Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site R030XA065NV
DRY WASH
Last updated: 2/18/2025
Accessed: 03/18/2025
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.
Ecological site concept
This site refers to group concept R030XB186CA for the group provisional STM.
Associated sites
| R030XA058NV |
LIMY 5-7 P.Z. |
|---|---|
| R030XA073NV |
LIMY 3-5 PZ |
Similar sites
| R030XA076NV |
UPLAND WASH More productive site |
|---|
Table 1. Dominant plant species
| Tree |
Not specified |
|---|---|
| Shrub |
(1) Larrea tridentata |
| Herbaceous |
Not specified |
Physiographic features
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
| Landforms |
(1)
Inset fan
(2) Drainageway |
|---|---|
| Flooding duration | Very brief (4 to 48 hours) |
| Flooding frequency | Rare |
| Ponding frequency | None |
| Elevation | 2,000 – 4,900 ft |
| Slope | 8% |
| Aspect | Aspect is not a significant factor |
Climatic features
Table 3. Representative climatic features
| Frost-free period (average) | 360 days |
|---|---|
| Freeze-free period (average) | |
| Precipitation total (average) | 5 in |
Figure 1. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Influencing water features
There are no influencing water features associated with this site.
Soil features
Table 4. Representative soil features
| Surface texture |
(1) Extremely gravelly fine sandy loam (2) Very gravelly sandy loam (3) Extremely gravelly loamy coarse sand |
|---|---|
| Family particle size |
(1) Loamy |
| Drainage class | Well drained to excessively drained |
| Permeability class | Moderately rapid to rapid |
| Soil depth | 72 – 84 in |
| Surface fragment cover <=3" | 45 – 80% |
| Surface fragment cover >3" | 2 – 5% |
| Available water capacity (0-40in) |
2 – 2.8 in |
| Calcium carbonate equivalent (0-40in) |
50% |
| Electrical conductivity (0-40in) |
8 mmhos/cm |
| Sodium adsorption ratio (0-40in) |
45 |
| Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-40in) |
7.4 – 9.5 |
| Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified) |
33 – 75% |
| Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified) |
2 – 13% |
Ecological dynamics
State and transition model
Figure 2. R030XA065NV
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 1
Reference Plant Community
Community 1.1
Reference Plant Community
The reference plant community is dominated by creosotebush, white burrobrush, and cattle saltbush. Potential vegetative composition is about 5% grasses, 10% annual and perennial forbs and 85% shrubs. Approximate ground cover (basal and crown) is 2 to 8 percent.
Figure 3. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)
Table 5. Annual production by plant type
| Plant type | Low (lb/acre) |
Representative value (lb/acre) |
High (lb/acre) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shrub/Vine | 64 | 128 | 298 |
| Forb | 7 | 15 | 35 |
| Grass/Grasslike | 4 | 7 | 17 |
| Total | 75 | 150 | 350 |
Additional community tables
Table 6. Community 1.1 plant community composition
| Group | Common name | Symbol | Scientific name | Annual production (lb/acre) | Foliar cover (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Grass/Grasslike
|
||||||
| 1 | Perennial grasses | 3–15 | ||||
| Indian ricegrass | ACHY | Achnatherum hymenoides | 1–5 | – | ||
| desert needlegrass | ACSP12 | Achnatherum speciosum | 1–5 | – | ||
| threeawn | ARIST | Aristida | 1–5 | – | ||
| squirreltail | ELEL5 | Elymus elymoides | 1–5 | – | ||
| 2 | Annual Grasses | 1–5 | ||||
|
Forb
|
||||||
| 3 | Perennial forbs | 3–12 | ||||
| 4 | Annual forbs | 1–12 | ||||
|
Shrub/Vine
|
||||||
| 5 | Primary shrubs | 59–125 | ||||
| creosote bush | LATR2 | Larrea tridentata | 30–45 | – | ||
| burrobrush | HYSA | Hymenoclea salsola | 15–30 | – | ||
| cattle saltbush | ATPO | Atriplex polycarpa | 8–23 | – | ||
| jointfir | EPHED | Ephedra | 3–15 | – | ||
| burrobush | AMDU2 | Ambrosia dumosa | 3–12 | – | ||
| 6 | Secondary shrubs | 15–38 | ||||
| Mojave rabbitbrush | ERPA29 | Ericameria paniculata | 2–8 | – | ||
| desert pepperweed | LEFR2 | Lepidium fremontii | 2–8 | – | ||
| desert-thorn | LYCIU | Lycium | 2–8 | – | ||
| screwbean mesquite | PRPU | Prosopis pubescens | 2–8 | – | ||
| Mexican bladdersage | SAME | Salazaria mexicana | 2–8 | – | ||
Interpretations
Animal community
Livestock Interpretations:
This site has limited value for livestock grazing, due to the low forage production. Creosotebush is unpalatable to livestock. Consumption of creosotebush may be fatal to sheep. Cattle saltbush is a valuable forage for domestic livestock, equaling or nearly equaling the forage value of fourwing saltbush. Saltbush is 1 of the most palatable shrubs in the West. It provides nutritious forage for all classes of livestock. White bursage is of intermediate forage value. It is fair to good forage for horses and fair to poor for cattle and sheep. However, because there is often little other forage where white bursage grows, it is often highly valuable to browsing animals and is sensitive to browsing.
Stocking rates vary over time depending upon season of use, climate variations, site, and previous and current management goals. A safe starting stocking rate is an estimated stocking rate that is fine tuned by the client by adaptive management through the year and from year to year.
Wildlife Interpretations:
Creosotebush is unpalatable to most browsing wildlife. Saltbush provides valuable habitat and year-round browse for wildlife. Palatability is rated good for deer, elk, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep. White bursage is an important browse species for wildlife.
Hydrological functions
Runoff is negligible to low. Permeability is moderately rapid to rapid.
Other products
Creosotebush has been highly valued for its medicinal properties by Native Americans. It has been used to treat at least 14 illnesses. Twigs and leaves may be boiled as tea, steamed, pounded into a powder, pressed into a poultice, or heated into an infusion. Native Americans used white burrobrush twigs and stems in several remedies. The twigs or leaves are mixed with all-thorn twigs, boiled, and the tea taken to treat skin rashes. The tea was used to relieve pain in the lungs and trachea, and to reduce swelling. Additionally, they use white burrobrush as a remedy for rheumatism. White bursage is a host for sandfood, a parasitic plant. Sandfood was a valuable food supply for Native Americans.
Other information
Once established, creosotebush may improve sites for annuals that grow under its canopy by trapping fine soil, organic matter, and symbiont propagules. It may also increase water infiltration and storage. White bursage may be used to revegetate disturbed sites in southwestern deserts.
Supporting information
Type locality
| Location 1: Nye County, NV | |
|---|---|
| Township/Range/Section | T18S R51E S4 |
| General legal description | Wash landscapes within inset fans leading to Amargosa Flat, Amargosa Desert area east of Ash Meadows, Nye County, Nevada. |
| Location 2: Nye County, NV | |
| Township/Range/Section | T15S R47E S9 |
| General legal description | Wash landscapes within inset fans leading to Amargosa River, Amargosa Desert area northwest of Ash Meadows, Nye County, Nevada. |
| Location 3: Nye County, NV | |
| Township/Range/Section | T15S R47E S16 |
| General legal description | Wash landscapes within inset fans leading to Amargosa River, Amargosa Desert area northwest of Ash Meadows, Nye County, Nevada. |
Other references
Fire Effects Information System (Online; http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/).
USDA-NRCS Plants Database (Online; http://www.plants.usda.gov).
Contributors
HA
Approval
Kendra Moseley, 2/18/2025
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 | 02/19/2025 |
| Approved by | Kendra Moseley |
| 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.