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.Classification relationships
NRCS:
Land Resource Region: R—Northeastern Forage and Forest Region
MLRA: 144B—New England and Eastern New York Upland, Northern PartEcological site concept
This site occurs on somewhat poorly- to moderately well-drained sandy soils in low-lying areas associated with eskers, deltas, kame terraces, outwash plains, or sandy till deposits. Soils are typically very deep with a seasonally-high water table within 18-36 inches of the soil surface. Slopes are usually less than 8 percent.
Conifers are abundant and diverse, including white pine, red spruce, balsam fir, and eastern hemlock. Paper birch, red maple, bigtooth aspen, black cherry and yellow birch are common hardwood associates. This site is often downslope of the Dry Sands site, which occurs on better drained soils lacking a seasonally-high water table.Associated sites
F144BY601ME Dry Sand
The Sandy Toeslope site may occur in wetter areas downslope of the Dry Sand site, which may shed water and nutrients downslope to the Sandy Toeslope. Similar Sites
Similar sites
F144BY601ME Dry Sand
The Sandy Toeslope site is somewhat poorly-to moderately well-drained and produces more diverse species, whereas the Dry Sand site is well- to excessively-drained and produces mostly pine and other softwood species.
F144BY505ME Loamy over Sandy
The Loamy over Sandy site is moderately well- to well-drained, whereas the Sandy Toeslope site is somewhat poorly- to moderately well-drained.
Figure 1.
Table 2. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Pinus strobus
(2) Betula papyriferaShrub Not specified
Herbaceous Not specified
Physiographic features
This site occurs on outwash plains and terraces, and at the base of eskers. Slopes are typically less than 8 percent but may be as high as 15 percent. Elevations range from sea level to 3810 feet. A seasonally-high water table is between 18 and 36 inches in depth from November to May.
Table 3. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Outwash plain > Outwash delta
(2) Upland > Till plain
(3) Upland > Ridge
(4) Outwash terrace
(5) Terrace
Runoff class Very low to low Flooding frequency None Ponding frequency None Elevation 0 – 2214 ft Slope 0 – 15 % Ponding depth 0 – 6 in Water table depth 3 – 45 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 4 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) CORINNA [USC00171628], Corinna, ME
-
(2) DOVER-FOXCROFT WWTP [USC00171975], Dover Foxcroft, ME
-
(3) FARMINGTON [USC00172765], Farmington, ME
-
(4) GARDINER [USC00173046], Gardiner, ME
-
(5) JONESBORO [USC00174183], Addison, ME
-
(6) LEWISTON [USC00174566], Auburn, ME
-
(7) MADISON [USC00174927], Anson, ME
-
(8) NEWCASTLE [USC00175675], Newcastle, ME
-
(9) ORONO [USC00176430], Old Town, ME
-
(10) WATERVILLE TRTMT PLT [USC00179151], Waterville, ME
-
(11) WEST ROCKPORT 1 NNW [USC00179593], Rockport, ME
-
(12) AUGUSTA STATE AP [USW00014605], Augusta, ME
-
(13) BANGOR INTL AP [USW00014606], Bangor, ME
-
(14) PORTLAND INTL JETPORT [USW00014764], Portland, ME
-
(15) BELFAST [USC00170480], Belfast, ME
-
(16) ACADIA NP [USC00170100], Bar Harbor, ME
">Influencing water features
This site is not influenced by streams or wetlands.
Soil features
The soils of this site formed in sandy outwash and till deposits from melting glaciers. These soils occur in low-lying areas and are somewhat poorly- to moderately well-drained. Soil textures are sandy throughout and may have a thin sandy loamy surface horizon. Rock fragments may or may not be abundant in throughout the profile.
Representative soils are Naskeag, Croghan, Waumbek, Duane, Acton, Deerfield, Skowhegan, Udipsamments, and Naumburg.Table 5. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Supraglacial meltout till – granite and gneiss
(2) Glaciofluvial deposits – granite and gneiss
(3) Glaciofluvial deposits – quartzite
(4) Glaciofluvial deposits – slate
(5) Till
(6) Outwash
Surface texture (1) Sand
(2) Fine sandy loam
(3) Loamy fine sand
(4) Sand
Drainage class Somewhat poorly drained to moderately well drained Permeability class Moderately slow to very rapid Soil depth 60 – 0 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" 0 – 2 % Available water capacity
(1-5in)Not specified Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(3.2-7.8in)Not specified Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(2-41in)Not specified Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(1-17in)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 typically supports a mixedwood community with white pine, red spruce, balsam fir, eastern hemlock, paper birch, red maple, bigtooth aspen, black cherry and yellow birch common in various combinations.
This site has been cleared and cultivated for pasture/hayland or crop production. Blueberries are particularly suited to these sandy soils.
Gravel and sand mining are common on this site, and often accompanied by heavy logging to remove timber prior to soil excavation. Following cutting, early successional species such as fir, white birch, pin cherry, and aspen may enter the community, but they die out as the forest reaches maturity within about 80 years.
Further study is required to understand plant community dynamics on this site.
Relationship to Other Classification Systems
This site includes the following state natural heritage program types:
• Spruce – Northern Hardwoods Forest (Gawler and Cutko 2010)
• Lower Elevation Spruce-Fir Forests (Gawler and Cutko 2010)State and transition model
Custom diagramStandard diagram
More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
Click on state and transition labels to scroll to the respective textState 1 submodel, plant communities
Communities 1, 5 and 2 (additional pathways)
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 3 submodel, plant communities
State 4 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference/ Current PotentialCommunity 1.1
Mixed wood forestMulti-age stand, typically white pine, red spruce, hemlock, red maple, yellow birch, and several other species.
Community 1.2
Tree Seedling/ Herbaceous PhaseWild raspberry, ferns, and other herbs colonize the open land, sometimes with abundant tree seedlings
Community 1.3
Successional Forest PhaseDiverse young spruce, pine, birch, aspen, , etc.
Community 1.4
Intermediate Forest Phase50-80 year old softwoods. Early successional species dying out.
Community 1.5
Mature Forest Phase80-120 year old hardwoods and softwoods.
Pathway P1.1-1.2
Community 1.1 to 1.2clearcutting, blowdown
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Primary production
-
Food and fiber: wood products
-
Inspiration
-
Wildlife forage
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
Pathway P1.2-1.3
Community 1.2 to 1.3vegetation development (succession)
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Genetic resources
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
Pathway P1.3-1.2
Community 1.3 to 1.2selective cutting, forest management
Conservation practices
Forest Stand Improvement Forest Land Management Forest Management Plan - Written Forest Management Plan - Applied Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Primary production
-
Food and fiber: wood products
-
Inspiration
-
Wildlife forage
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
Pathway P1.3-1.4
Community 1.3 to 1.4vegetation development (succession)
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Genetic resources
-
Primary production
-
Food and fiber: wood products
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
Pathway P1.4-1.2
Community 1.4 to 1.2selective cutting, forest management
Conservation practices
Forest Stand Improvement Forest Land Management Forest Management Plan - Written Forest Management Plan - Applied 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
Pathway P1.4-1.3
Community 1.4 to 1.3selective cutting, forest management
Conservation practices
Forest Stand Improvement Forest Land Management Forest Management Plan - Written Forest Management Plan - Applied Key drivers
-
Timber management
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Primary production
-
Food and fiber: wood products
-
Inspiration
-
Wildlife forage
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
Pathway P1.4-1.5
Community 1.4 to 1.5vegetation development (succession)
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Food and fiber: wood products
-
Climate regulation: carbon cycling and storage
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
Pathway P1.5-1.1
Community 1.5 to 1.1cutting, logging
Conservation practices
Upland Wildlife Habitat Management Forest Trails and Landings Forest Stand Improvement Record Keeping Forest Land Management Forest Management Plan - Written Forest Management Plan - Applied Forest stand improvement for habitat and soil quality 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 P1.5-1.2
Community 1.5 to 1.2selective cutting, forest management
Key drivers
-
Timber management
-
Selective cutting, forest management
Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Primary production
-
Food and fiber: wood products
-
Wildlife forage
-
Climate regulation: carbon cycling and storage
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
Pathway P1.5-1.4
Community 1.5 to 1.4selective cutting thinning, forest management
Conservation practices
Forest Stand Improvement Forest Land Management Forest Management Plan - Written Forest Management Plan - Applied Key drivers
-
Timber management
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
PastureCommunity 2.1
Pasture/Hay PhaseCleared and cultivated fields of mostly perennial herbaceous species.
State 3
CroplandCommunity 3.1
Annual or Perennial Crop Phase: Cleared and cultivated fields, heavily managed with significant inputs and/or regular soil disturbance. (e.g. blueberry production).
State 4
Gravel PitsCommunity 4.1
Active Gravel Pit PhaseWeedy barrens. Some wild raspberry, ferns, and other herbs colonize the open land
Community 4.2
Successional Forest PhaseDiverse young spruce, pine, and early successional species (white birch, aspen, blasam fir, etc).
Pathway P4.1-4.2
Community 4.1 to 4.2abandonment, vegetation development (succession)
Conservation practices
Tree/Shrub Site Preparation Tree/Shrub Establishment Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Food and fiber: wood products
-
Inspiration
-
Wildlife forage
-
Climate regulation: carbon cycling and storage
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
Pathway P4.2-4.1
Community 4.2 to 4.1clearing and cutting
Conservation practices
Clearing and Snagging Land Clearing Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Primary production
-
Food and fiber: wood products
-
Inspiration
-
Wildlife forage
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
Transition T1-2
State 1 to 2Cutting and clearing, meadow/pasture establishment
Conservation practices
Brush Management Clearing and Snagging Land Clearing Upland Wildlife Habitat Management Early Successional Habitat Development/Management Record Keeping Native Plant Community Restoration and Management Invasive Species Pest Management 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
Transition T1-3
State 1 to 3cutting and clearing, crop establishment
Conservation practices
Clearing and Snagging Land Clearing Land Smoothing Record Keeping 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
-
Plant biodiversity
Transition T1-4
State 1 to 4cutting and clearing, sand and gravel mining operations (excavation)
Conservation practices
Clearing and Snagging Land Clearing Monitoring and Evaluation Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Food and fiber: wood products
-
Inspiration
-
Wildlife forage
-
Climate regulation: carbon cycling and storage
-
Wildlife habitat
-
Soil formation
-
Animal biodiversity
-
Plant biodiversity
Restoration pathway R2-1
State 2 to 1abandonment, vegetation development (succession), plantings
Conservation practices
Brush Management Tree/Shrub Site Preparation Tree/Shrub Establishment Upland Wildlife Habitat Management Record Keeping Invasive Plant Species Control Transition T2-4
State 2 to 4sand and gravel excavation
Conservation practices
Land Clearing Monitoring and Evaluation Key ecosystem services affected
-
Aesthetic values
-
Genetic resources
-
Sense of place
-
Nutrient cycling
-
Primary production
-
Food and fiber: livestock forage
-
Inspiration
-
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), plantings
Conservation practices
Tree/Shrub Site Preparation Tree/Shrub Establishment Upland Wildlife Habitat Management Record Keeping Invasive Plant Species Control Transition T3-4
State 3 to 4sand and gravel excavation
Conservation practices
Land Clearing Monitoring and Evaluation Key ecosystem services affected
-
Cultural heritage values
-
Aesthetic values
-
Sense of place
Restoration pathway R4-1
State 4 to 1forest re-establishment
Conservation practices
Tree/Shrub Site Preparation Land Reclamation, Abandoned Mined Land Land Reclamation, Currently Mined Land Spoil Spreading Tree/Shrub Establishment Upland Wildlife Habitat Management Land Grading Record Keeping Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems Native Plant Community Restoration and Management Invasive Plant Species Control 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 1.5 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 11. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 12. Community 3.1 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 (%) Table 14. 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
Nels Barrett, 9/27/2024
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
