linearis
Conyza canadensis
Corispernum hyssoDifoHum
Descurainia oinnata
Echinochloa crusgalli
Eriooonun cernuum*
Erysipium cheiranthoides
Euphorbia serphyll ifol ia
Festiica octoflora*
Galium aparine
Hedeoma hisnida
Hel ianthus annuus
Helianthus petiolaris
Juncus bufonius
Kochia scoparia
Lappula echinata
Lappiila redowskii
Lepidium densiflorum
Linum riqidum

Machaeranthera tanacetifol ia
Malva parvi flora
Medicaqo lupul ina
Mel ilotus alba
Melilotus officinalis
Munroa snuarrosa
Orthocarpus luteiis
Panicum capillare*
Parietaria pensylvanica
Plantaqo aristata
Plantaqo pataqonica

Polyqonum aviculare*
Polyqonum lapathi fol ium
Polynoqon monspel iensis*
Potentilla norveqica
Rumex maritimus*
Salicornia rubra
Sal sol a kali
Salvia reflexa*
Sisymhrium altissimum
Solanum rostratum
Sonchus asper
Suaeda depressa
Thlaspi arvense
Traqopoqon dubius
Verbena bracteata
Xanthium strunarium

Biennials

Arctium lappa
Arctium minus*
Cirsium vulqare
Erioqonum annum*
Erysimum asperum
Lactuca serriola*
Machaearnthera canescens
Potentilla norveqica
Potentilla paradoxa
Traqopoqon dubius

Geophytes

Arqopyron dasystachyum
Aqropyron smithii
Allium textile
Artemisia ludoviciana
Asclepias speciosa
Asclepias syriaca
Asclepias verticil lata
Aster falcatus
Beckmannia syziqachne
Bouteloua curtipendula
Bromus inermis
Ruchloe dactyl oides
Calamaqrostis canadensis
Calamaqrostis montanensis
Calamaqrostis neqlecta*
Calamovilfa lonqi folia
Calochortus nuttaHi
Carex brevior
Carex eleocharis
Carex lanuqinosa

* Denotes not found in intensive study area.

-45-

Geophytes (Cont'd)

Carex parryana
Carex praeqracilis
Carex sartwellii
Carex xerantica
Cirsium arvense
Cystopteris fraqilis
Comanrlra umbel! ata*
Distich! is stricta
Eleocharis acicularis
Eleocharis palustris
Equisetum arvense*
Equisetum fluviatile*
Equisetupi laeviqatum
Equisetum pratense
Euphorbia qlyptosperma
Euphorbia robusta
Geum triflorum
Helianthus laetiflorus*
Helianthus maximilianii
Helianthus riqidus
Iva axillaris
Juncus balticus
Lactuca pulchella
Lomatium cous
Lomatium oriental e
Lupinus lepidus
Lycopus americanus
Medicaqo sativa
Mentha arvense
Muhlenberqia asperi folia
Muhlenberqia racemosa*
Panicum virqatum
Phalaris arundinacea
Plantaqo major*
Poa arida
Poa palustris
Poa pratensis
Polyqonum persicaria*
Potentilla anserina
Potentilla arquta*
Psoralea arqophylla
Psoralea esculenta
Psoralea lanceolata
Ranunculus cymbal aria
Rorippa calycina
Rorippa sinuata
Scirpus acutus
Scirpus americanus
Scirpus heterochaetus
Scirpus maritimus
Sisyrinchium anqustifol ium

Solidaqo missouriensis
Sol idaqo moll is
Spartina pectinata
Sphaeralcea coccinea
Streptopus amplexifol ius*
Thermopsis rhombi^olia
Tradescantia occidental is
Trifol ium repens
Triqlochin maritimum
Tyoha latifol ia*
Viola nuttall ii
Zyqadenus venenosus

Hemic ryptophytes

Achillea millefolium
Aqoseris qlauca
Agrostis scahra
Aqropyrnn caninum
Aqropyron crista turn
Aqropyron intermedium*
Aqropyron spicatum
Alopecurus pratensis
Andropoqon scoparius
Anemone nuttall iana
Antennaria parvi folia
Antennaria microphylla
Apocynum androsaemifol ium
Aristida lonqiseta
Astraqalus canadensis*
Astraqalus crassicarpus
Astraqalus dasyqlottis
Astraqalus qilviflorus
Astraqalus kentrophyta
Astraqalus lotiflorus*
Astraqalus missouriensis
Astraqalus pectinatus
Astraqalus purshii
Astraqalus soatuiatus
Astraqalus striatus
Routeloua qracilis
Campanula rotundi folia
Carex fili^olia
Cerastium arvense*
Chrysonsis villosa
Cirsium undulatum
Convolvulus arvensis
Coryphantha vivipara
Cryptantha celosioides
Delphinium hi col or
Echinacea pallida

* Denotes note found in intensive study area.

-46-

HemicryDtODhytes (Cont'H^

Elynius canadensis
Zlynijs alaucus
Erioeron compositus*
Eriqeron oumiiiis
Erioqonnm ^lavijm
Eriooonu'i nauci floruii
Gaura coccinea
Geuf^ iTificroDhyll iim
Glycyr-rhfza lepirlota
Gnaphalium nalustre
Gn'ndelia squarrosa
Hackelia ^Inrihiinda
Haolopappus acaulis
Haplopannijs spinulosiis
Hedeonia drummondii
Hordeum .iu^atum
Hymenopapnus filifolius
Hymenoxys acaul is
Hymenoxys richardsom'i
Koeleria crista ta
Lactuca Tudoviciana
Lesquerella alpina
Lesquerella iddoviciana
Liatris punctata
Li nun perenne
Lithospermum incisum
Lyqodesmia .iuncea
Machaeranthera qrindel ioides
Mentzelia decapetala
Monarda fistulosa
Muhlenherqia cuspidata
Myriophyliiim hippuroides (aq.)
Nepeta cataria
Henothera caespitosa
Oenothera serrulata
Trohanche ludnviciana
Oryzopsis hymenoides
Oxytropis hesseyi
Dxtyropis lanbertii
Penstemon albidiis
Penstemon qracilis
Petal osteiTion candidun
Petal ostemon purpiireum
Poa canhyi
Poa ciisickii*
Poa qracillima
Poa j unci folia
Poa sandberqii

PolvqaTa alba
Potentilla pensylvanica
Puccinellia airoides
Ratihida columnif^era
Rupiex sal ici^ol ius*
Schedonnardus paniculatus
Senecio caniis
Senecio inteqerrinus
Si tan inn hystrix
Sporobolus airoides
Sporobolijs cryptandrus
Stipa comata
Stipa viridiila
Taraxacum officinale
llrtica dioica*
Vica americana

Chamaephytes

Apocynum androsaemifol ium
Apocynum cannabinum
Artemisia friqida
Artemisia campestris
Artemisia dracunculus
Artemisia lonqi folia
Atriplex nuttallii
Eurotia lanata
Gutierrezia sarothrae
Juniperus horizontal is
Opuntia fraqilis
npiintia polyacantha
Paronychia sessiliflora
Phlox alyssi folia
Phlox hoodii
Phlox lonoi folia*
Rhus radicans
Selaqinella densa
Suaeda intermedia

Nanophanerophytes

Artemisia cana
Artemisia tridentata
Atriplex canescens
Atriplex confertifol ia
Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus
Juniperus communis

* Denotes not found in intensive study area.

-47-

Nanophanerophytes (Cont'd)

Rhus trUohata

Ribes aureum

Rlbes americanum

Ribes cereum

Ribes setosum

Rosa aciculan's

Rosa arkansana

Rosa nutkana

Sarcobatus vemiiculatus

Symphoricarpos occidental is

Tetradym'a canescens

Yucca qlaijca

Microphanerophytes
Sprouters

Amerlanchier alni folia
Cornus stolonifera
Cratequs douqlassii*
Prunus virginiana
Shepherdia arqentea
Salix ex i qua
Salix spp.

Non-sprouters

Juniperus scopulorum
Shepherdia arqentea

Mesophanerophytes

Acer nequndo

Fraxinus pennsylvanica

Populus deltoides

Lianas

Clematis 1 iqusticifol ia

* Denotes not found in intensive study area.

-48-

mONTANA

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

A CONSERVATION

Haleno, MoniBna

^>3^S51^^R1

DNR&C >

100 copies of this public document were published
at an estimated cost of $3.18 per copy, for a total
cost of $317.66, which includes $297.66 for printing
and $20.00 for distribution.