Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site R006XB010OR
Meadow Fan 14-26 PZ
Accessed: 11/21/2024
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.
Associated sites
| R006XB012OR |
Dry Pumice Meadow 14-26 PZ Dry Pumice Meadow |
|---|---|
| R006XB013OR |
Wet Pumice Meadow 14-26 PZ Wet Pumice Meadow |
| R006XB014OR |
Meadow Swale 14-26 PZ Meadow Swale |
Similar sites
| R006XB011OR |
Meadow Knoll 14-26 PZ Meadow Knoll |
|---|
Table 1. Dominant plant species
| Tree |
Not specified |
|---|---|
| Shrub |
Not specified |
| Herbaceous |
Not specified |
Physiographic features
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
| Landforms |
(1)
Basin floor
(2) Alluvial fan (3) Terrace |
|---|---|
| Flooding duration | Brief (2 to 7 days) |
| Flooding frequency | Rare |
| Ponding duration | Brief (2 to 7 days) to long (7 to 30 days) |
| Ponding frequency | Occasional |
| Elevation | 1,219 – 1,829 m |
| Slope | 0 – 3% |
| Ponding depth | 3 – 5 cm |
| Water table depth | 122 – 152 cm |
| Aspect | Aspect is not a significant factor |
Climatic features
This site is characterized by relatively short, hot summers and cold, snowy winters. The site receives approximately 20 inches of precipitation per year, the bulk of which is snowfall. There are frequent thunderstorms in the summer months. There may be ground fogs in the mornings during the growing season which affect stomatal gas exchange and photosynthetic activity.
Table 3. Representative climatic features
| Frost-free period (average) | 20 days |
|---|---|
| Freeze-free period (average) | 49 days |
| Precipitation total (average) | 635 mm |
Figure 1. Monthly precipitation range
Figure 2. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Influencing water features
Soil features
The soil has a well-developed argilic horizon with small amounts of glassy pumice (pre-Mazama). The soil is relatively old; Mazama pumice is eroded off the surface of the soil. There is a semi-impermeable layer in the soil at about 20 inches (it almost classifies as a duranode) that turns most roots away from the subsoil (allowing the Low Sagebrush to grow on the site). The apparent water table can penetrate the layer and saturate the surface for short periods. The water table comes to within 24 inches of the surface early in the growing season.
Table 4. Representative soil features
| Surface texture |
(1) Loam |
|---|---|
| Family particle size |
(1) Loamy |
| Drainage class | Moderately well drained |
| Permeability class | Moderate |
| Soil depth | 91 – 127 cm |
| Surface fragment cover <=3" | 0% |
| Surface fragment cover >3" | 0% |
| Available water capacity (0-101.6cm) |
12.7 – 15.24 cm |
| Calcium carbonate equivalent (0-101.6cm) |
2% |
| Electrical conductivity (0-101.6cm) |
0 – 2 mmhos/cm |
| Sodium adsorption ratio (0-101.6cm) |
1 |
| Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-101.6cm) |
2 |
| Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified) |
0% |
| Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified) |
0% |
Ecological dynamics
The sites are on remnant terraces and alluvial fans and are adjacent to or are islands within wetland sites. Elevations may differ by only 2 or 3 feet from adjacent wet sites. The sites are particularly dry in the summer; however, there is an apparent seasonal water table that has a marked influence on plant growth early in the growing season. All states have relatively thick clay layers in the subsoil and small amounts of pre-Mazama pumice. The interpretative plant community for this site is the Historic Climax Plant Community (HCPC).
State and transition model
Figure 3. Meadow Fan 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
State B, ARCA13/POSE3-CAMI7
Community 1.1
State B, ARCA13/POSE3-CAMI7
Dominated by Silver Sagebrush Nevada bluegrass and Small-wing Sedge. Sites in this state receive excess water and may have impermeable layer in the subsoil. Ponding duration is increased.
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 | 1009 | 1233 |
| Shrub/Vine | 168 | 196 | 224 |
| Forb | 56 | 84 | 112 |
| Total | 1009 | 1289 | 1569 |
Figure 5. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). OR1852, B6 Meadow Fan B. State B: Disturbance/Dry (ARCA13/POSE3-CAMI7) .
| 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 | 10 | 25 | 30 | 20 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
State 2
HCPC, ARAR8-ARCA13/FEID/CAFI
Community 2.1
HCPC, ARAR8-ARCA13/FEID/CAFI
Dominated by Low sagebrush, Silver Sagebrush, Idaho Fescue, and Threadleaf Sedge. A weak cemented layer allow the Low sagebrush to thrive.
Figure 6. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)
Table 6. Annual production by plant type
| Plant type | Low (kg/hectare) |
Representative value (kg/hectare) |
High (kg/hectare) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grass/Grasslike | 336 | 476 | 616 |
| Shrub/Vine | 196 | 239 | 280 |
| Forb | 112 | 146 | 179 |
| Total | 644 | 861 | 1075 |
Figure 7. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). OR1851, B6 Meadow Fan RPC. State A: HCPC-ARAR8-ARCA13/FEID-CAFI B6 Meadow Fan RPC.
| 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 | 5 | 15 | 35 | 30 | 10 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Additional community tables
Table 7. Community 1.1 plant community composition
| Group | Common name | Symbol | Scientific name | Annual production (kg/hectare) | Foliar cover (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Grass/Grasslike
|
||||||
| 1 | 392–628 | |||||
| Sandberg bluegrass | POSE | Poa secunda | 314–471 | – | ||
| smallwing sedge | CAMI7 | Carex microptera | 235–392 | – | ||
| prairie Junegrass | KOMA | Koeleria macrantha | 78–157 | – | ||
| squirreltail | ELEL5 | Elymus elymoides | 39–78 | – | ||
| slender wheatgrass | ELTRT | Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus | 39–78 | – | ||
| 2 | 39–157 | |||||
| prairie Junegrass | KOMA | Koeleria macrantha | 157–235 | – | ||
| mat muhly | MURI | Muhlenbergia richardsonis | 39–78 | – | ||
| Kentucky bluegrass | POPR | Poa pratensis | 39–78 | – | ||
| Nebraska sedge | CANE2 | Carex nebrascensis | 39–78 | – | ||
| squirreltail | ELEL5 | Elymus elymoides | 39–78 | – | ||
| slender wheatgrass | ELTRT | Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus | 39–78 | – | ||
| 3 | 275–471 | |||||
| smallwing sedge | CAMI7 | Carex microptera | 235–392 | – | ||
| Nebraska sedge | CANE2 | Carex nebrascensis | 39–78 | – | ||
| 4 | 38–78 | |||||
|
Forb
|
||||||
| 3 | 56–112 | |||||
| common yarrow | ACMI2 | Achillea millefolium | 31–47 | – | ||
| pussytoes | ANTEN | Antennaria | 31–47 | – | ||
| 4 | 1–47 | |||||
| buckwheat | ERIOG | Eriogonum | 1–31 | – | ||
| old man's whiskers | GETR | Geum triflorum | 1–31 | – | ||
| cinquefoil | POTEN | Potentilla | 1–31 | – | ||
| 5 | 63–94 | |||||
| common yarrow | ACMI2 | Achillea millefolium | 31–47 | – | ||
| pussytoes | ANTEN | Antennaria | 31–47 | – | ||
| 6 | 1–47 | |||||
| buckwheat | ERIOG | Eriogonum | 1–31 | – | ||
| old man's whiskers | GETR | Geum triflorum | 1–31 | – | ||
| cinquefoil | POTEN | Potentilla | 1–31 | – | ||
|
Shrub/Vine
|
||||||
| 5 | 168–224 | |||||
| silver sagebrush | ARCA13 | Artemisia cana | 157–235 | – | ||
| yellow rabbitbrush | CHVI8 | Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus | 16–31 | – | ||
| 7 | 168–224 | |||||
| silver sagebrush | ARCA13 | Artemisia cana | 157–235 | – | ||
| yellow rabbitbrush | CHVI8 | Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus | 16–31 | – | ||
Table 8. Community 2.1 plant community composition
| Group | Common name | Symbol | Scientific name | Annual production (kg/hectare) | Foliar cover (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Grass/Grasslike
|
||||||
| 1 | 286–504 | |||||
| Idaho fescue | FEID | Festuca idahoensis | 252–404 | – | ||
| Sandberg bluegrass | POSE | Poa secunda | 50–101 | – | ||
| threadleaf sedge | CAFI | Carex filifolia | 50–101 | – | ||
| squirreltail | ELEL5 | Elymus elymoides | 17–50 | – | ||
| 2 | 34–101 | |||||
| squirreltail | ELEL5 | Elymus elymoides | 17–50 | – | ||
| prairie Junegrass | KOMA | Koeleria macrantha | 17–50 | – | ||
| Kentucky bluegrass | POPR | Poa pratensis | 17–50 | – | ||
| Sandberg bluegrass | POSE | Poa secunda | 17–50 | – | ||
| 3 | 50–101 | |||||
| threadleaf sedge | CAFI | Carex filifolia | 50–101 | – | ||
| 4 | 17–50 | |||||
|
Forb
|
||||||
| 3 | 112–179 | |||||
| old man's whiskers | GETR | Geum triflorum | 50–81 | – | ||
| pussytoes | ANTEN | Antennaria | 30–50 | – | ||
| 4 | 3–71 | |||||
| common yarrow | ACMI2 | Achillea millefolium | 3–30 | – | ||
| buckwheat | ERIOG | Eriogonum | 3–30 | – | ||
| cinquefoil | POTEN | Potentilla | 3–30 | – | ||
| 6 | 3–71 | |||||
| common yarrow | ACMI2 | Achillea millefolium | 3–30 | – | ||
| buckwheat | ERIOG | Eriogonum | 3–30 | – | ||
| cinquefoil | POTEN | Potentilla | 3–30 | – | ||
|
Shrub/Vine
|
||||||
| 5 | 196–280 | |||||
| little sagebrush | ARAR8 | Artemisia arbuscula | 202–252 | – | ||
| silver sagebrush | ARCA13 | Artemisia cana | 30–50 | – | ||
| yellow rabbitbrush | CHVI8 | Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus | 10–20 | – | ||
| 7 | 196–280 | |||||
| little sagebrush | ARAR8 | Artemisia arbuscula | 202–252 | – | ||
| silver sagebrush | ARCA13 | Artemisia cana | 30–50 | – | ||
| yellow rabbitbrush | CHVI8 | Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus | 10–20 | – | ||
Interpretations
Animal community
Several grazing animals seasonally use the site. Mule deer, elk, and antelope use the site for both grazing and resting. Antelope are perhaps the most frequent animals on the site. Mule deer and elk use the site int he late winter and early spring. The position of the site makes it attractive to grazing animals when the adjacent sites are wet; it is often used as a resting and ruminating area. The site is marginal for nesting birds but may be seasonally used by waterfowl which nest in the adjacent meadow and marsh sites.
Hydrological functions
The site has a high potential in low seral condition to produce significant run-off to receiving water. IN some years, the site may be flooded with water backed up in the adjacent wetter sites. Adjacent wetter and lower sites surrounding the site provide extra ground water that may move laterally through the Meadow Fan site.
Recreational uses
There is little recreational use on this site other than big game hunting and bird watching.
Other information
Due to the relatively dry nature of this site, there is a possibility that American Indians used this site for temporary, seasonal hunting camps. Survey the area carefully before recommending ground disturbing practices. The aid of an archaeologist maybe be needed.
Grazing- The site is frequently used for grazing by domestic livestock and wildlife (mule deer, elk, and antelope). There are several species that are preferred that are available for most of the growing season. The site can be havily used because the slightly higher elevation of this site makes it drier than adjacent meadow sites and therefore more attractive for resting, ruminating, and grazing.
Wildlife- There is little use by wildlife other than by grazing animals (see above). The elevated position of the site and its proximity to important wetter meadow sites makes it an important part of the entire meadow/marsh ecosystem.
Supporting information
Contributors
Jeffrey P. Repp
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
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.