Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site PX137X00X040
Loamy Summit Woodland
Accessed: 11/23/2024
General information
Approved. An approved ecological site description has undergone quality control and quality assurance review. It contains a working state and transition model, enough information to identify the ecological site, and full documentation for all ecosystem states contained in the state and transition model.
Figure 1. Mapped extent
Areas shown in blue indicate the maximum mapped extent of this ecological site. Other ecological sites likely occur within the highlighted areas. It is also possible for this ecological site to occur outside of highlighted areas if detailed soil survey has not been completed or recently updated.
MLRA notes
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 137X–Carolina and Georgia Sand Hills
MLRA 137 covers approximately 8,665 square miles (22,450 square kilometers) in the states of South Carolina (44 percent), Georgia (34 percent), and North Carolina (21 percent).
The Sand Hills region occurs below the "fall line", which delineates the older crystalline rocks of the Southern Piedmont (MLRA 136) from the younger sediments of the Southern Coastal Plain (MLRA 133A). The term "fall line" came about because the rivers of the Piedmont cut downward through hard bedrock to meet the lower Coastal Plain sediments. The elevational change is evident in the waterfalls and rapids that occur along this transitional line.
This region is composed of mainly of unconsolidated sediments deposited during the Cretaceous period. Overlying these sediments is the late Miocene to early Pliocene Pinehurst Formation. The Pinehurst Formation is of windblown or eolian origin. Soils in this formation are the subject of this ecological site. Deposits of kaolin and high-silica sands are found across the area and are often mined.
Classification relationships
ATTENTION: This ecological site meets the requirements for PROVISIONAL. A provisional ecological site is established after ecological site concepts are developed and an initial state-and-transition model is drafted. A provisional ecological site typically will include literature reviews, land use history information, legacy data, and must include some soils data, ocular estimates for canopy and/or species composition by weight, and some line-point intercept information. A provisional ecological site provides the conceptual framework of soil-site correlation for the development of the ESD. For more information about this ecological site, please contact your local NRCS office.
Ecological site concept
The concept for this ecological site is similar to that for F137XY001GA (Dry sandy Upland Woodland). The map unit components to be correlated to this ES occur on summits that have predominantly loamy textures. Representative slopes are <= 6 percent, and map unit slopes range from 0 to 10 percent. Available water is higher than F137XY001GA, Dry Sandy Upland Woodland. The Ecological Site concept was developed to include Ailey, Barnwell, Blaney, Brogdon, Cowarts, Eustis, Fuquay, Neeses, Stilson, and Vaucluse map units based on preliminary analyses of existing data pertaining to sandy uplands of MLRA 137. Additional components were added that are hypothesized to support similar vegetation. This ES concept is distinct because of its native condition (i.e. reference site vegetation), component soils, successional patterns, and wildlife habitat. Reference site vegetation of this ES is edaphically supported by loamy subsoil with some sort of restriction due to the presence of plinthite, fragic properties, or densic materials. Dominant reference site vegetation includes longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), wiregrass (Aristida stricta and Aristida beyrichiana), bluejack and blackjack oak (Quercus incana and Q. marilandica), and an herb layer. Species richness is higher than in the dry ES. Historically, fire was integral to the evolution and maintenance of the native condition in this region.
Proposed field investigations are designed to test the association of our initial Loamy Summit Woodland ES with soil series and specific soil properties.
Table 1. Dominant plant species
| Tree |
(1) Pinus palustris |
|---|---|
| Shrub |
Not specified |
| Herbaceous |
(1) Aristida |
Legacy ID
F137XY040SC
Physiographic features
The area is one of transition between the Southern Piedmont and Southern Coastal Plain. The majority of the area is located in the Sea Island Section of the Coastal Plain Province of the Atlantic Plain. The western part of the area in Georgia is located in the East Gulf Coastal Plain Section of the same province and division. Portions of the northern half of the MLRA are in the Piedmont Upland Section of the Piedmont Province of the Appalachian Highlands. The area is highly dissected and hilly, with elevations ranging from 165 to 660 feet. Local relief is typically 10 to 20 feet, but can range up to 165 feet.
Figure 2. Physiographic sections of MLRA 137.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
| Landforms |
(1)
Hill
(2) Marine terrace |
|---|---|
| Flooding frequency | None |
| Ponding frequency | None |
| Slope | 0 – 10% |
| Water table depth | 84 – 203 cm |
| Aspect | Aspect is not a significant factor |
Climatic features
The average annual precipitation in this area ranges from 41 to 53 inches (1,041 to 1,346 millimeters). Maxiumum precipitation occurs in midsummer, and the minimum occurs in autumn. High-intensity, convective thunderstorms account for summer rainfall. If snow occurs at all, it is in small amounts.
The average annual temperature ranges from 59 to 65 degrees F (15 to 18 degrees C).
Climate data is based on Normal PRISM data for the period 1981-2010.
Table 3. Representative climatic features
| Frost-free period (average) | 250 days |
|---|---|
| Freeze-free period (average) | 275 days |
| Precipitation total (average) | 1,194 mm |
Figure 3. Monthly precipitation range
Figure 4. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Figure 5. Annual precipitation pattern
Figure 6. Annual average temperature pattern
Influencing water features
Groundwater characteristics vary depending on the underlying geology throughout the area. Two types of aquifers occur in the area. The northern edge of the area has aquifers in the crystalline igneous and metamorphic rocks of the Southern Piedmont region. The southern edge has aquifers in the Cretaceous sediments of the Southern Coastal Plain. Soft water with very low amounts of total dissolved solids is a common characteristic of both aquifer types. The Cretaceous aquifer water is the sodium bicarbonate type, so the water is typically used for industry and public supply. The water from the crystalline rock aquifer contains calcium bicarbonate and supplies mostly domestic water needs.
No water features significantly influence this ecological site.
Soil features
Representative slopes are <= 6 percent, and map unit slopes range from 0 to 10 percent. Available water is higher than F137XY001GA, Dry Sandy Upland Woodland. The Ecological Site concept was developed to include Ailey, Barnwell, Blaney, Brogdon, Cowarts, Eustis, Fuquay, Neeses, Stilson, and Vaucluse map units based on preliminary analyses of existing data pertaining to sandy uplands of MLRA 137. Additional components were added that are hypothesized to support similar vegetation.
Figure 7. Profile of the Vaucluse series.
Table 4. Representative soil features
| Surface texture |
(1) Sand (2) Loamy sand (3) Sandy loam |
|---|---|
| Family particle size |
(1) Loamy |
| Drainage class | Well drained to somewhat excessively drained |
| Soil depth | 102 – 254 cm |
| Available water capacity (0-101.6cm) |
5.08 – 27.94 cm |
| Calcium carbonate equivalent (0-101.6cm) |
0% |
| Electrical conductivity (0-101.6cm) |
0 mmhos/cm |
| Sodium adsorption ratio (0-101.6cm) |
0 |
| Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-101.6cm) |
4.6 – 5.7 |
Ecological dynamics
The Loamy Summit Woodland site is composed of woodland vegetation with a canopy dominated by longleaf pine found on soils with a loamy subsoil on uplands in the Carolina and Georgia Sand Hills (MLRA 137). These sites are prone to wildland fire. The natural fire regime, ignited by lightning, was probably as frequent as every few years (fire return interval = 2-3 years). Other fires were ignited by humans. Prior to the construction of roads, wildland fires may have burned extensively (thousands of acres). While most lightning in this area is associated with rain, lightning combined with high winds can start wildland fires. Today, prescribed fire can be used by land management agencies to restore and/or maintain the site.
The ecological dynamics of the Loamy Summit Woodland are fire-dependent. There are two sources of fuel for the surface fires typical of the site. These are longleaf pine needles and the native herbaceous ground cover, especially native grasses such as wiregrass (Aristida stricta and A. beyrichiana). Naturally functioning sites need both fuel sources to adequately carry the frequent fires that are needed to maintain the site. The loss of either the longleaf pine trees or the native herbaceous ground cover can lead to less frequent surface fires, since fine fuels are reduced. Prolonged fire suppression alters the structure and composition of the site by driving succession toward hardwood dominated communities.
During the 19th century, longleaf pine declined as a result of turpentine extraction methods which damaged the trees and left them more susceptible to further damage from fire. Longleaf pine timber was coveted for its strength and durability, and many areas were nearly completely depleted of longleaf pine in the early 20th century (Frost and Langley, 2008). The timber industry moved on to other areas where large longleaf pine trees remained, continuing the cycle of tree loss.
Longleaf pine is slower growing than loblolly and slash pine and will not regenerate as easily without fire. Many areas once native to longleaf pine became dominated by loblolly pine and hardwood trees as wildland fires were controlled in the middle of the 20th century. In recent decades land managers have become skilled at managing longleaf pine woodlands, and the value of longleaf pine forest products has gained more attention. The special qualities of longleaf pine woodlands are now recognized for their beauty and high biological diversity. Numerous rare plants and animals persist in the Loamy Summit Woodland habitat, especially on the larger public lands, such as military installations and gamelands.
Restoration
Of the remaining areas of longleaf pine ecosystems, only about half are managed, leading to substantial alterations in ecosystem structure and composition (Outcalt, 2000). Pre-settlement fire regimes were typified by short fire-return intervals (FRI = 2–3 years), low-intensity surface fires ignited by lightning, and late Holocene Native Americans (Christensen, 1981). Fire suppression transforms these once open savanna–woodland ecosystems into closed canopy forests, with reduced floral and faunal species richness, as well as heavy accumulations of surface fuels. In some cases, changes from one state to another are reversible, but the return path is different from the path taken in the original change. Therefore, a thorough evaluation of reversibility is necessary before adopting a program of rehabilitation. For instance, a case study by Groffman and others (2006) revealed re-introduction of fire to areas that were suppressed was not effective in reversing the loss of longleaf pine because changes in the distribution of the vegetation lost the ability to transmit fire.
Therefore more aggressive management of fire and competing vegetation may be required. General techniques and strategies for restoring upland ecosystems for longleaf pine related to this ecological site are discussed in the individual state and pathway narratives. On- site evaluations are required in order to develop specific recommendations and management prescriptions for desired states.
Prescribed fire is the most common management practice for restoring and maintaining longleaf pine ecosystems. The longleaf pine canopy and wiregrass in the understory function together as keystone species that facilitate but are resistant to fire (Platt et. al., 1988). Growing season burns, especially if frequent, can top kill and remove invading hardwoods effectively while winter fires are best suited for the reduction of hazardous fuels. Seasonality of fires will have varying results, depending on the desired outcome (i.e., vegetation control, seed bed preparation, wildlife forage, etc.) and the specific set of environmental conditions that govern the site.
Chemical control of vegetation, such as the selective application of herbicides, can accelerate the restoration process, especially where the ecosystem is degraded by oak invasion. For instance, low rates of hexazinone application have shown to be very effective in decreasing midstory hardwoods with little or no short-term reduction of understory grasses and forbs on sandhills sites (Brockway et. al., 1998). Other herbicides used in forest management include Velpar L and Pronone 10G. However, the rate of restoration can be significantly more rapid when chemical application is combined with prescribed burning (Boyer, 1990).
Mechanical drum shredders can control large mid-story vegetation. This is a recommended method to accomplish restoration of severely degraded longleaf pine forests. However, the use of mechanical control methods are often expensive, and their effectiveness can be short-lived because brush recovers rapidly in the region (Haywood et al., 2004). In addition, mechanical methods can destroy residual native ground cover propagules. If the management goal is to maintain intact native ground cover, other management options may be more suitable. In most instances, a combination of management practices is recommended in addition to the planting and monitoring of native vegetation.
State and Transition Model
A State and Transition Model for the Loamy Summit Woodland ecological site follows this narrative. Thorough descriptions of each state, plant community phase, and transition and restoration pathways are found in the appropriate State narratives. This model is based on available experimental research, field observations, professional consensus, and interpretations. It is likely to change as knowledge increases.
Plant communities will differ across the MLRA because of the naturally occurring variability in weather, soils, and aspect. The reference plant community (state 1) is not necessarily the management goal. Because landowners have different management goals, the STM outlines methods used to transition to or restore a specific community. Biological processes on this site are complex. Therefore, representative values are presented in a land management context. The species lists are representative and are not complete botanical descriptions of all species occurring, or potentially occurring, on this site. The lists are not intended to cover the full range of botanical potential and site conditions or vegetative response to the conditions.
The following diagram suggests some pathways that the vegetation on this site might take. There may be other states not shown on the diagram. This information is intended to show what might happen in a given set of circumstances. It does not mean the pathway would proceed the same way in every instance. Local professional guidance should always be sought before pursuing a treatment scenario.
State and transition model
Figure 8. State and transition model.
Figure 9. Simplified STM legend.
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
Ecosystem states
States 1, 5, 6 and 7 (additional transitions)
States 1 and 8 (additional transitions)
State 1 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference State - Longleaf Pine/ Turkey Oak - Southern wiregrass upland
This is the historic climax plant community for this ecological site. An open canopy of longleaf pine exists with a minimal scrub oak understory, commonly turkey oak (Quercus laevis) with some bluejack oak (Q. incana) and blackjack oak (Q. marilandica). Fire is the most important process in maintaining the natural vegetation of this ecological site. The amount of canopy closure in this community depends on the fire regime. Lack of fire tends to lead to the degradation of the natural vegetation by causing canopy closure by hardwoods and loss of longleaf pine and native grasses.
Community 1.1
Longleaf pine-wiregrass
The overstory of this community is dominated by widely-spaced mature longleaf pine. Typical pine canopy cover ranges from 5 to 40 percent. Canopies are open and trees are uneven-aged but the community also includes variably-sized openings with even-aged trees. These openings result from windstorms, timber harvest, hot fires, or insect-induced mortality. For longleaf pine seed germination to occur, abundant light and bare soil are needed. These conditions are found in canopy gaps immediately following fire events. Common mid-story vegetation cover is generally sparse and composed mainly of oak species. Turkey oak (Quercus laevis) is the most common, followed by bluejack (Q. incana) and dwarf post oak (Q. margarettae). Some oaks can persist even though frequent fire discourages hardwood establishment. For most sites, a fire return interval of two to three years prevents hardwood invasion (Edwards et al., 2013). Species richness is high in the herbaceous understory of these communities (Peet and Allard, 1993). Wiregrass (Aristida species) is the dominant grass, but bluestems (Schizachrium and Andropogon species), and rosette grass (Dicanthelium sp.) can also be found. Georgia bear grass (Nolina georgiana), a rare species, is also found in dry longleaf pinelands (Sorrie, 2011). Grass-dominated groundcover provides necessary fine fuels for the spread of surface fires. Frequent low intensity fire is necessary for the perpetuation of this community phase.
Forest overstory. Pinus palustris (longleaf pine)
Forest understory. Quercus marilandica (blackjack oak)
Quercus incana (bluejack oak)
Diospyros virginiana (persimmon)
Sassafras albidum (sassafras)
Aristida beyrichiana (Beyrich threeawn)
Gaylusaccia dumosa (dwarf huckleberry)
Vaccinium stamineum (deerberry)
Tephrosia virginiana (Virginia tephrosia)
Baptisia perfoliata (catbells)
Community 1.2
Mature longleaf pine overstory, mid- and understory oak encroachment, in need of fire
This community phase is generally the result of lower fire frequency. Either fire suppression or a change in fire regime (burning every 3 to 5 years, dormant season burns) allows woody vegetation growth in the mid- and understory. Species composition is similar to phase 1.1. The dominant overstory species is longleaf pine, which are widely spaced across the landscape. Because of the buildup of litter and resulting lack of bare mineral soil, longleaf pine regeneration is inhibited. If fire suppression continues, oaks and other hardwoods will thrive, eventually out-competing any young longleaf that have managed to become established. In addition, herbaceous groundcover is not as abundant as in phase 1.1, although species composition is similar. Changes in fire regime result in successful hardwood encroachment, litter accumulation, and a subsequent shift in herbaceous species abundances.
Forest overstory. longleaf pine (Pinus palustris)
Forest understory. blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica)
Pathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2
A fire frequency of two to three years controls encroaching hardwood trees and shrubs. Longleaf pine seed germination is promoted by eliminating thick litter layer development. Extended fire suppression or fire regime alteration will cause community phase 1.1 to transition to community phase 1.2. If the fire return interval persistently exceeds three years or fires occur during the dormant season, encroaching hardwoods will become well established. Longleaf pine seed germination will be severely inhibited due to litter accumulation and lack of bare soil.
Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1
A return to a fire frequency of one to three years will revert community phase 1.2 to the reference community phase (1.1). This can be achieved by wildland fire or prescribed burning. In some areas, removal of hardwoods by mechanical or chemical means can speed up the restoration (Provencher et al., 2001; Brockway and Outcalt, 2000).
Conservation practices
| Prescribed Burning | |
|---|---|
| Restoration and Management of Rare and Declining Habitats | |
| Forest Stand Improvement | |
| Native Plant Community Restoration and Management |
State 2
Degraded longleaf pine forest
The longleaf pine-hardwood forest state is characterized by a more closed canopy relative to the reference state. Oak species (Quercus marilandica, Q. incana) cover begins to rival longleaf pine. Less fire-tolerant pines such as loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) begin to establish. Hardwood trees such as dwarf post oak (Q. margarettae), and persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) compete with the remaining longleaf for canopy space. Shrub density and mass is increased relative to the reference state. Herbaceous species richness and productivity will continue to decline with canopy closure and the resulting decrease in sunlight penetration. Species richness is the number of different species present.
State 3
Mixed pine - oak woodland
Lack of a favorable environment for regeneration and competition from hardwoods and other pines have resulted in either longleaf being lost from the site, or remaining individual trees being widely dispersed. Pines such as loblolly pine may have become established due to lack of fire. Canopy closure approaches 100 percent, dominated by oaks with some hickory, sweetgum, and persimmon. Because of lack of sunlight penetration to the understory, shrub size and numbers are reduced relative to state 2, and herbaceous species characteristic of the reference state are very sparse or no longer present.
State 4
Oak - hardwood forest
The Oak - Hardwood state is the product of long-term lack of fire management (century scale?). This community phase is naturally present in patches within the larger ecological site, most often on microsites that are protected from fire (Frost and Langley, 2008; Edwards et al., 2013). However, large-scale fire suppression allows continued encroachment of fire-tolerant oaks, and longleaf pine reproduction eventually ceases. This leaves the site open for continued scrub oak domination. Fine fuels typical for low intensity ground fires are absent, but coarser fuels such as branches and leaves are present. At Fort Gordon near Augusta, GA, this state has resulted from annual dormant season burns after hardwood establishment (Michale Juhan, personal communication). The timing and frequency of the prescribed fire have not been favorable for longleaf regeneration. Brockway and Outcalt (2000) suggest that presecribed fire alone is not effective at enhancing natural longleaf establishment after a major disturbance event such as wildfire. Hardwood removal (chemical or mechanical) in combination with prescribed fire is much more effective.
State 5
Planted longleaf plantation - native grasses
Longleaf pine are planted to grow trees to a marketable size or to attempt to restore a system that would be similar to the reference plant community and in the interim sell pine straw as an urban landscape mulch (Alig et al., 2002). However, the richness of herbaceous species and associated animals are unlikely to completely mimic the reference state. However, this state is a functioning ecosystem with strong similarities to the reference plant community. Planted pines are generally even-aged and evenly spaced. If longleaf pine planting density is too high, the trees will shade out heliophytic native ground cover. In dense even-aged stands needle fall may be high, which can contribute to hotter fires. Consultation with a professional forester is recommended before establishing a longleaf pine plantation. Grasses commonly planted in this state are wiregrass, little bluestem, Indiangrass and switchgrass.
State 6
Planted pine plantation
Loblolly and slash are the pine species most often planted in the region to produce a marketable wood product. Establishment of these pines has resulted in longleaf stands lacking native ground cover. Subsequent management will be in keeping with long-term and interim objectives and may include vegetation management with prescribed burning, and periodic stand thinning.
State 7
Cropland or Pasture
If a pine plantation is not established, the most common agricultural use of the site is pasture or hay production. Fruit and vegetable production, and row crops can be regionally important. Agricultural yield information is available through Web Soil Survey (WSS) and can accessed here: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.html
State 8
Abandoned/Old field
When management or regular disturbances cease on cut-over forest, row crop or forage land, weedy and woody species become established. The abandoned field state is recognized by secondary plant community succession. Invasive species such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), silktree (Albiziz julibrissin), and cogon grass (Imperata cylindrical) can invade and dominate southern pine sites and prevent many uses. Cogon grass is particularly difficult and costly to control.
Transition T1A
State 1 to 2
Continued infrequent or lack of fire will lead to a transition from state 1 to state 2. Increased hardwood and shrub development will occur, and these species will become more fire-tolerant as basal diameters increase. Lack of fire allows the accumulation of a thick litter layer, which inhibits longleaf pine seed germination. Lack of longleaf regeneration further enhances the success of hardwood species. The threshold from state 1 to state 2 is crossed when the natural fire frequency is removed for more than 5 years. Without persistent and costly management, reversal (restoring state 1) is extremely difficult (Walker and Silletti, 2006).
Transition T1B
State 1 to 5
Transition from state 1 to state 5: Clear cut, plant longleaf, re-establish native groundcover if necessary Although not recommended, it is possible to convert from state 1 to state 5. Site preparation should occur after an area is clear cut. Coarse woody debris can impede tree planters. Concentrating debris in windrows and piles and burning it is recommended. Unwanted vegetation should be controlled prior to planting to reduce competition for the new stand. This can be accomplished by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Herbicide prescriptions can be developed to target specific species or groups of unwanted vegetation. For example, some herbicides target woody plants; others kill grasses or legumes. Care should be taken when using herbicides to avoid unwanted disturbance and herbicide application to any remaining native ground cover. The site should be monitored for appearance of native groundcover. If herbaceous species do not naturally regenerate, the seed source may have been lost. Native groundcover should be established by planting. Selective cutting can perpetuate stand integrity while providing monetary gain to the landowner. Professional foresters should be consulted on this type of management goal.
Transition T1C
State 1 to 6
Transition from state 1 to state 6: Clear cut, plant pines (longleaf, loblolly, slash), maintain 2-3 year fire frequency Although not recommended, it is possible to convert from State 1 to State 6. Site preparation should occur after an area is clear cut. Coarse woody debris can impede tree planters. Concentrating debris in windrows and piles and burning it is recommended. Unwanted vegetation should be controlled prior to planting to reduce competition for the new stand. This can be accomplished by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Herbicide prescriptions can be developed to target specific species or groups of unwanted vegetation. For example, some herbicides target woody plants, while others kill grasses or legumes. Selective cutting can perpetuate stand integrity while providing monetary gain to the landowner. Professional foresters should be consulted on this type of management goal.
Transition T1D
State 1 to 7
Transition from State 1 to State 7: Clear-cut, stump and brush removal, establish crop or pasture
Transition T1E
State 1 to 8
Transition from State 1 to State 8: Although not recommended, it is possible to transition from the reference state to the Abandoned/Old Field State. This would occur upon clear-cutting and abandonment.
Additional community tables
Table 5. Community 1.1 forest overstory composition
| Common name | Symbol | Scientific name | Nativity | Height (m) | Canopy cover (%) | Diameter (cm) | Basal area (square m/hectare) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Tree
|
|||||||
| longleaf pine | PIPA2 | Pinus palustris | Native | – | 5–40 | 45.7–121.9 | – |
Table 6. Community 1.1 forest understory composition
| Common name | Symbol | Scientific name | Nativity | Height (m) | Canopy cover (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Grass/grass-like (Graminoids)
|
||||||
| Beyrich threeawn | ARBE7 | Aristida beyrichiana | Native | – | 15–40 | |
| pineland threeawn | ARST5 | Aristida stricta | Native | – | 3.5–40 | |
| purple bluestem | ANGL10 | Andropogon glaucopsis | Native | – | 0.5–2 | |
| capillary hairsedge | BUCIC | Bulbostylis ciliatifolia var. coarctata | Native | – | 0.5–2 | |
| pineywoods dropseed | SPJU | Sporobolus junceus | Native | – | 0.1–0.5 | |
| Gray's beaksedge | RHGR2 | Rhynchospora grayi | Native | – | 0.1–0.5 | |
| Addison's rosette grass | DIOVA | Dichanthelium ovale var. addisonii | Native | – | 0.1–0.5 | |
| blood panicgrass | DICO4 | Dichanthelium consanguineum | Native | – | 0.1–0.5 | |
|
Forb/Herb
|
||||||
| catbells | BAPE3 | Baptisia perfoliata | Native | – | 0.5–3 | |
| combleaf yellow false foxglove | AUPE | Aureolaria pectinata | Native | – | 0.5–2 | |
| Virginia groundcherry | PHVIV3 | Physalis virginiana var. virginiana | Native | – | 0.5–2 | |
| narrowleaf silkgrass | PIGR4 | Pityopsis graminifolia | Native | – | 0.1–2 | |
| anisescented goldenrod | SOODO | Solidago odora var. odora | Native | – | 0.5–2 | |
| Atlantic poison oak | TOPU2 | Toxicodendron pubescens | Native | – | 0.5–2 | |
| pine barren stitchwort | MICA8 | Minuartia caroliniana | Native | – | 0.5–2 | |
| Carolina indigo | INCA | Indigofera caroliniana | Native | – | 0.5–2 | |
| hairy lespedeza | LEHI2 | Lespedeza hirta | Native | – | 0.5–2 | |
| pineland pinweed | LESE7 | Lechea sessiliflora | Native | – | 0.5–2 | |
| waxy thoroughwort | EUGL7 | Eupatorium glaucescens | Native | – | 0.5–2 | |
| Virginia tephrosia | TEVI | Tephrosia virginiana | Native | – | 0.5–1.5 | |
| grassleaf lettuce | LAGRG | Lactuca graminifolia var. graminifolia | Native | – | 0.1–1 | |
| orangegrass | HYGE | Hypericum gentianoides | Native | – | 0.1–1 | |
| slenderstalk beeblossom | GAFI2 | Gaura filipes | Native | – | 0.1–1 | |
| cottony goldenaster | CHGOG | Chrysopsis gossypina ssp. gossypina | Native | – | 0.1–1 | |
| kidneyleaf rosinweed | SICO5 | Silphium compositum | Native | – | 0.1–0.5 | |
| butterfly milkweed | ASTU | Asclepias tuberosa | Native | – | 0.1–0.5 | |
| grayhairy wild indigo | BACI | Baptisia cinerea | Native | – | 0.1–0.5 | |
| sandywoods chaffhead | CABE4 | Carphephorus bellidifolius | Native | – | 0.1–0.5 | |
| tall ironweed | VEAN | Vernonia angustifolia | Native | – | 0.1–0.5 | |
| sandhill thistle | CIRE2 | Cirsium repandum | Native | – | 0.1–0.5 | |
| finger rot | CNURS | Cnidoscolus urens var. stimulosus | Native | – | 0.1–0.5 | |
| pine barren stitchwort | MICA8 | Minuartia caroliniana | Native | – | 0.1–0.5 | |
| coastal plain dawnflower | STPA8 | Stylisma patens | Native | – | 0.1–0.5 | |
| pineland scalypink | STSES | Stipulicida setacea var. setacea | Native | – | 0.1–0.5 | |
| wavyleaf noseburn | TRUR | Tragia urens | Native | – | 0.1–0.5 | |
| eastern milkpea | GARE2 | Galactia regularis | Native | – | 0.1–0.5 | |
| cottony goldenaster | CHGOG | Chrysopsis gossypina ssp. gossypina | Native | – | 0–0.1 | |
|
Shrub/Subshrub
|
||||||
| dwarf huckleberry | GADU | Gaylussacia dumosa | Native | – | 0.5–17.5 | |
| deerberry | VAST | Vaccinium stamineum | Native | – | 3.5–7.5 | |
| Georgia beargrass | NOGE | Nolina georgiana | Native | – | 1.5–3 | |
| St. Andrew's cross | HYHY | Hypericum hypericoides | Native | – | 0.1–2 | |
| St. Andrew's cross | HYHY | Hypericum hypericoides | Native | – | 0.1–0.5 | |
| farkleberry | VAAR | Vaccinium arboreum | Native | – | 0.1–0.5 | |
|
Tree
|
||||||
| turkey oak | QULA2 | Quercus laevis | Native | – | 5–20 | |
| sassafras | SAAL5 | Sassafras albidum | Native | – | 0.1–5 | |
| bluejack oak | QUIN | Quercus incana | Native | – | 0.1–5 | |
| violet crabgrass | DIVI2 | Digitaria violascens | Native | – | 1.5–4 | |
| common persimmon | DIVI5 | Diospyros virginiana | Native | – | 0.1–3.5 | |
|
Vine/Liana
|
||||||
| evening trumpetflower | GESE | Gelsemium sempervirens | Native | – | 0.5–2 | |
Table 7. Community 1.2 forest understory composition
| Common name | Symbol | Scientific name | Nativity | Height (m) | Canopy cover (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interpretations
Supporting information
Other references
Boyer, W. D. 1990. Pinus palustris Mill. (Longleaf pine). Pages 405–412. in R. M.Burns and B. H.Honkala, editors. Silvics of North America Vol. 1. Conifers. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook 654. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
Brockway, D.G., Outcalt, K.W., and Wilkins, N.R. 1998. Restoring longleaf pine wiregrass ecosystems: plant cover, diversity and biomass following low-rate hexazinone application on Florida sandhills. Forest Ecology and Range Management. Volume 103. p.159-175.
Brockway, D.G. and K.W. Outcalt. 2000. Restoring longleaf pine wiregrass ecosystems: Hexazinone application enhances effects of prescribed fire. Forest Ecology and Management. Volume 137. pp. 121-138.
Christensen, N. L. 1981. Fire regimes in southeastern ecosystems. Pages 112–136 in H. A.Mooney, T. M.Bonnicksen, N. L.Christensen, J. E.Lotan, and W. A.Reiners, editors. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report WO-26. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
Edwards, L., J. Ambrose, and L.K. Kirkman. 2013. The Natural Communities of Georgia. The University of Georgia Press. Athens and London.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Level III and IV Ecoregions of EPA Region 4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Reasearch Laboratory. Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, Oregon. Scale 1:2,000,000.
Franklin, R.M. 2008. Stewardship of Longleaf Pine Forests: A Guide for Landowners. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 2, Longleaf Alliance, Auburn Univ. and Clemson Univ. 58 pp.
Frost, Cecil C., and S. Langley, 2008. Presettlement Vegetation and Natural Fire Regimes of Fort Gordon, Georgia. Report for Natural Resources Branch, Fort Gordon, GA and Gulf South Research Corporation. 69 pp.
Groffman, Peter M., Baron S.J, Blett, T., Gold, A. J., Goodman, I, Gunderson, L.H., Levinson, B.M., Palmer, M.A., Paerl, H.W., Peterson, G.D., Poff, L.N., Rejeski, D.W., Reynolds, J.F., Turner, M.G., Weathers, K.C., and Weins, J. 2006. Ecological Thresholds: The Key to Successful Environmental Management or an Important Concept with No Practical Application? Ecosystems 9: 1-13.
Haywood, J.D., Bauman, T.A., and Harris, R.A. 2004. Restoring upland forest to longleaf pine: initial effects on fuel load, fire danger, forest vegetation, and beetle populations. In: Connor, K.F., ed. Proceedings of the twelfth biennial southern research conference, 2003. February 24-28; Biloxi, MS Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS 71. Asheville, NC: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 299-303.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Longleaf Pine Ecosystem restoration (GA)-II (#2002-0369-008. 2007. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Final Programmatic Report.
NatureServe. 2013. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed May 24, 2013).
Nelson, John B. 1986. The natural Communities of South Carolina: Initial Classification and Description. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department.
Outcalt, K. W. 2000. Occurrence of fire in longleaf pine stands in the southeast United States. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 21: 178–182.
Peet, R.K. 1993. A taxonomic study of Aristida stricta and A. beyrichiana. Rhodora. Volume 95:881. pp. 25-37.
Peet, R.K. 2006. Ecological classification of longleaf pine woodlands. In Longleaf pine ecosystems: ecology, management, and restoration. S. Jose, E. Jokela, and D. Miller. Eds. Springer, NY. pp. 51-94.
Platt, W.J., G.W. Evans, and S.L. Rathun. 1988. The population dynamics of a long lived conifer (Pinus palustris). American Naturalist 131 (4) 491-525.
Sorrie, Bruce. 2011. A Field Guide to Wildflowers of the Sandhills Region - North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill.
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. Departement of Agriculture Handbook 296.
Varner, J. M., J. S. Kush, and R. S. Meldahl. 2000. Ecological restoration of an old-growth longleaf pine stand utilizing prescribed fire. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 21: 216–219.
Wharton, C.H. 1978. The natural environments of Georgia. Bulletin 114. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Atlanta.
Contributors
Dee Cabaniss Pederson
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.