Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Ecological site R083AY016TX

Saline Clay Loam

Last updated: 9/19/2023
Accessed: 12/22/2024

Home / Esd catalog / MLRA 083A / Ecological site R083AY016TX

USC

Metric

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.

Click to explore map

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): 083A–Northern Rio Grande Plain

This area is entirely in Texas and south of San Antonio. It makes up about 11,115 square miles (28,805 square kilometers). The towns of Uvalde, Cotulla, and Hondo are in the western part of the area, and Beeville, Goliad, and Kenedy are in the eastern part. The town of Alice is just outside the southern edge of the area. Interstate Highways 35 and 37 cross this area. This area is comprised of inland, dissected coastal plains.

Classification relationships

USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006.
-Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 83A

Ecological site concept

The Saline Clay Loam has clay loam surface textures coupled with salts. The presence of salts creates a unique plant community.

Associated sites

R083AY017TX	Blackland
R083AY024TX	Tight Sandy Loam
R083AY027TX	Western Clay Loam

R083AY017TX

Blackland

R083AY024TX

Tight Sandy Loam

R083AY027TX

Western Clay Loam

Similar sites

R083BY016TX	Saline Clay Loam

R083BY016TX

Saline Clay Loam

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Tree	(1) Prosopis glandulosa
Shrub	(1) Ziziphus obtusifolia (2) Celtis ehrenbergiana
Herbaceous	(1) Sporobolus airoides (2) Aristida purpurea

Download full description

Physiographic features

These soils are on side slopes or shoulders of interfluves. Slopes range from 0 to 8 percent. This area is comprised of inland, dissected coastal plains.

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Landforms	(1) Coastal plain > Ridge (2) Coastal plain > Interfluve
Runoff class	Medium to very high
Elevation	200 – 1,000 ft
Slope	8%
Aspect	Aspect is not a significant factor

Climatic features

MLRA 83A is subtropical, subhumid on the western boundary and subtropical humid on the eastern boundary. Winters are dry and mild and the summers are hot and humid. Tropical maritime air masses predominate throughout spring, summer, and fall. Modified polar air masses exert considerable influence during winter, creating a continental climate characterized by large variations in temperature. Average precipitation for MLRA 83A is 20 inches on the western boundary and 35 inches on the eastern boundary. Peak rainfall, because of rain showers, occurs late in spring and a secondary peak occurs early in fall. Heavy thunderstorm activities increase in April, May, and June. July is hot and dry with little weather variations. Rainfall increases again in late August and September as tropical disturbances increase and become more frequent. Tropical air masses from the Gulf of Mexico dominate during the spring, summer, and fall. Prevailing winds are southerly to southeasterly throughout the year except in December when winds are predominately northerly.

Table 3. Representative climatic features

Frost-free period (characteristic range)	223-251 days
Freeze-free period (characteristic range)	263-365 days
Precipitation total (characteristic range)	25-32 in
Frost-free period (actual range)	208-263 days
Freeze-free period (actual range)	254-365 days
Precipitation total (actual range)	24-37 in
Frost-free period (average)	235 days
Freeze-free period (average)	314 days
Precipitation total (average)	29 in

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 2. Monthly precipitation range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 3. Monthly minimum temperature range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 4. Monthly maximum temperature range

Bar

Line

Figure 5. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature

Figure 6. Annual precipitation pattern

Figure 7. Annual average temperature pattern

Climate stations used

(1) CARRIZO SPRINGS 3W [USC00411486], Carrizo Springs, TX
(2) DILLEY [USC00412458], Dilley, TX
(3) FLORESVILLE [USC00413201], Floresville, TX
(4) KARNES CITY 2N [USC00414696], Karnes City, TX
(5) MATHIS 4 SSW [USC00415661], Mathis, TX
(6) PLEASANTON [USC00417111], Pleasanton, TX
(7) UVALDE 3 SW [USC00419268], Uvalde, TX
(8) BEEVILLE 5 NE [USC00410639], Beeville, TX
(9) CROSS [USC00412125], Tilden, TX
(10) GOLIAD [USC00413618], Goliad, TX
(11) LYTLE 3W [USC00415454], Natalia, TX
(12) TILDEN 4 SSE [USC00419031], Tilden, TX
(13) HONDO MUNI AP [USW00012962], Hondo, TX
(14) CHEAPSIDE [USC00411671], Gonzales, TX
(15) CUERO [USC00412173], Cuero, TX
(16) HONDO [USC00414254], Hondo, TX
(17) NIXON [USC00416368], Stockdale, TX
(18) CHARLOTTE 5 NNW [USC00411663], Charlotte, TX
(19) FOWLERTON [USC00413299], Fowlerton, TX
(20) PEARSALL [USC00416879], Pearsall, TX
(21) POTEET [USC00417215], Poteet, TX
(22) CALLIHAM [USC00411337], Calliham, TX

Soil features

The soils are deep to very deep, well drained, moderately slowly to very slowly permeable derived from calcareous clayey or loamy residuum weathered from sandstone and claystone. Soil series correlated to this site include: Campbellton and Schattel.

Table 4. Representative soil features

Parent material	(1) Residuum – shale
Surface texture	(1) Clay loam (2) Loam (3) Sandy clay loam (4) Clay
Family particle size	(1) Fine
Drainage class	Moderately well drained to well drained
Permeability class	Moderately slow to very slow
Soil depth	80 in
Surface fragment cover <=3"	Not specified
Surface fragment cover >3"	Not specified
Available water capacity (0-40in)	4 – 6 in
Calcium carbonate equivalent (0-40in)	25%
Electrical conductivity (0-40in)	16 mmhos/cm
Sodium adsorption ratio (0-40in)	12
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-40in)	7.4 – 8.4
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified)	2%
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified)	1%

Ecological dynamics

The Northern Rio Grande Plain MLRA was a disturbance-maintained system. Prior to European settlement (pre-1825), fire and grazing were the two primary forms of disturbance. Grazing by large herbivores included antelope, deer, and small herds of bison. The infrequent but intense, short-duration grazing by these species suppressed woody species and invigorated herbaceous species. The herbaceous savannah species adapted to fire and grazing disturbances by maintaining belowground tissues. Wright and Bailey (1982) report that there are no reliable records of fire frequency for the Rio Grande Plains because there are no trees to carry fire scars from which to estimate fire frequency. Because savannah grassland is typically of level or rolling topography, a natural fire frequency of three to seven years seems reasonable for this site.

Precipitation patterns are highly variable. Long-term droughts, occurring three to four times per century, cause shifts in species composition by causing die-off of seedlings, less drought-tolerant species, and some woody species. Droughts also reduce biomass production and create open space, which is colonized by opportunistic species when precipitation increases. Wet periods allow midgrasses to increase in dominance.

Historical accounts prior to 1800 identify grazing by herds of wild horses, followed by heavy grazing by sheep and cattle as settlement progressed. Grazing on early ranches changed natural graze-rest cycles to continuous grazing and stocking rates exceeded the carrying capacity. These shifts in grazing intensity and the removal of rest from the system reduced plant vigor for the most palatable species, which on this site were mid-grasses and palatable forbs. Shortgrasses and less palatable forbs began to dominate the site. This shift resulted in lower fuel loads, which reduced fire frequency and intensity. The reduction in fires resulted in an increase in size and density of woody species.

Today, primarily beef cattle graze rangeland and pastureland. However, horse numbers are increasing rapidly on small acreage properties in the region. There are some areas where dairy cattle, poultry, goats, and sheep are locally important. Whitetail deer, wild turkey, bobwhite quail, and dove are the major wildlife species, and hunting leases are a major source of income for many landowners in this area. Introduced pasture has been established on many acres of old cropland and in areas with deeper soils. Buffelgrass is the most common introduced plant on the site and to a lesser extent bermudagrass, guineagrass (Urochloa maxima), and kleingrass, which are more commonly used for hay. Cropland is found in the valleys, bottomlands, and deeper upland soils. Wheat (Triticum spp.), oats Avena spp.), forage and grain sorghum (Sorghum spp.), cotton (Gossypium spp.), and corn (Zea mays) are major crops in the region.

State and transition model

Custom diagram

Standard diagram

Figure 8. STM

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

1. Grassland

2. Shrubland

3. Seeded

T1A	-	Absence of disturbance and natural regeneration over time, may coupled with excessive grazing pressure
T1B	-	Removal of vegetation followed by extensive soil disturbance and planting with non-native species
R2A	-	Reintroduction of historic disturbance return intervals
T2A	-	Removal of vegetation followed by extensive soil disturbance and planting with non-native species
T3A	-	Absence of disturbance and natural regeneration over time, may coupled with excessive grazing pressure

State 1
Grassland

Dominant plant species

false Rhodes grass (Trichloris crinita), grass
alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides), grass

Community 1.1
Midgrass Dominant

The reference plant community is an open grassland dominated by midgrasses, including multi-flowered false Rhodesgrass, two-flowered trichloris, alkali sacaton, silver bluestem and Arizona cottontop. There are shortgrasses such as curly mesquite present, but in limited amounts. Perennial forbs including bushsunflower, orange zexmenia, and erect dayflower are common. Scattered individual and mottes of woody plants occurred, making up less than 10 percent of the total composition. These included blackbrush acacia, spiny hackberry, lotebush, and allthorn goatbush. An occasional honey mesquite dotted the landscape. The community is maintained by periodic fires (5 to 10 years), browsing, and grazing.

Figure 9. 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)
Grass/Grasslike	850	2400	3400
Shrub/Vine	150	200	250
Forb	100	150	200
Tree	25	50	75
Total	1125	2800	3925

Figure 10. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). TX4800, Midgrass Dominant Community. Warm-season midgrasses with forbs and shrubs..

Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
J	F	M	A	M	J	J	A	S	O	N	D
1	1	2	10	20	20	5	8	15	10	6	2

Community 1.2
Short/Midgrass Dominant

This community is resilient, still under the influence of periodic fires, and can easily be transitioned back to community 1.1. This community is stable and maintainable. Continued heavy grazing, coupled with drought cycles, causes the dominant midgrasses to decrease in composition. The opening of the midgrass canopy has caused shortgrasses to increase, forbs to become more abundant, and woody seedlings are able to increase slightly. At this point in time, with reduction in stocking rates, periodic rest, and increased fire frequency, this community can be maintained or shifted back to the previous community. If overgrazing continues, midgrasses will continue to decline, fire frequency and intensity will decrease, and the community will continue to decline toward a totally altered state. Such species as multi-flowered false Rhodesgrass, Arizona cottontop and alkali sacaton are replaced by pink pappusgrass, hooded windmillgrass, plains lovegrass, and perennial three-awn. Shortgrasses like curly mesquite, Hall’s panicum, and sand dropseed also increase.

Figure 11. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)

Table 6. Annual production by plant type

Plant type	Low (lb/acre)	Representative value (lb/acre)	High (lb/acre)
Grass/Grasslike	800	1900	3000
Shrub/Vine	150	225	250
Forb	100	175	250
Tree	25	75	100
Total	1075	2375	3600

Figure 12. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). TX4803, Short/Midgrass Dominant Community, 10-15% woody canopy. Short and Midgrass Dominant with 10-15% woody canopy..

Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
J	F	M	A	M	J	J	A	S	O	N	D
1	1	2	10	20	20	5	8	15	10	6	2

Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1

This community can be taken back to community 1.1 through the use of prescribed grazing and prescribed burning.

State 2
Shrubland

Dominant plant species

pink pappusgrass (Pappophorum bicolor), grass
Arizona cottontop (Digitaria californica), grass

Community 2.1
Mid/Shortgrass Shrubland Complex

Continued heavy grazing, no rest, greatly reduced fire frequency, and increasing shrub canopy cover have altered this community drastically. Midgrasses, though still present, are relegated to a position within the thorny shrubs. Water, energy, and mineral cycles are altered to some extent. Although rainfall still infiltrates within the shrub community, woody plants harvest the water, limiting the amount available for herbaceous production. In addition, light rainfall events are intercepted by woody canopies and stems and evaporate before reaching the soil surface. In this community, fire frequency and intensity are greatly reduced because of reduced fuel loads and litter accumulation. This state can be converted back to State 1 through the use of brush management, prescribed burning, and prescribed grazing. To do so requires significant energy input, outlays of capital, and relatively long periods of time. Because the shrub species are relatively resistant to most herbicides, mechanical methods of brush management are most often utilized. Rootplowing on this site should be avoided because this mechanism brings salt to the surface, increasing salinity in the surface horizons. Following brush management, periodic rest periods and appropriate stocking rates will be needed to restore the original plant community.

Figure 13. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)

Table 7. Annual production by plant type

Plant type	Low (lb/acre)	Representative value (lb/acre)	High (lb/acre)
Grass/Grasslike	550	1300	2100
Shrub/Vine	150	300	350
Forb	75	200	300
Tree	50	100	150
Total	825	1900	2900

Figure 14. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). TX4801, Mid/Shortgrasses Shrubland Community. Mid and shortgrasses with forbs and 20-50% woody canopy..

Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
J	F	M	A	M	J	J	A	S	O	N	D
1	1	2	10	20	20	5	8	15	10	6	2

Community 2.2
Wooded Grassland

The Wooded Grassland Community has woody canopies exceeding 40 percent. Midgrasses are found only within thorny shrubs and interspaces. Curly mesquite, Hall’s panicum, whorled dropseed may be the only species present. Fire on the site in this state is almost non-existent. This site can be brought back to state 2.1 but not without extensive input of energy and outlays of capital. Because of the diverse woody community, this site in this state is most often manipulated by roller-chopping to enhance it for white-tailed deer, northern bobwhite, or scaled quail. To further enhance it for wildlife, the woody plant community can be manipulated and grazed to maximize use for target species. Many landowners find managing towards this community for wildlife the most suitable option.

Figure 15. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)

Table 8. Annual production by plant type

Plant type	Low (lb/acre)	Representative value (lb/acre)	High (lb/acre)
Grass/Grasslike	400	900	1300
Shrub/Vine	150	350	400
Forb	100	250	300
Tree	50	150	200
Total	700	1650	2200

Figure 16. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). TX4804, Wooded Grassland Community, >40% canopy. Midgrasses are found only within thorny shrubs having woody canopies exceeding 40 percent and interspaces are dominated by shortgrasses..

Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
J	F	M	A	M	J	J	A	S	O	N	D
1	1	2	10	20	20	5	8	15	10	6	2

Pathway 2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1

Managerial activities that restore the hydrologic cycle, such as the energy captured by midgrasses, and restored ground cover will tend to move the Community 2.2 toward the Mid/Shortgrass Shrubland Complex (2.1). Selective brush management is needed to accomplish the desired canopy level and spatial arrangement of woody species. Integrated brush management and utilizing historic ecological disturbances such as herbivory and fire in are needed to maintain the desired brush densities. The time to shift back to the 10 to 40 percent canopy is dependent upon favorable growing conditions and could take three to five years.

State 3
Seeded

Dominant plant species

Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana), grass

Community 3.1
Introduced/Native Species

This community is a result of the land manager planting introduced or native grass species. Seeding with native species is uncommon due to the lack of availability of seeds that are adapted to saline soils of South Texas. Although this site is infrequently plowed due to salt and sodium content, mechanical manipulation has been done in some instances. When mechanical manipulation is done, the site is usually seeded to bell Rhodesgrass (Chloris gayana) or Kleberg bluestem. Either of these species, most commonly Kleberg bluestem, may invade this site when soils are denuded and native grasses are removed by overgrazing. Seeds of both Kleberg bluestem and bell Rhodesgrass are wind borne and a ready seed source is available from public roadways. Once the site is established to either of these species, return to a native state is extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Figure 17. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)

Table 9. Annual production by plant type

Plant type	Low (lb/acre)	Representative value (lb/acre)	High (lb/acre)
Grass/Grasslike	700	1200	2100
Shrub/Vine	50	100	150
Tree	25	75	125
Forb	25	75	125
Total	800	1450	2500

Figure 18. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). TX4762, Introduced Grass Community. Planted into introduced grasses for pasture planting..

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	10	20	20	5	10	15	10	5	0

Transition T1A
State 1 to 2

The Grassland State will cross a threshold to Shrubland (State 2) with abusive grazing and without brush management or fire. Severe drought is also a significant factor. In State 2 more rainfall is being utilized by woody plants than the herbaceous plants. Because of the increased canopy, sunlight is being captured by the woody plants and converted to energy instead of the herbaceous plants.

Transition T1B
State 1 to 3

The transition to the Converted Land State is triggered by mechanical treatment and planting to native or introduced forages. Planting is usually done following brush management.

Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1

Brush management is the key driver in restoring State 2 back to the Grassland State (1). Reduction in woody canopy below 20 percent will take large energy inputs depending on the canopy cover. A prescribed grazing plan and prescribed burning plan will keep the state functioning.

Transition T2A
State 2 to 3

The transition to the Seeded State is triggered by major ground disturbing mechanical treatment and planting to native or introduced forages. Planting is usually done following brush management.

Transition T3A
State 3 to 2

The transition from the Seeded State to the Shrubland State is triggered by neglect or no management over long periods of time. Shrubs re-establish from the seed bank and introduction from wildlife and livestock. A complete return to a previous state is not possible if adapted non-native plants have been established.

Additional community tables

Table 10. Community 1.1 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production (lb/acre)	Foliar cover (%)
Grass/Grasslike
1	Midgrasses			400–1700
	alkali sacaton	SPAI	Sporobolus airoides	100–500	–
	multiflower false Rhodes grass	TRPL3	Trichloris pluriflora	100–450	–
	large-spike bristlegrass	SEMA5	Setaria macrostachya	100–300	–
	silver beardgrass	BOLAT	Bothriochloa laguroides ssp. torreyana	100–300	–
	false Rhodes grass	TRCR9	Trichloris crinita	50–250	–
	Arizona cottontop	DICA8	Digitaria californica	50–150	–
2	Grasses			250–850
	pink pappusgrass	PABI2	Pappophorum bicolor	100–350	–
	hooded windmill grass	CHCU2	Chloris cucullata	100–250	–
	plains lovegrass	ERIN	Eragrostis intermedia	100–250	–
	lovegrass tridens	TRER	Tridens eragrostoides	75–200	–
3	Grasses			100–450
	purple threeawn	ARPU9	Aristida purpurea	25–200	–
	Texas bristlegrass	SETE6	Setaria texana	100–200	–
	southwestern bristlegrass	SESC2	Setaria scheelei	50–150	–
	Texas cottontop	DIPA6	Digitaria patens	25–100	–
	slim tridens	TRMUM	Tridens muticus var. muticus	25–100	–
4	Shortgrasses			100–400
	curly-mesquite	HIBE	Hilaria belangeri	50–150	–
	Hall's panicgrass	PAHA	Panicum hallii	20–100	–
	sand dropseed	SPCR	Sporobolus cryptandrus	50–100	–
	buffalograss	BODA2	Bouteloua dactyloides	20–50	–
	fall witchgrass	DICO6	Digitaria cognata	5–50	–
	Madagascar dropseed	SPPY2	Sporobolus pyramidatus	10–20	–
	knot grass	SEREF	Setaria reverchonii ssp. firmula	5–10	–
	Texas grama	BORI	Bouteloua rigidiseta	0–5	–
	red grama	BOTR2	Bouteloua trifida	0–5	–
Forb
5	Forbs			50–100
	awnless bushsunflower	SICA7	Simsia calva	25–50	–
	whitemouth dayflower	COER	Commelina erecta	10–20	–
	Gregg's tube tongue	JUPI5	Justicia pilosella	5–20	–
6	Forbs			25–50
	littleleaf sensitive-briar	MIMI22	Mimosa microphylla	20–40	–
	prairie clover	DALEA	Dalea	10–30	–
	globemallow	SPHAE	Sphaeralcea	5–20	–
7	Forbs			25–50
	Cuman ragweed	AMPS	Ambrosia psilostachya	10–50	–
	fanpetals	SIDA	Sida	10–30	–
	Forb, perennial	2FP	Forb, perennial	5–20	–
	Rio Grande stickpea	CACO	Calliandra conferta	5–15	–
	broom snakeweed	GUSA2	Gutierrezia sarothrae	0–15	–
	Drummond's goldenbush	ISDR	Isocoma drummondii	0–15	–
	weakleaf bur ragweed	AMCO3	Ambrosia confertiflora	5–10	–
	silverleaf nightshade	SOEL	Solanum elaeagnifolium	0–10	–
	bristleleaf pricklyleaf	THTE7	Thymophylla tenuiloba	5–10	–
	Forb, annual	2FA	Forb, annual	1–5	–
	cheeseweed mallow	MAPA5	Malva parviflora	1–5	–
	smartweed leaf-flower	PHPO3	Phyllanthus polygonoides	1–5	–
	desert goosefoot	CHPR5	Chenopodium pratericola	1–5	–
	Texas bindweed	COEQ	Convolvulus equitans	1–5	–
Shrub/Vine
8	Shrubs/Vines			150–250
	lotebush	ZIOB	Ziziphus obtusifolia	20–70	–
	Brazilian bluewood	COHO	Condalia hookeri	10–50	–
	blackbrush acacia	ACRI	Acacia rigidula	10–50	–
	spiny hackberry	CEEH	Celtis ehrenbergiana	20–50	–
	fourwing saltbush	ATCA2	Atriplex canescens	10–20	–
	catclaw acacia	ACGRG3	Acacia greggii var. greggii	10–20	–
	pricklypear	OPUNT	Opuntia	10–20	–
	desert yaupon	SCCU4	Schaefferia cuneifolia	5–10	–
	lime pricklyash	ZAFA	Zanthoxylum fagara	5–10	–
	Texas lignum-vitae	GUAN	Guaiacum angustifolium	5–10	–
	clapweed	EPAN	Ephedra antisyphilitica	5–10	–
	Schaffner's wattle	ACSCB	Acacia schaffneri var. bravoensis	5–10	–
	whitebrush	ALGR2	Aloysia gratissima	5–10	–
	Texan goatbush	CAERT	Castela erecta ssp. texana	5–10	–
	Christmas cactus	CYLE8	Cylindropuntia leptocaulis	1–10	–
	javelina bush	COER5	Condalia ericoides	1–5	–
	catclaw acacia	ACGRW	Acacia greggii var. wrightii	2–5	–
	Shrub, other	2S	Shrub, other	1–5	–
	leatherstem	JADI	Jatropha dioica	0–5	–
	crown of thorns	KOSP	Koeberlinia spinosa	1–5	–
	Berlandier's wolfberry	LYBE	Lycium berlandieri	1–5	–
	Texas paloverde	PATE10	Parkinsonia texana	1–5	–
Tree
9	Trees			25–75
	honey mesquite	PRGL2	Prosopis glandulosa	25–75	–

Interpretations

Animal community

As a historic tall/midgrass prairie, this site was occupied by bison, antelope, deer, quail, turkey, and dove. This site was also used by many species of grassland songbirds, migratory waterfowl, and coyotes. This site now provides forage for livestock and is still used by quail, dove, migratory waterfowl, grassland birds, coyotes, and deer.

Feral hogs (Sus scrofa) can be found on most ecological sites in Texas. Damage caused by feral hogs each year includes, crop damage by rutting up crops, destroyed fences, livestock watering areas, and predation on native wildlife, and ground-nesting birds. Feral hogs have few natural predators, thus allowing their population to grow to high numbers.

Wildlife habitat is a complex of many different plant communities and ecological sites across the landscape. Most animals use the landscape differently to find food, shelter, protection, and mates. Working on a conservation plan for the whole property, with a local professional, will help managers make the decisions that allow them to realize their goals for wildlife and livestock.

Grassland State (1): This state provides the maximum amount of forage for livestock such as cattle. It is also utilized by deer, quail and other birds as a source of food. When a site is in the reference plant community phase (1.1) it will also be used by some birds for nesting, if other habitat requirements like thermal and escape cover are near.

Tree/Shrubland Complex (2): This state can be maintained to meet the habitat requirements of cattle and wildlife. Land managers can find a balance that meets their goals and allows them flexibility to manage for livestock and wildlife. Forbs for deer and birds like quail will be more plentiful in this state. There will also be more trees and shrubs to provide thermal and escape cover for birds as well as cover for deer.

Converted Land State (3): The quality of wildlife habitat this site will produce is extremely variable and is influenced greatly by the timing of rain events. This state is often manipulated to meet landowner goals. If livestock production is the main goal, it can be converted to pastureland. It can also be planted to a mix of grasses and forbs that will benefit both livestock and wildlife. A mix of forbs in the pasture could attract pollinators, birds and other types of wildlife. Food plots can also be planted to provide extra nutrition for deer.

This rating system provides general guidance as to animal preference for plant species. It also indicates possible competition between kinds of herbivores for various plants. Grazing preference changes from time to time, especially between seasons, and between animal kinds and classes. Grazing preference does not necessarily reflect the ecological status of the plant within the plant community. For wildlife, plant preferences for food and plant suitability for cover are rated. Refer to habitat guides for a more complete description of a species habitat needs.

Hydrological functions

The grassland and the shrubland communities on this site use all the water from rainfall events that occur. Research has shown that the evapotranspiration rate on the grassland and the shrubland is nearly the same. Very little water could be harvested from this site if the woody plant community is replaced by a grass dominated community.

Recreational uses

White-tailed deer, quail, javelina, and feral hogs are hunted on the site. Bird watching may also be done.

Supporting information

Inventory data references

Information presented was derived from the revised Range Site, literature, limited NRCS clipping data (417s), field observations, and personal contacts with range-trained personnel.

Other references

AgriLife. 2009. Managing Feral Hogs Not a One-shot Endeavor. AgNews, April 23, 2009. http://agnews.tamu.edu/showstory.php?id=903.

Archer, S. 1995. Herbivore mediation of grass-woody plant interactions. Tropical Grasslands, 29:218-235.

Archer, S. 1995. Tree-grass dynamics in a Prosopis-thornscrub savanna parkland: reconstructing the past and predicting the future. Ecoscience, 2:83-99.

Archer, S. 1994. Woody plant encroachment into southwestern grasslands and savannas: rates, patterns and proximate causes. Ecological implications of livestock herbivory in the West, 13-68.

Archer, S. and F. E. Smeins. 1991. Ecosystem-level Processes. In Grazing Management: An Ecological Perspective. Edited by R.K. Heischmidt and J.W. Stuth. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

Baen, J. S. 1997. The growing importance and value implications of recreational hunting leases to agricultural land investors. Journal of Real Estate Research, 14:399-414.

Bailey, V. 1905. North American Fauna No. 25: Biological Survey of Texas. United States Department of Agriculture Biological Survey. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C.

Bestelmeyer, B. T., J.R. Brown, K. M. Havstad, R. Alexander, G. Chavez, and J. E. Herrick. 2003. Development and use of state-and-transition models for rangelands. Journal of Range Management, 56(2):114-126.

Box, T. W. 1960. Herbage production on four range plant communities in South Texas. Journal of Range Management, 13:72-76.

Briske, B B, B. T. Bestelmeyer, T. K. Stringham, and P. L. Shaver. 2008. Recommendations for development of resilience-based State-and-Transition Models. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 61:359-367.

Brown, J. R. and S. Archer. 1999. Shrub invasion of grassland: recruitment is continuous and not regulated by herbaceous biomass or density. Ecology, 80(7):2385-2396.

Diamond, D. D. and T. E. Fulbright. 1990. Contemporary plant communities of upland grasslands of the Coastal Sand Plain, Texas. Southwestern Naturalist, 35:385-392.

Dillehay T. 1974. Late quaternary bison population changes on the Southern Plains. Plains Anthropologist, 19:180-96.

Edward, D. B. 1836. The history of Texas; or, the immigrants, farmers, and politicians guide to the character, climate, soil and production of that country. Geographically arranged from personal observation and experience. J. A. James and Co., Cincinnati, OH.

Everitt, J. H., D. L. Drawe, and R. I. Leonard. 2002. Trees, Shrubs, and Cacti of South Texas. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock, TX.

Everitt, J. H., D. L. Drawe, and R. I. Lonard. 1999. Field Guide to the Broad-Leaved Herbaceous Plants of South Texas. Texas Tech University Press. Lubbock, TX.

Foster, J. H. 1917. Pre-settlement fire frequency regions of the United States: a first approximation. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings No. 20.

Foster, W. C., ed. 1998. The La Salle Expedition to Texas: The Journal of Henry Joutel, 1684-1687. Texas State Historical Association, Austin, TX.

Frost, C. C. 1995. Presettlement fire regimes in southeastern marshes, peatlands, and swamps. In: Prodeedings, 19th Tall Timbers fire ecology conference, 39-60. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL.

Fulbright, T. E. and S. L. Beasom. 1987. Long-term effects of mechanical treatment on white-tailed deer browse. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 15:560-564.

Fulbright, T. E., J. A. Ortega-Santos, A. Lozano-Cavazos, and L. E. Ramirez-Yanez. 2006. Establishing vegetation on migrating inland sand dunes in Texas. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 59:549-556.

Fulbright, T. E., D. D. Diamond, J. Rappole, and J. Norwine. The Coastal Sand Plain of Southern Texas. Rangelands, 12:337-340.

Gould, F. W. 1975. The Grasses of Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX.

Grace, J. B., L. K. Allain, H. Q. Baldwin, A. G. Billock, W. R. Eddleman, A. M. Given, C. W. Jeske, and R. Moss. 2005. Effects of prescribed fire in the coastal prairies of Texas. USGS Open File Report 2005-1287.

Hamilton, W. and D. Ueckert. 2005. Rangeland Woody Plant Control: Past, Present, and Future. In: Brush Management: Past, Present, and Future, 3-16. Texas A&M University Press. College Station, TX.

Hansmire, J. A., D. L. Drawe, B. B. Wester and C.M. Britton. 1988. Effect of winter burns on forbs and grasses of the Texas Coastal Prairie. The Southwestern Naturalist, 33(3):333-338.

Heitschmidt R. K., Stuth J. W., eds. 1991. Grazing management: an ecological perspective. Timberline Press, Portland, OR.

Inglis, J. M. 1964. A history of vegetation of the Rio Grande Plains. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Bulletin No. 45, Austin, TX.

Kneuper, C. L., C. B. Scott, and W. E. Pinchak. 2003. Consumption and dispersion of mesquite seeds by ruminants. Journal of Range Management, 56:255-259.

Kramp, B., R. Ansley, and D. Jones. 1998. Effect of prescribed fire on mesquite seedlings. Texas Tech University Research Highlights - Range, Wildlife and Fisheries Management, 29:13.

Le Houerou, H. N. and J. Norwine. 1988. The ecoclimatology of South Texas. In Arid lands: today and tomorrow. Edited by E. E. Whitehead, C. F. Hutchinson, B. N. Timmesman, and R. G. Varady, 417-444. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Lehman, V. W. 1965. Fire in the range of Attwater’s prairie chicken. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, 4:127-143.

Lehman, V. W. 1969. Forgotten Legions: Sheep in the Rio Grande Plain of Texas. Texas Western Press, El Paso, TX.

Mann, C. 2004. 1491. New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus. Vintage Books, New York City, NY.

Mapston, M. E. 2009. Feral Hogs in Texas. Rep. Texas Cooperative Extension. 23 Apr. 2009 http://icwdm.org/Publications/pdf/Feral%20Pig/Txferalhogs.pdf

McClendon, T. 1991. Preliminary description of the vegetation of South Texas exclusive of the Coastal Saline Zones. Texas Journal of Science, 43:13-32.

McGinty A., D. N. Ueckert. 2001. The Brush Busters success story. Rangelands, 23:3-8.

McLendon, T. 1991. Preliminary description of the vegetation of south Texas exclusive of coastal saline zones. Texas Journal of Science, 43:13-32.

Norwine, J. 1978. Twentieth-century semiarid climates and climatic fluctuations in Texas and northeastern Mexico. Journal of Arid Environments, 1:313-325.

Norwine, J. and R. Bingham. 1986. Frequency and severity of droughts in South Texas: 1900-1983, 1-17. In Livestock and wildlife management during drought. Edited by R. D. Brown. Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Kingsville, TX.

Olmsted, F. L. 1857. A journey through Texas, or a saddle trip on the Southwest frontier: with a statistical appendix. Dix, Edwards, and co., New York, London.

Prichard, D. 1998. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lentic Areas. Bureau of Land Management. National Applied Resource Sciences Center, CO.

Rappole, J. H. and G. W. Blacklock. 1994. A field guide: Birds of Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX.

Rhyne, M. Z. 1998. Optimization of wildlife and recreation earnings for private landowners. M. S. Thesis, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Kingsville, TX.

Schindler, J. R. and T. E. Fulbright. 2003. Roller chopping effects on Tamaulipan scrub community composition. Journal of Range Management, 56:585-590.

Schmidley, D. J. 1983. Texas mammals east of the Balcones Fault zone. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX.

Scifres C. J., W. T. Hamilton, J. R. Conner, J. M. Inglis, and G. A. Rasmussen. 1985. Integrated Brush Management Systems for South Texas: Development and Implementation. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station, TX.

Scifres, C. J. and W. T. Hamilton. 1993. Prescribed burning for brushland management: the South Texas example. Texas A&M Press, College Station, TX.

Scifres, C. J. 1975. Systems for improving McCartney rose infested coastal prairie rangeland. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin MP 1225.

Smeins, F. E., S. Fuhlendorf, and C. Taylor, Jr. 1997. Environmental and Land Use Changes: A Long Term Perspective. In Juniper Symposium, 1-21. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station.

Smeins, F. E., D. D. Diamond, and W. Hanselka. 1991. Coastal prairie, 269-290. In Ecosystems of the World: Natural Grasslands. Edited by R. T. Coupland. Elsevier Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database.

Snyder, R. A. and C. L. Boss. 2002. Recovery and stability in barrier island plant communities. Journal of Coastal Research, 18:530-536.

Stiles, H. R., ed. 1906. Joutel’s journal of La Salle’s last voyage, 1686-1687. Joseph McDonough, Albany, NY.

Stringham, T. K., W. C. Krueger, and P. L. Shaver. 2001. State and transition modeling: and ecological process approach. Journal of Range Management, 56(2):106-113.

Texas A&M Research and Extension Center. 2000. Native Plants of South Texas http://uvalde.tamu.edu/herbarium/index.html.

Texas Agriculture Experiment Station. 2007. Benny Simpson’s Texas Native Trees http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/ornamentals/natives/.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2007. List of White-tailed Deer Browse and Ratings. District 8.

Tharp, B. C. 1926. Structure of Texas Vegetation east of the 98th meridian. Bulletin 2606. University of Texas, Austin. TX.

Thurow, T. L. 1991. Hydrology and Erosion. In: Grazing Management: An Ecological Perspective. Edited by R.K. Heitschmidt and J.W. Stuth. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

Urbatsch, L. 2000. Chinese tallow tree (Triadica sebifera (L.) Small. USDA-NRCS Plant Guide.

USDA-NRCS Plant Database. 2018. https://plants.usda.gov/.

Van’t Hul, J. T., R. S. Lutz and N. E. Mathews. 1997. Impact of prescribed burning on vegetation and bird abundance on Matagorda Island, Texas. Journal of Range Management, 50:346-360.

Vines, R. A. 1984. Trees of Central Texas. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.

Wade, D. D., B. L. Brock, P. H. Brose, J. B. Grace, G. A. Hoch, and W. A. Patterson III. 2000. Fire in Eastern ecosystems. In Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. Edited by. J. K. Brown and J. Kaplers. United States Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Weltz, M. A. and W. H. Blackburn. 1995. Water budget for south Texas rangelands. Journal of Range Management, 48:45-52.

Whittaker, R. H., L. E. Gilbert, and J. H. Connell. 1979. Analysis of a two-phase pattern in a mesquite grassland, Texas. Journal of Ecology, 67:935-52.

Wright, B. D., R. K. Lyons, J. C. Cathey, and S. Cooper. 2002. White-tailed deer browse preferences for South Texas and the Edwards Plateau. Texas Cooperative Extension Bulletin B-6130.

Wright, H.A. and A.W. Bailey. 1982. Fire Ecology: United States and Southern Canada. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.

Approval

Bryan Christensen, 9/19/2023

Acknowledgments

Reviewers:
Vivian Garcia, RMS, NRCS, Corpus Christi, Texas
Shanna Dunn, RSS, NRCS, Corpus Christi, Texas
Justin Clary, RMS, NRCS, Temple, Texas

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)	Vivian Garcia, RMS, NRCS, Corpus Christi, Texas
Contact for lead author	361-241-0609
Date	03/01/2008
Approved by	Bryan Christensen
Approval date
Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on	Annual Production

Indicators

Number and extent of rills:
None.
Presence of water flow patterns:
Somewhat, because of location on toe slopes of hills and ridges.
Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes:
None.
Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, lichen, moss, plant canopy are not bare ground):
0 to 5 percent bare ground. Small and non-connected areas.
Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies:
None.
Extent of wind scoured, blowouts and/or depositional areas:
None.
Amount of litter movement (describe size and distance expected to travel):
Minimal and short.
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):
Depth is from 4 to 12 inches, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) clay loam or sandy clay loam; moderate fine subangular blocky structure; hard and friable; neutral to mildly alkaline; many fine and medium roots; few fine tubular pores; noncalcareous; SOM is 0 to 3 percent.
Effect of community phase composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration and runoff:
High canopy, basal cover and density with small interspaces should make rainfall impact negligible. This site has well drained soils, deep with 0 to 3 percent slopes which allows negligible runoff and erosion.
Presence and thickness of compaction layer (usually none; describe soil profile features which may be mistaken for compaction on this site):
None.
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:
Warm-season midgrasses >>

Sub-dominant:
Warm-season shortgrasses >

Other:
Forbs > Shrubs/Vines > Trees

Additional:
Forbs make up to five percent of species composition, shrubs and trees compose five percent species composition.
Amount of plant mortality and decadence (include which functional groups are expected to show mortality or decadence):
Grasses, due to their growth habit, will exhibit some mortality and decadence, though very slight.
Average percent litter cover (%) and depth ( in):
Litter is primarily herbaceous.
Expected annual annual-production (this is TOTAL above-ground annual-production, not just forage annual-production):
2,250 to 3,750 pounds per acre.
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:
Woody increasers that invade include blackbrush acacia, lotebush, allthorn goatbush, whitebrush, and prickly pear. Drummond's goldenweed may invade this site heavily. Introduced grasses that may invade include Kleberg bluestem.
Perennial plant reproductive capability:
All species should be capable of plant reproduction, except during periods of prolonged drought, heavy natural herbivory, and/or wild fires.

Download reference sheet

Click on box and path labels to scroll to the respective text.

Ecosystem states

1. Grassland

2. Shrubland

3. Seeded

T1A	-	Absence of disturbance and natural regeneration over time, may coupled with excessive grazing pressure
T1B	-	Removal of vegetation followed by extensive soil disturbance and planting with non-native species
R2A	-	Reintroduction of historic disturbance return intervals
T2A	-	Removal of vegetation followed by extensive soil disturbance and planting with non-native species
T3A	-	Absence of disturbance and natural regeneration over time, may coupled with excessive grazing pressure