Montane - Subalpine Mesic Grassland and Meadow
Global Name:
Rocky Mountain-North Pacific Subalpine-Montane Mesic Grassland & Meadow
Global Rank:
G4G5
State Rank:
S4
(see reason below)
External Links
State Rank Reason
These mesic grassland habitats are scattered across the higher mountain ranges of the state and can be locally common in some areas. Some decreases in extent and quality have occurred and threats from invasive species, livestock grazing and changes in climate that will likely result in some of these habitats becoming drier are continuing. However, they are widespread and locally common in some areas, limiting potential impacts and concerns.
General Description
This National Vegetation Classification Group occurs from montane to subalpine elevations where finely textured soils, snow deposition, or windswept conditions limit tree establishment. Patch sizes of these communities are generally small, though they range from small, forest openings to larger meadows. The type is common from Glacier National Park south to the mountains of southwest Montana extending east to the island mountain ranges of central Montana and south to the Beartooth and Pryor Mountains. Elevations range from 4,000-6,500 feet in the northern part of the state and from 7,000-9,500 feet in the mountains of southwestern Montana. These communities occur on gentle to moderate-gradient slopes and in relatively moist habitats.
Mesic herbaceous communities within this group vary widely in composition, structure and density. Some communities within this group are more heavily dominated by grasses, while others are forb-dominated. Graminoid-dominated meadows usually feature taxa with relatively broad and soft blades such as Tufted Hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa), Mountain Brome (Bromus carinatus), Showy Oniongrass (Melica spectabilis), Blue Wildrye (Elymus glaucus), Bluejoint Reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis), and Sedges such as Carex geyeri, Carex hoodii, Carex raynoldsii, and Carex pachystachya. Forb dominated mesic meadows may be comprised of a wide diversity of genera and can be short to tall in stature with sparse to dense cover. This group is transitional to wet meadow types included in G521 Montane Wet Meadow & Marsh and additional review is likely needed to refine the distinction between the two groups.
This group is equivalent to the Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Mesic Meadow Ecological System.
Diagnostic Characteristics
Herbaceous-dominated; Mesic to Seasonally Wet Sites; Montane and Subalpine Zones, Rocky Mountain Region
Typical Dominants: Tufted Hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa), Showy Oniongrass (Melica spectabilis), Mountain Brome (Bromus carinatus), Blue Wildrye (Elymus glaucus), Idaho Fescue (Festuca idahoensis), Mountain Fescue (Festuca viridula), Carex hoodii, Carex microptera
Similar Systems
Range
In Montana, this group occurs in mountainous areas on both sides of the Continental Divide. It is common from Glacier National Park south to the mountains of southwest Montana extending east to the island mountain ranges of central Montana and south to the Beartooth and Pryor Mountains.
In MT, G271 occurs within these Level III Ecoregions: 15 (Northern Rockies), 16 (Idaho Batholith), 17 (Middle Rockies), 41 (Canadian Rockies), and the very western portion of 42 (Northwestern Glaciated Plains).
In Montana, G271 occurs within these Major Land Resource Areas: 43A - Northern Rocky Mountains, 43B - Central Rocky Mountains, 44B - Central Rocky Mountain Valleys, and 46 - Northern and Central Rocky Mountain Foothills.
Density and Distribution
Based on 2025 land cover layer. Grid on map is based on USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle map boundaries.
Mapped Distribution by County
Beaverhead, Big Horn, Blaine, Broadwater, Carbon, Cascade, Chouteau, Deer Lodge, Fergus, Flathead, Gallatin, Glacier, Golden Valley, Granite, Hill, Judith Basin, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Lincoln, Madison, Meagher, Mineral, Missoula, Park, Phillips, Pondera, Powell, Ravalli, Sanders, Silver Bow, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Teton, Toole, Wheatland
Based on 2025 land cover layer.
Spatial Pattern
Small Patch and Large Patch
Environment
This group occurs from montane to subalpine elevations where finely textured soils, snow deposition, or windswept conditions limit tree establishment. Many occurrences are small patches, often found in mosaics within forests, dense shrublands, or just below alpine communities. Elevations range from 4,000-6,500 feet in the northern part of the state and from 7,000-9,500 feet) in the mountains of southwestern Montana. These communities occur on gentle to moderate-gradient slopes and in relatively moist habitats. Soils are typically seasonally moist to saturated in the spring, but dry out later in the growing season. At montane elevations, soils are usually clays or silt loams with an A horizon greater than 10 centimeters (4 inches), and some occurrences may have inclusions of hydric soils in low, depressional areas. At subalpine elevations, soils are derived from a variety of parent materials, and are usually rocky or gravelly with good aeration and drainage, but with a well-developed organic layer. Forb communities found on talus and scree slopes with subsurface moisture are also included within this group.
Vegetation
Mesic herbaceous communities within this group vary widely in composition, structure and density. Some communities within this group are more heavily dominated by grasses, while others are forb-dominated. Patch sizes of these communities are generally small, though range from small, forest openings to larger meadows. Graminoid-dominated meadows usually feature taxa with relatively broad and soft blades such as Tufted Hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa), Mountain Brome (Bromus carinatus), Showy Oniongrass (Melica spectabilis), Blue Wildrye (Elymus glaucus), Bluejoint Reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis), and Sedges such as Carex geyeri, Carex microptera, Carex hoodii, Carex raynoldsii, and Carex pachystachya. At subalpine elevations, Tufted Hairgrass, Alpine Timothy (Phleum alpinum), Timber Oatgrass (Danthonia intermedia) and Mountain Hairgrass (Vahlodea atropurpurea) become more common components of the graminoid layer. Forb dominated mesic meadows may be comprised of a wide diversity of genera and can be short to tall in stature with sparse to dense cover. Characteristic species within these forb dominated communities include Fireweed (Chamerion angustifolium), Glacier Lily (Erythronium grandiflorum), Sitka Valerian (Valeriana sitchensis), False Hellebore (Veratrum viride) and Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax). Forb-dominated communities vary from species’ poor sites with very few species to diverse meadows. Other forbs common to certain sites within this group include Chives (Allium schoenoprasum), Arnica chamissonis, Common Camas (Camassia quamash), Aspen Fleabane (Erigeron speciosus), Subalpine Fleabane (Erigeron peregrinus), Aster spp (Eucephalus and Symphyotrichum species), Bluebells (Mertensia species), Stickseeds (Hackelia species), Small-flower Beardtongue (Penstemon procerus), Harebells (Campanula rotundifolia), Mountain Deathcamas (Zigadenus elegans), Western Meadowrue (Thalictrum occidentale), Arrowleaf Groundsel (Senecio triangularis), Tall Groundsel (Senecio hydrophiloides) and Tall Groundsel (Senecio serra).
Under natural disturbance regimes at montane elevations, sites in early successional stages may be dominated by Fireweed, Horsemint (Agastache urticifolia), Virginia Strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), Stinging Nettle (Urtica dioica), Yarrow (Achillea millefolium), and other forbs, as well as small amounts of mesic grasses such as Mountain Brome. Activity by burrowing mammals is prevalent at some sites and can increase the forb diversity.
In Montana, this group is represented by 7 Associations grouped into 3 Alliances within the National Vegetation Classification. In general, the diversity of vegetation types is likely greater than what is currently described or attributed to Montana and those that are currently attributed to the state require additional documentation and description. Some Associations in G521 probably belong here.
National Vegetation Classification
Download the complete NVC hierarchy for Montana
TT4 B04 Temperate-Boreal Grassland and Shrubland
TT4.b S58 Temperate Grassland and Shrubland
TT4.b1 F116 Temperate Lowland-Montane Grassland and Shrubland
TT4.b1.Ne D022 Western North American Grassland and Shrubland
TT4.b1.Ne.3 M547 Rocky Mountain Grassland and Meadow
TT4.b1.Ne.3.d G271 Rocky Mountain-North Pacific Subalpine-Montane Mesic Grassland and Meadow
A1257 Festuca viridula - Carex hoodii - Lupinus spp. Subalpine Mesic Meadow Alliance
CEGL001633 Festuca viridula - Festuca idahoensis Meadow
A3948 Valeriana sitchensis - Luzula glabrata var. hitchcockii - Xerophyllum tenax Subalpine Mesic Meadow Alliance
CEGL001998 Valeriana sitchensis - Veratrum viride Meadow
CEGL005856 Chamerion angustifolium Rocky Mountain Meadow
CEGL005859 Xerophyllum tenax Meadow
CEGL005864 Carex geyeri Meadow
CEGL005873 Luzula glabrata - Erythronium grandiflorum Meadow
A3950 Agastache urticifolia - Geranium viscosissimum - Pteridium aquilinum Montane Mesic Meadow Alliance
CEGL002544 Pteridium aquilinum Meadow
A4165 Poa secunda - Muhlenbergia richardsonis - Carex douglasii Moist Meadow Alliance
CEGL001657 Poa secunda Moist Meadow
*Disclaimer: Some Alliances and Associations are considered provisional. Some require further documentation to verify their occurrence in the state
and some may be modified or deleted in future revisions after collection of additional data and information.
Dynamic Processes
Many of the communities associated with this group are adapted to soils that are fully saturated in the early growing season. Most appear to be relatively stable types, although in some areas they may be impacted by intensive livestock grazing.
Management
Herbaceous, mesic meadows that have experienced disturbances like intensive grazing are often susceptible or have already experienced invasion by non-native species such as Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis) and Common Timothy (Phleum pratense). Once established, these species will usually persist long-term on the site even after removal of the grazing pressure or other disturbance. Forbs such as Common Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) often replace native forb diversity in areas of continued disturbance. Common camas (Camassia quamash), a culturally important plant dominates some mesic meadows in western and central Montana. These meadows were important food gathering sites for indigenous people.
Restoration Considerations
In areas of moderate disturbance, this group can be restored by eliminating or limiting grazing for two to three seasons. Areas that contain noxious species must be managed for these species prior to and after restoration practices.
Tufted hairgrass has been successfully established by seeding on higher elevation disturbances such as mined lands. Seeds from locally adapted populations have been most successful (Chambers etal 1990). For disturbances on well-developed soils containing minimum amounts of toxic substances, seeds can be selected from a broad range of relatively well-adapted populations. On sites with limiting soil characteristics, selection from metal and/or acid tolerant populations is more successful (Brown and Chambers 1990). Late fall seeding is most successful; seedling establishment is improved if seeds are exposed to cold dormancy over winter (Chambers etal 1987). Tufted hairgrass has high potential for long term revegetation due to its soil stabilization characteristics, persistence, and ability to reproduce on harsh sites at high elevations (Brown and others 1988; Chambers etal 1990).
Species Associated with this Community
- How Lists Were Created and Suggested Uses and Limitations
Animal Species Associations
Please note that while all vertebrate species have been systematically associated with vegetation communities, only a handful of invertebrate species have been associated with vegetation communities and invertebrates lists for each vegetation community should be regarded as incomplete. Animal species associations with natural vegetation communities that they regularly breed or overwinter in or migrate through were made by:
- Using personal observations and reviewing literature that summarize the breeding, overwintering, or migratory habitat requirements of each species (Dobkin 1992, Hart et al. 1998, Hutto and Young 1999, Maxell 2000, Werner et al. 2004, Adams 2003, and Foresman 2012);
- Evaluating structural characteristics and distribution of each vegetation community relative to the species' range and habitat requirements;
- Examining the observation records for each species in the state-wide point observation database associated with each vegetation community;
- Calculating the percentage of observations associated with each vegetation community relative to the percent of Montana covered by each vegetation community to get a measure of "observations versus availability of habitat".
Species that breed in Montana were only evaluated for breeding habitat use. Species that only overwinter in Montana were only evaluated for overwintering habitat use. Species that only migrate through Montana were only evaluated for migratory habitat use. In general, species are listed as associated with a vegetation community if it contains structural characteristics known to be used by the species. However, species are not listed as associated with a vegetation community if we found no support in the literature for the species’ use of structural characteristics of the community even if point observations were associated with it. If you have any questions or comments on animal species associations with vegetation communities, please contact the Montana Natural Heritage Program's Senior Zoologist.
Plant Species Associations
Please note that while diagnostic, dominant, or codominant vascular plant species for a vegetation community have been systematically assigned to those communities and vascular plant Species of Concern were systematically evaluated for their associations with vegetation communities, the majority of Montana’s vascular plant species have not been evaluated for their associations with vegetation communities and no attempt has been made to associate non-vascular plants, fungi, or lichens with vegetation communities. Plant species associations with natural vegetation communities were made in a manner similar to that described above for animals, but with review of Lesica et al. (2022) and specimen collection data from the Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria. If you have any questions or comments on plant species associations with vegetation communities, please contact the Montana Natural Heritage Program's Program Botanist.
Suggested Uses and Limitations
Species associations with vegetation communities should be used to generate potential lists of species that may occupy broader landscapes for the purposes of landscape-level planning. These potential lists of species should not be used in place of documented occurrences of species or predicted habitat suitability models (this information can be requested at: https://mtnhp.mt.gov/requests/), or systematic surveys for species and onsite evaluations of habitat by trained biologists. Users of this information should be aware that the land cover data used to generate species associations is based on satellite imagery from 2016 and was only intended to be used at broader landscape scales. Land cover mapping accuracy is particularly problematic when the vegetation communities occur as small patches or where the land cover types have been altered over the past decade. Thus, particular caution should be used when using the associations in assessments of smaller areas (e.g., evaluations of public land survey sections). Finally, although a species may be associated with a particular vegetation community within its known geographic range, portions of that vegetation community may occur outside of the species' known geographic range.
Literature Cited
- Adams, R.A. 2003. Bats of the Rocky Mountain West; natural history, ecology, and conservation. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 289 p.
- Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria. https://www.pnwherbaria.org/ Last accessed May 30, 2025.
- Dobkin, D. S. 1992. Neotropical migrant land birds in the Northern Rockies and Great Plains. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Publication No. R1-93-34. Missoula, MT.
- Foresman, K.R. 2012. Mammals of Montana. Second edition. Mountain Press Publishing, Missoula, Montana. 429 pp.
- Hart, M.M., W.A. Williams, P.C. Thornton, K.P. McLaughlin, C.M. Tobalske, B.A. Maxell, D.P. Hendricks, C.R. Peterson, and R.L. Redmond. 1998. Montana atlas of terrestrial vertebrates. Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 1302 p.
- Hutto, R.L. and J.S. Young. 1999. Habitat relationships of landbirds in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-GTR-32. 72 p.
- Lesica P., M. Lavin, and P.F. Stickney. 2022. Manual of vascular plants, 2nd Edition. Brit Press. 779 p.
- Maxell, B.A. 2000. Management of Montana's amphibians: a review of factors that may present a risk to population viability and accounts on the identification, distribution, taxonomy, habitat use, natural history, and the status and conservation of individual species. Report to U.S. Forest Service Region 1. Missoula, MT: Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana. 161 p.
- Werner, J.K., B.A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D. Flath. 2004. Amphibians and reptiles of Montana. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 262 p.
- Species of Concern Associated with this Community
Vascular Plants
Mammals
Birds
Amphibians
Invertebrates
- Diagnostic, Dominant, or Codominant Plant Species for this Community
Vascular Plants
- Other Native Species Commonly Associated with this Community
Vascular Plants
Original Concept Authors
M.S. Reid, T. Luna, K.A. Schulz 2016
Montana Version Authors
S. Mincemoyer, T. Luna, L. Vance
Version Date
12/4/2024
References
- Literature Cited AboveLegend:
View Online Publication- Brown RW, Chambers JC, Wheeler RM. 1988. Adaptations of Deschampsia cespitosa (tufted hairgrass) for revegetation of high elevation disturbances: some selection criteria. High altitude revegetation workshop no. 8: Proceedings; 1988 March 3-4; Fort Collins, CO. Information Series No. 59. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado Water Resources Research Institute; p 147-72.
Brown RW, Chambers JC. 1990. Reclamation practices in high-mountain ecosystems. In: Schmidt WC, McDonald KJ, editors. Proceedings--symposium on whitebark pine ecosystems: ecology and management of a high-mountain resource; 1989 March 29-31; Bozeman, MT. General Technical Report. INT-270. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station; p 329-34.- Chambers, Jeanne C., James A. MacMahon, and Ray W. Brown. 1990. "Alpine Seedling Establishment: The Influence of Disturbance Type". Ecology. 71 (4): 1323-1341.
- Additional ReferencesLegend: View Online Publication
Do you know of a citation we're missing?- Mueggler, W. F. and W. L. Stewart. 1980. Grassland and shrubland habitat types of western Montana. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-66, Intermountain Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Ogden, Utah. 154 pp.
- Shiflet, T. N., editor. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Society for Range Management. Denver, CO. 152 pp.
- Web Search Engines for Articles on "Rocky Mountain-North Pacific Subalpine-Montane Mesic Grassland & Meadow"
