Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F124XY101OH
Urbanland (reserved)
Last updated: 9/26/2024
Accessed: 08/31/2026
-
Search
Major Land Resource Area or ecological site by name and/or ID.
PreviousSectionsNextGeneral 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.
MLRA notes
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 124X–Western Allegheny Plateau
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 124—Western Allegheny Plateau (USDA-NRCS, 2006)
MLRA 124, Western Allegheny Plateau extends from and includes western PA just north of Pittsburgh through southeastern OH to and includes northeastern KY. This area is primarily in the Kanawha Section of the Appalachian Province of the Appalachian Highlands. This MLRA is on an unglaciated dissected plateau with narrow level valley floors, rolling ridgetops, and hilly to steep slopes with dendritic stream drainages. A notable exception is the broad, Teays Valley, and other glacio-fluvial and glacio-lacustrine features attributed to nearby Pleistocene glaciation. Elevation ranges from 660 to 1310 feet (200 to 400 meters). The geology is predominantly cyclic beds of sandstone, siltstone, clay, shale and coal of Pennsylvanian age. Soils are dominated by Udalfs, Udults, and Ochcrepts with a mesic temperature regime in combination with five parent materials, residuum, colluvium, alluvium, eolian, and extra-glacial material of glacio-fluvial and glaciolacustrine mesic materials. The climate is predominately a humid continental to temperate, with 940 to 1145 millimeters (37 to 45 inches) of precipitation. Average annual temperature is 8 to 13 degree C (46 to 56 degrees F) with a freeze-free period averaging 185 days. Much of the areas is either forest or in farms, principally for hay and pasture, with fruits and vegetables grown locally. Coal and gas extraction are important industries in the northern part of the MLRA.Classification relationships
USDA-NRCS (USDA 2006):
Land Resource Region (LRR): N—East and Central Farming and Forest Region
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 124—Western Allegheny Plateau
USDA-FS (Cleland et al. 2007):
Province: 221 - Eastern Broadleaf Province
Section: 221E - Southern Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau
Subsection: 221Ea - Pittsburgh Low Plateau
221Eb - Teays Plateau
221Ee - Unglaciated Muskingam Plains
221Ef - Western Hocking Plateau
221Eg - Lower Scotio River Plateau
221En - Kinniconick and Licking Knobs
Section: 221H - North Cumberland Plateau (in Part)
Subsection: 221Hb - Kinniconick and Licking Knobs
221He - Miami - Scioto Plain - Tipton Till PlainEcological site concept
These sites consist of areas subject to urban influences, such as accelerated runoff, heat island effects, and soils derived from human-altered or human-transported (HAHT) material (e.g., coal ash, construction debris, dredged materials, and landfills) which are often coupled with weedy and untypical vegetation. As a result, urban ecological sites seem quite idiosyncratic where reference conditions do not apply. Opportunities exist to further explore an urban ecological site framework, to organize soils, vegetation, and landuse history, that is characteristic of an urban ecological context and subsequent interpretations of those findings.
Associated sites
F124XY101OH Urbanland (reserved)
Urbanland
Similar sites
F124XY101OH Urbanland (reserved)
Urbanland
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree Not specified
Shrub Not specified
Herbaceous Not specified
Physiographic features
These sites are urban settings with novel built physiography.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Runoff class Very low to very high Elevation 300 – 1300 ft Slope 1 – 30 % Water table depth 12 – 72 in Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
The regional climate of the unglaciated Western Allegheny Plateau is predominately a humid continental climate grading at the extreme southwestern corner a to humid temperate climate with hot summers and cool winters (Beck et al., 2018; Bailey, 2014). However, the local climate is highly influenced by the dissected terrain, where climatic variations may be greater at the local scale, e.g., cooler temperatures and shorter growing season at higher elevations and more northerly latitudes. Winter precipitation is mostly snow.
Climate change is occurring, and the resiliency of any ecological site will depend upon the direct and indirect effects upon component species and shifting atmospheric and soil conditions.
Greater frequency and magnitude of storm events may increase large gap disturbances coupled with drier conditions in summer and fall may increase wildfires (Butler et al., 2015).Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 120-140 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 160-180 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 40-40 in Frost-free period (actual range) 120-150 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 150-180 days Precipitation total (actual range) 40-50 in Frost-free period (average) 130 days Freeze-free period (average) 170 days Precipitation total (average) 40 in Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 1. Monthly precipitation range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 2. Monthly minimum temperature range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 3. Monthly maximum temperature range
BarLineFigure 4. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Figure 5. Annual precipitation pattern
Figure 6 Annual average temperature pattern
Climate stations used
-
(1) PUTNEYVILLE 2 SE DAM [USC00367229], Dayton, PA
-
(2) FORD CITY 4 S DAM [USC00362942], Ford City, PA
-
(3) BUTLER 2 SW [USC00361139], Butler, PA
-
(4) DENISON WTR WKS [USC00332160], Dennison, OH
-
(5) NEW PHILADELPHIA FLD [USW00004852], New Philadelphia, OH
-
(6) MILLERSBURG [USC00335297], Millersburg, OH
-
(7) DANVILLE 2 W [USC00332044], Danville, OH
-
(8) COSHOCTON AG RSCH STN [USC00331905], Fresno, OH
-
(9) COSHOCTON WPC PLT [USC00331890], Coshocton, OH
-
(10) ZANESVILLE MUNI AP [USW00093824], Zanesville, OH
-
(11) PHILO 3 SW [USC00336600], Philo, OH
-
(12) NEW LEXINGTON 2 NW [USC00335857], New Lexington, OH
-
(13) LOGAN [USC00334672], Logan, OH
-
(14) JACKSON 3 NW [USC00334004], Jackson, OH
-
(15) WAVERLY [USC00338830], Waverly, OH
-
(16) PORTSMOUTH-SCIOTOVILLE [USC00336781], South Shore, OH
-
(17) WARNOCK2 [USC00158432], Greenup, KY
-
(18) GRAYSON 2 E [USC00153389], Grayson, KY
-
(19) OLIVE HILL 5NE [USC00156012], Olive Hill, KY
-
(20) GRAYSON 3 SW [USC00153391], Grayson, KY
-
(21) GIMLET 9N [USC00153230], Olive Hill, KY
-
(22) CAVE RUN LAKE [USC00152791], Morehead, KY
-
(23) ASHLAND [USC00150254], South Point, KY
">Influencing water features
Water features are not typically associated with this ecological site, but can be incidental.
Wetland description
N/A
Soil features
Urban soils are all derived from human-altered and human-transported (HAHT) material (e.g., coal ash, construction debris, dredged materials, landfills, etc.). A soils catena table summarizing various HAHT soils according to type of urban parent material and drainage category. Using a soils systems approach, as such, may provide further insight as to how to subdivide Urban Ecological Sites in the future.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Human-transported material
Surface texture (1) Artifactual
Depth to restrictive layer Not specified Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(Depth not specified)Not specified Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(Depth not specified)Not specified Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)Not specified Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)Not specified Ecological dynamics
The ecological dynamics of Urban Sites are problematic. Heterogeneous HAHT parent materials and the effects of the urban environment (pollution, runoff, heat island, compaction, etc.) on the chemical and physical soil properties results in complicated plant community dynamics. Urban ES, therefore, lack traditional “reference plant communities” found in native ecological sites. However, the state-and-transition model may consist of “managed” or “potential” plant communities. And as developed, "analagous" (similar function, different origin) reference conditions may be used by emulating the character of more native landscape settings. Upon further investigation, a custom model could provide an approximation of the generalized types of State-and-Transition Models found in urban settings.
State and transition model
Custom diagramStandard diagram
More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
Click on state and transition labels to scroll to the respective textState 2 submodel, plant communities
State 3 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Analog of Reference (Urban Land)Due to the manufactured nature of urban land, there is no certain reference condition. However, following reclaimation/restoration conditions analogous to native soil conditions can be made. The exact nature of the Analog to Reference needs further investigation and field studies.
Community 1.1
Chestnut Oak - (White Oak, Scarlet Oak) / Mapleleaf Viburnum - (Mountain Laurel) ForestQuercus montana - Quercus (alba, coccinea) / Viburnum acerifolium - (Kalmia latifolia) Forest (CEGL005023)
(Translated Name: Chestnut Oak - (White Oak, Scarlet Oak) / Mapleleaf Viburnum - (Mountain Laurel) Forest)
[Common Name: Appalachian Chestnut Oak - Mixed Oak Forest]
Canopy trees include chestnut oak (Quercus montana [= Quercus prinus]) and scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea), along with white oak (Quercus alba), red oak (Quercus rubra) and black oak (Quercus velutina). American chestnut (Castanea dentata) was a major component of pre-settlement vegetation. Other trees can include red maple (Acer rubrum), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa [=Carya alba]), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), occasionally to the southeast sourwood (Oxydendrum arboretum), and pitch pine (Pinus rigida), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana). The woody understory can include flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), mapleleaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium) and, more locally, mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia). Other dwarf-shrubs and vines can be black huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata), eastern teaberry (Gaultheria procumbens), cat greenbriar (Smilax glauca), roundleaf greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), Blue Ridge blueberry (Vaccinium pallidum), and deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum). The herbaceous layer includes plantain-leaved pussytoes (Antennaria plantaginifolia), rattlesnake hawkweed (Hieracium venosum), common blue wood aster (Symphyotrichum cordifolium [=Aster cordifolius]), Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica), pink lady’s-slipper (Cypripedium acaule), forked rosette-panicgrass (Dichanthelium dichotomum var. dichotomum), poverty oatgrass (Danthonia spicata), trailing arbutus (Epigaea repens), Helianthus divaricatus, woodland sunflower (Helianthus hirsutus), and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides). Reindeer lichens (Cladonia spp.) and mosses may also be present.
(Source: NatureServe 2020 [accessed April 2020], USNVC 2019 [accessed April 2020]).Community 1.2
Young Forest/woodlandTBD.
Community 1.3
Abandoned/Successional Field/Meadow(to be developed)
Pathway 1.1-1.3
Community 1.1 to 1.3disturbance, greater fire frequency
Pathway 1.2-1.3
Community 1.2 to 1.3disturbance, greater fire frequency
Pathway 1.3-1.1
Community 1.3 to 1.1vegetation development/succession
Pathway 1.3-1.2
Community 1.3 to 1.2vegetation development/succession
State 2
Semi-natural StateThe Semi-natural State would expect plant communities where ecological processes are primarily operating with some land conditioning in the past or present, e.g., managed forests, or plant communities that are an artifact of land management e.g., predominately invasive plants.
Community 2.1
Managed Forest/Woodland(to be developed)
Community 2.2
Invasive Plants(to be developed)
Pathway 2.1-2.2
Community 2.1 to 2.22.1-2.2 invasive plant establishment, vegetation development/succession
Key drivers
-
Nonnative plant species presence and/or establishment
Pathway 2.2-2.1
Community 2.2 to 2.1invasive plant management, forest management
Conservation practices
Forest Stand Improvement Invasive Plant Species Control Key drivers
-
Timber management
-
Vegetation management
State 3
Cultural StateThe Cultural State would expect the ecological site to be strongly conditioned by land management/converted to Cultivated/Pasture/Plantation.
Community 3.1
Cultivated(to be developed)
Community 3.2
Pasture(to be developed)
Community 3.3
Plantation(to be developed)
Transition T1-2
State 1 to 2forest management, fire suppression, disturbance, invasive plant establishment
Conservation practices
Forest Stand Improvement Key drivers
-
Timber management
-
Vegetation management
Transition T1-3
State 1 to 3cutting, land clearing, plant establishment
Conservation practices
Land Clearing Restoration pathway R2-1
State 2 to 1plant removal, plant establishment, successional management
Conservation practices
Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems Native Plant Community Restoration and Management Invasive Species Pest Management Transition T2-3
State 2 to 3cutting, land clearing, plant establishment
Conservation practices
Land Clearing Restoration pathway R3-1
State 3 to 1plant removal, plant establishment, successional management
Conservation practices
Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems Native Plant Community Restoration and Management Invasive Plant Species Control Restoration pathway R3-2
State 3 to 2forest management, fire suppression, disturbance, invasive plant establishment
Conservation practices
Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems Native Plant Community Restoration and Management Additional community tables
Table 5. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 6. Community 1.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 7. Community 1.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 8. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 10. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 11. Community 3.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 12. Community 3.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Supporting information
Inventory data references
Site Development and Testing Plan Future work is needed, as described in a future project plan, to validate the information presented in this provisional ecological site description. Future work includes field sampling, data collection and analysis by qualified vegetation ecologists and soil scientists. As warranted, annual reviews of the project plan can be conducted by the Ecological Site Technical Team. A final field review, peer review, quality control, and quality assurance reviews of the ESD are necessary to approve a final document.
Other references
[Anderson, D. M. 1982. Plant Communities of Ohio: A Preliminary Classification. Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus, OH (https://www.lm.doe.gov/cercla/documents/fernald_docs/cat/112509.pdf)]
[Apsley, D., and B.C. McCarthy. 2004. White-tailed deer herbivory on forest regeneration following fire and thinning treatments in southern Ohio mixed oak forests. P. 461–471. In: Yaussy, D.A., D.M. Hix, R.P. Long, and P.C. Goebel (eds.) Proceedings, 14th Central Hardwood Forest Conference, Wooster, OH. 16-19 March 2004. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-316. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA.]
Bailey, R. 2014. Ecoregions: the ecosystem geography of the oceans and continents. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Beck, H.E., N.E. Zimmermann, T.R. McVicar, N. Vergopolan, A. Berg, E.F. Wood. 2018. Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution. Scientific Data 5(1):1-12.
Butler, P.R., L. Iverson, F.R. Thompson, L. Brandt, S. Handler, M. Janowiak, P.D. Shannon, C. Swanston, K. Karriker, J. Bartig, and S. Connolly. 2015. Central Appalachians Forest Ecosystem Vulnerability Assessment and Synthesis: a Report From The Central Appalachians Climate Change Response Framework Project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-146, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA.
Cleland, D.T., J.A. Freeouf, J.E. Keys, G.J. Nowacki, C.A. Carpenter, and W.H. McNab. 2007. Ecological Subregions: Sections and Subsections for the conterminous United States. [Map. presentation scale 1:3,500,000, colored; A.M. Sloan, cartographer] Gen. Tech. Report WO-76D. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. (https://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/misc/73326-wo-gtr-76d-cleland2007.pdf)
[Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, M. Pyne, M. Reid, K. Schulz, and K. Snow. 2003. Ecological Systems of the United States: A Working Classification of US Terrestrial Systems. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. (https://www.natureserve.org/sites/default/files/pcom_2003_ecol_systems_us.pdf).]
[FGDC (Federal Geographic Data Committee). 2008. National Vegetation Classification Standard, Version 2. VGDC‐STD‐005‐2008 (Version 2). FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee, Reston, Virginia.] (https://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/vegetation/NVCS_V2_FINAL_2008-02.pdf).
[Lafon, C.W., A.T. Naito, H.D. Grissino-Mayer, S.P. Horn, and T.A. Waldrop. 2017. Fire History of the Appalachian Region: a Review and Synthesis. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-219., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC.]
[NatureServe 2020. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life [web application]. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org (Accessed: April 2020).]
Nowacki, G.J. and M.D. Abrams. 2008. The demise of fire and “mesophication” of forests in the eastern United States. Bioscience 58(2):123–138.
]Ohio Division of Wildlife. 2015. Ohio’s State Wildlife Action Plan. Columbus, Ohio, USA. (https://ohiodnr.gov/static/documents/wildlife/wildlife-management/OH_SWAP_2015.pdf).]
[Royo, A.A.; D.W. Kramer, K.V. Miller, N.P. Nibbelink, and S.L. Stout. 2017. Spatio-temporal variation in foodscapes modifies deer browsing impact on vegetation. Landscape Ecology 32(2):2281–2295.]
Soil Survey Staff-USDA-NRCS [United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service] 2016. National Soils Information Service (NASIS Data Model Version 7.3.4) Lincoln, NE. Available description: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/soils/survey/tools/?cid=nrcs142p2_053552 (Accessed January 2020).
USDA-NRCS [United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service]. 2006. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. (https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051845.pdf).
[USNVC [United States National Vegetation Classification]. 2019. United States National Vegetation Classification Database, V2.03. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee, Washington DC. http://usnvc.org (accessed April 2020).]
[Zimmerman, E., T. Davis, G. Podniesinski, M. Furedi, J. McPherson, S. Seymour, B. Eichelberger, N. Dewar, J. Wagner, and J. Fike (editors). 2012. Terrestrial and Palustrine Plant Communities of Pennsylvania, 2nd Edition. Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Harrisburg, PA.]Contributors
Nels Barrett, Ph.D.
Jason TeetsApproval
Greg Schmidt, 9/26/2024
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 10/06/2021 Approved by 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
AAAAOther
PrintThe 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.
Accessibility statement
