Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site R085AY189TX
Very Shallow 30-38" PZ
Last updated: 9/21/2023
Accessed: 11/21/2024
General information
Provisional. A provisional ecological site description has undergone quality control and quality assurance review. It contains a working state and transition model and enough information to identify the ecological site.
Figure 1. Mapped extent
Areas shown in blue indicate the maximum mapped extent of this ecological site. Other ecological sites likely occur within the highlighted areas. It is also possible for this ecological site to occur outside of highlighted areas if detailed soil survey has not been completed or recently updated.
MLRA notes
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 085A–Grand Prairie
The Grand Prairie MLRA is characterized by predominately loam and clay loam soils underlain by limestone and shale. Topography transitions from steeper ridges and summits of the Lampasas Cut Plain on the southern end to the more rolling hills of the Fort Worth Prairie to the north. The Arbuckle mountain area in Oklahoma is also within this MLRA.
Classification relationships
This ecological site is correlated to soil components at the Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) level which is further described in USDA Ag Handbook 296.
Ecological site concept
This site occurs on shallow gravelly soils over caliche or limestone. The reference vegetation consists of native midgrasses and forbs with very few shrubs. These sites can be very sensitive to drought conditions due to the low water holding capacity of the soils. In the absence of fire or other brush management, woody species such as ashe juniper may increase on the site.
Associated sites
| R085AY179TX |
Clayey Slope 30-38 This site has soils having greater depth, usually >40”, than the Very Shallow site. |
|---|---|
| R085AY185TX |
Shallow 30-38" PZ This site has soils having greater depth, usually 10 – 20 inches, than the Very Shallow site. |
Similar sites
| R085BY098OK |
Very Shallow 38-42 PZ Very shallow site in the Arbuckle Uplift portion of MLRA 85. |
|---|---|
| R085AY563TX |
Shallow Clay 30-38" PZ Shallow clay soils |
Table 1. Dominant plant species
| Tree |
Not specified |
|---|---|
| Shrub |
Not specified |
| Herbaceous |
(1) Bouteloua curtipendula |
Physiographic features
This site occurs on interfluves and crests of hillslopes in the Grand Prairie. This site is characteristically a water shedding site. Slopes are typically less than 12 percent.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
| Landforms |
(1)
Hills
> Ridge
(2) Hills > Hill |
|---|---|
| Runoff class | High to very high |
| Ponding frequency | None |
| Elevation | 152 – 579 m |
| Slope | 1 – 12% |
| Aspect | Aspect is not a significant factor |
Climatic features
The climate is subhumid subtropical and is characterized by hot summers and relatively mild winters. Tropical maritime air controls the climate during spring, summer and fall. In winter and early spring, frequent surges of Polar Canadian air cause sudden drops in temperatures and add considerable variety to the daily weather. The average first frost should occur around November 5 and the last freeze of the season should occur around March 19.
The average relative humidity in mid-afternoon is about 60 percent. Humidity is higher at night, and the average at dawn is about 80 percent. The sun shines 75 percent of the time possible during the summer and 50 percent in winter. The prevailing wind direction is from the south and highest windspeeds occur during the spring months.
Approximately two-thirds of annual rainfall occurs during the April to September period. Rainfall during this period generally falls during thunderstorms, and fairly large amounts of rain may fall in a short time. The driest months are usually July and August.
Table 3. Representative climatic features
| Frost-free period (characteristic range) | 194-208 days |
|---|---|
| Freeze-free period (characteristic range) | 216-243 days |
| Precipitation total (characteristic range) | 813-965 mm |
| Frost-free period (actual range) | 190-209 days |
| Freeze-free period (actual range) | 209-245 days |
| Precipitation total (actual range) | 787-991 mm |
| Frost-free period (average) | 201 days |
| Freeze-free period (average) | 230 days |
| Precipitation total (average) | 889 mm |
Figure 2. Monthly precipitation range
Figure 3. Monthly minimum temperature range
Figure 4. Monthly maximum temperature range
Figure 5. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Figure 6. Annual precipitation pattern
Figure 7. Annual average temperature pattern
Climate stations used
-
(1) BENBROOK DAM [USC00410691], Fort Worth, TX
-
(2) CLEBURNE [USC00411800], Cleburne, TX
-
(3) WHITNEY DAM [USC00419715], Clifton, TX
-
(4) DENTON MUNI AP [USW00003991], Ponder, TX
-
(5) DECATUR [USC00412334], Decatur, TX
-
(6) EVANT 1SSW [USC00413005], Evant, TX
-
(7) LAMPASAS [USC00415018], Lampasas, TX
-
(8) BROWNWOOD 2ENE [USC00411138], Early, TX
Influencing water features
This site is not influenced by water from wetlands or streams. While this site may
receive some run off from adjacent sites upslope, it also sheds water to sites down
slope. In reference condition, the presence of midgrasses should allow for infiltration into the soil. However, water holding capacity may be low due to the shallow gravelly soils.
Wetland description
NA
Figure 8.
Soil features
Representative soil components for this ecological site include: Maloterre
These soils are very shallow, somewhat excessively drained, moderately slow permeable soils that formed in residuum weathered from limestone.
Table 4. Representative soil features
| Parent material |
(1)
Residuum
–
limestone
(2) Residuum – mudstone |
|---|---|
| Surface texture |
(1) Gravelly clay loam (2) Gravelly loam (3) Very gravelly clay loam (4) Very gravelly loam (5) Clay loam (6) Loam |
| Drainage class | Well drained to somewhat excessively drained |
| Permeability class | Moderately slow to moderate |
| Soil depth | 8 – 25 cm |
| Surface fragment cover <=3" | 5 – 50% |
| Surface fragment cover >3" | 0 – 10% |
| Available water capacity (0-101.6cm) |
0 – 2.54 cm |
| Calcium carbonate equivalent (0-101.6cm) |
40 – 80% |
| Electrical conductivity (0-101.6cm) |
0 – 2 mmhos/cm |
| Sodium adsorption ratio (0-101.6cm) |
0 – 1 |
| Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-101.6cm) |
7.9 – 8.4 |
| Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified) |
10 – 60% |
| Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified) |
0 – 5% |
Ecological dynamics
The reference plant community for the Very Shallow site is a midgrass prairie. The grasses that are most commonly occurring are sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), silver bluestem (Bothriochloa laguroides), slim tridens (Tridens muticus), rough tridens (Tridens muticus var. muticus) and tall dropseed (Sporobolus compositus). Smaller amounts of little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) is also present. The very shallow clay loam textured soils over limestone bedrock in a rainfall regime of 30 to 38 inches favors a midgrass prairie community. Up to one third of the site may have soil so thin that only short lived annuals are present. Very few shrubs and trees were present on this site, historically. The woody component consisted of live oak (Quercus fusiformis), Texas red oak (Quercus buckleyi), elm species (Ulmus spp.), plum species (Prunus spp.), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) and bumelia (Sideroxylon lanuginosum). Both buffalo impact and fires were dominant forces to maintain the historic midgrass prairie. Large herds of buffalo would intensely graze this site and then not come back for many months or even years, usually following the burned areas. Animal impacts were a key to maintaining the open midgrass prairie. Large concentrated buffalo herds along with fires that occurred frequently enough to kill seedlings, prevented the woody plant encroachment.
To a large extent the way the site changes and how fast the site evolves depends on the location in relation to the edges of the MLRA and adjacent woody vegetation. Generally, sites located within a short distance to other brush encroached areas tend to change in the absence of fire toward a mesquite/juniper brushland community fairly rapid once the woody plants start while sites located further away would take longer to shift into a different plant community. Woody plants have increased over the past 100 to 150 years on virtually all of the shallow sites located nearest the breaks. Where there is a seed source close by, Ashe juniper (Juniperus ashei) and eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana) will readily invade the site. The juniper first occurs under fences, trees and other places where songbirds tend to rest. In many areas, juniper has become a significant invasive species, especially if prescribed burning is not used. The grasses are palatable and nutritious and the site provides year round grazing. The most limiting soil factor is soil depth. In very dry periods, the soils can appear rather droughty. When good rainfall is received, the site produces well.
Climate and soils are the most important and limiting factors affecting grass vegetation on the site. However, fire played a role in the ecology of the site as is true for most of the grasslands. The main effect of fire on this site was to suppress woody shrubs and cacti. The fires of pre-settlement days were probably more severe due to more fuel being available leading to more damaging to woody plants. The grass species such as little bluestem, big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) and Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans) are considered fire neutral as far as their response to fire. Fire stimulated forbs growth if the timing was right and usually creates more plant diversity in this site for one or two years post-burn. Then the grasses tend to crowd out the forbs and plant diversity decreases. Forbs also need spring moisture which is perhaps the major triggering factor. Prescribed fire is sometimes used as a tool to promote plant diversity, mainly for wildlife. Fire will usually not produce much mortality in older, resprouting, woody plants. After brush has been chemically or mechanically controlled, fire can be used effectively to suppress re-growth. Small juniper less than 3 feet in height can be easily killed by fire. Fuel loads are often the most limiting factor for the effective use of prescribed burning on this site. Once woody plants become mature (larger) or form dense stands, the use of fire is limited. Woody plant suppression using safe approved herbicides or mechanical treatment is generally more practical, with prescribed playing a role as follow-up.
With abusive grazing practices, the vigorous sideoats grama will become lower in vigor while the secondary successional species such as silver bluestem and slim tridens will begin to increase along with an increase of encroaching woody plants. Little bluestem is tolerant of some fairly heavy grazing for long periods. At some point, a threshold is crossed and the ground cover is opened up resulting in bare places where weedy species become established. Western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), crotons (Croton capitatus) and cool-season annuals will quickly increase on the site when the primary grass species are in a weakened condition. The seeds of many woody species are consumed by birds and when passed through the digestive system and excreted in their droppings. This serves as an excellent seedbed and the seeds readily establish. Grazing management alone probably has minimal effect on the proliferation of woody plants, but a good cover of perennial grasses likely provides shading and minimizes the seed to soil contact the mesquite beans need to be allowed to become established. Prescribed fire provides a much better method to control the spread of woody plants. Selective individual plant removal of mesquite and/or juniper is simple and economical when plants are just beginning to show up on the site. When the rapid increase of number of plants occur, the number of woody plants per acre will soon become too numerous for individual plant treatment (IPT) to be feasible. Prescribed grazing with a moderate stocking rate can sustain the grass species composition and maintain annual production near reference levels. The very shallow site can be abused to the point that the perennial warm-season grasses thin out and the lower successional grasses along with annual grasses and forbs begin to dominate. This process of degradation usually takes many years and is further exacerbated by summer drought and above average winter moisture.
Long term droughts that occur only three to four times in a century can effect some change in historic plant communities when coupled with abusive grazing. Short-term droughts are common in the area and usually do not have a lasting effect in changing stable plant communities, although annual production can be affected. When a brush canopy becomes established which shades the ground sufficiently, this canopy cover tends to favor cool-season annual species. Once a state of brush and cool-season annuals is reached, recovery to a good perennial warm-season grass cover is unlikely without major input with brush management and range planting.
In summary, the change in states of vegetation depend on the type of grazing management applied over many years, and the rate of invasion and establishment of woody species. The effects of seasonal moisture and short term dry spells become more pronounced after the site crosses thresholds to a lower ecological condition. Plant communities that consist of warm-season perennial grasses such as little bluestem and the associated species of the reference community are able to persist and withstand climatic extremes with only minor shifts in the overall plant community.
Historically, the site was basically inhabited by grassland wildlife species such as bison, deer, grassland birds and small mammals for a part of their habitat needs. Over the years, as the site has changed to a more mixed grass and shrub community, different wildlife species utilize the site for habitat purposes. Woody plants provide cover for white-tailed deer and bobwhite quail. These wildlife species have both increased along with the brushy plants due to the cover that these plants provide. More forbs are needed to meet these species food requirements and woody plants for browse are important for deer. It is often the objective of many land owners to strike a balance in plant community so that these wildlife species can exist along with domestic livestock. This can be accomplished by a carefully planned grazing and brush management program. It must be realized that managing at a lower successional level may meet some wildlife species requirements very well, but may not be nearly as productive for grazing purposes. The lower successional level may not be as capable of satisfying functions such as nutrient cycling, hydrologic protection, plant community stability or soil protection as well. A proper compromise can be achieved with careful conservation planning that considers all resources as well as goals and objectives set by the land owner.
State and Transitional Pathways: Narrative
The following diagram suggests some pathways that the vegetation on this site might take in response to various treatment or natural stimuli over time. There may be other states or plant communities that are not shown on this diagram. This information is to show that changes in plant community can occur due to management and natural factors and can be changed by implementing certain conservation practices. The plant communities described are commonly observed for this site. Before making plans for plant community manipulation for specific purposes, landowners should consult local professionals for assistance.
Plant community changes are due to many factors. Change may occur slowly or in some cases, fairly rapidly. As vegetative changes occur, certain thresholds are crossed. This means that once a certain point is reached during the transition of one community to another, a return to the first state or previous plant community may not be possible without the input of some form of energy and expense. This often means intervention with practices that are not part of natural processes. An example might be the application of herbicide or mechanical treatment to control some woody species in order to reduce its population and encourage more grass and forbs growth. Merely adjusting grazing practices would probably not accomplish any significant change in a plant community once certain thresholds are crossed. The amount of energy required to effect change in community would depend on the present vegetative state and the desired vegetative state.
State and transition model
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
State 1 submodel, plant communities
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 3 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Midgrass Prairie State - Reference
Dominant plant species
-
sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), grass
Community 1.1
Midgrass Prairie Community
Figure 9. 1.1 Midgrass Prairie Community
The interpretive plant community for this site is the midgrass prairie community (1.1). The community is dominated by warm-season perennial midgrasses such as sideoats grama, silver bluestem and slim tridens. Little bluestem is present where cracks in the rock permit deep root growth. Perennial forbs such as sunflowers, prairie clovers, bundleflowers, and daleas are well represented throughout the community. This plant community evolved with a short duration of heavy use by large herbivores followed by long rest periods due to herd migration following occasional fire. With heavy grazing pressure and the removal of fire, this plant community will change into a Midgrass/Shortgrass Prairie Community (1.2), a Pricklypear/Shrubland Community (2.1) or Mesquite/Juniper Brushland Community (2.2). The changes within the grassland communities can change fairly rapid while the communities having an increase of woody plants are somewhat slower.
Figure 10. 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 | 1009 | 2018 | 3026 |
| Forb | 112 | 224 | 336 |
| Shrub/Vine | – | – | – |
| Tree | – | – | – |
| Total | 1121 | 2242 | 3362 |
Figure 11. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). TX6012, Midgrass Prairie. Midgrass Prairie with increase of forbs, shrubs, and trees (5% 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 | 2 | 2 | 18 | 23 | 17 | 6 | 4 | 16 | 6 | 3 | 2 |
Community 1.2
Midgrass/Shortgrass Prairie Community
Figure 12. 1.2 Midgrass/Shortgrass Prairie Community
This transition state occurs with yearlong grazing and without fire or brush management. The sideoats grama will start to disappear from the plant community. Invader brush species (mesquite, juniper, pricklypear, etc.) appears on-site and becomes established. Cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia), bumelia (Sideroxylon lanuginosum), and hackberry (Celtis spp.) also start to increase. Texas wintergrass (Nassella leucotricha) increases as brush canopy increases. The plant community consists of less than 10 percent canopy of woody plants. Continuous grazing by domestic livestock has accelerated the shift towards the Shrubland/Brushland State (2.1 and 2.2). The Midgrass/Shortgrass prairie community (1.2) can revert back to the Midgrass prairie (1.1) with prescribed burning and/or prescribed grazing. Without prescribed burning and/or prescribed grazing, this plant community would continue to shift toward the Pricklypear/Shrubland Community (2.1) or Messquite-Juniper/Brushland Community (2.2).
Figure 13. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)
Table 6. Annual production by plant type
| Plant type | Low (kg/hectare) |
Representative value (kg/hectare) |
High (kg/hectare) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grass/Grasslike | 717 | 1480 | 2242 |
| Forb | 179 | 370 | 560 |
| Shrub/Vine | – | – | – |
| Tree | – | – | – |
| Total | 896 | 1850 | 2802 |
Figure 14. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). TX6017, Midgrass/Shortgrass Prairie Community. Midgrasses and Shortgrasses dominate the site with forbs and less than ten percent 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 | 2 | 2 | 18 | 23 | 17 | 6 | 4 | 16 | 6 | 3 | 2 |
Pathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2
With heavy continuous grazing pressure, no brush management, no fires, and invasion of brush species, the Midgrass Prairie Community shifts to the Mid/Shortgrass Prairie Community.
Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1
With the application of various conservation practices such as Prescribed Grazing, Brush Management, Range Planting, and Prescribed Burning, the Mid/Shortgrass Prairie Community can revert back to the Midgrass Prairie Community.
Conservation practices
| Brush Management | |
|---|---|
| Prescribed Burning | |
| Range Planting | |
| Prescribed Grazing |
State 2
Shrubland/Brushland State
Dominant plant species
-
Ashe's juniper (Juniperus ashei), tree
-
buffalograss (Bouteloua dactyloides), grass
Community 2.1
Pricklypear/Shrubland Community
Figure 15. 2.1 Pricklypear/Shrubland Community
The Pricklypear/Shrubland Community (2.1) consists of midgrasses with 10 to 20 percent pricklypear canopy and other woody plants. The soils of this site are underlain with hard unfractured limestone. As this community progresses, prickly pear continues to invade the site along with other woody plants. Warm-season perennial tallgrasses such as Indiangrass and switchgrass have all but disappeared. Brush canopy continues to increase dramatically from the reference plant community. Texas wintergrass, three-awn species (Aristida spp.) and annual grasses continue to increase. Continuous grazing by domestic livestock has accelerated the vegetative shift towards the Juniper/Brushland Community (2.2). The shift to this plant community has occurred due to the absence of fire or other means of brush suppression coupled with abusive grazing. The grass species that dominate the site are mostly annuals and cool-season species. This Pricklypear/Shrubland community (3) can be reverted back to near historic condition by some means of brush suppression and good grazing management. Without this type of treatment on this plant community, the site will continue to shift toward more dense stands of cactus.
Figure 16. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)
Table 7. Annual production by plant type
| Plant type | Low (kg/hectare) |
Representative value (kg/hectare) |
High (kg/hectare) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forb | 224 | 336 | 448 |
| Grass/Grasslike | 224 | 336 | 448 |
| Shrub/Vine | 45 | 67 | 90 |
| Tree | 45 | 67 | 90 |
| Total | 538 | 806 | 1076 |
Figure 17. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). TX6013, Prickly pear/Shrubland Community. Midgrasses with pricklypear canopy that exceeds ten percent..
| 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 | 2 | 8 | 20 | 25 | 20 | 5 | 3 | 10 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
Community 2.2
Mesquite/Juniper Brushland Community
Figure 18. 2.2 Mesquite/Juniper Brushland Community
This plant community is a brushland community (greater than 10% canopy) dominated by mesquite and/or juniper. Pricklypear cactus may also be present. Other species present in small amounts are cedar elm and hackberry. The herbaceous understory is almost nonexistent. Shade tolerant species such as Texas wintergrass tends to dominate the site where mesquite is the major woody species. The soils of this state are underlain with fractured limestone. When the canopy of juniper increases toward a cedar breaks type community, most grasses have almost disappeared. Continuous grazing by domestic livestock has continued to accelerate the shift towards denser brush. The midgrass prairie can be restored by prescribed burning but will require many years of burning due to light fuel load of fine fuel and the absence of seed sources. Chemical control alone is usually a good option for treatment on a large scale. Mechanical treatment of this site along with range planting is generally not a good option due the nature of the very shallow rocky soil. Due to the presence of dense canopy of mesquite and juniper, the amount of grass cover is greatly reduced. This, in turn, reduces forage production.
Figure 19. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)
Table 8. Annual production by plant type
| Plant type | Low (kg/hectare) |
Representative value (kg/hectare) |
High (kg/hectare) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grass/Grasslike | 151 | 202 | 252 |
| Forb | 84 | 112 | 140 |
| Tree | 50 | 67 | 84 |
| Shrub/Vine | 50 | 67 | 78 |
| Total | 335 | 448 | 554 |
Figure 20. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). TX6014, Mesquite/Juniper/Brushland Community. Consist of mixed grasses with greater than 50 percent canopy of woody plants..
| 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 | 3 | 8 | 20 | 25 | 19 | 5 | 3 | 10 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
Pathway 2.1
Community 2.1 to 2.2
With heavy continuous grazing, no brush management, and no fires, the Pricklypear/Shrubland Community would shift to the Juniper/Brushland Community.
Community 3.1
Open Seeded Grassland Community
Figure 21. 3.1 Open Seeded Grassland Community
This state is usually the result of applying mechanical brush control and range planting using one or more introduced grass species. Native species may be a part of the seed mixture but a significant amount of a vigorous introduced species is included. Such introduced species include: Kleingrass (Panicum coloratum) or one of the Old world bluestems (Bothriochloa spp.) such as King Ranch (KR) bluestem (Bothriochloa ischaemum), WW-Spar (Bothriochloa ischaemum), WW-B Dahl (Bothriochloa bladhii) or T-587 (Diachanthium spp.). All of these have been planted on this site as well as coastal bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon). Coastal bermudagrass does not do well on this site.
Figure 22. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)
Table 9. Annual production by plant type
| Plant type | Low (kg/hectare) |
Representative value (kg/hectare) |
High (kg/hectare) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grass/Grasslike | 762 | 1569 | 2382 |
| Forb | 90 | 191 | 280 |
| Shrub/Vine | 28 | 56 | 84 |
| Tree | 17 | 34 | 56 |
| Total | 897 | 1850 | 2802 |
Figure 23. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). TX6015, Open Seeded Grassland Community. This state is usually the result of mechanical brush control and reseeding using one or more native grass 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 |
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 18 | 23 | 17 | 6 | 4 | 16 | 6 | 3 | 2 |
Transition T1A
State 1 to 2
With heavy continuous grazing, no brush management, and no fires on a landscape having hard limestone bedrock, the Midgrass Prairie State would shift to the Shrubland State.
Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1
The Shrubland State could revert back to the Midgrass Prairie State through the implementation of various conservation practices such as Prescribed Grazing, Brush Management, and Range Planting.
Transition T2A
State 2 to 3
The Shrubland State shifts to the Grassland State with the application of conservation practices such as Brush Management, Individual Plant Treatments, and Range Planting.
Restoration pathway R3A
State 3 to 1
With Prescribed Grazing and Prescribed Burning, the Grassland State can be reverted to the Midgrass Prairie State.
Conservation practices
| Prescribed Burning | |
|---|---|
| Prescribed Grazing |
Transition T3A
State 3 to 2
The Grassland State can shift back to the Shrubland State through heavy continuous grazing, no brush management, and no fires.
Additional community tables
Table 10. Community 1.1 plant community composition
| Group | Common name | Symbol | Scientific name | Annual production (kg/hectare) | Foliar cover (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Grass/Grasslike
|
||||||
| 1 | Tallgrass | 112–336 | ||||
| little bluestem | SCSC | Schizachyrium scoparium | 112–336 | – | ||
| 2 | Midgrass | 560–1681 | ||||
| sideoats grama | BOCU | Bouteloua curtipendula | 560–1681 | – | ||
| 3 | Midgrasses | 168–504 | ||||
| silver beardgrass | BOLAT | Bothriochloa laguroides ssp. torreyana | 56–504 | – | ||
| composite dropseed | SPCOC2 | Sporobolus compositus var. compositus | 56–504 | – | ||
| slim tridens | TRMU | Tridens muticus | 56–504 | – | ||
| 4 | Shortgrasses | 112–336 | ||||
| purple threeawn | ARPUP9 | Aristida purpurea var. perplexa | 22–336 | – | ||
| Wright's threeawn | ARPUW | Aristida purpurea var. wrightii | 22–336 | – | ||
| hairy grama | BOHI2 | Bouteloua hirsuta | 22–336 | – | ||
| tall grama | BOHIP | Bouteloua hirsuta var. pectinata | 22–336 | – | ||
| buffalograss | BODA2 | Bouteloua dactyloides | 22–168 | – | ||
| 5 | Mid/Shortgrasses | 56–168 | ||||
| fall witchgrass | DICO6 | Digitaria cognata | 28–168 | – | ||
| Texas wintergrass | NALE3 | Nassella leucotricha | 28–168 | – | ||
| 6 | Midgrasses | 0–1 | ||||
| Texas cupgrass | ERSE5 | Eriochloa sericea | 0–1 | – | ||
| seep muhly | MURE2 | Muhlenbergia reverchonii | 0–1 | – | ||
| vine mesquite | PAOB | Panicum obtusum | 0–1 | – | ||
| Drummond's dropseed | SPCOD3 | Sporobolus compositus var. drummondii | 0–1 | – | ||
|
Forb
|
||||||
| 7 | Forbs | 112–336 | ||||
| Cuman ragweed | AMPS | Ambrosia psilostachya | 0–336 | – | ||
| white sagebrush | ARLUM2 | Artemisia ludoviciana ssp. mexicana | 0–336 | – | ||
| yellow sundrops | CASE12 | Calylophus serrulatus | 0–336 | – | ||
| American star-thistle | CEAM2 | Centaurea americana | 0–336 | – | ||
| whitemouth dayflower | COER | Commelina erecta | 0–336 | – | ||
| croton | CROTO | Croton | 0–336 | – | ||
| prairie clover | DALEA | Dalea | 0–336 | – | ||
| purple prairie clover | DAPU5 | Dalea purpurea | 0–336 | – | ||
| Illinois bundleflower | DEIL | Desmanthus illinoensis | 0–336 | – | ||
| blacksamson echinacea | ECAN2 | Echinacea angustifolia | 0–336 | – | ||
| Engelmann's daisy | ENPE4 | Engelmannia peristenia | 0–336 | – | ||
| Leavenworth's eryngo | ERLE11 | Eryngium leavenworthii | 0–336 | – | ||
| snow on the mountain | EUMA8 | Euphorbia marginata | 0–336 | – | ||
| beeblossom | GAURA | Gaura | 0–336 | – | ||
| hoary false goldenaster | HECA8 | Heterotheca canescens | 0–336 | – | ||
| Maximilian sunflower | HEMA2 | Helianthus maximiliani | 0–336 | – | ||
| bluet | HOUST | Houstonia | 0–336 | – | ||
| coastal indigo | INMI | Indigofera miniata | 0–336 | – | ||
| trailing krameria | KRLA | Krameria lanceolata | 0–336 | – | ||
| dotted blazing star | LIPU | Liatris punctata | 0–336 | – | ||
| Nuttall's sensitive-briar | MINU6 | Mimosa nuttallii | 0–336 | – | ||
| yellow puff | NELU2 | Neptunia lutea | 0–336 | – | ||
| cobaea beardtongue | PECO4 | Penstemon cobaea | 0–336 | – | ||
| groundcherry | PHYSA | Physalis | 0–336 | – | ||
| snoutbean | RHYNC2 | Rhynchosia | 0–336 | – | ||
| rhynchosida | RHYNC5 | Rhynchosida | 0–336 | – | ||
| blackeyed Susan | RUHI2 | Rudbeckia hirta | 0–336 | – | ||
| pitcher sage | SAAZG | Salvia azurea var. grandiflora | 0–336 | – | ||
| compassplant | SILA3 | Silphium laciniatum | 0–336 | – | ||
| false gaura | STLI2 | Stenosiphon linifolius | 0–336 | – | ||
| white heath aster | SYERE | Symphyotrichum ericoides var. ericoides | 0–336 | – | ||
|
Shrub/Vine
|
||||||
| 8 | Shrubs/Vines | 0–1 | ||||
| catclaw acacia | ACGR | Acacia greggii | 0–1 | – | ||
| stretchberry | FOPU2 | Forestiera pubescens | 0–1 | – | ||
| fragrant sumac | RHAR4 | Rhus aromatica | 0–1 | – | ||
| winged sumac | RHCO | Rhus copallinum | 0–1 | – | ||
|
Tree
|
||||||
| 9 | Trees | 0–1 | ||||
| hackberry | CELTI | Celtis | 0–1 | – | ||
| plum | PRUNU | Prunus | 0–1 | – | ||
| Texas live oak | QUFU | Quercus fusiformis | 0–1 | – | ||
| bully | SIDER2 | Sideroxylon | 0–1 | – | ||
| Hercules' club | ZACL | Zanthoxylum clava-herculis | 0–1 | – | ||
Interpretations
Animal community
The historic midgrass prairie was habitat to migratory bison herds. Deer and turkey were mostly found along the wooded streams occasionally feeding on the open prairie. Large predators such as wolves, coyotes, mountain lions and black bear roamed throughout the area. White-tail deer, turkey, bobcats and coyotes along with resident and migratory birds and small mammals can find suitable habitat today. Domestic livestock is the dominant contemporary grazer of the site. As the prairie changes through the various vegetative states towards the brushland state, the quality of the habitat may improve for some species and decline for others. Appropriate management practices must be applied to maintain a vegetative state in optimum habitat quality for the desired animal species.
Hydrological functions
Hydrologically, the site contributes runoff to the various draws, creeks, and streams that are common in the MLRA. If the perennial grass cover is maintained in good vigor, then maximum infiltration occurs and runoff is reduced. More water getting into the ground means a healthier, more productive plant community. Due to the shallow soil underlain with limestone, there is limited deep infiltration and during periods of low water use by plants there are numerous seeps. If infiltration is minimal, then the effect is an artificially shallow soil with plant roots retreating to near the soil surface. More perennial grass cover means less runoff may result; but the runoff that does occur is less laden with sediment. Overall watershed protection is enhanced by a healthy grassland community, as is nutrient cycling.
Peak rainfall periods occur in April, May, June, September and October. Rainfall amounts may be high (3 to 10 inches per event) and events may be intense. The soils of this site are shallow and the water holding ability is limited. Periods of 60 plus days of little or no rainfall during the growing season are common. During periods of good rainfall with good grass cover water infiltrates to the limestone rock below and moves to lower elevations and emerges as seeps and springs. The hydrology of this site may be manipulated with management to yield higher runoff volumes or greater infiltration to groundwater. Management for less herbaceous cover will favor higher surface runoff while dense herbaceous cover favors ground water recharge. Potential movement of soil (erosion), pesticides and both organic and inorganic nutrient applications (fertilizer) should always be considered when managing for higher volumes of surface runoff.
Recreational uses
Hunting, hiking, camping, equestrian, bird watching and off road vehicle use are various recreational uses for the site.
Wood products
None.
Other products
None.
Other information
None.
Supporting information
Inventory data references
Information presented here has been derived from NRCS clipping data and field observations of range trained personnel: James Luton RMS, Montague; William Donham, DC, Weatherford; Kent Ferguson RMS, Weatherford; Dan Caudle
References
-
. 2021 (Date accessed). USDA PLANTS Database. http://plants.usda.gov.
-
Bailey, V. 1905. Biological Survey of Texas. North American Fauna 25:1–222.
Other references
Ajilvsgi, Geyata, Wildflowers of Texas, Shearer Publishing, Fredericksburg, Texas, 1984
Anderson, C. A. et.al, The Western Range: Letter from Sec. of Agr. in Response to Senate Resolution No. 289, A Report on the Western Range, A great Neglected Natural Resource, Document No. 199, United States Government Printing Office, Washington , April 24, 1936
Bentley, H. L., Cattle Ranges of the Southwest: A History of the Exhaustion of the Pasturage and Suggestions for Its Restoration, USDA Farmer’s Bulletin No. 72, Abilene, Texas, 1898
Bogusch, E. R., Brush Invasion in the Rio Grande Plain of Texas, Texas Journal of Science, 1952
Bonnell, G. W., Topographical descriptions of Texas, Clark, Wing and Brown, Austin, 1840
Box, T. W., Brush, fire and West Texas Rangeland, Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, 1967
Bray, W. L., Forest Resources of Texas, 600 Acres Cedar Brake Burned at Marble Falls July, 1901, USDA, Bulletin No. 47 Bureau of Forestry,
Bray, W. L., The timber of the Edwards Plateau of Texas: It’s Relation to Climate, Water Supply and Soil, USDA, Forest Bulletin No 49, 1904
Clambey, Gary K, The Prairie: Past, Present, and Future, Proceedings of the Ninth North American Prairie Conference, Tri-College University Center for Environmental Studies, Fargo North Dakota, October, 1986
Clements, Dr. Frederic E., Dynamics of Vegetation, The H. W. Wilson Company, New York, 1949
Clements, Frederic E., Plant Succession and Indicators: A Definitive Edition of Plant Succession and Plant Indicators, The H. W. Wilson Company, New York City 1928
Collins, O. B., Smeins, Fred E & Johnson, M.C., Plant Communities of the Blackland Prairie of Texas, In Prairie: A Multiple View, University of North Dakota Press, Grand Forks, North Dakota, 1975
Coranado, Francisco V., Early Spanish Explorations of New Mexico and Texas, Journal of Pedro de Castenda, who was the historian for the Expedition of Francisco V. Coronado, April, 1541
Custis, Peter & Freeman, Jefferson and Southwestern Exploration: The Freeman and Curtis Accounts of the Red River Expedition of 1806, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1984
Custis, Peter, The Ecology of the Red River in 1806: Peter Custis and Early Southwestern Natural History, Southern Historical Quarterly, 1806
Dary, David A., The Buffalo Book: The Saga of an American Symbol, A Spellbinding recreation of lore, legend and fact about the great American Bison,
Diamond, David & Smeins, Fred E., Remnant Grassland Vegetation and Ecological Affinities of the Upper Coastal Prairie of Texas, The American Midland Naturalist 110, The University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, August 28, 1984
Diamond, David D., Texas Prairies: Almost Gone, Almost Forgotten, Texas Parks and Wildlife, Vol. 48, No. 3, March, 1990
Diggs, George M., Liscomb, & O’Kennor, Skinners & Mahler’s Illustrated Flora of North Central Texas, Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Fort Worth, Texas, 1999
Dyksterhuis, E. J., The Vegetation of the Fort Worth Prairie, Contribution No 146 from the Department of Botany, University of Nebraska, January, 1946
Flores, Dan, Indian Use of Range Resources, Texas Tech Department of History, 20th Annual Range Management Conference, Lubbock, Texas, About 1990
Flores, Dan, The Red River Branch of the Alabama-Coushatta Indians: An Ethnohistory, Southern Studies Journal 16, Spring 1977
Foreman, Grant, Adventure on the Red River, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1937
Foster, J.H., The Spread of Timbered Areas in Central Texas, Journal of Forestry No. 15, 1917
Gard, Wayne, The Chisholm Trail, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1954
Geiser, S. W., Naturalists of the Frontier, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, Texas 1948
Gey, Kenneth, et.al, White-tailed Deer, Their Foods and Management in the Cross Timbers, A Samuel Roberts Nobel Foundation Publication, 1991
Gibson, A.M., From the Brazos to the North Fork: The Autobiography of Otto Koeltzow, The Chronicles of Oklahoma, University of Oklahoma, Part 1 & 2, Vol. XL, No. 1, 1962
Hignight, K.W., et. Al, Grasses of the Texas Cross Timbers and Prairies, MP-1657, Texas Agricultrual Experiment Station, College Station, Texas 1988
Jackson, A.S., Wildfires in the Great Plains Grassland, Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, 1965
Jenkins, John Holmes III, Recollections of Early Texas, The Memoirs of John Holland Jenkins, University of Texas Press, Austin Texas, 1958
Johnston, M.C, Past and Present Grasslands of Southern Texas and Northeastern Mexico, Ecology 44, 1963
Jordan, Gilbert J., Yesterday in the Texas Hill Country, Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas, 1979
Jordan, Terry G., German Seed in Texas Soil, Immigrants Farmers in Nineteenth-Century Texas, University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, 1966
Kelton, Elmer, History of Rancher Use of Range Resources, 20th Annual Ranch Management Conference, Lubbock, Texas, September 30, 1983
Kelton, Elmer, West Texas: From Settlement to the Present, Talk presented to Texas Section, Society for Range Management, San Angelo, Texas October 8, 1993
Kendall, G. W., Narrative of the Texas Sante Fe Expedition, Vol. I, Wiley and Putman, London, 1844
King, I. M., John Q. Meusebach, German Colonizer in Texas, University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, 1967
Kruger, M.A. P., Second Fatherland: The Life and Fortunes of a German Immigrant, Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas 1976
Kurlansky, Mark, Salt – A World History, Walter Publishing Company, New York, NY, USA 2002
Launchbaugh, J.L., Vegetational Changes in the San Antonio Prairie Associated with Grazing, retirement from grazing, and abandonment from cultivation, Ecol. Monogr., 25, 1955
Lehmann, V. W., Fire in the Range of the Attwater’s Prairie Chicken, Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, 1965
Marcy, R. B., His diary as captain of 5th Infantry U.S. Army, 31st Cong., 1st Sess., U. S. Senate Exec. Doc., Vol. 14, 1849 –1850
Marcy, R. B., Thirty Years of Army Life on the Border, Harper & Fros., Franklin Square, New York, 1866
Marks, Paula Mitchell, The American Gold Rush Era: 1848 – 1900, William Morrow and Company, Inc., New York, 1994
Martin, P.S., Vanshings, and Future of the Prairie, Geoscience and Man, 1965
Moorehead, M.L., Commerce of the Prairies by Josiah Gregg, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma 1954
Murrah, David J., C. C. Slaughter, Rancher, Banker, Baptist, University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas 1981
Newcomb, S.P., Journal of a trip from the Clear Fork of the Brazos to the San Saba River, Addenda in Interwoven by Sallie R. Matthews, Reprint by Hertzog, El Paso, Texas 1958
Norton-Griffiths,M., The Influence of Grazing, Browsing, and Fire on the Vegetation of the Serengeti, In Serengeti Dynamics of an Ecosystem, Edited by A.R.E Barnes and Company, New York, 1976
Nuez, Cabeza de Vaca, The Journey of Alvar Nuez Cabeza de Vaca and His Companions for Florida to the Pacific 1528 – 1536, Edited with Introduction by A. F. Bandeleir, A.S. Barnes and Company, New York, 1905
Odum, E.P., Fundamentals of Ecology, 3rd Edition, W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, 1971
Olmsted, Frederick Law, A Journey through Texas, Or, A Saddle-Trip on the Southwestern Frontier, University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, 1857
Ormsby, Waterman L., The Butterfield Overland Mail, The Huntington Library San Marino, California, 1942
Parker, William B., Notes Taken during the Expedition through Unexplored Texas: With Capitan Randolph March and Major Robert S. Neighbors in 1854. Transcript given Archer County Soil Conservation Service by K.F. Neighbors
Parker, A.A., Trip to West and Texas, Comprising a Journey of 8,000 Miles, Through New York, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri, Louisiana and Texas in the Autumn and Winter of 1834 – 1835, 2nd Edition William White, Concord, New Hampshire 1836
Riskind, David H. & Diamond, David D., Edwards Plateau Vegetation, B Amos & F.R. Gehlbach, Baylor University Press, 1988
Roemer, F, Texas with Particular Reference to German Immigrants: The Physical Appearance of the Country, Standard Printing Company, San Antonio, Texas 1935
Sauer, C. O., Man’s Dominance by Use of Fire, Geoscience and Man, 1975
Smeins, Fred E. & Diamond, David D., Composition, Classification and Species Response Patterns of Remnant Tallgrass Prairies in Texas, The American Midland Naturalist 113, The University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, 1985
Smeins, Fred E. & Diamond, David D., Remnant Grasslands of the Fayette Prairie, The American Midland Naturalist 110, The University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, 1983
Smith, Jared.G., Grazing problems in the Southwest and How to Meet Them, USDA, Division Agronomy, Bulletin No. 16, 1899
Spaeth, Kenneth E, Grazingland Hydrology Issues: Perspectives for the 21st Century, Published by the Society for Range Management, Denver, Colorado, 1996
Stefferud, Alfred, Grass: The Yearbook of Agriculture 1948, USDA, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 1948
Stoddart, Laurence A., Range Management, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1955
Terry, J. Dale, Explorations of the Big Wichita, Etc., Terry Bros., Printers, Wichita Falls, Texas August, 1962.
Tharp, B. C., Structure of the Texas Vegetation East of the 98th Meridian, University of Texas Bulletin No 2606, 1926
Unknown, Author, Saga of the Buffalo: From Multitudes to Near Extinction, Ranch Magazine, San Angelo, Texas November, 1994
Unknown, Timber of the Edwards Plateau of Texas, Cedar Brake Fires, More Cedars by Fire than by the Axe 1880 – 1904, USDA, Bulletin No. 49, Bureau of Forestry
Vasey, Dr. George, Report of an Investigation of the Forage Plants of Western Texas, USDA Publication, January 17, 1888, Houston, Texas
Vine, Robert A., Trees, Shrubs and Wood Vines of the Southwest, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, 1960
Webb, W. P., The Great Plains, Gossett and Dunlap, New York, 1965
Williams, Jesse Wallace, Old Texas Trails, USA, Eakin Press, Burnet, Texas 1979
Wright, Henry A., Fire Ecology: United States and Southern Canada, Awiley-Interscience Publication, New York, 1982
Technical Review:
Homer Sanchez, State Rangeland Management Specialist - Texas
Mark Moseley, State Rangeland Management Specialist - Oklahoma
Kent Ferguson, Zone Rangeland Management Specialist
Dr. Jack Eckroat, Grazing Lands Specialist - Oklahoma
Justin Clary, Rangeland Management Specialist
Contributors
Earl Hogan & Dalton Merz
Joe B Norris
PES Edits by Colin Walden, Stillwater Soil Survey Office
Approval
Bryan Christensen, 9/21/2023
Acknowledgments
Site Development and Testing Plan:
Future work, as described in a Project Plan, to validate the information in this Provisional Ecological Site Description is needed. This will include field activities to collect low, medium and high intensity sampling, soil correlations, and analysis of that data. Annual field reviews should be done by soil scientists and vegetation specialists. A final field review, peer review, quality control, and quality assurance reviews of the ESD will be needed to produce the final document. Annual reviews of the Project Plan are to be conducted by the Ecological Site Technical Team.
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) | Lem Creswell, Zone RMS, NRCS, Weatherford, Texas |
|---|---|
| Contact for lead author | 817-596-2865. |
| Date | 11/01/2005 |
| Approved by | Bryan Christensen |
| Approval date | |
| Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on | Annual Production |
Indicators
-
Number and extent of rills:
None. This site does not usually develop rills due to shallow depths. -
Presence of water flow patterns:
None. This site rarely has follow patterns due to shallow soil depth and surface rocks. Some patterns are expected around surface obstacles. -
Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes:
None. Some minor pedestalling may occur in the shallower, lower productiion portions of the site. Rarely should they be over 1/4 inch height. -
Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, lichen, moss, plant canopy are not bare ground):
5 to 10 percent. Small and non-connected areas. -
Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies:
None. This site does not develop gullies due to shallow soils -
Extent of wind scoured, blowouts and/or depositional areas:
None. -
Amount of litter movement (describe size and distance expected to travel):
Minimal and short. Less than 6 inches. Only associated with water flow patterns following extremely high intensity rainfall. -
Soil surface (top few mm) resistance to erosion (stability values are averages - most sites will show a range of values):
Stability class ranges from 4 to 6 for both canopy and interspaces. -
Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type of structure and A-horizon color and thickness):
Dark grayish brown clay loam surface with subrounded to angular pebbles, cobbles and stones. Thickness is about 7 inches. Soil organic matter is 1 to 4 percent. -
Effect of community phase composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration and runoff:
High grass canopy and basal cover with very small gaps between plants reduces rainfall impact and slows runoff providing increased time for infiltration. High vegetative cover on this site will result in more water being retained in the soil for platn growth. -
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 tallgrasses >>Sub-dominant:
Warm-season midgrasses >Other:
Warm-season shortgrasses > forbs = cool-season grasses > trees > shrubs/vinesAdditional:
-
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 dominantly herbaceous. -
Expected annual annual-production (this is TOTAL above-ground annual-production, not just forage annual-production):
1000 to 3000 pounds acre. 1000 pounds in below average moisture years, 2000 in "normal" moisture years and 3000 pounds in above average moisture 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:
Mesquite, juniper and pricklypear are the primary invaders. -
Perennial plant reproductive capability:
All perennial plants are capable of reproducing except during periods of prolonged drought conditions, heavy natural herbivory and intense wildfires.
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.