Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F124XY005OH
Mixed Limestone Rich Sideslope
Last updated: 9/26/2024
Accessed: 11/24/2024
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 Mixed Limestone Rich sideslope ecological site is set in upland landscapes derived from limestone colluvium occupying sideslopes and toeslopes. The sites are well-drained. Representative soils include: Bledsoe, Mertz, and Renox. Reference plant communities may include: Appalachian Sugar Maple - Chinquapin Oak Limestone Forest or Central Appalachian Rich Cove Forest.
Associated sites
| F124XY003OH |
Mixed Limestone Rich Upland Mixed Limestone Rich Upland ecological site is often adjacent to and upslope of Mixed Limestone Rich Upland. |
|---|
Table 1. Dominant plant species
| Tree |
(1) Acer saccharum |
|---|---|
| Shrub |
(1) Cercis canadensis |
| Herbaceous |
(1) Aquilegia canadensis |
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 Mixed Limestone Rich Sideslope ecological site is derived from colluvial limestone. Within the typical upland landscape of hills and plateaus, the Mixed Limestone Rich Sideslope ecological site occupies the concave sideslopes. Slope and aspect are variable.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
| Landforms |
(1)
Hills
> Hillslope
|
|---|---|
| Runoff class | Low to very high |
| Elevation | 201 – 399 m |
| Slope | 2 – 70% |
| Water table depth | 183 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-mesic upland forests are at a low vulnerability risk with some impacts considered positive and mixed mesophytic forests are at a moderate vulnerability risk to climate change with impacts considered neutral-negative. Large gap disturbances from greater storm events, drier summer and fall conditions, and a potential increase in fire frequency, can favor oaks and hickories over American Beech and tuliptree 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). Longer growing seasons may change plant species composition.
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 |
Figure 1. Monthly precipitation range
Figure 2. Monthly minimum temperature range
Figure 3. Monthly maximum temperature range
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
Influencing water features
Water features not typically associated with this ecological site, but can be incidental.
Wetland description
N/A
Soil features
Representative soils include: Bledsoe, Mertz, and Renox. The sites are well-drained.
Table 4. Representative soil features
| Parent material |
(1)
Colluvium
–
cherty limestone
|
|---|---|
| Surface texture |
(1) Loam |
| Drainage class | Well drained |
| Permeability class | Very slow to moderately slow |
| Soil depth | 183 – 211 cm |
| Surface fragment cover <=3" | 0% |
| Surface fragment cover >3" | 0 – 2% |
| Available water capacity (Depth not specified) |
10.16 – 17.78 cm |
| Soil reaction (1:1 water) (Depth not specified) |
4 – 8 |
| Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified) |
5 – 20% |
| Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified) |
0 – 16% |
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. Calcareous (limestone) uplands of the unglaciated, Western Alleghany Plateau are quite variable depending on the landform position. The vegetation of the Mixed Limestone Rich Sideslope ecological site occupies colluvial lower, sideslopes.
The vegetation of the Mixed Limestone Rich Sideslope ecological site is quite varied but dominated by Chinquapin oak- sugar maple or Chinquapin oak-eastern red cedar. Within the Reference State, plant communities are part of the Central Appalachian Alkaline Glade and Woodland (CES202.602) and may transition South-Central Interior Mesophytic Forest (CES202.887) (NatureServe, 2020). 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. Within the Mixed Limestone Rich Sideslope ecological site, mesophication is more pronounced in more common mesic conditions, while more subdued on less common xeric conditions. 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). With increasing moisture stress and drought, beech bark disease may increase. (Butler et al., 2015). Within the unglaciated Western Alleghany Plateau, most of the hills remain forested, with some agriculture on lands flat enough to support it. Agriculture and residential development are concentrated in the valleys. 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
More interactive model formats are also available.
View Interactive Models
Click on state and transition labels to scroll to the respective text
State 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 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 include: • Acer saccharum - Quercus muehlenbergii / Cercis canadensis Forest (CEGL006017) (Translated Name: Sugar Maple - Chinquapin Oak / Eastern Redbud Forest) [Common Name: Appalachian Sugar Maple - Chinquapin Oak Limestone Forest] • Acer saccharum - Fraxinus americana - Tilia americana - Liriodendron tulipifera / Actaea racemosa Forest (CEGL006237) (Translated Name: Sugar Maple - White Ash - American Basswood - Tuliptree / Black Baneberry Forest) [Common Name: Central Appalachian Rich Cove Forest] (Source: NatureServe 2020)
Community 1.1
Sugar Maple - Chinquapin Oak / Eastern Redbud Forest
Acer saccharum - Quercus muehlenbergii / Cercis canadensis Forest (CEGL006017) (Translated Name: Sugar Maple - Chinquapin Oak / Eastern Redbud Forest) [Common Name: Appalachian Sugar Maple - Chinquapin Oak Limestone Forest] Closed-canopy stands are dominated by sugar maple (Acer saccharum), chinquapin oak (Quercus muehlenbergii), white ash (Fraxinus americana), and hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana). Other trees include white oak (Quercus alba), American basswood (Tilia americana), black maple (Acer nigrum), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), yellow buckeye (Aesculus flava), common hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), red Hickory (Carya ovalis), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), and shagbark hickory (Carya ovata). Chestnut oak (Quercus montana [= Quercus prinus]) might also be found. More open and drier sites might have more diverse subcanopy and shrub layer containing flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin), American witchhazel (Hamamelis virginiana), Carolina rose (Rosa carolina), fragrant sumac (Rhus aromatica), blackhaw (Viburnum prunifolium), downy arrowwood (Viburnum rafinesqueanum), rusty blackhaw (Viburnum rufidulum), and common pricklynash (Zanthoxylum americanum). The variably-developed herb layer may contain poverty oatgrass (Danthonia spicata), eastern bottlebrush grass (Elymus hystrix), sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), white snakeroot (Ageratina altissima [= Eupatorium rugosum]), plantain-leaved pussytoes (Antennaria plantaginifolia), red columbine (Aquilegia canadensis), smooth rockcress (Arabis laevigata), fourleaf milkweed (Asclepias quadrifolia), western blue virginsbower (Clematis occidentalis), longleaf summer bluet (Houstonia longifolia [= Houstonia tenuifolia]), climbing false buckwheat (Polygonum scandens), Canadian blacksnakeroot (Sanicula canadensis), early saxifrage (Saxifraga virginiensis), and roundleaf ragwort (Packera obovata [= Senecio obovatus]). Additional plants include ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), rattlesnake fern (Botrychium virginianum), eastern woodland sedge (Carex blanda), black baeberry (Actaea racemosa [= Cimicifuga racemose]), fragrant bedstraw (Galium triflorum), eastern greenviolet (Hybanthus concolor), feathery false Solomon's-seal (Maianthemum racemosum), smooth Solomon’s seal (Polygonatum biflorum), whiteflower leafcup (Polymnia canadensis), hooked buttercup (Ranunculus recurvatus), bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis) and occasionally, rock muhly (Muhlenbergia sobolifera). (Source: NatureServe 2020 [accessed April 2020], USNVC 2019 [accessed April 2020]).
Community 1.2
Sugar Maple - White Ash - American Basswood - Tuliptree / Black Baneberry Forest
Acer saccharum - Fraxinus americana - Tilia americana - Liriodendron tulipifera / Actaea racemosa Forest (CEGL006237) (Translated Name: Sugar Maple - White Ash - American Basswood - Tuliptree / Black Baneberry Forest) [Common Name: Central Appalachian Rich Cove Forest] Dominant trees in the canopy include sugar maple (Acer saccharum), white ash (Fraxinus americana), and American basswood (Tilia americana). Associated canopy trees include red oak (Quercus rubra), hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), red maple (Acer rubrum), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), sweet birch (Betula lenta), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), black walnut (Juglans nigra), tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera), cucumber tree (Magnolia acuminata), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), and black cherry (Prunus serotina) and only occasionally yellow buckeye (Aesculus flava). On higher and cooler sites, eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) may be present. The mixed shrub layer is characterized by alternateleaf dogwood (Cornus alternifolia), American witchhazel (Hamamelis virginiana), northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin), pawpaw (Asimina triloba), Canada fly honeysuckle (Lonicera canadensis), pink azalea (Rhododendron periclymenoides), and mapleleaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium). The diverse herb layer may consist of northern maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum), Canada wildginger (Asarum canadense), black baneberry (Actaea racemose), bittercress (Cardamine spp.), sharplobe hepatica (Hepatica nobilis var. obtuse), eastern waterleaf (Hydrophyllum virginianum), eastern bottlebrush grass (Elymus hystrix), sweet cicely Osmorhiza spp.), white trillium (Trillium grandiflorum), violets (Viola spp.), marginal shield fern (Dryopteris marginalis), rattlesnake fern (Botrychium virginianum), wood anemone (Anemone quinquefolia), spotted geranium (Geranium maculatum), blue cohosh (Caulophyllum thalictroides), bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis), Virginia springbeaty (Claytonia virginica), ramp (Allium tricoccum), cutleaf toothwort (Cardamine concatenate), Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), pale jewelweed (Impatiens pallida), and Canada woodnettle (Laportea canadensis). (Source: NatureServe 2020 [accessed April 2020], USNVC 2019 [accessed April 2020]).
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
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
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.
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.
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:
Print Options
Sections
Font
Other
The 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.
Click on box and path labels to scroll to the respective text.