Natural Resources
Conservation Service
-
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.
Associated sites
R006XB012OR Dry Pumice Meadow 14-26 PZ
The site is usually associated with wetter sites in complexes. Adjacent sites may be Dry Pumice Meadow, Wet Pumice Meadow, and Meadow Swale. There may be associations with the Meadow Fan site as well.
R006XB013OR Wet Pumice Meadow 14-26 PZ
R006XB014OR Meadow Swale 14-26 PZ
Similar sites
R006XB010OR Meadow Fan 14-26 PZ
The site is similar to the Meadow Fan site (which has an indurated layer that restricts rooting depth) in position and age of the soils.
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree Not specified
Shrub Not specified
Herbaceous Not specified
Physiographic features
This site is characterized by relatively short, hot summers and cold, snowy winter. The site receives approximately 20 inches of precipitation per year, the bulk of which is snowfall. There are frequent thunderstorms in the summer months. There may be ground fogs in the mornings during the growing season which affect stomatal gas exchange and photosynthetic activity.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Alluvial fan
(2) Terrace
Flooding duration Brief (2 to 7 days) Flooding frequency Rare Ponding duration Brief (2 to 7 days) Ponding frequency Rare Elevation 1219 – 1829 m Slope 0 – 3 % Ponding depth 3 – 5 cm Water table depth 122 – 152 cm Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
This site is characterized by relatively short, hot summers and cold, snowy winters. The site receives approximately 20 inches of precipitation per year, the bulk o fwhich is snowfall. There are frequent thunderstorms in the summer months. There may be ground fogs in the mornings during the growing season which affect stomatal gas exchange and photosynthetic activity.
Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (average) 20 days Freeze-free period (average) 50 days Precipitation total (average) 640 mm BarLineFigure 1. Monthly precipitation range
BarLineFigure 2. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
">Influencing water features
Soil features
Soils on this site are Mollisols with predominatly loam over clay loam textures. The soil has a well-developed argilic horizon with small amounts of glassy pumice. The soil is relatively old; Mazama pumice is eroded off the surface of the soil; pumice in the soil profile is pre-Mazama. The soils receive additional water from adjacent wetter sites. An apparent water table comes to within 45 inches of the surface early in the season.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Surface texture (1) Loam
(2) Sandy loam
Family particle size (1) Loamy
Drainage class Moderately well drained Permeability class Moderately slow Soil depth 91 – 127 cm Surface fragment cover <=3" 2 – 0 % Surface fragment cover >3" 2 – 0 % Available water capacity
(0-101.6cm)13.97 – 16.51 cm Calcium carbonate equivalent
(0-101.6cm)2 % Electrical conductivity
(0-101.6cm)0 – 2 mmhos/cm Sodium adsorption ratio
(0-101.6cm)1 Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-101.6cm)2 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)2 – 0 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)2 – 0 % Ecological dynamics
The sites are on remnant terraces and alluvial fans and are adjacent to or are islands within wetland sites. Elevations may differ by only 2 or 3 feet from adjacent wet sites. The sites are particularly dry in the summer, however, there is an apparent seasonal water table that has a marked influence on plant growth early in the growing season. Both states have relatively thick clay layers in the subsoil and small amounts of glassy pumice. The interpretative plant community for this site is the Historic Climax Plant Community (HCPC).
State and transition model
Custom diagramStandard diagram
Figure 3. Meadow Knoll State and Transition Model
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 2 submodel, plant communities
State 1
HCPC, ARCA13/FEID-MUSQ2Community 1.1
HCPC, ARCA13/FEID-MUSQ2HCPC: Dominated by Silver Sagebrush, Idaho Fescue, and Mat Muhly.
Figure 4. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)
Table 5. Annual production by plant type
Plant type Low
(kg/hectare)Representative value
(kg/hectare)High
(kg/hectare)Grass/Grasslike 673 1009 1345 Total 673 1009 1345 Figure 5. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). OR1861 , B6 Meadow Knoll HCPC. State A: HCPC-ARCA13/FEID-MUSQ2 .
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 5 15 35 30 10 0 5 0 0 0 State 2
State B: ARCA13/POSE3-ELEL5Community 2.1
State B: ARCA13/POSE3-ELEL5Disturbance/Eroded state (ARCA13/POSE3-ELEL5): Dominated by Silver Sagebrush, Nevada Bluegrass, and Bottlebrush Squirreltail. This state is a lower seral state that has had additional soil erosion. Plants may be pedastalled and there is an increase in the percentage of bare ground.
Figure 6. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)
Table 6. Annual production by plant type
Plant type Low
(kg/hectare)Representative value
(kg/hectare)High
(kg/hectare)Grass/Grasslike 560 785 1009 Total 560 785 1009 Figure 7. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). OR1862 , B6 Meadow Knoll B. State B: Disturbance/Eroded (ARCA13/POSE3-ELEL5).
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 5 15 30 35 10 0 5 0 0 0 Additional community tables
Table 7. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Grass/Grasslike1 404–656 Idaho fescue FEID Festuca idahoensis 202–303 – Sandberg bluegrass POSE Poa secunda 151–252 – squirreltail ELEL5 Elymus elymoides 50–101 – 2 161–252 mat muhly MURI Muhlenbergia richardsonis 67–101 – Kentucky bluegrass POPR Poa pratensis 31–50 – prairie Junegrass KOMA Koeleria macrantha 31–50 – 3 94–151 threadleaf sedge CAFI Carex filifolia 31–50 – smallwing sedge CAMI7 Carex microptera 31–50 – Nebraska sedge CANE2 Carex nebrascensis 31–50 – 4 31–50 Forb4 31–50 5 34–67 pussytoes ANTEN Antennaria 34–67 – 6 6–50 common yarrow ACMI2 Achillea millefolium 1–17 – buckwheat ERIOG Eriogonum 1–17 – old man's whiskers GETR Geum triflorum 1–17 – Pacific lupine LULE2 Lupinus lepidus 1–17 – cinquefoil POTEN Potentilla 1–17 – Shrub/Vine5 56–168 silver sagebrush ARCA13 Artemisia cana 50–151 – yellow rabbitbrush CHVI8 Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus 10–20 – 7 56–168 silver sagebrush ARCA13 Artemisia cana 50–151 – yellow rabbitbrush CHVI8 Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus 10–20 – Table 8. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Grass/Grasslike1 432–628 Sandberg bluegrass POSE Poa secunda 235–314 – squirreltail ELEL5 Elymus elymoides 157–235 – Kentucky bluegrass POPR Poa pratensis 39–78 – 2 20–78 threadleaf sedge CAFI Carex filifolia 20–39 – smallwing sedge CAMI7 Carex microptera 20–39 – Forb3 39–78 pussytoes ANTEN Antennaria 22–45 – 4 1–39 buckwheat ERIOG Eriogonum 1–17 – old man's whiskers GETR Geum triflorum 1–17 – false broomweed HAPLO Haploesthes 1–17 – Pacific lupine LULE2 Lupinus lepidus 1–17 – cinquefoil POTEN Potentilla 1–17 – Shrub/Vine5 56–146 silver sagebrush ARCA13 Artemisia cana 39–118 – yellow rabbitbrush CHVI8 Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus 17–39 – Interpretations
Animal community
The site is seasonally utilized by several grazing animals. Mule deer, elk, and antelope use this site for both grazing and resting. Antelope are perhaps the most frequent animals on the site. Mule deer and elk use the site in the late winter and early spring. The position of the site makes it attractive to grazing animals when the adjacent sites are wet; it is often used as a resting and ruminating area. The site is marginal for nesting birds but may be seasonally used by waterfowl which nest in the adjacent meadow and marsh sites.
Hydrological functions
The site has a high potential in low seral condition to produce significant run-off to receiving waters. In some years, the site may be flooded with water backed up in the adjacent wetter sites. There are usually fingers of wetter and lower sites threading throughout the site providing extra ground water that may move laterally through the Meadow Knoll site.
Recreational uses
There is little recreational use on this site other than big game hunting and bird watching.
Wood products
None
Other products
None
Other information
The site is frequently used for grazing by domestic livestock and wildlife (mule deer, elk, and antelope). There are several species that are preferred that are available for most of the growing season. The site can be heavily used because the slightly higher elevation of this site makes it drier than adjacent meadow sites and therefore more attractive for resting, ruminating, and grazing.
Due to the relatively dry nature of this site, there is a possibility that American Indians used this site for temporary, seasonal hunting camps. Survey the area carefully before recommending ground disturbing practices. The aid of an archaeologist may be needed.Supporting information
Contributors
Jeffrey P. Repp
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 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
