Natural Resources
Conservation Service
-
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): 144A–New England and Eastern New York Upland, Southern Part
MLRA 144A: New England and Eastern New York Upland, Southern Part
The eastern half of the eastern part of this MLRA is in the Seaboard Lowland Section of the New England Province of the Appalachian Highlands. The western half of the eastern part and the southeastern half of the western part are in the New England Upland Section of the same province and division. The northwestern half of the western part is in the Hudson Valley Section of the Valley and Ridge Province of the Appalachian Highlands. This MLRA is a very scenic area of rolling to hilly uplands that are broken by many gently sloping to level valleys that terminate in coastal lowlands. Elevation ranges from sea level to 1,000 feet (0 to 305 meters) in much of the area, but it is 2,000 feet (610 meters) on some hills. Relief is mostly about 6 to 65 feet (2 to 20 meters) in the valleys and about 80 to 330 feet (25 to 100 meters) in the uplands.
This area has been glaciated and consists almost entirely of till hills, drumlins, and bedrock-controlled uplands with a mantle of till. It is dissected by narrow glacio-fluvial valleys. The southernmost boundary of the area marks the farthest southward extent of Wisconsinian glaciation on the eastern seaboard. The river valleys and coastal plains are filled with glacial lake sediments, marine sediments, and glacial outwash. The bedrock in the eastern half of the area consists primarily of igneous and metamorphic rocks of early Paleozoic age. Granite is the most common igneous rock, and gneiss, schist, and slate are the most common metamorphic rocks. In the parts of the MLRA in eastern and southeastern New York, Devonian- to Pennsylvanian-age sandstone, shale, and limestone are dominant. Carbonate rocks, primarily dolomite and limestone, are the dominant kinds of bedrock in the part of this MLRA in northwestern Connecticut.Classification relationships
USDA-NRCS (USDA 2006):
Land Resource Region (LRR): N—East and Central Farming and Forest Region
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 144A— New England and Eastern New York Upland, Southern Part.
USDA-FS (Cleland et al. 2007)
Province: 221 - Eastern Broadleaf Province
Section: 221A - Lower New England
Subsection: 221Aa – Boston Basin
221Ac – Narragansett-Bristol Lowland and Islands
221Ad – Southern New England Coastal Lowland
221Ae – Hudson Highlands
221Ag - Southeast New England Coastal Hills and Plains
221Ah - Worcester-Monadnock Plateau
221Ai – Gulf of Maine Coastal Plain
221Ak - Gulf of Maine Coastal Lowland
Section: 221B – Hudson Valley
Subsection: 221Ba – Hudson Limestone Valley
221Bb - Miami – Taconic Foothills
221Bc – Hudson Glacial Lake PlainsEcological site concept
The Dry Outwash ecological site is widely distributed and consists of very deep, excessively drained soils and somewhat excessively drained soils formed in sandy outwash and other glaciofluvial deposits. They are nearly level through very steep soils on various glaciofluvial landforms. Representative soils are Hinckley, Hoosic, Knickerbocker, Merrimac, Oakville Otisville, Quonset, Wapanucket, and Windsor.
The representative plant communities are varied but generally consist of pines: pitch pine (Pinus rigida), eastern white pine (P. strobus) which may be also mixed with some oaks: chestnut oaks (Quercus montana), black oak (Q. velutina), scarlet oak (Q. prinus) and, bear oak (Q. ilicifolia).Associated sites
F144AY027MA Moist Sandy Outwash
Similar sites
F144AY025MA Semi-Rich Moist Outwash
F144AY021MA Semi-Rich Dry Outwash
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Pinus rigida
(2) Quercus montanaShrub (1) Gaylussacia baccata
Herbaceous (1) Pteridium aquilinum
Physiographic features
This site occurs across a wide range of landforms, and is rarely subject to flooding.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Delta plain > Delta
(2) Lake plain > Esker
(3) Outwash plain > Kame
(4) River valley > Outwash plain
(5) Upland > Terrace
(6) Valley > Outwash delta
(7) Flood plain
(8) Hillslope
(9) Ridge
(10) Lake plain
(11) Lake terrace
(12) Outwash terrace
Runoff class Negligible to medium Flooding frequency None to rare Ponding frequency None Elevation 0 – 1479 ft Slope 0 – 60 % Water table depth 30 – 72 in Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
The Koppen-Geiger climate classification of the area in which this MLRA occurs varies between Dfb (Warm-summer humid continental) in the North, and Dfa (Hot-summer humid continental) in the southern portion of the MLRA. Precipitation is usually uniformly distributed throughout the year. Near the coast, however, it is slightly lower in summer. Precipitation is slightly higher in spring and fall in inland areas. Rainfall occurs as high-intensity, convective thunderstorms during the summer. During the winter, most of the precipitation occurs as moderate-intensity storms (northeasters) that produce large amounts of rain or snow. The freeze-free period increases in length to the south.
Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 120-150 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 150-180 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 50-50 in Frost-free period (actual range) 120-160 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 150-200 days Precipitation total (actual range) 40-50 in Frost-free period (average) 140 days Freeze-free period (average) 170 days Precipitation total (average) 50 in Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 1. Monthly precipitation range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 2. Monthly minimum temperature range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 3. Monthly maximum temperature range
BarLineFigure 4. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Figure 5. Annual precipitation pattern
Figure 6 Annual average temperature pattern
Climate stations used
-
(1) DANBURY [USC00061762], Bethel, CT
-
(2) NORWICH PUB UTIL PLT [USC00065910], Norwich, CT
-
(3) WANAQUE RAYMOND DAM [USC00289187], Haskell, NJ
-
(4) SARATOGA SPRINGS 4 SW [USC00307484], Saratoga Springs, NY
-
(5) MIDDLEBORO [USC00194711], Middleboro, MA
-
(6) DURHAM [USC00272174], Madbury, NH
-
(7) WORCESTER RGNL AP [USW00094746], Leicester, MA
-
(8) VALATIE 1 N [USC00308746], Valatie, NY
">Influencing water features
NONE
Wetland description
NONE
Soil features
This widely distributed site consists of very deep, excessively drained soils and somewhat excessively drained soils formed in coarse textured glaciofluvial deposits.
Representative soils are Hinckley, Hoosic, Knickerbocker, Merrimac, Oakville Otisville, Quonset, Wapanucket, and Windsor.Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Glaciofluvial deposits – granite and gneiss
(2) Eolian deposits – sandstone
(3) Outwash – schist
(4) Shale
(5) Phyllite
(6) Metamorphic and sedimentary rock
(7) Basalt
Surface texture (1) Loamy sand
(2) Gravelly fine sandy loam
(3) Gravelly sandy loam
(4) Loamy coarse sand
(5) Channery loam
(6) Gravelly loam
(7) Fine sandy loam
(8) Loamy fine sand
(9) Gravelly loamy sand
(10) Sandy loam
Family particle size (1) Loamy-skeletal
(2) Sandy
(3) Sandy-skeletal
Drainage class Somewhat excessively drained to excessively drained Permeability class Very slow to rapid Depth to restrictive layer 72 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" 0 – 2 % Available water capacity
(Depth not specified)1 – 5 in Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(Depth not specified)3.5 – 7.3 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 60 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 45 % Ecological dynamics
[Caveat: The vegetation information contained in this section and is only provisional, based on concepts, not yet validated with field work.*] The vegetation groupings described in this section are based on the terrestrial ecological system classification and vegetation associations developed by NatureServe (Comer 2003). Terrestrial ecological SYSTEMS are specifically defined as a group of plant community-types called ASSOCIATIONS that tend to [co-]occur within landscapes with similar ecological processes, substrates, and/or environmental gradients. They are intended to provide a classification unit that is readily mappable, often from terrain and remote imagery, and readily identifiable by conservation and resource managers in the field. A given system will typically manifest itself in a landscape at intermediate geographic scales of tens-to-thousands of hectares and will persist for 50 or more years. A vegetation association is a plant community that is much more specific to a given soil, geology, landform, climate, hydrology, and disturbance history. It is the basic unit for vegetation classification and recognized by the US National Vegetation Classification (US FDGC 2008). Each association will be named by the diagnostic and often dominant species that occupy the different height strata (tree, sapling, shrub, and herb). Within the NatureServe Explorer database, ecological systems are numbered by a Community Ecological System Code (CES) and individual vegetation associations are assigned an identification number called a Community Element Global Code (CEGL).
Additional and more localized vegetation information is provided by the State Natural Heritage Programs of Connecticut (Metzler and Barrett 2001) and Massachusetts (Swain and Kearsley 2001), New Hampshire (Sperduto and Nichols, 2011), and New York (Edinger et al., 2014).
The Dry Outwash ecological site is widely distributed and characteristic of the Central Appalachian Dry Oak-Pine Forest system (CES202.591), the Laurentian-Acadian Pine-Hemlock-Hardwood Forest system (CES201.563), the Northeastern Interior Pine Barrens system (CES202.590), and the Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain Pitch Pine Barrens system (CES203.269). The representative plant communities are varied but generally consist of pines (pitch pine (Pinus rigida), eastern white pine (P. strobus)) which may be also mixed with oaks (chestnut oaks (Quercus montana), black oak (Q. velutina), scarlet oak (Q. prinus) and , bear oak (Q. ilicifolia).
Natural disturbances include climate extremes such as, excessive droughts, or storm activity ranging from windthrows to downbursts to ice-storms. Atmospheric deposition may effect trees at high elevations. Wildfires do happen but are largely suppressed. Other agents-of-change include land conversions and fragmentation by agricultural cropping, development, tree harvests, and disease white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola) and southern pine bark beetle (Dendrocdenus frontalis). Non-native pines include the Austrian pine (Pinus nigra), Japanese black pine (Pinus thunbergia), mugo pine (Pinus mugo), and Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris).
[*Caveat] The information presented is representative of very complex vegetation communities. Key indicator plants and ecological processes are described to help inform land management decisions. Plant communities will differ across the MLRA because of the naturally occurring variability in weather, soils, and geography. The reference plant community is not necessarily the management goal. The drafts of species lists are merely representative and are not botanical descriptions of all species occurring, or potentially occurring, on this site. They are not intended to cover every situation or the full range of conditions, species, and responses for the site.State and transition model
Custom diagramStandard diagram
More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
Click on state and transition labels to scroll to the respective textState 1 submodel, plant communities
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 3 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference State (minimally-managed)The reference state is varied depending on landscape position and proximity to the coast. Two modal communities are highlighted and others follow:
• Pinus strobus - Pinus resinosa - Pinus rigida Forest
Translated Name: Eastern White Pine - Red Pine - Pitch Pine Forest
Common Name: Northeastern Dry Pine Forest (CEGL006259)
• Pinus rigida - Quercus coccinea / Vaccinium pallidum - (Morella pensylvanica) Woodland
Translated Name: Pitch Pine - Scarlet Oak / Blue Ridge Blueberry – [Northern Bayberry] Woodland
Common Name: Pitch Pine - Scarlet Oak Woodland (CEGL006381)
Other communities include:
• Pinus strobus - Quercus (rubra, velutina) - Fagus grandifolia Forest
Translated Name: Eastern White Pine - (Northern Red Oak, Black Oak) - American Beech Forest
Common Name: Northeastern White Pine - Oak Forest (CEGL006293)
• Pinus rigida / Quercus ilicifolia / Morella pensylvanica Woodland
Translated Name: Pitch Pine / Bear Oak / Northern Bayberry Woodland
Common Name: Coastal Pitch Pine / Bear Oak Barrens (CEGL006315)
• Fagus grandifolia - Quercus alba - Quercus rubra Forest
Translated Name: American Beech - White Oak - Northern Red Oak Forest
Common Name: Northeastern Atlantic Coastal Beech - Oak Forest (CEGL006377)
• Quercus ilicifolia - Quercus prinoides Scrub
Translated Name: Bear Oak - Dwarf Chinkapin Oak Scrub
Common Name: Outwash Bear Oak Barrens (CEGL006111)
• Pinus rigida - Quercus (velutina, montana) Forest
Translated Name: Pitch Pine - (Black Oak, Chestnut Oak) Forest
Common Name: Inland Pitch Pine - Oak Forest (CEGL006290)
• Pinus rigida / Quercus ilicifolia / Lespedeza capitata Woodland
Translated Name: Pitch Pine / Bear Oak / Round-head Bushclover Woodland
Common Name: Inland Pitch Pine / Bear Oak Barrens (CEGL006025)
• Pinus rigida / Vaccinium spp. - Gaylussacia baccata Woodland
Translated Name: Pitch Pine / Blueberry species - Black Huckleberry Woodland
Common Name: Pitch Pine / Heath Barrens (CEGL005046)
• Amelanchier canadensis - Viburnum spp. - Morella pensylvanica Scrub Forest
Translated Name: Canadian Serviceberry - Viburnum species - Northern Bayberry Scrub Forest
Common Name: Northern Tall Maritime Scrub Forest (CEGL006379)
• Juniperus virginiana / Morella pensylvanica Woodland
Translated Name: Eastern Red-cedar / Northern Bayberry Woodland
Common Name: Maritime Red-cedar Woodland (CEGL006212)
• Quercus stellata - Quercus velutina / Morella pensylvanica / Deschampsia flexuosa Forest
Translated Name: Post Oak - Black Oak / Northern Bayberry / Wavy Hairgrass Forest
Common Name: North Atlantic Coast Maritime Post Oak Forest (CEGL006373)Community 1.1
Northeastern Dry Pine Forest (CEGL006259)Community 1.1(a)
Pinus strobus - [Pinus resinosa] - Pinus rigida Forest
Translated Name: Eastern White Pine - [Red Pine] - Pitch Pine Forest
Common Name: Northeastern Dry Pine Forest (CEGL006259)
This dry pine forest of New England has a canopy mix of mostly pines and occasionally oaks. White pine (Pinus strobus), pitch pine (Pinus rigida) and occasionally red pine (Pinus resinosa). Northern red oak (Quercus rubra) and possibly black oak (Q. velutina) as well as grey birch (Betula populifolia) or bigtooth aspen (Populus grandidentata) may occur at low cover. Shrubs are dominated by heaths such as blueberries (Vaccinium spp.). Herbs are generally sparse and include sweetfern (Pteridium aquilinum), eastern teaberry (Gaultheria procumbens), and pennsylvania sedge (Carex pennsylvanica or Blue Ridge sedge (Carex leucorum). (Source: NatureServe 2018 [accessed 2019], USNVC 2017 [accessed 2019]).
Cross-referenced plant community concepts (typically by political state):
CT: Undisclosed (Metzler and Barret, 2006)
MA: White Pine - Oak Forest (Swain and Kearsley, 2001)
ME: Oak-Pine Forest (Grawler and Cutko, 2010)
NH: Dry red oak - white pine forest (Sperduto and Nichols, 2011)
NY: Appalachian oak-pine forest (Edinger et al., 2014)
RI: Mixed Pine-Oak Forest (Enser and Lundgren, 2006)Community 1.2
Ruderal Forest/WoodlandCommunity 1.3
Abandoned Field/MeadowPathway P1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2Disturbance
Pathway P1.1B
Community 1.1 to 1.3Disturbance
Pathway P1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1Abandonment, Sucession
Pathway P1.2B
Community 1.2 to 1.3Disturbance
Pathway P1.3A
Community 1.3 to 1.2Abandonment, Succession
State 2
Semi-natural StateThe Semi-natural State would expect plant communities where ecological processes are primarily operating with some land conditioning in the past or present, e.g., managed forests, or plant communities that are an artifact of land management e.g., predominately invasive plants.
Community 2.1
Managed Trees/Shrubs/Herbs(?)Community 2.2
Invasive PlantsPathway P2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.2Disturbance, Invasive species establishment
Pathway P2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1Invasive spp. Control, Forest mgmt.
State 3
Cultural StateDifferent phase of intense land use - may be cultivated crops, pasture/hay, or plantations (including nursery crops)
Community 3.1
CultivatedCommunity 3.2
PastureCommunity 3.3
PlantationPathway P3.1A
Community 3.1 to 3.2Changing agricultural phases
Pathway P3.1B
Community 3.1 to 3.3Changing agricultural phases
Pathway P3.2A
Community 3.2 to 3.1Changing agricultural phases
Pathway P3.2B
Community 3.2 to 3.3Changing agricultural phases
Pathway P3.3A
Community 3.3 to 3.1Changing agricultural phases
Pathway P3.3B
Community 3.3 to 3.2Changing agricultural phases
Transition T1A
State 1 to 2altered by human- induced Disturbance or Management
Conservation practices
Tree/Shrub Establishment Forest Land Management Forest stand improvement for habitat and soil quality Key drivers
-
Timber management
-
Nonnative plant species presence and/or establishment
Transition T1B
State 1 to 3Disturbance, clearing, cutting
Conservation practices
Brush Management Land Clearing Herbaceous Weed Control Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1Plant removals, plantings, Invasive plant control, successional mgmt., forestry practices Restoration & Mgmt, Forest Stand Improvement, Early Successional Habitat Development, Upland Wildlife Mgmt, Invasive spp. Control, Plant establishment
Conservation practices
Brush Management Tree/Shrub Establishment Early Successional Habitat Development/Management Forest Stand Improvement Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems Native Plant Community Restoration and Management Forest Land Management Invasive Plant Species Control Transition T2A
State 2 to 3Land clearing, cutting
Conservation practices
Brush Management Land Clearing Herbaceous Weed Control Restoration pathway R3A
State 3 to 1Plant removals, plantings, Invasive plant control, successional mgmt., forestry practices Restoration & Mgmt, Forest Stand Improvement, Early Successional Habitat Development, Upland Wildlife Mgmt, Invasive spp. Control, Plant establishment
Conservation practices
Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems Native Plant Community Restoration and Management Transition T3A
State 3 to 2Abandonment. Plant establishment, Forest mgmt.
Conservation practices
Tree/Shrub Establishment Forest Stand Improvement Forest Land Management Key drivers
-
Timber management
-
Nonnative plant species presence and/or establishment
Additional community tables
Table 5. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 6. Community 1.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 7. Community 1.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 8. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 10. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 11. Community 3.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 12. Community 3.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Supporting information
Inventory data references
Future work is needed, as described in a future project plan, to validate the information presented in this provisional ecological site description. Future work includes field sampling, data collection and analysis by qualified vegetation ecologists and soil scientists. As warranted, annual reviews of the project plan can be conducted by the Ecological Site Technical Team. A final field review, peer review, quality control, and quality assurance reviews of the ESD are necessary to approve a final document.
Other references
REFERENCES
Cleland, D.T., J.A. Freeouf, J.E. Keys, G.J. Nowacki, C.A. Carpenter, and W.H.McNab. 2007. Ecological Subregions: Sections and Subsections for the conterminous United States. [Map. presentation scale 1:3,500,000, colored; A.M. Sloan, cartographer] Gen. Tech. Report WO-76D. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. (https://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/misc/73326-wo-gtr-76d-cleland2007.pdf)
Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, M. Pyne, M. Reid, K. Schulz, K., Snow, and J.Teague. 2003. Ecological Systems of the United States: A Working Classification of U.S. Terrestrial Systems. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
Edinger, G.J., Evans, D.J., Gebauer, S., Howard, T.G., Hunt, D.M., and A.M. Olivero, A.M. (eds.). 2014. Ecological Communities of New York State, Second Edition: A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.
Enser, R., Gregg, D., Sparks, C., August, P., Jordan, P., Coit, J., Raithel, C., Tefft, B., Payton, B., Brown, C. and LaBash, C., 2011. Rhode Island ecological communities classification. Rhode Island Natural History Survey, Kingston, RI.
Enser, R. and Lundgren, J.A., 2006. Natural communities of Rhode Island. Rhode Island Natural History Survey, Kingston (RI).
FGDC [Federal Geographic Data Committee]. 2008. National Vegetation Classification Standard, Version 2. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee, Washington DC..
Gawler, S.C. and Cutko, A., 2010. Natural landscapes of Maine: a guide to natural communities and ecosystems. Maine Natural Areas Program, Department of Conservation.
Metzler, K.J. and Barrett, J.P., 2006. The Vegetation of Connecticut, a Preliminary Classification. Department of Environmental Protection, State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut.
NatureServe 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: December 2015).
PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University. Available http://prism.oregonstate.edu, (created February 26, 2013).
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 2006. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. Agricultural Handbook 296. (https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051845.pdf).
Sperduto, D.D., & Nichols, W.F. 2011. Natural Communities of New Hampshire, Second Ed. NH Natural Heritage Bureau, Concord, NH. Publ. UNH Cooperative Extension.
Swain, P.C. and Kearsley, J.B., 2001. Classification of the natural communities of Massachusetts. Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.
Thompson, E.H. and Sorenson, E.R., 2000. Wetland, woodland, wildland. Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife and The Nature Conservancy. Publ. University Press of New England.
USNVC [United States National Vegetation Classification]. 2017 (Date accessed). United States National Vegetation Classification Database V2.01. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee, Washington DC.Contributors
Nels Barrett, Ph.D. (vegetation)
Approval
Nels Barrett, 2/10/2025
Acknowledgments
Michael Margo and tech team provided earlier drafts. Josh Hibit made compliance updates w/ 2021 Checklist V.2
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 04/24/2024 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
