National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

Plant Community Composition and Structure 

Monitoring for Badlands National Park

2011-2015 Summary Report 

Natural Resource Report NPS/NGPN/NRR—2016/1244
ON THE COVER

Long-term monitoring plot PCM-0041 Badlands National Park, 2015

Photograph by L. Mickelson, National Park Service 
Plant Community Composition and Structure 

Monitoring for Badlands National Park

2011-2015 Summary Report

Natural Resource Report NPS/NGPN/NRR—2016/1244

Isabel W. Ashton

Christopher J. Davis

National Park Service

Northern Great Plains Inventory & Monitoring Network

231 E. St. Joseph Street

Rapid City, SD 57701

July 2016

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science 

Fort Collins, Colorado
ii

The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, 

Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of 

interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural 

resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the 

public.

The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis 

about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service. 

The series supports the advancement of science, informed decision-making, and the achievement of 

the National Park Service mission. The series also provides a forum for presenting more lengthy 

results that may not be accepted by publications with page limitations. 

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the 

information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended 

audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received formal peer 

review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or 

reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise put them on par technically and 

scientifically with the authors of the information.

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily 

reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of 

trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by 

the U.S. Government.

This report is available in digital format from the Northern Great Plains Inventory & Monitoring 

Network website (http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/ngpn/), and the Natural Resource 

Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm/). To receive this 

report in a format optimized for screen readers, please email irma@nps.gov.

Please cite this publication as:

Ashton, I. W. and C. J. Davis. 2016. Plant community composition and structure monitoring for 

Badlands National Park: 2011-2015 summary report. Natural Resource Report NPS/NGPN/NRR—

2016/1244. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

NPS 137/133442, July 016
iii

Contents 

Page

Figures...................................................................................................................................................iv

Tables.....................................................................................................................................................v

Acknowledgments...............................................................................................................................viii

Introduction............................................................................................................................................1

Methods..................................................................................................................................................3

NGPN and NGPFire Monitoring Plots 2011-2015 ........................................................................3

Other Monitoring Plots (1997-2015)..............................................................................................5

Data Management and Analysis.....................................................................................................6

Reporting on Natural Resource Condition .....................................................................................7

Results and Discussion ..........................................................................................................................9

Status & Trends in Community Composition and Structure of BADL Prairies ............................9

Species Richness, Diversity, and Evenness.............................................................................12

The Influence of Climate, Fire, and Bison on Plant Community Structure and 

Diversity .......................................................................................................................................15

Climate ....................................................................................................................................15

Fire History..............................................................................................................................16

Bison........................................................................................................................................18

Rare Plants...............................................................................................................................19

Literature Cited ....................................................................................................................................23

Appendix A: List of plant species found at BADL, 1998-2015 ..........................................................25

Appendix B: Maps of Relative Exotic Species Cover at Badlands National Park ..............................34
iv

Figures 

Page

Figure 1. Map of Badlands National Park plant community monitoring plots, 1998-2015..................2

Figure 2. Long-term monitoring plot layout used for sampling vegetation in Badlands 

National Park .........................................................................................................................................4

Figure 3. The Northern Great Plains Inventory & Monitoring vegetation crew used pointintercept (left panel) and quadrats (right panel) to document plant diversity and 

abundance. .............................................................................................................................................4

Figure 4. Average cover by lifeform of native (green) and exotic (red) plants recorded in 

monitoring plots in Badlands National Park (1998-2015). ....................................................................9

Figure 5. The average absolute cover of the 10 most common native (green) and exotic 

(red) plants recorded at Badlands National Park in 1998-2015. ..........................................................10

Figure 6. Trends in the relative cover of exotic plants (top) and annual bromes (bottom) 

in Badlands National Park from 1998 to 2015.....................................................................................11

Figure 7. Map of exotic plant cover in Badlands National Park. Colors indicate the 

percent cover of exotic plants at a site averaged across all site visits..................................................12

Figure 8. The relationship between native species richness and the relative cover of 

annual bromes in long-term monitoring plots in national park units of the Northern Great 

Plains, 1998-2015. ...............................................................................................................................12

Figure 9. Photographs of long-term monitoring plots PCM_0027 and PCM_0018. 

PCM_0027 (left) has low plant diversity because it is in unvegetated badlands.................................13

Figure 10. Trends in native species richness and evenness in Badlands National Park, 

1998-2015. Data are means ± one standard error. The dashed line indicates the maximum 

and minimum values for each year. .....................................................................................................14

Figure 11.The total annual precipitation anomaly from 1998-2015 for Badlands National 

Park. .....................................................................................................................................................15

Figure 12. Map of recent fire history at Badlands National Park. ......................................................16

Figure 13. Native species richness (left panel) and relative percent cover of annual 

bromes (right panel) across plots with different fire histories. ............................................................17

Figure 14. A map of the common ecological site types in and outside of bison pasture in 

Badlands National Park........................................................................................................................18

Figure 15. Barr’s milkvetch (Astragalus barrii, S3), a rare species observed at Badlands 

National Park. Left: Barr’s milkvetch as observed by NGPN staff; Upper right: global 

distribution map; Lower right: in full bloom. ......................................................................................20
v

Tables

Page

Table 1. Exotic species surveyed for at Badlands National Park as part of the early 

detection and rapid response program within the Northern Great Plains Network. ..............................5

Table 2. Definitions of state and global species conservation status ranks...........................................7

Table 3. Key to the symbols used in the Natural Resource Condition Table........................................8

Table 4. Average plant species richness in monitoring plots at Badlands National Park 

from 1998 to 2015................................................................................................................................13

Table 5. Average native species richness of plots within and outside the bison pasture at 

Badlands National Park........................................................................................................................19

Table 6. Rare species occurrence in Badlands National Park from 1998-2015 ..................................19

Table 7. Natural resource condition summary table for plant communities in Badlands 

National Park (BADL).........................................................................................................................22
vi

Executive Summary

The Northern Great Plains Inventory & Monitoring Program and Fire Effects Program have been 

monitoring vegetation in Badlands National Park (BADL) for over 18 years. While methods have 

changed slightly, this report summarizes data from over 127 locations in BADL’s north unit from 

1998-2015. We use these data to explore the status and trends in plant communities, the role of 

climate and disturbance in maintaining species richness, and the occurrence of rare plants. A 

summary of the current condition (2011-2015) and trends (based on 1988-2015) in plant 

communities at BADL is found in the table below. 

1. What is the current status of plant community composition and structure of BADL 

grasslands (species richness, cover, and diversity) and how has this changed from 1998-

2015? 

BADL plays a vital role in protecting and managing some of the largest remnants of native mixedgrass prairie in the region. Most sites within the park have a number of native grass and forb species 

that is well within the natural range of variability for northern mixed-grass prairie. We found no 

significant changes in native species richness or evenness from 1998-2015, but both metrics are 

threatened by the increasing cover of exotic species. Annual bromes, Kentucky bluegrass, and yellow 

sweet clover are the most abundant exotic plant species in BADL. Continued management efforts 

will be necessary to maintain native prairie within BADL.

2. How do trends in grassland condition relate to climate, fire history, and the presence of 

bison?

The large variability in the climate of BADL has made it difficult to discern strong patterns linking 

temperature, precipitation, to plant community structure (e.g. exotic cover, diversity). However, we 

did find that the relative cover of exotic species declined in response to increasing average annual 

maximum temperatures. Continued monitoring and a longer time series of vegetation data and 

climate will allow us to determine if hotter conditions continue to favor native species. 

BADL has been using prescribed burning as a management tool since the 1980s. There was no 

difference in native diversity or exotic cover among plots that had burned recently and those that had 

not burned for over 10 or 25 years. However, plots that had not burned in many years had a higher 

cover of annual bromes than sites that burned more recently. Ongoing adaptive management 

programs and research will provide better guidance to park managers on whether prescribed burns 

should be used to reduce the cover of annual bromes. 

We found that native species richness was higher in plots within areas of the park utilized by bison. 

This pattern is consistent with a past studies on the role of disturbance in maintaining grassland 

diversity.

3. What, if any, rare plants were found in BADL long-term monitoring plots? 
vii

We found only one rare plant in BADL. Barr’s milkvetch (Astragalus barrii) was observed in a 

single vegetation monitoring plot. Since the rare plants within BADL are found in such low 

abundance, we recommend a more targeted effort to monitor their populations. 

Table ES-1. Natural resource condition summary table for plant communities in Badlands National Park 

(BADL). Current values are based on data from 2011-2015 and trends are based on data from 1998-

2015. 

Indicator of 

Condition

Specific 

Measures

Current

Value (mean 

± SE)

Reference 

Condition 

and Data 

Source

Condition 

Status/Trend

Rationale for Resource 

Condition

Upland Plant 

Community 

Structure and 

Composition

Native species 

richness (1m2

quadrats) 

6.1 ± 0.3

species

3-15 

species

BADL plays a vital role in 

protecting and managing one of 

the largest remnants of native 

mixed-grass prairie in the region. 

The park is characterized by 

moderate native species richness 

that falls within a natural range of 

variability (Symstad and Jonas 

2014). There has been no trend in 

native richness over time. In 

general, the sites in BADL had a 

high cover of exotic species. Only 

one of the sites visited in 2014

had less than 10% relative cover

of exotic species. Yellow sweetclover and annual bromes present 

a large challenge to managers of 

BADL, and more research on 

effective management strategies 

in mixed-grass prairie is greatly 

needed.

Evenness

(pointintercept 

transects)

0.68 ± 0.01 To be 

determined

Exotic Plant 

Early 

Detection and 

Management

Relative cover 

of exotic 

species 

28.8 ± 1.5 % < 10 % 

cover

Many areas of BADL have a high 

cover of exotic species. Annual 

bromes, Kentucky bluegrass, and 

yellow sweet clover present the 

largest challenge to BADL. Exotic 

cover has remained high over the 

entire monitoring period. More 

research on effective 

management strategies of annual 

bromes and other exotic species 

in the mixed-grass prairie is 

greatly needed.

Annual brome 

cover 

11.1 ± 1.0 % < 10 % 

cover
viii

Acknowledgments 

We thank all the authors of the NGPN Plant Community Monitoring Protocol, particularly A. 

Symstad, for outstanding guidance on data collection and reporting. Thank you to the staff at BADL, 

particularly M. Haar, for providing logistical support, safety checks, and help in the field. With their 

assistance, the NGPN and Fire Ecology Program collected all the data included in this report. We 

thank M. Haar and J. Handley for providing comments that improved this report. 
1

Introduction 

During the last century, much of the prairie within the Northern Great Plains has been plowed for 

cropland, planted with non-natives to maximize livestock production, or otherwise developed, 

making it one of the most threatened ecosystems in the United States. The National Park Service 

(NPS) plays an important role in preserving and restoring some of the last pieces of intact prairies 

within its boundaries. The stewardship goal of the NPS is to “preserve ecological integrity and 

cultural and historical authenticity” (NPS 2012); however, resource managers struggle with the 

reality that there have been fundamental changes in the disturbance regimes, such as climate, fire, 

and large ungulate grazing, that have historically maintained prairies, and there is the continual 

pressure of exotic invasive species. Long-term monitoring in national parks is essential to sound 

management of prairie landscapes because it can provide information on environmental quality and 

condition, benchmarks of ecological integrity, and early warning of declines in ecosystem health. 

Badlands National Park (BADL) was established in 1939 as a National Monument and in 1978 

became a National Park with a mission to protect and preserve 242,756 acres of rugged badlands, 

mixed-grass prairie, and rich fossil deposits. The vegetation is a mosaic of sparsely vegetated 

badlands, native mixed-grass prairie, woody draws, and exotic grasslands. Vegetation monitoring 

began at BADL in 1998 by the Northern Great Plains Fire Ecology Program (NGPFire; Wienk et al. 

2011). The Northern Great Plains Inventory & Monitoring Program (NGPN) began vegetation 

monitoring at BADL in 2011 (Ashton et al. 2012). Vegetation monitoring protocols and plot 

locations were chosen to represent the entire park and to coordinate efforts with the Northern Great 

Plains Fire Ecology Program (FireEP). A total of 127 plots were established by NGPFire and NGPN 

in BADL and the combined sampling efforts began in 2011(Ashton et al. 2012). In this report, we 

use the data from 2011-2015 to assess the current condition of park vegetation and the data from 

1998-2015 are used to look at longer-term trends. 

Using 18 years of plant community monitoring data in BADL, we explore the following questions: 

1. What is the current status of plant community composition and structure of BADL grasslands 

(species richness, cover, and diversity) and how has this changed from 1998-2015? 

2. How do trends in grassland condition relate to climate, fire history, and the presence of bison?

3. What, if any, rare plants were found in BADL long-term monitoring plots? 
2

Figure 1. Map of Badlands National Park plant community monitoring plots, 1998-2015. Data has been 

collected from 127 monitoring plots in the park. PCM plots (red) were established by the Northern Great 

Plains Inventory & Monitoring Program (NGPN) and FPCM plots (blue) were established by the Fire 

Effects Program (NGPFire) between 2011 and 2015. Additional FMH plots (green) were monitored from 

1997-2011 by NGPFire. 
3

Methods 

Two different methods and protocols have been used to monitor long-term vegetation plots at BADL

since 1997: the NGPN monitoring protocol (Symstad et al. 2012b, a) and the Fire Monitoring 

Handbook (NPS 2003). All monitoring plots discussed in this paper are located in the north unit of 

BADL. Below, we briefly describe both methods, but focus on the NGPN monitoring protocol which 

is the current standard and was used to collect most of the data in this report. For more detail on any 

of the methods, please see the protocol publications (cited above). 

NGPN and NGPFire Monitoring Plots 2011-2015

The NGPN and NGPFire implemented a survey to monitor plant community structure and 

composition in BADL using a spatially balanced probability design (Generalized Random 

Tessellation Stratified [GRTS]; Stevens and Olsen 2003, 2004). Using a GRTS design, NGPN 

selected 100 randomly located sites within BADL to become Plant Community Monitoring plots 

(PCM plots; Figure 1). The NGPN visits 20 PCM plots every year using a rotating sampling scheme 

where 10 sites were visited in the previous year and 10 sites are new visits. After 5 years (2011-

2015), 50 PCM plots were visited at least twice during mid-June. With the current sampling scheme, 

it will take the NGPN 20 years to monitor all 100 plots. When a PCM plot fell within an active burn 

unit, NGPFire added additional visits based on a 1, 2, 5, and 10 year sampling schedule. NGPFire 

also established and monitored a number of new sites using the same GRTS sampling schema 

focused in active burn units (Fire FPCM plots). From 2011-2015, 32 FPCM plots were established. A 

total of 84 plots were established by NGPFire and NGPN from 2011-2015.

At each of the grassland sites we visited, we recorded plant species cover and frequency in a 

rectangular, 50 m x 20 m (0.1 ha), permanent plot (Figure 2). Data on ground cover, herb-layer 

height ≤ 2 m, and plant cover were collected on two 50 m transects (the long sides of the plot) using 

a point-intercept method (Figure 3). At 100 locations along the transects (every 0.5 m) a pole was 

dropped to the ground and all species that touched the pole were recorded, along with ground cover, 

and the height of the canopy (Figure 3). Using this method, absolute canopy cover can be greater 

than 100% (particularly in wet years and productive sites) because we record multiple layers of 

plants. Species richness data from the point-intercept method were supplemented in the 20 NGPN 

plots with species presence data collected in five sets of nested square quadrats (0.01 m2

, 0.1 m2, 1 

m2

, and 10 m2) located systematically along each transect (Figure 2). 

When woody species were also present, tree regeneration and tall shrub density data were collected 

within a 10 m radius subplot centered in the larger 50 m x 20 m plot (Figure 2). Six PCM plots had 

trees close enough to the plot to warrant searching for seedlings, but we found seedlings in only one 

plot. BADL_PCM_0106 had 11 narrowleaf willow (Salix exigua) seedlings in 2015. 

At all PCM plots, but not the FPCM plots, we also surveyed the area for common disturbances and 

target species of interest to the park. Common disturbances included such things as prairie dog 

towns, rodent mounds, animal trails, and fire. For all plots, the type and severity of the disturbances 

were recorded. We also surveyed the area for exotic species that have the potential to spread into the 

park and cause significant ecological impacts (Table 1). For each target species that was present at a 
4

site, an abundance class was given on a scale from 1-5 where 1 = one individual, 2 = few individuals, 

3 = cover of 1-5%, 4 = cover of 5-25%, and 5 = cover > 25% of the plot. The information gathered 

from this procedure is critical for early detection and rapid response to such threats. 

Figure 2. Long-term monitoring plot layout used for sampling vegetation in Badlands National Park.

Figure 3. The Northern Great Plains Inventory & Monitoring vegetation crew used point-intercept (left 

panel) and quadrats (right panel) to document plant diversity and abundance. 
5

Table 1. Exotic species surveyed for at Badlands National Park as part of the early detection and rapid 

response program within the Northern Great Plains Network. Asterisks indicate species of management 

concern to Badlands National Park. 

Scientific Name Common Name

Alliaria petiolata garlic mustard

Polygonum cuspidatum; P. sachalinense; P. x bohemicum knotweeds

Pueraria montana var. lobata kudzu

Iris pseudacorus yellow iris

Ailanthus altissima tree of heaven

Lepidium latifolium perennial pepperweed

Arundo donax giant reed

Rhamnus cathartica common buckthorn

Heracleum mantegazzianum giant hogweed

Centaurea solstitialis yellow star thistle

Hieracium aurantiacum; H. caespitosum orange and meadow hawkweed

Isatis tinctoria Dyer's woad

Taeniatherum caput-medusae medusahead

Chondrilla juncea rush skeletonweed

Gypsophila paniculata baby's breath

Centaurea virgata; C.diffusa knapweeds

Linaria dalmatica; L. vulgaris toadflax

Euphorbia myrsinites & E. cyparissias myrtle spurge

Dipsacus fullonum & D. laciniatus common teasel

Salvia aethiopis Mediterranean sage

Ventenata dubia African wiregrass

Elaeagnus angustifolia* Russian olive

Euphorbia esula* leafy spurge

Falcaria vulgaris* sickleweed

Poa bulbosa* bulbous bluegrass

Potentilla recta* sulphur cinquefoil

Rhaponticum repens* Russian knapweed

Sideritis montana* mountain ironwort

Tamarix spp. * tamarisk 

Tanacetum vulgare * common tansy 

Thymelaea passerina * spurge flax 

Other Monitoring Plots (1997-2015)

In 1997, NGPFire began monitoring plots within BADL to evaluate the effectiveness of prescribed 

burns. Starting in 1998, data collection followed the NPS National Fire Ecology Program protocols 

(NPS 2003): in grassland plots vegetation cover and height data were collected using a pointintercept method, with 100 points evenly distributed along a single 30 m transect. In forested sites, 

plots are 0.1 ha (20 x 50 m) in size and point-intercept data was collected along the two 50 m sides. 

For each live tree with a DBH > 15 cm located within the 0.1 ha plot, the species and DBH were 

recorded. The densities of smaller trees (2.54 cm ≤ DBH ≤ 15 cm) were measured within a subset of 
6

the plot area. NGPFire plot locations were located randomly within major vegetation types within 

areas planned for prescribed burning (burn units) in the near future. The plots were then sampled 1, 

2, 5, and 10 years after a prescribed burn. A total of 43 plots were monitored using these methods. 

Hereafter, we refer to these plots as Fire Monitoring Handbook (FMH) plots. These FMH plots are 

being retired after 10 years of monitoring is completed (e.g. the rebar will be removed). 

Data Management and Analysis

We used FFI (FEAT/FIREMON Integrated; http://frames.gov/ffi/) as the primary software 

environment for managing our sampling data. FFI is used by a variety of agencies (e.g., NPS, USDA 

Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), has a national-level support system, and generally 

conforms to the Natural Resource Database Template standards established by the Inventory and 

Monitoring Program. 

Species scientific names, codes, and common names are from the USDA Plants Database (USDANRCS 2015). However, nomenclature follows the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) 

(http://www.itis.gov). In the few cases where ITIS recognizes a new name that was not in the USDA 

PLANTS database, the new name was used, and a unique plant code was assigned. This report uses 

common names after the first occurrence in the text, but scientific names can be found in Appendix 

A. 

After data for the sites were entered, 100% of records were verified to the original data sheet to 

minimize transcription errors. A further 10% of records were reviewed a second time. After all data 

were entered and verified, automated queries were used to check for errors in the data. When errors 

were caught by the crew or the automated queries, changes were made to the original datasheets 

and/or the FFI database as needed. Summaries were produced using the FFI reporting and query tools 

and statistical summaries, and graphics were generated using R software (version 3.2.2). Most often,

linear mixed models were used to test for significant responses where plot was considered a random 

factor. 

Plant life forms (e.g., shrub, forb) were based on definitions from the USDA Plants Database 

(USDA-NRCS 2015). When only a plant genus was confirmed, the plant life form was assigned only 

when all species in that genus were the same life form. If any species present in the park within that 

genus is exotic, the genus was classified as exotic for analyses. The conservation status ranks of plant 

species in Nebraska is determined by the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program (SDNHP). For the 

purpose of this report, a species was considered rare if its conservation status rank was S1, S2, or S3. 

See Table 2. Definitions of state and global species conservation status ranks. for a detailed definition 

of each conservation status rank.

We measured diversity at the plots in two ways: species richness and Pielou’s Index of Evenness. 

Species richness is simply a count of the species recorded in an area. Peilou’s Index of Evenness, J’, 

measures how even abundances are across taxa, and J’ ranges between 0 and 1. Values near 0 

indicate dominance by a single species and values near 1 indicate nearly equal abundance of all 

species present. Plant richness was calculated for each plot using the total number of species 
7

intersected along the transects. Average height was calculated as the average height per plot using all 

species intersected on the transects. 

Table 2. Definitions of state and global species conservation status ranks.

Status 

Rank* Category Definition

S1/G1 Critically imperiled Due to extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences) or other factor(s) making it 

especially vulnerable to extirpation.

S2/G2 Imperiled Due to rarity resulting from a very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 

or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation.

S3/G3 Vulnerable Due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent 

widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. 

S4/G4 Apparently secure Uncommon but not rare; some cause for concern due to declines or other factors.

S5/G5 Secure Common, widespread and abundant.

S#S#/

G#G#

Range rank

(e.g. S2S3)

Used to indicate uncertainty about the status of the species or community. 

Ranges cannot skip more than one rank.

* Adapted from NatureServe status assessment table (http://www.natureserve.org/conservationtools/conservation-status-assessment)

Climate data from the Interior 2 NE, SD, US weather station were downloaded from NOAA’s online 

database (NOAA 2015). A fire history map was compiled for BADL and cross-referenced with plot 

locations. For each plot visit, we determined the number of years since it burned and the number of 

recorded fires. 

Reporting on Natural Resource Condition

Results were summarized in a Natural Resource Condition Table based on the templates from the 

State of the Park report series (http://www1.nrintra.nps.gov/im/stateoftheparks/index.cfm). The goal

of the study is to improve park priority setting and to synthesize and communicate complex park 

condition information to the public in a clear and simple way. By focusing on specific indicators, 

such as exotic species cover, it will also be possible and straightforward to revisit the metric in 

subsequent years. The status and trend of each indicator is scored and assigned a corresponding 

symbol based on the key found in Table 3. 

We chose a set of indicators and specific measures that can describe the condition of vegetation in 

the Northern Great Plains and the status of exotic plant invasions. The measures include: absolute 

herb-layer canopy cover, native species richness, evenness, relative cover of exotic species, and 

annual brome cover. Reference values were based on descriptions of historic condition and variation, 

past studies, and/or management targets. Current park condition was compared to a reference value, 

and status was scored as good condition, warrants moderate concern, or warrants significant concern 

based on this comparison (Table 3). Good condition was applied to values that fell within the range 

of the reference value, and significant concern was applied to conditions that fell outside the bounds 

of the reference value. In some cases, reference conditions can be determined only after we have 

accumulated more data. When this is the case, we refer to these as “To be determined”, or TBD, and 

estimate condition based on our professional judgment.
8

Table 3. Key to the symbols used in the Natural Resource Condition Table. The background color 

represents the current status, the arrow summarizes the trend, and the thickness of the outside line 

represents the degree of confidence in the assessment. A symbol that does not contain an arrow 

indicates that there is insufficient information to assess a trend. Based on the State of the Park reports 

(http://www.nps.gov/stateoftheparks/).

Condition Status Trend in Condition

Confidence in 

Assessment

Warrants 

Significant Concern Condition is Improving High

Warrants 

Moderate Concern Condition is Unchanging Medium

Resource is in Good 

Condition Condition is Deteriorating Low
9

Results and Discussion

Status & Trends in Community Composition and Structure of BADL Prairies 

There are 634 plant species on the BADL species list and we found 357 plant species in monitoring 

plots from 1998-2015 at BADL (Appendix A). Graminoids, which includes grasses, sedges, and 

rushes, accounted for most of the vegetative cover at BADL, but forbs, shrubs, and subshrubs 

(defined as a low-growing shrub usually under 0.5m) were also present (Figure 4). We found 76

exotic plant species at BADL, all of which were forbs or graminoids. Exotic graminoids were 

particularly abundant (Figure 4). The shrubs and subshrubs were all native species. We did not find 

any targeted exotic plants (Table 1). 

Figure 4. Average cover by lifeform of native (green) and exotic (red) plants recorded in monitoring plots 

in Badlands National Park (1998-2015). Absolute cover can be greater than 100% because the pointintercept methods records layers of overlapping vegetation. 

Western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) was the most abundant native grass and averaged over

40% absolute cover (Figure 5). Japanese brome (Bromus japonicus), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa 

pratensis), and yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis) were the most pervasive exotics at BADL. 

The relative cover of these and other exotic plant species has remained high since 1998, averaging

32.5 ± 1.1 % (mean ± one standard error; Figure 6). In more recent years, 2011-2015, cover was 

28.8± 1.5 % but this decline is not statistically significant. Exotic species are widespread across the 

entire park (Figure 7). Maps of Kentucky bluegrass, Japanese brome, and yellow sweet clover are 

provided in Appendix B. 

Japanese brome, the most abundant exotic plant in BADL, is an Eurasian annual grass that has been a 

part of the Northern Great Plains landscape for more than a century, but its invasion in the region has 

accelerated since 1950 (Schachner et al. 2008). The presence of annual bromes in mixed grass prairie 

is associated with decreased productivity and altered nutrient cycling (Ogle et al. 2003). While the 

cover of Japanese brome has varied over time in BADL (Figure 6) there is no evidence that it has 

been increasing. From 1998-2015, the average relative cover of annual bromes was 14.3 ± 0.8 % and 

the average for the last 5 years was 11.1 ± 1.0 %. Data from parks across the Northern Great Plains 

show that increasing annual brome relative cover is associated with reduced native species richness
10

(Figure 8). Reducing the cover of annual bromes presents a major challenge for the park, as it has for 

the past 15 years.

Figure 5. The average absolute cover of the 10 most common native (green) and exotic (red) plants 

recorded at Badlands National Park in 1998-2015. Bars represent means ± one standard error.
11

Figure 6. Trends in the relative cover of exotic plants (top) and annual bromes (bottom) in Badlands 

National Park from 1998 to 2015. Points represent mean ± one standard error and sample size is to the 

right of the point. Years with fewer than 3 monitoring plots were excluded from the graph. The shaded 

area highlights the period from 2011-2015 when sampling methods were consistent and distribution of 

plots was more even and consistent across years. The dashed line represents the maximum and 

minimum cover values for each year. 
12

Figure 7. Map of exotic plant cover in Badlands National Park. Colors indicate the percent cover of exotic 

plants at a site averaged across all site visits.

Figure 8. The relationship between native species richness and the relative cover of annual bromes in 

long-term monitoring plots in national park units of the Northern Great Plains, 1998-2015. 

Species Richness, Diversity, and Evenness 

One of the ways for the NPS to measure how effectively the mission of ‘preserving ecological 

integrity’ is being accomplished is to examine trends in native plant diversity and evenness within 
13

their boundaries. Average species richness has been measured by point-intercept since 1998 and in 1 

m2 and 10 m2 quadrats since 2011 (Table 4). 

Table 4. Average plant species richness in monitoring plots at Badlands National Park from 1998 to 2015. 

Values represent means ± one standard error. 

Richness Type

Point-intercept

(1998-2011; n=127)

1 m2 quadrats 

(2011-2015, n=93)

10 m2 quadrats

(2011-2015, n=93)

Species richness 14.7 ± 0.4 8.5 ± 0.4 14.2 ± 0.5

Native species richness 10.6 ± 0.4 6.1 ± 0.3 10.4 ± 0.4

Exotic species richness 4.3 ± 0.2 2.5 ± 0.2 3.8 ± 0.2

Graminoid species richness 7.0 ± 0.3 3.1 ± 0.2 4.5 ± 0.2

Forb species richness 7.2 ± 0.2 5.2 ± 0.3 9.0 ± 0.4

While there was some variation across sites, the plots we visited in BADL tended to have a moderate 

diversity of native plants compared to other mixed-grass prairies. Species richness in the mixed-grass 

prairie is determined by numerous factors including fire regime, grazing, prairie dog disturbance, and 

weather fluctuations (Symstad and Jonas 2011). In BADL, there is also a mixed history of past landuse practices that have affected current species richness. While it is difficult to define a reference 

condition for species richness that can vary so much spatially and temporally, the natural range of 

variation over long-time periods may be a good starting point (Symstad and Jonas 2014). Long-term 

records of species diversity in mixed-grass prairie from a relatively undisturbed site in Kansas vary 

between 3 and 15 species per square meter over the course of 30 years (Symstad and Jonas 2014). 

Compared to this, the BADL average of 6 native species per square meter (Table 4) is within the 

natural range. However, native species richness is spatially variable. Some sites, such as PCM_0027, 

are on sparsely vegetated badlands and average only 1.6 native species per square meter (Figure 9). 

One of the most diverse plots, PCM_0018, is on a ridge north of the Sage Creek Rim Road. It has a 

mix of native shrub and grassland habitat and averages 14 species per square meter (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Photographs of long-term monitoring plots PCM_0027 and PCM_0018. PCM_0027 (left) has 

low plant diversity because it is in unvegetated badlands. Plot PCM_0018 (right) is a prairie site and has a 

large diversity of native plant species. 
14

We did not find any trends over time in species richness or evenness (Figure 10). Native diversity in 

1m2 quadrats was fairly similar from 2011-2015; it ranged from a low in 2012 of 4.7 ± 0.54 (a 

drought year) to a high of 6.8 ± 0.56 in 2014 (a wet year). We have a longer record of native richness 

from point-intercept data (Figure 10; top). From 1998-2015, we recorded an average between 5 and 

12 native species. There was no trend in Peilou’s Index of Evenness, J’, which measures how even 

abundances are across taxa (Figure 10). A large variation in richness and evenness across sites within 

the park and from year-to-year contribute to a large range of values (dashed lines in Figure 10) and 

makes detecting long-term trends difficult. 

Figure 10. Trends in native species richness and evenness in Badlands National Park, 1998-2015. Data 

are means ± one standard error. The dashed line indicates the maximum and minimum values for each 

year. 

Disturbance from grazing, prairie dogs, fire, and humans affects plant community structure and 

composition in mixed-grass prairie. We measured the approximate area affected by natural and 

human disturbances at each site we visited from 2011 to 2015 by surveying the area for ~ 5 minutes 

at the end of the plot visit. The most common disturbances were the trails, wallows, and the grazing 

impacts of bison. Soil disturbance from small mammals (e.g. gophers, these excluded prairie dogs) 

and disturbance from erosion and flooding were also common. We found no correlation with total 

disturbance, small or large animal disturbance and native richness or exotic cover. Disturbances are 
15

patchy in BADL making it difficult to detect trends because they are not found in all plots. As more 

monitoring data are collected in future years, we may be able to better explore the statistical 

relationship between these metrics and disturbance. 

The Influence of Climate, Fire, and Bison on Plant Community Structure and Diversity 

Climate

The 30-year normal temperatures at a nearby weather station, Interior3 NE, South Dakota and ranged 

from average minimum monthly temperatures in January of 15.6° F to maximum monthly July 

temperatures of 91.2° F (based on 1980-2010). The 30-year normal annual precipitation totals 18.5

inches. Annual precipitation at BADL in 1998-2015 was variable and ranged between 11.0 and 27.1

inches, in 2002 and 1998, respectively. There were dry years in the early to mid-2000s and in 2012 

(Figure 11). Last year, 2013, and 1998 were much wetter than average. The native vegetation is 

adapted to this variation, and productivity responds strongly to decreases in spring and summer 

precipitation (Yang et al. 1998, Smart et al. 2007). Species richness and diversity in regional 

grasslands are also sensitive to temperature and precipitation fluctuation, but the response is complex 

and less predictable (Jonas et al. 2015).

Figure 11.The total annual precipitation anomaly from 1998-2015 for Badlands National Park. Positive 

values (blue) represent years wetter than and negative values (red) are drier than the 1981-2010 normal. 

The anomaly is measured in inches and based on data from a nearby weather station.

We found that the relative cover of exotic species declines in response to increasing average annual 

maximum temperatures (F1,232=35.0, P<0.001) but it does not respond to changes in precipitation or 

minimum temperatures. Native richness and plant height decreased in 2012, an extremely hot and dry 

year. However, when 2012 was excluded, there was not a statistically significant relationship 

between climate and native richness or height. Continued monitoring and a longer time series of 

vegetation data and climate will allow us to determine whether the response to the 2012 drought is 

typical. 
16

Fire History

Historically, fire was a common disturbance in Northern Great Plains grasslands, with natural fire 

return intervals of 8-25 years (Wienk et al. 2007). Natural fires have been suppressed for most of the 

last century, but the use of prescribed burning to mitigate the effects of the absence of natural fires 

has increased over time since its start at Wind Cave National Park in 1973 (Wienk et al. 2011). As of 

2015, there is a mosaic of recently burned and unburned areas in BADL (Figure 12).

Figure 12. Map of recent fire history at Badlands National Park. 
17

 

Figure 13. Native species richness (left panel) and relative percent cover of annual bromes (right panel)

across plots with different fire histories. Observations vary between plots that have recently burned (0 

years since fire) and plots that had burned 24 years previously (24 years since fire). Bars represent 

means ± one standard error and sample sizes range from 4 to 45 plots. The dashed line indicates the 

average native species richness and relative percent cover of exotic species of all plots in the park. 

The effects of specific prescribed burns on vegetation and fuel loads and more details about fires at 

BADL can be found in past NGPFire annual reports (see http://www.nps.gov/ngpfire/docs.htm). 

Here, we were interested in determining the relationship between fire history and vegetation. We 

compared three vegetation metrics, native species richness and relative cover of all exotic plants and 

annual brome, with the length of time between the data collection at a plot and the most recent fire at 

that plot (years since fire). For example, a site that burned in the spring and then was visited in the 

summer would be 0 years since fire. We excluded plots that had not burned from this analysis, 

because we do not have confidence in the historical fire record (pre-1975). 

We found no relationship between native richness and years since fire (Figure 13; F1,192=2.9, 

P=0.089) or the relative cover of exotic species and years since fire (F1,192=2.4, P=0.12). Annual 

bromes, however, did respond to fire. Plots that had not burned in many years had a higher cover of 

annual bromes than sites that burned more recently (F1,192=7.6, P=0.006). This suggests that 

prescribed fire can benefit the mixed-grass prairie in BADL, but the reduction in annual brome cover 

may be short-lived.

The best approach to reducing exotic species abundance in BADL will likely include burning; 

however there may also be a need for targeted herbicides and seeding of native species. Ongoing 

research on this topic and an upcoming adaptive management initiative for annual brome control in 

NGPN parks should provide more data and guidance to help with these management decisions. 
18

Bison

Bison were reintroduced to BADL in 1963 and the park now manages for a population of 

approximately 700 animals (Licht in press). Bison can influence the productivity and diversity of 

mixed-grass prairie through grazing and the creation of bison wallows, both of which limit the cover 

of dominant grass species (Collins and Barber 1986). In BADL, there is some evidence that bison 

have only a small effect on mixed-grass prairie communities, especially when compared to prairie 

dog, because they are in relatively low density (Fahnestock and Detling 2002). It is estimated that 

bison probably consume about 12% of plant productivity in a normal precipitation year (Licht in 

press). We used the monitoring data from 1998 to 2015 to compare species richness and exotic 

species cover between areas in BADL of similar ecological site types with and without bison (Figure 

14). We focused on 3 of the most ecological site types found in and out of the bison pasture; these 

included clay pan and two loamy soils (Figure 14).

Figure 14. A map of the common ecological site types in and outside of bison pasture in Badlands 

National Park. The ecological site types are from the Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2015) and the bison 

pasture was estimated by D. Licht (personal communication).

We found that native plant diversity was higher in plots within the bison pasture areas (F1,107=14.2, 

P<0.001) and this pattern was consistent across ecological site types (Table 5). Total exotic cover 

and annual brome cover varied across ecological site types, but not with the presence of bison 

(F1,107=1.1, P=0.29, F1,107=0.4, P=0.55). This pattern of increased plant diversity in mixed-grass 
19

prairie grazed by bison is consistent with a past studies on the role of disturbance in maintaining

grasslands (e.g. Collins and Barber 1986). Other factors could also influence this pattern including 

differences in past land-use history, wilderness management (the wilderness and bison boundary are 

similar), or slight differences in climate. With future monitoring we will increase our sample of plots 

within the park and our confidence in the assessment of grassland condition in and outside of the 

bison pasture. 

Table 5. Average native species richness of plots within and outside the bison pasture at Badlands 

National Park.

No Bison Present Bison Pasture

Soil Ecological Site Name

# of 

plots

# of plot 

visits

Native 

Richness

(mean ± se)

# of 

plots

# of 

plot 

visits

Native 

Richness

(mean ± se)

Claypan 3 6 11.3 ± 1.1 4 7 16.3 ± 1.5

Loamy 13-16 P.Z. 2 6 8.1 ± 1.2 2 6 13.2 ± 2.5

Loamy 17-20 P.Z. 37 88 9.9 ± 0.4 10 16 11.9 ± 1.0

All soil types 85 218 9.6 ± 0.3 42 87 12.2 ± 0.5

Rare Plants 

While repeating rare plant surveys and locating rare species is not the focus of NGPN plant 

community monitoring, we identified one rare plant species in BADL from 1998 to 2015. Barr’s 

milkvetch (Astragalus barrii, S3), was observed in a single vegetation monitoring plot at BADL

(Table 6). Barr’s milkvetch was observed at a single point in 2014 and at two points in 2015, and all 

occurrences were within the same plot. This species is a regional endemic, with a range limited to 

South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Montana (Figure 15). Due to this limited range, it is also 

classified as a globally vulnerable species (G3).

Table 6. Rare species occurrence in Badlands National Park from 1998-2015. Status ranks are based on 

the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program’s designations. Plot count is the number of unique plots a 

species was recorded in across all years. Mean cover is the average cover of that species across all 

years in plots where cover measurements were recorded.

Species Common Name

Status 

Rank

Plot 

Count

Mean Cover 

(%)

Astragalus barrii Barr’s milkvetch S3 1 <0.01
20

Figure 15. Barr’s milkvetch (Astragalus barrii, S3), a rare species observed at Badlands National Park. 

Left: Barr’s milkvetch as observed by NGPN staff; Upper right: global distribution map; Lower right: in full 

bloom.

While several vegetation community mapping projects have been completed for BADL, there are 

limited floristic diversity and rare species surveys available for the park, and we recommend a parkwide survey be done when funds are available. A full rare plant survey will be more likely to 

accurately quantify the status of rare plants found in BADL and better document locations of rare 

species in areas of BADL with no NGPN monitoring plots. Any future construction efforts that could 

disturb native vegetation (e.g. trail building), should avoid damaging species considered rare in South 

Dakota.
21

Conclusion

The Northern Great Plains Inventory & Monitoring Program and Fire Effects Program have been 

monitoring vegetation in Badlands National Park for over 18 years. While methods have changed 

slightly, this report summarizes data from over 127 locations from 1998-2015. Below, we list the 

questions we asked and provide a summarized answer, for more details see the Results and 

Discussion section. We conclude with a Natural Resource Condition Table (Table 7) that summarizes 

the current status and trends in a few key vegetation metrics. 

1. What is the current status of plant community composition and structure of BADL 

grasslands (species richness, cover, and diversity) and how has this changed from 1998-

2015? 

BADL plays a vital role in protecting and managing some of the largest remnants of native mixedgrass prairie in the region. Most sites within the park have a number of native grass and forb species 

that is well within the natural range of variability for northern mixed-grass prairie. We found no 

significant trends in native species richness or evenness from 1998-2015, but both are threatened by 

the increasing cover of exotic species (Table 7). Annual bromes, Kentucky bluegrass, and yellow 

sweet clover are the most abundant exotic plant species in BADL. Continued control efforts will be 

necessary to maintain native prairie within BADL.

2. How do trends in grassland condition relate to climate, fire history, and the presence of 

bison?

The large variability in the climate of BADL has made it difficult to discern strong patterns linking 

temperature, precipitation, and plant community structure (e.g. exotic cover, diversity). However, we 

did find that the relative cover of exotic species declined in response to increasing average annual 

maximum temperatures. Continued monitoring and a longer time series of vegetation data and 

climate will allow us to determine if hotter conditions continue to favor native species. 

BADL has been using prescribed burning as a management tool since the 1980s. There was no 

difference in native diversity or exotic cover among plots that had burned recently and those that had 

not burned for over 10 or 25 years. However, those that had not burned in many years had a higher 

cover of annual bromes than sites that burned more recently. Ongoing adaptive management 

programs and research will provide better guidance to the park on whether prescribed burns should 

be used to reduce the cover of annual bromes. 

We found that native species richness was higher in plots within areas of the park utilized by bison. 

This pattern is consistent with a past studies on the role of disturbance in maintaining grassland 

diversity.

3. What, if any, rare plants were found in BADL long-term monitoring plots? 
22

We found only one rare plant in BADL. Barr’s milkvetch (Astragalus barrii) was observed in a 

single vegetation monitoring plot. Since the rare plants within BADL are found in such low 

abundance, we recommend a more targeted effort to monitor their populations.

Table 7. Natural resource condition summary table for plant communities in Badlands National Park 

(BADL). Current values are based on data from 2011-2015 and trends are based on data from 1998-

2015. 

Indicator of 

Condition

Specific 

Measures

Current

Value (mean 

± SE)

Reference 

Condition 

and Data 

Source

Condition 

Status/Trend

Rationale for Resource 

Condition

Upland Plant 

Community 

Structure and 

Composition

Native species 

richness (1m2

quadrats) 

6.1 ± 0.3

species

3-15 

species

BADL plays a vital role in 

protecting and managing one of 

the largest remnants of native 

mixed-grass prairie in the region. 

The park is characterized by 

moderate native species richness 

that falls within a natural range of 

variability (Symstad and Jonas 

2014). There has been no trend in 

native richness over time. In 

general, the sites in BADL had a 

high cover of exotic species. Only 

one of the sites visited in 2014

had less than 10% relative cover

of exotic species. Yellow sweetclover and annual bromes present 

a large challenge to managers of 

BADL, and more research on 

effective management strategies 

in mixed-grass prairie is greatly 

needed.

Evenness

(pointintercept 

transects)

0.68 ± 0.01 To be 

determined

Exotic Plant 

Early 

Detection and 

Management

Relative cover 

of exotic 

species 

28.8 ± 1.5 % < 10 % 

cover

Many areas of BADL have a high 

cover of exotic species. Annual 

bromes, Kentucky bluegrass, and 

yellow sweet clover present the 

largest challenge to BADL. Exotic 

cover has remained high over the 

entire monitoring period. More 

research on effective 

management strategies of annual 

bromes and other exotic species 

in the mixed-grass prairie is 

greatly needed.

Annual brome 

cover 

11.1 ± 1.0 % < 10 % 

cover
23

Literature Cited 

Ashton, I., M. Prowatzke, M. Bynum, T. Shepherd, S. K. Wilson, and K. Paintner-Green. 2012. 

Badlands National Park plant community composition and structure monitoring: 2011 annual 

report. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NGPN/NRTR—2012/533. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Collins, S. L. and S. C. Barber. 1986. Effects of disturbance on diversity in mixed-grass prairie. Plant 

Ecology 64:87-94.

Fahnestock, J. T. and J. K. Detling. 2002. Bison-prairie dog-plant interactions in a North American 

mixed-grass prairie. Oecologia 132:86-95.

Jonas, J. L., D. A. Buhl, and A. J. Symstad. 2015. Impacts of weather on long-term patterns of plant 

richness and diversity vary with location and management. Ecology.

Licht, D. in press. Bison weights from National Parks in the Northern Great Plains. Rangelands.

NOAA. 2015. Climate Data Online at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. National Centers for Environmental Information.

NPS. 2003. Fire monitoring handbook. National Park Service. Fire Management Program Center, 

National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID.

NRCS. 2015. Web Soil Survey (available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov, 28 October 

2015). Soil survey staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of 

Agriculture.

Ogle, S. M., W. A. Reiners, and K. G. Gerow. 2003. Impacts of exotic annual brome grasses 

(Bromus spp.) on ecosystem properties of northern mixed grass prairie. The American Midland 

Naturalist 149:46-58.

Schachner, L. J., R. N. Mack, and S. J. Novak. 2008. Bromus tectorum (Poaceae) in midcontinental 

United States: population genetic analysis of an ongoing invasion. American journal of botany 

95:1584-1595.

Smart, A. J., B. H. Dunn, P. S. Johnson, L. Xu, and R. N. Gates. 2007. Using weather data to explain 

herbage yield on three Great Plains plant communities. Rangeland Ecology & Management 

60:146-153.

Stevens, D. L. and A. R. Olsen. 2003. Variance estimation for spatially balanced samples of 

environmental resources. Environmetrics 14:593-610.

Stevens, D. L. and A. R. Olsen. 2004. Spatially balanced sampling of natural resources. Journal Of 

The American Statistical Association 99:262-278.
24

Symstad, A. J. and J. L. Jonas. 2011. Incorporating biodiversity into rangeland health: plant species 

richness and diversity in Great Plains grasslands. Rangeland Ecology & Management 64:555-

572.

Symstad, A. J. and J. L. Jonas. 2014. Using natural range of variation to set decision thresholds: a 

case study for Great Plains grasslands. Pages 131-156 in G. R. Gutenspergen, editor. Application 

of threshold concepts in natural resource decision making. Springer, New York.

Symstad, A. J., R.A. Gitzen, C. L. Wienk, M. R. Bynum, D. J. Swanson, A. D. Thorstenson, and K. 

J. Paintner. 2012a. Plant community composition and structure monitoring protocol for the 

Northern Great Plains I&M Network-Standard Operating Procedures: version 1.01. Natural 

Resource Report NPS/NGPN/ NRR-2012/489.1. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO. 

Symstad, A. J., R.A. Gitzen, C. L. Wienk, M. R. Bynum, D. J. Swanson, A. D. Thorstenson, and K. 

J. Paintner. 2012b. Plant community composition and structure monitoring protocol for the 

Northern Great Plains I&M Network: version 1.01. Natural Resource Report NPS/NGPN/ NRR2012/489. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.

USDA-NRCS. 2015. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 28 October 2015). National 

Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA.

Wienk, C., L. Benkobi, D. Engle, and J. Ortmann. 2007. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment: Northern 

Mixed Grass Prairie reference condition model at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/fire_regime_table/PNVG_fire_regime_table.html#3. UnS 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Lab; 

USGS; The Nature Conservancy.

Wienk, C., A. Thorstenson, J. Freeman, and D. Swanson. 2011. Northern Great Plains Fire Ecology 

Program review: 1997-2007. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRDS/NRDS—2010/112. National 

Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Yang, L., B. K. Wylie, L. L. Tieszen, and B. C. Reed. 1998. An analysis of relationships among 

climate forcing and time-integrated NDVI of grasslands over the US northern and central Great 

Plains. Remote Sensing of Environment 65:25-37.
25

Appendix A: List of plant species found at BADL, 1998-2015

Family Code Scientific Name Common Name Exotic Rare

Agavaceae YUGL Yucca glauca soapweed yucca No No

Alismataceae SALA2 Sagittaria latifolia broadleaf arrowhead No No

Amaranthaceae

AMAL Amaranthus albus prostrate pigweed Yes No

AMBL Amaranthus blitoides mat amaranth Yes No

AMRE Amaranthus retroflexus redroot pigweed No No

Anacardiaceae

RHAR4 Rhus aromatic fragrant sumac No No

RHTR Rhus trilobata skunkbush sumac No No

TORA2 Toxicodendron radicans eastern poison ivy No No

TORY Toxicodendron rydbergii western poison ivy No No

Apiaceae

LOFO Lomatium foeniculaceum desert biscuitroot No No

LOMA3 Lomatium macrocarpum bigseed biscuitroot No No

LOMAT Lomatium spp. biscuitroot No No

MUSIN Musineon spp. wildparsley No No

MUDI Musineon divaricatum leafy wildparsley No No

OSLO Osmorhiza longistylis longstyle sweetroot No No

Asclepiadaceae

ASPU Asclepias pumila plains milkweed No No

ASSP Asclepias speciosa showy milkweed No No

ASVE Asclepias verticillata whorled milkweed No No

ASVI Asclepias viridiflora green comet milkweed No No

Asteraceae

ACMI2 Achillea millefolium common yarrow No No

AGGL Agoseris glauca pale agoseris No No

AMAR2 Ambrosia artemisiifolia common ragweed No No

AMBRO Ambrosia spp. ragweed Yes No

AMPS Ambrosia psilostachya cuman ragweed No No

AMTR Ambrosia trifida great ragweed No No

ANMI3 Antennaria microphylla littleleaf pussytoes No No

ANPA4 Antennaria parvifolia small-leaf pussytoes No No

ARCA12 Artemisia campestris field sagewort No No

ARCA13 Artemisia cana silver sagebrush No No

ARDR4 Artemisia dracunculus tarragon No No

ARFR4 Artemisia frigida fringed sagewort No No

ARLO7 Artemisia longifolia longleaf sagebrush No No

ARLU Artemisia ludoviciana white sagebrush No No

ASTER Aster spp. aster No No

BREU Brickellia eupatorioides false boneset No No

CANU4 Carduus nutans Nodding thistle Yes No

CIAR4 Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Yes No

CICA11 Cirsium canescens prairie thistle Yes No

CIFL Cirsium flodmanii Flodman's thistle No

CIRSI Cirsium spp. thistle Yes No

CIUN Cirsium undulatum wavyleaf thistle No No

COCA5 Conyza canadensis horseweed No No

CORA4 Conyza ramosissima dwarf horseweed No No

CROC Crepis occidentalis largeflower hawksbeard No No

DIPR2 Diaperia prolifera bighead pygmycudweed No No
26

Family Code Scientific Name Common Name Exotic Rare

DYPA Dyssodia papposa fetid marigold No No

ECAN2 Echinacea angustifolia blacksamson echinacea No No

ERCA4 Erigeron canus hoary fleabane No No

ERIGE2 Erigeron spp. fleabane No No

ERNA10 Ericameria nauseosa rubber rabbitbrush No No

ERPU2 Erigeron pumilus shaggy fleabane No No

ERST3 Erigeron strigosus prairie fleabane No No

ERSU2 Erigeron subtrinervis threenerve fleabane No No

GRSQ Grindelia squarrosa curlycup gumweed No No

GUSA2 Gutierrezia sarothrae broom snakeweed No No

HEAN3 Helianthus annuus common sunflower No No

HELIA3 Helianthus spp. sunflower Yes No

HEMA2 Helianthus maximiliani Maximilian sunflower No No

HEPA19 Helianthus pauciflorus stiff sunflower No No

HEPE Helianthus petiolaris prairie sunflower No No

HEVI4 Heterotheca villosa hairy false goldenaster No No

IVAX Iva axillaris povertyweed No No

LASE Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce Yes No

LIPU Liatris punctata dotted blazing star No No

LOAR5 Logfia arvensis field cottonrose No No

LYJU Lygodesmia juncea rush skeletonplant No No

MUOB99 Mulgedium oblongifolium blue lettuce No No

NOCU Nothocalais cuspidata prairie false dandelion No No

OLRI Oligoneuron rigidum stiff goldenrod No No

PACA15 Packera cana woolly groundsel No No

PAPL12 Packera plattensis prairie groundsel No No

RACO3 Ratibida columnifera upright prairie 

coneflower No No

SEIN2 Senecio integerrimus lambstongue ragwort No No

SOLID Solidago spp. Goldenrod No No

SOMI2 Solidago missouriensis Missouri goldenrod No No

SOMO Solidago mollis velvety goldenrod No No

SONE Solidago nemoralis gray goldenrod No No

SYER Symphyotrichum ericoides white heath aster No No

SYFA Symphyotrichum falcatum white prairie aster No No

SYLA3 Symphyotrichum laeve smooth blue aster No No

SYMPH4 Symphyotrichum Aster No No

SYOB Symphyotrichum 

oblongifolium aromatic aster No No

TAOF Taraxacum officinale common dandelion Yes No

TEAC Tetraneuris acaulis stemless four-nerve 

daisy No No

TRDU Tragopogon dubius yellow salsify Yes No

XASP99 Xanthisma spinulosum lacy tansyaster No No

XAST Xanthium strumarium cocklebur No No

SORI2 Solidago rigida stiff goldenrod No No

Boraginaceae CRCE Cryptantha celosioides buttecandle No No

CRMI5 Cryptantha minima little cryptantha No No
27

Family Code Scientific Name Common Name Exotic Rare

CRTH Cryptantha thyrsiflora calcareous cryptantha No No

LACE Lappula cenchrusoides Great Plains stickseed No No

LAOC3 Lappula occidentalis flatspine stickseed No No

LAPPU Lappula spp. stickseed Yes No

LASQ Lappula squarrosa European stickseed Yes No

LIIN2 Lithospermum incisum narrowleaf stoneseed No No

MELA3 Mertensia lanceolata prairie bluebells No No

Brassicaceae

ALDE Alyssum desertorum desert madwort Yes No

ALSI8 Alyssum simplex alyssum Yes No

ARABI Arabidopsis spp. rockcress Yes No

ARABI2 Arabis spp. rockcress No No

ARGL Arabis glabra tower rockcress No No

ARHI Arabis hirsuta hairy rockcress No No

ALPA7 Alyssum parviflorum alyssum Yes No

BOHO99 Boechera holboellii Holboell's rockcress No No

CABU2 Capsella bursa-pastoris shepherd's purse Yes No

CAMI2 Camelina microcarpa littlepod false flax Yes No

CHTE2 Chorispora tenella blue mustard Yes No

COOR Conringia orientalis hare's ear mustard Yes No

DEPI Descurainia pinnata western tansymustard No No

DESO2 Descurainia sophia herb sophia Yes No

DRNE Draba nemorosa woodland draba No No

DRRE2 Draba reptans Carolina draba No No

ERCA14 Erysimum capitatum sanddune wallflower No No

ERCH9 Erysimum cheiranthoides wormseed wallflower No No

ERIN7 Erysimum inconspicuum shy wallflower No No

ERRE4 Erysimum repandum spreading wallflower Yes No

ERAS2 Erysimum asperum western wallflower No No

LEDE Lepidium densiflorum common pepperweed No No

LEPID Lepidium spp. pepperweed Yes No

PHLU99 Physaria ludoviciana foothill bladderpod No No

SIAL2 Sisymbrium altissimum tall tumblemustard Yes No

STAF99 Strigosella africana African mustard Yes No

TUGL Turritis glabra tower rockcress Yes No

THAR5 Thlaspi arvense field pennycress Yes No

Cactaceae

ESMI3 Escobaria missouriensis Missouri foxtail cactus No No

ESMI3 Escobaria missouriensis Missouri foxtail cactus No No

OPFR Opuntia fragilis brittle pricklypear No No

OPHU Opuntia humifusa devil's-tongue No No

OPMA2 Opuntia macrorhiza twistspine pricklypear No No

OPPO Opuntia polyacantha plains pricklypear No No

OPUNT Opuntia spp. pricklypear No No

Campanulaceae

TRLE3 Triodanis leptocarpa slimpod Venus' lookingglass No No

TRPE4 Triodanis perfoliata clasping Venus' lookingglass No No

Caprifoliaceae SYOC Symphoricarpos 

occidentalis western snowberry No No
28

Family Code Scientific Name Common Name Exotic Rare

Caryophyllaceae

CEAR4 Cerastium arvense field chickweed No No

CEFO2 Cerastium fontanum common mouse-ear 

chickweed Yes No

PASE Paronychia sessiliflora creeping nailwort No No

SIAN2 Silene antirrhina sleepy silene No No

SILEN Silene spp. catchfly Yes No

Chenopodiaceae

ATAR2 Atriplex argentea silverscale saltbush No No

ATCA2 Atriplex canescens fourwing saltbush No No

ATSU Atriplex suckleyi Suckley's endolepis No No

CHAL7 Chenopodium album lambsquarters Yes No

CHDE Chenopodium desiccatum aridland goosefoot No No

CHENO Chenopodium spp. goosefoot Yes No

CHFR3 Chenopodium fremontii Fremont's goosefoot No No

CHPR5 Chenopodium pratericola desert goosefoot No No

CHSI2 Chenopodium simplex mapleleaf goosefoot No No

HAGL Halogeton glomeratus saltlover Yes No

KOSC Kochia scoparia burningbush, kochia Yes No

KRLA2 Krascheninnikovia lanata winterfat No No

MONU Monolepis nuttalliana Nuttall's povertyweed No No

SACO8 Salsola collina slender Russian thistle Yes No

SAKA Salsola kali Russian thistle Yes No

SALSO Salsola spp. Russian thistle Yes No

SATR12 Salsola tragus prickly Russian thistle Yes No

TRADE Tradescantia spp. spiderwort No No

Commelinaceae TRBR Tradescantia bracteata longbract spiderwort No No

TROC Tradescantia occidentalis prairie spiderwort No No

Convolvulaceae COAR4 Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed Yes No

Cupressaceae JUSC2 Juniperus scopulorum Rocky Mountain juniper No No

Cyperaceae

CABR10 Carex brevior shortbeak sedge No No

CADU6 Carex duriuscula needleleaf sedge No No

CAFI Carex filifolia threadleaf sedge No No

CAIN9 Carex inops sun sedge No No

CAPR5 Carex praegracilis clustered field sedge No No

CAREX Carex spp. sedge No No

CASA9 Carex saximontana Rocky Mountain sedge No No

CYAC2 Cyperus acuminatus tapertip flatsedge No No

ELAC Eleocharis acicularis needle spikerush No No

ELCO2 Eleocharis compressa flatstem spikerush No No

ELEOC Eleocharis spp. spikerush No No

ELPA3 Eleocharis palustris common spikerush No No

Euphorbiaceae

CHAMA15 Chamaesyce spp. sandmat Yes No

EUBR Euphorbia brachycera horned spurge No No

EUGL3 Euphorbia glyptosperma ribseed sandmat No No

EUMA7 Euphorbia maculata spotted sandmat No No

EUMA8 Euphorbia marginata snow on the mountain No No

EUMI5 Euphorbia missurica prairie sandmat No No

EUPHO Euphorbia spp. spurge, sandmat Yes No
29

Family Code Scientific Name Common Name Exotic Rare

EUSE4 Euphorbia serpens matted sandmat No No

EUSE5 Euphorbia serpyllifolia thymeleaf sandmat No No

EUSP Euphorbia spathulata warty spurge No No

EUST4 Euphorbia stictospora slimseed sandmat No No

Fabaceae

ACAM99 Acmispon americanus

American bird's-foot 

trefoil No No

AMCA6 Amorpha canescens leadplant No No

AMNA Amorpha nana dwarf false indigo No No

ASAG2 Astragalus agrestis purple milkvetch No No

ASBA Astragalus barrii Barr's milkvetch No S3/G3

ASBI2 Astragalus bisulcatus twogrooved milkvetch No No

ASCR2 Astragalus crassicarpus groundplum milkvetch No No

ASFL2 Astragalus flexuosus flexile milkvetch No No

ASGI5 Astragalus gilviflorus plains milkvetch No No

ASGR3 Astragalus gracilis slender milkvetch No No

ASLA27 Astragalus laxmannii Laxmann's milkvetch No No

ASLO4 Astragalus lotiflorus lotus milkvetch No No

ASMI10 Astragalus missouriensis Missouri milkvetch No No

ASMO7 Astragalus mollissimus woolly locoweed No No

ASMU99 Astragalus multiflorus looseflower milkvetch No No

ASPL2 Astragalus plattensis Platte River milkvetch No No

ASRA2 Astragalus racemosus cream milkvetch No No

ASTRA Astragalus spp. milkvetch No No

DAAU Dalea aurea golden prairie clover No No

DACA7 Dalea candida white prairie clover No No

DAPU5 Dalea purpurea purple prairie clover No No

GLLE3 Glycyrrhiza lepidota American licorice No No

HEAL Hedysarum alpinum alpine sweetvetch Yes No

LAPO2 Lathyrus polymorphus manystem pea No No

LUPU Lupinus pusillus rusty lupine No No

MELU Medicago lupulina black medick Yes No

MEOF Melilotus officinalis yellow sweetclover Yes No

MESA Medicago sativa alfalfa Yes No

OXLA3 Oxytropis lambertii purple locoweed No No

OXSE Oxytropis sericea white locoweed No No

PEAR6 Pediomelum argophyllum silverleaf Indian 

breadroot No No

PECU3 Pediomelum cuspidatum largebract Indian 

breadroot No No

PEDI9 Pediomelum digitatum palmleaf Indian 

breadroot No No

PEES Pediomelum esculentum large Indian breadroot No No

PSLA3 Psoralidium lanceolatum lemon scurfpea Yes No

PSTE5 Psoralidium tenuiflorum slimflower scurfpea No No

THRH Thermopsis rhombifolia golden pea No No

VIAM Vicia americana American vetch No No

Fumariaceae COMI2 Corydalis micrantha smallflower fumewort No No

Geraniaceae GECA5 Geranium carolinianum Carolina geranium No No
30

Family Code Scientific Name Common Name Exotic Rare

Geraniaceae GERAN Geranium spp. geranium No No

Grossulariaceae

RIAM2 Ribes americanum American black currant No No

RIAU Ribes aureum golden currant No No

RIBES Ribes spp. currant No No

RICE Ribes cereum wax currant No No

RIMI Ribes missouriense Missouri gooseberry No No

Hydrophyllaceae ELNY Ellisia nyctelea Aunt Lucy No No

Iridaceae SIAN3 Sisyrinchium angustifolium narrowleaf blue-eyed 

grass

No No

Iridaceae SIMO2 Sisyrinchium montanum strict blue-eyed grass No No

Juncaceae JUBA Juncus balticus Baltic rush No No

JUIN2 Juncus interior inland rush No No

Lamiaceae

HEDR Hedeoma drummondii Drummond's false 

pennyroyal No No

HEHI Hedeoma hispida rough false pennyroyal No No

NECA2 Nepeta cataria catnip Yes No

SARE3 Salvia reflexa lanceleaf sage No No

Liliaceae

ALTE Allium textile textile onion No No

CAGU Calochortus gunnisonii Gunnison's mariposa lily No No

CANU3 Calochortus nuttallii sego lily No No

LEMO4 Leucocrinum montanum common starlily No No

MARA7 Maianthemum racemosum feathery false lily of the 

valley No No

MAST4 Maianthemum stellatum starry false lily of the 

valley No No

LIRI Linum rigidum stiffstem flax No No

Malvaceae SPCO Sphaeralcea coccinea scarlet globemallow No No

Melanthiaceae TOVE2 Toxicoscordion venenosum meadow deathcamas No No

Nyctaginaceae

MIHI Mirabilis hirsuta hairy four o'clock No No

MILI3 Mirabilis linearis narrowleaf four o'clock No No

Oleaceae FRPE Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash No No

Onagraceae

OEBI Oenothera biennis common evening 

primrose No No

OECE2 Oenothera cespitosa tufted evening primrose No No

OECU99 Oenothera curtiflora velvetweed No No

OENOT Oenothera spp. evening-primrose No No

OESU99 Oenothera suffrutescens scarlet beeblossom No No

Oxalidaceae

OXDI2 Oxalis dillenii slender yellow 

woodsorrel No No

OXST Oxalis stricta common yellow 

woodsorrel No No

Plantaginaceae

PLEL Plantago elongata prairie plantain No No

PLMA2 Plantago major common plantain Yes No

PLPA2 Plantago patagonica woolly plantain No No

Poaceae

ACHY Achnatherum hymenoides Indian ricegrass No No

AGCR Agropyron cristatum crested wheatgrass Yes No

AGST2 Agrostis stolonifera creeping bentgrass No No

ALPR3 Alopecurus pratensis meadow foxtail Yes No

ANGE Andropogon gerardii big bluestem No No
31

Family Code Scientific Name Common Name Exotic Rare

ARIST Aristida spp. threeawn No No

ARPU9 Aristida purpurea purple threeawn No No

BOCU Bouteloua curtipendula sideoats grama No No

BODA2 Bouteloua dactyloides buffalograss No No

BOGR2 Bouteloua gracilis blue grama No No

BOHI2 Bouteloua hirsuta hairy grama No No

BRCI2 Bromus ciliatus fringed brome No No

BRIN2 Bromus inermis smooth brome Yes No

BRJA Bromus japonicus Japanese brome Yes No

BROMU Bromus spp. brome Yes No

BRSQ2 Bromus squarrosus corn brome Yes No

BRTE Bromus tectorum cheatgrass Yes No

BUDA Buchloe dactyloides buffalograss No No

CALO Calamovilfa longifolia prairie sandreed No No

DASP2 Danthonia spicata poverty oatgrass No No

DIOL Dichanthelium oligosanthes Heller's rosette grass No No

DISP Distichlis spicata saltgrass No No

ELCA11 Elymus caninus bearded wheatgrass No No

ELCA4 Elymus canadensis Canada wildrye No No

ELEL5 Elymus elymoides squirreltail No No

ELLA3 Elymus lanceolatus thickspike wheatgrass No No

ELRE4 Elymus repens quackgrass Yes No

ELTR7 Elymus trachycaulus slender wheatgrass No No

ELVI3 Elymus virginicus Virginia wildrye No No

ELYMU Elymus spp. wildrye Yes No

FEOC Festuca occidentalis western fescue No No

FEOV Festuca ovina sheep fescue No No

HECO26 Hesperostipa comata needle and thread No No

HOJU Hordeum jubatum foxtail barley No No

HOPU Hordeum pusillum little barley No No

KOMA Koeleria macrantha prairie Junegrass No No

MUCU3 Muhlenbergia cuspidata plains muhly No No

MUPA99 Muhlenbergia paniculata tumblegrass No No

MURA Muhlenbergia racemosa marsh muhly No No

NAVI4 Nassella viridula green needlegrass No No

PACA6 Panicum capillare witchgrass No No

PANIC Panicum spp. panicgrass No No

PASM Pascopyrum smithii western wheatgrass No No

PAVI2 Panicum virgatum switchgrass No No

PHPR3 Phleum pratense timothy Yes No

POA Poa spp. bluegrass Yes No

POAL2 Poa alpina alpine bluegrass No No

POCO Poa compressa Canada bluegrass Yes No

POPA2 Poa palustris fowl bluegrass No No

POPR Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass Yes No

POSE Poa secunda Sandberg bluegrass No No

PSJU3 Psathyrostachys juncea Russian wildrye Yes No
32

Family Code Scientific Name Common Name Exotic Rare

PSSP6 Pseudoroegneria spicata bluebunch wheatgrass No No

SCSC Schizachyrium scoparium little bluestem No No

SPAS Sporobolus asper composite dropseed Yes No

SEVI4 Setaria viridis green foxtail Yes No

SPAI Sporobolus airoides alkali sacaton No No

SPCO16 Sporobolus compositus composite dropseed No No

SPCR Sporobolus cryptandrus sand dropseed No No

SPHE Sporobolus heterolepis prairie dropseed No No

SPORO Sporobolus spp. dropseed No No

SPPE Spartina pectinata prairie cordgrass No No

VUOC Vulpia octoflora sixweeks fescue No No

Polemoniaceae

COLI2 Collomia linearis tiny trumpet No No

IPCO5 Ipomopsis congesta ballhead ipomopsis No No

MIGR Microsteris gracilis slender phlox No No

PHGR16 Phlox gracilis slender phlox No No

PHAN4 Phlox andicola prairie phlox No No

PHHO Phlox hoodii spiny phlox No No

PHLOX Phlox spp. phlox No No

Polygalaceae POAL4 Polygala alba white milkwort No No

POVE Polygala verticillata whorled milkwort No No

Polygonaceae

ERFL4 Eriogonum flavum alpine golden 

buckwheat No No

ERPA9 Eriogonum pauciflorum fewflower buckwheat No No

FACO Fallopia convolvulus black bindweed Yes No

POAV Polygonum aviculare prostrate knotweed Yes No

PORA3 Polygonum ramosissimum bushy knotweed Yes No

RUAL4 Rumex altissimus pale dock No No

RUCR Rumex crispus curly dock Yes No

RUMEX Rumex spp. dock Yes No

RUST4 Rumex stenophyllus narrowleaf dock Yes No

Primulaceae ANOC2 Androsace occidentalis western rockjasmine No No

Ranunculaceae

ANCA9 Anemone caroliniana Carolina anemone No No

ANCY Anemone cylindrica candle anemone No No

ANEMO Anemone spp. anemone Yes No

ANPA Anemone parviflora smallflowered anemone No No

DECA3 Delphinium carolinianum Carolina larkspur No No

MYMI2 Myosurus minimus tiny mousetail No No

RAMA2 Ranunculus macounii Macoun's buttercup No No

RANUN Ranunculus spp. buttercup Yes No

Rosaceae

POPE8 Potentilla pensylvanica Pennsylvania cinquefoil No No

POTEN Potentilla spp. cinquefoil No No

PRAM Prunus americana American plum No No

PRPU3 Prunus pumila sandcherry No No

PRVI Prunus virginiana chokecherry No No

ROAR3 Rosa arkansana prairie rose No No

ROBL Rosa blanda smooth rose No No

ROWO Rosa woodsii Woods' rose No No
33

Family Code Scientific Name Common Name Exotic Rare

Rubiaceae

GAAP2 Galium aparine stickywilly No No

GABO2 Galium boreale northern bedstraw No No

GALIU Galium spp. bedstraw No No

Salicaceae SAEX Salix exigua narrowleaf willow No No

Santalaceae COUM Comandra umbellata bastard toadflax No No

Scrophulariaceae

COPA3 Collinsia parviflora maiden blue eyed Mary No No

ORLU2 Orthocarpus luteus yellow owl's-clover No No

PEAL2 Penstemon albidus white penstemon No No

PEER Penstemon eriantherus fuzzytongue penstemon No No

PEGL3 Penstemon glaber sawsepal penstemon No No

PEGR5 Penstemon gracilis lilac penstemon No No

PENST Penstemon spp. beardtongue No No

SYWY99 Synthyris wyomingensis Wyoming kittentails No No

VEAR Veronica arvensis corn speedwell Yes No

VEPE2 Veronica peregrina neckweed No No

VETH Verbascum thapsus common mullein Yes No

Smilacaceae SMILA2 Smilax spp. greenbrier No No

Solanaceae

PHHE5 Physalis heterophylla clammy groundcherry No No

PHLO4 Physalis longifolia longleaf groundcherry No No

PHVI5 Physalis virginiana Virginia groundcherry No No

SORO Solanum rostratum buffalobur nightshade No No

SOTR Solanum triflorum cutleaf nightshade No No

Ulmaceae CEOC Celtis occidentalis common hackberry No No

ULAM Ulmus americana American elm No No

Urticaceae PAPE5 Parietaria pensylvanica Pennsylvania pellitory No No

Verbenaceae

VEBR Verbena bracteata bigbract verbena No No

VEST Verbena stricta hoary verbena No No

Violaceae VINU2 Viola nuttallii Nuttall's violet, No No

VIOLA Viola spp. violet Yes No

Vitaceae PAVI5 Parthenocissus vitacea woodbine No No

VIRI Vitis riparia riverbank grape No No
34

Appendix B: Maps of Relative Exotic Species Cover at 

Badlands National Park 
35
36
37

The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific 

and other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and 

affiliated Island Communities.

NPS137/133442, July 2016

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150

Fort Collins, CO 80525

www.nature.nps.gov