Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site R003XY013OR
Ashy Alpine Swale 50-70 PZ
Last updated: 5/10/2024
Accessed: 12/22/2024
General 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.
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.
Associated sites
| R003XY011OR |
Ashy Alpine Desert 50-70 PZ Occurs adjacent to and in complexes with this site. |
|---|---|
| R003XY012OR |
Ashy Alpine Meadow 50-70 PZ Occurs adjacent to and in complexes with this site. |
Similar sites
| R003XY011OR |
Ashy Alpine Desert 50-70 PZ |
|---|---|
| R003XY012OR |
Ashy Alpine Meadow 50-70 PZ |
Table 1. Dominant plant species
| Tree |
Not specified |
|---|---|
| Shrub |
Not specified |
| Herbaceous |
Not specified |
Physiographic features
Generally very small ponded or run-in areas with the longest-lasting snowfields in the alpine fell area.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
| Landforms |
(1)
Swale
(2) Depression (3) Valley floor |
|---|---|
| Flooding frequency | None |
| Ponding duration | Very brief (4 to 48 hours) |
| Ponding frequency | None to rare |
| Elevation | 1,829 – 2,286 m |
| Slope | 2 – 20% |
| Ponding depth | 0 – 3 cm |
| Water table depth | 74 – 152 cm |
| Aspect | Aspect is not a significant factor |
Climatic features
Precipitation comes mostly as snow. Winters are snowy and very cold; summers are cool and dry. Summer thunderstorms sometimes occur, providing small amounts of growing season precipitation.
The site occupies areas that are collection areas for localized cold air drainage. The site has a severe climatic regime characterized by wide day and nighttime temperatures.
Table 3. Representative climatic features
| Frost-free period (average) | 45 days |
|---|---|
| Freeze-free period (average) | 90 days |
| Precipitation total (average) | 1,524 mm |
Figure 2. Monthly precipitation range
Figure 3. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Influencing water features
Seasonally ponded areas and drainageways.
Soil features
Soils are exc;usively in swales and mountain slopes that hold snow fields long into the eraly summer. Soils are very deep, moderately well drained very gravelly ashy loamy sand over ashy loamy coarse sand.
The water table rises to 2.5 feet early in the growing season and is within 3.7 - 5.2 feet of the surface for the remainder of the growing season.
Increases in stability of both surface and subsurface samples reflect increased soil erosion resistance and resilience. Surface stability is correlated with current erosion resistance, while subsurface stability is correlated with resistance following soil disturbance. Sites with average values of 5.5 or above generally are very resistant to erosion, particularly if there is little bare ground and there are few large gaps. Maximum possible soil stability values may be less than 6 for very coarse sandy soils. High values usually reflect good hydrologic function. This is because stable soils are less likely to disperse and clog soil pores during rainstorms. High stability values also are strongly correlated with soil biotic integrity. Soil organisms make the “glue” that holds soil particles together. In most ecosystems, soil stability values decline first in areas without cover (Veg = NC). In more highly degraded systems, Veg = Canopy values also decline.
The following soil aggregate stability results are typical of the reference plant community. Soil agregate stability is generally good under all types of cover; unprotected areas are only slightly more prone to wind and water erosion.
Type location Average Stability:
All samples taken = 4.4
Protected samples = 4.7
Unprotected samples = 2.8
Type location Average Stability by Vegetation Class:
No cover = 3.8
Grass/Grasslikes = 4.7
Forbs = N/A
Shtubs = N/A
Trees = N/A
Table 4. Representative soil features
| Surface texture |
(1) Very gravelly loamy sand (2) Ashy |
|---|---|
| Family particle size |
(1) Sandy |
| Drainage class | Well drained to moderately well drained |
| Permeability class | Moderately rapid to rapid |
| Soil depth | 152 cm |
| Surface fragment cover <=3" | 5 – 15% |
| Surface fragment cover >3" | 3 – 5% |
| Available water capacity (0-101.6cm) |
19.81 – 21.59 cm |
| Calcium carbonate equivalent (0-101.6cm) |
0% |
| Electrical conductivity (0-101.6cm) |
10 – 20 mmhos/cm |
| Sodium adsorption ratio (0-101.6cm) |
0 |
| Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified) |
2 – 5% |
| Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified) |
5 – 10% |
Ecological dynamics
The Ashy Alpine Swale site occurs around the rim in association with primarily Ashy Alpine Meadow and Ashy Alpine Desert ecological sites. These sites are found in small depressions and flat terraces in the rim area that have slightly impermeable subsoils and tend to collect and hold snowpack and snowmelt.
The rate of decrease in the water table influences the herbaceous plant community. These sites are generally small in area and community floristic expression occurs after the last snows of the winter are gone. Consequently, sites with aspect/locations that have low, short-lived snow fields will exhibit a plant community of more adapted species (Brewer's Sedge, California Needlegrass, and Squirreltail). Sites with more rapid permeability and better drainage will express these plants as well.
Sites that have aspect/locations that have deep, long-lived snow fields will exhibit a plant community of more adapted species to that regime (Parry's Rush, Brewer's Sedge, Common Spikerush). These sites will have less rapid permeability and poorer drainage as well. Changes in the depth and rate of decline in the water table over time can shift the plant community from the wetter expression to the drier.
These park-like areas are surrounded by Mountain Hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) and Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis) forest sites. These sites are strongly correlated to soil types and are thought to be relatively permanent although plant community structure may have been different historically (Lynch, 1998). Boundaries between forest and rangeland are generally abrupt and rarely are there significant intrusions of tree species into the sites. There has historically been a large amount of time between catastrophic fires at these elevations (400-800 years).
State and transition model
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 text
Ecosystem states
State 1 submodel, plant communities
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference State Sedge-Grass
Community 1.1
Reference Plant Community-Sedge-Grass
The site is patchy and is dominated by Brewer's Sedge (Carex Breweri); Western Needlegrass (Needlegrass (Achnatherum occidentale ssp. californicum) and Squirreltail (Elymus elymoides ssp. elymoides) are minor components. Brewer's Sedge and Parry's Rush can occur together or separately depending on the length of time the snowpack stays on the surface. Colder, wetter conditions with a longer ponding period tend to favor Parry's Rush and sites that dry out quicker contain Brewer's Sedge. The plant community photo shows a site that is dominated by Brewer's Sedge but has significant quantities of Parry's Rush, Common Spikerush, and California Needlegrass as well. Increases in the proportion of canopy gaps are related to increased risk of wind erosion and invasive “weed” species establishment. For example, wind velocities in most areas of the western United States are capable of moving disturbed soil in 20-in gaps in grasslands. Disturbed soil in gaps 3-6 ft in diameter is nearly as susceptible to erosion as that with no vegetation. Minimum gap size required to cause wind erosion increases with vegetation height. Increases in the proportion of the line covered by large basal gaps reflect increased susceptibility to water erosion and runoff. Plant bases slow water movement down slopes. As basal gaps increase, there are fewer obstacles to water flow, so runoff and erosion increase. Increases in large basal gaps have a greater effect where rock and litter cover are low, because they are the only obstacles to water flow and erosion. The following canopy and basal gaps are typical of the reference plant community. A relatively dense plant community limits larger canopy and basal gaps; most gaps are small and do not occupy much of the area. Most gaps (basal & canopy) occur in intermittent stream channel or from slight bank sloughing. Type Location Canopy Gaps (%): 1.0-2.0 ft. = 2.3 2.1-3.0 ft. = 0.8 3.1-6.0 ft. = 1.1 > 6.0 ft. = 0 Type Location Basal Gaps (%): 1.0-2.0 ft. = 7.9 2.1-3.0 ft. = 3.4 3.1-6.0 ft. = 2.4 > 6.0 ft. = 0
Figure 4. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)
Table 5. Annual production by plant type
| Plant type | Low (kg/hectare) |
Representative value (kg/hectare) |
High (kg/hectare) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grass/Grasslike | 785 | 897 | 1009 |
| Forb | 34 | 67 | 101 |
| Total | 819 | 964 | 1110 |
Table 6. Ground cover
| Tree foliar cover | 0-1% |
|---|---|
| Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover | 0% |
| Grass/grasslike foliar cover | 60-70% |
| Forb foliar cover | 1-2% |
| Non-vascular plants | 10-15% |
| Biological crusts | 0% |
| Litter | 60-80% |
| Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" | 10-20% |
| Surface fragments >3" | 1-3% |
| Bedrock | 0% |
| Water | 0% |
| Bare ground | 0-5% |
Table 7. Canopy structure (% cover)
| Height Above Ground (m) | Tree | Shrub/Vine | Grass/ Grasslike |
Forb |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| <0.15 | – | – | 40-50% | 1-2% |
| >0.15 <= 0.3 | – | – | 15-20% | – |
| >0.3 <= 0.6 | – | – | 5-10% | – |
| >0.6 <= 1.4 | – | – | – | – |
| >1.4 <= 4 | – | – | – | – |
| >4 <= 12 | – | – | – | – |
| >12 <= 24 | – | – | – | – |
| >24 <= 37 | – | – | – | – |
| >37 | – | – | – | – |
Figure 5. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). OR1254, A3 Ashy Alpine Swale. 013 - use for both plant communities.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| J | F | M | A | M | J | J | A | S | O | N | D |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 30 | 40 | 20 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
State 2
Reference State Rush-Sedge
Community 2.1
Reference Plant Community-Rush-Sedge
The site is patchy and is dominated by Parry's Rush )Juncus parryi); Brewer's Sedge (Carex Breweri) and Common Spikerush (Eleocharis palustris) are minor components. Brewer's Sedge and Parry's Rush can occur together or separately depending on the length of time the snowpack stays on the surface. Colder, wetter conditions with a longer ponding period tend to favor Parry's Rush and sites that dry out quicker contain Brewer's Sedge. The plant community photo shows a site that is dominated by Parry's Rush adjacent to Ashy Alpine Meadow and Whitebark Pine sites. Canopy and basal gaps are similar to reference plant community #1.
Figure 6. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)
Table 8. Annual production by plant type
| Plant type | Low (kg/hectare) |
Representative value (kg/hectare) |
High (kg/hectare) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grass/Grasslike | 560 | 673 | 785 |
| Forb | 45 | 67 | 90 |
| Total | 605 | 740 | 875 |
Table 9. Ground cover
| Tree foliar cover | 0-1% |
|---|---|
| Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover | 0% |
| Grass/grasslike foliar cover | 50-60% |
| Forb foliar cover | 1-2% |
| Non-vascular plants | 5-10% |
| Biological crusts | 0% |
| Litter | 20-40% |
| Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" | 40-50% |
| Surface fragments >3" | 0% |
| Bedrock | 0% |
| Water | 0% |
| Bare ground | 5-10% |
Table 10. Canopy structure (% cover)
| Height Above Ground (m) | Tree | Shrub/Vine | Grass/ Grasslike |
Forb |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| <0.15 | – | – | 40-50% | 1-2% |
| >0.15 <= 0.3 | – | – | 10-20% | – |
| >0.3 <= 0.6 | – | – | 5-10% | – |
| >0.6 <= 1.4 | – | – | – | – |
| >1.4 <= 4 | – | – | – | – |
| >4 <= 12 | – | – | – | – |
| >12 <= 24 | – | – | – | – |
| >24 <= 37 | – | – | – | – |
| >37 | – | – | – | – |
Figure 7. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). OR1254, A3 Ashy Alpine Swale. 013 - use for both plant communities.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| J | F | M | A | M | J | J | A | S | O | N | D |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 30 | 40 | 20 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Additional community tables
Table 11. Community 1.1 plant community composition
| Group | Common name | Symbol | Scientific name | Annual production (kg/hectare) | Foliar cover (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Grass/Grasslike
|
||||||
| 1 | Perennial Grasses & Sedges | 785–1009 | ||||
| Brewer's sedge | CABR12 | Carex breweri | 673–1009 | – | ||
| squirreltail | ELELE | Elymus elymoides ssp. elymoides | 112–224 | – | ||
| California needlegrass | ACOCC | Achnatherum occidentale ssp. californicum | 17–67 | – | ||
| Cusick's bluegrass | POCU3 | Poa cusickii | 6–17 | – | ||
|
Forb
|
||||||
| 2 | Perennial Forbs | 67–101 | ||||
| Davis' knotweed | PODA | Polygonum davisiae | 17–34 | – | ||
| Mt. Hood pussypaws | CIUM | Cistanthe umbellata | 17–34 | – | ||
| Shasta buckwheat | ERPY2 | Eriogonum pyrolifolium | 17–34 | – | ||
| dwarf mountain lupine | LULYL | Lupinus lyallii ssp. lyallii | 17–34 | – | ||
| ballhead sandwort | ARCO5 | Arenaria congesta | 11–28 | – | ||
| Lemmon's rockcress | ARLE | Arabis lemmonii | 6–17 | – | ||
| nakedstem hawksbeard | CRPL | Crepis pleurocarpa | 11–17 | – | ||
| spreading phlox | PHDI3 | Phlox diffusa | 6–17 | – | ||
| cobwebby Indian paintbrush | CAAR11 | Castilleja arachnoidea | 6–11 | – | ||
| marumleaf buckwheat | ERMA4 | Eriogonum marifolium | 1–6 | – | ||
| cascade desertparsley | LOMA5 | Lomatium martindalei | 1–6 | – | ||
Table 12. Community 2.1 plant community composition
| Group | Common name | Symbol | Scientific name | Annual production (kg/hectare) | Foliar cover (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Grass/Grasslike
|
||||||
| 1 | Perennial Rush, Sedge, & Grass | 560–785 | ||||
| Parry's rush | JUPA | Juncus parryi | 560–673 | – | ||
| California needlegrass | ACOCC | Achnatherum occidentale ssp. californicum | 67–90 | – | ||
| Brewer's sedge | CABR12 | Carex breweri | 34–67 | – | ||
| squirreltail | ELELE | Elymus elymoides ssp. elymoides | 34–67 | – | ||
|
Forb
|
||||||
| 2 | Perennial Forbs | 45–90 | ||||
| Rocky Mountain pussytoes | ANME2 | Antennaria media | 11–22 | – | ||
| Mt. Hood pussypaws | CIUM | Cistanthe umbellata | 11–22 | – | ||
| nakedstem hawksbeard | CRPL | Crepis pleurocarpa | 11–22 | – | ||
| Davis' knotweed | PODA | Polygonum davisiae | 11–22 | – | ||
Interpretations
Animal community
Wildlife extensively use range and forest areas for food and cover. The survey area has excellent forage resources for summer and fall grazing. The alpine meadows surrounding the rim and Union peak are dominated by Western Needlegrass (Achnatherum occidentale ssp. californicum) with Hall's Sedge (Carex halliana) and Brewer's Sedge (Carex Breweri) subdominant. In some places Bottlebrush Squirreltail (Elymus elymoides ssp. elymoides) is present also. These species all have nutritive value for grazing ungulates from green-up in June and July through September and early October. Deep snow cover and very cold temperatures in the winter and spring make grazing these sites impractical. These alpine meadows and swells have excellent interspersion of forested sites providing hiding and thermal cover as well as transportation corridors for wildlife.
Recreational uses
Few - part of alpine park complex with desirable aesthetics and views. Unsuitable for camping or hiking trails.
Wood products
None
Supporting information
Type locality
| Location 1: Klamath County, OR | |
|---|---|
| Township/Range/Section | T30S R5 E S17 |
| UTM zone | N |
| UTM northing | 568943 |
| UTM easting | 4758770 |
| General legal description | West of park road about 100 yards downhill from turnout that is 1/2 mile below (north) of east rim drive intersection. |
Other references
Aerts, R., 1999. Plant-Mediated Controls on Nutrient Cycling in Temperate Fens and Bogs. Ecology 80: from findarticles.com.
Dorr, J. ET. Al, 2000. Ecological Unit Inventory of the Winema National Forest Area, Portion of Klamath County, Oregon, Interim Report #2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Winema National Forest, Klamath Falls, OR. 269p.
Franklin, J.F. and Dyrness, C.T., 1973. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press. 452p.
Horn, E. L., 2003. Monitoring Parkscapes Over Time - Plant Succession on the Pumice Desert, Crater Lake National Park, Oregon. Park Science 22
Johnson, D. ET. Al, 1995. Plants of the Western Boreal Forest and Aspen Parkland. Lone Pine Publishing and the Canadian Forest Service. 392p.
Klepadlo, S. and W. Campbell, eds., 1998. A Checklist of Vascular Plants of Crater Lake National Park. Crater Lake Natural History Association
Lynch, E.A., 1998. Origin of a Park-Forest Vegetation Mosaic in the Wind River Range, Wyoming. Ecology 79: from findarticles.com.
Raab, T.K., 1999. Soil Amino Acid Utilization Among Species of the Cyperaceae: Plant and Soil Processes. Ecology 80: from findarticles.com.
Radforth, N.W. and Brawner, C.O., 1977. Muskeg and the Northern Environment in Canada. University of Toronto Press. 399p.
Zika, P.F., 2003. A Crater Lake National Park Vascular Plant Checklist. Crater Lake Natural History Association, Crater Lake, OR. 92 p.
Contributors
J P Repp
Jeffrey P. Repp
Approval
Kirt Walstad, 5/10/2024
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 | 12/22/2024 |
| Approved by | Kirt Walstad |
| 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
Other
The 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.
Click on box and path labels to scroll to the respective text.