Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Ecological site R150AY543TX

Sandy Prairie

Last updated: 9/22/2023
Accessed: 12/21/2024

Home / Esd catalog / MLRA 150A / Ecological site R150AY543TX

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 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.

Associated sites

R150AY532TX	Deep Sand The Deep Sand site is characterized by soils with sandy surfaces and subsurfaces greater than 50 inches thick.

R150AY532TX

Deep Sand

The Deep Sand site is characterized by soils with sandy surfaces and subsurfaces greater than 50 inches thick.

Similar sites

R150AY542TX	Sandy Loam 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.

R150AY542TX

Sandy Loam

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.

Table 1. Dominant plant species

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

Download full description

Physiographic features

The site was formed in thick beds of unconsolidated sandy and loamy sediments of Pleistocene age or the Willis Formation of the late Pliocene age. These nearly level to gently sloping soils are on terraces of the Coastal Plains. Slopes are convex and generally less than 2 percent but range from 0 to 8 percent. Elevation ranges from 50 to 250 feet.

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Landforms	(1) Coastal plain > Terrace (2) Coastal plain > Low hill
Runoff class	Very low to medium
Flooding frequency	None
Ponding frequency	None
Elevation	50 – 350 ft
Slope	3%
Water table depth	12 – 48 in
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)	231-258 days
Freeze-free period (characteristic range)	239-365 days
Precipitation total (characteristic range)	43-50 in
Frost-free period (actual range)	218-263 days
Freeze-free period (actual range)	205-365 days
Precipitation total (actual range)	42-54 in
Frost-free period (average)	241 days
Freeze-free period (average)	316 days
Precipitation total (average)	48 in

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 2. Monthly precipitation range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 3. Monthly minimum temperature range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 4. Monthly maximum temperature range

Bar

Line

Figure 5. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature

Figure 6. Annual precipitation pattern

Figure 7. Annual average temperature pattern

Climate stations used

(1) HOUSTON HOOKS MEM AP [USW00053910], Tomball, TX
(2) HOUSTON SUGARLAND MEM [USW00012977], Sugar Land, TX
(3) ANGLETON 2 W [USC00410257], Angleton, TX
(4) NEW GULF [USC00416286], Boling, TX
(5) BAY CITY WTR WKS [USC00410569], Bay City, TX
(6) EL CAMPO [USC00412786], El Campo, TX
(7) COLUMBUS [USC00411911], Columbus, TX
(8) VICTORIA RGNL AP [USW00012912], Victoria, TX
(9) PORT LAVACA [USC00417183], Port Lavaca, TX

Influencing water features

Water perches on top of the argillic horizon during wet periods which are typically in the winter and spring months.

Wetland description

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

Soil features

This site consists of very deep, moderately well and well drained, very slow to moderately slow permeable soils. The surface is typically loamy fine sand. Generally, the soils are taxonomically classified as Arenic, but other classifications may be present. The argillic horizon textures range from fine sandy loam to clay loam. Argillic horizons exhibit redoximorphic features and even include plinthite in some pedons. A perched water table on top of the argillic can result following periods of heavy rain events. Soils correlated to this site include: Cheetham, Fordtran, Garcitas, Milby, and Monaville.

Table 4. Representative soil features

Parent material	(1) Alluvium – igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock (2) Fluviomarine deposits – igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock
Surface texture	(1) Loamy fine sand (2) Sand
Family particle size	(1) Fine-loamy (2) Loamy
Drainage class	Moderately well drained to well drained
Permeability class	Very slow to moderately slow
Soil depth	80 in
Surface fragment cover <=3"	Not specified
Surface fragment cover >3"	Not specified
Available water capacity (0-60in)	5 – 8 in
Calcium carbonate equivalent (0-60in)	Not specified
Electrical conductivity (0-60in)	2 mmhos/cm
Sodium adsorption ratio (0-60in)	2
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-60in)	4.5 – 6.5
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (30-60in)	3%
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (0-60in)	Not specified

Ecological dynamics

The historic prairie was influenced by bison grazing and fire. The natural high-intensity, low-frequency grazing by bison might have left the area deferred for months or years. Long deferments allowed the late-maturing tallgrasses to recover and set seed following short-intense grazing by bison. Recurrent, natural fires helped maintain the prairie and had an important influence on plant community structure. Woody invasions would have been suppressed by repeated fires, probably every 2 to 5 years. The periodic droughts of the region would have suppressed the more mesic species to the advantage of the more xeric species held in dynamic equilibrium. In this high rainfall area, mulch cover may be continuous over the entire area.

The reference tallgrass prairie community included big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), yellow Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), eastern gamagrass (Tripsacum dactyloides), Florida paspalum (Paspalum floridanum), and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum). Live oak (Quercus virginiana) was present as widely distributed, large trees with occasional mottes in the draws. Low successional plants occurred in heavily used localities where bison congregated repeatedly and created blowout areas. Sand dunes, some of which can still be identified today, formed in the blowout areas during dry cycles.

With the arrival of European man and large herds of domestic livestock, conditions that maintained the historic prairie were altered. Heavy, continuous livestock grazing has removed tallgrasses from most of the site. Low successional, unpalatable grasses, forbs, and running live oak replaced most of the more highly productive plant species. At lower successional stages plant productivity declines resulting in lower organic matter production. Low soil organic matter necessitates a lengthy recovery period to regain the tallgrass prairie. Native herbaceous plant diversity declines with community degradation. Native species will return to the site under proper stocking, prescribed grazing, and prescribed fire. Where running live oak has invaded, herbicides must be used so fine fuel can be grown to carry a fire.

As a result of overgrazing, big bluestem, switchgrass, yellow Indiangrass, eastern gamagrass, and little bluestem decrease. Increasers include brownseed paspalum (Paspalum plicatulum), fringeleaf paspalum (Paspalum setaceum), low panicums, threeawns, and others. Continued overgrazing usually results in a community consisting of fall witchgrass (Leptoloma cognatum), low panicums, fringeleaf paspalum, knotgrass (Setaria firmula), western ragweed (Ambrosia cumanensis), Texas croton (Croton texensis) wooly croton (Croton capitatus), and snow-on-the-prairie (Euphorbia bicolor).

In this area, warm-season plants dominate, and cool-season plants are scarce. However, in this prairie community several valuable cool-season species exist, including Canada wildrye (Elymus canadensis) and Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus). These species can be maintained under good management. In transitional states, this site supports the invader, rescuegrass (Bromus unioloides), which provides an important forage at a critical time of the year. Gulf Coastal Prairie plant communities were comprised of many more tropical and subtropical species, which in the Poaceae (grasses) are represented by species in the Eragrostoideae (lovegrass), Chloroideae (windmillgrass), and Panicoideae (Panicum) subfamilies.

The site can become dominated by running live oak. Once established, running live oak can invade to the exclusion of all other species. The scattered clumps, or mottes, of live oak, then expand and merge until they eventually cover the whole area. As the canopy of live oak rises and thickens, it becomes a monospecific overstory with only the most shade-tolerant species underneath. Herbicides may be used successfully to remove, or greatly reduce, running live oak; however, the restored prairie must be maintained through judicious use of prescribed fire and prescribed grazing management.

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. Prairie

2. Scrubland

3. Converted

T1A	-	Absence of disturbance and natural regeneration over time
T1B	-	Excessive soil disturbance followed by the introduction of non-native species
R2A	-	Reintroduction of fire and regular disturbance return intervals
T2A	-	Excessive soil disturbance followed by the introduction of non-native species
T3A	-	Absence of disturbance and natural regeneration over time

State 1
Prairie

Dominant plant species

big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), grass
little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), grass
Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), grass

Community 1.1
Tall/Midgrass Prairie

The reference plant community is a tall/midgrass prairie. It is a fire-maintained, bunchgrass prairie composed of primarily warm-season, tall and midgrasses with a few warm-season perennial forbs and cool-season grasses and forbs. Recurrent fire, primarily during the summers and periodic grazing by bison were natural processes, which maintained this plant community. Under continuous, heavy livestock grazing the taller, more palatable bunchgrasses such as big bluestem, yellow Indiangrass, Florida paspalum, and switchgrass decrease and are replaced by mid and shortgrasses. Subsequently, with the resulting reduced fuel loads, fire frequency and intensity decreased. As the process continued, these plants were replaced by even less palatable, less productive midgrasses, shortgrasses, and forbs.

Figure 8. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)

Table 5. Annual production by plant type

Plant type	Low (lb/acre)	Representative value (lb/acre)	High (lb/acre)
Grass/Grasslike	6080	7600	9040
Forb	320	400	480
Tree	0	250	480
Shrub/Vine	0	0	0
Total	6400	8250	10000

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 Prairie

The Mid/Shortgrass Prairie Community for the still exhibits a prairie aspect, but tallgrasses have been removed by excessive grazing. It may be dominated by little bluestem and/or brownseed paspalum, but if grazing has been continuously heavy, it may be a brownseed paspalum-dominated grassland. Perennial and annual forbs comprise an increasing percentage of the herbaceous vegetation as the grass canopy is opened, allowing more sunlight to be captured by these more aggressive, short-lived species. This assemblage of plants remains highly productive for livestock. This community can be restored to tall and midgrasses through 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 return of natural fire intervals will restore Community 1.2 back to reference conditions.

State 2
Scrubland

Dominant plant species

live oak (Quercus virginiana), tree

Community 2.1
Grassland/Live Oak

This is a grassland community with interspersions of live oak comprising 15 percent or more or woody canopy. Running live oak increases aggressively, is heavily rhizomatous, and spreads rapidly once established. Although the mechanism of live oak establishment is not well understood, encroachment may begin at any time in the life cycle of any of the previously described states. As live oak invades, it does so at the exclusion of grasses through overstory dominance and shading. This community can be returned to the original prairie state through prescribed grazing, prescribed burning, and the use of the chemical brush management to remove the running live oak.

Community 2.2
Running Live Oak

In this community, the open prairie aspect has been replaced by running live oak with a canopy cover greater than 50 percent. It is not uncommon to find a 100 percent canopy of live oak. Because of its growth form and competition for sunlight and moisture, running live oak has the ability to almost totally exclude herbaceous vegetation. When this occurs, fire is excluded from the community as a result of the absence of fine fuel. Restoration to the Grassland Prairie State (1) using brush management with herbicides, prescribed grazing, and prescribed burning take large inputs of capital and labor.

Pathway 2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.2

Lack of brush control for live oak will transition the site to Community 2.2.

State 3
Converted

Dominant plant species

Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), grass

Community 3.1
Converted

Some of the sites have been converted to pasture. Heavy equipment is required with replanting to remove brush. When converting, this site is typically sprigged to coastal bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon). The plants are usually maintained through fertilization and herbicidal weed control. When management practices are interrupted for extended periods of time the site will move toward the Scrubland State (2). Restoration back to the Grassland Prairie (2) requires removal of planted species, removal of brush, and reseeding back to native species. Depending on the degradation of soil health, it may be impossible for full restoration.

Transition T1A
State 1 to 2

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

Transition T1B
State 1 to 3

Establishment of tame grasses for use as pasture causes the transition to State 3.

Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1

Removal of live oak through appropriate brush management practices, along with prescribed grazing and return of fire will restore the site to reference conditions.

Transition T2A
State 2 to 3

Establishment of tame grasses for use as pasture causes the transition to State 3.

Transition T3A
State 3 to 2

If live oak is not kept under control, the brush can take over and transition to the Scrubland State (2).

Additional community tables

Table 6. Community 1.1 plant community composition

Group	Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Annual production (lb/acre)	Foliar cover (%)
Grass/Grasslike
1	Tallgrasses			4690–7080
	little bluestem	SCSC	Schizachyrium scoparium	2500–4000	–
	Indiangrass	SONU2	Sorghastrum nutans	1280–1920	–
	crinkleawn grass	TRACH2	Trachypogon	1280–1920	–
	big bluestem	ANGE	Andropogon gerardii	1280–1920	–
	Florida paspalum	PAFL4	Paspalum floridanum	640–960	–
	switchgrass	PAVI2	Panicum virgatum	640–960	–
	eastern gamagrass	TRDA3	Tripsacum dactyloides	640–960	–
2	Mid/Shortgrasses			1390–1960
	threeawn	ARIST	Aristida	200–960	–
	brownseed paspalum	PAPL3	Paspalum plicatulum	640–800	–
	knot grass	SEREF	Setaria reverchonii ssp. firmula	300–600	–
	Canada wildrye	ELCA4	Elymus canadensis	300–500	–
	marsh bristlegrass	SEPA10	Setaria parviflora	300–500	–
	flatsedge	CYPER	Cyperus	300–500	–
	fimbry	FIMBR	Fimbristylis	300–500	–
	rush	JUNCU	Juncus	300–500	–
	gulfhairawn muhly	MUFI3	Muhlenbergia filipes	200–500	–
	gulfdune paspalum	PAMO4	Paspalum monostachyum	300–500	–
	Virginia wildrye	ELVI3	Elymus virginicus	100–400	–
	longspike tridens	TRST2	Tridens strictus	250–400	–
	thin paspalum	PASE5	Paspalum setaceum	200–300	–
	panicgrass	PANIC	Panicum	100–300	–
	fall witchgrass	DICO6	Digitaria cognata	100–300	–
	red grama	BOTR2	Bouteloua trifida	100–300	–
	coastal sandbur	CESP4	Cenchrus spinifex	100–200	–
3	Tall/Midgrasses			0–1
	Pan American balsamscale	ELTR4	Elionurus tripsacoides	0–1	–
	Texasgrass	VAMU	Vaseyochloa multinervosa	0–1	–
Forb
4	Forbs			256–384
	Maximilian sunflower	HEMA2	Helianthus maximiliani	25–200	–
	prairie sunflower	HEPE	Helianthus petiolaris	25–100	–
	dotted blazing star	LIPU	Liatris punctata	25–100	–
	dense blazing star	LISP	Liatris spicata	25–100	–
	catclaw mimosa	MIACB	Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera	25–100	–
	yellow puff	NELU2	Neptunia lutea	25–100	–
	American snoutbean	RHAM	Rhynchosia americana	25–100	–
	Texas snoutbean	RHSE4	Rhynchosia senna	25–100	–
	squarebud daisy	TETE2	Tetragonotheca texana	25–100	–
	bundleflower	DESMA	Desmanthus	25–100	–
5	Forbs			64–96
	Cuman ragweed	AMPS	Ambrosia psilostachya	25–50	–
	partridge pea	CHFA2	Chamaecrista fasciculata	25–50	–
	hogwort	CRCA6	Croton capitatus	25–50	–
	Texas croton	CRTE4	Croton texensis	25–50	–
	snow on the prairie	EUBI2	Euphorbia bicolor	25–50	–
	beeblossom	GAURA	Gaura	25–50	–
6	Forbs			0–1
	huisache daisy	AMSE	Amblyolepis setigera	0–1	–
	Indian paintbrush	CASTI2	Castilleja	0–1	–
	Texas tickseed	COLI5	Coreopsis linifolia	0–1	–
	Indian blanket	GAPU	Gaillardia pulchella	0–1	–
	camphorweed	HESU3	Heterotheca subaxillaris	0–1	–
	bluet	HOUST	Houstonia	0–1	–
	Texas bluebonnet	LUSU	Lupinus subcarnosus	0–1	–
	phlox	PHLOX	Phlox	0–1	–
	Texas star	SACA3	Sabatia campestris	0–1	–
	scarlet globemallow	SPCO	Sphaeralcea coccinea	0–1	–
Tree
7	Trees			0–480
	live oak	QUVI	Quercus virginiana	0–480	–

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. Nine SCS-417’s were available from two different counties. 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

Lynn Drawe, Director, Welder Wildlife Refuge, Sinton, TX

Approval

Bryan Christensen, 9/22/2023

Acknowledgments

Reviewer:
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)	Mike Stellbauer, Zone RMS, NRCS, Bryan, TX
Contact for lead author
Date	06/08/2004
Approved by	Bryan Christensen
Approval date
Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on	Annual Production

Indicators

Number and extent of rills:
None.
Presence of water flow patterns:
Uncommon.
Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes:
Should not occur under reference conditions.
Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, lichen, moss, plant canopy are not bare ground):
Less than 20 percent bare ground randomly distributed throughout.
Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies:
None.
Extent of wind scoured, blowouts and/or depositional areas:
None.
Amount of litter movement (describe size and distance expected to travel):
Small to medium-sized litter may move during short distances during intense storms.
Soil surface (top few mm) resistance to erosion (stability values are averages - most sites will show a range of values):
Soil surface is resistant to erosion. Soil stability class range is expected to be 3 to 5.
Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type of structure and A-horizon color and thickness):
Soil surface structure is 40 to 80 inches thick with colors from brown to very pale brown and generally single grained loose structure. SOM is less than 1 percent.
Effect of community phase composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration and runoff:
This true tallgrass prairie site along with adequate litter and little bare ground provides for maximum infiltration and little runoff under normal rainfall events.
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 Warm-season perennial forbs

Other:
Annual warm-season grasses Annual warm-season forbs

Additional:
Amount of plant mortality and decadence (include which functional groups are expected to show mortality or decadence):
Little apparent mortality or decadence for any functional groups.
Average percent litter cover (%) and depth ( in):
Expected annual annual-production (this is TOTAL above-ground annual-production, not just forage annual-production):
5,000 pounds per acre for below average moisture years to 8,000 pounds per acre for above average moisture years.
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:
Potential invasive species include Chinese tallow, huisache, common bermudagrass, bahiagrass, and Macartney rose.
Perennial plant reproductive capability:
All perennial plants should be capable of reproducing except for periods of prolonged drought conditions, heavy natural, herbivory or intense wildfires.

Download reference sheet

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

Ecosystem states

1. Prairie

2. Scrubland

3. Converted

T1A	-	Absence of disturbance and natural regeneration over time
T1B	-	Excessive soil disturbance followed by the introduction of non-native species
R2A	-	Reintroduction of fire and regular disturbance return intervals
T2A	-	Excessive soil disturbance followed by the introduction of non-native species
T3A	-	Absence of disturbance and natural regeneration over time