Natural Resources
Conservation Service
-
Search
Major Land Resource Area or ecological site by name and/or ID.
PreviousSectionsNextGeneral information
Draft. A draft ecological site description is either incomplete or has not undergone quality control and quality assurance review.
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree Not specified
Shrub Not specified
Herbaceous Not specified
Physiographic features
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Climatic features
">Influencing water features
Soil features
Ecological dynamics
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
HCPC, FEID-POSE/ARAR8Community 1.1
HCPC, FEID-POSE/ARAR8!
Figure 1. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)
Table 3. Annual production by plant type
Plant type Low
(lb/acre)Representative value
(lb/acre)High
(lb/acre)Grass/Grasslike 392 496 600 Shrub/Vine 108 156 208 Forb 16 56 96 Tree 8 12 16 Total 524 720 920 Additional community tables
Table 4. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Grass/Grasslike1 Dominant deep rooted perennial grasses 280–400 Idaho fescue FEID Festuca idahoensis 280–400 – 2 Sub-dominant shallow rooted perennial grasses 16–40 bluebunch wheatgrass PSSP6 Pseudoroegneria spicata 16–40 – 3 Dominant shallow rooted perennial grasses 80–120 Sandberg bluegrass POSE Poa secunda 80–120 – 4 Sub-dominant shallow rooted perennial grasses 8–16 onespike danthonia DAUN Danthonia unispicata 8–16 – 5 Other perennial grasses 8–24 Thurber's needlegrass ACTH7 Achnatherum thurberianum 0–5 – sedge CAREX Carex 0–5 – squirreltail ELEL5 Elymus elymoides 0–5 – prairie Junegrass KOMA Koeleria macrantha 0–5 – Forb9 Other perennial forbs 16–96 common yarrow ACMI2 Achillea millefolium 0–5 – agoseris AGOSE Agoseris 0–5 – onion ALLIU Allium 0–5 – pussytoes ANTEN Antennaria 0–5 – rockcress ARABI2 Arabis 0–5 – sandwort ARENA Arenaria 0–5 – milkvetch ASTRA Astragalus 0–5 – serrate balsamroot BASE2 Balsamorhiza serrata 0–5 – fleabane ERIGE2 Erigeron 0–5 – buckwheat ERIOG Eriogonum 0–5 – common woolly sunflower ERLA6 Eriophyllum lanatum 0–5 – lupine LUPIN Lupinus 0–5 – beardtongue PENST Penstemon 0–5 – yampah PERID Perideridia 0–5 – spreading phlox PHDI3 Phlox diffusa 0–5 – largehead clover TRMA3 Trifolium macrocephalum 0–5 – Shrub/Vine11 Dominant evergreen shrubs 80–160 little sagebrush ARAR8 Artemisia arbuscula 80–160 – 12 Sub-dominant evergreen shrubs 16–24 slender buckwheat ERMI4 Eriogonum microthecum 16–24 – 15 Other shrubs 8–24 mountain big sagebrush ARTRV Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 0–5 – antelope bitterbrush PUTR2 Purshia tridentata 0–5 – Tree16 Dominant evergreen trees 8–16 western juniper JUOC Juniperus occidentalis 8–16 – Interpretations
Supporting information
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 08/22/2012 Approved by Approval date Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on Annual Production Indicators
-
Number and extent of rills:
None, slight to moderate sheet & rill erosion hazard -
Presence of water flow patterns:
None to some in interspaces -
Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes:
None to some (shallow rooted grasses) -
Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, lichen, moss, plant canopy are not bare ground):
10-30% -
Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies:
None -
Extent of wind scoured, blowouts and/or depositional areas:
None, slight wind erosion hazard -
Amount of litter movement (describe size and distance expected to travel):
Fine - limited movement -
Soil surface (top few mm) resistance to erosion (stability values are averages - most sites will show a range of values):
Significantly resistant to erosion: aggregate stability = 5-6 -
Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type of structure and A-horizon color and thickness):
Shallow or moderately deep, well drained loams, silty loams, and clay loams: Low OM (1-2%) -
Effect of community phase composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration and runoff:
Moderate vegetative (50-60%), rock fragment cover (10-30%), and gentle slopes (0-15%) effectively limit rainfall impact and overland flow; infiltration is slow -
Presence and thickness of compaction layer (usually none; describe soil profile features which may be mistaken for compaction on this site):
None -
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:
Idaho fescue > Low sagebrush > Sandberg bluegrass > Shrubby buckwheat > other grasses = forbs = other shrubsSub-dominant:
Other:
Additional:
-
Amount of plant mortality and decadence (include which functional groups are expected to show mortality or decadence):
Normal decadence and mortality expected -
Average percent litter cover (%) and depth ( in):
-
Expected annual annual-production (this is TOTAL above-ground annual-production, not just forage annual-production):
Favorable: 1000, Normal: 800, Unfavorable: 500 lbs/acre/year at high RSI (HCPC) -
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 brush species will increase with deterioration of plant community. Western Juniper readily invades the site. Cheatgrass and Medusahead invade sites that have lost deep rooted perennial grass functional groups. -
Perennial plant reproductive capability:
All species should be capable of reproducing annually
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
