ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

Application of the TerreSIM Model to a

Training Area Landscape at Fort Bliss, TX

Rebecca J. Bilodeau, Jeffrey S. Fehmi, September 2005

and Bruce MacAllister
Construction Engineering

1m
Research Laboratory

Plot

1m
Plot

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26
September 2005

Application of the TerreSIM Model to a Training

Area Landscape at Fort Bliss, TX
Rebecca J. Bilodeau
MFG, Inc.
3801 Automation Way, Suite 100
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Jeffrey S. Fehmi and Bruce A. MacAllister
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory
PO Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005

Final Report
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Prepared for Department of the Army

Washington, DC 20310-0600

Under Work Unit #008B3X

ABSTRACT: The Terrestrial Ecosystem Simulation Model (TerreSIM) is a computer simulation model designed to be a
useful evaluation and planning tool for investigating ecological responses over time to a wide variety of natural and an-
thropogenic stressors on spatial scales ranging from small plots to large landscapes and watersheds. TerreSIM is the next
generation of modeling efforts at MFG, Inc, built upon general principles of ecology. This document presents the results
of an application of the TerreSIM model to a 94 km2 training area landscape in the north central part of Fort Bliss. Re-
sults of these simulations indicate that fire, cattle grazing, and military training all affect vegetation dynamics on this
landscape, but that the relative importance of each factor is quite different. Model simulations indicate that the landscape
can support moderate grazing by cattle and military training for at least 20 years, provided that at least average precipita-
tion is received. TerreSIM provides the tool for Fort Bliss land managers to develop appropriate management options
under changing climatic, pyric, and successional conditions.

DISCLAIMER: The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes.
Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.
All product names and trademarks cited are the property of their respective owners. The findings of this report are not to be
construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents.
DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN IT IS NO LONGER NEEDED. DO NOT RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINATOR.
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 iii

Executive Summary

A training area located in the McGregor Range was selected by Fort Bliss personnel
to be included in the initial application of TerreSIM (©2003 MFG, Inc.). This
94 km2 landscape was spatially represented in the model by 104,811 cells, each cell
representing a 30 m x 30 m area. The model included 11 plant communities (includ-
ing disturbance types), 6 topographic units, and 14 plant species, along with several
management scenarios (cattle grazing, prescribed fire, movement of livestock water-
ing tanks, Patriot missile training, bombing training, vehicle training (four types),
and bivouacking). Natural ecological stressors included precipitation fluctuations,
nitrogen availability, shrub invasion, natural fires, intra- and interspecific competi-
tion, ecological succession, and natural herbivory.

Twenty-year simulations were conducted to evaluate the effects of various combina-

tions of the management scenarios on vegetation dynamics and watershed yield,
under varying levels of the natural stressors. Of particular interest was the com-
parison of the relative impacts of military training and livestock grazing.

Results of these simulations indicate that fire, cattle grazing, and military training
all affect vegetation dynamics on this landscape, but that the relative importance of
each factor is quite different. In the absence of grazing or training, fire is an impor-
tant factor maintaining the grassland component of this landscape. In the absence
of fire, shrubs increase 35 percent over a 20-year period and grasses decrease by 23
percent, under an average precipitation regime. Cattle grazing, at both light and
moderate stocking rates, increases the ecological effect of lack of fire. Shrubs, espe-
cially creosotebush, increase further and grasses, especially black grama, decrease
further. The use of prescribed fire combined with moderate cattle grazing largely
eliminates the increase in shrubs associated with cattle grazing, but the combina-
tion of fire and continuous grazing reduces the production of grasses even more than
grazing without fire. The area should be rested from grazing for at least 1 year, and
preferably longer, following a fire.

Military training had a similar but lesser impact on the landscape as did cattle
grazing. Of the four types of training simulated, combined wheeled- and tracked-
vehicle training had the greatest impact, followed by wheeled vehicles only, Patriot
missile training, and bombing, in that order.
iv ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

These model simulations indicate that the landscape can support moderate grazing
by cattle and military training for at least 20 years, provided that at least average
precipitation is received. However, the combination of grazing and training will re-
sult in a greater increase in shrubs and a greater decrease in grasses than without
grazing and training. If grazing were eliminated, the landscape would be impacted
less than if training were eliminated. If both management options are continued,
adjustments in intensity and seasonality of each may need to be made on a regular
basis to adjust for changes in ecological effects of natural stressors, especially
drought and fire regimes. TerreSIM provides the tool that allows Fort Bliss land
managers the ability to develop the appropriate management options under chang-
ing climatic, pyric, and successional conditions.
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 v

Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ iii

List of Figures and Tables ............................................................................................................. vii

Preface............................................................................................................................................... ix

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Background......................................................................................................................... 2
Objective ............................................................................................................................. 4
Approach ............................................................................................................................ 4
Mode of Technology Transfer ............................................................................................. 4

2 General Model Software Description ...................................................................................... 6

Simulation Outputs ............................................................................................................. 8
Hydrological Dynamics in TerreSIM.................................................................................... 9

3 Fort Bliss Landscape .............................................................................................................. 10

Climatic Data .................................................................................................................... 10
Spatial Data....................................................................................................................... 11
Edaphic Data .................................................................................................................... 12
Vegetation Data ................................................................................................................ 12
Plant Communities ...................................................................................................................... 12
Plant Species............................................................................................................................... 15
Parameterization Data ................................................................................................................. 18
Animal Data ...................................................................................................................... 19
Natural Stressors .............................................................................................................. 19
Management Scenarios.................................................................................................... 20

4 Simulation Results................................................................................................................... 22
Simulated Baseline Conditions......................................................................................... 22
Simulated Cattle Grazing.................................................................................................. 25
Simulated Prescribed Fire ................................................................................................ 26
Effect of Military Training .................................................................................................. 29
Water Yield........................................................................................................................ 32

5 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................. 34
vi ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

References....................................................................................................................................... 36

Appendix A: Soil Series .......................................................................................................... 40

Appendix B: Initial Parameter Matrices for the Fort Bliss Application ............................ 43

Report Documentation Page......................................................................................................... 69

ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 vii

List of Figures and Tables

Figures

1 Model plot-level structure ............................................................................................ 7

2 Hydrological dynamics in the landscape module ........................................................ 9

Tables

1 Annual precipitation totals used in the Fort Bliss application .................................... 10

2 Monthly precipitation totals for the Fort Bliss landscape, averaged over a 45-
year period ................................................................................................................ 11
3 Soil series used in the Fort Bliss landscape application ........................................... 12
4 Comparison of vegetation types from the Fort Bliss vegetation map and a
multivariate statistical analysis of Fort Bliss LCTA data ............................................ 13
5 Eleven plant communities used in the model application for the landscape at
Fort Bliss, Texas ........................................................................................................ 14
6 Comparison of model plant communities to most-similar validation plots
compositions ............................................................................................................. 16
7 Mean aboveground biomass (g/m2) in validation plots, sampled in 1998, that
most-closely correspond to the model plant communities ........................................ 17
8 Fourteen plant species selected as composite species, along with the species
included in each composite, in the model application for the Fort Bliss training
area landscape.......................................................................................................... 18
9 Model simulation results for vegetation dynamics on McGregor Range at Fort
Bliss, Texas, over a 20-year period, under baseline conditions (i.e., no further
cattle grazing, military training, or prescribed fire) .................................................... 23
10 Model simulation results of changes in total aboveground biomass (g/m2) on
two of the simulated plant communities on McGregor Range at Fort Bliss,
Texas over a 20-year period under baseline conditions ........................................... 24
11 Model simulation results of vegetation dynamics (g/m2) on McGregor Range at
Fort Bliss, Texas over a 10-year period, under three levels of cattle grazing ........... 26
12 Model simulation results of effects of prescribed fire in year 12 on the
vegetation (g/m2) of McGregor Range at Fort Bliss, Texas, without livestock
grazing....................................................................................................................... 27
13 Model simulation results of the effect of moderate cattle grazing (60 Ac/AU)
and prescribed fire in Year 12 on aboveground plant biomass (g/m2) on
McGregor Range at Fort Bliss, Texas ....................................................................... 28
14 Model simulation results of the effect of military training on vegetation (g/m2)
on McGregor Range at Fort Bliss, Texas, with and without livestock grazing .......... 30
viii ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

15 Model simulation results of effects of Patriot-missile and bombing training on

the vegetation (g/m2) of the McGregor Range at Fort Bliss, Texas, with
moderate livestock grazing ....................................................................................... 31
16 Water balance (20-year totals, in acre-feet) based on model simulations for the
McGregor Range at Fort Bliss, Texas ....................................................................... 33
17 Comparison of simulated aboveground biomass values (g/m2) after 20 years of
baseline, grazing, vehicle training, and grazing plus vehicle training scenarios,
all with prescribed fire ............................................................................................... 33
A1 Armesa very fine sandy loam................................................................................. 40
A2 Allamore very cobbly loam ..................................................................................... 40
A3 Bissett-Rock outcrop complex................................................................................ 41
A4 Mariola fine sandy loam ......................................................................................... 41
A5 Paisano-Cienega complex ..................................................................................... 42
B1 Initial biomass......................................................................................................... 43
B2 Allocation (mature) ................................................................................................. 44
B3 Allocation (Current) ................................................................................................ 46
B4 Green-out allocation ............................................................................................... 46
B5 Seed month allocation............................................................................................ 47
B6 Plant N concentration ............................................................................................. 48
B7 Maintenance levels................................................................................................. 49
B8 Nitrogen resorption................................................................................................. 50
B9 Root architecture .................................................................................................... 51
B10 Root uptake and biomass adjustment based on competitive efficiency................. 52
B11 Physiological response months.............................................................................. 53
B12 Biomass conversion constants............................................................................... 53
B13 Water use factors ................................................................................................... 54
B14 Growth rate factors................................................................................................. 55
B15 Monthly maximum growth rates ............................................................................. 56
B16 Plant part productivity............................................................................................. 57
B17 Green-out plant part productivity factor.................................................................. 57
B18 Light competition factor (shading) .......................................................................... 59
B19 Physiological control constraints ............................................................................ 59
B20 End of growing season dieback ............................................................................. 61
B21 Dieback fate ........................................................................................................... 61
B22 Plant part losses to fire events ............................................................................... 62
B23 Fuel combustibility factor........................................................................................ 63
B24 Plant loss to trampling or a single vehicle pass ..................................................... 64
B25 Herbivore preference and competition (P, C) ......................................................... 65
B26 Herbivore accessibility............................................................................................ 67
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 ix

Preface

This study was conducted for Department of the Army under project number
622720A896, “Base Facility Environmental Quality”; Work Unit 008B3X. The tech-
nical monitor was Bill Woodson, Office of the Director of Environmental Programs
(DAIM-ED).

The work was performed by the Ecological Processes Branch (CN-N) of the Installa-
tions Division, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL). The CERL
Principal Investigator was Jeffrey S. Fehmi. Part of this work was done by MFG,
Inc., Fort Collins, CO under DACA 88-99-D-0004-0009, Task 3. The technical editor
was Linda Goersch, Information Technology Laboratory. Alan Anderson is Chief,
CN-N, and L. Michael Golish is Acting Chief, CN. The associated Technical Direc-
tor was William D. Severinghaus, CVT. The Acting Director of CERL is Dr. Ilker R.
Adiguzel.

CERL is an element of the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
(ERDC), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Commander and Executive Director of
ERDC is COL James R. Rowan, and the Director of ERDC is Dr. James R. Houston.
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 1

1 Introduction

The Terrestrial Ecosystem Simulation Model – TerreSIM (©2003 MFG, Inc.) is a

personal computer (PC)-based, mechanistic, spatially explicit, and temporally dy-
namic simulation model developed as a successor to the Ecological Dynamics Simu-
lation (EDYS) Model (Childress and McLendon 1999; Childress et al. 1999a, 1999b).
TerreSIM simulates changes in soil, water, plant, animal, and landscape compo-
nents resulting from natural and anthropogenic ecological stressors. It can be ap-
plied to a wide variety of ecosystems, management scenarios, and disturbance re-
gimes.

The TerreSIM model consists of Climate, Soil, Hydrologic, Plant, Animal, Stressor,
Spatial, Landscape, and Management modules. Climatic inputs can be historical or
stochastically generated, or a combination of both. The Soil Module is divided into
layers (horizons, subhorizons, or artificial layers), of which the number, depth, and
physical and chemical characteristics are site-specific for each application. The Hy-
drologic Module provides for infiltration and water movement through the soil pro-
file, surface movement of water, surface erosion, sediment movement, subsurface
movement of water, and changes in water quality. The Plant Module includes
above- and belowground components for each species included in the application.
Plant species are defined by the user. Plant growth is dynamic in relation to plant
components (e.g., roots, trunk, stems, leaves, seeds, and standing dead), season, re-
source requirements (e.g., water, nutrients, sunlight), and stressors (e.g., herbivory,
competition, fire, trampling, chemical contaminants). The Animal Module consists
of basic population parameters and diet attributes (e.g., preferences, utilization po-
tential, competitive success) for each species (e.g., insects, rodent, native ungulates,
livestock). The Stressor Module includes drought, nutrient availability, fire, herbi-
vory, trampling (e.g., foot, vehicle), contaminants, shading, and competition (e.g.,
soil moisture, nutrients, food). The Spatial Module allows growth of individual
plants (e.g., trees) and distribution patterns (e.g., colonies, fire patterns, soil het-
erogeneity) to be explicitly represented in the simulations. The Landscape Module
allows for multi-scale simulations including: fine scale (1 m2 or smaller), patches
(e.g., 100 m2), communities (e.g., 1–10 hectares), and landscapes and watersheds (1
km2 and larger). Time intervals vary from day (e.g., precipitation events, plant wa-
2 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

ter demand, fire, herbivory), to month (e.g., species composition), to year and longer
(e.g., climatic cycles).

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has supported the application of the model to
various military land management scenarios. This report presents the results of an
application to a 94 km2 training area at Fort Bliss, in west Texas and southern New
Mexico, funded by the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
(ERDC). Twenty-year simulations were conducted to evaluate the relative impacts
of nine management scenarios on vegetation dynamics, watershed yield, and live-
stock diets. Of particular interest was the comparison of the relative impacts of
military training and livestock grazing. This report presents details of the Fort
Bliss application of TerreSIM, including parameterization values, users manual,
source references, and simulation results.

Background

The Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM) program is the principal pro-
gram used by the Army to manage its training lands. A component of ITAM, Land
Condition Trend Analysis (LCTA) provides installation land managers with an es-
timate of the condition of their training lands as well as trends occurring in those
natural resources. Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans
(Army) or ODCSOPS, currently responsible for the ITAM program, has initiated
actions to improve the value of LCTA data to the day-to-day management of the
Army’s natural resource assets within the context of ITAM. One of these initiatives
is to develop methods that can link the costs associated with maintaining training
lands to the actual level of training activity imposed on the landscape and the re-
sulting trend in its condition. Over the last two decades, these efforts have en-
hanced the Army’s position as a good steward of the land it administers and the
land’s associated natural resources.

Despite these efforts, however, increasing public concern regarding the environ-
ment and military operations continues to generate new legal and regulatory re-
strictions on training land usage. In particular, impacts on soil stability, the integ-
rity of training land vegetation, threatened and endangered species habitat, and
water quality are among the major concerns. The traditional approach to address-
ing these concerns has been to gather the data necessary to make a judgment re-
garding the condition and trends in these public resources. The high costs associ-
ated with the acquisition of these data, however, coupled with those required for the
subsequent design and implementation of restoration or rehabilitation efforts, are
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 3

often prohibitive until the issue becomes a regulatory or compliance problem for the
Army. Therefore, training land management has become a process of managing a
prioritized level of problems rather than one designed to be preventative in nature.

The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security has initiated
an effort to help training land managers deal with this situation by supporting the
use of modeling and simulation technologies within the context of ecosystem man-
agement. The idea was to use readily available data in conjunction with ecological
simulation modeling and knowledge of management-oriented ecological thresholds
to predict the outcomes of various training land usage scenarios. This approach re-
duces the cost of data acquisition by limiting required data to only those needed to
develop a sound a priori decision or management strategy.

Research in the area of ecological simulation modeling had been limited until a few
years ago. The development of EDYS and a few other dynamic simulation modeling
software packages in the middle to late 1990s laid the groundwork for today’s ef-
forts. In Fiscal Year (FY) 1995, the U.S. Army Construction Engineering Labora-
tory (CERL), now under the U.S. Army ERDC umbrella, initiated an applied re-
search project to develop a mechanistic-based ecological dynamics simulation
model. The plan was to incorporate current knowledge of military impacts and
management scenarios on training lands into the model. This approach would en-
able prediction of training land carrying capacity and facilitate linking the cost of
training to land and resource maintenance. Initial efforts in evaluating land man-
agement simulation models that were available in the public domain and adaptable
for this purpose resulted in one or more of the following conclusions: (1) the avail-
able models were overly general and of little practical value in the evaluation of
specific management scenarios, (2) other models were overly specific and therefore
limited to one or a few sites, and (3) some models were very complex and required
extensive calibration with site-specific data that were not available, or the systems
they evaluated were limited and did not run the full array of ecologically important
factors.

There was, however, an existing private sector simulation model that did not suffer
from the above constraints (Childress et al. 1999). Therefore, CERL researchers
determined the most cost effective way to pursue this research effort was to partner
with the private sector and several key installations to develop applications of the
existing ecological simulation modeling technology. The core model was generally
applicable Army-wide but could easily be made applicable to a particular installa-
tion with a minimum number of site-specific data requirements. That collaboration
4 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

produced the EDYS model and laid the foundation for TerreSIM, the next genera-
tion of ecological modeling software.

Objective

TerreSIM was developed with specific objectives:

1. Develop a quantitative vegetation dynamics model that is adaptable and user-

friendly, while remaining temporally and spatially explicit enough to lend itself
to practical land management decisions.
2. Make the software flexible enough to simulate most terrestrial ecosystems and
robust enough to simulate ecological dynamics on a landscape scale, assimilating
stressors placed on the environment by a suite of military training activities. It
should also be easily calibrated for site-specific applications using data from the
literature and/or currently available from the installation’s own research and
monitoring efforts.
3. Build the simulation model to stand alone as a PC-based application that can be
easily run and manipulated by the end user in a geographic information system
environment.

Approach

The TerreSIM model is designed to be a stand-alone application that land managers

can use to assist them in the decision-making process. Once installed on the end
user’s computer, the TerreSIM software suite is linked internally to the software’s
database, which contains the model run parameters. This database can be custom-
ized to include site-specific ecosystem and species data. The database is initialized
with a set of default parameters developed by MFG ecologists, however, and the ap-
plication will run right “out of the box” using the preliminary settings. These data
are consistent with site conditions and the species found at the simulation location,
but may also be modified by the user and any of the model’s run parameters can be
manipulated as site conditions change or new and better data become available.

Mode of Technology Transfer

The TerreSIM model described in this report has been developed for the Army, De-
partment of Defense (DOD), and other Federal and private land managers. The
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 5

model has been produced as a stand-alone PC-based program that will serve as a
tool for natural resource managers in the decision-making process. It may also be
linked with other appropriate simulation technologies, as well as assessment and
planning environments; therefore, TerreSIM can be leveraged with other Federal
agencies.

This report will be made accessible through the World Wide Web (WWW) at URL:
http://www.cecer.army.mil
6 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

2 General Model Software Description

The TerreSIM model is a stand-alone application that land managers operate to as-
sist in the decision-making process. The TerreSIM software suite is deployed on
the end user’s PC. The model is internally linked to the TerreSIM database, which
contains the model run parameters, and can be customized to include detailed lit-
erature data-specific to the ecosystem and species at the related site. The database
is deployed with default parameters developed by MFG ecologists to be consistent
with site conditions and the species found at the application location. The user can
modify any of the model’s run parameters to be comparable with changing condi-
tions at the site, or use the default parameters supplied with the application.

The user can view and modify not only the parameters but the spatial inputs as
well. TerreSIM operates spatially on a fixed, predefined area of the landscape se-
lected at the initial application setup, using a grid structure. The individual cell
sizes in the spatial grid are a fixed size, as defined at the initial application setup.
These cells can be as small as 1 m2, or much larger (e.g., 30 ha). Within this fixed
area, management boundaries, roads, plant communities, fence lines, and any other
unique areas to be modeled can be defined and modified to reflect changing site
conditions. The software suite contains the TerreSIM Map component, which al-
lows the user to view and modify the model spatial data. The Map component also
will display any shapefiles or images available for the site.

The management options available in the Fort Bliss application of the TerreSIM
model include fire, herbivory, Patriot missile, bombing, vehicle training, and biv-
ouac. At the start of each run, the user can select the various controls available for
these management options, including spatial initiation, start date, frequency, and
any other values specific to the management activity type (e.g., intensity of grazing,
type of bomb used, etc).

TerreSIM is designed to simultaneously simulate ecosystem dynamics at three dif-

ferent spatial scales: plots, communities, and landscapes. This approach allows
adequate representation of ecological processes that operate at different spatial and
temporal scales. Because the model uses mechanistic representations of each proc-
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 7

ess at the most appropriate scale, linkages among different components of the com-
munity, ecosystem, and landscape can be projected with reasonable confidence.

The Plot Module simulates ecological mechanisms and dynamics at the small scale
(1-m2 to 400 m2). Most of the processes in the model related to plants (e.g., growth,
water and nutrient uptake, and competition) and soils (e.g., water and nutrient
transport through the profile, decomposition) are implemented in this module (Fig-
ure 1). This Module comprises a number of submodules, including Climate, Soil,
Hydrologic, Plant, and Animals. Climatic inputs, primarily precipitation and
evapotranspiration potential, are (1) based on historical data, (2) stochastically gen-
erated, or (3) some combination of both.

Sp. A Sp. B Sp. C

Sp. 1 Sp. 2 Sp. 3

Standing Standing Standing

Dead Dead Dead

Leaf Leaf Leaf

Stem Stem Stem

Trunk Trunk Trunk

Litter

Root Root Root

Root Root Root

Root Root

Root

Contam
-inants Nitrogen Organic Water
Matter

Figure 1. Model plot-level structure.

The Soil Module represents the soil component by partitioning the profile into dif-
ferent layers (horizons, subhorizons, or artificial layers). This representation incor-
porates the vertical depth, water content and holding capacity, nitrogen content,
organic matter content, microbial activity, decomposition, and contaminant content
and activity for each layer.
8 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

The Hydrologic Module simulates small-scale precipitation dynamics, including in-

terception by aboveground plant biomass, surface runoff, erosion and sediment mo-
bilization, infiltration of water through the profile, mobilization and transport of
nitrogen, organic matter, and contaminants, and subsurface export of water out of
the profile.

The Plant Module represents the dynamics of above- and belowground components
for each major plant species. Plant growth is simulated for each component (e.g.,
roots, trunk, stems, leaves, seeds, and standing dead), relative to season, resource
requirements (e.g., water, nutrients, sunlight), and stressors (e.g., herbivory, com-
petition, fire, trampling, chemical contaminants). The Animal Module consists of
basic population parameters and diet attributes (e.g., preferences, utilization poten-
tial, competitive success) for each specified species (e.g., insects, rodent, native un-
gulates, livestock).

Different plots are represented as cells in the Community Grid. The Community
Module focuses on spatial patterns and dynamics from the scale of the patch (400
m2) to the community (1–10 hectares). These patterns and dynamics include spatial
heterogeneity in soils, plants, and stressors among plots within the community,
stressors such as fire propagation, grazing, and lateral flow of surface and subsur-
face water and materials, and important spatial patterns such as vegetation cover,
habitats, and topography.

In an analogous manner, communities are the basic units in the Landscape Grid.
This largest scale module focuses on ecological processes operating at large spatial
scales (1-km2 and larger). Processes include fire initiation regimes, climatic re-
gimes, watershed-level water movement and transport of materials, and manage-
ment practices such as training scheduling, grazing operations, and weed control.

Simulation Outputs

Each simulation run of the TerreSIM model produces extensive data for all state
variables (e.g., plant biomasses, water and nutrient contents of soils, total surface
runoff) and processes (e.g., water and nutrient transport and balances, plant pro-
duction). These data are stored in a series of text tables, typically on a monthly ba-
sis. Most of these data are also presented in graphical displays at the end of the
simulation run. These data are required for accurately testing and calibrating the
application for particular communities and sites. In addition, these data can be
sent in “real time” to other models running simultaneously.
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 9

Hydrological Dynamics in TerreSIM

An important component of TerreSIM at all scales is hydrological dynamics. The

Plot Module focuses primarily on one-dimensional movement of water up and down
in the soil profile. Precipitation events deliver water to each plot, which then perco-
lates down into different layers in the profile. Evaporation removes water from the
top horizons, and uptake by plant roots in each horizon is transpired as plants
grow. The Community and Landscape Grids allow explicit representation of trans-
port of water among different cells (Figure 2). This allows calculation of surface
runoff, subsurface export, and transport of sediment, nutrients, and contaminants
across the landscape.

Among the various outputs produced in each TerreSIM simulation run are tables
describing water pools and dynamics as well as summary graphical displays of total
landscape runoff and export. These outputs allow projection of the effects of differ-
ent climatic regimes, ecological stressors, vegetation dynamics, and management
practices on surface and subsurface water quantity and quality.

1m
Plot

1m
Plot

Figure 2. Hydrological dynamics in the landscape module.

10 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

3 Fort Bliss Landscape

Fort Bliss is in the Chihuahua Desert of far western Texas and southern New Mex-
ico, north of El Paso (Texas) and south of Alamogordo (New Mexico). The landscape
selected for this application consisted of 94 km2 in the north central portion of Fort
Bliss in the McGregor Range of New Mexico.

Climatic Data

A 45-year daily precipitation file for the landscape was adapted from existing pre-
cipitation data from the El Paso International Airport weather station. This station
is south and at a lower elevation than the landscape for this area, so the daily pre-
cipitation data for El Paso was modified by multiplying the daily value by 1.39.
This conversion factor was based on a correlation between monthly totals collected
by Texas Tech University at a site on Otero Mesa from November 1997 through Oc-
tober 1999 and monthly totals from El Paso International Airport during the same
period.

The 45-year average annual precipitation value used for the landscape was 35.05
cm (13.80 in.). Table 1 shows annual precipitation totals and Table 2 shows aver-
age monthly values.

Table 1. Annual precipitation totals used in the Fort Bliss application.

Year Total (cm) Year Total (cm) Year Total (cm) Year Total (cm)
1948 23.06 1960 36.83 1972 36.27 1984 65.41
1949 35.43 1961 31.17 1973 30.45 1985 33.10
1950 27.31 1962 33.58 1974 56.44 1986 49.25
1951 26.26 1963 19.89 1975 25.12 1987 44.30
1952 32.23 1964 21.64 1976 41.05 1988 44.73
1953 17.88 1965 21.87 1977 22.20 1989 29.44
1954 25.81 1966 37.31 1978 50.72 1990 52.02
1955 27.05 1967 23.19 1979 23.60 1991 50.04
1956 22.00 1968 48.64 1980 29.49 1992 46.10
1957 45.31 1969 17.53 1981 51.08
1958 69.52 1970 24.56 1982 44.40
1959 20.17 1971 29.39 1983 32.31
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 11

Table 2. Monthly precipitation totals for

the Fort Bliss landscape, averaged over
a 45-year period.

Month Average
(cm)
Jan 1.79
Feb 1.73
Mar 1.27
Apr 0.84
May 1.40
Jun 2.54
Jul 6.68
Aug 6.12
Sep 5.77
Oct 3.05
Nov 1.40
Dec 2.46

Spatial Data

A 30 m x 30 m cell size was used in this application, resulting in a total of 104,811

cells being included in the landscape mosaic. Topographic data (elevation, aspect,
and slope) were entered for each cell, using data supplied electronically by Fort
Bliss.

Seven major topographic units were included in the landscape. These were used to
define spatial locations of the soil types and initial vegetation types. In TerreSIM,
each individual cell retains its specific elevation, aspect, and slope values, and these
are used in the model to determine topographic-influenced responses such as sur-
face runoff, soil loss, and amount of precipitation received per unit surface area. By
comparison, major topographic units are used to initially define topographic influ-
enced spatial patterns.

The topographic units were: (1) mesa tops, (2) upper northeast-facing slopes,
(3) lower northeast-facing slopes, (4) upper southwest-facing slopes, (5) lower
southwest-facing slopes, (6) lower flats, and (7) riparian corridors. Locations of
each of these topographic units were defined in the model landscape based on to-
pographic maps supplied by Fort Bliss.
12 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

Edaphic Data

Multiple soil series occurred within each topographic unit. The locations of each
soil series were taken from maps supplied by Fort Bliss. The soil series map and
vegetation maps were overlaid, and the soil series most commonly found in each
topographic unit was used. This resulted in five soil series used in the application
(Table 3). Physical data for each series were provided by the installation. Organic
matter and soil nitrogen (total and available) data were taken from soil profiles
listed in USDA (1975). Appendix A presents specifics for each soil series.

Table 3. Soil series used in the Fort

Bliss landscape application.

Soil Series
Armesa very fine sandy loam
Allamore very cobbly loam
Bissett-Rock outcrop complex
Mariola fine sandy loam
Paisano-Cienega complex

In TerreSIM, the initial values for each of the soil variables are entered for each soil
series. These values are available within the TerreSIM Parameters window, and
can be modified at runtime, if needed. Appendix A lists the initial values for the
simulation runs presented in this report. Values for each of these variables can
change during a simulation run, depending on the dynamics of environmental con-
ditions. For example, organic matter content in a given layer will decrease daily
because of decomposition, but may also increase daily because of organic matter in-
put from root death or from litter inputs. Nitrogen content will vary on a daily ba-
sis because of (1) plant uptake, (2) release from decomposition and mineralization,
(3) downward transport through infiltration of soil water, and (4) inputs from at-
mospheric deposition. Depth of the surface layer may decrease because of erosion.
Bulk density, and therefore infiltration rate and water-holding capacity may in-
crease because of soil compaction from vehicle training.

Vegetation Data

Plant Communities

Two sources of data were used to determine which plant communities would be in-
cluded in the Fort Bliss application: a vegetation map of Fort Bliss and LCTA data
from Fort Bliss from 1989 and 1991. The vegetation map indicated that eight vege-
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 13

tation types occurred in the area delineated for the model landscape. These types
(listed with the number of cells in the landscape mosaic) included: black grama–
blue grama grassland (22,433), black grama–yucca grassland (19,247), black grama
–sand muhly grassland (15,382), sideoats grama–sacahuista grassland (10,937),
needle-and-thread–black grama grassland (10,790), blue grama–sand dropseed
grassland (7,823), creosotebush–black grama shrubland (7,206), and tobosa–blue
grama grassland (5,370). In addition, barren or disturbed areas in the landscape
were classified as roads (4,441), arroyos (921), and barren lands (261). A multivari-
ate statistical evaluation of the LCTA data (McLendon et al. 1996) suggested a
vegetation classification for Fort Bliss that contained 22 vegetation types. The 2
sources of vegetation data were compared (Table 4), and 11 plant communities were
defined for the landscape based on this comparison (Table 5).

Table 4. Comparison of vegetation types from the Fort Bliss vegetation

map and a multivariate statistical analysis of Fort Bliss LCTA data.

Vegetation Map Multivariate Classification

Black grama-blue grama Black grama-blue grama

Black grama-hairy grama-blue grama
Black grama/snakeweed-blue grama

Black grama-yucca Black grama/snakeweed-needlegrass

Black grama-sand muhly Black grama-sand muhly-bush muhly

Needle-and-thread–black grama Needlegrass/black grama-sideoats

Blue grama-sand dropseed Blue grama/snakeweed

Blue grama-black grama/snakeweed

Tobosa-blue grama Tobosa-sand muhly/tarbush

Black grama/tobosa-vine-mesquite

Sideoats grama-sacahuista Sideoats-sand muhly/buffalograss

Sideoats-black grama-snakeweed
Shrublands

Creosotebush-black grama Creosotebush/sideoats-bush muhly

14 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

Table 5. Eleven plant communities used in the model application for the landscape at Fort
Bliss, Texas.

Scientific Nomenclature Common Name

Desert grasslands

Bouteloua eripoda/Bouteloua gracilis Black grama/blue grama community

Bouteloua eripoda/Yucca elata Black grama/yucca community
Bouteloua eripoda/Muhlenbergia arenicola Black grama/sand muhly community
Bouteloua curtipendula/Nolina texana Sideoats grama/sacahuista community
Stipa comata /Bouteloua eripoda Needle-and-thread/black grama community
Bouteloua gracilis/Sporobolus cryptandus Blue grama/sand dropseed community
Hilaria mutica/Bouteloua gracilis Tobosa/blue grama community

Desert shrublands

Larrea tridentata/Bouteloua eripoda Creosotebush/black grama community

Disturbed and barren lands

Roads Road
Arroyos Arroyo
Barren lands Barren

The Fort Bliss vegetation map was the primary source for spatial distribution of the
11 plant communities, with some modifications made based on topographic and ed-
aphic considerations. The vegetation map also included over 5,000 cells in nonvege-
tated conditions, including roads (4,441), arroyos (921), and barren/military (261).

The classification of each cell into one of the 11 plant communities was for initial
conditions of each simulation run. Over time, during a simulation run, a cell may
change from one community to another, or to a new community, because of succes-
sional development or disturbance. For example, a grassland community will shift
to a creosotebush community if the abundance of creosotebush increases suffi-
ciently. Conversely, a burned creosotebush community could shift to a grassland
community if the fire reduced the creosotebush abundance sufficiently and there
was sufficient abundance of grass.

The initial classification used in the original EDYS application is the default ini-
tialization used for the TerreSIM application. The TerreSIM user can modify these
initial classifications for various model runs within the TerreSIM software by add-
ing new vegetation types, modifying existing vegetation types, or reassigning cells
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 15

to new or different vegetation communities. These modifications can be accom-

plished in the TerreSIM Map and TerreSIM Parameters windows (see the Terre-
SIM Users Manual [2003] for additional details).

Plant Species

The number of plant species included in a TerreSIM simulation is flexible and is

specified in the initial parameterization. However many species are selected, the
suite remains a simplified representation of the actual vegetation, since some spe-
cies remain excluded. To account for overall community dynamics (e.g., total above-
ground biomass), the ecological contribution of the species not specifically included
in the model must be accounted for somehow. This accounting is accomplished in
TerreSIM by using composite species. In the model, a composite species consists of
a major species plus those minor species most ecologically similar to the respective
major species. For example, the composite Muhlenbergia arenicola includes M.
arenicola, M. arenacea, and M. porteri.

Initial species composition and aboveground biomass values for the plant communi-
ties were based on values from validation study plots (McLendon et al. 2000) that
had the most-similar composition to the respective plant community in the applica-
tion (Table 6). Two communities (needlegrass-black grama and sideoats-
sacahuista) had no similar validation plot community. Data from the 1989 LCTA
data set were used to estimate initial conditions for these two types, using the
LCTA needlegrass-black grama-sideoats community for the model’s needlegrass-
black grama community and the LCTA sideoats-black grama-snakeweed commu-
nity for the model’s sideoats-sacahuista community.

Table 7 shows mean aboveground biomass in the validation plots, sampled in 1998,
that were used to calibrate biomass algorithms with the plant communities being
modeled. Fourteen species were chosen on the basis of (1) being major species in
the validation plots or along the LCTA transects in the area of the landscape, or (2)
being important components of the plant communities within specific locations that
were included in the landscape. These 14 species became the composite species
used in the original EDYS application, and are the defaults used in the TerreSIM
application. Values for the remaining 25 species that occurred in the validation
plots were included in the values for their respective composite species (Table 8).
16 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

Table 6. Comparison of model plant communities to most-similar validation plots compositions.

Plots Plot Community Model Community

42, 44, 46 creosotebush-black grama creosotebush-black grama

28, 38 black grama-blue grama black grama-blue grama

03 yucca-black grama black grama-yucca

14, 17, 27 black grama-sand muhly black grama-sand muhly

no corresponding type needlegrass-black grama

30, 35, 41, 45, 48 black grama-creosotebush blue grama-sand dropseed

25, 34 black grama-tobosa tobosa-blue grama

no corresponding type sideoats-sacahuisata

ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 17

Table 7. Mean aboveground biomass (g/m2) in validation plots, sampled in 1998, that most-
closely correspond to the model plant communities.
Species Communities
Creosote Blckgr1 Blckgr2 Blckgr3 Bluegrm Tobosa

Ceratoides lanata 0 0 8 t 0 0
Gutierrezia sarothrae 0 0 30 t t 0
Krameria parvifolia 0 0 0 0 1 0
Koeberlinia spinosa 12 0 0 0 0 0
Larrea tridentata 31 t 0 4 10 9
Opuntia imbricata 0 2 0 0 0 0
Opuntia macrocentra 0 0 0 0 4 0
Opuntia polyacantha 0 0 0 0 2 0
Yucca elata 0 0 249 0 0 0

Aristida purpurea 0 1 0 t t 1
Bouteloua eriopoda 113 85 80 147 160 156
Bouteloua gracilis 13 15 0 t 8 13
Cenchrus incertus 0 0 0 1 0 0
Enneapogon desvauxii 0 t 0 0 1 t
Erionueron pulchellum 1 1 1 1 t 1
Hilaria mutica 0 0 0 0 0 29
Muhlenbergia arenacea 1 1 0 0 0 3
Muhlenbergia arenicola 6 14 36 34 9 3
Muhlenbergia porteri 14 0 0 0 2 0
Panicum hallii 0 0 0 0 0 t
Scleropogon brevifolius t 10 0 0 1 3
Setaria leucopila 0 0 1 t t 0
Sporobolus contractus 6 0 16 0 0 0
Sporobolus cryptandrus t 1 14 2 9 1

Acourtia nana 2 t 7 0 t 2
Baileya multiradiata 0 0 t t 0 0
Chaetopappa ericoides t t 0 t t 1
Croton pottsii 0 t 0 3 t 0
Euphorbia lata t 0 0 t t 0
Senna bauhinioides 0 0 1 0 0 0
Solanum eleagnifolium t 0 0 1 1 0
Sphaeralcea coccinea 0 1 0 1 1 1
Talinum aurantiacum 0 0 1 0 0 0
Tetraclea coulteri 0 t 0 0 t 0
Thymophylla acerosa 0 0 0 t 0 0
Zinnia grandiflora 1 t 1 2 1 0

Number

Plots

Creoste = creosotebush-black grama

Blckgr1 = black grama-blue grama
Blckgr2 = black grama-yucca
Blckgr3 = black grama-sand muhly
Bluegrm = blue grama-sand dropseed
Tobosa = tobosa-blue grama
18 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

Table 8. Fourteen plant species selected as composite species, along with the species included
in each composite, in the model application for the Fort Bliss training area landscape.

Composite Species Common Name Included Species

Gutierrezia sarothrae snakeweed Ceratoides lanata, Gutierrezia sarothrae

Larrea tridentate Creosotebush Krameria parvifolia, Koeberlinia spinosa, Lar-
rea tridentata
Nolina texana sacahuista Nolina texana
Yucca elata Yucca Opuntia imbricata, Opuntia macrocentra,
Opuntia polyacantha, Yucca elata

Aristida purpurea purple threeawn Aristida purpurea, Cenchrus incertus

Bouteloua curtipendula sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula
Bouteloua eripoda black grama Bouteloua eriopoda
Bouteloua gracilis blue grama Bouteloua gracilis, Bouteloua hirsuta,
Erioneuron pulchellum
Hilaria mutica tobosa Hilaria mutica, Scleropogon brevifolius
Muhlenbergia arenicola sand muhly Enneapogon desvauxii, Muhlenbergia arena-
cea, Muhlenbergia areniocola, Muhlenbergia
porteri
Sporobolus contractus mesa dropseed Sporobolus contractus
Sporobolus cryptandrus sand dropseed Panicum hallii, Setari leucopoila, Sporobolus
cryptandrus
Stipa comata needle-and-thread Stipa neomexicana

Croton pottsii doveweed all forbs

Parameterization Data

The TerreSIM software allows the user to modify the initial parameters for the 14
species/composites, as well as allowing additional species/composites to be included.
The initial parameterization data for the model species/composites are contained
within the TerreSIM Database and can be found in Appendix B. The values for
these initial parameters were derived from several sources: (1) site-specific data
from the validation plot study funded by USACE (DACA88-98-M-0199, McLendon
et al. 2000), (2) data from the scientific literature, (3) data from the SMI database,
and (4) personal experience.
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 19

Animal Data

Two native animal species were simulated in this application: insects and rabbits.
Herbivory by insects and rabbits was assumed to be uniform throughout the land-
scape and was based on animal densities. Densities used for insects were 3, 6, and
12 individuals per square meter. Rabbits were simulated at densities of 0.30, 0.56,
and 0.78 individuals per hectare. These values were based on available literature
and estimates from installation personnel and are unchanged from the original
EDYS model.

Natural Stressors

Six natural stressors were included in this application: interspecific competition for
belowground resources (water, nutrients), drought, nitrogen availability, shading,
fire, and herbivory by native animals (insects and rabbits). Ecological responses by
each plant species to each of these stressors are modeled using (1) supply and de-
mand and (2) ecophysiological relationships defined by the parameterization matri-
ces (Appendix B). For example, successional patterns are simulated by changes in
relative biomass of the species over time in response to the interaction of these
stressors. If species A has a higher water use efficiency than species B, species A
will produce a higher proportion of biomass than species B in dry years, provided an
equal amount of water is available to both species. However, species B may have a
different root architecture than species A, which allows species B to access the wa-
ter in soil layers unavailable to species A. Therefore, species B may be more "pro-
tected" from drought than species A because of its deeper root system. In addition,
fires may be more frequent in dry years and species B may be better adapted to fire
stress than species A. Both of these factors, deeper roots and better adaptation to
fire, may provide species B with sufficient competitive advantage over species A to
offset the higher water-use efficiency of species A.

Daily precipitation values are used based on the constructed historic data set (Table
1). These constitute the default precipitation level for the application. The values
can be modified by the user to increase or decrease these values to simulate above-
average precipitation or drought.

The default frequency for natural fire is monthly. Its occurrence and spread are
based on appropriate fuel load, moisture content, and a stochastic factor.
20 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

Management Scenarios

Management scenarios include optional values for those factors directly influenced
by human activities. Seven management options are included in this application:
(1) cattle grazing, (2) prescribed fire, (3) movement of livestock tanks, (4) Patriot-
missile training, (5) bombing training, (6) vehicle training (M-1 Abrams, M-2 Brad-
ley, High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle [HMMWV], truck), and (7) biv-
ouacking.

Four stocking rates are included in the application, any one of which can be selected
by the user for a particular simulation. The four standard rates are no grazing,
light grazing (90 acres per animal unit [ac/AU]), moderate grazing (60 ac/AU), and
heavy grazing (45 ac/AU). The user can also designate any alternative stocking
rate, rather than only select from the four standard stocking rates. Year-long graz-
ing is assumed for this application.

For the prescribed fire, the user selects which areas are to be burned, when the
burn is to take place (month, year), and how often the prescribed fire occurs (e.g.,
every 4 years). The effectiveness and spatial distribution of the fire are simulated
based on the composition, biomass, and distribution of the vegetation in each cell
within the burn areas at the time of the fire.

Livestock tanks are available to cattle within the simulation area. The user may
elect to make each one available at different times during a simulation run or to
move the existing tanks to new locations within the training area. When livestock
tanks are included in a simulation run, the model concentrates cattle activity into
three zones around each tank, with greatest use (hence greatest rate of herbivory),
in the zone closest to each tank, and decreasing use with increasing distance from
each tank. The shape of each zone is also influenced by the spatial configuration of
fences around each pasture, as designated by Fort Bliss personnel.

Sixteen Patriot-missile training sites are located in the landscape. The user im-
plements training activities by selecting the appropriate missile launch pad, when
the training occurs (month, year), and how often (e.g., every other year). Within the
missile launch pad area, 70 percent of the aboveground herbaceous vegetation is
assumed to convert to litter. Biomass is added to the seedbank for six weedy spe-
cies (snakeweed, creosotebush, purple threeawn, sand muhly, sand dropseed, and
leatherweed croton) to simulate their invasion of the disturbed area post-training
activity. The existing vegetation is allowed to recover, with the rate of recovery
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 21

based on greenout parameters (Table B16, Appendix B), along with competition
from the invading weedy species as they germinate and grow.

Bombing training by the German Air Force can be implemented by the user select-
ing the timing of the training (month, year, frequency), the number of 500-lb and
1000-lb bombs used, the impact footprint, the probability of impact around targets,
and whether bombing changes the probability of fire. Each type of ordnance has
two potential impact footprints, circular or linear, and the user may specify which
both size and type of footprint. TerreSIM simulates impacts in three zones around
each target and allows the user to set both the probability of impact within and the
width of each zone. This flexibility allows the user to simulate increasing skill by
pilots. All aboveground vegetation within a crater is assumed to convert to litter.
As for Patriot training, biomass is added to the seedbank for six weedy species to
simulate their invasion of the bomb craters.

Vehicle training is implemented by the user selecting (1) which of four vehicle types
(M-1 Abrams, M-2 Bradley, HMMWV, truck) and numbers of each type are to be
included, (2) which training area the activities are to occur in, (3) the intensity of
the training (i.e., how many vehicle miles per vehicle type), and (4) when the train-
ing occurs (months, years). Once these parameters are designated, TerreSIM calcu-
lates ecological impact in one of two methods, depending on which is designated by
the user. In both methods, an impact is associated with each vehicle type on each
plant species for each pass of the vehicle (Table B24, Appendix B). In the first
method, this calculated impact is distributed stochastically across the designated
training area, and in the second method it is averaged over the entire designated
training area.

Bivouacking is simulated in a similar manner as vehicle training. The number and

frequency of bivouac areas are defined by the user. Each bivouac area is four cell-
units in size. The locations can be selected by the user, either directly on the grid
display or by inputting Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates. All
aboveground herbaceous vegetation is assumed to be converted to litter in the biv-
ouac area. The vegetation is allowed to recover starting the month after the biv-
ouac impact, with the rate of recovery based on the greenout parameters for the im-
pacted species (Table B17, Appendix B).
22 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

4 Simulation Results

The impact of three factors on the vegetation dynamics at McGregor Range are of
primary importance to managers at Fort Bliss: (1) military training, (2) cattle graz-
ing, and (3) prescribed fire. Results of several simulation runs are presented in this
report to illustrate the use of TerreSIM to evaluate the relative impacts of each of
these three factors, alone and in combination. Average (i.e., historical) precipitation
levels were used in all simulation runs.

The vegetation parameter used to evaluate these management scenarios was end-
of-growing season (31 October) aboveground biomass (g/m2). For shrubs, the value
was total aboveground biomass (trunks, stems, leaves). For grasses and forbs, it
was clippable aboveground biomass (stems, leaves), which is approximately one-half
of total aboveground biomass.

Simulated Baseline Conditions

Baseline conditions were defined as the vegetation changes that would occur in the
absence of further human impacts from cattle grazing, military training, or pre-
scribed burning. The initial conditions were those typical of present conditions.
The simulation run was for 20 years, and moderate levels of native herbivores were
allowed to impact the area.

Under these conditions, shrubs increased 35 percent and perennial grasses de-
creased 23 percent (Table 9). Creosotebush aboveground biomass more than dou-
bled over the 20-year period, and sacahuista increased five-fold. Conversely, snake-
weed decreased substantially. Snakeweed is an earlier-seral species than
creosotebush in these desert grasslands. Therefore, an increase in creosotebush
and a decrease in snakeweed would be the expected successional response. The
precipitation regime used in this 20-year scenario was about average for the 45-
year period of record for the site (35.88 cm 20-year mean, 35.05 cm 45-year mean;
Table 1). Therefore, the increase in creosotebush and sacahuista is not likely to
have been caused by a change in precipitation.
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 23

Table 9. Model simulation results for vegetation dynamics on McGregor Range at Fort Bliss,
Texas, over a 20-year period, under baseline conditions (i.e., no further cattle grazing, military
training, or prescribed fire).

Species End-of Growing Season Biomass (g/m2)

Initial Year 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year 8 Year 12 Year 15 Year 20

Broom snakeweed 8 22 4 6 3 3 3 1
Creosotebush 15 29 39 40 37 43 44 39
Sacahuista 4 5 7 8 12 16 18 20
Yucca 56 56 54 53 45 58 66 52

Purple threeawn 2 8 3 2 1 1 1 t
Sideoats grama 6 5 6 5 6 3 6 2
Black grama 65 59 51 61 56 65 69 63
Blue grama 21 29 21 45 18 20 48 10
Tobosa 7 12 17 20 13 13 36 10
Sand muhly 16 9 7 9 6 4 8 4
Alkali sacaton 1 4 5 5 6 10 20 11
Sand dropseed 8 14 3 4 2 1 4 2
Needle-and-thread 7 1 1 t t 2 t t

Doveweed 8 5 t t 0 0 0 0

Total shrubs 83 112 104 107 97 120 131 112

Clippable grasses 13 141 114 151 108 119 192 102
Clippable forbs 3 5 t t 0 0 0 0
8

Most grasses decreased during the 20-year simulation, with blue grama decreasing
by 50 percent, sand muhly by 75 percent, and needlegrass by almost 100 percent
(Table 9). The site-dominant black grama, however, remained stable and two spe-
cies, tobosa and mesa dropseed, increased substantially. Decreases in threeawn
and sand dropseed should be expected under baseline conditions because both are
mid-seral species. Likewise, decreases in blue grama and needlegrass could be ex-
pected under 20 years of average precipitation because both species are more char-
acteristic of slightly more mesic conditions than occur on this landscape.

It should also be noted that the simulation results presented in Table 9 are aver-
ages for the entire landscape. This landscape is actually a mosaic, consisting of 11
plant communities (Table 5). Vegetation composition varies significantly among
these 11 communities (Table 10). In addition, this Fort Bliss application used a
minimum cell size of 900 m2. Therefore, the biomass values for each of the plant
24 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

species were averaged across this spatial scale. Under actual conditions, many mi-
crosites would be distributed within an area of this size. The 900-m2 area would be
a mosaic of vegetation subtypes, including areas under creosotebush with little her-
baceous vegetation and areas between the creosotebush canopies with stands of
grasses and forbs.

Table 10. Model simulation results of changes in total aboveground biomass (g/m2)
on two of the simulated plant communities on McGregor Range at Fort Bliss, Texas
over a 20-year period under baseline conditions.

Species Black grama-Blue grama Creosotebush-Black grama

Yr 01 Yr 10 Yr 20 Yr 01 Yr 10 Yr 20

Broom snakeweed 5 2 1 1 3 5
Creosotebush 41 47 36 80 103 115
Sacahuista 1 6 5 1 1 1
Yucca 1 2 2 1 t t

Purple threeawn 12 3 1 4 1 t
Sideoats grama 3 2 1 t 1 1
Black grama 235 472 494 79 116 184
Blue grama 34 117 136 4 9 10
Tobosa 41 85 85 2 5 3
Sand muhly 13 20 15 8 20 20
Alkali sacaton 6 29 45 3 7 21
Sand dropseed 14 4 2 10 4 2
Needle-and-thread 0 0 0 0 0 0

Leatherweed croton 13 t 0 3 0 0

Total trees 48 57 44 83 107 121

Clippable grasses 358 732 779 110 163 241
Clippable forbs 13 t 0 3 0 0

Vegetation dynamics vary significantly among the 11 plant communities forming

this landscape. For example, creosotebush more than doubled over the entire land-
scape over the 20-year simulation (Table 9). However, it decreased by 12 percent in
the black grama-blue grama community and increased by 44 percent in the black
grama-creosotebush community (Table 10). Similarly, sacahuista increased in the
black grama-blue grama grassland, but it did not increase in the creosotebush-black
grama shrubland. Overall, blue grama and sand muhly decreased in the landscape,
but blue grama increased substantially in the black grama-blue grama grassland
and sand muhly increased in the creosotebush-black grama shrubland. These re-
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 25

sponses emphasize the complex nature of the landscape mosaic. It should always
be remembered that averages across the landscape, such as presented in Table 9,
are just that, averages, and they tend to obscure very significant localized differ-
ences. These localized differences are what are very important ecologically, provid-
ing niches for both plant and animal species that would not exist under average
conditions. This also illustrates why simulation modeling on a landscape scale
must provide for simulation of differences on the localized scale.

Simulated Cattle Grazing

Cattle grazing had an effect on vegetation dynamics over a 10-year simulation pe-
riod, but the difference between light (90 Ac/AU) and moderate (60 Ac/AU) stocking
rates was small (Table 11). Light grazing by cattle resulted in an 11 percent in-
crease in creosotebush and a 7 percent decrease in perennial grasses, compared
with no grazing. Moderate grazing resulted in a 13 percent increase in creosote-
bush and an 8 percent decrease in perennial grasses.

Cattle grazing had little effect on the dynamics of the woody species. Over a 10-
year period, light grazing increased creosotebush by 11 percent compared with no
grazing, and moderate grazing increased creosotebush by 13 percent (Table 11).
Compared with no cattle grazing, Sacahuista decreased slightly with moderate
grazing, yucca decreased 12 percent under light grazing and 22 percent with mod-
erate grazing, while snakeweed remained unchanged. Overall woody species totals
showed a 3 percent decrease with light grazing and 8 percent decrease with moder-
ate grazing, compared with no cattle grazing.

Cattle grazing also had an effect on species composition of the grass component (Ta-
ble 11). Grazing did not affect production of threeawn, mesa dropseed, or needle-
grass, and had only a minor effect on tobosa and sand dropseed. Sideoats grama
was not affected by light grazing, but increased slightly under moderate grazing.
Blue grama and sand muhly decreased slightly under light grazing and slightly
more under moderate grazing. The major impact of cattle grazing was on black
grama, which decreased 15 percent under light grazing and 17 percent under mod-
erate grazing, over 10 years.

These responses reflect both the preferences of the individual grass species and
their relative abundances. Black grama is a preferred forage species by cattle, it is
the most abundant species in the landscape, and it is highly palatable in all sea-
sons. It is not surprising, therefore, that this species received most of the grazing
26 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

pressure. Again, simulation modeling on the landscape scale should allow for these
differences among species. All grasses are not the same, and pooling them would
result in the loss of very important ecological responses in the simulation results.

Table 11. Model simulation results of vegetation dynamics (g/m2) on McGregor Range at Fort Bliss, Texas
over a 10-year period, under three levels of cattle grazing.

Species Year 01 Year 03 Year 05 Year 10

No Lt Md No Lt Md No Lt Md No Lt Md

Broom snakeweed 23 23 23 4 4 4 6 6 6 4 4 4
Creosotebush 29 29 29 39 39 40 40 42 43 38 42 43
Sacahuista 5 5 5 7 7 6 8 7 6 14 13 11
Yucca 56 57 57 54 54 53 53 51 48 49 43 38

Purple threeawn 8 7 7 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
Sideoats grama 5 4 4 6 6 6 5 5 5 10 10 12
Black grama 59 56 56 51 45 45 61 53 51 86 73 71
Blue grama 29 28 28 21 21 20 45 44 43 46 45 44
Tobosa 12 13 13 17 17 17 20 21 21 25 24 24
Sand muhly 9 8 8 7 5 4 9 7 7 10 9 8
Alkali sacaton 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 13 13 13
Sand dropseed 14 13 13 3 5 5 4 6 8 10 11 11
Needle-and- 1 1 1 1 1 1 t t t 1 1 1
thread
5 5 5 t t t t t t 0 0 0
Doveweed

113 114 114 104 104 103 107 106 103 105 102 96
Total shrubs 141 134 134 114 107 105 151 143 142 202 187 185
Clippable grasses 5 5 5 t t t t t t 0 0 0
Clippable forbs

No = no livestock grazing
Lt = light livestock grazing (90 Ac/AU)
Md = moderate livestock grazing (60 Ac/AU)

Simulated Prescribed Fire

The simulated prescribed fire management scenario was that management units 4
and 5, about 40 percent of the total landscape area, were burned in February of
Year 12. The prescribed fire scenario for each burn was that every cell within the
respective management areas was exposed to the fire (i.e., every cell edge was
"torched"). Whether or not the specific cell burned depended on its fuel load.
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 27

This fire scenario resulted in several ecological responses (Table 12). The most ob-
vious was a 25 percent decrease in shrubs, compared with the unburned scenario.
The landscape supported an average of 84 g/m2 of shrubs when burned. This com-
pares to an initial shrub biomass of 83 g/m2 (Table 9). Therefore, fire eliminated
the increase of shrubs associated with 20 years of baseline conditions. Of the four
shrub species, creosotebush and yucca had the greatest reductions.

Fire also had an impact on the perennial grasses, reducing their aboveground pro-
duction slightly (4 percent, Table 12). The effect of fire was most pronounced on
black grama (30 percent decrease), blue grama (20 percent decrease), tobosa (100
percent increase), and mesa dropseed (73 percent increase). Black grama is known
to be fire-sensitive in this ecosystem (McLendon et al. 2000) and tobosa is a fire-
tolerant species.

Table 12. Model simulation results of effects of prescribed fire in year 12 on the vegetation (g/m2)
of McGregor Range at Fort Bliss, Texas, without livestock grazing.

Species Unburned Burned

Year 10 Year 12 Year 20 Year 10 Year 12 Year 20

Broom snakeweed 4 3 1 4 2 1
Creosotebush 38 43 39 38 21 28
Sacahuista 14 16 20 14 12 17
Yucca 49 58 52 49 28 38

Purple threeawn 1 1 t 1 1 t
Sideoats grama 10 3 2 10 3 2
Black grama 86 65 63 86 42 44
Blue grama 46 20 10 46 15 8
Tobosa 25 13 10 25 10 20
Sand muhly 10 4 4 10 4 3
Alkali sacaton 13 10 11 13 9 19
Sand dropseed 10 1 2 10 1 2
Needle-and-thread 1 2 t 1 1 t

Doveweed 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total shrubs 105 120 112 105 63 84

Clippable grasses 202 119 102 202 86 98
Clippable forbs 0 0 0 0 0 0
28 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

When prescribed fire is combined with moderate grazing by cattle, several primary
changes occur over prescribed fire with no grazing (Table 13). First, the effective-
ness of fire in reducing creosotebush is reduced. Without grazing but with fire,
creosotebush increased 87 percent over initial conditions over a 20-year period (Ta-
bles 9 and 13). With moderate grazing and with fire, creosotebush biomass in-
creased 147 percent. With moderate grazing and without fire, however, creosote-
bush increased 240 percent (Table 13). Therefore, grazing reduced the effectiveness
of fire by about 50 percent (from an 87 to a 147 percent increase), but given that
moderate cattle grazing will occur, fire reduces the rate of increase in creosotebush
by about 40 percent (from 240 percent without fire, to 147 percent with fire).

The combination of fire and moderate cattle grazing reduced perennial grass bio-
mass at the end of 20 years by 18 percent compared with fire alone and by 5 percent
compared with grazing alone (Table 13). Black grama was most impacted because
it is the preferred forage species and is fire-sensitive.

Table 13. Model simulation results of the effect of moderate cattle grazing (60 Ac/AU) and prescribed
fire in Year 12 on aboveground plant biomass (g/m2) on McGregor Range at Fort Bliss, Texas.

No Grazing Moderate Grazing

Species Unburned Burned Unburned Burned
10 yr 20 yr 10 yr 20 yr 10 yr 20 yr 10 yr 20 yr

Broom snakeweed 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1
Creosotebush 38 39 38 28 43 51 43 37
Sacahuista 14 20 14 17 11 18 11 15
Yucca 49 52 49 38 38 40 38 35

Purple threeawn 1 t 1 t 1 t 1 t
Sideoats grama 10 2 10 2 11 2 11 2
Black grama 86 63 86 44 71 48 71 29
Blue grama 46 10 46 8 44 9 44 7
Tobosa 25 10 25 20 24 7 24 18
Sand muhly 10 4 10 3 8 4 8 4
Alkali sacaton 13 11 13 19 13 11 13 16
Sand dropseed 10 2 10 2 11 3 11 4
Needle-and-thread 1 t 1 t 1 t 1 t

Doveweed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total shrubs 105 112 105 84 96 110 96 88

Clippable grasses 202 102 202 98 184 84 184 80
Clippable forbs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 29

Effect of Military Training

Military training was simulated as: (1) wheeled vehicles only, (2) wheeled and
tracked vehicles together, (3) Patriot-missile training, and (4) bombing training.
Wheeled vehicle training (as provided by Fort Bliss) consisted of 500 vehicle-miles
by trucks and 1000 vehicle-miles by HMMWVs per year. Tracked vehicles were
simulated as 500 vehicle-miles by Bradley Fighting Vehicles and 1000 vehicle-miles
by Abrams Main Battle Tanks per year. The training was averaged across training
area 4 in June of the first year, then every third year thereafter; training area 19 in
June of the second year, then every third year thereafter; and training area 16 in
June of the third year, then every third year thereafter. For Patriot missiles, train-
ing was simulated in half the missile sites in the first year, then every-other year
thereafter; and the other sites in the second year, then every other year thereafter.
In each simulated year, two sites were used in February, two in April, two in June,
and two in September. Bombing training was simulated as occurring in April,
June, and August of each year. Ordnance totals were 10,000 each for 500- and
1000-lb bombs.

Training with wheeled vehicles, at the intensity and frequency simulated, reduced
shrub biomass by 8 percent, compared with baseline conditions (Table 14). All
shrubs except snakeweed had lower biomass values with wheeled-vehicle training
than under baseline conditions. This impact was the result of vehicles crushing the
shrubs. The impact of wheeled and tracked vehicles resulted in a greater reduction
in shrubs than wheeled vehicles only.

Wheeled-vehicle training had only a slight effect (2 percent decrease) on grass pro-
duction (Table 14). Black grama production declined by 6 percent, compared with
baseline conditions, tobosa increased by 10 percent, and mesa dropseed increased
by 9 percent. The combination of wheeled- and tracked-vehicle training decreased
grass production by 10 percent, compared with baseline, again with most of this
impact on black grama.

When combined with moderate grazing, vehicle training had a somewhat different
impact on the vegetation compared with moderate grazing without vehicle training.
Moderate grazing, without fire and without training, increased creosotebush bio-
mass from 39 g/m2 under baseline conditions (Table 9), to 51 g/m2, after 20 years
(Table 13). Creosotebush biomass under the wheeled-vehicle training and grazing
scenario increased to 45 g/m2, and to 42 g/m2 under the combined-vehicle training
and grazing scenario (Table 14). Therefore, creosotebush increased more under
30 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

both types of training when combined with grazing than without grazing, but the
training reduced the amount of creosotebush compared with grazing alone.

2
Table 14. Model simulation results of the effect of military training on vegetation (g/m ) on McGregor
Range at Fort Bliss, Texas, with and without livestock grazing.

Wheeled Vehicles Wheeled and Tracked Vehicles

Species No Grazing Moderate Grazing No Grazing Moderate Grazing
Year 03 Year 20 Year 03 Year 20 Year 03 Year 20 Year 03 Year 20

Broom snakeweed 5 1 4 2 5 1 4 2
Creosotebush 38 35 38 45 36 33 37 42
Sacahuista 6 18 6 16 6 15 6 13
Yucca 53 49 52 39 52 45 51 36

Purple threeawn 3 t 3 t 4 1 3 1
Sideoats grama 5 2 5 2 6 2 5 2
Black grama 51 59 44 46 49 56 43 42
Blue grama 21 10 20 9 21 10 20 9
Tobosa 16 11 16 8 16 12 16 9
Sand muhly 7 4 4 5 7 5 5 5
Alkali sacaton 5 12 5 11 5 12 4 11
Sand dropseed 4 2 5 3 5 2 6 3
Needle-and-thread 1 t 1 t 1 t 1 t

Doveweed t t t t t t t t

Total shrubs 102 103 100 102 99 94 98 93

Clippable grasses 113 100 103 84 114 100 103 82
Clippable forbs t t t t t t t t

Wheeled-vehicle training combined with grazing did not have an increased impact
on grass production overall, compared with grazing alone, but did have a somewhat
different impact on species composition (Tables 13 and 14). Wheeled-vehicle train-
ing with grazing resulted in a decrease in black grama and an increase in tobosa
and sand muhly, compared with moderate grazing without training. Combined-
vehicle training with grazing reduced overall grass biomass by 2 percent, compared
with wheeled-vehicle training with grazing (Table 14). The combined-vehicle train-
ing and grazing scenario further decreased black grama, but increased threeawn
and tobosa.
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 31

Patriot-missile training combined with moderate cattle grazing, had an intermedi-

ate effect on vegetation compared with moderate cattle grazing and cattle grazing
plus vehicle training. The Patriot-grazing combination resulted in more creosote-
bush than either vehicle-grazing combination (Tables 14 and 15), but less than
grazing alone (Table 13). Patriot-missile training, in combination with grazing, re-
sulted in less black grama, blue grama, and mesa dropseed, and more tobosa than
moderate grazing alone. The impact of Patriot-missile training on black grama was
greater than with wheeled-vehicle training but less than with combined-vehicle
training (Tables 14 and 15).

Bombing training, combined with moderate cattle grazing, decreased overall shrub
biomass on the landscape, compared with cattle grazing alone (Tables 14 and 15),
but this decrease was less than with any other type of training (e.g., when combined
with cattle grazing, bombing resulted in the greatest increase in shrubs of all four
types of training). However, bombing also had less of a detrimental impact on black
grama than any of the other training activities.

Table 15. Model simulation results of effects of Patriot-missile and bombing training on the
vegetation (g/m2) of the McGregor Range at Fort Bliss, Texas, with moderate livestock grazing.

Species Patriot Missile Training Bombing Training

Year 01 Year 10 Year 20 Year 01 Year 10 Year 20

Broom snakeweed 22 4 2 22 4 1
Creosotebush 29 42 49 29 43 51
Sacahuista 5 11 18 5 11 18
Yucca 56 37 39 56 37 40

Purple threeawn 7 1 t 7 1 t
Sideoats grama 4 11 2 4 11 2
Black grama 55 65 44 57 70 47
Blue grama 27 43 8 28 44 9
Tobosa 13 26 9 13 24 8
Sand muhly 7 8 4 8 8 4
Alkali sacaton 4 12 10 4 12 11
Sand dropseed 13 11 3 13 11 3
Needle-and-thread 1 1 t 1 1 t

Doveweed 5 t t 5 t t

Total shrubs 112 94 108 112 95 110

Clippable grasses 131 178 80 135 182 84
Clippable forbs 5 t t 5 t t
32 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

In summary, military training had a measurable impact on vegetation dynamics,

but this impact was less than the impact from cattle grazing. In addition, the im-
pact varied by type of training and the impact increased when combined with cattle
grazing. In general, when combined with grazing, training decreased the amount of
shrubs and some grasses, especially black grama, compared with cattle grazing
only.

Water Yield

Changes in water yield were simulated based on daily balances among water inputs
(precipitation), water use by plants, water storage in the soil profiles, and water ex-
port past the rooting zones of the plants.

Under baseline conditions (no prescribed fire, no cattle grazing, no military train-
ing), subsurface export was about 67,000 acre-feet for the entire landscape (23,309
acres) over the 20 years of the simulation (Table 16), or about 15 percent of precipi-
tation. Another 1100 acre-feet would be expected to be produced as surface export
(runoff). The various management scenarios had little effect on total export (runoff
plus subsurface export) from the landscape (Table 16). All management scenarios
increased subsurface export slightly over baseline conditions, but the increase was
never much more than 5 percent, with the maximum subsurface export occurring
under the training and grazing combination. Maximum surface runoff (1463 acre-
feet) occurred under the grazing plus fire scenario (Table 17). This was 28 percent
greater than runoff under baseline conditions.
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 33

Table 16. Water balance (20-year totals, in acre-feet) based on model simulations for the
McGregor Range at Fort Bliss, Texas.

Management Scenario
Baseline Baseline Grazing Grazing Training
+ Fire + Fire + Grazing

Precipitation 456,942 456,942 456,942 456,942 456,942

Evaporation 39,536 38,986 37,717 39,067 37,993

Transpiration 360,135 360,208 360,214 358,868 358,945

Runoff 1,142 1,256 1,328 1,463 1,351

Subsurface export 66,811 67,101 68,284 68,092 69,223

Total Export/ Precipitation 0.149 0.150 0.152 0.152 0.154

Grazing is at a moderate stocking rate of cattle.

Fire regime is to burn every 12 years.
Total export is subsurface export plus runoff.
Evaporation, transpiration, runoff, and subsurface export values do not total to precipitation value because of dif-
ferences in soil moisture storage between initial conditions and the end of Year 20.

Table 17. Comparison of simulated aboveground biomass values (g/m2) after 20 years of baseline,
grazing, vehicle training, and grazing plus vehicle training scenarios, all with prescribed fire.

Species Baseline Grazing Training Grazing +

Training

Broom snakeweed 1 1 1 2
Creosotebush 28 37 25 32
Sacahuista 17 15 13 11
Yucca 38 35 34 31

Purple threeawn t t 1 1
Sideoats grama 2 2 2 2
Black grama 44 29 40 27
Blue grama 8 7 8 7
Tobosa 20 18 22 20
Sand muhly 3 4 4 4
Alkali sacaton 19 16 18 14
Sand dropseed 2 4 3 4
Needle-and-thread t t t t

Doveweed 0 0 t t

Tree biomass values are total aboveground.

Herbaceous values are clippable biomass.
Grazing is at a moderate stocking rate (60 Ac/AU) of cattle.
34 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

5 Conclusions

Model simulations indicate that the two most important factors affecting vegetation
dynamics on the Fort Bliss training area landscape are (1) fire regime and (2) cattle
grazing. In the absence of fire, either natural or prescribed, an increase in shrubs,
primarily creosotebush, and a corresponding, though lesser, decrease in perennial
grasses will occur. These are natural successional changes. Without fire, this
grassland-shrubland complex will gradually shift to more of a desert shrubland. In
the absence of livestock grazing, one fire in 20 years was sufficient to keep the
shrub component in the landscape stable. More frequent fires might reduce the
amount of shrubs but would probably decrease the productivity of black grama sub-
stantially. Less frequent fires might result in slightly more shrubs but would likely
favorably affect black grama. An earlier report (McLendon et al. 2000) recom-
mended that fire frequency should not be more frequent than once every 15 years.
Results from the simulations reported in this report suggest that the fires should be
even less frequent, perhaps once every 20–25 years.

Moderate cattle grazing (60 Ac/AU) resulted in a 31 percent increase in creosote-

bush, compared with no grazing, over a 20-year period in the absence of fire. Graz-
ing reduced perennial grass biomass by 18 percent, with black grama accounting for
the largest percentage of the decrease. Although moderate cattle grazing without
fire resulted in an increase in shrubs and a decrease in grasses, the fundamental
characteristics of the vegetation remained the same. Therefore, the simulations
indicate that the landscape can support moderate cattle grazing for at least 20
years, provided that precipitation is average or above average.

With fire, moderate grazing resulted in less shrub biomass than occurred under
baseline conditions (no fire, no grazing). Therefore, fire eliminated the impact of
grazing relative to an increase in shrubs. However, the combination of fire and
grazing resulted in even lower production of grasses than with grazing alone. Black
grama was particularly sensitive to this combination of stressors.

Based on these results, livestock grazing should be excluded from burned areas for
at least 1 year with average or above average precipitation to allow for grass recov-
ery. Excluding grazing following fire will result in more productive grass communi-
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 35

ties, with an increase in productivity proportional to an increase in length of exclu-

sion time. This result is especially true for black grama.

Military training had an impact on vegetation dynamics on this landscape, but this
impact, and the levels used in the simulations, was less than that from livestock
grazing. All types of training evaluated in these simulations affected the vegeta-
tion, but the degree of their impact had a distinct order. Combined training with
wheeled and tracked vehicles had the most substantial impact, followed by
wheeled-vehicle training, Patriot-missile training, and bombing.

In summary, the results of these simulations indicate that the landscape can sup-
port moderate levels of military training combined with cattle grazing for at least
20 years, provided precipitation remains at least at average levels. Under this com-
bined land-use scenario, shrubs will increase across the landscape, and grasses, es-
pecially black grama, will decrease. Periodic rest from both training and grazing,
especially if combined with the proper use of prescribed fire, would likely result in a
lower increase in shrubs and a lower decrease in grasses. As the frequency and du-
ration of rest increases, the greater the benefit to grasses and the slower the in-
crease in shrubs.

Based on the results of these simulations, the elimination of cattle grazing from this
landscape would slow the rate of decrease of black grama, even as military training
continued. Without cattle grazing, fire could be used more effectively in reducing
the amount of shrubs present, while minimizing the negative impact of fire on black
grama.
36 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

References

Agren, G.I., and E. Bosatta. 1987. “Theoretical analysis of the long-term dynamics of carbon and
nitrogen soils,” Ecology 68, pp 1181-1189.

Barth, R.C., and J.O. Klemmendson. 1982. “Amount and distribution of dry matter, nitrogen, and
organic carbon in soil-plant systems of mesquite and palo verde,” Journal of Range
Management 35, pp 412-418.

Brown, D.A., and H.D. Scott. 1984. “Dependence of crop growth and yield on root development and
activity.” Chapter 6 in: S.A. Barber and D.R. Bouldin (eds.) Roots, Nutrient and Water
Influx, and Plant Growth. Special Publication 49. American Society of Agronomy,
Madison, WI, pp 101-136.

Childress, W.M. and T. McLendon. 1999. Simulation of multi-scale environmental impacts using
the EDYS model. Hydrological Science and Technology 15:257-269.

Childress, W.M., T. McLendon, and D.L. Price. 1999a. “A Multiscale Ecological Model for
Allocation of Training Activities on US Army Installations.” In: Jeffrey M. Klopatek and
Robert H. Gardner (eds.), Landscape Ecological Analysis: Issues, Challenges, and Ideas.
Ecological Studies Series. Chapter 6. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, pp 80-108.

Childress, W.M., D.L. Price, C.L. Coldren, and T. McLendon. 1999b. A Functional Description of
the Ecological Dynamics Simulation (EDYS) Model, With Applications for Army and
Other Federal Land Managers. Technical Report 99/55, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, IL.

Correll, D.S., and M.C. Johnston. 1970. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas. Texas Research
Foundation. Renner, TX.

Fernandez, R.J., and J.F. Reynolds. 2000. “Potential growth and drought tolerance of eight desert
grasses: lack of a trade-off?” Oecologia 123, pp 90-98.

Fulbright, T.E., E.F. Redente, and N.E. Hargis. 1982. Growing Colorado Plants from Seed: A State
of the Art. Vol. 2. Grasses and Grasslike Plants. U.S. Department of Interior Fish and
Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/89.

Garza, A. Jr., T. McLendon, and D.L. Drawe. 1994. “Herbage yield, protein content, and
carbohydrate reserves in gulf cordgrass (Spartina spartinae).” Journal of Range
Management 47, pp 16-21.
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 37

Gay, P.E., P.J. Grubb, and H.J. Hudson. 1982. “Seasonal changes in the concentrations of
nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, and in the density of mycorrhiza, in biennial and
matrix-forming perennial species of closed chalkland turf,” Journal of Ecology 70, pp 571-
593.

Gigon, A., and I.H. Rorison. 1972. “The response of some ecologically distinct plant species to
nitrate and to ammonium nitrogen,” Journal of Ecology 60, pp 93-102.

Gould, F.W. 1975. The Grasses of Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX.

Heil, G.W., and W.H. Diemont. 1983. “Raised nutrient levels change heathland into grassland.”
Vegetation 53, pp 113-120.

Huck, M.G. 1984. “Water flux in the soil-root continuum,” In: S.A. Barber and D.R. Bouldin (eds.),
Roots, Nutrient and Water Influx, and Plant Growth. ASA Special Publication Number
49. American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wisconsin.

Kramer, P.J. 1969. Plant and Soil Water Relationships. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Lissner, J., H. Schierup, F.A. Comin, and V. Astorga. 1999. “Effect of climate on the salt tolerance
of two Phragmites australis populations. I. Growth, inorganic solutes, nitrogen regulation,
and osmoregulation,” Aquatic Botany 64, pp 317-333.

Mack, S.E. 1986. Response of Eurotia lanata in association with two species of Agropyron on
disturbed soils. Ph.D. Dissertation. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

McClaugherty, C.A., J. Pastor, J.D. Arber, and J.M. Melillo. 1985. Forest litter decomposition in
relation to soil nitrogen dynamics and litter quality. Ecology 66, pp 266-275.

McLendon, T., and E.F. Redente. 1992. “Effects of nitrogen limitation on species replacement
dynamics during early secondary succession on a semiarid sagebrush site.” Oecologia 91,
pp 312-317.

McLendon, T., and E.F. Redente. 1994. “Role of nitrogen availability in the transition from annual-
dominated to perennial-dominated seral communities.” Proceedings – Ecology
Management, and Restoration of Intermountain Annual Rangelands. Technical Report
INT-GTR-313. US Forest Service, Ogden, UT, pp 352-362.

McLendon, T., W.M. Childress, and D.L. Price. 1996. Use of land condition trend analysis (LCTA)
data to develop a community dynamics simulation model as a factor for determination of
training carrying capacity of military lands. 5th Annual LRAM/ITAM Workshop. LaCross,
WI, pp 44-54.

McLendon, T., W.M. Childress, and C.L. Coldren. 2000. EDYS Applications: Two-year validation
results for grassland communities at Fort Bliss, Texas and Fort Hood, Texas. Technical
Report SMI-ES-019. Shepherd Miller, Inc., Fort Collins, CO.
38 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

McNeill, A.M., and M. Wood. 1990. “15N estimates of nitrogen fixation by white clover (Trifolium
repens L.) growing in a mixture with ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.). Plant and Soil 128, pp
265-273.

Nadelhoffer, K.J., J.D. Aber, and J.M. Melillo. 1985. “Fine roots, net primary production, and soil
nitrogen availability: New hypothesis,” Ecology 66, pp 1377-1390.

Nicholas, P.J., and W.J. McGinnies. 1982. “An evaluation of 17 grasses and 2 legumes for
revegetation of soil and spoil on a coal strip mine,” Journal of Range Management 35, pp
288-293.

O’Connell, A.M. 1988. “Nutrient dynamics in decomposing litter in Karri (Eucalyptus diversicolor
F. Muell.) forests of southwestern Australia,” Journal of Ecology 76:1186-1203.

Paschke, M.W., T. McLendon, and E.F. Redente. 2000. “Nitrogen availability and old-field
succession in a shortgrass steppe,” Ecosystems 3, pp 144-158.

Redente, E.F., P.R. Ogle, and N.E. Hargis. 1982. Growing Colorado Plants from Seed: A State of
the Art. Vol. 3. Forbs. U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-
82/30.

Redente, E. F., J. E. Friedlander, and T. McLendon. 1992. “Response of early and late semiarid
seral species to nitrogen and phosphorus gradients,” Plant and Soil 140: 127-135.

Reichman, O.J., and S.C. Smith. 1991. “Responses to simulated leaf and root herbivory by a
biennial, Tragopogon dubius,” Ecology 72:116-124.

Risser, P.G., and W.J. Parton. 1982. “Ecosystem analysis of the tallgrass prairie: nitrogen cycle.”
Ecology 63:1342-1351.

Scifres, C.J. 1980. Brush Management. Principles and Practices for Texas and the Southwest.
Texas A&M University Press. College Station, TX.

Sears, W.E., C.M. Britton, D.B. Webster, and R.D. Pettit. 1986b. “Herbicide conversion of a sand
shinnery oak (Quercus havardii) community: effects on nitrogen,” Journal of Range
Management 39, pp 403-407.

Smith, D. 1962. “Physiological considerations in forage management.” Chapter 40. In: H.D.
Hughes, Maurice E. Heath, and Darrel S. Metcalfe (eds.), Forages. 2nd Ed. Iowa State
University Press, Ames, IA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1975. Soil Taxonomy. Soil Conservation Service. USDA
Handbook No. 436. Washington, DC.

Stoddart, L.A., A.D. Smith, and T.W. Box. 1975. Range Management. 3d Ed. McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY.
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 39

Stout, D.G., M. Suzuki, and B. Brooke. 1983. “Nonstructural carbohydrate and crude protein in
pinegrass storage tissues,” Journal of Range Management 36, pp 440-443.

TerreSIM Users Guide Version 1.0. 2003. MFG, Inc., 3802 Automation Way, Suite 100, Fort
Collins, CO 80525.

Tilman, D., and D. Wedin. 1991. “Dynamics of nitrogen competition between successional grasses,”
Ecology 73, pp 1038-1049.

Uhl, C., and C.F. Jordan. 1984. “Succession and nutrient dynamics following forest cutting and
burning in Amazonia,” Ecology 65, pp 1476-1490.

Vogt, K.A., C.C. Grier, C.E. Meier, and R.L. Edmonds. 1982. “Mycorrhiza role in net primary
production and nutrient cycling in Abies amabilis ecosystems in western Washington,”
Ecology 63, pp 370-380.

Vories, K.C. 1981. Growing Colorado Plants from Seed: A State of the Art. Vol. 1. Shrubs. USDA
Forest Service General Technical Report INT-103. U.S. Forest Service, Ogden, UT.

Weaver, J.E. 1954. North American Prairie. Johnsen Publishing, Lincoln, NE.
40 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

Appendix A: Soil Series

Table A1. Armesa very fine sandy loam.

Layer Wilting Field Organic

Layer Name Depth Point Capacity Saturation Matter Total N
(mm) (g/m2) (g/m2)
1 A 25 0.042 0.152 0.480 190.8 0.00095
2 A 51 0.042 0.152 0.480 389.2 0.00195
3 Bw 127 0.042 0.152 0.480 775.4 0.00310
4 Bk1 152 0.070 0.215 0.480 870.0 0.00326
5 Bk2 216 0.070 0.215 0.480 1236.3 0.00464
6 Bk2 216 0.070 0.215 0.480 1071.5 0.00348
7 Bk3 127 0.070 0.215 0.480 581.5 0.00174
8 Bk4 186 0.070 0.215 0.480 709.7 0.00177
9 Bk4 186 0.070 0.215 0.480 709.7 0.00177
10 Bk4 186 0.070 0.215 0.480 567.8 0.00114
11 Bk4 186 0.070 0.215 0.480 425.8 0.00064
12 Bk4 187 0.070 0.215 0.480 24.1 0.00016
13 Bk4 187 0.070 0.215 0.480 214.1 0.00016
Total 2032 7955.9 0.02477

Table A2. Allamore very cobbly loam.

Layer Wilting Field Organic

Layer Name Depth Point Capacity Saturation Matter Total N
(mm) (g/m2) (g/m2)
1 A 25 0.096 0.181 0.480 190.8 0.00095
2 A 25 0.096 0.181 0.480 190.8 0.00095
3 A 26 0.096 0.181 0.480 158.7 0.00063
4 Bk 44 0.087 0.147 0.480 128.2 0.00051
5 Bk 21 0.087 0.147 0.480 96.2 0.00029
6 Bk 21 0.087 0.147 0.480 96.2 0.00029
7 Bk 21 0.087 0.147 0.480 61.1 0.00012
8 Bk 20 0.087 0.147 0.480 45.8 0.00007
9 Bk 20 0.087 0.147 0.480 45.8 0.00007
10 Bk 20 0.087 0.147 0.480 30.5 0.00003
11 Bk 20 0.087 0.147 0.480 15.3 0.00001
12 Bk 20 0.087 0.147 0.480 7.6 0.00000
13 Bk 20 0.087 0.147 0.480 7.6 0.00000
Total 279 1074.5 0.00393
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 41

Table A3. Bissett-Rock outcrop complex.

Layer Wilting Field Organic

Layer Name Depth Point Capacity Saturation Matter Total N
(mm) (g/m2) (g/m2)
1 A 25 0.071 0.181 0.480 190.8 0.00095
2 A 26 0.071 0.181 0.480 198.4 0.00099
3 Bk 17 0.166 0.226 0.480 103.8 0.00042
4 Bk 17 0.166 0.226 0.480 103.8 0.00042
5 Bk 16 0.166 0.226 0.480 73.3 0.00022
6 Bk 16 0.166 0.226 0.480 73.3 0.00022
7 Bk 16 0.166 0.226 0.480 48.8 0.00010
8 Bk 16 0.166 0.226 0.480 36.6 0.00005
9 Bk 16 0.166 0.226 0.480 36.6 0.00005
10 Bk 16 0.166 0.226 0.480 24.4 0.00002
11 Bk 16 0.166 0.226 0.480 12.2 0.00001
12 Bk 16 0.166 0.226 0.480 6.1 0.00000
13 Bk 16 0.166 0.226 0.480 6.1 0.00000
Total 229 914.3 0.00346

Table A4. Mariola fine sandy loam.

Layer Wilting Field Organic

Layer Name Depth Point Capacity Saturation Matter Total N
(mm) (g/m2) (g/m2)
1 A 25 0.080 0.125 0.480 190.8 0.00095
2 A 77 0.080 0.125 0.480 5929.7 0.02965
3 Bt 203 0.132 0.185 0.480 1239.4 0.00496
4 Btk 203 0.132 0.185 0.480 1161.9 0.00436
5 Bk 203 0.132 0.185 0.480 1161.9 0.00436
6 Bkm1 178 0.132 0.185 0.480 883.0 0.00287
7 Bkm2 178 0.132 0.185 0.480 815.1 0.00245
8 Bkm2 178 0.132 0.185 0.480 679.2 0.00170
9 Bkm2 178 0.132 0.185 0.480 679.2 0.00170
10 2Bk 152 0.145 0.195 0.480 464.0 0.00093
11 2Bk 152 0.145 0.195 0.480 348.0 0.00052
12 2Bk 152 0.145 0.195 0.480 174.0 0.00013
13 2Bk 152 0.145 0.195 0.480 175.1 0.00013
Total 2732 13901.3 0.05470
42 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

Table A5. Paisano-Cienega complex.

Layer Wilting Field Organic

Layer Name Depth Point Capacity Saturation Matter Total N
(mm) (g/m2) (g/m2)
1 A 25 0.058 0.068 0.480 190.8 0.00095
2 A 51 0.058 0.068 0.480 389.2 0.00195
3 Bk 127 0.058 0.068 0.480 775.4 0.00310
4 Bkm 169 0.068 0.078 0.480 1031.8 0.00413
5 Bkm 169 0.068 0.078 0.480 773.8 0.00232
6 Bkm 169 0.068 0.078 0.480 773.8 0.00232
7 BCk 188 0.068 0.078 0.480 573.9 0.00115
8 BCk 189 0.068 0.078 0.480 432.7 0.00065
9 BCk 189 0.068 0.078 0.480 432.7 0.00065
10 BCk 189 0.068 0.078 0.480 288.5 0.00029
11 BCk 189 0.068 0.078 0.480 144.2 0.00007
12 BCk 189 0.068 0.078 0.480 72.1 0.00002
13 BCk 189 0.068 0.078 0.480 72.1 0.00002
Total 2032 5951.1 0.01761
 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 43

Appendix B: Initial Parameter Matrices for

the Fort Bliss Application

A TerreSIM application requires both an initial spatial representation of the plant

communities across the simulated landscape and initial biomass values for each of
the plant species in each of the plant communities. Table B1 lists the initial above-
ground biomass values used for the Fort Bliss TerreSIM application. Values for the
various species were developed using these biomass:cover ratios and the cover val-
ues from the Fort Bliss LCTA data.

The biomass values from Table B1 specify how much aboveground biomass is to be
entered for each species. However, the model also requires a plant-part allocation
(distribution) of this biomass (i.e., how much of the initial biomass is leaves, how
much is stems, etc.). Table B2 provides this initial allocation of the biomass into
plant parts.

Table B1. Initial biomass.

Black Sideoats
Black grama Black grama grama Sand grama Needle-thread
Species Blue grama Yucca Muhly Sacahuista Black grama

Broom snakeweed 0.70 89.80 1.63 7.22 0.00

Creosotebush 14.44 0.00 4.48 15.59 4.62
Sacahuista 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.21 0.00
Yucca 0.23 288.73 0.00 1.74 0.00

Purple threeawn 1.63 0.88 0.75 5.75 8.25

Sideoats grama 0.12 1.04 0.12 39.11 18.69
Black grama 144.97 71.96 153.06 6.14 46.36
Blue grama 18.80 0.00 1.36 27.23 28.59
Tobosa 8.60 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.00
Sand muhly 8.70 44.51 16.68 24.53 9.81
Alkali sacaton 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sand dropseed 1.86 34.76 5.13 3.62 3.72
Needle-and-thread 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80.17

Leatherweed croton 2.00 14.92 7.33 32.90 6.40

 44 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

Table B1 (Cont’d). Initial biomass.

Blue grama Creosote-

Alkali bush black Tobosa
sacaton grama Blue grama Roads Arroyos Barren

Broom snakeweed 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Creosotebush 44.61 61.07 24.69 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sacahuista 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Yucca 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Purple threeawn 1.13 1.13 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sideoats grama 0.46 0.69 7.04 0.00 0.00 0.00
Black grama 0.00 122.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Blue grama 218.95 7.63 6.54 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tobosa 0.00 1.61 104.69 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sand muhly 10.67 13.61 8.69 0.00 0.00 0.00
Alkali sacaton 16.21 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sand dropseed 0.00 5.48 1.75 0.00 0.00 0.00
Needle-and-thread 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Leatherweed croton 9.73 5.33 1.07 0.00 0.00 0.00

Table B2. Allocation (mature).

Species CRoot FRoot Trunk Stems Leaves Seeds

Broom snakeweed 0.41 0.08 0.29 0.14 0.08 0.00

Creosotebush 0.34 0.06 0.20 0.30 0.10 0.00
Sacahuista 0.57 0.14 0.04 0.09 0.16 0.00
Yucca 0.57 0.13 0.04 0.10 0.16 0.00

Purple threeawn 0.36 0.53 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.00

Sideoats grama 0.07 0.18 0.10 0.25 0.40 0.00
Black grama 0.13 0.50 0.10 0.10 0.17 0.00
Blue grama 0.29 0.52 0.05 0.02 0.12 0.00
Tobosa 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.69 0.00
Sand muhly 0.22 0.33 0.08 0.10 0.27 0.00
Alkali sacaton 0.31 0.46 0.03 0.08 0.12 0.00
Sand dropseed 0.31 0.46 0.03 0.08 0.12 0.00
Needle-and-thread 0.10 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.40 0.00

Leatherweed croton 0.20 0.05 0.19 0.09 0.47 0.00

ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 45

The first step in determining the allocation values for each species is to determine
the root:shoot ratios. These ratios are taken from the literature for each species or,
if data are lacking for the species, the most-similar species. Literature root:shoot
values are of two types: (1) ratios for mature plants and (2) ratios for plants less
than 1 year old. The two ratios may be very different for the same species, espe-
cially for herbaceous perennials. For example, mature blue grama plants have
root:shoot ratios on the order of 2.8, compared with a ratio for annual production of
0.25. The reason for the difference is that most of the aboveground biomass in her-
baceous perennials is annual (i.e., it dies at the end of each growing season). In con-
trast, much of the belowground biomass is perennial. Over time, therefore, the pro-
portional amount of roots increases. Cumulative ratios are used in Table B2.
Ratios for annual production are used in Table B3.

The root:shoot ratio is used to determine how much root biomass should be added to
the initial shoot biomass provided by Table B1, to determine total initial biomass for
each species. Total initial root biomass is then allocated between coarse and fine
roots.

Initial aboveground biomass is allocated into trunk (crown for grasses), stems,
leaves, and seeds (flowers + seeds). Values for all species were estimated.

The biomass values resulting from the application of Table B2 are only initial val-
ues used to begin a simulation. As the simulation progresses, these biomass values
change on a daily basis, in response to the dynamics of growth, senescence, herbi-
vory, fire, training, etc.

Table B3 provides the allocation values for monthly production. For each gram of
dry matter biomass produced by a plant species, a certain portion goes to coarse
roots, a portion to fine roots, a portion to trunk, etc.

Table B4 provides the allocation values for production in a month when either dor-
mancy is broken (e.g., spring green-up) or regrowth is triggered following a major
defoliation event (e.g., heavy grazing, trampling, fire). The primary difference be-
tween this matrix and the current-growth allocation matrix (Table B2) is that in
green-out there is no allocation to coarse roots and to grass trunks. These are the
primary storage regions for nonstructural carbohydrates, which are used initially to
produce regrowth (Stoddart et al. 1975; Garza et al. 1994).
46 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

Table B3. Allocation (Current).

Species CRoot FRoot Trunk Stems Leaves Seeds

Broom snakeweed 0.08 0.22 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.00

Creosotebush 0.09 0.26 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.00
Sacahuista 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.01 0.39 0.00
Yucca 0.10 0.30 0.20 0.01 0.39 0.00

Purple threeawn 0.09 0.26 0.13 0.12 0.40 0.00

Sideoats grama 0.10 0.25 0.16 0.15 0.34 0.00
Black grama 0.09 0.27 0.15 0.12 0.37 0.00
Blue grama 0.09 0.27 0.17 0.05 0.42 0.00
Tobosa 0.11 0.26 0.16 0.15 0.32 0.00
Sand muhly 0.09 0.26 0.14 0.15 0.36 0.00
Alkali sacaton 0.10 0.25 0.17 0.13 0.35 0.00
Sand dropseed 0.07 0.23 0.10 0.25 0.35 0.00
Needle-and-thread 0.09 0.27 0.14 0.13 0.37 0.00

Leatherweed croton 0.05 0.15 0.20 0.10 0.50 0.00

Table B4. Green-out allocation.

Species CRoot FRoot Trunk Stems Leaves Seeds

Broom snakeweed 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.30 0.60 0.00

Creosotebush 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.10 0.70 0.00
Sacahuista 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.01 0.69 0.00
Yucca 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.01 0.64 0.00

Purple threeawn 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.20 0.70 0.00

Sideoats grama 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.30 0.60 0.00
Black grama 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.30 0.60 0.00
Blue grama 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.85 0.00
Tobosa 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.20 0.70 0.00
Sand muhly 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.25 0.65 0.00
Alkali sacaton 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.20 0.70 0.00
Sand dropseed 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.30 0.60 0.00
Needle-and-thread 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.20 0.70 0.00

Leatherweed croton 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.35 0.60 0.00

ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 47

Table B5 provides the allocation values for production in months in which flowering
and seed production occurs. For woody plants, 50 percent of trunk and stem growth
and 10 percent of leaf growth are diverted to seeds. For herbaceous perennials, 100
percent of coarse root and trunk growth and 50 percent of leaf growth are diverted
to seeds. For annuals, all growth is diverted to seeds. Some exceptions are made
for species that are typically heavy seed producers or for species that are poor seed
producers.

Table B5. Seed month allocation.

Species CRoot FRoot Trunk Stems Leaves Seeds

Broom snakeweed 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.75

Creosotebush 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.75
Sacahuista 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.80
Yucca 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.85

Purple threeawn 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.75

Sideoats grama 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.70
Black grama 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.20 0.30 0.40
Blue grama 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.85
Tobosa 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.00 0.30 0.40
Sand muhly 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.80
Alkali sacaton 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.60
Sand dropseed 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.85
Needle-and-thread 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.75

Leatherweed croton 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.85

Table B6 provides initial values for nitrogen (N) concentrations in plant tissues.
The value in a particular tissue may vary from these values at any point in a simu-
lation for either of two reasons. First, values may exceed the values shown here be-
cause of “luxury consumption” (i.e., the amount of N contained in the water ab-
sorbed by the plant may be sufficient to exceed these matrix values). Secondly,
values may be less than the matrix values in some tissues because of internal
transport of N from one tissue type to another during periods of green-out or rapid
growth. The lower boundary for these concentrations is the maintenance levels (i.e.,
the concentration at which that particular tissue can remain alive but not grow).
Maintenance levels are provided in Table B6 and are arbitrarily set at 90 percent of
the Table B6 levels.
48 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

Table B6. Plant N concentration.

Species CRoot FRoot Trunk Stems Leaves Seeds SD SD Sdlg Sdlg Seed
Stems Leaves Root Shoot Bank

Broom snakeweed 0.0110 0.0120 0.0160 0.0090 0.0175 0.0330 0.0080 0.0087 0.0120 0.0200 0.0330
Creosotebush 0.0100 0.0110 0.0060 0.0120 0.0160 0.0300 0.0085 0.0120 0.0120 0.0180 0.0300
Sacahuista 0.0105 0.0110 0.0150 0.0160 0.0170 0.0350 0.0090 0.0100 0.0120 0.0130 0.0340
Yucca 0.0100 0.0105 0.0140 0.0150 0.0160 0.0400 0.0060 0.0080 0.0110 0.0120 0.0350

Purple threeawn 0.0085 0.0100 0.0110 0.0144 0.0150 0.0190 0.0100 0.0129 0.0100 0.0173 0.0210
Sideoats grama 0.0095 0.0105 0.0115 0.0150 0.0155 0.0210 0.0130 0.0140 0.0110 0.0160 0.0220
Black grama 0.0100 0.0110 0.0120 0.0154 0.0160 0.0200 0.0140 0.0145 0.0110 0.0183 0.0220
Blue grama 0.0101 0.0110 0.0120 0.0154 0.0160 0.0200 0.0140 0.0145 0.0110 0.0183 0.0220
Tobosa 0.0090 0.0100 0.0100 0.0120 0.0130 0.0200 0.0100 0.0110 0.0110 0.0140 0.0210
Sand muhly 0.0103 0.0110 0.0120 0.0150 0.0155 0.0200 0.0130 0.0145 0.0110 0.0160 0.0220
Alkali sacaton 0.0100 0.0110 0.0110 0.0140 0.0150 0.0200 0.0130 0.0140 0.0110 0.0160 0.0220
Sand dropseed 0.0105 0.0110 0.0120 0.0145 0.0150 0.0200 0.0125 0.0130 0.0110 0.0160 0.0220
Needle-and-thread 0.0100 0.0110 0.0120 0.0150 0.0155 0.0195 0.0135 0.0145 0.0110 0.0160 0.0210

Leatherweed croton 0.0090 0.0100 0.0110 0.0130 0.0190 0.0250 0.0120 0.0150 0.0110 0.0200 0.0270

Table B6 values are based on tissue N concentrations of composited aboveground

tissue for the species, or most-similar species. Most of these values were taken from
a large set of unpublished values from tissue samples analyzed in connection with a
number of research projects. A limited amount of these data has been published
(McLendon and Redente 1992, 1994; Redente et al. 1992; Paschke et al. 2000). Ad-
ditional values were taken from the literature.

When available, values for separate tissue types were used. Tissue type concentra-
tions (Table B7) were most often estimated from averages found in the literature
(Gigon and Rorison 1972; Barth and Klemmedson 1982; Gay et al. 1982; Nicholas
and McGinnes 1982; Risser and Parton 1982; Vogt et al. 1982; Heil and Diemont
1983; Stout et al. 1983; Uhl and Jordan 1984; McClaugherty et al. 1985; Nadelhoffer
et al. 1985; Sears et al. 1986; Agren and Bosatta 1987; O'Connell 1988; McNeill and
Wood 1990; Reichman and Smith 1991; Tilman and Wedin 1991).
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 49

Table B7. Maintenance levels.

Species Min % CRoot FRoot Trunk Stems Leaves Seeds SD SD Sdlg Sdlg Seed
Stems Leaves Root Shoot Bank

Broom snakeweed 0.9000 0.0110 0.0120 0.0160 0.0090 0.0175 0.0330 0.0080 0.0087 0.0120 0.0200 0.0330
Creosotebush 0.9000 0.0100 0.0110 0.0060 0.0120 0.0160 0.0300 0.0085 0.0120 0.0120 0.0180 0.0300

Sacahuista 0.9000 0.0105 0.0110 0.0150 0.0160 0.0170 0.0350 0.0090 0.0100 0.0120 0.0130 0.0340
Yucca 0.9000 0.0100 0.105 0.0140 0.0150 0.0160 0.0400 0.0060 0.0080 0.0110 0.0120 0.0350

Purple threeawn 0.9000 0.0085 0.0100 0.0110 0.0144 0.0150 0.0190 0.0100 0.0129 0.0100 0.0173 0.0210
Sideoats grama 0.9000 0.0095 0.0105 0.0115 0.0150 0.0155 0.0210 0.0130 0.0140 0.0110 0.0160 0.0220
Black grama 0.9000 0.0100 0.0110 0.0120 0.0154 0.0160 0.0200 0.0140 0.0145 0.0110 0.0183 0.0220

Blue grama 0.9000 0.0101 0.0110 0.0120 0.0154 0.0160 0.0200 0.0140 0.0145 0.0110 0.0183 0.0220
Tobosa 0.9000 0.0090 0.0100 0.0100 0.0120 0.0130 0.0200 0.0100 0.0110 0.0110 0.0140 0.0210
Sand muhly 0.9000 0.0103 0.0110 0.0120 0.0150 0.0155 0.0200 0.0130 0.0145 0.0110 0.0160 0.0220

Alkali sacaton 0.9000 0.0100 0.0110 0.0110 0.0140 0.0150 0.0200 0.0130 0.0140 0.0110 0.0160 0.0220
Sand dropseed 0.9000 0.0105 0.0110 0.0120 0.0145 0.0150 0.0200 0.0125 0.0130 0.0110 0.0160 0.0220
Needle-and-thread 0.9000 0.0100 0.0110 0.0120 0.0150 0.0155 0.0195 0.0135 0.0145 0.0110 0.0160 0.0210

Leatherweed croton 0.9000 0.0090 0.0100 0.0110 0.0130 0.0190 0.0250 0.0120 0.0150 0.0110 0.0200 0.0270
50 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

Many species of plants resorb a portion of the N contained in tissue during senes-
cence of the tissue and prior to death of that tissue. This resorbtion is especially
common in tree leaves. Table B8 provides the maximum amounts of N within each
tissue type that can be resorbed prior to tissue loss. The values are general esti-
mates based on differences between N contents in green tissues and N contents in
dead tissues.

Table B8 provides (1) the percentage of the total root biomass of each species that
occurs at given depths (%) of soil profiles and (2) the maximum reported rooting
depth for each species. A significant amount of root architecture data has been col-
lected, both from the published literature and from our own studies. For each spe-
cies, the amount of roots reported by depth is compared among all studies for which
data are available for that species. These data are then used to calculate an aver-
age root biomass by depth values. Root biomass by depth percentages have been
found to be relatively consistent across soil profiles for a given species, even where
the depths of the soil profiles vary significantly.

The root percentages (Table B8) are multiplied by the estimated initial root biomass
value for that species (Table B1) to arrive at an initial root biomass within each
layer for each soil profile in the landscape. These are initial values only. As model
simulation progresses, root architecture changes because of root growth and the lo-
cation (depth) of belowground resources. Daily root production, based in part on the
appropriate allocation matrix (Tables B1–B4), is added to the existing root biomass
proportional to the amount of root biomass in each soil layer that supplied water to
the plant on that particular day. The daily root production is based on two related
concepts: (1) root growth occurs more in moist soil than in dry soil and (2) root
growth in a soil layer is largely independent of soil moisture levels in other layers
(Kramer 1969; Brown and Scott 1984; Huck 1984).

Maximum rooting depth sets the maximum depth to which a particular species can
root. This value is the maximum found in the literature for that species, or the
most-similar species. This limit is assumed to be primarily genetically determined,
since the maximum reported depth was used. If the average maximum rooting
depth was used, the depth would also be assumed to be strongly influenced by envi-
ronmental factors.
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 51

Table B8. Nitrogen resorption.

Species CRoot FRoot Trunk Stems Leaves Seeds

Broom snakeweed 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00

Creosotebush 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.30 0.00
Sacahuista 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00
Yucca 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00

Purple threeawn 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00

Sideoats grama 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.00
Black grama 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00
Blue grama 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00
Tobosa 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.00
Sand muhly 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00
Alkali sacaton 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00
Sand dropseed 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00
Needle-and-thread 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00

Leatherweed croton 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00

Table B9. Root architecture.

Species Soil Layer

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13

Broom snakeweed 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.15 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01
Creosotebush 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.13 0.16 0.15 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.01 0.00
Sacahuista 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.15 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01
Yucca 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.15 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01

Purple threeawn 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00
Sideoats grama 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.15 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00
Black grama 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Blue grama 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.12 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tobosa 0.05 0.25 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00
Sand muhly 0.05 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.19 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00
Alkali sacaton 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.12 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00
Sand dropseed 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.12 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00
Needle-and-thread 0.05 0.25 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00

Leatherweed croton 0.06 0.10 0.16 0.15 0.10 0.20 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
52 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

Uptake capacity (Table B10) is the maximum amount of monthly water demand
that can be supplied by the root system in one day. This amount was estimated to
be 10 percent of the monthly demand.

Competitive efficiency is a measure of the relative efficiency of roots in water up-

take. The fibrous root system of most short-grasses is used as the standard, and is
assigned a competitive efficiency value of 1.0. Larger grasses, such as little blue-
stem, are assumed to have larger roots than shortgrasses. The larger roots of
midgrasses are assumed to have a slightly lower efficiency for water uptake than
the smaller roots of the shortgrasses. The larger roots of trees are assumed to be
significantly less efficient, on a per gram basis, of water uptake than the smaller,
fibrous roots of grasses. These relationships are based on the concept that water
intake by roots is partly dependent on the roots’ surface area.

The physiological matrix (Table B11) provides the data used in the model to deter-
mine in which months various plant functions occur. Data sources were Gould
(1975) for most of the grasses and Correll and Johnston (1970) for most of the non-
grasses. Green-out and dormancy values were based on the authors’ personal esti-
mates.

Table B12 provides values for (1) conversions between dry weight and wet weight,
(2) amount of moisture intercepted by the canopy of each species, and (3) conver-
sions between basal area and trunk biomass. These calculations are required for
various calculations used in the simulations.

Table B10. Root uptake and biomass adjustment based on competitive efficiency.

Species Uptake Capacity Biomass Adjustment

Broom snakeweed 0.200 0.750

Creosotebush 0.200 0.600
Sacahuista 0.200 0.800
Yucca 0.200 0.750

Purple threeawn 0.200 1.000

Sideoats grama 0.200 0.900
Black grama 0.200 1.000
Blue grama 0.200 1.000
Tobosa 0.200 0.900
Sand muhly 0.200 1.000
Alkali sacaton 0.200 0.950
Sand dropseed 0.200 1.000
Needle-and-thread 0.200 1.000

Leatherweed croton 0.200 0.750

ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 53

Table B11. Physiological response months.

Species Green-out Seed- Sprout Seed- Set Dormancy

Broom snakeweed 3 4, 9 7, 9 12
Creosotebush 3 3, 9 7, 9 12
Sacahuista 1 4, 8 6, 8 1
Yucca 1 4, 8 6, 8 1

Purple threeawn 2 3, 9 7, 9 12
Sideoats grama 3 4, 9 6, 9 11
Black grama 3 4, 8 8, 9 12
Blue grama 3 3, 8 7, 9 12
Tobosa 3 4, 9 7, 8 11
Sand muhly 3 4, 9 7, 9 12
Alkali sacaton 3 4, 9 7, 9 12
Sand dropseed 3 4, 9 7, 9 11
Needle-and-thread 10 10, 6 2, 5 6

Leatherweed croton 2 3, 9 4 8 11

Table B12. Biomass conversion constants.

Dry wt/ Moisture Interception/ Basal cover/
Species Wet wt g biomass Trunk biomass

Broom snakeweed 0.28 0.008710 20.0

Creosotebush 0.50 0.008000 40.0
Sacahuista 0.49 0.009000 30.0
Yucca 0.45 0.008900 30.0

Purple threeawn 0.39 0.007000 30.0

Sideoats grama 0.28 0.008500 25.0
Black grama 0.50 0.008240 30.0
Blue grama 0.50 0.008270 20.0
Tobosa 0.40 0.008900 20.0
Sand muhly 0.40 0.008200 30.0
Alkali sacaton 0.37 0.008800 20.0
Sand dropseed 0.35 0.008200 40.0
Needle-and-thread 0.35 0.007500 30.0

Leatherweed croton 0.18 0.005000 40.0

54 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

Table B13 provides four sets of numbers that are used by the model to calculate wa-
ter requirements of the plants. Green-out water use is the amount of water used to
change from dry weight to wet weight. It is 1.00 - dry weight (Table B12). Mainte-
nance is the amount of water required to support 1 g of old-growth biomass for 1
month. Old-growth biomass is that amount of live biomass produced in previous
years. New biomass maintenance is the amount of water required to sustain 1 g of
new-growth biomass for 1 month, in months where no new growth takes place. If
this amount of water is not available, a proportional amount of new-growth tissue is
converted to standing dead biomass (i.e., drought loss). The maintenance water-use
values are estimates. Water to production is the amount of water (kilograms) re-
quired to produce 1 g of new biomass.

Table B13. Water use factors.

Species Maintenance New biomass Water to Green-out

(mm/g bio/mo) maintenance production (kg) water use

Broom snakeweed 0.0000083 0.04 2.38 0.72

Creosotebush 0.0000080 0.04 3.51 0.50
Sacahuista 0.0000100 0.04 2.50 0.51
Yucca 0.0000090 0.04 3.00 0.55

Purple threeawn 0.0000124 0.04 1.05 0.61

Sideoats grama 0.0000150 0.05 1.09 0.72
Black grama 0.0000100 0.04 0.98 0.50
Blue grama 0.0000175 0.05 0.75 0.50
Tobosa 0.0000150 0.05 1.00 0.60
Sand muhly 0.0000120 0.05 0.92 0.60
Alkali sacaton 0.0000160 0.05 1.07 0.63
Sand dropseed 0.0000160 0.05 0.98 0.65
Needle-and-thread 0.0000200 0.06 1.52 0.65

Leatherweed croton 0.0000250 0.08 0.87 0.82

ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 55

Maximum growth rate (shown in Table B14) is a productivity value of the estimated
increase in aboveground biomass that could occur in 1 month under ideal condi-
tions. A value of 1.00 means the biomass doubles each month. The growth rate
value is multiplied by the amount of leaf-equivalent photosynthetically active bio-
mass (Table B16) to determine potential monthly production. For potential monthly
production to be achieved, sufficient water, nutrients, and sunlight have to be avail-
able to the species to achieve this production level. If any of these factors are limit-
ing, potential monthly production is reduced proportionally. The amount of produc-
tion actually achieved is then allocated according to the appropriate allocation
matrix (Tables B2–B5).

The highest productivity rates are assigned to annuals, followed by herbaceous per-
ennials, and then woody species. The rates were estimated based on the literature.
Values reported in the literature for similar grass species range from 0.87 to 4.74
(Lissner et al. 1999; Fernandez and Reynolds 2000).

Table B14. Growth rate factors.

Species Max growth

rate

Broom snakeweed 0.80

Creosotebush 0.60
Sacahuista 0.20
Yucca 0.15

Purple threeawn 1.10

Sideoats grama 1.20
Black grama 1.10
Blue grama 1.00
Tobosa 1.50
Sand muhly 1.00
Alkali sacaton 1.25
Sand dropseed 1.05
Needle-and-thread 1.20

Leatherweed croton 1.50

56 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

The potential growth rates in Table B14 are the estimates for ideal conditions. One
limiting factor is temperature. Warm-season species are most productive during the
warmer part of the year, and cool-season species are more productive during cooler
times. Table B15 provides a monthly growth curve for each species. The monthly
growth rate value for the specific month is multiplied by the potential growth rate
(Table B14) to determine the potential growth rate for that particular month. This
is still a potential growth rate. It may be reduced because of water, nutrient, or
sunlight limitations.

Photosynthesis occurs only in the leaves in some plants. In other species, limited
photosynthesis can occur in other parts, such as stems. Table B16 provides the val-
ues used to calculate total photosynthetically active biomass for a species. A value
of 1.00 is assigned to leaves, which is an assumption that leaves are the most pro-
ductive part of the plant. Values less than 1.00 are assigned to the other plant
parts. These values are estimates of the relative (compared with leaves) photosyn-
thetic rate of each of these parts.

To determine total potential production at each time step (day) in the model, the
biomass of each plant part is multiplied by the respective value in Table B16, and
then the product is multiplied times the daily potential growth rate (Table B14
value divided by 30, adjusted for month of the year).

Table B15. Monthly maximum growth rates.

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Broom snakeweed 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.60 0.20 0.00
Creosotebush 0.10 0.10 0.40 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.40 0.20
Sacahuista 0.10 0.10 0.40 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.70 0.40 0.20
Yucca 0.10 0.10 0.40 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.70 0.30 0.20

Purple threeawn 0.00 0.10 0.50 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.40 0.10 0.05
Sideoats grama 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.40 0.10 0.00
Black grama 0.00 0.05 0.40 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.50 0.20 0.05
Blue grama 0.00 0.05 0.70 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.50 0.20 0.00
Tobosa 0.00 0.05 0.50 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.20 0.00
Sand muhly 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.50 0.10 0.00
Alkali sacaton 0.05 0.10 0.40 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.30 0.10
Sand dropseed 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.30 0.00 0.00
Needle-and-thread 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.70 1.00 1.00

Leatherweed croton 0.10 0.10 0.40 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.40 0.20 0.10
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 57

Table B16. Plant part productivity.

Species CRoot FRoot Trunk Stems Leaves Seeds

Broom snakeweed 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.0 0.0

Creosotebush 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0
Sacahuista 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.0 0.0
Yucca 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.0 0.0

Purple threeawn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.0

Sideoats grama 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 1.0 0.0
Black grama 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 1.0 0.0
Blue grama 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 1.0 0.0
Tobosa 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 1.0 0.0
Sand muhly 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.0
Alkali sacaton 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.0 0.0
Sand dropseed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.0
Needle-and-thread 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.0

Leatherweed croton 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.0

Green-out (regrowth) occurs following dormancy or severe defoliation. Green-out is

triggered by cessation of the factor that caused defoliation (e.g., winter, fire, heavy
grazing, trampling). Under these conditions, regrowth is initially fueled by translo-
cation of stored nonstructural carbohydrates. Therefore, the biomass of the plant
parts temporarily decreases where these carbohydrates were stored. In effect, the
stored carbohydrates are converted to new tissue.

Table B17 specifies where these reserves are stored and how much is available for
regrowth. A value of 1.00 indicates that an amount of new growth equal to the ex-
isting biomass of that plant part can be produced in 1 month. A value of 0.50 indi-
cates that an amount of new growth equal to half of the existing biomass of that
plant part can be produced in 1 month. In all cases, the given value does not mean
that the existing biomass of the plant part is actually reduced by this amount, only
that this is the potential new growth that can be generated from this existing bio-
mass. The physiological process that occurs is that a given mass of carbohydrates
are withdrawn from the stored reserves, used to produce the new leaf tissue, and
most of these reserves are replaced from the production of photosynthates from the
new leaves (Smith 1962; Garza 1994). The values in Table B17 simply indicate a
net 1-month production rate.
58 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

Table B17. Green-out plant part productivity factor.

Species CRoot FRoot Trunk Stems Leaves Seeds

Broom snakeweed 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 1.0 0.0

Creosotebush 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.0
Sacahuista 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0
Yucca 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.5 1.0 0.0

Purple threeawn 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0

Sideoats grama 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.0
Black grama 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.5 1.0 0.0
Blue grama 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.0
Tobosa 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.5 1.0 0.0
Sand muhly 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0
Alkali sacaton 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.0
Sand dropseed 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0
Needle-and-thread 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0

Leatherweed croton 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.0

Shading generally reduces the productivity of a shaded species, provided that the
reduction in light intensity is sufficient. Commonly, no shading effect occurs ini-
tially, as the shading species begins to grow, because the shading species has insuf-
ficient canopy development to significantly reduce the intensity of the sunlight. As
the biomass of the shading species increases, the canopy coverage increases and the
light intensity under the canopy decreases. In some cases, some shading is actually
beneficial to the shaded species because the reduced sunlight results in lower tem-
peratures and therefore in lower transpirational water loss.

Shading is considered to be linear in the model. The shading effect on the shaded
species is constant, and this effect increases linearly as the leaf biomass of the shad-
ing species increases. The values in Table B18 define the intensity of this effect. A
value of 0.20 indicates that the potential growth (grams of new biomass) of the
shaded species is reduced by a 0.20 percentage multiplied by 1 percent of the leaf
biomass of the shading species. For example, for 500 g of juniper leaves, potential
growth of buffalograss would be reduced by 0.5 percent (500 x 0.1 x 0.01).

Table B19 provides four physiological control factors that are used by the model to
(1) keep above- and belowground biomass within reasonable limits and (2) provide
for seedling development.
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 59

Table B18. Light competition factor (shading).

Shading Species Shaded Species

Broom Creos Saca- Red SdOats Black Blue Sand Alkali Sand Needle LW
Snkwd Bush Huista Yucca ThrAn Grama Grama Grama Tobosa Muhly Sacatn DrpSd Thrd Croton

Broom snakeweed 0.0000 0.1000 0.1000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0500 0.0500 0.0000 0.5000 0.0000 0.1000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Creosotebush 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3000 0.0000 0.1000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Sacahuista 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Yucca 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Purple threeawn 0.1000 0.1000 0.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2000 0.1000 0.0000 0.5000 0.0500 0.2000 0.0500 0.0000 0.0500
Sideoats grama 0.0000 0.0500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Black grama 0.0000 0.0500 0.1000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2000 0.0000 0.0500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0500
Blue grama 0.0000 0.1000 0.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2000 0.0000 0.0500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0500
Tobosa 0.0000 0.0500 0.0500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Sand muhly 0.1000 0.1000 0.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2000 0.0500 0.0000 0.3000 0.0000 0.0500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0500
Alkali sacaton 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Sand dropseed 0.0000 0.0500 0.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2000 0.0500 0.0000 0.2000 0.0000 0.0500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0500
Needle-and-thread 0.1000 0.0500 0.1000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2000 0.0500 0.0000 0.4000 0.0500 0.1000 0.0500 0.0000 0.1000

Leatherweed croton 0.1000 0.1000 0.3000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2000 0.1000 0.0000 0.3000 0.0500 0.2000 0.1000 0.1000 0.0000

Table B19. Physiological control constraints.

Growing Growing season Max 1-mo Max 1st-mo

Species season max green-out seed seedling
root:shoot shoot:root germination growth

Broom snakeweed 1.9 0.2630 0.480 30.0

Creosotebush 1.3 0.3790 0.400 15.0
Sacahuista 4.9 0.1090 0.600 20.0
Yucca 4.9 0.1090 0.800 10.0

Purple threeawn 16.0 0.0490 0.350 40.0

Sideoats grama 0.7 0.9500 0.650 30.0
Black grama 3.3 0.1500 0.080 30.0
Blue grama 8.7 0.0730 0.340 40.0
Tobosa 0.3 0.1000 0.450 30.0
Sand muhly 2.4 0.0854 0.070 30.0
Alkali sacaton 6.8 0.0990 0.800 30.0
Sand dropseed 6.8 0.0990 0.400 40.0
Needle-and-thread 0.9 0.0500 0.130 30.0

Leatherweed croton 0.7 0.2720 0.700 50.0

60 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

The growing-season maximum root:shoot ratio value is used to prevent an imbal-

ance occurring between above- and belowground biomass. If the root:shoot ratio ex-
ceeds this value, no growth allocation to roots takes place that month. No growth
allows aboveground biomass to increase in relation to root biomass. The value for
each species is set at twice the cumulative root:shoot ratio value (Table B2) for that
species.

The growing-season green-out shoot:root ratio has a similar function, but it provides
for a rapid readjustment between above- and belowground biomass. This readjust-
ment can become necessary when a stressor (e.g., grazing, fire, mowing) causes a
sudden removal of aboveground biomass. The growing season green-out shoot:root
ratio is the trigger mechanism between green-out month and winter dormancy (Ta-
ble B11). If the shoot:root ratio becomes less than the determined ratio, green-out is
triggered. The value for each species equals half of the inverse of the maximum
root:shoot ratio.

Maximum 1-month seed germination is the proportion of the seed bank for a par-
ticular species that can germinate in any single month of the seed germination
months (Table B11). Most of the values were taken from, or estimated from Vories
(1981), Fulbright et al. (1982), and Redente et al. (1982).

Maximum first-month seedling growth determines the maximum amount of bio-

mass seedlings of each species can produce in the month of germination. The value
in Table B19 is multiplied by the biomass of seeds of the respective species that
germinate in that month (i.e., biomass in seed bank x maximum 1-month germina-
tion value). These values are estimates based on conceptual models of the relation-
ships between 1-month-old seedling weights and the weight of the seed that pro-
duced the seedling.

Table B20 provides the values for the model to calculate how much of each plant
part component for each species dies at the end of each growing season. All (1.00)
tissue of all parts of annuals dies each year. For most herbaceous perennials, 100
percent of the leaves and stems die at the end of the growing season. Shrubs lose
their leaves at the end of the growing season. Data used to calculate root survival
were taken from Weaver (1954).

The purpose of the matrix shown as Table B21 is to designate into which pool dead
material from each plant part is initially placed. A designation of -1 places the dead
material into the soil organic matter of the layer in which the material existed at
the time of death. A designation of 0 places the material in surface litter, a value of
7 places the material in the standing dead stems compartment, and a value of 8
places the material into standing dead leaves.
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 61

Table B20. End of growing season dieback.

Species CRoot FRoot Trunk Stems Leaves Seeds

Broom snakeweed 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.90 1.00 1.00

Creosotebush 0.05 0.10 0.02 0.10 0.50 1.00
Sacahuista 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.20 0.30 1.00
Yucca 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.20 0.20 1.00

Purple threeawn 0.10 0.20 0.10 1.00 1.00 1.00

Sideoats grama 0.05 0.10 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00
Black grama 0.06 0.20 0.05 0.60 1.00 1.00
Blue grama 0.05 0.10 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00
Tobosa 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.90 1.00 1.00
Sand muhly 0.05 0.10 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00
Alkali sacaton 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.80 1.00 1.00
Sand dropseed 0.10 0.20 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00
Needle-and-thread 0.05 0.10 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00

Leatherweed croton 0.50 0.60 0.50 0.90 0.90 1.00

Table B21. Dieback fate.

Species CRoot FRoot Trunk Stems Leaves Seeds

Broom snakeweed -1 -1 0 7 8 0
Creosotebush -1 -1 0 7 8 0
Sacahuista -1 -1 0 7 8 0
Yucca -1 -1 0 7 8 0

Purple threeawn -1 -1 0 7 8 0
Sideoats grama -1 -1 0 7 8 0
Black grama -1 -1 0 7 8 0
Blue grama -1 -1 0 7 8 0
Tobosa -1 -1 0 7 8 0
Sand muhly -1 -1 0 7 8 0
Alkali sacaton -1 -1 0 7 8 0
Sand dropseed -1 -1 0 7 8 0
Needle-and-thread -1 -1 0 7 8 0

Leatherweed croton -1 -1 0 7 8 0
62 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

Table B22 designates how much of the biomass of each plant part of each species is
lost in a moderate fire event (i.e., a relatively cool fire). A moderate fire event is de-
fined as one in which the fuel load is 200 g/m2 (1784 lb/ac). The fuel load for this
calculation is defined as the sum of the litter plus the nontrunk aboveground bio-
mass of all herbaceous species.

The actual effectiveness of the fire (i.e., amount of biomass removed) is proportional
to the calculated fuel load. At values below 200 g/m2, no biomass is removed. At
these light fuel loads, it is assumed that the fire does not carry through the plot. At
800 g/m2 of fuel and higher, a crown fire is simulated, in which 90 percent of above-
ground biomass is removed. Between 200 and 800 g/m2, removal is proportional to
the difference between 200 and 800. The 90 percent value is used to account for
intra-plot heterogeneity (i.e., it is assumed that 10 percent of a plot will remain
unburned because of spatial variations in the fuel load). The fuel load threshold
values used (200 and 800 g/m2) are typical values for cool and hot fires, respectively,
from central and north Texas (Scifres 1980).

Table B22. Plant part losses to fire events.

SD SD Sdlg Sdlg Seed

Species CRoot FRoot Trunk Stems Leaves Seeds Stems Leaves Root Shoot Bank

Broom snakeweed 0.00 0.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.60
Creosotebush 0.00 0.00 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.60
Sacahuista 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.60
Yucca 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.60

Purple threeawn 0.00 0.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.60
Sideoats grama 0.10 0.00 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.60
Black grama 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.60
Blue grama 0.00 0.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.60
Tobosa 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.60
Sand muhly 0.00 0.00 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.60
Alkali sacaton 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.60
Sand dropseed 0.00 0.00 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.60
Needle-and-thread 0.00 0.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.60

Leatherweed croton 0.00 0.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.60
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 63

The effectiveness of a material in contributing to the fuel load depends on a number

of factors, including (1) size of the material, (2) moisture content, (3) compaction,
and (4) chemical composition (e.g., volatile oil content). Table B23 provides a meas-
ure of these factors in adjusting the effect of the fuel loads calculated using Table
B21.

In Table B23, a value of 1.00 is typical of green fine fuel, such as grass leaves. A
value of 1.50 is typical of dry fine fuel, such as dead grass leaves. Woody or particu-
larly lush herbaceous materials have values of less than 1.00. Materials containing
volatile oils have values of 2.00 or greater, depending on moisture content.

The values in this matrix (Table B24) represent estimates of the physical impact of
a single trampling event. A value of 0.50, for example, indicates that 50 percent of
the biomass of that plant part is removed and transferred to the litter compartment.
This matrix does not address whether or not the plant is killed by the trampling
event. Survivability is simulated by the response of the plant to the tissue loss over
time.

Table B23. Fuel combustibility factor.

SD SD Sdlg Sdlg Seed

Species CRoot FRoot Trunk Stems Leaves Seeds Stems Leaves Root Shoot Bank

Broom snakeweed 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Creosotebush 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Sacahuista 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Yucca 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00

Purple threeawn 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Sideoats grama 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Black grama 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Blue grama 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Tobosa 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Sand muhly 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Alkali sacaton 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Sand dropseed 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Needle-and-thread 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00

Leatherweed croton 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
64 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

Table B24. Plant loss to trampling or a single vehicle pass.

SD SD
Species CRoot FRoot Trunk Stems Leaves Seeds Stems Leaves

Broom snakeweed 0.00 0.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Creosotebush 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sacahuista 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00
Yucca 0.00 0.00 0.70 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.90

Purple threeawn 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.90
Sideoats grama 0.00 0.00 0.30 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.80
Black grama 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.80 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.80
Blue grama 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.90 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.50
Tobosa 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.90 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.40
Sand muhly 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.80
Alkali sacaton 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.80 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.60
Sand dropseed 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.90 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.80
Needle-and-thread 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.90

Leatherweed croton 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.80 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.90

Herbivory is simulated in the model as a species-specific and a plant part-specific

process. Each species of herbivore selects various plant species, based on the pref-
erence of that herbivore and the availability of the plant species. In addition, each
herbivore also selects individual plant parts of individual species based on prefer-
ence and availability.

The first number of each pair in Table B25 is the relative preference value for that
plant part of that species for a specific herbivore. Cattle prefer grasses and rabbits
prefer forbs. Therefore, grasses have higher preference values for cattle than they
do for rabbits. However, cattle prefer some grasses over others. Grama grasses are
more preferred than are tobosa and needle-and-thread, provided each of these spe-
cies has new growth available.

In addition to species preferences, this matrix also allows for grazing characteristics
to be simulated. Cattle graze by wrapping their tongues around the plant and pull-
ing off the material. Therefore, they are not particularly selective as to plant part.
In contrast, rabbits "nip" or bite off small portions of the plants, and can be very se-
lective as to plant parts and plant species. In Table B25, sideoats grama stems and
leaves have the same preference value for cattle. Cattle have difficulty selecting
only leaves because of their grazing habit. For rabbits, however, the stems of sand
dropseed have a lower preference value than leaves. This lower value reflects the
ability of rabbits to strip the leaves off the stems.
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 65

Table B25. Herbivore preference and competition (P, C).

SD SD Sdlg Sdlg Seed

Species CRoot FRoot Trunk Stems Leaves Seeds Stems Leaves Root Shoot Bank
Insects

Broom snakeweed 0,2 0,2 9,1 6,1 5,1 5,1 0,1 6,1 0,3 3,1 0,2
Creosotebush 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 6,1 8,1 0,1 7,1 0,3 4,1 0,2
Sacahuista 0,2 0,2 5,1 5,1 4,1 8,1 0,1 5,1 0,3 5,1 0,2
Yucca 0,2 0,2 5,1 6,1 5,1 3,1 0,1 6,1 0,3 5,1 0,2

Purple threeawn 0,2 0,2 5,1 4,1 3,1 5,1 5,1 4,1 0,3 2,1 0,2
Sideoats grama 0,2 0,2 4,1 2,1 1,1 3,1 3,1 2,1 0,3 1,1 0,2
Black grama 0,2 0,2 4,1 3,1 2,1 4,1 4,1 3,1 0,3 1,1 0,2
Blue grama 0,2 0,2 4,1 2,1 1,1 3,1 4,1 2,1 0,3 1,1 0,2
Tobosa 0,2 0,2 5,1 3,1 2,1 4,1 5,1 3,1 0,3 2,1 0,2
Sand muhly 0,2 0,2 4,1 3,1 2,1 4,1 4,1 3,1 0,3 1,1 0,2
Alkali sacaton 0,2 0,2 5,1 3,1 2,1 4,1 5,1 3,1 0,3 2,1 0,2
Sand dropseed 0,2 0,2 4,1 3,1 2,1 4,1 4,1 3,1 0,3 1,1 0,2
Needle-and-thread 0,2 0,2 4,1 3,1 2,1 4,1 4,1 3,1 0,3 1,1 0,2

Leatherweed croton 0,2 0,2 3,1 2,1 1,1 2,1 4,1 2,1 0,3 1,1 0,2

Rabbits

Broom snakeweed 0,1 0,1 9,2 10,2 7,2 8,2 11,2 10,2 0,2 5,2 0,1
Creosotebush 0,1 0,1 11,2 10,2 8,2 7,3 11,2 11,2 0,2 6,2 8,1
Sacahuista 0,1 0,1 10,2 10,2 9,2 6,3 11,2 10,2 0,2 5,2 0,1
Yucca 0,1 0,1 6,2 7,2 4,2 2,3 8,2 8,2 0,2 2,2 7,1

Purple threeawn 0,1 0,1 8,2 4,2 4,2 5,2 5,2 5,2 0,2 2,2 0,1
Sideoats grama 7,1 7,1 7,2 3,2 2,2 3,2 5,2 4,2 0,2 1,2 4,1
Black grama 0,1 0,1 7,2 3,2 3,2 4,2 4,2 3,2 0,2 1,2 0,1
Blue grama 0,1 0,1 7,2 3,2 3,2 3,2 4,2 3,2 0,2 1,2 0,1
Tobosa 7,1 7,1 8,2 4,2 3,2 3,2 7,2 6,2 0,2 2,2 0,1
Sand muhly 0,1 0,1 8,2 4,2 3,2 4,2 6,2 5,2 0,2 2,2 0,1
Alkali sacaton 0,1 0,1 6,2 4,2 3,2 4,3 6,2 5,2 0,2 2,2 0,1
Sand dropseed 0,1 0,1 7,2 4,2 2,2 4,2 5,2 4,2 0,2 1,2 0,1
Needle-and-thread 0,1 0,1 7,2 4,2 3,2 5,2 6,2 5,2 0,2 1,2 0,1

Leatherweed croton 7,1 7,1 8,2 3,2 1,2 2,2 5,2 4,2 0,2 1,2 0,1
66 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

Table B25 (Cont’d). Herbivore preference and competition (P, C).

SD SD Sdlg Sdlg Seed
Species CRoot FRoot Trunk Stems Leaves Seeds Stems Leaves Root Shoot Bank

Cattle

Broom snakeweed 0,3 0,3 0,3 11,3 10,3 10,3 13,3 13,3 0,1 9,3 0,3
Creosotebush 0,3 0,3 0,3 12,3 11,3 12,2 0,3 12,3 0,1 10,3 0,3
Sacahuista 0,3 0,3 12,3 9,3 8,3 6,2 13,3 13,3 0,1 8,3 0,3
Yucca 0,3 0,3 11,3 10,3 9,3 2,3 0,3 12,3 0,1 9,3 7,3

Purple threeawn 0,3 0,3 7,3 5,3 5,3 5,3 6,3 6,3 0,1 4,3 0,3
Sideoats grama 0,3 0,3 3,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 2,3 2,3 0,1 1,3 3,3
Black grama 0,3 0,3 3,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 0,1 1,3 3,3
Blue grama 0,3 0,3 3,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 0,1 1,3 4,3
Tobosa 0,3 0,3 6,3 4,3 4,3 4,3 5,3 5,3 0,1 2,3 3,3
Sand muhly 0,3 0,3 4,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 3,3 3,3 0,1 1,3 3,3
Alkali sacaton 0,3 0,3 5,3 3,3 3,3 3,2 4,3 4,3 0,1 2,3 3,3
Sand dropseed 0,3 0,3 4,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 3,3 3,3 0,1 1,3 3,3
Needle-and-thread 0,3 0,3 2,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 2,3 1,3 0,1 1,3 4,3

Leatherweed croton 0,3 0,3 8,3 6,3 6,3 6,3 7,3 7,3 0,1 4,3 3,3

The second number of each pair in TableB25 is the relative competition value for
each plant part of each species for each herbivore. This value is used to determine
which herbivore gets first choice of that plant part, when more than one herbivore
attempts to select it and the amount is insufficient to supply both herbivores. In
most cases, this value assumes that, if the material is limited, insects are most
likely to acquire the limited resource, followed by rabbits, and finally cattle.

Another important aspect of determining herbivore diets is accessibility, which re-

lates to how much of a particular plant part a herbivore could select if it wanted the
plant part. A high value in the Table B25 matrix does not suggest that the herbi-
vore would actually select that plant part. Selection is largely determined by pref-
erence (Table B24).

The accessibility value for blue grama leaves to cattle is 70. This indicates that cat-
tle could access 70 percent of the leaves of blue grama. The value for rabbits is 100.
Blue grama is a shortgrass. It produces some leaves that are very close to the
ground. Cattle cannot access these leaves close to the ground because their tongue
"wrapping" will not detach them from the stems. Rabbits, however, have smaller
mouths than cattle and can select each of the leaves down to ground level.
ERDC/CERL TR-05-26 67

Table B26. Herbivore accessibility.

SD SD Sdlg Sdlg Seed
Species CRoot FRoot Trunk Stems Leaves Seeds Stems Leaves Root Shoot Bank
Insects

Broom snakeweed 0 0 90 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 10

Creosotebush 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 60
Sacahuista 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 20
Yucca 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 50

Purple threeawn 0 0 50 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 20

Sideoats grama 0 0 50 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 60
Black grama 0 0 50 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 50
Blue grama 0 0 60 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 40
Tobosa 0 0 40 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 50
Sand muhly 0 0 50 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 40
Alkali sacaton 0 0 40 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 10
Sand dropseed 0 0 50 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 10
Needle-and-thread 0 0 50 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 20

Leatherweed croton 0 0 50 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 30

Rabbits

Broom snakeweed 10 0 80 100 90 90 100 90 10 80 0

Creosotebush 10 0 100 70 60 50 70 60 10 80 20
Sacahuista 10 0 90 100 100 100 100 100 10 80 0
Yucca 10 0 100 90 100 90 90 100 10 80 40

Purple threeawn 0 0 60 100 100 90 100 100 5 80 10

Sideoats grama 20 0 100 100 100 90 100 100 10 80 10
Black grama 10 0 90 90 100 90 90 100 10 80 5
Blue grama 10 0 70 100 100 100 100 100 10 80 5
Tobosa 20 0 60 100 100 90 100 100 10 80 10
Sand muhly 10 0 100 100 100 90 100 100 10 80 5
Alkali sacaton 20 0 60 90 80 80 90 80 10 80 0
Sand dropseed 10 0 90 100 100 90 100 100 10 80 0
Needle-and-thread 0 0 60 100 100 90 100 100 5 80 5

Leatherweed croton 10 0 100 100 100 90 100 100 10 80 0

68 ERDC/CERL TR-05-26

Figure B26 (Cont’d). Herbivore accessibility.

SD SD Sdlg Sdlg Seed

Species CRoot FRoot Trunk Stems Leaves Seeds Stems Leaves Root Shoot Bank

Cattle

Broom snakeweed 0 0 0 70 70 80 70 70 0 50 0
Creosotebush 0 0 50 90 80 80 90 80 0 50 0
Sacahuista 10 0 70 90 80 100 90 80 0 50 0
Yucca 10 0 70 90 80 90 90 80 0 50 0

Purple threeawn 0 0 20 90 90 100 90 90 0 50 0

Sideoats grama 0 0 20 90 90 90 90 90 0 50 0
Black grama 0 0 30 90 90 100 90 90 0 50 0
Blue grama 0 0 10 90 70 100 90 70 0 50 0
Tobosa 0 0 20 90 80 100 90 90 0 50 0
Sand muhly 0 0 20 90 90 100 90 90 0 50 0
Alkali sacaton 0 0 10 70 70 90 70 70 0 50 0
Sand dropseed 0 0 30 90 90 100 90 90 0 50 0
Needle-and-thread 0 0 20 90 90 90 90 90 0 50 0

Leatherweed croton 0 0 70 90 90 90 90 90 0 50 0
 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing
this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-
4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently
valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
09-2005 Final
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Application of the TerreSIM Model to a Training Area Landscape at Fort Bliss, TX
5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

Rebecca Bilodeau, Jeffrey S. Fehmi, and Bruce A. MacAllister 622720A896
5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) NUMBER
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) ERDC/CERL TR-05-26
PO Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005

9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

Office of the Director of Environmental DAIM-ED
Programs
600 Army Pentagon 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT
Washington, DC 20310-0600 NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Copies are available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

14. ABSTRACT

The Terrestrial Ecosystem Simulation Model (TerreSIM) is a computer simulation model designed to be a useful evaluation and plan-
ning tool for investigating ecological responses over time to a wide variety of natural and anthropogenic stressors on spatial scales
ranging from small plots to large landscapes and watersheds. TerreSIM is the next generation of modeling efforts at MFG, Inc, built
upon general principles of ecology. This document presents the results of an application of the TerreSIM model to a 94 km2 training
area landscape in the north central part of Fort Bliss. Results of these simulations indicate that fire, cattle grazing, and military training
all affect vegetation dynamics on this landscape, but that the relative importance of each factor is quite different. Model simulations
indicate that the landscape can support moderate grazing by cattle and military training for at least 20 years, provided that at least aver-
age precipitation is received. TerreSIM provides the tool for Fort Bliss land managers to develop appropriate management options un-
der changing climatic, pyric, and successional conditions.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Land management, EDYS, TerreSIM, ecosystem management, simulation modeling, Ft. Bliss, TX

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES Bruce A. MacAllister
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (in-
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified clude area code)
SAR 81
(217) 373-7387
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239.18