Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F131AY211AR
St. Francis - Old Wet Natural Levee and Meander Scroll Forest
Last updated: 6/10/2025
Accessed: 08/17/2026
-
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): 131A–Southern Mississippi River Alluvium
The Southern Mississippi River Alluvium (MLRA 131A) is the largest of 4 MLRAs within Land Resource Region O, the Mississippi Delta Cotton and Feed Grains Region. It occurs in portions of 7 states including Louisiana (32 percent), Arkansas (26 percent), Mississippi (26 percent), Missouri (12 percent), Tennessee (3 percent), Kentucky (1 percent), and Illinois (less than 1 percent). The MLRA is comprised of 29,555 square miles and extends roughly 650 miles from an area near Cape Girardeau, Missouri in the north to the MLRA’s transition to the Gulf Coast Marsh (MLRA 151) in the south. Average elevations range from 330 feet in the north to sea level in the southern part of the area. For much of the north-south distance, the MLRA is bounded to the east by an abrupt rise in elevation of loess-capped bluffs and hills, the Southern Mississippi Valley Loess (MLRA 134). West of the Mississippi River, the boundary is less distinct except to the northwest where the MLRA abuts the Ozark Plateaus and Ouachita province (MLRAs 116A, 117, and 118A). South of the Ozark and Ouachita escarpment, the MLRA adjoins the Southern Mississippi River Terraces (MLRA 131D), which includes the fabled Grand Prairie and merges with the valleys of the Arkansas and Ouachita rivers (MLRA 131B) and the Red River (MLRA 131C). Occurring within or bordering the Southern Mississippi River Alluvium are three separate loess-capped, upland remnants: Crowley’s Ridge, Macon Ridge, and Lafayette Loess Plain, which are western units of MLRA 134 (USDA-NRCS, 2006a).
MLRA 131A is characterized by landscapes that were created and influenced by the current and earlier paths of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. Waters transporting the materials that formed the area originate from as far west as the east slope of the Continental Divide to the western edge of the Appalachian Divide in the east. This comprises a drainage basin of roughly 1,245,000 square miles and includes all or parts of thirty-one U.S. states and two Canadian provinces (Elliott, 1932). The drainage basin of the Mississippi River roughly resembles a funnel, which has its spout at the Gulf of America. Waters from as far east as New York and as far west as Montana contribute to flows in the lower extent of the river (USACE, 2017). The soils of these alluvial landscapes are very deep, dominantly poorly and somewhat poorly drained, and have textures that are mostly loamy or clayey. Principal soil orders are Alfisols, Vertisols, Inceptisols, and Entisols (USDA-NRCS, 2006a).
The fluvial processes that shaped the area were highly dynamic, diverse, and complex. During the Pleistocene epoch, multiple continental glacial-interglacial cycles resulted in extreme fluctuations in river discharge and sediment loads. A braided river regime characterized the fluvial dynamics of the Mississippi River through much of the last glacial cycle (Autin et al., 1991; Rittenhour et al., 2007). Rapid aggradation of glacial outwash led to the development of prominent valley train features over a large portion of the area (Autin et al., 1991; Saucier, 1994; Aslan and Autin, 1999; Blum et al., 2000; Rittenour et al., 2007). A changing climate, meltwater withdrawal, and sea-level change induced a transition from a braided river regime to a predominantly single-channeled, laterally migrating river system during the Holocene epoch (Rittenhour et al., 2007; Shen et al., 2012) – characteristics that continue today. Fluvial dynamics of the migrating river resulted in the development of broad meander belts, backswamp environments, and extensive deltaic complexes (Saucier, 1994; Klimas et al., 2011a).
Tremendous expanses of bottomland hardwood forests once covered much of the area. Today, the land base is largely in agriculture production, and soybeans, cotton, corn, and rice are the principal crops with sugarcane rising in importance in the southernmost portion of the MLRA (USDA-NRCS, 2022).
Due to its size and biophysical variability, the technical team advised subdividing the MLRA into six subregions: Western Lowlands, St. Francis Basin, Yazoo Basin, Tensas Basin, Delta Plain, and Batture.LRU notes
There are no agency-approved and established Land Resource Units (LRUs) for MLRA 131A. However, the characteristics of each of the six subregions in this MLRA warrant noting and are presented here for each associated ecological site. This provisional ecological site is broadly mapped within the St. Francis Basin.
The St. Francis Basin is geographically positioned in northeastern Arkansas and southeastern Missouri where it, in addition to the Batture and Western Lowlands, form the northern terminus of MLRA 131A. For convenience and ease of administering the Ecological Site Inventory, small portions of the MLRA occurring east of the Mississippi River in extreme western Tennessee and Kentucky are collectively grouped with the basin’s extent in Arkansas and Missouri. The following characterization includes the combined area.
The MLRA boundary of the basin extends some 190 miles (north to south) from Cape Girardeau, Missouri to the vicinity of Helena, Arkansas. For much of its north-south distance, its width (east to west) is approximately 40 miles but narrows considerably south of Memphis, TN. The basin is bounded to the west by Crowley’s Ridge and to the east by the most recent meander belt of the Mississippi River. Elevations range from about 340 feet in the north to around 175 feet in the south (Saucier, 1994). St. Francis Basin includes portions of: Lee, St. Francis, Crittendon, Cross, Poinsett, and Mississippi counties of Arkansas; Pemiscot, Dunkin, New Madrid, and Mississippi counties of Missouri; Lake, Dyer, and Lauderdale counties of Tennessee. Major towns include: West Memphis, Marked Tree, Trumann, Blytheville, Paragould, Piggott, and Black Oak, Arkansas; Caruthersville, Hayti, Portageville, Kennett, Charleston, Sikeston, and Cape Girardeau, Missouri; and Tiptonville, Tennessee. Major highways include: Interstate 55, Interstate 40, U.S. Highway 61, U.S. Highway 63, U.S. Highway 64, U.S. Highway 78, and TN Highway 103.
The geomorphology of the basin is exceedingly complex – manifestations of incredible hydrogeologic and geologic forces. The most significant of these forces for the Mississippi River Valley was serving as a sluiceway through which huge quantities of glacial meltwater and outwash were funneled during multiple continental glaciations. The northwestern two thirds of the basin is mainly comprised of Late Pleistocene (ca. 11,700 to 129,000 years B.P.; chronology after Head, 2019) glacial outwash materials. Large landscapes or “basin subareas” were created or influenced by tremendous amounts of outwash material that, episodically, were released during catastrophic outburst floods of enormous magnitude (Saucier, 1994). Fluvial dynamics of these events resulted in braided river regimes of both the Mississippi and Ohio rivers. Examples of large landscapes that were shaped and reshaped by these fluvial processes and episodes include Sikeston Ridge, Charleston Fan, Morehouse Lowland, and Malden Plain (Stevens and Krusekopf, 2020). Major geomorphic features created in the wake of these forces include prominent sandy ridges; broad, braided-stream terraces (valley trains) at varying elevations or levels; and eolian environments of sand dune fields east of Sikeston Ridge (Saucier, 1994).
A changing climate, meltwater withdrawal, and sea-level change induced a transition from a braided river regime to a predominantly single-channeled, laterally migrating river system during the Holocene epoch (ca. 11,700 years B.P. to present; epoch chronology after Head, 2019) (Rittenour et al., 2007; Shen et al., 2012). Landscapes across the southeastern third of the St. Francis Basin are mainly comprised of former paths of the Mississippi River and its associated alluvial environment of sinuous meander belts. Major landforms comprising the meander belt environment include natural levees, point bar deposits (meander scrolls) and abandoned channels (oxbow lakes) and courses. The higher elevations of natural levees and point bars form an alluvial ridge, which often directs local drainage and floodwaters to the intervening flood basins or backswamps (Saucier, 1994).
In addition to hydrologic influences, the basin’s landscapes are subject to geologic forces. In 1811-1812, four of the largest earthquakes to hit eastern North America occurred in an area that encompassed extreme northeastern Arkansas, southeastern Missouri, and northwestern Tennessee. This area is known as the New Madrid Seismic Zone, which is named after a small settlement near the epicenter of one of the earthquakes (Saucier, 1994). Reports of the New Madrid earthquakes included widespread bank caving, reversal of river flow, landslides, earth waves, forest destruction, land uplifts, and land sinking. A few of the notable land areas or features attributed to or influenced by the seismic events include the St. Francis Sunken Lands, Tiptonville Dome, Ridgely Ridge, Reelfoot Lake, and massive landslides occurring along the adjoining Loess Bluffs of MLRA 134 (Fuller, 1912; Saucier, 1994). Perhaps the most dramatic geomorphic effects were the land fissuring and sand blows resulting from liquefaction (Saucier, 1994). According to Castilla and Audemard (2007), these are “…the largest ever-reported isolated sand blows.” Saucier (1994) emphasized that there are millions of liquefaction features from the earthquakes that are distributed over a 4,000 square mile area.
The movement of water through the basin is influenced by the complex sequence of remnant braided outwash channels, overflow channels, distributaries, and former channels and courses of the Mississippi River. Many of these features convey smaller modern streams within them. Principal streams of the basin are its namesake, the St. Francis River in addition to Little River, Tyronza River, and Pemiscot Bayou. Historically, large floods on the Mississippi River and in the St. Francis tributary system and greater basin led to frequent flooding, inundating landscapes of low relief for very long durations (Moore, 1972). To lessen the severity of flooding, the St. Francis Basin underwent a coordinated and comprehensive flood control and drainage effort. Extensive modification of the basin’s natural hydrology included hundreds of miles of constructed levees along the mainstem of the Mississippi River and basin tributaries; channel modifications on many streams; constructed floodways; water control structures; land leveled areas; and an extensive network of surface drainage systems (Klimas et al., 2013). The extensive modifications to the basin’s hydrology coupled with increased access set the stage for broadscale conversion of former forestland to a variety of land uses with agriculture production being dominant.
All ecological sites in the St. Francis Basin are bounded by the extensive constructed levee system along the Mississippi River. The constructed levee occurs on both sides (i.e., east and west) of the active river channel. The areas protected by levees east of the Mississippi River include portions of Lake, Obion, Dyer, and northern Lauderdale counties in Tennessee and the western extent of Fulton County, Kentucky. (Soils mapped in southern Illinois’s portion of MLRA 131A mostly have a mesic soil temperature regime and do not correlate to this ecological site.) All lands between the river channel and the constructed levee (or Loess Hills where levees are absent) are referred to as the Batture, and that subregion encapsulates its own complement of ecological sites due to significantly different hydrologic regimes (Smith and Klimas, 2002).Classification relationships
All or portions of the geographic range of this site fall within several ecological and land classifications including:
- NRCS Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 131A – Southern Mississippi River Alluvium (USDA-NRCS, 2006a)
- National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units: 234 Lower Mississippi Riverine Forest Province; 234D White and Black River Alluvial Plains Section; 234Da North Mississippi River Alluvial Plain Subsection (Cleland et al., 2007)
- Environmental Protection Agency Level III Ecoregion: 8.5.2 Mississippi Alluvial Plain; Level IV Ecoregion: Northern Holocene Meander Belt, 73a; (Griffith et al., 1998; Chapman et al., 2002; Woods et al., 2002; Woods et al., 2004; Wiken et al., 2011)
- Mississippi River High Floodplain (Bottomland), CES203.196 (NatureServe, 2020)
- The following are the HGM Subclasses, geomorphic setting, and PNV associations that appear to best correspond to this site in the St. Francis Basin (developed by Klimas et al., 2013): F4, Moderately drained lowlands, Sugarberry – Green Ash – American Elm; F6, Poorly drained lowlands, Nuttall Oak – Willow OakEcological site concept
This site is generally associated with older meander belts (former channels) of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. Within the meander belt environment, the site occupies the lowest and wettest position on old natural levees and low, narrow rises and flats on meander scrolls. Additionally, the soils of this site have been mapped on higher flats and gently sloping rises that grade to adjacent backswamps. The site consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained and poorly drained soils that formed in clayey, clayey over loamy, and silty alluvium. A key characteristic of these soils is the prominent profile development as determined by distinct argillic (clay) accumulations in the subsoil (B horizon). Slopes are typically 0 to 3 percent but may range up to 8 percent. Natural vegetation of this site, today, is directly influenced by former land use activities at varying intensity levels. Canopy species reported as frequently occurring for areas that remain in forest include green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Nuttall oak (Quercus texana), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), cherrybark oak (Q. pagoda), water oak (Q. nigra), willow oak (Q. phellos), American elm (Ulmus americana), and sugarberry (Celtis laevigata). Minor associates often include red maple (Acer rubrum), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), cedar elm (U. crassifolia), swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii), pecan (Carya illinoinensis), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), red mulberry (Morus rubra), and common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana). The wettest locations sometimes support proportionally more overcup oak (Q. lyrata), water hickory (Carya aquatica), water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), swamp cottonwood (Populus heterophylla), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). Species dominance and composition will likely vary by location depending on the types and intensity of former land use activities. Of note, this site occurs on the protected side of the extensive Mississippi River levee system.
Associated sites
F131AY210AR St. Francis - Old Moderately Wet Natural Levee and Meander Scroll Forest
This site has a position that is slightly higher and better drained than F131AY211AR. The geomorphic setting that best represents the two sites' association is along the break between the lower backslope of site F131AY210AR and the toe slope position of site F131AY211AR on former (old) Mississippi River natural levees.
F131AY201AR St. Francis - Wet Clayey Backswamp Flat
The wet, clayey backswamps (F131AY201AR) sometimes border the nearly level, poorly drained toe slopes of former Mississippi River natural levees and meander scroll environments (F131AY211AR).
Similar sites
F131AY308MS Yazoo - Old Wet Natural Levee and Meander Scroll Forest
This site occupies similar positions and has similar soils and drainage characteristics as F131AY211AR. The principal difference is that F131AY308MS occurs in the Yazoo Basin of Mississippi.
F131AY403LA Tensas Basin - Poorly Drained Ridge and Swale Complex
This site occupies similar positions and has similar soils and drainage characteristics as F131AY211AR. The principal difference is that F131AY403LA occurs in the Tensas Basin of Louisiana and Arkansas.
F131AY111AR Western Lowlands - Wet Terrace Channel Forest
This site mainly consists of remnant braided outwash channels on Pleistocene valley train terraces in the Western Lowlands. A few of the same soil components (e.g., Jackport series) were mapped on both valley train and the Holocene meander belt landforms of F131AY211AR. These soil-site environments formed under different hydrologic regimes, landscape processes, and time periods.
F131AY207AR St. Francis - Braided Channel Forest
This site mainly consists of remnant braided outwash channels on Late Pleistocene valley train terraces in the St. Francis Basin. A few of the same soil components (e.g., Amagon series) were mapped on both valley train and the Holocene meander belt landforms of F131AY211AR. These soil-site environments formed under different hydrologic regimes, landscape processes, and time periods.
Figure 1. Distribution of F131AY211AR.
Table 2. Dominant plant species
Tree Not specified
Shrub Not specified
Herbaceous Not specified
Physiographic features
This ecological site primarily occurs on wet toe slopes of old natural levees and on subtle rises, flats (talfs), and swales of former meander scrolls that border former channels of the Mississippi River. Additionally, the soils of this site have been mapped along active tributaries to the Mississippi River and on low ridges and rises adjacent to backswamp areas. Representative slope percentages for this site range from 0 to 2 percent but may range up to 8 percent, locally. Runoff class is dominantly rated as low but may range to high depending on slope.
Of note, some soils associated with this site have also been mapped on remnant braided outwash channels on Pleistocene valley trains in the Western Lowlands (see F131AY111AR) and St. Francis Basin (see F131AY207AR). These soil-site environments formed under different hydrologic regimes, landscape processes, and time periods.
Figure 1. Old Mississippi River meander belt catena. Forestdale soils are representative of F131AY211AR.
Figure 2. Landscape perspective of Forestdale soils, Dyer County, TN.
Table 3. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Meander belt > Natural levee > Toe
(2) Meander belt > Meander scroll > Swale
Runoff class Low to high Flooding duration Long (7 to 30 days) Flooding frequency None to frequent Ponding frequency None Elevation 205 – 310 ft Slope 0 – 2 % Water table depth 5 – 18 in Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
Climate of the St. Francis Basin is classified as Humid Subtropical (Koppen System), which is typified by mostly cool to mild winters; long, hot and humid summers; and no routinely recurring wet or dry season (Klimas et al., 2011b). The average annual air temperature from 1980 through 2010 was 60 degrees F and the mean annual precipitation for the same period was 49 inches.
In the warmer season (and throughout much of the year), winds from the south convey moisture from the Gulf of America leading to humid, semitropical conditions that are favorable for convective thunderstorms. These storms produce a significant proportion of the area’s annual precipitation and are at times accompanied by locally destructive winds. A potential hazard during late summer through early fall is the tropical cyclone. While most impacts from hurricanes and tropical storms are confined along the coastal zone, heavy rainfall, severe flooding, and high winds can occur well into the basin when such systems pass through the area. To the extreme, the region is susceptible to the effects of a strong Bermuda High during the summer, which can cause devastating drought conditions for weeks and even months in some years. Typically, August and September are the driest months of the year with an average monthly low at or less than 2.8 inches.
In the colder season, the area’s weather is dominated by the positions of the Polar and Subtropical Jet Streams, both of which exert strong control over the passages of cold and warm fronts. These fronts alternately bring cold continental air and warm tropical air with periods of varying length. Particularly strong cold fronts can produce large and sudden drops in air temperature; however, cold spells seldom last over a week. The coldest month of the year is typically January with an average monthly low and high of 24 and 47 degrees, respectively. The frost-free period from 1980 to 2010 averaged 181 days basin-wide and ranged from 162 days in the northernmost extent to 193 days in the south. Likewise, the freeze-free period averaged 215 days and ranged from 192 days in the north to 223 days in the southern part of the basin.
Snow and/or sleet falls in the area in most years with the greatest frequency and accumulations occurring in the northern extent. Winter precipitation sometimes occurs as freezing rain and damaging ice storms hit some portion of the basin on occasion. However, these wintry events are generally the exception; they are typically brief and do not persist for very long. Rain is the characteristic form of winter precipitation, and the period of greatest rainfall generally occurs from November through July with April and May being the months of highest averages.Table 4 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 180-190 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 210-220 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 50-50 in Frost-free period (actual range) 170-190 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 200-220 days Precipitation total (actual range) 50-50 in Frost-free period (average) 180 days Freeze-free period (average) 220 days Precipitation total (average) 50 in Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 3. Monthly precipitation range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 4. Monthly minimum temperature range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 5. Monthly maximum temperature range
BarLineFigure 6. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Figure 7. Annual precipitation pattern
Figure 8 Annual average temperature pattern
Climate stations used
-
(1) SIKESTON PWR STN [USC00237772], Sikeston, MO
-
(2) NEW MADRID [USC00236045], Hickman, MO
-
(3) MALDEN MUNI AP [USC00235207], Malden, MO
-
(4) PORTAGEVILLE [USC00236804], Portageville, MO
-
(5) KENNETT RADIO KBOA [USC00234417], Kennett, MO
-
(6) CARUTHERSVILLE [USC00231364], Caruthersville, MO
-
(7) BLYTHEVILLE MUNI AP [USW00053869], Blytheville, AR
-
(8) PARAGOULD 1S [USC00035563], Paragould, AR
-
(9) KEISER [USC00033821], Keiser, AR
-
(10) WEST MEMPHIS MUNI AP [USW00053959], Marion, AR
-
(11) ADVANCE 1 S [USW00093825], Advance, MO
-
(12) CHARLESTON [USC00231540], Charleston, MO
">Influencing water features
This site occurs on a variety of water receiving positions, including toe slopes of former natural levees; flats (talfs) and low rises on former meander scrolls; and margins of backswamp environments. Today, this site occurs on the protected side of the extensive Mississippi River levee system and no longer receives overland flooding on the same scale that it may have experienced prior to levee construction. The locations that continue to flood on any predictable basis are generally restricted to stream margins or other low features (e.g., depressions) that receive overland flow or backwater flooding. The period of greatest flood potential is late winter through early spring. Under natural drainage conditions, an apparent water table occurs 0.5 to 2.0 feet below the surface during the winter and spring months in most years. The seasonal high water table and poorly drained soils of this site provide suitable conditions for wetland obligate and facultative wetland plants. This site is influenced by local hydrologic regimes.
Wetland description
Under the Cowardin et al. (1979) system, this site is classified as:<br />
System: Palustrine<br />
Class: Forested Wetland<br />
Subclass: Broad-leaved DeciduousSoil features
Please note that the soils listed in this section of the description may not be all inclusive. There may be additional soils that fit the site’s concepts. Additionally, the soils that provisionally form the concepts of this site may occur elsewhere, either within or outside of the MLRA and may or “may not” have the same geomorphic characteristics or support similar vegetation. Some soil map units and soil series included in this “provisional” ecological site were used as a “best fit” for a particular soil-landform catena during a specific era of soil mapping, regardless of the origin of parent material or the location of MLRA boundaries. Therefore, the listed soils may not be typical for MLRA 131A or a specific location, and the associated soil map units may warrant further investigation in a joint ecological site inventory-soil survey project. When utilizing this provisional description, the user is encouraged to verify that the area of interest meets the appropriate ecological site concepts by reviewing the soils, landform, vegetation, and physical location. If the site concepts do not match the attributes of the area of interest, please review the Similar or Associated Sites listed in the General Information section of this description to determine if another site may be a better fit for your area of interest.
This site consists of very deep, poorly drained soils that formed in clayey, loamy, and silty alluvium. A key characteristic of these soils is the prominent profile development as determined by distinct argillic (clay) accumulations in the subsoil (B horizon), which differ from the catena of soils (Entisols and Inceptisols) on current or recent Mississippi River meander belts. Soils provisionally correlated to this site include the Amagon, Forestdale, Jackport, and Jeanerette series.
The Amagon (fine-silty, mixed, active, thermic Typic Endoaqualfs) series consists of slowly permeable soils that formed in loamy alluvium. Solum thickness ranges from 50 to more than 80 inches. These soils have more than 15 percent sand coarser than very fine in the upper 20 inches of the argillic horizon. Reaction ranges from slightly acid to very strongly acid in the A, E and B horizons and from strongly acid to slightly alkaline in the BC and C horizons. An apparent seasonal water table is within 12 inches of the soil surface from December through April in most years. Redoximorphic accumulations and depletions occur throughout all horizons. Slopes range from 0 to 3 percent. Of note, Amagon soils are generally mapped on level to nearly level broad, Pleistocene terraces in the Western Lowlands. These soils constitute a very minor distribution in this ecological site of Holocene meander belts and may warrant field investigations given certain characteristics of these soils relative to adjoining soils in the meander belt catena.
The dominant and most important soils of this site are the Forestdale (fine, smectitic, thermic Typic Endoaqualfs) series. This site’s core concepts and spatial distribution are based largely on the characteristics and mapped distribution of these soils. Forestdale soils formed in clayey and silty alluvium, are poorly drained, and have very slow permeability. Solum thickness is more than 40 inches. The A horizon and the upper part of the Btg horizon range from very strongly acid to moderately acid. The lower part of the Btg horizon and the Cg horizon range from very strongly acid to slightly alkaline. Black and brown concretions, if present, are few to common. These soils have a water table at a depth of 0.5 to 2 feet below the surface in wet seasons from January to April. Slopes range from 0 to 8 percent. Forestdale soils are listed as hydric soils.
The Jackport (fine, smectitic, thermic Chromic Epiaquerts) series consists of very slowly permeable soils that formed in clayey alluvium. Solum thickness ranges from 50 to more than 72 inches. Cracks nearly 0.5 to 1 inch (1-3 cm) wide extend from the surface to depths of 20 to 40 inches during dry periods. Clay content of the 10 to 40-inch control section, typically ranges from 50 to 60 percent. Reaction ranges from very strongly acid to slightly acid in the A horizon; very strongly acid or strongly acid in the Bg and upper Bssg; moderately acid to slightly alkaline in the lower Bssg and B'g horizons; and slightly acid to moderately alkaline in the BCg and C horizons. Slopes range from 0 to 3 percent. Of note, Jackport soils are generally associated with Pleistocene terraces in the Western Lowlands. These soils constitute a very minor distribution in this ecological site of Holocene meander belts and may warrant field review given certain characteristics of these soils relative to adjoining soils in the meander belt catena.
The Jeanerette (fine-silty, mixed, superactive, thermic Typic Argiaquolls) series are described as having somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in loess or silty alluvium. However, in the survey area they were mapped, the soils were described as poorly drained and mapped in abandoned stream channels and depressions (i.e., abandoned Mississippi River meander scrolls) (USDA-SCS, 1974). In the Official Series Description, these soils are noted as occurring on broad, nearly level areas or slight depressions on Late Pleistocene-age terraces. Key characteristics of these soils include a mollic epipedon of 10 to 30 inches thick, and a Btkg horizon with very weakly to moderately cemented calcium carbonate concretions that comprise 3 to 25 percent of the horizon by volume. Reaction is moderately acid to slightly alkaline in the A horizon, and neutral to moderately alkaline in the subsoil and underlying layers. Slopes range from 0 to 1 percent. These soils constitute a very minor distribution in this ecological site of Holocene meander belts and may warrant field review given certain characteristics of these soils relative to adjoining soils in the meander belt catena and having a drainage class that differs from the Official Series Description (Soil Survey Staff).
Additional soils may be added to this site as new and updated information suggest their inclusion is warranted. Conversely, some provisional soil components may be transferred to a different site during subsequent phases of ecological site development.
Figure 9. Forestdale profile at the OSD, Typical Pedon site, Tallahatchie Co., MS.
Figure 10. Forestdale profile, former Mississippi River meander belt, Sunflower County, MS.
Table 5. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Alluvium
Surface texture (1) Silty clay loam
(2) Silt loam
(3) Sandy loam
Drainage class Poorly drained Permeability class Very slow to moderate Soil depth 80 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(Depth not specified)5.2 – 8.3 in Calcium carbonate equivalent
(Depth not specified)0 – 1 % Electrical conductivity
(Depth not specified)0 – 1 mmhos/cm Sodium adsorption ratio
(Depth not specified)Not specified Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(Depth not specified)4.6 – 7.5 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(40in)1 – 5 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(40in)Not specified Ecological dynamics
Historically, this ecological site was part of a vast forested landscape with processes and functions directly connected to the highly dynamic nature of the Mississippi River (Gardiner and Oliver, 2005). Today, this site is effectively disconnected from the Mississippi River via the vast network of constructed levees and, in many areas, local drainage controls. Widespread changes to the landscape occurred long before any intensive studies of the natural communities were conducted. Accordingly, reference conditions of this ecological site are still under review and consideration. Although description of reference conditions is currently incomplete, observations and forest research over the past century have provided information on species presence, suitability, and productivity of important forest resources on the soils of this site. Their presence, management, and sustainability form the basis of the “perceived” reference state for the site.
Putnam's (1951) “sweetgum – water oaks” forest type has been associated with "...level and nearly level old natural levees" in the Yazoo Basin of Mississippi (see USDA-SCS, 1959). The soil survey manuscript of Sunflower County, Mississippi listed the dominant soils of this ecological site, the Forestdale soils, as supporting and producing key species of that cover type. Important or key species comprising the type include sweetgum, water oak, Nuttall oak, willow oak, American elm, sugarberry, and green ash. Additional forest associates include overcup oak, pecan, water hickory, cedar elm, eastern cottonwood, red maple, honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos), and common persimmon (Putnam, 1951). Putnam indicated that variations of the sweetgum – water oaks type were commonplace with variants comprised predominantly of either sweetgum, water oaks (i.e., Nuttall, willow, water, and overcup), or a third variant, the cedar elm – water oaks forest type. It is construed that the same or very similar cover type and forest components occur on this site in the St. Francis Basin with possible modifications in the northern portions of the basin.
Putnam’s sweetgum – water oaks type was later absorbed into more broadly accepted forest types such as the sweetgum – willow oak type (Society of American Foresters, SAF, Type No. 92; Eyre, 1980) or simply renamed the sweetgum – red oak species association (see Hodges,1997; Meadows and Stanturf, 1997). One important characteristic that has been repeatedly stressed by forest authorities is the transition of the aforementioned forest types to a sugarberry – American elm – green ash association (SAF Type No. 93; Eyre, 1980) following major disturbances such as heavy cutting or repeated partial harvests (Putnam and Bull, 1932; Putnam, 1951; Hodges, 1997; Oliver et al., 2005). Today, the prevailing association occurring on this ecological site may be the sugarberry – American elm – green ash forest association or a variant of this type given the intensive landuse histories most areas have incurred. Eyre (1980) provides a general description of the sugarberry – American elm – green ash type and several components listed above are associates of that type including species that are highly favored in management on this ecological site, such as Nuttall oak, willow oak, water oak, sweetgum, and green ash. (An expanded list of trees favored in management is included in the narrative of State 1 of the State and Transition Model, below.) However, Oliver et al. (2005) warns that red oaks (e.g., cherrybark, willow, water, and Nuttall) are not regrowing in sufficient concentrations to sustain their former densities, which could have consequences on other factors such as wildlife and commercial timber values. Much of these concerns are founded on forest composition transitioning to a more shade-tolerant community such as the sugarberry – American elm – green ash type. Hodges (1997) emphasized that the latter is long-lived and capable of self-replacement.
Overall, forest cover on this site is minor compared to other uses. Most areas have been cleared and are used extensively for row crop production. Some areas have been land leveled with soil surface cuts of up to 3 feet to meet irrigation needs. A secondary use on this site is pasturage. Wetness limitations have prompted many to install drainage systems.
Following this narrative, a “provisional” state and transition model is provided that includes the “perceived” reference state and several alternative (or altered) vegetation states that have been observed and/or projected for this ecological site. This model is based on limited inventories, literature, expert knowledge, and interpretations. Plant communities may differ from one location to the next depending on the severity of local land use activities and rates of deposition. Depending on objectives, the reference plant community may not necessarily be the management goal.
The environmental and biological characteristics of this site are complex and dynamic. As such, the following diagram suggests pathways that the vegetation on this site might take, given that the modal concepts of climate and soils are met within an area of interest. Specific locations with unique soils and disturbance histories may have alternate pathways that are not represented in the model. This information is intended to show the possibilities within a given set of circumstances and represents the initial steps toward developing a defensible description and model. The model and associated information are subject to change as knowledge increases and new information is garnered. This is an iterative process. Most importantly, local and/or state professional guidance should always be sought before pursuing a treatment scenario.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 textEcosystem states
States 1, 5 and 2 (additional transitions)
States 3 and 7 (additional transitions)
T1A - Manipulate composition and manage for production (Community 2.1); Heavy timber cutting/high-grading (Community 2.2) T1B - Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation T1C - Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing T2A - Reestablish missing species; control exotics (mechanical/chemical); timber stand improvement; natural stand dynamics T2B - Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation T2C - Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing T3A - Precision land leveling T3B - Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing T3C - Natural succession (Community 6.1) or site prep (plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.); planting species appropriate for site (Community 6.2) T3D - Establish select native species suitable for site; prep site for planting (herbicide and/or mechanical) T5A - Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation T5B - Natural succession (Community 6.1) or site prep (plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.); planting species appropriate for site (Community 6.2) T5C - Establish select native species suitable for site; prep site for planting (herbicide and/or mechanical) T6A - Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation T6B - Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing T7A - Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation T7B - Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing T7C - Natural succession (Community 6.1) or site prep (plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.); planting species appropriate for site (Afforestation - Community 6.2) State 1 submodel, plant communities
State 2 submodel, plant communities
2.1A - Cessation of management followed by heavy cutting/repeated partial harvests 2.2A - Silvicultural treatments: removal of undesirable species; re-establish species favored in management; timber stand improvement; establish advance regeneration State 3 submodel, plant communities
3.1A - Soil disturbance (tillage); reduction of soil health. 3.1B - Conventional tillage, seeding, and fertility management for crops. 3.2A - No-till, cover crops, reduced till–soil health improvements. 3.2B - Conventional tillage, seeding, and fertility management for crops. 3.3A - Reduced till, no-till, and cover crops with soil health improvements as a goal. State 4 submodel, plant communities
State 5 submodel, plant communities
5.1A - Seeding and/or management for desired species composition. 5.1B - Species management without overseeding. 5.2A - Seeding, fertilizing, management/removal of undesirable species. 5.2B - Species management without overseeding 5.3A - Seeding, fertilizing, management/removal of undesirable species. 5.3B - Seeding and/or management for desired species composition. 5.3C - Lack of disturbance; no (infrequent) mowing, herbivory, or brush management; natural succession of woody species. 5.4A - Brush management/removal of unwanted species. State 6 submodel, plant communities
6.1A - Remove undesirable competitors; final soil preparation; establish site-appropriate species (favored in management). State 7 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference: Wet Bottomland ForestRemoval of the historic natural communities of this site occurred long before thorough studies and investigations were conducted. Furthermore, the hydroperiod and drainage patterns of the landscape have since been dramatically altered. Great variability is likely to occur throughout the distribution of this ecological site. Local soils and hydrologic regimes will have been influenced by the environment they occur within, in addition to former landuse histories. Such complexity across the basin will likely be reflected in much variability in vegetation composition and structure of local stands (Stanturf et al., 2001). Accordingly, reference conditions for this site have yet to be confirmed, but they are perceived to consist of mature forest stands that support a diverse mix of southern bottomland hardwoods adapted to the somewhat poorly and poorly drained soils of this site. Once assigned or identified, the reference community will not represent the pre-settlement forest community, but it should identify an assemblage of naturally occurring species that reflects and contributes to regional biodiversity and local forest ecology. Implicated in the latter is that the “local” hydrologic regime and drainage patterns on this soil-site environment should not be (or are no longer) intentionally altered (i.e., purposely flooded beyond what would occur locally or ditched and drained).
The return or transition pathway from the altered states (currently, only State 2) back to the reference state is intended to represent the suite of hardwood species that, reportedly, frequently to occasionally occur and are favored in management on this site (see Broadfoot, 1976, for Forestdale soils). Realistically, it may not always be possible to return to a “perceived” reference state from a former altered condition. While planting and establishing trees appropriate for a site may be possible, achieving restoration of the understory and other system functions present challenges that may never be realized (Stanturf et al., 2001; Flinn and Vellend, 2005).Community 1.1
Mixed Bottomland HardwoodsOne community that reportedly occurs on this site is Putnam’s (1951) “sweetgum – water oaks” forest type, and this community may be representative of reference conditions. Characteristic species of the type include sweetgum, water oak, Nuttall oak, willow oak, American elm, sugarberry, and green ash with associates of overcup oak, pecan, water hickory, cedar elm, eastern cottonwood, red maple, honeylocust, and persimmon. In the north, additional components may include swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor), pin oak (Q. palustris), and common hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) (Doug Wallace, personal communication). Most of the preceding are listed as comprising the sweetgum – willow oak type in Eyre (1980). Additionally, Eyre lists understory components of sugarberry, green ash, oaks, red maple, and red mulberry with a ground cover of greenbrier (Smilax spp.), American buckwheat vine or redvine (Brunnichia ovata), peppervine (Nekemias arborea), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), and eastern poison ivy (Toxicodendron radians). Species dominance patterns and presence will likely vary by location due to the natural variability of the local hydrology and soil-site environment and former landuse practices.
Broadfoot (1976) provided a list of species that are favored in management and that occur frequently or occasionally on the Forestdale soils. The following are species favored in management and that frequently occur with estimated site index ranges (tree height in feet at 50 years except cottonwood which is 30 years) in parentheses: sweetgum (85-110), Nuttall oak (80-110), cherrybark oak (85-115), water oak (80-105), willow oak (80-105), and green ash (70-95). The following are site index ranges of species favored in management that occasionally occur on the combined soils of this site: Shumard’s oak (75-105), swamp chestnut oak (75-100), eastern cottonwood (85-110), pecan (70-95), and American sycamore (85-105).
Of note, the sweet gum – water oaks (or red oaks) association may be transitory and without management could transition to a predominantly shade tolerant community, such as the sugarberry – American elm – green ash association, over time (Hodges, 1997).
The arrangement of tree species listed in the Dominant Plant Species table below follows the same order of importance (i.e., decreasing dominance) as indicated in the sweetgum – water oaks forest type in Putnam (1951). Putnam's list is interpreted to be more representative of natural variability than ranking the species by commercial value.Dominant plant species
-
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tree
-
water oak (Quercus nigra), tree
-
Nuttall oak (Quercus texana), tree
-
willow oak (Quercus phellos), tree
-
American elm (Ulmus americana), tree
-
sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), tree
-
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tree
-
pecan (Carya illinoinensis), tree
-
water hickory (Carya aquatica), tree
-
possumhaw (Ilex decidua), shrub
-
roughleaf dogwood (Cornus drummondii), shrub
-
hawthorn (Crataegus), shrub
-
American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), shrub
-
greenbrier (Smilax), shrub
-
eastern poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), shrub
-
peppervine (Nekemias arborea), shrub
-
American buckwheat vine (Brunnichia ovata), shrub
-
trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), shrub
-
Carolina coralbead (Cocculus carolinus), shrub
-
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), shrub
-
sedge (Carex), grass
State 2
Commercial ForestlandThis state consists of two very different community phases and management approaches. Community Phase 2.1 represents forest management and production on this site. A distinguishing feature of this phase is the level of management intensity designed to maximize merchantable goals. Various silvicultural methods are available for selection, and these are generally grouped into even-aged (e.g., clearcutting, seed-tree, and shelterwood) and uneven-aged (e.g., single tree, diameter-limit, basal area, and group selection) approaches (Meadows and Stanturf, 1997). Depending on the method selected, different structural and compositional characteristics of the stand may result. Removal and control of community associates are typically a critical element of production goals. These actions may result in different community or “management phases” (and possibly alternate states) depending on the methods used and desired results. Finding the appropriate approach for a given stand and environment necessitates close consultation with trained, experienced, and knowledgeable forestry professionals. If there is a desire to proceed with this state, it is strongly urged and advised that professional guidance be obtained and a well-designed silvicultural plan developed in advance of any work conducted.
Community Phase 2.2 represents conditions of many stands that have incurred indiscriminate timber harvests (e.g., heavy cutting, diameter-limit or partial harvests of select species) and opportunistic regrowth following such harvests (i.e., no management at any period). Some stands may continue to support a few desirable species and quality stems, but in many instances, affected stands will be comprised of mostly shade tolerant species and/or trees of desirable species that fail to meet their maximum potential.
Although this site is well suited for forest production, seasonal wetness imposes moderate to severe limitations for some forest operations. Heavy equipment usage on wet soils can cause compaction, which may reduce site productivity. If possible, equipment operations are best conducted during drier periods of the year, which minimizes soil damage, erosion, and helps to maintain productivity.
An important caveat of this state is its representation of forest conditions that have retained full site production potential. Currently, transitional pathways to this state originate from another forested state (State 1), only. Former landuses (alternate states) that result in soil compaction (increased bulk densities), lower soil organic matter content, altered fertility, and smaller available rooting volume can reduce forest site production by 10 to 20 percent for some species (Groninger et al., 1999). These are conservative percentage reductions. The model from the Baker and Broadfoot (1979) method of site evaluation have produced site index values of over 20 percent lower than trees measured on non-impacted, forest soils. These impacts, however, can be ameliorated through various “afforestation” techniques such as plow pan breakup (subsoil or deep plowing), fertilization, and fallowing fields before stand establishment (Emile Gardiner, USFS Research Forester, personal communication with Rachel Stout Evans, contributing author). State 6 (Forest Recovery) is representative of forest establishment and growth on locations where soil compaction and reduction of nutrients have occurred. Once a previously affected location has recovered its site potential, transition to this state may be possible. That potential transition is still under review and is currently not shown or addressed in the state and transition model.Community 2.1
Forest ManagementPrescribing a silvicultural system for a given stand depends on species composition; long term production and postproduction goals; and the presence and abundance of advance regeneration (i.e., the presence of seedlings and saplings of the desired species). The canopy trees listed in State 1 as “favored in management” are all production options on this site ranging from single species plantations to complex multi-species stands. (Species favored in management are indicated below under the "Dominant tree species" section for convenience.)
Establishing and maintaining oaks on bottomland sites may be preferred given the multiple values they provide (e.g., timber and wildlife). However, maintaining that component beyond a single rotation (or harvest) may be the most challenging. Creating conditions that promote oak persistence in future stands require a sufficient advance regeneration component. Ensuring that this future crop is established will require close adherence to a well-designed silvicultural plan, which requires programmatic intermediate operations (e.g., improvement cuttings, thinnings, and other partial cuttings). An even-aged silvicultural system that utilizes the clearcutting regeneration method along with brush management to reduce subsequent competition is typically the advocated approach when harvesting bottomland oak stands (Johnson and Shropshire, 1983; Clatterbuck and Meadows, 1993; Hodges, 1995; Meadows and Stanturf, 1997; Oliver et al., 2005).
Except pecan, the remaining trees that are favored in management are light-seeded species. A variety of silvicultural systems may be implemented to promote production of these species including even-aged and group selection (uneven-aged) approaches (see Meadows and Stanturf, 1997).Community 2.2
Non-managed/High-gradedThis forest community is directly influenced by former harvesting practices that include repeated single-tree selection or diameter-limit harvests with no additional management activities (e.g., brush management, competitor control, etc.). These practices typically target the highest quality trees of the most desirable species. The result is usually an expansion and in-filling of shade tolerant subcanopy trees. Over time, this practice will lead to a predominantly shade tolerant community that may be comprised of a variant of the sugarberry – American elm – green ash forest association, possibly with a plurality of sugarberry and elm. Additional shade tolerant components likely to occur consist of red maple, boxelder, red mulberry, roughleaf dogwood, and possumhaw.
Pathway 2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.2Heavy cutting of the stand that removes the desired species (typically shade intolerant species) of sufficient diameters followed by no management of the residual stand. This pathway also includes repeated single-tree harvests (e.g., diameter-limit cuts) that removes the desired species followed by no management of the residual stand. The resulting stand is typically comprised of shade tolerant species with low commercial value.
Pathway 2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1Intensive management will be required to push a shade tolerant community into a more commercially desirable and viable system. Actions will likely require a complete clearcut of the stand followed by repeated brush and competitor control (chemical and mechanical). If there is a lack of seed source, artificial regeneration will likely be required to reintroduce heavy-seeded species (oaks and pecan). Continual competitor control will be needed.
State 3
Cropland
Figure 11. Characteristic water control measures (ditching and draining) on Forestdale soils, Dyer County, TN.
This state is representative of the dominant landuse activity on this ecological site, agriculture production. The dominant crops grown on this site are rice (Oryza sativa) and soybeans (Glycine max) (USDA-NRCS, 2006b). Additional crops include corn (Zea mays), small grains such as wheat (Triticum aestivum), and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) (Snipes et al., 2005). Minor crops, such as some specialty crops (e.g., fruits, vegetables, and tree nuts such as pecans), may be grown locally depending on local hydrology and the soil-site environment.
The soils of this site are well suited to agriculture production. Management concerns are centered on seasonal wetness, soil compaction from heavy equipment operations, and the development of a plow pan. These soils can be sticky when wet and hard when dry (USDA-NRCS, 2006b). Pringle et al. (2017) emphasized that a “fairly impermeable crust” tends to develop following a heavy rain or an irrigation event. Each of these factors could affect yields or impede optimum operation. Management measures to ameliorate some of these issues may include implementation of a drainage system or network; implementing a conservation tillage or management system; subsoiling to breakup plow pans (USDA-NRCS, 2006b). Major components that producers generally develop and plan are proper selection of crop cultivar, pest control, cropping system, tillage methods, nutrient management, and water management. Key practices of some cropping systems often include two or more crops grown in a multiyear rotation, which has been documented to disrupt pest cycles. Leaving crop residue on the surface can help to maintain tilth, fertility, and organic matter content – all critical elements of soil quality and health. For monoculture cropping systems, the implementation of well-designed pest and nutrient management systems are imperative (Pringle et al., 2017). (For assistance, interested parties are advised to visit their local NRCS Field Office.)
Three separate management phases comprise this state: Conservation Management (3.1), Transitional Conservation Management (3.2), and Conventional Management (3.3). The three phases consist of varying tillage methods and approaches to soil health management systems.Community 3.1
Conservation ManagementThis cropland phase utilizes long term, continuous conservation management systems that include reduced till and cover crops; no-till with cover crops; crop residue retention; and perennial cropping systems. The guiding principles of this system are minimizing soil disturbance and maximizing soil cover, biodiversity, and the presence of living roots. Implementing diverse crop rotations while maintaining these principles can lend to the development of an integrated pest management plan and contribute to overall system resilience.
Of caution, the above-ground crop growth or yields may not be the best tracking mechanism for assessing the efficacy or presence of this management phase. Indicators of these systems are generally determined via soil-site assessments with outcomes that may include enhanced soil aggregate stability, increased soil biological activity, higher organic matter content, and improved water holding capacity and infiltration rates while also alleviating soil compaction and reducing runoff and erosion (Chessman et al., 2019). Additional advantages to this system that have been noted by some producers are reductions in fuel and labor costs and less wear and tear on machinery and equipment.
There are challenges to this management system, especially in situations where tillage may be considered and/or needed to repair weather damage or other detrimental impacts. Implementation of conventional tillage even after long term conservation practices (e.g., no-till) can reset the affected area back to a conventional cropping system. However, those changes can be reversed and a return to a conservation management system is achievable.
Critical conservation practices associated with this phase include cover crops, no-till, and reduced till as the foundational practices. Additionally, this phase may include supporting and/or site-specific practices to address conservation needs for a given location.Community 3.2
Transitional Conservation ManagementThis cropland phase utilizes a hybrid approach that combines conventional methods with conservation practices at specific periods and under specific situations. Practices under this phase may include a combination of conventional till, reduced till, strip till, and the inclusion of cover crops. For instance, perennial crop species could be in a continuous transitional phase where conventional tillage is implemented at the time of planting followed by reduced tillage during the rotation. Planted forage crops could also be included in this phase, especially when part of a crop rotation that utilizes reduced tillage for one crop followed by conventional tillage for a succeeding crop.
The development, implementation, and refinement of nutrient and pest management plans throughout component operations are imperative. Additionally, this phase may include supporting and/or site-specific practices to address conservation needs for a given location.Community 3.3
Conventional ManagementThis management phase is representative of conventional cropland where tillage is implemented as an annual component of the production system. As crucial elements of the system, conservation practices such as nutrient and pest management are needed to address fertility requirements and pest concerns within the crop cycle. It is important to note that this phase may develop when tillage is implemented to address damage or for other purposes while under a conservation management system (Community Phase 3.1). There could also be associated, supporting, and site-specific practices that are needed to address specific conservation needs. Specific needs may include grade stabilization structures to control gully erosion, grassed waterways to trap sediment from sheet and rill erosion, or implementing reduced till.
Pathway 3.1A
Community 3.1 to 3.2Soil disturbance (tillage); reduction of soil health.
Pathway 3.1B
Community 3.1 to 3.3Conventional tillage, seeding, and fertility management for crops.
Pathway 3.2A
Community 3.2 to 3.1No-till, cover crops, reduced till–soil health improvements.
Pathway 3.2B
Community 3.2 to 3.3Conventional tillage, seeding, and fertility management for crops.
Pathway 3.3A
Community 3.3 to 3.2Reduced till, no-till, and cover crops with soil health improvements as a goal.
State 4
Land Formed CroplandThis nearly level ecological site typically adjoins gently sloping, and sometimes undulating, landscapes. It is bordered by soils of varying textures and drainage characteristics. Accordingly, inconsistencies in wetness, ease of operation, and production or yields may occur across a cropped location. An increasingly common practice on this site consists of land forming or leveling surface irregularities into a predetermined and engineered, uniform slope. This practice removes the drier and higher features of this site, which are then used to fill wetter and lower positions (e.g., depressions or swales) across the targeted area. Advantages of land leveling may include reduced hazards of erosion and runoff rates, improved surface drainage, and enhanced distribution and conservation of irrigation water. Disadvantages of the practice is a churning of various surface and subsurface materials (former soil horizons) that no longer occur in a predictable or regular pattern. Organic matter content in the surface layer is generally low, and the surface tends to crust and pack after heavy rains (USDA-NRCS, 2006b). One potential hazard that appears to be emerging in some areas is an effective management of surface water runoff. As both irrigated and stormwater runs off leveled fields at uniform rates, surface water tends to collect cumulatively and simultaneously, which places tremendous demands on local drainage networks. Without “in field” structures (natural or artificial) to stagger runoff, the downslope (or lower) ends of some fields tend to back flood thereby contributing to more flooding overall in local watersheds (personal observations).
Immediately following land leveling, the constituent elements of soil health are likely to be absent. In some areas, producers have initiated practices such as applying organic residues (e.g., poultry litter) or growing rice crops for one to two years to rapidly boost fertility and introduce organic matter (via rice biomass) in the surface layer. Over time, the full complement of the management (or community) phases of State 3 may be possible on land leveled fields. They are not repeated or indicated here.
Currently, this state serves as an endpoint in the state and transition model because the ability to predict vegetation response when transitioning to a different state is no longer possible without soil-site investigations for each area of interest. The former soils of this ecological site, including surface and subsurface horizons, will have been redistributed as particles among other former soils.Community 4.1
Land Leveled CroplandSome of the crop species and management practices indicated and discussed in State 3 (including all three management phases) may be suitable for establishing on land leveled areas that once supported the soils of this site. However, the type of crops suited for newly leveled areas may ultimately depend on the prevailing soil particle-size distribution and internal drainage characteristics. Former studies on precision leveled fields have noted variabilities and inconsistencies in soil particle-size distributions, bulk density, soil biological properties, and nutrients (Brye et al., 2003; Walker et al., 2003; Brye et al., 2006). Management concerns for this phase may consist of restricted permeability, low organic matter content, and crusting and packing (USDA-NRCS, 2006b). These impacts may be improved by implementing conservation tillage, cover crops, retaining crop residue, and nutrient and pest management strategies.
State 5
Pastureland/GrasslandThis state is representative of sites that have been converted to and maintained in pasture or grassland. The soils of this site are generally considered well suited to most commonly grown perennial forage species. However, there are wetness limitations due to a seasonally high water table, which could restrict root growth. Maintaining an adequate crop of cool season annual forage may be challenging and is generally considered not suited. Management concerns are mainly centered on soil compaction due to grazing, which may be improved or avoided by restricting grazing during wetter periods (USDA-NRCS, 2006b). Of caution, some annual winter plants naturally growing in wet locations (e.g., sedges and rushes) may be hazardous if consumed. Production is considered moderate when adequately fertilized and properly managed.
Given that this ecological site occurs on lower, wetter sites, some forage operations may experience multiple wetness events in a single year. Flood-prone areas may limit the type of forage suited for this site. In areas that flood on a regular basis, implementing management actions such as planting or overseeding appropriate cool season forage varieties (e.g., cultivar ‘Marshall’ ryegrass, Lolium perenne ssp. multiflorum; also known as annual ryegrass) into established warm season grasses at heavy forage rates have been observed to help protect riparian areas from detrimental river or stream scouring (personal observations by Rachel Stout Evans, contributing author). Initiating such remedial actions aid in the recovery and reestablishment of preferred warm season forage such as bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) following seasonal flooding. (Note that herbicide resistant varieties could be problematic and may warrant reconsideration. Please consult with local NRCS Field Offices for assistance.) Where permissible, a system of artificial drainage or water control structures may be in place to facilitate continued forage production and grazing during wetter periods. Additionally, adjacent higher elevation or protected areas may be needed for the storage of harvested forage or holding of livestock when wet or flooded conditions occur.
Establishing an effective pasture management program can help minimize degradation of the site and assist in maintaining growth of desired forage. An effective pasture management program includes selecting well-adapted grass and/or legume species that will grow and establish rapidly; maintaining proper soil pH and fertility levels; using controlled grazing practices; mowing at proper timing and stage of maturity; allowing new seedings to become well established before use; and renovating pastures when needed (Rhodes et al., 2005; Green et al., 2006).
This state consists of four community phases that represent a range of forage management options and pasture/hayland condition scenarios. Options range from establishing a forage monoculture for haying to a broad mixture of forage species for production and grazing. It is strongly advised that consultation with local NRCS Service Centers be sought when assistance is needed in developing management recommendations or prescribed grazing practices.Community 5.1
Monoculture GrasslandThis phase is mainly characterized by planting forage species for hay production. Forage plantings generally consist of a single grass species. Native and non-native forage species can be seeded. Forage is usually harvested as hay or haylage, although grazing may occur periodically. These sites are highly productive for forage and can provide ecological benefits to control soil erosion. Allowing for adequate rest and regrowth of desired species is required to maintain productivity. Maintenance of monoculture stands also requires control of unwanted species, which will require pest and nutrient management.
Generally, the application of fertilizer and lime is needed to establish and maintain improved desirable pastures. Exceptions do occur for bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) and common Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), which can be sustained under natural fertility and pH levels. Introduced grasses, such as hybrid Bermudagrass, require a higher level of sustained fertility, pH above 6.0, and good surface drainage to persist. An additional measure to aid production may include prescribed grazing. Implementing limited and monitored grazing can promote deeper root penetration of grasses with the added benefit of greater nutrient and moisture uptake. This synergistic approach can lead to increased production of and may sustain desirable forages.
Conservation practices should include prescribed grazing, or forage harvest management, nutrient and pest management, and potentially other site-specific practices.Dominant plant species
-
tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus), grass
-
Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), grass
-
dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum), grass
-
bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum), grass
Community 5.2
Mixed Species SystemThis community is characterized by mixed species composition of grasses and legumes. Components of this forage system are either planted or they established naturally. Typically, perennial warm-season grasses are the foundation of the stand that are periodically overseeded with adapted cool-season forages. The latter creates an added benefit of extending the grazing season. This community phase can be highly productive for grazing and haying operations and can provide beneficial habitat for some wildlife species.
Maintenance of grass stands also requires a series of management practices such as prescribed grazing, brush management, pest management, and nutrient management to maintain production of the desired species. Prescribed grazing includes maintaining proper grazing or forage heights, timing, and stocking rates. Supporting or facilitating practices such as fences, water lines, and watering facilities could be part of the system that maintains this phase.Dominant plant species
-
tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus), grass
-
Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), grass
-
dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum), grass
-
bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum), grass
-
white clover (Trifolium repens), other herbaceous
Community 5.3
Mixed Species, Non-seededThis community is characterized by a mixture of native and naturalized non-native species. Forage is usually grazed and/or harvested as stored forage, hay or haylage. Common established species may include tall fescue, Bermudagrass, bahiagrass, Vasey grass (Paspalum urvillei), and carpetgrass (Axonopus sp.).
Stands are generally productive, and forage and grazing management can maintain the community. Healthy stands provide additional benefits by protecting soils from excessive runoff and erosion. However, a common peril associated with this phase is overgrazing, which lowers production and favors less palatable weedy species, especially in areas where livestock congregate. Proper stocking rates or grazing systems that allow for adequate rest and plant regrowth are required to maintain productivity. When forage species are afforded adequate recovery time between grazing intervals, they develop deeper root systems and greater leaf area. Conversely, when plants are not allowed to adequately recover, root development will be restricted leading to lower forage and biomass production. Additionally, maintenance of grass stands requires implementing pest management practices to control unwanted weedy and woody species.Community 5.4
Early Woody SuccessionThis community is characterized by a diverse composition of grasses and forbs with an increasing presence of woody species (both native and non-native) that are immature and of low stature. Woody species grow quickly on this site and can be difficult and expensive to control. One potentially problematic species may be honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos). Putnam (1951) reported honeylocust as being common on old pastures, and the species can be difficult to remove once established. Management to transition this phase to other forage communities of this state is still possible without excessive inputs and effort, particularly if stem diameters remain below 2 inches and are widely scattered (e.g., a density of less than 100 stems per acre). However, if diameters become greater than 3 inches and densities exceed 300 stems per acre, far more investment, effort, and inputs will be required. If brush management measures are not undertaken, the plant community will transition to the Ruderal/Opportunistic Regrowth (Community Phase 6.1) of State 6.
Of note, this community phase is often very beneficial habitat for some wildlife species, especially a specific guild of resident and Neotropical migratory bird species that depend on old field to young tree stand habitats.Pathway 5.1A
Community 5.1 to 5.2Seeding and/or management for desired species composition.
Pathway 5.1B
Community 5.1 to 5.3Species management without overseeding.
Pathway 5.2A
Community 5.2 to 5.1Seeding, fertilizing, management/removal of undesirable species.
Pathway 5.2B
Community 5.2 to 5.3Species management without overseeding
Pathway 5.3A
Community 5.3 to 5.1Seeding, fertilizing, management/removal of undesirable species.
Pathway 5.3B
Community 5.3 to 5.2Seeding and/or management for desired species composition.
Pathway 5.3C
Community 5.3 to 5.4Lack of disturbance; no (infrequent) mowing, herbivory, or brush management; natural succession of woody species.
Pathway 5.4A
Community 5.4 to 5.3Brush management/removal of unwanted species.
State 6
Forest RecoveryThis state is representative of forest recovery in areas that were once under former intensive landuse such as long-term row crop cultivation. Characteristics that distinguish this state from other forest states on this site include a suite of soil-site properties that reportedly affect tree growth such as higher soil bulk density due to compaction, presence of a plow pan, lower organic matter content, and reduced fertility (Baker and Broadfoot, 1979; Groninger et al., 1999). Two community phases are provisionally recognized for this state. Community Phase 6.1 represents natural colonization of vegetation without management. Community Phase 6.2 is representative of intentional forest establishment by planting.
For Community Phase 6.2, determining the objectives and goals of the future stand is imperative to increase the probability of successful establishment and production of the afforested area. These decisions will ultimately determine the species to be established, preparation requirements, planting density, and post-planting operations (e.g., competitor control, future improvement cuttings and thinnings, regeneration methods, and overall stand health). Since each area targeted for afforestation may have unique or different landuse histories, having a clear understanding of the soil-site conditions are essential. Some areas may necessitate a series of soil improvement actions prior to planting. These actions may include subsoiling or deep plowing to breakup plow pans and fertilizing the targeted area. An additional option is to allow the area to undergo fallowing for a predetermined period (Community Phase 6.1) to potentially increase soil organic matter content, enhance soil aggregate stability, increase soil biological activity, and improve water holding capacity and infiltration rates. Controlling competing vegetation (chemical and mechanical treatment) will be critical, although ensuring seedling survival and enhanced tree growth on fallow fields after weed control treatments have not always been met with positive results (Groninger, 2005). Still, post-planting operations and maintenance of the stand are necessary steps to increase the probability for enhancing survival, future development, and achieving goals and objectives (see Gardiner et al., 2002).
Finding the appropriate approach for a given environment necessitates close consultation with trained, experienced, and knowledgeable forestry professionals. If there is a desire to proceed with this state, it is strongly urged and advised that professional guidance be obtained and a well-designed afforestation and silvicultural plan developed in advance of any work conducted. For an exceptional review and summary of the afforestation literature, techniques, and practices within the Southern Mississippi River Alluvium, interested parties are directed to Gardiner et al. (2002).Community 6.1
Ruderal/Opportunistic RegrowthThis community phase is representative of former working lands (e.g., cropland and possibly high concentration areas of former pastureland) that have fallowed and subsequently undergone natural colonization by vegetation. A profusion of growth will likely initiate within five to ten years of becoming idle – one that typically includes grasses, forbs, woody seedlings and shrubs, and an increasing presence and covering of vines. Initial colonization may be dominant in annuals followed by a shift to perennial vegetation. Shrubs and tree seedlings may appear very early following abandonment, however the rate of colonization and period to stand establishment likely depends on the proximity of established mature stands (Battaglia et al., 1995; Battaglia et al., 2002). If established stands consisting of light-seeded species adjoin fallow fields, colonizing tree species will likely be comprised of those taxa (e.g., green ash, elm, maple, sycamore, and cottonwood) (Allen, 1990; Stanturf et al., 2001). Some areas may be far removed from established forest stands. Under this scenario, establishment of woody species (especially overstory tree species) may be very slow, and years may be required before stand establishment is reached (Battaglia et al., 1995; Allen, 1997). In fact, natural colonization by some species may be delayed indefinitely with some stands or areas being understocked (Allen, 1997; Battaglia et al., 2002; Groninger, 2005). Heavy-seeded species like oaks and hickory may not have an opportunity to colonize available areas due to distance and lack of a dependable dispersing agent (e.g., wildlife and water). For those areas close to a viable seed source, oaks may be a component of the developing stand, although in the early stages of stand development oaks are likely to be a minor component (Meadows, 1993). Non-native invasive species may become part of the developing stand given the proliferation of exotic plant species over the past century.
It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to predict the future composition and structure of an abandoned field on this site. Many different environmental factors will influence initial colonization and development trajectories. The following projections are simply based on native plant species reported to occur on the soils of this site. As the young stand matures and eventually enters the stem exclusion stage (crown or canopy closure), composition may include American elm, green ash, cedar elm, boxelder, American sycamore, red maple, sugarberry, and sweetgum. Oaks that may occur in the young stand include willow, water, and Nuttall with overcup potentially occurring in wetter locations. Problematic non-native species that may occur include Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and possibly Callery pear (Pyrus calleryana). Vines common in the young, developing stand may include greenbrier, eastern poison ivy, peppervine, American buckwheat vine, and trumpet creeper. As the stand matures decades into the future and the overstory stratifies (i.e., the understory reinitiation stage), shade tolerant species may dominate the stand and the community could transition to an elm – ash – sugarberry association or a variant of this type.Community 6.2
AfforestationThis community phase is representative of areas planted in tree species that are suited for and favored in management on this ecological site. Preparation of this phase may be initiated immediately following a former landuse activity (e.g., State 3) or it may be started following a fallow period (Community Phase 6.1). If afforestation is initiated immediately following years of conventional tillage without soil-site preparation and improvement efforts, potential productivity of the targeted area could be less than optimal if soil compaction, plow pan presence, degraded fertility, and/or depleted organic matter content are existing factors (Baker and Broadfoot, 1979; Groninger et al., 1999; Gardiner et al., 2002).
Groninger et al. (1999) utilized the Baker and Broadfoot (1979) model for site evaluation to predict potential productivity of green ash, Nuttall oak, American sycamore, sweetgum, swamp chestnut oak, water oak, and cottonwood on what they termed “marginal soybean lands.” These are croplands occurring on frequently flooded areas that typically produce low average soybean yields where conventional tillage is utilized. Soils associated with these areas are generally poorly drained, clayey, and typically classified as hydric. The principal soil series of this site, Forestdale soils, were included for evaluation. Based on information presented in Groninger et al. (1999), site index predictions on conventional tillage cropland ranged from 9 to 28 percent lower than what are generally reported in soil survey manuscripts and in Broadfoot (1976). (Note, prediction values differed with respect to species.) The site index predictions in Groninger et al. assumes that no soil-site improvement actions were undertaken.
Over the years, various afforestation innovations have increased the likelihood of success in addition to soil-site amelioration such as planting large, high-quality seedlings with well-developed root systems in an appropriate cover crop (Dey et al., 2010); interplanting seedlings within a fast-growing pioneer species nurse crop (e.g., cottonwood) (Gardiner et al., 2001); and planting companionable species combinations for mixed species stands (Lockhart et al., 2008). The cover crop and nurse crop approaches reportedly help to control rapid overtopping and crowding by competing vegetation and wildlife herbivory (Dey et al., 2010). Finding the appropriate strategy for a given location requires matching the species to the local hydrologic and soil-site environment; determining short- and long-term objectives and goals; and implementing the appropriate management actions at the required intervals.
Several species that frequently occur and favored in management (see State 1) are likely appropriate for planting on this ecological site. However, Broadfoot (1976) listed a much narrower group of hardwoods suitable for planting on the two principal soils of this site and they are green ash, Nuttall oak, sweetgum, Shumard’s oak, American sycamore, and eastern cottonwood.Dominant plant species
-
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tree
-
Nuttall oak (Quercus texana), tree
-
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tree
-
Shumard's oak (Quercus shumardii), tree
-
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), tree
Pathway 6.1A
Community 6.1 to 6.2Remove undesirable competitors; final soil preparation; establish site-appropriate species (favored in management).
State 7
Conservation (Herbaceous)This state is representative of the range of conservation actions that may be implemented and established on this ecological site. Apart from planting trees and managing for forest, one may elect to establish native herbaceous species and manage for predominantly a native grassland; a complex mixture of native grasses and forbs; or a pollinator planting whereby native forbs dominate the mix. In each of these options, it is strongly advised (possibly a programmatic requirement) that the species comprising the planting or seed mix consist of spring, summer, and fall flowering species. Depending on goals and objectives, various conservation programs and practices may be available. For additional information and assistance, please contact or visit the local NRCS Field Office.
Community 7.1
Pollinator Planting/Native GrassesThis community phase represents the establishment of native forbs or wildflowers for pollinator habitat and/or native grasses. The seed mix for planting may be quite varied depending on objectives and goals. Ideally, the mix includes a wide range of species that flower at various times of the growing season (spring, summer, and fall). Plant species in some pollinator mixes may include but are not limited to beebalm (Monarda spp.), milkweeds (Asclepias spp.), beardtongue (Penstemon spp.), cardinalflower (Lobelia cardinalis), vervain (Verbena spp.), various legumes such as native lespedeza (Lespedeza spp.), Illinois bundleflower (Desmanthus illinoensis), partridge pea (Chamaecrista fasciculata), and a broad assortment of composites such as asters (Symphyotrichum spp.), tickseed (Coreopsis spp.), blazing star (Liatris spp.), coneflower (Rudbeckia spp.), sunflower (Helianthus spp.) among many others. If goals and objectives are to establish native grasses within a forb mix or in a grass-dominant stand, species suitable for planting may include switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), and eastern gamagrass (Tripsacum dactyloides).
Key to the establishment of this phase is initial preparation, seeding rate, planting period, follow-up treatment, and maintenance of the planting. The selection of species to establish on any given area may ultimately depend on size and conditions of the location where the planting will occur, landowner/manager goals and objectives, and the advice and knowledge of the conservation practitioner.Transition T1A
State 1 to 2Stand composition is heavily altered and managed to favor select species for production (Community 2.1). This transitional pathway also includes heavy timber cutting and/or high-grading leading to Community 2.2.
Transition T1B
State 1 to 3Actions include mechanical removal of vegetation and stumps; herbicide treatment of residual plants; and preparation for cultivation.
Transition T1C
State 1 to 5Actions include mechanical removal of vegetation and stumps; herbicide treatment of residual plants; seedbed preparation; and establishment of desired forage.
Transition T2A
State 2 to 1This transition represents a return to perceived reference conditions and involves the re-establishment of missing species; the control/removal of exotic species (herbicide and mechanical); stand improvement practices that favors a return of more shade intolerant components.
Transition T2B
State 2 to 3Actions include mechanical removal of vegetation and stumps; herbicide treatment of residual plants; and preparation for cultivation.
Transition T2C
State 2 to 5Actions include mechanical removal of vegetation and stumps; herbicide treatment of residual plants; seedbed preparation; and establishment of desired forage.
Transition T3A
State 3 to 4Precision land leveling
Transition T3B
State 3 to 5Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing
Transition T3C
State 3 to 6Natural succession (Community 6.1) or site prep (plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.); planting species appropriate for site (Community 6.2)
Transition T3D
State 3 to 7Establish select native species suitable for site; prep site for planting (herbicide and/or mechanical)
Transition T5A
State 5 to 3Actions include mechanical removal of vegetation; herbicide treatment of residual plants; and preparation for cultivation.
Transition T5B
State 5 to 6Natural succession (Community 6.1) or site prep (plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.); planting species appropriate for site (Community 6.2)
Transition T5C
State 5 to 7Establish select native species suitable for site; prep site for planting (herbicide and/or mechanical)
Transition T6A
State 6 to 3Cropland establishment: vegetation removal (mechanical/chemical) and preparation for cultivation
Transition T6B
State 6 to 5Mechanical removal of vegetation and stumps; herbicide treatment of residual plants; establish desired forage species and manage for grazing
Transition T7A
State 7 to 3Cropland establishment: vegetation removal (mechanical/chemical) and preparation for cultivation.
Transition T7B
State 7 to 5Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing
Transition T7C
State 7 to 6Natural succession (Community 6.1) or site prep (plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.); planting species appropriate for site (Afforestation - Community 6.2)
Additional community tables
Table 6. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 7. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 8. Community 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 10. Community 3.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 11. Community 3.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 12. Community 4.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 13. Community 5.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 14. Community 5.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 15. Community 5.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 16. Community 5.4 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 17. Community 6.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 18. Community 6.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 19. Community 7.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Supporting information
Inventory data references
The information provided on the states and community phases in this provisional description report were generated from literature reviews, conversations with technical specialists, and limited personal observations and experience on this soil-site environment. Intensive vegetation inventories were not conducted during the development of this provisional report. Those tasks will occur during future phases of ecological site development.
Other references
Allen, J.A. 1990. Establishment of bottomland oak plantations on the Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 14(4): 206-210.
Allen, J.A. 1997. Reforestation of bottomland hardwoods and the issue of woody species diversity. Restoration Ecology 5(2): 125-134.
Aslan, A. and W.J. Autin. 1999. Evolution of the Holocene Mississippi River floodplain, Ferriday, Louisiana: Insights on the origin of fine-grained floodplains. Journal of Sedimentary Research 69: 800-815.
Autin, W.J., S.F. Burns, B.J. Miller, R.T. Saucier, and J.I. Snead. 1991. Quaternary geology of the Lower Mississippi Valley. p. 547-582. In R.B. Morrison (Editor). Quaternary Nonglacial Geology: Conterminous U.S. Geological Society of America. The Geology of North America, Volume K-2. Boulder, CO.
Baker, J.B. and W.M. Broadfoot. 1979. A practical field method of site evaluation for commercially important southern hardwoods. General Technical Report SO-26. Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA. 51p.
Battaglia, L.L., J.R. Keough, and D.W. Pritchett. 1995. Early secondary succession in a southeastern U.S. alluvial floodplain. Journal of Vegetation Science 6(6): 769-776.
Battaglia, L.L., P.R. Minchin, and D.W. Pritchett. 2002. Sixteen years of old-field succession and reestablishment of a bottomland hardwood forest in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Wetlands 22(1): 1-17.
Blum, M.D., M.J. Guccione, D.A. Wysocki, P.C. Robnett, and M. Rutledge. 2000. Late Pleistocene evolution of the Lower Mississippi Valley, southern Missouri to Arkansas. Geological Society of America Bulletin 112: 221-235.
Broadfoot, W.M. 1976. Hardwood suitability for and properties of important Midsouth soils. USDA Forest Service Research Paper SO-127. Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA. 84 p.
Brye, K.R., N.A. Slaton, M.C. Savin, R.J. Norman, and D.M. Miller. 2003. Short-term effects of land leveling on soil physical properties and microbial biomass. Soil Science Society of America Journal 67: 1405-1417.
Brye, K.R., N.A. Slaton, and R.J. Norman. 2006. Soil physical and biological properties as affected by land leveling in a clayey Aquert. Soil Science Society of America Journal 70: 631-642.
Castilla, R.A. and F.A. Audemard. 2007. Sand blows as a potential tool for magnitude estimation of pre-instrumental earthquakes. Journal of Seismology 11(4): 473-487.
Chapman, S.S., J.M. Omernik, G.E. Griffith, W.A. Schroeder, T.A. Nigh, and T.F. Wilton. 2002. Ecoregions of Iowa and Missouri (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,800,000).
Chessman, D., B.N. Moebius-Clune, B.R. Smith, and B. Fisher. 2019. The basics of addressing resource concerns with conservation practices within integrated soil health management systems on cropland. Soil Health Technical Note No. 450-04. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available: https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=44340.wba (Accessed: 9 September 2020).
Clatterbuck, W.K. and J.S. Meadows. 1993. Regenerating oaks in the bottomlands. p: 184-195. In: D.L. Loftis and C.E. McGee (Editors). Oak Regeneration: Serious Problems, Practical Recommendations. Symposium Proceedings, 8-10 September 1992, Knoxville, TN. General Technical Report SE-84. USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC.
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. General Technical Report WO-76D, Map on CD-ROM (A.M. Sloan, cartographer). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. presentation scale 1:3,500,000; colored.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS 79/31. 103 p.
Dey, D.C., E.S. Gardiner, J.M. Kabrick, J.A. Stanturf, and D.F. Jacobs. 2010. Innovations in afforestation of agricultural bottomlands to restore native forests in the eastern USA. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 25(S8): 31-42.
Elliott, D.O. 1932. The Improvement of the Lower Mississippi River for Flood Control and Navigation. Volume 1. U.S. Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Eyre, F.H. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 p.
Flinn, K.M. and M. Vellend. 2005. Recovery of forest plant communities in post-agricultural landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3(5): 243-250.
Fuller, M.L. 1912. The New Madrid Earthquake. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 494. 120 p.
Gardiner, E.S. personal communication. Research Forester, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Stoneville, MS.
Gardiner, E.S. and J.M. Oliver. 2005. Restoration of bottomland hardwood forests in Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, U.S.A. p. 235-251. In: J.A. Stanturf and P. Madsen (Editors). Restoration of Boreal and Temperate Forests. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Gardiner, E.S., D.R. Russell, M. Oliver, and L.C. Dorris, Jr. 2002. Bottomland hardwood afforestation: state of the art. p. 75-86. In: M.M. Holland, M.L. Warren, and J.A. Stanturf (Editors). Proceedings of a conference on sustainability of wetlands and water resources: how well can riverine wetlands continue to support society into the 21st century? General Technical Report SRS-50. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC.
Gardiner, E.S., C.J. Schweitzer, and J.A. Stanturf. 2001. Photosynthesis of Nuttall oak (Quercus nuttallii Palm.) seedlings interplanted beneath an eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides Bartr. ex Marsh.) nurse crop. Forest Ecology and Management 149: 283-294.
Green, Jonathan D., W.W. Witt, and J.R. Martin. 2006. Weed management in grass pastures, hayfields, and other farmstead sites. University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service, Publication AGR-172.
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, S. Azevedo. 1998. Ecoregions of Tennessee (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, VA., U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,000,000).
Groninger, J.W. 2005. Increasing the impact of bottomland hardwood afforestation. Journal of Forestry 103(4): 184-188.
Groninger, J.W., M.W. Aust, M. Miwa, and J.A. Stanturf. 1999. Tree species-soil relationships on marginal soybean lands in the Mississippi Delta. p. 205-209. In: J.D. Haywood (Editor). Proceedings of the Tenth Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, Shreveport, LA. General Technical Report SRS-30. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC. 632 p.
Head, M.J. 2019. Formal subdivision of the Quaternary System/Period: Present status and future directions. Quaternary International 500: 32-51.
Hodges, J.D. 1995. The southern bottomland hardwood region and brown loam bluffs subregion. p. 227-269. In: J.W. Barrett (Editor). Regional Silviculture of the United States. Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Hodges, J.D. 1997. Development and ecology of bottomland hardwood sites. Forest Ecology and Management 90: 117-125.
Johnson, R.L. and F.W. Shropshire. 1983. Bottomland Hardwoods. p. 175-179. In: R.M. Burns (Editor). Silvicultural Systems for the Major Forest Types of the United States. Agricultural Handbook 445. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.
Klimas, C.V., E.O. Murray, J. Pagan, H. Langston, and T. Foti. 2011b. A Regional Guidebook for Applying the Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Assessing Functions of Forested Wetlands in the Delta Region of Arkansas, Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley, Version 2.0. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program, ERDC/EL TR-11-12.
Klimas, C., J. Pagan, T. Foti., and B.E. Tirpak. 2011a. Potential Natural Vegetation of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: Yazoo Basin, Mississippi. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture. Vicksburg, MS.
Klimas, C., T. Foti, J. Pagan, and M. Williamson. 2013. Potential Natural Vegetation of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: St. Francis Basin, Arkansas, Field Atlas. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program, ERDC/EL TR-12-23.
Lockhart, B.R., E. Gardiner, T. Leininger, and J. Stanturf. 2008. A stand-development approach to oak afforestation in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 32(3): 120-129.
Meadows, J.S. 1993. Stand development and silviculture in bottomland hardwoods. p. 12-16. In: W.P. Smith and D.N. Pashley (Editors). Proceedings of a workshop to resolve conflicts in the conservation of migratory landbirds of bottomland hardwood forests. 9-10 August 1993, Tallulah, LA. General Technical Report SO-114. USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA.
Meadows, J.S. and J.A. Stanturf. 1997. Silvicultural systems for southern bottomland hardwoods. Forest Ecology and Management 90: 127-140.
Moore, N.R. 1972. Improvement of the Lower Mississippi River and Tributaries 1931-1972. Mississippi River Commission, Vicksburg, MS.
NatureServe. 2020. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available: http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: 21 July 2020).
Oliver, C.D., E.C. Burkhardt, and D.A. Skojac. 2005. The increasing scarcity of red oaks in Mississippi River floodplain forests: influence of the residual overstory. Forest Ecology and Management 210: 393-414.
Pringle, H.C., III, L. Falconer, D.K. Fisher, and L.J. Krutz. 2017. Initiation of furrow irrigation in corn on a Dundee/Forestdale silty clay loam soil with and without deep tillage. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 33(2): 205-216.
Putnam, J.A. 1951. Management of bottomland hardwoods. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Occasional Paper 116.
Putnam, J.A. and H. Bull. 1932. The Trees of the Bottomlands of the Mississippi River Delta Region, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Occasional Paper 27.
Rhodes, G.N., Jr., G.K. Breeden, G. Bates, and S. McElroy. 2005. Hay crop and pasture weed management. University of Tennessee, UT Extension, Publication PB 1521-10M-6/05 (Rev). Available: https://extension.tennessee.edu/washington/Documents/hay_crop.pdf.
Rittenhour, T.M., M.D. Blum, and R.J. Goble. 2007. Fluvial evolution of the Lower Mississippi River Valley during the last 100 k.y. glacial cycle: Response to glaciation and sea-level change. Geological Society of America Bulletin 119: 586-608.
Saucier, R.T. 1994. Geomorphology and Quaternary geologic history of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Volumes I (report) and II (map folio). U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Shen, Z., T.E. Tornqvist, W.J. Autin, Z.R.P. Mateo, K.M. Straub, and B. Mauz. 2012. Rapid and widespread response of the Lower Mississippi River to eustatic forcing during the last glacial-interglacial cycle. Geological Society of America Bulletin 124: 690-704.
Smith, R.D. and C. Klimas. 2002. A regional guidebook for applying the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions of selected regional wetland subclasses, Yazoo Basin, Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley. ERDC/EL TR-02-4, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Snipes, C.E., S.P. Nichols, D.H. Poston, T.W. Walker, L.P. Evans, and H.R. Robinson. 2005. Current agricultural practices of the Mississippi Delta. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS. Bulletin 1143.
Stanturf, J.A., S.H. Schoenholtz, C.J. Schweitzer, and J.P. Shepard. 2001. Achieving restoration success: myths in bottomland hardwood forests. Restoration Ecology 9(2): 189-200.
Stevens, G. and H. Krusekopf. 2020. Delta soils of Southeast Missouri. Publication No. G9011. University of Missouri Extension, Columbia, MO. Available: https://extension.missouri.edu/publications/g9011 (Accessed: 21 February 2021).
[USACE] United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2017. The Mississippi Drainage Basin. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District Website. Available: https://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/Missions/Mississippi-River-Flood-Control/Mississippi-River-Tributaries/Mississippi-Drainage-Basin/ (Accessed: 2017).
[USDA-NRCS] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006a. 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.
[USDA-NRCS] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006b. Soil Survey of Leflore County, Mississippi. 281 p. Available: https://archive.org/details/usda-soil-survey-of-leflore-county-mississippi (Accessed: 13 August 2018).
[USDA-NRCS] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2022. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook 296.
[USDA-SCS] United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1974. Soil Survey of Crittenden County, Arkansas. Available https://archive.org/details/usda-soil-survey-of-crittenden-county-arkansas-1974 (Accessed: 14 March 2017).
[USDA-SCS] United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1959. Soil Survey of Sunflower County, Mississippi. Series 1952, No. 5. https://archive.org/details/usda-soil-association-map-soil-survey-of-sunflower-county-mississippi (Accessed: 31 January 2018).
Walker, T.W., W.L. Kingery, J.E. Street, M.S. Cox, J.L. Oldham, P.D. Gerard, and F.X. Han. 2003. Rice yield and soil chemical properties as affected by precision land leveling in alluvial soils. Agronomy Journal 95: 1483-1488.
Wallace, D. personal communication. Forester (Retired), USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Columbia, MO.
Wiken, Ed, F.J. Nava, and G. Griffith. 2011. North American Terrestrial Ecoregions – Level III. Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Montreal, Canada.
Woods, A.J., T.L. Foti, S.S. Chapman, J.M. Omernik, J.A. Wise, E.O. Murray, W.L. Prior, J.B. Pagan, Jr., J.A. Comstock, and M. Radford. 2004. Ecoregions of Arkansas (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,000,000).
Woods, A.J., J.M. Omernik, W.H. Martin, G.J. Pond, W.M. Andrews, S.M. Call, J.A. Comstock, and D.D. Taylor. 2002. Ecoregions of Kentucky (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, VA., U.S. Geological Survey (map scale1:1,000,000).Contributors
Barry Hart
Rachel Stout EvansApproval
Charles Stemmans, 6/10/2025
Acknowledgments
We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the MLRA 131A Technical Team for their assistance and input in the development of this report. Special recognition is owed to Tom Foti (Ecologist, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Retired) and Henry Langston (Wetland Ecologist, Arkansas Department of Transportation, Retired) for their time, personal travel expenses, and willingness to share their vast knowledge of the region. Their assistance with field reconnaissance, identifying sites and locations for investigating, and verifying ecological factors across multiple Mississippi River basins has led to a deeper understanding of the ecological sites and their associated states and community phases in the Southern Mississippi River Alluvium.
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 08/17/2026 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:
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
