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): 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.Ecological site concept
This site occurs in relatively flat areas (mostly 0-3% slopes, up to 8%) near the bottom of watersheds where water saturates organic and coarse-textured mineral soils for most of the year. Soils are deep, poorly- to very poorly-drained and relatively more acidic than other wooded wetlands. The water table is seasonally high (within 18 inches of the surface) and typically dries out in late summer and fall. This site may have pit and mound topography, with ponding and organic matter accumulation in the low areas, and drier soil conditions on the mounds where most trees and shrubs are rooted. Black spruce, rhodora, Labrador tea, and other heath shrubs are abundant, with balsam fir, larch, and brown ash as common associates. Diverse herbs, shrubs, and bryophytes dominate the understory.
Associated sites
F144BY220ME Semi-acidic Peat Wetland Complex
The Semi-acidic Peat Wetland Complex site may occur downslope of the Acidic Swamp site, where water stagnates and lack of soil oxygen and/or nutrients limits tree growth to less than 20% cover.
F144BY230ME Acidic Peat Wetland Complex
The Acidic Peat Wetland Complex site may occur downslope of the Acidic Swamp site, where water stagnates and lack of soil oxygen and/or nutrients limits tree growth to less than 20% cover.
Similar sites
F144BY305ME Wet Loamy Flat
The Wet Loamy Flat site is drier than the Acidic Swamp site, with poorly-drained mineral soils rather than very poorly- and very-poorly drained organic soils and mineral soils. Loamy wet flat typically supports more red spruce than black spruce.
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.
F144BY301ME Loamy Till 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) Picea mariana
(2) Abies balsameaShrub Not specified
Herbaceous Not specified
Physiographic features
This site occurs in low-lying areas where large amounts of water collects and saturates sandy soil deposits, such as outwash and coarse till. Slopes are mostly 3% or less (rarely up to 8%) and elevations range from 0 to 2940 feet. Soils are saturated, often with surface ponding up to 6 inches deep in places, and with a water table at or just below the soil surface for most of the year. However, during the driest periods from June to September the water table may drop to more than 18 inches below the surface in places.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Outwash plain > Outwash delta
(2) Outwash plain > Depression
(3) Outwash plain > Drainageway
(4) Outwash plain > Terrace
(5) River valley > Terrace
(6) Upland > Till plain
(7) Valley > Depression
(8) Valley > Drainageway
(9) Valley > Outwash plain
(10) Valley > Terrace
(11) Bog
(12) Ground moraine
(13) Lake terrace
(14) Outwash terrace
(15) Stream terrace
(16) Swamp
Runoff class Very low to very high Flooding frequency None Ponding duration Brief (2 to 7 days) to long (7 to 30 days) Ponding frequency None to frequent Elevation 0 – 4002 ft Slope 0 – 8 % Ponding depth 0 – 6 in 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) CHELSEA [USC00431360], Chelsea, VT
-
(12) MT SUNAPEE [USC00275629], Newbury, NH
-
(13) ASHBURNHAM NORTH [USC00190192], Ashburnham, MA
-
(14) BIRCH HILL DAM [USC00190666], Royalston, MA
-
(15) WORTHINGTON [USC00199972], Worthington, MA
-
(16) BETHLEHEM 2 [USC00270706], Bethlehem, NH
-
(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
Large amounts of water enter this site as run-on from the watershed above. Gentle slopes allow water to pass laterally through the soil on this site before exiting downslope to even wetter, flatter sites below. Despite the sandy soils through which water flows freely, water saturates this site for much of the year. However, due to the porous nature of the substrate, the water table can fluctuate greatly during the growing season, permitting soil aeration needed to sustain its characteristic plant community.
Wetland description
Wetland Description: Cowardin<br />
System: Palustrine<br />
Subsystem: N/A<br />
Class: UnknownSoil features
The soils of this site are poorly- to very poorly-drained and formed in coarse outwash or till that was re-worked by glacial meltwater. Often there are pockets of deep organic soils in wet depressions within this site. The soil surface is usually 2-10 inches of organic (muck and peat) underlain by sandy or coarse-loamy mineral deposits. These soils may or may not have large amounts of rock.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Outwash – igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock
(2) Organic material
(3) Drift – granite and gneiss
(4) Glaciofluvial deposits – granite
(5) Glaciolacustrine deposits
(6) Herbaceous organic material
(7) Woody organic material
Surface texture (1) Fine sandy loam
(2) Mucky
(3) Gravelly sand
(4) Silt
Drainage class Very poorly drained to poorly drained Permeability class Very slow to rapid Soil depth 72 – 0 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" 0 – 2 % Available water capacity
(2-19in)Not specified Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(3.2-7.7in)Not specified Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(0-51in)Not specified Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(0-8in)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 dominated by black spruce, often with larch, balsam fir, red maple, and white pine present in small amounts. Most trees are rooted in the poorly-drained soil mounds rather than the very poorly-drained soil depressions. The understory is diverse with sphagnum moss, creeping snowberry, and three-seed sedge common.
Treethrow, altered hydrology, and logging are common disturbances on this site. Small openings created by treethrow are typically colonized by species already present in the community and eventually return to black spruce dominance. Persistent ponding caused by beavers, man-made structures (such as roads, dams, etc.), or increased runoff in the watershed above can cause water levels to rise and kill cedar trees, resulting in an open ponded or marsh condition. If hydrology is restored to reference conditions, the site is likely to transition through a marsh and/or early seral forest phase before eventually returning to black spruce dominance.
Logging is not common due to the poor productivity of this site, and is limited to very dry years or winter harvest methods due to the wetness of this site. Tree removal may result in an early seral phase dominated by balsam fir, grey birch, red maple, and other colonizers before eventually reverting to black spruce dominance. In some areas, this site has been logged and converted to perennial grass hay land.
Relationship to Other Classification Systems
This site includes the following state natural heritage program types:
• Black Spruce Swamp (Sperduto and Nichols 2004)
• Black Spruce Bog (Gawler and Cutko 2010)
• Black Spruce 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 textEcosystem states
State 1 submodel, plant communities
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 3 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference / Current PotentialCommunity 1.1
Black SpruceSmall and large blowdowns regenerate with same species
Dominant plant species
-
black spruce (Picea mariana), tree
Community 1.2
PondedWater-level rise kills trees, usually by man-made structures.
Community 1.3
Transition MarshWater level falls, and veg transitions through various community types
Community 1.4
Early Seral ForestFir, yellow birch, red maple, and black spruce
Forest overstory.Picea mariana<br /> Abies balsamea<br /> Acer rubrum<br /> Betula allegheniensis
Dominant plant species
-
black spruce (Picea mariana), tree
Pathway P1.1-1.2
Community 1.1 to 1.2conversion to open water, impoundment by beavers, debris
Key drivers
-
Wildlife grazing or browsing
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Educational values
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Primary production
-
Food and fiber: wood products
-
Inspiration
-
Wildlife forage
-
Fresh water
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Storm protection
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
-
Climate regulation
Pathway P1.1-1.4
Community 1.1 to 1.4windthrow, blowdown
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Primary production
-
Food and fiber: wood products
-
Wildlife forage
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
Pathway P1.2-1.3
Community 1.2 to 1.3beaver migration, debris removal, abandonment, vegetation development
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Educational values
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Primary production
-
Inspiration
-
Wildlife forage
-
Climate regulation: carbon cycling and storage
-
Fresh water
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Storm protection
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
Pathway P1.3-1.2
Community 1.3 to 1.2beaver impoundment or debris dam (reconstructed)
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Inspiration
-
Wildlife forage
-
Water regulation
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
Pathway P1.3-1.4
Community 1.3 to 1.4vegetation development
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Primary production
-
Food and fiber: wood products
-
Air quality maintenance
-
Inspiration
-
Wildlife forage
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
Pathway P1.4-1.1
Community 1.4 to 1.1vegetation development (succession)
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Primary production
-
Food and fiber: wood products
-
Air quality maintenance
-
Inspiration
-
Wildlife forage
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
Pathway P1.4-1.2
Community 1.4 to 1.2beaver impoundment, debris dam, conversion to open water
Key drivers
-
Nonnative pest presence and/or establishment
-
Beaver impoundment, debris dam
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Primary production
-
Food and fiber: wood products
-
Inspiration
-
Wildlife forage
-
Climate regulation: carbon cycling and storage
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
Pathway P1.4-1.3
Community 1.4 to 1.3windthrow, blowdown
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Primary production
-
Food and fiber: wood products
-
Inspiration
-
Wildlife forage
-
Climate regulation: carbon cycling and storage
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
State 2
PondedCommunity 2.1
Open Water PhaseWater ponds on soil surface, killing trees (snags common) and most other vegetation.
Dominant resource concerns
-
Ponding and flooding
Community 2.2
Emergent Wetland PhaseCattails, bulrushes, and other emergent species dominate shallow pond.
Dominant plant species
-
broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), other herbaceous
-
bulrush (Schoenoplectus), other herbaceous
Pathway P2.1-2.2
Community 2.1 to 2.2littoral zone development, abandonment, dam or dike removal, water control structure manipulation
Conservation practices
Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management Shallow Water Development and Management Early Successional Habitat Development/Management Wetland Restoration Wetland Creation Wetland Enhancement Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems Native Plant Community Restoration and Management Invasive Plant Species Control Key drivers
-
Seeding
-
Vegetation development (succession), plantings, seedings
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Recreation
-
Primary production
-
Wildlife forage
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
Pathway P2.2-2.1
Community 2.2 to 2.1dam or dike construction, water control structure
Conservation practices
Dike Dam Structure for Water Control Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Recreation
-
Primary production
-
Inspiration
-
Wildlife forage
-
Water regulation
-
Climate regulation: carbon cycling and storage
-
Fresh water
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Soil formation
-
Plant biodiversity
State 3
Transition MarshCommunity 3.1
Wet Herbaceous Meadow PhaseDiverse herbs and Carex spp. dominate
Dominant plant species
-
sedge (Carex), other herbaceous
Community 3.2
Shrub Swamp PhaseSpeckled alder and similar shrubs co-dominate with ferns, sedges and other herbs.
Dominant plant species
-
speckled alder (Alnus incana ssp. rugosa), shrub
Pathway P3.1-3.2
Community 3.1 to 3.2Transition T1-2
State 1 to 2dam or berm construction, tree elimination
Conservation practices
Dike Dam Structure for Water Control Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Primary production
-
Food and fiber: wood products
-
Wildlife forage
-
Climate regulation: carbon cycling and storage
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
Transition T1-3
State 1 to 3Dam or dike construction
Conservation practices
Dike Dam Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Primary production
-
Food and fiber: wood products
-
Inspiration
-
Wildlife forage
-
Climate regulation: carbon cycling and storage
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
-
Climate regulation
Transition T2-3
State 2 to 3dam removal, littoral shoreline vegetation development,
Conservation practices
Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management Shallow Water Development and Management Early Successional Habitat Development/Management Wetland Restoration Wetland Creation Wetland Enhancement Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems Native Plant Community Restoration and Management Invasive Plant Species Control Key drivers
-
Seeding
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Primary production
-
Wildlife forage
-
Water regulation
-
Climate regulation: carbon cycling and storage
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
-
Non-vegetated to vegetated condition
Restoration pathway R3-1
State 3 to 1vegetation development (sucession)
Conservation practices
Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management Wetland Restoration Wetland Enhancement Record Keeping Transition T3-2
State 3 to 2Open water creation, dam, dike
Conservation practices
Dike Pond Dam 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 (%) 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
