Natural Resources
Conservation Service
-
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 as a lava flow on the western part of the island. Vegetated areas are interspersed throughout the site.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Lava flow
Elevation 40 – 300 ft Slope 0 – 60 % 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 shallow and well drained. Soils are very high in organic matter content and soil pH is moderately acid. Runoff is low and permeability is very slow.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Surface texture (1) Cobbly silt
(2) Mucky
Family particle size (1) Loamy
Drainage class Well drained Permeability class Very slow Soil depth 10 – 20 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(0-40in)8.6 – 8.8 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)5.6 – 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
Empetrum nigrum/Lupinus nootkatensisCommunity 1.1
Empetrum nigrum/Lupinus nootkatensisShrubs make up about 60% of the composition, forbs about 30% and grasses and sedges 10% of the composition. Total annual vascular herbage production is 1380 pounds/acre. Total live lichen biomass is 5000 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 850–900 black crowberry EMNI Empetrum nigrum 475–500 – arctic willow SAAR27 Salix arctica 335–345 – northern willow SAAR6 Salix arctophila 45–55 – northern mountain cranberry VAVIM Vaccinium vitis-idaea ssp. minus 0–1 – cloudberry RUCH Rubus chamaemorus 0–1 – Grass/Grasslike1 125–175 sedge CAREX Carex 30–40 – wideleaf polargrass ARLA2 Arctagrostis latifolia 20–30 – bluejoint CACAL3 Calamagrostis canadensis var. langsdorffii 20–30 – common woodrush LUMU2 Luzula multiflora 15–25 – alpine fescue FEBR Festuca brachyphylla 5–15 – Alaska fescue FEBR2 Festuca brevissima 0–10 – Kentucky bluegrass POPR Poa pratensis 0–10 – spike trisetum TRSP2 Trisetum spicatum 5–10 – smallflowered woodrush LUPA4 Luzula parviflora 5 – alpine timothy PHAL2 Phleum alpinum 0–5 – bluegrass POA Poa 0–5 – Bering's tufted hairgrass DEBE2 Deschampsia beringensis 0–5 – mountain harebell CALA7 Campanula lasiocarpa 0–1 – shortstalk sedge CAPO Carex podocarpa 0–1 – Siberian oatgrass TRSI2 Trisetum sibiricum 0–1 – Forb1 350–375 Nootka lupine LUNO Lupinus nootkatensis 220–230 – seacoast angelica ANLU Angelica lucida 50–55 – woodfern DRYOP Dryopteris 35–45 – boreal sagebrush ARAR9 Artemisia arctica 5–15 – Pacific hemlockparsley COGM Conioselinum gmelinii 10–15 – whorled lousewort PEVE Pedicularis verticillata 5–10 – Bering chickweed CEBEG3 Cerastium beeringianum ssp. beeringianum var. grandiflorum 5–10 – Danish scurvygrass COGR6 Cochlearia groenlandica 0–5 – Lapland cornel COSU4 Cornus suecica 0–1 – boreal draba DRBO Draba borealis 0–1 – larkspurleaf monkshood ACDE2 Aconitum delphiniifolium 0–1 – larkspurleaf monkshood ACDEC Aconitum delphiniifolium ssp. chamissonianum 0–1 – boreal yarrow ACMIB Achillea millefolium var. borealis 0–1 – sweetflower rockjasmine ANCH Androsace chamaejasme 0–1 – arctic stitchwort MIAR3 Minuartia arctica 0–1 – Bering chickweed CEBE2 Cerastium beeringianum 0–1 – Hornemann's willowherb EPHOB Epilobium hornemannii ssp. behringianum 0–1 – whitish gentian GEAL2 Gentiana algida 0–1 – villous cinquefoil POVI4 Potentilla villosa 0–1 – moss campion SIAC Silene acaulis 0–1 – northern starwort STCA Stellaria calycantha 0–1 – arctic starflower TREU Trientalis europaea 0–1 – arctic starflower TREUA Trientalis europaea ssp. arctica 0–1 – alpine violet VILA10 Viola labradorica 0–1 – common chickweed STME2 Stellaria media 0 – alpine bistort POVI3 Polygonum viviparum 0 – Lichen1 0–10 whiteworm lichen THAMN3 Thamnolia 0–10 – Interpretations
Animal community
This site provides high value winter forage for reindeer. Willow growing on this site is also high forage value during the winter and early spring months.
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
