Vegetation and Substrate Properties of Aeolian Dune 

Fields in the Colorado River Corridor, Grand Canyon, 

Arizona

Open-File Report 2011-1195

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
This page intentionally left blank
Vegetation and Substrate Properties of Aeolian Dune 

Fields in the Colorado River Corridor, Grand Canyon, 

Arizona

By Amy E. Draut 

Open-File Report 2011-1195

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Marcia K. McNutt, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2011 

For product and ordering information: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, 

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

Suggested citation: 

Draut, A.E., 2011, Vegetation and substrate properties of aeolian dune fields in the Colorado River corridor, Grand 

Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011-1195, 16 p., available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1195/ 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.
iii

Contents 

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 

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

Modern and Relict Dune Fields ............................................................................................................................................. 3 

Methods ................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 

Results and Discussion ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 

Conclusions .........................................................................................................................................................................13

Acknowledgments ...............................................................................................................................................................14

References Cited ................................................................................................................................................................. 14

Figures 

1. Location map of study sites in the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona......................................................2

2. Aerial photographs of modern and relict aeolian dune fields ........................................................................................... 3 

3. Scale diagram of “pod” configuration used to map vegetation and substrate.................................................................. 5 

4. Field photographs of modern and relict dune fields ......................................................................................................... 7 

5. Plots of vegetation cover, biologic crust abundance, and gap length in dune fields ........................................................ 8 

6. Plots of substrate composition at all study sites .............................................................................................................. 9 

7. Photographs showing rapid spread of invasive Russian thistle .....................................................................................10

8. Plots of invasive Russian thistle abundance .................................................................................................................11

9. Plots of invasive brome grass abundance .....................................................................................................................12

10. Comparison of Grand Canyon with Cataract Canyon vegetation ..................................................................................13

Tables Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1195/of2011-1195_tables/

1. Summary of site locations and findings. 

2. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 24.7 L, lower site. 

3. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 24.7 L, upper site. 

4. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 44.0 L. 

5. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 50.1 R. 

6. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 57.9 R, lower site. 

7. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 57.9 R, upper site. 

8. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 60.0 R. 

9. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 60.1 R. 

10. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 65.5 L. 

11. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 68.0 L. 

12. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 68.1 L. 

13. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 69.0 R. 

14. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 69.5 R. 

15. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 70.0 L, lower site. 
iv

16. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 70.0 L, upper site. 

17. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 72.3 L. 

18. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 93.3 L. 

19. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 109.0 R. 

20. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 122.5 L. 

21. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 123.0 L. 

22. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 134.5 L. 

23. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 135.0 L. 

24. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 171.5 L. 

25. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 202.9 R. 

26. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 207.0 L. 

27. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 209.0 L. 

28. Vegetation cover and substrate properties measured at 223.0 R. 
Vegetation and Substrate Properties of Aeolian Dune 

Fields in the Colorado River Corridor, Grand Canyon, 

Arizona

By Amy E. Draut1 

Abstract 

This report summarizes vegetation and substrate properties of aeolian landscapes in the Colorado 

River corridor through Grand Canyon, Arizona, in Grand Canyon National Park. Characterizing these 

parameters provides a basis from which to assess future changes in this ecosystem, including the spread 

of nonnative plant species. Differences are apparent between aeolian dune fields that are downwind of 

where modern controlled flooding deposits new sandbars (modern-fluvial-sourced dune fields) and 

those that have received little or no new windblown sand since river regulation began in the 1960s 

(relict-fluvial-sourced dune fields). The most substantial difference between modern- and relict-fluvialsourced aeolian dune fields is the greater abundance of biologic soil crust in relict dune fields. These 

findings can be used with similar investigations in other geomorphic settings in Grand Canyon and 

elsewhere in the Colorado River corridor to evaluate the health of the Colorado River ecosystem over 

time. 

Introduction 

The Colorado River corridor through Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, hosts a complex 

riparian and dryland ecosystem that spans more than two hundred miles along the river and more than 

two thousand feet of elevation change at river level alone between Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek (fig. 

1). Many scientific studies focus on assessing the effects of river regulation at Glen Canyon Dam on the 

river-corridor ecosystem downstream (for example, Gloss and others, 2005). As a supplement to studies 

of windblown sand transport in the river corridor (Draut and Rubin, 2008; Draut and others, 2009a,b, 

2010a), this report presents vegetation and substrate measurements made in landscapes above the 

current high water line (1,200 m3/s) in the Colorado River corridor that are characterized by aeolian 

(windblown) sedimentary deposits and processes. The results illustrate some ecological differences 

between aeolian dune fields that receive modern sand supply and others that do not, and also provide a 

basis from which to evaluate future changes in this ecosystem, including the possible further spread of 

nonnative plant species. 

The Colorado River flow and sediment supply in Grand Canyon have changed substantially 

since Glen Canyon Dam was completed in 1963 (Topping and others, 2000, 2003; Rubin and others, 

2002). The dam has reduced the fluvial sediment supply to upper Marble Canyon by about 95 percent 

 

1U.S. Geological Survey Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center, Santa Cruz, CA 95060. 
2

(Topping and others, 2000). Without natural floods, the river does not deposit sediment at elevations 

that received it regularly before dam closure. Owing to the loss of sediment supply and reduction in the 

magnitude and frequency of floods, the size and number of fluvial sandbars has decreased in the river 

corridor since the 1960s (Beus and others, 1985; Schmidt and Graf, 1990; Kearsley and others, 1994; 

Gloss and others, 2005; Hazel and others, 2010). In an effort to rebuild sandbars, controlled floods were 

released from Glen Canyon Dam in 1996, 2004, and 2008 (Webb and others 1999; Topping and others, 

2010; Melis, 2011) that mobilized sediment delivered by natural tributary floods. Although sandbar 

response to controlled flooding is a complex function of the amount and grain size of tributary sand in 

the main channel, and although the controlled-flood magnitudes have been substantially less than the 

predam annual flood peak (Topping and others, 2003), those three floods have shown that a 60-hour, 

1,160 m3/s controlled flood can increase sandbar area and volume in Marble and Grand Canyons, at 

least temporarily (Hazel and others, 2010). 

 Figure 1. Map showing study area in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Study sites are labeled by river mile 

and bank (L, left, R, right bank when viewed facing downstream). Red circles are modern-fluvial-sourced (MFS) 

dune fields and blue circles are relict-fluvial-sourced (RFS) dune fields. Filled red and blue circles are sites 

where weather stations operated. Vegetation and substrate were measured at all sites (filled and open circles). 

Plant communities within the river corridor include true riparian vegetation, composed of 

species with roots that reach river water, and many other species that live at higher elevations where 

precipitation is the only source of water. The riparian vegetation community, dominated by willow 

(Salix spp.), seepwillow (Baccharis spp.), tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima and hybrids thereof), and 

arrowweed (Pluchea sericea), occupies lower elevations in the modern era of flow regulation than it did 

before Glen Canyon Dam operations reduced the magnitude and frequency of floods (Turner and 

Karpiscak, 1980; Huisinga and others, 2006). In many places, riparian vegetation now fills areas that 
3

were formerly open sandbars (Turner and Karpiscak, 1980). The predam high water line is evident in 

many areas of the canyon, marked by shrubs and trees such as western honey mesquite (Prosopis 

glandulosa), catclaw acacia (Acacia gregii), netleaf hackberry (Celtis laevigata), and western redbud 

(Cercis orbiculata). The vegetation communities measured in this study were above the modern, 

controlled-flood high water line and, therefore, were composed primarily of plants that do not depend 

on river water, although occasional riparian plants can occur in the lowest-elevation areas of aeolian 

dune fields. 

Modern and Relict Dune Fields 

In dryland river corridors, subaerially exposed fluvial sediment can be reworked by wind to form 

aeolian dunes. In Grand Canyon, aeolian dunes can form directly inland from some of the modern 

sandbars deposited by controlled floods—after the floods recede, in places where the dominant wind 

direction is oriented inland from the river, wind brings sand above the high-water line (Draut and others, 

2010b). Other aeolian landscapes in the Colorado River corridor through Grand Canyon formed decades 

or centuries ago as the wind reworked sediment left by large, predam floods (Hereford, 1996; Draut and 

others, 2008). The locations of aeolian dune fields in Grand Canyon relative to fluvial sandbars and 

wind patterns indicate whether modern, postdam sediment supply is available to the dune fields. Aeolian 

landscapes there can be grouped into two types (Draut and Rubin, 2008): (1) modern-fluvial-sourced 

(MFS) dune fields, which are downwind from the Colorado River no matter what its flow stage; and (2) 

relict-fluvial-sourced (RFS) dune fields, which are downwind of places where the river deposited sand 

only during large, predam floods. Figure 2 shows examples of each type of dune field. 

 Figure 2. Aerial photographs showing relative positions of shorelines, aeolian dune fields, and locally dominant 

wind directions for examples of A, modern-fluvial-sourced (MFS) and B, relict-fluvial-sourced (RFS) aeolian 

landscapes in the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona. Both photographs were taken in 2004 at a 
4

discharge of 227 m3/s. Colored shorelines show the flood stage reached by postdam controlled floods (1,160 

m3/s), the largest postdam flood (a 2,740 m3/s release in 1983), and the largest twentieth-century flood (4,810 

m3/s in 1921; Magirl and others, 2008). In A, MFS aeolian dunes at river mile 123.0 occur on the surface of a 

broad debris fan. The local prevailing wind direction is from the north-northeast, so the wind can carry sand 

toward the aeolian dunes from fluvial sandbars left by large, predam floods, smaller postdam controlled floods, 

and from any low-elevation fluvial sand exposed during low flows because the river, at any discharge, is always 

upwind of this dune field. In B, at river mile 65.5, the locally dominant wind direction is from the southeast. The 

dune field there does not receive substantial windblown sand from fluvial sandbars at or below the 1,160 m3/s 

controlled-flood stage, nor would it have during low flows. Only during large, predam floods would the river 

have supplied new sand to this dune field. 

MFS aeolian landscapes receive new windblown sand in the modern, postdam era from adjacent, 

upwind post-dam fluvial sandbars that form or enlarge during 1,160 m3/s controlled floods (fig. 2A). 

RFS dune fields, having no modern sandbar adjacent and upwind (fig. 2B), do not receive any 

substantial windblown sand supply postdam. Instead, RFS dune sand was derived primarily from 

deposits of predam floods that were larger than any postdam flows have been (Hereford, 1996; Hereford 

and others, 1998, 2000; Draut and others, 2008). Even the 2,740 m3/s flood of 1983, anomalously high 

for the postdam era, was not high enough to bring substantial new sand to areas upwind of most RFS 

dune fields (Magirl and others, 2008). Relict aeolian landscapes include dune fields that formed atop 

and downwind of alluvial deposits left by predam floods greater than 4,800 m3/s (fig. 2B). Among other 

applications (such as monitoring invasive species abundance), the vegetation and substrate data 

presented here demonstrate some ecological differences between MFS aeolian landscapes that receive 

modern sand supply after controlled floods and RFS aeolian landscapes that do not. 

Methods 

This study quantified ground-cover characteristics at 27 sites in aeolian dune fields of the 

Colorado River corridor in Grand Canyon (fig. 1). The study sites are referred to here in terms of river 

mile, measured as the distance downstream of Lees Ferry, using the measurement system developed by 

the U.S. Geological Survey Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (http://www.gcmrc.gov, 

last accessed May 30, 2011). Of the 27 sites, 15 were in MFS dune fields and 12 were in RFS dune 

fields. At 14 of those study sites (7 MFS and 7 RFS), wind, rainfall, and sand transport were measured 

at weather stations; weather-station data has been discussed previously in other reports (Draut and 

Rubin, 2005, 2006, 2008; Draut and others, 2009a,b, 2010). Those 14 sites were chosen to inform 

specific river-corridor management objectives and were not a random sample of aeolian landscapes in 

the river corridor. The full suite of 27 sites represents the range of conditions in Grand Canyon dune 

fields more completely than did the subset of 14 sites where sand transport and weather were measured. 

Sites were classified as MFS or RFS on the basis of their position relative to modern sandbars formed or 

enlarged by controlled floods, flood stages of the predam river (Magirl and others, 2008), and the local 

wind direction (table 1). Sandbar growth from the 2004 and 2008 controlled floods was assessed by 

direct field observation and, locally, by topographic surveys (Draut and Rubin, 2006, 2008; Draut and 

others, 2009a,b, 2010). Several study sites are affected by visitor activity (table 1), which includes 

campsites and trails. Although areas affected by camping activity cannot be considered to have entirely 

natural conditions, they were included in this study to represent the range of ground cover in Grand 

Canyon’s aeolian landscapes as thoroughly as possible. 
5

 Figure 3. Scale diagram of “pod” configuration used to measure vegetation and substrate, Grand Canyon, 

Arizona. Two transects of length 40 m and five circles of radius 3 m were used (see also Draut and Gillette, 

2010). 

Vegetation and substrate were measured once at each site, during the summers of 2009 and 

2010, by establishing a layout of circles and linear transects referred to here as a ―pod‖ (Draut and 

Gillette, 2010). As shown in figure 3, each pod consisted of two orthogonal transects marked out with a 

tape reel (one oriented upstream-to-downstream and the other oriented inland-to-riverward) and five 3-

m-radius circles outlined in the sand (one in the center of the pod and one at the end of each of the four 

transects). At study sites where weather stations were present, the center of the pod coincided with the 

position of the sand traps, and the pod’s center circle was offset 5 m in the upstream direction to avoid 

interfering with the sand traps. 

Along each of the transects within a pod, the gap lengths were measured where the measuring 

tape crossed bare, open sand without rocks, biologic crust, leaf litter, or overhanging plant canopy. 

Biologic soil crust, a common component of desert ecosystems, consists of cyanobacteria living 

symbiotically with lichen, mosses, fungi, and algae (Belnap and Lange, 2003). The method of 

measuring gap length was modified from Herrick and others (2005), using their criteria to define plant 

canopy gaps, as a means to measure the spacing and abundance of roughness elements, vegetation, and 

patches of biologic crust that affect aeolian sediment mobility (Ash and Wasson, 1983; Leys and 
6

Eldridge, 1998; Belnap and Lange, 2003; Goossens, 2004). The proportion of bare, open sand in the 

dune field then can be estimated by adding all of the measured gap lengths from each transect to 

compile a cumulative gap length measurement and representing that total gap length as a percentage of 

the total transect length. 

Within each of the five circles in a pod, the percentage of vegetation cover was measured, as 

were the types of substrate in which the plants were growing. Vegetation was identified to species level 

wherever possible, using names and descriptions given by Taylor (1992), Williams (2000), and 

Huisinga and others (2006) and maintaining consistency with the U.S. Department of Agriculture plant 

database (http://plants.usda.gov/, last accessed September 26, 2011). Substrates were divided into four 

categories: open sand, biologic soil crust, leaf litter, and rock. To estimate the percentage of cover of 

both plants and substrate, a disc of known size was compared with the area covered by a plant, rock, 

patch of soil crust, or other object of interest. The disc (radius 20 cm) has an area (0.13 m2

) 

approximately half of one percent of the circle size studied (28.3 m2). By holding a disc of known radius 

above plants or patches of biologic crust to gage their size and percent coverage, the study teams 

avoided disturbing the ground surface unnecessarily as would happen from handling plants or placing 

measuring devices directly on sensitive, soil-encrusted ground. At the 14 weather-station sites, the 

maximum height of each type of plant within the circles also was recorded. Efforts were made to record 

qualitative observations of any additional plant species that were near but not within the circles. Field 

sites were photographed, transect orientations were measured with a compass, and recent dominant 

wind directions were estimated by using compass measurements of dune slipface and sand-shadow 

orientations (table 1). 

Results and Discussion 

Table 1 and figures 4–6 summarize the vegetation and substrate properties measured. Tables 2–

28 provide detailed information for each study site. In cases where species identification was uncertain, 

plants were identified by their family or genus, or by designation as annual or perennial grass, forb, or 

shrub. Vegetation assemblages at the study sites typically contained between 10 and 20 different plant 

species (table 1). Native plants common to aeolian dune fields in Grand Canyon included perennial 

bunchgrasses such as Indian rice grass (Achnatherum hymenoides, also known as genus Oryzopsis), and 

several species of dropseed (Sporobolus spp.). Common native shrubs and forbs included wire lettuce 

(Stephanomeria pauciflora), seepweed (Suaeda moquinii), saltbush (Atriplex spp.), dicoria (Dicoria 

canescens), sand verbena (Abronia elliptica), globemallow (Sphaeralcea sp.), and several members of 

the Asteraceae family. Prickly-pear (Opuntia spp.) and beavertail (Opuntia basilaris) cactus also were 

common, some of which were planted intentionally by the National Park Service to slow erosion (for 

example, at the upper site at mile 24.7 L). Common large shrubs and trees included mesquite (Prosopis 

glandulosa), catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), and downstream of river mile 200, creosote (Larrea 

tridentata). Nonnative plants included brome grasses (Bromus spp.) such as cheatgrass, red brome, and 

ripgut brome, Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), and at study sites nearest the Colorado River, tamarisk 

trees (Tamarix ramosissima). 

Ground cover on MFS aeolian landscapes was found to be different from that on RFS aeolian 

landscapes, with open, bare sand more abundant in MFS dune fields (fig. 4). Figure 5A shows 

vegetation abundance in the two groups of dune fields. The two groups had similar median values (15.5 

percent vegetation cover on MFS dunes, compared with 18.9 percent on RFS dunes), but higher 

maximum values occurred at RFS sites. A Welch’s t test comparing mean vegetation cover on MFS and 

RFS sites yields p=0.07, just above the threshold of generally accepted significant difference (0.05). 
7

MFS sites, however, have significantly less biologic soil crust than do RFS dune fields. The median 

value for biologic crust as a proportion of the substrate is more than 20 times greater for RFS landscapes 

than for MFS landscapes (27 percent compared to 1.2 percent; fig. 5B), and the means of the two 

populations are significantly different (p<0.005). The cumulative gap length measured along transects in 

MFS dune fields is significantly greater than that measured in RFS dune fields (fig. 5C), with 

p<0.000005. As shown in figures 5 and 6, the difference in gap length between MFS and RFS sites is 

primarily attributable to the greater abundance of biologic soil crust at RFS study sites. 

 Figure 4. Field photographs from Grand Canyon, Arizona, showing ground cover on A, an MFS dune field at river 

mile 69.5, and B, an RFS dune field at river mile 68.1. Dark-colored biologic soil crust appears in the 

foreground of B, and a white measuring tape is visible on the ground. 

The vegetation assemblages measured on aeolian dune fields in the Colorado River corridor can 

inform future monitoring efforts regarding the spread of nonnative plants in Grand Canyon National 

Park. In particular, Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) and brome grasses (Bromus spp.) are especially 

adept at colonizing disturbed, sandy ground surfaces such as occur in aeolian dunes (D’Antonio and 

Vitousek, 1992; Belnap and others, 2009), and are common throughout Grand Canyon. Each of these is 

able to spread rapidly and is considered an invasive plant in southwest desert ecosystems. At one study 

site, river mile 70.0 L (lower site), the abundance of Russian thistle increased substantially after 2007 

(fig. 7). At the time of the vegetation survey there in July 2009, Russian thistle covered more than 18 

percent of the ground surface and accounted for 53 percent of the total vegetation present, composing 

the highest Russian thistle abundance of any site studied (table 15, fig. 7). There was no significant 

difference between the abundance in MFS and RFS dune fields of either Russian thistle or brome (figs. 

8, 9), with t tests yielding p=0.22 for the Russian thistle comparison and p=0.39 for brome. The lack of 

significant differences in abundance of those two plants between MFS and RFS sites suggests that the 

supply of new windblown material (including sediment and plant seeds) from controlled-flood deposits 

upwind of the MFS sites does not contribute significantly to the ability of those plants to colonize and 

spread in Grand Canyon. It is likely that other factors, such as spring rainfall, are more important to 

Russian thistle and brome abundance than is windborne seed supply from flood deposits. In general, 
8

Figure 5. Vegetation and substrate measured at 27 sites in aeolian landscapes of the Colorado River corridor in 

Grand Canyon, Arizona. Sites are grouped as modern-fluvial-sourced (MFS, red boxes) and relict-fluvialsourced (RFS, blue boxes) dune fields. Boxes span the interquartile range of data; horizontal line through each 

box is the median value. Circles show outlier points with values greater than 1.5 times the interquartile range, 

and whiskers show the highest and lowest non-outlier points. A, Vegetation abundance measured in circular 

plots. B, Biologic crust abundance measured in circular plots. C, Proportion of the total length of linear 

transects comprising gaps where only open, bare sand was present, without biologic crust, leaf litter, rocks, or 

overhanging plant canopy. 

plant species richness was similar at MFS and RFS study sites (table 1), with p=0.15, indicating no 

significant difference in the number of species occurring at sites of each type. 

Russian thistle and brome grasses may be somewhat less abundant on aeolian landscapes of the 

Colorado River corridor in Grand Canyon than they are on aeolian landscapes of the Colorado River 

corridor through Cataract Canyon, Utah, 350 km upstream of Glen Canyon Dam in Canyonlands 

National Park. Differences in vegetation composition within the river corridor in Grand and Cataract 

Canyons could arise in part because of their different land-use histories—historically, rangeland 

surrounding, and even within, Cataract Canyon was used more intensively for livestock foraging than 

were the rims of Grand Canyon (Webb and others, 2004); exploring detailed connections between 

livestock use and vegetation assemblage is beyond the scope of this report. Measuring vegetation at 13 

sites within MFS aeolian dune fields in Cataract Canyon, Draut and Gillette (2010) found that Russian 

thistle was present at 85 percent of study sites (11 of 13) and, on average, covered 1.8 percent of the 

ground area and composed 5.8 percent of the total vegetation (fig. 10). In Grand Canyon, in contrast, 

Russian thistle was present at only 40 percent of MFS study sites (6 of 15) and, on average, covered 0.4 

percent of the ground area and composed 1.7 percent of the total vegetation. Invasive brome grasses 
9

 Figure 6. Substrate composition at each study site in Grand Canyon, Arizona, showing proportions of sand, rock, 

biologic soil crust, and leaf litter. A, sites in modern-fluvial-sourced (MFS) aeolian dune fields; B, sites in relictfluvial-sourced (RFS) dune fields. 

were present at 100 percent of MFS study sites in Cataract Canyon, covering 2.8 percent of the ground 

area and composing 11.2 percent of the vegetation (Draut and Gillette, 2010). In Grand Canyon, brome 

was found at 80 percent of the MFS study sites, occupying 2.4 percent of the ground area and 

composing 8.9 percent of the total vegetation. Overall vegetation cover was similar in dune fields of 

Cataract and Grand Canyons (p>0.05; fig. 9A). Although the differences between mean values of 

Russian thistle and brome abundance in Grand Canyon and Cataract Canyon are not great enough to 
10

Figure 7. Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) spreading rapidly across an aeolian landscape in Grand Canyon, 

Arizona, at river mile 70 (lower site). A, Photograph taken in February 2007 shows aeolian dunes sparsely 

vegetated with native seepweed (Suaeda sp.) and mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa). B, The same site 

photographed in July 2010 had much denser vegetation cover, populated almost exclusively by invasive 

Russian thistle. 

pass a t test for statistical significance (p=0.13 for Russian thistle coverage and p=0.34 for brome 

coverage), the results might indicate incipient or developing trends that would be worthwhile to monitor 

in the future regarding Grand Canyon in relation to other reaches of the Colorado River corridor and its 

tributaries. 
11

Figure 8. Abundance of invasive Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) on A, MFS dune fields and B, RFS dune fields, 

Grand Canyon, Arizona. 

Visitor impacts are evident at seven of the study sites (table 1). The five MFS sites with visitor 

use are all camps used by river runners and, at river mile 44.0 L, occasionally used by backpackers. The 

two RFS sites with evidence of visitor use, at river mile 68.1 L and river mile 171.5 L, each contain one 

trail approximately 1 m wide. Among MFS sites, significant differences are not apparent between the 

five sites used as camps and the 10 noncamps. Comparing vegetation coverage at the MFS camps to the 

MFS noncamps yields p=0.05 (borderline significant), whereas comparing biologic crust abundance and 

total gap length yields p=0.2 and p=0.07, respectively. Although river runners commonly choose 

campsites that contain open, bare sand, and their camping activities probably contribute to maintaining 

open sand area, it is possible that the lack of strongly significant differences between camp and 

noncamp ground cover in MFS dune fields reflects river runners’ preference for camping in areas closer 

to the river, on fluvial sandbars that are below the elevations of the study sites discussed here. If that is 
12

 Figure 9. Abundance of invasive brome grasses (Bromus spp.) on A, MFS dune fields and B, RFS dune fields, 

Grand Canyon, Arizona. 

the case, then the higher-elevation, aeolian-dune portions of camps probably receive less visitor use than 

do the lower-elevation fluvial sandbars. 

The differences in ground cover between MFS and RFS dune fields in Grand Canyon (figs. 4, 5) 

point to changes in the ecosystem that apparently developed with the lack of modern sand supply to 

RFS dune fields. Those dune fields that can receive modern sand supply from controlled-flood sandbars 

(fluvial deposits at or below the 1,160 m3/s stage of the Colorado River) have more open, bare sand 

space than occurs on dune fields without modern sand supply, and MFS landscapes contain significantly 

less biologic soil crust than do RFS landscapes. That less biologic crust was found on MFS dunes is 

consistent with biologic crust organisms having difficulty surviving and growing in environments where 

they are abraded or buried by much active windblown sand transport (J. Belnap, personal 

communication, 2006). Evidently, lack of sand supply to RFS landscapes in the absence of very large, 
13

 Figure 10. Comparison of A, total vegetation cover, B, invasive Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) abundance, and C, 

invasive brome grass (Bromus spp.) abundance in aeolian dune fields of Grand Canyon, Arizona (gray boxes, 

27 study sites), and Cataract Canyon, Utah (yellow boxes, 13 study sites). Cataract Canyon data are from 

Draut and Gillette (2010). Boxes span the interquartile range of data; horizontal line through each box is the 

median value. Circles show outlier points with values greater than 1.5 times the interquartile range, and 

whiskers show the highest and lowest non-outlier points. In B and C, abundance is expressed in terms of the 

percentage of the ground covered by those species. 

sediment-rich floods facilitates growth of biologic crust and, to a lesser degree, possibly vegetation, 

leading over time to less bare sand ground cover on aeolian dunes. 

Conclusions 

Characterizing vegetation and substrate on aeolian dune fields provides a basis from which to 

assess future ecological changes in the Colorado River corridor through Grand Canyon National Park. 

Aeolian landscapes that are downwind of where modern controlled flooding deposits new sandbars 

(modern-fluvial-sourced dune fields) have more open, bare sand and less biologic soil crust, and in 

some cases less vegetation, than those that have received little or no new windblown sand since river 

regulation began in the 1960s (relict-fluvial-sourced dune fields). The plant community composition 

includes invasive species, such as Russian thistle and brome grasses, that thrive in loose, disturbed 

substrate, such as the sand that composes aeolian dunes. Those species may be somewhat less abundant 

in Grand Canyon than they are upstream of Lake Powell in Cataract Canyon, but nonetheless require the 

attention of land managers. These findings can be used with similar investigations in other geomorphic 

settings in Grand Canyon and elsewhere in the Colorado River corridor to evaluate the health of the 

Colorado River ecosystem over time. 
14

Acknowledgments 

This study was supported by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation through the U.S. Geological 

Survey Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, under National Park Service study GRCA00208. Helen Fairley, Dave Rubin, and Ted Melis are thanked for valuable discussions. Sarah Baden, 

Carol Fritzinger, Clay Nelson, Lynn Roeder, Greg Woodall, and more than 30 youth volunteers 

collected vegetation and substrate data that went into this report. Many thanks to Grand Canyon Youth, 

Flagstaff, Arizona, for providing field support throughout this study. Lori Makarick, Melissa McMaster, 

and Barbara Ralston provided helpful review comments that improved the manuscript. 

References Cited 

Ash, J.E., and Wasson, R.J., 1983, Vegetation and sand mobility in the Australian desert dunefield: 

Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, supp. v. 45, p. 7–25. 

Belnap, J., and Lange, O.L., eds., 2003, Biological soil crusts—Structure, function, and management 

(Ecological Studies series, v. 150): Berlin, Springer-Verlag. 

Belnap, J., Reynolds, R.L., Reheis, M.C., Phillips, S.L., Urban, F.E., and Goldstein, H.L., 2009, 

Sediment losses and gains across a gradient of livestock grazing and plant invasion in a cool, semiarid grassland, Colorado Plateau, USA: Aeolian Research, v. 1, p. 27–43. 

Beus, S.S., Carothers, S.W., and Avery, C.C., 1985, Topographic changes in fluvial terrace deposits 

used as campsite beaches along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon: Arizona-Nevada Academy of 

Science Journal, v. 20, p. 111–120. 

D’Antonio, C.M., and Vitousek, P.M., 1992, Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, 

and global change: Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, v. 23, p. 63–87. 

Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2005, Measurements of wind, aeolian sand transport, and precipitation in 

the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona—November 2003 to December 2004: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1309. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1309/) 

Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2006, Measurements of wind, aeolian sand transport, and precipitation in 

the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona—January 2005 to January 2006: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1188, 88 p. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1188/) 

Draut, A.E., Rubin, D.M., Dierker, J.L., Fairley, H.C., Griffiths, R.E., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Hunter, R.E., 

Kohl, K., Leap, L.M., Nials, F.L., Topping, D.J., and Yeatts, M., 2008, Application of sedimentarystructure interpretation to geoarchaeological studies in the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, 

Arizona, USA: Geomorphology, v. 101, no. 3, p. 497–509. 

Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2008, The role of eolian sediment in the preservation of archeologic sites 

along the Colorado River corridor in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1756. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1756/) 

Draut, A.E., Andrews, T., Fairley, H.C., and Brown, C.R., 2009a, 2007 weather and aeolian sandtransport data from the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2009-1098, 110 p. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1098/) 

Draut, A.E., Sondossi, H.A., Hazel, J.E. Jr., Fairley, H.C., Andrews, T., Brown, C.R., and Vanaman, 

K.M., 2009b, 2008 weather and aeolian sand-transport data from the Colorado River corridor, Grand 

Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1190, 98 p. 

(http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1190/)
15

Draut, A.E., Sondossi, H.A., Dealy, T.P., Hazel, J.E. Jr., Fairley, H.C., and Brown, C.R., 2010a, 2009 

weather and aeolian sand-transport data from the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1166, 98 p. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1166/) 

Draut, A.E., Hazel, J.E. Jr., Fairley, H.C., and Brown, C.R., 2010b, Aeolian reworking of sandbars from 

the March 2008 Glen Canyon Dam high flow experiment in Grand Canyon, in Melis, T.S., Hamill, 

J.F., Coggins, L.G., Jr., Grams, P.E., Kennedy, T.A., Kubly, D.M., and Ralston, B.E., eds., 

Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, November 

18–20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-

5135, p. 325–331. 

Draut, A.E., and Gillette, E.R., 2010, Vegetation and substrate on aeolian landscapes in the Colorado 

River corridor, Cataract Canyon, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1273, 61 p. 

(http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1273/)

Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., and Melis, T.S., eds., 2005, The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in 

Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282. 

Goossens, D., 2004, Effect of soil crusting on the emission and transport of wind-eroded sediment—

Field measurements on loamy sandy soil: Geomorphology, v. 58, p. 145–160. 

Hazel, J.E.., Jr., Grams, P.E., Schmidt, J.C., and Kaplinski, M., 2010, Sandbar response in Marble and 

Grand Canyons, Arizona, following the 2008 high-flow experiment on the Colorado River: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5015, 52 p. 

Hereford, R., 1996, Surficial geology and geomorphology of the Palisades Creek area, Grand Canyon 

National Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2449, 

scale 1:2,000. 

Hereford, R., Burke, K.J., and Thompson, K.S., 1998, Quaternary geology and geomorphology of the 

Nankoweap Rapids area, Marble Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Investigations 

Series Map I-2608, scale 1:4,600. 

Hereford, R., Burke, K.J., and Thompson, K.S., 2000, Quaternary geology and geomorphology of the 

Granite Park area, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Investigations Series 

Map I-2662, scale 1:2,000. 

Herrick, J.E., Van Zee, J.W., Havstad, K.M., Burkett, L.M., and Whitford, W.G., 2005, Monitoring 

manual for grassland, shrubland, and savanna ecosystems: Las Cruces, New Mexico, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, distributed by University of Arizona Press, 36 p. 

Huisinga, K., Makarick, L., and Watters, K., 2006, River and desert plants of the Grand Canyon: 

Missoula, Montana, Mountain Press Publishing Company, 261 p. 

Kearsley, L.H., Schmidt, J.C., and Warren, K.D., 1994, Effects of Glen Canyon Dam on Colorado River 

sand deposits used as campsites in Grand Canyon National Park, USA: Regulated Rivers, Research 

and Management, v. 9, p. 137–149. 

Leys, J.F., and Eldridge, D.J., 1998, Influence of cryptogamic crust disturbance to wind erosion on sand 

and loam rangeland soils: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 23, p. 963–974. 

Magirl, C.S., Breedlove, M.J., Webb, R.H., and Griffiths, P.G., 2008, Modeling water-surface 

elevations and virtual shorelines for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigation Report 2008-5075, 40 p. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5075/) 

Melis, T.S., ed., 2011, Effects of three high-flow experiments on the Colorado River ecosystem 

downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1366, 147 p. 
16

Rubin, D.M., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J., Kaplinski, M., and Melis, T.S., 2002, Recent 

sediment studies refute Glen Canyon Dam hypothesis: Eos (American Geophysical Union 

Transactions), v. 83, p. 273, 277–278. 

Schmidt, J.C., and Graf, J.B., 1990, Aggradation and degradation of alluvial sand deposits, 1965 to 

1986, Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 1493, 74 p. 

Taylor, R.J., 1992, Sagebrush country; a wildflower sanctuary: Missoula, Montana, Mountain Press 

Publishing Company, 209 p. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Vierra, L.E., Jr., 2000, Colorado River sediment transport 1—Natural 

sediment supply limitation and the influence of Glen Canyon Dam: Water Resources Research, v. 36, 

p. 515–542. 

Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., and Vierra, L.E., Jr., 2003, Computation and analysis of the instantaneousdischarge record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona–May 8, 1921, through September 30, 

2000: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1677, 118 p. 

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Grams, P.E., Griffiths, R.E., Sabol, T.A., Voichick, N., Tusso, R.B., 

Vanaman, K.M., and McDonald, R.R., 2010, Sediment transport during three controlled-flood 

experiments on the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, with implications for eddysandbar deposition in Grand Canyon National Park: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-

1128, 111 p. 

Turner, R.M., and Karpiscak, M.M., 1980, Recent vegetation changes along the Colorado River 

between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

1132, 125 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2011, Plants Database, http://plants.usda.gov/

Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J.C., Marzolf, G.R., and Valdez, R.A., eds., 1999, The controlled flood in Grand 

Canyon: Washington, D.C., American Geophysical Union, Monograph 110, p. 1–21. 

Webb, R.H., Belnap, J., and Weisheit, J.S., 2004, Cataract Canyon—A human and environmental 

history of the rivers in Canyonlands: Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press, 268 p. 

Williams, D.B., 2000, A naturalist’s guide to canyon country: Guilford, Conn., Globe Pequot Press, 188 

p.