Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F146XY082ME
Loamy Calcareous Till
Last updated: 9/27/2024
Accessed: 11/23/2024
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): 146X–Aroostook Area
This area is entirely in Maine and it makes up about 1,275 square miles (3,305 square kilometers). Presque Isle is the largest city in the area. Interstate 95 ends in the town of Houlton, at the border with New Brunswick, Canada. Aroostook State Park, Fort Kent Historic Site, and Loring Commerce Center are in this area. The Big Rock ski area is in the middle of this MLRA and is on the highest point, which is Mars Hill Mountain.
Ecological site concept
This site is found on deep, moderately well to well drained soils derived from loamy glacial till deposits. These soils often have gravels or channers that are fairly soft and break easily. As this soft parent material weathers, important nutrients for plant growth are made available, accounting for the richness of the site for plant growth. Although surface pH can be very acidic, most of the soil profile has circumneutral pH values between 5.5 and 6.5.
On gentle slopes, these soils are very productive farmland and are almost entirely under cultivation. Where native vegetation is present, basswood, American elm, hophornbeam, and Christmas fern are indicators of this site, however, sugar maple, yellow birch, and white ash typically dominate. American beech and red maple are also common overstory species, with wild sarsaparilla, Indian cucumber root, starflower, Canada mayflower, and intermediate woodfern as common understory species.
Associated sites
F146XY032ME |
Loamy Till Bottom This site often grades into Loamy Till Bottom site at the base of hillslopes, where the slopes are less and groundwater seeps at or near the soil surface. |
---|---|
F146XY061ME |
Shallow Loamy Till The Shallow Loamy Till site grades into this site as soils become shallower, to a depth of less than 20 inches of mineral soil material. Usually the Shallow Loamy Till site is upslope of the Loamy Calcareous Till site |
Similar sites
F146XY081ME |
Loamy Acidic Till The Loamy Acidic Till site is very similar to this site in landscape position and most soil/site properties, but it has soil pH mostly below 6.0. These lower pH soils do not support basswood other calcareous indicator species, but rather support other mixed hardwoods common to both sites. |
---|
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree |
(1) Picea rubens |
---|---|
Shrub |
(1) Viburnum lantanoides |
Herbaceous |
(1) Dryopteris carthusiana |
Physiographic features
This site occurs in glacial till deposits on hill slopes, till plains, drumlins and ridges. Slopes are typically 0-15 percent, but can be as high as 30 percent or higher. This site does not experience flooding or ponding, but may have a seasonally high water table in the wettest areas, which tend to be on lower slopes of hills or near drainageways.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms |
(1)
Hill
(2) Drumlin (3) Till plain |
---|---|
Runoff class | Low to high |
Flooding frequency | None |
Ponding frequency | None |
Elevation | 107 – 366 m |
Slope | 0 – 15% |
Water table depth | 20 – 84 cm |
Aspect | Aspect is not a significant factor |
Climatic features
The climate of this site is characterized by cold, snowy winters, and cool summers. Precipitation is nearly equally distributed throughout the year, with slightly more moisture falling in June-October. During winter months, and sometimes fall and spring, cold winds from the north bring severe weather events. The effects of a relatively short growing season are somewhat mitigated by long summer days associated with the high latitudes of the region. Occasionally high winds, microbursts, or freezing rain events damage vegetation over small portions of the landscape.
Table 3. Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) | 80-94 days |
---|---|
Freeze-free period (characteristic range) | 126-134 days |
Precipitation total (characteristic range) | 940-1,067 mm |
Frost-free period (actual range) | 61-107 days |
Freeze-free period (actual range) | 103-141 days |
Precipitation total (actual range) | 914-1,067 mm |
Frost-free period (average) | 85 days |
Freeze-free period (average) | 127 days |
Precipitation total (average) | 991 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) FT KENT [USC00172878], Fort Kent, ME
-
(2) HOULTON 5N [USC00173944], Houlton, ME
-
(3) PRESQUE ISLE [USC00176937], Presque Isle, ME
-
(4) HOULTON INTL AP [USW00014609], Houlton, ME
-
(5) ALLAGASH [USC00170200], Saint Francis, ME
-
(6) CARIBOU MUNI AP [USW00014607], Caribou, ME
-
(7) BRIDGEWATER [USC00170833], Bridgewater, ME
Influencing water features
Due to its landscape position, this site is not typically influenced by streams or wetlands. Small drainages are often included within this site, and they tend to influence local variations of the plant community.
Soil features
The soils of this site formed in deep or moderately deep loamy glacial till deposits. These soils often have gravels or channers that are fairly soft and break easily. As this soft parent material weathers, important nutrients for plant growth are made available, accounting for the richness of the site for plant growth. On gentle slopes, these soils are very productive farmland. Although surface pH can be very acidic, most of the soil profile has circumneutral pH values between 5.5 and 6.5. The soil moisture regime is udic and the soil temperature regime is frigid.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material |
(1)
Supraglacial meltout till
–
shale and siltstone
|
---|---|
Surface texture |
(1) Silt loam (2) Gravelly loam (3) Channery silt loam |
Family particle size |
(1) Loamy |
Drainage class | Moderately well drained to well drained |
Permeability class | Very slow to moderately slow |
Soil depth | 51 cm |
Surface fragment cover <=3" | 0 – 2% |
Surface fragment cover >3" | 0 – 2% |
Available water capacity (0-101.6cm) |
7.11 – 27.43 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) |
3.6 – 6.5 |
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified) |
10 – 27% |
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified) |
4 – 7% |
Ecological dynamics
[Caveat: The vegetation information contained in this section and is only provisional, based on concepts, and future projects support validation through field work. *] The vegetation groupings described in this section are based on the terrestrial ecological system classification and vegetation associations developed by NatureServe (Comer 2003) and localized associations provided by the Maine Natural Areas Program (Gawler and Cutko, 2010).
On gentle slopes, these soils are very productive farmland and are almost entirely under cultivation. Where native vegetation is present, basswood, American elm, hophornbeam, and Christmas fern are indicators of this site, however, sugar maple, yellow birch, and white ash typically dominate. American beech and red maple are also common overstory species, with wild sarsaparilla, Indian cucumber root, starflower, Canada mayflower, and intermediate woodfern as common understory species.
This site is subject to logging, wind, insects and disease, and other natural and human disturbances resulting in a variety of alternative states. Cultivated sites occur on flatter slopes, and are mostly cropland, pasture or hay land. Abandoned farmland may transition to pine, spruce-fir, or reference hardwood-dominated forests, often with an intermediate early seral forest phase.
When managed for timber production, several different ecological states are possible. The pine forest state, reference hardwood-dominated state, and spruce-fir state are managed to maintain dominance of their respective species, and to facilitate profitable harvests along predictable timelines. It is unclear whether hemlock forests are capable of dominating on this site.
With sufficient economic inputs, any of the states that occur on this site may transition from one to another, however, due to cost limitations, forests are typically managed for whatever timber species are currently present on the site.
State and transition model
More interactive model formats are also available.
View Interactive Models
More interactive model formats are also available.
View Interactive Models
Click on state and transition labels to scroll to the respective text
State 1 submodel, plant communities
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 3 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference State (minimally-managed)
Community 1.1
Maple - Basswood -Ash Forest
These sites occur on sheltered (concave) hillsides, ravines, stream drainages, or slope bases where nutrients accumulate, often over calcium-bearing bedrock. Slopes often grade from moderate to flat as these forests straddle the base of a hillslope. Small drainage channels may occur in the lower portions, maintaining saturated soils over at least part of the site. These closed canopy forests are dominated by sugar maple, with beech and/or yellow birch subordinate. Basswood and white ash are typical indicators but are not necessarily abundant, and they are often absent in northwest Maine. The shrub layer is usually sparse and dominated by saplings of the canopy species. The lush herb layer may contain rare species that are strong indicators of this forest type with relatively nutrient rich soils. Bryoids are virtually absent. (Gawler and Cutko, 2010)
Resilience management. Maine Natural Areas Program State Rank: S3 Vulnerable – At moderate risk of extinction or elimination due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors. There are many known mature occurrences of Maple - Basswood - Ash Forests in the state, most with a history of harvesting. However, the market pressures for hardwoods have recently led to heavy cutting of several sites. Typical sites where this community occurs are naturally small and should be buffered from surrounding forest uses. Since this natural community type is most often an inclusion within larger northern hardwood forests, many of the species using northern hardwood forests will also use this type. (Gawler and Cutko, 2010)
Dominant plant species
-
American basswood (Tilia americana), tree
-
sugar maple (Acer saccharum), tree
-
American beech (Fagus grandifolia), tree
-
American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), tree
-
striped maple (Acer pensylvanicum), tree
-
yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), tree
-
alternateleaf dogwood (Cornus alternifolia), shrub
-
silver false spleenwort (Deparia acrostichoides), other herbaceous
-
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), other herbaceous
-
white baneberry (Actaea pachypoda), other herbaceous
-
rattlesnake fern (Botrychium virginianum), other herbaceous
-
maidenhair fern (Adiantum), other herbaceous
-
roundleaf yellow violet (Viola rotundifolia), other herbaceous
-
blue cohosh (Caulophyllum thalictroides), other herbaceous
-
wild sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis), other herbaceous
Dominant resource concerns
-
Plant productivity and health
-
Plant structure and composition
-
Plant pest pressure
-
Terrestrial habitat for wildlife and invertebrates
Community 1.2
Spruce - Northern Hardwoods Forest
These forests occur on cooler microsites from near sea level to 2200’. They are usually on hillslopes, ranging from lower to upper slopes and from gentle to steep (up to 50%). The soils are typically well drained, sometimes somewhat excessively drained, sandy to loamy in texture, with pH 5.0-5.4. This mixed forest type is characterized by hardwoods with occasional scattered large supercanopy species. The sapling/shrub layer may be fairly well developed (20-40% cover), with saplings of canopy species; shrub species vary among sites. The herb layer ranges from sparse to dense but is usually >15% cover, divided between forbs, ferns, and regenerating trees, with dwarf shrubs virtually absent. The bryoid layer is patchy and locally well developed, with bryophytes far more abundant than lichens. (Gawler and Cutko, 2010)
Resilience management. Maine Natural Areas Program State Rank: S5 Secure – At very low risk or extinction or elimination due to a very extensive range, abundant populations or occurrences, and little to no concern from declines or threats. Nearly all forests of this type have been harvested in the past, and at many sites the spruce has been selectively removed. As a result, the canopies of such sites are more often indicative of Beech - Birch - Maple Forests, with spruce and fir more common in the understory than in the canopy. Sites with relatively little human disturbance are rare but are moderately well represented on conservation lands. (Gawler and Cutko, 2010)
Dominant plant species
-
red spruce (Picea rubens), tree
-
eastern white pine (Pinus strobus), tree
-
yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), tree
-
balsam fir (Abies balsamea), tree
-
striped maple (Acer pensylvanicum), tree
-
mountain maple (Acer spicatum), tree
-
American beech (Fagus grandifolia), tree
-
red maple (Acer rubrum), tree
-
hobblebush (Viburnum lantanoides), shrub
-
spinulose woodfern (Dryopteris carthusiana), other herbaceous
-
mountain woodsorrel (Oxalis montana), other herbaceous
-
starflower (Trientalis borealis), other herbaceous
Dominant resource concerns
-
Plant structure and composition
-
Plant pest pressure
-
Terrestrial habitat for wildlife and invertebrates
State 2
Semi-natural State
Shifts in ecological site composition, functionality, and dynamics driven by natural disturbances, processes, and pressures (may have some anthropogenic influences). More research is needed to determine the extent of the Semi-natural state associated with this ecological site.
Community 2.1
Invasiveness and Biological Introductions
Introduction of invasive species, pathogens, and/or pests resulting in shifts in ecological site composition, functionality, and dynamics. More research is needed to determine the extent of these effects on the semi-natural state associated with this ecological site.
Dominant resource concerns
-
Plant productivity and health
-
Plant structure and composition
-
Plant pest pressure
State 3
Cultural State
Shifts in ecological site composition, functionality, and dynamics that are primary driven by anthropogenic disturbances and pressures (may have some associated natural influences). More research is needed to determine the extent of the cultural state associated with this ecological site.
Community 3.1
Plantation
The cultivation, management, and harvesting of timber resulting in landscape clearing, mechanical landscape alteration, and mechanical soil disturbance.
Transition T1A
State 1 to 2
Introduction of invasive species, pests, and/or pathogens that alter ecological site functions, dynamics, and properties
Transition T1B
State 1 to 3
Timber management and harvesting, landscape clearing, mechanical landscape alteration, mechanical soil disturbance, planting, seeding, cultivation
Conservation practices
Clearing and Snagging | |
---|---|
Cover Crop | |
Land Clearing | |
Precision Land Forming | |
Irrigation Land Leveling | |
Land Smoothing | |
Tree/Shrub Site Preparation | |
Stripcropping | |
Stripcropping, Field | |
Agroforestry Planting | |
Land Grading | |
Agro Tillage | |
Silvopasture Establishment | |
Forest Land Management | |
Prescribed Forestry | |
Harvest hay in a manner that allows wildlife to flush and escape | |
Hardwood Crop Tree Release | |
Patch Harvesting | |
Intensive rotational grazing | |
Conversion of cropped land to grass-based agriculture |
Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1
Removal, remediation, or control of invasive species, pests, and/or pathogens through mechanical, biological, or chemical management; establishment of native plants through seeding and/or planting
Conservation practices
Restoration and Management of Rare and Declining Habitats | |
---|---|
Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems | |
Native Plant Community Restoration and Management | |
Pathogen Management | |
Invasive Plant Species Control | |
Forest stand improvement for habitat and soil quality | |
Monitoring and Evaluation |
Transition T2A
State 2 to 3
Timber management and harvesting, landscape clearing, mechanical landscape alteration, mechanical soil disturbance, planting, seeding, cultivation
Conservation practices
Clearing and Snagging | |
---|---|
Cover Crop | |
Land Clearing | |
Precision Land Forming | |
Irrigation Land Leveling | |
Land Smoothing | |
Grazing Land Mechanical Treatment | |
Range Planting | |
Agroforestry Planting | |
Land Grading | |
Strip - Intercropping | |
Agro Tillage | |
Planned Grazing System | |
Silvopasture Establishment | |
Silvopasture Management | |
Prescribed Forestry | |
Grazing Management Plan | |
Intensive Management of Rotational Grazing | |
Use of Cover Crop Mixes | |
Patch Harvesting | |
Intercropping to improve soil quality and increase biodiversity | |
Continuous No Till | |
Crop management system on crop land acres recently converted | |
Cover cropping in orchards, vineyards and other woody perennial horticultural crops |
Restoration pathway R3B
State 3 to 1
Restoration of native plant communities, planting, seeding, removal of obstructions or barriers
Conservation practices
Conservation Cover | |
---|---|
Obstruction Removal | |
Tree/Shrub Establishment | |
Vegetated Treatment Area | |
Restoration and Management of Rare and Declining Habitats | |
Early Successional Habitat Development/Management | |
Forest Stand Improvement | |
Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems | |
Native Plant Community Restoration and Management | |
Restoration of Compacted Soils | |
Wildlife corridors | |
Restoration and Management of Rare or Declining Habitats | |
Multi-species Native Perennials for Biomass/Wildlife Habitat | |
Monitoring and Evaluation | |
Leave standing grain crops un-harvested to benefit wildlife | |
Creating forest openings to improve hardwood stands |
Restoration pathway R3A
State 3 to 2
Restoration of native plant communities, planting, seeding, removal of obstructions or barriers
Conservation practices
Obstruction Removal | |
---|---|
Restoration and Management of Rare and Declining Habitats | |
Early Successional Habitat Development/Management | |
Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems | |
Native Plant Community Restoration and Management |
Additional community tables
Interpretations
Supporting information
Inventory data references
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
Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Grawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, M. Pyne, M. Reid, K. Schultz, K. Snow, and J. Teague. 2003. Ecological Systems of the United States: A Working Classification of U.S. Terrestrial Systems. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia
Gawler, S. and A. Cutko. 2010. Natural Landscapes of Maine: A Guide to Natural Communities and Ecosystems. Maine Natural Areas Program, Maine Department of Conservation, Augusta, Maine.
NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. NatureServe Explorer (accessed 10 July. 2021).
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 2006. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. Agricultural Handbook 296
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions. Available online. (accessed 11 Aug. 2021).
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Climate Research Station Data. Available online. (accessed 23 June. 2021).
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for [MLRA 146, Maine]. Available online. (accessed 14 Oct. 2021).
USNVC [United States National Vegetation Classification]. 2017. United States National Vegetation Classification Database V2.01. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee, Washington DC. Available The U.S. National Vegetation Classification (usnvc.org) (accessed 2 July. 2021).
Contributors
Christopher Mann
Jamin Johanson
Approval
Nels Barrett, 9/27/2024
Acknowledgments
Nels Barrett, Nick Butler, and Carl Bickford provided considerable review of this ecological site concept.
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 | 11/23/2024 |
Approved by | Nels Barrett |
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.