Calcareous Loamy Bottomland
Scenario model
Current ecosystem state
Select a state
Management practices/drivers
Select a transition or restoration pathway
- Transition T1 -2 More details
- Transition T1 - 3 More details
- Restoration pathway R2 - 1 More details
- Restoration pathway R2 - 3 More details
- Restoration pathway R3 - 1 More details
- Transition T3 - 2 More details
-
No transition or restoration pathway between the selected states has been described
Target ecosystem state
Select a state
Description
The reference forest state described is one of several similar vegetation communities within the Central Appalachian River Floodplain Systems as defined by NatureServe (NatureServe 2009). Due to the long history of human activity, the associations listed below may in reality reflect the current naturalized, minimally managed post disturbance state rather than the historic, pre-European settlement condition. These areas will have a mixture of typical floodplain species like sycamore, maple, and ash.
Submodel
Submodel
Mechanism
Logging, clearing, tillage and conversion to agricultural practices like row cropping or managed pasture. Installation of drainage systems in wetter areas.
Mechanism
Logging, agricultural conversion, or other significant human disturbance. Natural regeneration is allowed to occur. Fire suppression may allow more fire sensitive species to become established verses oaks. However, the role of fire is not well understood in bottomland and floodplain forests.
Mechanism
Return to the reference or post logged minimally managed state may require a very long term series of costly management options and stages. Many species may need to be planted or seeded to restore the system. Herbivory can be a problem as well as competition from faster growing species. Depending on the existing seed bank and the proximity of a mature forest from which to recruit seeds, ruderal forests may regain a mixed forest stand. Nevertheless, sites that have been cleared and tilled have significant soil disturbance which may include compaction, erosion, loss of native soil structure, loss of soil organic matter, disruption of soil microorganisms, all which affect the soil’s nutrient availability and water holding capacity (Duiker and Myers, 2005). These characteristics favor recolonization by plant species that have wind dispersed seeds (verses those that propagate through underground roots called rhizomes, or which have heavy seeds that stay near the parent tree), are shade intolerant, have rapid to moderate growth rates, and drought tolerance (Dyer, 2010). Aggressive control of nonnative species and invasives will be ongoing.
The following conservation practices from the Natural Resources Conservation Service Field Office Technical Guide can be used for restoration efforts (FOTG-USDA): Brush Management-314; Critical Area Planting-342; Early Successional Habitat Development-647; Fence-382; Forest Stand Improvement-666; Herbaceous Weed Control-315; Tree/Shrub site Preparation-490; Upland Wildlife habitat management-645; Riparian Forest Buffer-39.
Relevant conservation practices
Practice | External resources |
---|---|
Brush Management |
|
Critical Area Planting |
|
Fence |
|
Riparian Forest Buffer |
|
Tree/Shrub Site Preparation |
|
Upland Wildlife Habitat Management |
|
Early Successional Habitat Development/Management |
|
Forest Stand Improvement |
|
Herbaceous Weed Control |
Mechanism
Abandonment of pasture or old field. Discontinue mowing and do not allow grazing. Allow natural regeneration.
Mechanism
Return to the reference or post logged minimally managed state may require a very long term series of costly management options and stages. Many species may need to be planted or seeded to restore the system. Herbivory can be a problem as well as competition from faster growing species. Depending on the existing seed bank and the proximity of a mature forest from which to recruit seeds, ruderal forests may regain a mixed forest stand. Nevertheless, sites that have been cleared and tilled have significant soil disturbance which may include compaction, erosion, loss of native soil structure, loss of soil organic matter, disruption of soil microorganisms, all which affect the soil’s nutrient availability and water holding capacity (Duiker and Myers, 2005). These characteristics favor recolonization by plant species that have wind dispersed seeds (verses those that propagate through underground roots called rhizomes, or which have heavy seeds that stay near the parent tree), are shade intolerant, have rapid to moderate growth rates, and drought tolerance (Dyer, 2010). Aggressive control of nonnative and invasive species will be ongoing.
The following conservation practices from the Natural Resources Conservation Service Field Office Technical Guide can be used for restoration efforts (FOTG-USDA): Brush Management-314; Critical Area Planting-342; Early Successional Habitat Development-647; Fence-382; Forest Stand Improvement-666; Herbaceous Weed Control-315; Tree/Shrub site Preparation-490; Upland Wildlife habitat management-645; Riparian Forest Buffer-39.
Relevant conservation practices
Practice | External resources |
---|---|
Brush Management |
|
Critical Area Planting |
|
Fence |
|
Riparian Forest Buffer |
|
Tree/Shrub Site Preparation |
|
Upland Wildlife Habitat Management |
|
Early Successional Habitat Development/Management |
|
Forest Stand Improvement |
|
Herbaceous Weed Control |
Model keys
Briefcase
Add ecological sites and Major Land Resource Areas to your briefcase by clicking on the briefcase () icon wherever it occurs. Drag and drop items to reorder. Cookies are used to store briefcase items between browsing sessions. Because of this, the number of items that can be added to your briefcase is limited, and briefcase items added on one device and browser cannot be accessed from another device or browser. Users who do not wish to place cookies on their devices should not use the briefcase tool. Briefcase cookies serve no other purpose than described here and are deleted whenever browsing history is cleared.
Ecological sites
Major Land Resource Areas
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.