Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site R150AY012LA
Loamy Terrace Prairie
Last updated: 9/22/2023
Accessed: 08/28/2026
-
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.
MLRA notes
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 150A–Gulf Coast Prairies
MLRA 150A is in the West Gulf Coastal Plain Section of the Coastal Plain Province of the Atlantic Plain in Texas (83 percent) and Louisiana (17 percent). It makes up about 16,365 square miles (42,410 square kilometers). It is characterized by nearly level plains that have low local relief and are dissected by rivers and streams that flow toward the Gulf of Mexico. Elevation ranges from sea level to about 165 feet (0 to 50 meters) along the interior margin. It includes the towns of Crowley, Eunice, and Lake Charles, Louisiana, and Beaumont, Houston, Bay City, Victoria, Corpus Christi, Robstown, and Kingsville, Texas. Interstates 10 and 45 are in the northeastern part of the area, and Interstate 37 is in the southwestern part. U.S. Highways 90 and 190 are in the eastern part, in Louisiana. U.S. Highway 77 passes through Kingsville, Texas. The Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge and the Fannin Battleground State Historic Site are in the part of the area in Texas.
Classification relationships
USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006.
-Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 150AEcological site concept
The site consists of very deep, moderately well drained to poorly drained, moderately to slowly permeable soils with loamy surfaces that formed in alluvium of the Pleistocene age. These areas were part of the tall grass prairie.
Associated sites
R150AY013LA Clayey Terrace Prairie
This site is on low broad flats having clayey-textured soils.
R150AY014LA Loamy Terrace Ridge
This site is comprised of silt loam soils on slopes of 0 to 3 percent.
Similar sites
R150AY741TX Northern Loamy Prairie
This site is characterized by very deep loamy soils occurring on uplands. They are vegetatively productive and provide good grazing for livestock.
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree Not specified
Shrub Not specified
Herbaceous (1) Schizachyrium scoparium
(2) Chasmanthium laxumPhysiographic features
This area is in the West Gulf Coastal Plain Section of the Coastal Plain Province of the Atlantic Plain. It is characterized by nearly level plains that have low local relief and are dissected by rivers and streams that flow toward the Gulf of Mexico, consisting of Pleistocene age deposits of deltaic and lagoonal clays and loams. At the eastern edge, a cap of mixed loess and alluvium occurs on most soils. The loess was derived from the flood plain along the Mississippi River. Areas of this site may contain remnant mima, or pimple mounds, which are characterized by low circular or oval domes composed of coarser-textured material. The basal diameter varies from 10 to more than 100 feet and the height from 1 to about 6 feet. Most of these mounds have been leveled to improve production efficiencies however, there are areas where they still exist.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Coastal plain > Stream terrace
(2) Coastal plain > Flat
Runoff class Low to very high Flooding duration Brief (2 to 7 days) to long (7 to 30 days) Flooding frequency Rare to frequent Elevation 0 – 80 ft Slope 0 – 3 % Water table depth 0 – 24 in Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
The climate of MLRA 150A is humid subtropical with mild winters. The average annual precipitation in the northern two-thirds of this area is 45 to 63 inches. It is 28 inches at the extreme southern tip of the area and 30 to 45 inches in the southwestern third of the area. The precipitation is fairly evenly distributed, but it is slightly higher in late summer and midsummer in the western part of the area and slightly higher in winter in the eastern part. Rainfall typically occurs as moderate intensity, tropical storms that produce large amounts of rain during the winter. The average annual temperature is 66 to 72 degrees F. The freeze-free period averages 325 days and ranges from 290 to 365 days, increasing in length to the southwest.
Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 240-240 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 270-310 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 60-60 in Frost-free period (actual range) 230-240 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 270-350 days Precipitation total (actual range) 60-60 in Frost-free period (average) 240 days Freeze-free period (average) 300 days Precipitation total (average) 60 in Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 1. Monthly precipitation range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 2. Monthly minimum temperature range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 3. Monthly maximum temperature range
BarLineFigure 4. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Figure 5. Annual precipitation pattern
Figure 6 Annual average temperature pattern
Climate stations used
-
(1) EUNICE [USC00162981], Eunice, LA
-
(2) CROWLEY 2 NE [USC00162212], Crowley, LA
-
(3) JENNINGS [USC00164700], Jennings, LA
-
(4) LAKE CHARLES [USW00003937], Lake Charles, LA
">Influencing water features
Water table depths will fluctuate according to the season of the year. Typically the water table will be highest during the winter and early spring when warm season vegetation is not drawing moisture from the soil. Although ponding is not shown as a characteristic for the soils of this site, ponding may occur for brief to long periods during the growing season on micro-lows and influence the plant community. Some soils associated with this site are hydric or have hydric inclusions and may be wetlands.
Wetland description
This site has hydric and non-hydric soils. Those areas with non-hydric soils have minor components of hydric soils. Hydric areas are mostly due to frequent flooding for long periods. Onsite investigation is necessary to determine exact local conditions.
Soil features
The site consists of very deep, moderately well drained to poorly drained, moderately to slowly permeable soils that formed in alluvium of the Pleistocene age. Soils correlated to this site include: Acadiana, Basile, Brule, Pineisland, and Vidrine series.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Alluvium – igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock
(2) Eolian deposits – igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock
Surface texture (1) Loam
(2) Silty clay loam
(3) Silt loam
Family particle size (1) Fine-silty
(2) Fine
Drainage class Moderately well drained to poorly drained Permeability class Slow to moderate Soil depth 80 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(0-60in)10 – 12 in Electrical conductivity
(0-60in)0 – 2 mmhos/cm Sodium adsorption ratio
(0-60in)0 – 8 Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-24in)4.5 – 6 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(0-60in)Not specified Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(0-60in)Not specified Ecological dynamics
The pre-settlement plant community of the Loamy Terrace Prairie was a tallgrass prairie. Soils, climate, fire, and grazing by native wild herbivores were the major influences on the plant community. Historically, bison were the primary large ungulates that grazed the site. There are historical records that fires commonly occurred, but none that definitively describe the frequency, timing, or intensity of fires. It has been postulated fires occurred as frequently as every 2 to 5 years.
Under the influences mentioned above, this prairie was dominated by tallgrasses. Major tallgrass species include little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), yellow Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), and eastern gamagrass (Tripsacum dactyloides). Perennial forbs are an important part of the composition and include ashy sunflower (Helianthus mollis), button snake root (Eryngium yuccifolium), gayfeather (Liatris spp.), and goldenrod (Solidago spp.). The species composition varies to include species from several families and will vary along the moisture gradient. The micro-highs and lows contribute to the diverse plant community; the micro-highs are slightly drier and the micro-lows slightly wetter. Elevation differences between highs and lows range from 6 to 15 inches. Vegetation tolerant of moist soil grows on the lower elevations of the while less water-tolerant vegetation grows on the higher elevations.
Excessive grazing by domestic livestock contributes to the reduction or elimination of eastern gamagrass, big bluestem, yellow Indiangrass, switchgrass, and little bluestem. As the site transitions, species such as brownseed paspalum (Paspalum plicatulum), bushy bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus), knotroot bristlegrass (Setaria parviflora), smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus), and shorter-stature species increase. In addition to site transistion due to excessive grazing, farming has had a significant influence. Not only has the site changed through the loss of native plant communities from cultivation, but also through the change in soils, hydrology, and topography by land leveling, ditching, and leveeing. Continued overuse by livestock, lack of fire, or abandonment of cropping allows woody plants to invade. These woody pioneers include eastern baccharis (Baccharis halamifolia), hackberry (Celtis sp.), ash (Fraxinus sp.), and Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera).
As the plant community transitions from the Tallgrass Prairie Community (1.1) to the other states, changes occur in plant composition, biomass production, litter accumulation, and water infiltration and storage. These changes influence most treatment alternatives including the ability to use fire as a management tool. The resulting increase in woody plant density signifies that a threshold has been crossed. Once this threshold is crossed, restoration back towards the reference plant community becomes much more difficult and expensive. Even though a plant community similar can establish, the reference community may never be fully restored. Although a combination of practices such as brush management, re-seeding, prescribed grazing, and fire are required for restoration. Also, the expansive soil disturbance associated with a transition to a converted state removes soil microenvironmental factors that can prevent total restoration.State and transition model
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 over time T1B - Clearing of native vegetation, followed by planting of improved forage species or annual crops T1C - Timber is harvested by clearcut, followed by planting to a monoculture of pine R2A - Reintroduction of fire and regular disturbance return intervals T2A - Clearing of vegetation, followed by planting improved forage species or annual crops T2B - Vegetation is cleared, followed by planting a monoculture of pine trees T3A - Absence of disturbance and natural regeneration over time T3B - Planted to a monoculture of pine trees T4A - Absence of disturbance and natural regeneration over time T4B - Timber is harvested, followed by planting improved forage species or annuals crops State 1 submodel, plant communities
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 3 submodel, plant communities
State 4 submodel, plant communities
State 1
GrasslandThe Reference state is representative of the pre-Euro settlement conditions. Climate, fire, and grazing by native wild herbivores were the major ecological drivers. There are historical records that fires commonly occurred, but none that definitively describe the frequency, timing, or intensity of fires. It has been postulated fires occurred as frequently as every 2 to 5 years. Historically, bison were the primary large ungulates that grazed the site.
Dominant plant species
-
little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), grass
-
big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), grass
Community 1.1
Tallgrass Prairie
Figure 7. 1.1 Tallgrass Prairie
This community historically covered 2.5 million acres that once dominated southwest Louisiana and is the reference plant community. Currently, less than 100 acres remain, making it one of the most endangered ecosystems. Most of the few remaining remnants of prairie in Louisiana are found on narrow strips of land along railroad tracks, small areas outside the reach of tillage, within grazing systems, and wildlife refuges. Despite the small size of these remnants, most contain a high diversity of native tallgrass prairie flora. Nearly 1,000 plant species have been identified in the Coastal Prairie and almost all are perennials.
Conversion of these sites occurred over most of the region by plowing and planting crop species or repeated and severe overgrazing, a practice which favors nonnative, sod-forming plants. Restoration is difficult as soil microbial communities are largely not well understood and seed sources for the quantities of species are difficult to locate. Historic disturbances included fire and grazing by bison. Their grazing was intense but were followed by long periods of recovery. The bison grazing accelerated nutrients cycling, removed any decadent plants, and promoted species diversity.
Fire set by storms or Native Americans recycled minerals and nutrients, retarded the invasion of woody species, and increased the quality of the plants. Bison would have been attracted to these burned areas. The combined effect of fire and grazing over long periods kept the prairie functioning. This disturbance-driven community was always evolving with shifts in species composition by time of year, climatic variability, and disturbance.Community 1.2
Early Woody Succession
Figure 8. 1.2 Early Woody Succession
This community is characterized by a diverse species composition of grasses and forbs with an increasing composition of woody species, especially ash, sweetgum, and pines. If disturbance of the vegetative community is not regularly implemented this community will transition to the Woodland State. If this is not desired, it will require input of extensive resources to return to a grassland. Vegetative disturbance can be achieved by prescribed burning, mowing, disking, or herbicide treatment. Disking or mowing may not be applicable if the woody species are too large. If a woodland is the desired community, proper management is required. Some Invasive woody species, such as tallow trees, will invade quickly and in as few as 3 years produce viable seeds. The community is critical if the desired outcome is a grassland because further establishment of woody species will be more costly.
Pathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2
Tallgrass Prairie
Early Woody SuccessionLack of brush management and fire will transition the reference community to the Early Woody Succession Community (1.2).
Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1
Early Woody Succession
Tallgrass PrairieBrush management and return of regular fire will remove the woody species and restore the tallgrass prairie.
State 2
EncroachedThe Encroached state is characterized by an increase in long-lived woody plants. Changes in disturbance frequency has allowed woody plants do dominate ecological processes, such as rates of runoff and infiltration, shading, litter accumulation, nutrient cycling and biomass production.
Dominant plant species
-
eastern baccharis (Baccharis halimifolia), tree
-
hackberry (Celtis), tree
-
ash (Fraxinus), tree
Community 2.1
Ash/Sweetgum/Pine WoodlandThis community has crossed a threshold from the Grassland State (1) to the Woodland State (2). Typically, the overstory will contain ash, sweetgum, and pines, but some Invasive woody species, such as Chinese tallow, can invade and create a closed woody canopy. This phase can provide beneficial habitat for some wildlife species. If a woodland phase is the desired community, proper management is required. This community has a critical time frame for control of undesirable species. Due to rainfall, soil fertility, and temperature, woody species will continue to grow.
Community 2.2
Mixed ForestThis community is a result of continued growth by the previous woodland community (2.1). At this phase, some species have reached maturity and are being replaced by other woody species. This may be desired for areas that are planted to woodland species. This phase can provide beneficial habitat for some wildlife species. If timber production is the desired community, proper management is required. Control of undesirable species should be part of the harvest strategy and due to rainfall, drainage and soil properties, harvest limitations exist and will require attention.
Pathway 2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.2Continued, unabated growth by woody species will transition the woodland into a forest.
State 3
ConvertedThe Converted State is characterized by the removal of native vegetation and natural disturbance return intervals. Major ecological drivers in this state include the presence of long-lived, persistent, non-natives and intensive annual soil disturbance.
Community 3.1
Converted grassland
Figure 9. 3.1 Converted grassland
Figure 10. 3.1 Converted grassland with native tallgrass prairie species and managment
This community is characterized by a typical hay production field. The species composition generally consists of a single grass species that is managed for forage production. These communities are typically harvested for stored forage although grazing may occur. These sites are productive for forage and can provide ecological benefits such as control of soil erosion. Allowing for adequate rest and regrowth of desired species is required to maintain productivity. Maintenance of monoculture stands also requires control of unwanted species which will require pest management and nutrient management to maintain the needed fertility.
Some attempts are made to restore the native reference plant community. Due to the large numbers of plant species, and the variability within communities, the exact mixture and number of species will vary greatly. Many of the reference species seeds are not available for purchase. Therefore, full restoration to the reference community may not be fully possible, but a similar community with the same disturbance regime can be replicated. This community is disturbance dependent; primarily fire. Other methods for maintenance include prescribed grazing and brush management. There is an equilibrium that must be reached between maintaining species composition and disturbance. If a site is destructively grazed, trafficked in saturated soil conditions, utilized as a feeding area, mechanically disturbed, and plant crowns and/or roots are destroyed, the transition process to a Woodland State (2) will occur.Community 3.2
CroplandThis community is characterized by a crop production field. Annual plantings for forage production would also be included in this phase, which may include cool-season annual grasses, legumes, and warm-season forage species. Vegetable crops are generally grown on a small scale. On fields with an adequate water source capable of being utilized for rice production, crawfish may be included in the rotation or as a standalone crop. Often two or more crops will be grown in a multiyear rotation, this breaks pest cycles and some crops produce higher amounts of residue, which is left on the soil to improve soil quality. Maintenance of monoculture crop stands also requires control of unwanted species, which will require pest management and nutrient management to maintain the needed fertility.
Pathway 3.1A
Community 3.1 to 3.2The land manager's decision to farm is the driver for transition to the Cropland Community (3.2).
Pathway 3.2A
Community 3.2 to 3.1The land manager's decision to plant grass for grazing, hay, or restoration is the driver for transition to the Converted Grassland Community (3.1).
State 4
PlantationCommunity 4.1
Pine Plantation
Figure 11. 4.1 Pine Plantation
Pine plantations are the result of land managers trying to maximize silviculture potential. This may be achieved by planting pine species at the desired densities. Proper management is required to achieve the desired production. Harvest of marketable timber will occur in this phase. Control of undesirable species should be part of the harvest strategy and due to environmental conditions, rainfall, drainage, and soil properties.
Transition T1A
State 1 to 2Lack of prescribed grazing, fire, and brush management
Transition T1B
State 1 to 3Planting introduced forages in the form of crops or grasses will transition the site to the Converted State (3).
Transition T1C
State 1 to 4Maximizing silviculture potential by planting a monoculture of pine species transitions this community.
Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1Restoration back to reference conditions requires brush management to remove the overstory canopy followed by prescribed grazing and return of regular fire intervals.
Transition T2A
State 2 to 3Planting introduced forages in the form of crops or grasses will transition the site to the Converted State (3).
Transition T2B
State 2 to 4Maximizing silviculture potential by planting a monoculture of pine species transitions this community.
Transition T3A
State 3 to 2Without pest management and brush management to remove woody species, the Converted Grassland (3.1) or Cropland (3.2) can transition into a Woodland State (2).
Transition T3B
State 3 to 4Maximizing silviculture potential by planting a monoculture of pine species transitions this community.
Transition T4A
State 4 to 2Without management of unwanted species, the plantation site can be overrun and transition to the Woodland State (2).
Transition T4B
State 4 to 3Planting introduced forages in the form of crops or grasses will transition the site to the Converted State (3).
Additional community tables
Table 5. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 6. Community 1.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 7. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 8. Community 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 10. Community 3.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 11. Community 4.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Animal community
The Coastal Prairie communities support a wide array of animals. Cattle and many species of wildlife make extensive use of the site. White-tailed deer may be found scattered across the prairie and are found in heavier concentrations where woody cover exists. Feral hogs are present and at times abundant. Coyotes are abundant and fill the mammalian predator niche. Rodent populations rise during drier periods and fall during periods of inundation. Attwater’s pocket gophers are abundant and have an important impact on the ecology of the site. The badger is present but not abundant in locations at the southern extent of the site. Locally unique species alligators and bullfrogs.
The region is a major flyway for waterfowl and migrating birds. Hundreds of thousands of ducks, geese, and sandhill cranes abound during winter. Two important endangered species occur in the area, the whooping crane and Attwater’s prairie chicken. Many other species of avian predators including northern harriers, ferruginous hawks, red-tailed hawks, white-tailed kites, kestrels, and, occasionally, swallow-tailed kites utilize the vast grasslands. Many species of grassland birds use the site, including blue grosbeaks, dickcissels, eastern meadowlarks, several sparrows, including, vesper sparrow, lark sparrow, savannah sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, and Le Conte’s sparrow.Supporting information
Inventory data references
This site description was developed as part of the provisional ecological site initiative using historic soil survey manuscripts, available range site descriptions, and low intensity field sampling
Other references
Allain, L., L. Smith, C. Allen, M. Vidrine, and J. B. Grace. 2006. A floristic quality assessment system for the Coastal Prairie of Louisiana. North American Prairie Conference, 19.
Allain, L., M. Vidrine, V. Grafe, C. Allen, and S. Johnson. 2000. Paradise lost: The coastal prairie of Louisiana and Texas. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Layfayette, LA.
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. 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. and F. E. Smeins. 1991. Ecosystem-level processes. 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.
Baldwin, H. Q., J. B. Grace, W. C. Barrow, and F. C. Rohwer. 2007. Habitat relationships of birds overwintering in a managed coastal prairie. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 119(2):189-198.
Beasom, S. L, G. Proudfoot, and J. Mays. 1994. Characteristics of a live oak-dominated area on the eastern South Texas Sand Plain. In the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute Annual Report, 1-2.
Berlandier, J. L. 1980. Journey to Mexico during the years 1826 to 1834: translated. Texas State Historical Associated and the University of Texas. Austin, TX.
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.
Bollaert, W. 1956. William Bollaert’s Texas. Edited by W. E. Hollon and R. L. Butler. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.
Bonnell, G. W. 1840. Topographical description of Texas: To which is added, an account of the Indian tribes. Clark, Wing, and Brown, Austin, TX.
Box, T. W. 1960. Herbage production on four range plant communities in South Texas. Journal of Range Management, 13:72-76.
Box, T. W. and A. D. Chamrad. 1966. Plant communities of the Welder Wildlife Refuge.
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.
Brite, T. R. 1860. Atascosa County. The Texas Almanac for 1861. Richardson and Co., Galveston, TX.
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.
Chamrad, A. D. and J. D. Dodd. 1972. Prescribed burning and grazing for prairie chicken habitat manipulation in the Texas coastal prairie. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, 12:257-276.
Crawford, J. T. 1912. Correspondence from the British archives concerning Texas, 1837-1846. Edited by E. D. Adams. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, 15:205-209.
Davis, R. B. and R. L. Spicer. 1965. Status of the practice of brush control in the Rio Grande Plain. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Bulletin, 46.
Davis, W. B. 1974. The Mammals of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Bulletin, 41.
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.
Drawe, D. L., A. D. Chamrad, and T. W. Box. 1978. Plant communities of the Welder Wildlife Refuge.
Drawe, D. L. and T. W. Box. 1969. High rates of nitrogen fertilization influence Coastal Prairie range. Journal of Range Management, 22:32-36.
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. and M. A. Alaniz. 1980. Fall and winter diets of feral pigs in south Texas. Journal of Range Management, 33:126-129.
Everitt, J. H. and D. L. Drawe. 1993. 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 used by livestock and wildlife. 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, 20.
Foster, W. C. 2010. Spanish Expeditions into Texas 1689-1768. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.
Frost, C. C. 1995. Presettlement fire regimes in southeastern marshes, peatlands, and swamps. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, 19:39-60.
Frost, C. C. 1998. Presettlement fire frequency regimes of the United States: A first approximation. Fire in ecosystem management: Shifting the paradigm from suppression to prescription. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, 20:70-81.
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., D. D. Diamond, J. Rappole, and J. Norwine. 1990. The Coastal Sand Plain of Southern Texas. Rangelands, 12:337-340.
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.
Gould, F. W. 1975. The Grasses of Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX.
Grace, J. B., T. M. Anderson, M. D. Smith, E. Seabloom, S. J. Andelman, G. Meche, E. Weiher, L. K. Allain, H. Jutila, M. Sankaran, J. Knops, M. Ritchie, and M. R. Willig. 2007. Does species diversity limit productivity in natural grassland communities? Ecology Letters, 10(8):680-689.
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.
Grace, J. B., L. Allain, C. Allen. 2000. Factors associated with plant species richness in a coastal tall-grass prairie. Journal of Vegetation Science, 11:443-452.
Graham, D. 2003. Kings of Texas: The 150-year saga of an American ranching empire. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Hamilton, W. and D. Ueckert. 2005. Rangeland woody plant control: Past, present, and future. Brush management: Past, present, and future, 3-16.
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.
Harcombe, P. A. and J. E. Neaville. 1997. Vegetation types of Chambers County, Texas. The Texas Journal of Science, 29:209-234.
Hatch, S. L., J. L. Schuster, and D. L. Drawe. 1999. Grasses of the Texas Gulf Prairies and Marshes. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX.
Heitschmidt, R. K. and J. W. Stuth. 1991. Grazing management: An ecological perspective. Timberline Press, Portland, OR.
Hughes, G.U. 1846. Memoir Description of a March of a Division of the United States Army under the Command of Brigadier General John E. Wool, From San Antonio de Bexar, in Texas to Saltillo, in Mexico. Senate Executive Document, 32.
Inglis, J. M. 1964. A history of vegetation of the Rio Grande Plains. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Bulletin, 45.
Jenkins, J. H. 1973. The Papers of the Texas Revolution, 1835-1836. Presidential Press, Austin, TX.
Johnson, M. C. 1963. Past and present grasslands of southern Texas and northeastern Mexico. Ecology 44(3):456-466.
Joutel, H. 1906. Joutel’s journal of La Salle’s last voyage, 1686-1687. Edited by H. R. Stiles. Joseph McDonough, Albany, NY.
Kennedy, W. 1841. Texas: The rise, progress, and prospects of the Republic of Texas. Lincoln’s Inn, London, England.
Kimmel, F. 2008. Louisiana's Cajun Prairie: An endangered ecosystem. Louisiana Conservationist, 61(3):4-7.
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 Proceedings, 4:127-143.
Lehman, V. W. 1969. Forgotten Legions: Sheep in the Rio Grande Plain of Texas. Texas Western Press, El Paso, TX.
Lusk, R. M. 1917. A history of Constantine Lodge, No. 13, ancient free, and accepted Masons, Bonham, Texas. Favorite Printing Co., Hilbert, WI.
McDanield, H. F. and N. A. Taylor. 1877. The coming empire, or, two thousand miles in Texas on horseback. A. S. Barnes & Company, New York, NY.
McGinty A. and 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.
Mutz, J. L., T. J. Greene, C. J. Scifres, and B. H. Koerth. 1985. Response of Pan American balsamscale, soil, and livestock to prescribed burning. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, B-1492.
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. 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.
Palmer, G. R., T. E. Fulbright, and G. McBryde. 1995. Inland sand dune reclamation on the Coastal Sand Plain of Southern Texas. Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute Annual Report, 30-31.
Pickens, B., S. L. King, B. Vermillion, L. M. Smith, and L. Allain. 2009. Conservation Planning for the Coastal Prairie Region of Louisiana. A final report from Louisiana State University to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Prichard, D. 1998. Riparian area management: A user guide to assessing proper functioning condition and the supporting science for lotic areas. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO.
Rappole, J. H. and G. W. Blacklock. 1994. A field guide: Birds of Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX.
Rappole, J. H. and G. W. Blacklock. 1985. Birds of the Texas Coastal Bend: Abundance and distribution. 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. 1975. Systems for improving McCartney rose infested coastal prairie rangeland. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, MP 1225.
Scifres, C. J. and W. T. Hamilton. 1993. Prescribed burning for brushland management: The South Texas example. Texas A&M Press, College Station, TX.
Shelby, C. 1933. Letters of an early American traveler: Mary Austin Holley, her life and her works, 1784-1846. Southwest Press, Dallas, TX.
Siemann, E., and W. E. Rogers. 2007. The role of soil resources in an exotic tree invasion in Texas coastal prairie. Journal of Ecology, 95(4):689-697.
Smith, L. M. 1996. The rare and sensitive natural wetland plant communities of interior Louisiana. Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, Baton Rouge, LA.
Smeins, F. E., D. D. Diamond, and W. Hanselka. 1991. Coastal prairie, 269-290. Ecosystems of the World: Natural Grasslands. Edited by R. T. Coupland. Elsevier Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Stringham, T. K., W. C. Krueger, and P. L. Shaver. 2001. State and transition modeling: An ecological process approach. Journal of Range Management, 56(2):106-113.
Stutzenbaker, C. D. 1999. Aquatic and wetland plants of the Western Gulf Coast. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.
Tharp, B. C. 1926. Structure of Texas vegetation east of the 98th meridian. University of Texas Bulletin, 2606.
Urbatsch, L. 2000. Chinese tallow tree Triadica sebifera (L.) Small. USDA-NRCS, National Plant Center, Baton Rouge, LA.
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.
Vidrine, M. F. 2010. The Cajun Prairie: A natural history. Cajun Prairie Habitat Preservation Society, Eunice, LA.
Vines, R. A. 1984. Trees of Central Texas. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.
Vines, R. A. 1977. Trees of Eastern Texas. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.
Warren, W. S. 1998. The La Salle Expedition to Texas: The journal of Henry Joutel, 1684-1687. Edited by W. C. Foster. Texas State Historical Association, 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. 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.
Weaver, J. E. and F. E. Clements. 1938. Plant ecology. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
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.
Wilbarger, J. W. 1889. Indian depredation in Texas. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, Scotts Valley, CA.
Williams, L. R. and G. N Cameron. 1985. Effects of removal of pocket gophers on a Texas coastal prairie. The American Midland Naturalist Journal, 115:216-224.
Woodin, M. C., M. K. Skoruppa, and G. C. Hickman. 2000. Surveys of night birds along the Rio Grande in Webb County, Texas. Final Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Corpus Christi, TX.
Wright, H.A. and A.W. Bailey. 1982. Fire Ecology: United States and Southern Canada. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.Contributors
Charles Stemmans, Ecologist, NRCS, Opelousas, LA
Tyson Hart, Ecologist, NRCS, Nacogdoches, TXApproval
Bryan Christensen, 9/22/2023
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 08/28/2026 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
