Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F144BY301ME
Loamy Till Swamp
Last updated: 5/13/2025
Accessed: 06/10/2026
-
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): 144B–New England and Eastern New York Upland, Northern Part
This major land resource area (MLRA) is in Maine (56 percent), New Hampshire (22 percent), Vermont (14 percent), Massachusetts (6 percent), Connecticut (1 percent), and New York (1 percent). It makes up about 22,728 square miles (58,864 square kilometers). The MLRA consists of a relatively young landscape shaped by the Laurentide Ice Sheet, which covered the region from 35,000 to 10,000 years ago. Rolling hills of dense basal till converge on ridges of shallow bedrock that were scoured by glacial ice. River valleys that were flooded by melting glacial water or seawater house large expanses of glacial outwash and stratified drift in inland areas and, to a lesser extent, glaciomarine and glaciolacustrine sediment deposits in coastal areas. Organic bogs, ablation till, and alluvial flood plains make up the remaining portions of the MLRA.
The soils in this region are dominantly Entisols, Spodosols, and Inceptisols. They commonly have a fragipan. The dominant suborders are Ochrepts, Orthods, Aquepts, Fluvents, and Saprists. The soils in the region dominantly have a frigid soil temperature regime with some cryic areas at higher elevation, a udic soil moisture regime, and mixed mineralogy. Most of the land is forested, and 98 percent is privately owned. Significant amounts of forest products are produced including lumber, pulpwood, Christmas trees, and maple syrup. Principal agricultural crops include forage and grains for dairy cattle, potatoes, apples, and blueberries. Wildlife habitat and recreation are important land uses. Stoniness, steep slopes, and poor drainage limit the use of many of the soils.Classification relationships
NRCS:
Land Resource Region: R—Northeastern Forage and Forest Region
MLRA: 144B—New England and Eastern New York Upland, Northern PartMLRA resources Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 144B–New England and Eastern New York Upland, Northern PartEcological site concept
This site occurs on relatively flat to gentle slopes (0-8%) or on toeslopes where groundwater saturates the soil for much of the growing season and sometimes emerges at the surface. Small seepage rivulets are often evident. Soils formed in lodgment till and are poorly- to very poorly-drained. Soil textures are loamy with a mucky peat surface, and a densely compacted horizon within ~43 inches of the soil surface. The water table is usually within 12 inches of the soil surface in spring and fall, and may lower somewhat during dry summer periods. The soil surface is characterized by pit and mound topography, with ponding and thick organic matter accumulation in the pits, and drier soil conditions on the mounds where most trees are rooted.
The reference state is characterized by abundant Northern white cedar, or in southern areas by Atlantic white cedar. Further study is required to distinguish between northern and southern variants. Selective logging practices should be done when the ground is frozen to avoid churning the wet soils. Hydrologic changes due to beaver activity or man-made structure may cause year-round ponding, resulting in alternative states.Associated sites
F144BY305ME Wet Loamy Flat
The Wet Loamy Flat site occurs on poorly-drained flats, which are somewhat drier and may occur upslope from the Loamy Till Swamp. Wet Flats support more spruce and less cedar.
F144BY502ME Loamy Till Toeslope
The Loamy Till Toeslope site often occurs upslope of the Loamy Till Swamp, where soils are somewhat poorly- and poorly-drained, rather than poorly- and very poorly-drained. The Loamy Till Toeslope supports hardwood-dominant mixedwood forests rather than cedar- dominanted forests.
F144BY302ME Mucky Swamp
The Mucky Peat Swamp often occurs downslope of the Loamy Till Swamp as all soils become very poorly drained and soil surface organic layer increases to greater than 16 inches.
Similar sites
F144BY302ME Mucky Swamp
Both the Mucky Peat Swamp and the Loamy Till Swamp are dominated by northern white cedar, but the Mucky Peat Swamp is wetter, has a thicker organic soil surface layer, and typically has a more open canopy, allowing more light to reach the forest floor. As a result, the understory is often more productive in the Mucky Peat Swamp.
F144BY303ME Acidic Swamp
The Acidic Swamp site has a similar complex of poorly- and very poorly-drained soils, but tends to be wetter, more acidic, and usually has coarser soil textures and weak or non-existent dense compacted layer compared to the Loamy Till Swamp site. The Acidic Swamp is dominated by black spruce rather than northern white cedar.
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Acer rubrum
(2) Abies balsameaShrub Not specified
Herbaceous Not specified
Physiographic features
This site typically occurs at the base of watersheds on relatively flat, wet, till landforms at elevations less than 2,500 feet. The water table is within 12 inches of the soil surface most of the year, but may drop to lower levels during June-September. Slopes are typically less than 3 percent, but may be as high as 8 percent if soils remain sufficiently wet.
This site is characterized by pit-and-mound surface topography resulting from centuries of tree blow-downs. Tipped up tree roots create a small pit, and deposit removed soil next to the pit as the exposed roots decay. The pits are very poorly-drained and typically ponded during wet periods, while the mounds are poorly-drained and do not experience ponding.Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Till plain > Ground moraine
(2) Upland > Till plain
(3) Depression
(4) Bog
Runoff class Very low to high Flooding frequency None Ponding duration Brief (2 to 7 days) to long (7 to 30 days) Ponding frequency None to frequent Elevation 0 – 3559 ft Slope 0 – 8 % Water table depth 0 – 9 in Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
The climate is humid and temperate and is characterized by warm summers and cold winters. In general, precipitation is evenly distributed throughout the year. Near the coast, precipitation is slightly lower in summer. Throughout inland areas, precipitation is slightly higher during spring and fall seasons. Rainfall occurs during high-intensity, convective thunderstorms in summer. During winter, most of the precipitation occurs as moderate- intensity storms (northeasters) that produce large amounts of rain or snow. Heavy snowfalls commonly occur late in winter. Temperatures and the length of the freeze-free period increase from north to south and closer to the coast.
MLRA 144B has coverage across six states and may have substantial climate variability among locations: Maine (56 percent), New Hampshire (22 percent), Vermont (14 percent), Massachusetts (6 percent), Connecticut (1 percent), and New York (1 percent).Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 100-130 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 140-160 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 40-50 in Frost-free period (actual range) 80-140 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 120-170 days Precipitation total (actual range) 40-50 in Frost-free period (average) 120 days Freeze-free period (average) 150 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) BANGOR INTL AP [USW00014606], Bangor, ME
-
(2) ACADIA NP [USC00170100], Bar Harbor, ME
-
(3) JONESBORO [USC00174183], Addison, ME
-
(4) EAST HIRAM [USC00172238], Sebago, ME
-
(5) MADISON [USC00174927], Anson, ME
-
(6) BRUNSWICK NAS [USW00014611], Brunswick, ME
-
(7) AUGUSTA STATE AP [USW00014605], Augusta, ME
-
(8) SANFORD 2 NNW [USC00177479], Sanford, ME
-
(9) SAINT JOHNSBURY [USW00054742], Saint Johnsbury, VT
-
(10) WHITEFIELD MT WASHINGTON AP [USW00054728], Whitefield, NH
-
(11) BETHLEHEM 2 [USC00270706], Bethlehem, NH
-
(12) CHELSEA [USC00431360], Chelsea, VT
-
(13) MT SUNAPEE [USC00275629], Newbury, NH
-
(14) ASHBURNHAM NORTH [USC00190192], Ashburnham, MA
-
(15) BIRCH HILL DAM [USC00190666], Royalston, MA
-
(16) WORTHINGTON [USC00199972], Worthington, MA
-
(17) BORDEN BROOK RSVR [USC00190759], Granville, MA
-
(18) LANESBORO [USC00194075], Lanesboro, MA
-
(19) PITTSFIELD MUNI AP [USW00014763], Pittsfield, MA
-
(20) GRAFTON [USC00303360], Cropseyville, NY
-
(21) NORFOLK 2 SW [USC00065445], Norfolk, CT
">Influencing water features
This site is a forested wetland, characterized by a dense, compacted till layer in the subsoil that perches water for much of the growing season. Additional water enters this site as run-in from the watershed above. Gentle slopes allow water to pass slowly through the soil and carry oxygen and nutrients through the plant rooting zone before exiting the site downslope to even wetter, flatter sites below.
Wetland description
Wetland Description: Cowardin<br />
System: Palustrine<br />
Subsystem: N/A<br />
Class: UnknownSoil features
The soils of this site are poorly- and very poorly-drained with a high water table in the spring and fall. They formed in lodgment till derived from granite, mica schist, phyllite and similar parent materials. This site may also occur over more calcareous bedrock types. They have a characteristic mucky-peat surface horizon, underlain by loamy till and a densely-compacted till layer 5-43 inches below the loamy till material. Soil textures are usually silt loam, fine sandy loam, or loam, with few rock fragments. The dense horizon is typically loamy in texture and may have up to 30% rock fragments by volume. This site occurs on soils with wide-ranging soil pH, but is most likely to occur where soil pH is between 5.0 and 6.5.
This site tends to occur on soil complexes in pit and mound topography, such as consisting of one poorly-drained Monarda soils on the mounds and very poorly-drained Brayton soils in the pits. The soil surface organic matter is thicker in the pits than on the mounds.
Figure 7.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Lodgment till – schist
(2) Organic material
(3) Herbaceous organic material
Surface texture (1) Silt loam
(2) Fine sandy loam
(3) Loam
Drainage class Poorly drained to very poorly drained Permeability class Very slow to slow Soil depth 5 – 43 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" 2 – 9 % Available water capacity
(3-21in)Not specified Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(3.6-7.3in)Not specified Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(9-52in)Not specified Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(5-6in)Not specified Ecological dynamics
[Caveat: The vegetation information contained in this section and is only provisional, based on concepts, and future projects support validation through field work. *] The vegetation groupings described in this section are based on the terrestrial ecological system classification and vegetation associations developed by NatureServe (Comer et al., 2003) and localized associations provided by the New York Natural Heritage Program (Edinger et al., 2014), Maine Natural Areas Program (Gawler and Cutko, 2010), New Hampshire Natural Heritage Program (Sperduto and Nichols, 2011), and Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (Swain, 2020).
This site is characterized by groundwater saturation of mineral soils with a mucky surface layer, typically occurring at the base of slopes. The reference state is a mature coniferous forest primarily dominated by northern white cedar, or in southern areas by Atlantic white cedar. Further study is required to distinguish between northern and southern variants. Logging during the growing season can cause lasting damage by churning and rutting the wet soils. For this reason, this site is typically harvested when the ground is frozen. Harvests have often targeted spruce removal, though cedar is sometimes taken from these areas. Selective harvests do not generally convert the site to a different state.
Altered hydrology, in the form of ponding or draining, can greatly alter the ecological functioning of this site. Beaver dams, roads, or other structures can cause natural ponding that kills trees. Removal of dams and man-made structures that restores hydrologic function can lead to natural succession by emergent wetland plants, herbaceous plants, shrubs, and eventually cedar re-establishment. Draining and ditching along with tree cover removal, can convert the site to hayfield and pasture, with varying degrees of ponding, depending on the extent of hydrological alteration.
Other disturbances occurring on this site are of natural origin, including wind, ice, and snow damage. Natural canopy gaps form with individual tree fall, leading to greater sunlight exposure to the understory and an increase of shrub cover. Woodland seepage communities can occur in patches within this site, particularly in areas where emerging groundwater creates an unstable rooting substrate that does not support tall trees. These seepage communities may be shaded by adjacent trees rooted in less saturated conditions.
Relationship to Other Classification Systems
This site includes the following state natural heritage program types:
• Northern White Cedar Seepage Forest (Sperduto and Nichols 2004)
• Evergreen Seepage Forest (Gawler and Cutko 2010)
• Atlantic White Cedar Swamp (Gawler and Cutko 2010)
• Northern White Cedar Swamp (Gawler and Cutko 2010)
• Northern White Cedar Sloping Seepage Variant of Northern White Cedar Swamp (Thompson and Sorenson 2000)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 4 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference State/Current PotentialCommunity 1.1
Northern White Cedar Mature Forest PhaseMature cedar dominates overstory, diverse understory
Community 1.2
Canopy Gaps and Seeps PhaseDiverse herbs dominate in patches associated with canopy gaps and/or seeps
Community 1.3
Early-successional Forest PhaseBalsam fir, grey birch, red maple, and/or cedar saplings
Community 1.4
Mid-successional Forest Phase50-100 year old cedar dominates as fir and hardwoods die out
Pathway 1.1a
Community 1.1 to 1.2Seep, patch cut, or blowdown that increase soil wetness and light availability
Conservation practices
Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management Wetland Enhancement Forest Land Management Key drivers
-
Timber management
-
Blowdown, logging
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Food and fiber: wood products
-
Climate regulation: carbon cycling and storage
-
Soil formation
-
Plant biodiversity
Pathway 1.2a
Community 1.2 to 1.3Time, vegetation development
Conservation practices
Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management Forest Land Management Pathway 13b
Community 1.3 to 1.2Seep, patch cut, or blowdown that increase soil wetness and light availability
Conservation practices
Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management Forest Land Management Pathway 1.3a
Community 1.3 to 1.4Time, vegetation development
Conservation practices
Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management Forest Land Management Pathway 1.4a
Community 1.4 to 1.1Time, vegetation development
Conservation practices
Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management Forest Land Management Pathway 1.3b
Community 1.4 to 1.2Seep, patch cut, or blowdown that increase soil wetness and light availability
Conservation practices
Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management Forest Land Management Pathway 1.4b
Community 1.4 to 1.3selective tree harvest
Conservation practices
Forest Land Management Key drivers
-
Timber management
-
Selective cutting
State 2
PondedCommunity 2.1
Open Water PhaseWater ponds on soil surface, killing trees (snags common) and most other vegetation
Community 2.2
Emergent Wetland PhaseCattails, bulrushes, and other emergent species dominate shallow pond
Pathway 2.1a
Community 2.1 to 2.2Sediment accretion and/or hydrologic change (due to removal of roads, dams, etc.) resulting in shallow enough ponding to support emergent vegetation.
Conservation practices
Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management Wetland Enhancement Pathway 2.2a
Community 2.2 to 2.1Hydrologic change (due to beaver activity, roads, dams, etc.) raises water level, kills existing vegetation, and ponds water year-round.
Conservation practices
Dike Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management State 3
Transition MarshCommunity 3.1
Wet Herbaceous Meadow PhaseDiverse herbs and Carex spp. dominate
Community 3.2
Shrub Swamp PhaseSpeckled alder and similar shrubs co-dominate with ferns, sedges and other herbs
Pathway 3.1a
Community 3.1 to 3.2Time, vegetation development
State 4
PastureCommunity 4.1
Pasture or Hay landCleared and cultivated fields of mostly perennial herbaceous species
Transition T1a
State 1 to 2Hydrologic change (due to beaver activity, roads, dams, etc.) raises water level, kills existing vegetation, and ponds water year-round.
Conservation practices
Dike Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management Wetland Enhancement Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Primary production
-
Climate regulation: carbon cycling and storage
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Soil formation
-
Plant biodiversity
Transition T1b
State 1 to 3Extensive harvest reduces canopy cover and water use by trees, increasing soil wetness and promoting herbs and shrubs.
Conservation practices
Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management Wetland Enhancement Forest Land Management Key drivers
-
Timber management
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Food and fiber: wood products
-
Climate regulation: carbon cycling and storage
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Soil formation
-
Plant biodiversity
Transition T1c
State 1 to 4Pastureland creation
Conservation practices
Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management Wetland Enhancement Forest Land Management Key drivers
-
Timber management
-
Tree removal and pasture establishment
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Food and fiber: wood products
-
Climate regulation: carbon cycling and storage
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Plant biodiversity
Transition T2a
State 2 to 3Hydrologic change (due to removal of roads, dams, etc.) and/or sediment accretion resulting in non-ponded conditions for most of the growing season
Conservation practices
Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management Wetland Enhancement Key ecosystem services affected
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Primary production
Restoration pathway R3a
State 3 to 1Time, vegetation development
Conservation practices
Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management Wetland Enhancement Restoration pathway T3a
State 3 to 2Hydrologic change (due to beaver activity, roads, dams, etc.) raises water level, kills existing vegetation, and ponds water year-round.
Conservation practices
Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management Wetland Enhancement Transition T3b
State 3 to 4convert to pastureland species
Conservation practices
Incorporate native grasses and/or legumes into 15% or more of the forage base Key ecosystem services affected
-
Food and fiber: livestock forage
Restoration pathway R4a
State 4 to 1Time, vegetation development
Conservation practices
Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management Wetland Enhancement Forest Land Management Restoration pathway T4a
State 4 to 3Abandonment
Conservation practices
Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management Wetland Enhancement 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 1.4 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 10. Community 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 11. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 12. Community 3.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 13. Community 4.1 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
Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Grawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, M. Pyne, M. Reid, K. Schultz, 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., D. J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T. G. Howard, D. M. Hunt, and A. M. Olivero (editors). 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.
Gawler, S. and A. Cutko. 2010. Natural Landscapes of Maine: A Guide to Natural Communities and Ecosystems. Maine Natural Areas Program, Maine Department of Conservation, Augusta, Maine.
NatureServe. 2021. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. https://explorer.natureserve.org/. (accessed 10 July. 2021).
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
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions. Available online. (accessed 11 Aug. 2021).
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Climate Research Station Data. Available online. (accessed 23 June. 2021).
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for [MLRA 141, Maine]. Available online. (accessed 14 Oct. 2021).
Sperduto, D.D. and William F. Nichols. 2011. Natural Communities of New Hampshire. 2nd Ed. NH Natural Heritage Bureau, Concord, NH. Pub. UNH Cooperative Extension, Durham, NH.
Swain, P. C. 2020. Classification of the Natural Communities of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, MA
USNVC [United States National Vegetation Classification]. 2017. United States National Vegetation Classification Database V2.01. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee, Washington DC. Available The U.S. National Vegetation Classification (usnvc.org) (accessed 2 July. 2021).Contributors
Christopher Mann
Approval
Greg Schmidt, 5/13/2025
Acknowledgments
Nels Barrett and Nick Butler provided considerable review of this ecological site concept.
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 06/29/2020 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
