Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Ecological site R150AY641TX

Lakebed

Last updated: 9/22/2023
Accessed: 11/21/2024

Home / Esd catalog / MLRA 150A / Ecological site R150AY641TX

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

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

Ecological site concept

Lakebeds are shallow depressions that support wet soil plant communities. These sites receive water from surrounding upland sites following heavy rainfall events and can remain ponded for long periods. This site is not similar in soils, landscape positions or vegetation to any other sites in MLRA 150A.

Associated sites

R150AY639TX	Clay Loam The Clay Loam ecological site has very deep, well drained, clay loam soils and has high vegetative production.
R150AY526TX	Southern Blackland The Southern Blackland ecological site shows an intact grass community with small clumped dispersal of woody species. The soils are very deep, richly black in color, and characterized by their shrink-swell nature. The sites are widely distributed across the uplands and terraces throughout the region. This site has a heavier surface texture and is higher in the landscape.

R150AY639TX

Clay Loam

The Clay Loam ecological site has very deep, well drained, clay loam soils and has high vegetative production.

R150AY526TX

Southern Blackland

The Southern Blackland ecological site shows an intact grass community with small clumped dispersal of woody species. The soils are very deep, richly black in color, and characterized by their shrink-swell nature. The sites are widely distributed across the uplands and terraces throughout the region. This site has a heavier surface texture and is higher in the landscape.

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Tree	Not specified
Shrub	Not specified
Herbaceous	(1) Trichloris crinita (2) Setaria vulpiseta

Download full description

Physiographic features

The site was formed in clayey over loamy fluviomarine deposits of Pleistocene age. These nearly level soils are in enclosed depressions on the coastal plain. Slope ranges from 0 to 1 percent. The elevation is 30 to 175 feet.

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Landforms	(1) Coastal plain > Closed depression
Runoff class	Negligible
Flooding frequency	None
Ponding duration	Very long (more than 30 days)
Ponding frequency	Occasional to frequent
Elevation	15 – 125 ft
Slope	1%
Ponding depth	24 in
Water table depth	72 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)	250-316 days
Freeze-free period (characteristic range)	365 days
Precipitation total (characteristic range)	32-35 in
Frost-free period (actual range)	230-365 days
Freeze-free period (actual range)	365 days
Precipitation total (actual range)	31-37 in
Frost-free period (average)	282 days
Freeze-free period (average)	365 days
Precipitation total (average)	33 in

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 2. Monthly precipitation range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 3. Monthly minimum temperature range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 4. Monthly maximum temperature range

Bar

Line

Figure 5. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature

Figure 6. Annual precipitation pattern

Figure 7. Annual average temperature pattern

Climate stations used

(1) BEEVILLE CHASE NAAS [USW00012925], Beeville, TX
(2) KINGSVILLE NAAS [USW00012928], Kingsville, TX
(3) BISHOP [USC00410805], Bishop, TX
(4) C C BOTANICAL GARDENS [USC00412013], Corpus Christi, TX
(5) ROBSTOWN [USC00417677], Robstown, TX
(6) CORPUS CHRISTI [USW00012924], Corpus Christi, TX
(7) SINTON [USC00418354], Sinton, TX
(8) WELDER WILDLIFE FNDN [USC00419559], Sinton, TX
(9) REFUGIO 3 SW [USC00417530], Refugio, TX
(10) REFUGIO 2 NW [USC00417533], Refugio, TX

Influencing water features

This site is saturated in the upper horizons and will have reducing conditions for some time during the wet months of the year. This is a moist site receiving water from runoff and seepage from adjacent sites and will pond for long periods in normal years. Depth and breadth of ponding depends on the shape and size of the depression bottom.

Wetland description

The soils associated with this site are hydric. Each site will need to be visited individually to determine wetland criteria.

Soil features

The site consists of very deep, poorly drained, very slowly permeable, and slightly acid to neutral soils. Runoff is negligible. The surface color is black or very dark gray. The soil is ponded from a few days to several weeks during the spring and fall seasons in normal years. Soils correlated to this site include: Edroy.

Table 4. Representative soil features

Parent material	(1) Fluviomarine deposits – igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock
Surface texture	(1) Clay
Family particle size	(1) Fine
Drainage class	Poorly drained
Permeability class	Very 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)	4 mmhos/cm
Sodium adsorption ratio (0-60in)	2 – 6
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-40in)	6.1 – 7.3
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (40-60in)	2%
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (0-60in)	Not specified

Ecological dynamics

The Lakebed site occupies a very small percentage of the overall landscape of the Gulf Coast Prairie system. This Coastal Prairie system has been described historically as being covered by tall coarse grasses. The land was noted as a level prairie with open grasslands by various travelers in the 1800’s. It should be noted that these prairies were not devoid of some tree type vegetation. A typical description of 1839 reads, “Refugio and Goliad Counties have a generally level surface. The prevailing character of the land is open prairie, spotted with islands of wood. Towards the south, the woods are of live oak and mesquite; northward, of white and post oak, elm, hackberry, pecan and mulberry.” A traveler in 1854 wrote, “the remainder of the route [from Goliad] to San Antonio is an undulating surface of very rich but light soil covered with close, fine mesquite grass and checkered pleasantly with clumps of mesquite and other shrubs and trees.”

The Lakebed is distinct from its surrounding prairie because it periodically ponds water from several days to several months during wet periods. Typically, this is a depressional grassland and ponds water at 2 inches or greater around the periphery to as much as 24 inches inches in the center of the depression. This site is most likely to be ponded during winter and early spring, but ponding may occur anytime throughout the year. In late spring and summer, the site may be completely dry or only moist at the surface. Lakebeds are highly preferred by all herbivorous animals. When much or most of the surrounding sites are dried out from summer heat, Lakebeds often remain lush, providing the only source of green herbage in the surrounding landscape. As such, it has periodically been heavily overgrazed by wild herbivores and domestic livestock. During extended years of low precipitation cycles, this site may be invaded by woody plants such as mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) and huisache (Acacia farnesiana), however as wet cycles return, woody species often die out due to ponded water.

The reference plant community is a mid/tallgrass/sedge dominated depressional grassland heavily influenced by water regimes within the depression, as well as by grazing and fire. During wet cycles, more wet-tolerant species dominate while during dry cycles, species adapted to slightly drier conditions and less ponded water dominate the community. The tallgrass species commonly found include eastern gamagrass (Tripsacum dactyloides), Florida paspalum (Paspalum floridanum), and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum). Midgrasses and sedges are important species, making up as much as 60 to 70 percent of herbaceous production during wet cycles. These include longtom paspalum (Paspalum denticulatum), knotroot bristlegrass (Setaria parviflora), green flatsedge (Cyperus virens), jointed flatsedge (Cyperus articulatus), spikerush (Eleocharis spp.), and numerous others. Perennial forbs during dry cycles include yellow neptunia (Neptunia lutea), bundleflower (Desmanthus spp.), common broomweed (Amphiachyris dracunculoides), sneezeweed (Helenium amarum), and wild petunia (Ruellia nudiflora). Wet cycles caused such species as arrowhead (Sagittaria longiloba), water clover (Marsilea macropoda), dock (Rumex spp.), and other wet-tolerant forbs to become more prevalent.

Abusive grazing and loss of fire will totally remove the midgrass component. Midgrasses are replaced by sedges, spikerush, torpedo grass (Panicum repens), low panicums, and paspalums. During dry cycles, sumpweed (Iva annua), common broomweed, and western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) may dominate. Introduced species such as common Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum), and introduced bluestems (Bothriochloa spp. and Dichanthium spp.) may occupy the periphery of the site but will die out during wet cycles. Woody species such as mesquite, perennial senna bean (Sesbania drummondii.), Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera), willow baccharis (Baccharis salicina), and huisache encroach during dry cycles. When wet cycles occur, most of the woody species will die. Huisache may be much slower to die because of its tolerance to extremely wet conditions.

Grassland community trends may possibly be reversed over extremely long periods of time through prescribed grazing and later the use of fire. Because this site is so highly preferred by livestock, fencing may be required for restoration. Because organic matter is totally depleted, compaction layers from livestock are present. Energy, water, and mineral cycles are drastically altered. It may be nearly impossible to attain the reference plant community once the threshold from State 1 to State 2 is crossed.

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. Depressional Grassland

2. Depressional Shrubland

T1A	-	Absence of disturbance and natural regeneration over time
R2A	-	Reintroduction of fire and regular disturbance return intervals

State 1 submodel, plant communities

1.1. Mid/Tallgrass/Sedges

1.2. Mid/Shortgrass/Sedge

State 2 submodel, plant communities

2.1. Huisache/Sesbania/Midgrass

2.2. Huisache/Sesbania/Shortgrass/Sedge

State 1
Depressional Grassland

Dominant plant species

eastern gamagrass (Tripsacum dactyloides), grass
Florida paspalum (Paspalum floridanum), grass

Community 1.1
Mid/Tallgrass/Sedges

This site is a wet prairie interspersed within the upland prairie on the Coastal Prairie. It is a part of the complex that developed under intermittent grazing by bison and a relatively frequent fire regime (3 to 8 years). The potential plant community varies between wet and dry cycles. During wet cycles, switchgrass, eastern gamagrass, and Florida paspalum waned except around the edges, while longtom paspalum, flatsedge, and knotroot bristlegrass dominated; especially in the deeper portions of the site. Forbs on this site make up less 5 percent of the total herbaceous production, but annual forbs such as sumpweed may be seasonally abundant in response to grazing/drought/rainfall sequences. The reference plant community has no woody plants. Tallgrasses may make up as much as 40 to 50 percent of the total herbaceous production when rainfall cycles cause water to be shallow for short periods of time. Woody species such as mesquite and huisache may encroach, but a combination of fire and water cause them to cycle out. Heavy, continuous grazing by domestic livestock, loss of fire, altered water regime, and altered energy cycles associated with heavy grazing will cause the loss of tallgrass species. This site is very productive, even when tallgrass species have been lost. Other species that replace the tallgrasses are extremely productive and palatable and provide an abundance of forage for livestock.

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	4000	5100	6200
Forb	250	325	425
Shrub/Vine	0	0	0
Tree	0	0	0
Total	4250	5425	6625

Figure 9. Plant community growth curve (percent production by month). TX7611, Mid/Tallgrass/Sedge Community. Warm-season midgrasses, tallgrasses, and sedges occupy the plant community..

Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
J	F	M	A	M	J	J	A	S	O	N	D
2	2	6	10	18	18	3	6	15	10	6	4

Community 1.2
Mid/Shortgrass/Sedge

Heavy continuous grazing removes the tallgrass component from the reference community causing a shift to mid and shortgrasses. Again, wet and dry cycles play a major role in determining the plant community. With wet cycles, longtom paspalum becomes the dominant midgrass in the plant community and green flatsedge, jointed flatsedge, and knotroot bristlegrass increase as well. As dry cycles return, the plant community changes again with reduced amounts of longtom paspalum and increasing numbers of flatsedge, spikerush, low panicums and paspalums, broomsedge bluestem (Andropogon virginicus), bushy bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus), and longspike tridens (Tridens strictus). Spiny aster may be a strong increaser during the dry cycle as well. If heavy grazing continues during the dry cycle, bare ground will be the result. Once some precipitation occurs, this disturbed bare ground will grow a profusion of annual forbs such as sumpweed, croton (Croton spp.), snow-on-the-prairie (Euphorbia bicolor), common broomweed, and western ragweed. Removal of herbage by grazing and shifts in composition to shorter, less productive grasses and annual forbs. Heavy continuous grazing can also alter the soil structure, preventing replenishment of organic matter, and removing resiliency. Community dynamics can be reversed, but the threshold to State 2 is nearing.

Pathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2

Abusive grazing and lack of fire will cause the community to shift to 1.2.

Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1

Prescribed grazing and the return of fire will transition the community back to 1.1.

State 2
Depressional Shrubland

Dominant plant species

honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), shrub
sedge (Carex), grass

Community 2.1
Huisache/Sesbania/Midgrass

This community has crossed a threshold and significant alterations have taken place. Water cycles have been drastically altered. Compaction layers are present, created by extensive grazing by domestic cattle. Organic matter is severely depleted causing the site to pond water longer than in reference conditions. The fire regime (3 to 8 years) is non-existent in this phase. This site can go back to state 1.2 or 1.1 over extremely long periods of time, provided a seed source is available for tallgrass species and managed accordingly. Fencing will probably be necessary around the site so that grazing can be initially excluded and grazing carefully controlled later. Although this site had no woody vegetation originally, in this state, woody invasion has taken place with huisache, perennial senna bean, and some retama (Parkinsonia aculeata) invading during dry cycles. When wet cycles are long enough, these woody species will likely die out. In wet cycles, longtom will be common on the site with increased amounts of torpedograss and vasey grass, and numerous flatsedges. Wetland obligate forbs such as smartweed, arrowhead, dock, and mud plantain may be common. In dry cycles, longtom will decrease and low panicums and paspalums and spike rush will proliferate along with annual grasses and such forbs as sumpweed, croton, sneezeweed, common broomweed, and others.

Community 2.2
Huisache/Sesbania/Shortgrass/Sedge

As the midgrass is grazed out and the community deteriorates, the site is occupied by needlegrass rush (Juncus roemerianus), spikerush, some sedges, low panicums, and paspalums. During dry cycles, this site is often grazed so heavily that there will be 60 to 80 percent bare ground. In this condition, when rainfall does occur, annual grasses and forbs will quickly populate. Woody invaders, primarily huisache, or if the site is too wet, rattlebush (Sesbania drummondii) will proliferate. In many instances, huisache has attained an 80 to 90 percent canopy.

Pathway 2.1
Community 2.1 to 2.2

Further continued overgrazing, lack of brush management, and lack of fire will transition the site to Community 2.2.

Transition T1A
State 1 to 2

Continued heavy grazing, lack of fire, and no brush management will transition the reference state to State 2.

Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1

Prescribed grazing, brush management, and return of fire can restore State 2 back to the reference state.

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
0	Midgrass			2000–3100
1	Tallgrasses			1200–1800
	Florida paspalum	PAFL4	Paspalum floridanum	1200–1860	–
	switchgrass	PAVI2	Panicum virgatum	1200–1860	–
	eastern gamagrass	TRDA3	Tripsacum dactyloides	1200–1860	–
2	Grasses & Sedges			400–620
	sedge	CAREX	Carex	400–620	–
	jointed flatsedge	CYAR4	Cyperus articulatus	400–620	–
	green flatsedge	CYVI2	Cyperus virens	400–620	–
	spikerush	ELEOC	Eleocharis	400–620	–
	marsh bristlegrass	SEPA10	Setaria parviflora	400–620	–
	gaping grass	STHI3	Steinchisma hians	400–620	–
3	Grasses			200–310
	panicgrass	PANIC	Panicum	200–310	–
	crowngrass	PASPA2	Paspalum	200–310	–
Forb
4	Forbs			200–310
	spiny chloracantha	CHSP11	Chloracantha spinosa	200–310	–
	southern annual saltmarsh aster	SYDI2	Symphyotrichum divaricatum	200–310	–
5	Forbs			225–382
	Cuman ragweed	AMPS	Ambrosia psilostachya	225–382	–
	bundleflower	DESMA	Desmanthus	225–382	–
	blue mudplantain	HELI2	Heteranthera limosa	225–382	–
	bigfoot waterclover	MAMA9	Marsilea macropoda	225–382	–
	yellow puff	NELU2	Neptunia lutea	225–382	–
	Pennsylvania smartweed	POPE2	Polygonum pensylvanicum	225–382	–
	dock	RUMEX	Rumex	225–382	–
	violet wild petunia	RUNU	Ruellia nudiflora	225–382	–
	longbarb arrowhead	SALO2	Sagittaria longiloba	225–382	–
6	Forbs			24–43
	prairie broomweed	AMDR	Amphiachyris dracunculoides	24–43	–
	sneezeweed	HEAM	Helenium amarum	24–43	–
	annual marsh elder	IVAN2	Iva annua	24–43	–

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.

Hydrological functions

This site which is a part of the extensive wetland systems of the Gulf Coast Prairie functions in both flood control and removal of pollutants. These sites, when dry, serve as reservoirs to capture excessive precipitation during high intensity rainfall events. When in pristine condition, with high organic matter content, this site may have been important in aquifer recharge. In its current impaired condition (low organic matter, compaction layers) the site loses more water through evaporation and transpiration than it delivers to aquifer recharge.

Recreational uses

The site is frequently used for bird-watching and during wet cycles in the winter may harbor large numbers of ducks and geese making for popular hunting spots.

Supporting information

Inventory data references

This site description was developed as part of the provisional ecological site initiative using historic soil survey manuscripts, available range site descriptions, and low intensity field sampling.

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

Stan Reinke, RMS, NRCS, Victoria, TX

Approval

Bryan Christensen, 9/22/2023

Acknowledgments

Technical Reviewers:
Jamey Douglas, SS, NRCS, Temple, TX
Shanna Dunn, RSS, NRCS, Corpus Christi, TX
Mike Stellbauer, RMS, NRCS, Bryan, 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)	Stan Reinke, RMS, NRCS, Victoria, TX
Contact for lead author
Date	08/15/2007
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:
Water flow patterns should not be evident on this depressional site.
Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes:
None.
Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, lichen, moss, plant canopy are not bare ground):
Less than 15 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):
This is a depressional site and little movement can be expected.
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 5 to 6.
Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type of structure and A-horizon color and thickness):
About 12 inches of dark gray clay. Fine and medium granular and sub-angular blocky structure; very hard, very firm plastic and sticky; many fine roots; few cracks; neutral, clear, smooth boundary. SOM is 1 to 4 percent
Effect of community phase composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration and runoff:
Little effect in this depressional landscape position.
Presence and thickness of compaction layer (usually none; describe soil profile features which may be mistaken for compaction on this site):
None.
Functional/Structural Groups (list in order of descending dominance by above-ground annual-production or live foliar cover using symbols: >>, >, = to indicate much greater than, greater than, and equal to):

Dominant:
Warm-season midgrasses

Sub-dominant:
Warm-season tallgrasses Grasslikes

Other:
Forbs

Additional:
No trees or shrubs expected.
Amount of plant mortality and decadence (include which functional groups are expected to show mortality or decadence):
Some plant mortality can be expected on perennial warm-season grasses (FACU, UP) or perennial warm-season forbs (FAC, FW, OB) depending on length of ponding during the growing season.
Average percent litter cover (%) and depth ( in):
Expected annual annual-production (this is TOTAL above-ground annual-production, not just forage annual-production):
4,250 to 6,625 pounds per acre
Potential invasive (including noxious) species (native and non-native). List species which BOTH characterize degraded states and have the potential to become a dominant or co-dominant species on the ecological site if their future establishment and growth is not actively controlled by management interventions. Species that become dominant for only one to several years (e.g., short-term response to drought or wildfire) are not invasive plants. Note that unlike other indicators, we are describing what is NOT expected in the reference state for the ecological site:
Woody invaders to this site include huisache, retama, senna bean, and mesquite.
Perennial plant reproductive capability:
Perennial plants should be capable of reproduction, except during periods of prolonged drought conditions, heavy continuous herbivory and fires.