Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Ecological site F131AY213AR

St. Francis - Recent Moderately Wet Natural Levee and Meander Scroll Forest

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

Home / Esd catalog / MLRA 131A / Ecological site F131AY213AR

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 St. Francis Basin.

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 (Saucier, 1994).

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; epoch 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 River, Tyronza River, and Pemiscot Bayou. 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; (Griffith et al., 1998; Chapman et al., 2002; Woods et al., 2002; Woods et al., 2004; Wiken et al., 2011)
- Mississippi River High Floodplain (Bottomland), CES203.196 (NatureServe, 2020)
- The following are hydrogeomorphic subclass, geomorphic setting, and potential natural vegetation association that dominantly coincides to the soil polygons of this ecological site (developed by Klimas et al., 2013): F2, Well-drained recent alluvium in lowlands, Cherrybark Oak – Water Oak – Sweetgum; F4, Moderately drained lowlands, Sugarberry – Green Ash –American Elm.

Ecological site concept

The distribution of this ecological site is largely confined to the more recent meander belt of the Mississippi River and its distributaries. Within the meander belt environment, the site occupies positions intermediate to the higher, better drained areas and the lower, wetter toeslopes of recent natural levees and meander scroll ridges. Of note, these features occur on abandoned Mississippi River segments that were naturally separated from the main river channel before construction of the mainline levee system. This is a “flood protected” ecological site occurring on the protected side of the constructed levee. In addition to meander belts, the soils of this site are mapped locally along a few tributaries to the Mississippi River. This site consists of deep, moderately well drained to somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in recent silty and loamy alluvium. Depending on horizon and local conditions, soil reaction ranges from medium acid to moderately alkaline. Slopes range from 0 to 5 percent with some areas supporting a gently undulating topography. Natural vegetation of this site is often characterized as a riverfront association. Colonization of newly formed sites may begin with a heavy stocking of eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides) followed by the next successional stage, which may consist of American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), pecan (Carya illinoinensis), American elm (Ulmus americana), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), red maple (A. rubrum), and boxelder (A. negundo). As local sites age and mature, additional components such as sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and various oaks (Quercus spp.) may enter the community. Most areas, today, are cleared and under various forms of production.

Associated sites

F131AY208AR	St. Francis - Sandy Natural Levee and Meander Scroll Forest During major flood events, large crevasse splays (representing ecological site F131AY208AR) and heavy sand deposits can occur on and adjacent to the somewhat poorly drained soils of site F131AY213AR.
F131AY212AR	St. Francis - Recent Loamy Natural Levee and Meander Scroll Forest This ecological site occupies the higher and drier crests of natural levees and meander scroll ridges, which are upslope to the somewhat poorly drained soils of site F131AY213AR.
F131AY214AR	St. Francis - Recent Wet Natural Levee and Meander Scroll Forest This ecological site occupies the lower and wetter toeslopes and talfs of recent natural levees and meander scrolls, which are downslope to the somewhat poorly drained soils of site F131AY213AR.

F131AY208AR

St. Francis - Sandy Natural Levee and Meander Scroll Forest

During major flood events, large crevasse splays (representing ecological site F131AY208AR) and heavy sand deposits can occur on and adjacent to the somewhat poorly drained soils of site F131AY213AR.

F131AY212AR

St. Francis - Recent Loamy Natural Levee and Meander Scroll Forest

This ecological site occupies the higher and drier crests of natural levees and meander scroll ridges, which are upslope to the somewhat poorly drained soils of site F131AY213AR.

F131AY214AR

St. Francis - Recent Wet Natural Levee and Meander Scroll Forest

This ecological site occupies the lower and wetter toeslopes and talfs of recent natural levees and meander scrolls, which are downslope to the somewhat poorly drained soils of site F131AY213AR.

Similar sites

F131AY604MS	Batture - Frequently Flooded Moderately Wet Low Ridge Forest This site occupies similar positions and has similar drainage characteristics as F131AY213AR. The principal difference is that F131AY604MS is confined to the Batture, which is the active floodway of the current Mississippi River channel.
F131AY311MS	Yazoo - Recent Moderately Wet Natural Levee and Meander Scroll Ridge Forest This site occupies similar positions and has similar drainage characteristics as the F131AY213AR. The principal difference is that F131AY311MS occurs within the Yazoo Basin.
F131AY405LA	Tensas Basin - Somewhat Poorly Drained Bottomland Hardwoods This site occupies similar positions and has similar drainage characteristics as F131AY213AR. The principal difference is that F131AY405LA is situated in the Tensas Basin.
F131AY503LA	Delta Plain - Somewhat Poorly Drained Bottomland Hardwoods This site occupies similar positions and has similar drainage characteristics as F131AY213AR. The principal difference is that F131AY503LA is situated in the Delta Plain.

Figure 1. Distribution of F131AY213AR.

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Tree	Not specified
Shrub	Not specified
Herbaceous	Not specified

Download full description

Physiographic features

This ecological site is largely confined to the more recent meander belt of the Mississippi River. Within the meander belt environment, these very deep, moderately well drained and somewhat poorly drained soils occur between the dry crests and wet toeslopes of natural levees and on low, meander scroll ridges. These meander belt features occur on former Mississippi River segments that were naturally separated from the main river channel (via abandoned channels and courses) before construction of the extensive levee system along the east bank of the river. Therefore, the meander belt occurrences of this site are protected from flood influences and have been for nearly a century. The soils of this site are also mapped locally along a few tributaries to the Mississippi River. These locations are subject to flooding and likely continue to receive sediment deposition during flood events.

Figure 2. Recent meander belt catena. Commerce soils are representative of F131AY213AR.

Figure 3. Landscape view of Commerce soils and associated landforms with slight elevation differences, Desha County, AR.

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Landforms	(1) Meander belt > Natural levee > Rise (2) Meander belt > Meander scroll > Rise
Runoff class	Negligible to low
Flooding duration	Long (7 to 30 days)
Flooding frequency	None to frequent
Ponding frequency	None
Elevation	150 – 305 ft
Slope	2%
Water table depth	18 – 34 in
Aspect	Aspect is not a significant factor

Climatic features

Climate of the St. Francis Basin 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 49 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 24 and 47 degrees, respectively. The frost-free period from 1980 to 2010 averaged 181 days basin-wide and ranged from 162 days in the northernmost extent to 193 days in the south. Likewise, the freeze-free period averaged 215 days and ranged from 192 days in the north to 223 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)	177-186 days
Freeze-free period (characteristic range)	214-220 days
Precipitation total (characteristic range)	47-50 in
Frost-free period (actual range)	167-193 days
Freeze-free period (actual range)	200-223 days
Precipitation total (actual range)	46-52 in
Frost-free period (average)	181 days
Freeze-free period (average)	215 days
Precipitation total (average)	49 in

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 4. Monthly precipitation range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 5. Monthly minimum temperature range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 6. Monthly maximum temperature range

Bar

Line

Figure 7. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature

Figure 8. Annual precipitation pattern

Figure 9. Annual average temperature pattern

Climate stations used

(1) ADVANCE 1 S [USW00093825], Advance, MO
(2) CHARLESTON [USC00231540], Charleston, MO
(3) SIKESTON PWR STN [USC00237772], Sikeston, MO
(4) NEW MADRID [USC00236045], Hickman, MO
(5) MALDEN MUNI AP [USC00235207], Malden, MO
(6) PORTAGEVILLE [USC00236804], Portageville, MO
(7) KENNETT RADIO KBOA [USC00234417], Kennett, MO
(8) CARUTHERSVILLE [USC00231364], Caruthersville, MO
(9) PARAGOULD 1S [USC00035563], Paragould, AR
(10) BLYTHEVILLE MUNI AP [USW00053869], Blytheville, AR
(11) KEISER [USC00033821], Keiser, AR
(12) WEST MEMPHIS MUNI AP [USW00053959], Marion, AR

Influencing water features

This site occurs in a variety of alluvial plain situations that include mid-slope positions of recent natural levees and meander scroll ridges and the margins of active tributaries to the Mississippi River. The location or position of this site is generally high enough in elevation that hydric conditions are not supported. However, where these soils occur in transitional areas consisting of wetter, water-receiving locations (e.g., natural levee toe-slopes), hydric indicators may be present, both plant and soil characteristics. One soil component that can be problematic when attempting wetland determinations in some areas is the Commerce soil series. Caution should be exercised when attempting offsite wetland determinations.

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, moderately well and somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in recent silty, clayey, or loamy alkaline Mississippi River sediments. Slopes dominantly range from 0 to 3 percent; however, there are a few instances where slopes may range up to 8 percent. Depending on location, land use history, and soil horizon, reactions generally range from moderately acid to moderately alkaline. Soils provisionally correlated to this site include the Bruin, Commerce, Convent, and Phillipy series.

The Bruin (coarse-silty, mixed, superactive, thermic Oxyaquic Eutrudepts) series consists of moderately well drained soils that formed in fairly recent, alkaline silty alluvium. Solum thickness ranges from 18 to 40 inches. Aquic conditions occur within 24 inches (generally beginning at 16 inches) of the surface, and layers below 2.5 to 4 feet deep are wet for more than 30 cumulative days from December through March in most years under natural drainage. Permeability is moderate and there is less than 18 percent clay in the 10- to 40-inch control section. Reaction ranges from strongly acid through slightly alkaline in the upper layer and subsoil and slightly acid through moderately alkaline in all underlying layers. Slopes range from 0 to 3 percent. (Of note, Bruin soils were previously included in the Commerce series and, accordingly, were not mapped in soil surveys prior to 1970.)

The Commerce (fine-silty, mixed, superactive, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts) series consists of the dominant (modal) and most widely distributed soils of this ecological site. Commerce soils are somewhat poorly drained that formed in loamy alluvium. Solum thickness ranges from 20 to more than 80 inches. Where drainage is natural, aquic conditions occur within 20 inches of the surface, and the soils are saturated in layers below 1.5 to 4 feet from December through April in most years. Permeability is moderately slow, and there is 18 to 35 percent clay in the 10-to 40-inch control section. In some pedons, clayey strata (Bssg or Bg horizon) may occur below 50 inches and function as an aquitard, although saturated layers generally occur beneath the strata. Reaction ranges from medium acid to moderately alkaline in the upper layers, slightly acid to moderately alkaline in the cambic (Bw) horizons, and neutral to moderately alkaline in all underlying layers. Slopes range from 0 to 5 percent. (Of caution, one Commerce MLRA map unit has been joined with units throughout the Mississippi River corridor in Louisiana.)

The Convent (coarse-silty, mixed, superactive, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts) series consists of somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in recent loamy alluvium. Solum thickness ranges from 6 to 60 inches. The soil is saturated in all layers below depths of 1.5 to 4 feet from December through June in normal years. It stays saturated within a depth of 20 inches for periods of up to 1 month duration in normal years. Reaction ranges from moderately acid to moderately alkaline throughout. Many pedons have carbonates in some strata below a depth of 20 inches. Slopes range from 0 to 3 percent.

The Phillipy (clayey over loamy, smectitic over mixed, superactive, thermic Oxyaquic
Hapludolls) series consists of moderately well drained soil that formed in clayey and loamy alluvium. These soils formed in stratified alluvium that is clayey in the upper 1.5 to 2.5 feet and loamy in the underlying layers. Permeability of the clayey upper part is slow and moderate to moderately rapid in the underlying layers. Thickness of the solum is 24 to 48 inches. The mollic epipedon ranges from 14 to 23 inches in thickness. Depth to the contrasting loamy textures ranges from 18 to 30 inches. Reaction is moderately acid to neutral in the A and 2Bw horizons and moderately acid to slightly alkaline in the 2C horizon. A seasonal water table fluctuates between a depth of 2.0 and 4.0 feet during late winter and early spring. Slopes range from 0 to 5 percent. These soils constitute a very minor distribution in this ecological site.

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 10. Commerce profile, Washington County, MS.

Figure 11. Bruin profile, Washington County, MS.

Table 4. Representative soil features

Parent material	(1) Alluvium
Surface texture	(1) Loam (2) Silt loam (3) Silty clay loam (4) Very fine sandy loam
Drainage class	Somewhat poorly drained to moderately well drained
Permeability class	Moderately 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)	7.8 – 8.6 in
Calcium carbonate equivalent (Depth not specified)	3%
Electrical conductivity (Depth not specified)	Not specified
Sodium adsorption ratio (Depth not specified)	Not specified
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (Depth not specified)	5.8 – 8.2
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 (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.

This site was primarily created by recent alluvial deposits on levee and meander scroll ridges of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. These younger deposits are distinguished from their much older counterparts of long abandoned meander belts (see site ID: F131AY210AR) in having weak pedogenic horizon development and nonacid reactions. This soil-site environment has few limitations and is quite productive.

Plant communities that develop on this site undergo dramatic changes over time. When these soils are first deposited, early colonizers primarily consist of eastern cottonwood and black willow or sandbar willow, if associated with sandbars and accreting point bars (Eyre, 1980). Eastern cottonwood is capable of exceptional growth on these moist soils and often rapidly dominates the developing stand (Williamson, 1913). Broadfoot (1960) indicated that cottonwood can attain a height of 122 feet within 30 years of growth on this site. Stands can become very dense and the canopy nearly pure in composition, but the eastern cottonwood forest type (SAF Type No. 63; Eyre, 1980) is temporary on this site. The species does not tolerate competition from weeds, vines, and other woody species and cannot naturally regenerate itself due to extreme shade intolerance (Williamson, 1913; McKnight, 1969; Eyre, 1980; Hodges, 1995). Natural “break up” of cottonwood stands may begin as early as 35 years after establishing, and by year 85, stands are transitioning to the next successional community, the eastern riverfront forest association (Meadows and Nowacki, 1996).

Components of the eastern riverfront forest association often begin filtering into the cottonwood stand by occupying canopy gaps and becoming established beneath the light to moderate shade cast by the cottonwood canopy (Williamson, 1913; Johnson and Shropshire, 1983). The succeeding association is generally comprised of American sycamore, pecan, American elm, sugarberry, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), silver maple, red maple, and boxelder, although cottonwood may continue to persist as a minor component. Locations with older deposits may have proportionally more water oak (Quercus nigra) (Klimas et al., 2011a) in addition to sweetgum. The cover type generally recognized as representing the riverfront forest in the Mississippi River Valley is the American sycamore – pecan – American elm type, which is a variant of the American sycamore – sweetgum – American elm cover type (SAF Type No. 94; Eyre, 1980).

The eastern riverfront forest is reportedly an intermediate sere or successional stage between the pioneer eastern cottonwood type and a third succeeding forest type, the sweetgum – water oaks [water oak, willow oak (Q. phellos), Nuttall oak, (Q. texana)] type (Putnam et al., 1960). Sweetgum and water oaks begin to gradually invade the riverfront forest after about 80 years of it having replaced the initial cottonwood stand. Eventually, the sweetgum – water oaks type dominates and replaces the riverfront association in about 85 years after initial invasion. In all, 250 years may be required for the succession and transition of the initial cottonwood – willow colonization to the replacement of the riverfront forest by the sweetgum – water oaks type (Shelford, 1954; Meadows and Nowacki, 1996). Hodges (1997), however, offers an alternate scenario regarding the succession of the riverfront community. After persisting for 75 to 125 years, the riverfront association may then be replaced by either the American elm – green ash – sugarberry association or the red oak – sweetgum type. The pathway leading to either type ultimately depends on the occurrence and level of disturbance (e.g., a catastrophic stand replacing event) and the presence of advance regeneration within the stand prior to disturbance. In the absence of large-scale disturbances, the long-term trend favors the development of the shade tolerant American elm – green ash – sugarberry association, which is capable of self-replacement and can persist for 200 to 300 years (Hodges, 1997; Stanturf et al., 2001). It is unclear whether this level of succession has taken place on the recent soils of this site. Information from multiple sources suggest that the riverfront association may be the dominant forest type on this site (e.g., USDA-SCS, 1990; USDA-NRCS, 2004). Furthermore, repeated disturbances such as severe flooding and forest operations may promote persistence of the eastern riverfront association for many years (Sharitz and Mitsch, 1993; Meadows and Nowacki, 1996).

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

T1A	-	Manipulate composition and manage for production (Community 2.1); heavy timber cutting or repeated partial harvests with no management (Community 2.2).
T1B	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation.
T1C	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing.
T2A	-	Reestablish missing species; control exotics (mechanical/chemical); timber stand improvement; natural stand dynamics.
T2B	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation.
T2C	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing.
T3A	-	Precision land leveling.
T3B	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing.
T3C	-	Natural succession (Community 6.1) or prepare area (plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.) and plant species appropriate for site (Afforestation - Community 6.2).
T3D	-	Establish select native species suitable for site; prep area for planting (herbicide and/or mechanical).
T5A	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation.
T5B	-	Natural succession (Community 6.1) or prepare area (e.g., plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.) for planting tree species appropriate for site (Afforestation - Community 6.2).
T5C	-	Establish select native species suitable for site and prepare area for planting (herbicide and/or mechanical).
T6A	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation.
T6B	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing.
T7A	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation.
T7B	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing.
T7C	-	Natural succession (Community 6.1) or prepare area (e.g., plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.) for planting tree species appropriate for site (Afforestation - Community 6.2).

State 1 submodel, plant communities

1.1. Mixed Bottomland Hardwoods

State 2 submodel, plant communities

2.1. Forest Management

2.2. Non-managed/High-graded

2.1A	-	Cessation of management followed by heavy cutting or repeated partial harvests.
2.2A	-	Silvicultural treatments: removal of undesirable species; reestablish species favored in management; timber stand improvement; establish advance regeneration.

State 3 submodel, plant communities

3.1. Conservation Management

3.2. Transitional Conservation Management

3.3. Conventional Management

3.1A	-	Soil disturbance (tillage); reduction of soil health.
3.1B	-	Conventional tillage, seeding, and fertility management for crops.
3.2A	-	No-till, cover crops, reduced till-soil health improvements.
3.2B	-	Conventional tillage, seeding, and fertility management for crops.
3.3A	-	Reduced till, no-till, and cover crops with soil health improvements as a goal.

State 4 submodel, plant communities

4.1. Land Leveled Cropland

State 5 submodel, plant communities

5.1. Monoculture Grassland

5.2. Mixed Species System

5.3. Mixed Species, Non-seeded

5.4. Early Woody Succession

5.1A	-	Seeding and/or management for desired species composition.
5.1B	-	Species management without overseeding.
5.2A	-	Seeding, fertilizing, management/removal of undesirable species.
5.2B	-	Species management without overseeding.
5.3A	-	Seeding, fertilizing, management/removal of undesirable species.
5.3B	-	Seeding and/or management for desired species composition.
5.3C	-	Lack of disturbance; no (or infrequent) mowing, herbivory, or brush management; natural succession of woody species.
5.4A	-	Brush management/removal of unwanted species.

State 6 submodel, plant communities

6.1. Ruderal/Opportunistic Regrowth

6.2. Afforestation

6.1A	-	Remove undesirable competitors; final soil preparation; establish site-appropriate species (favored in management).

State 7 submodel, plant communities

7.1. Pollinator Planting/Native Grasses

State 1
Reference: Moist Riverfront Hardwoods

Removal of the historic natural communities of this site occurred long before thorough studies and investigations were conducted. Modifications to the natural hydroperiod 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 have yet to be confirmed, but they are perceived to consist of mature forest stands that support a diverse mix of southern bottomland hardwoods adapted to the moderately well to somewhat poorly drained soils of this site. Once assigned or identified, 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). The return or transition pathway from the altered states (currently, only State 2) 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
Mixed Bottomland Hardwoods

The reference community of this site may vary depending on the local environment. This site mainly includes backslopes and intermediate positions on protected natural levees and meander scrolls. Where the site occurs along active tributaries or stream systems, deposition may continue to occur during flood events. Plant composition and community structure along active stream systems may be strongly influenced by the amount of material deposited, when the last major deposition occurred, and pre-existing vegetation along the stream corridor or floodplain. Still, many of the same components of the abandoned meander belts will likely occur along stream corridors, although species composition and dominance patterns could vary locally. Following initial deposition, colonizing vegetation may be predominantly comprised of black willow and eastern cottonwood (Eyre, 1980). The latter typically assumes dominance on these productive soils and can attain an average height of 122 feet in 30 years of growth (Broadfoot, 1960). Such rapid growth often leads to dense stands that are almost entirely comprised of eastern cottonwood (Johnson and Shropshire, 1983; Meadows and Nowacki, 1996). Shelford (1954) documented associates in young developing cottonwood stands to include black willow in lower elevations and occasional American sycamore and a ground cover of trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans) and grape vines (Vitis spp.) co-occurring with cottonwood trees. As the cottonwood stand matures and natural break up begins, stands can become dense in the understory and midstory with components of the succeeding community, the American sycamore – pecan – American elm type. Associates of the latter may include sugarberry, green ash, silver maple, boxelder, river birch (Betula nigra), and red maple with occasional cottonwood stems persisting into the succeeding stand. In the north, pin oak (Quercus palustris) and common hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) are additional associates. Understory composition may be quite variable depending on the degree of canopy openings or overstory shade but may consist of seedlings and saplings of the preceding in addition to roughleaf dogwood (Cornus drummondii), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), grape, Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), peppervine (Nekemias arborea), American buckwheat vine (Brunnichia ovata), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), trumpet creeper, blackberry (Rubus sp.), Canadian woodnettle (Laportea canadensis), American pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), aster (Symphyotrichum spp.), wildrye (Elymus spp.), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and various species of sedges (Carex spp.) (Shelford, 1954; Eyre, 1980; Meadows and Nowacki, 1996; Nelson, 2005; Doug Wallace, personal communication). In areas with older deposits, additional species such as sweetgum and water oak may eventually become established (Klimas et al., 2011a). In northern areas of this site, forest components that may occur in later stages of development include bur oak (Q. macrocarpa), shellbark hickory (Carya laciniosa), and black walnut (Juglans nigra) (Doug Wallace, personal communication). There is indication that a third community, the sweetgum – water oaks (Meadows and Nowacki, 1996) or American elm – ash – sugarberry type, will eventually replace the American sycamore – pecan – American elm association (Eyre, 1980; Meadows and Nowacki, 1996; Hodges, 1997). This is a complex process that includes many different factors and many years to take place (Klimas et al., 2011a). It is unclear and unknown whether the latter transition has occurred to any degree on the more recent soils of this site. Because of the rapid growth and succession of the eastern cottonwood type, it is unknown if any exemplary stands persist on this protected site. However, Klimas et al. (2013) lists eastern cottonwood as being a dominant component among American sycamore and pecan on “well drained recent alluvium.” This suggests that eastern cottonwood may continue to be a very important component on this site in addition to associates of the American sycamore – pecan – American elm community. The representative reference community may be a combination of the two riverfront associations. Broadfoot (1976) provided the following list of species to favor in management and that occur frequently or occasionally on Commerce soils (site index ranges in parentheses; height in feet at 50 years except cottonwood which is 30 years): eastern cottonwood (105 to 125), American sycamore (100 to 120), sweetgum (95 to 115), green ash (75 to 95), and pecan (95 to 115). Of note, Broadfoot listed oaks as occasionally occurring but not to favor in management, presumably because these soils are often neutral to moderately alkaline – conditions that are generally unsuitable for “planting” oaks.

Dominant plant species

eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), tree
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), tree
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tree
pecan (Carya illinoinensis), tree
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tree
American elm (Ulmus americana), tree
sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), tree
silver maple (Acer saccharinum), tree
boxelder (Acer negundo), tree
red maple (Acer rubrum), tree
roughleaf dogwood (Cornus drummondii), shrub
possumhaw (Ilex decidua), shrub
eastern poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), shrub
grape (Vitis), shrub
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), shrub
peppervine (Nekemias arborea), shrub
American buckwheat vine (Brunnichia ovata), shrub
greenbrier (Smilax), shrub
trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), shrub
giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), shrub
sedge (Carex), grass
Canadian woodnettle (Laportea canadensis), other herbaceous
American pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), other herbaceous
aster (Symphyotrichum), other herbaceous
wildrye (Elymus), other herbaceous

State 2
Commercial Forestland

This state consists of two very different community phases and management approaches. Community Phase 2.1 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 2.2 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 may warrant elevation to a standalone state. This should be considered in future iterations of this site’s development.) This site is well suited for forest production with few limitations. The principal management concerns are equipment limitations and intense plant competition that could lead to seedling mortality (USDA-SCS, 1990; USDA-NRCS, 2004). 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, erosion, and helps to maintain productivity. 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 (State 1), only. Former land uses (alternate states) that result in altered conditions of the soil environment (e.g., land leveling) may deleteriously affect predicting and planning for species site selection, tree productivity, and possibly survival of the targeted species. State 6 (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 2.1
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 State 1 as “favored in management” are all production options on this site ranging from single species plantations to complex multi-species stands. Two major forest types potentially suited for this site are the eastern cottonwood and the American sycamore – pecan – American elm types. Eastern cottonwood is the fastest growing commercial forest species in eastern North America (Cooper and Van Haverbeke, 1990), and because of this attribute, it has been utilized in short pulpwood rotations (Cao and Durand, 1991) and in sawtimber operations (Johnson and Shropshire, 1983). Challenges to eastern cottonwood production are 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 reestablishing. The relatively “light shading” that its canopy produces permits invasion of shade tolerant species. Many such stands may have dense midstories and understories of American sycamore, pecan, green ash, sugarberry, American elm, boxelder, silver maple, and occasionally sweetgum (Johnson and Shropshire, 1983; Hodges, 1995; Meadows and Stanturf, 1997) – all associates of the American sycamore – pecan – American elm type. In general, mixed species stands of the latter will regenerate to the same canopy species with most any regeneration method. Uneven-aged approaches such as single-tree and small group selection harvests may favor proportionally more shade tolerant species (e.g., sugarberry and American elm), while even-aged methods such as seed-tree and clearcuts tend to benefit shade intolerant taxa like pecan, American sycamore, and sweetgum (Meadows and Stanturf, 1997).

Dominant plant species

eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), tree
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), tree
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tree
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tree
pecan (Carya illinoinensis), tree

Community 2.2
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 (i.e., 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, winged elm, boxelder, roughleaf dogwood, and possumhaw (Putnam et al., 1960).

Pathway 2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.2

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. This pathway also includes 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 2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1

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 3
Cropland

This state is representative of the dominant land use activity on this ecological site, agriculture production. The dominant crops grown on this site are cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), corn (Zea mays), soybeans (Glycine max) and small grains, mainly wheat (Triticum aestivum) (USDA-SCS, 1990; Snipes et al., 2005). Minor crops, such as some specialty crops (e.g., fruits, vegetables, and tree nuts such as pecans), may be grown locally. The soils of this site are well suited to agriculture production and produces some of the highest yielding crops in the Yazoo Basin (Snipes et al., 2005). Tilth is reportedly good, and a good seedbed can be prepared if the soil is worked under favorable moisture conditions. Both the available water capacity and natural fertility are high. These soils generally tested high in phosphorus and potassium and very little, if any, needs to be added to most crops. Likewise, agricultural lime typically is not needed due to soil reactions in the range of slightly acid to moderately alkaline (USDA-SCS, 1990). Management concerns are largely centered on seasonal high water tables, delayed plantings, soil compaction under equipment traffic, maintaining tilth, development of a plow pan, and moderate organic matter content (USDA-NRCS, 2004; Snipes et al., 2005). Snipes et al. (2005) emphasized that the organic matter content of the soils of this site typically range from 0.5 to 2.0 percent with most concentrations within to 0.9 to 1.5 percent range. Each of these factors could affect yields or impede optimum operation. Management measures to ameliorate some of these issues may include implementation of a drainage system or network in problematic areas; implementing a conservation tillage or management system; and subsoiling to breakup plow pans (USDA-NRCS, 2006b). 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 (3.1), Transitional Conservation Management (3.2), and Conventional Management (3.3). The three phases consist of varying tillage methods and approaches to soil health management systems.

Community 3.1
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 3.2
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 3.3
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 3.1). 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 3.1A
Community 3.1 to 3.2

Soil disturbance (tillage); reduction of soil health.

Pathway 3.1B
Community 3.1 to 3.3

Conventional tillage, seeding, and fertility management for crops.

Pathway 3.2A
Community 3.2 to 3.1

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

Pathway 3.2B
Community 3.2 to 3.3

Conventional tillage, seeding, and fertility management for crops.

Pathway 3.3A
Community 3.3 to 3.2

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

State 4
Land Formed Cropland

This gently sloping to undulating ecological site oftentimes adjoins nearly level to level 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 the drier and higher features of this site, 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 3 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 sandy soils of this ecological site, including surface and subsurface horizons, will have been redistributed as particles among other former soils.

Community 4.1
Land Leveled Cropland

Some of the crop species and management practices indicated and discussed in State 3 (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 5
Pastureland/Grassland

This state is representative of areas that have been converted to and maintained in pasture or grassland. The soils of this site consist of silty and loamy, nonacid soils with moderate to high available water capacity and deep rooting zone. These soils are considered well suited to most commonly grown forage species except bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) and crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum). Neither of these species responds well where soil reactions are above 6.5 (Houck, 2009; Young-Mathews, 2013). These soils can produce high forage yields when adequately fertilized and properly managed. Lime is not typically needed. Areas located along active tributaries may be subject to flooding. Given that this ecological site adjoins lower, wetter sites, some forage operations may utilize the higher elevations of this site as a protected area. This site may be suitable for the storage of harvested forage or holding of livestock when wet or flooded conditions occur on lower areas. 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 new seedings 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 5.1
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 highly 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). Tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus) is generally established 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 5.2
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
red clover (Trifolium pratense), other herbaceous

Community 5.3
Mixed Species, Non-seeded

This community is characterized by a mixture of native and naturalized non-native species. Forage is usually grazed and/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 5.4
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 6.1) of State 6. 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 5.1A
Community 5.1 to 5.2

Seeding and/or management for desired species composition.

Pathway 5.1B
Community 5.1 to 5.3

Species management without overseeding.

Pathway 5.2A
Community 5.2 to 5.1

Seeding, fertilizing, management/removal of undesirable species.

Pathway 5.2B
Community 5.2 to 5.3

Species management without overseeding.

Pathway 5.3A
Community 5.3 to 5.1

Seeding, fertilizing, management/removal of undesirable species.

Pathway 5.3B
Community 5.3 to 5.2

Seeding and/or management for desired species composition.

Pathway 5.3C
Community 5.3 to 5.4

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

Pathway 5.4A
Community 5.4 to 5.3

Brush management/removal of unwanted species.

State 6
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 6.1 represents natural colonization of tree and shrub species without management. Community Phase 6.2 is representative of intentional forest establishment by artificial regeneration or planting. For Community Phase 6.2, 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 6.1) 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 most likely 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 6.1
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 colonization by vegetation. 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, sycamore, 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 pecan 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), composition may include eastern cottonwood exclusively, if the stand began on bare mineral soils. Otherwise, the developing stand may be largely comprised of associates of the riverfront hardwoods including American sycamore, American elm, sugarberry, green ash, sweetgum, silver maple, boxelder, and eastern cottonwood as a secondary component. 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.

Dominant plant species

American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), tree
American elm (Ulmus americana), tree
sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), tree
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tree
silver maple (Acer saccharinum), tree
boxelder (Acer negundo), tree
eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), tree
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tree
eastern poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), shrub
trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), shrub
grape (Vitis), shrub
greenbrier (Smilax), shrub
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), shrub
peppervine (Nekemias arborea), shrub
American buckwheat vine (Brunnichia ovata), shrub

Community 6.2
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 landuse activity (e.g., State 3) or it may be started following a fallow period (Community Phase 6.1). 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). 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). A completely different approach must be taken if eastern cottonwood is the sole targeted species for planting. For eastern cottonwood, all potential competitors must be removed and the soil surface scarified via mechanical site preparation (Johnson and Shropshire, 1983; Hodges, 1995; Meadows and Stanturf, 1997). 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 (see State 1) are likely appropriate for planting on this ecological site. However, Broadfoot (1976) listed a much narrower group of riverfront hardwoods suitable for planting on Commerce soils and they are eastern cottonwood, American sycamore, sweetgum, and green ash. Expanding on this list are additional species that Broadfoot and McKnight (1961) estimated as being suitable for managing on these soils including pecan, cherrybark oak, and water oak. Of caution, the desirability and importance for establishing oaks has 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). Broadfoot (1976) warned against planting oaks on locations where soil reactions are pH 7.5 or higher. If oaks are planted on this site, intensive plant competition will likely dictate the need for scheduled competitor control efforts that cannot be delayed or postponed. If cherrybark oak is chosen to be planted, then targeted locations should be better drained than low-lying areas that remain wet for long periods. Selecting an area comprised of the moderately well drained Bruin soils may be a better choice than the wetter Commerce soils.

Dominant plant species

eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), tree
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), tree
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tree
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tree
pecan (Carya illinoinensis), tree
cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), tree
water oak (Quercus nigra), tree

Pathway 6.1A
Community 6.1 to 6.2

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

State 7
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 7.1
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

Stand composition is heavily altered and managed to favor select species for production (Community 2.1). This transitional pathway also includes heavy timber cutting and/or repeated partial harvests (high-grading) leading to Community 2.2.

Transition T1B
State 1 to 3

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

Transition T1C
State 1 to 5

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

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, although a return to the pioneer state of eastern cottonwood may not be feasible.

Transition T2B
State 2 to 3

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

Transition T2C
State 2 to 5

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

Transition T3A
State 3 to 4

Precision land leveling.

Transition T3B
State 3 to 5

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

Transition T3C
State 3 to 6

Natural succession (Community 6.1) or prep area (plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.); planting species appropriate for site (Community 6.2).

Transition T3D
State 3 to 7

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

Transition T5A
State 5 to 3

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

Transition T5B
State 5 to 6

Natural succession (Community 6.1) or prepare area (e.g., plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.) for planting tree species appropriate for site (Afforestation - Community 6.2).

Transition T5C
State 5 to 7

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

Transition T6A
State 6 to 3

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

Transition T6B
State 6 to 5

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

Transition T7A
State 7 to 3

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

Transition T7B
State 7 to 5

Establish desired forage species and manage for grazing.

Transition T7C
State 7 to 6

Natural succession (Community 6.1) or prepare area (e.g., plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.) for planting tree species appropriate for site (Afforestation - Community 6.2).

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. 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.

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. 1960. Field guide for evaluating cottonwood sites. USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Occasional Paper 178. 10 p.

Broadfoot, W.M. 1976. Hardwood suitability for and properties of important Midsouth soils. USDA Forest Service Research Paper SO-127. 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.

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.

Cao, Q.V. and K.M. Durand. 1991. Site index curves for eastern cottonwood plantations in the Lower Mississippi Delta. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 15(1): 28-30.

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).

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.

Cooper, D.T. and D.F. Van Haverbeke. 1990. Eastern cottonwood. p. 530-537. In: R.M. Burns and B.H. Honkala (Editors). Silvics of North America. Volume 2: Hardwoods. USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook 654. Washington, D.C.

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.

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.

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. USDA 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.

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. USDA 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.

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

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.

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. USDA 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, 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.

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.

McKnight, J.S. 1969. Ecology of four hardwood species. p. 99-116. In: N.E. Linnartz (Editor). The Ecology of Southern Forests. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Forestry Symposium. School of Forestry, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. Volume 1, Issue 16, Article 1. Available: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/pafs/vol1/iss16/1 (Accessed: 4 August 2023).

Meadows, J.S. and G.J. Nowacki. 1996. An old-growth definition for eastern riverfront forests. General Technical Report SRS-4. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 7 p.

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).

Nelson, P.W. 2005. The Terrestrial Natural Communities of Missouri. Revised Edition. Missouri Natural Areas Committee. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. 550 p.

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. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Occasional Paper 116.

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

Rhodes, G.N., Jr., G.K. Breeden, G. Bates, and S. McElroy. 2005. Hay crop and pasture weed management. University of Tennessee, UT Extension, Publication PB 1521-10M-6/05 (Rev). Available: https://extension.tennessee.edu/washington/Documents/hay_crop.pdf.

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.

Sharitz, R.R. and W.J. Mitsch. 1993. Chapter 8. Southern floodplain forests. p. 311-371. In: W.H. Martin, S.G. Boyce, and A.C. Echternacht (Editors). Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Lowland Terrestrial Communities. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY.

Shelford, V.E. 1954. Some Lower Mississippi Valley flood plain biotic communities; their age and elevation. Ecology 35(2): 126-142.

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.

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. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS. Bulletin 1143.

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 (Retired), USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Columbia, MO.

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

Williamson, A.W. 1913. Cottonwood in the Mississippi Valley. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bulletin No. 24. 62 p.

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.

Ecosystem states

1. Reference: Moist Riverfront Hardwoods

2. Commercial Forestland

3. Cropland

4. Land Formed Cropland

5. Pastureland/Grassland

6. Forest Recovery

7. Conservation (Herbaceous)

States 1, 5 and 2 (additional transitions)

1. Reference: Moist Riverfront Hardwoods

5. Pastureland/Grassland

2. Commercial Forestland

States 3 and 7 (additional transitions)

3. Cropland

7. Conservation (Herbaceous)

T1A	-	Manipulate composition and manage for production (Community 2.1); heavy timber cutting or repeated partial harvests with no management (Community 2.2).
T1B	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation.
T1C	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing.
T2A	-	Reestablish missing species; control exotics (mechanical/chemical); timber stand improvement; natural stand dynamics.
T2B	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation.
T2C	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing.
T3A	-	Precision land leveling.
T3B	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing.
T3C	-	Natural succession (Community 6.1) or prepare area (plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.) and plant species appropriate for site (Afforestation - Community 6.2).
T3D	-	Establish select native species suitable for site; prep area for planting (herbicide and/or mechanical).
T5A	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation.
T5B	-	Natural succession (Community 6.1) or prepare area (e.g., plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.) for planting tree species appropriate for site (Afforestation - Community 6.2).
T5C	-	Establish select native species suitable for site and prepare area for planting (herbicide and/or mechanical).
T6A	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation.
T6B	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing.
T7A	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); preparation for cultivation.
T7B	-	Vegetation/stump removal (mechanical/chemical); seedbed preparation; establishment of desired forage; manage for grazing.
T7C	-	Natural succession (Community 6.1) or prepare area (e.g., plow pan breakup, fertilizing, etc.) for planting tree species appropriate for site (Afforestation - Community 6.2).