Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F144BY501ME
Loamy Slope (Northern Hardwoods)
Last updated: 5/13/2025
Accessed: 07/14/2026
-
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 mostly on well- to moderately well-drained loam soils and associated somewhat poorly-drained soils. Bedrock is greater than 20 inches below the mineral soil surface. Soils may be underlain by a densely compacted till layer. This site is commonly found on backslope and footslope positions but may occur on flats or any number of landforms. The vegetation is characterized by northern hardwoods, particularly sugar maple, red maple, yellow birch, red oak and beech, with diverse hardwood associates. Shallower and wetter inclusions in this site typically produce more softwoods, including red spruce, white pine, hemlock, northern white cedar, and balsam fir. This site is likely over-mapped. Perhaps a Silty Slope (mixed wood) concept could reflect consistent, meaningful patterns between vegetation and soil properties. Further field work is required.
Associated sites
F144BY502ME Loamy Till Toeslope
The somewhat poorly- and poorly-drained Loamy Till Toeslope site often occurs downslope of the moderately well- and well-drained Loamy Slope site
F144BY702ME Shallow and Moderately-deep Till
The Shallow and Moderately Deep Till site often occurs upslope of the Loamy Slope site, where much of the soil area is less than 20 inches deep to bedrock.
Similar sites
F144BY506ME Semi-rich Till Slope
The Semi-rich Till Slope site has similar soil texture and wetness, but is distinguished by higher soil nutrients derived from calcareous parent material (such as limestone), as evidenced by high soil pH and rich site indicator species.
F144BY402ME Clay Hills
Clay Hills occur on finer-textured soils, usually of glaciomarine or glaciolacustrine origin, and produces more mixedwood stands, while the Loamy Slope site occurs on till soils that are typically coarser in texture and produces more hardwood species.
F144BY504ME Enriched Loamy Cove
The Enriched Loamy Cove site has similar soil texture and wetness, but is distinguished by higher soil nutrients which accumulate in protected cove setting and are evidenced by high soil organic matter and rich site indicator species. .
F144BY502ME Loamy Till Toeslope
The Loamy Till Toeslope is somewhat poorly- and poorly-drained, supporting wetter species and more softwoods than the moderately well- and well-drained Loamy Slope site.
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Pinus strobus
(2) Acer saccharumShrub Not specified
Herbaceous Not specified
Physiographic features
This site occurs mostly on moderate slopes on till landforms, especially hills and drumlins. It may also be found on somewhat flatter till plains and ground moraine landforms. Slopes are typically 0-35%, sometimes up to 60%. Elevations range from 0-3810 feet above sea level. This site may have a seasonally-high water table within 6-42 inches of the soil surface, but often does not.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Hills
(2) Mountains
(3) Lake plain > Lakebed (relict)
(4) Lowland > Hill
(5) Plains > Marine terrace
(6) Till plain > Ground moraine
(7) Upland > Hill
(8) Upland > Mountain
(9) Upland > Till plain
(10) Upland > Drumlin
(11) Upland > Drumlinoid ridge
(12) Upland > Moraine
(13) Upland > Knoll
(14) Upland > Ridge
(15) Upland > Ground moraine
(16) Upland > Hillslope
Runoff class Low to high Flooding frequency None Ponding frequency None Elevation 0 – 3810 ft Slope 0 – 35 % Water table depth 17 – 72 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. Precipitation generally is evenly distributed throughout the year. Near the coast, it is slightly lower in summer. In inland areas, it is slightly higher in spring and fall. Rainfall occurs during high-intensity, convective thunderstorms in summer. In 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.
This major land resource area (MLRA) covers four 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) 120-140 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 140-170 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 40-50 in Frost-free period (actual range) 100-150 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 130-180 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 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) WEST ROCKPORT 1 NNW [USC00179593], Rockport, ME
-
(2) JONESBORO [USC00174183], Addison, ME
-
(3) CORINNA [USC00171628], Corinna, ME
-
(4) GARDINER [USC00173046], Gardiner, ME
-
(5) PORTLAND INTL JETPORT [USW00014764], Portland, ME
-
(6) ACADIA NP [USC00170100], Bar Harbor, ME
-
(7) BELFAST [USC00170480], Belfast, ME
-
(8) AUGUSTA STATE AP [USW00014605], Augusta, ME
-
(9) BANGOR INTL AP [USW00014606], Bangor, ME
-
(10) DOVER-FOXCROFT WWTP [USC00171975], Dover Foxcroft, ME
-
(11) FARMINGTON [USC00172765], Farmington, ME
-
(12) LEWISTON [USC00174566], Auburn, ME
-
(13) MADISON [USC00174927], Anson, ME
-
(14) NEWCASTLE [USC00175675], Newcastle, ME
-
(15) WATERVILLE TRTMT PLT [USC00179151], Waterville, ME
">Influencing water features
This site is not typically influenced by streams or wetlands.
Soil features
The soils of this site are mostly well- and moderately well-drained and may include patches of somewhat poorly-drained soils when associated with drier soils. They formed mostly in, and may or may not have a layer of densely-compacted soil within 43 inches of the soil surface. When present, this restrictive layer limits both root penetration and water percolation on the site, and often has coarser textures and more rock fragments than the upper soil layers.
These soils are typically derived from granite, gneiss, or mica schist, but also occurs in less abundant minerals found in the region. Soil textures range from silt loams to fine sandy loams at the surface, with coarse loamy or loamy subsoils. Soil pH ranges from 3.5 to 6.8.
Often this site includes patches of moderately deep soils, with lithic bedrock within 20 to 40 inches of the soil surface. In these areas, as well as in wetter drainageways, softwoods tend to be more abundant in the plant community. These patches tend to be embedded within a larger matrix of soils that are more typical of this ecological site.Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Lodgment till – granite and gneiss
(2) Basal till – schist
(3) Till
(4) Supraglacial meltout till – phyllite
(5) Slate
(6) Lodgment till – mica schist
Surface texture (1) Silt loam
(2) Fine sandy loam
(3) Loam
(4) Coarse sandy loam
Family particle size (1) Loamy
Drainage class Moderately well drained to well drained Permeability class Very slow to moderate Soil depth 20 – 0 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" 0 – 2 % Available water capacity
(3-8in)Not specified Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(3.2-7.3in)Not specified Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(2-15in)Not specified Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(0in)Not specified Table 5. Representative soil features (actual values)
Drainage class Somewhat poorly drained to well drained Permeability class Not specified Soil depth 0 in Surface fragment cover <=3" 0 % Surface fragment cover >3" 0 % Available water capacity
(3-8in)0 in Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(3.2-7.3in)0 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(2-15in)0 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(0in)0 % 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 covers a broad area and will require significant study to identify the full range of disturbances and plant communities associated with it. Northern hardwoods dominate, particularly yellow birch, sugar maple, red oak and beech. However, where soils somewhat shallower or wetter than the typical site concept there is often more red spruce, white pine balsam fire, white birch and eastern hemlock present in the community. Historically, American chestnut would also be dominant on this site, but currently it has been all but eliminated from the region by chestnut blight.
Treethrow and logging are the most common disturbances on this site. The site is resilient following these disturbances and succeeds through an herbaceous and shrubby phase prior to tree establishment and eventual return to the reference community. The young forest stands include several species not typically dominant in the reference community, including pin cherry, white birch, aspen, balsam fir, etc.
On gentler slopes, this site may be cultivated for crop or pasture, though soil amendments are needed since they are both acidic and nutrient-poor. When cropland or pastureland management ceases, as occurred across most of the area in the late 19th century, the site either returns to northern hardwoods or may transition to a white pine forest. Once white pine is established, it tends to form a single age stand with low diversity and little understory.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 4 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference State / Current PotentialCommunity 1.1
Northern Hardwood ForestMulti-age stand dominated by white ash, yellow birch, sugar maple, and/or beech.
Community 1.2
Herbaceous PhaseWild raspberry, ferns, and other herbs colonize the open land
Community 1.3
Successional ForestDiverse young hardwoods, including species not dominant in the reference community
Community 1.4
Mature Forest 50-80 yr50-80 year old hardwoods. Early successional species (white birch, fir, grey birch, aspen) dying out.
Pathway P1.1-1.2
Community 1.1 to 1.2windthrow, blowdown, fire
Pathway P1.2-1.3
Community 1.2 to 1.3vegetation development (succession)
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Genetic resources
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Primary production
-
Climate regulation: carbon cycling and storage
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
Pathway P1.3-1.4
Community 1.3 to 1.4vegetation development (succession)
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Primary production
-
Climate regulation: carbon cycling and storage
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
Pathway P1.4-1.1
Community 1.4 to 1.1windthrow, blowdown, fire
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Genetic resources
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Climate regulation: carbon cycling and storage
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
Pathway P1.4-1.2
Community 1.4 to 1.2windtrhrow, blowdown, fire
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Genetic resources
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Primary production
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
State 2
Grassland / Hay landCommunity 2.1
Pasture or Hay LandCleared and planted fields of mostly perennial herbaceous species.
State 3
Crop LandCommunity 3.1
Annual or Perennial CropsCleared and cultivated fields, heavily managed with regular soil disturbance.
State 4
White PineCommunity 4.1
Herbs and ShrubsWild raspberry, ferns, and other herbs colonize the open land
Community 4.2
White Pine ForestSingle age white pine forest.
Pathway P4.1-4.2
Community 4.1 to 4.2Vegetation development (succession)
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
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
Pathway P4.2-4.1
Community 4.2 to 4.1harvest, logging
Conservation practices
Forest Stand Improvement Forest Land Management Key drivers
-
Timber management
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
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
Transition T1-2
State 1 to 2tree removal, pasture or hayfield establishment
Conservation practices
Clearing and Snagging Land Clearing Invasive Plant Species Control Managed Haying/Grazing Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Primary production
-
Food and fiber: wood products
-
Climate regulation: carbon cycling and storage
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
Transition T1-3
State 1 to 3Tree clearing, crop establishment
Conservation practices
Clearing and Snagging Cover Crop Land Clearing Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Primary production
-
Wildlife forage
-
Climate regulation: carbon cycling and storage
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
Transition T1-4
State 1 to 4selective harvest
Conservation practices
Forest Stand Improvement Forest Land Management Key drivers
-
Timber management
-
Selective harvest
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 R2-1
State 2 to 1abandonment, vegetation development (succession), planting
Conservation practices
Tree/Shrub Site Preparation Tree/Shrub Establishment Upland Wildlife Habitat Management Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems Native Plant Community Restoration and Management Invasive Plant Species Control Managed Haying/Grazing Transition T2-4
State 2 to 4tree establishment
Conservation practices
Tree/Shrub Site Preparation Tree/Shrub Establishment Invasive Plant Species Control Key drivers
-
Timber management
-
Tree planting
Key ecosystem services affected
-
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
Restoration pathway R3-1
State 3 to 1abandonment, vegetation development (succession), tree planting
Conservation practices
Tree/Shrub Establishment Upland Wildlife Habitat Management Tree/Shrub Pruning Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems Native Plant Community Restoration and Management Invasive Plant Species Control Transition T3-4
State 3 to 4tree planting
Conservation practices
Tree/Shrub Site Preparation Tree/Shrub Establishment Invasive Plant Species Control Key drivers
-
Timber management
-
Tree planting
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
Restoration pathway R4-1
State 4 to 1abandonment, vegetation development (succession), plantings
Conservation practices
Tree/Shrub Site Preparation Tree/Shrub Establishment Upland Wildlife Habitat Management Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems Native Plant Community Restoration and Management Invasive Plant Species Control Restoration pathway T4-2
State 4 to 2Tree removal, pasture or hay land establishment
Conservation practices
Clearing and Snagging Land Clearing Transition T4-3
State 4 to 3tree removal, cropland establishment
Conservation practices
Clearing and Snagging Cover Crop Land Clearing Additional community tables
Table 6. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 7. Community 1.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 8. Community 1.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 1.4 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 10. Community 2.1 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 4.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 13. Community 4.2 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
