|
|
FEIS Home Page |
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
Aleksoff, Keith C. 1999.
Muhlenbergia richardsonis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online].
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer).
Available: https://www.fs.fed.us
/database/feis/plants/graminoid/muhric/all.html [].
ABBREVIATION:
MUHRIC
SYNONYMS:
Muhlenbergia squarrosa (Nutt.) Torr. [43]
NRCS PLANT CODE:
MURI
COMMON NAMES:
mat muhly
TAXONOMY:
The scientific name of mat muhly is Muhlenbergia richardsonis (Trin.) Rydb. (Poaceae) [21,24,25,26,44].
LIFE FORM:
Graminoid
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
No special status
OTHER STATUS:
Mat muhly is state-listed as threatened in Maine [29].
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:
Mat muhly occurs from southern Yukon east to New Brunswick and Maine
and south to Ohio, Nebraska, California, and Baja California. [25,30].
ECOSYSTEMS:
FRES11 Spruce-fir
FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon-juniper
FRES36 Mountain grasslands
FRES37 Mountain meadows
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES39 Prairie
FRES40 Desert grasslands
AK AZ CA CO ID ME MI MN MT NE NV NM ND OR SD UT WA WI WY AB BC MB NB ON PQ SK YT MEXICOBLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS:
5 Columbia Plateau 6 Upper Basin and Range 7 Lower Basin and Range 8 Northern Rocky Mountains 9 Middle Rocky Mountains 10 Wyoming Basin 11 Southern Rocky Mountains 12 Colorado Plateau 13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont 14 Great Plains 16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken LandsKUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS:
K008 Lodgepole pine-subalpine forest K011 Western ponderosa forest K016 Eastern ponderosa forest K018 Pine-Douglas-fir forest K019 Arizona pine forest K023 Juniper-pinyon woodland K024 Juniper steppe K037 Mountain-mahogany-oak scrub K039 Blackbrush K041 Creosotebush K053 Grama-galleta steppe K055 Sagebrush steppe K056 Wheatgrass-needlegrass shrubsteppe K057 Galleta-threeawn shrubsteppe K063 Foothills prairie K064 Grama-needlegrass-wheatgrass K065 Grama-buffalograss K066 Wheatgrass-needlegrass K067 Wheatgrass-bluestem-needlegrass K074 Bluestem prairie K098 Northern floodplain forestSAF COVER TYPES:
206 Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir 217 Aspen 218 Lodgepole pine 219 Limber pine 220 Rocky Mountain juniper 237 Interior ponderosa pine 238 Western juniper 239 Pinyon-juniper 244 Pacific ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir 247 Jeffery pineSRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES:
104 Antelope bitterbrush-bluebunch wheatgrass 105 Antelope bitterbrush-Idaho fescue 107 Western juniper/big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass 109 Ponderosa pine shrubland 110 Ponderosa pine-grassland 210 Bitterbrush 211 Creosote bush scrub 212 Blackbrush 216 Montane meadows 301 Bluebunch wheatgrass-blue grama 313 Tufted hairgrass-sedge 314 Big sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass 315 Big sagebrush-Idaho fescue 316 Big sagebrush-rough fescue 317 Bitterbrush-bluebunch wheatgrass 322 Curlleaf mountain-mahogany-bluebunch wheatgrass 401 Basin big sagebrush 402 Mountain big sagebrush 403 Wyoming big sagebrush 408 Other sagebrush types 409 Tall forb 411 Aspen woodland 412 Juniper-pinyon woodland 602 Bluestem-praire sandreed 607 Wheatgrass-needlegrass 612 Sagebrush-grass 613 Fescue grassland 704 Blue grama-western wheatgrass 714 Grama-bluestem 908 FescueHABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:
Young mat muhly is readily eaten by livestock. Plants become
less palatable as they mature. Mat muhly cures well in the northern
Great Plains and is grazed by all classes of livestock, especially in
the winter [12,40]. Pieper [32] reported that in a New Mexico pinyon-juniper
grassland , mat muhly only comprised 8% of cattle
diets over 3 years, although during 1 of these years from January
to March mat muhly comprised 24% of the diet.
Mat muhly plants usually grow in scattered patches, so they are seldom
sufficiently abundant to be of major importance to livestock [9,40].
On a fertilized blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) upland range site
cattle occasionally used mat muhly forage more than either blue grama
or sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus). However mat muhly comprised
less than 5% of the plant ground cover and was not considered a major portion
of the cattle diet during any season of the year [23].
PALATABILITY:
In the northern part of its range, mat muhly is rated as good
to very good forage for cattle and horses and fairly good for
domestic sheep [40]. The palatability of mat muhly for
livestock and wildlife species has been rated as follows [12]:
MT ND UT WY Cattle Good Good Fair Fair Domestic Sheep Fair Good Fair Fair Horses Fair Good Fair Fair Pronghorn ---- ---- Fair ---- Elk ---- ---- Fair ---- Mule deer ---- ---- Poor ---- Small mammals ---- ---- Fair ---- Small nongame birds ---- ---- Fair ---- Upland game birds ---- ---- Poor ---- Waterfowl ---- ---- Poor ----
NUTRITIONAL VALUE:
Mat muhly is rated fair in energy value and poor in protein value [12].
COVER VALUE:
The degree to which mat muhly provides cover for wildlife species
in Utah has been rated as follows [12]:
Small mammals Fair Small nongame birds Fair Upland game birds Poor Waterfowl Poor
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:
No entry
OTHER USES AND VALUES:
Mat muhly is valuable as a soil binder [40].
OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Mat muhly withstands heavy grazing because of its sod-forming habit [40].
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
Mat muhly is a mat-forming, strongly rhizomatous, warm-season, native,
perennial grass. It forms clumps as large as 48 inches (122 cm) in diameter
and grows as large as 12 inches (30.5 cm) in height by the time of maturity
in August [14,21,24,25].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM:
Hemicryptophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES:
Mat muhly regenerates from rhizomes and by seed [26].
Grilz and Romo [22] reported that mat muhly commonly occurred in
a rough fescue (Festuca altaica) prairie seedbank in Saskatchewan after a burn.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Mat muhly grows from moist lowlands to montane prairies, highland
meadows, and rocky slopes [5,12,20,25,27]. In the eastern parts of its range mat muhly is found on wet, gravelly soil. In the Intermountain region mat muhly occurs on dry to moist sites. Plants are occasional on open slopes from 5,700 to 11,000 feet
(1700-3200 m) [44]. Mat muhly often grows on alkaline soil with
textures ranging from sand or gravel to clayey loam. It is one of
the more salt-tolerant upland grasses, sometimes forming mixed
stands with halophytic species [8]. Mat muhly is found north
of 60o latitude only on open, warm microsites
that receive high insolation and have dry soil that heats up
rapidly [38]. In the Sierra Nevada, mat muhly dominates on
high-elevation sites (10,200 to 11,700 feet (3200-3658 m)) with
very thin soils [31]. This species does well on disturbed sites
[2,12,24,40].
Elevational ranges vary as follows [12]:
6,500 to 9,500 feet (2,000-2,900 m) in Colorado
4,800 to 8,000 feet (1,500-2,400 m) in Montana
7,000 to 10,500 feet (2,100-3,200 m) in Utah
5,000 to 9,900 feet (1,500-3,000 m) in Wyoming
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:
Mat muhly is common on disturbed sites, persisting but
becoming less important in late seral stages. The relative abundance of mat muhly increased
with the deterioration of tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa) on
overgrazed mountain rangeland in Wyoming and the Sierra Nevada[3,33]. On subirrigated and saline lowlands Montana, mat muhly increases in relative
abundance with cattle grazing [45]. Mat muhly tolerates
competition but not dense shade. It is usually a minor constituent of undisturbed mountain meadows in the Sierra Nevada [34].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT: Mat muhly starts to grow late in spring except in the Southwest, were growth starts earlier. Plants bloom from July to September; seeds disperse from August to September [2,12,21,40].
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:
Fire does not harm mat muhly to any great extent because the
rhizome buds are insulated by soil [4]. There is a greater
than 65% chance that at least 50% of the plants in a population
will survive a fire [42].
FIRE REGIMES:
Mat muhly occurs in upland plant communities with a variety of
fire regimes. The range of fire intervals reported for some
species that dominate communities where mat muhly occurs are
listed below. Find further fire regime information for the plant communities in which this
species may occur by entering the species name in the FEIS home page under "Find Fire Regimes".
Community dominant Range of fire intervals (years)
Utah juniper 10-30
(Juniperus osteosperma)
ponderosa pine 30-41
(Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum}
quaking aspen 7-10
(Populus tremuloides)
Engelmann spruce >150
(Picea engelmannii)
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY:
Rhizomatous herb, rhizome in soil
Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:
Mat muhly is top-killed by fire. It is a warm-season species, so the
period of green-up and highest susceptibility to fire injury maybe late spring and early summer [28].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:
No entry
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:
It usually takes 5 to 10 years for mat muhly to recover to prefire
frequency or coverage after fire [2,42]. On a grassland in quaking aspen parkland in east-central Alberta, annual early spring burning increased the percentage of seedheads present and seedhead density for mat muhly [1,2], though the increases were not statistically significant. Mat muhly was classed as an "increaser." Percent cover was 0.9 on unburned plots and 1.3 on burned plots. The difference was significant at p<0.01 [2]. A prescribed spring burn on a undisturbed northwestern Minnesota prairie stimulated flowering in mat muhly [30]. After a spring fire on a blue juniper-blue grama rangeland in New Mexico, the abundance of mat muhly did not change, perhaps because there was not much of it present on the site [15].
On a montane Sierra Nevada meadow, changes in mat muhly cover did not differ significantly between burned and unburned plots (p=0.44). The mean change in mat muhly percent cover from 1987 to 1988
(postfire) was as follows (s.e. in parentheses) [7]:
Burned plots(n=8) Unburned plots(n=11)
0.28 (0.56) 1.00 (0.71)
On nearby plots measured after the fire, mean percent cover of
mat muhly was significantly greater for burned than unburned plots (p=.05).
The difference could be due to prefire differences or fire effects.
Mean estimated percent cover was as follows: Burned plots(n=8) Unburned plots(n=11)
3.80 (2.0) 0.25 (0.25)
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:
No entry
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Mat muhly is "resistant" to fire-caused mortality [42]. It may be more
vulnerable in late spring and early summer than at other times of the year [28].
1. Anderson, Howard A. 1978. Annual burning and vegetation in the aspen parkland of east central Alberta. In: Dube, D. E., compiler. Fire ecology in resource management: Workshop proceedings; 1977 December 6-7; [Location unknown]. Information Report NOR-X-210. Edmonton, AB: Environment Canada; Canadian Forestry Service, Northern Forest Research Centre: 2:3. Abstract. [317]
2. Anderson, Howard G.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1980. Effects of annual burning on grassland in the aspen parkland of east-central Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany. 58: 985-996. [3499]
3. Beetle, Alan A. 1962. Range survey in Teton County, Wyoming: Part 2. Utilization and condition classes. Bull. 400. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Agricultural Experiment Station. 38 p. [418]
4. Benedict, Nathan B. 1984. Classification and dynamics of subalpine meadow ecosystems in the southern Sierra Nevada. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of the conference; 1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 92-96. [5829]
5. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. [434]
6. Blackburn, W. H.; Beall, R.; Bruner, A.; [and others]. 1975. Controlled fire as a management tool in the pinyon-juniper woodland, Nevada. Annual Progress Report FY 1975. Unpublished report on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 77 p. [453]
7. Boyd, Robert S.; Woodward, Roy A.; Walter, Gary. 1993. Fire effects on a montane Sierra Nevada meadow. California Fish and Game. 70(3): 115-125. [24152]
8. Coupland, R. T. 1992. Mixed prairie. In: Coupland, R. T., ed. Natural grasslands: Introduction and western hemisphere. Ecosystems of the World 8A. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.: 151-182. [23825]
9. Coupland, Robert T.; Brayshaw, T. Christopher. 1953. The fescue grassland in Saskatchewan. Ecology. 34(2): 386-405. [701]
10. Crosswhite, Frank S.; Crosswhite, Carol D. 1997. Muhly grasses and the Muhlenberg family, with notes on the Pietistic ecology. Desert Plants. 3-13. [27433]
11. Dealy, J. Edward. 1971. Habitat characteristics of the Silver Lake mule deer range. Res. Pap. PNW-125. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 99 p. [782]
12. Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p. [806]
13. Dix, R. L.; Smeins, F. E. 1967. The prairie, meadow, and marsh vegetation of Nelson County, North Dakota. Canadian Journal of Botany. 45: 21-58. [5528]
14. Dodd, J, D.; Coupland, R. T. 1966. Vegetation of saline areas in Sackatchewan. Ecology. 47(6): 958-968. [11209]
15. Dwyer, Don D.; Pieper, Rex D. 1967. Fire effects on blue grama--pinyon-juniper rangeland in New Mexico. Journal of Range Management. 20: 359-362. [833]
16. Eckert, R. E. 1975. Improvement of mountain meadows in Nevada. Research Report. Reno, NV: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Land Managment. 45 p. [8124]
17. Eddy, Thomas L.; Harriman, Neil A. 1992. Muhlenbergia richardsonis in Wisconsin. The Michigan Botanist. 31(1): 39-40. [29250]
18. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
19. Franklin, Jerry F.; Dyrness, C. T. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-8. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 417 p. [961]
20. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others]. 1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]
21. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
22. Grilz, Perry L.; Romo, J. T. 1995. Management considerations for controlling smooth brome in fescue prairie. Natural Areas Journal. 15(2): 148-156. [25741]
23. Havstad, Kris; Pieper, Rex D.; Donart, Gary B.; {and others]. 1979. Cattle diets on a fertilized blue grama upland range site. Journal of Range Management. 32(5): 398-401. [4646]
24. Hitchcock, A. S. 1951. Manual of the grasses of the United States. Misc. Publ. No. 200. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Administration. 1051 p. [2nd edition revised by Agnes Chase in two volumes. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.]. [1165]
25. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur; Ownbey, Marion. 1969. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 1: Vascular cryptograms, gymnosperms, and monocotyledons. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 914 p. [1169]
26. Kartesz, John T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume I--checklist. 2nd ed. Portland, OR: Timber Press. 622 p. [23877]
27. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384]
28. Lent, Steve. 1984. Developing prescriptions for burning western juniper slash. In: Proceedings--western juniper management short course; 1984 October 15-16; Bend, OR. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Extension Service and Department of Rangeland Resources: 77-90. [1440]
29. Maine Department of Conservation, Natural Resources Information and Mapping Center. 1997. Maine's rare, threatened, and endangered plants. In: Maine Department of Conservation, [Online]. Available: http://www.state.me.us/doc/nrimc/mnap/factsheets/snameindex.htm [2000, June 20]. [35090]
30. Pemble, R. H.; Van Amburg, G. L.; Mattson, Lyle. 1981. Intraspecific variation in flowering activity following a spring burn on a northwestern Minnesota prairie. In: Stuckey, Ronald L.; Reese, Karen J., eds. The prairie peninsula--in the "shadow" of Transeau: Proceedings, 6th North American prairie conference; 1978 August 12-17; Columbus, OH. Ohio Biological Survey: Biological Notes No. 15. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, College of Biological Sciences: 235-240. [3435]
31. Pemble, Richard Hoppe. 1970. Alpine vegetation in the Sierra Nevada of California as lithosequences and in relation to local site factors. Davis, CA: University of California. 311 p. Dissertation. [3950]
32. Pieper, Rex D. 1970. Species utilization and botanical composition of cattle diets on pinyon-juniper grassland. Bulletin 566. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 16 p. [4519]
33. Ratliff, Raymond D. 1982. A meadow site classification for the Sierra Nevada, California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-60. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 16 p. [1941]
34. Ratliff, Raymond D. 1985. Meadows in the Sierra Nevada of California: state of knowledge. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-84. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 52 p. [8275]
35. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
36. Redmann, R. E. 1972. Plant communities and soils of an eastern North Dakota prairie. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 99(2): 65-76. [3639]
37. Reed, John F. 1952. The vegetation of the Jackson Hole Wildlife Park, Wyoming. The American Midland Naturalist. 48(3): 700-729. [1949]
38. Schwarz, Arthur G.; Thorpe, Jeffrey P.; Redmann, Robert E. 1988. Isolated grasslands in the boreal forest region of western Canada. In: Davis, Arnold; Stanford, Geoffrey, eds. The prairie: roots of our culture; foundation of our economy: Proceedings, 10th North American prairie conference; 1986 June 22-26; Denton, TX. Dallas, TX: Native Prairie Association of Texas: 01.09: 1-4. [25577]
39. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 10 p. [20090]
40. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1937. Range plant handbook. Washington, DC. 532 p. [2387]
41. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Plants of the U.S.--alphabetical listing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 954 p. [23104]
42. Volland, Leonard A.; Dell, John D. 1981. Fire effects on Pacific Northwest forest and range vegetation. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Range Management and Aviation and Fire Management. 23 p. [2434]
43. Weber, William A.; Wittmann, Ronald C. 1996. Colorado flora: eastern slope. 2nd ed. Nowot, CO: University Press of Colorado. 524 p. [27572]
44. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]
45. Zacek, Joseph C.; Hunter, Harold E.; Bown, T. A.; Ross, Robert L. 1977. Montana grazing guides. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 12 p. [2687]