ground realities. For example, in 1999, the wildfire that burned from Lovelock to Winnemucca, Nevada crossed many allotments and were closed off to grazing under policy for two years. By May of 2001, it was obvious that rehabilitation/restoration efforts were a dismal failure as cheatgrass densities were 173/ft² and posed a serious wildfire threat (Figure 1). Resource and land managers onthe-ground realized that the site was not going to magically restore itself just because livestock had been removed, yet the policy handcuffed them to be able to perform fuels management. The USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service has an histogram that reflects that the top two threats to sage grouse habitat in the West are Invasive Species and Wildfire. Let’s be honest, in cheatgrass-infested rangelands these two could be considered one in the same. Why then would you have a policy in place that promotes cheatgrass and the associated wildfire threats? If the site has been seeded and managers recognize the on-the-ground potential for success, then by all means follow the guideline, but if the rehabilitation/restoration is an obvious failure don’t promote further cheatgrass associated fuels that endanger the adjacent unburned habitats to the same outcome. The Rehabilitation of Cheatgrass-Infested Rangelands is a very demanding task that requires the understanding of the competitive nature of cheatgrass, rehabilitation/restoration practices that provide the best opportunity to be successful and reduce the threat of cheatgrass as well as accountability at various levels in the management decisions that impact these rangelands. Our goal is simply to provide resource and land managers with the necessary information required to best combat the advancement of cheatgrass through an integrated weed control program and rehabilitation practices that will suppress cheatgrass densities, fuel loads, and allow succession to take place to improve wildlife and grazing resources.
Figure 1. Dr. Young and Dan Harmon, 2001, viewing a landscape of cheatgrass dominance for as far as the eye can see following a 1999 wildfire storm.
Figure 2. A failed rangeland drill seeding in northwestern Nevada. An integrated weed (cheatgrass) control method followed by the use of proper plant materials is a must or this will be the end result.
Referenced Literature Ashley, M.C. and W. S. Longland. 2007. Microsatellite evidence of facultative outcrossing in cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum): Implications for the evolution of invasiveness. Plant Species Biology 22:197-204. Fortune, P.M., N. Pourtau, N. Viron and M.L. Ainouche. 2008. Molecular phylogeny and reticulate origins of the polyploidy Bromus species from section Genea (Poaeceae). American Journal of Botany 95:454-464. Merrill, K. R., S. E. Meyer and C. E. Coleman. 2012. Population genetics analysis of Bromus tectorum (Poaeceae) indicates recent range expansion may be facilitated by specialist genotypes. American Journal of Botany 99:529-537. Sneva, F.A. 1972. Grazing return following sagebrush control in eastern Oregon. Journal Range Management 25:174-178.
Figure 3. The establishment of longlived perennial grasses is essential in suppressing cheatgrass and associated dangerous fuels. This establishment, if managed correctly, will decrease wildfire frequencies and allow succession to occur.
Young, J. A. and C. D. Clements. 2003. Bromus tectorum invasion of western North America Rangelands. African Journal of Range and Forest Science 20:174. Young, J. A., and C. D. Clements. 2009. Cheatgrass: Fire and Forage on the Range. University Nevada Press, Reno & Las Vegas. 348pp.
Figure 4a and 4b. The mis-management of perennial grass communities favors cheatgrass, which results in wildfire risks and loss of critical wildlife and grazing resources. Figure 4a shows the perennial grass densities in 2009, whereas figure 4b shows the loss of perennial grass due to mis-management. www.progressiverancher.com
The Progressive Rancher
Figure 5. The encroachment of big sagebrush must be kept in check to protect the long-lived perennial grass/herbaceous component of this habitat which is suppressing cheatgrass present in the seed bank and in small amounts above-ground. January 2014 29