Hubbry Logo
Mima moundsMima moundsMain
Open search
Mima mounds
Community hub
Mima mounds
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Mima mounds
Mima mounds
Mima mounds
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Mima mounds in Washington State

Mima mounds /ˈmaɪmə/ are low, flattened, circular to oval, domelike, natural mounds that are composed of loose, unstratified, often gravelly sediment that is an overthickened A horizon. These mounds range in diameter from 3 m (9.8 ft) to more than 50 m (160 ft); in height 30 cm (12 in) to greater than 2 m (6.6 ft); and in concentration from several to greater than 50 mounds per hectare, at times forming conspicuous natural patterns. Mima mounds can be seen at the Mima Mounds Natural Area Preserve in Washington state.

"Mima" is a name derived from a Chinook Jargon term meaning "a little further along"[1] or "downstream".[2]

Theories for the origin of Mima mounds include burrowing by pocket gophers; accumulation of wind-blown (aeolian) sediments around vegetation to form coppice dunes or nebkhas; seismic ground shaking by major earthquakes, though none have been observed to form Mima mounds; and shrinking and swelling of clays in hog-wallow or gilgai landforms.

Though the definitive Mima mounds are common in North America, it has not been shown that all North American mounds result from the same causes. Superficially similar phenomena occur on all continents, and the proposed causal factors do not occur in all regions that have been studied.[3] Nor is it clear that all such mounds really are the same, either physically or functionally; for example, the so-called fairy circles of Southern Africa tend to be less mound-like and occur in different climatic and ecological conditions from Mima mounds.[4] Furthermore, it has been argued that the possibly distinct heuweltjies of the South Western Cape region of South Africa are of an origin far different from either.[5]

Distribution

[edit]
Panorama of Mima mounds in Thurston County

Pacific Northwest and southern Cascadia

[edit]

Within the northwestern United States, Mima mounds typically are part of what is commonly known as hog-wallow landscape. This type of landscape typically has a shallow basement layer such as bedrock, hardpan, claypan, or densely bedded gravel.[6][7][8][9]

In the northwestern United States, Mima mounds also occur within landscapes where a permanent water table impedes drainage, creating waterlogged soil conditions for prolonged periods. Mima mounds are named after the Mima Prairie in Thurston County, Washington.[6][7][8][9]

They also are found in south central Oregon, and in western and north central California, where they are typically known as "hogwallow mounds". Within this strip they are often a part of the landscape local to vernal pools.[7]

Southwestern U.S. and northwestern Mexico

[edit]

Mima mounds are found in northwest Baja California and adjacent San Diego County, where again they are an integral part of vernal pools' landscape.[7]

Mima mounds occur outside the western coastal North America in three major regions between the Cascade Range, the Sierra Nevada, and the Sierra de Juárez in the west, and the Mississippi River in the east. As described by Cox[6] and by Washburn,[9] these are:

  • Mima mounds are found in a roughly north–south strip of the Great Plains containing parts of north central New Mexico, and central Colorado, and central Wyoming, where they are typically called "prairie mounds".[6][9]
  • Mima mounds are found in an area containing parts of east Texas, western Louisiana, southeast Oklahoma, southern Missouri, and most of Arkansas where they are commonly known as either "pimple mounds" or "prairie mounds".[6][9]
  • Isolated patches of Mima mounds also are found in Iowa, eastern North Dakota, and northwest Minnesota.[6][9]

Within Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas, pimple mounds, also called locally "prairie mounds" and "natural mounds", consist of low, flattened, circular to oval, domelike, mounds composed of loose, sandy loam or loamy sand. Typically, these mounds consist entirely of a thickened loamy and sandy A and E horizons lying either on a more or less flat or slightly, but noticeably depressed, clay laden B horizon. Pimple mounds range in diameter from 6 m (20 ft) to more than 45 m (148 ft); in height 30 cm (12 in) to greater than 1.2 m (3.9 ft); and in density from several to greater than 425 mounds per hectare.[6][9]

Unlike the Mima mounds of Oregon and Washington, "pimple mounds" are not limited to the relatively flat and poorly drained surfaces, i.e. late Pleistocene coastal and fluvial terraces: They also occur in abundance of the slopes, summits and crests of hills created by the deep erosion and dissection of unconsolidated and unlithified early Pleistocene and middle Pleistocene, Pliocene, and older coastal plain sediments. In rare cases, pimple mounds that occur on these hillslopes are elongated in the upslope-downslope direction.[10][11][12][13]

Structure

[edit]

Excavations made into the Washington mounds show that underneath a blanket of prairie grass lies a mixture of loose sand, fine gravel, and decayed plants. Not all mima mound features have the same structure though. One mound in Washington had a very complex soil profile: A horizon is a black sandy loam (due to charcoal content from aboriginal burning on the prairies), B horizon is a gravelly sandy loam, C horizon is an extremely gravelly sand.[14]

Vernal pools

[edit]

Vernal pools are shallow surficial depressions that seasonally fill with water during winter and spring rains and dry up during dry summer months. They get their name from the recognition of the seasonality of the habitat and the springtime flora associated with them. Vernal pools form where an impermeable or very slowly permeable layer underlies small and shallow depressions and creates a perched water table. The impermeable or very slowly permeable layer typically consists of either soil horizons such as duripans or claypans or bedrock in the form of volcanic mud or lava flows.[15][16][17]

Within California, vernal pools are quite commonly associated with Mima Mounds. These Mima Mounds are typically located on stable landforms that are greater than 100,000 years old. These landforms are characterized by strongly developed soils that usually have a relatively impermeable layer (claypan or silcrete duripan) in the subsoil. This impermeable layer locally impedes drainage and creates perched water levels and causes the formation of vernal pools within the intermound depressions that are associated with Mima Mounds. Vernal pools are typically small, shallow, and complex ephemeral wetlands that only have internal drainage because they are hydrologically isolated from perennial inflow by a ring of Mima Mounds. Although the ponded water that fills vernal pools comes and goes throughout the year, it is present at least for a short time in most years.[15][16][18]

Within California, however, the mound-depression microrelief associated with Mima Mounds is just one of a variety of geographic settings within which vernal pools occur. For example, in the Modoc Plateau region of California, numerous vernal pools are found on the surface of volcanic mudflows and basalt lava flows where Mima Mounds are completely absent.[19]

Theories

[edit]
DNR sign at Mima Mounds Natural Area Preserve near Olympia

Pocket gophers

[edit]

One theory on the origin of Mima mounds is that they were created by small burrowing rodents such as pocket gophers (Thomomys talpoides) of the endemic North American family Geomyidae. Researchers in the 1940s found that Mima mounds tend to form in areas with poorly draining soils, so the "Fossorial Rodent Hypothesis" proposed that gophers build mounds as an evolutionary response to low water tables.[20] It could be argued that gophers live in the mounds opportunistically but did not build them. Metal tracers implanted in a Mima mound field in San Diego demonstrated that gophers unexpectedly pushed soil upwards towards the center of the mounds instead of pushing the soil downward.[21]

This uphill soil transport contrasts with the typical gopher behavior of pushing soil downhill, but can be overridden when soil is saturated. Consequently, gophers in mima mound fields seem to be aware of randomly distributed topographic highs and orient their burrowing accordingly in early mound creation stages. However, the mounds were already fully formed and the gophers may have just been maintaining them. Nevertheless, the fact that the surface area of a typical Mima mound is similar to the size of an individual gopher's home range is consistent with the theory they were constructed by the rodents.[22]

Results from the tracer study were incorporated into a numerical model that simulated the burrowing behavior of gophers. The advantage of modelling in this case is that[22]

(1) an initially flat surface can be specified, and
(2) time can be sped up.

In the computer simulations, mounds naturally emerged from randomly distributed topographic highs, and reached topographic steady state after several centuries of gopher activity, which could explain why nobody has ever witnessed the growth of one. Once the mound field reaches topographic maturity, the mounds feature more uniform spacing and hexagonal tessellation. Results indicated that formation of these mound fields are largely contributed by positive feedback loops which amplify small features to create large scale patterns, a common facet of self-organization. The slow modeled mound growth rates and their spatial distribution agreed with field observations.[22]

Although occupation of mounds by gophers does not by itself prove that gophers built the mounds since they could be living there opportunistically, to date, this is the strongest evidence for the origin of these enigmatic features.[22] Moreover, the results from the computer model are supported by radiocarbon ages of organic material taken at regular intervals down through the middle of a typical mound in the Mima Mounds Natural Area Preserve (Washington state).[23] These ages confirm that the mounds grow slowly through the accumulation of material, at the rate of about 2.6 cm/yr.

These are radiocarbon ages of organic material recovered down through a typical Mima Mound in the Mima Mound Natural Area Preserve, in Washington. These ages show that the mound began forming about 4600 years ago and grew gradually over time. These results, coupled with the computer model, strongly support the theory that gophers built the mounds.

The publication of this modelling study received attention from the international press.[3]

Aeolian origin

[edit]

Another major theory concerning the origin of pimple and prairie mounds argues that they are either coppice dunes or nebkhas formed by the accumulation of wind-blown sediments around clumps of vegetation. For example, based on grain-size data of and optically stimulated luminescence ages obtained from pimple mounds in the south-central United States, Seifert and others[24] concluded that these mounds consisted of wind blown sediments that accumulated during prolonged late Holocene droughts. They suggest that although they superficially resemble the mima mounds of the northwestern United States, the pimple mounds of south-Central United States have a greatly different origin from them.

Seismic activity

[edit]

Andrew Berg, a geologist with the U.S. Bureau of Mines in Spokane, proposed that Mima and pimple mounds were the result of very intense ground shaking resulting from major earthquakes.[25] He formulated this hypothesis while building a dog house.[26] As he hammered together sheets of plywood coated with volcanic ash, he noticed that the hammering vibrations caused the ash to heap into small mounds that looked a lot like miniature Mima mounds. From that observation, Berg hypothesized that vibrations from violent earthquakes could have formed the Mima mounds, like vibrations that cause mounds on Chladni plates. According to Berg, the soil on the Mima Prairie is like volcanic ash, and the layer of rock below that is like a plank of wood. When seismic waves move through the hard ground and bump into faults, or large fractures in the ground, the waves bounce backward. Those ricocheted waves collide with other seismic waves from the quake, and between the collision points, the soil rises and forms mounds. Berg claims that Mima mounds occur only in seismically active areas—areas where the ground is unstable and many earthquakes occur. The area where the Washington Mima mounds are found experienced a major earthquake about 1,000 years ago.

However, since this hypothesis has been proposed, there have been many large earthquakes throughout the world and none have been reported to have formed Mima mounds. In addition, Mima mounds have been gradually growing on the Carrizo Plain (California) since the 1980s when plowing of the fields was halted. These mounds have been forming in the absence of any large earthquakes.[22] Furthermore, Berg's experiments were done using dry cohesionless sediment; when these experiments are attempted with moist sediment (i.e., similar to real soils), mounds do not form. Finally, radiocarbon ages of organic material taken at regular intervals down through the middle of a typical mound in the Mima Mounds Natural Area Preserve (Washington) showed that the mound formed gradually over time, at the rate of about 2.6 cm/yr[23] and, thus, could not have formed during a single event, like an earthquake. Therefore, there is no realistic experimental evidence or geological evidence supporting the 'earthquake' hypothesis.

Shrinking and swelling of clays

[edit]

When clay is exposed to large amounts of water, the water collects between the clay minerals (which are flat planes). Due to the shape of the minerals, the water travels in between the compacted layer, thus "swelling" the clay-bed into mound-like features. Silts are also related with this geomorphologic feature; however, silt is coarser-grained sediment so the minerals do not "hold" water in the same way. Silt is more penetrable than clay is.[27] Shrink/swell soils are most often related to landforms called "hog wallows" or "gilgai" that can look similar to mima mounds.

Glaciers

[edit]

Regina Johnson, with the Washington Department of Natural Resources (which oversees the Mima Mounds Natural Area Preserve), claimed that the mounds were formed by glacial processes.[28] However, radiocarbon ages of organic material taken at regular intervals down through the middle of a typical mound in the Mima Mounds Natural Area Preserve (Washington) showed that the mound began forming approximately 4600 years ago, long after the retreat of the glaciers.[23] In addition, the ages demonstrated that the mound grew gradually over time through the accumulation of material, which supports the gopher hypothesis.

Nature paper

[edit]

In 2017, Corina Tarnita and several of her colleagues published a paper in Nature which explained these and other related self-organised vegetation patterns by means of a general theory which integrates scale-dependent feedbacks and the activities of subterranean ecosystem engineers such as termites, ants, and rodents.[29]

Washington

[edit]

The phenomenon can be seen at the Mima Mounds Natural Area Preserve, a designated National Natural Landmark near Capitol State Forest in Thurston County, Washington. Mima mounds are also present at the Scatter Creek Unit and Rocky Prairie, located in southern Thurston County, Washington.

Panorama of Mima mounds near Olympia, Washington

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Mima mounds

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Mima mounds are low, dome-shaped hills, typically up to 2 meters high and 12 meters in diameter, composed of overlying coarse-bedded gravels, that occur in dense clusters on proglacial terraces in the Puget Lowland of state. These elliptical to circular features, elongated parallel to slopes, are best known in landscapes south of Olympia but similar mound complexes—often termed Mima-like or desert mounds—appear globally in regions including the American Midwest, , South Africa, and . First documented scientifically in the early , the mounds have puzzled researchers due to their uniform spacing and abrupt boundaries with surrounding flat terrain, prompting over a century of investigation into their formation. The prevailing explanation for their origin is the fossorial rodent hypothesis, which posits that pocket gophers (Thomomys mazama) build the mounds through intensive burrowing in response to seasonally waterlogged soils, creating refuges that promote and concentrate further activity. This biotic process, first proposed in based on field observations of gopher behavior and mound , involves rodents excavating shallow pits in underlying , mixing finer sediments into raised lenses, and exposing larger stones on surfaces over extended periods. Numerical modeling studies have since validated this theory, demonstrating that gopher burrowing can generate self-organized mound patterns and vernal pools in 500–700 years, matching observed field distributions without invoking abiotic forces alone. Alternative hypotheses have included glacial "sun cup" melting from retreating ice sheets, wind-driven aeolian deposition anchored by vegetation, and seismic of sediments during earthquakes, though these lack the empirical support and of the model. Mima mounds play key ecological roles today, supporting unique habitats for endemic plants and amid ongoing threats from and in the .

Description and Characteristics

Physical Structure

Mima mounds are low, flattened, circular to oval, dome-like natural hills formed by the accumulation of soil and . They typically measure 2.5 to 21 meters in and rise 0.5 to 2 meters in height, though some reach up to 2.4 meters at sites like Mima Prairie in Washington. Their overall morphology often resembles a biconvex lens, with occasional elliptical shapes aligned parallel to drainage patterns on slopes. Mound volumes reach up to approximately 38 cubic meters. The mounds consist primarily of loose, unstratified, gravelly sandy derived from glacial or outwash deposits, such as the Vashon outwash in the . Internally, they exhibit distinct horizons: a dark, organic-rich A horizon (often black, 10 YR 2/1, up to 76 cm thick) overlying a coarser C horizon, with the A horizon comprising approximately 56% , 23% , 16% , and 5% clay, while the C horizon has higher content at 74%. This layering shows an angular unconformity with underlying bedded outwash, and mounds may include rounded pebbles, cobbles up to 9 cm, and occasional boulders up to 35 cm in diameter concentrated toward the crests. In some regions, such as Manastash Ridge, the is a homogeneous with low clay (5-10%) over , featuring a mollic epipedon 18-31.5 cm thick. Surfaces of Mima mounds are typically covered by a dense turf of grasses, mosses, and lichens, which provides protection against erosion and maintains a treeless appearance in pristine areas, though shrubs and trees may encroach in disturbed sites. Erosion patterns are minimal due to this vegetative cover, but low mounds under 30 cm may represent remnants of larger forms. Mounds occur in extensive fields with regular, over-dispersed spacing of 10 to 30 meters between centers, often forming hexagonal or curvilinear patterns that reflect underlying topography, at densities of 20 to 25 mounds per hectare. Intermound areas frequently contain vernal pools or shallow depressions.

Associated Ecological Features

Mima mounds support the formation of vernal pools in the shallow depressions between mounds, creating seasonal wetlands that fill with rainwater during the and dry out in summer. These ephemeral pools are integral to the local , as the mound promotes retention in low-lying areas, fostering unique microhabitats that differ from the surrounding uplands. The of these ecosystems is notable, with s harboring specialized and adapted to the wet-dry cycles. Rare species such as (bigleaf lupine) thrive in the mound-interspersed grasslands, contributing to the floral diversity alongside grasses like Festuca idahoensis and forbs. includes amphibians dependent on pool cycles for breeding, such as the northwestern (Ambystoma gracile), which utilizes the temporary wetlands, as well as endemic s and insects unique to these habitats—over 100 plant and animal species in landscapes alone exhibit high , with approximately 50% of regional species restricted to them. Underlying the mounds and pools are impermeable clay layers or hardpans that create perched water tables, preventing deep drainage and sustaining the ephemeral nature of the wetlands even on otherwise permeable s. This hydrological regime results in distinct soil profiles, with higher accumulation in mound tops (up to 24% in A horizons) compared to intermound areas, supporting varied microbial activity. The mound topography influences interactions with surrounding prairie grasslands by altering drainage patterns and facilitating nutrient cycling; bioturbation from burrowing animals like pocket gophers mixes soils, concentrating nutrients on mounds and enhancing overall ecosystem productivity in the grasslands. This dynamic supports a mosaic of habitats where mounds act as nutrient hotspots amid the broader prairie matrix.

Geographic Distribution

Pacific Northwest and Adjacent Regions

Mima mounds are primarily concentrated in the southern Puget Lowland of Washington state, particularly within Thurston County, where they characterize several prairie remnants such as Mima Prairie, Rocky Prairie, and areas within Capitol State Forest near Capitol Peak. These landforms occur on the outwash deposits from the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, which reached its maximum extent approximately 14,000 years ago and left behind gravelly sandy loam soils that form the substrate for the mounds. The mounds in these sites typically exhibit densities of 20 to 25 per hectare, contributing to a distinctive undulating topography across the landscape. Historically, Mima mounds covered an estimated 30,000 acres (about 12,140 hectares) in the southern Puget Lowland, encompassing roughly 900,000 individual mounds before significant portions were altered by , development, and forest regrowth. Today, these represent fragmented remnants influenced by post-glacial drainage patterns, where impeded water flow on the outwash plains has preserved open grasslands amid encroaching coniferous forests. The environmental context features a with cool, dry summers and mild, wet winters, which supports unique prairie ecosystems on these geologically distinct surfaces. Beyond Washington, similar mound features extend into southern Cascadia, notably in the prairies of south-central , where they share comparable soil and topographic characteristics with their northern counterparts. Reports also indicate Mima-like mounds in adjacent regions, including the of , aligning with the broader distribution of such microrelief across post-glacial landscapes in the .

Broader North American Occurrences

Mima-like mounds occur in the , including prairies such as those in County and the National Monument in San Luis Obispo County, where they form smaller, less dense clusters integrated into ecosystems. In , these features are known as pimple mounds, particularly in the coastal prairies and Gulf Coast regions, exhibiting similar low-relief, circular to oval shapes but often associated with relict dune formations from late droughts. Extending into northwestern , analogous mounds appear in , especially in landscapes near the fringes of the , where they support interstitial wetlands and exhibit subdued topography compared to northern examples. In the central and , Mima-type mounds are documented in Missouri's Diamond Grove Prairie Natural Area, where they rise to an average height of 45 cm and span about 14 m in , with densities of roughly 7.6 per on gravelly, residual soils derived from cherty . Similar formations, often termed prairie or pimple mounds, dot landscapes in Oklahoma's eastern counties like and Le Flore, as well as throughout , typically on , alluvial, or karst-influenced substrates that promote localized soil thickening through bioturbation and erosion. These eastern and central variants generally feature smaller dimensions, ranging from 5 to 20 m in , contrasting with the larger, more organized arrays in the while sharing core structural similarities such as gravelly, bioturbated profiles. Further broadening their North American scope, Mima-like mounds appear in the of and northern , where they cluster on windblown () and alluvial deposits amid the region's basaltic terrain. A 2025 LiDAR analysis by researchers quantified mound distributions in areas like the Rock Creek Recreation Area near Sprague, Washington, revealing extensive clustering patterns and supporting ongoing investigations into their geomorphic evolution on these substrates.

Formation Theories

Biological Mechanisms

The primary biological mechanism proposed for the formation of Mima mounds involves the burrowing activity of pocket gophers, particularly Thomomys mazama, which preferentially excavate and deposit in loamy, well-drained substrates over extended periods. According to this hypothesis, first detailed by Dalquest and Scheffer in 1942, gophers construct tunnels in response to seasonally saturated s, pushing excavated material uphill and toward mound centers due to behavioral preferences for drier, elevated areas, resulting in gradual mound accumulation through repeated deposition spanning millennia. Field observations by Dalquest and Scheffer showed that gopher burrowing patterns closely mimic the spatial arrangement and soil profiles observed in Mima mounds, with active colonies producing similar small-scale heaps that coalesce over time. Supporting evidence includes subfossil beetle remains from burrows in mound sediments, indicating historical occupancy by such as Thomomys mazama, as well as modern observations of colonies concentrated along mound edges where they continue to maintain and modify structures by translocating soil inward. Numerical simulations further corroborate the theory, showing that realistic behaviors—such as uphill soil pushing and territorial burrowing—can generate mound-like features approximately 2 meters high within 500 to 700 years under prehistoric population conditions, involving successive generations of hundreds of individuals per site. Alternative biological explanations, such as mound construction by or , have been suggested for similar "pimple mounds" in regions like , where insect colonies excavate and heap soil in arid environments, but these mechanisms lack substantial evidence for classical Mima mounds in the , where activity aligns more closely with observed sediment characteristics. Critiques of the pocket gopher hypothesis often highlight a perceived mismatch in scale, noting that modern gopher mounds are typically small (under 0.5 meters) compared to Mima mounds reaching 2 meters, raising questions about feasibility with current population densities. However, computational models addressing prehistoric higher densities and long-term cumulative effects demonstrate that such discrepancies are resolvable, with s capable of transforming landscapes over thousands of years through persistent bioturbation.

Geological and Climatic Processes

One prominent abiotic explanation for the formation of Mima mounds involves , where post-glacial winds transported and sorted sand and gravel over uneven terrain, leading to dune-like accumulations that were later stabilized by . This posits that vegetation patches acted as anchors, trapping wind-blown sediments to create mound structures, with evidence drawn from particle size gradients showing finer materials on mound tops and coarser ones in surrounding areas. Proposed in early 20th-century studies and refined in later analyses, the aeolian model remains viable for explaining mound distribution in wind-exposed prairies, though it struggles to account for the regular spacing observed in many sites. Seismic activity represents another key geological process invoked for mound genesis, particularly through during earthquakes, where saturated, unconsolidated sediments are shaken into dome-shaped heaps. Andrew Berg's 1990 seismic hypothesis suggests that vibrational shock waves from earthquakes, propagating through loose fine-grained soils overlying a rigid substratum, concentrate material into mounds 2.5 to 15 meters in diameter and up to 3 meters high, as demonstrated by simulations producing nearly identical forms. This mechanism has been proposed especially for sites in near active faults, such as those in North County, where features and sand-rich dome structures align with paleoseismic evidence from earthquakes. However, the hypothesis faces challenges in explaining mounds in seismically stable regions or on non-liquefiable substrates. Early glacial theories, including subglacial pressure, ice-rafted debris, and differential melting of ice lenses, were among the first proposed for Mima mound origins but have largely been discredited due to the absence of correlative glacial or erratic deposits in mound substrates. For instance, J Harlen Bretz's 1913 idea of sediment accumulation in snow or ice pits (suncups) and R.C. Newcomb's frost polygon model—where melting ice in frozen cracks left gaps—failed to match field and have been rejected by modern geologists. A related 19th-century linked mounds to catastrophic glacial outburst floods, such as a proposed event 17,000 years ago from , but sediment analyses show mismatches with expected flood deposits. A 2024 review notes over 30 distinct theories for Mima mound formation, encompassing these and other abiotic processes, yet none has achieved universal acceptance due to site-specific variations and conflicting evidence.

Research and Investigations

Historical Studies

The Mima mounds were first documented by European explorers and settlers in during the 1840s, with early accounts appearing in journals from expeditions traversing the Puget Lowland prairies. In April 1840, Sir James Douglas of the noted the distinctive rounded hillocks during travels near the Nisqually River, describing them as unusual features amid the grassland landscape. Initial interpretations by these settlers attributed the mounds to human activity, specifically Native American construction, such as burial sites or defensive earthworks, though this view was later disproven through geological examinations revealing sedimentary patterns inconsistent with anthropogenic origins. By the late , preliminary geological surveys in the region, including those by U.S. Geological Survey personnel like Bailey Willis during his mapping of glacial deposits around Mima Prairie, began shifting focus toward processes, though definitive explanations remained elusive. Early 20th-century investigations laid foundational observations, including distribution surveys in that mapped mound fields across Washington prairies such as those near Olympia and Tenino. These efforts, conducted by local naturalists and geologists, estimated over 100,000 individual mounds in pre-settlement prairie ecosystems, highlighting their dense clustering—typically 10 to 30 per acre—and association with glacial outwash soils. A pivotal advancement came in 1942 with the publication by Walter W. Dalquest and Victor B. Scheffer in The Journal of Geology, which proposed a biological origin through pocket gopher (Thomomys spp.) . Their seminal study involved excavation experiments on active mound sites, burrow mapping to trace displacement patterns, and analysis of internal mound sediments showing layered gopher tunnels filled with prairie soil, suggesting gradual mound buildup over centuries as gophers sought elevated, well-drained positions above seasonal water tables. Mid-20th-century debates intensified through U.S. Geological Survey reports from the and , which rigorously tested competing geological mechanisms against the emerging biological . R. C. Newcomb's 1952 analysis in The Journal of Geology, based on USGS fieldwork in Thurston County, critiqued the gopher for internal inconsistencies and advocated for a geological origin involving differential of glacial sediments, with trench digs revealing patterns more consistent with undisturbed glacial deposits than bioturbation. These investigations, including coring and topographic surveys, highlighted field supporting geological processes over biological ones at the time. By the , such studies had established a timeline of mound development tied to post-glacial stabilization, influencing later extensions into ecological modeling.

Modern Analyses and Debates

In the and , studies on Mima mounds emphasized grain-size distribution and content, revealing patterns consistent with post-glacial development, while of mound organics yielded ages up to approximately 4,180 years BP at depth, though the features themselves correlate with around 13,000–14,000 years BP following the retreat of the Vashon . These analyses, including work by Cox and Gakahu (1984) on volume displacement in analogous mound systems, supported bioturbation as a key process but highlighted the need for further chronological refinement due to organic mixing in the profiles. Studies of pocket gopher populations (Thomomys spp.) in mound fields during the and examined burrowing behaviors and indicated stable densities that could sustain long-term soil turnover without overexploitation of resources, bolstering the biotic model through numerical simulations. A 2024 synthesis in underscored the persistence of over 30 theories for mound formation, noting that the pocket gopher model has gained significant traction through computational simulations demonstrating mound development over centuries, yet seismic hypotheses remain viable particularly for arid-region analogs where biological agents are scarce. This review highlighted the polygenetic nature of mounds, integrating from multiple disciplines without resolving the debate. In 2025, a survey by mapped over 5,000 mound-like features across the , employing digital elevation models to analyze sorting patterns in sediment distribution and elevation variability. Preliminary findings from this geospatial analysis, including a May 2025 comparative study of eastern and western Washington mounds, suggest a hybrid bio-geological formation process, where biological activity amplifies initial geological sorting from post-glacial floods. As of October 2025, syntheses in media outlets continued to emphasize the gopher hypothesis while noting unresolved aspects of mound evolution. Current debates center on integrating effects, such as increased from altered patterns, into mound models, with researchers advocating for interdisciplinary approaches that combine GIS mapping, ecological monitoring, and predictive simulations to assess long-term stability. These discussions emphasize the urgency of such models amid observed vegetation shifts and soil degradation in remnants.

Conservation and Ecological Significance

Protected Sites and Management

The Mima Mounds Natural Area Preserve in , established in 1976, spans 756 acres (306 hectares) and serves as a primary protected site for these landforms, encompassing grassland-covered mounds, oak woodlands, and forests. Managed by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WA DNR), the preserve focuses on prairie restoration through habitat enhancement and native species propagation to counteract historical losses. Similar protections exist in the region of , where Mima-like mounds occur on public lands. Mima-like mounds also appear in the in , administered by the U.S. (BLM), emphasizing preservation of arid grassland ecosystems. Management strategies at these sites address key threats including encroachment and habitat degradation from succession. Efforts include targeted removal of invasives such as Scotch broom () and non-native grasses, which outcompete native . Prescribed burns, conducted periodically by WA DNR, mimic historical fire regimes to maintain open grasslands and reduce woody overgrowth, typically lasting 30 minutes to minimize impact. Trail systems, featuring a 0.5-mile paved ADA-accessible loop and additional gravel paths, direct visitor traffic to prevent and on the fragile mounds. Mima mounds are recognized as globally rare landforms, with associated ecosystems ranked as critically imperiled (S1) in Washington under NatureServe assessments due to extensive historical conversion and ongoing fragmentation. In Washington, these grasslands hold state ranks of S1 (critically imperiled), reflecting fewer than six viable occurrences and over 90% habitat loss. Federal involvement through the BLM supports management of mound sites in the southwestern U.S., including monitoring and restoration on public lands to protect against development and grazing pressures. The preserve reopened to the public on October 6, 2025, following maintenance, with interpretive signage highlighting the mounds' geological fragility and susceptibility to disturbance to enhance visitor education. Broader climate monitoring programs by WA DNR track changes from rising temperatures and altered patterns, informing general strategies.

Biodiversity and Environmental Role

Mima mounds provide critical for a diverse array of species, supporting over 160 native vascular documented across South prairies, including those on mound landscapes. This topographic heterogeneity fosters varied microclimates, enabling distinct vegetation patterns such as denser grass cover on mound tops and wetter conditions in intervening swales, which enhance overall . Endangered , notably the Taylor's checkerspot (Euphydryas editha taylori), rely on these habitats for larval host like harsh paintbrush (Castilleja hispida) and meadow checkermallow (Sidalcea campestris), with mound prairies serving as key refugia amid . In 2025, recovery efforts included the release of over 1,200 post-diapause larvae into South prairie sites to bolster populations. The vernal pools embedded within Mima mound complexes play a vital hydrological role in ecosystems, capturing seasonal rainfall to facilitate through slow infiltration into underlying glacial outwash soils. These pools also contribute to flood mitigation by temporarily storing excess from winter storms, reducing downstream runoff and in the flat, low-permeability landscapes of the Puget Lowlands. Mound soils accumulate and store significant organic carbon, including remnants from post-glacial deposits dating back over 14,000 years, with bulk reaching approximately 20% in some profiles. This , estimated at 50–100 tons per in comparable soils, bolsters resilience against by maintaining and moisture retention. These ecological functions face severe threats from historical and ongoing environmental changes. Agricultural conversion has led to approximately 90% loss of native South Puget Sound prairies since the mid-19th century, exacerbating on exposed mounds and degrading habitat connectivity. Additionally, projected sea-level rise of 0.6 meters by 2100 in the endangers low-elevation mound sites through increased salinity intrusion and inundation, potentially altering hydrology and species composition.

References

  1. https://www.geosociety.org/GSA/GSA/GSAToday/groundwork/G493GW/article.aspx
  2. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/625026
  3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2013.09.018
  4. https://dnr.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/ger_ri29_mima_mounds.pdf
  5. https://www.cwu.edu/academics/geography/_documents/myers-2019-the-age-and-origin-of-soil-mounds-on-manastash-ridge-final.pdf
  6. https://www.colorado.edu/lab/barger/sites/default/files/attached-files/cramer_mima_mounds.pdf
  7. https://wpg.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/A.Mima-mounds_GSASpecialPapers2012Johnson_0.pdf
  8. https://www.thurstoncountywa.gov/media/8909
  9. https://www.csuchico.edu/herbarium/_assets/documents/sfth14-04-reed-amundson.pdf
  10. https://faculty.washington.edu/kucher/mima/
  11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1939120
  12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033589409000040
  13. https://www.csuchico.edu/herbarium/_assets/documents/sfth18-13-guilliams-etal.pdf
  14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169555X06000195
  15. https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2002/08/19/mima-mounds-mystery-in-eastern-part-of-state/62083355007/
  16. https://archeology.uark.edu/features/prairie-mounds/
  17. https://dc.ewu.edu/srcw_2025/works_2025/works_2025/19/
  18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589497918913
  19. https://www.science.org/content/article/mima-mound-mystery-solved
  20. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/mima-mounds-mystery
  21. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article/18/3/281/205061/Formation-of-Mima-mounds-A-seismic-hypothesis
  22. https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1504/report.pdf
  23. https://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/ger_ri29_mima_mounds.pdf
  24. https://dnr.wa.gov/publications/amp_mima_mounds_mistery.pdf
  25. https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/ger_b8_glaciation_pugetsound.pdf
  26. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70171409
  27. https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/groundwork/G493GW/GSATG493GW.pdf
  28. https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article-pdf/65/1/117/3073023/65-1-117.pdf
  29. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260043947_Biotic_origin_for_Mima_mounds_supported_by_numerical_modeling
  30. https://dc.ewu.edu/srcw_2025/ps_2025/p1_2025/39/
  31. https://www.cascadepbs.org/mossbacks-northwest-2/2025/10/mossbacks-northwest-the-mystery-of-the-mima-mounds/
  32. https://dnr.wa.gov/natural-areas/natural-area-preserves/mima-mounds-natural-area-preserve
  33. https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Library_Idaho_TechnicalBulletin2001-11.pdf
  34. https://www.wta.org/go-hiking/hikes/mima-mounds
  35. https://www.baldhiker.com/mima-mounds-natural-area-preserve-trail/
  36. https://dnr.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2025-03/amp_nh_conservation_status.pdf
  37. https://dnr.wa.gov/natural-heritage-program/nhp-climate-change
  38. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1936436
  39. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/10/11/2012-24465/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and-plants-listing-taylors-checkerspot-butterfly-and-streaked
  40. https://sustainabilityinprisons.org/blog/2025/04/10/taylors-checkerspot-post-diapause-release-2025/
  41. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2230&context=geo_facpub
  42. https://www.sfei.org/sites/default/files/biblio_files/SolanoScienceAdvisorsReport.pdf
  43. https://collections.evergreen.edu/files/original/b8075ccdc18bc70ba47d1f4bd1a96119790d7e3f.pdf
  44. https://www.fws.gov/project/conservation-prairies-western-washington
  45. https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-work/united-states/washington/stories-in-washington/studying-sea-level-rise-at-port-susan-bay/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.