Laserfiche WebLink
that it would hinder even germination and seedling growth. Thus, even though tumbleweed <br />seed was present it couldn't really get going due to the low nitrogen level in the soil. But the <br />perennials loved it and grew vigorously producing the excellent growth there today. In <br />support of this explanation is the moderate to low levels of cheatgrass which also gravitates <br />toward high nitrogen soils. But the cheatgrass presence is also a problem for the explanation <br />in that it is present in sufficient amounts to indicate the soil was not all that starved of <br />nitrogen. So the low nitrogen explanation, although compelling, does not seem to fit a <br />complete explanation as there is the cheatgrass anomaly. <br />A better explanation is a blend of the two influences. Annual weeds were fairly <br />abundant in March 2015 and almost absent in July. Nitrogen starvation could have limited the <br />continued growth of the annuals such that most of the plants failed to thrive. And then, at just <br />the right time, along came the cleanup crew in the form of cattle which ate much of the <br />annual population before very many of those plants could get going. Then the cattle were <br />removed but before the cheatgrass could get going and now there is a moderate amount of <br />cheatgrass present but practically no other annuals of any significance because they became <br />cattle tissue. This explanation seems to fit the data much more closely. Sadly, there is no <br />viable way to prove it, but it is a compelling explanation. It will be interesting what comes <br />along by about September and what the condition is prior to the second winter. <br />In short, this revegetation project that was planted when it shouldn't have been if a <br />normal year and experienced an unintentional management routine that no other reclamation <br />project on this property has experienced before, has shown outstanding and even incredible <br />success to this point. <br />Status of Prior Revegetation Areas - <br />A. Status of newest seedings as of report date - N/A <br />E. Status of older revegetation as of report date (describe growth rates, cover, invasive <br />species, native invasion, and difficulties) - In July 2015, all older revegetation sites <br />were briefly examined and found to still be in excellent condition. With this unusually <br />wet year it would be surprising to find anywhere that is not in excellent or improving <br />condition, except for the fact that in the natural vegetation thistle and spurge are <br />making a major comeback. As reclamation areas in general have little thistle or spurge <br />that is not a general problem in these areas, but with prodigious seed production likely <br />this year future years need to be watched closely. <br />Individual Reclamation Areas: The newest reclamation area was described previously. . <br />F. Description of animal impacts on revegetation: No significant animal impacts <br />were noted. Prairie dogs do harvest vegetation from nearby reclamation areas, but <br />their impacts are minimal and burrows are not made in reclamation soils. This is <br />probably because the reclamation soils do not have the structural strength yet to <br />support the creation of stable burrows. The newly introduced cattle grazing is not <br />having a negative impact on vegetation in reclaimed areas. The cattle are probably <br />having a currently positive impact on natural vegetation, as the natural grasslands <br />were becoming clogged with litter due to a lack of the significant grazing many of <br />Status report for 2015 due July 15, 2015 Page 7 of 10 <br />