Ecological site F128XY506WV

Tree	(1) Fagus grandifolia (2) Liriodendron tulipifera
Shrub	(1) Vitis rotundifolia
Herbaceous	Not specified

Landforms	(1) Alluvial fan (2) Hill (3) Terrace
Elevation	499 – 2598 ft
Slope	2 – 60 %
Water table depth	2 – 45 in
Aspect	Aspect is not a significant factor

Frost-free period (average)	190 days
Freeze-free period (average)	220 days
Precipitation total (average)	50 in

Parent material	(1) Colluvium – sandstone and shale (2) Alluvium – sandstone (3) Residuum – shale and siltstone
Surface texture	(1) Channery clay loam (2) Cobbly fine sandy loam (3) Gravelly loam
Drainage class	Moderately well drained to well drained
Permeability class	Slow to moderately rapid
Soil depth	25 – 62 in
Surface fragment cover <=3"	1 – 15 %
Surface fragment cover >3"	0 – 15 %
Available water capacity (0-40in)	3.1 – 6.9 in
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-40in)	4.8 – 5.6
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified)	0 – 25 %
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified)	0 – 20 %

Ecological dynamics

DeSelm had numerous plots on these mapunits. He characterized the forest type in different ways including: sugar maple-magnolia, white oak-muscadine-sugar maple, beech-white oak, mixed oak-beech-birch, hemlock-northern red oak-tulip poplar, mixed oak, and tulip poplar-beech. Evidently these are rich sites in terms of the overstory. His descriptions imply a mesophytic forest cover. He describes the ground cover dominants as predominately tree seedlings with some vines and herbaceous diversity.

Due to the lack of sufficient data, a very generalized State and Transition Model has been developed. The lack of detail is intentional and should be populated in future projects.

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. Forested State

2. Grassland State

3. Abandoned State

State 1
Forested State

This state approximates reference conditions. It varies widely across the MLRA from north to south. Generally, forests consist of some mixture of pine and hardwood species. Notable species include American beech and tulip poplar. Hemlock can also occur on this site. Where it does, concern for the impact of the hemlock woolly adelgid is merited. Other hardwood species such as northern red oak and white oak can be expected.

State 2
Grassland State

The primary land-use is pasture and hay.

State 3
Abandoned State

This state represents a managed site (E.g., pasture) that is no longer being managed and has been abandoned to succession. Species composition and overall health of this state will largely depend on the type and extent of previous land-use disturbance. It is likely that non-native invasive plants will be introduced to this state. Other native early successional species will also be represented but will naturally fall out over time as the site ages. In some cases, early successional habitat is desirable (E.g., for some wildlife species). If that is the case, then it must be managed to be maintained. Management practices should be locally determined based on the native species composition, presence of non-native invasive plants and landowner goals.

Transition T1A
State 1 to 2

Tree clearing, pasture species establishment, continued pasture management

Transition T2A
State 2 to 3

Natural succession after pasture/hay management ceases. Sometimes this includes invasion by undesirable non-native plants.

Restoration pathway R3B
State 3 to 1

If few or no invasive, non-native plant species are present this site will naturally regenerate to the forested state. In some cases, herbicide or mechanical control might be needed to select desirable species if the future goal is timber management. In some cases, tree planting might be merited.

Restoration pathway R3A
State 3 to 2

Brush clearing where needed, application of herbicides where needed, pasture management (may include re-seeding with desirable forage). Where native grasslands/prairies are the management objective, different techniques should be employed. Site preparation and seeding mixtures would likely be needed. If early successional habitat is the management goal, practices such as brush clearing, herbicide application where needed and prescribed fire might be necessary to maintain this condition.

Additional community tables

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	07/22/2026
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:

Download reference sheet

Natural ResourcesConservation Service

Ecological site F128XY506WV

Thermic Interbedded Sedimentary Colluvium

Last updated: 5/14/2025 Accessed: 07/22/2026

Search

General information

MLRA notes

Ecological site concept

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Last updated: 5/14/2025
Accessed: 07/22/2026