Seth M. Munson Michael C. Duniway 2016 Extensible Markup Language (XML) workbook Flagstaff, AZ U.S. Geological Survey https://dx.doi.org/10.5066/F75D8PZ5 Seth M. Munson Michael C. Duniway Jamin K. Johanson 2016 Journal publication Online publication Rangeland Ecology & Management http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2015.09.004 The dataset describes rangeland monitoring results from the Hanksville, UT (USA) area. Monitoring results consist of canopy cover of plant species and functional types according to ecological site group from 1967 to 2013. The study area is bordered on the north by the Wayne-Emery County line, on the west by Capitol Reef National Park, and on the south and east by the Colorado River, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, and Canyonlands National Park. Cover was estimated every 1 to 5 years (except the last measurement that had a 12 year interval) from 1967 to 2013 at 36 permanently marked sites in 15 livestock grazing allotments/pastures. Canopy cover of perennial plant species was estimated to the nearest tenth of a percent inside permanently marked 1.5 x 1.5 m plots using a frame that was divided into 6 x 6 cm sections. This dataset assesses the condition of rangeland vegetation on the Colorado Plateau to inform management decisions. These data represent compiled long-term rangeland monitoring data collected from June to September, 1967 to 2013 at 96 permanently marked sites in 15 livestock grazing allotments in near Hanksville, Utah. The Rangeland rangeland monitoring data were collected by a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) field office in south-central Utah. Monitoring consisted of estimating canopy cover of perennial plant species inside permanently marked 1.5 × 1.5m plots using a frame that was divided into 6 ×6 cm sections. The purpose of these data is to demonstrate how long-term rangeland monitoring data can be synthesized using ecological site concepts to understand how changes in plant species cover are driven by precipitation and grazing across the landscape By bridging long-term rangeland monitoring data with ecological site concepts, we provide the context to enhance understanding of vegetation response to climate and land use, which can ultimately inform management decisions and guide future monitoring efforts. These data can be used to examine spatial or temporal patterns in rangeland vegetation condition in southern Utah from 1967-2013 and were used to understand vegetation response to climate and land-use in the published paper: Munson, S.M., M.C. Duniway, and J.K. Johanson. 2016. Rangeland monitoring reveals long-term plant responses to precipitation and grazing at the landscape-scale. Rangeland Ecology and Management 69: 76–83. The data are specific to the aforementioned location and years, and any other use of these data would be inappropriate. 1967 2013 ground condition Complete Not planned -111.02284 -110.507199 38.4493 37.570651 36 rangeland monitoring sites near Hanksville, UT None Climate change Land-use change Ecological sites State-and-transition models Rangeland Monitoring Plant Responses Precipitation Grazing Landscape Scale Soils Vegetation USGS Metadata Identifier USGS:56c73ae9e4b0946c6524083f Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) Colorado Plateau Hanksville Garfield County San Juan County Wayne County Utah United States none none Seth M. Munson U.S. Geological Survey - Southwest Biological Science Center mailing and physical

2255 Gemini Dr.

Flagstaff AZ 86001 USA 928-523-7740 smunson@usgs.gov U.S. Geological Survey, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service USGS Biocomplexity Thesaurus Plants USDA Plants Team Unknown EXCEL XML data file Unknown USDA Plants Team http://plants.usda.gov Range technician BLM mailing and physical

Unknown

Hanksville UT 84734 USA Unknown Unknown expert advice Species identifications were made on the best knowledge of the BLM employee Plant species were identified by the BLM Kingdom Plantae Subkingdom Viridiplantae Infrakingdom Streptophyta Superdivision Embryophyta Division Tracheophyta Subdivision Spermatophytina Class Magnoliopsida Superorder Lilianae Order Poales Family Poaceae Genus Achnatherum Species Achnatherum hymenoides Indian ricegrass Kingdom Plantae Subkingdom Viridiplantae Infrakingdom Streptophyta Superdivision Embryophyta Division Tracheophyta Subdivision Spermatophytina Class Magnoliopsida Superorder Lilianae Order Poales Family Poaceae Genus Hesperostipa Species Hesperostipa comata Hesperostipa needleandthread needle and thread Kingdom Plantae Subkingdom Viridiplantae Infrakingdom Streptophyta Superdivision Embryophyta Division Tracheophyta Subdivision Spermatophytina Class Magnoliopsida Superorder Lilianae Order Poales Family Poaceae Genus Sporobolus Species Sporobolus cryptandrus Kingdom Plantae Subkingdom Viridiplantae Infrakingdom Streptophyta Superdivision Embryophyta Division Tracheophyta Subdivision Spermatophytina Class Magnoliopsida Superorder Lilianae Order Poales Family Poaceae Genus Pleuraphis Species Pleuraphis jamesii Indian ricegrass Kingdom Plantae Subkingdom Viridiplantae Infrakingdom Streptophyta Superdivision Embryophyta Division Tracheophyta Subdivision Spermatophytina Class Magnoliopsida Superorder Lilianae Order Poales Family Poaceae Genus Bouteloua Species Bouteloua gracilis Kingdom Plantae Subkingdom Viridiplantae Infrakingdom Streptophyta Superdivision Embryophyta Division Tracheophyta Subdivision Spermatophytina Class Magnoliopsida Superorder Asteranae Order Asterales Family Asteraceae Genus Gutierrezia Species Gutierrezia sarothrae broom snakeweed broomweed perennial snakeweed stinkweed turpentine weed yellow top Kingdom Plantae Subkingdom Viridiplantae Infrakingdom Streptophyta Superdivision Embryophyta Division Tracheophyta Subdivision Spermatophytina Class Magnoliopsida Superorder Caryophyllanae Order Caryophyllales Family Amaranthaceae Genus Atriplex Species Atriplex confertifolia shadscale spiny saltbush shadscale saltbush Kingdom Plantae Subkingdom Viridiplantae Infrakingdom Streptophyta Superdivision Embryophyta Division Tracheophyta Subdivision Spermatophytina Class Magnoliopsida Superorder Rosanae Order Rosales Family Rosaceae Genus Coleogyne Species Coleogyne ramosissima blackbrush Kingdom Plantae Subkingdom Viridiplantae Infrakingdom Streptophyta Superdivision Embryophyta Division Tracheophyta Subdivision Spermatophytina Class Gnetopsida Subclass Gnetidae Order Ephedrales Family Ephedraceae Genus Ephedra Mormon tea jointfir ephedra Kingdom Plantae Subkingdom Viridiplantae Infrakingdom Streptophyta Superdivision Embryophyta Division Tracheophyta Subdivision Spermatophytina Class Magnoliopsida Superorder Asteranae Order Asterales Family Asteraceae Genus Artemisia Species Artemisia tridentata R Core Team. www.R-project.org. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. https://cran.r-project.org/ Visit the R Development Core Team website and download the package via the link below. No formal attribute accuracy tests were conducted No formal logical accuracy tests were conducted Data set is considered complete for the information presented, as described in the abstract. Users are advised to read the rest of the metadata record carefully for additional details. No formal positional accuracy tests were conducted No formal positional accuracy tests were conducted 1. Data acquisition/collection: Plant species were grouped according to perennial grasses, subshrubs (woody plants usually < 0.5 m and always < 1 m in height), and shrubs (woody plants 1 ‒ 4 m). We also separated perennial grasses into those with a C3 and C4 photosynthetic pathway. Cover by species and aggregated by functional types (Appendix 1) was normalized with a calculation of the change in cover per unit time: Change in cover= (ln(covert2/covert1))/(t2-t1), where covert2 is for year t2, and covert1 is for t1, the previous sampling year, calculated for each pair of consecutive years across the entire vegetation time series. Positive values of this index indicate that a species increased in cover between measurements, whereas negative values indicate a decrease in cover. Precipitation variables were averaged over the vegetation sampling period, which is the same period of time used in the change in cover index (t2 - t1). We initially included precipitation variables (cool-season, warm-season, and annual mean) within the first 12 months before vegetation measurements to account for the influence of precipitation at a shorter time scale, but found that these additional variables did not improve model fits compared to variables averaged over the vegetation sampling period, so they were not retained in the analysis. We related precipitation, ecological site group, and grazing intensity to changes in plant species and functional type covers for each pair of consecutive years using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with ecological site group (six levels) and grazing intensity (two levels) as class variables and precipitation as a continuous variable. When the precipitation effect from the ANCOVA model was significant, the slope between the change in plant cover and precipitation variable defined the “plant response”. This plant response indicates the capacity of a plant to increase in cover when water is available and decrease with low water availability. When there was a significant precipitation by species, grazing intensity, or ecological site interaction, we used ANCOVA contrasts to compare slopes among different species, grazing intensities, and ecological site groups. Analyses were only performed on plant species and functional types that had a sufficient sample size. For more information see: Munson, S.M., M.C. Duniway, and J.K. Johanson. 2016. Rangeland monitoring reveals long-term plant responses to precipitation and grazing at the landscape-scale. Rangeland Ecology and Management 69: 76–83. 20130401 2. Data entry: created EXCEL workbook with 6 worksheets (Workbook Metadata, Column Metadata, Plot Metadata, Plot Soils Classification, Plot Soils Data, Vegetation Data) and input field data into the appropriate worksheets 20151101 3. Data QA/QC: data checked for mistakes and completeness. 100% of data records entered were spot-checked for accuracy. The historical data were spot-checked by BLM employees. 20160501 4. Finalize workbook for dissemination: data sent to the Southwest Biological Science Center Data Steward for dissemination and preservation per USGS Interim Memorandum Policies, IM OSQI 2015-01, IM OSQI 2015-02, IM OSQI 2015-03 & IM OSQI 2015-04 (January 2015). SBSC Data Steward created 2 additional worksheets (Workbook Metadata & Column Metadata) and populated with metadata information about the data contained in the EXCEL workbook 20160601 Field Rangeland monitoring was conducted every 1 to 5 years (except the last measurement that had a 12 year interval) in late June – September from 1967 – 2013 at 96 permanently marked sites in 15 livestock grazing allotments. Rangeland monitoring consisted of estimating canopy cover of perennial plant species inside permanently marked 1.5 x 1.5 m plots using a frame that was divided into 6 x 6 cm sections. Repeat landscape photographs were taken at the north end of the plot. Nested frequency and point intercept are common range trend methods and were also used at the monitoring site, but preliminary analyses revealed these measurements had extreme variability among years likely due to methodological differences throughout the study period (e.g., frames not placed in the same part of the transect every year, inconsistencies in the number of points read; personal communication with BLM), and therefore, we did not further consider these measurements. The rangeland monitoring data were hand-written in paper format with no GPS coordinates of transect locations, little metadata, and no site characterization. We converted the paper data into an electronic database to conduct analyses. We chose 36 of the sites that: 1) had a minimum of six continuous, repeat measurements taken 1 – 12 years apart throughout the study period (1967 – 2013), and 2) were likely to represent a range of ecological sites based on preliminary field visits. We visited the chosen sites using hand-written maps and the guidance of BLM range staff, then georeferenced transect locations with a high precision GPS instrument, photographed, and qualitatively described the landform, slope, aspect, hillslope position and plant community composition at the site. We determined average grazing intensity (% utilization) of a pasture over the last 25 years from a combination of historical stocking rate maps and qualitative assessments obtained by visiting sites with a long-term (worked at BLM field office for 25 years) range technician. We classified grazing according to slight-moderate (≤ 60%) and heavy-severe (> 60%) utilization (USDA/USDI 1999). We found that there was a strong difference between our utilization categories with respect to distance to water accessible by cattle (t = 43.71, P < 0.0001). We characterized soil horizons at all the sites to a depth of 1 m using a 76 mm diameter auger. Soil characterization consisted of texture, chemistry, and physical properties. We extracted mean monthly precipitation for each of the transect locations from a 800 m gridded PRISM dataset and compiled monthly values into cool (October – March) and warm (July – September) seasons. The soils, precipitation, landform, and vegetation data were used to determine the ecological site classification for each study site, resulting in 15 different classifications within the study area. There were a relatively small number of plots measured to assess changes in plant species according to ecological site, which is an ideal way to stratify sampling but is often not feasible with historical data. Due to the low number of available plots within each ecological site, and the similarity among certain ecological sites with respect to soils (dominant surface textural class, soil depth, and parent material) and plant community composition, we elected to group ecological sites based on these shared soil and plant properties for analysis. Such grouping of ecological sites is common for landscape-scale analyses in areas marked by high spatial heterogeneity and limited sample sizes. Furthermore, consideration of multiple ecological sites can reduce redundancy and be effectively used to assess the effects of broad-scale drivers such as climate. For more information see: Munson, S.M., M.C. Duniway, and J.K. Johanson. 2016. Rangeland monitoring reveals long-term plant responses to precipitation and grazing at the landscape-scale. Rangeland Ecology and Management 69: 76–83. Plot locations were collected using a Trimble GeoXT 2008-3000 GPS receiver. Point Transverse Mercator 0.9996 -111.0 0.0 500000.0 0.0 coordinate pair 30.0 14.0 METERS D_North_American_1983 GRS_1980 6378137.0 298.257222101 Plot Metadata Contains descriptions and data relating to plot location, grazing history, number of vegetation measurements Producer defined PlotID Unique Plot Identifier Producer defined Unique plot name Allotment BLM Grazing Allotment Bureau of Land Management Unique grazing allotment name Pasture BLM Grazing Pasture (not all allotments diveded into pastures) Bureau of Land Management Unique grazing pasture name Plot BLM Allotment plot number Bureau of Land Management 1 9 Number Easting UTM easting, NAD83, zone 12N - GeoXT 2008-3000 Producer defined 498077 543002 Meters Northing UTM northing, NAD83, zone 12N -GeoXT 2008-3000 Producer defined 4158291 4255668 Meters Elevation Elevation above sea level in meters - GeoXT 2008-3000 Producer defined 1178.795 2012.85 Meters Grazing Intensity Grazing intensity (based on interview with former BLM employee and utilization maps) Producer defined 1 Slight-moderate utilization (≤ 60% of biomass) Producer defined 2 Heavy-severe utilization (> 60% of biomass) Producer defined CountofYears Number of years plot vegetation frame measured Producer defined 2 16 Years Plot Soils Classification Includes information on ecological site classification & basic soil pedon diagnostic features Producer defined PlotID Unique Plot Identifier Producer defined Unique plot name Ecological Site Group Abreviation for ecological site group used in analysis Producer defined Unique abbreviation code based on 'Ecological Site Group Name' attribute label Ecological Site Group Name Name of ecological site group used for analysis Producer defined Unique ecological site group name LRU NRCS MLRA 35 Land Resource Unit Natural Resources Conservation Service Land Resource Unit: Desert: < 150 mm mean annual precipitation (MAP); Semidesert: 150 - 300 mm MAP http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/ut/technical/?cid=nrcs141p2_034190 ES Number NRCS Ecological Site Number Natural Resources Conservation Service Ecological Site Number http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/ut/technical/?cid=nrcs141p2_034190 ES Name NRCS Ecological Site Name Natural Resources Conservation Service Ecological Site Name http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/ut/technical/?cid=nrcs141p2_034190 Soil Depth Class Soil depth class Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. deep 1.0 to 1.5 m Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. mod deep 50 cm to 1.0 m Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. shallow 25 to 50 cm Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. Soil Texture Soil textural class Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. Soil textural class Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. loamy 7 to 27 percent clay, 28 to 50 percent silt, and 52 percent or less sand. Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. loamy sand A total of 25 percent or more very coarse, coarse, and medium sand and a total of less than 25 percent very coarse and coarse sand, and less than 50 percent fine sand and less than 50 percent very fine sand. Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. sandy More than 85 percent sand, the percentage of silt plus 1.5 times the percentage of clay is less than 15. Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. sandy loam A total of 30 percent or more very coarse, coarse, and medium sand, but a total of less than 25 percent very coarse and coarse sand and less than 30 percent fine sand and less than 30 percent very fine sand; or a total of 15 percent or less very coarse, coarse, and medium sand, less than 30 percent fine sand and less than 30 percent very fine sand with a total of 40 percent or less fine and very fine sand. Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. Rock frags % by volume soil rock fragements (>2 mm) estimated Producer defined Description of soil rock fragements measured in % by volume Diagnostic Horizons Diagnostic subsurface horizon used for Ecological Site differentiation Producer defined argillic soil horizon with accumulation of pedogenic clay occurs Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. Bedrock Bedrock occurs within the upper 100 cm of soil profile Producer defined Bedrock, calcic Bedrock or calcic horizon occurs within the upper 100 cm of soil profile Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. Calcic oil horizon showing pedogenic accumulation of calcium carbonate Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. Gypsic Soil horizon showing pedogenic accumulation of gypsum Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. None No defining subsurface soil horizon Producer defined Petrocalcic Presence of a soil horizons cemented by the pedogenic accumulation of calcium carbonate Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. Some CaCO3 Some accumulation of calcium carbonate Producer defined Weak argillic Slight accumulation of pedogenic clay in sub-surface horizons Producer defined Notes Notes about the plot or the site Producer defined Detailed descriptive information about a plot or the site Plot Soils Data Includes soil field characterization data Producer defined PlotID Unique Plot Identifier Producer defined Unique plot name SurfaceHorizonSandModifier Surface horizon USDA Sand Modifier (estimated in field - before lab analysis conducted) Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. None No modification Producer defined Fine 50 percent or more fine sand Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. Very Fine 50 percent or more very fine sand. Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. SurfaceHorizonTextureClassName Surface horizon USDA Textural Class (estimated in field - before lab analysis conducted) Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. Sandy loam A total of 30 percent or more very coarse, coarse, and medium sand, but a total of less than 25 percent very coarse and coarse sand and less than 30 percent fine sand and less than 30 percent very fine sand; or a total of 15 percent or less very coarse, coarse, and medium sand, less than 30 percent fine sand and less than 30 percent very fine sand with a total of 40 percent or less fine and very fine sand. Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. Loamy sand A total of 25 percent or more very coarse, coarse, and medium sand and a total of less than 25 percent very coarse and coarse sand, and less than 50 percent fine sand and less than 50 percent very fine sand. Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. Sand More than 85 percent sand, the percentage of silt plus 1.5 times the percentage of clay is less than 15. Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. Loam 7 to 27 percent clay, 28 to 50 percent silt, and 52 percent or less sand. Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. SurfaceHorizonTextureClass Surface horizon USDA NASIS Textural Code (estimated in field - before lab analysis conducted) Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. SL Sandy loam: A total of 30 percent or more very coarse, coarse, and medium sand, but a total of less than 25 percent very coarse and coarse sand and less than 30 percent fine sand and less than 30 percent very fine sand; or a total of 15 percent or less very coarse, coarse, and medium sand, less than 30 percent fine sand and less than 30 percent very fine sand with a total of 40 percent or less fine and very fine sand. Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. LFS Loamy fine sand: 50 percent or more fine sand; or less than 50 percent very fine sand and a total of less than 25 percent very coarse, coarse, and medium sand. Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. FS Fine sand: 50 percent or more fine sand; or a total of less than 25 percent very coarse, coarse, and medium sand and less than 50 percent very fine sand. Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. FSL Fine sandy loam: 30 percent or more fine sand and less than 30 percent very fine sand; or a total of 15 to 30 percent very coarse, coarse, and medium sand; or a total of more than 40 percent fine and very fine sand, one half or more of which is fine sand, and a total of 15 percent or less very coarse, coarse, and medium sand. Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. L Loam: 7 to 27 percent clay, 28 to 50 percent silt, and 52 percent or less sand. Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. LS Loamy sand: A total of 25 percent or more very coarse, coarse, and medium sand and a total of less than 25 percent very coarse and coarse sand, and less than 50 percent fine sand and less than 50 percent very fine sand. Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. LVFS Loamy very fine sand: 50 percent or more very fine sand. Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. VFS Very fine sand: 50 percent or more fine sand; or less than 50 percent very fine sand and a total of less than 25 percent very coarse, coarse, and medium sand. Soil Survey Staff, editor. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. SurfacePctClay Surface horizon percent clay (estimated in field) Producer defined 3.00 17.00 Percent SurfacepH Surface horizon pH (measured in field using indicator dyes) Producer defined 6.40 8.40 Negative of the logarithm to base 10 of the molar concentration, measured in units of moles per liter, of hydrogen ions. SubSurfacePctClay Subsurface percent clay (estimated in field), weighted average over 20 - 100 cm or max depth Producer defined 3.51 30.00; Rockies Sand 8 has no value because it is less than 20 cm deep Percent SubSurfacepH Sub Surface pH (measured in field using indicator dyes), weighted average over 20 - 100 cm or max depth Producer defined 6.99 8.62; Rockies Sand 8 has no value because it is less than 20 cm deep Negative of the logarithm to base 10 of the molar concentration, measured in units of moles per liter, of hydrogen ions. DepthCharacterized Maximum depth sampled (done using auger) Producer defined 21.00 162.00 Depth in cm of characterized soil Vegetation Data Cover data collected by Bureau of Land Management from 1967 - 2013 BLM - paper datasheets PlotID Unique Plot Identifier Producer defined Unique plot name Year Year of measurement Producer defined 1950 2013 Year HECO/ACHY Hesperostipa comata and Achnatherum hymenoides USDA Plants: http://plants.usda.gov 0 6.9 % canopy cover All C3 PG all perennial grasses with C3 photosynthesis (HECO, ACHY, others) Producer defined 0 6.9 % canopy cover PLJA Pleuraphis jamesii USDA Plants: http://plants.usda.gov 0 24.9 % canopy cover BOGR Bouteloua gracilis USDA Plants: http://plants.usda.gov 0 12.6 % canopy cover SPCR Sporobolus cryptandrus USDA Plants: http://plants.usda.gov 0 7.2 % canopy cover All C4 PG all perennial grasses with C4 photosynthesis (PLJA, BOGR, SPCR, others) Producer defined 0 24.9 % canopy cover GUSA Gutierrezia sarothrae USDA Plants: http://plants.usda.gov 0 10 % canopy cover ATCO Atriplex confertifolia USDA Plants: http://plants.usda.gov 0 20.6 % canopy cover EPSP Ephedra species USDA Plants: http://plants.usda.gov 0 26.8 % canopy cover All SS All subshrubs (GUSA, ATCO, EPSP, others) Producer defined 0 26.9 % canopy cover ARTR Artemisia tridentata USDA Plants: http://plants.usda.gov 0 28 % canopy cover CORA Coleogyne ramosissima USDA Plants: http://plants.usda.gov 0 42.8 % canopy cover All S All shrubs (CORA, ARTR) Producer defined 0 42.8 % canopy cover U.S. Geological Survey - ScienceBase Mailing

Denver Federal Center

Building 810, Mail Stop 302

Denver CO 80225 sciencebase@usgs.gov Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data on any other system or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. This database, identified as, USGS_2016_SMunson_Rangeland_Ecology_Monitoring_Data_1967_2013_Data.xml, has been approved for release and publication by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Although this database has been subjected to rigorous review and is substantially complete, the USGS reserves the right to revise the data pursuant to further analysis and review. Furthermore, it is released on condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from its authorized or unauthorized use. Although these data have been processed successfully on a computer system at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data on any other system or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. The USGS or the U.S. Government shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein. https://dx.doi.org/10.5066/F75D8PZ5 This zip file contains data available in a machine readable extensible markup language (xml) format. The user must have software capable of uncompressing the 7-Zip file and displaying the tabular data. 20200827 Terence Arundel U.S. Geological Survey Geographer mailing and physical

2255 North Gemini Drive

Flagstaff Arizona 86001 United States 928-556-7174 tarundel@usgs.gov FGDC Biological Data Profile of the Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata FGDC-STD-001.1-1999