Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site R226XY053AK
Wet Meadow Complex (AK653-St Paul Island)
Accessed: 10/04/2026
-
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.
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree Not specified
Shrub Not specified
Herbaceous Not specified
Physiographic features
This site occurs in nearly flats adjacent to the coast in the proximity of laggons and salt marshes. This site is subject to periodic tidal inundation.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Tidal flat
Flooding duration Very brief (4 to 48 hours) to brief (2 to 7 days) Flooding frequency Rare to occasional Elevation 0 – 5 ft Slope 0 – 3 % Climatic features
Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (average) 120 days Freeze-free period (average) 100 days Precipitation total (average) 20 in BarLineFigure 1. Monthly precipitation range
BarLineFigure 2. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
">Influencing water features
Soil features
Soils are very deep and poorly or very poorly drained. Soils can have a thick organic layer or sand at the surface. Soil pH is neutral. Runoff is very low to negligible and permeability is rapid.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Surface texture (1) Mucky sand
Family particle size (1) Sandy
Drainage class Poorly drained Permeability class Rapid Soil depth 60 – 65 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(0-40in)6.2 – 6.4 in Calcium carbonate equivalent
(0-40in)Not specified Electrical conductivity
(0-40in)Not specified Sodium adsorption ratio
(0-40in)Not specified Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-40in)6.6 – 7.3 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)Not specified Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)Not specified Ecological dynamics
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
State 1 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Carex spp./Arctagrostis latifoliaCommunity 1.1
Carex spp./Arctagrostis latifoliaSedges and grasses make up 95% and forbs 5% of the composition. Total annual vascualr herbage production is 1970 pounds/acre.
Figure 3. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)
Additional community tables
Table 5. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Grass/Grasslike1 1825–1950 sedge CAREX Carex 1400–1600 – wideleaf polargrass ARLA2 Arctagrostis latifolia 190–210 – American dunegrass LEMOM2 Leymus mollis ssp. mollis 175–185 – Forb1 90–95 starwort STELL Stellaria 80–85 – Aleutian violet VILA6 Viola langsdorffii 0–5 – Pacific hemlockparsley COGM Conioselinum gmelinii 0–5 – Interpretations
Animal community
Sedges provide high value reindeer forage during winter when covered by snow. Wide leaf polargrass maintains its forage value well into the winter and provides excellent early spring forage. Lyme grass is seldom selected by reindeer during spring and summer and is of no value during winter.
Supporting information
Contributors
Swanson
Rangeland health reference sheet
Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health is a qualitative assessment protocol used to determine ecosystem condition based on benchmark characteristics described in the Reference Sheet. A suite of 17 (or more) indicators are typically considered in an assessment. The ecological site(s) representative of an assessment location must be known prior to applying the protocol and must be verified based on soils and climate. Current plant community cannot be used to identify the ecological site.
Author(s)/participant(s) Contact for lead author Date Approved by Approval date Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on Annual Production Indicators
-
Number and extent of rills:
-
Presence of water flow patterns:
-
Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes:
-
Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, lichen, moss, plant canopy are not bare ground):
-
Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies:
-
Extent of wind scoured, blowouts and/or depositional areas:
-
Amount of litter movement (describe size and distance expected to travel):
-
Soil surface (top few mm) resistance to erosion (stability values are averages - most sites will show a range of values):
-
Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type of structure and A-horizon color and thickness):
-
Effect of community phase composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration and runoff:
-
Presence and thickness of compaction layer (usually none; describe soil profile features which may be mistaken for compaction on this site):
-
Functional/Structural Groups (list in order of descending dominance by above-ground annual-production or live foliar cover using symbols: >>, >, = to indicate much greater than, greater than, and equal to):
Dominant:
Sub-dominant:
Other:
Additional:
-
Amount of plant mortality and decadence (include which functional groups are expected to show mortality or decadence):
-
Average percent litter cover (%) and depth ( in):
-
Expected annual annual-production (this is TOTAL above-ground annual-production, not just forage annual-production):
-
Potential invasive (including noxious) species (native and non-native). List species which BOTH characterize degraded states and have the potential to become a dominant or co-dominant species on the ecological site if their future establishment and growth is not actively controlled by management interventions. Species that become dominant for only one to several years (e.g., short-term response to drought or wildfire) are not invasive plants. Note that unlike other indicators, we are describing what is NOT expected in the reference state for the ecological site:
-
Perennial plant reproductive capability:
Print Options
Sections
Font
AAAAOther
PrintThe Ecosystem Dynamics Interpretive Tool is an information system framework developed by the USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, and New Mexico State University.
Accessibility statement
