Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Ecological site F131AY201AR

St. Francis - Wet Clayey Backswamp Flat

Last updated: 6/10/2025
Accessed: 10/19/2025

Home / Esd catalog / MLRA 131A / Ecological site F131AY201AR

USC

Metric

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): 131A–Southern Mississippi River Alluvium

The Southern Mississippi River Alluvium (MLRA 131A) is the largest of 4 MLRAs within Land Resource Region O, the Mississippi Delta Cotton and Feed Grains Region. It occurs in portions of 7 states including Louisiana (32 percent), Arkansas (26 percent), Mississippi (26 percent), Missouri (12 percent), Tennessee (3 percent), Kentucky (1 percent), and Illinois (less than 1 percent). The MLRA is comprised of 29,555 square miles and extends roughly 650 miles from an area near Cape Girardeau, Missouri in the north to the MLRA’s transition to the Gulf Coast Marsh (MLRA 151) in the south. Average elevations range from 330 feet in the north to sea level in the southern part of the area. For much of the north-south distance, the MLRA is bounded to the east by an abrupt rise in elevation of loess-capped bluffs and hills, the Southern Mississippi Valley Loess (MLRA 134). West of the Mississippi River, the boundary is less distinct except to the northwest where the MLRA abuts the Ozark Plateaus and Ouachita province (MLRAs 116A, 117, and 118A). South of the Ozark and Ouachita escarpment, the MLRA adjoins the Southern Mississippi River Terraces (MLRA 131D), which includes the fabled Grand Prairie and merges with the valleys of the Arkansas and Ouachita rivers (MLRA 131B) and the Red River (MLRA 131C). Occurring within or bordering the Southern Mississippi River Alluvium are three separate loess-capped, upland remnants: Crowley’s Ridge, Macon Ridge, and Lafayette Loess Plain, which are western units of MLRA 134 (USDA-NRCS, 2006a).

MLRA 131A is characterized by landscapes that were created and influenced by the current and earlier paths of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. Waters transporting the materials that formed the area originate from as far west as the east slope of the Continental Divide to the western edge of the Appalachian Divide in the east. This comprises a drainage basin of roughly 1,245,000 square miles and includes all or parts of thirty-one U.S. states and two Canadian provinces (Elliott, 1932). The drainage basin of the Mississippi River roughly resembles a funnel, which has its spout at the Gulf of America. Waters from as far east as New York and as far west as Montana contribute to flows in the lower extent of the river (USACE, 2017). The soils of these alluvial landscapes are very deep, dominantly poorly and somewhat poorly drained, and have textures that are mostly loamy or clayey. Principal soil orders are Alfisols, Vertisols, Inceptisols, and Entisols (USDA-NRCS, 2006a).

The fluvial processes that shaped the area were highly dynamic, diverse, and complex. During the Pleistocene epoch, multiple continental glacial-interglacial cycles resulted in extreme fluctuations in river discharge and sediment loads. A braided river regime characterized the fluvial dynamics of the Mississippi River through much of the last glacial cycle (Autin et al., 1991; Rittenhour et al., 2007). Rapid aggradation of glacial outwash led to the development of prominent valley train features over a large portion of the area (Autin et al., 1991; Saucier, 1994; Aslan and Autin, 1999; Blum et al., 2000; Rittenour et al., 2007). A changing climate, meltwater withdrawal, and sea-level change induced a transition from a braided river regime to a predominantly single-channeled, laterally migrating river system during the Holocene epoch (Rittenhour et al., 2007; Shen et al., 2012) – characteristics that continue today. Fluvial dynamics of the migrating river resulted in the development of broad meander belts, backswamp environments, and extensive deltaic complexes (Saucier, 1994; Klimas et al., 2011a).

Tremendous expanses of bottomland hardwood forests once covered much of the area. Today, the land base is largely in agriculture production, and soybeans, cotton, corn, and rice are the principal crops with sugarcane rising in importance in the southernmost portion of the MLRA (USDA-NRCS, 2022).

Due to its size and biophysical variability, the technical team advised subdividing the MLRA into six subregions: Western Lowlands, St. Francis Basin, Yazoo Basin, Tensas Basin, Delta Plain, and Batture.

LRU notes

There are no agency-approved and established Land Resource Units (LRUs) for MLRA 131A. However, the characteristics of each of the six subregions in this MLRA warrant noting and are presented here for each associated ecological site. This provisional ecological site is broadly mapped within the Western Lowlands and the St. Francis Basin.

The Western Lowlands subregion or basin is a broad, nearly level alluvial plain located in southeastern Missouri and northeastern Arkansas. It and the St. Francis Basin form the northwestern terminus of MLRA 131A. North to south, the Lowlands extends about 225 miles from Cape Girardeau, Missouri to near Helena, Arkansas, encompassing roughly 6,800 square miles and making it the second largest subregion or basin (behind the Yazoo Basin) in MLRA 131A (Saucier, 1994). For much of its distribution, the Western Lowlands border Crowley’s Ridge to the east, the Ozark Escarpment to the northwest and west, and the Grand Prairie region to the southwest (Smith and Saucier, 1971). Towards the south, the Western Lowlands largely encapsulates the White River floodplain and associated tributaries and ends at its juncture with the Batture subregion (i.e., along the constructed Mississippi River levees). Elevation ranges from about 360 feet in the north to around 150 feet in the south.

The Western Lowlands is noted for supporting the ancestral path of the Mississippi River. Historically, the river entered the Lower Mississippi Valley just south of present-day Cape Girardeau through the Advance Lowlands, a narrow (north to south) alluvial plain between the Ozark Escarpment to the north and the Benton (or Commerce) Hills and Crowley’s Ridge to the south (Rittenour et al., 2007). The pathway of the river largely remained between Crowley’s Ridge to the east and the Ozark Escarpment to the west for significant periods during the Pleistocene epoch (ca. 11,700 to 2,580,000 years B.P.; chronology after Head, 2019) before shifting to its current position. Enormous quantities of glacial meltwater and outwash materials were funneled through the area during multiple continental glacial cycles (Saucier, 1994). A large proportion of the major geomorphic features comprising the Western Lowlands, today, are manifestations of the last continental glacial period, the Wisconsin Glaciation (ca. 11,000 to 75,000 years B.P.; chronology interpreted from Saucier, 1994). Fluvial dynamics of the outwash episodes resulted in braided river regimes and the development of broad, complex aggraded landscapes often referred to as valley trains (see Saucier, 1994) or braided channel belts (see Rittenour et al., 2007). The most prominent features consist of a series of successive, level to nearly-level valley trains that decrease in elevation (east to west) in an abrupt, step-like (scarp) fashion. These broad valley trains at varying elevations are interpreted to represent different glacial outwash episodes with the highest elevations developing during earlier periods and the lowest consisting of more recent deposits. On the lower valley trains, remnant braided outwash channels are sometimes visible and may support active stream systems, today (Klimas et al., 2012). An additional feature that is broadly scattered on some valley trains is the “sand dune field.” Dune fields vary in size from 5 to 25 square miles in extent and may be comprised of tens to hundreds of discrete dunes. These eolian structures are generally positioned within or immediately east of large, relict braided channels and are interpreted to have been formed on midchannel braid bars or islands (Saucier, 1994).

The Mississippi River shifted away from the Western Lowlands and into the St. Francis Basin during the Late Wisconsin Stage (ca. 11,000 to 30,000 years B.P.; chronology interpreted from Saucier, 1994). Rittenour et al. (2007) places a timeframe of river abandonment around 19,000 to 21,000 years B.P. based on optically stimulated luminescence sampling of a large crevasse splay in the Advance Lowlands. This sand splay is interpreted to have been deposited by the ancestral Mississippi River representing the last episode of flooding by the river into the Western Lowlands (Blum et al., 2000; Rittenour et al., 2007).

Today, stream and river systems flowing through the Western Lowlands have formed narrow valleys and floodplains on which younger Holocene-age (ca. 11,700 years B.P. to present; chronology after Head, 2019) materials are deposited. Drainage of the basin largely originates or enters the Lowlands from the Ozark Plateau by way of the St. Francis, Black, Current, Spring, White, and Little Red rivers. Their combined flow forms the White River, which discharges into the Arkansas River. Two important tributaries to the White, the Cache River and Bayou De View, are among the few stream systems that originate within the Western Lowlands. Landforms of these systems are typical of meandering low-gradient streams and include natural levees, point bars, poorly drained backswamps, abandoned channels (oxbow lakes), and local depressions. Historically, these low landscapes were subject to frequent flooding. Ponding of long durations occurred locally on the higher, nearly level valley train terraces following periods of heavy rain. To lessen the severity of flooding and ponding, extensive modification of the basin’s natural hydrology was implemented including extensive levee construction, channel modifications, upstream reservoir construction, land leveled areas, and an extensive network of local surface drainage systems. Even with these measures, the lower reaches of the White River floodplain remain subject to backwater inundation during major flood events on the Mississippi River (Klimas et al., 2012).

Throughout their combined north-south distribution, the Western Lowlands and St. Francis Basin are mostly separated by Crowley’s Ridge. There is one small area in the northern extent of the MLRA where the two basins overlap or join, the Advance Lowlands. In administering the Ecological Site Inventory, the decision was made to join the Western Lowlands and St. Francis Basin along the interface of two Wisconsin-age braided channel belts (valley trains) of different ages as defined by Saucier (1994) and corroborated by Rittenour et al. (2007). The younger of the two belts, the Morehouse Lowland (designated as Late Wisconsin Stage valley train Level 1, Pvl1), extends north to south through a major portion of the St. Francis Basin from southeast Missouri into northeast Arkansas. The older belt (designated as Early Wisconsin Stage valley train Level 2, Pve2) is a prominent valley train terrace throughout most of the Western Lowlands’ north-south length (braid belt designation and distribution after Saucier, 1994).

The St. Francis Basin is geographically positioned in northeastern Arkansas and southeastern Missouri where it, in addition to the Batture and Western Lowlands, form the northern terminus of MLRA 131A. For convenience and ease of administering the Ecological Site Inventory, small portions of the MLRA occurring east of the Mississippi River in extreme western Tennessee and Kentucky are collectively grouped with the basin’s extent in Arkansas and Missouri. The following characterization includes the combined area.

The MLRA boundary of the basin extends some 190 miles (north to south) from Cape Girardeau, Missouri to the vicinity of Helena, Arkansas. For much of its north-south distance, its width (east to west) is approximately 40 miles but narrows considerably south of Memphis, TN. The basin is bounded to the west by Crowley’s Ridge and to the east by the most recent meander belt of the Mississippi River. Elevations range from about 340 feet in the north to around 175 feet in the south (Saucier, 1994). St. Francis Basin includes portions of: Lee, St. Francis, Crittendon, Cross, Poinsett, and Mississippi counties of Arkansas; Pemiscot, Dunkin, New Madrid, and Mississippi counties of Missouri; Lake, Dyer, and Lauderdale counties of Tennessee. Major towns include: West Memphis, Marked Tree, Trumann, Blytheville, Paragould, Piggott, and Black Oak, Arkansas; Caruthersville, Hayti, Portageville, Kennett, Charleston, Sikeston, and Cape Girardeau, Missouri; and Tiptonville, Tennessee. Major highways include: Interstate 55, Interstate 40, U.S. Highway 61, U.S. Highway 63, U.S. Highway 64, U.S. Highway 78, and TN Highway 103.

The geomorphology of the basin is exceedingly complex – manifestations of incredible hydrogeologic and geologic forces. The most significant of these forces for the Mississippi River Valley was serving as a sluiceway through which huge quantities of glacial meltwater and outwash were funneled during multiple continental glaciations. The northwestern two thirds of the basin is mainly comprised of Late Pleistocene (ca. 11,700 to 129,000 years B.P.; chronology after Head, 2019) glacial outwash materials. Large landscapes or “basin subareas” were created or influenced by tremendous amounts of outwash material that, episodically, were released during catastrophic outburst floods of enormous magnitude (Saucier, 1994). Fluvial dynamics of these events resulted in braided river regimes of both the Mississippi and Ohio rivers. Examples of large landscapes that were shaped and reshaped by these fluvial processes and episodes include Sikeston Ridge, Charleston Fan, Morehouse Lowland, and Malden Plain (Stevens and Krusekopf, 2020). Major geomorphic features created in the wake of these forces include prominent sandy ridges; broad, braided-stream terraces (valley trains) at varying elevations or levels; and eolian environments of sand dune fields east of Sikeston Ridge.

A changing climate, meltwater withdrawal, and sea-level change induced a transition from a braided river regime to a predominantly single-channeled, laterally migrating river system during the Holocene epoch (ca. 11,700 years B.P. to present; chronology after Head, 2019) (Rittenour et al., 2007; Shen et al., 2012). Landscapes across the southeastern third of the St. Francis Basin are mainly comprised of former paths of the Mississippi River and its associated alluvial environment of sinuous meander belts. Major landforms comprising the meander belt environment include natural levees, point bar deposits (meander scrolls) and abandoned channels (oxbow lakes) and courses. The higher elevations of natural levees and point bars form an alluvial ridge, which often directs local drainage and floodwaters to the intervening flood basins or backswamps (Saucier, 1994).

In addition to hydrologic influences, the basin’s landscapes are subject to geologic forces. In 1811-1812, four of the largest earthquakes to hit eastern North America occurred in an area that encompassed extreme northeastern Arkansas, southeastern Missouri, and northwestern Tennessee. This area is known as the New Madrid Seismic Zone, which is named after a small settlement near the epicenter of one of the earthquakes (Saucier, 1994). Reports of the New Madrid earthquakes included widespread bank caving, reversal of river flow, landslides, earth waves, forest destruction, land uplifts, and land sinking. A few of the notable land areas or features attributed to or influenced by the seismic events include the St. Francis Sunken Lands, Tiptonville Dome, Ridgely Ridge, Reelfoot Lake, and massive landslides occurring along the adjoining Loess Bluffs of MLRA 134 (Fuller, 1912; Saucier, 1994). Perhaps the most dramatic geomorphic effects were the land fissuring and sand blows resulting from liquefaction (Saucier, 1994). According to Castilla and Audemard (2007), these are “…the largest ever-reported isolated sand blows.” Saucier (1994) emphasized that there are millions of liquefaction features from the earthquakes that are distributed over a 4,000 square mile area.

The movement of water through the basin is influenced by the complex sequence of remnant braided outwash channels, overflow channels, distributaries, and former channels and courses of the Mississippi River. Many of these features convey smaller modern streams within them. Principal streams of the basin are its namesake, the St. Francis River in addition to Little Rivers, Tyronza River, and Pemiscot Bayou (Saucier, 1994). Historically, large floods on the Mississippi River and in the St. Francis tributary system and greater basin led to frequent flooding, inundating landscapes of low relief for very long durations (Moore, 1972). To lessen the severity of flooding, the St. Francis Basin underwent a coordinated and comprehensive flood control and drainage effort. Extensive modification of the basin’s natural hydrology included hundreds of miles of constructed levees along the mainstem of the Mississippi River and basin tributaries; channel modifications on many streams; constructed floodways; water control structures; land leveled areas; and an extensive network of surface drainage systems (Klimas et al., 2013). The extensive modifications to the basin’s hydrology coupled with increased access set the stage for broadscale conversion of former forestland to a variety of land uses with agriculture production being dominant.

All ecological sites in the St. Francis Basin are bounded by the extensive constructed levee system along the Mississippi River. The constructed levee occurs on both sides (i.e., east and west) of the active river channel. The areas protected by levees east of the Mississippi River include portions of Lake, Obion, Dyer, and northern Lauderdale counties in Tennessee and the western extent of Fulton County, Kentucky. (Soils mapped in southern Illinois’s portion of MLRA 131A mostly have a mesic soil temperature regime and do not correlate to this ecological site.) All lands between the river channel and the constructed levee (or Loess Hills where levees are absent) are referred to as the Batture, and that subregion encapsulates its own complement of ecological sites due to significantly different hydrologic regimes (Smith and Klimas, 2002).

Classification relationships

All or portions of the geographic range of this site fall within several ecological/land classifications including:
- NRCS Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 131A – Southern Mississippi River Alluvium (USDA-NRCS, 2006a)
- National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units: 234 Lower Mississippi Riverine Forest Province; 234D White and Black River Alluvial Plains Section; 234Da North Mississippi River Alluvial Plain Subsection (Cleland et al., 2007)
- Environmental Protection Agency Level III Ecoregion: 8.5.2 Mississippi Alluvial Plain; Level IV Ecoregion: Northern Holocene Meander Belt, 73a; Northern Pleistocene Valley Trains, 73b; St. Francis Lowlands, 73c; Northern Backswamp, 73d; Western Lowlands Holocene Meander Belts, 73f; Western Lowlands Pleistocene Valley Trains, 73g (Griffith et al., 1998; Chapman et al., 2002; Woods et al., 2002; Woods et al., 2004; Wiken et al., 2011)
- Mississippi River Low Floodplain (Bottomland), Ecological System CES203.195 (NatureServe, 2020)
- Overcup Oak – Water Hickory – (Nuttall Oak)/Eastern Swampprivet Floodplain Forest, CEGL002423 (NatureServe, 2020)
- The following are the HGM Subclasses, geomorphic setting, and PNV associations that appear to best correspond to this site in the 1) Western Lowlands (Klimas et al., 2012) and 2) St. Francis Basin (Klimas et al., 2013). 1) Western Lowlands: RB7, Frequently flooded lowlands, Overcup Oak – Bitter Pecan; 2) St. Francis Basin: RB7, Frequently flooded lowlands, Overcup Oak – Bitter Pecan; F6, Poorly drained lowlands, Nuttall Oak – Willow Oak

Ecological site concept

This ecological site is representative of the broad, low backswamp flats (talfs) that developed on the periphery of and are bounded by the higher features of former and recent river meander belts. Additionally, the soils of this site have also been mapped on swales of abandoned meander scrolls and across broad areas of Late Pleistocene valley trains. The soils coupled with their geomorphic setting are quite diagnostic and characteristic of the site. They are very deep, poorly drained and have very slow permeability. Accretion and buildup of these heavy clays occur in low, overbank environments where floodwaters become entrapped. Slopes of this site are dominantly 0 to 0.5 percent but may range up to 1 percent. These poorly drained soils have a hydric rating, and they support obligate and facultative wetland vegetation. Dominant natural vegetation of this site is often described as an overcup oak (Quercus lyrata) – water hickory (Carya aquatica) wetland forest association, particularly in areas that frequently flood and pond for long durations. Community associates include Nuttall oak (Q. texana), willow oak (Q. phellos), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Drummond’s maple (Acer drummondii), cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia), water locust (Gleditsia aquatica), common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), eastern swampprivet (Forestiera acuminata), and planertree (Planera aquatica) with American elm (Ulmus americana) and sugarberry (Celtis laevigata) increasing in abundance in areas of more recent disturbance. In drier locations, overcup oak and water hickory may become minor components with dominance shifting to other community associates such as sweetgum, willow oak, Nuttall oak, green ash, American elm, and sugarberry in varying abundance and dominance patterns. This site primarily occurs in the St. Francis Basin but also in portions of the Western Lowlands.

The species listed in Table 1 were derived from literature reviews, conversations with technical specialists, and limited observations. One or more of the species listed may not be dominant or present at a given location, and opinions may differ as to the dominant or representative species of this ecological site. Extreme caution should be exercised when developing or inferring conservation decisions, actions, or determinations based on Table 1, alone. A more complete listing of species anticipated on this site, including species targeted for their conservation value, can be found in the Ecological Dynamics section of this report.

Associated sites

F131AY105AR	Western Lowlands - Frequently Flooded and Ponded Oxbow and Swale Forest This site occupies backswamp depressions and sloughs, which occur in close association with the level surfaces of the clayey backswamps, F131AY201AR.
F131AY202AR	St. Francis - Low Clayey Backswamp Ridge Forest This site is perhaps most characteristic of slight or low ridges and rises on broad backswamps. In some locations, these slightly elevated and elongated rises occur in a repeated, undulating pattern with individual ridges being separated by the intervening clayey flats of F131AY201AR.
F131AY203AR	St. Francis - Wet Transitional Backswamp Forest This site mainly functions as a transitional bridge between the toe and lower backslopes of recent natural levees to the low backswamp environments of F131AY201AR. Where the two sites adjoin, the heavy clay soils of the Sharkey series are typically the representative backswamp component of site F131AY201AR.
F131AY211AR	St. Francis - Old Wet Natural Levee and Meander Scroll Forest This site is characteristic of the nearly level, poorly drained toe slopes of former Mississippi River natural levees and meander scroll environments. Locally, the site adjoins the wet, clayey backswamps of F131AY201AR.
F131AY214AR	St. Francis - Recent Wet Natural Levee and Meander Scroll Forest This site is characteristic of the nearly level, poorly drained toe slopes of recent Mississippi River natural levees and meander scroll environments. Locally, the site adjoins the wet clayey soils of F131AY201AR, especially in some meander scroll environments.
F131AY208AR	St. Francis - Sandy Natural Levee and Meander Scroll Forest The sandy soils of F131AY208AR occur in complex with the heavy clayey soils of F131AY201AR where sand blows extruded from layers beneath the overlying clay during the New Madrid earthquake of 1811-1812.

Similar sites

F131AY302MS	Yazoo - Wet Clayey Backswamp Flat Forest This site occurs in backswamp environments and is generally comprised of similar soils as F131AY201AR. The single distinguishing feature is the location of F131AY302MS is within the Yazoo Basin.
F131AY402LA	Tensas Basin - Poorly Drained Backswamp This site occurs in backswamp environments and is generally comprised of similar soils as F131AY201AR. The single distinguishing feature is the location of F131AY402LA is within the Tensas Basin.
F131AY502LA	Delta Plain - Poorly Drained Backswamp This site occurs in backswamp environments and is generally comprised of similar soils as F131AY201AR. The single distinguishing feature is the location of F131AY502LA is within the Delta Plain.
F131AY603MS	Batture - Frequently Flooded Wet Backswamp Flat Forest This site occurs on the same or similar geomorphic features as F131AY201AR. The principal difference is F131AY603MS occurs within the Batture, which is the area subjected to direct overflow from the active Mississippi River channel.

Figure 1. F131AY201AR distribution.

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Tree	(1) Quercus lyrata (2) Carya aquatica
Shrub	(1) Forestiera acuminata (2) Planera aquatica
Herbaceous	(1) Carex (2) Boehmeria cylindrica

Download full description

Physiographic features

This ecological site is broadly mapped throughout the Western Lowlands and St. Francis Basin where it is most representative of the low, poorly drained clayey backswamps or flood basin. Soils of this site have also been mapped on level interfluves among remnant glacial outwash channels on Pleistocene valley trains and on swales of abandoned meander scrolls.

Though mapped on multiple landforms, the soils, vegetation, and especially the ecological processes and functions of this site are best defined and characterized within the backswamp environment. Here, topographic relief is level with slopes dominantly at 0 to 0.5 percent but extending to 1.0 percent, locally. Various surface irregularities in this environment may include depressions of varying depths and dimensions (Berkowitz et al., 2020); low, clayey rises or ridges that range from a few inches to several feet higher than the surrounding level surfaces (Putnam and Bull, 1932); and small, low-gradient streams or sloughs that have complex interconnected flow patterns (Saucier, 1994). Floodwaters are prone to entrapment for long to very long durations due to the depressed landform being bounded by higher landscapes such as meander belts, terraces, and uplands (Smith and Klimas, 2002). Accordingly, a high water table at or slightly below ground surface persists through the wetter periods of the year, generally from winter well into the growing season of spring and occasionally early summer.

The "provisional" mapping of this site extends across multiple geomorphic features, basins, and soil types. This initial, broad inclusion of different features will be assessed in subsequent phases of ecological site development, and depending on future analyses and expert judgement, the provisional site concepts could be subdivided into multiple ecological sites.

Figure 2. Sharkey is the representative soils of this site.

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Geomorphic position, flats	(1) Talf
Landforms	(1) Alluvial plain > Backswamp (2) Alluvial plain > Valley train (3) Alluvial plain > Swale
Runoff class	Low to high
Flooding duration	Brief (2 to 7 days) to very long (more than 30 days)
Flooding frequency	None to frequent
Ponding duration	Very brief (4 to 48 hours) to long (7 to 30 days)
Ponding frequency	None to occasional
Elevation	140 – 318 ft
Slope	1%
Ponding depth	12 in
Water table depth	12 in
Aspect	Aspect is not a significant factor

Climatic features

Climate of the St. Francis Basin and Western Lowlands is classified as Humid Subtropical (Koppen System), which is typified by mostly cool to mild winters; long, hot and humid summers; and no routinely recurring wet or dry season (Klimas et al., 2011b). The average annual air temperature from 1980 through 2010 was 60 degrees F and the mean annual precipitation for the same period was 48 inches.

In the warmer season (and throughout much of the year), winds from the south convey moisture from the Gulf of America leading to humid, semitropical conditions that are favorable for convective thunderstorms. These storms produce a significant proportion of the area’s annual precipitation and are at times accompanied by locally destructive winds. A potential hazard during late summer through early fall is the tropical cyclone. While most impacts from hurricanes and tropical storms are confined along the coastal zone, heavy rainfall, severe flooding, and high winds can occur well into the basin when such systems pass through the area. To the extreme, the region is susceptible to the effects of a strong Bermuda High during the summer, which can cause devastating drought conditions for weeks and even months in some years. Typically, August and September are the driest months of the year with an average monthly low at or less than 2.8 inches.

In the colder season, the area’s weather is dominated by the positions of the Polar and Subtropical Jet Streams, both of which exert strong control over the passages of cold and warm fronts. These fronts alternately bring cold continental air and warm tropical air with periods of varying length. Particularly strong cold fronts can produce large and sudden drops in air temperature; however, cold spells seldom last over a week. The coldest month of the year is typically January with an average monthly low and high of 27 and 46 degrees, respectively. The frost-free period from 1980 to 2010 averaged 186 days basin-wide and ranged from 162 days in the northernmost extent to 206 days in the southernmost extent. Likewise, the freeze-free period averaged 219 days and ranged from 192 days in the north to 237 days in the southern part of the basin.

Snow and/or sleet falls in the area in most years with the greatest frequency and accumulations occurring in the northern extent. Winter precipitation sometimes occurs as freezing rain and damaging ice storms hit some portion of the basin on occasion. However, these wintry events are generally the exception; they are typically brief and do not persist for very long. Rain is the characteristic form of winter precipitation, and the period of greatest rainfall generally occurs from November through July with April and May being the months of highest averages.

Table 3. Representative climatic features

Frost-free period (characteristic range)	178-193 days
Freeze-free period (characteristic range)	214-223 days
Precipitation total (characteristic range)	47-50 in
Frost-free period (actual range)	173-204 days
Freeze-free period (actual range)	204-238 days
Precipitation total (actual range)	45-52 in
Frost-free period (average)	186 days
Freeze-free period (average)	219 days
Precipitation total (average)	48 in

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 3. Monthly precipitation range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 4. Monthly minimum temperature range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 5. Monthly maximum temperature range

Bar

Line

Figure 6. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature

Figure 7. Annual precipitation pattern

Figure 8. Annual average temperature pattern

Climate stations used

(1) ADVANCE 1 S [USW00093825], Advance, MO
(2) CAIRO 3N [USW00093809], Barlow, IL
(3) CHARLESTON [USC00231540], Charleston, MO
(4) SIKESTON PWR STN [USC00237772], Sikeston, MO
(5) POPLAR BLUFF MUNI AP [USW00003975], Poplar Bluff, MO
(6) NEW MADRID [USC00236045], Hickman, MO
(7) MALDEN MUNI AP [USC00235207], Malden, MO
(8) PORTAGEVILLE [USC00236804], Portageville, MO
(9) CORNING [USC00031632], Corning, AR
(10) ALICIA 2NNE [USC00030064], Alicia, AR
(11) CARUTHERSVILLE [USC00231364], Caruthersville, MO
(12) BLYTHEVILLE MUNI AP [USW00053869], Blytheville, AR
(13) KEISER [USC00033821], Keiser, AR
(14) NEWPORT [USC00035186], Newport, AR
(15) WEST MEMPHIS MUNI AP [USW00053959], Marion, AR
(16) BRINKLEY [USC00030936], Brinkley, AR
(17) CLARENDON [USC00031442], Clarendon, AR

Influencing water features

This ecological site is second only to the Frequently Flooded and Ponded Oxbow and Swale site (ID: F131AY105AR) as the wettest system in the Western Lowlands and St. Francis Basin. Next to those depressional features, this site occupies the lowest landscape position in the floodplain. Its level surfaces are typically bound by higher geomorphic features creating an effective entrapment of runoff. Since the site occurs on the protected side of the extensive Mississippi River levee system, it may not receive overbank flooding (hydrologic recharge) on the same scale and periodicity as before the network of flood and drainage controls were constructed. By nature of the soils and low landscape position, a high water table generally persists through the wetter periods of the year (winter and spring), especially in areas where drainage has not been drastically altered. These poorly drained soils have a hydric rating, and they are known for supporting both obligate and facultative wetland vegetation.

Wetland description

Under the Cowardin et al. (1979) system, this site is classified as:
System: Palustrine
Class: Forested Wetland
Subclass: Broad-leaved Deciduous

Soil features

Please note that the soils listed in this section of the description may not be all inclusive. There may be additional soils that fit the site’s concepts. Additionally, the soils that provisionally form the concepts of this site may occur elsewhere, either within or outside of the MLRA and may or “may not” have the same geomorphic characteristics or support similar vegetation. Some soil map units and soil series included in this “provisional” ecological site were used as a “best fit” for a particular soil – landform catena during a specific era of soil mapping, regardless of the origin of parent material or the location of MLRA boundaries. Therefore, the listed soils may not be typical for MLRA 131A or a specific location, and the associated soil map units may warrant further investigation in a joint ecological site inventory – soil survey project. When utilizing this provisional description, the user is encouraged to verify that the area of interest meets the appropriate ecological site concepts by reviewing the soils, landform, vegetation, and physical location. If the site concepts do not match the attributes of the area of interest, please review the Similar or Associated Sites listed in the General Information section of this description to determine if another site may be a better fit for your area of interest.

This site is characterized by very deep, very poorly to poorly drained soils that formed in clayey alluvium of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. Soils of this site mainly occur on broad, level flats within backswamp environments. The dominant slope gradient of this site is 0 to 0.5 percent but range to 1 percent in some areas. Soils provisionally correlated to this site include the Alligator, Kobel, and Sharkey series. These poorly drained soils are rated as hydric, and they are known for supporting both obligate and facultative wetland plants. (Of note, one map unit of the Iberia series in Obion County, Tennessee is included in this site. Iberia soils have a hyperthermic soil temperature regime and additional properties that reflect hydric environments of southern Louisiana. It is anticipated that future field investigations will lead to an appropriate correlation of that component and a revised map unit description issued. The Iberia soil series is not addressed below.)

The Alligator (very-fine, smectitic, thermic Chromic Dystraquerts) series consists of poorly drained soils that have a light brownish gray to gray profile. Solum thickness ranges from 44 to more than 80 inches. Average clay content of the particle size control section (10 to 40 inches) ranges from 60 to 90 percent. Cracks ranging from 1 to 2.5 inches (2.5 to 5 cm) wide and extending to as much as 2 to 3 feet in depth may form in these soils during the summer and early fall months in normal years. Reactions range from very strongly acid to slightly acid in the particle size control section and slightly acid to moderately alkaline in the lower B and C horizons. Alligator soils are mainly distributed in the St. Francis Basin.

The Kobel (fine, smectitic, nonacid, thermic Vertic Endoaquepts) series consists of poorly and very poorly drained soils that are mainly distributed through the Western Lowlands and locally in the St. Francis Basin. Solum thickness ranges from 30 to 60 inches. The average clay content of the 10 to 40 inch control section ranges from 35 to 55 percent. Cracks approximately 0.5 to 1.25 inches (1 to 3 cm) wide develop to a depth of 20 inches or deeper in most years. Reaction ranges from strongly acid to neutral in the A horizon; slightly acid to moderately alkaline in the B horizon; and neutral to moderately alkaline in the C horizon.

The dominant soils of this site consist of the Sharkey (very-fine, smectitic, thermic Chromic Epiaquerts) series. These poorly to very poorly drained soils have similar average clay content as the Alligator series but have a much darker profile, ranging from gray to dark gray and dark grayish brown. Comparatively, Sharkey soils can be less acid than Alligator, especially in the upper part of the subsoil, and some pedons are calcareous below 20 inches. In general, the reaction in Sharkey soils ranges from strongly acid through moderately alkaline in the upper layers, slightly acid to moderately alkaline in the subsoil, and neutral to moderately alkaline in the substratum. Cracks approximately 0.5 to 1.25 inches (1 to 3 cm) wide develop to a depth of 20 to 24 inches (or more) in most years. Sharkey soils are widely distributed throughout the St. Francis Basin where they are characteristic of backswamp environments. The few mapped occurrences in the Western Lowlands may warrant field review and assessment.

Additional soils may be added to this site as new and updated information suggest their inclusion is warranted. Conversely, some provisional soil components may be transferred to a different site during subsequent phases of ecological site development.

Figure 9. Profile of the Alligator soil series.

Figure 10. Profile of the Sharkey soil series.

Table 4. Representative soil features

Parent material	(1) Backswamp deposits
Surface texture	(1) Clay (2) Silty clay loam (3) Sandy clay loam (4) Silty clay
Drainage class	Poorly drained
Permeability class	Very slow to moderate
Soil depth	80 in
Surface fragment cover <=3"	Not specified
Surface fragment cover >3"	Not specified
Available water capacity (Depth not specified)	4 – 6.7 in
Calcium carbonate equivalent (Depth not specified)	3%
Electrical conductivity (Depth not specified)	1 mmhos/cm
Sodium adsorption ratio (Depth not specified)	Not specified
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (Depth not specified)	5 – 7.5
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (40in)	Not specified
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (40in)	Not specified

Ecological dynamics

Historically, this ecological site was part of a vast forested landscape with processes and functions directly connected to the highly dynamic nature of the Mississippi River and its tributaries (Gardiner and Oliver, 2005). Today, this site is effectively disconnected from the river via the vast network of constructed levees and, in many areas, local drainage controls. Widespread changes to the landscape occurred long before any intensive studies of the primeval natural communities were conducted. Accordingly, reference conditions of this ecological site are still under review. However, forest surveys conducted over the past century provide an account of tree species and forest types often associated with backswamp environments.

The physiographic setting of this ecological site coupled with the hydrodynamics of the floodplain system contribute to the development of the soils and plant communities in this wet environment (Klimas et al., 2011a). Due to flooding and ponding durations extending into the growing season, species diversity and productivity on this site are generally poor (Winters et al., 1938; Eyre, 1980; Meadows and Stanturf, 1997), and reproduction can be very sparse, especially in the wettest locations (Lentz, 1931). Putnam and Bull (1932) characterized the soils as ‘impervious clay’ and described them as “…a stiff, waxy clay that, during the fall drought, hardens to a veritable pavement.” They typified the overcup oak – water hickory type as “…practically the only one that occupies the lowest, wettest and most poorly drained, impervious clay flats.” This cover type corresponds to the Society of American Foresters (SAF) Type No. 96 (Eyre, 1980) and bears the same name. In addition to the two dominant species, associates may include Nuttall oak, willow oak, green ash, American elm, sugarberry, Drummond’s maple, cedar elm, water locust, and common persimmon (Putnam and Bull, 1932; Putnam, 1951; Eyre, 1980).

This ecological site is far more complex than the modal concept of level backswamp surfaces suggest. Although subtle and perhaps imperceptible, there are variability in topography and elevation within the backswamp environment and especially among the other geomorphic features of this site (i.e., remnant glacial outwash terraces and meander scroll swales). Just a few inches in elevation often leads to differences in drainage or the duration of flooding and ponding, and these slight differences often result in shifts in species dominance or patterns of abundance (Putnam et al., 1960). Putnam and Bull (1932) recognized these differences and included additional cover types as occurring on these level, poorly drained clayey soils. Most of the species comprising these additional types are components of the overcup oak – water hickory association, but with shorter flooding and ponding durations, reproduction and growth of these species improves. This improvement in growing conditions may give rise to an important bottomland community type, Putnam and Bull’s red gum (i.e., sweetgum) – clay land oaks type. This type was later absorbed into more conventional forest types such as the sweetgum – willow oak type (SAF Type No. 92; Eyre, 1980) or simply renamed the sweetgum – red oak species association (see Hodges,1997; Meadows and Stanturf, 1997). Characteristic species include sweetgum, Nuttall oak, willow oak, green ash, American elm, and sugarberry with overcup oak and water hickory becoming minor associates. Although considered rare on the wet, level surfaces of this ecological site, the type was documented in areas supporting better drainage (Putnam and Bull, 1932; Putnam and McKnight, 1949; Devall and Ramp, 1992).

Putnam and Bull (1932) recognized two additional types that may be best interpreted as variations of a single association. Those two types were the oak – elm – ash and hackberry (sugarberry) – elm types. They interpreted both types as residuals following heavy cutting and removal of the best sweetgum and oaks. Today, those two types are representative of the sugarberry – American elm – green ash association (SAF Type No. 93; Eyre, 1980). This cover type has become one of the most widely distributed forest types in southern bottomland hardwood forests (Meadows and Stanturf, 1997) given the intensive land use histories most areas have incurred. Eyre (1980) provides a general description of the sugarberry – American elm – green ash type and several components listed above are associates of that type including species that are highly favored in management on this ecological site, such as Nuttall oak, willow oak, sweetgum, and green ash.

Oliver et al. (2005) warns that red oaks (e.g., cherrybark, willow, water, and Nuttall) are not regrowing in sufficient concentrations to sustain their former densities, which could have consequences on other factors such as wildlife and commercial timber values. Much of these concerns are founded on forest composition transitioning to a more shade-tolerant community such as the sugarberry – American elm – green ash type. Hodges (1997) emphasized that the latter is long-lived and capable of self-replacement.

Overall, natural cover types on this site are minor compared to other uses. Most areas have been cleared and are used extensively for production, and many areas have been land leveled with soil surface cuts of up to 3 feet to meet irrigation needs. A secondary use on this site is pasturage.

Following this narrative, a “provisional” state and transition model is provided that includes the “perceived” reference state and several alternative (or altered) vegetation states that have been observed and/or projected for this ecological site. This model is based on limited inventories, literature, expert knowledge, and interpretations. Plant communities may differ from one location to the next depending on the severity of local land use activities and rates of deposition. Depending on objectives, the reference plant community may not necessarily be the management goal.

The environmental and biological characteristics of this site are complex and dynamic. As such, the following diagram suggests pathways that the vegetation on this site might take, given that the modal concepts of climate and soils are met within an area of interest. Specific locations with unique soils and disturbance histories may have alternate pathways that are not represented in the model. This information is intended to show the possibilities within a given set of circumstances and represents the initial steps toward developing a defensible description and model. The model and associated information are subject to change as knowledge increases and new information is garnered. This is an iterative process. Most importantly, local and/or state professional guidance should always be sought before pursuing a treatment scenario.

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

States 1, 6 and 2 (additional transitions)

1. Reference: Level Backswamp Forest

6. Pastureland/Grassland

2. Greentree Reservoir

States 4, 7 and 8 (additional transitions)

4. Cropland

7. Forest Recovery

8. Conservation (Herbaceous)

T1A	-	Construct levees; establish water control structures; develop water supply mechanisms; and prepare drainage system
T1B	-	Manipulate composition and manage for production (Community 3.1); heavy timber cutting or repeated partial harvests with no management (Community 3.2).
T1C	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation.
T1D	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing.
T2A	-	Return to natural flood dynamics; remove levees and water control structures; restore natural hydrology; conduct stand improvements; reestablish and regenerate missing or impacted species.
T2B	-	Conduct stand improvements; establish or regenerate desired commercial species; remove levees/obstructions that contribute to prolonged flooding or ponding.
T2C	-	Remove vegetation and stumps and control residual plants; remove or modify preexisting impoundment structures; prepare for cultivation
T2D	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); remove or modify preexisting impoundment structures; seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing
T3A	-	Reestablish missing species; control exotics (mechanical/chemical); timber stand improvement; natural stand dynamics
T3B	-	Construct levees; establish water control structures; develop water supply mechanisms; and prepare drainage system
T3C	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation
T3D	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing.
T4A	-	Precision land leveling
T4B	-	Vegetation removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing.
T4C	-	Natural succession (Community 7.1) or prep area (plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.); planting species appropriate for site (Community 7.2).
T4D	-	Establish select native species suitable for site; prep area for planting (herbicide and/or mechanical).
T6A	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation
T6B	-	Natural succession (Community 7.1) or prepare area (e.g., plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.) for planting tree species appropriate for site (Afforestation - Community 7.2).
T6C	-	Establish select native species suitable for site and prepare area for planting (herbicide and/or mechanical).
T7A	-	Vegetation removal (mechanical/chemical) and preparation for cultivation
T7B	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing
T8A	-	Vegetation removal (mechanical/chemical) and preparation for cultivation.
T8B	-	Establish desired forage species and manage for grazing.
T8C	-	Natural succession (Community 7.1) or prepare area (e.g., plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.) for planting tree species appropriate for site (Afforestation - Community 7.2).

3.1A	-	Cessation of management followed by heavy cutting or repeated partial harvests
3.2A	-	Silvicultural treatments: removal of undesirable species; re-establish species favored in management; timber stand improvement; establish advance regeneration

State 4 submodel, plant communities

4.1. Conservation Management

4.2. Transitional Conservation Management

4.3. Conventional Management

4.1A	-	Soil disturbance (tillage); reduction of soil health.
4.1B	-	Conventional tillage, seeding, and fertility management for crops.
4.2A	-	No-till, cover crops, reduced till-soil health improvements.
4.2B	-	Conventional tillage, seeding, and fertility management for crops.
4.3A	-	Reduced till, no-till, and cover crops with soil health improvements as a goal.

State 5 submodel, plant communities

5.1. Land Leveled Cropland

State 6 submodel, plant communities

6.1. Monoculture Grassland

6.2. Mixed Species System

6.3. Mixed Species, Non-seeded

6.4. Early Woody Succession

6.1A	-	Seeding and/or management for desired species composition.
6.1B	-	Species management without overseeding.
6.2A	-	Seeding, fertilizing, management/removal of undesirable species.
6.2B	-	Species management without overseeding.
6.3A	-	Seeding, fertilizing, management/removal of undesirable species.
6.3B	-	Seeding and/or management for desired species composition.
6.3C	-	Lack of disturbance; no (or infrequent) mowing, herbivory, or brush management; natural succession of woody species.
6.4A	-	Brush management/removal of unwanted species.

State 7 submodel, plant communities

7.1. Ruderal/Opportunistic Regrowth

7.2. Afforestation

7.1A	-	Remove undesirable competitors; final soil preparation; establish site-appropriate species (favored in management and suitable for planting).

State 8 submodel, plant communities

8.1. Pollinator Planting/Native Grasses

State 1
Reference: Level Backswamp Forest

Removal of the pre-settlement natural communities began long before thorough studies and investigations were initiated. Modifications to the natural hydrodynamics and drainage patterns coupled with location-specific land use histories have further complicated species-site relationships. Such complexity will likely be reflected in much variability in vegetation composition and structure of local forest stands (Stanturf et al., 2001). Accordingly, reference conditions for this site are currently under review. They are perceived to consist of mature forest stands that support a diverse mix of southern bottomland hardwoods adapted to the level, poorly drained clayey soils of backswamp environments. Once assigned, the reference community will not represent the pre-settlement forest community, but it should identify an assemblage of naturally occurring species that reflects and contributes to regional biodiversity and local forest ecology. Implicated in the latter is that the “local” geomorphic features and drainage patterns of this soil-site environment should not have been drastically altered or removed (e.g., land leveled or extensively ditched and drained). Based on former forest surveys and available literature, the overcup oak – water hickory forest association is provisionally selected to represent reference conditions based on its perceived commonality or dominance of this level, wet environment (see Putnam and Bull, 1932). Notably, other forest types occur on this ecological site including a highly desired association known for its commercial and wildlife appeal, the sweetgum – willow oak type which is often referred to as the sweetgum – red oaks (or water oaks) association. The principal environmental factor that may influence which forest type occurs or dominates at a given location is floodwater or ponding duration. Longer flooding and ponding durations appear to naturally favor the overcup oak – water hickory type. Conversely, areas that drain more quickly likely benefits the sweetgum – willow oak association. This reference community selection will be critically reviewed and evaluated during the next phase of ecological site development, the verification stage. A third forest type reported on this site is the sugarberry – American elm – green ash association or a variant of the type. The widespread occurrence of this community is often attributed to former land use practices that removed commercially valuable trees, typically sweetgum and oaks, while leaving behind species of little commercial value (Putnam and Bull, 1932). Based on the preceding coupled with the propensity of the type to replace other plant communities due to shade tolerance (see Oliver et al., 2005), the sugarberry – American elm – green ash type was not considered to be the representative community of this ecological site. This position will also be evaluated during the verification stage. The return or transition pathway from the altered states (currently, only States 2 and 3) back to reference conditions is intended to represent the suite of hardwood species that, reportedly, frequently to occasionally occur and are favored in management on this site. Realistically, it may not always be possible to return to a “perceived” reference state from a former altered condition. While planting and establishing trees appropriate for a site may be possible, achieving restoration of the understory and other system functions are challenges that may never be realized (Stanturf et al., 2001; Flinn and Vellend, 2005).

Community 1.1
Overcup Oak - Water Hickory Floodplain Forest

This community phase represents the composition, successional stage, and structural complexity of forest stands supporting perceived reference conditions. Exemplary examples are likely to be restricted to areas that have had few detrimental impacts to local drainage patterns or intensive land use histories. Such conditions are likely to be very rare, today and may only occur locally (e.g., public natural areas). Vegetation associated with this site are generally indicative of hydric conditions, and many components of the system are often wetland obligates and facultative wetland species. In addition to the dominant components of overcup oak and water hickory, major associates include Nuttall oak, willow oak, green ash, American elm, sugarberry, and Drummond’s maple. Minor associates may consist of sweetgum, water oak (Quercus nigra), common persimmon, water locust, cedar elm, and red mulberry (Morus rubra) with bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), pumpkin ash (Fraxinus profunda), and swamp cottonwood (Populus heterophylla) sometimes occurring in locations that remain wet or inundated for the longest periods (Putnam and Bull, 1932; Eyre, 1980; Devall and Ramp, 1992; Doug Wallace, personal communication). Of note, components will vary by location depending on the local environment. In areas with better drainage or different geomorphic features, a shift in species dominance may be expressed. For instance, within narrow swales and areas with better drainage, proportionally more Nuttall oak, willow oak, green ash, sweetgum, American elm, and sugarberry may be more abundant than overcup oak or water hickory. The understory and shrub layer of this community may consist of seedlings and saplings of the preceding tree species in addition to eastern swampprivet, planertree, hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), dogwood (Cornus spp.), and possumhaw (Ilex decidua) with common buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) occurring in the wettest areas. Groundcover can be sparse in wet, shaded areas, but in canopy gaps and areas where the canopy is thin, vegetation may consist of trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), eastern poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), peppervine (Nekemias arborea), American buckwheat vine (Brunnichia ovata), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), grape (Vitis spp.), blackberry (Rubus spp.), lizard’s tail (Saururus cernuus), green arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), smallspike false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), Virginia dayflower (Commelina viginica), sedges (Carex spp.), catchfly grass (Leersia lenticularis), redtop panicgrass (Panicum rigidulum), savanna-panicgrass (Phanopyrum gymnocarpon), among additional forbs and graminoids (Eyre, 1980; Devall and Ramp, 1992; NatureServe, 2020). Broadfoot (1976) provided the following site index ranges and the measured averages (tree height in feet at 50 years of growth except cottonwood, which is 30 years) for select forest components that are “favored in management” on the combined soils of this site, the Alligator and Sharkey soil series: Nuttall oak (80-100; average 88 on Alligator and 91 on Sharkey), willow oak (80-105; average 88 on Alligator and 92 on Sharkey), water oak (75-100; 83 on Alligator and 85 on Sharkey), sweetgum (75-100; average 89 feet), green ash (70-95; average 80 feet), and bald cypress (75-95; average 88 feet, Alligator only). Note that site index ranges and averages are within 5 feet lower on Alligator soils for several species, but in general, productivity is quite similar for both soils.

Dominant plant species

overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), tree
water hickory (Carya aquatica), tree
sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), tree
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tree
American elm (Ulmus americana), tree
Drummond's maple (Acer rubrum var. drummondii), tree
Nuttall oak (Quercus texana), tree
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tree
willow oak (Quercus phellos), tree
common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), tree
eastern swampprivet (Forestiera acuminata), shrub
planertree (Planera aquatica), shrub
possumhaw (Ilex decidua), shrub
dogwood (Cornus), shrub
hawthorn (Crataegus), shrub
common buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), shrub
eastern poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), shrub
peppervine (Nekemias arborea), shrub
greenbrier (Smilax), shrub
trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), shrub
American buckwheat vine (Brunnichia ovata), shrub
redtop panicgrass (Panicum rigidulum), grass
savannah-panicgrass (Phanopyrum gymnocarpon), grass
catchfly grass (Leersia lenticularis), grass
sedge (Carex), grass
rush (Juncus), grass
lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), other herbaceous
green arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), other herbaceous
smallspike false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), other herbaceous
Virginia dayflower (Commelina virginica), other herbaceous

State 2
Greentree Reservoir

The Greentree Reservoir (GTR) state is provisionally included in this description due to the level of hydrologic manipulation and management that is generally pursued. Additionally, these structures have widespread distribution and occurrence throughout the Southern Mississippi River Alluvium and have been developed and established on this ecological site. The principal function and purpose of most GTRs within MLRA 131A is to provide reliable flooded habitat for migrating and wintering waterfowl in one of North America’s irreplaceable migratory corridors, the fabled Mississippi Flyway. The extensive losses of forested habitat coupled with the draining of wetlands and construction of flood control projects throughout the MLRA have made these reservoirs particularly attractive to wildlife, recreationists, and natural resource managers (Fredrickson and Batema, 1992). They occur on both public and private lands (Wigley and Filer, 1989). In general, GTRs consist of floodplain forests that have been leveed, water control structures established, and a water supply constructed to flood targeted locations during tree dormancy, which generally occurs from late fall to late winter. These management units are typically positioned in environments that can be effectively flooded or impounded to a shallow depth, consist of predominantly clayey soils, and support mature bottomland hardwoods with a concentration of red oaks such as Nuttall, willow, water, and cherrybark with pin oak increasing in importance in the northern portions of the MLRA. Red oaks are heralded for providing an energy-rich food source for some waterfowl species. Important soft mast food sources include elm, ash, tupelo (Nyssa spp.), and red maple (Fredrickson and Batema, 1992; Fredrickson, 2005). The composition and maturity of many forest stands within GTRs likely support characteristics that resemble reference conditions. However, hydrologic regimes and hydroperiods of many GTRs are managed intensively every year with targeted flooding beginning and ending (i.e., drained) on predetermined dates, often coinciding with waterfowl hunting seasons. In many instances, water drawdown is delayed due to logistical limitations and extends into the growing season (Wigley and Filer, 1989; Fredrickson and Batema, 1992). This annual rigor in maintaining water levels differs greatly from natural, periodic flooding regimes and has led to unanticipated single-species and community-level stressors, particularly in areas where this level of yearly management has occurred for more than a decade (Fredrickson and Batema, 1992). Some of the reported impacts include basal swelling of trees, reduced tree vigor, tree mortality, changes in plant composition to predominantly flood tolerant species, poor acorn production, poor tree regeneration, increased windthrow, crown dieback, tree cankers, a higher incidence of insect infestations, and even a decrease in waterfowl usage (Wigley and Filer, 1989; Fredrickson and Batema, 1992; Fredrickson, 2005; Hertlein and Gates, 2005; Heitmeyer et al., 2024). Notably, management of some GTRs have been modified over the years to mimic more natural, periodic flooding cycles with shortened hydroperiods to reverse these types of impacts. Still, the uncertainties of community-level responses and conditions within these impoundments have prompted inclusion of this state. Note that this state mainly pertains to established GTRs. If there is intent to develop one of these management units, then all Federal and State statutes and regulations pertaining to wetlands and the Nation’s waters and waterways must be followed. All associated regulatory reviews and permits should be completed and obtained before construction activities are pursued.

Community 2.1
Seasonally Impounded Backswamp Forest

This community phase is representative of management extremes where the influence of annual impoundment and extended hydroperiods can lead to demonstrable changes in the plant community. Mounting evidence suggests that extending the hydroperiod on this site beyond natural weather cycles and well into the growing season could induce changes in plant community composition over the long term. Newling (1981) reported a shift towards a more water tolerant community in the understory and herbaceous layers of a GTR forest stand compared to an adjacent reference community that occurred in a natural setting. He noted a significant increase in stem densities of water hickory, overcup oak, eastern swampprivet, and buttonbush along with a reduction in density of possumhaw, sugarberry, grape, eastern poison ivy, Carolina coralbead (Cocculus carolinus), climbing dogbane (Trachelospermum difforme), trumpet creeper, American elm, and greenbrier in the GTR. Stiff dogwood (Cornus foemina) was absent in the GTR understory but was relatively abundant in the reference community. Observations by others of a GTR on this ecological site include a reduction in bole volume growth and acorn production of Nuttall oak, decline in tree vigor, and higher incidence of Nuttall oak mortality (Francis, 1983; Schlaegel, 1984). Based on the preceding coupled with observations elsewhere (e.g., Ervin et al., 2006; Heitmeyer et al., 2024), characteristics of GTRs that have been annually impounded and had hydroperiods that extended into the growing season for many years (multiple decades) may be comprised of: • Predominantly water tolerant species with a higher abundance of overcup oak, water hickory, buttonbush, swampprivet, and planertree • Lower plant diversity • Higher incidence of tree mortality (e.g., snags and coarse woody debris) • Reduced regeneration and presence of important mast producing trees (e.g., red oaks) • Reduced tree growth rates

State 3
Commercial Forestland

This state consists of two very different community phases and management approaches. Community Phase 3.1 represents forest management and production on this site. A distinguishing feature of this phase is the level of management intensity designed to maximize merchantable goals. Various silvicultural methods are available for selection, and these are generally grouped into even-aged (e.g., clearcutting, seed-tree, and shelterwood) and uneven-aged (e.g., single tree, diameter-limit, basal area, and group selection) approaches (Meadows and Stanturf, 1997). Depending on the method selected, different structural and compositional characteristics of the stand may result. Removal and control of community associates are typically a critical element of production goals. These actions may result in different community or “management phases” (and possibly alternate states) depending on the methods used and desired results. Finding the appropriate approach for a given stand and environment necessitates close consultation with trained, experienced, and knowledgeable forestry professionals. If there is a desire to proceed with this state, it is strongly urged and advised that professional guidance be obtained and a well-designed silvicultural plan developed in advance of any work conducted. Community Phase 3.2 represents conditions of many stands that have incurred indiscriminate timber harvests (e.g., heavy cutting or diameter-limit harvests of select species) and opportunistic regrowth following such harvests (i.e., no management at any period). Some stands may continue to support a few desirable species and quality stems, but in many instances, affected stands will be comprised of mostly shade tolerant species or trees of desirable species that are defective and fail to meet their maximum potential. (Because of the intensive management required to rehabilitate affected stands, this community phase warrants elevation to a standalone state. This should be considered in future iterations of this site’s development.) Although this site is well suited for forest production, seasonal wetness imposes severe limitations for some forest operations. The principal management concerns are equipment limitations, plant competition, and seedling mortality. Seasonal wetness and periods of heavy precipitation can impose limitations on heavy equipment usage. If possible, equipment operations are best conducted during drier periods of the year, which minimizes soil damage, compaction, erosion, and helps to maintain productivity. A seasonal high water table that includes ponding or inundation for long periods can kill recently planted seedlings, especially if they are not adapted to withstand these conditions. Additionally, these soils have high shrink-swell potential, which causes deep, wide cracks to develop during droughty periods (USDA-SCS, 1990; USDA-NRCS, 2004; USDA-NRCS, 2006b). Exceedingly long dry periods could cause desiccation of exposed roots, which is another potential source of seedling mortality (Goelz, 2001). An important caveat of this state is its representation of forest conditions that have retained full site production potential. Currently, transitional pathways to this state originate from another forested state (States 1 and 2), only. Former land uses (alternate states) that result in altered conditions of the soil environment (e.g., land leveling, ditching and drainage) may deleteriously affect predicting and planning for species site selection, tree productivity, and possibly survival of the targeted species. State 7 (Forest Recovery) is representative of forest establishment and growth on locations where soil compaction and reduction of nutrients have occurred due to former land practices. Once a previously affected location has recovered its site potential, transition to this state may be possible. That potential transition is still under review and is currently not shown or addressed in the state and transition model.

Community 3.1
Forest Management

Prescribing a silvicultural system for a given stand depends on species composition and long-term production and postproduction goals (Gardiner et al., 2002). The canopy trees listed in Community Phase 1.1 as “favored in management” are all production options on this site ranging from single species plantations to complex multi-species stands. Amendments to that list are the potential addition of eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides) and a cautionary note concerning water oak. Eastern cottonwood and water oak have been recorded as occurring occasionally on these soils and both are considered suitable for planting (Broadfoot and McKnight, 1961; Broadfoot, 1976). However, they are not consistently recorded as associates of the perceived reference community (see Putnam and Bull, 1932; Putnam, 1951; Eyre, 1980). Furthermore, growth may be poor and could lead to challenges if planted in especially wet areas (Broadfoot, 1976; Goelz, 2001). Broadfoot (1976) listed a site index range and measured average for eastern cottonwood of 80-105 and 92 feet, respectively. Broadfoot’s (1976) list of species favored in management consists of taxa that are associates of one of the more highly prized forest types of the Southern Mississippi River Alluvium, the sweetgum – willow oak type (Putnam, 1951). Managing for the oaks of this type may be preferred given the multiple values they provide (e.g., timber and wildlife). However, maintaining that component beyond a single rotation (or harvest) may be the most challenging. Creating conditions that promote oak persistence in future stands require a sufficient advance regeneration component. Ensuring that this future crop is established will require close adherence to a well-designed silvicultural plan, which requires programmatic intermediate operations (e.g., improvement cuttings, thinnings, and other partial cuttings). An even-aged silvicultural system that utilizes the clearcutting regeneration method along with brush management to reduce subsequent competition is typically the advocated approach when harvesting bottomland oak stands (Johnson and Shropshire, 1983; Clatterbuck and Meadows, 1993; Hodges, 1995; Meadows and Stanturf, 1997; Oliver et al., 2005). Of caution, some species that are favored in management may not be suitable for planting in every location of this ecological site. Species that are adapted to drier or better drained environments such as water oak and eastern cottonwood may experience higher seedling mortalities if they are planted in areas that tend to flood or pond for long to very long durations. Additionally, Broadfoot (1976) cautioned against planting oaks in locations where soil pH approaches 7.5, which could occur in some areas supporting Sharkey soils. Therefore, each targeted location should be carefully assessed and examined before costs are incurred and seedlings planted. Apart from the oaks, the remaining trees that are favored in management are light-seeded species. A variety of silvicultural systems may be implemented to promote production of these species including even-aged and group selection (uneven-aged) approaches (see Meadows and Stanturf, 1997). Eastern cottonwood, however, has different challenges due to its extreme shade intolerance and its inability to cast dense shade over the understory. Due to shade intolerance, it cannot succeed itself naturally and requires mechanical site preparation (or scarification) to expose the soil surface prior to establishing and reestablishing following harvests. The relatively “light shading” that its canopy produces permits invasion of shade tolerant species. Many such stands may have dense midstories and understories of green ash, sugarberry, American elm, and boxelder (Johnson and Shropshire, 1983; Hodges, 1995; Meadows and Stanturf, 1997).

Dominant plant species

sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tree
Nuttall oak (Quercus texana), tree
willow oak (Quercus phellos), tree
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tree

Community 3.2
Non-managed/High-graded

This forest community is directly influenced by former harvesting practices that include repeated single-tree selection or diameter-limit harvests with no additional management activities (e.g., brush management, competitor control, etc.). These practices typically target the highest quality trees of the most desirable species. The result is usually an expansion and in-filling of shade tolerant subcanopy trees. Over time, this practice will lead to a predominantly shade tolerant community that may be comprised of American elm, sugarberry, cedar elm, Drummond’s maple, red mulberry, common persimmon, and possumhaw (Putnam et al., 1960).

Pathway 3.1A
Community 3.1 to 3.2

This pathway includes heavy cutting of the stand that removes the desired species (typically shade intolerant species) of sufficient diameters followed by no management of the residual stand or repeated single-tree harvests (e.g., diameter-limit cuts) that removes the desired species followed by no management of the residual stand. The resulting stand is typically comprised of shade tolerant species with low commercial value.

Pathway 3.2A
Community 3.2 to 3.1

Intensive management will be required to push a shade tolerant community into a more commercially desirable and viable system. Actions will likely require a complete clearcut of the stand followed by repeated brush and competitor control (chemical and mechanical). If there is a lack of seed source, artificial regeneration will likely be required to reintroduce heavy-seeded species (e.g., oaks). Continual competitor control will be needed.

State 4
Cropland

This state is representative of the dominant land use activity on this ecological site, agriculture production. Principal crops grown on these soils are rice (Oryza sativa) and soybeans (Glycine max) with secondary crops consisting of small grains such as wheat (Triticum aestivum) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) (Snipes et al., 2005). Specialty crops (e.g., fruits, vegetables, and tree nuts) may be grown locally depending on local hydrology and the soil-site environment. Suitability of this ecological site to row crops ranges from well suited to poorly suited depending on local flood regimes, drainage patterns, and the targeted crop. These soils have moderate to high available water capacity, organic matter content, and natural fertility with soil reactions that range from very strongly acid to moderately alkaline (Bruce et al., 1958; USDA-SCS, 1990; USDA-NRCS, 2004; USDA-NRCS, 2006b). Applications of fertilizer and lime may not be a necessity everywhere or in every circumstance as these soils are naturally high in phosphorus and potassium and pH levels are generally within a favorable range. Soil tests should be conducted to determine fertilizer, lime, and nitrogen needs on a specific field and for a given crop (USDA-SCS, 1990). Management concerns are largely centered on seasonal high water tables, very slow permeabilities and runoff, delayed plantings, soil compaction under equipment traffic, development of a plow pan, and poor tilth due to the clayey texture. Areas that are prone to flooding or extended periods of wetness may not be suitable for small grain crops or to crops that require planting in April and May. Management measures to ameliorate some of these issues may include conservation tillage or management system; subsoiling to breakup plow pans for dry-land crops (e.g., soybeans); restricting tillage to appropriate soil moisture content; and establishing a drainage system or network in problematic areas (USDA-SCS, 1990; USDA-NRCS, 2004; USDA-NRCS, 2006b). Of caution, subsurface drainage systems (e.g., pipes or tiles) may not be effective in every situation due to very slow permeability or localized flooding (USDA-SCS, 1990). Major components that producers generally develop and plan are proper selection of crop cultivar, pest control, cropping system, tillage methods, nutrient management, and water management (Snipes et al., 2005). Key practices of some cropping systems often include two or more crops grown in a multiyear rotation, which has been documented to disrupt pest cycles. Leaving crop residue on the surface can help to maintain tilth, fertility, and organic matter content – all critical elements of soil quality and health. For monoculture cropping systems, the implementation of well-designed pest and nutrient management systems are imperative (Pringle et al., 2017). (For assistance, interested parties are advised to visit their local NRCS Field Office.) Three separate management phases comprise this state: Conservation Management (4.1), Transitional Conservation Management (4.2), and Conventional Management (4.3). The three phases consist of varying tillage methods and approaches to soil health management systems.

Community 4.1
Conservation Management

This cropland phase utilizes long term, continuous conservation management systems that include reduced till and cover crops; no-till with cover crops; crop residue retention; and perennial cropping systems. The guiding principles of this system are minimizing soil disturbance and maximizing soil cover, biodiversity, and the presence of living roots. Implementing diverse crop rotations while maintaining these principles can lend to the development of an integrated pest management plan and contribute to overall system resilience. Of caution, the above-ground crop growth or yields may not be the best tracking mechanism for assessing the efficacy or presence of this management phase. Indicators of these systems are generally determined via soil-site assessments with outcomes that may include enhanced soil aggregate stability, increased soil biological activity, higher organic matter content, and improved water holding capacity and infiltration rates while also alleviating soil compaction and reducing runoff and erosion (Chessman et al., 2019). Additional advantages to this system that have been noted by some producers are reductions in fuel and labor costs and less wear and tear on machinery and equipment. There are challenges to this management system, especially in situations where tillage may be considered and/or needed to repair weather damage or other detrimental impacts. Implementation of conventional tillage even after long term conservation practices (e.g., no-till) can reset the affected area back to a conventional cropping system. However, those changes can be reversed and a return to a conservation management system is achievable. Critical conservation practices associated with this phase include cover crops, no-till, and reduced till as the foundational practices. Additionally, this phase may include supporting and site-specific practices to address conservation needs for a given location.

Community 4.2
Transitional Conservation Management

This cropland phase utilizes a hybrid approach that combines conventional methods with conservation practices at specific periods and under specific situations. Practices under this phase may include a combination of conventional till, reduced till, strip till, and the inclusion of cover crops. For instance, perennial crop species could be in a continuous transitional phase where conventional tillage is implemented at the time of planting followed by reduced tillage during the rotation. Planted forage crops could also be included in this phase, especially when part of a crop rotation that utilizes reduced tillage for one crop followed by conventional tillage for a succeeding crop. The development, implementation, and refinement of nutrient and pest management plans throughout component operations are imperative. Additionally, this phase may include supporting and/or site-specific practices to address conservation needs for a given location.

Community 4.3
Conventional Management

This management phase is representative of conventional cropland where tillage is implemented as an annual component of the production system. As crucial elements of the system, conservation practices such as nutrient and pest management are needed to address fertility requirements and pest concerns within the crop cycle. It is important to note that this phase may develop when tillage is implemented to address damage or for other purposes while under a conservation management system (Community Phase 4.1). There could also be associated, supporting, and site-specific practices that are needed to address specific conservation needs. Specific needs may include grade stabilization structures to control gully erosion, grassed waterways to trap sediment from sheet and rill erosion, or implementing reduced till.

Pathway 4.1A
Community 4.1 to 4.2

Soil disturbance (tillage); reduction of soil health.

Pathway 4.1B
Community 4.1 to 4.3

Conventional tillage, seeding, and fertility management for crops.

Pathway 4.2A
Community 4.2 to 4.1

No-till, cover crops, reduced till-soil health improvements.

Pathway 4.2B
Community 4.2 to 4.3

Conventional tillage, seeding, and fertility management for crops.

Pathway 4.3A
Community 4.3 to 4.2

Reduced till, no-till, and cover crops with soil health improvements as a goal.

State 5
Land Formed Cropland

This level to nearly level ecological site oftentimes adjoins gently sloping to undulating landscapes. It is bordered by soils of varying textures and drainage characteristics. Accordingly, inconsistencies in wetness and dryness, ease of operation, and production or yields may occur across a cropped location. An increasingly common practice consists of land forming or leveling surface irregularities into a predetermined and engineered, uniform slope. This practice removes drier and higher features, which are then used to fill wetter and lower positions (e.g., depressions or swales) across the targeted area. Advantages of land leveling may include reduced hazards of erosion and runoff rates, improved surface drainage, and enhanced distribution and conservation of irrigation water. Disadvantages of the practice is a churning of various surface and subsurface materials (former soil horizons) that no longer occur in a predictable or regular pattern. Organic matter content in the surface layer is generally low, and the surface tends to crust and pack after heavy rains (USDA-NRCS, 2006b). One potential hazard that appears to be emerging in some areas is the need for managing surface water runoff. As both irrigated and stormwater runs off leveled fields at uniform rates, surface water tends to collect cumulatively and simultaneously, which places tremendous demands on local drainage systems. Without “in field” structures (natural or artificial) to stagger runoff, the downslope (or lower) ends of some fields tend to back flood thereby contributing to more flooding overall in local watersheds (personal observations). Immediately following land leveling, the constituent elements of soil health are likely to be absent. In some areas, producers have initiated practices such as applying organic residues (e.g., poultry litter) or growing rice crops for one to two years to rapidly boost fertility and introduce organic matter (via rice biomass) in the surface layer. Over time, the full complement of the management (or community) phases of State 4 may be possible on land leveled fields. They are not repeated or indicated here. Currently, this state serves as an endpoint in the state and transition model because the ability to predict vegetation response when transitioning to a different state is no longer possible without soil-site investigations for each area of interest. The former soils of this ecological site, including surface and subsurface horizons, will have been redistributed as particles among other former soils depending on the depth of the initial “grade cuts” and leveling efforts.

Community 5.1
Land Leveled Cropland

Some of the crop species and management practices indicated and discussed in State 4 (including all three management phases) may be suitable for establishing on land leveled areas that once supported the soils of this site. However, the type of crops suited for newly leveled areas may ultimately depend on the prevailing soil particle-size distribution and internal drainage characteristics. Former studies on precision leveled fields have noted variabilities and inconsistencies in soil particle-size distributions, bulk density, soil biological properties, and nutrients (Brye et al., 2003; Walker et al., 2003; Brye et al., 2006). Management concerns for this phase may consist of restricted permeability, low organic matter content, and crusting and packing (USDA-NRCS, 2006b). These impacts may be improved by implementing conservation tillage, cover crops, retaining crop residue, and nutrient and pest management strategies.

State 6
Pastureland/Grassland

This state is representative of areas that have been converted to and maintained in pasture or grassland. Limitations of this state are mainly associated with a seasonally high water table and the flooding of areas that are located along near active tributaries or prone to back flooding. High water tables over long durations will restrict root growth and establishing plants in particularly wet locations may prove challenging. These soils are suited to most commonly grown forage species except bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum), crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum), and some cool season annual forage plants. Note that bahiagrass and crimson clover do not respond well where soil reactions are above 6.5 (Houck, 2009; Young-Mathews, 2013). Overall, forage production is considered moderate to high when adequately fertilized and properly managed. Lime may not be a necessity everywhere or in every circumstance. Soil tests should be conducted to determine fertilizer, lime, and nitrogen needs for a specific location (USDA-SCS, 1990). Given that this ecological site occurs on lower, wetter soils, some forage operations may experience multiple wetness events in a single year. Management concerns are mainly centered on soil compaction due to grazing (USDA-NRCS, 2006b), and overgrazing can lead to numerous bare spots and muddy conditions that effectively reduces or destroys plant establishment and productivity. Planning or prescribing the intensity, frequency, timing, and duration of grazing will be very important on these wetter soils. Of caution, some annual and perennial winter plants naturally growing in wet locations (e.g., sedges, rushes, and some forbs) may be an additional challenge as these are often unpalatable or toxic if consumed. Flood-prone areas may limit the type of forage suited for this site. In areas that flood on a regular basis, implementing management actions such as planting or overseeding appropriate cool season forage varieties (e.g., ‘Marshall’ ryegrass, Lolium perenne ssp. multiflorum; also known as annual ryegrass) into established warm season grasses at heavy forage rates have been observed to help protect riparian areas from detrimental river or stream scouring (personal observations by Rachel Stout Evans, contributing author). Initiating such remedial actions aid in the recovery and reestablishment of preferred warm season forage following seasonal flooding. (Note that herbicide resistant varieties could be problematic and may warrant reconsideration. Please consult with local NRCS Field Offices for assistance.) Where permissible, a system of artificial drainage or water control structures may be in place to facilitate continued forage production and grazing during wetter periods. Additionally, adjacent higher elevation or protected areas will be needed for the storage of harvested forage or the holding of livestock when wet or flooded conditions occur. Establishing an effective pasture management program can help minimize degradation of the site and assist in maintaining growth of desired forage. An effective pasture management program includes selecting well-adapted grass and/or legume species that will grow and establish rapidly; maintaining proper soil pH and fertility levels; using controlled grazing practices; mowing at proper timing and stage of maturity; allowing newly seeded areas to become well established before use; and renovating pastures when needed (Rhodes et al., 2005; Green et al., 2006). This state consists of four community phases that represent a range of forage management options and pasture and hayland condition scenarios. Options range from establishing a forage monoculture for haying to a broad mixture of forage species for production and grazing. It is strongly advised that consultation with local NRCS Service Centers be sought when assistance is needed in developing management recommendations or prescribed grazing practices.

Community 6.1
Monoculture Grassland

This phase is mainly characterized by planting forage species for hay production. Forage plantings generally consist of a single grass species. Native and/or non-native forage species can be seeded and is usually harvested as hay or haylage, although grazing may occur periodically. These environments are generally productive for forage and can provide ecological benefits to control soil erosion. Allowing for adequate rest and regrowth of desired species is required to maintain productivity. Maintenance of monoculture stands also requires control of unwanted species, which will require pest and nutrient management. Forage suited for this community phase include hybrid and common Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum), or possibly sorghum-Sudangrass hybrid (Sorghum bicolor ssp. drummondii) in drier locations. Tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus) may be an option in the northern portions of the basin. The application of fertilizer is generally needed to establish and maintain improved desirable hayfields and pastures. An additional measure to aid production may include prescribed grazing. Implementing limited and monitored grazing can promote deeper root penetration of grasses with the added benefit of greater nutrient and moisture uptake. This synergistic approach can lead to increased production of and may sustain desirable forages. Conservation practices should include prescribed grazing or forage harvest management, nutrient and pest management, and potentially other site-specific practices.

Dominant plant species

Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), grass
dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum), grass
tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus), grass
Sudangrass (Sorghum bicolor ssp. drummondii), grass

Community 6.2
Mixed Species System

This community is characterized by mixed species composition of grasses and legumes. Components of this forage system are either planted or they established naturally. Typically, perennial warm-season grasses are the foundation of the stand that are periodically overseeded with adapted cool-season forages. The latter creates an added benefit of extending the grazing season. This community phase can be highly productive for grazing and haying operations and can provide beneficial habitat for some wildlife species. Maintenance of grass stands also requires a series of management practices such as prescribed grazing, brush management, pest management, and nutrient management to maintain production of the desired species. Prescribed grazing includes maintaining proper grazing or forage heights, timing, and stocking rates. Supporting or facilitating practices such as fences, water lines, and watering facilities could be part of the system that maintains this phase.

Dominant plant species

Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), grass
dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum), grass
tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus), grass
Sudangrass (Sorghum bicolor ssp. drummondii), grass
white clover (Trifolium repens), other herbaceous

Community 6.3
Mixed Species, Non-seeded

This community is characterized by a mixture of native and naturalized non-native species. Forage is usually grazed or harvested as stored forage, hay or haylage. Commonly established species may include Bermudagrass, dallisgrass, and potentially tall fescue in the north. Stands are generally productive, and forage and grazing management can maintain the community. Healthy stands provide additional benefits by protecting soils from excessive runoff and erosion. However, a common peril associated with this phase is overgrazing, which lowers production and favors less palatable weedy species, especially in areas where livestock congregate. Proper stocking rates and/or grazing systems that allow for adequate rest and plant regrowth are required to maintain productivity. When forage species are afforded adequate recovery time between grazing intervals, they develop deeper root systems and greater leaf area. Conversely, when plants are not allowed to adequately recover, root development will be restricted leading to lower forage and biomass production. Additionally, maintenance of grass stands requires implementing pest management practices to control unwanted weedy and woody species.

Community 6.4
Early Woody Succession

This community is characterized by a diverse composition of grasses and forbs with an increasing presence of woody species (both native and non-native) that are immature and of low stature. Woody species grow quickly on this site and can be difficult and expensive to control. One potentially problematic species may be honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos). Putnam (1951) reported honeylocust as being common on old pastures, and the species can be difficult to remove once established. Management to transition this phase to other forage communities of this state is still possible without excessive inputs and effort, particularly if stem diameters remain below 2 inches and are widely scattered (e.g., a density of less than 100 stems per acre). However, if diameters become greater than 3 inches and densities exceed 300 stems per acre, far more investment, effort, and inputs will be required. If brush management measures are not undertaken, the plant community will transition to the Ruderal/Opportunistic Regrowth (Community Phase 7.1) of State 7. Of note, this community phase is often very beneficial habitat for some wildlife species, especially a specific guild of resident and Neotropical migratory bird species that are habitat-specific on old field to young tree stand habitats.

Pathway 6.1A
Community 6.1 to 6.2

Seeding and/or management for desired species composition.

Pathway 6.1B
Community 6.1 to 6.3

Species management without overseeding.

Pathway 6.2A
Community 6.2 to 6.1

Seeding, fertilizing, management/removal of undesirable species.

Pathway 6.2B
Community 6.2 to 6.3

Species management without overseeding.

Pathway 6.3A
Community 6.3 to 6.1

Seeding, fertilizing, management/removal of undesirable species.

Pathway 6.3B
Community 6.3 to 6.2

Seeding and/or management for desired species composition.

Pathway 6.3C
Community 6.3 to 6.4

Lack of disturbance; no (or infrequent) mowing, herbivory, or brush management; natural succession of woody species.

Pathway 6.4A
Community 6.4 to 6.3

Brush management/removal of unwanted species.

State 7
Forest Recovery

This state is representative of forest recovery in areas that were once under former intensive land use such as long-term row crop cultivation. Characteristics that distinguish this state from other forest states on this site include a suite of soil-site properties that reportedly affect tree growth such as higher soil bulk density due to compaction, presence of a plow pan, lower organic matter content, and reduced fertility (Baker and Broadfoot, 1979; Groninger et al., 1999). Two community phases are provisionally recognized for this state. Community Phase 7.1 represents natural colonization of tree and shrub species without management. Community Phase 7.2 is representative of intentional forest establishment by artificial regeneration or planting. For Community Phase 7.2, determining the objectives and goals of the future stand is imperative to increase the probability of successful establishment and production of the afforested area. These decisions will ultimately determine the species to be established, preparation requirements, planting density, and post-planting operations (e.g., competitor control, future improvement cuttings and thinnings, regeneration methods, and overall stand health). Since each area targeted for afforestation may have unique or different land use histories, having a clear understanding of the soil-site conditions is essential. Some areas may necessitate a series of soil improvement actions prior to planting. These actions may include subsoiling or deep plowing to breakup plow pans and fertilizing the targeted area. An additional option is to allow the area to undergo fallowing for a predetermined period (Community Phase 7.1) to potentially increase soil organic matter content, enhance soil aggregate stability, increase soil biological activity, and improve water holding capacity and infiltration rates. Controlling competing vegetation (chemical and/or mechanical treatment) will be critical. Post-planting operations and maintenance of the stand can enhance survival, future development, and achieve goals and objectives (see Gardiner et al., 2002). Finding the appropriate approach for a given environment necessitates close consultation with trained, experienced, and knowledgeable forestry professionals. If there is a desire to proceed with this state, it is strongly urged and advised that professional guidance be obtained and a well-designed afforestation and silvicultural plan developed in advance of any work conducted. For an exceptional review and summarization of the afforestation literature, techniques, and practices within the Southern Mississippi River Alluvium, interested parties are directed to Gardiner et al. (2002).

Community 7.1
Ruderal/Opportunistic Regrowth

This community phase is representative of former working lands (e.g., cropland and possibly high concentration areas of former pastureland) that have fallowed and subsequently undergone natural vegetation colonization. Depending on location, a profusion of growth may initiate within five to ten years of becoming idle - one that typically includes grasses, forbs, woody seedlings and shrubs, and an increasing presence and covering of vines. Initial colonization may be dominant in annuals followed by a shift to perennial vegetation. Shrubs and tree seedlings may appear very early following abandonment, however the rate of colonization and period to stand establishment likely depends on the proximity of established mature stands (Battaglia et al., 1995; Battaglia et al., 2002). If established stands consisting of light-seeded species adjoin fallow fields, colonizing tree species will likely be comprised of those taxa (e.g., elm, green ash, and cottonwood) (Allen, 1990; Stanturf et al., 2001). Some areas may be far removed from established forest stands. Under this scenario, establishment of woody species (especially overstory tree species) may be very slow, and years may be required before stand establishment is reached (Battaglia et al., 1995; Allen, 1997). In fact, natural colonization by some species may be delayed indefinitely with some stands or areas being understocked (Allen, 1997; Battaglia et al., 2002; Groninger, 2005). Heavy-seeded species like oaks may not have an opportunity to colonize available areas due to distance and lack of a dependable dispersing agent (e.g., wildlife and water). Non-native invasive species may become part of the developing stand given the proliferation of exotic plant species over the past century. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to predict the future composition and structure of an abandoned field on this site. Many different environmental factors will influence initial colonization and development trajectories. The following projections are simply based on native plant species reported to occur on the soils of this site. As the young stand matures and eventually enters the stem exclusion stage (crown or canopy closure), the developing stand may be comprised of American elm, sugarberry, green ash, sweetgum, Drummond’s maple, and eastern cottonwood as a minor or secondary component. Oaks that may occur include overcup, willow, and Nuttall. Problematic non-native species that may occur include Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and possibly Callery pear (Pyrus calleryana). Vines in the young, developing stand may include greenbrier (Smilax spp.), eastern poison ivy, trumpet creeper, grape, Virginia creeper, peppervine, and American buckwheat vine. As the stand matures decades into the future and the overstory stratifies (i.e., the understory reinitiation stage), shade tolerant species may dominate the stand.

Community 7.2
Afforestation

This community phase is representative of areas planted in tree species that are suited for and favored in management on this ecological site. Preparation of this phase may be initiated immediately following a former land use activity (e.g., State 4) or it may be started following a fallow period (Community Phase 7.1). If afforestation is initiated immediately following years of conventional tillage without soil-site preparation and improvement efforts, potential productivity of the targeted area could be less than optimal (Baker and Broadfoot, 1979; Groninger et al., 1999; Gardiner et al., 2002). Groninger et al. (1999) utilized the Baker and Broadfoot (1979) model for site evaluation to predict potential productivity of green ash, Nuttall oak, American sycamore, sweetgum, swamp chestnut oak, water oak, and cottonwood on what they termed “marginal soybean lands.” These are croplands occurring on frequently flooded areas that typically produce low soybean yields under conventional tillage. Soils associated with these areas are generally poorly drained, clayey, and typically classified as hydric. The two soil series of this site, Sharkey and Alligator soils, were included for evaluation. Based on information presented in Groninger et al. (1999), site index predictions on soils that had undergone extensive conventional tillage ranged 6 to 20 percent lower than what are reported in Broadfoot (1976) for green ash, Nuttall oak, American sycamore, sweetgum, swamp chestnut oak, and water oak. Comparing the Baker and Broadfoot (1979) estimated site index values of former conventional tilled cropland to the site index values generated from long established forestland are noteworthy (see Community Phase 1.1). The site index predictions in Groninger et al. assumes that no soil-site improvement actions were undertaken. (Note that site index is the height in feet of select tree species at 50 years of growth except for eastern cottonwood which is height in 30 years of growth.) Over the years, various afforestation innovations have increased the likelihood of success in addition to soil-site amelioration such as planting large, high-quality seedlings with well-developed root systems in an appropriate cover crop (Dey et al., 2010); interplanting seedlings within a fast-growing pioneer species nurse crop (e.g., cottonwood) (Gardiner et al., 2001); and planting companionable species combinations for mixed species stands (Lockhart et al., 2008). The cover crop and nurse crop approaches reportedly help to control rapid overtopping and crowding by competing vegetation and wildlife herbivory (Dey et al., 2010). Finding the appropriate strategy for a given location requires matching the species to the local hydrologic and soil-site environment; determining short- and long-term objectives and goals; and implementing the appropriate management actions at the required intervals. Several species that frequently occur and are favored in management are likely appropriate for planting on this ecological site. Broadfoot (1976) listed green ash, Nuttall oak, willow oak, sweetgum, and possibly American sycamore as species suitable for planting. The desirability and importance for establishing oaks have prompted many to attempt plantings on sites that were not conducive to oak production. Some of these former attempts likely targeted high pH soils (i.e., nonacid or alkaline) or species selections that were site incompatible (Mike Oliver, personal communication). Broadfoot warned against planting oaks on locations where soil reactions are pH 7.5 or higher and against planting hardwoods at all in areas that remain “waterlogged” for one or more growing seasons. If oaks are planted on this site, plant competition will likely dictate the need for scheduled competitor control efforts that should not be delayed or postponed.

Dominant plant species

green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tree
Nuttall oak (Quercus texana), tree
willow oak (Quercus phellos), tree
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tree
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), tree

Pathway 7.1A
Community 7.1 to 7.2

Remove undesirable competitors; final soil preparation; establish site-appropriate species (favored in management and suitable for planting).

State 8
Conservation (Herbaceous)

This state is representative of the range of conservation actions that may be implemented and established on this ecological site. Apart from planting trees and managing for forest, one may elect to establish native herbaceous species and manage for predominantly a native grassland; a complex mixture of native grasses and forbs; or a pollinator planting whereby native forbs dominate the mix. In each of these options, it is strongly advised (possibly a programmatic requirement) that the species comprising the planting or seed mix consist of spring, summer, and fall flowering species. Depending on goals and objectives, various conservation programs and practices may be available. For additional information and assistance, please contact or visit the local NRCS Field Office.

Community 8.1
Pollinator Planting/Native Grasses

This community phase represents the establishment of native forbs or wildflowers for pollinator habitat or native grasses. The seed mix for planting may be quite varied depending on objectives and goals. Ideally, the mix includes a wide range of species that flower at various times of the growing season (spring, summer, and fall). Plant species in some pollinator mixes may include but are not limited to beebalm (Monarda spp.), milkweeds (Asclepias spp.), beardtongue (Penstemon spp.), vervain (Verbena spp.), various legumes such as native lespedeza (Lespedeza spp.), Illinois bundleflower (Desmanthus illinoensis), partridge pea (Chamaecrista fasciculata), and a broad assortment of composites such as asters (Symphyotrichum spp.), tickseed (Coreopsis spp.), blazing star (Liatris spp.), coneflower (Rudbeckia spp.), sunflower (Helianthus spp.) among many others. If goals and objectives are to establish native grasses within a forb mix or in a grass-dominant stand, species suitable for planting may include switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), eastern gamagrass (Tripsacum dactyloides), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) and Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans). Of caution, if eastern gamagrass is chosen to be planted, soil pH must be below 8.0 as the species’ productivity falters under alkaline conditions (Henson, 2012). Key to the establishment of this phase is initial preparation, seeding rate, planting period, follow-up treatment, and maintenance of the planting. The selection of species to establish on any given area may ultimately depend on size and conditions of the location where the planting will occur, landowner/manager goals and objectives, and the advice and knowledge of the conservation practitioner.

Transition T1A
State 1 to 2

Actions include construction of levees, water control structures established, water supply mechanisms developed, and an effective drainage and discharge system prepared.

Transition T1B
State 1 to 3

Stand composition is heavily altered and managed to favor select species for production (Community Phase 3.1). This transitional pathway also includes heavy timber cutting and/or repeated partial harvests (high-grading) leading to Community Phase 3.2.

Transition T1C
State 1 to 4

Actions include mechanical removal of vegetation and stumps; herbicide treatment of residual plants; and preparation for cultivation.

Transition T1D
State 1 to 6

Actions include mechanical removal of vegetation and stumps; herbicide treatment of residual plants; seedbed preparation; and establishment of desired forage.

Transition T2A
State 2 to 1

Return to or mimic natural flood periodicities and hydroperiods; conduct timber stand improvement practices and vegetation controls; restore and regenerate species that were formerly impacted; may require removal of levees and water control structures and restoring the natural hydrology if drainage ditches were constructed.

Transition T2B
State 2 to 3

Conduct timber stand improvement practices and vegetation controls; restore and regenerate desired commercial species that were formerly impacted; may require removal of levees and obstructions that contribute to prolonged flooding and ponding.

Transition T2C
State 2 to 4

Actions include mechanical removal of vegetation and stumps and control of residual plants; remove or modify preexisting structures to control flooding/ponding; and preparation for cultivation.

Transition T2D
State 2 to 6

Actions include mechanical removal of vegetation and stumps and control residual plants; remove or modify preexisting structures to control flooding/ponding; seedbed preparation; and establishment of desired forage.

Transition T3A
State 3 to 1

This transition represents a return to perceived reference conditions and involves the reestablishment of missing species; the control or removal of exotic species (herbicide and mechanical); stand improvement practices that favors a return of more shade intolerant components.

Transition T3B
State 3 to 2

Actions include construction of levees, water control structures established, water supply mechanisms developed, and an effective drainage and discharge system prepared.

Transition T3C
State 3 to 4

Actions include mechanical removal of vegetation and stumps; herbicide treatment of residual plants; and preparation for cultivation.

Transition T3D
State 3 to 6

Actions include mechanical removal of vegetation and stumps; herbicide treatment of residual plants; seedbed preparation; and establishment of desired forage.

Transition T4A
State 4 to 5

Precision land leveling

Transition T4B
State 4 to 6

Vegetation removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing.

Transition T4C
State 4 to 7

Natural succession (Community 7.1) or prep area (plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.); planting species appropriate for site (Community 7.2).

Transition T4D
State 4 to 8

Establish select native species suitable for site; prep area for planting (herbicide and/or mechanical).

Transition T6A
State 6 to 4

Actions include mechanical removal of vegetation; herbicide treatment of residual plants; and preparation for cultivation.

Transition T6B
State 6 to 7

Natural succession (Community 7.1) or prepare area (e.g., plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.) for planting tree species appropriate for site (Afforestation - Community 7.2).

Transition T6C
State 6 to 8

Establish select native species suitable for site and prepare area for planting (herbicide and/or mechanical).

Transition T7A
State 7 to 4

Cropland establishment: vegetation removal (mechanical/chemical) and preparation for cultivation.

Transition T7B
State 7 to 6

Mechanical removal of vegetation and stumps; herbicide treatment of residual plants; establish desired forage species and manage for grazing.

Transition T8A
State 8 to 4

Vegetation removal (mechanical/chemical) and preparation for cultivation.

Transition T8B
State 8 to 6

Establish desired forage species and manage for grazing.

Transition T8C
State 8 to 7

Natural succession (Community 7.1) or prepare area (e.g., plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.) for planting tree species appropriate for site (Afforestation - Community 7.2).

Additional community tables

Supporting information

Inventory data references

The information provided on the states and community phases in this provisional description report were generated from literature reviews, conversations with technical specialists, and limited personal observations and experience on this soil-site environment. Intensive vegetation inventories were not conducted during the development of this provisional report. Those tasks will occur during future phases of ecological site development.

Other references

Allen, J.A. 1990. Establishment of bottomland oak plantations on the Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 14(4): 206-210.

Allen, J.A. 1997. Reforestation of bottomland hardwoods and the issue of woody species diversity. Restoration Ecology 5(2): 125-134.

Aslan, A. and W.J. Autin. 1999. Evolution of the Holocene Mississippi River floodplain, Ferriday, Louisiana: Insights on the origin of fine-grained floodplains. Journal of Sedimentary Research 69: 800-815.

Autin, W.J., S.F. Burns, B.J. Miller, R.T. Saucier, and J.I. Snead. 1991. Quaternary geology of the Lower Mississippi Valley. p. 547-582. In R.B. Morrison (Editor). Quaternary Nonglacial Geology: Conterminous U.S. Geological Society of America. The Geology of North America, Volume K-2. Boulder, CO.

Baker, J.B. and W.M. Broadfoot. 1979. A practical field method of site evaluation for commercially important southern hardwoods. General Technical Report SO-26. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA. 51p.

Battaglia, L.L., J.R. Keough, and D.W. Pritchett. 1995. Early secondary succession in a southeastern U.S. alluvial floodplain. Journal of Vegetation Science 6(6): 769-776.

Battaglia, L.L., P.R. Minchin, and D.W. Pritchett. 2002. Sixteen years of old-field succession and reestablishment of a bottomland hardwood forest in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Wetlands 22(1): 1-17.

Berkowitz, J.F., D.R. Johnson, and J.J. Price. 2020. Forested wetland hydrology in a large Mississippi River tributary system. Wetlands 40: 1133-1148.

Blum, M.D., M.J. Guccione, D.A. Wysocki, P.C. Robnett, and M. Rutledge. 2000. Late Pleistocene evolution of the Lower Mississippi Valley, southern Missouri to Arkansas. Geological Society of America Bulletin 112: 221-235.

Broadfoot, W.M. 1976. Hardwood suitability for and properties of important Midsouth soils. Research Paper SO-127. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA. 84 p.

Broadfoot, W.M. and J.S. McKnight. 1961. Soil suitability for hardwoods in the Mississippi Delta. Information Sheet 716. Agriculture Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, State College, Mississippi. Delta Branch Experiment Station, Stoneville, MS. 2 p.

Bruce, R.R., W.A. Raney, W.M. Broadfoot, and H.B. Vanderford. 1958. Physical, chemical, and mineralogical characteristics of important Mississippi soils. Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 45. Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS. 36 p.

Brye, K.R., N.A. Slaton, M.C. Savin, R.J. Norman, and D.M. Miller. 2003. Short-term effects of land leveling on soil physical properties and microbial biomass. Soil Science Society of America Journal 67: 1405-1417.

Brye, K.R., N.A. Slaton, and R.J. Norman. 2006. Soil physical and biological properties as affected by land leveling in a clayey Aquert. Soil Science Society of America Journal 70: 631-642.

Castilla, R.A. and F.A. Audemard. 2007. Sand blows as a potential tool for magnitude estimation of pre-instrumental earthquakes. Journal of Seismology 11(4): 473-487.

Chapman, S.S., J.M. Omernik, G.E. Griffith, W.A. Schroeder, T.A. Nigh, and T.F. Wilton. 2002. Ecoregions of Iowa and Missouri (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,800,000).

Chessman, D., B.N. Moebius-Clune, B.R. Smith, and B. Fisher. 2019. The basics of addressing resource concerns with conservation practices within integrated soil health management systems on cropland. Soil Health Technical Note No. 450-04. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available: https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=44340.wba (Accessed: 9 September 2020).

Clatterbuck, W.K. and J.S. Meadows. 1993. Regenerating oaks in the bottomlands. p: 184-195. In: D.L. Loftis and C.E. McGee (Editors). Oak Regeneration: Serious Problems, Practical Recommendations. Symposium Proceedings, 8-10 September 1992, Knoxville, TN. General Technical Report SE-84. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC.

Cleland, D.T., J.A. Freeouf, J.E. Keys, G.J. Nowacki, C.A. Carpenter, and W.H. McNab. 2007. Ecological Subregions: Sections and Subsections for the conterminous United States. General Technical Report WO-76D, Map on CD-ROM (A.M. Sloan, cartographer). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. presentation scale 1:3,500,000; colored.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS 79/31. 103p.

Devall, M.S. and P.F. Ramp. 1992. U.S. Forest Service Research Natural Areas and protection of old growth in the South. Natural Areas Journal 12(2): 75-85.

Dey, D.C., E.S. Gardiner, J.M. Kabrick, J.A. Stanturf, and D.F. Jacobs. 2010. Innovations in afforestation of agricultural bottomlands to restore native forests in the eastern USA. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 25(S8): 31-42.

Elliott, D.O. 1932. The Improvement of the Lower Mississippi River for Flood Control and Navigation. Volume 1. U.S. Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Ervin, G.N., L.C. Majure, and J.T. Bried. 2006. Influence of long-term greentree reservoir impoundment on stand structure, species composition, and hydrophytic indicators. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 133(3): 468-481.

Eyre, F.H. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 p.

Flinn, K.M. and M. Vellend. 2005. Recovery of forest plant communities in post-agricultural landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3(5): 243-250.

Francis, J.K. 1983. Acorn production and tree growth of Nuttall oak in a greentree reservoir. Research Note SO-289. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA.

Fredrickson, L.H. 2005. Greentree reservoir management: Implications of historic practices and contemporary considerations to maintain habitat values. p. 479-486. In: L.H. Fredrickson, S.L. King, and R.M. Kaminski (Editors). Ecology and Management of Bottomland Hardwood Ecosystems: The State of Our Understanding. University of Missouri-Columbia. Gaylord Memorial Laboratory Special Publication No. 10. Puxico, MO.

Fredrickson, L.H. and D. Batema. 1992. Greentree Reservoir Management Handbook. Wetland Management Series 1. Gaylord Memorial Laboratory, Puxico, MO. 88 p.

Fuller, M.L. 1912. The New Madrid Earthquake. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 494. 120 p.

Gardiner, E.S. and J.M. Oliver. 2005. Restoration of bottomland hardwood forests in Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, U.S.A. p. 235-251. In: J.A. Stanturf and P. Madsen (Editors). Restoration of Boreal and Temperate Forests. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Gardiner, E.S., D.R. Russell, M. Oliver, and L.C. Dorris, Jr. 2002. Bottomland hardwood afforestation: state of the art. p. 75-86. In: M.M. Holland, M.L. Warren, and J.A. Stanturf (Editors). Proceedings of a conference on sustainability of wetlands and water resources: how well can riverine wetlands continue to support society into the 21st century? General Technical Report SRS-50. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC.

Gardiner, E.S., C.J. Schweitzer, and J.A. Stanturf. 2001. Photosynthesis of Nuttall oak (Quercus nuttallii Palm.) seedlings interplanted beneath an eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides Bartr. ex Marsh.) nurse crop. Forest Ecology and Management 149: 283-294.

Goelz, J.C.G. 2001. Survival and growth of individual trees in mixed-species plantations of bottomland hardwoods on 2 Mississippi Delta soil types. Native Plants Journal 2(1): 98-104.

Green, Jonathan D., W.W. Witt, and J.R. Martin. 2006. Weed management in grass pastures, hayfields, and other farmstead sites. University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service, Publication AGR-172.

Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, S. Azevedo. 1998. Ecoregions of Tennessee (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, VA., U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,000,000).

Groninger, J.W. 2005. Increasing the impact of bottomland hardwood afforestation. Journal of Forestry 103(4): 184-188.

Groninger, J.W., M.W. Aust, M. Miwa, and J.A. Stanturf. 1999. Tree species-soil relationships on marginal soybean lands in the Mississippi Delta. p. 205-209. In: J.D. Haywood (Editor). Proceedings of the Tenth Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, Shreveport, LA. General Technical Report SRS-30. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC. 632 p.

Head, M.J. 2019. Formal subdivision of the Quaternary System/Period: Present status and future directions. Quaternary International 500: 32-51.

Heitmeyer, M., T. Foti, R. Willey, M. Hooks, L. Naylor, and J. Jackson. 2024. Re-evaluation of ecological characteristics and management recommendations for the George H. Dunklin, Jr. Bayou Meto Wildlife Management Area. Unpublished report prepared for Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Little Rock, AR by Greenbrier Wetland Services, Bloomfield, MO. 97 p.

Henson, J.F. 2012. Plant Guide for eastern gamagrass (Tripsacum dactyloides). USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70803.

Hertlein, D.M. and R.J. Gates. 2005. Condition, species composition, and oak regeneration at Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir in southern Illinois. p. 495-508. In: L.H. Fredrickson, S.L. King, and R.M. Kaminski (Editors). Ecology and Management of Bottomland Hardwood Ecosystems: The State of Our Understanding. University of Missouri-Columbia. Gaylord Memorial Laboratory Special Publication No. 10. Puxico, MO.

Hodges, J.D. 1995. The southern bottomland hardwood region and brown loam bluffs subregion. p. 227-269. In: J.W. Barrett (Editor). Regional Silviculture of the United States. Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 643 p.

Hodges, J.D. 1997. Development and ecology of bottomland hardwood sites. Forest Ecology and Management 90: 117-125.

Houck, M., 2009. Plant fact sheet for bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flüggé). USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Louisiana State Office, Alexandria, Louisiana 71302.

Johnson, R.L. and F.W. Shropshire. 1983. Bottomland Hardwoods. p. 175-179. In: R.M. Burns (Editor). Silvicultural Systems for the Major Forest Types of the United States. Agricultural Handbook 445. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC.

Klimas, C.V., E.O. Murray, J. Pagan, H. Langston, and T. Foti. 2011b. A Regional Guidebook for Applying the Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Assessing Functions of Forested Wetlands in the Delta Region of Arkansas, Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley, Version 2.0. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program, ERDC/EL TR-11-12.

Klimas, C., J. Pagan, T. Foti., and B.E. Tirpak. 2011a. Potential Natural Vegetation of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: Yazoo Basin, Mississippi. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture. Vicksburg, MS.

Klimas, C., T. Foti, J. Pagan, E. Murray, and M. Williamson. 2012. Potential Natural Vegetation of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: Western Lowlands, Arkansas, Field Atlas. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program, ERDC/EL TR-12-27.

Klimas, C., T. Foti, J. Pagan, and M. Williamson. 2013. Potential Natural Vegetation of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: St. Francis Basin, Arkansas, Field Atlas. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program, ERDC/EL TR-12-23.

Lentz, G.H. 1931. The forest survey in the bottomland hardwoods of the Mississippi Delta. Journal of Forestry 29(7): 1046-1059.

Lockhart, B.R., E. Gardiner, T. Leininger, and J. Stanturf. 2008. A stand-development approach to oak afforestation in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 32(3): 120-129.

Meadows, J.S. and J.A. Stanturf. 1997. Silvicultural systems for southern bottomland hardwoods. Forest Ecology and Management 90: 127-140.

Moore, N.R. 1972. Improvement of the Lower Mississippi River and Tributaries 1931-1972. Mississippi River Commission, Vicksburg, MS.

NatureServe. 2020. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available: http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: 21 July 2020).

Newling, C.J. 1981. Ecological investigation of a greentree reservoir in the Delta National Forest, Mississippi. Miscellaneous Paper EL-81-5, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Oliver, C.D., E.C. Burkhardt, and D.A. Skojac. 2005. The increasing scarcity of red oaks in Mississippi River floodplain forests: influence of the residual overstory. Forest Ecology and Management 210: 393-414.

Oliver, J.M. personal communication. Forester (Retired), USDA National Resource Conservation Service, Nashville, TN.

Pringle, H.C., III, L. Falconer, D.K. Fisher, and L.J. Krutz. 2017. Initiation of furrow irrigation in corn on a Dundee/Forestdale silty clay loam soil with and without deep tillage. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 33(2): 205-216.

Putnam, J.A. 1951. Management of Bottomland Hardwoods. Occasional Paper 116. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA.

Putnam, J.A. and H. Bull. 1932. The Trees of the Bottomlands of the Mississippi River Delta Region. Occasional Paper 27. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA.

Putnam, J.A. and J.S. McKnight. 1949. Depleted bottomland hardwoods make quick comeback. The Southern Lumberman 179: 143-146.

Putnam, J.A., G.M. Furnival, and J.S. McKnight. 1960. Management and inventory of southern hardwoods. Agriculture Handbook Number 181. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 108 p.

Rhodes, G.N., Jr., G.K. Breeden, G. Bates, and S. McElroy. 2005. Hay crop and pasture weed management. University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service, Publication PB 1521-10M-6/05 (Rev). Available: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_agexfora/ (Accessed: 9 January 2024).

Rittenhour, T.M., M.D. Blum, and R.J. Goble. 2007. Fluvial evolution of the Lower Mississippi River Valley during the last 100 k.y. glacial cycle: Response to glaciation and sea-level change. Geological Society of America Bulletin 119: 586-608.

Saucier, R.T. 1994. Geomorphology and Quaternary geologic history of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Volumes I (report) and II (map folio). U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Schlaegel, B.E. 1984. Long-term artificial annual flooding reduces Nuttall oak bole growth. Research Note SO-309. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA.

Shen, Z., T.E. Tornqvist, W.J. Autin, Z.R.P. Mateo, K.M. Straub, and B. Mauz. 2012. Rapid and widespread response of the Lower Mississippi River to eustatic forcing during the last glacial-interglacial cycle. Geological Society of America Bulletin 124: 690-704.

Smith, R.D. and C. Klimas. 2002. A regional guidebook for applying the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions of selected regional wetland subclasses, Yazoo Basin, Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley. ERDC/EL TR-02-4, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.

Smith, F.L. and R.T. Saucier. 1971. Geological investigation of the Western Lowlands area, Lower Mississippi Valley. Technical Report S-71-5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Snipes, C.E., S.P. Nichols, D.H. Poston, T.W. Walker, L.P. Evans, and H.R. Robinson. 2005. Current agricultural practices of the Mississippi Delta. Bulletin 1143. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS.

Stanturf, J.A., S.H. Schoenholtz, C.J. Schweitzer, and J.P. Shepard. 2001. Achieving restoration success: myths in bottomland hardwood forests. Restoration Ecology 9(2): 189-200.

Stevens, G. and H. Krusekopf. 2020. Delta soils of Southeast Missouri. Publication No. G9011. University of Missouri Extension, Columbia, MO. Available: https://extension.missouri.edu/publications/g9011 (Accessed: 21 February 2021).

[USACE] United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2017. The Mississippi Drainage Basin. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District Website. Available: https://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/Missions/Mississippi-River-Flood-Control/Mississippi-River-Tributaries/Mississippi-Drainage-Basin/ (Accessed: 2017).

[USDA-NRCS] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2004. Soil Survey of Fulton County, Kentucky. 382 p. Available: https://archive.org/details/fultonKY2004 (Accessed: 17 May 2017).

[USDA-NRCS] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006a. 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.

[USDA-NRCS] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006b. Soil Survey of Leflore County, Mississippi. 281 p. Available: https://archive.org/details/usda-soil-survey-of-leflore-county-mississippi (Accessed: 13 August 2018).

[USDA-NRCS] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2022. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook 296.

[USDA-SCS] United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1990. Soil Survey of Lauderdale County, Tennessee. Available: http://https://archive.org/details/lauderdaleTN1990 (Accessed: 21 February 2012).

Walker, T.W., W.L. Kingery, J.E. Street, M.S. Cox, J.L. Oldham, P.D. Gerard, and F.X. Han. 2003. Rice yield and soil chemical properties as affected by precision land leveling in alluvial soils. Agronomy Journal 95: 1483-1488.

Wallace, D. personal communication. Forester and Ecologist (Retired), USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Columbia, MO.

Wigley, T.B., Jr. and T.H. Filer, Jr. 1989. Characteristics of greentree reservoirs: A survey of managers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 7: 136-142.

Wiken, Ed, F.J. Nava, and G. Griffith. 2011. North American Terrestrial Ecoregions – Level III. Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Montreal, Canada.

Winters, R.K., J.A. Putnam, and I.F. Eldredge. 1938. Forest resources of the North-Louisiana Delta. Miscellaneous Publication No. 309. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA.

Woods, A.J., T.L. Foti, S.S. Chapman, J.M. Omernik, J.A. Wise, E.O. Murray, W.L. Prior, J.B. Pagan, Jr., J.A. Comstock, and M. Radford. 2004. Ecoregions of Arkansas (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,000,000).

Woods, A.J., J.M. Omernik, W.H. Martin, G.J. Pond, W.M. Andrews, S.M. Call, J.A. Comstock, and D.D. Taylor. 2002. Ecoregions of Kentucky (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, VA., U.S. Geological Survey (map scale1:1,000,000).

Young-Mathews, A. 2013. Plant guide for crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum). USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Plant Materials Center, Corvallis, OR.

Contributors

Barry Hart
Rachel Stout Evans

Approval

Charles Stemmans, 6/10/2025

Acknowledgments

We are sincerely grateful to the MLRA 131A Technical Team for their assistance and input in the development of this report. Special recognition is owed to Tom Foti (Ecologist, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Retired) and Henry Langston (Wetland Ecologist, Arkansas Department of Transportation, Retired) for their time, personal travel expenses, and willingness to share their vast knowledge of the region. Their assistance with field reconnaissance, identifying sites and locations for investigating, and verifying ecological factors across multiple Mississippi River basins has led to a deeper understanding of the ecological sites and their associated states and community phases in the Southern Mississippi River Alluvium.

Rangeland health reference sheet

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health is a qualitative assessment protocol used to determine ecosystem condition based on benchmark characteristics described in the Reference Sheet. A suite of 17 (or more) indicators are typically considered in an assessment. The ecological site(s) representative of an assessment location must be known prior to applying the protocol and must be verified based on soils and climate. Current plant community cannot be used to identify the ecological site.

Author(s)/participant(s)
Contact for lead author
Date	06/10/2025
Approved by	Charles Stemmans
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:

Download reference sheet

Click on box and path labels to scroll to the respective text.

States 1, 6 and 2 (additional transitions)

1. Reference: Level Backswamp Forest

6. Pastureland/Grassland

2. Greentree Reservoir

States 4, 7 and 8 (additional transitions)

4. Cropland

7. Forest Recovery

8. Conservation (Herbaceous)

T1A	-	Construct levees; establish water control structures; develop water supply mechanisms; and prepare drainage system
T1B	-	Manipulate composition and manage for production (Community 3.1); heavy timber cutting or repeated partial harvests with no management (Community 3.2).
T1C	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation.
T1D	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing.
T2A	-	Return to natural flood dynamics; remove levees and water control structures; restore natural hydrology; conduct stand improvements; reestablish and regenerate missing or impacted species.
T2B	-	Conduct stand improvements; establish or regenerate desired commercial species; remove levees/obstructions that contribute to prolonged flooding or ponding.
T2C	-	Remove vegetation and stumps and control residual plants; remove or modify preexisting impoundment structures; prepare for cultivation
T2D	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); remove or modify preexisting impoundment structures; seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing
T3A	-	Reestablish missing species; control exotics (mechanical/chemical); timber stand improvement; natural stand dynamics
T3B	-	Construct levees; establish water control structures; develop water supply mechanisms; and prepare drainage system
T3C	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation
T3D	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing.
T4A	-	Precision land leveling
T4B	-	Vegetation removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing.
T4C	-	Natural succession (Community 7.1) or prep area (plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.); planting species appropriate for site (Community 7.2).
T4D	-	Establish select native species suitable for site; prep area for planting (herbicide and/or mechanical).
T6A	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation
T6B	-	Natural succession (Community 7.1) or prepare area (e.g., plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.) for planting tree species appropriate for site (Afforestation - Community 7.2).
T6C	-	Establish select native species suitable for site and prepare area for planting (herbicide and/or mechanical).
T7A	-	Vegetation removal (mechanical/chemical) and preparation for cultivation
T7B	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing
T8A	-	Vegetation removal (mechanical/chemical) and preparation for cultivation.
T8B	-	Establish desired forage species and manage for grazing.
T8C	-	Natural succession (Community 7.1) or prepare area (e.g., plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.) for planting tree species appropriate for site (Afforestation - Community 7.2).

State 1 submodel, plant communities

1.1. Overcup Oak - Water Hickory Floodplain Forest

State 2 submodel, plant communities

2.1. Seasonally Impounded Backswamp Forest

State 3 submodel, plant communities

3.1. Forest Management

3.2. Non-managed/High-graded

3.1A	-	Cessation of management followed by heavy cutting or repeated partial harvests
3.2A	-	Silvicultural treatments: removal of undesirable species; re-establish species favored in management; timber stand improvement; establish advance regeneration

State 4 submodel, plant communities

4.1. Conservation Management

4.2. Transitional Conservation Management

4.3. Conventional Management

4.1A	-	Soil disturbance (tillage); reduction of soil health.
4.1B	-	Conventional tillage, seeding, and fertility management for crops.
4.2A	-	No-till, cover crops, reduced till-soil health improvements.
4.2B	-	Conventional tillage, seeding, and fertility management for crops.
4.3A	-	Reduced till, no-till, and cover crops with soil health improvements as a goal.

State 5 submodel, plant communities

5.1. Land Leveled Cropland

State 6 submodel, plant communities

6.1. Monoculture Grassland

6.2. Mixed Species System

6.3. Mixed Species, Non-seeded

6.4. Early Woody Succession

6.1A	-	Seeding and/or management for desired species composition.
6.1B	-	Species management without overseeding.
6.2A	-	Seeding, fertilizing, management/removal of undesirable species.
6.2B	-	Species management without overseeding.
6.3A	-	Seeding, fertilizing, management/removal of undesirable species.
6.3B	-	Seeding and/or management for desired species composition.
6.3C	-	Lack of disturbance; no (or infrequent) mowing, herbivory, or brush management; natural succession of woody species.
6.4A	-	Brush management/removal of unwanted species.

State 7 submodel, plant communities

7.1. Ruderal/Opportunistic Regrowth

7.2. Afforestation

7.1A	-	Remove undesirable competitors; final soil preparation; establish site-appropriate species (favored in management and suitable for planting).

State 8 submodel, plant communities

8.1. Pollinator Planting/Native Grasses

Search

Natural ResourcesConservation Service

Ecological site F131AY201AR

St. Francis - Wet Clayey Backswamp Flat

Last updated: 6/10/2025 Accessed: 10/19/2025

General information

MLRA notes

LRU notes

Classification relationships

Ecological site concept

Associated sites

Similar sites

Figure 1. F131AY201AR distribution.

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Ecosystem states

States 1, 6 and 2 (additional transitions)

Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Last updated: 6/10/2025
Accessed: 10/19/2025