Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Ecological site PX136X00X100

Mesic Temperature Regime, Flood Plain Forest, Very Wet

Last updated: 5/02/2025
Accessed: 05/19/2025

Home / Esd catalog / MLRA 136X / Ecological site PX136X00X100

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): 136X–Southern Piedmont

This MLRA is on a large piedmont underlain by metamorphic and igneous bedrock. It stretches from north-central Virginia to east-central Alabama, running parallel to the Appalachian highlands to the northwest and the Atlantic coast to the southeast.

MLRA 136 has only subtle climatic differences with MLRA 148 (Northern Piedmont), with which it shares a common geologic origin. This adjacent MLRA sits to the north. Along the fall line, it shares a boundary with MLRA 133A (Southern Coastal Plain), MLRA 137 (Carolina and Georgia Sand Hills), and 133C (Gulf Coastal Plain). Here, unconsolidated Coastal Plain sediments intersect the much older Piedmont bedrock. Along it's northwestern boundary, it sits adjacent to MLRAs 130B (Southern Blue Ridge), 130A (Northern Blue Ridge), and 128 (Southern Appalachian Ridges and Valleys). These MLRAs are distinguished from the Southern Piedmont by topographic and elevational differences, as well as differences in the age, origin, and degree of metamorphism of the underlying bedrock.

Five states are intersected by the MLRA, including North Carolina (29 percent), Georgia (27 percent), Virginia (20 percent), South Carolina (17 percent), and Alabama (7 percent). The MLRA extent makes up about 63,720 square miles (165,034 square kilometers).

MLRA PHYSIOGRAPHY
The landscape is generally rolling to hilly, with a well-defined drainage pattern. Streams have dissected the original Piedmont plateau, forming narrow ridgetops, somewhat broad interfluves, and short, steep side slopes adjacent to the streams and drainageways. With some exceptions, the valley floors are generally narrow and make up about 10 percent or less of the land area. The associated stream terraces are generally small and of minor extent.

The landscape is moderately dissected overall, with isolated erosional remnants (monadnocks) and other areas of high topographic relief interspersed. Over most of the MLRA, elevation ranges from approximately 325 to 1,315 feet (100 to 400 meters), with elevations generally increasing toward the Appalachian Highlands, in the upper Piedmont, and decreasing toward the Coastal Plain, in the lower Piedmont.

The major rivers that cross this area en route to the ocean include, from north to south, the James, Roanoke, Cape Fear, Savannah, Altamaha, Chattahoochee, and Alabama Rivers. These rivers typically originate within the Piedmont or in the Blue Ridge. They flow east and south across the Coastal Plain and empty into the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of America.

MLRA GEOLOGY
Precambrian and Paleozoic metamorphic and igneous rocks underlie almost all of this MLRA. The dominant metamorphic rock types include gneiss, schist, slate, argillite, and phyllite, among others. Dominant igneous rock types include granite and other related felsic crystalline rocks. Mafic intrusive rocks, including gabbro, diabase, amphibolite, and other dark colored rocks, underlie a minority of the upland landscape. These mafic intrusions crop out in the form of dikes and sills, and often weather to produce soils high in base cations.

The Carolina Slate Belt runs lengthwise through the east-central part of the MLRA, in southern Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and the eastern-most part of the Georgia Piedmont. This region is underlain by fine-grained metasedimentary and metavolcanic rock, which generally weathers to produce soils high in silt.

From Virginia to North Carolina, and in a single county in South Carolina, fault-bounded Triassic Basins are scattered amongst the igneous and metamorphic uplands. These basins are underlain by Triassic and Jurassic siltstone, shale, sandstone, and mudstone, which were laid down in response to continental rifting and subsequent erosion during the Mesozoic era.

MLRA SOILS
The dominant soil orders of the MLRA are Ultisols, Inceptisols, and Alfisols. Ultisols and Alfisols are typically found on more stable landforms, such as interfluves, gentle hillslopes, broad ridgetops, and stream terraces, while Inceptisols are typically found on less stable landforms, including flood plains, steep hillslopes, and narrow ridgetops.

Soils of the region predominantly have a thermic temperature regime, a udic moisture regime, and generally have kaolinitic or mixed mineralogy. In the upper Piedmont of Virginia and North Carolina however, soils have a mesic soil temperature regime, as depicted in figure 2. The mesic soil temperature regime portion of the MLRA is oriented from northeast to southwest and occupies approximately 18 percent of the MLRA extent, or 11,729 square miles (30,377 square kilometers).

Broadly speaking, soils of the Southern Piedmont uplands are shallow to very deep, well drained, and loamy or clayey. Soils of the river valleys are generally very deep, well to poorly drained, and loamy. Soils tend to be finer-textured than in Coastal Plain regions.

MLRA CLIMATE
In general, precipitation is evenly distributed throughout the year in this MLRA, with occasional drought-like conditions extending from late summer into autumn. During the growing season, most of the rainfall comes from high-intensity, convective thunderstorms. Significant moisture also comes from the movement of warm and cold fronts across the MLRA from November to April. High amounts of rain can also occur during hurricanes, usually during the months of August through October.

Over most of the MLRA, snowfall is typically light, though overall, the mesic soil temperature regime portion of the MLRA features colder temperatures, more snowfall, and a shorter growing season than in the thermic portion. The cooler climate in this region supports an increase in species with northern or Blue Ridge affinities. Both the mean annual temperature and the length of the freeze-free period increase from north to south and with decreasing elevation from the upper to the lower Piedmont.

MLRA LAND USE AND RESOURCES
Once largely cultivated, much of this region is now planted to loblolly pine or has reverted to successional pine and hardwood forests. The more productive lands support small to medium-size family farms that produce crops and livestock, while the less productive lands have been in forest for some time. Most of the open areas are used for grazing beef cattle, though in years past, dairy cattle were also important to the local economy. The principal crops of the region include corn, soybeans, and small grains. Burley tobacco remains a crop of local importance. Cotton is grown in the thermic soil temperature regime portion of the MLRA.

Several major land cover transformations have occurred in the Southern Piedmont over the past several centuries; from open woodlands sculpted by fire, to farmland, to closed forests and planted pine, past land uses have played an outsized role in shaping present-day soils and vegetation patterns in the region. Land-use intensity peaked with the arrival of the industrial revolution, which gradually increased demand for textiles. Cotton became the dominant crop over much of the region.

In spite of early successes, two centuries of poor management practices accelerated soil erosion, stripping away the fertility and moisture-supplying capacity of soils. In addition to soil losses in the uplands, legacy sediments derived from the eroded land rapidly accumulated in the river valleys below, often leading to changes in hydrology and flooding frequency.

After being stripped of it's loamy topsoil, many areas of the Piedmont had been so badly eroded as to render the land unsuitable or economically impractical for agriculture. The effects of erosion were widespread, with cumulative soil loss estimates ranging from 5 to 10 inches on average. The steeper slopes, which had often been cleared and farmed at the height of the Cotton era, generally suffered greater losses. By the 1930's, crop production was in rapid decline in the Southern Piedmont. The loss of soil productivity due to erosion, losses to the cotton boll weevil, development of synthetic fibers, and the onset of the Great Depression all contributed to rapid abandonment of cropland. By 1960, cropland acres had decreased by more than 50 percent in nearly every county in the Southern Piedmont.

While crop production is still important today on the more productive lands, those of lower productivity, or those that were subject to severe erosion, were often abandoned some time ago. Typically, they have either reverted to forest, or have been converted to other uses. Although the productivity of soils was greatly reduced through erosion, less intensive land uses such as grazing and forestry were still feasible. These land uses gained popularity as patterns of urban migration, low commodity prices, and other factors gradually made crop production less economical on the marginal lands.

In recent years, large-scale adoption of soil conservation practices have led to better outcomes with respect to erosion in much of MLRA, increasing the economic viability and long-term sustainability of Piedmont farms. Despite some success, water erosion remains one of the most important soil resource concerns in the MLRA.

Other major resource concerns include increasing conversion of prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance to urban uses. Throughout the MLRA, metropolitan areas are expanding into lands that have historically been used for timber or agriculture. This change in land use is occurring rapidly in the corridor called the Piedmont Crescent, which extends from Atlanta, Georgia, to Raleigh, North Carolina.

HISTORIC VEGETATION COVER
Over most of the Southern Piedmont uplands, the historic oak-hickory, or oak-hickory-pine forest, once covered large portions of the landscape. It was dominated by upland oaks, such as white oak (Quercus alba), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), and southern red oak (Quercus falcata), with a smaller contribution from hickories (Carya spp.) and pines. The principal pine species are shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and to the north and west, Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana). In the southernmost and easternmost portions of the MLRA, the historic montane longleaf pine forest, dominated by longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), shortleaf pine (P. echinata), and dry-site oaks, was found on ridgetops and steep south or west-facing slopes.

According to historic accounts, forests and woodlands of the past were generally more open and park-like, having been exposed to a more frequent fire regime. Piedmont prairies, likely maintained by Native Americans, were also reportedly common across the landscape, as were fire-maintained canebrakes along the streams (Trimble 1974; Daniels 1987; Griffith et al. 2002; Van Lear et al. 2004; Dearman and James 2019; Schomberg et al. 2020; USDA-NRCS 2022).

LRU notes

MLRA 136 is one of the largest MLRAs in the United States. It has a broad north-south and east-west extent and covers a wide range of elevations. The MLRA is partitioned by the mesic-thermic line, which divides the MLRA into mesic and thermic soil temperature regimes (figure 2.). The mesic soil temperature regime was delineated based on estimates of the native range of loblolly pine, which was historically absent in this part of the MLRA. In addition, this region is said to represent the northern and western limits of cotton production, an important crop to the south and east.

ESDs developed for this MLRA were split geographically into mesic and thermic ecological site concepts. Climate variation across the MLRA extent warrants the development of Land Resource Unit (LRU) classifications, to further subdivide the MLRA and support more precise Ecological Site Descriptions.

Classification relationships

APPLICABLE USNVC ASSOCIATIONS
CEGL006606 Acer rubrum - Fraxinus pennsylvanica / Saururus cernuus; CEGL007031 Acer rubrum / Alnus serrulata - Lindera benzoin / Glyceria striata - Impatiens capensis

APPLICABLE EPA ECOREGIONS
Level III: 45. Piedmont
Level IV: 45e. Northern Inner Piedmont (EPA 2013).

APPLICABLE USFS ECOLOGICAL UNITS
Domain: Humid Temperate
Division: Subtropical
Ecological province: 231. Southeastern Mixed Forest
Ecological sections: 231I.Central Appalachian Piedmont (Cleland et al. 2007).

Based on the USGS physiographic classification system (Fenneman and Johnson 1946), most of MLRA 136 is in the Piedmont Upland section of the Piedmont province, in the Appalachian Highlands division.

Ecological site concept

This ecological site includes wet areas on active flood plains which are subject to regular overbank flooding of frequent or occasional frequency. Representative landforms include backswamps, sloughs, depressions, and wet flood plain flats. Relative to most other Piedmont settings, these areas experience prolonged periods of flooding, soil saturation, and anaerobic conditions. They often have some degree of hummock-and-hollow microtopography, as indicated by a repeating pattern of micro-lows and micro-highs.

This ecological site is situated on flood plains, in relatively broad river valleys or along small stream bottoms, in which overbank flooding and alluvial deposition have created a more level surface than in the adjacent uplands. This environment benefits from ongoing deposition of nutrient-rich sediment, but it is subject to scouring and other impacts associated with flooding. It is geographically restricted to the mesic soil temperature regime portion of the Southern Piedmont, in the northwestern-most part of the MLRA.

Soils on this ecological site are typically very deep, poorly drained Inceptisols. Parent materials are loamy to clayey recent alluvial sediments. Due to regular overbank flooding, the distribution of soil organic matter decreases irregularly with depth. Site conditions include long periods of soil saturation and anaerobic conditions, to a depth of 0 to 12 inches from the soil surface and below.

The reference state typically has a closed to partly open canopy dominated by bottomland hardwoods. Dominant canopy species include red maple (Acer rubrum) and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Dominant land uses include wildlife habitat and wetland mitigation.

ES CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY
• Mesic soil temperature regime
• Occurs on flood plains in river valleys, or along small stream bottoms, often in concave depressional landforms such as backswamps, sloughs, and depressions
• Seasonal high water table: 0 - 12 inches from the soil surface
• Soils: very deep, poorly drained Inceptisols, with an irregular decrease in soil organic matter with depth

Associated sites

PX136X00X110	Mesic Temperature Regime, Flood Plain Forest, Wet Found in similar or slightly higher landscape positions. The seasonal high water table is slightly deeper (12-24 inches from the soil surface), supporting a lower proportion of obligate wetland indicator species.
PX136X00X120	Mesic Temperature Regime, Flood Plain Forest, Moist Found in higher landscape positions. On broad flood plains, it typically sits closer to the stream channel. The seasonal high water table is deeper (24 inches or greater from the soil surface), resulting in a decrease in obligate or facultative wetland indicator species and a notable increase in species diversity.
PX136X00X130	Mesic Temperature Regime, Flood Plain Levee Forest, Sandy Found in higher landscape positions adjacent to the stream channel, on sandy natural levees of large river systems. The vegetation is exposed to higher energy flooding, but it is usually of shorter duration. In this setting, increased levels of sunlight can support higher herb cover. The seasonal high water table is much deeper (72 inches or greater from the soil surface), resulting in a marked decrease in obligate or facultative wetland indicator species.

PX136X00X110

Mesic Temperature Regime, Flood Plain Forest, Wet

Found in similar or slightly higher landscape positions. The seasonal high water table is slightly deeper (12-24 inches from the soil surface), supporting a lower proportion of obligate wetland indicator species.

PX136X00X120

Mesic Temperature Regime, Flood Plain Forest, Moist

Found in higher landscape positions. On broad flood plains, it typically sits closer to the stream channel. The seasonal high water table is deeper (24 inches or greater from the soil surface), resulting in a decrease in obligate or facultative wetland indicator species and a notable increase in species diversity.

PX136X00X130

Mesic Temperature Regime, Flood Plain Levee Forest, Sandy

Found in higher landscape positions adjacent to the stream channel, on sandy natural levees of large river systems. The vegetation is exposed to higher energy flooding, but it is usually of shorter duration. In this setting, increased levels of sunlight can support higher herb cover. The seasonal high water table is much deeper (72 inches or greater from the soil surface), resulting in a marked decrease in obligate or facultative wetland indicator species.

Similar sites

PX136X00X140	Mesic Temperature Regime, Low Terraces and Drains, Occasional Inundation Occurs on low stream terraces (flood-plain steps) and other alluvial landforms not subject to regular overbank flooding. Being found on more stable surfaces, the relative importance of bottomland oaks and other long-lived species tend to increase under reference conditions. Soil pH and natural fertility are usually lower on these older surfaces.
PX136X00X600	Flood Plain Forest, Very Wet The soil temperature regime is thermic, occurring within the native range of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda).
PX136X00X110	Mesic Temperature Regime, Flood Plain Forest, Wet The seasonal high water table is slightly deeper (12 - 24 inches from the soil surface), supporting a lower proportion of obligate wetland indicator species.

PX136X00X140

Mesic Temperature Regime, Low Terraces and Drains, Occasional Inundation

Occurs on low stream terraces (flood-plain steps) and other alluvial landforms not subject to regular overbank flooding. Being found on more stable surfaces, the relative importance of bottomland oaks and other long-lived species tend to increase under reference conditions. Soil pH and natural fertility are usually lower on these older surfaces.

PX136X00X600

Flood Plain Forest, Very Wet

The soil temperature regime is thermic, occurring within the native range of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda).

PX136X00X110

Mesic Temperature Regime, Flood Plain Forest, Wet

The seasonal high water table is slightly deeper (12 - 24 inches from the soil surface), supporting a lower proportion of obligate wetland indicator species.

Figure 1. EPA level IV ecoregions of the Southern Piedmont (45).

Figure 2. Spatial illustration of soil temperature regimes of the Southern Piedmont.

Figure 3. Spatial extent of this ecological site representing the major areas where this site is important on the landscape.

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Tree	(1) Acer rubrum (2) Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Shrub	(1) Ilex decidua
Herbaceous	(1) Saururus cernuus (2) Boehmeria cylindrica

Legacy ID

F136XY100VA

Download full description

Physiographic features

This ecological site includes wet areas on active flood plains which are subject to regular overbank flooding of frequent or occasional frequency. It is situated in river valleys or along small stream bottoms, in the upper Piedmont of Virginia and North Carolina, in EPA ecoregion 45e (Northern Inner Piedmont). This ecoregion roughly coincides with the mesic soil temperature regime portion of the Southern Piedmont, the northwestern-most part of the MLRA.

Landforms typical of this ecological site include backswamps, sloughs, depressions, and seepage areas on flood plains, as well as wet flood plain flats of small stream bottoms. Along small stream bottoms, it may occupy most, if not the entire width of the flood plain, or may be intermingled with drier flood plain ecological site concepts. Representative locations are nearly level or gently sloping, with a representative slope of 0 to 2 percent and a maximum slope of 3 percent.

On flood plains in the Southern Piedmont, Quaternary alluvial deposits can be as much as 250 feet thick, or as little as 4 feet thick. Rocks of the Piedmont basement underlie the alluvial fill at some depth, but the vegetation is not usually influenced by the local underlying geology. Typically, the geologic substrate is loamy to clayey recent alluvial sediments.

Figure 4. Typical soil-landscape relationships of a large river flood plain in the Southern Piedmont. Hatboro soils are associated with this ecological site, depicted here on backswamps, on an active flood plain, in a broad river valley.

Figure 5. Typical soil-landscape relationships of a small stream flood plain in the Southern Piedmont. Hatboro soils are associated with this ecological site, depicted here along a small stream bottom.

Figure 6. Cross section of a flood plain along a large river system in the Southern Piedmont. Hatboro soils are associated with this ecological site.

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Landforms	(1) River valley > Backswamp (2) River valley > Slough (3) River valley > Flood plain > Open depression (4) Piedmont > Flood plain
Runoff class	Low
Flooding duration	Brief (2 to 7 days) to long (7 to 30 days)
Flooding frequency	Frequent
Ponding duration	Not specified
Ponding frequency	None
Elevation	420 – 880 ft
Slope	2%
Water table depth	4 – 10 in
Aspect	Aspect is not a significant factor

Table 3. Representative physiographic features (actual ranges)

Runoff class	Negligible to very high
Flooding duration	Brief (2 to 7 days) to long (7 to 30 days)
Flooding frequency	Occasional to frequent
Ponding duration	Brief (2 to 7 days)
Ponding frequency	None to frequent
Elevation	230 – 1,610 ft
Slope	3%
Water table depth	12 in

Climatic features

On this ecological site, the average mean annual precipitation is 46 inches. On average, the rainiest months occur from May through September, as well as in March. The driest months occur from October through February.

Table 4. Representative climatic features

Frost-free period (characteristic range)	151-171 days
Freeze-free period (characteristic range)	183-207 days
Precipitation total (characteristic range)	44-47 in
Frost-free period (actual range)	143-181 days
Freeze-free period (actual range)	166-223 days
Precipitation total (actual range)	42-50 in
Frost-free period (average)	160 days
Freeze-free period (average)	194 days
Precipitation total (average)	46 in

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 7. Monthly precipitation range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 8. Monthly minimum temperature range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 9. Monthly maximum temperature range

Bar

Line

Figure 10. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature

Figure 11. Annual precipitation pattern

Figure 12. Annual average temperature pattern

Climate stations used

(1) PIEDMONT TRIAD INTL AP [USW00013723], Greensboro, NC
(2) HIGH POINT [USC00314063], High Point, NC
(3) REIDSVILLE 2 NW [USC00317202], Reidsville, NC
(4) MORGANTON [USC00315838], Morganton, NC
(5) HICKORY FAA AP [USW00003810], Hickory, NC
(6) STATESVILLE 2 NNE [USC00318292], Statesville, NC
(7) SALISBURY [USC00317615], Salisbury, NC
(8) SALISBURY 9 WNW [USC00317618], Salisbury, NC
(9) MOCKSVILLE 5SE [USC00315743], Mocksville, NC
(10) LEXINGTON [USC00314970], Lexington, NC
(11) WINSTON SALEM RYNLDS AP [USW00093807], Winston Salem, NC
(12) YADKINVILLE 6 E [USC00319675], East Bend, NC
(13) LENOIR [USC00314938], Lenoir, NC
(14) TAYLORSVILLE [USC00318519], Taylorsville, NC
(15) W KERR SCOTT RSVR [USC00319555], Wilkesboro, NC
(16) NORTH WILKESBORO [USC00316256], Wilkesboro, NC
(17) RURAL HALL [USC00317548], Rural Hall, NC
(18) DANBURY [USC00312238], Danbury, NC
(19) MT AIRY 2 W [USC00315890], Mount Airy, NC
(20) DANVILLE RGNL AP [USW00013728], Danville, VA
(21) DANVILLE [USC00442245], Danville, VA
(22) BROOKNEAL [USC00441082], Brookneal, VA
(23) CHATHAM [USC00441614], Chatham, VA
(24) STUART [USC00448170], Stuart, VA
(25) PHILPOTT DAM 2 [USC00446692], Henry, VA
(26) MARTINSVILLE FLTR PLT [USC00445300], Martinsville, VA
(27) ROCKY MT [USC00447338], Rocky Mount, VA
(28) BEDFORD [USC00440551], Bedford, VA
(29) LYNCHBURG #2 [USC00445117], Lynchburg, VA
(30) LYNCHBURG RGNL AP [USW00013733], Lynchburg, VA
(31) TYE RIVER 1 SE [USC00448600], Amherst, VA
(32) APPOMATTOX [USC00440243], Appomattox, VA
(33) BREMO BLUFF [USC00440993], New Canton, VA
(34) PALMYRA 3S [USC00446491], Palmyra, VA
(35) LOUISA [USC00445050], Louisa, VA

Influencing water features

This ecological site occurs in riparian areas, on active flood plains which are subject to regular overbank flooding. Flooding is not the only source of soil wetness on active floodplains, and in many cases, it is not the dominant source. Primary sources of soil wetness on this ecological site include slackwater left behind after flooding, channel-controlled groundwater moving towards the stream, overland water moving toward the stream, or any combination of these sources (Kroes and Brinson 2004).

GROUNDWATER FEATURES
Unless artificial drainage is introduced, a seasonal high water table is apparent at depths between 0 to 12 inches, generally during the months of November to May. On flood plains of the Southern Piedmont, the water table is tied to the level of the water in the channel, with groundwater generally moving from uplands towards the stream.

SURFACE WATER FEATURES
Flooding frequency on this ecological site is generally high and the duration of flooding is usually relatively long. Flooding-related variables that can have an effect on species composition on this ecological site include 1) stream order and relative position within the watershed, 2) the width of the flood plain, 3) the relative position within the flood plain, 4) channel morphology, and 5) the shape and topography of the watershed. These and other factors produce flooding regimes with specific signatures.

Note: this ecological site includes flood plains associated with a wide range of stream orders, from as little as first order along small creeks, to as high as sixth order along large rivers. Stream order is known to have a strong effect on the frequency and duration of flooding, the dominant sources of soil water, and the natural vegetation that establishes in response to these factors. At this time however, it is not feasible to separate flood plain ecological site concepts based on stream order due to limitations in soil mapping (Mulholland and Lenat 1992; Alexander et al. 2015; Mathews et al. 2011).

Wetland description

In the reference state, wetlands on this ecological site typically classify as follows according to the Cowardin system (Cowardin 1979).

System: Palustrine
Class: Forested
Subclass: Broad-leaved deciduous

Lower-level Modifiers
Water Regime: Saturated
Water Chemistry: Fresh, acid
Soil: Mineral

Figure 13. An illustration of the effect of stream order on 1) the severity of overbank flooding, and 2) the ratio of soil water derived from overbank flooding to the amount derived from overland water and groundwater moving towards the stream. From Brinson (1993).

Soil features

Soils on this ecological site are typically very deep, poorly drained Inceptisols, which have an irregular decrease in organic matter distribution with depth. Under unusually rich conditions, soils may be high in base cations and may meet criteria for the Mollisol order. Though most soils associated with this ecological site are very deep and lack root-restrictive layers, a strongly contrasting textural stratification can limit the vertical movement of water through the profile in some pedons. Redoximorphic features (iron and/or manganese depletions) are found at depths between 0 to 12 inches and below. Parent materials are typically loamy to clayey recent alluvial sediments.

Reaction is typically slightly acid to very strongly acid (pH 4.5 to 6.5) throughout, though it can be closer to neutral under unusually rich site conditions. Natural fertility and available water capacity are typically high. Soil wetness and flooding are the principle limiting factors for most common land uses.

Soils on this ecological site have a mesic soil temperature regime, which is characterized by a mean annual soil temperature is 8°C to 15°C and a winter to summer temperature differential of 6°C or more in the subsoil.

Though most soils associated with this ecological site are very deep and lack root-restrictive layers, a strongly contrasting textural stratification can limit the vertical movement of water through the profile in some pedons.

Modal taxa include: Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts
Modal soil series include: Hatboro
Other soils attributed to this ecological site include Yogaville and Haw River

Figure 14. An illustration of a soil profile belonging to the Hatboro series, a representative soil series associated with this ecological site.

Table 5. Representative soil features

Parent material	(1) Alluvium – igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock
Surface texture	(1) Loam (2) Silt loam (3) Silty clay loam
Family particle size	(1) Fine-loamy
Drainage class	Poorly drained
Permeability class	Moderate
Soil depth	80 in
Surface fragment cover <=3"	Not specified
Surface fragment cover >3"	Not specified
Available water capacity (0-80in)	7 – 12 in
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-40in)	4.5 – 6.5
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (0-80in)	6%
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (0-80in)	Not specified

Table 6. Representative soil features (actual values)

Drainage class	Poorly drained
Permeability class	Slow to moderately rapid
Soil depth	80 in
Surface fragment cover <=3"	Not specified
Surface fragment cover >3"	Not specified
Available water capacity (0-80in)	7 – 14 in
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-40in)	4.5 – 7.3
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (0-80in)	19%
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (0-80in)	4%

Ecological dynamics

U.S. National Vegetation Classification (USNVC) associations that are consistent with reference conditions on this ecological site include CEGL006606 Acer rubrum - Fraxinus pennsylvanica / Saururus cernuus. This concept is closely related to the reference community, though it is likely broader, as is covers both upper and lower Piedmont examples, along with those of Coastal Plain brownwater river flood plains. Along small stream bottoms, where the dominant source of soil wetness is groundwater moving from uplands towards the stream, CEGL007031 Acer rubrum / Alnus serrulata - Lindera benzoin / Glyceria striata - Impatiens capensis may apply (USNVC 2022).

MATURE FORESTS
The reference state typically has a closed to partly open canopy dominated by bottomland hardwoods. Canopy cover typically ranges from 50 to 90 percent. Because few tree species are tolerant of prolonged flooding and lengthy periods of soil saturation, species diversity in the canopy layer is typically low, especially compared to drier flood plain ecological site concepts. Dominant canopy species include red maple (Acer rubrum) and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Other important canopy species include American elm (Ulmus americana) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), though sweetgum is often scarce in the northern-most counties of the upper Piedmont and in the western foothills. On broad floodplains with well-developed backswamps, overcup oak (Quercus lyrata) can be important, or even dominant in the canopy. Where backswamps and other slackwater areas are well-developed, the flooding energy is low enough to allow overcup oak, and to a lesser extent willow oak (Quercus phellos), to achieve and maintain dominance.

In the subcanopy layer, important species include American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), which is most constant, along with canopy dominants. The shrub layer is usually poorly-developed, except in openings. Shrub species that occur with some frequency include possumhaw (Ilex decidua), which is often dominant, common winterberry (Ilex verticillata), southern arrowwood (Viburnum recognitum), and northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin). Hazel alder (Alnus serrulata) can be abundant, or even dominant, in openings and in areas of dappled shade.

In the herb stratum, dominant species include a variety of sedges (Carex spp.), along with water-tolerant grasses and forbs. Typical forbs include lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), smallspike false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), fringed loosestrife (Lysimachia ciliata), and sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), among others. Typical graminoids include include fowl mannagrass (Glyceria striata), whitegrass (Leersia virginica), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), and several species of Carex (crinita, tribuloides, intumescens, lupulina, etc.).

DYNAMICS OF NATURAL SUCCESSION
Regular overbank flooding is the main driver of ecological dynamics on this ecological site. Flood plains are continually dynamic, with the deposition of new sediment and the loss of old sediment in the form of scouring. Flooding can disturb vegetation through various mechanisms. Herbaceous plants are susceptible to being washed away or buried. Though sediment deposition is beneficial for fertility, heavy sediment deposition during the growing season has the potential to kill herbaceous plants, and even the seedlings or saplings of trees and shrubs. On rare occasions during the most severe floods, parts of the forest may be eroded or washed away entirely. Occasional tornadoes and hurricanes can also be a significant source of natural disturbance on this ecological site.

Shallow root systems allow flood plain trees to use the uppermost region of the soil, where anaerobic conditions occur over shorter intervals, but this also makes them more vulnerable to windthrow. On the typical flood plain, trunks of wind-toppled trees often lie scattered across the forest floor. The openings created by downed or standing dead trees increase the abundance and diversity of herbaceous plants.

On most landscapes in the Southeast, forest succession, or the predictable progression from light-demanding species to shade-tolerant tree species, continues until a major disturbance occurs. On flood plains however, flood-tolerance interacts with shade-tolerance, producing substantially different and complex successional patterns that are rarely observed in upland forests. It is believed that these interactions allow species with pioneering traits to maintain perpetual importance in many flood plain settings of the Southeast. Unless the flooding regime or hydrology is altered by some means, either natural or human-induced, a near steady-state subclimax community of predominantly light-demanding, but flood-tolerant trees can be expected to persist.

YOUNG SECONDARY FORESTS
Young secondary forests associated with this ecological site are usually even-aged and comparatively less diverse. These forests are more common on the landscape today due to the long history of agricultural use and logging on flood plains of the Southern Piedmont. Typically, these forests are strongly dominated by only a handful of species, including red maple (Acer rubrum), river birch (Betula nigra), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). In the early stages of succession, black willow (Salix nigra) often dominates, but it is usually quickly replaced by other species. The dominance of early pioneers declines as the forest matures, though many of these species remain important in mature stands as well, albeit to a lesser extent.

HUMAN IMPACTS
Adding to the complexity of deciphering successional patterns on flood plains of the Piedmont, are the potential for human-induced changes to the flooding regime and hydrology. Accelerated flood plain aggradation is well-documented in the Southern Piedmont, as a consequence of past agricultural practices and other human activities. From the colonial era forward, until soil conservation measures were adopted more widely, floodwaters of the recent past laid down sediment in a remarkably short period of time, as compared to estimates of the pre-colonial era. This, along with runoff-induced incision of stream channels, gradually produced streams with deeper channels than in the past, effectively channelizing the flow of water in many places. As might be expected, reduced connectivity of rivers and flood plains ultimately has an impact on flood plain ecological processes.

At the present time, as a result of changes to channel and flood plain morphology, overbank flows occur less frequently in the region as a whole than in the past. At the same time, the risk of flooding on some downstream flood plains has likely increased. Channel incision can also affect the movement of groundwater on flood plains, by increasing hydraulic gradients towards the stream, thereby lowering water tables across the flood plain.

Some argue that these changes have resulted in a shift toward less flood-tolerant tree species in the affected areas over time. If so, this trend will likely continue, though stream channel restoration can be utilized to counteract some of these effects (Wharton 1978; Golden 1979; Wharton et al. 1982; Nelson 1986; Schafale and Weakley 1990; Brinson et al. 1996; Shear et al. 1997; Ruhlman and Nutter 1999; Jackson et al. 2005; Schlindwein 2006; Allen et al. 2007; Matthews et al. 2011; Spira 2011; Schafale 2012a, 2012b; Edwards et al. 2013; Turner et al. 2015; Dearman and James 2019; Flemming et al. 2021).

SPECIES LIST
Canopy layer: Acer rubrum, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Ulmus americana, Liquidambar styraciflua, Quercus lyrata, Quercus phellos, Quercus palustris, Betula nigra, Diospyros virginiana, Salix nigra,

Subcanopy layer: Carpinus caroliniana, Acer rubrum, Liquidambar styraciflua

Vines/lianas: Toxicodendron radicans, Smilax rotundifolia, Bignonia capreolata, Campsis radicans, Vitis rotundifolia, Apios americana, Lonicera japonica (I)

Shrub layer: Ilex decidua, Ilex verticillata, Viburnum recognitum, Lindera benzoin, Viburnum nudum, Alnus serrulata, Cornus amomum, Cephalanthus occidentalis, Sambucus nigra, Ligustrum sinense (I)

Herb layer - forbs: Saururus cernuus, Boehmeria cylindrica, Impatiens capensis, Lysimachia ciliata, Onoclea sensibilis, Viola striata, Arisaema triphyllum, Ludwigia palustris, Lycopus virginicus, Osmunda regalis var. spectabilis, Osmundastrum cinnamomeum, Arisaema dracontium, Mnium spp., Platanthera clavellata, Penthorum sedoides, Lobelia cardinalis, Pilea pumila, Laportea canadensis, Bidens frondosa, Bidens tripartita, Galium tinctorium, Galium obtusum, Ludwigia alternifolia, Ludwigia decurrens, Eutrochium fistulosum, Hypericum mutilum, Verbesina alternifolia, Polygonum arifolium, Polygonum sagittatum, Polygonuym spp., Packera aurea, Eclipta prostrata, Chelone glabra, Cardamine pensylvanica, Sagittaria latifolia, Gratiola virginiana, Symphyotrichum lateriflorum, Symphyotrichum puniceum var. puniceum, Eupatorium perfoliatum, Cicuta maculata, Hibiscus moscheutos, Mimulus ringens, Mimulus alatus, Asclepias incarnata, Helenium autumnale, Platanthera spp., Lysimachia nummularia (I)

Herb layer - graminoids: Carex spp. (crinita, tribuloides, intumescens, lupulina, etc.), Glyceria striata, Leersia virginica, Leersia oryzoides, Dichanthelium clandestinum, Juncus spp., Eleocharis spp., Cyperus spp., Rhynchospora spp., Typha latifolia, Fimbristylis autumnalis, Echinochloa muricata, Microstegium vimineum (I)

(I) = introduced

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

Ecosystem states

1. Reference State: Flood Plain Swamp Forest

2. Secondary Succession State

T1A	-	Clearcut logging or other large-scale disturbances that cause canopy removal.
T2A	-	Long-term natural succession.

State 2 submodel, plant communities

2.1. Forested Successional Phase

2.2. Shrub-dominated Successional Phase

2.3. Herbaceous Early Successional Phase

2.1A	-	Clearcut logging.
2.2A	-	Natural succession.
2.2B	-	Brush management.
2.3A	-	Natural succession.

State 1
Reference State: Flood Plain Swamp Forest

This mature forest state supports a mixture of bottomland hardwood species.

Characteristics and indicators. Stands are uneven-aged with a broad diameter class distribution. The forest typically has a closed canopy, though canopy gaps and standing dead trees are frequently interspersed. Species diversity is generally higher than in young secondary stands. Except for on broad floodplains with well-developed backswamps, bottomland oaks (Quercus lyrata, Q. phellos, etc.) typically occupy a relatively small portion of the canopy. Nevertheless, their presence is a good indicator of mature forest conditions.

Dominant plant species

green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tree
red maple (Acer rubrum), tree
American elm (Ulmus americana), tree
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tree
American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), tree
overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), tree
willow oak (Quercus phellos), tree
possumhaw (Ilex decidua), shrub
common winterberry (Ilex verticillata), shrub
eastern poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), shrub
southern arrowwood (Viburnum recognitum), shrub
northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin), shrub
roundleaf greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), shrub
possumhaw (Viburnum nudum), shrub
crossvine (Bignonia capreolata), shrub
silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), shrub
early St. Johnswort (Hypericum nudiflorum), shrub
fringed sedge (Carex crinita), grass
blunt broom sedge (Carex tribuloides), grass
greater bladder sedge (Carex intumescens), grass
hop sedge (Carex lupulina), grass
fowl mannagrass (Glyceria striata), grass
whitegrass (Leersia virginica), grass
rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), grass
deertongue (Dichanthelium clandestinum), grass
leathery rush (Juncus coriaceus), grass
lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), other herbaceous
smallspike false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), other herbaceous
jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), other herbaceous
fringed loosestrife (Lysimachia ciliata), other herbaceous
sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), other herbaceous
Virginia dayflower (Commelina virginica), other herbaceous
striped cream violet (Viola striata), other herbaceous
Jack in the pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), other herbaceous
marsh seedbox (Ludwigia palustris), other herbaceous
Virginia water horehound (Lycopus virginicus), other herbaceous

State 2
Secondary Succession State

This successional phase develops in the wake of clearcut logging, storm-related catastrophic tree mortality, or other large-scale disturbances that have led to canopy removal in the recent past. Which species colonize a particular location in the wake of a disturbance does involve a considerable degree of chance. It also depends a great deal on the type, duration, and magnitude of the disturbance event.

Characteristics and indicators. Plant age distribution is usually even.

Community 2.1
Forested Successional Phase

This successional phase develops in the wake of logging, storm-related catastrophic tree mortality, or other large-scale disturbances that have led to canopy removal in the recent past. It is typically dominated by bottomland hardwoods.

Forest overstory. Representative canopy species include red maple (Acer rubrum), river birch (Betula nigra), and and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) can also be important, though its importance gradually declines to the north and west. Bottomland oaks are typically scarce.

Forest understory. Vines typically dominate the understory. Typical species include eastern poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), roundleaf greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), among others. Common shrubs include northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin) and possumhaw (Ilex decidua).

Dominant plant species

red maple (Acer rubrum), tree
river birch (Betula nigra), tree
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tree
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tree
black willow (Salix nigra), tree
eastern poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), shrub
roundleaf greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), shrub
trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), shrub
northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin), shrub
possumhaw (Ilex decidua), shrub
hazel alder (Alnus serrulata), shrub
fringed sedge (Carex crinita), grass
blunt broom sedge (Carex tribuloides), grass
hop sedge (Carex lupulina), grass
whitegrass (Leersia virginica), grass
rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), grass
deertongue (Dichanthelium clandestinum), grass
leathery rush (Juncus coriaceus), grass
smallspike false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), other herbaceous
jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), other herbaceous
lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), other herbaceous
creeping jenny (Lysimachia nummularia), other herbaceous

Community 2.2
Shrub-dominated Successional Phase

This successional phase is dominated by shrubs and vines, along with seedlings of bottomland hardwoods. It grades into the forested successional phase as tree seedlings become saplings and begin to occupy more of the canopy cover.

Dominant plant species

black willow (Salix nigra), tree
red maple (Acer rubrum), tree
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tree
river birch (Betula nigra), tree
common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), tree
black elderberry (Sambucus nigra), shrub
hazel alder (Alnus serrulata), shrub
common buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), shrub
eastern poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), shrub
roundleaf greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), shrub
trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), shrub
groundnut (Apios americana), shrub
silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), shrub
leathery rush (Juncus coriaceus), grass
common rush (Juncus effusus), grass
flatsedge (Cyperus), grass
woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), grass
deertongue (Dichanthelium clandestinum), grass
trumpetweed (Eutrochium fistulosum), other herbaceous
New York ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis), other herbaceous
sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), other herbaceous
common boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum), other herbaceous

Community 2.3
Herbaceous Early Successional Phase

This transient community is composed of the first herbaceous invaders in the aftermath of large-scale natural disturbances that have led to canopy removal. Species composition is highly variable at this stage of succession. In addition to the named species, other herbaceous pioneers common to this ecological site include calico aster (Symphyotrichum lateriflorum), purplestem aster (Symphyotrichum puniceum var. puniceum), golden ragwort (Packera aurea), common boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum), false daisy (Eclipta prostrata), creeping jenny (Lysimachia nummularia), and many others.

Resilience management. If the user wishes to maintain this community/phase for wildlife or pollinator habitat, a prescribed burn, mowing, or prescribed grazing will be needed at least once annually to prevent community pathway 2.3A. To that end, as part of long-term maintenance, periodic overseeding of wildlife or pollinator seed mixtures can be helpful in ensuring the viability of certain desired species and maintaining the desired composition of species for user goals.

Dominant plant species

rush (Juncus), grass
sedge (Carex), grass
flatsedge (Cyperus), grass
woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), grass
spikerush (Eleocharis), grass
beaksedge (Rhynchospora), grass
beggarticks (Bidens), other herbaceous
jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), other herbaceous
stiff marsh bedstraw (Galium tinctorium), other herbaceous
primrose-willow (Ludwigia), other herbaceous
smallspike false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), other herbaceous
Virginia buttonweed (Diodia virginiana), other herbaceous
Virginia water horehound (Lycopus virginicus), other herbaceous
knotweed (Polygonum), other herbaceous
dwarf St. Johnswort (Hypericum mutilum), other herbaceous
Allegheny monkeyflower (Mimulus ringens), other herbaceous

Pathway 2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.3

The forested successional phase can return to the herbaceous early successional phase through clearcut logging or other large-scale disturbances that cause canopy removal.

Pathway 2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1

The shrub-dominated successional phase naturally moves towards the forested successional phase through natural succession.

Pathway 2.2B
Community 2.2 to 2.3

The shrub-dominated successional phase can return to the herbaceous early successional phase through brush management, including herbicide application, mechanical removal, prescribed grazing, or fire.

Context dependence. Note: if the user wishes to use this community pathway to create wildlife or pollinator habitat, please contact a local NRCS office for a species list specific to the area of interest and user needs. If the user wishes to maintain the shrub-dominated successional phase long term, for wildlife habitat or other uses, periodic use of this community pathway is necessary to prevent community pathway 2.2A, which happens inevitably unless natural succession is set back through disturbance.

Pathway 2.3A
Community 2.3 to 2.2

The herbaceous early successional phase naturally moves towards the shrub-dominated successional phase through natural succession.

Transition T1A
State 1 to 2

The reference state can transition to the secondary succession state through clearcut logging or other large-scale disturbances that cause canopy removal.

Transition T2A
State 2 to 1

The secondary succession state can transition to the reference state through long-term natural succession.

Additional community tables

Supporting information

Inventory data references

Data collection and analysis of field data will be performed during the Verification Stage of ESD development.

Other references

Alexander, L., B. Autrey, K. Fritz et al. 2015. Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence. EPA/600/R-14/475F. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.

Allen, B.P., P. C. Goebel, W.J. Mitsch, et al. 2007. Vegetation dynamics and response to disturbance, in floodplain forest ecosystems with a focus on lianas. PhD Thesis. Ohio State University. Columbus, OH.

Brinson, M.M. 1993. Changes in the functioning of wetlands along environmental gradients. Wetlands. 13(2):65-74.

Brinson, M.M., W.L. Nutter, R. Rheinhardt, B. Pruitt. 1996. Background and recommendations for establishing reference wetlands in the Piedmont of the Carolinas and Georgia. EPA/600/R-96/057. United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Health Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. Corvallis, OR.

Cleland, D.T., J.A. Freeouf, J.E. Keys, G.J. Nowacki, C.A. Carpenter, W.H. McNab. 2007. Ecological Subregions: Sections and Subsections for the conterminous United States. General Technical Report WO-76D. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Washington, D.C.

Cowardin, L.M. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Washington, D.C., Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior.

Daniels, R.B. 1987. Soil Erosion and Degradation in the Southern Piedmont of the USA. In: M.G. Wolman, F.G.A. Fournier (eds.) Land Transformation in Agriculture. John Wiley and Sons. New York, NY.

Dearman, T.L., L.A. James. 2019. Patterns of legacy sediment deposits in a small South Carolina Piedmont catchment, USA. Geomorphology. 343(15):1-14.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. Level III and IV ecoregions of the continental
United States. National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. Corvallis, Oregon. Map scale 1:3,000,000.

Fenneman, N.M., Johnson D.W. 1946. Physiographic Divisions of the Conterminous U.S. U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC.

Fleming, G. P., K. D. Patterson, and K. Taverna. 2021. The natural communities of Virginia: A classification of ecological community groups and community types. Third approximation. Version 3.3. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. [http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/natural-communities/]

Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F. MacPherson, J.B. Glover, V.B. Shelburne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. United States Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia.

Kroes, D.E., M.M. Brinson. 2004. Occurrence of riverine wetlands on floodplains along a climatic gradient. Wetlands. 24(1):167-177.

Jackson, C.R., J.K. Martin, D.S. Leigh, L.T. West. 2005. A southeastern piedmont watershed sediment budget: Evidence for a multi-millennial agricultural legacy. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 60(6):298-310.

Matthews, E.M., R.K. Peet and A.S. Weakley. 2011. Classification and description of alluvial plant communities of the Piedmont region, North Carolina, U.S.A. Applied Vegetation Science. 14:485-505.

Mulholland, P., D. Lenat. 1992. Streams of the southeastern piedmont, Atlantic drainage. In: C.T. Hackney, S. Marshall Adams, W.A. Martin (eds.) Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States - Aquatic Communities. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, NJ.

Oosting, H.J. 1942. An ecological analysis of the plant communities of the Piedmont, North Carolina. The American Midland Naturalist. 28:1-126.

Ruhlman, M.B., W.L. Nutter. 1999. Channel morphology evolution and overbank flow in the Georgia Piedmont. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. American Water Resources Association. 35(2):277-290.

Schafale, M.P., A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina. Third approximation. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC.

Schafale, M.P. 2012a. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, 4th Approximation. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation. Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC.

Schafale, M.P. 2012b. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina. 4th Approximation. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation. Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC.

Schilling, K.E., Y.K. Zhang, P. Drobney. 2004. Water table fluctuations near an incised stream, Walnut Creek, Iowa. Journal of Hydrology. 286(1-4):236-248.

Schlindwein, A. 2006. Proceedings of the Southeast Regional Stream Restoration Conference. 2 – 5 October 2006. Charlotte, NC. Application of the Klingeman Planning Approach to Urban Stream Restoration in the Eastern Piedmont Geologic Province. NCSU Stream Restoration Institute, Raleigh, NC.

Schomberg, H., G. Hoyt, B. Brock, G. Naderman. A. Meijer. 2020. Southern Piedmont Case Studies. In: J. Bergtold, M. Sailus (eds.) Conservation Tillage Systems in the Southeast. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program.

Spira, T.P. 2011. Wildflowers & Plant Communities of the Southern Appalachian Mountains and Piedmont. A naturalist’s guide to the Carolinas, Virginia, Tennessee, and Georgia. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.

Trimble, S.W. 1974. Man-Induced Soil Erosion on the Southern Piedmont, 1700–1970. Soil Conservation Society of America. Ankeny, IA.

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.

United States National Vegetation Classification (USNVC) Database Version 2.04. 2022. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee. Washington, DC. Available at https://usnvc.org.

Van Lear, D.H, R.A. Harper, P.R. Kapeluck, and W.D. Carroll. 2004. History of Piedmont Forests: Implications for Current Pine Management. General Technical Report SRS–71. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Asheville, NC.

Weakley, A.S., and Southeastern Flora Team. 2023. Flora of the southeastern United States. University of North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill, NC.

Contributors

Yogev Erez
Dee Pederson

Approval

Charles Stemmans, 5/02/2025

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	05/05/2025
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: