Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Ecological site R083AY021TX

Sandy

Last updated: 9/19/2023
Accessed: 11/13/2024

Home / Esd catalog / MLRA 083A / Ecological site R083AY021TX

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 Sandy ecological sites are very deep and are moderately well to excessively drained. Soils typically have a thick sandy surface from 40 to 80 inches with a loamy or clayey subsoil.

Associated sites

R083AY023TX	Sandy Loam
R083AY024TX	Tight Sandy Loam
R083AY022TX	Loamy Sand

R083AY023TX

Sandy Loam

R083AY024TX

Tight Sandy Loam

R083AY022TX

Loamy Sand

Similar sites

R083CY021TX	Sandy
R083EY021TX	Sandy

R083CY021TX

Sandy

R083EY021TX

Sandy

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Tree	(1) Quercus virginiana
Shrub	Not specified
Herbaceous	(1) Schizachyrium scoparium (2) Sorghastrum nutans

Download full description

Physiographic features

The Sandy ecological sites are found on nearly level to gently sloping stream terraces of the Coastal Plains. The soils developed in fine sands and loamy fine sands, presumably of recent eolian origin over loamy sediments. The sediments were formed from the Carrizo Sand geologic formation. Slopes range from 0 to 5 percent. Elevation ranges from 200 to 1,000 feet. This area is comprised of inland, dissected coastal plains.

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Landforms	(1) Coastal plain > Stream terrace
Runoff class	Negligible to medium
Elevation	75 – 1,000 ft
Slope	5%
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)	225-251 days
Freeze-free period (characteristic range)	263-365 days
Precipitation total (characteristic range)	25-32 in
Frost-free period (actual range)	216-263 days
Freeze-free period (actual range)	254-365 days
Precipitation total (actual range)	24-37 in
Frost-free period (average)	237 days
Freeze-free period (average)	311 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) BEEVILLE 5 NE [USC00410639], Beeville, TX
(2) CHEAPSIDE [USC00411671], Gonzales, TX
(3) CUERO [USC00412173], Cuero, TX
(4) GOLIAD [USC00413618], Goliad, TX
(5) NIXON [USC00416368], Stockdale, TX
(6) CARRIZO SPRINGS 3W [USC00411486], Carrizo Springs, TX
(7) FOWLERTON [USC00413299], Fowlerton, TX
(8) HONDO [USC00414254], Hondo, TX
(9) KARNES CITY 2N [USC00414696], Karnes City, TX
(10) PEARSALL [USC00416879], Pearsall, TX
(11) CHARLOTTE 5 NNW [USC00411663], Charlotte, TX
(12) MATHIS 4 SSW [USC00415661], Mathis, TX
(13) TILDEN 4 SSE [USC00419031], Tilden, TX
(14) UVALDE 3 SW [USC00419268], Uvalde, TX
(15) CROSS [USC00412125], Tilden, TX
(16) DILLEY [USC00412458], Dilley, TX
(17) FLORESVILLE [USC00413201], Floresville, TX
(18) LYTLE 3W [USC00415454], Natalia, TX
(19) PLEASANTON [USC00417111], Pleasanton, TX
(20) HONDO MUNI AP [USW00012962], Hondo, TX
(21) CALLIHAM [USC00411337], Calliham, TX

Influencing water features

Many sites are somewhat excessively drained in the surface until the water contacts the argillic, where it becomes a very slow to moderately permeable layer. Some soils may exhibit a perched water table after very heavy rains for a short duration.

Wetland description

N/A.

Soil features

The soils in this site are very deep, moderate to excessively drained, with moderate or moderately slow permeability in the subsoil. Ochric epipedons range from 40 to 80 inches over a loamy subsoil. Other features include sandy surface textures, little to no salinity or sodicity, and moderately acid to slightly alkaline soil reaction. Soil series correlated to this site include: Antosa, Bobillo, Nusil, Rhymes, and Ruiz.

Table 4. Representative soil features

Parent material	(1) Alluvium – sandstone
Surface texture	(1) Fine sand (2) Loamy fine sand
Family particle size	(1) Loamy
Drainage class	Moderately well drained to somewhat excessively drained
Permeability class	Very slow to moderately rapid
Surface fragment cover <=3"	Not specified
Surface fragment cover >3"	Not specified
Available water capacity (0-40in)	2 – 4 in
Calcium carbonate equivalent (0-40in)	5%
Electrical conductivity (0-40in)	2 mmhos/cm
Sodium adsorption ratio (0-40in)	8
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-40in)	5.6 – 8.4
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified)	1%
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified)	5%

Ecological dynamics

The plant communities of this site are dynamic and community composition may vary dramatically in annual rainfall, grazing, and fire. The site is subject to extreme variation in rainfall. During the years 1900 to 1983, 36 percent were drought years and 34 percent were wet years. During dry periods the amount of bare ground increases. Bare ground may predominate during droughts. Shortgrasses such as hairy grama (Bouteloua hirsuta), thin paspalum (Paspalum setaceum), fringed signalgrass (Brachiaria ciliatissima), red lovegrass (Eragrostis secundiflora), sandbur (Cenchrus spp.), and forbs increase in abundance at the expense of the taller grasses. During wet years, tallgrasses such as big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) increase in importance. The shortgrasses and forbs occur as an understory component forming a multi-layered community.

Early explorers provide some insight into the general landscape but most lack site-specific information. Their observations do provide useful information into the general aspect of the landscape. In some cases the exact position of the explorers can be determined. In 1821, Stephen F. Austin crossed the San Antonio River to Cabeza Creek in Goliad County. He observed the area to be sandy in places and there was not too much mesquite and underbrush. In 1846, Sitgreaves crossed Karnes County and stated that the whole distance was over dry, sandy, rolling prairie covered with mesquite. He reported timber was more abundant. Ponce de Leon in 1689 observed in the common county corners of La Salle, Frio, Atascosa and McMullen counties, describing the country as level, with fine pasturage, very pleasant glades, and occasionally, little mottes of oak. Overall the upland country was described with small amounts of brush or mottes interspersed in the prairie. The increase of brush generally coincides with settlement.

Historically, fire was an important factor in the ecology of this site. Native Americans set periodic fires for hunting and reducing insects. Fires reduced woody plant cover, kept oak mottes scattered and isolated, and maintained the open stretches of grassland witnessed by Berlandier. Wildfires are common on this site at present. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and pronghorns (Antilocarpa americana) were significant herbivores on this site at the time of colonization by Europeans. The extent to which bison (Bos bison) utilized the site is uncertain. The reports of bison were not nearly as abundant as farther north in the southern plains region.

The reference plant community is a grassland with scattered live oak mottes and occasional mesquite trees. Little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) was the prevailing dominant species. Other important associated grasses include big bluestem, brownseed paspalum (Paspalum plicatulum), Indiangrass (Sorghastrum spp.), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), tanglehead (Heteropogon contortus), and thin paspalum. The reference plant community supports a diverse understory community of perennial legumes and other forbs.

Continued overuse by livestock results in a decline of little bluestem and other perennial grasses and an increase in forbs, particularly camphor daisy (Rayjacksonia phyllocephala), partridgepea (Chamaecrista fasciculate) and Crotons (Croton spp.). Pan-American balsamscale, three-awns (Aristida spp.), and thin paspalum increase in abundance with heavy grazing but decline on severely grazed rangeland. On severely grazed rangeland, little bluestem is virtually absent. Sandbur, fringed signalgrass, red lovegrass, camphor daisy, and other forbs dominate severely grazed sites. Severe overuse results in a large amount of bare ground. The oak colonies can become thicketized, and take on a low stature with high stem density rather than forming large, single-trunked trees. Mesquite increases once established. After the mesquites reach sufficient size, understory shrubs including granjeno (Celtis pallida), brasil (Condalia hookeri), and lime prickly-ash (Zanthoxylum fagara) establish beneath them, forming brush mottes.

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

T1A	-	Absence of disturbance and natural regeneration over time, coupled with excessive grazing pressure
R2A	-	Reintroduction of historic disturbance return intervals

State 1 submodel, plant communities

1.1. Mid/Tallgrass

1.2. Midgrass/Shortgrass Parkland

State 2 submodel, plant communities

2.1. Shrubland

2.2. Woodland

State 1
Grassland

Dominant plant species

little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), grass

Community 1.1
Mid/Tallgrass

The reference plant community for this site is an open grassland composed of mid and tallgrasses with scattered live oaks. Live oaks shade less than five percent of the community and little bluestem is the dominant grass. Historically, recurrent fire was a natural process that maintained the community. Today, application of prescribed fire at appropriate intervals and proper grazing management can maintain the open grassland community. Heavy grazing and elimination of fire results in a change in plant community composition from an open, tall and midgrass-dominated grassland with scattered live oaks to a mesquite parkland with mid and shortgrasses. Mesquite will continue to increase with continued heavy grazing and absence of periodic fire, eventually resulting in a transition to mesquite woodland. Drought will hasten the process by creating more bare ground for woody seedlings to establish without the competition from grasses.

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	1800	3150	4500
Shrub/Vine	100	175	250
Tree	100	200	250
Forb	100	175	250
Total	2100	3700	5250

Figure 10. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). TX4537, Mid/Tallgrass Community. Mid and tallgrasses dominant with less than 5% woody canopy species..

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	15	5	10	15	10	5	5

Community 1.2
Midgrass/Shortgrass Parkland

The oak or mesquite parkland community results from expansion of oak mottes or increased density of mesquite triggered by the heavy grazing and elimination of fire. Perhaps one major influence of heavy grazing is the removal of grass fuel and the opportunity to use fire. The dominant grass species include midgrasses, particularly little bluestem, Pan American balsamscale, and shortgrasses, including sandbur, fringed signalgrass, red lovegrass, and thin paspalum. Forbs are an important component, particularly camphor daisy, partridge pea, and crotons. Bare ground increases under heavy grazing. Implementation of proper grazing management and prescribed burning at periodic intervals of time will reduce or maintain woody canopy cover and shift the community back toward open grassland. Continued heavy grazing and absence of fire allows the expansion of live oaks mottes and establishment of mesquite, eventually triggering a transition to the Shrubland State (2). Once this transition has occurred, prescribed grazing alone will not halt the increase of brush. Brush management and prescribed grazing are required to initiate a transition back to the Grassland State (1). Fire can help maintain the community.

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	1600	2800	4000
Shrub/Vine	200	350	500
Forb	200	350	500
Tree	0	0	0
Total	2000	3500	5000

Figure 12. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). TX4538, Mid/Shortgrasses/Parkland Community. Mid and shortgrasses dominant in a parkland community..

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	15	5	10	15	10	5	5

Pathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2

The reference community (1.1) will transition to the Mid/Shortgrass Parkland Community (1.2) with lack of fire, continued overgrazing, insufficient rest cycles, and/or natural disturbances, like prolonged drought.

Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1

This phase can still be managed back to the Mid/Tallgrass Community (1.1) if desired. It will take the reintroduction of fire to the ecosystem or some method of brush management that allows selective removal of the plants. A prescribed grazing plan will be essential to reverse the trend toward the Shrubland State. Increasing the desired grasses in the plant community over an extended time will take the application of sound grazing management principles.

State 2
Shrubland

Dominant plant species

camphor daisy (Rayjacksonia phyllocephala), other herbaceous
threeawn (Aristida), other herbaceous

Community 2.1
Shrubland

The Shrubland Community (oak or mesquite) is a transition from the open Grassland State (1) to a new state dominated by woody plants. A threshold is crossed through expansion and coalescence of live oak mottes and establishment of mesquite and associated woody species. Live oak will exist as a tree or a thicketized growth form. Sandbur, fringed signalgrass, red lovegrass, thin paspalum, camphor daisy, partridgepea, and crotons are the major herbaceous species in the Shrubland Community. A considerable amount of bare ground is present. Brush management followed by prescribed grazing is necessary to shift the oak or mesquite woodland back to open grassland or oak or mesquite parkland. Prescribed fire can help maintain the parkland.

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	1400	2450	3500
Shrub/Vine	400	700	1000
Forb	200	350	500
Tree	0	0	0
Total	2000	3500	5000

Figure 14. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). TX4546, Shrubland Community. Shrubs increase while mid and shortgrasses are in decline..

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	15	5	10	15	10	5	5

Community 2.2
Woodland

Figure 15. 2.2 Woodland Community

Grazing management has little influence on the woody plants once the threshold is crossed into the Woodland Community (2.2). Live oak with high stem densities composes a significant portion of the woody cover. Mesquite density increases and mottes with an understory of subordinate shrubs, such as granjeno, brasil, and lime prickly-ash have developed. Brush management is necessary to shift the oak or mesquite woodland back to a grassland or parkland. Herbaceous vegetation is scant, and is composed of short grasses and early successional forbs. Prescribed grazing with continued selective brush management and fire will be needed to maintain the parkland.

Figure 16. 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	600	1650	2100
Shrub/Vine	600	900	1200
Forb	300	450	700
Tree	0	0	0
Total	1500	3000	4000

Figure 17. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). TX4540, Oak/Mesquite 30+% Woodland Community. Woodland Community of Oaks and Mesquite..

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	15	5	10	15	10	5	5

Pathway 2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.2

Continued heavy grazing coupled with lack of fire will cause this community to transition to the Woodland Community (2.2). Brush density and height will continue to increase and shade the ground.

Transition T1A
State 1 to 2

The transition from the Grassland State (1) to the Shrubland (2) can happen within 5 to 10 years. This transition can be driven by persistently dry weather conditions, grazing management, and the lack of fire and brush management practices. Overstocking the site with grazing animals will put pressure on the herbaceous plant component of the community. This will create a more favorable environment with bare ground and open spaces for woody plants to germinate and grow. If the woody component is not managed it will begin to dominate the landscape and out-compete grasses and forbs for water, sunlight, and other resources.

Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1

Major inputs, both chemical and mechanical, are required to restore the Shrubland State (2) to the Grassland State (1). Often with this community, mechanical means such as rootplowing and raking are utilized along with dozing and grubbing. Species like mesquite will re-sprout if not removed completely from the ground. Chaining and rollerchopping are mechanical practices which will be short lived and will typically result in thicker, harder to manage brush stands that will encourage brush seedlings. Follow-up conservation practices such as Individual Plant Treatment (IPT) for woody re-growth and new seedlings and prescribed grazing will be necessary for several years after the initial brush management to maintain an improved plant community. Depending on local conditions, it may also be necessary to prepare an appropriate seedbed and re-introduce a seed source for desired native plant species through range planting.

Additional community tables

Table 9. Community 1.1 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production (lb/acre)	Foliar cover (%)
Grass/Grasslike
1	Tallgrass			1000–2250
	little bluestem	SCSC	Schizachyrium scoparium	1000–2250	–
2	Midgrass			100–300
	brownseed paspalum	PAPL3	Paspalum plicatulum	100–300	–
3	Tallgrasses			200–500
	Indiangrass	SONU2	Sorghastrum nutans	100–350	–
	crinkleawn grass	TRACH2	Trachypogon	100–350	–
	switchgrass	PAVI2	Panicum virgatum	100–300	–
4	Midgrass			100–400
	tanglehead	HECO10	Heteropogon contortus	100–400	–
5	Midgrass			100–225
	fringed signalgrass	URCI	Urochloa ciliatissima	100–225	–
6	Midgrasses			100–225
	balsamscale grass	ELION	Elionurus	50–125	–
	purple dropseed	SPPU3	Sporobolus purpurascens	50–125	–
	Texasgrass	VAMU	Vaseyochloa multinervosa	50–125	–
7	Shortgrasses			100–200
	Wright's threeawn	ARPUW	Aristida purpurea var. wrightii	50–100	–
	hooded windmill grass	CHCU2	Chloris cucullata	50–100	–
8	Shortgrasses			200–400
	sand crabgrass	DIAR7	Digitaria arenicola	50–100	–
	fall witchgrass	DICO6	Digitaria cognata	50–100	–
	gulfdune paspalum	PAMO4	Paspalum monostachyum	50–100	–
Forb
9	Forbs			60–135
	Texas bullnettle	CNTE	Cnidoscolus texanus	25–75	–
	coastal indigo	INMI	Indigofera miniata	25–75	–
	dotted blazing star	LIPU	Liatris punctata	25–75	–
	sensitive plant	MIMOS	Mimosa	25–75	–
	snoutbean	RHYNC2	Rhynchosia	25–75	–
10	Forbs			40–115
	Forb, annual	2FA	Forb, annual	0–100	–
	partridge pea	CHFA2	Chamaecrista fasciculata	25–75	–
	croton	CROTO	Croton	25–75	–
	snakecotton	FROEL	Froelichia	25–75	–
	lantana	LANTA	Lantana	25–75	–
	beebalm	MONAR	Monarda	25–75	–
Shrub/Vine
11	Shrubs			0–250
	mesquite	PROSO	Prosopis	0–250	–
Tree
12	Trees			100–250
	live oak	QUVI	Quercus virginiana	100–250	–

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.

Shrubland State (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.

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

Water infiltration is rapid in the fine sands of the site. Therefore, runoff and soil erosion from water is seldom a problem.

Recreational uses

Hunting, birdwatching, and eco-tourism are common uses.

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 and Technical Contributors:
Jason Hohlt, RMS, NRCS, Kingsville, Texas
Vivian Garcia, RMS, NRCS, Corpus Christi, Texas
Shanna Dunn, RSS, NRCS, Corpus Christi, Texas
Mark Moseley, RMS, NRCS, Boerne, 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)
Contact for lead author
Date	09/19/2023
Approved by	Bryan Christensen
Approval date
Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on	Annual Production