Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F145XY011CT
Well Drained Shallow Till Uplands
Last updated: 9/27/2024
Accessed: 04/19/2026
-
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): 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 Well Drained Shallow Till Uplands ecological site consists of shallow, well drained and somewhat excessively drained soils formed in a thin mantle of till derived mainly from basalt and red sandstone, conglomerate, and shale. Slopes range from 3 to 45 percent in from nearly level settings to steep hills and ridges. Representative soil is Holyoke. The reference plant community is typically an oak - hickory (Quercus – Carya) woodland and red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) woodlands. Trees are generally lower in density and stature to shallow soils.
Associated sites
F145XY013CT Well Drained Till Uplands
F145XY014CT Moist Dense Till Uplands
Similar sites
F145XY012CT Well Drained Dense Till Uplands
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Quercus montana
(2) Carya glabraShrub (1) Vaccinium pallidum
Herbaceous (1) Danthonia spicata
Physiographic features
The site occurs on level to very steep bedrock controlled upland landforms, and is not subject to flooding or ponding.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Upland > Hill
(2) Ridge
(3) Mountain
(4) Moraine
Runoff class Medium to very high Flooding frequency None Ponding frequency None Elevation 3 – 3477 ft Slope 0 – 70 % Water table depth 72 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, central hardwoods – pine forests are at a low 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 productivity of central hardwoods, especially trees with southern affinities such as oaks, hickory, and tuliptree. However, climate extremes may introduce earlier leaf phenologies susceptible to frost damage and general plant weakening. Although central hardwoods – pine forests are adaptable to warmer climate shifts, fragmentation and invasive species can amplify any adverse effects of climate change. 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) 160-180 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 50-50 in Frost-free period (actual range) 110-140 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 150-190 days Precipitation total (actual range) 50-50 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) AMHERST [USC00190120], Amherst, MA
-
(2) HARTFORD BRADLEY INTL AP [USW00014740], Suffield, CT
-
(3) MIDDLETOWN 4 W [USC00064767], Middlefield, CT
">Influencing water features
NONE
Wetland description
NONE
Soil features
The site consists of shallow, well to excessively drained soils formed in a thin mantle of wind and glacially deposited parent material. Reaction ranges from extremely acid to moderately acid. Representative soils are Holyoke.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Till – basalt
(2) Sandstone and shale
(3) Conglomerate
Surface texture (1) Silt loam
(2) Very fine sandy loam
(3) Stony fine sandy loam
Family particle size (1) Loamy
(2) Loamy-skeletal
Drainage class Well drained to excessively drained Permeability class Moderate to very slow Depth to restrictive layer 6 – 19 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" 0 – 9 % Available water capacity
(0-40in)1 – 3 in Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-40in)3.2 – 6 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)2 – 29 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)1 – 24 % 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 Well Drained Shallow Till Uplands ecological site is characteristic of the Central Appalachian Dry Oak-Pine Forest system (CES202.591), the Northeastern Interior Dry-Mesic Oak Forest system (CES202.592 and the Central Appalachian Alkaline Glade and Woodland system (CES202.602). The reference plant community is typically an oak - hickory (Quercus – Carya) woodland and/or red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) woodland. Natural disturbances include exposure to winds, drought, trampling, and soil loss. Wildfires do happen but are largely suppressed. Excessive deer browse may be an issue. Wildfires do happen but are largely suppressed. In disturbed sites, invasive plants can include European buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and others.
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 2 submodel, plant communities
State 3 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference State (minimally-managed)As a result of a long history of human activity, the plant associations listed below, may in reality, reflect the current naturalized, minimally-managed state rather than the historic, pre-European settlement condition. Notice transition pathways are not always designated between some of the communities in the reference state because the differences in vegetation are more controlled by landscape position, rather than disturbances or management, or that the relationships are not understood. In addition, undisclosed successional plant community-types following disturbance may be included as community phases.
Within the reference state, the plant communities are quite variable. The reference plant community includes:
• Quercus rubra - Carya (glabra, ovata) / Ostrya virginiana / Carex lucorum Forest (CEGL006301)
Translated Name: Northern Red Oak - (Pignut Hickory, Shagbark Hickory) / Hophornbeam / Blue Ridge Sedge Forest
Common Name: Oak - Hickory / Hophornbeam / Sedge Forest
• Juniperus virginiana - Fraxinus americana / Danthonia spicata Woodland (CEGL006002)
Translated Name: Eastern Red-cedar - White Ash / Poverty Oatgrass Woodland
Common Name: Northeast Red Cedar Circumneutral Rocky Summit
Others plant communities can include:
• Quercus montana - Quercus (rubra, velutina) / Vaccinium (angustifolium, pallidum) Forest (CEGL006282)
Translated Name: Chestnut Oak - (Northern Red Oak, Black Oak) / Lowbush Blueberry, Blue Ridge Blueberry Forest
Common Name: Lower New England High Slope Chestnut Oak Forest
• Quercus rubra - (Quercus montana) / Vaccinium spp. / Deschampsia flexuosa Woodland (CEGL006134)
Translated Name: Northern Red Oak - (Chestnut Oak) / Blueberry species / Wavy Hairgrass Woodland
Common Name: Red Oak / Heath Woodland Rocky Summit
(Source: NatureServe 2022)Community 1.1
Northern Red Oak - (Pignut Hickory, Shagbark Hickory) / Hophornbeam / Blue Ridge Sedge ForestQuercus rubra - Carya (glabra, ovata) / Ostrya virginiana / Carex lucorum Forest (CEGL006301)
Translated Name: Northern Red Oak - (Pignut Hickory, Shagbark Hickory) / Hophornbeam / Blue Ridge Sedge Forest
Common Name: Oak - Hickory / Hophornbeam / Sedge Forest
This forest has a closed to open canopy dominated by a mixture of pignut hickory (Carya glabra), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba), black oak (Quercus velutina), with occasionally mountain chestnut oak (Quercus montana), and red maple (Acer rubrum). Minor associates may include white pine (Pinus strobus), pitch pine (Pinus rigida), and white ash (Fraxinus americana). A subcanopy of hop hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana) is conspicuous in most areas. Additional tall-shrub include witchhazel (Hamamelis virginiana), downy serviceberry/shadbush (Amelanchier arborea), with occasional striped maple (Acer pensylvanicum) to the north, and flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) to the south. Low shrubs can include common Allegheny blackberry (Rubus allegheniensis), and red raspberry (Rubus idaeus). Heaths are less common (to non-existant) including lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium), hillside blueberry (Vaccinium pallidum), black huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata). The herb layer can range from a sedge lawn of Blue Ridge sedge (Carex lucorum), and/or Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica), Appalachian sedge (Carex appalachica), or rosey sedge (Carex rosea), to a more patchy herbaceous layer with sedges in addition to scattered eastern bottle brush grass (Elymus hystrix), hairy wood broom (Bromus pubescens), poverty oatgrass (Danthonia spicata), sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), nodding fescue (Festuca subverticillata), perfoliate bellwort (Uvularia perfoliate), sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis), false Solomon’s seal (Maianthemum racemosum [= Smilacina racemosa]), Pointedleaf tick trefoil (Hylodesmum [= Desmodium] glutinosum), panicaled tick trefoil (Desmodium paniculatum), white goldenrod ( Solidago bicolor), early goldenrod (Solidago juncea), bluntlobe hepatica (Hepatica nobilis var. obtusa [= Hepatica americana]), sedge (Carex spp.), wavyhair grass (Deschampsia flexuosa), balsam groundsel (Packera paupercula [= Senecio pauperculus]), running groundsel (Packera obovata [= Senecio obovatus]), wavyleaf American aster (Symphyotrichum undulatum [= Aster undulatus]), late purple American aster (Symphyotrichum patens [= Aster patens]), common speedwell (Veronica officinalis), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), and rosete panicgrass (Dichanthelium spp.). (Source: NatureServe 2018 [accessed 2022], USNVC 2017 [accessed 2022]).
Cross-referenced plant community concepts (typically by political State):
CT: Pignut Hickory- White Ash Community (Metzler and Barrett, 2006)
MA: Hickory - Hop Hornbeam Forest/Woodland (Swain and Kearsley, 2001)Community 1.2
Eastern Red-cedar - White Ash / Poverty Oatgrass WoodlandJuniperus virginiana - Fraxinus americana / Danthonia spicata Woodland (CEGL006002)
Translated Name: Eastern Red-cedar - White Ash / Poverty Oatgrass Woodland
Common Name: Northeast Red Cedar Circumneutral Rocky Summit
Red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) is the most constant canopy tree in the sparse tree layer. Other woody species sometimes present include white ash (Fraxinus americana), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), mountain chesnut oak (Quercus montana), hop hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), and pignut hickory (Carya )glabra, and representatives from the surrounding forest. The scattered shrub layer often includes Carolina rose (Rosa Carolina), creeping juniper (Juniperus communis var. depressa), mountain chesnut oak (Quercus montana), scrub oak (Quercus ilicifolia), staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina [= Rhus hirta]), and choke cherry (Prunus virginiana). Heaths are less common (to non-existant) including lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium), hillside blueberry (Vaccinium pallidum), black huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata). The open herbaceous layer is dominated by little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) wavy hairgrass (Deschampsia flexuosa), and poverty oatgrass (Danthonia spicata). Many other herbs occur in this community type, including Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica), sweet vernalgrass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), orangegrass St. John’s wort (Hypericum gentianoides), plantainlef pussytoes (Antennaria plantaginifolia), pink corydalis (Capnoides [= Corydalis] sempervirens), gray goldenrod (Solidago nemoralis), Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa), false Solomon’s seal (Maianthemum racemosum), perfoliate bellwort (Uvularia perfoliate), red columbine (Aquilegia canadensis), whorled milkweed (Asclepias verticillate), climbing bindweed (Fallopia [= Polygonum] scandens), and Virginia dwarf dandelion (Krigia virginica). (Source: NatureServe 2018 [accessed 2022], USNVC 2017 [accessed 2022]).
Cross-referenced plant community concepts (typically by political State):
CT: Red Cedar – Poverty Grass Community (Metzler and Barrett, 2006)
MA: Circumneutral Rocky Summit/Rock Outcrop Community (Swain and Kearsley, 2001)Community 1.3
Successional plant community-type(s)(to be developed)
Pathway P1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.3disturbance
Pathway P1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.3disturbance
Pathway P1.3A
Community 1.3 to 1.1vegetation development/succession
Pathway P1.3B
Community 1.3 to 1.2vegetation development/succession
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(to be developed)
Community 2.2
Invasive Plants(to be developed)
Pathway P2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.2invasive plant establishment, vegetation development/succession
Key drivers
-
Nonnative plant species presence and/or establishment
Pathway P2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1invasive plant management, forest management
Conservation practices
Forest Stand Improvement Invasive Plant Species Control State 3
Cultural StateThe Cultural State would expect the ecological site to be very strongly conditioned by land management, i.e., transformed/converted to cultivated, pasture, or plantation.
Community 3.1
Cultivated(to be developed)
Community 3.2
Pasture(to be developed)
Community 3.3
Plantation(to be developed)
Transition T1A
State 1 to 2forest management, disturbance, invasive plant establishment
Conservation practices
Forest Stand Improvement Transition T1B
State 1 to 3cutting, land clearing, plant establishment
Conservation practices
Land Clearing Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1plant removal, plant establishment, successional management
Conservation practices
Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems Native Plant Community Restoration and Management Invasive Plant Species Control Transition T2A
State 2 to 3cutting, land clearing, plant establishment
Conservation practices
Land Clearing Restoration pathway R3A
State 3 to 1plant removal, plant establishment, successional management
Conservation practices
Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems Native Plant Community Restoration and Management Invasive Plant Species Control Restoration pathway R3B
State 3 to 2forest management, disturbance, invasive plant establishment
Conservation practices
Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems Native Plant Community Restoration and Management 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 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 10. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 11. Community 3.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 12. 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.
Marks, C.O., K.A. Lutz, A.P. Olivero-Sheldon. 2011. Ecologically important floodplain forests in the Connecticut River watershed. The Nature Conservancy, Connecticut River Program. 44pp.
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 04/19/2026 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
