Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site R083AY009TX
Clayey Bottomland
Last updated: 9/19/2023
Accessed: 04/17/2026
-
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.
MLRA notes
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 083A–Northern Rio Grande Plain
This area is entirely in Texas and south of San Antonio. It makes up about 11,115 square miles (28,805 square kilometers). The towns of Uvalde, Cotulla, and Hondo are in the western part of the area, and Beeville, Goliad, and Kenedy are in the eastern part. The town of Alice is just outside the southern edge of the area. Interstate Highways 35 and 37 cross this area. This area is comprised of inland, dissected coastal plains.
Classification relationships
USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006.
-Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 83AEcological site concept
The Clayey Bottomland site is deep to very deep with clay surface textures occurring on flood plains. The soils are slightly alkaline and slightly saline.
Associated sites
R083AY013TX Loamy Bottomland
R083AY019TX Gray Sandy Loam
R083AY026TX Eastern Clay Loam
Similar sites
R083BY009TX Clayey Bottomland
R083DY009TX Clayey Bottomland
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Quercus virginiana
(2) Prosopis glandulosaShrub (1) Opuntia
Herbaceous (1) Trichloris pluriflora
Physiographic features
This site occurs on low terraces of old flood plains. The setting is slightly depressed to nearly level areas that receive overflow. Slopes are generally less than one percent. Elevation ranges from 200 to 1,000 feet. This area is comprised of river valleys on inland, dissected coastal plains.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) River valley > Flood plain
Runoff class Low to high Flooding duration Very brief (4 to 48 hours) to long (7 to 30 days) Flooding frequency Occasional to frequent Elevation 40 – 550 ft Slope 0 – 1 % Water table depth 0 – 53 in Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
MLRA 83A is subtropical, subhumid on the western boundary and subtropical humid on the eastern boundary. Winters are dry and mild and the summers are hot and humid. Tropical maritime air masses predominate throughout spring, summer, and fall. Modified polar air masses exert considerable influence during winter, creating a continental climate characterized by large variations in temperature. Average precipitation for MLRA 83A is 20 inches on the western boundary and 35 inches on the eastern boundary. Peak rainfall, because of rain showers, occurs late in spring and a secondary peak occurs early in fall. Heavy thunderstorm activities increase in April, May, and June. July is hot and dry with little weather variations. Rainfall increases again in late August and September as tropical disturbances increase and become more frequent. Tropical air masses from the Gulf of Mexico dominate during the spring, summer, and fall. Prevailing winds are southerly to southeasterly throughout the year except in December when winds are predominately northerly.
Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 220-250 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 260-370 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 30-30 in Frost-free period (actual range) 210-260 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 250-370 days Precipitation total (actual range) 20-40 in Frost-free period (average) 240 days Freeze-free period (average) 310 days Precipitation total (average) 30 in Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 2. Monthly precipitation range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 3. Monthly minimum temperature range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 4. Monthly maximum temperature range
BarLineFigure 5. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Figure 6. Annual precipitation pattern
Figure 7 Annual average temperature pattern
Climate stations used
-
(1) FOWLERTON [USC00413299], Fowlerton, TX
-
(2) HONDO [USC00414254], Hondo, TX
-
(3) PEARSALL [USC00416879], Pearsall, TX
-
(4) POTEET [USC00417215], Poteet, TX
-
(5) CARRIZO SPRINGS 3W [USC00411486], Carrizo Springs, TX
-
(6) CHARLOTTE 5 NNW [USC00411663], Charlotte, TX
-
(7) KARNES CITY 2N [USC00414696], Karnes City, TX
-
(8) MATHIS 4 SSW [USC00415661], Mathis, TX
-
(9) TILDEN 4 SSE [USC00419031], Tilden, TX
-
(10) UVALDE 3 SW [USC00419268], Uvalde, TX
-
(11) BEEVILLE 5 NE [USC00410639], Beeville, TX
-
(12) CROSS [USC00412125], Tilden, TX
-
(13) DILLEY [USC00412458], Dilley, TX
-
(14) FLORESVILLE [USC00413201], Floresville, TX
-
(15) GOLIAD [USC00413618], Goliad, TX
-
(16) LYTLE 3W [USC00415454], Natalia, TX
-
(17) PLEASANTON [USC00417111], Pleasanton, TX
-
(18) HONDO MUNI AP [USW00012962], Hondo, TX
-
(19) CHEAPSIDE [USC00411671], Gonzales, TX
-
(20) CUERO [USC00412173], Cuero, TX
-
(21) NIXON [USC00416368], Stockdale, TX
-
(22) CALLIHAM [USC00411337], Calliham, TX
">Influencing water features
The Clayey Bottomlands occur on flood plains with overflow water. Flooding will occur occasionally to frequently lasting very brief to long durations.
Wetland description
Wetlands may lie within this delineated feature but onsite investigation is required to confirm when suspected.
Soil features
The soils are very deep, moderately well drained with very slow permeability. The soil reaction is slightly alkaline or moderately alkaline. Surface color is grayish brown. Soil series correlated to this site include: Aransas, Bigfoot, and Buchel.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Alluvium – shale
Surface texture (1) Clay
(2) Silty clay
Family particle size (1) Fine
(2) Very-fine
Drainage class Moderately well drained Permeability class Very slow to slow Soil depth 80 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(0-40in)5 – 6 in Calcium carbonate equivalent
(0-40in)0 – 30 % Electrical conductivity
(0-40in)0 – 4 mmhos/cm Sodium adsorption ratio
(0-40in)0 – 4 Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-40in)7.4 – 8.4 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 2 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)Not specified Ecological dynamics
The Northern Rio Grande Plain MLRA was a disturbance-maintained system. Prior to European settlement (pre-1825), fire and grazing were the two primary forms of disturbance. Grazing by large herbivores included antelope, deer, and small herds of bison. The infrequent but intense, short-duration grazing by these species suppressed woody species and invigorated herbaceous species. The herbaceous savannah species adapted to fire and grazing disturbances by maintaining belowground tissues. Wright and Bailey (1982) report that there are no reliable records of fire frequency for the Rio Grande Plains because there are no trees to carry fire scars from which to estimate fire frequency. Because savannah grassland is typically of level or rolling topography, a natural fire frequency of three to seven years seems reasonable for this site.
Precipitation patterns are highly variable. Long-term droughts, occurring three to four times per century, cause shifts in species composition by causing die-off of seedlings, less drought-tolerant species, and some woody species. Droughts also reduce biomass production and create open space, which is colonized by opportunistic species when precipitation increases. Wet periods allow midgrasses to increase in dominance.
Historical accounts prior to 1800 identify grazing by herds of wild horses, followed by heavy grazing by sheep and cattle as settlement progressed. Grazing on early ranches changed natural graze-rest cycles to continuous grazing and stocking rates exceeded the carrying capacity. These shifts in grazing intensity and the removal of rest from the system reduced plant vigor for the most palatable species, which on this site were mid-grasses and palatable forbs. Shortgrasses and less palatable forbs began to dominate the site. This shift resulted in lower fuel loads, which reduced fire frequency and intensity. The reduction in fires resulted in an increase in size and density of woody species.
Today, primarily beef cattle graze rangeland and pastureland. However, horse numbers are increasing rapidly on small acreage properties in the region. There are some areas where dairy cattle, poultry, goats, and sheep are locally important. Whitetail deer, wild turkey, bobwhite quail, and dove are the major wildlife species, and hunting leases are a major source of income for many landowners in this area. Introduced pasture has been established on many acres of old cropland and in areas with deeper soils. Buffelgrass is the most common introduced plant on the site and to a lesser extent bermudagrass, guineagrass (Urochloa maxima), and kleingrass, which are more commonly used for hay. Cropland is found in the valleys, bottomlands, and deeper upland soils. Wheat (Triticum spp.), oats Avena spp.), forage and grain sorghum (Sorghum spp.), cotton (Gossypium spp.), and corn (Zea mays) are major crops in the region.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
T1A - Absence of disturbance and natural regeneration overtime, may be coupled with drought and excessive grazing pressure T1B - Removal of native vegetation followed by seeding non-native species R2A - Reintroduction of historic disturbance return intervals T2A - Removal of vegetation using ground disturbing practices followed by seeding non-native species T3A - Absence of disturbance and natural regeneration over time State 1 submodel, plant communities
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 3 submodel, plant communities
State 1
SavannahThe Savannah State consisted of approximately 70 percent grasses, 20 percent woody plants and a 10 percent composition of forbs by air-dry weight. For interpretive purposes, the woody crown canopy can be approximately 10 to 40 percent. Two community phases exist; the Tallgrass Savannah Community and the Mixedgrass Savannah Community.
Dominant plant species
-
cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia), tree
-
multiflower false Rhodes grass (Trichloris pluriflora), grass
Community 1.1
Tallgrass SavannahThe reference community is a tallgrass savannah with some shrub. Bunchgrasses such as multiflowered false Rhodes grass (Trichloris pluriflora), southwestern bristlegrass (Setaria scheelei), big cenchrus (Cenchrus myosuroides), and big sacaton (Sporobolus wrightii) are the major species. Immediately adjacent to stream channels, large woody riparian plants are common such as cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia), liveoak (Quercus virginiana), bumelia (Sideroxylon lanuginosum), anacua (Ehretia anacua), and mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa). Higher in the flood plain, large mesquites tend to dominate the woody canopy. Underneath heavily shaded areas, cool-season grasses such as Texas wintergrass (Nasella leucotricha) and Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus) ocuur. Occasional out-of-bank flow provides extra soil moisture and nutrients while also depositing sediments.
This community was maintained by periodic grazing by wild populations and numerous fires; both natural and anthropogenic. Fire likely played more of a role on this site as distance from the primary stream channel increased. Fire frequency is perceived to be variable and to occur in above average years followed by drought and/or prolonged dormant periods. The site is productive and maintained a high percentage of ground cover most of the time. During extended droughts, this ground cover of perennial grasses and forbs was often greatly reduced but had the resiliency to recover when favorable climatic conditions returned.
While periodic grazing was a natural component of the ecosystem, continuous abusive grazing has a strong negative impact on this site. Because of abusive grazing, the tallgrasses decrease and are replaced by less palatable, short-lived grasses. Droughts hasten the process. Major grass increasers are white tridens (Tridens muticus), vine mesquite (Panicum obtusum), buffalograss, curly mesquite (Hilaria belangeri) and pink pappusgrass (Pappophorum bicolor). Mesquite, twisted acacia (Acacia schaffneri), whitebrush (Aloysia gratissima), and prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) are the common woody plants that increase as abusive grazing persists.
This site, because of the water afforded by landscape position, has the potential to recover much faster than adjacent uplands. However, it will still take several years for a satisfactory recovery. Any efforts to recover this plant community should also consider the proper management of the adjacent upland sites as they are interdependent.Figure 8. 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 3000 5000 7000 Tree 600 800 1000 Shrub/Vine 100 200 300 Forb 50 150 250 Total 3750 6150 8550 Table 6. Ground cover
Tree foliar cover 0-10% Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover 10-10% Grass/grasslike foliar cover 80-100% Forb foliar cover 10-20% Non-vascular plants 0% Biological crusts 0% Litter 80-100% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 0% Surface fragments >3" 0% Bedrock 0% Water 0% Bare ground 0-10% Table 7. Canopy structure (% cover)
Height Above Ground (ft) Tree Shrub/Vine Grass/
GrasslikeForb <0.5 0-2% 1-2% 70-100% 1-10% >0.5 <= 1 0-2% 1-4% 70-100% 1-15% >1 <= 2 0-2% 1-4% 60-80% 5-20% >2 <= 4.5 1-4% 1-5% 30-50% 5-15% >4.5 <= 13 2-5% 1-5% – – >13 <= 40 5-10% – – – >40 <= 80 – – – – >80 <= 120 – – – – >120 – – – – Figure 9. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). TX5125 , Midgrass Grassland Community. Warm-season production from grass, forbs, and woody species..
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J F M A M J J A S O N D 1 1 5 15 20 20 5 5 10 10 5 3 Community 1.2
Mixedgrass SavannahThis community still exhibits a savannah plant structure dominated by trees, but with a shift to fewer tallgrasses such as multiflowered false Rhodes grass, southwestern bristlegrass, big cenchrus, and big sacaton. Cool-season grasses such as Texas wintergrass and Virginia wildrye increase with the shade from increasing canopy. Large woody plants like cedar elm, liveoak, bumelia, anacua, and mesquite have increased in height and canopy. In the understory, there is an increase of shrubs such as twisted acacia, whitebrush, granjeno and Texas persimmon. While periodic grazing was a natural component of the ecosystem, continuous abusive grazing has a strong negative impact on this site. Because of abusive grazing, the tallgrasses decrease and are of reduced vigor.
Fire every three to five years will move this community back toward the Tallgrass Savannah Community as there are still enough remnant tallgrasses to respond. A significant role for prescribed grazing is to not only restore vigor to the tallgrasses, but also to build and maintain fine fuel amounts for effective prescribed burning. It will be increasingly difficult to use fire as canopy and cool-season plants increase. Integrated brush management treatment is needed to restore the community.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 2000 3500 5000 Tree 600 800 1000 Forb 150 250 350 Shrub/Vine 100 200 300 Total 2850 4750 6650 Figure 11. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). TX5128 , Shortgrass Dominant Community. Shortgrass dominates the site with decreasing midgrasses and increasing shrubs..
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J F M A M J J A S O N D 1 1 5 15 20 21 5 5 10 10 5 2 Pathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2A shift to the Mixedgrass Savannah Community occurs if the Tallgrass Savannah Community is weakened by excessive leaf removal. Drought hastens the process. A reduction in tall and midgrasses also corresponds in a reduction of fuel loading needed for fire to effectively suppress woody species.
Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1Managerial activities that restore the hydrologic cycle, the energy capture by tall grasses, and ground cover will move the 1.2 Mixedgrass Savannah Community toward the 1.1 Tallgrass Savannah Community. Utilizing historic ecological disturbances such as herbivory and fire in constructive amounts is needed. Selective brush management may also be needed. The time to shift back to the 1.1 Tallgrass Savannah Community certainly is dependent upon favorable growing conditions and could take 5 to 10 years. Landscape position with occasional flooding can increase recovery of this plant community quicker than adjacent upland sites.
Conservation practices
Brush Management Prescribed Burning Prescribed Grazing State 2
ShrublandThe Woodland/Shrubland state consists of two communities; Tree/Shrubland Community (2.1) with a brush canopy of 40-70 percent, and the Tree/Shrubland Community (2.2) with a brush canopy of >70 percent. These communities are mixed grass communities with a shrub canopy of mixed brush and trees with some herbaceous plants throughout the interspaces.
Dominant plant species
-
mesquite (Prosopis), shrub
Community 2.1
ShrublandShrubs increase significantly as has overstory canopy in the Shrubland Ccommunity. Once woody plants establish and increase on these fertile soils, competition is greatly reduced. At this point, prescribed grazing alone will not restore this community back to the Savanna State (1). Trees and shrubs are very competitive for sunlight, moisture, and nutrients. Flushes of annual forbs can occur throughout the entire year in response to episodic rainfall. Prescribed fire will be a limited option in this community because of a lack of fine fuel load, fuel continuity, and brush cover. Some pockets of the taller grasses such as big sacaton exist, especially where there are saline spots and grazing pressure is light.
Unless brush management is done, shrub cover will increase to more than 50 percent canopy. In areas that tend to pond water on this site, spiny aster (Chloracantha spinosa) may establish and form dense colonies. Aggressive brush and grazing management is required to restore the system back to the Savannah State. Re-seeding of perennial warm-season grasses may be necessary and has potential to speed up the restoration process. Reseeding may also have potential to limit establishment of aggressive, introduced grasses such as Kleberg bluestem (Dichanthium annualatum).Figure 12. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)
Table 9. Annual production by plant type
Plant type Low
(lb/acre)Representative value
(lb/acre)High
(lb/acre)Grass/Grasslike 500 1000 1500 Tree 600 800 1000 Forb 200 450 700 Shrub/Vine 200 350 500 Total 1500 2600 3700 Figure 13. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). TX5130 , Short/Midgrass Shrubland Complex 20-50% woody canopy. Shrubland Community with 20-50% woody canopy..
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J F M A M J J A S O N D 2 2 5 10 18 15 5 9 15 9 5 5 Community 2.2
WoodlandA lack of brush management of any kind has allowed this community to develop. At this point, prescribed grazing alone will not restore this community. The understory of shrubs provide a second layer of woody canopy that approaches and exceeds 70 percent. Trees and shrubs now harvest most of the sunlight, moisture, and nutrients. Flushes of annual forbs can occur throughout the entire year in response to episodic rainfall. Prescribed fire is not a viable option in this community because of a lack of fine fuel, fuel continuity, and brush cover. Unless brush management is done, shrub cover will increase to more than 50 percent. Aggressive brush and grazing management is required to restore the system back to the grassland state. Re-seeding of perennial warm-season grasses may be necessary and has potential to speed up the restoration process. Reseeding may also have potential to limit establishment of aggressive, introduced grasses such as Kleberg bluestem.
Figure 14. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)
Table 10. Annual production by plant type
Plant type Low
(lb/acre)Representative value
(lb/acre)High
(lb/acre)Grass/Grasslike 200 600 1000 Shrub/Vine 400 700 1000 Tree 600 800 1000 Forb 200 350 500 Total 1400 2450 3500 Figure 15. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). TX5130 , Short/Midgrass Shrubland Complex 20-50% woody canopy. Shrubland Community with 20-50% woody canopy..
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J F M A M J J A S O N D 2 2 5 10 18 15 5 9 15 9 5 5 Pathway 2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.2A shift to the Woodland Community (2.2) occurs if no brush management is done. Drought hastens the process. A lack of brush management allows existing brush to gain in stature. Seedlings are introduced through droppings of livestock and wildlife. A reduction in tall and midgrasses also corresponds to a reduction of fuel loading needed for fire to effectively suppress woody species. Although the potential of fire is questionable at this point.
Pathway 2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1Managerial activities that restore the hydrologic cycle, the energy capture by grasses, and restoring ground cover will tend to move the 2.2 Woodland Community toward the 2.1 Shrubland Community. Selective brush management is needed to accomplish the desired canopy level and spatial arrangement of woody species. Integrated brush management and utilizing historic ecological disturbances such as herbivory and fire in constructive amounts is needed to maintain the desired brush densities. The time to shift back to the 2.1 Shrubland Community is dependent upon favorable growing conditions and could take 3 to 5 years.
Conservation practices
Brush Management Prescribed Burning Prescribed Grazing State 3
Converted LandThe Converted Land State is the result of mechanical intervention along with range planting to either native or adapted introduced species.
Dominant plant species
-
buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare), grass
Community 3.1
Converted LandThis plant community is developed by applying brush management and seeding. The conversion can actually come from any of the previously mentioned communities where brush needs to be reduced and a seed source added to establish a desired plant community. In some instances, an adequate seed source may already exist in the soil.
When rootplowing is applied as brush management on this site, long term forb and woody plant diversity will be greatly reduced. Previous attempts at native seeding in this region were met with mixed results because of the seed source not being locally adapted to the region. Many of the grass species listed in the reference plant community are commercially available from collections made in south Texas. The locally adapted species are expected to be more successful in seeding efforts as compared to seed developed several hundred miles outside the region. However, proper seedbed preparation, planting techniques, and timely rainfall are essential for success.
The most common introduced grass species seeded is buffelgrass (Cenchrus ciliare). Seeding this species should be cautiously considered due to its aggressive nature to dominate plant communities and reduce herbaceous diversity. Once planted, conversion of buffelgrass dominated areas back to native grass is extremely difficult and rarely successful. The decision of which species to seed is a management decision based on clearly defined goals for livestock and wildlife. Careful consideration should be taken prior to seeding introduced species. Once introduced species are seeded, it is often difficult or impractical to remove them should objectives change. Because of the residual seed source of woody plants, encroachment is inevitable. To help maintain this plant community, prescribed grazing along with fire and some integrated brush management will be needed.Figure 16. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)
Table 11. Annual production by plant type
Plant type Low
(lb/acre)Representative value
(lb/acre)High
(lb/acre)Grass/Grasslike 3000 4500 6000 Tree 600 800 1000 Forb 100 250 400 Shrub/Vine 100 200 300 Total 3800 5750 7700 Figure 17. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). TX5133 , Converted Land Community - Native Grass Seeding. Developed by applying brush management, land clearing and seeding to any of the other plant communities where brush needs to be reduced and a seed source added to establish the desired plant community. .
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J F M A M J J A S O N D 2 2 5 10 18 15 5 9 15 9 5 5 Community 3.2
Abandoned LandThis community develops from the Converted Land Community (3.1) through neglect or abandonment. Without follow-up brush management, seedlings of shrubs establish and spread. Mesquite, twisted acacia, and pricklypear are the most common woody plants or shrubs found on this site following rootplowing. Maintaining healthy grass cover on the site through prescribed grazing might slow brush seedling encroachment however, brush encroachment at some rate is inevitable. If the seedlings are not managed, the plant community will cross a threshold to the Shrubland State (2) which will require application of chemical or mechanical brush management to reduce the canopy. If left untreated too long, reseeding might be needed to restore the grass. As the canopy of the shrubs expands, grass and forb production will be reduced.
Figure 18. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)
Table 12. Annual production by plant type
Plant type Low
(lb/acre)Representative value
(lb/acre)High
(lb/acre)Grass/Grasslike 200 1350 2500 Shrub/Vine 400 700 1000 Tree 600 800 1000 Forb 200 350 500 Total 1400 3200 5000 Figure 19. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). TX5138 , Converted Land Community - Woody Seedling Encroachment. Abandoned croplands and land seeded with exotic or native grasses are prone to encroachment by woody plants and with heavy grazing or the absence of fire, can revert to shrublands..
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J F M A M J J A S O N D 2 2 5 10 18 15 5 9 15 9 5 5 Pathway 3.1A
Community 3.1 to 3.2If woody species are not managed by integrated methods such as brush management or fire, the woody species will increase. Once woody species exceed about 10 percent canopy, it will be difficult to manage them at economic levels.
Pathway 3.2A
Community 3.2 to 3.1An integrated effort with fire and brush management is needed to restore this community to a grassland. Range planting may also be needed. Grazing management is essential to restore the competitiveness of the grasses and to maintain fuel load needed for effective burning.
Conservation practices
Brush Management Prescribed Burning Range Planting Prescribed Grazing Transition T1A
State 1 to 2The Savannah State will cross a threshold to Shrubland State with abusive grazing, no brush management, or fire. Severe drought is also a significant factor to accelerate this transition. In State 2, more rainfall is being utilized by woody plants than the herbaceous plants. Because of the increased canopy, sunlight is being captured by the woody plants and converted to energy instead of the herbaceous plants.
Transition T1B
State 1 to 3The transition to the Converted Land State is triggered by major ground disturbing mechanical treatment and planting to native or introduced forages. Planting is usually done following brush management.
Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1If the management goal is to restore to State 1, significant inputs of energy will be needed. An integrated approach to Brush Management (Scifres et. al. 1985) with mechanical treatment, herbicides and fire will initially reduce the woody species providing opportunity for at least partial recovery of the hydrologic cycle and the energy cycle. Seeding may be needed and can be done in conjunction with ground disturbance methods of brush management. A return to State 1 within a management time frame will be next to impossible when considering returning the trees to their original stature.
Conservation practices
Brush Management Prescribed Burning Range Planting Prescribed Grazing Transition T2A
State 2 to 3The transition to the Converted Land State is triggered by major ground disturbing mechanical treatment and planting to native or introduced forages. Planting is usually done following brush management.
Transition T3A
State 3 to 2The transition from the Converted Land State to the Shrubland State is triggered by neglect or no management over long periods of time. Shrubs re-establish from the seed bank and introduction from wildlife and livestock. A complete return to a previous state is not possible if adapted, non-native plants have been established or if the soil health has significantly deteriorated. It will also take 20 to 30 years for the large trees to return.
Additional community tables
Table 13. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Grass/Grasslike1 Warm season bunchgrasses 2800–5200 big sacaton SPWR2 Sporobolus wrightii 0–5200 – switchgrass PAVI2 Panicum virgatum 0–5000 – big sandbur CEMY Cenchrus myosuroides 0–4500 – southwestern bristlegrass SESC2 Setaria scheelei 0–4500 – multiflower false Rhodes grass TRPL3 Trichloris pluriflora 400–2400 – large-spike bristlegrass SEMA5 Setaria macrostachya 0–1000 – 2 Warm season mid/shortgrasses 200–1800 pink pappusgrass PABI2 Pappophorum bicolor 0–1000 – buffalograss BODA2 Bouteloua dactyloides 0–800 – curly-mesquite HIBE Hilaria belangeri 0–800 – white tridens TRAL2 Tridens albescens 0–300 – Madagascar dropseed SPPY2 Sporobolus pyramidatus 0–200 – 3 cool season bunch grasses 200–1800 Texas wintergrass NALE3 Nassella leucotricha 0–1000 – sedge CAREX Carex 0–300 – Forb4 Forbs 50–250 Cuman ragweed AMPS Ambrosia psilostachya 0–50 – bluestem pricklypoppy ARAL3 Argemone albiflora 0–50 – spiny chloracantha CHSP11 Chloracantha spinosa 0–50 – bundleflower DESMA Desmanthus 0–40 – littleleaf sensitive-briar MIMI22 Mimosa microphylla 0–30 – plains dozedaisy APRA Aphanostephus ramosissimus 0–30 – vervain VERBE Verbena 0–30 – wild petunia RUELL Ruellia 0–30 – annual bushsunflower SILA11 Simsia lagasceiformis 0–30 – globemallow SPHAE Sphaeralcea 0–20 – fanpetals SIDA Sida 0–20 – sand phacelia PHPA4 Phacelia patuliflora 0–20 – groundcherry PHYSA Physalis 0–20 – pepperweed LEAP6 Lepidium apetalum 0–20 – Shrub/Vine5 Shrub/Vines 100–300 whitebrush ALGR2 Aloysia gratissima 0–200 – Texas persimmon DITE3 Diospyros texana 0–150 – lotebush ZIOB Ziziphus obtusifolia 0–100 – saltbush ATRIP Atriplex 0–50 – guajillo ACBE Acacia berlandieri 0–50 – blackbrush acacia ACRI Acacia rigidula 0–50 – stretchberry FOPU2 Forestiera pubescens 0–50 – Texas lignum-vitae GUAN Guaiacum angustifolium 0–50 – Berlandier's wolfberry LYBE Lycium berlandieri 0–50 – pricklypear OPUNT Opuntia 10–50 – desert yaupon SCCU4 Schaefferia cuneifolia 0–50 – lime pricklyash ZAFA Zanthoxylum fagara 0–50 – Tree6 Trees 600–1000 live oak QUVI Quercus virginiana 200–600 – honey mesquite PRGL2 Prosopis glandulosa 150–400 – cedar elm ULCR Ulmus crassifolia 150–400 – knockaway EHAN Ehretia anacua 0–300 – Mexican ash FRBE Fraxinus berlandieriana 0–300 – common buttonbush CEOC2 Cephalanthus occidentalis 0–200 – gum bully SILA20 Sideroxylon lanuginosum 0–200 – Table 14. Community 1.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 15. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 16. Community 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 17. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 18. Community 3.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Animal community
As a historic tall/midgrass prairie, this site was occupied by bison, antelope, deer, quail, turkey, and dove. This site was also used by many species of grassland songbirds, migratory waterfowl, and coyotes. This site now provides forage for livestock and is still used by quail, dove, migratory waterfowl, grassland birds, coyotes, and deer.
Feral hogs (Sus scrofa) can be found on most ecological sites in Texas. Damage caused by feral hogs each year includes, crop damage by rutting up crops, destroyed fences, livestock watering areas, and predation on native wildlife, and ground-nesting birds. Feral hogs have few natural predators, thus allowing their population to grow to high numbers.
Wildlife habitat is a complex of many different plant communities and ecological sites across the landscape. Most animals use the landscape differently to find food, shelter, protection, and mates. Working on a conservation plan for the whole property, with a local professional, will help managers make the decisions that allow them to realize their goals for wildlife and livestock.
Grassland State (1): This state provides the maximum amount of forage for livestock such as cattle. It is also utilized by deer, quail and other birds as a source of food. When a site is in the reference plant community phase (1.1) it will also be used by some birds for nesting, if other habitat requirements like thermal and escape cover are near.
Tree/Shrubland Complex (2): This state can be maintained to meet the habitat requirements of cattle and wildlife. Land managers can find a balance that meets their goals and allows them flexibility to manage for livestock and wildlife. Forbs for deer and birds like quail will be more plentiful in this state. There will also be more trees and shrubs to provide thermal and escape cover for birds as well as cover for deer.
Converted Land State (3): The quality of wildlife habitat this site will produce is extremely variable and is influenced greatly by the timing of rain events. This state is often manipulated to meet landowner goals. If livestock production is the main goal, it can be converted to pastureland. It can also be planted to a mix of grasses and forbs that will benefit both livestock and wildlife. A mix of forbs in the pasture could attract pollinators, birds and other types of wildlife. Food plots can also be planted to provide extra nutrition for deer.
This rating system provides general guidance as to animal preference for plant species. It also indicates possible competition between kinds of herbivores for various plants. Grazing preference changes from time to time, especially between seasons, and between animal kinds and classes. Grazing preference does not necessarily reflect the ecological status of the plant within the plant community. For wildlife, plant preferences for food and plant suitability for cover are rated. Refer to habitat guides for a more complete description of a species habitat needs.Hydrological functions
The water cycle on this site functions according to the management of not only the existing plant community but also of the surrounding plant communities. The water cycle is most functional when the site is dominated by tall bunchgrass and native trees as the site functions much the same as a sponge. Rapid rainfall infiltration, high soil organic matter, good soil structure, and good porosity are present with a good cover of bunchgrass. Quality of surface runoff will be high, while erosion and sedimentation rates will be low. With high rates of infiltration and periods of heavy rainfall, some water will move below the root zone of grasses. As this water moves downward it may contribute to the recharge of some aquifers.
When unmanaged grazing causes loss or reduction of bunchgrass and ground cover, the water cycle becomes impaired. Infiltration is decreased and runoff is increased because of poor ground cover, rainfall splash, soil capping, low organic matter, and poor structure. With a combination of a sparse ground cover and intensive rainfall, this site can contribute to an increased frequency and severity of flooding within a watershed. Soil erosion is accelerated, quality of surface runoff is poor, and sedimentation is increased.
As the site becomes dominated by woody species, especially oaks, mesquite, and shrubs, the water cycle is further altered. Interception of rainfall by tree canopies is increased which reduces the amount of rainfall reaching the surface (Thurow and Hester, 1997). Stem flow is increased, however, because of the funneling effect of the canopy by the oaks and mesquite. This increases soil moisture at the base of the tree. Increased transpiration, especially when evergreen species like live oak dominate and provide less chance for deep percolation into aquifers. As woody species increase, grass cover declines, which causes some of the same results as heavy grazing.
Various brush management components can help restore the natural hydrology of the site. Also, critical to the overall health of the Clayey Bottomland is the existence of healthy streamside or riparian vegetation. These small but very important vegetative communities exist in the transition zone between the upland portion of the site and the creeks or streams.
Many important functions come from a healthy riparian plant community. These communities protect the streambanks during flooding much the same as shingles protect a roof. They also trap sediments, deadfall, and nutrients fostering the building of soils and nutrients. Another function is that of a sponge, absorbing water and slowly releasing it over time leading to a more sustained flow. These small areas also provide diverse grazing for livestock.
If a mature woodland canopy develops, a buildup of leaf litter occurs which increases the organic matter of the soil, builds structure, improves infiltration, and retards erosion. Some, but not all values of a properly functioning water cycle are restored on this site when a woodland plant community persists.Recreational uses
Hunting and bird watching are common activities.
Wood products
Cutting hardwoods for firewood is the main wood product on this site.
Supporting information
Inventory data references
Information presented was derived from the revised Range Site, literature, limited NRCS clipping data (417s), field observations, and personal contacts with range-trained personnel.
Other references
AgriLife. 2009. Managing Feral Hogs Not a One-shot Endeavor. AgNews, April 23, 2009. http://agnews.tamu.edu/showstory.php?id=903.
Archer, S. 1995. Herbivore mediation of grass-woody plant interactions. Tropical Grasslands, 29:218-235.
Archer, S. 1995. Tree-grass dynamics in a Prosopis-thornscrub savanna parkland: reconstructing the past and predicting the future. Ecoscience, 2:83-99.
Archer, S. 1994. Woody plant encroachment into southwestern grasslands and savannas: rates, patterns and proximate causes. Ecological implications of livestock herbivory in the West, 13-68.
Archer, S. and F. E. Smeins. 1991. Ecosystem-level Processes. In Grazing Management: An Ecological Perspective. Edited by R.K. Heischmidt and J.W. Stuth. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Baen, J. S. 1997. The growing importance and value implications of recreational hunting leases to agricultural land investors. Journal of Real Estate Research, 14:399-414.
Bailey, V. 1905. North American Fauna No. 25: Biological Survey of Texas. United States Department of Agriculture Biological Survey. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C.
Bestelmeyer, B. T., J.R. Brown, K. M. Havstad, R. Alexander, G. Chavez, and J. E. Herrick. 2003. Development and use of state-and-transition models for rangelands. Journal of Range Management, 56(2):114-126.
Box, T. W. 1960. Herbage production on four range plant communities in South Texas. Journal of Range Management, 13:72-76.
Briske, B B, B. T. Bestelmeyer, T. K. Stringham, and P. L. Shaver. 2008. Recommendations for development of resilience-based State-and-Transition Models. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 61:359-367.
Brown, J. R. and S. Archer. 1999. Shrub invasion of grassland: recruitment is continuous and not regulated by herbaceous biomass or density. Ecology, 80(7):2385-2396.
Diamond, D. D. and T. E. Fulbright. 1990. Contemporary plant communities of upland grasslands of the Coastal Sand Plain, Texas. Southwestern Naturalist, 35:385-392.
Dillehay T. 1974. Late quaternary bison population changes on the Southern Plains. Plains Anthropologist, 19:180-96.
Edward, D. B. 1836. The history of Texas; or, the immigrants, farmers, and politicians guide to the character, climate, soil and production of that country. Geographically arranged from personal observation and experience. J. A. James and Co., Cincinnati, OH.
Everitt, J. H., D. L. Drawe, and R. I. Leonard. 2002. Trees, Shrubs, and Cacti of South Texas. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock, TX.
Everitt, J. H., D. L. Drawe, and R. I. Lonard. 1999. Field Guide to the Broad-Leaved Herbaceous Plants of South Texas. Texas Tech University Press. Lubbock, TX.
Foster, J. H. 1917. Pre-settlement fire frequency regions of the United States: a first approximation. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings No. 20.
Foster, W. C., ed. 1998. The La Salle Expedition to Texas: The Journal of Henry Joutel, 1684-1687. Texas State Historical Association, Austin, TX.
Frost, C. C. 1995. Presettlement fire regimes in southeastern marshes, peatlands, and swamps. In: Prodeedings, 19th Tall Timbers fire ecology conference, 39-60. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL.
Fulbright, T. E. and S. L. Beasom. 1987. Long-term effects of mechanical treatment on white-tailed deer browse. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 15:560-564.
Fulbright, T. E., J. A. Ortega-Santos, A. Lozano-Cavazos, and L. E. Ramirez-Yanez. 2006. Establishing vegetation on migrating inland sand dunes in Texas. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 59:549-556.
Fulbright, T. E., D. D. Diamond, J. Rappole, and J. Norwine. The Coastal Sand Plain of Southern Texas. Rangelands, 12:337-340.
Gould, F. W. 1975. The Grasses of Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX.
Grace, J. B., L. K. Allain, H. Q. Baldwin, A. G. Billock, W. R. Eddleman, A. M. Given, C. W. Jeske, and R. Moss. 2005. Effects of prescribed fire in the coastal prairies of Texas. USGS Open File Report 2005-1287.
Hamilton, W. and D. Ueckert. 2005. Rangeland Woody Plant Control: Past, Present, and Future. In: Brush Management: Past, Present, and Future, 3-16. Texas A&M University Press. College Station, TX.
Hansmire, J. A., D. L. Drawe, B. B. Wester and C.M. Britton. 1988. Effect of winter burns on forbs and grasses of the Texas Coastal Prairie. The Southwestern Naturalist, 33(3):333-338.
Heitschmidt R. K., Stuth J. W., eds. 1991. Grazing management: an ecological perspective. Timberline Press, Portland, OR.
Inglis, J. M. 1964. A history of vegetation of the Rio Grande Plains. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Bulletin No. 45, Austin, TX.
Kneuper, C. L., C. B. Scott, and W. E. Pinchak. 2003. Consumption and dispersion of mesquite seeds by ruminants. Journal of Range Management, 56:255-259.
Kramp, B., R. Ansley, and D. Jones. 1998. Effect of prescribed fire on mesquite seedlings. Texas Tech University Research Highlights - Range, Wildlife and Fisheries Management, 29:13.
Le Houerou, H. N. and J. Norwine. 1988. The ecoclimatology of South Texas. In Arid lands: today and tomorrow. Edited by E. E. Whitehead, C. F. Hutchinson, B. N. Timmesman, and R. G. Varady, 417-444. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Lehman, V. W. 1965. Fire in the range of Attwater’s prairie chicken. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, 4:127-143.
Lehman, V. W. 1969. Forgotten Legions: Sheep in the Rio Grande Plain of Texas. Texas Western Press, El Paso, TX.
Mann, C. 2004. 1491. New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus. Vintage Books, New York City, NY.
Mapston, M. E. 2009. Feral Hogs in Texas. Rep. Texas Cooperative Extension. 23 Apr. 2009 http://icwdm.org/Publications/pdf/Feral%20Pig/Txferalhogs.pdf
McClendon, T. 1991. Preliminary description of the vegetation of South Texas exclusive of the Coastal Saline Zones. Texas Journal of Science, 43:13-32.
McGinty A., D. N. Ueckert. 2001. The Brush Busters success story. Rangelands, 23:3-8.
McLendon, T. 1991. Preliminary description of the vegetation of south Texas exclusive of coastal saline zones. Texas Journal of Science, 43:13-32.
Norwine, J. 1978. Twentieth-century semiarid climates and climatic fluctuations in Texas and northeastern Mexico. Journal of Arid Environments, 1:313-325.
Norwine, J. and R. Bingham. 1986. Frequency and severity of droughts in South Texas: 1900-1983, 1-17. In Livestock and wildlife management during drought. Edited by R. D. Brown. Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Kingsville, TX.
Olmsted, F. L. 1857. A journey through Texas, or a saddle trip on the Southwest frontier: with a statistical appendix. Dix, Edwards, and co., New York, London.
Prichard, D. 1998. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lentic Areas. Bureau of Land Management. National Applied Resource Sciences Center, CO.
Rappole, J. H. and G. W. Blacklock. 1994. A field guide: Birds of Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX.
Rhyne, M. Z. 1998. Optimization of wildlife and recreation earnings for private landowners. M. S. Thesis, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Kingsville, TX.
Schindler, J. R. and T. E. Fulbright. 2003. Roller chopping effects on Tamaulipan scrub community composition. Journal of Range Management, 56:585-590.
Schmidley, D. J. 1983. Texas mammals east of the Balcones Fault zone. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX.
Scifres C. J., W. T. Hamilton, J. R. Conner, J. M. Inglis, and G. A. Rasmussen. 1985. Integrated Brush Management Systems for South Texas: Development and Implementation. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station, TX.
Scifres, C. J. and W. T. Hamilton. 1993. Prescribed burning for brushland management: the South Texas example. Texas A&M Press, College Station, TX.
Scifres, C. J. 1975. Systems for improving McCartney rose infested coastal prairie rangeland. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin MP 1225.
Smeins, F. E., S. Fuhlendorf, and C. Taylor, Jr. 1997. Environmental and Land Use Changes: A Long Term Perspective. In Juniper Symposium, 1-21. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station.
Smeins, F. E., D. D. Diamond, and W. Hanselka. 1991. Coastal prairie, 269-290. In Ecosystems of the World: Natural Grasslands. Edited by R. T. Coupland. Elsevier Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database.
Snyder, R. A. and C. L. Boss. 2002. Recovery and stability in barrier island plant communities. Journal of Coastal Research, 18:530-536.
Stiles, H. R., ed. 1906. Joutel’s journal of La Salle’s last voyage, 1686-1687. Joseph McDonough, Albany, NY.
Stringham, T. K., W. C. Krueger, and P. L. Shaver. 2001. State and transition modeling: and ecological process approach. Journal of Range Management, 56(2):106-113.
Texas A&M Research and Extension Center. 2000. Native Plants of South Texas http://uvalde.tamu.edu/herbarium/index.html.
Texas Agriculture Experiment Station. 2007. Benny Simpson’s Texas Native Trees http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/ornamentals/natives/.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2007. List of White-tailed Deer Browse and Ratings. District 8.
Tharp, B. C. 1926. Structure of Texas Vegetation east of the 98th meridian. Bulletin 2606. University of Texas, Austin. TX.
Thurow, T. L. 1991. Hydrology and Erosion. In: Grazing Management: An Ecological Perspective. Edited by R.K. Heitschmidt and J.W. Stuth. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Urbatsch, L. 2000. Chinese tallow tree (Triadica sebifera (L.) Small. USDA-NRCS Plant Guide.
USDA-NRCS Plant Database. 2018. https://plants.usda.gov/.
Van’t Hul, J. T., R. S. Lutz and N. E. Mathews. 1997. Impact of prescribed burning on vegetation and bird abundance on Matagorda Island, Texas. Journal of Range Management, 50:346-360.
Vines, R. A. 1984. Trees of Central Texas. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.
Wade, D. D., B. L. Brock, P. H. Brose, J. B. Grace, G. A. Hoch, and W. A. Patterson III. 2000. Fire in Eastern ecosystems. In Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. Edited by. J. K. Brown and J. Kaplers. United States Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.
Weltz, M. A. and W. H. Blackburn. 1995. Water budget for south Texas rangelands. Journal of Range Management, 48:45-52.
Whittaker, R. H., L. E. Gilbert, and J. H. Connell. 1979. Analysis of a two-phase pattern in a mesquite grassland, Texas. Journal of Ecology, 67:935-52.
Wright, B. D., R. K. Lyons, J. C. Cathey, and S. Cooper. 2002. White-tailed deer browse preferences for South Texas and the Edwards Plateau. Texas Cooperative Extension Bulletin B-6130.
Wright, H.A. and A.W. Bailey. 1982. Fire Ecology: United States and Southern Canada. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.Approval
Bryan Christensen, 9/19/2023
Acknowledgments
Reviewers and Contributors: Vivian Garcia, RMS, NRCS, Corpus Christi, Texas Jason Hohlt, RMS, NRCS, Kingsville, Texas Forrest Smith, South Texas Natives, Kingsville, Texas Dusty Crowe, DC, NRCS, Carrizo Springs, Texas Gary Harris, MSSL, NRCS, Robstown, Texas Shanna Dunn, RSS, NRCS, Corpus Christi, Texas Ann Kinney, Editor, NRCS, Temple, Texas Mark Moseley, ESS, NRCS, San Antonio, Texas
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) Vivian Garcia, RMS, NRCS, Corpus Christi, Texas Contact for lead author 361-241-0609 Date 04/02/2015 Approved by Approval date Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on Annual Production Indicators
-
Number and extent of rills:
None. -
Presence of water flow patterns:
None. -
Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes:
None. -
Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, lichen, moss, plant canopy are not bare ground):
Small and non-connected areas. -
Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies:
None. -
Extent of wind scoured, blowouts and/or depositional areas:
None. -
Amount of litter movement (describe size and distance expected to travel):
Short, less than one foot except during overflow events. -
Soil surface (top few mm) resistance to erosion (stability values are averages - most sites will show a range of values):
Soil Stability Rating of 5 to 6. -
Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type of structure and A-horizon color and thickness):
Subangular blocky, A-horizon 4 to 12 inches, three percent SOM. -
Effect of community phase composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration and runoff:
Tall and midgrasses reduce runoff to minimal amounts except in exceptional rainfall events. -
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:
Warm season tall grasses>>Sub-dominant:
short warm season grasses (SD)> cool season grasses (SD)>perennial forbs(SD)> trees=shrubs (SD). Forbs make up 10 percent species composition, shrubs and trees compose up to 10 percent.Other:
Additional:
-
Amount of plant mortality and decadence (include which functional groups are expected to show mortality or decadence):
None. -
Average percent litter cover (%) and depth ( in):
-
Expected annual annual-production (this is TOTAL above-ground annual-production, not just forage annual-production):
3,750 to 8,550 air-dry pounds per acre. -
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:
King Ranch bluestem, spiny aster, mesquite, twisted acacia, annual forbs, annual panicums, threeawns, and red grama. -
Perennial plant reproductive capability:
All plants should reproduce each year.
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
