Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site R079XY112KS
Limy Plains
Last updated: 9/21/2018
Accessed: 11/23/2024
General information
Approved. An approved ecological site description has undergone quality control and quality assurance review. It contains a working state and transition model, enough information to identify the ecological site, and full documentation for all ecosystem states contained in the state and transition model.
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): 079X–Great Bend Sand Plains
MLRA 79 is located entirely in Kansas. It makes up about 7,405 square miles (19,185 square kilometers). Great Bend, Hutchinson, and Wichita are in this MLRA. U.S. Highways 50, 54, and 56 cross the area. The western part of McConnell Air Force Base and the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge are in this area.
Following are the various kinds of land use in this MLRA: Cropland-private, 67%; Grassland-private, 23%; Federal, 1%; Forest-private, 1%; Urban development-private, 5%; Water-private, 1%; Other-private, 2%.
Nearly all of this area is in farms or ranches. Most of the area is used as cropland. Cash-grain farming is the principal enterprise. Hard winter wheat is the major crop, but grain sorghum and alfalfa also are grown. The grassland in the area consists of sandy soils and steeply sloping areas. It supports native grasses grazed by beef cattle.
The major soil resource concerns are the hazards of wind and water erosion, maintenance of the content of organic matter in the soils, and soil moisture management. The major management concerns on grassland are plant health and vigor, and control of noxious and invasive weeds.
Conservation practices on cropland generally include high residue crops in the cropping system; systems of crop residue management, such as no-till and strip-till systems; conservation crop rotations; wind stripcropping; and nutrient and pest management. Conservation practices on rangeland generally include brush management, prescribed burning, control of noxious weeds, pest management, watering facilities, and proper grazing use.
Classification relationships
Major land resource area (MLRA): 079-Great Bend Sand Plains
Ecological site concept
The Limy Plains (079XY112) ecological site was formerly named Limy Upland (R079XY012KS). This site occurs on uplands or paleoterraces. The Limy Plains site is characteristic of soils that are calcareous to the surface. Soil surface textures range from fine sandy loam to clay loam and slopes range from 0 to 15 percent.
Associated sites
| R079XY107KS |
Clayey Plains This site sits adjacent to and in conjunction with the Limy Plains ecological site. The Clayey Plains ecological site is characterized by soils that are very deep, moderately well to well drained, and on paloeterraces in river valleys formed in alluvium. The slopes range from 0 to 6 percent. The surface texture is clay loam to silt loam with a clay increase of greater than 35 percent within 12 inches from the surface. |
|---|---|
| R079XY115KS |
Loamy Plains This site sits adjacent to and in conjunction with the Limy Plains ecological site. The Loamy Plains ecological site is made up of moderately deep to deep, moderately well to well drained upland soils. This site has a silty or loamy surface texture and is non-calcareous to the surface. Generally, the Loamy Plains ecological site is located on paleoterraces and/or uplands with a slope range of 0 to 12 percent. |
Table 1. Dominant plant species
| Tree |
Not specified |
|---|---|
| Shrub |
Not specified |
| Herbaceous |
Not specified |
Physiographic features
Most of MLRA 79 is in the Plains Border Section of the Great Plains Province of the Interior Plains. The eastern third is in the Osage Plains Section of the Central Lowland Province of the Interior Plains. The undulating to rolling plains in this area generally have narrow valleys, but broad flood plains and terraces are along the Arkansas River and its larger tributaries. The elevation ranges from 1,650 to 2,600 feet (505 to 795 meters), increasing from east to west.
The extent of the major Hydrologic Unit Areas (identified by four-digit numbers) that make up this MLRA is as follows: Middle Arkansas (1103), 82 percent, and Arkansas-Keystone (1106), 18 percent. The Arkansas River bisects the northern part of this MLRA, and the Ninnescah River crosses the southern part. In MLRA 79, Rattlesnake Creek flows north and the Little Arkansas River flows south into the Arkansas River.
This ecological site consists of Clark and Case soils, which lie on nearly level to strongly sloping areas where they receive no extra moisture from drainage or overflow.
Figure 2. MLRA 79 ecological site block diagram.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
| Landforms |
(1)
Paleoterrace
|
|---|---|
| Flooding frequency | None |
| Ponding frequency | None |
| Elevation | 503 – 792 m |
| Slope | 0 – 15% |
| Ponding depth | 0 cm |
| Water table depth | 0 cm |
| Aspect | Aspect is not a significant factor |
Climatic features
The average annual precipitation in MLRA 79 is 25 to 33 inches (635 to 840 millimeters). Most of the rainfall occurs as high-intensity, convective thunderstorms during the growing season. The maximum precipitation occurs from the middle of spring to early in autumn. The annual snowfall ranges from about 14 inches (35 centimeters) in the southern part of the area to 20 inches (50 centimeters) in the northern part. The average annual temperature is 55 to 57 degrees F (13 to 14 degrees C). The freeze-free period averages 197 days, increasing in length from northwest to southeast. Precipitation is usually evenly distributed throughout the year with the exception of November through February as the driest months and May and June as the wettest months. Summer precipitation occurs during intense summer thunderstorms. The following weather data originated from weather stations chosen across the geographical extent of the ecological site, and will likely vary from the data for the entire MLRA. The climate data derives from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) National Water and Climate Center. The dataset is from 1981-2010.
Table 3. Representative climatic features
| Frost-free period (average) | 181 days |
|---|---|
| Freeze-free period (average) | 198 days |
| Precipitation total (average) | 787 mm |
Figure 3. Monthly precipitation range
Figure 4. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Figure 5. Annual precipitation pattern
Figure 6. Annual average temperature pattern
Climate stations used
-
(1) KINGMAN [USC00144313], Kingman, KS
-
(2) STERLING [USC00147796], Sterling, KS
-
(3) NORWICH [USC00145870], Norwich, KS
-
(4) PRATT [USC00146549], Pratt, KS
-
(5) HUTCHINSON 10 SW [USC00143930], Hutchinson, KS
Influencing water features
Case and Clark soils are well drained and have moderate permeability. Modest soil moisture on the Limy Plains site is due to moderate to high available water capacity (AWC). High carbonate values along with moderate slopes limits the total annual forage production on this site.
Figure 7. Fig.7-1 from National Range and Pasture Handbook.
Soil features
The soils are on paleoterraces. They are deep with loamy surface layers and subsoils. These soils are characterized with a weakly calcareous surface and strongly calcareous subsoils.
The major soils common to this site are Clark and Case.
Figure 8. Case typical soil profile image.
Table 4. Representative soil features
| Surface texture |
(1) Clay loam (2) Loam (3) Fine sandy loam |
|---|---|
| Family particle size |
(1) Loamy |
| Drainage class | Well drained |
| Permeability class | Moderate |
| Soil depth | 203 cm |
| Surface fragment cover <=3" | 0% |
| Surface fragment cover >3" | 0% |
| Available water capacity (0-101.6cm) |
19.05 – 28.45 cm |
| Calcium carbonate equivalent (0-101.6cm) |
1 – 50% |
| Electrical conductivity (0-101.6cm) |
0 – 2 mmhos/cm |
| Sodium adsorption ratio (0-101.6cm) |
0 |
| Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-101.6cm) |
7.4 – 9 |
| Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified) |
0 – 12% |
| Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified) |
0% |
Ecological dynamics
This is a dynamic plant community resulting from the complex interaction of many ecological processes. The vegetation evolved on moderately deep to deep soils under a diverse and fluctuating climate, while grazed by herds of large herbivores and periodically subjected to intense wildfires.
The soils of the Limy Plains ecological site have a surface of clay loam to loam over calcareous alluvium and absorb water at a moderate rate. The site is nearly level to steeply sloping with slopes of 0 to 15 percent. In some cases limestone rock outcrops will be associated with the site. The taller grasses that evolved and dominated the original plant community had deep, efficient root systems capable of utilizing moisture throughout most of the profile. Although the vegetative production is limited by slope on portions of the site, as well as low to moderate available water capacity, the site is quite productive.
The Limy Plains site developed with fires of various intensity, frequency, and season of year playing important roles in ecological processes. Historically, fires were usually started by lightning during spring and early summer months when thunderstorms were most prevalent. It is also recognized that early Native Americans often used fire to attract herds of migratory herbivores, especially bison. All of the dominant tallgrasses were rhizomatous which enabled them to survive the ravages of even intense wildfires and gain a competitive advantage in the plant community. Most trees and shrubs were suppressed by fire and occurred only sparsely on protected areas. Growth of perennial forbs, especially legumes, was usually enhanced following a fire event. Following these fires, other than late spring burns, there was usually a substantial increase in the abundance of annual forbs as well. This upsurge was temporary, perhaps lasting for one to two years.
Grazing history had a major impact on the dynamics of the site. The vegetative community developed under a grazing regime that consisted primarily of periodic grazing by large herds of bison. As the herds moved through an area, grazing was probably intense but of short duration. Typically, this site was not grazed as intensively as more level, adjacent ones. As herds moved to other areas, the vegetation was afforded a period of recovery. Other grazing and feeding animals such as deer, rabbits, insects, and numerous burrowing rodents had secondary influences on plant community development.
Variations in climate, especially drought cycles, also had a major impact upon the development of the plant community. Species composition fluctuated according to the duration and severity of droughts. During prolonged dry cycles many of the shallow-rooted plants died out and the production of deeper-rooted plants significantly decreased. When sufficient rainfall occurred after an extended period of dry years, annual forbs and annual grasses would temporarily occur in abundance. As precipitation returned to normal or above normal, the deeper-rooted grasses responded quickly to production potentials.
State and Transition Diagram
As utilization of the site for domestic livestock production replaced that of roaming bison herds, its ecological dynamics were altered and major portions of the plant community changed from their original compositions. Changes were usually in proportion to the season and intensity of grazing by livestock. A combination of drought and overgrazing accelerated these changes. The taller grasses and forbs palatable to bison were equally relished and selected by cattle and other domestic livestock. When repeatedly grazed, these grasses were weakened and gradually replaced by the increase and spread of less palatable midgrasses and forbs. Where the history of overgrazing by domestic livestock was more intense for many years, even the plants that initially increased were often replaced by even less desirable, lower-producing plants. In some areas plant cover was reduced to a mixture of native shortgrasses, annual grasses, and forbs.
The occurrence of wildfires and the impact that fire played in maintaining the plant community was diminished with the advent of roads and cultivated fields. Use of prescribed fire as a management tool also diminished. In the absence of fire there has been a gradual increase of woody species in many areas. In some areas shrubs and trees have spread to the point they have become the dominant influence in the plant community.
Large areas of the more level portion of the site were broken out for the cultivation of annual crops. Some of these areas are easily identified by their yellow, calcareous soils. Low production and other factors resulted in many of these fields being returned to grass through reseeding. The advent of the Conservation Reserve Program increased reseeding of these tilled areas.
The following diagram illustrates some of the pathways that the vegetation on this site may take from the Interpretive Plant Community as influencing ecological factors change. There may be other states or plant communities not shown on the diagram, as well as noticeable variations within those illustrated.
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 text
State 1 submodel, plant communities
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 3 submodel, plant communities
State 4 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Grassland State
The Grassland State defines the ecological potential and natural range of variability resulting from the natural disturbance regime of the Limy Plains ecological site. This state is supported by empirical data, historical data, local expertise, and photographs. It is defined by a suite of native plant communities that are a result of periodic fire, drought, and grazing. These events are part of the natural disturbance regime and climatic process. The Reference Plant Community consists of warm-season tall- and midgrasses, cool-season and sod-forming grasses, forbs, and shrubs. The Tallgrass/Midgrass Community is made up primarily of warm-season midgrasses, with an interspersed cool-season component and decreasing amounts of forbs and tallgrasses. The Midgrass-Shortgrass Plant Community is dominated by midgrasses, shortgrasses, and cool-season midgrasses.
Community 1.1
Tallgrass Community
The interpretive plant community for this site is the Reference Plant Community, which represents the original plant community that existed prior to European settlement. The site is characterized as a grassland with a minor scattering of shrubs. It is dominated by tall, warm-season grasses including big bluestem, switchgrass, and Indiangrass. The major midgrass is little bluestem. Combined, these grasses will account for 70 to 80 percent of vegetation produced annually. Other prevalent grasses are sideoats grama, western wheatgrass, hairy grama, and blue grama. Scattered throughout are minor amounts of numerous mid- and shortgrasses. The site supports a wide variety of legume species which are interspersed throughout the grass sward. The most abundant are slimflower scurfpea, Nuttall’s sensitive-briar, and prairie bundleflower. Other important forbs include compassplant, white heath aster, dotted blazing star, pitcher sage, upright prairie coneflower, and Cuman ragweed. Leadplant and Jersey tea are low-growing shrubs that occur over the site. Unlike most shrubs, these plants are both quite tolerant to fire. Occasional clumps of coralberry, smooth sumac, and fragrant sumac may be found on the steeper slopes or in areas of rock outcrops. This is a stable plant community when adequately managed. A prescribed grazing program that incorporates periods of deferment during the growing season benefits the tallgrasses and even the more palatable forbs species. Excessive grazing and livestock trailing can quickly impact the soil stability on this site and lead to sheet and gully erosion.
Figure 9. 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 | 2219 | 3032 | 4024 |
| Forb | 174 | 241 | 347 |
| Shrub/Vine | 73 | 90 | 112 |
| Total | 2466 | 3363 | 4483 |
Community 1.2
Midgrass/Tallgrass Community
This plant community developed as a result of years of overgrazing. Although tallgrasses (big bluestem, Indiangrass, and switchgrass) only make up 20 to 30 percent of the production, they tend to dominate the visual aspect of the site. Midgrasses are the site’s primary producers, making up 40 to 50 percent of its production. Dominant midgrasses include little bluestem, sideoats grama, western wheatgrass, and composite dropseed. Short-grasses such as blue grama, hairy grama, buffalograss, tumble windmill grass, and prairie threeawn produce 10 to 15 percent of the vegetation. Forb production is variable and may range from 10 to 20 percent of the total vegetation depending on amounts and timing of rainfall events. Perennial forbs include white sagebrush, slimflower scurfpea, Missouri goldenrod, prairie bundleflower, blue wild indigo, white heath aster, and Cuman ragweed. In some locations shrubs and trees such as fragrant sumac, smooth sumac, eastern redcedar, and coralberry comprise up to 10 percent of the composition. The plant community is relatively stable with moderate grazing. With continuous overgrazing it may deteriorate to a midgrass-shortgrass community over a period of several years. Prescribed grazing with adequate rest and recovery periods during the growing season will shift this plant community to include more productive tallgrasses. Continuation of such management can shift the plant community to near the interpretive plant community in a few years. Total annual production ranges from 1,600 to 3,700 pounds of air-dry vegetation per acre and averages about 2,500 pounds.
Community 1.3
Midgrass/Shortgrass Community
This plant community developed as a result of long-term continuous overgrazing. Midgrasses dominate the site and comprise 40 to 55 percent of the annual production. Most abundant midgrasses include little bluestem, sideoats grama, western wheatgrass, and composite dropseed. Shortgrasses such as blue grama, hairy grama, bufflograss, tumble windmill grass, and annual threeawn produce 20 to 30 percent of the vegetation. Remnant plants of big bluestem, Indiangrass, and switchgrass are commonly found only in protected locations. These plants are usually grazed repeatedly and remain in a low state of vigor. Of these remnants, big bluestem is generally the most abundant. It has rhizomes that can persist for many years in a weakened condition. When in this state, new growth consisting of three to five leaves will emerge in a prostate position rather than upright. This allows the plants to partially escape grazing. These remnants respond favorably to periods of rest from grazing and may regain vigor in two to three years. However, their numbers or percentage of composition is so reduced that it may take many years to regain a large role in the plant community. Where tree and shrub invasions limit grass production, brush management such as prescribed burning and/or the use of approved herbicides may be necessary for significant improvement. Forb production is quite variable and may range from 15 to 25 percent of the total vegetation depending upon the amount and timing of rainfall. Perennial forbs include white sagebrush, large Indian breadroot, Missouri goldenrod, blue wild indigo, white heath aster, and Cuman ragweed. In some locations shrubs and trees such as fragrant sumac, smooth sumac, eastern redcedar, and coralberry comprise up to 15 percent of the vegetation. Total annual production ranges from 1,400 to 3,000 pounds of air-dry vegetation per acre and averages about 2,200 pounds.
Pathway 1.1 to 1.2
Community 1.1 to 1.2
The following describes the mechanisms of change from Plant Community 1.1 to Plant Community 1.2. These mechanisms include management controlled by repetitive heavy use, no rest or recovery of the key forage species, and no forage and animal balance for many extended grazing seasons. This type of management lasting for periods greater than ten years will shift functional and structural plant group dominance towards Plant Community 1.2.
Pathway 1.2 to 1.1
Community 1.2 to 1.1
The following describes the mechanisms of change from Plant Community 1.2 to Plant Community 1.1: management (10-15 years) that includes adequate rest and recovery of the key forage species (sand bluestem, switchgrass, and Indiangrass) within the Reference Plant Community. If woody species are present, prescription fires every 6-8 years will be necessary for their removal and/or maintenance.
Conservation practices
| Prescribed Grazing |
|---|
Pathway 1.2 to 1.3
Community 1.2 to 1.3
The following describes the mechanisms of change from Plant Community 1.2 to Plant Community 1.3: long-term (>10 years) management that includes continuous, heavy use of the native vegetation; management that is void of a forage and animal balance; and inadequate rest and recovery of native grasses during the growing season.
Pathway 1.3 to 1.2
Community 1.3 to 1.2
The following describes the mechanisms of change from Plant Community 1.3 to Plant Community 1.2. Management (approximately 10 years) that includes adequate rest and recovery of the key forage species in the Midgrass Community 1.2 (little bluestem, sand bluestem, switchgrass, and Indiangrass). Implement prescription fires at a frequency of 6-8 years. Depending upon the level of woody vegetation encroachment, the fire return interval might need to be adjusted to two consecutive years of prescribed fires.
State 2
Shortgrass State
With heavy, continuous grazing, blue grama and buffalograss will become the dominant species and have a sod-bound appearance. Unable to withstand the grazing pressure, only a remnant population of western wheatgrass remains. Species diversity has been reduced further. Water infiltration is reduced and runoff is increased due to the sod nature of the blue grama and buffalograss. Specific dynamic soil property changes between the Grassland State and the Sod-bound State have been documented. As plant community cover decreases from bunchgrasses to more of the sodgrasses there is a decrease in infiltration and interception and an increase in surface runoff (Thurow T., 2003).
Community 2.1
Shortgrass Community
This plant community presents a distinctive shortgrass aspect on the landscape. It is dominated by blue grama, hairy grama, and buffalograss with notable amounts of western wheatgrass and sideoats grama present in a state of low vigor and production. Other grasses include annual bromes (Bromus spp.), composite dropseed, Kentucky bluegrass, little barley, prairie threeawn, and tumble windmill grass. These species commonly account for 60 to 70 percent of the annual forage production. Like the desirable grasses, palatable legumes and other forbs have been reduced by continuous grazing and competition over many years. Prevalent broadleaf species in this situation include prairie broomweed, annual ragweed, purple locoweed, white sagebrush, Cuman ragweed, Baldwin ironweed, wavyleaf thistle, and curlycup gumweed. Forbs may comprise 15 to 25 percent of the total vegetation. This plant community often contains 10 to 20 percent woody species as a result of fewer fires and more opportunities for their encroachment. Eastern redcedar, smooth sumac, fragrant sumac, and coralberry are representative shrubs which occur on this site. Leadplant and jersey tea may still be found, but are generally much reduced from their prominence in the interpretive plant community. Recovery of the tallgrasses, midgrasses, and associated forbs characteristic of the interpretive plant community will require many years of careful management that includes prescribed grazing and extended periods of rest during the growing season. This site may recover faster than adjoining ones, as remnant plants may be protected somewhat by its steeper slopes and occasional surface rocks. When remnants of desired species are not present, reseeding may be desirable. Seeding or interseeding may be limited by the steepness of slope and occasional surface rocks. Prescribed burning can be a useful tool when used to benefit the desired species, especially in later stages of the recovery process. Total annual production ranges from 1,000 to 2,300 pounds of air-dry vegetation per acre and averages about 1,800 pounds.
State 3
Woody State
This state is dominated by a shrub and/or tree plant community. The increase and spread of shrubs and trees results from an absence of fire. Woody plants can increase up to 34 percent from a lack of fire according to a study from 1937 to 1969, in contrast to a one percent increase on burned areas (Bragg and Hulbert, 1976). Periodic burning tends to hinder the establishment of most woody species and favors forbs and grasses. However, it should be pointed out that not all unburned areas have a woody plant invasion. Hydrologic function is affected by the amount of vegetative cover. Canopy interception loss can vary from 25.4 percent to 36.7 percent (Thurow and Hester, 1997). A small rainfall event is usually retained in the foliage and does not reach the litter layer at the base of the tree. Only when canopy storage is reached and exceeded does precipitation fall to the soil surface. Interception losses associated with the accumulation of leaves, twigs, and branches at the bases of trees are considerably higher than losses associated with the canopy. The decomposed material retains approximately 40 percent of the water that is not retained in the canopy (Thurow and Hester, 1997). Soil properties affected include biological activity, infiltration rates, and soil fertility. Special planning will be necessary to assure that sufficient amounts of fine fuel are available to carry fires with enough intensity to control woody species. In some locations the use of chemicals as a brush management tool may be desirable to initiate and accelerate this transition. Birds, small mammals, and livestock are instrumental in the distribution of seed and accelerating the spread of most trees and shrubs common to this site. The speed of encroachment varies considerably and can occur on both grazed and non-grazed pastures. Many species of wildlife, especially bobwhite quail, turkey, and white-tailed deer benefit from the growth of trees and shrubs for both food and cover. When management for specific wildlife populations is desirable, these options should be considered in any brush management plan.
Community 3.1
Shrub/Tree Community
This plant community is dominated by shrubs consisting primarily of coralberry, fragrant sumac, and smooth sumac. Trees including eastern redcedar, honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos), and osage orange (Maclura pomifera) have invaded and become established in some areas. Coralberry, smooth sumac, and fragrant sumac are shrubs that often form low, dense thickets throughout the site. Shrubs and trees may produce 40 to 60 percent of the total vegetation. The absence of fire allows shrubs and trees to spread because periodic burning tends to hinder their establishment and favor grasses and forbs. It is important to note, however, that not all unburned areas have a woody plant problem and the pace of woody encroachment varies considerably. Other than the lack of fire, factors that accelerate encroachment include seed availability in surrounding areas and the presence of numerous animals (mainly birds) which distribute seed over the site. In addition, woody encroachment may occur on areas subjected to longtime continuous overgrazing. In these situations the associated grasses will usually consist of composite dropseed, plains lovegrass, Kentucky bluegrass, hairy grama, and Scribner’s rosette grass. Shrubs will also invade and spread on areas where both grazing and fire have been excluded for many years. Heavy accumulation of plant mulch and litter retards herbage growth and provides a favorable habitat for seed germination and establishment of many woody species. The associated grasses in this situation are usually big bluestem, little bluestem, Indiangrass, switchgrass, sedges, and Canada wildrye. Grass production is significantly reduced by competition from forbs and woody species. Grass yields vary from 40 to 50 percent of the total vegetative production. Forbs often produce 15 to 20 percent of the total. Major forbs include white sagebrush, Cuman ragweed, blue wild indigo, and common yarrow. Total annual production ranges from 1,300 to 2,700 pounds of air-dry vegetation per acre and averages about 2,000 pounds. In this plant community, the amount of available forage is heavily dependent upon the predominant woody species and the kind(s) of livestock and/or wildlife utilizing the site. Usually a prescribed burning program accompanied by prescribed grazing will gradually return the plant community to one dominated by grasses and forbs. A longer recovery time will be required where the tall- and midgrasses have been greatly reduced or eliminated. Special planning will be necessary to assure that sufficient amounts of fine fuel are available to carry fires with the intensity to control the woody species. Use of labeled herbicides as a brush management tool will usually be necessary to reduce populations of fire-resistant species such as osage orange and honeylocust and accelerate the recovery of the desired vegetative cover. Many species of wildlife, especially bobwhite quail and white-tailed deer, benefit from the growth of shrubs for both food and cover. When wildlife populations are a desirable component, this should be considered in any brush management plan.
State 4
Tillage State
The Tillage State consists of abandoned cropland that has been naturally revegetated (go-back) or planted/seeded to grassland. Many reseeded plant communities were planted with a local seeding mix under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or were planted to a monoculture of sideoats grama. Go-back communities are difficult to define due to the variability of plant communities that can exist. Many of these communities are represented by the genus Aristida (threeawns). This is an alternative state since the energy, hydrologic, and nutrient cycles are altered to that of the Reference State in its natural disturbance regime. Bulk density, aggregate stability, soil structure, and plant functional and structural groups are not fully restored to that of the Reference State. Mechanical tillage can destroy soil aggregation. Soil aggregates are an example of dynamic soil property change. Aggregate stability is critical for infiltration, root growth, and resistance to water and wind erosion (Brady and Weil, 2008).
Community 4.1
Reseed Community
This plant community occurs on areas that were formerly farmed and reseeded with a mixture of native species common in the Reference Plant Community. Most seeding mixtures consisted of a blend of grasses that include sand bluestem, Indiangrass, switchgrass, little bluestem, sideoats grama, blue grama, and western wheatgrass. In some locations, seed of legumes and forbs such as prairie bundleflower and Maximilian sunflower were included in the mixture. Once these areas become fully established, production is comparable to that of the Reference Plant Community. Total annual production ranges varies according to the species planted, established plants, and years of establishment. When reseeded areas and areas supporting native rangeland exist in the same pasture, they seldom are utilized at the same intensity because domestic livestock usually prefer plants growing on the native rangeland areas. When feasible, reseeded plant communities should be managed as separate pastures or units. Some seeded areas are invaded by trees and shrubs during the establishment period of the desired plants. These invader species commonly include elm, common hackberry, eastern redcedar, and eastern cottonwood. Occasional burning is effective in controlling establishment of these woody plants.
Community 4.2
Go-back Community
This plant community also occurs on areas that were formerly farmed. When tillage operations ceased, the areas were allowed to revegetate or “go back” naturally, in contrast to artificial reseeding to a selected species or group of species. The go-back process is a slow, gradual transformation that requires many years and many successional changes or stages in the plant community. The speed and extent of revegetation depends upon the size of the area, level of grazing management, and the proximity of the area to existing seed sources. In the initial stages of revegetation the site is usually dominated by annual forbs such as annual ragweed, slender snakecotton, Canadian horseweed, prairie sunflower, common sunflower, Mexican fireweed, camphorweed, and annual buckwheat. Gradually these are replaced by annual grasses including prairie threeawn, mat sandbur, tumblegrass, little barley, cheatgrass, and witchgrass. As plant succession progresses, the plant community gradually becomes dominated by perennials. The major grasses include sand dropseed, composite dropseed, thin paspalum, purple lovegrass, red lovegrass, Scribner’s rosette grass, Carolina crabgrass, silver beardgrass, and tumble windmill grass. Common forbs are Cuman ragweed, white sagebrush, Carruth’s sagewort, white heath aster, Missouri goldenrod, and sand milkweed. Combinations of these plants can form a stable community. In time with prescribed grazing management, other perennial grasses and forbs common in the Reference Plant Community return to the site. Blue grama is a shortgrass that is very common to the native plant communities on this site. However, it seldom occurs in go-back communities, even after 40 to 50 years of plant succession. Some go-back areas are invaded by trees and shrubs. The more common invaders include elm, common hackberry, eastern redcedar, eastern cottonwood, and roughleaf dogwood. Occasional burning is effective in controlling these woody plants. Total annual production varies by site. This depends upon seasonal precipitation and the stage of plant succession in the plant community.
Transition 1.3 to 2
State 1 to 2
Long-term management (approximately 30 years) without a forage and animal balance and heavy, continuous grazing without adequate recovery periods between grazing events will convert the Grassland State to a Shortgrass State made up of blue grama and buffalograss sod. Drought, in combination with this type of management, will quicken the rate at which this transition occurs. Ecological processes affected are the hydrologic and nutrient cycles. There is an increase in evaporation rate and runoff, and in bulk density. There is a decrease in infiltration, a change in plant composition, and the functional and structural groups have changed dominance. These are all examples of the soil and vegetation properties that have compromised the resilience of the Grassland State, and therefore transitioned to a Shortgrass State.
Transition 1 to 3
State 1 to 3
Changes from a Grassland State to a Woody State lead to changes in hydrologic function, forage production, dominant functional and structural groups, and wildlife habitat. Understory plants may be negatively affected by trees and shrubs by reductions in light, soil moisture, and soil nutrients. Increases in tree and shrub density and size have the effects of reducing understory plant cover and productivity, and desirable forage grasses often are most severely reduced (Eddleman, 1983). As vegetation cover changes from grasses to trees, a greater proportion of precipitation is lost throughout interception and evaporation; therefore, less precipitation is available for producing herbaceous forage or for deep drainage or runoff (Thurow and Hester, 1997). Tree and shrub establishment becomes increasingly greater while fine fuel loads decrease. As trees and shrubs increase at levels of greater than 20 percent canopy cover, the processes and functions that allow the Woody State to become resilient are active and dominant over the processes and systems inherent to the Grassland State. Using prescribed fire as a standalone management tool is unsuccessful to eradicate the trees and shrubs due to a lack of fine fuel loads.
Transition 1 to 4
State 1 to 4
This transition is triggered by a management action as opposed to a natural event. Tillage, or breaking the ground with machinery for crop production, will move the Grassland State to a Tillage State. The resilience of the Reference State has been compromised by the fracturing and blending of the native virgin sod. The energy, hydrologic, and nutrient cycles are altered and vary from that of the Grassland State.
Restoration pathway 3 to 1
State 3 to 1
Restoration efforts will be costly, labor-intensive, and can take many years, if not decades, to return to a Grassland State. Once canopy levels reach greater than 20 percent, estimated cost to remove trees is very expensive and includes high energy inputs. The technologies needed in order to go from an invaded Woody State to a Grassland State include but are not limited to: prescribed burning—the use of fire as a tool to achieve a management objective on a predetermined area under conditions where the intensity and extent of the fire are controlled; brush management—manipulating woody plant cover to obtain desired quantities and types of woody cover and/or to reduce competition with herbaceous understory vegetation, in accordance with overall resource management objectives; and prescribed grazing—the controlled harvest of vegetation with grazing or browsing animals managed with the intent to achieve a specified objective. In addition, manage grazing at an intensity that will maintain enough cover to protect the soil and maintain or improve the quantity and quality of desirable vegetation. When a juniper tree is cut and removed, the soil structure and the associated high infiltration rate may be maintained for over a decade (Hester, 1996). This explains why the area near the dripline usually has substantially greater forage production for many years after the tree has been cut. It also explains why runoff will not necessarily dramatically increase once juniper is removed. Rather, the water continues to infiltrate at high rates into soils previously ameliorated by junipers, thereby increasing deep drainage potential. In rangeland, deep drainage amounts can equal 16 percent of the total rainfall amount per year (Thurow and Hester, 1997).
Conservation practices
| Brush Management | |
|---|---|
| Prescribed Burning | |
| Prescribed Grazing |
Additional community tables
Table 6. Community 1.1 plant community composition
| Group | Common name | Symbol | Scientific name | Annual production (kg/hectare) | Foliar cover (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Grass/Grasslike
|
||||||
| 1 | Grasses Dominant 61% | 1177–2051 | ||||
| big bluestem | ANGE | Andropogon gerardii | 897–1681 | – | ||
| sideoats grama | BOCU | Bouteloua curtipendula | 280–673 | – | ||
| little bluestem | SCSC | Schizachyrium scoparium | 392–673 | – | ||
| 2 | Grasses Minor 10% | 112–336 | ||||
| western wheatgrass | PASM | Pascopyrum smithii | 22–112 | – | ||
| switchgrass | PAVI2 | Panicum virgatum | 56–112 | – | ||
| Indiangrass | SONU2 | Sorghastrum nutans | 56–112 | – | ||
| composite dropseed | SPCOC2 | Sporobolus compositus var. compositus | 22–112 | – | ||
| 3 | Grasses Subdominant 15% | 168–504 | ||||
| blue grama | BOGR2 | Bouteloua gracilis | 84–504 | – | ||
| buffalograss | BODA2 | Bouteloua dactyloides | 84–168 | – | ||
| 4 | Grasses Trace 2% | 0–67 | ||||
| hairy grama | BOHI2 | Bouteloua hirsuta | 0–17 | – | ||
| Canada wildrye | ELCA4 | Elymus canadensis | 0–17 | – | ||
| plains muhly | MUCU3 | Muhlenbergia cuspidata | 0–17 | – | ||
| sand dropseed | SPCR | Sporobolus cryptandrus | 0–17 | – | ||
|
Forb
|
||||||
| 5 | Forbs Minor 10% | 112–336 | ||||
| Maximilian sunflower | HEMA2 | Helianthus maximiliani | 0–56 | – | ||
| compassplant | SILA3 | Silphium laciniatum | 11–56 | – | ||
| blackeyed Susan | RUHI2 | Rudbeckia hirta | 0–45 | – | ||
| pitcher sage | SAAZG | Salvia azurea var. grandiflora | 11–34 | – | ||
| upright prairie coneflower | RACO3 | Ratibida columnifera | 11–34 | – | ||
| Illinois bundleflower | DEIL | Desmanthus illinoensis | 11–34 | – | ||
| butterfly milkweed | ASTU | Asclepias tuberosa | 0–34 | – | ||
| Cuman ragweed | AMPS | Ambrosia psilostachya | 11–28 | – | ||
| yellow sundrops | CASE12 | Calylophus serrulatus | 11–28 | – | ||
| blacksamson echinacea | ECANA | Echinacea angustifolia var. angustifolia | 11–28 | – | ||
| dotted blazing star | LIPU | Liatris punctata | 11–28 | – | ||
| Nuttall's sensitive-briar | MINU6 | Mimosa nuttallii | 11–28 | – | ||
| stiff goldenrod | OLRI | Oligoneuron rigidum | 11–28 | – | ||
| slimflower scurfpea | PSTE5 | Psoralidium tenuiflorum | 11–28 | – | ||
| purple prairie clover | DAPUP | Dalea purpurea var. purpurea | 11–28 | – | ||
| velvety goldenrod | SOMOM | Solidago mollis var. mollis | 11–28 | – | ||
| white heath aster | SYER | Symphyotrichum ericoides | 11–28 | – | ||
| blue wild indigo | BAAUM | Baptisia australis var. minor | 11–22 | – | ||
| white sagebrush | ARLU | Artemisia ludoviciana | 0–11 | – | ||
| rose heath | CHER2 | Chaetopappa ericoides | 0–11 | – | ||
| Fremont's leather flower | CLFR | Clematis fremontii | 0–11 | – | ||
| golden prairie clover | DAAU | Dalea aurea | 0–11 | – | ||
| nineanther prairie clover | DAEN | Dalea enneandra | 0–11 | – | ||
| prairie fleabane | ERST3 | Erigeron strigosus | 0–11 | – | ||
| broom snakeweed | GUSA2 | Gutierrezia sarothrae | 0–11 | – | ||
| scarlet globemallow | SPCO | Sphaeralcea coccinea | 0–11 | – | ||
|
Shrub/Vine
|
||||||
| 6 | Trees, Shrubs, and Cacti Trace 2% | 0–67 | ||||
| leadplant | AMCA6 | Amorpha canescens | 0–22 | – | ||
| Jersey tea | CEHE | Ceanothus herbaceus | 0–17 | – | ||
| pricklypear | OPUNT | Opuntia | 0–11 | – | ||
| bur oak | QUMA2 | Quercus macrocarpa | 0–11 | – | ||
| prairie rose | ROAR3 | Rosa arkansana | 0–11 | – | ||
| soapweed yucca | YUGL | Yucca glauca | 0–11 | – | ||
Interpretations
Animal community
This site is an excellent mixed grass prairie habitat when maintained in good to excellent condition, especially on its lesser-sloping portions. It is a favored foraging place for white-tailed and mule deer as well as pronghorn.
Management that favors a good variety of forbs along with grasses on this site will attract a larger variety of wildlife species including ground nesting birds, such as the western meadowlark, and rodents. Reptiles including various snakes, lizards, and the box turtle are commonly found. A variety of avian predators, such as hawks and owls, are common as well.
When the site is in poor condition, black-tailed prairie dogs, small rodents such as thirteen lined ground squirrels, and the black-tailed jackrabbit find it to be preferred habitat. Furbearing predators such as coyotes and badgers are common.
Some animals are important because of their threatened and endangered status and require special consideration. Please check the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP&T) website at http://ksoutdoors.com for the most current listing for your county.
Grazing Interpretations
Calculating Safe Stocking Rates: Proper stocking rates should be incorporated into a grazing management strategy that protects the resources, maintains or improves rangeland health, and is consistent with management objectives. In addition to usable forage, safe stocking rates should consider ecological condition, trend of the site, past grazing use history, season of use, stock density, kind and class of livestock, forage digestibility, forage nutritional value, variation of harvest efficiency based on preference of plant species, and/or grazing system, and site grazeability factors (such as steep slopes, site inaccessibility, or distance to drinking water).
Often the current plant community does not entirely match any particular Community Phase as described in this Ecological Site Description. Because of this, a resource inventory is necessary to document plant composition and production. Proper interpretation of inventory data will permit the establishment of a safe initial stocking rate.
No two years have exactly the same weather conditions. For this reason, year-to-year and season-to-season fluctuations in forage production are to be expected on grazing lands. Livestock producers must make timely adjustments in the numbers of animals or in the length of grazing periods to avoid overuse of forage plants when production is unfavorable, and to make advantageous adjustments when forage supplies are above average.
Initial stocking rates should be improved through the use of vegetation monitoring and actual use records that include number and type of livestock, the timing and duration of grazing, and utilization levels. Actual use records over time will assist in making stocking rate adjustments based on the variability factors.
Average annual production must be measured or estimated to properly assess useable forage production and stocking rates.
Hydrological functions
Water is the primary factor limiting forage production on this site.
Following are the estimated withdrawals of freshwater by use in MLRA 79:
Public supply—surface water, 6.8% and ground water, 4.0%; Livestock—surface water, 0.4% and ground water, 1.2%; Irrigation—surface water, 0.7% and ground water, 80.6%; Other—surface water, 2.0% and ground water, 4.3%.
The total withdrawals average 740 million gallons per day (2,800 million liters per day). About 90 percent is from ground water sources, and 10 percent is from surface water sources. The source of water for crops and pasture is the moderate, somewhat erratic precipitation. In the northern part of the area, the Arkansas River is a potential source of irrigation water, but it currently is little used for this purpose. The Ninnescah River is another potential source of surface water in the area. Deep sand in the High Plains or Ogallala aquifer yields an abundance of good-quality ground water. This aquifer provides water primarily for irrigation, but also for domestic supply and livestock in rural areas, and for industry and public supply in Wichita and in other towns and cities in the MLRA. The ground water in this aquifer has the lowest levels of total dissolved solids of any aquifer in Kansas; 340 parts per million (milligrams per liter).
The soils on this site are well drained, have moderate permeability, and are hydrologic group B soils. Please refer to the NRCS National Engineering Handbook Section 4 (NEH-4) for runoff quantities and hydrologic curves when making hydrology determinations.
Recreational uses
This site provides opportunities for a variety of outdoor activities which might include bird watching, hiking, outdoor/wildlife photography, and hunting. A wide variety of plants are in bloom throughout the growing season, especially in those years with average and above rainfall, which provide much aesthetic appeal to the landscape. This site is subject to both wind and water erosion when mismanaged. Vehicular traffic can lead to gully formation on steeper areas. This site is often an excellent area for hunting deer and pronghorn.
Wood products
This site generally does not produce trees of sufficient size for commercial harvest.
Other products
None.
Other information
This site is one of the most visually attractive to visitors and residents alike due to its topography and diversity of plants. The steeply sloping portions of this site provide a colorful but rustic vista. The subsoil material from this site, sometimes referred to as “caliche,” may be used for road-base material.
Site Development and Testing Plan
This site went through the approval process.
Supporting information
Inventory data references
Information presented here has been derived from NRCS clipping data, numerous ocular estimates, and other inventory data. Field observations from experienced range-trained personnel were used extensively to develop this ecological site description.
NRCS contracted the development of MLRA 79 ESDs in 2005. Extensive review and improvements were made to those foundational ESDs in 2017-2018, which provided an approved product.
Range Condition Guides and Technical Range Site Descriptions for Kansas, Limy Upland, USDA, Soil Conservation Service, March, 1967.
Range Site Description for Kansas, Limy Upland, USDA-Soil Conservation Service, September, 1985.
Ecological Site Description for Kansas, Limy Upland(R079XY012KS) located in Ecological Site Information System (ESIS), 2007.
Other references
Brady, N. and R. Weil. 2008. The nature and properties of soils, 14th ed.
Bragg, T. and L. Hulbert. 1976. Woody plant invasion of unburned Kansas bluestem prairie. J. Range Management., 29:19-23.
Dyksteruis, E.J. 1958. Range conservation as based on sites and condition classes. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 13: 151-155.
Eddleman, L. 1983. Some ecological attributes of western juniper. In: Research in rangeland management. Agric. Exp. Stan. Oregon State Univ., Corvallis Spec. Rep. 682.P. 32-34.
Hester, J.W. 1996. Influence of woody dominated rangelands on site hydrology and herbaceous production, Edwards Plateau, Texas. M.S. Thesis, Texas A&M University, College State, TX.
Holechek, J., R. Pieper, and C. Herbel. Range Management: principles and practices.—5th ed.
Kuchler, A. A new vegetation map of Kansas. Ecology (1974) 55: pp. 586-604.
Launchbaugh, J., C. Owensby. Kansas Rangelands, their management based on a half century of research. Bull. 622 Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, October, 1978.
Moore, R., J. Frye, J. Jewett, W. Lee, and H. O'Connor. 1951. The Kansas rock column. Univ. Kans. Pub., State Geol. Survey Kans. Bull. 89. 132p.
National Climatic Data Center. Weather data. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/. Accessed online 04/05/2017.
Society for Rangeland Management. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States.
Soil Series—Official Series Descriptions. Avalaible online. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/osdname.asp. Accessed 04-05-2017.
Sauer, Carl. 1950. Grassland climax, fire, and man. J. Range Manage. 3: 16-21.
Thurow, T. and J. Hester. 1997. How an increase or reduction in juniper cover alters rangeland hydrology. In: C.A. Taylor, Jr. (ed.). Proc. 1997 Juniper Symposium. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Rep. 97-1. San Angelo, TX: 4:9-22.
USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil surveys and Web Soil Survey. Available online. Accessed 04/05/2017.
USDA-NRCS. 1997. National range and pasture handbook. Chapter 7, rangeland and pastureland hydrology and erosion.
USDA Handbook 296. 2006. LRR and MLRA of the U.S., the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin.
Waller, S., L. Moser, P. Reece., and G. Gates. 1985. Understanding grass growth.
Weaver, J. and F. Albertson. April, 1940. Deterioration of midwestern ranges. Ecology, Vol. 21, No. 2. pp. 216-236.
Contributors
Chris Tecklenburg
Approval
David Kraft, 9/21/2018
Acknowledgments
The ecological site development process is a collaborative effort, conceptual in nature, dynamic, and is never considered complete. I thank all those who set the foundational work in the mid-2000s in regard to this ESD. I thank all those who contributed to the development of this site. In advance, I thank those who would provide insight, comments, and questions about this ESD in the future.
Non-discrimination Statement
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available
in languages other than English.
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:
(1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20250-9410;
(2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or
(3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
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) |
Chris Tecklenburg/Revision 5-22-2018 David Kraft, John Henry, Doug Spencer and Dwayne Rice/original authors 2-15-2005. |
|---|---|
| Contact for lead author | State Rangeland Management Specialist for Kansas located in Salina 785-823-4500. |
| Date | 05/22/2018 |
| Approved by | |
| Approval date | |
| Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on | Annual Production |
Indicators
-
Number and extent of rills:
The loam and clay loam textured soils that characterize this site have a low potential for rill formation; therefore, no rills or active headcutting are present on the site. -
Presence of water flow patterns:
There are no water flow patterns evidenced by litter, soil, or gravel redistribution, or pedestalling of vegetation or stones that break the flow of water as a result of overland flow. -
Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes:
There is no evidence of pedestals or terracettes that would indicate the movement of soil by water and/or by wind on this site. -
Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, lichen, moss, plant canopy are not bare ground):
Less than 10% bare ground is found on this site. It is the remaining ground cover after accounting for ground surface covered by vegetation (basal and canopy [foliar] cover), litter, standing dead vegetation, gravel/rock, and visible biological crust (e.g., lichen, mosses, algae). -
Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies:
No evidence of accelerated water flow resulting in downcutting of the soil. -
Extent of wind scoured, blowouts and/or depositional areas:
No wind-scoured or blowout areas where the finer particles of the topsoil have blown away, sometimes leaving residual gravel, rock, or exposed roots on the soil surface. Also, there are no areas of redeposited soil onto this site from another site due to the wind, i.e., depositional areas. -
Amount of litter movement (describe size and distance expected to travel):
No evidence of litter movement (i.e., dead plant material that is in contact with the soil surface). -
Soil surface (top few mm) resistance to erosion (stability values are averages - most sites will show a range of values):
Soil surfaces may be stabilized by soil organic matter which has been fully incorporated into aggregates at the soil surface, adhesion of decomposing organic matter to the soil surface, and biological crusts. A soil stability kit will score a range from 5-6. -
Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type of structure and A-horizon color and thickness):
Clark OSD:
Ap--0 to 28 centimeters (0 to 11 inches); very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) loam, very dark brown (10YR 2/2) moist; weak fine granular structure; hard, friable, slightly sticky and slightly plastic; common very fine and fine roots throughout; 21 percent clay; strongly effervescent throughout (HCl, unspecified); moderately alkaline; clear wavy boundary. (10 to 36 centimeters (4 to 14 inches) thick) -
Effect of community phase composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration and runoff:
Functional and structural groups are that of the Reference Plant Community (see functional and structural group worksheet). Note changes to plant communities if different than that of the functional and structural group worksheet. -
Presence and thickness of compaction layer (usually none; describe soil profile features which may be mistaken for compaction on this site):
There is no evidence of a compacted soil layer less than 6 inches from the soil surface. Soil structure is similar to that described in Indicator 9. Compacted physical features will include platy, blocky, dense soil structure over less dense soil layers, horizontal root growth, and increase bulk density (measured by weighing a known volume of oven-dry soil). -
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:
Group 1 Grasses Dominant 61% big bluestem 800-1500, little bluestem 350-600, sideoats grama 250-600Sub-dominant:
Group 2 Grasses Minor 10% Indiangrass 50-100, switchgrass 50-100, composite dropseed 20-100, western wheatgrass 20-100Other:
Group 3 Grasses Subdominant 15% blue grama 75-450, buffalograss 75-150
Additional:
Grasses Group 4 Trace 2%, Forbs Minor 10%, Group 6 Trace 2% Trees, Shrubs, and Cacti -
Amount of plant mortality and decadence (include which functional groups are expected to show mortality or decadence):
Recruitment of plants is occurring and there is a mixture of many age classes of plants. The majority of the plants are alive and vigorous. Some mortality and decadence is expected for the site, due to drought, unexpected wildfire, or a combination of the two events. This would be expected for both dominant and subdominant groups. -
Average percent litter cover (%) and depth ( in):
Plant litter is distributed evenly throughout the site. There is no restriction to plant regeneration due to depth of litter. When prescribed burning is practiced, there will be little litter the first half of the growing season. -
Expected annual annual-production (this is TOTAL above-ground annual-production, not just forage annual-production):
All species (e.g., native, seeded, and weeds) alive in the year of the evaluation, are included in the determination of total above ground production. Site potential (total annual production) ranges from 2,200 lbs in a below-average rainfall year and 4,000 lbs in an above-average rainfall year. The representative value for this site is 3,000 lbs production per year. -
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:
There are no noxious weeds present. Invasive plants make up a small percentage of plant community, and invasive brush species are < 5% canopy. -
Perennial plant reproductive capability:
Plants on site exhibit the required vigor and growth to be able to reproduce vegetatively or by seed. Current management activities do not adversely effect the capability of plants to reproduce.
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.