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
R006XB011OR Meadow Knoll 14-26 PZ
R006XB012OR Dry Pumice Meadow 14-26 PZ
This site occurs in open, marshy areas usually surrounded by Lodgepole and/or Ponderosa pine forestlands. It may occupy large homogenous areas or will be in complexes of Dry Pumice Meadow, Meadow Swale, Marshy Swale, and Meadow Knoll. These complexes are often difficult to separate; changes in sites is gradual and there may be only slight micro relief between sites.
R006XB014OR Meadow Swale 14-26 PZ
R006XB015OR Marshy Swale 14-26 PZ
Similar sites
R006XB012OR Dry Pumice Meadow 14-26 PZ
The site is similar to Dry Pumice Meadow but has a higher water table (in the root zone of the grasses-within 36 inches) for a longer time during the period of rapid growth. There are similarities in plant community and hydrology to Tufted Hairgrass Prairies that are found infrequently in the Willamette Valley area (MLRA A2) of Oregon.
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree Not specified
Shrub Not specified
Herbaceous Not specified
Physiographic features
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Alluvial fan
Ponding duration Long (7 to 30 days) to very long (more than 30 days) Ponding frequency Frequent Elevation 4000 – 6000 ft Slope 0 – 1 % Ponding depth 3 – 6 in Water table depth 0 – 60 in 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 of which is snowfall. There are frequent thunderstorms in the summer months. There may be ground fogs in the morning during the gowing 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) 30 in BarLineFigure 1. Monthly precipitation range
BarLineFigure 2. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
">Influencing water features
None (usually adjacent to seasonally ponded wetlands and marshes).
Soil features
Soils for this site typically have a thin organic layer over loams, layers of coarse pumice over heavy clay loams. There is an apparent water table present for most of the year. These relatively young soils have been deposited over older, remnant fans and terraces. Variations and intergrades of soil characteristics are common.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Surface texture (1) Mucky silt loam
Family particle size (1) Loamy
Drainage class Poorly drained Permeability class Moderately slow to rapid Soil depth 60 – 150 in Surface fragment cover <=3" 2 – 0 % Surface fragment cover >3" 2 – 0 % Available water capacity
(0-40in)4 – 7 in Calcium carbonate equivalent
(0-40in)5 % Electrical conductivity
(0-40in)0 – 2 mmhos/cm Sodium adsorption ratio
(0-40in)1 – 0 Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-40in)5 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)2 – 0 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)2 – 0 % Ecological dynamics
This site occurs on alluvial fans leading to deper and lower marshy sites. It is intermediate between these wetter sites and adjacent Dry Pumice Meadow and Ponderosa Pine forest sites. The water table is apparently below the effective rooting depth for the grass species present for a portion of the growing season (depth to water table during the period of rapid growth appears to have a significant influence on the plant community). The water table (during the early portion of the growing season) lowers at a slower rate than the Dry Pumice Meadow site. Wet Pumice Meadows are occasionally ponded wetlands within larger complexes of wetland sites. The interpretative plant community for this site is the Historic Climax Plant Community (HCPC).
State and transition model
Custom diagramStandard diagram
Figure 3. Wet Pumice Meadow 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 3 submodel, plant communities
State 4 submodel, plant communities
State 1
HCPC: DECE- MUFI2Community 1.1
HCPC: DECE- MUFI2This site is characterized by the abundance of Tufted Hairgrass and Pull-Up Muhly (the annual Muhly takes advantage of the more rapidly drying soil surface of this relatively wet site). Slender Cinquefoil (POGR9) may also be a significant compnent of this site.
Figure 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 2700 3350 4400 Forb 250 300 350 Tree 45 63 80 Total 2995 3713 4830 Figure 5. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). OR1881 , B6 Wet Pumice Meadow RPC. (DECD-MUFI2) B6 Wet Pumice Meadow RPC.
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 10 30 30 15 5 5 5 0 0 State 2
State B: ALPR-CAATCommunity 2.1
State B: ALPR-CAATThis site is dominated with a heavy and dense stand of Meadow Foxtail and Slenderbeaked Sedge. Past use by grazing animals and an increase in the influence of the water table through irrigation, combined with the introduction of the Meadow Foxtail formed this mildly compacted steady state.
Figure 6. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)
Table 6. Annual production by plant type
Plant type Low
(lb/acre)Representative value
(lb/acre)High
(lb/acre)Grass/Grasslike 6200 7100 8000 Forb 450 625 800 Total 6650 7725 8800 Figure 7. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). OR1882 , B6 Wet Pumice Meadow B. Disturbance/ Compacted (ALPR-CAAT).
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 30 10 5 5 0 0 0 State 3
State C: POPR-CAMI7Community 3.1
State C: POPR-CAMI7This site, dominated with Kentucky Bluegrass and Small-winged Sedge may be the result of introduction of Kentucky Bluegrass, past grazing practices, and additional surface and sub-surface water from irrigation or drainage water from other sites.
Figure 8. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)
Table 7. Annual production by plant type
Plant type Low
(lb/acre)Representative value
(lb/acre)High
(lb/acre)Grass/Grasslike 3000 3500 4000 Forb 325 388 450 Shrub/Vine 75 113 175 Total 3400 4001 4625 Figure 9. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). OR1883 , B6 Wet Pumice Meadow C. Disturbance/Moist (POPR-JUOR) .
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 25 10 5 5 0 0 0 State 4
State D: CANE2-JUBACommunity 4.1
State D: CANE2-JUBAThe wettest state of this site is dominated by Nebraska Sedge and Baltic Rush. This state has been the most disturbed by grazing pressure and a significant increase of surface and sub-surface water.
Figure 10. 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 2300 2900 3500 Forb 275 388 500 Total 2575 3288 4000 Figure 11. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). OR1884 , B6 Wet Pumice Meadow D. Disturbance/ Wet (CANE2-JUBA).
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 10 20 30 25 10 5 0 0 0 Additional community tables
Table 9. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Grass/Grasslike1 1949–2508 Sandberg bluegrass POSE Poa secunda 189–308 – 2 409–748 pullup muhly MUFI2 Muhlenbergia filiformis 220–440 – meadow barley HOBR2 Hordeum brachyantherum 189–308 – 3 818–1496 Nebraska sedge CANE2 Carex nebrascensis 220–440 – analogue sedge CASI2 Carex simulata 220–440 – slenderbeak sedge CAAT3 Carex athrostachya 189–308 – smallwing sedge CAMI7 Carex microptera 189–308 – 4 409–616 Sierra rush JUNE Juncus nevadensis 189–308 – Forb5 132–176 Chamisso arnica ARCHI4 Arnica chamissonis ssp. foliosa var. incana 132–176 – 6 8–132 small camas CAQU2 Camassia quamash 8–132 – fleabane ERIGE2 Erigeron 8–132 – Virginia strawberry FRVI Fragaria virginiana 8–132 – American bistort POBI6 Polygonum bistortoides 8–132 – slender cinquefoil POGR9 Potentilla gracilis 8–132 – buttercup RANUN Ranunculus 8–132 – hooded lady's tresses SPRO Spiranthes romanzoffiana 8–132 – western mountain aster SYSPS Symphyotrichum spathulatum var. spathulatum 8–132 – Tree7 45–80 greenleaf willow SALUC Salix lucida ssp. caudata 44–88 – Table 10. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Grass/Grasslike1 124–450 Sandberg bluegrass POSE Poa secunda 124–180 – 2 4984–6390 meadow foxtail ALPR3 Alopecurus pratensis 4500–5400 – timothy PHPR3 Phleum pratense 180–450 – Kentucky bluegrass POPR Poa pratensis 180–360 – meadow barley HOBR2 Hordeum brachyantherum 124–180 – 3 1024–1530 slenderbeak sedge CAAT3 Carex athrostachya 900–1350 – Nebraska sedge CANE2 Carex nebrascensis 124–180 – 4 124–180 Forb5 270–450 slender cinquefoil POGRB Potentilla gracilis var. brunnescens 270–450 – 6 9–450 Chamisso arnica ARCHI4 Arnica chamissonis ssp. foliosa var. incana 9–180 – fleabane ERIGE2 Erigeron 9–180 – Virginia strawberry FRVI Fragaria virginiana 9–180 – buttercup RANUN Ranunculus 9–180 – western mountain aster SYSPS Symphyotrichum spathulatum var. spathulatum 9–180 – Table 11. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Grass/Grasslike1 690–1150 smallwing sedge CAMI7 Carex microptera 460–690 – clustered field sedge CAPR5 Carex praegracilis 230–460 – 2 60–138 Kentucky bluegrass POPR Poa pratensis 1150–2300 – pullup muhly MUFI2 Muhlenbergia filiformis 46–230 – Cusick's bluegrass POCU3 Poa cusickii 60–92 – meadow barley HOBR2 Hordeum brachyantherum 60–92 – Sandberg bluegrass POSE Poa secunda 60–92 – 3 46–230 onespike danthonia DAUN Danthonia unispicata 46–230 – 4 60–92 Forb5 230–368 slender cinquefoil POGRB Potentilla gracilis var. brunnescens 138–230 – pussytoes ANTEN Antennaria 92–138 – 6 7–184 common yarrow ACMI2 Achillea millefolium 7–92 – agoseris AGOSE Agoseris 7–92 – aster ASTER Aster 7–92 – fleabane ERIGE2 Erigeron 7–92 – falsegold groundsel PAPSP2 Packera pseudaurea var. pseudaurea 7–92 – western dock RUAQ Rumex aquaticus 7–92 – Shrub/Vine7 75–150 silver sagebrush ARCA13 Artemisia cana 92–184 – Table 12. Community 4.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Grass/Grasslike1 600–1000 2 276–480 American sloughgrass BESY Beckmannia syzigachne 69–120 – meadow barley HOBR2 Hordeum brachyantherum 69–120 – prairie Junegrass KOMA Koeleria macrantha 69–120 – mat muhly MURI Muhlenbergia richardsonis 69–120 – 3 1138–2040 Nebraska sedge CANE2 Carex nebrascensis 1000–1800 – analogue sedge CASI2 Carex simulata 69–120 – straightleaf rush JUOR Juncus orthophyllus 69–120 – 4 669–1520 Sierra rush JUNE Juncus nevadensis 69–120 – Forb5 200–480 slender cinquefoil POGR9 Potentilla gracilis 80–200 – plantainleaf buttercup RAALA2 Ranunculus alismifolius var. alismifolius 80–160 – Chamisso arnica ARCHI4 Arnica chamissonis ssp. foliosa var. incana 40–120 – 6 6–120 silverweed cinquefoil ARAN7 Argentina anserina 6–80 – aster ASTER Aster 6–80 – falsegold groundsel PAPSP2 Packera pseudaurea var. pseudaurea 6–80 – Interpretations
Animal community
Several grazing animals seasonally use the site. Mule deer, elk, and antelope use the site for grazing. Elk are perhaps the most frequent animals on the site. Mule deer and elk use the site in the late winter and early spring. The proximity of pine forest (for cover and shelter) makes these sites desirable for grazing by elk and mule deer. The position of the site makes it attractive to grazing animals when the adjacent sites are wet; or adjacent forage is coarse and/or unpalatable. It is used as a resting and ruminating area when drier sites are not present. The site is marginal for nesting birds but may be seasonally used by waterfowl which nest in the adjacent meadow and marsh sites. The site is an important source of invertebrates for foraging birds. The site provides important habitat for grazing animals, shorebirds, raptors, and waterfowl. Lesser Sandhill Cranes may use the site in their search for food. The cranes scratch or till the ground to find and consume invertebrates. Larger grazing animals use the site for resting, ruminating, and grazing.
Hydrological functions
The site has a moderate potential in low seral condition to produce 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 Wet Pumice Meadow Site. In good condition, the site provides stability to adjacent streambanks and floodplains; vegetation is usually resistant to flows.
Recreational uses
There is moderate recreational use on this site. Big game hunting, bird watching (especially for Lesser Sandhill Cranes), and trout fishing in adjacent streams are popular activities.
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 is highly productive and produces desirable and preferred forages for livestock throughout the growing season. Forages stay green (and presumable high in protein and digestible organic matter) well into the fall each year. The site can be heavily used because the slightly higher elevation and convex shape of this site makes it drier than adjacent marshy sites and therefore more attractive for resting, ruminating, and grazing.
The Tufted Hairgrass sites have evolved under frequent fire events. Fire may even be necessary for maintaining the dense stand of this grass (and its associated desirable forage and habitat qualities). If natural fire has been excluded from this site in the recent past, a program of rapid, moderately cool prescribed burns may be desirable to reduce litter and invigorate the grasses.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
