Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F128XY513WV
Mesic Limestone And Dolomite Uplands
Accessed: 11/13/2024
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): 128X–Southern Appalachian Ridges and Valleys
MLRA 128, partially shown as the gray shaded area on the accompanying figure, falls into the East and Central Farming and Forest Region. This MLRA is in Tennessee (36 percent), Alabama (27 percent), Virginia (25 percent), and Georgia (12 percent). It makes up about 21,095 square miles (54,660 square kilometers).
Most of this MLRA is in the Tennessee Section of the Valley and Ridge Province of the Appalachian Highlands. The thin stringers in the western part of the area are mostly in the Cumberland Plateau Section of the Appalachian Plateaus Province of the Appalachian Highlands. A separate area of the MLRA in northern Alabama is in the Highland Rim Section of the Interior Low Plateaus Province of the Interior Plains. The western side of the area is dominantly hilly to very steep and is rougher and much steeper than the eastern side, much of which is rolling and hilly. Elevation ranges from 660 feet (200 meters) near the southern end of the area to more than 2,400 feet (730 meters) in the part of the area in the western tip of Virginia. Some isolated linear mountain ridges rise to nearly 4,920 feet (1,500 meters) above sea level.
The MLRA is highly diversified. It has many parallel ridges, narrow intervening valleys, and large areas of low, irregular hills. The bedrock in this area consists of alternating beds of limestone, dolomite, shale, and sandstone of early Paleozoic age. Ridgetops are capped with more resistant carbonate and sandstone layers, and valleys have been eroded into the less resistant shale beds. These folded and faulted layers are at the southernmost extent of the Appalachian Mountains. The narrow river valleys are filled with unconsolidated deposits of clay, silt, sand, and gravel.
Ecological site concept
This PES occurs dominantly in residuum or colluvium on uplands underlain by limestone or dolomite. Mixed hardwood forests will be most common. On limestone substrates where rock outcrop occurs or where soils are more shallow, barrens have been noted. They are an important conservation concern on this site.
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree |
(1) Quercus alba |
---|---|
Shrub |
(1) Rhamnus caroliniana |
Herbaceous |
Not specified |
Physiographic features
This PES occurs dominantly in residuum or colluvium on uplands underlain by limestone or dolomite.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms |
(1)
Hill
(2) Interfluve (3) Ridge |
---|---|
Elevation | 459 – 3,287 ft |
Slope | 2 – 60% |
Water table depth | 60 in |
Aspect | N, S |
Climatic features
The average annual precipitation in most of this area is 41 to 55 inches (1,040 to 1,395 millimeters). It increases to the south and is as much as 66 inches (1,675 millimeters) at the highest elevations in east Tennessee and the northwest corner of Georgia. The maximum precipitation occurs in midwinter and midsummer, and the minimum occurs in autumn. Most of the rainfall occurs as high-intensity, convective thunderstorms. Snowfall may occur in winter. The average annual temperature is 52 to 63 degrees F (11 to 17 degrees C), increasing to the south. The freeze-free period averages 205 days and ranges from 165 to 245 days. It is longest in the southern part of the area and shortest at high elevations and at the northern end.
Table 3. Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (average) | 152 days |
---|---|
Freeze-free period (average) | 177 days |
Precipitation total (average) | 45 in |
Figure 1. Monthly precipitation range
Figure 2. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Figure 3. Annual precipitation pattern
Figure 4. Annual average temperature pattern
Climate stations used
-
(1) SALTVILLE 1N [USC00447506], Saltville, VA
-
(2) TAZEWELL [USC00408868], Tazewell, TN
-
(3) PENNINGTON GAP [USC00446626], Pennington Gap, VA
-
(4) PULASKI 2 E [USC00446955], Pulaski, VA
-
(5) STAFFORDSVILLE 3 ENE [USC00448022], Pearisburg, VA
-
(6) ROANOKE RGNL AP [USW00013741], Roanoke, VA
Influencing water features
This ecological site is not influenced by wetland or riparian water features.
Soil features
These soils formed dominantly in residuum or colluvium on uplands underlain by limestone or dolomite. The slopes range from 0 to 80 percent. They are moderately deep to very deep (20 to more than 60 inches) to bedrock, and range from moderately well to somewhat excessively drained. The available water capacity of these soils ranges from low to high. The depth to a seasonal high water table is more than 6 feet. They are not subject to flooding or ponding. The soil reaction ranges from extremely acid to moderately alkaline (pH from 3.5 to 8.4).
The soil series associated with this site are: Bland, Brushy, Caneyville, Chilhowie, Claiborne, Clarksville, Colbert, Collegedale, Dewey, Dunmore, Faywood, Frederick, Fullerton, Hagerstown, Minvale, Poynor, Talbott, Watahala
Parent Material Kind: Residuum, Colluvium, Creep deposits
Parent Material Origin: Limestone, Limestone (cherty), Limestone interbedded with sandstone, siltstone, or shale, Argillaceous limestone, Limestone and dolomite
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material |
(1)
Residuum
–
cherty limestone
(2) Colluvium – argillaceous limestone |
---|---|
Surface texture |
(1) Channery clay (2) Gravelly loam (3) Extremely gravelly sandy loam |
Drainage class | Moderately well drained to somewhat excessively drained |
Permeability class | Rapid |
Soil depth | 23 – 56 in |
Surface fragment cover <=3" | 1 – 9% |
Surface fragment cover >3" | 1 – 9% |
Available water capacity (0-40in) |
1.6 – 7.5 in |
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-40in) |
4.5 – 6.8 |
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified) |
80% |
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified) |
57% |
Ecological dynamics
Two of the three available vegetation classification plots from the VA-DNH have the community listed as Dry-Mesic Calcareous Forest. The third available plot classifies it under Limestone / Dolomite Barren. The calcareous vegetation associated with this PES may be due to different mapunit components. This will be investigated in field projects in the future. For the purposes of PES, we assume the vegetation is similar to the thermic equivalent ESD, which has reached correlated status and was supported with multiple field plots. That vegetation community was characterized by white oak and pignut hickory in the overstory. This may change under the mesic temperature regime but will be used as a placeholder for now. Ecological dynamics are also interpreted to be similar.
DeSelm had numerous vegetation plots on these soil map units in the following TN Counties: Claiborne, Bradley, Union, Loudon and Campbell Counties. The plot in Loudon County is likely not representative since that is in the thermic temperature regime. Although he describes multiple forest types, the most common is dominated by white oak or other oaks (chestnut oak, "mixed oak", black oak, etc.) with other oaks or hickories as strong co-dominants. In one case, he describes "barren with probably planted schizachyrium", which was probably not in a natural state for this site. However, it does match the Natural Heritage data describing a barren. He also describes a few plots with calcareous oak species. That may be due to some spatial error or because (most likely) he was sampling on a bluff. On bluffs, where dolomite is exposed, more calcareous-loving species can gain a foothold. He also describes hemlocks on bluffs. I have seen more exposed bedrock create more calcareous forests. That can also occur in sinkholes. This site may include some of that. It merits further investigation in the field because DeSelm notes, where he cites calcareous oaks on this site, that in some cases there was no soil survey in place at the time he was sampling. He also notes that once, he was in a sinkhole.
In general this PES occurs as a mixed hardwood forest dominated by oak, hickory, beech and maple. In some cases, on shallow areas barrens can occur. Anthropogenic barrens are probably also important and native warm season grasses have been noted to occur. Grazing was an important past land-use. Depending on location, timber production could also be important.
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
Ecosystem states
State 1 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference State - Upland Oak/Hickory Forest
The reference state for this ecological site is characterized by a closed-canopy hardwood forest dominated by oaks and hickories. In order for this reference state to be maintained, the oak/hickory species must be present in multiple age classes. In most cases red maple, sugar maple and American beech are colonizing the midstory and understory. A species composition shift toward these more mesophytic species is widely recognized throughout the eastern United States (McEwan et al., 2011). The reference state described here represents a condition dependent on complex, multiple disturbances, some of which are human caused. In order to get oak to succeed and recruit into the next stand, advanced oak regeneration must be present before a major canopy disturbance. Oaks must be able to reach a size that is competitive (through smaller-scale disturbances such as fire or herbicide of midstory, or tree planting with vigorous seedlings or saplings), then there needs to be a canopy disturbance. There may need to be additional disturbances to get rid of competition.
Community 1.1
White oak - pignut hickory
This phase is dominated by oaks and hickories in the overstory currently, but mid-story composition is shifting toward more shade and moisture-loving species. The understory is relatively rich in herbaceous diversity (including vines) but tree regeneration overwhelmingly favors the shade-tolerant species. For this phase to regenerate back to oak and hickory, numerous complex and site-specific factors may be necessary. These include acorn production, seedling establishment, advanced regeneration from seedlings, and timely release (Brose et al., 2013). Several types of management can be employed to this end including prescribed fire, mechanical and chemical competition control, site preparation, and planting. However, depending on the stand and its history, management for oak/hickory is typically intensive and often requires multiple treatments over time (~10 - 25 years), (Loftis, 2004). Without intensive management, in most cases, stands will naturally succeed to a more mesophytic forest type dominated by shade tolerant species (the maples and American beech). Dendroecology studies in nearby, very similar old-growth forest stands indicate that oak species have dominated stands for the past 300 years. They speculate that the recent proliferation of maples in the understory will inhibit regeneration of oak and pine under the current disturbance regime (Hart et al., 2012). Oak and hickory can regenerate in canopy gaps formed by uprooted trees, but only on very dry sites, indicating that gap-phase dynamics will favor maple overall (Hart and Kupfer, 2011). The American chestnut was an important part of this ecological site prior to decimation by the chestnut blight, but it is unclear how abundant it would have been. Colloquial estimates based on local names like "Chestnut Ridge" indicate that it may have been prolific. Sprouts from old chestnut stumps were noted often during field sampling. Sprouts rarely survive to flowering age, but can often reach as much as 8 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) before they succumb to the blight. Rarely, an American chestnut sprout will reach larger size classes and survive to flower.
Forest overstory. The overstory of this community is dominated by oak and hickory species, most commonly white oak and pignut hickory. Other species include tuliptree, black oak, northern red oak, chestnut oak, blackjack oak, shagbark hickory (Carya carolinae-septentrionalis), mockernut hickory (Carya alba), scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea) and blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), among others.
Midstory species include sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), Carolina buckthorn (Frangula caroliniana), and common serviceberry (Amelanchier arborea). Shade tolerant hardwoods are a natural part of the dynamic of this ecological site, but have become more dominant in the midstory of most stands than they might naturally be due to lack of disturbance over time. Shade tolerant species include American beech, sugar maple and red maple.
Please note that species are reported by height class. Some species occur in multiple height classes, and accordingly, have multiple entries.
Forest understory. Herbaceous diversity is high overall, but not as high as in other associated ecological sites (not yet described). Occurrence and abundance vary based on topography and are lowest on ridges and south-facing shoulders and side slopes and highest on lower north-facing side slopes. Commonly occurring species include feathery false lily of the valley (Maianthemum racemosum), littlebrownjug (Hexastylis arifolia), mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum), cutleaf toothwort (Cardamine concatenata), the bellworts (Uvularia spp.), American cancer root (Conopholis americana), trefoil (Desmodium spp.), jack in the pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), sweet cicely (Osmorhiza spp.), trailing arbutus (Epigaea repens), the violets (Viola spp.), wood sorrel (Oxalis montana), black cohosh (Actaea racemosa), forest licorice bedstraw (Calium circaezans), and yellow wakerobin (Trillium luteum).
Native vines are important in this ecological site; although, it is unclear how much disturbance plays a role in their abundance. Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), for example, tends to do better in disturbed areas and can often be an indication of a past disturbance, such as grazing, if found in proliferation. Other important vines include greenbriar (Smilax spp.), muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and crossvine (Bignonia capreolata).
Table 5. Soil surface cover
Tree basal cover | 3-5% |
---|---|
Shrub/vine/liana basal cover | 1-2% |
Grass/grasslike basal cover | 0-1% |
Forb basal cover | 0-1% |
Non-vascular plants | 0-1% |
Biological crusts | 0% |
Litter | 60-89% |
Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" | 0-5% |
Surface fragments >3" | 2-15% |
Bedrock | 0% |
Water | 0% |
Bare ground | 0% |
Table 6. Woody ground cover
Downed wood, fine-small (<0.40" diameter; 1-hour fuels) | 0-5% |
---|---|
Downed wood, fine-medium (0.40-0.99" diameter; 10-hour fuels) | 0-5% |
Downed wood, fine-large (1.00-2.99" diameter; 100-hour fuels) | 0-7% |
Downed wood, coarse-small (3.00-8.99" diameter; 1,000-hour fuels) | 0-7% |
Downed wood, coarse-large (>9.00" diameter; 10,000-hour fuels) | 0-6% |
Tree snags** (hard***) | – |
Tree snags** (soft***) | – |
Tree snag count** (hard***) | 0-10 per acre |
Tree snag count** (hard***) | 0-20 per acre |
* Decomposition Classes: N - no or little integration with the soil surface; I - partial to nearly full integration with the soil surface.
** >10.16cm diameter at 1.3716m above ground and >1.8288m height--if less diameter OR height use applicable down wood type; for pinyon and juniper, use 0.3048m above ground.
*** Hard - tree is dead with most or all of bark intact; Soft - most of bark has sloughed off.
Table 7. Canopy structure (% cover)
Height Above Ground (ft) | Tree | Shrub/Vine | Grass/ Grasslike |
Forb |
---|---|---|---|---|
<0.5 | – | 11-20% | 0-1% | 0-5% |
>0.5 <= 1 | – | 1-20% | 0-2% | 1-5% |
>1 <= 2 | – | 0-5% | – | – |
>2 <= 4.5 | 1-5% | 1-5% | – | – |
>4.5 <= 13 | 1-5% | 1-5% | – | – |
>13 <= 40 | 2-25% | – | – | – |
>40 <= 80 | 2-45% | – | – | – |
>80 <= 120 | 30-75% | – | – | – |
>120 | 20-30% | – | – | – |
Community 1.2
Maple species - American beech
This community phase has not yet been attained in most cases because forests currently dominated by oaks and hickories are in transition. Without management or large-scale disturbance, stands will naturally succeed to more mesophytic species composition in the overstory and the oaks and hickories will lose their dominance over time. Small-scale gap dynamics caused by tree throws would likely be a natural part of this state and would favor the maple component in forest stands (Hart et al. 2012). A recent study of red maple on the nearby Cumberland Plateau found that canopy accession strategy and climate-growth relationships are critical factors in the shift from state 1.1 to state 1.2 (Hart et al., 2012). Red maples are gap-opportunists and can take advantage of smaller-scale disturbances such as tree-throws. Oaks in contrast, seem to have needed high frequency, intense disturbances to establish their current dominance in the forest. Red maples do best in times of cool, wet springs preceded by wet autumns and warm winters (Hart et al. 2012). Depending on climate conditions in the coming years, the weather may or may not favor their continued establishment. Red maple might also cause local environmental changes that facilitate perpetuation of favorable conditions for regeneration such as modification of understory light levels and soil characteristics (Nowacki and Abrams 2008). The denser canopies might reduce understory temperature and increase relative humidity, which would also favor the more shade-tolerant, moisture loving state (Alexander and Arthur 2010). Prescribed fire has been suggested as a management tool to reverse the trend. While it may be a useful tool in some cases and most likely in combination with other management approaches, using fire alone is unlikely to produce the desired results in most stands (Clark and Schweitzer 2013).
Forest overstory. The forest overstory is dominated by mature maples and American beech. Tree throws create small-scale gap dynamics in the forest, which favor recruitment of the maples and in some cases, yellow poplar. Oaks and hickories will always be a part of the species composition in this state, but will not be dominant.
Forest understory. Forest understory composition will be similar to community phase 1.1, dominated by native herbs, forbs, and vines. Shade tolerant trees will be present in the regeneration. Spring ephemeral wildflowers will be prolific in places.
Pathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2
Time (typically >100 years) with little or no large-scale disturbance will favor shade tolerant, late successional species including sugar maple, red maple and American beech.
Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1
Establishment of advanced oak regeneration (natural or planted) is critical to recruiting oak back into the overstory. If that is desirable, a combination of natural and managed steps will likely be required to favor oak. Depending on the residual stand, management recommendations might include timber stand improvement, mechanical or chemical treatment of unwanted species, and prescribed fire. Consultation with a professional forester is recommended prior to implementation of any management practice, especially the use of prescribed fire. Arthur et al. (2012) discusses conditions when fire should and should not be used in oak management.
Conservation practices
Prescribed Burning | |
---|---|
Tree/Shrub Site Preparation | |
Tree/Shrub Establishment | |
Upland Wildlife Habitat Management | |
Forest Trails and Landings | |
Forest Stand Improvement | |
Fuel Break | |
Forest Management Plan - Written | |
Forest Management Plan - Applied |
Additional community tables
Table 8. Community 1.1 forest overstory composition
Common name | Symbol | Scientific name | Nativity | Height (ft) | Canopy cover (%) | Diameter (in) | Basal area (square ft/acre) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tree
|
|||||||
pignut hickory | CAGL8 | Carya glabra | Native | 30–65 | 5–50 | 4.2–20 | – |
white oak | QUAL | Quercus alba | Native | 50–100 | 1–50 | 7–32.1 | – |
tuliptree | LITU | Liriodendron tulipifera | Native | 50–85 | 1–40 | 9.6–22.5 | – |
sugar maple | ACSA3 | Acer saccharum | Native | 20–60 | 10–25 | 3.4–25 | – |
northern red oak | QURU | Quercus rubra | Native | 50–100 | 5–25 | 21–27 | – |
black oak | QUVE | Quercus velutina | Native | 50–105 | 1–20 | 9.8–25 | – |
sourwood | OXAR | Oxydendrum arboreum | Native | 20–40 | 5–20 | 4.3–9.5 | – |
American beech | FAGR | Fagus grandifolia | Native | 40–80 | 6–20 | 6.5–23.4 | – |
red maple | ACRU | Acer rubrum | Native | 20–50 | 1–10 | 2–25 | – |
blackgum | NYSY | Nyssa sylvatica | Native | 20–45 | 1–5 | 2.6–13.2 | – |
sassafras | SAAL5 | Sassafras albidum | Native | 5–20 | 0–2 | 3.8–4.2 | – |
eastern redcedar | JUVI | Juniperus virginiana | Native | 5–20 | 0–1 | 0–2.9 | – |
Table 9. Community 1.1 forest understory composition
Common name | Symbol | Scientific name | Nativity | Height (ft) | Canopy cover (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grass/grass-like (Graminoids)
|
||||||
panicgrass | PANIC | Panicum | Native | 0–0.5 | 0–1 | |
Forb/Herb
|
||||||
littlebrownjug | HEAR6 | Hexastylis arifolia | Native | 0–0.5 | 1–5 | |
mayapple | POPE | Podophyllum peltatum | Native | 0–1 | 1–5 | |
feathery false lily of the valley | MARAR | Maianthemum racemosum ssp. racemosum | Native | 0–1 | 1–2 | |
sweetroot | OSMOR | Osmorhiza | Native | 0–1 | 0–1 | |
mountain woodsorrel | OXMO | Oxalis montana | Native | 0–0.3 | 0–1 | |
Jack in the pulpit | ARTR | Arisaema triphyllum | Native | 0–0.5 | 0–1 | |
ticktrefoil | DESMO | Desmodium | Native | 0–0.5 | 0–1 | |
trailing arbutus | EPRE2 | Epigaea repens | Native | 0–0.1 | 0–1 | |
black bugbane | ACRAR | Actaea racemosa var. racemosa | Native | 0–1 | 0–1 | |
cankerweed | PRSE | Prenanthes serpentaria | Native | 1–2 | 0–1 | |
trillium | TRILL | Trillium | Native | 0–0.5 | 0–1 | |
bellwort | UVULA | Uvularia | Native | 0–0.5 | 0–1 | |
violet | VIOLA | Viola | Native | 0–0.5 | 0–1 | |
licorice bedstraw | GACI2 | Galium circaezans | Native | 0–0.5 | 0–1 | |
Fern/fern ally
|
||||||
Christmas fern | POAC4 | Polystichum acrostichoides | Native | 0–2 | 1–3 | |
Shrub/Subshrub
|
||||||
red buckeye | AEPA | Aesculus pavia | Native | 1–4 | 0–1 | |
Chinese privet | LISI | Ligustrum sinense | Introduced | 0–0.5 | 0–1 | |
paper mulberry | BRPA4 | Broussonetia papyrifera | Introduced | 1–13 | 0–1 | |
farkleberry | VAAR | Vaccinium arboreum | Native | 0.5–1 | 0–1 | |
farkleberry | VAAR | Vaccinium arboreum | Native | 1–2 | 0–1 | |
farkleberry | VAAR | Vaccinium arboreum | Native | 2–4.5 | 0–1 | |
farkleberry | VAAR | Vaccinium arboreum | Native | 4.5–13 | 0–1 | |
Tree
|
||||||
red maple | ACRU | Acer rubrum | Native | 0–0.5 | 1–10 | |
eastern redbud | CECA4 | Cercis canadensis | Native | 0–0.5 | 1–5 | |
eastern redbud | CECA4 | Cercis canadensis | Native | 4.5–13 | 1–5 | |
sugar maple | ACSA3 | Acer saccharum | Native | 1–2 | 1–5 | |
sugar maple | ACSA3 | Acer saccharum | Native | 2–4.5 | 1–5 | |
sugar maple | ACSA3 | Acer saccharum | Native | 4.5–13 | 1–5 | |
red maple | ACRU | Acer rubrum | Native | 4.5–13 | 1–4 | |
black oak | QUVE | Quercus velutina | Native | 1–2 | 2–4 | |
American beech | FAGR | Fagus grandifolia | Native | 2–4 | 2–4 | |
pignut hickory | CAGL8 | Carya glabra | Native | 4.5–13 | 1–3 | |
pignut hickory | CAGL8 | Carya glabra | Native | 0–0.5 | 1–3 | |
sugar maple | ACSA3 | Acer saccharum | Native | 0–0.5 | 1–3 | |
white ash | FRAM2 | Fraxinus americana | Native | 0.5–1 | 1–2 | |
pignut hickory | CAGL8 | Carya glabra | Native | 1–2 | 0–2 | |
sugar maple | ACSA3 | Acer saccharum | Native | 0.5–1 | 1–2 | |
sourwood | OXAR | Oxydendrum arboreum | Native | 0–0.5 | 0–2 | |
American beech | FAGR | Fagus grandifolia | Native | 4.5–13 | 1–2 | |
American beech | FAGR | Fagus grandifolia | Native | 0.5–1 | 1–2 | |
blackgum | NYSY | Nyssa sylvatica | Native | 4.5–13 | 1–2 | |
pawpaw | ASTR | Asimina triloba | Native | 5–13 | 0–1 | |
white oak | QUAL | Quercus alba | Native | 0–0.5 | 0–1 | |
blackgum | NYSY | Nyssa sylvatica | Native | 0–0.5 | 0–1 | |
black oak | QUVE | Quercus velutina | Native | 0–0.5 | 0–1 | |
black oak | QUVE | Quercus velutina | Native | 0.5–1 | 0–1 | |
American beech | FAGR | Fagus grandifolia | Native | 1–2 | 0–1 | |
sourwood | OXAR | Oxydendrum arboreum | Native | 0.5–1 | 0–1 | |
sourwood | OXAR | Oxydendrum arboreum | Native | 2–4.5 | 0–1 | |
red maple | ACRU | Acer rubrum | Native | 1–2 | 0–1 | |
red maple | ACRU | Acer rubrum | Native | 2–4.5 | 0–1 | |
sassafras | SAAL5 | Sassafras albidum | Native | 0–0.5 | 0–1 | |
pignut hickory | CAGL8 | Carya glabra | Native | 2–4.5 | 0–1 | |
red maple | ACRU | Acer rubrum | Native | 0.5–1 | 0–1 | |
white ash | FRAM2 | Fraxinus americana | Native | 1–2 | 0–1 | |
white ash | FRAM2 | Fraxinus americana | Native | 2–4.5 | 0–1 | |
tuliptree | LITU | Liriodendron tulipifera | Native | 0–0.5 | 0–1 | |
sweetgum | LIST2 | Liquidambar styraciflua | Native | 0–0.5 | 0–1 | |
sweetgum | LIST2 | Liquidambar styraciflua | Native | 1–2 | 0–1 | |
sourwood | OXAR | Oxydendrum arboreum | Native | 4.5–13 | 0–1 | |
sassafras | SAAL5 | Sassafras albidum | Native | 0.5–1 | 0–1 | |
sassafras | SAAL5 | Sassafras albidum | Native | 1–2 | 0–1 | |
sassafras | SAAL5 | Sassafras albidum | Native | 2–4.5 | 0–1 | |
Carolina buckthorn | FRCA13 | Frangula caroliniana | Native | 4.5–13 | 0–1 | |
elm | ULMUS | Ulmus | Native | 5–13 | 0–1 | |
common hackberry | CEOC | Celtis occidentalis | – | 0.5–1 | 0–1 | |
slippery elm | ULRU | Ulmus rubra | Native | 0.5–2 | 0–1 | |
black cherry | PRSE2 | Prunus serotina | Native | 0–0.5 | 0–1 | |
tuliptree | LITU | Liriodendron tulipifera | Native | 0.5–1 | 0–1 | |
tuliptree | LITU | Liriodendron tulipifera | Native | 1–2 | 0–1 | |
yellow buckeye | AEFL | Aesculus flava | Native | 2–4.5 | 0–1 | |
flowering dogwood | COFL2 | Cornus florida | Native | 0–0.5 | 0–1 | |
flowering dogwood | COFL2 | Cornus florida | Native | 0.5–1 | 0–1 | |
flowering dogwood | COFL2 | Cornus florida | Native | 1–2 | 0–1 | |
sweetgum | LIST2 | Liquidambar styraciflua | Native | 2–4.5 | 0–1 | |
white ash | FRAM2 | Fraxinus americana | Native | 0–0.5 | 0–1 | |
flowering dogwood | COFL2 | Cornus florida | Native | 2–4.5 | 0–1 | |
northern red oak | QURU | Quercus rubra | Native | 0–0.5 | 0–1 | |
Vine/Liana
|
||||||
muscadine | VIRO3 | Vitis rotundifolia | Native | 0–2 | 1–5 | |
Virginia creeper | PAQU2 | Parthenocissus quinquefolia | Native | 0–13 | 1–3 | |
greenbrier | SMILA2 | Smilax | Native | 0–5 | 1–2 | |
Japanese honeysuckle | LOJA | Lonicera japonica | Introduced | 0–1 | 0.5–2 | |
crossvine | BICA | Bignonia capreolata | Native | 0–5 | 1–2 | |
Oriental bittersweet | CEOR7 | Celastrus orbiculatus | Introduced | 0–1 | 0–1 | |
winter creeper | EUFO5 | Euonymus fortunei | Introduced | 0–1 | 0–1 | |
eastern poison ivy | TORA2 | Toxicodendron radicans | Native | 0–13 | 0–1 | |
Nonvascular
|
||||||
American cancer-root | COAM | Conopholis americana | Native | 0–0.5 | 1–5 |
Interpretations
Supporting information
Other references
DeSelm, Hal. 1989 – 2009. Natural Terrestrial Vegetation of Tennessee (Vegetation Plot Data). Unpublished raw data. http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/DeSelmData/DataDSC.htm
Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., and Azevedo, S.H., 1997, Ecoregions of Tennessee: Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA/600R-97/022, 51 p.
Martin, William H. 1989. Forest patterns in the Great Valley of Tennessee. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 64(3): 137 – 143.
Thornthwaite, Charles W. 1948. An approach toward a rational classification of climate. Geographical Review 38(1): 55-94.
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.
Vegetation plot data. 2015. Retrieved from: http://vegbank.org/vegbank/index.jsp
Vegetation community description. 2015.
Retrieved from: http://www.basic.ncsu.edu/segap/
Contributors
Belinda Esham Ferro
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 | |
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
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.