Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F144AY034CT
Well Drained Till Uplands
Last updated: 10/10/2024
Accessed: 06/03/2026
-
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): 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 m)in much of the area, but it is 2,000 feet (610 m) on some hills. Relief is mostly about 6 to 65 feet (2 to 20 m) in the valleys and about 80 to 330 feet (25 to 100 m) 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 Well-Drained Till Uplands ecological site consists of well drained, loamy soils formed in till derived mostly from gneiss, schist, and granite. The soils are moderately deep and deep to bedrock. They are nearly level to moderately steep soils on hills and ridges. Representative soils are Annandale, Canton, Charlton, Chatfield, Pennichuck, Narragansett, Brookfield, Netcong, Dutchess, Cardigan, Manlius, Broadalbin, and Nipmuck. Representative plant communities are typically dominated by an oak hickory (Quercus spp. – Carya spp.) dominated forest.
The site is very similar to the Well Drained Till Uplands within MLRA 145, however the growing season is longer within MLRA 145 relative to the surrounding MLRA 144A. Additionally, the unique red soil mineralogy which characteristic of the Connecticut River Valley (MLRA 145) provides a relatively richer substrate for vegetative growth.Associated sites
F144AY007CT Well Drained Dense Till Uplands
F144AY032NH Dry Till Uplands
Similar sites
F144AY024NY Well Drained Eolian Outwash
F144AY035MA Shallow Semi-Rich Well Drained Till Uplands
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Quercus rubra
(2) Carya glabraShrub (1) Viburnum acerifolium
(2) Corylus americanaHerbaceous (1) Carex pensylvanica
Physiographic features
The Well Drained Till Uplands ecological site occurs on moraines and glaciated upland hills and ridges.
Figure 1. Well Drained Till Upland - Canton and Charlton soi
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Upland > Hill
(2) Ground moraine
(3) Moraine
Runoff class Very low to medium Flooding frequency None Ponding frequency None Elevation 0 – 1230 ft Slope 3 – 45 % Water table depth 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) 110-150 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 140-180 days Precipitation total (actual range) 40-50 in Frost-free period (average) 130 days Freeze-free period (average) 160 days Precipitation total (average) 50 in Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 2. Monthly precipitation range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 3. Monthly minimum temperature range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 4. Monthly maximum temperature range
BarLineFigure 5. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Figure 6. Annual precipitation pattern
Figure 7 Annual average temperature pattern
Climate stations used
-
(1) SARATOGA SPRINGS 4 SW [USC00307484], Saratoga Springs, NY
-
(2) STORRS [USC00068138], Storrs Mansfield, CT
-
(3) BROCKTON [USC00190860], Brockton, MA
-
(4) DANBURY [USC00061762], Bethel, CT
-
(5) MASSABESIC LAKE [USC00275211], Manchester, NH
-
(6) NEWTON [USC00286177], Newton, NJ
-
(7) WORCESTER RGNL AP [USW00094746], Leicester, MA
">Influencing water features
NONE
Wetland description
NONE
Soil features
The site consists of moderately well to somewhat excessively drained, moderately to very deep, loamy soils derived from a variety of parent materials. The soils chemical reaction (pH) ranges from very strongly acid to slightly basic. Representative soils are Annandale, Broadalbin, Brookfield, Canton, Cardigan, Charlton, Chatfield, Dutchess, Manlius, Pennichuck, Narragansett, Netcong, and Nipmuck.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Till – granite and gneiss
(2) Colluvium – schist
(3) Diamicton – phyllite
(4) Eolian deposits – sandstone and shale
(5) Igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock
(6) Slate
(7) Conglomerate
Surface texture (1) Fine sandy loam
(2) Silt loam
(3) Loam
(4) Very stony fine sandy loam
(5) Very fine sandy loam
(6) Gravelly fine sandy loam
(7) Stony fine sandy loam
(8) Extremely stony fine sandy loam
(9) Gravelly loam
(10) Very channery silt loam
(11) Channery fine sandy loam
(12) Channery very fine sandy loam
Family particle size (1) Coarse-loamy
(2) Coarse-loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal
(3) Loamy-skeletal
Drainage class Moderately well drained to somewhat excessively drained Permeability class Very slow to moderately rapid Depth to restrictive layer 20 – 72 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" 1 – 17 % Available water capacity
(Depth not specified)2 – 7 in Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-40in)3.5 – 7.8 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 70 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)5 – 50 % 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. Any 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 (NatureServe, 2015), 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), Massachusetts (Swain and Kearsley 2001), New Hampshire (Sperduto and Nichols, 2011), New York (Edinger et al., 2014), Rhode Island (Enser and Lungren, 2006) and NJ (Breden et al., 2001).
The Well-Drained Till Uplands ecological site is characteristic of the Northeastern Interior Dry-Mesic Oak Forest system (CES202.592) and the Appalachian (Hemlock)-Northern Hardwood Forest system (CES2.2593). The Representative plant communities are typically dominated by an oak-hickory (Quercus spp. – Carya spp. ) forest. 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. Excessive deer browse may be an issue. Wildfires do happen but are largely suppressed. Other agents-of-change include land conversions and fragmentation by agricultural, development and logging. In disturbed sites, invasive plants can include tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), European buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), winged euonymus (Euonymus alatus) multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii) and shrub honeysuckles (Lonicera sp.).
[*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 2 submodel, plant communities
State 3 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference State (minimally-managed)The reference plant community includes:
• Quercus (alba, rubra, velutina) - Carya spp. / Viburnum acerifolium Forest
Translated Name: Oaks (White Oak, Northern Red Oak, Black Oak) / Hickory species / Mapleleaf Viburnum Forest
Common Name: Dry-mesic Oak - Hickory / Viburnum Forest (CEGL006336)
Others plant communities can include:
Quercus rubra - Carya (glabra, ovata) / Ostrya virginiana / Carex lucorum Forest
Translated Name: Northern Red Oak - (Pignut Hickory, Shagbark Hickory) / Hophornbeam / Blue Ridge Sedge Forest
Common Name: Oak - Hickory / Hophornbeam / Sedge Forest (CEGL006301)
Quercus (velutina, alba) / Vaccinium pallidum / Pteridium aquilinum Allegheny Plateau-Northeast Forest
Translated Name: (Black Oak, White Oak) / Blue Ridge Blueberry / Western Brackenfern Allegheny Plateau-Northeast Forest
Common Name: Allegheny Plateau-Northeast Oak Forest (CEGL006018)
Quercus rubra - Acer saccharum / Viburnum acerifolium - Lindera benzoin Forest
Translated Name: Northern Red Oak - Sugar Maple / Mapleleaf Viburnum - Northern Spicebush Forest
Common Name: Red Oak - Transitional Northern Hardwood Forest (CEGL006635)
Quercus rubra - Liriodendron tulipifera - Betula lenta Forest
Translated Name: Northern Red Oak - Tuliptree - Sweet Birch Forest
Common Name: Lower New England Oak - TulipTree Forest (CEGL008573)
Tsuga canadensis - Acer saccharum - Fagus grandifolia / Dryopteris intermedia Forest
Translated Name: Eastern Hemlock - Sugar Maple - American Beech / Intermediate Woodfern Forest
Common Name: Hemlock - Transitional Northern Hardwood Forest (CEGL006639)Community 1.1
1.1a White Oak, Northern Red Oak, Black Oak / Hickory species / Mapleleaf Viburnum Forest (CEGL006336)Community-type 1.1a
• Quercus (alba, rubra, velutina) - Carya spp. / Viburnum acerifolium Forest
Translated Name: White Oak, Northern Red Oak, Black Oak / Hickory species / Mapleleaf Viburnum Forest
Common Name: Dry-mesic Oak - Hickory / Viburnum Forest (CEGL006336)
This vegetation is ecologically transitional between dry-rich oak-hickory forests of relatively high diversity and dry, acidic oak-species-poor forests. Red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba), and black oak (Quercus velutina) prominent in association with pignut hickory (Carya glabra), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), red maple (Acer rubrum), chestnut oak (Quercus montana), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), and downy shadbush (Amelanchier arborea). White pine (Pinus strobus), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), and sweet birch (Betula lenta) may also occur as minor associates. Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) occurs in more southerly locales. The shrub layer can be sparse and characterized by mapleleaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium) with other frequent associates including witrchhazel (Hamamelis virginiana), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), and American hazelnut(Corylus americana). Short shrubs include- Hillside blueberry (Vaccinium pallidum) and black huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata), with common lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium). The herbaceous layer is characterized by Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica), false Solomon’s seal (Maianthemum racemosum [= Smilacina racemose]), marginal wood fern (Dryopteris marginalis), wild sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis), rattlesnake hawkweed (Hieracium venosum), white goldenrod (Solidago bicolor), pointed leaved tick-trefoil (Hylodesmun glutinosum [=Desmodium glutinosum[), panicled tick-trefoil (Desmodium paniculatum), cow wheat (Melampyrum lineare), striped wintergreen (Chimaphila maculate), white sood aster (Eurybia divaricata [= Aster divaricatus]), hayscented fern (Dennstaedtia punctilobula). Under less mesic conditions, herbs include poverty oatgrass (Danthonia spicata), wavy hairgrass (Deschampsia flexuosa), fern-leaved false foxglove (Aureolaria spp.), sweetfern (Pteridium aquilinum), and Canada frostweed (Crocanthemum canadense [= Helianthemum canadense). invasive plants can include tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), European buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), winged euonymus (Euonymus alatus) multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii) and shrub honeysuckles (Lonicera sp.). (Source: NatureServe 2018 [accessed 2019], USNVC 2017 [accessed 2019]).
Cross-referenced plant community concepts (typically by political State):
CT: Red oak / mapleleaf viburnum Forest (Metzler and Barrett, 2006)
MA: Oak-Hickory Forest (Swain and Kearsley, 2001)
NH: Mesic Appalachian oak - hickory forest (Sperduto and Nichols, 2011)
NY: Appalachian oak-hickory forest (Edinger et al., 2014)
RI: undisclosed (Enser and Lundgren, 2006)
NJ: Undisclosed (Breden et al., 2001)Community 1.2
Ruderal Forest/WoodlandCommunity 1.3
Abandoned Field/MeadowDisturbance
Pathway P1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2Disturbance
Pathway P1.1B
Community 1.1 to 1.3Disturbance
Pathway P1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1Succession
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 StateThe Cultural State would expect the ecological site to be very strongly conditioned by land management conversion, by transformation to Cultivated/Pasture/Plantation.
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
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
Breden, T.F., Alger, Y.R., Walz, K.S. and Windisch, A.G., 2001. Classification of vegetation communities of New Jersey: Second iteration. Association for Biodiversity Information and New Jersey Natural Heritage Program, Office of Natural Lands Management, Division of Parks and Forestry, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, 149.
Cleland, D.T., Freeouf, J.A., Keys, J.E. ,Nowacki, G.J., Carpenter, C.A. ,and McNab, W.H.. 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. 2009. International Ecological Classification Standard: Terrestrial Ecological Classifications. NatureServe Central Databases. Arlington, VA, U.S.A. Data current as of 06 February 2009.
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 Subcomittee, Washington DC.Contributors
Nels Barrett, Ph.D. (vegetation)
Approval
Nels Barrett, 10/10/2024
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 01/30/2024 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
