Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site R070CY124NM
Gypsum Hills
Last updated: 10/21/2024
Accessed: 11/23/2024
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.
MLRA notes
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 042C–Central New Mexico Highlands
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 070C–Central New Mexico Highlands
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 70C - will become 42C - is a high elevation portion of central New Mexico that is the convergence of four major physiographic provinces: Basin and Range, Southern Rocky Mountains, Great Plains, and Colorado Plateau. As such, it contains parts or characteristics of each, though tectonically, as a region, it is the easternmost extent of the Basin and Range Province and, more specifically, a structural expression of the Rio Grande Rift. It consists mostly of rangeland with some forested areas associated with numerous disconnected mountain ranges such as the Guadalupe, Sacramento, and Manzano Mountains. Other major physiographic features include the Galisteo Basin or the enclosed Estancia Basin, the structural Chupadera and Glorieta Mesas, and the piedmonts of the Buchanan and Guadalupe Mesas.
Ecological site concept
This site occurs on hillsides and on footslopes of higher mountains. Slopes range from 15 to 60 percent but average 20 to 30 percent.
The soils on this site are well-drained soils that formed on gypsum bedrock. Surface textures range from a sandy loam to a channery loam overlaying dense layers of soft or cemented gypsum material. Thus, depth to root-restrictive layers is quite variable.
Table 1. Dominant plant species
| Tree |
Not specified |
|---|---|
| Shrub |
(1) Tiquilia hispidissima |
| Herbaceous |
(1) Sporobolus nealleyi |
Physiographic features
This site occurs on hillsides and on footslopes of higher mountains. Slopes range from 15 to 60 percent but average 20 to 30 percent. Aspect of slope varies but is not significant. Elevation ranges from 5,000 to 7,000 feet above sea level.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
| Landforms |
(1)
Hill
|
|---|---|
| Elevation | 1,524 – 2,134 m |
| Slope | 15 – 60% |
| Aspect | Aspect is not a significant factor |
Climatic features
The average annual precipitation ranges from 13 to 16 inches. Variations of 5 inches, more or less, are not uncommon. Seventy-five percent of the precipitation falls from April to October. Much of the summer precipitation comes in the form of high-intensity, short-duration thunderstorms.
The average frost-free season ranges from 130 to 160 days in the CP-3 subland resource area and from 160 to 190 days in the WP-3 subland resource area.
Growing conditions favor warm-season perennial vegetation, however, late winter and late summer precipitation is also available for cool-season plant growth. Strong winds blow across these areas in the spring and can dry the soil profile rapidly during a critical period for cool-season plant growth.
Climate data was obtained from http://www.wrcc.sage.dri.edu/summary/climsmnm.html web site using 50% probability for freeze-free and frost-free seasons using 28.5 degrees F and 32.5 degrees F respectively.
Table 3. Representative climatic features
| Frost-free period (average) | 173 days |
|---|---|
| Freeze-free period (average) | 187 days |
| Precipitation total (average) | 406 mm |
Figure 2. Monthly precipitation range
Figure 3. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Influencing water features
This is an upland site, and is not associated with water features or wetlands. During heavy rain events, this site may receive run-on moisture from landforms above and contribute runoff to landforms below.
Soil features
The soils on this site are well-drained soils that formed on gypsum bedrock. Surface textures range from a sandy loam to a channery loam overlaying dense layers of soft or cemented gypsum material. Thus, depth to root-restrictive layers is quite variable. These gypsum materials commonly outcrop to the surface as inclusions of raw gypsum-land, which are void of vegetation and not part of the ecological site. The soils have moderate permeability and water-holding capacity is very low. Water erosion hazard is high and wind erosion hazard is moderate.
Table 4. Representative soil features
| Surface texture |
(1) Channery sandy loam (2) Very fine sandy loam (3) Fine sandy loam |
|---|---|
| Family particle size |
(1) Loamy |
| Drainage class | Well drained |
| Permeability class | Moderately slow to moderately rapid |
| Soil depth | 0 – 183 cm |
| Surface fragment cover >3" | 15 – 35% |
| Available water capacity (0-101.6cm) |
0 – 7.62 cm |
| Electrical conductivity (0-101.6cm) |
0 – 2 mmhos/cm |
| Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-101.6cm) |
6.6 – 8.4 |
| Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified) |
15 – 35% |
| Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified) |
15 – 35% |
Ecological dynamics
Due to the shallow highly erosive soils grazing must be carefully managed to prevent irreparable loss of productivity. Mismanagement of grazing leads to a decrease in the desirable forage plants such as alkali sacaton, black grama, bush muhly, the needlegrasses and sideoats grama, and an increase in undesirable forage plants such as gyp dropseed, threeawn spp., ring muhly, and hairy coldenia.
State and transition model
Figure 4. Generalized STM for gypsiferous sites in 70C
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
This state represents the most ecologically stable conditions in terms of resistance to erosion. Moreover, this state has the highest potential for productivity and plant diversity.
Community 1.1
Reference Plant Community
The aspect of this phase is a grassland/shrub with a scattering of oneseed juniper. Forbs are scattered and make-up an important part of the potential natural plant community. Other grasses that could appear include: threeawn spp., ring muhly, curlyleaf muhly, tridens spp., and sand dropseed. Other woody species include: opuntia spp., skunkbush sumac, pale wolfberry, and pinyon. Other forb species include: penstemon, bladderpod, annual sunflowers, and buckwheat.
Figure 5. 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 | 168 | 297 | 398 |
| Forb | 11 | 17 | 22 |
| Total | 179 | 314 | 420 |
Table 6. Ground cover
| Tree foliar cover | 3% |
|---|---|
| Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover | 10% |
| Grass/grasslike foliar cover | 0% |
| Forb foliar cover | 0% |
| Non-vascular plants | 0% |
| Biological crusts | 0% |
| Litter | 5% |
| Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" | 0% |
| Surface fragments >3" | 0% |
| Bedrock | 0% |
| Water | 0% |
| Bare ground | 60% |
Figure 6. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). NM4324, R070CY124NM Gyp Hills Reference State. R070CY124NM Gyp Hills Reference State Mixed grassland/shrub w/ scattered oneseed juniper & forbs..
| 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 | 7 | 10 | 15 | 25 | 25 | 8 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
State 2
Degraded
This state occurs where continuous grazing has severely impacted the plant community. The plant comminity is dominated by species of low palatability such as gyp dropseed, threeawns., ring muhly, and hairy coldenia.
Transition T1A
State 1 to 2
Season-long grazing providing little rest and recovery for preferred grazed plants during critical growing periods, coupled with high utilization.
Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1
Restoration pathway resulting from the implementation of prescribed grazing.
Conservation practices
| Grazing Management Plan - Applied |
|---|
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 | 39–78 | |||||
| gyp dropseed | SPNE | Sporobolus nealleyi | 39–78 | – | ||
| 2 | 39–62 | |||||
| alkali sacaton | SPAI | Sporobolus airoides | 39–59 | – | ||
| 3 | 22–39 | |||||
| James' galleta | PLJA | Pleuraphis jamesii | 20–39 | – | ||
| 4 | 22–39 | |||||
| needlegrass | ACHNA | Achnatherum | 20–39 | – | ||
| sideoats grama | BOCU | Bouteloua curtipendula | 20–39 | – | ||
| black grama | BOER4 | Bouteloua eriopoda | 20–39 | – | ||
| bush muhly | MUPO2 | Muhlenbergia porteri | 20–39 | – | ||
| 5 | 6–22 | |||||
| blue grama | BOGR2 | Bouteloua gracilis | 4–20 | – | ||
| hairy grama | BOHI2 | Bouteloua hirsuta | 4–20 | – | ||
| 6 | 22–28 | |||||
| Graminoid (grass or grass-like) | 2GRAM | Graminoid (grass or grass-like) | 20–28 | – | ||
|
Forb
|
||||||
| 7 | 6–11 | |||||
| globemallow | SPHAE | Sphaeralcea | 4–12 | – | ||
| globemallow | SPHAE | Sphaeralcea | 4–12 | – | ||
| 8 | 6–11 | |||||
| dyssodia | DYSSO | Dyssodia | 4–12 | – | ||
| dyssodia | DYSSO | Dyssodia | 4–12 | – | ||
| 9 | 6–11 | |||||
| threadleaf ragwort | SEFLF | Senecio flaccidus var. flaccidus | 4–12 | – | ||
| 10 | 6–11 | |||||
| Forb (herbaceous, not grass nor grass-like) | 2FORB | Forb (herbaceous, not grass nor grass-like) | 4–12 | – | ||
|
Shrub/Vine
|
||||||
| 11 | 22–39 | |||||
| hairy crinklemat | TIHI | Tiquilia hispidissima | 20–39 | – | ||
| 12 | 11–22 | |||||
| algerita | MATR3 | Mahonia trifoliolata | 12–20 | – | ||
| 13 | 6–11 | |||||
| banana yucca | YUBA | Yucca baccata | 4–12 | – | ||
| 14 | 6–22 | |||||
| Bigelow sage | ARBI3 | Artemisia bigelovii | 4–20 | – | ||
| 15 | 11–22 | |||||
| mormon tea | EPVI | Ephedra viridis | 12–20 | – | ||
| 16 | 6–22 | |||||
| oneseed juniper | JUMO | Juniperus monosperma | 4–20 | – | ||
| 17 | 22–28 | |||||
| fourwing saltbush | ATCA2 | Atriplex canescens | 20–28 | – | ||
| winterfat | KRLA2 | Krascheninnikovia lanata | 20–28 | – | ||
| 18 | 6–11 | |||||
| Shrub, deciduous | 2SD | Shrub, deciduous | 4–12 | – | ||
Interpretations
Supporting information
Type locality
| Location 1: Valencia County, NM | |
|---|---|
| Location 2: Sierra County, NM | |
| Location 3: Socorro County, NM | |
| Location 4: Torrance County, NM | |
| Location 5: Catron County, NM | |
| Location 6: Lincoln County, NM |
Other references
Data collection for this site was done in conjunction with the progressive soil surveys within the Pecos-Canadian Plains and Valleys and the NM and Az. Plateaus and Mesas Major Land Resource Areas of New Mexico. This site has been mapped and correlated with soils in the following soil surveys: Lincoln, Torrance, Socorro, Sierra, Socorro, Grant, Chaves, De Baca, Guadalupe, Lincoln, Sna Miguel, Santa Fe, Torrance.
Characteristic Soils Are:
Tanbark
Other Soils included are:
Clovis, La Fonda, Palma
Contributors
Christine Bishop
Don Sylvester
Elizabeth Wright
John Tunberg
Approval
Kendra Moseley, 10/21/2024
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 | 11/23/2024 |
| 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.