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
R006XB013OR Wet Pumice Meadow 14-26 PZ
This site is associated with Wet Pumice Meadow, Dry Pumice Meadow, Marshy Swale, and Wet Marsh sites in the B6 South MLRA. They are frequently in complexes of all the sites and usually do not occupy large homogenous areas. They may be isolated wet areas within drier sites (Dry and Wet Pumice Meadow) or can be associated with standing water sites (Marshy Swale and Wet Marsh). The site also occurs adjacent to perennial streams on river terraces.
R006XB015OR Marshy Swale 14-26 PZ
R006XB016OR Wet Marsh 14-26 PZ
Similar sites
R006XB015OR Marshy Swale 14-26 PZ
R006XB013OR Wet Pumice Meadow 14-26 PZ
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree Not specified
Shrub Not specified
Herbaceous Not specified
Physiographic features
Basin
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Alluvial fan
(2) Terrace
Flooding frequency None Ponding duration Very long (more than 30 days) Ponding frequency Frequent Elevation 4000 – 6000 ft Slope 0 – 1 % Ponding depth 4 – 12 in Water table depth 0 – 48 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 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) 30 in BarLineFigure 1. Monthly precipitation range
BarLineFigure 2. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
">Influencing water features
Soil features
Soils for this site typically have a thin organic layer over loams, layer of coarse pumice over heavy clay loams. There is an apparent water table present for most of the year. The soils are ponded for a significant time in the spring and early summer. 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 Slow Soil depth 40 – 60 in Surface fragment cover <=3" 2 – 0 % Surface fragment cover >3" 2 – 0 % Available water capacity
(0-40in)4 – 6.5 in Calcium carbonate equivalent
(0-40in)2 % Electrical conductivity
(0-40in)0 – 2 mmhos/cm Sodium adsorption ratio
(0-40in)1 – 0 Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-40in)2 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)2 – 0 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)2 – 0 % Ecological dynamics
The site is a wet meadow site usually found in swales, which may be old channels that have been filled with pumice and sediments. They may also be found in claypan areas where they appear as small ponds filled with vegetation. The apparent water talbe comes to the sureface for much of the year (the site is ponded for part of the year), however, in later portions of the growing season the upper portion of the soil profile is dry. The interpretative plant community for this site is the Historic Climax Plant Community (HCPC).
State and transition model
Custom diagramStandard diagram
Figure 3. Meadow Swale State & 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: CASI2-CANE2Community 1.1
HCPC: CASI2-CANE2This state is dominated by Short-beaked Sedge and Nebraska Sedge. These fine leafed sedges form a dense canopy.
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 3300 3750 4200 Forb 700 800 900 Total 4000 4550 5100 Figure 5. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). OR1891 , B6 Meadow Swale RPC. (CASI2-CANE2) B6 Meadow Swale 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 20 30 20 10 5 5 0 0 State 2
State B: CANE2-JUNECommunity 2.1
State B: CANE2-JUNEThe Nebraska Sedge and Sierra Rush state occurs when the reference community is heavily grazed and the influence of the water table is lessened by drainage.
State 3
State C: ELPA3-JUBA/ARCH14Community 3.1
State C: ELPA3-JUBA/ARCH14This state is usually wet quite late into the growing season. The state is dominated by Creeping Spike Rush, Baltic Rush, and Meadow Arnica. The state develops from grazing pressure and additional water from irrigation or drainage from adjacent sites.
State 4
State D: JUBA-DECA18Community 4.1
State D: JUBA-DECA18This Baltic Rush and Tufted Hairgrass state is very wet. It is dominated by the Baltic Rush with a scattering of Tufted Hairgrass. This state may be below a threshold. It is not known if this state can recover to any other state.
Additional community tables
Table 6. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Grass/Grasslike1 3349–4650 analogue sedge CASI2 Carex simulata 2250–2750 – Nebraska sedge CANE2 Carex nebrascensis 750–1250 – clustered field sedge CAPR5 Carex praegracilis 250–500 – slenderbeak sedge CAAT3 Carex athrostachya 99–150 – 2 99–150 3 198–300 Sierra rush JUNE Juncus nevadensis 99–150 – Forb4 500–750 Chamisso arnica ARCHI4 Arnica chamissonis ssp. foliosa var. incana 500–750 – 5 8–50 agoseris AGOSE Agoseris 8–50 – small camas CAQU2 Camassia quamash 8–50 – falsegold groundsel PAPSP2 Packera pseudaurea var. pseudaurea 8–50 – American bistort POBI6 Polygonum bistortoides 8–50 – western dock RUAQ Rumex aquaticus 8–50 – Table 7. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 8. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 4.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Animal community
Several grazing animals seasonally use the site. Mule deer, elk, and antelope use the site for grazing. The fine sedge component of the site provides good quality forage for a variety of animals. 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. The site supplies very good food and cover for nesting waterfowl. The site is an important source of invertebrates for foraging birds.
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
