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): 145X–Connecticut Valley
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 145 – Connecticut Valley (USDA-NRCS, 2006).
The nearly level floor of the Connecticut Valley makes up most of the area. Nearly level to sloping lowlands are at the outer edges of the river valley. These lowlands are broken by isolated, north- to south-trending trap-rock ridges that are hilly and steep. Elevation ranges from sea level to 100 meters (330 feet) in the lowlands and from 50 to 100 meters (650 to 1,000 feet) on ridges. The geology of this rift valley is a late Triassic and early Jurassic sandstone, shale, and conglomerate sequence. Tilted basalt flows along rift zones form the trap rock ridges exhibiting the greatest landscape relief. Glaciation accounts for glacial lake deposits, outwash, and till. Following glacial retreat, wind-deposited loess caps some areas. Recent alluvium deposits form well-developed flood plain along the Connecticut River. These deposits created some of the most productive agricultural soils in New England. The dominant soils are entisols and inceptisols with a mesic temperature regime in combination with parent materials such as glacial lakebeds, glacial outwash, glacial till, and recent alluvium. From north-to-south within the Connecticut Valley, the climate transitions from humid-continental to humid temperate with pronounced seasons and frequent storms. The forests are predominately central hardwoods to the south and transition hardwoods to the north. Significant habitats include trap rock ridges, sandplains, and floodplains of the Connecticut River and major tributaries. Much of the area is currently in residential and urban development and agriculture. While much of the areas is also forested, habitat loss and fragmentation are widespread throughout the Connecticut Valley.Classification relationships
USDA-NRCS (USDA, 2006):
Land Resource Region (LRR): R – Northeastern Forage and Forest Region
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 145 – Connecticut Valley
USDA-FS (Cleland et al, 2007):
Province: 221 – Eastern Broadleaf Forest
Section: 221A – Lower New England
Subsection: 221Af –Lower Connecticut River Valley
Province: M211 – Adirondack New England Mixed Forest – Coniferous Forest – Alpine Meadow (in part)
Section: M211B– New England Piedmont (in part)
Subsection: 211Bb – Southern Piedmont (in part)Ecological site concept
The Wet Lake Plain ecological site consists of very deep, poorly drained soils formed in clayey, silty and loamy over clayey sediments. They are nearly level to gently sloping soils in low-lying positions on glaciolacustrine terraces. Geographically, these areas were once occupied by former glacial Lake Hitchcock in MA and northcentral CT, as well other former glacial lakes within the CT valley. Representative soils are Binghamville, Scitico (inland) Shaker and Raynham (inland). The vegetation is often a mosaic of forest, woodland, shrub land, and herbaceous communities. The reference forest community is typified by a red maple – hardwoods swamp forest. These sites may be perched or show seepage and maybe considered minerotrophic (slightly enriched).
Associated sites
F145XY003CT Very Wet Inland Lake Plain
Similar sites
F145XY001MA Silty High Floodplain
F145XY002MA Silty Low Floodplain
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Acer rubrum
(2) Quercus palustrisShrub (1) Vaccinium corymbosum
(2) Ilex verticillataHerbaceous (1) Thelypteris palustris
(2) Scirpus cyperinusPhysiographic features
The site occurs nearly level depressions, drainageways, and terraces. The water table is at or near the surface for most of the year, but the site is typically not subject to regular flooding/ponding.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Lake plain > Depression
(2) Plains > Lake terrace
(3) Valley > Drainageway
(4) Terrace
(5) Marine terrace
Runoff class Negligible to very high Flooding frequency None Ponding frequency None Elevation 0 – 1499 ft Slope 0 – 5 % Water table depth 2 – 15 in Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
The regional climate of the Connecticut Valley transitions north to south, from humid-continental to humid temperate, respectively, with pronounced seasons and frequent storms. (Beck et al., 2018; Bailey, 2014).
Climate change is occurring, and the resiliency of any ecological site will depend upon the direct and indirect effects upon component species and shifting atmospheric and soil conditions. On these ecological sites, wetland forests are at a moderate vulnerability risk to climate change with impacts considered both negative and positive. Warmer seasonal temperatures and a prolonged growing season will be beneficial for increasing wetland forest productivity. However, climate extremes may introduce earlier leaf phenologies susceptible to frost damage and general plant weakening. Although wetland forests are adapted to seasonal changes in hydrology, more intense and catastrophic storms (wind, rain, ice) may increase the frequency of canopy gaps, amplify the effects of insect pests, and introduced species. Several invasive species will continue to be a threat. (Janowiak et al, 2018).Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 120-140 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 150-190 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 40-50 in Frost-free period (actual range) 110-150 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 150-190 days Precipitation total (actual range) 40-50 in Frost-free period (average) 130 days Freeze-free period (average) 170 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) MT CARMEL [USC00065077], Hamden, CT
-
(2) HARTFORD BRADLEY INTL AP [USW00014740], Suffield, CT
-
(3) AMHERST [USC00190120], Amherst, MA
-
(4) NEW HAVEN TWEED AP [USW00014758], East Haven, CT
-
(5) BELLOWS FALLS [USC00430499], Bellows Falls, VT
-
(6) HANOVER [USC00273850], Hanover, NH
">Influencing water features
Water is removed so slowly that the soil is wet at shallow depths periodically during the growing season or remains wet for long periods. Internal free water occurrence is shallow or very shallow and common or persistent. Free water is commonly at or near the surface long enough during the growing season that most mesophytic crops cannot be grown, unless the soil is artificially drained. The soil, however, is not continuously wet directly below plow depth. Free water at shallow depth is common. The water table is commonly the result of low or very low saturated hydraulic conductivity, nearly continuous rainfall, or a combination of these.
Wetland description
National Wetland Classification (Cowardin et al., 1979):<br />
<br />
Palustrine, class variable, leaf morphology variable, water regime variable, chemistry modifier variable.Soil features
This site consists of very deep, poorly drained soils formed in loamy over clayey or silty and clayey sediments. They are nearly level to gently sloping soils in low-lying positions on glaciolacustrine and marine terraces. Representative soils are Binghamville, Scitico (inland) Shaker and Raynham (inland).
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Eolian deposits
(2) Glaciolacustrine deposits
(3) Lacustrine deposits
Surface texture (1) Silt loam
Family particle size (1) Coarse-loamy over clayey
(2) Coarse-silty over clayey
(3) Coarse-silty
(4) Fine
Drainage class Poorly drained Permeability class Very slow to slow Depth to restrictive layer 24 – 72 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(0-40in)5 – 9 in Calcium carbonate equivalent
(0-40in)0 – 5 % Electrical conductivity
(0-40in)Not specified Sodium adsorption ratio
(0-40in)Not specified Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-40in)4.5 – 7.8 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 2 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)Not specified Ecological dynamics
[Caveat: The vegetation information contained in this section and is only provisional, based on concepts, not yet validated with field work.*]
The vegetation groupings described in this section are based on the terrestrial ecological system classification and vegetation associations developed by NatureServe (Comer 2003). Terrestrial ecological SYSTEMS are specifically defined as a group of plant community-types called ASSOCIATIONS that tend to [co-]occur within landscapes with similar ecological processes, substrates, and/or environmental gradients. Any given system will typically manifest itself in a landscape at intermediate geographic scales of tens-to-thousands of hectares and will persist for 50 or more years. A vegetation association is a plant community that is much more specific to a given soil, geology, landform, climate, hydrology, and disturbance history. It is the basic unit for vegetation classification and recognized by the US National Vegetation Classification (US FDGC 2008). Each association will be named by the diagnostic and often dominant species that occupy the different height strata (tree, sapling, shrub, and herb). Within the NatureServe Explorer database (NatureServe, 2015), ecological systems are numbered by a Community Ecological System Code (CES) and individual vegetation associations are assigned an identification number called a Community Element Global Code (CEGL).
Additional and more localized vegetation information can be provided by the various State Heritage Programs. Additional insights to the vegetation were provided by: "The Vegetation of Connecticut: A Preliminary Classification" (Metzler and Barrett, 2006), "Classification of the Natural Communities of Massachusetts" (Swain and Kersley 2011), "Wetland, Woodland, Wildland" (Thompson and Sorenson 2000), and "Natural Communities of New Hampshire, 2nd Ed." (Spurduto and Nichols, 2011).
The Wet Lake Plain ecological site is characteristic of the North-Central Appalachian Acidic Swamp system (CES202.604). The reference community is typified by a red maple -hardwoods swamp. Windthrows are common. Alteration of the natural hydrological regime (diversions, culverts, impoundments) can be a threat. Fires are typically suppressed, and otherwise less common in these wet lake plain environments compared to drier upland environments. Windthrows are common. Invasive species, such as common reedgrass (Phragmites australis ssp. australis ), purple loosetrife (Lythrum salicaria), and occasionally multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), non-native honeysuckles (Lonicera spp., Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica), and barberry (Berberis thunbergii) may produce a state change. The most significant threat is the emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis), an Asian beetle that infests and kills North American ash trees.
Other ecological states, a Semi-natural State and a Cultural State are recognized. The Semi-natural State would expect plant communities where ecological processes primarily operate with some conditioning by land management, e.g., managed forests, or plant communities that are an artifact of land management e.g., predominately invasive plants. The Cultural State is a completely converted or transformed state heavily or completely conditioned by land management, e.g., cultivated lands, pasture/haylands, vineyards, and plantations, etc. Generally, the form of vegetation in the Semi-natural State or the Cultural State is not able to be specified until field work is conducted.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
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 3 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference State (minimally-managed)The reference state is quite variable and may include:
• Northeast Red Maple Acidic Swamp Forest (CEGL006220)
Acer rubrum / Ilex mucronata - Vaccinium corymbosum Swamp Forest
(Translated) Red Maple / Mountain Holly - Highbush Blueberry Swamp Forest
Other plant communities may include:
• Red Maple- Blackgum Basin Swamp Forest (CEGL006014)
Acer rubrum - Nyssa sylvatica - Betula alleghaniensis / Sphagnum spp. Swamp Forest
(Translated) Red Maple - Blackgum - Yellow Birch / Peatmoss species Swamp Forest
• Southern New England-Northern Piedmont Red Maple Seepage Swamp Forest (CEGL006406)
Acer rubrum - Fraxinus (pennsylvanica, americana) / Lindera benzoin / Symplocarpus foetidus Swamp Forest
(Translated) Red Maple - (Green Ash, White Ash) / Northern Spicebush / Skunk-cabbage Swamp Forest
Other less common plant communities are:
• Northeastern Pin Oak - Swamp White Oak Wet Forest (CEGL 006240)
Quercus palustris - (Quercus bicolor) - Acer rubrum / Vaccinium corymbosum / Osmunda cinnamomea Wet Forest
(Translated) Pin Oak - (Swamp White Oak ) - Red Maple / Highbush Blueberry / Cinnamon Fern Wet Forest
• Northeast Red Maple Acidic Swamp Forest (CEGL006220)
Acer rubrum / Ilex mucronata - Vaccinium corymbosum Swamp Forest
(Translated) Red Maple / Catberry - Highbush Blueberry Swamp Forest
• Red Maple / Upright Sedge Wet Woodland (CEGL006119)
Acer rubrum / Carex stricta - Onoclea sensibilis Wet Woodland
(Translated) Red Maple / Upright Sedge - Sensitive Fern Wet Woodland
• Hazel Alder Shrub Swamp (CEGL005082)
Alnus serrulata / Calamagrostis canadensis Shrub Swamp
(Translated) Hazel Alder / Bluejoint Shrub Swamp
• Northeastern Woolgrass Wet Meadow (CEGL006349)
Scirpus cyperinus Wet Meadow
(Translated) Woolgrass Wet Meadow
• Eastern Cattail Marsh (CEGL006153)
Typha (angustifolia, latifolia) - (Schoenoplectus spp.) Eastern Marsh
(Translated) Narrowleaf Cattail, Broadleaf Cattail) - (Bulrush species) Eastern Marsh
Additonal plant communities closer to the coast:
• Lower New England Red Maple Swamp Forest (CEGL006156)
Acer rubrum / Rhododendron viscosum - Clethra alnifolia Swamp Forest
(Red Maple / Swamp Azalea - Coastal Sweet-pepperbush Swamp Forest)Community 1.1
Red Maple / Mountain Holly - Highbush Blueberry Swamp Forest (CEGL006220)Northeast Red Maple Acidic Swamp Forest (CEGL006220)
Acer rubrum / Ilex mucronata - Vaccinium corymbosum Swamp Forest
(Translated) Red Maple / Mountain Holly - Highbush Blueberry Swamp Forest
The deciduous canopy ranges is commonly closed but can be patchy. The shrub layer can be well-developed in the gap openings. The herb layer is usually fairly well-developed. The canopy is characteristically dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum with associates of black ash (Fraxinus nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), and American elm (Ulmus americana). Only very occasionally, do, eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), red spruce (Picea rubens) and balsam fir (Abies balsamea), appear in the northern most examples. Typical shrubs are dominated by highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) and include associated plants common winterberry (Ilex verticillate), northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin), swamp rose (Rosa palustris), speckled alder (Alnus incana), and northern arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum var. lucidum [= Viburnum recognitum]. Mountain holly (Ilex mucronata [= Nemopanthus mucronatus]) is more characteristic to the north, whereas, northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin) is more common to the southern CT Valley. The herbaceous layer cam be dominated by ferns, including cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), and interrupted fern (Osmunda claytoniana). Less often in less wet conditions are found senstive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), crested woodfern (Dryopteris cristata), and the eastern marsh fern (Thelypteris palustris). In wetter settings, upright sedge (Carex stricta) may be locally dominant. Other species frequent in the herbaceous layer include jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), marsh marigold (Caltha palustris), Canada bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis), greater bladder sedge Carex intumescens), three seeded sedge (Carex trisperma), and Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum). The bryophyte flora is not well-documented although sphagnum mosses (Sphagnum spp.) and occasionally carpet moss (Mnium spp.) are found. (Source: NatureServe 2018 [accessed 2019], USNVC 2017 [accessed 2019]).
•
•
• Cross-referenced plant community concepts (typically by political State):
• CT: Red maple / winterberry – highbush blueberry Forest (Metzler and Barrett, 2006)
• MA: Red maple swamp (Swain and Kearsley, 2011)State 2
Semi-natural StateThe Semi-natural State would expect plant communities where ecological processes are primarily operating with some land conditioning in the past or present, e.g., managed forests, or plant communities that are an artifact of land management e.g., predominately invasive plants.
Community 2.1
Managed Forest/Woodland [vegetation]Pathway P2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.2Disturbance / Logging
Pathway P2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1Succession
State 3
Cultural StateThe Cultural State is a completely converted or transformed state, heavily or completely conditioned by land management, e.g., cultivated lands, pasture/haylands, vineyards, and plantations, etc.
Community 3.1
CultivatedCommunity 3.2
PastureCommunity 3.3
PlantationTransition T1A
State 1 to 2Disturbance and Invasion
Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1Invasive species removal, native outplanting
Additional community tables
Table 5. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 6. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 7. Community 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 8. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 3.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 10. Community 3.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Supporting information
Inventory data references
Site Development and Testing Plan 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
Bailey, R. 2014. Ecoregions: the ecosystem geography of the oceans and continents. Second Edition. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Beck, H.E., N.E. Zimmermann, T.R. McVicar, N. Vergopolan, A.Berg, E.F. Wood. 2018. Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution. Scientific Data 5(1):1-12.
Cleland, D.T., J.A. Freeouf, J.E. Keys, G.J. Nowacki, C.A. Carpenter, and W.H.McNab. 2007. Ecological Subregions: Sections and Subsections for the conterminous United States. [Map. presentation scale 1:3,500,000, colored; A.M. Sloan, cartographer] Gen. Tech. Report WO-76D. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. (https://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/misc/73326-wo-gtr-76d-cleland2007.pdf)
Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, M. Pyne, M. Reid, K. Schulz, K., Snow, and J.Teague. 2003. Ecological Systems of the United States: A Working Classification of U.S. Terrestrial Systems. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
Cowardin, L.M. et. al. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Edinger, G.J., Evans, D.J., Gebauer, S., Howard, T.G., Hunt, D.M., and A.M. Olivero, A.M. (eds.). 2014. Ecological Communities of New York State, Second Edition: A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.
FGDC [Federal Geographic Data Committee]. 2008. National Vegetation Classification Standard, Version 2. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee, Washington DC..
Janowiak, M.K., A.W. D'Amato, C.W. Swanston, L. Iverson, F.R. Thompson, W.D Dijak, S. Matthews, M.P. Peters, A. Prasad, J.S. Fraser, J.S. L.A. Brandt, P. Butler-Leopold, S.D. Handler, P.D. Shannon, D. Burbank, J. Campbell, C. Cogbill, M.J. Duveneck, M.R. Emery, N. Fisichelli, J. Foster, J Hushaw, L. Kenefic, A. Mahaffey, T/L. Morelli, N.J. Reo, P.G. Schaberg, K R. Simmons, A. Weiskittel, S. Wilmot, D. Hollinger, E. Lane, L. Rustad, and P.H. Templer. 2018. New England and northern New York forest ecosystem vulnerability assessment and synthesis: a report from the New England Climate Change Response Framework project. General Technical Report NRS-173, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. Newtown Square, PA.
Metzler, K.J. and Barrett, J.P., 2006. The Vegetation of Connecticut, a Preliminary Classification. Department of Environmental Protection, State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut. Rpt of Investigations No. 12.
NatureServe. 2009. International Ecological Classification Standard: Terrestrial Ecological Classifications. NatureServe Central Databases. Arlington, VA, U.S.A. Data current as of 06 February 2009.
NatureServe 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: December 2015).
PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University. Available http://prism.oregonstate.edu, (created February 26, 2013).
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 2006. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. Agricultural Handbook 296. (https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051845.pdf).
Sperduto, D.D., & Nichols, W.F. 2011. Natural Communities of New Hampshire, Second Ed. NH Natural Heritage Bureau, Concord, NH. Publ. UNH Cooperative Extension.
Swain, P.C. and Kearsley, J.B., 2001. Classification of the natural communities of Massachusetts. Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.
Thompson, E.H. and Sorenson, E.R., 2000. Wetland, woodland, wildland. Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife and The Nature Conservancy. Publ. University Press of New England.
USDA, NRCS. 2022. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 10/03/2023). National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC USA.
USNVC [United States National Vegetation Classification]. 2017 (Date accessed). United States National Vegetation Classification Database V2.01. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcomittee, Washington DC.Contributors
Nels Barrett, Ph.D.
Approval
Nels Barrett, 9/27/2024
Acknowledgments
Michael Margo and tech team assisted w/drafts.
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 08/10/2026 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
