Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site R003XY012OR
Ashy Alpine Meadow
50-70 PZ
Last updated: 1/29/2025
Accessed: 05/08/2026
-
Search
Major Land Resource Area or ecological site by name and/or ID.
PreviousSectionsNextGeneral information
Provisional. A provisional ecological site description has undergone quality control and quality assurance review. It contains a working state and transition model and enough information to identify the ecological site.
Click to explore map
Figure 1. Mapped extent
Areas shown in blue indicate the maximum mapped extent of this ecological site. Other ecological sites likely occur within the highlighted areas. It is also possible for this ecological site to occur outside of highlighted areas if detailed soil survey has not been completed or recently updated.
Associated sites
R003XY011OR Ashy Alpine Desert 50-70 PZ
Occurs on inclusions and complexes within this site.
R003XY013OR Ashy Alpine Swale 50-70 PZ
Occurs on inclusions and complexes within this site.
Similar sites
R003XY013OR Ashy Alpine Swale 50-70 PZ
R003XY011OR Ashy Alpine Desert 50-70 PZ
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree Not specified
Shrub Not specified
Herbaceous Not specified
Physiographic features
The site occurs around the rim (but especially on the south, southwest, and southeast) and extends to areas around Union Peak and Crater Peak to the south. This site is associated with the Ashy Alpine Desert and Swale sites and is arrayed in a park-like setting surrounded by and interspersed with stringers of Mountain hemlock, Shasta Red Fir, and/or Lodgepole Pine.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Mountain slope
(2) Ash flow
(3) Ridge
Flooding frequency None Ponding frequency None Elevation 5500 – 7500 ft Slope 0 – 30 % Ponding depth 0 in Water table depth 60 in Aspect S, SW, W Climatic features
Precipitation comes mostly as snow. Winters are snowy and very cold; summers are cool and dry. Summer thunderstorms sometimes occur, providing small amounts of growing season precipitation.
The Ashy Alpine Meadow has a severe climatic regime characterized by wide day and nighttime temperatures.Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (average) 50 days Freeze-free period (average) 90 days Precipitation total (average) 60 in BarLineFigure 2. Monthly precipitation range
BarLineFigure 3. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
">Influencing water features
Accumulates snowment early in the year. Some poorly defined channels are modified by background wind ersoion later in the season. The snowpack can linger in some concave protected areas, delaying the advent of the growing season and adding soil water later in the season.
Soil features
These sites occur in alpine and sub-alpine meadows. The soils are very deep, excessively drained, very gravelly ashy loamy coarse sand over ashy sand and ashy coarse sand derived from ash, andesite, and pumice fragments.
Increases in stability of both surface and subsurface samples reflect increased soil erosion resistance and resilience. Surface stability is correlated with current erosion resistance, while subsurface stability is correlated with resistance following soil disturbance. Sites with average values of 5.5 or above generally are very resistant to erosion, particularly if there is little bare ground and there are few large gaps. Maximum possible soil stability values may be less than 6 for very coarse sandy soils. High values usually reflect good hydrologic function. This is because stable soils are less likely to disperse and clog soil pores during rainstorms. High stability values also are strongly correlated with soil biotic integrity. Soil organisms make the “glue” that holds soil particles together. In most ecosystems, soil stability values decline first in areas without cover (Veg = NC). In more highly degraded systems, Veg = Canopy values also decline.
The following soil aggregate stability results are typical of the reference plant community. Vegetation is critical for protecting soils on this ecological site. Grass/grasslikes and shrubs offer the most protection. Unprotected soils are prone to wind and water erosion.
Type location Average Stability:
All samples taken = 3.4
Protected samples = 4.2
Unprotected samples = 2.4
Type location Average Stability by Vegetation Class:
No cover = 2.6
Grass/Grasslikes = 4.3
Forbs = 3.0
Shtubs = 4.5
Trees = N/A
Table 4. Representative soil features
Surface texture (1) Gravelly sandy loam
(2) Ashy loamy sand
Family particle size (1) Sandy
Drainage class Excessively drained Permeability class Moderately rapid to rapid Soil depth 60 in Surface fragment cover <=3" 3 – 10 % Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(0-40in)5.8 – 6.5 in Calcium carbonate equivalent
(0-40in)Not specified Electrical conductivity
(0-40in)10 – 20 mmhos/cm Sodium adsorption ratio
(0-40in)Not specified Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 1 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)Not specified Ecological dynamics
The Ashy Alpine Meadow ecological site is significant in its range of occurance, size of openings in the forest ecosystem, species diversity, and relative productive capability. Reference areas for this site indicate fluctuation in relative amounts of graminoids and shrubs. Bloomer's Goldenweed dominates some sites and is sparse in others. Grazing pressure from native ungulates and other species, depth and duration of snowpack, encroachment pressure from adjacent forest sites, and growing season temperature and moisture conditions have probable effects on the differences in plant community comnposition.
These park-like areas are surrounded by Mountain Hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) and Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis) forest sites at higher altitudes (> 6500 feet) and Mountain Hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), Shasta Red Fir (Abies x shastensis), and Western White Pine (Pinus monticola) at lower elevations (5500 - 6500 feet). These sites are strongly correlated to soil types and are thought to be relatively permanent although plant community structure may have been different historically (Lynch, 1998).
Historic fire frequencies probably mirrored those of the adjacent forest sites. A fire could be sustained on these sites only in a few high growth years. Adjacent forest sites would be moved back, increasing the size of the openings and encouraging more herbaceous growth.
Boundaries between forest and rangeland are generally abrupt and rarely are there rapid, significant intrusions of tree species into the sites (encroachment occurs over decades). There has historically been a large amount of time between catastrophic fires at these elevations (400-800 years for Mountain Hemlock and 70-130 years for Red Fir). Local Indian tribes, who used the area frequently in the summers, may have set fires to freshen vegetation to attract more big game to the area.State and transition model
Custom diagramStandard diagram
More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
Click on state and transition labels to scroll to the respective textEcosystem states
State 1 submodel, plant communities
State 1
ReferenceCommunity 1.1
HerbaceousThe Ashy Alpine Meadow site is the most widespread of the alpine sites. This site is a relatively productive grassy meadow site dominated by Western Needlegrass (Achnatherum occidentale ssp. californicum) Hall's Sedge (Carex halliana), Bottlebrush Squirreltail (Elymus elymoides ssp. elymoides), and the shrubby Bloomer's Goldenweed (Ericameria bloomeri) which has brilliant yellow flowers in July and August.
Fire is an important modifier of this plant community but frequencies are long (400-800 years) where the sites are surrounded by Mountain Hemlock/Whitebark Pine forest communities. Mature Mountain Hemlock stands that succumb to fire are replaced by Lodgepole Pines for up to 200 years. Where mature Mountain Hemlock has been replaced, encroachment of woody species into the site is a possibility (shrubs and trees).
This site provides important summer forage for large ungulates and rodents (and hence raptors).
Increases in the proportion of canopy gaps are related to increased risk of wind erosion and invasive “weed” species establishment. For example, wind velocities in most areas of the western United States are capable of moving disturbed soil in 20-in gaps in grasslands. Disturbed soil in gaps 3-6 ft in
diameter is nearly as susceptible to erosion as that with no vegetation. Minimum gap size required to cause wind erosion increases with vegetation height. Increases in the proportion of the line covered by large basal gaps reflect increased susceptibility to water erosion and runoff. Plant bases slow water movement down slopes. As basal gaps increase, there are fewer obstacles to water flow, so runoff and erosion increase. Increases in large basal gaps have a greater effect where rock and litter cover are low, because they are the only obstacles to water flow and erosion.
The following canopy and basal gaps are typical of the reference plant community. Moderate plant cover is reflected in the large amount of smaller canopy gaps. Plant density is low, however; basal gaps are mostly larger than 6 feet.
Type Location Canopy Gaps (%):
1.0-2.0 ft. = 26.4
2.1-3.0 ft. = 10.1
3.1-6.0 ft. = 5.8
> 6.0 ft. = 4.2
Type Location Basal Gaps (%):
1.0-2.0 ft. = 2.2
2.1-3.0 ft. = 5.4
3.1-6.0 ft. = 8.9
> 6.0 ft. = 63.9Figure 4. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)
Table 5. Annual production by plant type
Plant type Low
(lb/acre)Representative value
(lb/acre)High
(lb/acre)Grass/Grasslike 200 400 600 Forb 100 200 300 Shrub/Vine 50 100 150 Total 350 700 1050 Table 6. Ground cover
Tree foliar cover 0-0% Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover 10-10% Grass/grasslike foliar cover 10-10% Forb foliar cover 10-20% Non-vascular plants 0% Biological crusts 0% Litter 20-40% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 10-20% Surface fragments >3" 0-10% Bedrock 0% Water 0% Bare ground 50-60% Table 7. Canopy structure (% cover)
Height Above Ground (ft) Tree Shrub/Vine Grass/
GrasslikeForb <0.5 – 1-2% 1-2% 1-6% >0.5 <= 1 – 1-2% 1-2% 1-6% >1 <= 2 – 0-1% 1-2% – >2 <= 4.5 – – 0-1% – >4.5 <= 13 – – – – >13 <= 40 – – – – >40 <= 80 – – – – >80 <= 120 – – – – >120 – – – – Figure 5. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). OR1253 , A3 Ashy Alpine Meadow. 012 for both reference plant communities.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J F M A M J J A S O N D 0 0 0 0 5 25 40 25 5 0 0 0 Community 1.2
Herbaceous and ShrubbyThis plant community occurs in either of three situations: 1) smaller openings in the forest sites that provide increased sheltering and modify the impact of snow pack melt-off in the early summer, and 2) lower elevations ranging from 5500 to 6500 feet surrounded by Shasta Red Fir/Western White Pine forests, and 3) sites adjacent to Lodgepole Pine forest (fire-induced stand replacement of Mountain Hemlock). Fire frequencies reflect the adjacent forest sites (70-130 years for Shasta Red Fir and < 20 years for Lodgepole Pine).
The site is characterized by increased production of California Needlegrass, Hall's Sedge (most dominant) and Long-stolon sedge. There is a decrease in the amount of Brewer's Rabbitbrush and the addition of Wax Currant. Restoring natural fire frequencies will remove woody competition, increase the size of the openings, and return the plant community to a more herbaceous aspect.
With removal of natural fire from the ecosystem, this site is prone to conversion to forest (Mountain Hemlock, Shasta Red Fir, and Western White Pine) with a consequent loss of the grass/grasslike and shrub functional groups.
Canopy and basal gaps are similar to reference plant community #1.Figure 6. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)
Table 8. Annual production by plant type
Plant type Low
(lb/acre)Representative value
(lb/acre)High
(lb/acre)Grass/Grasslike 750 1000 1250 Forb 150 200 250 Shrub/Vine 100 150 200 Total 1000 1350 1700 Table 9. Ground cover
Tree foliar cover 0-0% Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover 10-20% Grass/grasslike foliar cover 10-20% Forb foliar cover 10-10% Non-vascular plants 0% Biological crusts 0-0% Litter 20-40% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 10-20% Surface fragments >3" 0-10% Bedrock 0-0% Water 0% Bare ground 50-60% Table 10. Canopy structure (% cover)
Height Above Ground (ft) Tree Shrub/Vine Grass/
GrasslikeForb <0.5 – 1-3% 3-6% 3-6% >0.5 <= 1 – 2-4% 3-5% 5-10% >1 <= 2 – 1-3% 1-2% 3-6% >2 <= 4.5 – 1-2% 1-2% – >4.5 <= 13 – – – – >13 <= 40 – – – – >40 <= 80 – – – – >80 <= 120 – – – – >120 – – – – Pathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2Lack of fire, low spring moisture, encroachment of forest
Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1Fire , low snow pack, decreased sheltering of adjacent forest
Additional community tables
Table 11. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Grass/Grasslike1 Dominant deep-rooted Perennial Grasses and Sedges 200–600 California needlegrass ACOCC Achnatherum occidentale ssp. californicum 100–300 – Hall's sedge CAHA2 Carex halliana 50–200 – squirreltail ELELE Elymus elymoides ssp. elymoides 50–150 – Forb2 Perennial Forbs 100–300 Pacific lupine LULE2 Lupinus lepidus 25–75 – spreading phlox PHDI3 Phlox diffusa 25–75 – Davis' knotweed PODA Polygonum davisiae 25–75 – sagebrush violet VIVA Viola vallicola 25–75 – Mt. Hood pussypaws CIUM Cistanthe umbellata 25–75 – marumleaf buckwheat ERMA4 Eriogonum marifolium 25–75 – Shasta buckwheat ERPY2 Eriogonum pyrolifolium 5–15 – cobwebby Indian paintbrush CAAR11 Castilleja arachnoidea 5–15 – Shrub/Vine3 Shrubs 50–150 rabbitbush ERBL2 Ericameria bloomeri 50–150 – Table 12. Community 1.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Animal community
Wildlife extensively use range and forest areas for food and cover. The survey area has excellent forage resources for summer and fall grazing. The alpine meadows surrounding the rim and Union peak are dominated by Western Needlegrass (Achnatherum occidentale ssp. californicum) with Hall's Sedge (Carex halliana) and Brewer's Sedge (Carex Breweri) subdominant. In some places Bottlebrush Squirreltail (Elymus elymoides ssp. elymoides) is present also. These species all have nutritive value for grazing ungulates from green-up in June and July through September and early October. Deep snow cover and very cold temperatures in the winter and spring make grazing these sites impractical. These alpine meadows and swells have excellent interspersion of forested sites providing hiding and thermal cover as well as transportation corridors for wildlife.
Recreational uses
Significant aesthetic beauty. Park-like setting is desirable for camping, hiking, and other outdoor pursuits.
Wood products
None
Supporting information
Type locality
Location 1: Klamath County, OR Township/Range/Section T31S R6E S13 UTM zone N UTM northing 576287 UTM easting 4748598 General legal description Center of section 13 between rim road and Greyback road, about 1/2 mile below rim road. Headwaters of Watson creek. Other references
Aerts, R., 1999. Plant-Mediated Controls on Nutrient Cycling in Temperate Fens and Bogs. Ecology 80: from findarticles.com.
Dorr, J. ET. Al, 2000. Ecological Unit Inventory of the Winema National Forest Area, Portion of Klamath County, Oregon, Interim Report #2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Winema National Forest, Klamath Falls, OR. 269p.
Franklin, J.F. and Dyrness, C.T., 1973. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press. 452p.
Horn, E. L., 2003. Monitoring Parkscapes Over Time - Plant Succession on the Pumice Desert, Crater Lake National Park, Oregon. Park Science 22
Johnson, D. ET. Al, 1995. Plants of the Western Boreal Forest and Aspen Parkland. Lone Pine Publishing and the Canadian Forest Service. 392p.
Klepadlo, S. and W. Campbell, eds., 1998. A Checklist of Vascular Plants of Crater Lake National Park. Crater Lake Natural History Association
Lynch, E.A., 1998. Origin of a Park-Forest Vegetation Mosaic in the Wind River Range, Wyoming. Ecology 79: from findarticles.com.
Raab, T.K., 1999. Soil Amino Acid Utilization Among Species of the Cyperaceae: Plant and Soil Processes. Ecology 80: from findarticles.com.
Radforth, N.W. and Brawner, C.O., 1977. Muskeg and the Northern Environment in Canada. University of Toronto Press. 399p.
Zika, P.F., 2003. A Crater Lake National Park Vascular Plant Checklist. Crater Lake Natural History Association, Crater Lake, OR. 92 p.
Contributors
J P Repp
Jeffrey P. ReppApproval
Kirt Walstad, 1/29/2025
Rangeland health reference sheet
Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health is a qualitative assessment protocol used to determine ecosystem condition based on benchmark characteristics described in the Reference Sheet. A suite of 17 (or more) indicators are typically considered in an assessment. The ecological site(s) representative of an assessment location must be known prior to applying the protocol and must be verified based on soils and climate. Current plant community cannot be used to identify the ecological site.
Author(s)/participant(s) Contact for lead author Date 01/29/2025 Approved by Approval date Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on Annual Production Indicators
-
Number and extent of rills:
-
Presence of water flow patterns:
-
Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes:
-
Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, lichen, moss, plant canopy are not bare ground):
-
Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies:
-
Extent of wind scoured, blowouts and/or depositional areas:
-
Amount of litter movement (describe size and distance expected to travel):
-
Soil surface (top few mm) resistance to erosion (stability values are averages - most sites will show a range of values):
-
Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type of structure and A-horizon color and thickness):
-
Effect of community phase composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration and runoff:
-
Presence and thickness of compaction layer (usually none; describe soil profile features which may be mistaken for compaction on this site):
-
Functional/Structural Groups (list in order of descending dominance by above-ground annual-production or live foliar cover using symbols: >>, >, = to indicate much greater than, greater than, and equal to):
Dominant:
Sub-dominant:
Other:
Additional:
-
Amount of plant mortality and decadence (include which functional groups are expected to show mortality or decadence):
-
Average percent litter cover (%) and depth ( in):
-
Expected annual annual-production (this is TOTAL above-ground annual-production, not just forage annual-production):
-
Potential invasive (including noxious) species (native and non-native). List species which BOTH characterize degraded states and have the potential to become a dominant or co-dominant species on the ecological site if their future establishment and growth is not actively controlled by management interventions. Species that become dominant for only one to several years (e.g., short-term response to drought or wildfire) are not invasive plants. Note that unlike other indicators, we are describing what is NOT expected in the reference state for the ecological site:
-
Perennial plant reproductive capability:
Print Options
Sections
Font
AAAAOther
PrintThe Ecosystem Dynamics Interpretive Tool is an information system framework developed by the USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, and New Mexico State University.
Accessibility statement
