Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site R226XY060AK
Sedge Meadow (Lowland) (AK653 St Paul Island)
Accessed: 10/08/2026
-
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 occupies coastal and inland areas on the west coast of St. Paul Island, on gently sloping plains and uplands slopes.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Plain
Elevation 60 – 200 ft Slope 6 – 15 % 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 moderately deep and moderately well to well drained. Textures are fine to medium and soil pH is strongly to moderately acid. Runoff is low to medium and permeability is moderately slow to moderately rapid.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Surface texture (1) Very cobbly silt loam
(2) Medial
Family particle size (1) Loamy
Drainage class Moderately well drained to well drained Permeability class Moderately slow to moderately rapid Soil depth 20 – 40 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(0-40in)9.5 – 9.7 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)5.1 – 6 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 podocarpa/Salix cyclophyllaCommunity 1.1
Carex podocarpa/Salix cyclophyllaSedges and grasses make up about 45% of the composition. Forbs make up 30% and shrubs 25% . Total annual vascular herbage production is1610 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 (%) Shrub/Vine1 350–400 oval-leaf willow SAOVC Salix ovalifolia var. cyclophylla 185–195 – netleaf willow SARE2 Salix reticulata 90–95 – arctic willow SAAR27 Salix arctica 55–65 – black crowberry EMNI Empetrum nigrum 30–35 – Grass/Grasslike1 750–775 shortstalk sedge CAPO Carex podocarpa 195–205 – sedge CAREX Carex 180–200 – Bering's tufted hairgrass DEBE2 Deschampsia beringensis 70–80 – bluegrass POA Poa 60–70 – showy sedge CASP5 Carex spectabilis 45–55 – red fescue FERU2 Festuca rubra 30–35 – spike trisetum TRSP2 Trisetum spicatum 20–30 – alpine timothy PHAL2 Phleum alpinum 15–25 – Alaska fescue FEBR2 Festuca brevissima 5–15 – Kentucky bluegrass POPR Poa pratensis 5–15 – curved woodrush LUAR5 Luzula arcuata 5–15 – Aleutian wormwood ARAL6 Artemisia aleutica 10–15 – Alaska curved woodrush LUARU Luzula arcuata ssp. unalaschcensis 0–5 – common woodrush LUMU2 Luzula multiflora 0–5 – woodrush LUZUL Luzula 0–5 – alpine fescue FEBR Festuca brachyphylla 0–5 – Forb1 450–500 Nootka lupine LUNO Lupinus nootkatensis 60–70 – seacoast angelica ANLU Angelica lucida 55–65 – captiate valerian VACA3 Valeriana capitata 50–55 – boreal yarrow ACMIB Achillea millefolium var. borealis 45–55 – Tilesius' wormwood ARTI Artemisia tilesii 30–35 – boreal yarrow ACMIB Achillea millefolium var. borealis 15–25 – Lehmann's rockjasmine ANCHL Androsace chamaejasme ssp. lehmanniana 15–25 – weaselsnout LAGL2 Lagotis glauca 20–25 – field horsetail EQAR Equisetum arvense 5–15 – Aleutian violet VILA6 Viola langsdorffii 5–15 – mountain harebell CALA7 Campanula lasiocarpa 5–15 – boreal sagebrush ARAR9 Artemisia arctica 0–10 – larkspurleaf monkshood ACDEP Aconitum delphiniifolium ssp. paradoxum 0–10 – arctic stitchwort MIAR3 Minuartia arctica 5–10 – arctic sweet coltsfoot PEFR5 Petasites frigidus 5–10 – heartleaf saxifrage SANEN Saxifraga nelsoniana ssp. nelsoniana 0–10 – tall Jacob's-ladder POAC Polemonium acutiflorum 3–8 – sulphur buttercup RASU2 Ranunculus sulphureus 2–8 – arctic raspberry RUAR Rubus arcticus 0–5 – arctic raspberry RUARS Rubus arcticus ssp. stellatus 0–5 – stiffstem saxifrage SAHI5 Saxifraga hieraciifolia 0–5 – sudetic lousewort PESU Pedicularis sudetica 0–5 – whorled lousewort PEVE Pedicularis verticillata 0–5 – Bering chickweed CEBE2 Cerastium beeringianum 0–5 – Bering chickweed CEBEG3 Cerastium beeringianum ssp. beeringianum var. grandiflorum 0–5 – Alaska springbeauty CLSA2 Claytonia sarmentosa 0–5 – larkspurleaf monkshood ACDEC Aconitum delphiniifolium ssp. chamissonianum 0–5 – common dandelion TAOFC Taraxacum officinale ssp. ceratophorum 0–2 – arctic starflower TREUA Trientalis europaea ssp. arctica 0–2 – dandelion TARAX Taraxacum 0–1 – alpine bistort POVI3 Polygonum viviparum 0–1 – umbel bittercress CAOLK Cardamine oligosperma var. kamtschatica 0–1 – villous cinquefoil POVI4 Potentilla villosa 0 – moss campion SIAC Silene acaulis 0 – common chickweed STME2 Stellaria media 0 – Lichen1 0–5 whiteworm lichen THAMN3 Thamnolia 0–2 – whiteworm lichen THSU60 Thamnolia subuliformis 0–2 – lung lichen LOLI60 Lobaria linita 0–1 – Interpretations
Animal community
Sedges and shrubs both provide high quality forage during both the winter and spring seasons.
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
