Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Ecological site R150AY542TX

Sandy Loam

Last updated: 9/22/2023
Accessed: 11/23/2024

Home / Esd catalog / MLRA 150A / Ecological site R150AY542TX

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): 150A–Gulf Coast Prairies

MLRA 150A is in the West Gulf Coastal Plain Section of the Coastal Plain Province of the Atlantic Plain in Texas (83 percent) and Louisiana (17 percent). It makes up about 16,365 square miles (42,410 square kilometers). It is characterized by nearly level plains that have low local relief and are dissected by rivers and streams that flow toward the Gulf of Mexico. Elevation ranges from sea level to about 165 feet (0 to 50 meters) along the interior margin. It includes the towns of Crowley, Eunice, and Lake Charles, Louisiana, and Beaumont, Houston, Bay City, Victoria, Corpus Christi, Robstown, and Kingsville, Texas. Interstates 10 and 45 are in the northeastern part of the area, and Interstate 37 is in the southwestern part. U.S. Highways 90 and 190 are in the eastern part, in Louisiana. U.S. Highway 77 passes through Kingsville, Texas. The Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge and the Fannin Battleground State Historic Site are in the part of the area in Texas.

Classification relationships

USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006.
-Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 150A

Ecological site concept

The Sandy Loam ecological site typically has a fine sandy loam or very fine sandy loam surface. Sandy clay loam subsoil horizons are generally present 15 to 18 inches below the surface.

Associated sites

R150AY535TX	Southern Loamy Prairie The Southern Loamy Prairie is characterized by very deep loamy soils occurring on uplands. The site is correlated to areas with mean annual rainfall from 32 to 41 inches. They are vegetatively productive and provide good grazing for livestock. This site is adjacent to the Sandy Loam site in a similar landform
R150AY540TX	Salty Prairie The site is located on low lying flats. The soils have elevated levels of salts. This creates a vegetative community adapted to nutrient-poor and saline conditions. Vegetation is sparse with a few bare areas.
R150AY741TX	Northern Loamy Prairie The Northern Loamy Prairie is characterized by very deep loamy soils occurring on uplands. The site is correlated to areas with mean annual rainfall from 48 to 57 inches. They are vegetatively productive and provide good grazing for livestock. This site has similar surface textures but not in a depressional landform.

R150AY535TX

Southern Loamy Prairie

The Southern Loamy Prairie is characterized by very deep loamy soils occurring on uplands. The site is correlated to areas with mean annual rainfall from 32 to 41 inches. They are vegetatively productive and provide good grazing for livestock. This site is adjacent to the Sandy Loam site in a similar landform

R150AY540TX

Salty Prairie

The site is located on low lying flats. The soils have elevated levels of salts. This creates a vegetative community adapted to nutrient-poor and saline conditions. Vegetation is sparse with a few bare areas.

R150AY741TX

Northern Loamy Prairie

The Northern Loamy Prairie is characterized by very deep loamy soils occurring on uplands. The site is correlated to areas with mean annual rainfall from 48 to 57 inches. They are vegetatively productive and provide good grazing for livestock. This site has similar surface textures but not in a depressional landform.

Similar sites

R150AY528TX	Claypan Prairie The Claypan Prairie is a grassland site that occurs on nearly level, lower lying areas. Drainage in this site varies. The soils are characterized by a thin layer of fine sandy loam topsoil underlain by dense deep clay and clay loam subsoils.
R150AY543TX	Sandy Prairie The Sandy Prairie site has very deep soils on uplands. The soils are sandy in the upper part from 20 to 50 inches thick overlaying a loamy or clayey subsoil.

R150AY528TX

Claypan Prairie

The Claypan Prairie is a grassland site that occurs on nearly level, lower lying areas. Drainage in this site varies. The soils are characterized by a thin layer of fine sandy loam topsoil underlain by dense deep clay and clay loam subsoils.

R150AY543TX

Sandy Prairie

The Sandy Prairie site has very deep soils on uplands. The soils are sandy in the upper part from 20 to 50 inches thick overlaying a loamy or clayey subsoil.

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Tree	(1) Quercus virginiana (2) Quercus stellata
Shrub	(1) Callicarpa americana
Herbaceous	(1) Schizachyrium scoparium (2) Sorghastrum nutans

Download full description

Physiographic features

The Sandy Loam site was formed in loamy fluviomarine deposits of Pleistocene age. This nearly level to gently sloping site occurs on linear or convex stream terraces on the Coastal Plains. Runoff ranges from low to high depending upon the slope. Elevation of this site ranges from 50 to 250 feet.

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Landforms	(1) Coastal plain > Terrace (2) Coastal plain > Stream terrace
Runoff class	High to very high
Flooding frequency	None
Ponding frequency	None
Elevation	15 – 76 m
Slope	0 – 5%
Water table depth	152 cm
Aspect	Aspect is not a significant factor

Climatic features

The climate of MLRA 150A is humid subtropical with mild winters. The average annual precipitation in the northern two-thirds of this area is 45 to 63 inches. It is 28 inches at the extreme southern tip of the area and 30 to 45 inches in the southwestern third of the area. The precipitation is fairly evenly distributed, but it is slightly higher in late summer and midsummer in the western part of the area and slightly higher in winter in the eastern part. Rainfall typically occurs as moderate intensity, tropical storms that produce large amounts of rain during the winter. The average annual temperature is 66 to 72 degrees F. The freeze-free period averages 325 days and ranges from 290 to 365 days, increasing in length to the southwest.

Table 3. Representative climatic features

Frost-free period (characteristic range)	231-265 days
Freeze-free period (characteristic range)	365 days
Precipitation total (characteristic range)	864-1,219 mm
Frost-free period (actual range)	221-320 days
Freeze-free period (actual range)	308-365 days
Precipitation total (actual range)	813-1,321 mm
Frost-free period (average)	257 days
Freeze-free period (average)	355 days
Precipitation total (average)	1,067 mm

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) THOMPSONS 3 WSW [USC00418996], Richmond, TX
(2) SEALY [USC00418160], Sealy, TX
(3) COLUMBUS [USC00411911], Columbus, TX
(4) NEW GULF [USC00416286], Boling, TX
(5) ANGLETON 2 W [USC00410257], Angleton, TX
(6) BAY CITY WTR WKS [USC00410569], Bay City, TX
(7) DANEVANG 1 W [USC00412266], El Campo, TX
(8) POINT COMFORT [USC00417140], Port Lavaca, TX
(9) VICTORIA FIRE DEPT #5 [USC00419361], Victoria, TX
(10) REFUGIO 2 NW [USC00417533], Refugio, TX
(11) BEEVILLE CHASE NAAS [USW00012925], Beeville, TX
(12) SINTON [USC00418354], Sinton, TX
(13) C C BOTANICAL GARDENS [USC00412013], Corpus Christi, TX
(14) ROBSTOWN [USC00417677], Robstown, TX

Influencing water features

Water perches on top of the argillic horizon for some time following extended heavy rainfall. Runoff is high on most areas.

Wetland description

The soils associated with this site are non-hydric. Some sites have small areas of hydric soils. These hydric areas are depressional areas that stay wet for long periods. Onsite investigation is necessary to determine exact local conditions.

Soil features

The soils are very deep, moderately well or well drained, with slow or very slow permeability. Other features consist of moderately acid to neutral soil reaction. The dominant surface texture is fine sandy loam with some inclusions of loamy fine sand. Diagnostic features and horizons include an ochric epipedon and argillic horizon. A representative ochric epipedon ranges from 5 to 10 inches thick. Some pedons exhibit vertic properties in the argillic horizon. Soils correlated to this site include: Blanconia, Fulshear, Inez, and Morales.

Table 4. Representative soil features

Parent material	(1) Fluviomarine deposits – igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock
Surface texture	(1) Fine sandy loam (2) Loamy fine sand
Family particle size	(1) Fine (2) Fine-loamy
Drainage class	Moderately well drained to well drained
Permeability class	Slow to very slow
Soil depth	203 cm
Surface fragment cover <=3"	0%
Surface fragment cover >3"	0%
Available water capacity (0-152.4cm)	15.24 – 22.86 cm
Calcium carbonate equivalent (101.6-152.4cm)	0 – 5%
Electrical conductivity (0-152.4cm)	0 – 2 mmhos/cm
Sodium adsorption ratio (0-101.6cm)	0 – 2
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-101.6cm)	5.1 – 6.5
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (0-152.4cm)	0%
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (0-152.4cm)	0%

Ecological dynamics

Historically, the site developed under grazing by buffalo and wildfires. Many fires were set by the Native Americans to assist in their hunting activities. Grazing was often heavy while the buffalo were in the area, but long deferments from grazing allowed the forage species to fully recover and regain their vigor. Live oak (Quercus virginiana) and post oak (Quercus stellata) are the dominant woody trees in the small mottes that are scattered throughout the tallgrass areas. Hackberry (Celtis spp.) and an occasional American elm (Ulmus americana) may also occur in the woody mottes. The mottes of trees also produced some woody shrubs such as yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) and American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana).

Little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) is the dominant grass found in the reference plant community. Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), yellow Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), crinkleawn (Trachypogon spp.), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), and brownseed paspalum (Paspalum plicatulum) are also major contributors to the composition. Florida paspalum (Paspalum floridanum), tall dropseed (Sporobolus asper), Sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), and Texas wintergrass (Stipa leucotricha) are also common. The reference plant community is very productive and with the scattered mottes of woody vegetation providing cover, the site was readily used by wildlife. Periodic natural summer and winter fires kept the woody mottes of vegetation from increasing in abundance and kept the individual established mottes from getting larger.

When the site is overgrazed, big bluestem and Indiangrass disappear. If the overgrazing continues, little bluestem, Florida paspalum, switchgrass and many of the desirable forbs such as Engelmann daisy (Engelmannia peristenia), velvet bundleflower (Desmanthus velutinus), and awnless bush sunflower (Simsia calva) disappear. Pan American balsamscale (Elionurus tripsacoides) and many low-growing paspalums (Paspalum spp.) dramatically increase, as do many annual forbs. As the tallgrasses disappear, the site becomes a midgrass-dominated community. When midgrasses such as brownseed paspalum and knotroot bristlegrass (Setaria geniculata) dominate, they are susceptible to excessive grazing pressure and will deteriorate to a shortgrass prairie if the excessive continuous grazing continues. With grazing management and prescribed fire, restoration back to reference conditions are possible.

Overgrazing and the removal of fire causes susceptibility to increases in the sizes and number of mottes. Mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) and huisache (Acacia smallii) seedlings will readily invade in an overgrazed condition. With the removal of fire, mesquite and huisache have little resistance. Cattle grazing mesquite beans from off-site areas dropping mesquite seeds with their manure also causes an increase in establishment. With the invasion of mesquite and huisache, the area can become a Shrubland State unless brush management arrests the encroachment. The Shrubland State starts when the woody invaders occupy about 15 percent canopy and reach approximately 6 feet tall. If this trend continues, mesquite and huisache will dominate in about 15 years. Prescribed fire, grazing management, and brush management must be used to restore reference conditions.

State and transition model

More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
Click on state and transition labels to scroll to the respective text

Ecosystem states

1. Grassland

2. Shrubland

3. Converted Land

T1A	-	Absence of disturbance and natural regeneration over time, may be coupled with excessive grazing
T1B	-	Excessive soil disturbance and introduction of non-native species
R2A	-	Reintroduction of fire and regular disturbance return intervals
T2A	-	Excessive soil disturbance and introduction of non-native species
T3A	-	Absence of disturbance and natural regeneration over time

State 1
Grassland

Dominant plant species

little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), grass
big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), grass

Community 1.1
Tall/Midgrass Prairie

This reference plant community is a fire-dependent grassland composed primarily of tallgrasses and midgrasses that make up to 70 percent of the composition. Forbs make up 5 percent of the composition and woody shrubs, mainly yaupon, American beautyberry, and dewberry (Rubus spp.), comprise 5 percent of the composition. Trees, consisting of either live oak or post oak, dominate the small mottes found on the site. An occasional American elm or hackberry may be found in the tree mix. Productivity is very high and litter accumulates covering approximately 60 to 75 percent. Crusting does not occur on the soil surface and bare ground is less than 10 percent. Native legumes occur in relatively high numbers. Continuous grazing with excessive livestock numbers has had a major impact on the vegetation. The reduction in grass volume also reduces the incidence of wildfires allowing woody seedlings to escape fire and grow large enough to become fire tolerant. Moreover, as overgrazing continues, the more palatable tallgrasses are replaced by less desirable grasses. Basal densities of grass species will decline as does ground litter. Bare ground increases, as does annual production of annual forbs. Soil erosion is not a problem due to the flatness of the landscape. Once the woody invaders to this site such as mesquite, huisache and/or McCartney Rose seedlings appear in small numbers, the window of opportunity to control these plants before they become a serious problem is only very few years. Once the threshold of 15 percent canopy cover is surpassed, control requires a significant amount of resources in time, energy and money to restore the grassland.

Figure 8. 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	3138	5492	6277
Tree	897	1569	1793
Forb	224	392	448
Shrub/Vine	224	392	448
Total	4483	7845	8966

Figure 9. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). TX7606, Tall/Midgrass Prairie Community. Prairie Community composed of warm-season tall and midgrasses..

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	4	12	24	23	8	5	12	4	3	2

Community 1.2
Mid/Shortgrass

This community emerges as heavy grazing without rest removes the tallgrass component of the reference plant community. As tallgrasses begin to disappear, midgrass and shortgrass such as little bluestem, brownseed paspalum, longspike tridens, sideoats grama and Pan American balsamscale correspondingly increase. Fire frequency and intensity is decreased due to a reduction in fine fuel loads. This site can easily be returned to the reference community through the use of prescribed grazing and prescribed burning.

Pathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2

Heavy continuous grazing and lack of fire will transition the site to Community 1.2.

Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1

Prescribed grazing and prescribed burning will return the site to Community 1.1.

State 2
Shrubland

Dominant plant species

oak (Quercus), tree
honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), shrub
sweet acacia (Acacia farnesiana), shrub

Community 2.1
Shrubland

The exclusion of brush management will lead to the invasion of the Grassland State (1) by mesquite and huisache. In some locations, Macartney rose is a prolific invader. Overgrazing will speed up the process as the opportunity for suppressing fire is removed and the seedlings do not receive completion from grasses. In addition to these invader species, the oak mottes will increase in size and number. Thick post oak mottes are common where overgrazing and fire removal have been practiced for an extended period. Continued overgrazing with no rest will kill the dominant grass species. As woody seedlings become established, there is still an opportunity to use grazing management, prescribed burning, and brush control to restore the site back to the Grassland State (1). When the brush exceeds 15 percent canopy, the process to restore the tallgrass prairie becomes more difficult and begins transitioning to the Woodland Community (2.2).

Community 2.2
Woodland

The further exclusion of brush management will lead to the invasion of mesquites and huisache. Continued overgrazing exacerbates the process. At this point, brush management is needed to restore the community back to reference conditions. Brush management can be mechanical or chemical. Specific restoration efforts will depend on the land manager’s goals. In some instances, this can be the desired community for land use goals.

Pathway 2.1
Community 2.1 to 2.2

Continued overgrazing, lack of fire, and lack of brush control transition the Shubland (2.1) into the Woodland Community (2.2).

State 3
Converted Land

Dominant plant species

Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), grass
kleingrass (Panicum coloratum), grass

Community 3.1
Converted

This site has been cleared of all native grasses, forbs, woody shrubs, and trees and planted to an introduced forage species such as bermudagrass, Old World bluestems, and occasionally kleingrass. This conversion requires annual fertility and periodic chemical weed control. A few live oak trees are usually left for livestock shade and aesthetics. If the chemical weed control and fertility applications are stopped and overgrazing occurs, mesquite and huisache will invade and will transition to Community 3.2.

Community 3.2
Converted with Woody Seedlings

When the site is continuously overgrazed for long periods of time and fire is removed, woody plants will invade. These woody plants are primarily mesquite and huisache seedlings. The threshold for this community is reached when seedlings grow to occupy about 15 to 20 percent canopy with a height of about 6 feet tall. At this point, the site will transition to State 2. Community 3.2 can possibly be restored back to the grassland state with the use of grazing management, prescribed fire, and chemical brush control if enough damage has not occurred to the soil health.

Pathway 3.1A
Community 3.1 to 3.2

Lack of brush control will result in woody seedlings invade the Converted Land Community.

Pathway 3.2A
Community 3.2 to 3.1

Brush control and weed management will restore the site back to the Converted Land Community (3.1).

Transition T1A
State 1 to 2

Continuous overgrazing, lack of fire, and lack of brush management will transition the site to State 2.

Transition T1B
State 1 to 3

Converting to crops or pastureland transitions the site to State 3.

Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1

Brush management, prescribed grazing, and eventually prescribed fire will restore the Shrubland State back to reference conditions.

Transition T2A
State 2 to 3

Converting to crops or pastureland transitions the site to State 3.

Transition T3A
State 3 to 2

Lack of brush control will allow the woody seedling to form a canopy and transition the site to State 2.

Additional community tables

Table 6. Community 1.1 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production (kg/hectare)	Foliar cover (%)
Grass/Grasslike
1	Tallgrasses			2511–5021
	big bluestem	ANGE	Andropogon gerardii	2511–5021	–
	Florida paspalum	PAFL4	Paspalum floridanum	2511–5021	–
	switchgrass	PAVI2	Panicum virgatum	2511–5021	–
	little bluestem	SCSC	Schizachyrium scoparium	2511–5021	–
	Indiangrass	SONU2	Sorghastrum nutans	2511–5021	–
	spiked crinkleawn	TRSP12	Trachypogon spicatus	2511–5021	–
2	Mid/Shortgrasses			471–942
	sideoats grama	BOCU	Bouteloua curtipendula	471–942	–
	silver beardgrass	BOLAT	Bothriochloa laguroides ssp. torreyana	471–942	–
	sedge	CAREX	Carex	471–942	–
	Virginia wildrye	ELVI3	Elymus virginicus	471–942	–
	Texas wintergrass	NALE3	Nassella leucotricha	471–942	–
	panicgrass	PANIC	Panicum	471–942	–
	brownseed paspalum	PAPL3	Paspalum plicatulum	471–942	–
	crowngrass	PASPA2	Paspalum	471–942	–
	marsh bristlegrass	SEPA10	Setaria parviflora	471–942	–
	composite dropseed	SPCOC2	Sporobolus compositus var. compositus	471–942	–
	purpletop tridens	TRFL2	Tridens flavus	471–942	–
3	Mid/Shortgrasses			157–314
	hairy grama	BOHI2	Bouteloua hirsuta	157–314	–
	fall witchgrass	DICO6	Digitaria cognata	157–314	–
	Pan American balsamscale	ELTR4	Elionurus tripsacoides	157–314	–
	plains lovegrass	ERIN	Eragrostis intermedia	157–314	–
	longspike tridens	TRST2	Tridens strictus	157–314	–
4	Shortgrasses			0–1
	threeawn	ARIST	Aristida	0–1	–
	buffalograss	BODA2	Bouteloua dactyloides	0–1	–
	Texas grama	BORI	Bouteloua rigidiseta	0–1	–
	gulfhairawn muhly	MUFI3	Muhlenbergia filipes	0–1	–
	slim tridens	TRMU	Tridens muticus	0–1	–
Forb
5	Forbs			224–448
	Cuman ragweed	AMPS	Ambrosia psilostachya	224–448	–
	partridge pea	CHFA2	Chamaecrista fasciculata	224–448	–
	Texas croton	CRTE4	Croton texensis	224–448	–
	purple dalea	DALA4	Dalea lasiathera	224–448	–
	velvet bundleflower	DEVE2	Desmanthus velutinus	224–448	–
	Engelmann's daisy	ENPE4	Engelmannia peristenia	224–448	–
	button eryngo	ERYU	Eryngium yuccifolium	224–448	–
	snow on the prairie	EUBI2	Euphorbia bicolor	224–448	–
	coastal indigo	INMI	Indigofera miniata	224–448	–
	dotted blazing star	LIPU	Liatris punctata	224–448	–
	Nuttall's sensitive-briar	MINU6	Mimosa nuttallii	224–448	–
	yellow puff	NELU2	Neptunia lutea	224–448	–
	upright prairie coneflower	RACO3	Ratibida columnifera	224–448	–
	least snoutbean	RHMI4	Rhynchosia minima	224–448	–
	awnless bushsunflower	SICA7	Simsia calva	224–448	–
	amberique-bean	STHE9	Strophostyles helvola	224–448	–
6	Forbs			0–1
	prairie broomweed	AMDR	Amphiachyris dracunculoides	0–1	–
	eryngo	ERYNG	Eryngium	0–1	–
	sneezeweed	HEAM	Helenium amarum	0–1	–
	lemon beebalm	MOCI	Monarda citriodora	0–1	–
	phlox	PHLOX	Phlox	0–1	–
	snoutbean	RHYNC2	Rhynchosia	0–1	–
Shrub/Vine
7	Shrubs/Vines			224–448
	American beautyberry	CAAM2	Callicarpa americana	224–448	–
	yaupon	ILVO	Ilex vomitoria	224–448	–
	pricklypear	OPUNT	Opuntia	224–448	–
	Oklahoma blackberry	RUOK	Rubus oklahomus	224–448	–
	greenbrier	SMILA2	Smilax	224–448	–
	mustang grape	VIMU2	Vitis mustangensis	224–448	–
Tree
8	Trees			897–1793
	hackberry	CELTI	Celtis	897–1793	–
	Texas hawthorn	CRTE2	Crataegus texana	897–1793	–
	post oak	QUST	Quercus stellata	897–1793	–
	live oak	QUVI	Quercus virginiana	897–1793	–
	gum bully	SILAO	Sideroxylon lanuginosum ssp. oblongifolium	897–1793	–
	American elm	ULAM	Ulmus americana	897–1793	–
9	Trees			0–1
	American plum	PRAM	Prunus americana	0–1	–
	blackjack oak	QUMA3	Quercus marilandica	0–1	–
	lime pricklyash	ZAFA	Zanthoxylum fagara	0–1	–

Interpretations

Animal community

The Coastal Prairie communities support a wide array of animals. Cattle and many species of wildlife make extensive use of the site. White-tailed deer may be found scattered across the prairie and are found in heavier concentrations where woody cover exists. Feral hogs are present and at times abundant. Coyotes are abundant and fill the mammalian predator niche. Rodent populations rise during drier periods and fall during periods of inundation. Attwater’s pocket gophers are abundant and have an important impact on the ecology of the site. The badger is present but not abundant in locations at the southern extent of the site. Locally unique species alligators and bullfrogs.

The region is a major flyway for waterfowl and migrating birds. Hundreds of thousands of ducks, geese, and sandhill cranes abound during winter. Two important endangered species occur in the area, the whooping crane and Attwater’s prairie chicken. Many other species of avian predators including northern harriers, ferruginous hawks, red-tailed hawks, white-tailed kites, kestrels, and, occasionally, swallow-tailed kites utilize the vast grasslands. Many species of grassland birds use the site, including blue grosbeaks, dickcissels, eastern meadowlarks, several sparrows, including, vesper sparrow, lark sparrow, savannah sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, and Le Conte’s sparrow.

Supporting information

Inventory data references

Existing NRCS Range site descriptions and SCS-417 data were used to obtain vegetative information for this site. Three SCS-417’s were available from one county for this site. Existing plant communities were ascertained through fieldwork on private ranches.

Other references

Allain, L., L. Smith, C. Allen, M. Vidrine, and J. B. Grace. 2006. A floristic quality assessment system for the Coastal Prairie of Louisiana. North American Prairie Conference, 19.

Allain, L., M. Vidrine, V. Grafe, C. Allen, and S. Johnson. 2000. Paradise lost: The coastal prairie of Louisiana and Texas. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Layfayette, LA.

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. 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. and F. E. Smeins. 1991. Ecosystem-level processes. 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.

Baldwin, H. Q., J. B. Grace, W. C. Barrow, and F. C. Rohwer. 2007. Habitat relationships of birds overwintering in a managed coastal prairie. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 119(2):189-198.

Beasom, S. L, G. Proudfoot, and J. Mays. 1994. Characteristics of a live oak-dominated area on the eastern South Texas Sand Plain. In the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute Annual Report, 1-2.

Berlandier, J. L. 1980. Journey to Mexico during the years 1826 to 1834: translated. Texas State Historical Associated and the University of Texas. Austin, TX.

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.

Bollaert, W. 1956. William Bollaert’s Texas. Edited by W. E. Hollon and R. L. Butler. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

Bonnell, G. W. 1840. Topographical description of Texas: To which is added, an account of the Indian tribes. Clark, Wing, and Brown, Austin, TX.

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

Box, T. W. and A. D. Chamrad. 1966. Plant communities of the Welder Wildlife Refuge.

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.

Brite, T. R. 1860. Atascosa County. The Texas Almanac for 1861. Richardson and Co., Galveston, TX.

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.

Chamrad, A. D. and J. D. Dodd. 1972. Prescribed burning and grazing for prairie chicken habitat manipulation in the Texas coastal prairie. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, 12:257-276.

Crawford, J. T. 1912. Correspondence from the British archives concerning Texas, 1837-1846. Edited by E. D. Adams. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, 15:205-209.

Davis, R. B. and R. L. Spicer. 1965. Status of the practice of brush control in the Rio Grande Plain. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Bulletin, 46.

Davis, W. B. 1974. The Mammals of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Bulletin, 41.

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.

Drawe, D. L., A. D. Chamrad, and T. W. Box. 1978. Plant communities of the Welder Wildlife Refuge.

Drawe, D. L. and T. W. Box. 1969. High rates of nitrogen fertilization influence Coastal Prairie range. Journal of Range Management, 22:32-36.

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. and M. A. Alaniz. 1980. Fall and winter diets of feral pigs in south Texas. Journal of Range Management, 33:126-129.

Everitt, J. H. and D. L. Drawe. 1993. 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 used by livestock and wildlife. 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, 20.

Foster, W. C. 2010. Spanish Expeditions into Texas 1689-1768. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.

Frost, C. C. 1995. Presettlement fire regimes in southeastern marshes, peatlands, and swamps. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, 19:39-60.

Frost, C. C. 1998. Presettlement fire frequency regimes of the United States: A first approximation. Fire in ecosystem management: Shifting the paradigm from suppression to prescription. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, 20:70-81.

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., D. D. Diamond, J. Rappole, and J. Norwine. 1990. The Coastal Sand Plain of Southern Texas. Rangelands, 12:337-340.

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.

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

Grace, J. B., T. M. Anderson, M. D. Smith, E. Seabloom, S. J. Andelman, G. Meche, E. Weiher, L. K. Allain, H. Jutila, M. Sankaran, J. Knops, M. Ritchie, and M. R. Willig. 2007. Does species diversity limit productivity in natural grassland communities? Ecology Letters, 10(8):680-689.

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.

Grace, J. B., L. Allain, C. Allen. 2000. Factors associated with plant species richness in a coastal tall-grass prairie. Journal of Vegetation Science, 11:443-452.

Graham, D. 2003. Kings of Texas: The 150-year saga of an American ranching empire. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Hamilton, W. and D. Ueckert. 2005. Rangeland woody plant control: Past, present, and future. Brush management: Past, present, and future, 3-16.

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.

Harcombe, P. A. and J. E. Neaville. 1997. Vegetation types of Chambers County, Texas. The Texas Journal of Science, 29:209-234.

Hatch, S. L., J. L. Schuster, and D. L. Drawe. 1999. Grasses of the Texas Gulf Prairies and Marshes. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX.

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

Hughes, G.U. 1846. Memoir Description of a March of a Division of the United States Army under the Command of Brigadier General John E. Wool, From San Antonio de Bexar, in Texas to Saltillo, in Mexico. Senate Executive Document, 32.

Inglis, J. M. 1964. A history of vegetation of the Rio Grande Plains. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Bulletin, 45.

Jenkins, J. H. 1973. The Papers of the Texas Revolution, 1835-1836. Presidential Press, Austin, TX.

Johnson, M. C. 1963. Past and present grasslands of southern Texas and northeastern Mexico. Ecology 44(3):456-466.

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

Kennedy, W. 1841. Texas: The rise, progress, and prospects of the Republic of Texas. Lincoln’s Inn, London, England.

Kimmel, F. 2008. Louisiana's Cajun Prairie: An endangered ecosystem. Louisiana Conservationist, 61(3):4-7.

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 Proceedings, 4:127-143.

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

Lusk, R. M. 1917. A history of Constantine Lodge, No. 13, ancient free, and accepted Masons, Bonham, Texas. Favorite Printing Co., Hilbert, WI.

McDanield, H. F. and N. A. Taylor. 1877. The coming empire, or, two thousand miles in Texas on horseback. A. S. Barnes & Company, New York, NY.

McGinty A. and 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.

Mutz, J. L., T. J. Greene, C. J. Scifres, and B. H. Koerth. 1985. Response of Pan American balsamscale, soil, and livestock to prescribed burning. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, B-1492.

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. 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.

Palmer, G. R., T. E. Fulbright, and G. McBryde. 1995. Inland sand dune reclamation on the Coastal Sand Plain of Southern Texas. Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute Annual Report, 30-31.

Pickens, B., S. L. King, B. Vermillion, L. M. Smith, and L. Allain. 2009. Conservation Planning for the Coastal Prairie Region of Louisiana. A final report from Louisiana State University to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Prichard, D. 1998. Riparian area management: A user guide to assessing proper functioning condition and the supporting science for lotic areas. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO.

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

Rappole, J. H. and G. W. Blacklock. 1985. Birds of the Texas Coastal Bend: Abundance and distribution. 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. 1975. Systems for improving McCartney rose infested coastal prairie rangeland. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, MP 1225.

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

Shelby, C. 1933. Letters of an early American traveler: Mary Austin Holley, her life and her works, 1784-1846. Southwest Press, Dallas, TX.

Siemann, E., and W. E. Rogers. 2007. The role of soil resources in an exotic tree invasion in Texas coastal prairie. Journal of Ecology, 95(4):689-697.

Smith, L. M. 1996. The rare and sensitive natural wetland plant communities of interior Louisiana. Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, Baton Rouge, LA.

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

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

Stutzenbaker, C. D. 1999. Aquatic and wetland plants of the Western Gulf Coast. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.

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

Urbatsch, L. 2000. Chinese tallow tree Triadica sebifera (L.) Small. USDA-NRCS, National Plant Center, Baton Rouge, LA.

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.

Vidrine, M. F. 2010. The Cajun Prairie: A natural history. Cajun Prairie Habitat Preservation Society, Eunice, LA.

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

Vines, R. A. 1977. Trees of Eastern Texas. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.

Warren, W. S. 1998. The La Salle Expedition to Texas: The journal of Henry Joutel, 1684-1687. Edited by W. C. Foster. Texas State Historical Association, 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. 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.

Weaver, J. E. and F. E. Clements. 1938. Plant ecology. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

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.

Wilbarger, J. W. 1889. Indian depredation in Texas. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, Scotts Valley, CA.

Williams, L. R. and G. N Cameron. 1985. Effects of removal of pocket gophers on a Texas coastal prairie. The American Midland Naturalist Journal, 115:216-224.

Woodin, M. C., M. K. Skoruppa, and G. C. Hickman. 2000. Surveys of night birds along the Rio Grande in Webb County, Texas. Final Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Corpus Christi, TX.

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

Contributors

Clifford W. Carter, RMS, NRCS, Victoria, TX

Approval

Bryan Christensen, 9/22/2023

Acknowledgments

Technical Reviewers and Contributors:
Justin Clary, RMS, NRCS, Temple, TX
Shanna Dunn, RSS, NRCS, Corpus Christi, TX
Mark Moseley, RMS, NRCS, Boerne, TX
Tim Reinke, RMS, NRCS, Victoria, TX

Rangeland health reference sheet

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health is a qualitative assessment protocol used to determine ecosystem condition based on benchmark characteristics described in the Reference Sheet. A suite of 17 (or more) indicators are typically considered in an assessment. The ecological site(s) representative of an assessment location must be known prior to applying the protocol and must be verified based on soils and climate. Current plant community cannot be used to identify the ecological site.

Author(s)/participant(s)
Contact for lead author
Date	11/23/2024
Approved by	Bryan Christensen
Approval date
Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on	Annual Production

Indicators

Number and extent of rills:
Presence of water flow patterns:
Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes:
Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, lichen, moss, plant canopy are not bare ground):
Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies:
Extent of wind scoured, blowouts and/or depositional areas:
Amount of litter movement (describe size and distance expected to travel):
Soil surface (top few mm) resistance to erosion (stability values are averages - most sites will show a range of values):
Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type of structure and A-horizon color and thickness):
Effect of community phase composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration and runoff:
Presence and thickness of compaction layer (usually none; describe soil profile features which may be mistaken for compaction on this site):
Functional/Structural Groups (list in order of descending dominance by above-ground annual-production or live foliar cover using symbols: >>, >, = to indicate much greater than, greater than, and equal to):

Dominant:

Sub-dominant:

Other:

Additional:
Amount of plant mortality and decadence (include which functional groups are expected to show mortality or decadence):
Average percent litter cover (%) and depth ( in):
Expected annual annual-production (this is TOTAL above-ground annual-production, not just forage annual-production):
Potential invasive (including noxious) species (native and non-native). List species which BOTH characterize degraded states and have the potential to become a dominant or co-dominant species on the ecological site if their future establishment and growth is not actively controlled by management interventions. Species that become dominant for only one to several years (e.g., short-term response to drought or wildfire) are not invasive plants. Note that unlike other indicators, we are describing what is NOT expected in the reference state for the ecological site:
Perennial plant reproductive capability:

Download reference sheet

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

Ecosystem states

1. Grassland

2. Shrubland

3. Converted Land

T1A	-	Absence of disturbance and natural regeneration over time, may be coupled with excessive grazing
T1B	-	Excessive soil disturbance and introduction of non-native species
R2A	-	Reintroduction of fire and regular disturbance return intervals
T2A	-	Excessive soil disturbance and introduction of non-native species
T3A	-	Absence of disturbance and natural regeneration over time