Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Ecological site F124XY002OH

Acid Mixed Sedimentary Upland

Last updated: 9/26/2024
Accessed: 11/21/2024

Home / Esd catalog / MLRA 124X / Ecological site F124XY002OH

USC

Metric

General 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): 124X–Western Allegheny Plateau

Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 124—Western Allegheny Plateau (USDA-NRCS, 2006)
MLRA 124, Western Allegheny Plateau extends from and includes western PA just north of Pittsburgh through southeastern OH to and includes northeastern KY. This area is primarily in the Kanawha Section of the Appalachian Province of the Appalachian Highlands. This MLRA is on an unglaciated dissected plateau with narrow level valley floors, rolling ridgetops, and hilly to steep slopes with dendritic stream drainages. A notable exception is the broad, Teays Valley, and other glacio-fluvial and glacio-lacustrine features attributed to nearby Pleistocene glaciation. Elevation ranges from 660 to 1310 feet (200 to 400 meters). The geology is predominantly cyclic beds of sandstone, siltstone, clay, shale and coal of Pennsylvanian age. Soils are dominated by Udalfs, Udults, and Ochcrepts with a mesic temperature regime in combination with five parent materials, residuum, colluvium, alluvium, eolian, and extra-glacial material of glacio-fluvial and glaciolacustrine mesic materials. The climate is predominately a humid continental to temperate, with 940 to 1145 millimeters (37 to 45 inches) of precipitation. Average annual temperature is 8 to 13 degree C (46 to 56 degrees F) with a freeze-free period averaging 185 days. Much of the areas is either forest or in farms, principally for hay and pasture, with fruits and vegetables grown locally. Coal and gas extraction are important industries in the northern part of the MLRA.

Classification relationships

USDA-NRCS (USDA 2006):
Land Resource Region (LRR): N—East and Central Farming and Forest Region
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 124—Western Allegheny Plateau

USDA-FS (Cleland et al. 2007):
Province: 221 - Eastern Broadleaf Province
Section: 221E - Southern Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau
Subsection: 221Ea - Pittsburgh Low Plateau
221Eb - Teays Plateau
221Ee - Unglaciated Muskingam Plains
221Ef - Western Hocking Plateau
221Eg - Lower Scotio River Plateau
221En - Kinniconick and Licking Knobs
Section: 221H - North Cumberland Plateau (in Part)
Subsection: 221Hb - Kinniconick and Licking Knobs
221He - Miami - Scioto Plain - Tipton Till Plain

Ecological site concept

Within the dissected plateau of the unglaciated Western Allegheny Plateau, the Acid Mixed Sedimentary Uplands ecological site is set in upland landscapes of high to rolling hills occupying summits, shoulders and convex slopes. The ecological site is derived from non-calcareous to acid mixed sedimentary geology primarily composed of sandstone, shale, siltstone, and coal. Most sites are well-drained to somewhat excessively-drained. Representative soils include: Aaron, Alticrest, Berks, Blairton, Bratton, Brownsville, Cavode, Clymer, Cookport, Coshocton, Cranston, Cruze, Culleoka, Dekalb, Ernest, Germano, Gilpin, Guernsey, Hazleton, Latham, Library variant, Lily, Marrowbone, Matewan, Muse, Muskingum, Opequon, Rarden, Rayne, Richland, Rigley, Schaffenaker, Shelocta, Steinsburg, Tilsit, Trappist, Upshur, Wernock, Westmoreland, Wharton. Reference plant communities include: Appalachian Chestnut Oak - Mixed Oak Forest, and White Oak - Red Oak Dry-Mesic Acidic Forest.

Associated sites

F124XY001OH	Shallow Acid Mixed Sedimentary Upland Shallow Acid Mixed Sedimentary Upland ecological site is often adjacent to Acid Mixed Sedimentary Upland.
F124XY004OH	Acid Mixed Sedimentary Toeslope Acid Mixed Sedimentary Toeslope ecological site often shares in the topgraphic sequence of the same local landscape.

F124XY001OH

Shallow Acid Mixed Sedimentary Upland

Shallow Acid Mixed Sedimentary Upland ecological site is often adjacent to Acid Mixed Sedimentary Upland.

F124XY004OH

Acid Mixed Sedimentary Toeslope

Acid Mixed Sedimentary Toeslope ecological site often shares in the topgraphic sequence of the same local landscape.

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Tree	(1) Quercus montana
Shrub	(1) Viburnum acerifolium
Herbaceous	(1) Symphyotrichum cordifolium

Download full description

Physiographic features

Due to the unglaciated nature of this highly dissected plateau, much of the appearance of the landscapes is directly related to the underlying geology and erosional processes. The Acid Mixed Sedimentary Upland ecological site is derived from non-calcareous to acid mixed sedimentary geology primarily composed of sandstone, shale, siltstone, and coal. Within the typical landscape of a dissected with narrow to braod flat-bottomed valleys, the Acid Mixed Sedimentary Upland ecological site occupies the summits, shoulders, and upper convex slopes. Slope and aspect are variable.

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Landforms	(1) Hills > Hillside (2) Hills > Ridge (3) Plateau > Hillslope
Runoff class	Very low to high
Elevation	91 – 457 m
Slope	2 – 70%
Water table depth	30 – 137 cm
Aspect	W, NW, N, NE, E, SE, S, SW

Climatic features

The regional climate of the unglaciated Western Allegheny Plateau is predominately a humid continental climate grading at the extreme southwestern corner a to humid temperate climate with hot summers and cool winters (Beck et al., 2018; Bailey, 2014). However, the local climate is highly influenced by the dissected terrain, where climatic variations may be greater at the local scale, e.g., cooler temperatures and shorter growing season at higher elevations and more northerly latitudes. Winter precipitation is mostly snow.

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, dry upland forests are at a low vulnerability risk to climate change with some impacts considered positive. Large gap disturbances from greater storm events, drier summer and fall conditions, and a potential increase in fire frequency, can favor oaks and hickories and more southern plant species. Greater frequency and magnitude of storm events may increase large gap disturbances coupled with drier conditions in summer and fall may increase wildfires (Butler et al., 2015).

Table 3. Representative climatic features

Frost-free period (characteristic range)	122-142 days
Freeze-free period (characteristic range)	156-178 days
Precipitation total (characteristic range)	1,016-1,118 mm
Frost-free period (actual range)	115-148 days
Freeze-free period (actual range)	148-184 days
Precipitation total (actual range)	965-1,168 mm
Frost-free period (average)	132 days
Freeze-free period (average)	167 days
Precipitation total (average)	1,067 mm

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 1. Monthly precipitation range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 2. Monthly minimum temperature range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 3. Monthly maximum temperature range

Bar

Line

Figure 4. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature

Figure 5. Annual precipitation pattern

Figure 6. Annual average temperature pattern

Climate stations used

(1) PUTNEYVILLE 2 SE DAM [USC00367229], Dayton, PA
(2) FORD CITY 4 S DAM [USC00362942], Ford City, PA
(3) BUTLER 2 SW [USC00361139], Butler, PA
(4) DENISON WTR WKS [USC00332160], Dennison, OH
(5) NEW PHILADELPHIA FLD [USW00004852], New Philadelphia, OH
(6) MILLERSBURG [USC00335297], Millersburg, OH
(7) DANVILLE 2 W [USC00332044], Danville, OH
(8) COSHOCTON AG RSCH STN [USC00331905], Fresno, OH
(9) COSHOCTON WPC PLT [USC00331890], Coshocton, OH
(10) ZANESVILLE MUNI AP [USW00093824], Zanesville, OH
(11) PHILO 3 SW [USC00336600], Philo, OH
(12) NEW LEXINGTON 2 NW [USC00335857], New Lexington, OH
(13) LOGAN [USC00334672], Logan, OH
(14) JACKSON 3 NW [USC00334004], Jackson, OH
(15) WAVERLY [USC00338830], Waverly, OH
(16) PORTSMOUTH-SCIOTOVILLE [USC00336781], South Shore, OH
(17) WARNOCK2 [USC00158432], Greenup, KY
(18) GRAYSON 2 E [USC00153389], Grayson, KY
(19) OLIVE HILL 5NE [USC00156012], Olive Hill, KY
(20) GRAYSON 3 SW [USC00153391], Grayson, KY
(21) GIMLET 9N [USC00153230], Olive Hill, KY
(22) CAVE RUN LAKE [USC00152791], Morehead, KY
(23) ASHLAND [USC00150254], South Point, KY

Soil features

Representative soils include: Aaron, Alticrest, Berks, Blairton, Bratton, Brownsville, Cavode, Clymer, Cookport, Coshocton, Cranston, Cruze, Culleoka, Dekalb, Ernest, Germano, Gilpin, Guernsey, Hazleton, Latham, Library variant, Lily, Marrowbone, Matewan, Muse, Muskingum, Opequon, Rarden, Rayne, Richland, Rigley, Schaffenaker, Shelocta, Steinsburg, Tilsit, Trappist, Upshur, Wernock, Westmoreland, Wharton.The texture family is quite variable. These sites are Somewhat Poorly Drained well-drained to excessively-drained.

Table 4. Representative soil features

Parent material	(1) Residuum – sandstone and siltstone
Surface texture	(1) Sand (2) Silt (3) Loam
Drainage class	Somewhat poorly drained to somewhat excessively drained
Permeability class	Very slow to moderate
Depth to restrictive layer	38 – 183 cm
Soil depth	38 – 183 cm
Surface fragment cover <=3"	0 – 2%
Surface fragment cover >3"	0 – 9%
Available water capacity (Depth not specified)	2.54 – 17.78 cm
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (Depth not specified)	3.5 – 7.8
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified)	1 – 60%
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified)	0 – 75%

Ecological dynamics

[Caveat: The vegetation information contained in this section 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 et al., 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. They are intended to provide a classification unit that is readily mappable, often from terrain and remote imagery, and readily identifiable by conservation and resource managers in the field. A 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 (FDGC, 2008; USNVC, 2017). Each association will be named by the diagnostic and often dominant species that occupy the different height strata (represented by tree, shrub, and herb layers). Within the NatureServe Explorer database, 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 Plant Communities of Ohio: A Preliminary Classification (Anderson, 1982) and Terrestrial and Palustrine Plant Communities of Pennsylvania, 2nd Edition (Zimmerman et al., 2012).

Due to a long history of human activity, the reference condition more accurately reflects the current naturalized, minimally-managed state rather than the historic, pre-European settlement condition. The Shallow Acid Mixed Sedimentary Upland ecological site is typical of shallow soils on dry convex, exposed summits, shoulder and upper slopes. The vegetation of the Shallow Acid Mixed Sedimentary Upland ecological site is varied but dominated by oak-hickory, and pine-oak. Within the Reference State, plant communities are part of the Central Appalachian Dry Oak-Pine Forest system (CES202.591), North Central Interior Dry Oak Forest and Woodland system (CES202.047), and Alleghany-Cumberland Dry Oak Forest and Woodland system (CES202.359). Besides the mature plant community-types listed, other spontaneous, successional plant community-types may exist following natural disturbances.

Agents-of-change within any ecological site include both natural and anthropogenic stressors. Canopy disturbances such as fire, wind, and ice storms, will tend to favor oaks and pines. (Lafon et al., 2017). Conversely, fire suppression, a changing climate, and natural forest succession effect mesophication, a trend toward more shade tolerant species, e.g., white ash, sugar maple, red maple, American beech. (Nowacki et al., 2008). However, site conditions do influence the degree of mesophication. Mesophication is more subdued on more xeric , exposed summits and southwest upper slopes. Where deer densities are high, deer browse has a pronounced effect on plant regeneration, structure, and species diversity. However, deer browse can vary across the landscape (Royo et al., 2017). Currently, deer browsing pressure in southeastern Ohio is relatively low (Apsley and McCarthy, 2004). Invasive and incursive plants can directly affect forest ecosystems in many ways; through direct competition for resources, alter fire or hydrologic conditions and affect species diversity. Insect pests and diseases such as the Gypsy moth, oak decline and armillaria root rot can cause reduced productivity and mortality in target oak species (Butler et al., 2015). Within the unglaciated, Western Alleghany Plateau, most of the hills remain forested (especially to the south), with agriculture and residential development concentrated in the valleys, though some exceptions occur. Surface mining for coal affects land and water to varying degrees (Ohio Div. of Wildlife, 2015; USDA-NRCS, 2006).

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.

[*Caveat] The vegetation information presented is representative of complex plant communities. Key indicator plants and ecological processes are described to help inform land management decisions. Plant communities will differ across the MLRA because of the naturally occurring variability in weather, soils, and geography. The reference plant community is not necessarily the management goal. The drafts of species lists are merely representative and are not botanical descriptions of all species occurring, or potentially occurring, on this site. They are not intended to cover every situation or the full range of conditions, species, and responses for the site.

State and transition model

Custom diagram

Standard 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 text

State 1
Reference State (minimally-managed)

As a result of a long history of human activity, the 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 and relate to slope aspect, such as on more exposed southwest aspects: • Quercus montana - Quercus (alba, coccinea) / Viburnum acerifolium - (Kalmia latifolia) Forest (CEGL5023) (Translated Name: Chestnut Oak - (White Oak, Scarlet Oak) / Mapleleaf Viburnum - (Mountain Laurel) Forest) [Common Name: Appalachian Chestnut Oak - Mixed Oak Forest] Or on more protect northeast aspects, • Quercus alba - Quercus rubra - Quercus montana - Acer saccharum / Lindera benzoin Forest (CEGL002059) Translated Name: White Oak - Northern Red Oak - Chestnut Oak - Sugar Maple / Northern Spicebush Forest) Common Name: White Oak - Chestnut Oak - Maple Acidic Forest] As well as: • Quercus alba - Quercus rubra - Carya tomentosa / Cornus florida Acidic Forest (CEGL002067) (Translated Name: White Oak - Northern Red Oak - Mockernut Hickory / Flowering Dogwood Acidic Forest) [Common Name: White Oak - Red Oak Dry-Mesic Acidic Forest] (Source: NatureServe 2020)

Community 1.1
Chestnut Oak - (White Oak, Scarlet Oak) / Mapleleaf Viburnum - (Mountain Laurel) Forest)

Quercus montana - Quercus (alba, coccinea) / Viburnum acerifolium - (Kalmia latifolia) Forest (CEGL5023) (Translated Name: Chestnut Oak - (White Oak, Scarlet Oak) / Mapleleaf Viburnum - (Mountain Laurel) Forest) [Common Name: Appalachian Chestnut Oak - Mixed Oak Forest] Canopy trees include chestnut oak (Quercus montana [= Quercus prinus]) and scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea), along with white oak (Quercus alba), red oak (Quercus rubra) and black oak (Quercus velutina). American chestnut (Castanea dentata) was a major component of pre-settlement vegetation. Other trees can include red maple (Acer rubrum), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa [=Carya alba]), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), occasionally to the southeast sourwood (Oxydendrum arboretum), and pitch pine (Pinus rigida), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana). The woody understory can include flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), mapleleaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium) and, more locally, mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia). Other dwarf-shrubs and vines can be black huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata), eastern teaberry (Gaultheria procumbens), cat greenbriar (Smilax glauca), roundleaf greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), Blue Ridge blueberry (Vaccinium pallidum), and deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum). The herbaceous layer includes plantain-leaved pussytoes (Antennaria plantaginifolia), rattlesnake hawkweed (Hieracium venosum), common blue wood aster (Symphyotrichum cordifolium [=Aster cordifolius]), Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica), pink lady’s-slipper (Cypripedium acaule), forked rosette-panicgrass (Dichanthelium dichotomum var. dichotomum), poverty oatgrass (Danthonia spicata), trailing arbutus (Epigaea repens), Helianthus divaricatus, woodland sunflower (Helianthus hirsutus), and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides). Reindeer lichens (Cladonia spp.) and mosses may also be present. (Source: NatureServe 2020 [accessed April 2020], USNVC 2019 [accessed April 2020]).

Community 1.2
White Oak - Northern Red Oak - Chestnut Oak - Sugar Maple / Northern Spicebush Forest

Quercus alba - Quercus rubra - Quercus montana - Acer saccharum / Lindera benzoin Forest (CEGL002059) Translated Name: White Oak - Northern Red Oak - Chestnut Oak - Sugar Maple / Northern Spicebush Forest Common Name: White Oak - Chestnut Oak - Maple Acidic Forest] Dominant trees in the canopy are white oak (Quercus alba), red oak (Quercus rubra), and sugar maple (Acer saccharum). Chestnut oak (Quercus montana [= Quercus prinus]) may also be present. Other trees include red maple (Acer rubrum), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), and black oak (Quercus velutina). Woody understory plants include common serviceberry (Amelanchier arborea), American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), American hazelnut (Corylus americana), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), and hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana). The herbaceous layer includes wild sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis), Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica), fiberousroot sedge (Carex communis), rattlesnake hawkweed (Hieracium venosum), whorled yellow loosestrife (Lysimachia quadrifolia), and starry false Soloman’s seal (Maianthemum stellatum [= Smilacina stellata). Ericaceous plants, like blueberries (Vaccinium spp.), may be infrequent.

Community 1.3
Successional forest/shrublands

(to be developed)

Community 1.4
Sucessional/[Abandoned] Field/Meadow

to be developed

Pathway P1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.3

disturbance

Pathway P1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.3

disturbance

Pathway P1.3A
Community 1.3 to 1.1

vegetation development/succession

Pathway P1.3B
Community 1.3 to 1.2

vegetation development/succession

Pathway P1.3C
Community 1.3 to 1.4

Pathway P1.4A
Community 1.4 to 1.3

Abandonment, succession

State 2
Semi-natural State

The 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 2.2

invasive plant establishment, vegetation development/succession

Pathway P2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1

invasive plant management, forest management

Conservation practices

Forest Stand Improvement
Invasive Plant Species Control

State 3
Cultural State

The 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 2

forest management, disturbance, invasive plant establishment

Conservation practices

Forest Stand Improvement

Transition T1B
State 1 to 3

cutting, land clearing, plant establishment

Conservation practices

Land Clearing

Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1

plant 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 3

cutting, land clearing, plant establishment

Conservation practices

Land Clearing

Restoration pathway R3A
State 3 to 1

plant 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 2

forest management, disturbance, invasive plant establishment

Conservation practices

Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems
Native Plant Community Restoration and Management

Additional community tables

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

Anderson, D. M. 1982. Plant Communities of Ohio: A Preliminary Classification. Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus, OH (https://www.lm.doe.gov/cercla/documents/fernald_docs/cat/112509.pdf).

Apsley, D., and B.C. McCarthy. 2004. White-tailed deer herbivory on forest regeneration following fire and thinning treatments in southern Ohio mixed oak forests. P. 461–471. In: Yaussy, D.A., D.M. Hix, R.P. Long, and P.C. Goebel (eds.) Proceedings, 14th Central Hardwood Forest Conference, Wooster, OH. 16-19 March 2004. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-316. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA.

Bailey, R. 2014. Ecoregions: the ecosystem geography of the oceans and continents. 2nd ed. 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.

Butler, P.R., L. Iverson, F.R. Thompson, L. Brandt, S. Handler, M. Janowiak, P.D. Shannon, C. Swanston, K. Karriker, J. Bartig, and S. Connolly. 2015. Central Appalachians Forest Ecosystem Vulnerability Assessment and Synthesis: a Report From The Central Appalachians Climate Change Response Framework Project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-146, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. (https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs146.pdf)

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, and K. Snow. 2003. Ecological Systems of the United States: A Working Classification of US Terrestrial Systems. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. (https://www.natureserve.org/sites/default/files/pcom_2003_ecol_systems_us.pdf).

FGDC (Federal Geographic Data Committee). 2008. National Vegetation Classification Standard, Version 2. VGDC‐STD‐005‐2008 (Version 2). FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee, Reston, Virginia. (https://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/vegetation/NVCS_V2_FINAL_2008-02.pdf).

Lafon, C.W., A.T. Naito, H.D. Grissino-Mayer, S.P. Horn, and T.A. Waldrop. 2017. Fire History of the Appalachian Region: a Review and Synthesis. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-219., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC. (https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs219.pdf)

NatureServe 2020. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life [web application]. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org (Accessed: April 2020).

Nowacki, G.J. and M.D. Abrams. 2008. The demise of fire and “mesophication” of forests in the eastern United States. Bioscience 58(2):123–138.

Ohio Division of Wildlife. 2015. Ohio’s State Wildlife Action Plan. Columbus, Ohio, USA. (https://ohiodnr.gov/static/documents/wildlife/wildlife-management/OH_SWAP_2015.pdf).

Royo, A.A.; D.W. Kramer, K.V. Miller, N.P. Nibbelink, and S.L. Stout. 2017. Spatio-temporal variation in foodscapes modifies deer browsing impact on vegetation. Landscape Ecology 32(2):2281–2295.

Soil Survey Staff-USDA-NRCS [United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service] 2016. National Soils Information Service (NASIS Data Model Version 7.3.4) Lincoln, NE. Available description: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/soils/survey/tools/?cid=nrcs142p2_053552 (Accessed January 2020).

USDA-NRCS [United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service]. 2006. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. (https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051845.pdf).

USNVC [United States National Vegetation Classification]. 2019. United States National Vegetation Classification Database, V2.03. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee, Washington DC. (http://usnvc.org (accessed April 2020).

Zimmerman, E., T. Davis, G. Podniesinski, M. Furedi, J. McPherson, S. Seymour, B. Eichelberger, N. Dewar, J. Wagner, and J. Fike (editors). 2012. Terrestrial and Palustrine Plant Communities of Pennsylvania, 2nd Edition. Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Harrisburg, PA.

Contributors

Nels Barrett, Ph.D.
Jason Teets

Approval

Greg Schmidt, 9/26/2024

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	06/30/2020
Approved by	Greg Schmidt
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:

Download reference sheet

Search

Natural ResourcesConservation Service

Ecological site F124XY002OH

Acid Mixed Sedimentary Upland

Last updated: 9/26/2024 Accessed: 11/21/2024

General information

MLRA notes

Classification relationships

Ecological site concept

Associated sites

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Ecosystem states

State 1 submodel, plant communities

State 2 submodel, plant communities

State 3 submodel, plant communities

Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Last updated: 9/26/2024
Accessed: 11/21/2024