Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site R030XY216CA
ATCO-ATCA2 lake plain
Last updated: 2/24/2025
Accessed: 05/10/2025
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.
Ecological site concept
This ecological site is found on alluvial soils derived from mixed sources. Soils are very deep and have very sandy loam surface textures.
Please refer to group concept R030XB045CA to view the provisional STM.
Table 1. Dominant plant species
| Tree |
Not specified |
|---|---|
| Shrub |
(1) Atriplex confertifolia |
| Herbaceous |
Not specified |
Physiographic features
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
| Landforms |
(1)
Lake plain
|
|---|---|
| Elevation | 2,600 – 2,700 ft |
| Slope | 4% |
| Water table depth | 60 in |
| Aspect | Aspect is not a significant factor |
Climatic features
Influencing water features
Soil features
This ecological site is found on alluvial soils derived from mixed sources. Soils are very deep and have very sandy loam surface textures. The subsurface texture is loamy COARSE-SILTY IN OSD BUT SILTY NOT A CHOICE IN ESIS. Rock fragments less than 3 inches in diameter compose 0 to 5 percent of the surface cover and a negligible percent of the subsurface volume. Rock fragments greater than 3 inches in diameter are negligible in both the surface horizon and subsurface horizons. Soils are well drained, and permeability is moderately slow. Available water capacity is _______.
CHECK AWC CLASS, SAR, EC, SUBSURFACE TEXTURE
This ecological site is found on the following soil series:
Haymont (Coarse-silty, mixed, superactive, calcareous, thermic Typic Torriorthents)
Table 3. Representative soil features
| Surface texture |
(1) Very fine sandy loam |
|---|---|
| Family particle size |
(1) Loamy |
| Soil depth | 72 in |
| Surface fragment cover <=3" | 5% |
| Surface fragment cover >3" | Not specified |
| Available water capacity (0-40in) |
6.3 in |
| Calcium carbonate equivalent (0-40in) |
10 – 35% |
| Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-40in) |
8.6 – 8.8 |
| Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified) |
Not specified |
| Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified) |
Not specified |
Ecological dynamics
Please refer to group concept R030XB045CA to view the provisional STM.
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
State 1 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Current Managed State
Community 1.1
Current Managed State
Vegetation Canopy Cover: Shrubs: fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) 5-10% shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia) 5-10% desert princesplume (Stanleya pinnata) 1-3% Mojave seablite (Sueda moquinii) 1-3% Biological soil crusts: biological soil crusts 3-5% Grasses: red brome (Bromus rubens) 0-1% Mediterranean grass (Schismus spp.) 0-1% Forbs: mustard (Brassica spp.) 0-1%
Figure 1. Annual production by plant type (representative values) or group (midpoint values)
Table 4. Annual production by plant type
| Plant type | Low (lb/acre) |
Representative value (lb/acre) |
High (lb/acre) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shrub/Vine | 80 | 130 | 200 |
| Grass/Grasslike | 2 | 4 | 10 |
| Forb | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| Microbiotic Crusts | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| Total | 84 | 138 | 220 |
Table 5. Ground cover
| Tree foliar cover | 0% |
|---|---|
| Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover | 10-15% |
| Grass/grasslike foliar cover | 1-2% |
| Forb foliar cover | 1-2% |
| Non-vascular plants | 0% |
| Biological crusts | 1-5% |
| Litter | 10-15% |
| Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" | 1-2% |
| Surface fragments >3" | 0% |
| Bedrock | 0% |
| Water | 0% |
| Bare ground | 70-80% |
Table 6. Canopy structure (% cover)
| Height Above Ground (ft) | Tree | Shrub/Vine | Grass/ Grasslike |
Forb |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| <0.5 | – | 0-1% | 1-2% | 1-2% |
| >0.5 <= 1 | – | 1-2% | – | – |
| >1 <= 2 | – | 10-15% | – | – |
| >2 <= 4.5 | – | – | – | – |
| >4.5 <= 13 | – | – | – | – |
| >13 <= 40 | – | – | – | – |
| >40 <= 80 | – | – | – | – |
| >80 <= 120 | – | – | – | – |
| >120 | – | – | – | – |
Additional community tables
Table 7. Community 1.1 plant community composition
| Group | Common name | Symbol | Scientific name | Annual production (lb/acre) | Foliar cover (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Shrub/Vine
|
||||||
| 1 | Shrubs | 80–200 | ||||
| fourwing saltbush | ATCA2 | Atriplex canescens | 35–75 | – | ||
| shadscale saltbush | ATCO | Atriplex confertifolia | 35–75 | – | ||
| desert princesplume | STPI | Stanleya pinnata | 5–25 | – | ||
| Mojave seablite | SUMO | Suaeda moquinii | 5–25 | – | ||
|
Grass/Grasslike
|
||||||
| 2 | Grasses | 2–10 | ||||
| red brome | BRRU2 | Bromus rubens | 1–5 | – | ||
| Mediterranean grass | SCHIS | Schismus | 1–5 | – | ||
|
Forb
|
||||||
| 3 | Forbs | 1–5 | ||||
| mustard | BRASS2 | Brassica | 1–5 | – | ||
|
Microbiotic Crusts
|
||||||
| 4 | Biological soil crusts | 1–5 | ||||
| Lichen, crustose | 2LC | Lichen, crustose | 1–5 | – | ||
Interpretations
Supporting information
Contributors
Allison Tokunaga
Approval
Sarah Quistberg, 2/24/2025
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 | 02/25/2025 |
| Approved by | Sarah Quistberg |
| 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:
Print Options
Sections
Font
Other
The Ecosystem Dynamics Interpretive Tool is an information system framework developed by the USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, and New Mexico State University.
Click on box and path labels to scroll to the respective text.