Tennessee
Valley
Authority
Office of Natural
Resources
Chattanooga TN 37401
TVA/ONR-79/04
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Energy, Minerals, and
Industry
Washington DC 20460
EPA-600/7-79-053
March 1979
Research and Development
Camp Branch and
Cross Creek
Experimental
Watershed Projects
Objectives,
Facilities, and
Ecological
Characteristics
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports*in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
ERRATA SHEET FOR
"CAMP BRANCH AND CROSS CREEK EXPERIMENTAL WATERSHED PROJECTS:
OBJECTIVES, FACILITIES, AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS"
(EPA-600/7-79-053; TVA/ONR-79/04)
p. 34 - Table 14 heading "Biomass (mg/g)" changed to "Concentration (mg/g)".
p. 101 - Disregard "F" preceding persimmon percent cover value.
p. 102 - Table D.2. Title "the upland oak mixed hardwood cover type on
Camp Branch Watershed" changed to "the mesophytlc hardwood cover
type on Cross Creek".
p. 102 - Table D.2. Title "values for the upland oak-mixed hardwood cover
type on Camp Branch Watershed" changed to "values for the pine cover
type on Cross Creek".
p. 103 - Table D.4. Title "Camp Branch" changed to "Cross Creek".
p. 104 - Table D.5. Title "the upland oak mixed hardwood" changed to "the
mesophytic hardware".
p. 104 - Table D.6. Title "the upland oak-mixed hardwood cover" changed to
"the pine cover".
p. 151 - Table H.2. Title "weight of nitrogen" changed to "weight of sulfur".
p. 152 - Table H.3. Title "weight of nitrogen" changed to "weight of phosphorus".
p. 152 - Table H.4. Title "weight of nitrogen" changed to "weight of potassium".
p. 153 - Table H.4. Title "weight of nitrogen" changed to "weight of magnesium".
p. 153 - Table H.6. Title "weight of nitrogen" changed to "weight of calcium".
p. 154 - Title and Subtitle "Camp Branch and Camp Cross" changed to "Camp Branch
and Cross Creek".
-------
EPA-600/7-79-053
TVA/ONR-79/04
CAMP BRANCH AND CROSS CREEK EXPERIMENTAL WATERSHED PROJECTS:
OBJECTIVES, FACILITIES, AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
by
J. M. Kelly
Tennessee Valley Authority
Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35660
Interagency Agreement EPA-IAG-D5-721
Project No. E-AP 80 EDO
Program Element No. INE 625A
Project Officer
S. R. Reznek
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Prepared for
OFFICE OF ENERGY, MINERALS, AND INDUSTRY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared by the Tennessee Valley Authority and has
been reviewed by the Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry, ' ' QVal
Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for Publl"tlonewg a£d
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect tae al
policies of the Tennessee Valley Authority or the U.b. tn^*. oducts
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial v
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
One of the most serious environmental problems facing the eastern
United States is the degradation of air quality and its subsequent impact
on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Small experimental watersheds,
which define practical ecosystems, are used to study and evaluate (1) the
impact of anthropogenic emissions on individual ecosystem processes and
(2) the integrated response of the total system.
The watershed approach to evaluating biogeochemical processes
integrates several long- and short-term studies. This study is directed
toward an evaluation of chronic rather than acute effects. Therefore,
two study areas were prepared so that an impacted area could be compared
with a background area. The Cross Creek watershed has been subjected to
about 30 years of sulfur and nitrogen input from the Widows Creek coal-
fired power plant. The Camp Branch watershed, located in a relatively
remote area, away from the influence of any major anthropogenic sulfur
or nitrogen source, is being used to represent background conditions.
A comparative study of these two sites will serve two purposes: (1) It
will contribute needed information on the cycling of chemical elements in
natural systems; and (2) it will enable construction of empirical models
with which to predict the ecological effects of man's activities. This
information can then be used to guide the legislative process in determin-
ing and promulgating atmospheric emission standards.
This report outlines the objectives of the project, describes the
facilities that have been developed, and summarizes the ecological
characteristics of each watershed. Detailed comparisons of these and
other data will be the subject of subsequent reports.
This report was submitted by the Tennessee Valley Authority, Division
of Environmental Planning, in partial fulfillment of Energy Accomplishment
Plan 80 EDO under terms of Interagency Agreement EPA-IAG-D5-721 with the
Environmental Protection Agency. Work was completed as of July 31, 1978.
ill
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vii
Acknowledgment ix
1. Objectives 1
2. Introduction 2
3. Conclusions and Recommendations 6
4. Experimental Area 7
Location 7
Climate 7
Physiography and geology 12
Reference grid system 13
Soils 13
Soil survey 13
Nutrient levels — litter 21
Nutrient levels—mineral soil 24
Vegetation 27
Forest cover types 27
Biomass estimates—above ground 32
Biomass estimates—below ground 33
Nutrient content above and below ground ... 33
5. Materials and Methods 37
Scope 37
Facilities and instrumentation .... 37
Hydrological monitoring equipment 37
Environmental monitoring equipment 49
Data collection, processing, and control ... 49
Passive sampling equipment 55
References 56
Appendixes
A. Established series descriptions for Camp Branch
and Cross Creek soils 58
B. Soil chemical analysis for Camp Branch mapping
units 79
C. Soil chemical analysis for Cross Creek mapping
units 86
D. Cover, number, and density values by species for
each cover type on the Camp Branch and Cross
Creek watersheds 94
E. Biomass and element concentration by species of
branches, bole, heartwood, sapwood, and bark
for overstory species from the Camp Branch
and Cross Creek watersheds 99
F. Below-ground biomass values by cover type and
depth for the Camp Branch and Cross Creek
watersheds Ill
G. Nutrient weight in above-ground biomass 113
H. Nutrient weight in below-ground biomass 138
-------
FIGURES
Number
1 A conceptual model of a mineral nutrient cycle in a
deciduous forest watershed 3
2 Location of Camp Branch and Cross Creek watersheds .... 5
3 Topographic map for Camp Branch watershed 8
4 Topographic map for Cross Creek watershed 9
5 Climographs for the Camp Branch and Cross Creek
watersheds 10
6 Annual water balance of the Camp Branch and Cross
Creek watersheds 11
7 Reference grid system Camp Branch watershed 14
8 Reference grid system Cross Creek watershed 15
9 Soil survey map, Camp Branch watershed 16
10 Soil survey map, Cross Creek watershed 17
11 Forest cover map, Camp Branch watershed 29
12 Forest cover map, Cross Creek watershed 30
13 Schematic diagram of the Camp Branch and Cross
Creek weirs 48
14 Block diagram of instrument package developed for
Camp Branch and Cross Creek watersheds 54
VI
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Soil Series Observed on Camp Branch Watershed 19
2 Soil Series Observed on Cross Creek Watershed 20
3 Weight of Litter on the Forest Floor by Soil
Mapping Unit on the Camp Branch Watershed 22
4 Weight of Litter on the Forest Floor by Soil
Mapping Unit on the Cross Creek Watershed 22
5 Nutrient Concentrations for 01 and 02 Litter by
Soil Mapping Unit on the Camp Branch Watershed .... 23
6 Nutrient Concentrations for 01 and 02 Litter by
Soil Mapping Unit on the Cross Creek Watershed .... 24
7 Summary Means for Camp Branch Watershed Soil
Chemical Analysis 25
8 Summary Means for Cross Creek Watershed Soil
Chemical Analysis 26
9 Summary Cover and Density Values for Major
Overstory Species in the Upland Oak-Mixed
Hardwood Forest Cover Type on the Camp Branch
and Cross Creek Watersheds 28
10 Summary Cover and Density Values for Major
Overstory Species in the Mixed Mesophytic
Hardwood Forest Cover Type on the Camp Branch
and Cross Creek Watersheds 28
11 Summary Cover and Density Values for Major
Overstory Species in the Pine Forest Cover
Type on the Camp Branch and Cross Creek
Watersheds 31
12 Summary Above-Ground Biomass by Component and
Cover Type for the Camp Branch and Cross Creek
Watersheds 32
13 Summary Below-Ground Biomass by Cover Type for the
Cross Creek and Camp Branch Watersheds 33
14 Mean Nutrient Concentrations for Above- and Below-
Ground Biomass by Component for the Cross Creek
and Camp Branch Watersheds 34
15 Summary Above-Ground Nutrient Weights by Cover Type
and Component for the Camp Branch Watershed 35
16 Summary Above-Ground Nutrient Weights by Cover Type
and Component for the Cross Creek Watershed 36
17 Nutrient Weights in Below-Ground Biomass as a
Function of Cover Type for the Camp Branch and
Cross Creek Watersheds 36
18 Transfers, Transfer Processes, Sources, Influencing
Factors, and Critical Measurement Variables for a
Mineral Nutrient Cycle in a Deciduous Forest
Watershed 38
VII
-------
TABLES
(Continued)
Number
19 Parameters to be Evaluated, Methods of Measurement,
and Frequency of Determination for Each Experi-
mental Watershed 43
20 Environmental and Hydrologic Parameters to be
Measured, Location of Sensor, and Description
of Instrumentation Used to Measure Each Parameter
Listed 50
21 Period Between Scans and Scaling Calculations for
Environmental and Hydrologic Parameters Listed .... 52
22 Component Parts for Data Logger—Control System 53
Vlll
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was conducted as part of the Federal Interagency Energy/
Environment Research and Development Program with funds administered through
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA Contract No. EPA-IAG-D6-0721, TVA
Contract No. TV-41967A).
The EPA Project Officer for this research project is S. R. Reznek,
401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. His contribution to the direction of
the research and constructive review of the reported results are grate-
fully acknowledged. The TVA Project Director is Herbert C. Jones, E and
D Building, Muscle Shoals, Alabama.
IX
-------
SECTION 1
OBJECTIVES
The overall objective of this study is to characterize and quantify
the transfer, fate, and effects of sulfur and nitrogen oxides and acid
precipitation on deciduous forest ecosystems representative of the
Tennessee Valley region.
From an ecological standpoint, emission standards should be keyed
to the loading factor acceptable to the most sensitive component of the
system. Little has been done to characterize the fate of air pollutants,
such as sulfur and nitrogen oxides, in forest ecosystems. Research con-
ducted as part of this program will provide information on
1. The elemental composition of wet and dry atmospheric deposition.
2. The ability of forest canopies to scavenge airborne pollutants
and the fate of these pollutants after they have been scavenged.
3. The influence of air pollutants on the general fertility level
of the soil and the ability of the soil to act as a long-term
sink for air pollutants.
4. The determination of allowable changes in system processes and
transfers as a function of air quality.
With this information, meaningful input on system response and tolerance
to atmospheric loading could be used in the legislative process to deter-
mine and set realistic standards for emission levels. Also, greater
understanding of system characteristics, processes, and transfers will
be valuable in assessing the impact of other environmental disturbances
(e.g., surface mining, biomass utilization for fuel, whole tree harvest,
and clear cutting).
-------
-2-
SECTION 2
INTRODUCTION
The term ecosystem, as defined by Tansley (1935), emphasized the
inseparable nature of organisms and their environment, which together
form a physical system. The ecosystem concept itself is somewhat arti-
ficial because it tends to segregate overlapping and interacting systems
into isolates for convenient study. The definition places little restric-
tion on area or spatial volume to be included in delineating an ecosystem;
nevertheless, to carry this definition to extremes in either direction
runs the risk of over-generalization or disconnected finiteness. The
problem, then, is to choose a realistic experimental unit whose systematic
response has practical importance to the solution of ecological problems.
A watershed defines a practical ecosystem that reacts to the inputs from
the atmosphere above, depends largely on the regolith below for nutrition,
and is subject to irreversible loss through surface streamflow and deep
seepage, but which resists such loss by constant recycling and biosynthesis.
Experimental watersheds have been used to study biogeochemical pro-
cesses within landscapes and to evaluate the response of those processes
to manipulations by man (Likens et al. 1970, Frederiksen 1972, Johnson
and Swank 1973, Henderson and Harris 1974). The chemical composition of
the atmosphere is a principal consideration in such studies because it
contributes large quantities of materials to the land surface (Whitehead
and Feth 1964, Gambell and Fisher 1966, Fisher et al. 1968, Swank and
Henderson 1976).
Chemical solutes and particulate matter in the surface water or in
deep seepage water represent an irreversible loss to the terrestrial
ecosystem. At the same time, dynamic processes of weathering, biological
uptake, fixation, decomposition, and atmospheric input tend to replenish
the supply and to cycle the elements within the system. Water received
as precipitation contains chemical elements and also acts as solvent and
carrier for nutrients; thus, chemical makeup, rate, and volume of pre-
cipitation are major factors in determining the chemical flux of terres-
trial ecosystems. The climatic and microclimatic regime is therefore an
integral part of the total system, which establishes, to a great degree,
the rate of biotic production, decomposition, energy input, and nutrient
loss.
The flux of nutrients in both biotic and abiotic compartments must
be examined to quantitatively describe and account for the biogeochemical
behavior of various system processes, transfers, and pools. Figure 1
presents a conceptual model of a mineral nutrient cycle in a deciduous
forest watershed. Quantification of this cycle requires breaking the
cycle into several source and sink compartments, transfers, and transfer
processes. Factors that influence a particular parameter and the
variables that must be quantified should be considered.
The watershed approach to the evaluation of biogeochemical processes
represents an integration of several long- and short-term studies Many
variables, owing either to seasonal or annual variability, require several
months to years of observation before representative values can be derived
-------
-3-
Figure 1. Conceptual model of a mineral nutrient cycle
in a deciduous forest watershed.
-------
-4-
whereas others can be quantified in a single growing season. It would
not be reasonable to assume that significant changes in all parameters
could be detected with current-time restraints. In order that antici-
pated effects might be detected within current-time and budget restraints,
two similar forested watersheds typical of those found on the Cumberland
Plateau were prepared as study sites. The two sites are located about
19 and 95 km, respectively, from the Widows Creek coal-fired power plant,
a 1958-megawatt installation (Figure 2). The site nearest to the plant
has been subjected to sulfur and nitrogen input at fairly heavy levels
for about 30 years. The second site, located in a relatively remote area
away from the influence of any major anthropogenic sulfur or nitrogen
source, is being used to represent background conditions on the Plateau.
The soils and vegetation complex on the Plateau are ideally suited to
this type of study, because when compared with other possible sites
within the Valley, any positive or negative impact should be easier to
detect because of the thin, relatively infertile and unbuffered nature
of the soil.
-------
KENTU CKY
CAMP BRANCH
OSS 6REEKT
s CAR
WIDOWS CREEK
POWER PLANT
MISS
| ALABAMA \
I t
GEORGIA
^ATLANTA
SCALE OF MILES
10 0 10 4O CO
Figure 2. Location of Camp Branch and Cross Creek watersheds.
-------
-6-
SECTION 3
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The watershed approach to the evaluation of biogeochemical processes
represents a holistic approach to perturbation analysis. Because of the
inherent variability of these systems, meaningful studies require as a
minimum a 5-year commitment to input and output data collection, supple-
mented by short-term, intensive studies on various system components and
processes. Two comparable watersheds have been identified and prepared
for extended study. This report documents the biotic and edaphic char-
acteristics of each study site and will serve as the base for future
comparative studies.
Longevity of operation is the key recommendation for acquisition of
the meaningful data needed to address the complex questions associated
with an expanding, coal-based energy system. Many short-term evaluations
conducted over the course of an extended study can provide timely input
to current interests, while the final integration of the total study will
provide the necessary holistic insight for predicting and evaluating
integrated system response.
A second recommendation is that a watershed study network be devel-
oped to use existing sites such as Coweeta, Walker Branch, Fernow, Hubbard
Brook, and others. Comparable work carried out at all these sites would
provide an enhanced picture of landscape response in the eastern United
States to anthropogenic perturbations. TVA, because of its past experi-
ence in integrative studies and close cooperation with Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, could assume the role as lead agency for such a program.
-------
-7-
SECTION 4
EXPERIMENTAL AREA
LOCATION
The Camp Branch Experimental Watershed is located on the Cumberland
Plateau within the boundaries of Fall Creek Falls State Park in Bledsoe
County, Tennessee (35°38' N; 85°18' W) (Figure 2). The study area encom-
passes the major portion of the area drained by the south fork of Camp
Branch; the weir is located about 175 m upstream from the confluence of
the north and south forks. Camp Branch is a tributary of Cane Creek,
which is a tributary of Caney Fork River, which forms the main body of
the U.S. Corps of Engineers Center Hill Reservoir.
The Camp Branch watershed occupies a total of 94 ha (233 acres) and
ranges in elevation from 597.5 m at its highest point to 518.3 m at the
weir (Figure 3). Access to the watershed is provided by a tertiary road
located along the western crest of the watershed.
The Cross Creek Experimental Watershed is located within the bounda-
ries of the Marion-Franklin State Forest in Marion County, Tennessee
(35°4' N; 85°51' W) (Figure 2). The study area encompasses the major
portion of the area drained by a tributary of the east fork of Cross
Creek. Cross Creek is a tributary of Crow Creek, which is a tributary
to that part of the Tennessee River that forms the body of the Tennessee
Valley Authority's (TVA's) Guntersville Reservoir.
The Cross Creek watershed occupies a total of 36 ha (89 acres) and
ranges in elevation from 573.5 m at its highest point to 495.4 m at the
weir (Figure 4). Access to the watershed is provided by a tertiary road
located along the eastern crest of the watershed.
CLIMATE
The climate of the Cumberland Plateau is temperate and continental.
The winters are moderate, with short cold periods, and the summers are
mild to hot. Precipitation is well distributed over the year. The
average annual precipitation for the Camp Branch watershed is about
144.3 cm, whereas the long-term mean for the Cross Creek watershed is
about 10 cm greater (154.8 cm). Comparison of climographs (Figure 5)
developed for each site on the basis of data from National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration observation stations at Crossville, Tennessee
(30 km north of Camp Branch) and Monteagle, Tennessee (6 km north of Cross
Creek), respectively, illustrates the basic similarity of climatic trends
for the two study sites. The most striking difference between the two
sites is the distinctly lower level of precipitation at Camp Branch during
the month of November. Monthly temperature means for the Camp Branch
site are also slightly lower when compared with the Cross Creek site
(Figure 5).
Figure 6 is a generalized representation of the water balance for
each site according to the Thornthwaite (1957) climatic classification.
The most striking feature of the Plateau climate, as far as plant growth
-------
-8-
-N-
Figure 3. Topographic map for Camp Branch watershed.
Contour interval is 3.07 m (10.0 ft).
-------
-9-
Figure 4. Topographic map for Cross Creek watershed.
Contour interval is 3.07 m (10.0 ft).
-------
-10-
90 140
PRECIPITATION (mm)
190
40 90 140 190
PRECIPITATION (mm)
Figure 5. Climographs for the Camp Branch (A) and
Cross Creek (B) watersheds.
-------
-11-
160
140
POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
SOIL1 MOISTURE
UTILIZATION
POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
Figure 6. Annual water balance of the Camp Branch (A) and
Cross Creek (B) watersheds, assuming 150 mm of
storage at each site.
-------
-12-
is concerned, is that the period of minimum precipitation generally
occurs near or after the end of the growing season. Consequently,
a relatively small water deficiency develops during the growing season.
In fact, precipitation input exceeds evapotranspiration during 9 months
out of the year.
Local variations in temperature and precipitation do occur. These
variations are caused primarily by the lay of the land, including direc-
tion of slope and the effect of relief on air drainage. Local variations
in rainfall may result, in part, from the fact that much of the rain in
late spring and summer comes in the form of thundershowers. The prevailing
winds blow from the south and southwest (Hubbard 1950).
PHYSIOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY
Physiographically, both study areas are located on the Cumberland
Plateau, which is part of the Appalachian Plateau Province (Elder et al.
1958). In its more typical part, the Cumberland Plateau has an undulating
surface, submaturely dissected by young valleys whose steepness and depth
increase toward the edges. Its foremost characteristic is seen in broad
remnants of a surface in which only shallow valleys of an older gener-
ation are found. This part of the surface is underlain by the Walden
and Lookout sandstone and conglomerate. Weaker beds at the surface are
negligible topographically, but enough of them remain to show by their
bending that the surface is a true peneplain. The immaturity of the
topography in the current cycle results partly from the hardness of the
sandstone, and partly from its great thickness, 185 to 215 m; conse-
quently, sapping occurs only along the edges (Fenneman 1938) .
The west-facing escarpment is conspicuous everywhere until it is
gradually lost in Alabama due to diminishing height. At places the slope
is almost uninterrupted; at others it is terraced by formations of Chester
age. Everywhere its steepness is due to sapping. The escarpment rises
from about 500 m at the northern border of Tennessee to 615 m at the
southern border.
The boundary on the east, known as the Cumberland Front, is also an
escarpment, which grows in clarity and height toward the north. The
straightness of the east face contrasts sharply with the frayed character
of the scarp on the other side of the province. The weak Bangor limestone
at the base of the eastern face is responsible for the large-scale sapping
on this face (Fenneman 1938).
The Cumberland Plateau is underlain largely by rocks of Pottsville
age (Fenneman 1938). The formations consist of massive, cross-bedded
sandstone containing numerous quartz pebbles (Elder et al. 1958). These
strata are stronger than most of the rocks of the Allegheny Plateau, but
the interbedding of shales has favored the stripping of the sandstone
(Fenneman 1938). The Walden and Lookout sandstones of the Pennsylvanian
cap the Plateau at both study areas (Elder et al. 1958).
-------
-13-
REFERENCE GRID SYSTEM
A high-density grid system (Figures 7 and 8) was superimposed on
each watershed area at a grid interval of 100 m. The north-south and
east-west grid lines were cleared and marked with flagging. Metal posts
were driven into the ground at the intersection of grid lines, and a tag
identifying the north-south and east-west coordinates was attached to
each post. Posts were also erected and tagged at either end of each north-
south and east-west grid line to mark the watershed boundary. These points
were identified by the coordinates of the previous grid point plus the
distance in meters from that point. This grid system provides the
reference base for all maps and surveys on each watershed.
SOILS
Most of the soils of the Cumberland Plateau are well drained. The
poorly drained soils occupy small areas; somewhat poorly drained and mode-
rately well drained soils are more common, but not extensive. The degree
of erosion varies greatly; many of the soils are uneroded and others are
severely eroded. Some of the soils contain loose fragments of chert or
cobblestones (Elder 1958).
Many soils of the uplands and high stream terraces have been severely
leached. Consequently, they are acid and rather low in fertility and
organic matter (Elder 1958). Nearly all the soils of the Plateau uplands
have formed from weathered products of interstratified sandstone and shale,
mainly sandstone (Hubbard 1950). Thus, the properties of the soils are
generally closely related to the kind of underlying rock from which the
parent materials originated (Elder 1958).
Soil Survey
A medium-intensity soil survey was conducted on both watersheds by
personnel of the Soil Conservation Service. As a result of that survey
six soil mapping units representing five established series were delineated
on the Camp Branch watershed (Figure 9), and seven mapping units represent-
ing five established series were delineated on the Cross Creek watershed
(Figure 10). Tables 1 and 2 list the soil series observed at each site
and the total area occupied by each series, its classification according
to the Comprehensive System of Soil Classification, and other descriptive
data. Detailed descriptions of the established series profiles are given
in Appendix A.
The soils on both watersheds represent three orders according to
the Comprehensive System of Soil Classification: Alfisol, Inceptisol,
and Ultisol. Ultisols (Cotaco, Gilpin, Hartsells, Jefferson, and Linker)
are highly weathered mature soils with well-developed profiles, whereas
Inceptisols (Muskingum, Philo, and Ramsey) are soils formed from recently
deposited materials, which are not so highly weathered or developed as
Ultisols. Alfisols (Wellston) represent a somewhat intermediate position
between Ultisols and Inceptisols.
-------
-14-
13
12
10
9
8
\
7
23456789
EAST
10 II 12
Figure 7. Reference grid system, Camp Branch watershed.
-------
12
-15-
10
8
r
I
•A
\
01234567
EAST
Figure 8. Reference grid system, Cross Creek watershed.
-------
-16-
-N-
GILPIN
•B 6ILPIN
^ HARTSELLS
SB PHILO
O RAMSEY
HI WELLSTON
5-12% SLOPE
12-25% SLOPE
5-12% SLOPE
0-3% SLOPE
25-70% SLOPE
2-5% SLOPE
Figure 9- Soil survey map, Camp Branch watershed.
-------
-17-
COTACO
HARTSELLS
HARTSELLS
HARTSELLS
JEFFERSON
LINKER
MUSKINGUM
0-3% SLOPE
2-5% SLOPE
5-12% SLOPE
5-12% SLOPE (ERODED)
5-12% SLOPE
5-12% SLOPE
12-25% SLOPE
Figure 10. Soil survey map, Cross Creek watershed.
-------
-18-
Soils of the Cotaco series are deep, moderately well drained, mode-
rately permeable soils formed in loamy sediments of acid sandstone, silt-
stone, and shale. The Cotaco unit occurs only on the Cross Creek site
and occupies 2.2 ha, or 6.0 percent of the study area. Slope ranges from
0 to 3 percent, and depth to bedrock is generally greater than 100 cm.
Fragments of sandstone or siltstone range from 2 to 35 percent in any
horizon. Reaction ranges from strongly acid through extremely acid.
Seep spots are common on this type of soil.
Soils of the Gilpin series are moderately deep, well-drained soils
that are found on gently sloping to steep, convex, dissected uplands with
slope gradients of 2 to 70 percent. The two Gilpin mapping units account
for about 45 percent (42.2 ha) of the area at the Camp Branch site. Solum
thickness ranges from 50 to 100 cm. Thin flat coarse fragments of shale,
siltstone, and sandstone comprise 5 to 40 percent of individual horizons
of the solum and 30 to 90 percent of the C horizon. Reaction ranges from
strongly to extremely acid. The clay mineralogy is mixed with illite
predominantly and with kaolinite and vermiculite in lesser quantities.
Soils in the Hartsells unit occur on broad, smooth plateau areas
and on hilltops. Slopes between 3 and 8 percent are dominant, but the
extreme range of slopes for the units mapped was 2 to 12 percent. This
soil is formed in moderately coarse to medium textured materials. This
soil is derived from acid, hard sandstone containing thin strata of shale
or siltstone in some places. Depth to bedrock and solum thickness range
from 50 to 100 cm. The amount of coarse fragments, chiefly sandstone,
ranges from 0 to 15 percent in any horizon, except B3 and C horizons,
which range up to 35 percent. The soil is extremely to strongly acid
throughout the profile. This series accounts for 5.6 percent of the
total area on the Camp Branch site, but contributes 41.2 percent on the
Cross Creek site (Tables 1 and 2).
The Jefferson series is typically found on steep mountainsides and
footslopes, often below sandstone escarpments. These soils have formed
in colluvium from soils formed in residuum of acid sandstone and siltstone.
These are well-drained soils with medium permeability. Thickness of the
solum ranges from 100 to 150 cm with a sandstone fragment content of 10
to 25 percent. The soil ranges from strongly to very strongly acid
throughout. The Jefferson series on the Cross Creek watershed contributes
less than 1 percent of the total area; this series does not occur on the
Camp Branch site.
Linker soils occur on broad plateaus, mountain- and hilltops, and
benches. Most slopes range between 2 and 8 percent. This soil formed
in loamy residuum weathered from sandstone or interbedded sandstone,
siltstone, and shale; is well drained; and has moderate permeability.
The soil is extremely acid through strongly acid, and solum thickness
and depth to bedrock range from 50 to 100 cm. The Linker series occurs
only on the Cross Creek watershed and accounts for 3 percent of the total
area.
Thickness of the solum and depth to bedrock for the Muskingum series
are 50 to 100 cm. The B and C horizons are strongly or very strongly acid.
Coarse fragments of shale, siltstone, or sandstone range from 10 to 30
-------
TABLE 1. SOIL SERIES OBSERVED ON CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Soil series
Gilpin
Rolling phase
Hilly phase
Hartsells
Philo
Ramsey
Wellston
Total
area
Texture (ha)
Silt loam 42.2
(37.0)
(5.2)
Fine sandy 5 . 3
loam
Silt loam 6.5
Loam 4.7
Silt loam 35.5
Total
area
44.7
(39.3)
(5.4)
5.6
6.9
4.9
37.6
Slope
range
5-25
5-12
12-25
5-12
0-3
25-70
2-5
Permeability
range
-------
TABLE 2. SOIL SERIES OBSERVED ON CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Soil series Texture
Cotaco Silt loam
Hartsells Fine sandy
loam
Undulating phase
Rolling phase
Eroded rolling phase
Jefferson Fine sandy
loam
Total
area
(ha)
2.2
15.0
(1-6)
(12.3)
(1-1)
0.2
Total
area
(%)
6.0
41.2
(4.5)
(33.9)
(2.8)
0.5
Slope
range
(%)
0-3
2-12
2-5
5-12
5-12
5-12
Permeability
range
(cm/H)
1.5-15.2
1.5-15.2
5.0-15.2
Available
water
capacity
(cm/ cm)
0.17-0.50
0.25-0.45
0.20-0.40
Comprehensive
pH classification
3.6-5.5 Aquic Hapludults,
Fine loamy, mixed,
mesic
3.6-5.5 Typic Hapludults,
Fine loamy,
siliceous, thermic
i
4.5-5.5 Typic Hapludults, <=
Fine loamy,
Linker
Muskingum
Loam
1.0 3.0 5-12 1.5-5.0
Stoney fine 17.9 49.3 12-25
sandy loam
1.5-15.2
siliceous, mesic
0.20-0.50 3.6-5.5 Typic Hapludults,
Fine loamy,
siliceous, thermic
0.05-0.45 4.5-6.0 Typic Dystrochrepts,
Fine loamy, mixed,
mesic
-------
-21-
percent by volume in all parts of the B horizon and are more than 35
percent in the C horizon. Slope gradients range from 12 to 25 percent.
The soil is formed in residuum weathered from interbedded siltstone,
sandstone, and shale. Muskingum is the dominant soil series on the
Cross Creek site, contributing 17.9 ha (49.3%) of the total area. This
series does not occur on the Camp Branch site.
Nearly level floodplains are the setting for soils in the Philo unit.
Slopes range from 0 to 3 percent. These soils have developed in recent
alluvium washed mainly from sandstone- and shale-derived soils. Thickness
of the solum ranges from 50 to 100 cm. Depth to bedrock ranges from 100
to more than 350 cm depending on location. The weighted average content
of coarse fragments in the textural control section ranges from 0 to 20
percent. The seasonally fluctuating water table rises to a higher point
40 to 60 cm below the soil surface. Reaction ranges from very strongly
to medium acid. The Philo unit, found only on the Camp Branch site,
accounts for 6.9 percent of the total area.
Soils of the Ramsey series are found on hill- and mountainsides.
Slope gradients range from 10 to 70 percent. The soils are generally
formed in residuum and in some places contain local alluvium from sand-
stone or quartzite. Outcrops of bedrock are common. Solum thickness
and depth to sandstone bedrock ranges from 18 to 50 cm. Each horizon
contains a few percent to 35 percent by volume of fragments of quartzite.
Reaction in each horizon is strongly acid or very strongly acid. About
5 percent (4.7 ha) of the Camp Branch watershed study area has been
classified as belonging to this series. The Ramsey series does not
occur on the Cross Creek site.
Wellston soils are found on gently sloping to steep uplands in areas
of acid sandstone, siltstone, or shale bedrock. The soil is very silty,
drained from loess or siltstone, or a combination of these materials to
depths of up to 100 cm. The underlying bedrock is acid sandstone. Slopes
range from 2 to 5 percent, with a solum thickness of 80 to 125 cm. The
reaction is medium acid to extremely acid through the solum. Content of
coarse fragments ranges from 0 percent in the upper part of the B hibrizon
to 60 percent in the lower few centimeters. About 38 percent (35.5 ha)
of the study area has been classified as belonging to the Wellston series.
As a group, the soils from both study sites can be classified as
ranging in textural classification from fine sandy loam to silt loam with
the dominant class at Camp Branch being silt loams (82.3%) and at Cross
Creek being fine sandy loams (90.5%). Soils from similar topographic
positions, although differing in series designation, do compare favorably
in terms of permeability, available water, and pH values (Tables 1 and
2). The differences in soil types between the two sites result primarily
from small differences in parent material and relative age, with the Camp
Branch soils tending to be more mature.
Nutrient Levels—Litter
Samples of 01 and 02 litter were collected at each reference grid
sampling point in conjunction with the mineral soil samples. Samples
were collected from a 0.25-m2 area so that weight per unit area could be
-------
-22-
estimated. Estimates of branch and bole litter were obtained by col-
lecting and weighing all branch and bole material on plots with an area
of 0.02 ha. These values were combined to provide estimates of total
litter weight on each watershed (Tables 3 and 4). The entire 01 and 02
samples were processed for chemical analysis, while subsamples were
taken for nutrient determination on the branch and bole collections.
TABLE 3. WEIGHT OF LITTER ON THE FOREST FLOOR BY
SOIL MAPPING UNIT ON THE CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Litter weight (kg/ha)
Soil type
Gilpin, 5-12% slope
Hartsells, 5-12% slope
Philo, 0-3% slope
Ramsey, 25-70% slope
Wellston, 2-5% slope
Mean, all soil types
01 litter
2,407
2,874
1,945
2,388
3,089
2,541
02 litter
6,684
5,858
3,120
7,550
8,402
6,323
Branch and bole
3,153
2,885
9,095
2,689
2,818
4,128
Total
12,245
11,618
14,160
12,628
14,310
12,992
TABLE 4. WEIGHT OF LITTER ON THE FOREST FLOOR BY
SOIL MAPPING UNIT ON THE CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Litter weight (kg/ha)
Soil type
Cotaco, 0-3% slope
Hartsells, 2-5% slope
Hartsells, 5-12% slope
Hartsells, 5-12% slope
(eroded)
Jefferson, 5-12% slope
Linker, 5-12% slope
Muskingum, 12-25% slope
Mean, all soil types
01 litter
4,709
4,992
6,409
1,332
4,895
1,473
5,040
4,121
02 litter
8,184
5,609
7,270
5,390
5,134
8,334
5,269
6,456
Branch and bole
11,223
4,143
6,779
5,461a
9,117
7,799b
7,736
7,465
Total
24,118
14,744
20,458
12,183
19,147
17,607
18,046
18,043
^Estimated value based on mean of other two Hartsells units.
Estimated value based on mean of all branch and bole values.
-------
-23-
Comparison of the total litter weights in Tables 3 and 4 indicates
that differences occur within watersheds as well as between watersheds.
The Cross Creek site has a greater standing mass of litter, with a mean
for all soil types of about 18,000 kg/ha of total litter compared with
about 13,000 kg/ha for the Camp Branch site.
Nutrient concentration values for 01 and 02 litter do not exhibit
consistent trends with respect to watershed. Mean nitrogen and phospho-
rus levels across all soil types were higher on the Camp Branch watershed,
whereas calcium, magnesium, and potassium levels were generally lower than
those observed at Cross Creek (Tables 5 and 6). Sulfur values were equi-
valent in the 01 litter, whereas Cross Creek 02 samples exhibited a higher
sulfur level than Camp Branch 02.
TABLE 5. NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR 01 AND 02 LITTER BY
SOIL MAPPING UNIT ON THE CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Nutrient concentration (pg/g)
Soil type
Gilpin,
5-12% slope
Gilpin,
12-25% slope
Hartsells,
5-12% slope
Philo,
0-3% slope
Ramsey,
25-70% slope
Wellston,
2-5% slope
Mean, all
soil types
Layer
01
02
01
02
01
02
01
02
01
02
01
02
01
02
N
11,568.0
14,448.0
9,500.0
15,900.0
11,157.1
13,166.7
10,566.7
11,266.7
12,300.0
13,840.0
11,263.6
14,151.5
11,059.0
13,795.2
K
622.0
708.4
490.0
740.0
860.0
701.7
716.7
583.3
745.0
602.0
663.3
640.9
682.7
662.3
P
580.8
785.2
500.0
670.0
808.6
925.0
603.3
596.7
680.0
764.0
591.5
765.2
627.0
750.8
Ca
9,268.0
8,384.0
8,000.0
12,500.0
9,085.7
9,833.3
8,300.0
6,033.3
10,575.0
10,080.0
8,500.0
7,204.2
8,954.7
9,005.6
Mg
529.3
497.8
560.0
500.0
598.3
555.3
652.7
528.0
552.3
544.6
549.4
440.8
573.3
510.6
S
1,149.5
1,467.5
1,040.0
1,075.7
1,373.3
1,143.3
1,283.3
1,170.0
1,400.0
1,134.6
1,480.4
1,118.5
1,167.2
-------
-24-
TABLE 6. NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR 01 AND 02 LITTER BY
SOIL MAPPING UNIT ON THE CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Nutrient concentration (Mg/g)
Soil type
Layer
N
K
Ca
Mg
Cotaco,
0-3% slope
Hartsells ,
2-5% slope
Hartsells,
5-12% slope
Jefferson,
5-12% slope
Linker,
5-12% slope
Muskingum,
12-25% slope
Mean, all
soil types
01
02
01
02
01
02
01
02
01
02
01
02
01
02
12,100.
11,966.
9,680.
12,020.
10,807.
12,375.
10,900.
13,950.
10,000.
9,500.
10,186.
12,411.
10,612.
12,037.
0
7
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
7
1
2
0
833.3
940.0
546.0
804.0
610.7
882.1
535.0
965-0
560.0
660.0
616.1
860.0
616.9
851.8
630.
603.
448.
512.
514.
493.
440.
610.
820.
200.
596.
523.
574.
490.
0
3
0
0
8
6
0
0
0
0
1
3
7
2
19
22
14
15
14
15
9
7
14
15
14
14
14
15
,500.0
,233.3
,920.0
,260.0
,992.6
,807.1
,000.0
,200.0
,200.0
,900.0
,233.3
,061.1
,462.5
,076.8
1,003
970
550
712
750
793
535
395
690
790
755
724
713
730
.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.4
.8
.7
1,190.0
1,266.)
968.0
1,254.0
1,108.9
1,325.0
1,195.0
1,500.0
1,050.0
1,240.0
1,104.4
1,318.1
1,102.5
1,317.2
Nutrient Levels—Mineral Soil
Mineral soil samples were collected in conjunction with the 01 and
02 litter samples at each reference grid sampling point. Samples were
taken to a depth of 100 cm or bedrock, whichever came first, in five
increments: 0 to 10, 10 to 30, 30 to 50, 50 to 70, and 70 to 100 cm.
In preparation for chemical analysis the samples were oven-dried at 80°C
and ground to pass through a 2-mm sieve. The results of the chemical
analysis are presented in Appendix B and are summarized by soil mapping
unit in Tables 7 and 8. Except for total potassium and exchangeable sul-
fur, lower concentration values were found for all elements in the soils
on the Cross Creek site than for those on the Camp Branch site. Cation
exchange capacity values for the Cross Creek soils ranged from 5.0 to 7.4,
while Camp Branch values exhibited a slightly higher range at 9.5 to 12.3.
Mean pH values tended to be slightly higher for Cross Creek soils (Table 8).
The organic matter content of the soil exhibited some variability among the
various soil types on each watershed, whereas the mean value for all soils
were essentially equivalent at 1.30 and 1.36 percent for Cross Creek and
Camp Branch respectively.
-------
TABLE 7. SUMMARY MEANS FOR CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS'
Mapping
unit
Gilpin, 5-12% slope
Gilpin, 12-25% slope
Hartsells, 5-12% slope
Philo, 0-3% slope
Ramsey, 25-70% slope
Wellston, 2-5% slope
Mean, all
soil types
Depth
range
(cm)
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-50
0-100
Nutrient concentration
Total
N
597.6
582.2
606.8
703.8
1043.3
581.6
685.3
,P
207.1
185.2
242.7
218.0
246.0
226.3
220.8
K
928.8
1444.0
1252.9
843.6
1003.3
908.9
1063.1
S
130.2
125.4
130.8
141.1
139.1
140.3
134.5
Ca
110.6
99.8
176.5
120.2
120.4
106.9
122.4
(Mg/g)
Exchangeable
Mg
35.4
39.8
41.8
43.1
22.0
33.8
35.9
K
53.4
51.5
66.7
55.5
58.1
52.4
56.3
S
33.7
35.2
47.9
32.0
48.8
36.9
39.0
P
5.6
6.1
5.7
5.1
9.1
4.9
6.1
Cation
exchange
capacity
10.6
10.8
10.6
10.4
12.3
9.5
10.7
pH
4.6
4.6
5.0
4.6
4.5
4.6
-
Organic
matter
(%)
1.21
0.94
0.99
1.58
2.20
1 27 '
J--^' fo
Cn
1.36
Values presented are the means for samples taken at all depths and locations within a mapping area.
-------
TABLE 8. SUMMARY MEANS FOR CROSS CREEK WATERSHED SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS'
Mapping
unit
Cotaco, 0-3% slope
Hartsells, 2-5% slope
Hartsells, 5-12% slope
Hartsells, 5-12% slope
(eroded)
Jefferson, 5-12% slope
Linker, 5-12% slope
Muskingum, 12-25% slope
Mean, all soil
types
Depth
range
(cm)
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-30
0-100
0-100
Nutrient concentration (|Jg/g)
Total
N
696.6
485.6
500.5
422.0
441.0
705.0
605.2
550.6
P
216.7
156.4
165.2
160.0
166.0
210.0
212.1
183.2
K
5956.7
4001.0
4526.3
4000.0
5800.0
2700.0
6250.2
4747.6
S
193.9
182.9
217.3
190.0
186.0
165.0
191.2
189.1
Ca
115.6
80.8
103.2
98.0
70.5
113.5
116.2
99.3
Exchangeable
Mg
34.9
28.1
41.8
20.0
23.4
55.0
31.1
33.5
K
55.1
47.3
49.6
37.0
43.9
33.0
52.6
45.5
S
81.2
65.6
67.1
46.4
96.4
24.5
70.4
64.5
P
4.5
2.9
3.7
3.6
3.1
4.5
3.8
3.7
Cation
exchange
capacity
7.4
6.7
6.9
5.9
8.9
5.0
7.0
6.8
PH
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.9
4.7
4.9
5.2
-
Organic
matter
(%)
1.42
1.23
1.29
1.00
1.12
to
1.60 «*
1.48
1.30
Values presented are the means for samples taken at all depths, and locations within a mapping unit.
-------
-27-
VEGETATION
The vegetation on the surface of the Cumberland Plateau is very
different from that of the steep slopes and gorges described by Caplenor
(1965). Today, little of the original upland vegetation remains, and
the poor secondary growth gives little indication of the former forest
(Braun 1950). The poorly drained spots are swampy, and red maple (Acer
rubrum) now prevails. These areas were formally occupied by pin oak
(Quercus palustris) and sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) with lesser
amounts of sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor),
and shingle oak (Quercus imbricaria). Communities of post oak (Quercus
stellata) and blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica) occupy very shallow,
dry soil areas of the plateau where the sandstone is close to the surface
(Braun 1950). Over the greater part of the area, one sees mixed oak,
oak-hickory, and oak-pine communities. A semi-virgin plateau surface
forest described by Braun (1950) was comprised primarily of white oak
(Quercus alba), with some black oak (Quercus velutina), hickory (Garya
sp.), sourwood, and an occasional basswood (Tilia americana). Virginia
pine (Pinus virginiana) and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) are the most
common pine species (Braun 1950). According to Braun (1950), the oak-
dominated forest that covers much of the plateau represents a physiographic
climax, maintained by topography and soil, rather than a true climatic
climax. Fingers of mixed mesophytic forest creep up into the oak-dominated
forests along stream courses and in drainage ways, where soil moisture
relations are more mesic (Caplenor 1965). Yellow poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), red maple, and sourwood are commonly found mixed with the
more mesophytic oaks and hickories (Caplenor 1965).
Forest Cover Types
The initial step in characterizing the vegetation of each watershed
was mapping the forest overstory on the basis of species composition.
Mapping was done from the ground using the grid system as a reference.
Each grid square, or portion thereof, was classified according to dominant
species and delineated on the map. From the individual grid square classi-
fication data, a composite forest cover map was created for each watershed
(Figures 11 and 12). The cover maps were used as a base for distributing
1-ha study plots over the watershed to obtain representative data on species
composition within each forest cover type. On the Camp Branch watershed,
two sample plots were located in areas classified as upland oak-mixed
hardwood, two were located in the mixed mesophytic type, two were located
in the transition areas between these two cover types, and one was located
in the pine cover type. Likewise, on the Cross Creek site, two sample
plots were located in the upland oak-mixed hardwood type, two were located
in the mixed mesophytic, one was located in the transition between these
two types, and one was located in the pine cover type. Appendix Tables
D.I through D.6 present these data.
Selected data from the individual hectare plots have been summarized
for each cover type on both watersheds and are presented in Tables 9, 10,
and 11. Based on the total sample data, the watershed vegetation at Camp
Branch is clearly an oak forest, with seven species of oak accounting for
about 60 percent of the cover and 40 percent of the number. This forest
-------
-28-
UPLAND OAK - MIXED HARDWOOD
OLD FIELD (OPEN AREA)
H MESOPHYTIC HARDWOOD
H3B PINE
Figure 11. Forest cover map, Camp Branch watershed.
-------
-29-
UPLAND OAK-MIXED HARDWOODS
OLD FIELD (OPEN AREA)
MESOPHYTIC HARDWOOD
PINE
Figure 12. Forest cover map, Cross Creek watershed.
-------
-30-
TABLE 9. SUMMARY COVER AND DENSITY VALUES FOR MAJOR3
OVERSTORY SPECIES IN THE UPLAND OAK-MIXED HARDWOOD FOREST
COVER TYPE ON THE CAMP BRANCH AND CROSS CREEK WATERSHEDS
Camp Branch
Species
Scarlet oak
Post oak
White oak
Hickory
Black oak
Chestnut oak
Sourwood
Red maple
Cover
(cm/ha)
27,769.6
b
41,721.9
35,317.0
28,383.7
31,544.1
13,981.8
13,751.0
Percent
cover
12.6
18.9
16.0
12.9
14.3
6.4
6.2
Density
0.005
0.024
0.014
0.010
0.015
0.031
0.043
Cross Creek
Cover
(cm/ ha)
43,784.4
40,833.0
16,006.9
12,602.8
29,710.1
b
15,763.4
b
Percent
cover
22.2
20.7
8.1
6.4
15.0
8.0
Density
0.016
0.012
0.020
0.004
0.032
0.021
3
.Contributing greater than 5% cover.
Contributing less than 5% to total cover on a particular watershed.
TABLE 10. SUMMARY COVER AND DENSITY VALUES FOR MAJOR
OVERSTORY SPECIES IN THE MIXED MESOPHYTIC HARDWOOD FOREST
COVER TYPE ON THE CAMP BRANCH AND CROSS CREEK WATERSHEDS
Camp Branch
Species
Red maple
White oak
Hickory
Black gum
Black oak
Dogwood
Yellow poplar
Cover
(cm/ha)
47,889.3
23,937.9
b
17,837.3
b
b
5,378.4
Percent
cover
44.7
22.4
16.7
5.0
Density
0.038
0.020
0.027
0.012
Cross Creek
Cover
(cm/ha)
11,665.8
79,335-0
52,665.4
15,163.8
24,358.8
17,317.3
b
Percent
cover
5.3
36.2
24.1
6.9
11.1
7.9
Density
0.025
0.031
0.012
0.015
0.006
0.036
Contributing greater than 5% cover.
Contributing less than 5% to total cover on a particular watershed.
-------
-31-
TABLE 11. SUMMARY COVER AND DENSITY VALUES FOR MAJOR3
OVERSTORY SPECIES IN THE PINE FOREST COVER TYPE
ON THE CAMP BRANCH AND CROSS CREEK WATERSHEDS
Camp Branch
Species
Loblolly pine
Virginia pine
Dogwood
Sassafras
Red maple
Cover
(cm/ha)
b
327,535.0
38,870.0
b
23,733.0
Percent
cover
78.3
9.3
5.7
Density
0.122
0.077
0.068
Cross Creek
Cover
(cm/ha)
1,078,080.0
b
b
110,310.0
b
Percent
cover Density
88.7 0.100
9.0 0.130
ja
.Contributing greater than 5% cover.
Contributing less than 5% to total cover on a particular watershed.
appears much as the oak-hickory forest typical of much of the southeastern
United States except that hickory is scarce—accounting for only about 4
percent of the total cover and number. The Cross Creek watershed is more
typical of the southeastern oak-hickory forest, with hickory and five
species of oak accounting for about 78 percent of the total cover and 34
percent of the number.
Within individual cover types, oak species contribute 59 percent of
the cover in the upland oak-mixed hardwood type on the Camp Branch water-
shed, whereas oak species contribute 66 percent of the cover on the Cross
Creek site (Table 9). Oaks strongly dominate the cover values in the
mixed mesophytic type also, contributing 22 and 47 percent, respectively,
at the Camp Branch and Cross Creek sites (Table 10).
Red maple (45 percent) and tulip poplar (5.0 percent) are also impor-
tant cover contributors in the mixed mesophytic type on Camp Branch, but
contribute only 5.3 and 1.2 percent, respectively, at the Cross Creek site.
These differences can probably be attributed to differences in topography
between the two sites. On the Camp Branch site, the mesic areas are broad,
relatively level areas at the head of the watershed, whereas the mesic sites
on Cross Creek are narrow strips confined largely to the stream course and
upper source areas. The fact that the mesic habitat is of much greater
extent on Camp Branch provides a greater opportunity for development of
a more distinct vegetation type.
Stands of both planted and naturally occurring pine are found on the
watersheds (Table 11). On the Camp Branch site, a small area dominated by
a dense growth of Virginia pine occurs. This site has all the typical
features of old field succession. Core samples indicated that the field
has been abandoned at least 40 years. The large number of small hardwoods
under the dominant pine cover are early invaders of the climax forest. On
the Cross Creek site, a small segment of a loblolly pine plantation occurs
-------
-32-
on the northern edge of the watershed (Figure 12). This plantation,
established in 1957, has an average cover value for the dominant species
of about 1 x 106 cm/ha, compared with about one third that amount in the
Camp Branch pine type (Table 11). This difference can be attributed pri-
marily to the high stocking rate in the loblolly plantation. Compared
with the Camp Branch site, there is a definite lack of invading species
in the Cross Creek plantation.
Biomass Estimates—Above Ground
Measurements of diameter at breast height (DBH) taken to determine
cover values for each forest type were used to determine biomass values
for each cover type through the use of whole tree harvest regression
techniques (Attiwill and Ovington 1968, Baskerville 1972). The data pre-
sented in Table 12 summarize the above-ground biomass estimates by compo-
nent in each forest type for both watersheds. Total biomass estimates
for the upland oak-mixed hardwood forest cover types for both sites are
reasonably comparable at 135,131 and 116,120 kg/ha. The data from the
pine type exhibits a similar comparability at 155,120 and 165,869 kg/ha.
The major difference between the two sites in terms of above-ground bio-
mass is in the mesophytic hardwood forest type. As discussed previously,
the mesophytic hardwood forest type is of limited extent on the Cross
Creek site, but has attained a high degree of development on the Camp
Branch site. Biomass values for this forest type on the Camp Branch
watershed are slightly more than three times the Cross Creek estimates
(Table 12). These differences may be partly explained by previously dis-
cussed differences in topography, which creates a trend toward selection
for taller tree species. This trend limits the amount of light available
to subdominant species such as red maple and black gum and thus limits
their growth. Both species contribute heavily to the total value on the
Camp Branch site.
TABLE 12. SUMMARY ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS BY COMPONENT AND COVER TYPE
FOR THE CAMP BRANCH AND CROSS CREEK WATERSHEDS
Upland oak -
mixed hardwoods
Component
Camp
Branch
Cross
Creek
Mesophytic
hardwoods
Camp
Branch
Cross
Creek
Pine
Camp
Branch
Cross
Creek
Heart 33,075.8 37,194.5
Sap 50,504.5 58,427.9
Bark 8,605.7 9,625.8
Branches 23,934.6 29,883.2
Total 116,120.6 135,131.4
68,479.7 24,392.9
139,243.6 40,734.6
17,248.9 6,581.8
61,241.9 19,522.8
286,214.1 91,232.1
32,012.7 26,528.2
91,770.7 88,957.6
8,971.0 7,404.0
33,115.4 32,230.9
165,869.8 155,120.7
-------
-33-
Biomass Estimates—Below Ground
Estimates of root biomass were obtained by combining two techniques;
core samples were combined with DBH regressions to estimate root crown
weights. The below-ground biomass data are summarized by forest type for
both watersheds in Table 13. Below-ground biomass values from the Cross
Creek watershed were 16 to 48 percent higher than values from the same
forest cover type on the Camp Branch watershed. Fibrous roots generally
account for about 95 percent of the below-ground biomass at both sites.
TABLE 13. SUMMARY BELOW-GROUND BIOMASS BY COVER TYPE FOR
THE CROSS CREEK AND CAMP BRANCH WATERSHEDS
Component
Biomass (kg/ha)
Upland oak -
mixed hardwoods
Camp Cross
Branch Creek
Mesophytic
hardwoods
Camp Cross
Branch Creek
Pine
Camp Cross
Branch Creek
Fibrous
roots
Root
crown
Total
43,857.8 64,253.6 38,261.6 51,189.6 28,281.1 62,493.0
2,840.1 2,574.9 7,200.2 2,094.5 6,201.4 3,016.1
46,697.9 66,828.5 45,461.8 53,284.1 34,482.5 65,509.1
Nutrient Content Above and Below Ground
Mean nutrient concentration values for the various components of
above- and below-ground biomass are presented in Table 14. Mean concen-
tration values for the above-ground components are quite similar for both
watersheds. Root nitrogen, phosphorus, and calcium values from the Cross
Creek site tend to be slightly higher; potassium values are lower, and
sulfur values are equivalent (Table 17).
Comparison of the nutrient weight values for above-ground biomass
in each watershed presented in Tables 15 and 16 indicates differences
within and between watersheds. Nitrogen loading for the upland oak-
mixed hardwoods and pine cover types is quite similar for both watersheds,
but nitrogen weights for the mesophytic hardwoods are almost three times
as high on Camp Branch (Table 15) as on Cross Creek (Table 16). This
large difference results from the much higher biomass values in this
forest type at Camp Branch. Similar relationships exist for sulfur at
both sites (Tables 15 and 16).
-------
TABLE 14. MEAN NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR ABOVE- AND BELOW-GROUND BIOMASS BY
COMPONENT FOR THE CROSS CREEK AND CAMP BRANCH WATERSHEDS
Component
Heart
Sap
Bark
Branches
Roots
Camp
Branch
1,321.4
1,853.3
4,643.3
5,016.7
10,713.6
N
Cross
Creek
1,255.2
1,703.2
4,490.3
4,625.8
12,234.8
S
Camp
Branch
90.4
184.0
417.0
365.7
1,465.0
Cross
Creek
107.9
247.1
399.0
419.4
1,442.9
P
Camp
Branch
33.6
110.3
246.7
370.0
1,645.1
Biomass
Cross
Creek
45.5
132.9
247.7
364.8
1,998.6
(Mg/g)
Camp
Branch
789.6
802.7
1,093.0
1,891.0
2,388.7
K
Cross
Creek
696.9
810.6
1,111.3
1,314.8
1,719.6
Mg
Camp
Branch
262.5
227.7
518.7
664.0
1,383.3
Cross
Creek
317.3
238.1
503.2
607.7
1,411.9
Ca
Camp
Branch
1,925.0
2,140.0
19,383.3
8,036.7
5,104.1
Cross
Creek
1,510.3
2,109.7
22,441.9
9,338.7
13,603.3
I
u>
-------
-35-
TABLE 15. SUMMARY ABOVE-GROUND NUTRIENT WEIGHTS BY COVER
TYPE AND COMPONENT FOR THE CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Nutrient weight (kg/ha)
Cover type
Upland oak -
mixed hardwoods
Mesophytic
hardwoods
Pine
Component
Heart
Sap
Bark
Branches
Total
Heart
Sap
Bark
Branches
Total
Heart
Sap
Bark
Branches
Total
N
44.9
99.2
40.8
125.7
310.6
87.7
232.9
84.3
315.8
720.7
41.5
143.8
42.7
153.9
381.9
K
25.7
42.0
8.1
41.8
117.6
43.0
75.6
22.7
154.8
296.1
21.1
49.8
12.6
67.2
150.7
P
0.9
5.7
1.8
8.9
17.3
2.5
17.6
5.0
24.9
50.0
1.3
10.0
2.6
12.4
26.3
Ca
54.8
105.8
174.5
168.0
503.1
125.2
310.3
428.9
411.0
1275.4
69.6
189-7
169.9
259.3
688.5
Mg
5.4
10.9
3.9
14.9
35.1
11.0
26.9
10.1
36.0
84.0
10.3
21.8
6.1
23.3
61.5
S
3.5
10.1
4.3
9.8
37.7
6.1
22.7
7.6
22.5
58.9
2.4
14.5
3.4
10.4
30.7
TABLE 16. SUMMARY ABOVE-GROUND NUTRIENT WEIGHTS BY COVER
TYPE AND COMPONENT FOR CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Nutrient weight (kg/ha)
Cover type
Upland oak -
mixed hardwoods
Mesophytic
hardwoods
Pine
Component
Heart
Sap
Bark
Branches
Total
Heart
Sap
Bark
Branches
Total
Heart
Sap
Bark
Branches
Total
N
47.4
102.1
42.2
140.0
331.7
31.5
70.4
29.3
90.1
221.3
33.4
137.9
34.3
140.6
346.2
K
23.9
48.4
10.7
39.5
122.5
15.1
33.0
7.4
25.9
81.4
20.4
64.4
8.3
43.2
136.3
P
1.0
7.3
2.2
10.3
20.8
0.6
4.7
1.5
6.4
13.2
1.8
10.6
2.0
11.5
25.9
Ca
49.4
137.6
259.1
301.0
747.1
31.8
100.1
184.8
197.5
514.2
45.3
165.4
129.0
282.5
622.2
Mg
9.5
14.8
4.5
19.3
48.1
6.8
10.7
3.1
12.4
33.0
11.7
24.1
4.2
17.9
57.9
S
3.7
15.8
3.5
13.1
36.1
2.4
11.2
2.4
8.5
24.5
3.2
19.2
3.3
12.8
38.5
-------
-36-
TABLE 17. NUTRIENT WEIGHTS IN BELOW-GROUND BIOMASS AS A FUNCTION
OF COVER TYPE FOR THE CAMP BRANCH AND CROSS CREEK WATERSHEDS
Nutrient weight (kg/ha)
Upland oak -
mixed hardwoods
Nutrient
N
K
P
Ca
Mg
S
Camp
Branch
217.5
43.9
28.9
108.8
23.5
27.9
Cross
Creek
355.8
54.0
51.7
227.7
42.8
42.1
Mesophytic
hardwoods
Camp
Branch
227.6
34.4
35.2
100.3
29.1
30.3
Cross
Creek
333.5
52.6
47.3
200.2
37.4
36.6
Pine
Camp
Branch
/160.1
42.4
28.3
71.5
21.1
21.9
Cross
Creek
332.0
57.3
52.6
292.7
44.6
39.0
Nutrient weights in below-ground biomass (Table 17) generally reflect
the higher concentration values (Table 14) observed at the Cross Creek
site and the higher below-ground biomass values. Cross Creek sulfur weight
values were 20 to 60 percent higher than the values observed for Camp Branch,
Other elements exhibited similar trends (Table 17).
-------
-37-
SECTION 5
MATERIALS AND METHODS
SCOPE
The watershed approach to the evaluation of biogeochemical proc-
esses represents an integration of several long- and short-term studies.
Quantification of these processes requires breaking the system down into
a number of source and sink compartments, transfers, and transfer proc-
esses. Factors that influence a particular parameter and the variables
to be quantified must also be considered. Table 18 provides an outline
for the overall research program, including transfer processes, sources,
influencing factors, and critical measurement variables. Many variables,
owing either to seasonal or annual variability, require several months
to years of observation before representative values can be derived,
whereas others can be quantified in a single growing season.
The first step in any watershed study is to establish the bounda-
ries of the watershed and then describe quantitatively the vegetation,
soils, hydrology, and nutrient status of the system (Table 19). Con-
sequently, the first period of study at each watershed has been devoted
to baseline quantification and the establishment of long-term sampling
programs consistent with the needs of the overall program, as outlined
in Figure 1 and Table 18.
When sufficient data have been collected on each compartment and
transfer, the 19- and 95-km sites will be compared. The comparisons are
expected to ultimately provide a good understanding of system response
to anthropogenic sulfur and nitrogen input. Information collected in
the baseline program will be used to develop detailed workplans for sub-
sequent study years and to identify the need for special studies and the
addition or deletion of certain parameters.
FACILITIES AND INSTRUMENTATION
The facilities and equipment discussed here are designed to provide
comprehensive data, either directly or indirectly, on (1) the flow pattern
and quantity of nutrients and water that enter and leave the study area
and (2) the internal cycles of these elements while in the study area.
Hydrological Monitoring Equipment
The principal component in monitoring hydrological parameters is
the weir and associated stage height recording system. The Camp Branch
weir, illustrated in Figure 13, is capable of measuring maximum flows of
10.30 m3/s (355.00 cfs). The V-notch section alone will measure flows
up to 0.035 m3/s (1.24 cfs). The first rectangular section in conjunction
with the V-notch will measure flows up to 2.34 ms/s (80.70 cfs). The
Cross Creek weir (Figure 13) is basically the same design as the Camp
Branch weir, except that the second rectangular section measures 22.9 cm
in height rather than 53.3 cm. Flow values for the V-notch section and
the V-notch section plus the first rectangular section would be the same
for both weirs.
-------
TABLE 18.
TRANSFERS, TRANSFER PROCESSES, SOURCES, INFLUENCING FACTORS, AND CRITICAL MEASUREMENT
VARIABLES FOR A MINERAL NUTRIENT CYCLE IN A DECIDUOUS FOREST WATERSHED
Transfer process
Transfer number
(Figure 1)
Source
Influencing factors
Critical measurement
variables
Atmospheric
deposition
I & 2
Volatilization
Elements scavenged from
the atmosphere by wet
or dry deposition,
direct absorption, or
impaction
Litter and soil
Litterfall
Throughfall
leaching
Stems, branches, leaves
Branches and leaves
Wind patterns; fre-
quency, intensity and
duration of precipita-
tion; vegetation type
and degree of canopy
development
Season of year, stage
of plant growth, soil
moisture content, tem-
perature, soil reaction
(pH), soil aeration,
soil nutrient status,
microbial population
levels
Season of year, stages
of plant growth, plant
species, climate, soil
moisture content
Season of the year, stage
of plant growth, plant
species, precipitation
characteristics, temper-
ature, canopy structure,
understory characteristics
Aerosol and gaseous con-
centrations above, within,
and below canopy, wet and
dry deposition of partic-
ulate
Form, amount, and rate
of loss; mechanism of
loss; seasonal patterns
(pertains primarily to
nitrogen and sulfur)
00
00
Weight of litter; species
and amount of nutrients;
seasonal patterns
Volume of leachate;
species and amount of ,
nutrients in leachate;
seasonal pattern
-------
Table 18 (continued)
Transfer number
Transfer process (Figure 1)
Source
Influencing factors
Critical measurement
variables
Stemflow
leaching
Stems and branches
Fixation
2, 4, 5
Atmosphere, litterfall,
throughfall, stemflow;
dead and sloughed root
material
Root uptake
Soil solution
Season of year, stage of
plant growth, plant species,
precipitation characteris-
tics, temperature, canopy
structure, understory
characteristics
Season of year, stage of
plant growth, plant species,
soil moisture content, tem-
perature, soil reaction
(pH), soil aeration, soil
nutrient status, microbial
population levels
Season of year, stage of
plant growth, plant species,
climate, soil moisture con-
tent, soil reaction (pH),
soil aeration, soil chemical
properties, soil microflora
and fauna populations, con-
centration and form of
nutrients in soil solution,
root configuration and dis-
tribution, mechanism of
uptake
Volume of stemflow;
species and amount of
nutrients in stemflow;
seasonal patterns
Kind and amount of fixing
microorganisms; rate of
fixation; form of fixa-
tion; form and amount of
fixed nutrients; seasonal
patterns
Mass or area of absorbing
roots; total or rate of
uptake; kind and form of
nutrients absorbed;
seasonal patterns
VO
I
-------
Table 18 (continued)
Transfer process
Transfer number
(Figure 1)
Source
Influencing factors
Critical measurement
variables
Root sloughing
and root depth
Translocation
Decomposition
Surface water
gain and loss
5 & 6
8 & 9
10, 11,
12, 13,
14 & 15
16 & 17
Roots
Roots, stems, branches,
leaves
Litter, organic matter
in the mineral soil
Input from upslope or
loss to downslope
positions
Season of year, stage of
plant growth, plant species,
soil moisture content, tem-
perature, soil aeration,
soil microflora and fauna
populations, root configu-
ration and distribution,
age of individual trees
Season of year, stage of
plant growth, plant species,
climate, soil moisture con-
tent, temperature, support
tissue and structure
Season of year, soil and
litter moisture content,
temperature, soil reaction
(pH), soil aeration, soil
chemical properties, soil
microflora and microfauna
populations
Season of year, precipita-
tion characteristics, soil
moisture content, tempera-
ture, topographic position,
slope, soil physical prop-
erties, nutrient character-
istics of source, canopy
structure
Weight of sloughed or
dead roots; kind, form
and amount of nutrients
in sloughed or dead
roots; seasonal patterns
Kind, form, and amount of
nutrients transferred;
origin and end points fou
nutrient transfers; o
seasonal patterns
Nutrient flux in litter,
soil, and soil solution;
microflora and micro-
fauna populations
Volume of inflowing and
outflowing water and
nutrients; loss and gain
patterns
-------
Table 18 (continued)
Transfer process
Transfer number
(Figure 1)
Source
Influencing factors
Critical measurement
variables
Free water-soil
solution equi-
librium
18 & 19
Lateral ground
water gain and
loss
20 & 21
Geologic weather-
ing
22
Free water, soil solu-
tion
Upslope ground water
(gain), free water
(loss)
Geologic parent material
Season of year, stage of
plant growth, soil moisture
content, soil physical prop-
erties , nutrient status of
free and soil water, depth
of free water, root distri-
bution, precipitation char-
acteristics
Season of year, stage of
plant growth, soil moisture
content, soil physical prop-
erties, topographic posi-
tion, slope, presence of
free water, precipitation
characteristics, nutrient
status of source
Climate, nature of geologic
material, plant species,
topographic position, depth
to geologic material, rate
of weathering microbial
populations, root distri-
bution
Volume of water moving up
and down, kind and amount
of nutrients in free
water and soil solution;
seasonal patterns
Volume of inflowing and
outflowing water; kind,
form, and amount of
incoming and outgoing
nutrients; seasonal
patterns
Kind, form, and amounts
of nutrients released;
movement of nutrients
after release
-------
Table 18 (continued)
Transfer number
Transfer process (Figure 1)
Source
Influencing factors
Critical measurement
variables
Deep seepage
loss
23
Free water
Bedrock characteristics,
topographic position, slope,
soil physical properties,
precipitation characteris-
tics, presence of free
water, nutrient status of
free water
Volume of water lost;
kind, form, and amount of
nutrients lost; seasonal
patterns
o
,Must be compared with throughfall and stemflow nutrient content.
Must be compared with wetfall-dryfall nutrient content.
i
*-
N>
-------
TABLE 19. PARAMETERS TO BE EVALUATED, METHODS OF MEASUREMENT, AND
FREQUENCY OF DETERMINATION FOR EACH EXPERIMENTAL WATERSHED
Parameters
Method of measurement
Frequency of determination
Gaseous sulfur
Gaseous nitrogen
Suspended particulate
A TECO pulse fluorescence monitor is being
used to determine the contribution of S02
sulfur to the study area. It is antici-
pated that a major portion of the incoming
gaseous sulfur will be in the S02 form.
Air samples will be drawn from above,
within, and below the forest canopy by
using a manifold-sequencer system.
Instrumentation to measure gaseous nitro-
gen inputs is still being evaluated. An
instrument compatible with the three-level
intake and manifold system has not been
found; consequently, other methods will be
evaluated and a satisfactory system devel-
oped in the near future.
A millipore filter system has been devel-
oped whereby air samples can be drawn from
above, within, and below the canopy. It
is anticipated that particulate input may
account for a large portion of the non-S02
sulfur entering the system. This sampling
system will allow determination of total
input as well as the amount stripped from
the air due to deposition or impaction on
the vegetation.
Each position is sampled at a 60-s
interval until sufficient data are
accumulated for determination of
an optimum sampling interval.
co
i
Filter pads are being changed weekly
until an optimum sampling interval
is determined.
-------
Table 19 (continued)
Parameters
Method of measurement
Frequency of determination
Wet/dry fall
Soil nutrient status
Soil solution
Stage height
Two AEC-type wet/dry fall monitors are
located on the watershed; one above the
canopy, the other below. This device
allows particulate deposition rates to be
determined as well as partitioning atmo-
spheric input into wet and dry components
for chemical analysis. A volume and pH
determination will be made on all wetfall
samples before chemical analysis.
A soil survey was conducted to delineate
soil boundaries, and a sampling program
keyed to the reference grid system was
used to collect soil samples for chemical
and physical analysis. These data will
be used to develop a detailed description
of the physical and chemical status of
the watershed soils.
Porous cup lysimeters installed at four
depths (25, 50, 75, and 100 cm) at inter-
vals along slope gradient transects.
An automatic stage height recorder is used
to measure the level of water behind the
weir so that nutrient concentrations can
be converted to nutrient loss values.
Samples are being collected biweekly
initially, but may be composited
and analyzed monthly after a period
of evaluation.
The soil survey and intensive sampling
program will be conducted only once at
the start of the program.
i
JN
Samples will be collected biweekly and
composited into a monthly sample.
Continuous record
-------
Table 19 (continued)
Parameter
Method of measurement
Frequency of determination
Stream nutrient flux
Solar
Wind
Branch and bole
Leaves
An automatic discrete sampler is used to
collect samples of water leaving the
system by streamflow.
A net radiometer placed above the canopy
is used to determine the input of solar
energy into the system.
Wind speed and direction are monitored
above the canopy. Data of this sort are
needed to construct realistic deposition
and impaction models and evapotranspiration
models.
Fifty-six trees were harvested for biomass
and chemical determinations. The sizes
and species of the trees were determined
by the results of the vegetation survey.
Biomass estimates were made using standard
regression techniques. Trees harvested
for biomass determination were also
divided into several components, and each
component was analyzed for elemental
content.
A series of litter traps located at random
within a cover type are being used to quan-
tify the annual input of leaf litter to the
forest floor as well as to provide esti-
mates of standing leaf biomass. Weight
determinations are made on all samples and
Water samples will be collected in
proportion to the flow passing the
weir.
15-s intervals
15-s intervals
Biomass and elemental content of
branch and bole components will
require quantifications only once.
Litter traps are run monthly, except
during the annual leaf fall period
when biweekly collections will be
made. Living leaves will be collected
biweekly during the growing season.
-------
Table 19 (continued)
Parameters
Method of measurement
Frequency of determination
Roots
Litter decomposition
Throughfall
subsamples are taken for chemical analysis.
To evaluate nutrient flux both on and in
living leaves, samples will be collected
biweekly and processed for chemical
analysis.
Below-ground biomass was determined through
the use of periodic core samples for
lateral roots and regression analysis for
stump and major lateral roots. Samples
collected for biomass determinations will
also be used for chemical determinations.
Nylon net bags containing known amounts of
fresh mixed litter will be followed through
time to determine weight and nutrient flux.
Incoming precipitation which passes
directly through the canopy can change
in chemical composition as a consequence
of contact with the canopy. Throughfall
collectors have been distributed through-
out the watershed with placement being
random within a vegetation type. After
collection, the samples are returned to
the lab for volume and pH determinations
and then prepared for chemical analysis.
Stumps and major laterals need to be
extracted only once. Core samples
will be collected monthly.
Bags will be collected monthly for a
36-month period.
Sample bottle exchanges will be keyed
to precipitation with biweekly col-
lections generally being used.
o--
I
-------
Table 19 (continued)
Parameters
Method of measurement
Frequency of determination
Stemflow
Total precipitation
Vegetation survey
A portion of incoming precipitation, rather
than passing directly through the canopy, is
funneled to the soil surface by the branch
and bole system of the tree. The chemical
composition of precipitation can be altered
significantly due to contact with the tree
bark. Using data derived from the vegeta-
tion survey, trees of various size classes
have been fitted with stemflow collectors.
Volume of sample collected will be deter-
mined in the field, and a subsample taken
for chemical analysis.
A standard recording rain gage will be
located in an open area to measure total
precipitation input to the watershed.
An intensive vegetation survey was con-
ducted so that the boundaries of various
vegetation types can be established and
descriptive and quantitative data on stand
characteristics collected.
Sample collection will be keyed to
precipitation just as throughfall.
Precipitation input will be recorded
continuously and reported hourly.
The intensive vegetation survey will
be conducted only once at the start
of the program.
-------
F 182.9 . 504.8 152.4 137.2 . I6T.6
'
~"=°-~-«, I rTOPOFSTEEL
^••"-at _ 33.3 WEIR PLATE |
V"^\. * / 1 T \46/
\ _ TOP OF J \ /
\ ^_ CONCRETE ' ' \\/
\ -^^GRADE BEFORE EXCAVATION _^s^
\ ^ / 44
\
\
\
\
S
\
\
> IMPERMEABLE LAYER
M^
r^ 1
^
1
I
1
1
1
1
3.4 /
__ J
r~~~
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
CD
I
Figure 13. Schematic diagram of the Camp Branch (A) and Cross Creek (B) weirs.
(All measurements are in centimeters.)
-------
-49-
However, the maximum flow value of 4.81 m3/s (170.00 cfs) is somewhat
less for the Cross Creek weir due to the reduced height of the second
rectangular section. Both weirs are constructed of steel-reinforced
concrete and are protected from undercutting by a concrete apron which
extends downstream from the weir. Bypass drains have been located in
the base of the dam so that the weir pool may be drained if necessary.
Stage height is detected through the use of a float-mounted poten-
tiometer. One-liter samples of water are collected for chemical analysis
on a flow-proportional basis with a Manning S-6003 discrete sampler.
Two of these units have been combined to provide the capability of col-
lecting 48 individual samples before a bottle change is necessary. Samples
are stored in a refrigerated unit in the base of the sampler. Samples
may be collected on either a flow-proportional basis or on a unit-time
basis.
A standard measurement of precipitation input to each watershed is
being obtained through the use of a Belfort model 5915-12 spring weighing
and potentiometric output type rain gage. The rain gage is mounted on a
concrete pad located in a cleared area near the watershed crest at both
locations. Data from the rain gage are recorded continuously by the data
logging system and reported at 60-min intervals.
Environmental Monitoring Equipment
The information presented in Table 20 outlines the environmental
parameters being evaluated, the place at which the measurement is being
taken, and the type of instrument used to make the measurement. A 25-m,
free-standing tower has been erected at each location to facilitate the
measurement of certain parameters both above and below the forest canopy
so that gradients or profiles can be developed. Sampling points for
ambient air temperature, air turbulence, dew point, suspended particulates,
solar radiation, sulfur dioxide, wet-dry precipitation, wind direction,
and wind speed are located above the canopy at the 25-m level. Dew point,
suspended particulates, and sulfur dioxide are also measured just below
the canopy (7 m) and at ground level (1 m); additional measurements of
ambient air temperature and wet-dry precipitation are made at ground
level (1m). A three-position intake system supplies a flow of ambient
air to the sulfur dioxide monitor and dew point hygrometer through a
manifold sequencer system (Figure 14). The frequency of determination
for each environmental parameter and the appropriate scaling factor are
presented in Table 21.
Data Collection, Processing, and Control
The basic component in the hydrologic and environmental monitoring
system is a minicomputer-controlled data logger and control system, which
automatically measures or controls the measurement of the parameters dis-
cussed previously. The system, as outlined in Table 22 and illustrated
in Figure 14, consists of a minicomputer, a high-speed paper tape reader
teletype printer and paper punch, a battery real-time clock, a scanner,
and a digital multimeter. Sensor outputs are measured at selected rates
(Table 21), and calculations are performed for a data output each hour.
Outputs to the teletype printer and paper punch will be hourly averages
-------
TABLE 20. ENVIRONMENTAL AND HYDROLOGIC PARAMETERS TO BE MEASURED, LOCATION OF SENSOR,
AND DESCRIPTION OF INSTRUMENTATION USED TO MEASURE EACH PARAMETER LISTED
Parameter
Location
Description
Ambient air temperature Tower (25 and 1 m)
Atmospheric turbulence
Dew point
Liquid level
transmitter-flow
totalizer
Particulate sampler
Tower (25 m)
Tower (25, 7, and
1 m)
Weir
Tower (25, 7, and
1 m)
Precipitation (standard Open (1 m)
measurement)
Aerodet (ARI Industries, Inc.), Model R-22.3-E50 RTD (plat-
inum wire Resistance Temperature Detector) mounted in motor-
fan aspirated solar radiation shield. Climet Instruments,
Inc., Model 016-1. Data recording range -9.9 to 99.9°F;
RTD accuracy ±0.06°F; aspirated shield maximum radiation
error, -0 to +0.2°F.
Same sensor as for wind direction. Sigma y, horizontal
turbulence, via statistical formula in computer, data
recording range 0-90° to a resolution of 1°.
EG&G, Inc., Model 440 dew point hygrometer, computer-
controlled level selection unit; data logger system oper-
ating range -30°F to +100°F; calibration range from -110°F
to +140°F; hygrometer accuracy within ±0.7°F.
Float mounted potentiometer.
One-micron Teflon filter 47-mm diameter, pump, rotameter;
flow rate 500 cc/min.
Belfont Instrument Co., Model 5915-12; spring weighing and
potentiometer output type; calibrated range, 0 to 9.9", data
recording range 0.00 to 9.99"; accuracy ±0.5% (±0.06");
sensitivity, 0.01".
o
i
-------
Table 20 (continued)
Parameter
Location
Description
Solar radiation
Tower (25 m)
Sulfur dioxide
Water sampler
Wet-dry precipitation
Wind direction
Wind speed
Tower (25, 7, and
1 m)
Weir (head of minimum
pool)
Tower (25 and 1 m)
Tower (25 m)
Tower (25 m)
Epply Laboratories, 180° Pyranometer, Model 8-48 calibrated
range 0 to 2 g-cal/cn^min1; data recording range, 0.00 to
3.00 g-cal; linearity ±1% from 0 to 2 g-cal; response time
4 s; cosine response ±2% from 10 to 90°; sensitivity, near
7.5 mv per g-cal/enr^min1; typical output 0-14 mv.
Thermo Electron Corp. Model 43 pulsed fluorescent S02 moni-
tor, computer-controlled level selection unit; data logger
system operating range 0-0.5, 0-1, 0-5 ppm (0-10V) precision
0.005 ppm; zero drift (12 and 24 h) ±0.005 ppm; span drift
(24 h) ±1%; lag time 10 s; rise time 3 min; fall time 3 min.
2 each Manning Model 6003, each with 24 1-L sample bottles.
bottles. Sampling rate controlled by computer.
AEC design wet-dry precipitation collector; stainless steel
sensor, top and support arms; 1/4" anodized aluminum base;
linearized polyethylene buckets.
Climet Instruments, Inc., Model 012-10; horizontal, cali-
brated range, electrical 0—537°, mechanical 0—360° con-
tinuous, data recording range 0-540° (0-4.8v), linearity
±0.5%, accuracy ±3°.
Climet Instruments, Inc., Model 011-1; starting threshold,
0.6 mph; operating range, 0-110 mph; calibrated range 0.6-90
mph; data recording range 0-99.9 mph; accuracy within ±1 per-
cent or 0-15 mph, whichever is greater from 0.6 to 90 mph.
i
Ln
-------
TABLE 21. PERIOD BETWEEN SCANS AND SCALING CALCULATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
AND HYDROLOGIC PARAMETERS LISTED
Parameter
Ambient air
temperature
Dew point
Period between scans
60 s
60 s
Scaling calculations
x ohms - 46.46 ohms x-
ohms/°F
xV - 56.80 ,OOF _ F(
(x
46
11
= value
.46°F
if F-,0
of measurement)
< 32°F. then:
Stage height
Particulate sampler
Precipitation
Solar radiation
Sulfur dioxide
40V/°F
F2o = FIO + o.0005661(32°F - F^)2 - 0.1326(32°F
5 rain
Continuous
60 rain
15 s
60 s
x ohms - Ik ohms
2k ohms/ft
= ft
x ohms _ x
ohms/in. 1750 in.
xmv _ x gm-cal/cm2min
mv/gm-cal/cmzmin7.14
10 V full scale (0.5, 1, or 5 ppm)
Water sampler Variable
Wind direction 5 s
Wind speed 15 s
(10) Vi0> "
ppui ^. ZC.LU U-L-Lseu
Sampling frequency proportional to streamflow
xmv
mv/degree
xmv _
mv/mph
x
g n degrees
x
48 mph
= Dew point unless value is less than 32°F; then it is the frost point.
= Dew point temperature calculated from the frost point.
-------
TABLE 22. COMPONENT PARTS FOR DATA LOGGER—CONTROL SYSTEM
Component Description
Battery real-time clock (TVA) Battery run clock to reset time in case of power failure
Computer Data General Corp., Nova 1200 jumbo 32K, auto-load and restart,
real-time clock
Digital multimeter Hewlett-Packard Co., Model 3450B, with remote control and
digital output options
High-speed reader Data General Corp., Model 6013, 400 cps
Printer-punch Teletype Corp., Model ASR-33
Scanner (TVA) 24-channel reed relay scanner with dew point control and
6-bit relay tree, computer interface and BRTC control
-------
w/s; W/D
WET/DRY
SAMPLER
RECORDER
2 CM
w/s ; W/D
DIGITAL
MULTI-
METER
TELETYPE
25 METER FREE STANDING TOWER
TEMP; SOLAR RADIATION
S02 a D. P. INTAKE
H20 INTAKE a SAMPLE LINES
HEAT TRACED
LEVEL TRANSDUCER
3 HEAT TRACED
TEFLON SAMPLE LINES
WIND
TRANSLATOR
SCANNER
so2 a D.P
SEQUENCER
TECO
so2
MONITOR
COMPUTER
440
HYGROMETER
RECORDER
2CH
SO 2 ', D.P.
SEQU
LEVEL SOUNDER
TOTAL FLOW
SYSTEM
ENTIAL
SAMPLER
^fcl (1-24)
RAI N
GAGE
±
itrn
SEQUENTIAL
SAMPLER
.#2(25-48)
Figure 14. Block diagram of instrument package developed
for Camp Branch and Cross Creek watersheds.
-------
-55-
for temperature, dew point, wind speed, and wind direction. Sulfur
dioxide values will be the hourly average plus the peak for that hour.
Stream stage will be read on a 5-min basis, and stage height and flow
calculations will be outputted hourly. There is also a signal from the
proportional sampler to the computer to signify when a sample is taken,
and this time will be printed out by the computer. A similar signal is
sent to the computer each time the wet-dry precipitation collector is
activated.
Passive Sampling Equipment
In addition to the more sophisticated equipment used to monitor
various hydrologic and environmental parameters, other devices are
located on each study area to collect other types of needed information.
Leaf and litter fall is being collected in litter traps, which are wooden
boxes, 1 x 1 m square and 25 cm tall. The boxes are open from the top
and have fiberglass screen bottoms. Each box is supported by four legs
so that it is held in a level position about 30 cm above the forest floor.
Throughfall collectors were fabricated from brown 2-L polypropylene bottles
connected to a polypropylene funnel 16 cm in diameter. Porous cup lysi-
meters inserted in the soil to depths of 25, 50, 75, and 100 cm are used
to collect samples of the soil solution.
-------
-56-
REFERENCES
Attiwill, P. M., and J. D. Ovington. 1968. Determination of Forest
Biomass. Forest Sci. 14(11):13-15.
Baskerville, G. L. 1972. Use of Logarithmic Regression in the
Estimation of Plant Biomass. Can. J. For. Res. 2:49-53.
Elder, J. A., E. K. Yates, I. B. Epley, and L. E. Odom. 1958. Soil
Survey of Marion County, Tennessee. USDA-SCS Series 1950, No. 2.
88 pp.
Fenneman, N. M. 1938. Physiography of Eastern United States. McGraw-
Hill. New York. 714 pp.
Fisher, D. W. , A. W. Gambell, G. E. Likens, and H. F. Bormann. 1968.
Atmospheric Contributions to Water Quality of Streams in the
Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. Water Resour.
Res. 4:1115-1126.
Fredriksen, R. L. 1972. Nutrient Budget of a Douglas-Fir Forest on an
Experimental Watershed in Western Oregon. In: J. F. Franklin, L. J.
Dempster, and R. H. Waring (eds.), Proceedings, Research Coniferous
Forest Ecosystems - A Symposium. Pacific and Northwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon, pp. 115-131.
Gambell, A. W. , and D. W. Fisher. 1966. Chemical Composition of Rainfall,
Eastern North Carolina and Southeastern Virginia. USGS Water Supply
Paper 1535-K.
Henderson, G. S., and W. F. Harris. 1975. An Ecosystem Approach to
Characterization of the Nitrogen Cycle in a Deciduous Forest Water-
shed. In: B. Bernier and C. H. Winger (eds.), Forest Soils and
Forest Land Management. The Univ. of Laval Press, Quebec.
Hubbard, E. H. 1950. Soil Survey of Cumberland County, Tennessee.
USDA-SCS Series 1938, No. 25. 107 pp.
Johnson, P. L., and W. T. Swank. 1973. Studies of Cation Budgets in
the Southern Appalachians on Four Experimental Watersheds with
Contrasting Vegetation. Ecology 54(1):70-80.
Likens, G. E., F. H. Bormann, N. M. Johnson, and R. S. Pierce. 1970.
The Calcium, Magnesium, Potassium, and Sodium Budgets for a Small
Forested Ecosystem. Ecology 48(5):772-785.
Swank, W. T., and G. S. Henderson. 1976. Atmospheric Input of Some
Cations and Anions to Forest Ecosystems in North Carolina and
Tennessee. Water Resour. Res. 12(3):541-546.
Tansley, A. G. 1935. The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and
Terms. Ecology 16:284-307.
-------
-57-
Whitehead, H. C., and J. H. Feth. 1964. Chemical Composition of Rain,
Dry Fallout, and Bulk Precipitation at Menlo Park, California,
1957-1959. J. Geophys. Res. 69:3319-3333.
Thornthwaite, C. W., and J. R. Mather. 1957. Instructions and Tables
for Computing Potential Evapotranspiration and the Water Balance.
Publications in Climatology, Drexel Institute of Technology
10(3):185-311.
-------
-59-
APPENDIX A
ESTABLISHED SERIES DESCRIPTIONS FOR CAMP BRANCH
AND CROSS CREEK SOILS
-------
-6-1--
COTACO SERIES
The Cotaco series consists of deep, moderately well drained, moderately
permeable soils formed in loamy sediments of acid sandstone, siltstone,
and shale origin. These soils are on footslopes, colluvial fans, and
low stream terraces. Slope gradients range from 0 to 8 percent.
Taxonomic Class: Fine-loamy, mixed, mesic Aquic Hapludults.
Typifying Pedon: Cotaco loam—cultivated. (Colors are moist soil
unless otherwise stated.)
Ap -- 0 to 20 cm, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) loam; weak fine
granular structure; very friable; many roots; 5 percent
gravel; medium acid; clear smooth boundary. (18 to 30 cm
thick)
Bl -- 20 to 43 cm, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) loam; weak fine sub-
angular blocky structure; friable; common roots; 5 percent
gravel; strongly acid; gradual smooth boundary. (10 to 36
cm thick)
B2t -- 43 to 76 cm, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sandy clay loam; common
medium distinct mottles of strong brown (7.SYR 5/6) and light
brownish gray (10YR 6/2); moderate medium subangular blocky
structure; friable; few clay films; few roots; few small black
concretions; 5 percent gravel; strongly acid; gradual smooth
boundary. (25 to 50 cm thick)
B3 — 76 to 91 cm, mottled light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4), strong
brown (7.SYR 5/6), and light gray (10YR 7/2) sandy clay loam;
weak medium subangular blocky structure; firm; few clay films;
common small black concretions; 10 percent gravel; strongly
acid; gradual wavy boundary. (10 to 40 cm thick)
C -- 91 to 152 cm, light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) gravelly sandy clay
loam with common medium distinct mottles of strong brown (7.SYR
5/6); massive; friable; few black concretions; 25 percent gravel;
strongly acid. (30 to 185 or more cm thick)
Type Location: Perry County, Kentucky; 1.8 km west of junction of State
Highways 15 to 80 at Darfort, 185 m northwest of State Highway 80.
Range in Characteristics: Depth to bedrock is more than 152 cm. Solum
thickness ranges from 71 to 127 cm. Fragments of sandstone or siltstone
range from 2 to 35 percent in any horizon. Unless limed, reaction
ranges from strongly acid through extremely acid.
The Ap horizon is grayish brown (10YR 5/2), dark grayish brown (10YR
4/2), and brown (10YR 5/3) or (10YR 4/3). Texture is loam, silt loam
and fine sandy loam. '
-------
-62-
The Bl horizon ranges from brown (10YR 5/3) through dark yellowish brown
(10YR 4/4). The B2t horizon ranges from reddish brown (SYR 4/3) through
olive yellow (2.5Y 6/6) and has common or many brownish and grayish
mottles. Some pedons lack a dominant color and are evenly mottled with
the colors described. The matrix color of the B3 and C horizon ranges
from dominantly light gray (2.5Y 7/1) through dominantly strong brown
(7.SYR 5/6) with mottles in shades of gray, brown, or red. Textures of
the B2, B3, and C horizons are heavy loam, sandy clay loam, and light
clay loam, and consistence ranges from friable to firm. Some pedons
have B3 horizons with weak platy structure.
Competing Series and Their Differentiae: These are the Adelphia, Blair-
ton, Cana, Delanco, Holmdel, and Tuscarawas series of the same family.
Competing series in other families are Altavista and Whitwell. Adelphia
and Holmdel soils contain glauconite. Blairton soils contain more silt,
less sand, and 30 to 70 percent shale fragments in the lower solum.
Cana and Tuscarawas soils contain more silt and less sand and, in addi-
tion, Cana soils have an upper argillic horizon developed in loess.
Delanco soils contain medium amounts of mica in the solum. Altavista
and Whitwell soils are similar, but have average temperatures warmer
than 59°C, and, in addition, Whitwell soils are siliceous.
Setting: Footslopes, colluvial fans and low stream terraces with slopes
of 0 to 8 percent. The regolith is alluvium of acid sandstone, siltstone,
and shale origin. Near the type location, the average annual precipitation
is about 107 cm, and average annual air temperature is 12°C.
Principal Associated Soils: These are the Allegheny and Monongahela
series on stream terraces, the Pope and Stendal series of the flood
plains, and the Clymer, Dekalb, Jefferson, and Shelocta series of the
surrounding uplands. Allegheny, Clymer, Jefferson, and Shelocta soils
lack gray mottles in the upper 60 cm of the argillic horizon. Monongahela
soils have fragipans. Dekalb, Pope, and Stendal soils lack an argillic
horizon.
Drainage and Permeability: Moderately well drained; medium runoff;
moderate permeability. Seep spots are common.
Distribution and Extent: The Cumberland-Allegheny Plateau in Kentucky,
Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and possibly Pennsylvania. Extent
is moderate.
-------
-63-
GILPIN SERIES
The Gilpin series is a member of the fine-loamy, mixed mesic family of
Typic Hapludults. These soils have a dark grayish brown shaly silt loam
Ap horizon, yellowish brown shaly silt loam B horizons of clay accu-
mulation, and a yellowish brown very shaly loam C horizon underlain by
acid shale and siltstone at depths of 50 to 100 cm.
Taxonomic Class: Fine-loamy, mixed Typic Hapludults
Typifying Pedon: Gilpin shaly silt loam--cultivated. (Colors are for
moist soil.)
Ap -- 20 cm, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) shaly silt loam; weak fine
granular structure; friable; slightly sticky, slightly plastic;
20 percent coarse fragments; medium acid; abrupt smooth boundary.
(15 to 25 cm thick)
B21t -- 20 to 33 cm, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) shaly silt loam; weak fine
and medium subangular blocky structure; friable; slightly sticky,
slightly plastic; thin discontinuous clay films on ped faces and
in pores; 25 percent coarse fragments; medium acid; gradual wavy
boundary. (10 to 30 cm thick)
B22t -- 33 to 60 cm, yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) shaly heavy silt loam;
moderate medium subangular blocky structure; friable; slightly
sticky, plastic; thin discontinuous clay films on ped faces and
in pores; 30 percent coarse fragments; very strongly acid;
clear irregular boundary. (15 to 36 cm thick)
C — 60 to 76 cm, brown (10YR 5/3) very shaly loam; massive; friable;
slightly sticky, slightly plastic; few clay coatings and common
black iron and manganese coatings on fragments; 70 percent
coarse fragments; very strongly acid; clear wavy boundary.
(0 to 25 cm thick)
R -- 76 to 90+ cm, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4) fractured shale and
siltstone with silt and clay coatings in fissures; strongly
acid.
Type Location: Indiana County, Pennsylvania; North Mahoning Township,
about 1.4 km southeast of Marchand, on hilltop 150 m east of Townshio
Road 660. F
Range in Characteristics: Solum thickness ranges from 50 to 91 cm
Rippable bedrock is at depths of 50 to 102 cm. Thin, flat coarse frag-
ments of shale, siltstone and sandstone comprise 5 to 40 percent of
individual horizons of the solum and 30 to 90 percent of the C horizon
Reaction ranges from strongly to extremely acid throughout unless
limed. The clay mineralogy is mixed, with illite dominant and kaolinite
and vermiculite in lesser quantities. Undisturbed pedons have thin
-------
-6U-
dark Al horizons underlain by a 5- to 13-cm-thick grayish brown A2
horizon with granular structure. The Ap horizon has a hue of 10YR with
values of 3 through 5 and chromas of 2 through 4. Dry values are 6 or 7.
The A horizon is silt loam or loam, including shaly or channery analogues,
with fine and medium granular structure that is weak or moderate. The
Bt horizons commonly are yellowish brown (10YR 5/4 through 5/8) or
strong brown (7.SYR 5/6 through 5/8), but range to light olive brown
(2.5Y 5/4). Colors tend to become more reddish with depth. Textures
are heavy silt loam, heavy loam, or light silty clay loam on their shaly
or channery analogues, with a weighted average silt content ranging from
40 to 60 percent. Structure is weak or moderate, fine or medium, sub-
angular or angular blocky. Consistence is slightly sticky and slightly
plastic or plastic. Clay films on ped faces, on coarse fragments, and in
pores are thin, discontinuous or continuous. A B3 horizon is present in
many pedons and in some places lies directly on bedrock. C horizons
have colors ranging from dark brown to yellowish brown and olive brown
to light olive brown. Texture is shaly, very shaly, channery, or very
channery silt loam or loam, and structure is weak, fine, or medium sub-
angular blocky or platy. Consistence is friable or firm, nonsticky or
slightly sticky and nonplastic or slightly plastic. Many of the coarse
fragments have few, patchy coatings of fine earth and clay films.
Competing Series and Their Differentiae: The Gilpin series is a member
of a large family in which only Bedington, Clymer, and Rayne series are
considered to be closely competing. Also competing are Berks, Cardiff,
Dekalb, Manlius, Muskingum, Wellston, and Westmoreland series. Bedington,
Clymer, and Rayne soils have thicker sola with depth to rock greater than
102 cm. Berks, Cardiff, Dekalb, Manlius, and Muskingum soils lack argillic
horizons. Westmoreland soils have more than 35 percent base saturation,
and Wellston soils, in addition, are more silty.
Setting: Gilpin soils are on gently sloping to steep, convex, dissected
uplands with gradients of 2 to 70 percent. The regolith is weathered
from interbedded gray and brown acid siltstone, shale, and sandstone.
The climate is humid temperate with an average annual rainfall of 91 to
127 cm, average annual air temperatures of 8 to 14°C and a growing season
of 120 to 180 days.
Principal Associated Soils: These include Blairton, Cavode, Ernest,
Shelocta, Upshur, Weikert, and Wharton series and the competing Berks,
Clymer, Dekalb, Muskingum, Rayne, Wellston, and Westmoreland series.
Blairton, Cavode, Ernest, and Wharton soils have mottled subsoils.
Shelocta soils are more than 102 cm to rock. Upshur soils have finer
textures. Weikert soils have bedrock at 50 cm or less.
Drainage and Permeability: Well drained with medium to very rapid
runoff and moderate permeability.
Distribution and Extent: Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky,
Tennessee, Virginia, and Indiana. The series is of large extent.
-------
-65-
HARTSELLS SERIES
The Hartsells series is a member of the fine-loamy siliceous, thermic
family of Typic Hapludults. These soils have dark grayish brown and
brown fine sandy loam A horizons and yellowish brown sandy clay loam B2t
horizons. Acid sandstone bedrock is at about 90 cm.
Taxonomic Class: Fine-loamy, siliceous, Thermic Typic Hapludults
Typifying Pedon: Hartsells fine sandy loam—pasture. (Colors are for
moist conditions.)
Ap ~ 0 to 13 cm, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) fine sandy loam; weak
fine granular structure; very friable; many fine roots; 10
percent by volume 0.5- to 2.5-cm angular fragments of sand-
stone; strongly acid; clear smooth boundary. (10 to 20 cm
thick)
A2 -- 13 to 23 cm, brown (10YR 5/3) fine sandy loam; weak fine granular
structure; very friable; many fine roots; 10 percent by volume
0.5- to 8-cm angular fragments of sandstone; strongly acid;
clear smooth boundary (10 to 20 cm thick)
Bl -- 23 to 33 cm, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) loam; weak fine subangular
blocky structure; friable; common fine roots; few fine fragments
of sandstone; most sand grains coated with clay; very strongly
acid; gradual smooth boundary (0 to 15 cm thick)
B21t — 33 to 50 cm, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sandy clay loam; weak and
moderate medium subangular blocky structure; friable; common
fine roots; few fine fragments of sandstone; thin continuous
clay films on faces of most peds; very strongly acid; gradual
smooth boundary. (10 to 20 cm thick)
B22t -- 50 to 76 cm, yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) sandy clay loam; moderate
medium subangular blocky structure; friable; few fine roots;
thin patchy clay films on faces of most peds; 10 percent by
volume 1.0- to 5.0-cm angular fragments of sandstone; very
strongly acid; gradual smooth boundary. (10 to 25 cm thick)
B3 — 76 to 91 cm, yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) channery sandy loam,
texture coarsens with increasing depths; weak medium subangular
blocky structure; very friable; 30 percent by volume; 1.0-
to 5.0-cm angular fragments of sandstone; sand grains coated
with clay; very strongly acid; abrupt boundary. (0 to 20 cm
thick)
R — 91 cm, acid sandstone.
"arsha11 County> Alabama; Land Mountain NW Corner of
sec. 24, T. 8 S., R. 3 E. Very near the center of the
S6CulOfl•
-------
-66-
Range in Characteristics: Depth to bedrock and solum thickness range
from 50 to 100 cm. The amount of coarse fragments, chiefly sandstone,
ranges from none to 15 percent in any horizon, except the B3 and C
horizons, which range up to 35 percent. Where the soil has not been
limed, it is extremely acid through strongly acid throughout.
The Ap horizon is dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2; 2.5Y 4/2), dark brown
(10YR 4/3), dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), grayish brown (10YR 5/2;
2.5Y 5/2), brown (10YR 5/3), or yellowish brown (10 YR 5/4, 5/6, 5/8).
Some pedons have a 2- to 10-cm Al horizon that is very dark grayish brown
(10YR 3/2), grayish brown (10YR 4/2; 2.5Y 4/2), or dark brown (10YR
4/3). The A2 horizon is dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), brown (10YR
5/3), yellowish brown (10YR 5/4, 5/6, 5/8), or pale brown (10YR 6/3).
Texture of the A horizon is fine sandy loam or loam.
The Bl horizon is dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), yellowish brown (10YR
5/4, 5/6, 5/8), or brown (7.SYR 4/4). Texture is sandy loam or loam.
The B2t horizon is yellowish brown (10YR 5/4, 5/6, 5/8), strong brown
(7.SYR 5/6, 5/8), or brown (7.SYR 4/4), and the lower part commonly is
mottled in shades of red, brown, or yellow. Texture is sandy loam,
loam, sandy clay loam, or clay loam. The average clay content of the
upper 50 cm of the B2t horizon or to bedrock commonly is 18 to 24 per-
cent, but ranges from 18 to 30 percent.
The B3 or C horizon is similar to the B2t horizon in color and texture.
Competing Series and Their Differentiae: These are the Albertville,
Allen, Apison, Cahaba, Cheaha, Clymer, Durham, Enders, Granville, Holston,
Kalmia, Linker, Maxton, Mountainburg, Nectar, Pirum, and Townley series.
Albertville, Enders, and Townley soils average more than 35 percent clay
in the upper 50 cm of the Bt horizon, and in addition Enders soils have
Bt horizons of SYR or 2.SYR hue. Allen and Holston soils have sola
thicker than 150 cm, and Allen soils have Bt horizons of SYR or 2.SYR
hue- Aposon soils have appreciably more silt with silt loam or silty
clay loam Bt horizons. Cahaba, Kalmia, and Maxton soils are deeper than
150 cm to bedrock and have sand or loamy sand C horizons. Chesha soils
have more than 15 percent coarse fragments throughout the solum.
Clymer soils have mean annual soil temperatures of less than 15°C.
Durham soils are deeper than 150 cm to bedrock, but have C horizons of
sandy loam saprolite at about 120 cm. Granville soils have loamy
material extending below 130 cm. Linker soils have Bt horizons of SYR
or 2.SYR hue. Mountainburg soils have bedrock within 50 cm of the soil
surface. Nectar soils have redder Bt horizons and depth to rock is more
than 100 cm. Pirum soils have an irregular lower boundary at contact
with bedrock.
Setting: The Hartsells soils occur on broad smooth plateaus, mountain-
tops, or hilltops. Slopes between 3 and 8 percent are dominant, but the
extreme range of slope is 2 to 25 percent. The soil formed in moderately
coarse to medium textured materials. The country rock consists of acid
-------
-67-
hard sandstone containing thin strata of shale or siltstone in some
places. Near the type location the average annual air temperature is
16°C, and the average rainfall is 142 cm.
Principal Associated Soils: These include the competing Albertville,
Enders, Linker, Nectar, and Townley series and the Crossville, Hector,
and Wynnville series. Crossville and Hector soils lack argillic horizons,
and in addition, Hector soils have bedrock within 50 cm of the soil
surface. Wynnville soils have a fragipan.
Drainage and Permeability: Well drained; medium runoff; moderate
permeability.
Distribution and Extent: Cumberland Plateau in Alabama, Georgia,
Kentucky, and Tennessee; the Boston Mountains and adjoining ridges in
Arkansas and possibly Oklahoma. The series is of large extent.
-------
-68-
JEFFERSON SERIES
The Jefferson series is a member of the fine-loamy, siliceous, mesic
family of Typic Hapludults. Jefferson soils have thin dark grayish
brown or dark yellowish brown gravelly loam A horizons and thick
yellowish brown gravelly loam or gravelly light clay loam, very strongly
acid Bt horizons.
Taxonomic Class: Fine-loamy, siliceous, mesic Typic Hapludults.
Typifying Pedon: Jefferson gravelly loam— wooded. (Colors are for
moist conditions.)
Al -- 0 to 8 cm, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) gravelly loam; moderate
fine and medium granular structure; very friable; many small
roots; 15 percent sandstone fragments; strongly acid; clear
smooth boundary. (5 to 13 cm thick)
A2 -- 8 to 20 cm, dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) gravelly loam; weak
fine and medium granular structure; very friable; many small
roots; 15 percent sandstone fragments; strongly acid; gradual
smooth boundary. (10 to 23 cm thick)
Bit -- 20 to 38 cm, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) gravelly heavy loam;
moderate fine and medium subangular blocky structure; friable;
common roots; thin patchy clay films; 20 percent angular sand-
stone fragments; very strongly acid; gradual smooth boundary.
(0 to 25 cm thick)
B21t -- 38 to 97 cm, yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) gravelly light clay loam;
moderate medium subangular blocky structure; friable, slightly
sticky; few roots; thin clay films on most ped surfaces; 25
percent sandstone fragments; very strongly acid; gradual
smooth boundary. (43 to 76 cm thick)
B22t -- 97 to 132 cm, yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) gravelly heavy loam; few
medium faint brown (10YR 5/3) mottles; moderate medium sub-
angular blocky structure; friable; few roots; thin patchy clay
films; 30 percent sandstone fragments; very strongly acid;
gradual wavy boundary. (36 to 51 cm thick)
C -- 132 to 157 cm, yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) gravelly loam; common
medium faint brown (10YR 5/3) and strong brown (7.SYR 5/6)
mottles; massive; friable; 40 percent sandstone fragments;
very strongly acid.
Type location: Lee County, Kentucky; 138 m south of gravel road at a
point 1.6 km west of Kentucky Highway 11; 4.8 km south of the Wolfe
County line.
Range in Characteristics: Thickness of the solum ranges from 107 to 152
cm. Content of sandstone fragments 3 to 20 cm across ranges from 10 to
25 percent to a depth of about 91 cm. Below 91 cm the fragments may be
-------
-69-
longer and the content ranges from 20 to 45 percent. Unless limed the
soil ranges from strongly to very strongly acid throughout The Al
horizon ranges from very dark gray (10YR 3/1) through grayish brown
(10YR 5/2). The A2 horizon ranges from pale brown (10YR 6/3) through
dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4). The Ap horizon ranges from dark grayish
brown (10YR 4/2) through yellowish brown (10YR 5/4). Texture of the A
horizons ranges from loam to fine sandy loam and their gravelly analogs.
The Bt horizons range from yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) through strong
brown (7.SYR 5/8). Texture in these horizons is heavy loam, sandy clay
loam, heavy sandy loam or clay loam and their gravelly analogs. Struc-
ture is fine and medium subangular blocky. The matrix colors of the C
horizon range from yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) through strong brown
(7.SYR 5/6). In some pedons the B22t and the C horizons have a few
brown to grayish brown or light brownish gray mottles. The C horizons
are gravelly and texture of the fines is loam, sandy clay loam, or light
clay loam. A IIC horizon of clayey residuum from shales is at a depth
of 1.5 to 2 m in some pedons.
Competing Series and Their Differentiae: The Marr, Sassafras, and Sunny-
side series are currently listed in the same family. Other closely
competing soils include the Apison, Brevard, Cahaba, Clymer, Granville,
Hartsells, Holston, Linker, Meadowville, Murrill, Shelocta, Tate, and
Thurmont series. The Marr soils have essentially no coarse fragments,
and the sand fraction in the B horizon is nearly all in the fine or very
fine sand classes. The Sassafras soils have a solum thickness of 76 to
101 cm and contain pebbles rather than sandstone fragments. Sunnyside
soils have hue redder than 7.SYR and no coarse fragments in the Bt
horizon. Apison and Hartsells soils have bedrock within a 100-cm depth.
Brevard, Clymer, Meadowville, Murrill, Shelocta, Tate, and Thurmont soils
have mixed mineralogy. In addition, Brevard soils have developed red
colors in the B horizon, and Clymer soils have a solum less than 100 cm
in thickness, Meadowville soils have more than 40 percent silt and 5 to
10 percent coarse fragments, Murrill soils have a buried argillic horizon
of high clay content, Shelocta soils have more than 40 percent silt, and
Thurmont soils are streaked or mottled with reddish and strong brown
colors and contain quartz, quartzite, granitic gravel, cobbles, and
stones. Cahaba and Linker soils have hues redder than 7.SYR. Granville
soils are high in exchangeable aluminum. Holston soils have a solum
more than 150 cm thick.
Setting: Steep mountainsides and footslopes, often below sandstone
escarpments, with slopes ranging from 5 to 60 percent. These soils have
formed in colluvium from soils formed in residuum of acid sandstone and
siltstone. At the type location the average annual precipitation is
about 117 cm, and the average annual air temperature is about 13.2 C.
Principal Associated Soils: These are in the Clymer, Dekalb Gilpin,
Muskingum, Ramsey, Shelocta, Wharton, and Whitley series. Dekalb,
Muskingum, and Ramsey soils lack argillic horizons. Wharton soils have
more clay and less sand and Whitley soils have more silt and less sana.
Drainage and Permeability: Well drained. Rapid or medium runoff,
depending on slope. Permeability is moderately rapid.
-------
-70-
LINKER SERIES
The Linker series is a member of the fine-loamy, siliceous, thermic
family of Typic Hapludults. These soils have brown strongly acid fine
sandy loam A horizons, yellowish red very strongly acid sandy clay loam
B horizons, and sandstone bedrock is at depths of about 1 meter.
Taxonomic Class: Fine-loamy, siliceous, thermic Typic Hapludults.
Typifying Pedon: Linker fine sandy loam--pasture. (Colors are for
moist soil.)
Ap -- 0 to 13 cm, brown (10YR 5/3) fine sandy loam; weak medium granular
structures; very friable; common roots; few sandstone flags on
surface and in soil; common fine pores; few worm casts; strongly
acid; clear wavy boundary. (10 to 18 cm thick)
Bl -- 13 to 25 cm, yellowish red (SYR 4/6) heavy fine sandy loam; weak
medium subangular blocky structure; friable; common fine roots;
many medium pores; clay coats and bridging on sand grains and
in some pores; few worm casts; few sandstone flags; very strongly
acid; clear wavy boundary. (0 to 18 cm thick)
B2t -- 25 to 64 cm, yellowish red (SYR 4/8) sandy clay loam; moderate
medium subangular blocky structure; friable; few roots; common
fine pores; patchy thin clay films on peds and in pores; few
sandstone flags; very strongly acid; clear wavy boundary. (30
to 50 cm thick)
B3 — 64 to 89 cm, yellowish red (SYR 4/8) gravelly light sandy clay
loam; common medium distinct red (2.SYR 4/6), strong brown
7.SYR 5/6) and prominent pale brown (10YR 6/3) mottles; weak
medium subangular blocky structure; friable; common fine pores;
few thin discontinuous clay films; about 20 percent pebbles
and flagstones of sandstone; very strongly acid; abrupt wavy
boundary. (0 to 38 cm thick)
R — 89 cm, hard massive level-bedded acid sandstone.
Type Location: Pope County, Arkansas; 3.8 km north of Moreland on Buck
Mountain, 92 m east and 15 m north of road turn, on crest of ridge,
SW1/4SW1/4NW1/4 sec. 35, T. 9 N., R. 19 W.
Range of Characteristics: Solum thickness and depth to bedrock range
from 50 to 100 cm. Base saturation in the horizon above bedrock is
about 10 to 25 percent. If unlimed, the soil is extremely acid through
strongly acid. The Ap horizon is brown (10YR 5/3, 4/3; 7.SYR 5/4, 4/4,
4/2), dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), or dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2).
Some pedons have Al horizons, 5 to 10 cm thick, that are dark grayish
brown (10YR 4/2) or very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2), and A2 horizons
that are grayish brown (10YR 5/2), brown (10YR 5/3, 7.SYR 5/2 or that
are grayish brown (10YR 5/2), brown (10YR 5/3, 7.SYR 5/2 or 7.SYR 5/4),
or yellowish brown (10YR 5/4). The A horizon is fine sandy loam or loam.
-------
-71-
Gravelly, flaggy, and stony phases are recognized. The Bl horizon is yellow-
ish red (SYR 4/6, 4/8, 5/6 or 5/8) or strong brown (7.5YJR 4/6 or 5/6) It
is fine sandy loam, sandy clay loam, or loam. The B2t horizon is yellowish
red (SYR 4/6, 4/8, 5/6 or 5/8) or red (2.SYR 4/6, 4/8, 5/6 or 5/8). It is
sandy clay loam, clay loam, or loam. The B3 horizon has the same colors as
the B2t horizon and is mottled with shades of brown. It is sandy loam or
sandy clay loam. The upper 20 in. of the B horizon average between 18 and
28 percent clay and more than 20 percent fine and coarser sand. Pebble and
flagstone content by volume in the Bl and B2t horizons is 0 to about 10 per-
cent and in the B3 horizon is 0 to about 25 percent. Some pedons have C
horizons, 2 to 15 cm thick, of red, brown, or gray soft weathered sandstone.
Competing Series and Their Differentiae: These are the Alamance, Albert-
ville, Allen, Apison, Cahaba, Durham, Enders, Granville, Grover, Hartsells,
Holston, Johns, Kalmia, Kempsville, Maxton, Mountainburg, Pirum, Saffell,
Townley, Whitwell, and Wickham series. Alamance soils have less than 15
percent fine and coarser sand in the upper 50 cm of the B horizon.
Albertville, Enders, and Townley soils average more than 35 percent clay
in the upper 50 cm of the B horizon. Albertville soils, in addition,
have 7.SYR or yellower hue. Allen and Holston soils have sola thicker
than 150 cm. Holston soils, in addition, have 7.SYR or yellower hue.
Apison soils have B horizons of 7.SYR or yellower hue of gravelly silty
clay loam. Cahaba, Kalmia, Kempsville, and Maxton soils are deeper than
150 cm to bedrock and have sand or loamy sand C horizons. Durham,
Granville, and Hartsells soils have B2 horizons of 7.SYR or yellower
hue. Grover soils have micaceous mineralogy. Johns and Whitwell soils
have colors of 2 or lower chroma in mottles in the matrix in the upper
part of the B horizon. Mountainburg soils have bedrock at depths of
less than 50 cm. Pirum soils have B horizons with irregular lower
boundary and with strong brown or yellower colors. Saffell soils have
more than 35 percent by volume of fragments larger than 2 mm in the B
horizon. Wickham soils have mixed mineralogy and lack rock within
depths of 2 m.
Setting: Linker soils are on broad plateaus, mountain- and hilltops, and
benches. Much of the soil has slopes between 2 and 8 percent, and the
full range is from 1 to 15 percent. The soil formed in loamy residuum
weathered from sandstone or interbedded sandstone, siltstone, and shale.
Near the type location, average annual temperature is about 15°C, and
average annual precipitation is about 124 cm.
Principal Associated Soils: These are the competing Allen, Enders,
Hartsells, Holston, and Mountainburg soils, and the Hector and Ramsey
soils. The two last named soils are less than 50 cm deep to bedrock and
contain more sand.
Drainage and Permeability: Well drained; slow to rapid runoff depending
upon slope; moderate permeability.
Distribution and Extent: Boston Mountains, Arkansas Valley and Ouachita
Highlands of Arkansas and Oklahoma; Cumberland Plateau and Mountains
of Tennessee, Kentucky, and Georgia; Sand Mountain area of Alabama. Ine
series is of large extent, probably in excess of 120,000 ha.
-------
-72-
MUSKINGUM SERIES
The Muskingum series is a member of the fine-loamy, mixed, mesic family
of Typic Dystrochrepts. These soils have brownish silt loam A horizons
and yellowish brown silt loam B horizons. They contain coarse fragments
throughout and bedrock is at 50 to 100 cm.
Taxonomic Class: Fine-loamy, mixed, mesic Typic Dystrochrepts.
Typifying Pedon: Muskingum silt loam--fcrested. (Colors are for moist
soil.)
Al -- 0 to 8 cm, very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silt loam; moderate
fine granular structure; very friable; many roots; 10 percent
coarse fragments; medium acid; clear wavy boundary. (5 to 13 cm
thick)
A2 -- 8 to 23 cm, brown (10YR 5/3) silt loam; weak fine granular and weak
fine subangular blocky structure; very friable; common roots; 10
percent coarse fragments; strongly acid; clear wavy boundary.
(5 to 20 cm thick)
B2 — 28 to 60 cm, yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) channery silt loam; moder-
ate fine and medium subangular blocky structure; friable; few
roots; 20 percent coarse fragments; strongly acid; gradual wavy
boundary. (20 to 46 cm thick)
B3 — 60 to 82 cm, yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) channery silt loam; weak
fine and medium subangular blocky structure; friable; 30 per-
cent coarse fragments; strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary.
(0 to 30 cm thick)
C — 82 to 89 cm, fractured brown and gray horizontally bedded soft
siltstone and fine grained sandstone and 10 to 15 percent fines
like that in the B3 horizon. (0 to 25 cm thick)
R -- 89 cm, fractured siltstone and fine grained sandstone.
Type Location: Raleigh County, West Virginia; 5.6 km east of Arnett on
W. Va. Route 3, then north 1.2 km on W. Va. Route (3/10); 46 m east of
road.
Range in Characteristics: Thickness of the solum ranges from 40 to 91
cm. Depth to hard bedrock is 50 to 100 cm. The B and C horizons are
strongly or very strongly acid except where the soil has been limed.
Coarse fragments of shale, siltstone, or sandstone range from 10 to 30
percent by volume in all parts of the B horizon and are more than 35
percent in the C horizon. The control section averages less than 35
percent coarse fragments.
-------
-73-
The Ap horizon ranges from dark brown (10YR 3/3) through strong brown
(7.SYR 5/6). The Al horizon is less than 15 cm thick and commonly is
very dark grayish brown or dark brown. The A horizon is silt loam, loam,
or fine sandy loam and may be channery. It is friable to very friable.
The B2 horizon ranges from dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) to strong
brown (7.SYR 5/6). It is silt loam or channery silt loam. It has weak
or moderate, fine or medium, subangular blocky structure. A few dis-
continuous clay films are in some pedons. The C horizon is yellowish
brown (10YR 5/4) or brown (10YR 5/3 or 7.SYR 5/4). It is channery or
very channery loam or silt loam.
Competing Series and Their Differentiae: The Citico, Kitsap, and Sadie
series are members of the same family. The Citico soils have thicker
sola, bedrock is at depths of more than 100 cm, and they formed in
residuum weathered from phyllite. Kitsap and Sadie soils lack bedrock
within depths of 100 cm. Other related soils are in the Berks, Brandy-
wine, Dekalb, Garmon, Gilpin, Lordstown, Parker, Steinsburg, and West-
moreland series. Berks, Brandywine, Dekalb, Parker, and Steinsburg soils
average more than 35 percent coarse fragments within the control section.
Garmon soils have higher base saturation. Gilpin and Westmoreland soils
have argillic horizons. Lordstown soils average less than 18 percent
clay within the control section.
Setting: Muskingum soils are mainly on rugged topography of dissected
plateaus. Slope gradients range from 5 to 70 percent and are mostly
more than 20 percent. The soil formed in residuum weathered from inter-
bedded siltstone, sandstone, and shale. Mean annual precipitation ranges
from 89 to 140 cm, and mean annual air temperatures range from 10 to 14°C.
Principal Associated Soils: These are the competing Dekalb, Gilpin, and
Westmoreland soils and the Ernest, Ramsey, Rayne, Shelocta, and Upshur
soils. All except the Ramsey soils have argillic horizons. The Ramsey
soils have bedrock at less than 50 cm.
Drainage and Permeability: Runoff is medium to high. Permeability is
moderate.
Distribution and Extent: West Virginia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and Tennessee. The series is of large
extent.
-------
PHILO SERIES
The Philo series is a member of the coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic family of
Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts. Philo soils have dark brown silt loam Ap
horizons, dark yellowish brown silt loam upper B horizons and brown
mottled silt loam lower B horizons, and gray silt loam and intermingled
gray and strong brown loam C horizons underlain by stratified sand and
gravel.
Taxonomic Class: Coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts
Typifying Pedon: Philo silt loam—cultivated. (Colors are for moist
soils.)
Ap -- 0 to 15 cm, dark brown (10YR 4/3) silt loam; moderate fine granular
structure; friable; strongly acid; abrupt smooth boundary. (13
to 25 cm thick)
Bl -- 15 to 40 cm, dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silt loam; moderate
fine granular structure; friable; strongly acid; gradual smooth
boundary. (20 to 40 cm thick)
B2 -- 40 to 56 cm, brown (10YR 5/3) silt loam, few fine distinct mottles
of dark brown to brown (7.SYR 4/4) and gray (10YR 5/1); weak
very fine subangular blocky structure; friable to firm; strongly
acid; clear smooth boundary. (13 to 38 cm thick)
Cl -- 56 to 81 cm, gray (10YR 5/1) silt loam, common distinct strong
brown (7.SYR 5/8) mottles; massive; friable; common; iron
concretions strongly acid; clear smooth boundary. (0 to 30
cm thick)
C2 -- 81 to 107 cm, variegated gray (10Y 5/1) and strong brown (7.SYR
5/8) loam; massive; firm; strongly acid; clear smooth boundary.
(0 to 30 cm thick)
IIC3 -- 107 to 132 cm, stratified sand and gravel.
Type Location: Barbour County, West Virginia; north of Big Run on the
south side of U.S. Highway 119 near the intersection with State Route
36.
Range in Characteristics: Solum thickness ranges from 50 to 100 cm.
Depth to low chroma mottling ranges from 30 to 60 cm. In some pedons,
stratified sand and gravel is at depths as shallow as 76 cm; however,
the transition zone is 13 cm or more thick. In other pedons, medium
textured materials extend to depths of 152 cm or more. Depth to hard
rock ranges from 107 to 366 cm or more. The weighted average content of
coarse fragments in the textural control section ranges from 0 to 20
percent. The seasonally fluctuating water table rises to a high point
-------
-75-
40 to 60 cm below the soil surface. Reaction when unlimed ranges from
very strongly acid to medium acid. Textures of all horizons above the
II C horizon range from silt loam to sandy loam, and the II C horizon
ranges from sand to silt loam including gravelly phases. The A horizon
ranges from dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) through brown (10YR 4/3). If
moist values are 3, then either dry values are more than 5.5, or the A
horizon is less than 1/3 the thickness from the soil surface to the base
of the cambic horizon. The B horizons range from brown (7.SYR 4/3)
through yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) and reddish yellow (7.SYR 6/6). Low
chroma mottles range from dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) through light
gray (10YR 6/1). High chroma mottles range from dark brown (7.SYR 4/4)
through strong brown (7.5YR 5/8). The C horizon ranges from light
yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) through dark gray (N 4/ ) and dark grayish
brown (2.5Y 4/2) and is mottled. Mottles are strong brown (7.SYR 5/6 or
7.SYR 5/8), yellowish red (SYR 4/6), or redder. If matrix chromas are
greater than 2, mottles have chromas of 2 or less.
Competing Series and Their Differentiae: The Basher and Podunk series
are in the same family. Other competing series are the Adler, Codorus,
Lobdell, Pope, Rowland, Steff, Stendal, and Winooski series. Basher and
Podunk soils have a sand fraction dominated by feldspars. Adler and
Winooski soils have coarse-silty textural control sections. Codorus,
Lobdell, and Rowland soils have fine-loamy textural control sections.
Pope soils lack mottles with chromas of 2 or less within a depth of 60
cm. Steff and Stendal soils have fine-silty textural control sections.
Setting: Philo soils are on nearly level floodplains. Slopes range from
0 to 3 percent. The soils developed in recent alluvium washed mainly
from sandstone- and shale-derived soils. Climate is humid temperate.
Average annual precipitation ranges from 102 to 117 cm, and air temper-
ature ranges from 8 to 14°C. The average number of days without
killing frost is 155.
Principal Associated Soils: These are the well drained Pope, somewhat
poorly drained Stendal, poorly drained Atkins, and poorly and very poorly
drained Elkins soils on floodplains. The Buchanan, Cotaco, and Ernest
soils are moderately well-drained soils on footslopes and colluvial
fans. The Dekalb, Gilpin, and Muskingum soils are well-drained upland
soils. Chenango and Alton soils are skeletal soils on adjacent terraces.
The Holly and Papakating soils are more poorly drained alluvial soils.
Drainage and Permeability: Moderately well drained. Subject to stream
overflow. Runoff is slow or very slow, and permeability is moderate or
moderately slow.
Distribution and Extent: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, southern Indiana,
Kentucky, Missouri, southern Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
Virginia, and West Virginia. Extent is large.
-------
-76-
RAMSEY SERIES
The Ramsey series is a member of the loamy, siliceous, mesic family of
Lithic Dystrochrepts. These soils have brown loam A horizons and thin
yellowish brown loam B horizons. Bedrock is at depths less than 50 cm.
Taxonomic Class: Loamy, siliceous, mesic Lithic Dystrochrepts.
/
Typifying Pedon: Ramsey loam—forested. (Colors are for moist soil.)
Al -- 0 to 2.5 cm, very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) loam; weak medium
granular structure; very friable; many fine and medium roots;
strongly acid; abrupt smooth boundary. (0 to 5 cm thick)
A2 -- 2.5 to 13 cm, brown (10YR 4/3) loam; weak medium granular struc-
ture; very friable; many fine and medium roots and pores; about
10 percent by volume of fragments of sandstone; strongly acid;
clear smooth boundary. (7 to 13 cm thick)
B2 -- 13 to 30 cm, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) loam; weak fine subangular
blocky structure; friable; common fine and medium roots and
pores; 15 percent by volume of fragments of sandstone; strongly
acid; clear smooth boundary. (10 to 20 cm thick)
B3 — 30 to 46 cm, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) loam; weak fine and medium
subangular blocky structure; very friable; common fine and
medium roots and pores; 25 percent by volume of fragments of
sandstone; strongly acid. (0 to 13 cm thick)
R — 46 cm, acid sandstone bedrock.
Type Location: White County, Tennessee; on Cumberland Plateau, 3.2 km
south of Clarktown and 30 m northwest of junction of Big Lost Creek and
Clarktown-Clifty Road.
Range in Characteristics: Solum thickness and depth to sandstone or
quartzite bedrock range from 18 to 50 cm. Each horizon contains a few
percent to 35 percent by volume of fragments of sandstone or quartzite.
Fragments are mostly less than 8 cm in size in the upper part of the
solum, but some in the lower part are as much as 15 cm in size. Average
annual soil temperature at 50-cm depth ranges from 8 to 15°C. Reaction
in each horizon is strongly acid or very strongly acid.
The Al horizon is very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) , dark brown (10YR
3/3, 4/3), or dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2). The A2 horizon is brown
(10YR 4/3, 5/3), dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2), yellowish brown (10YR
5/4), or pale brown (10YR 6/3). Texture of the fine-earth in the A
horizon is loam, sandy loam, or fine sandy loam.
-------
-77-
The B horizon is yellowish brown (10YR 5/4, 5/6), brown (10YR 5/3; 7 5YR
4/4, 5/4), dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), light yellowish brown'(10YR
6/4), strong brown (7.SYR 5/6), pale brown (10YR 6/3), or light brown
(7.SYR 6/4). It is loam or sandy loam or stony equivalents containing
10 to 22 percent clay. Structure grade is weak or moderate, and consis-
tence is very friable or friable. Some pedons have loam to loamy sand C
horizons 7 to 15 cm thick rather than B3 horizons.
Competing Series and Their Differentiae: These are the Arnot, Ashe,
Basehor, Catlett, Cleveland, Colyer, Crossville, Hector, Holyoke,
Klinesville, Manteo, Muskingum, Nassau, Pickens, and Weikert series.
Arnot, Catlett, Colyer, Cleveland, Klinesville, Manteo, Nassau, Pickens,
and Weikert soils have mixed mineralogy and contain more than 35 percent
coarse fragments. Manteo and Pickens soils, in addition, have mean
annual temperature of more than 15°C. Ashe and Muskingum soils have
mixed mineralogy and lack bedrock within depths of 100 cm. Basehor
soils lack sandstone fragments in the solum. Crossville soils have
umbric epipedons, and lack bedrock within depths of 100 cm. Hector
soils have mean annual temperature of more than 15°C. Holyoke soils
have mixed mineralogy.
Setting: Ramsey soils are on hills and mountains. Slope gradients
range from 10 to 70 percent. The soils formed in residuum and in some
places contain alluvium from sandstone or quartzite. Outcrops of bed-
rock are common. Near the type location, mean temperature is 13°C,
and mean annual precipitation is 136 cm.
Principal Associated Soils: These are the competing Crossville and
Muskingum series and the Berks, Dekalb, Hartsells, and Jefferson series.
All these soils have sola thicker than 50 cm. In addition, Hartsells
and Jefferson soils have argillic horizons.
Drainage and Permeability: Somewhat excessively drained; medium to
rapid runoff; rapid permeability.
Distribution and Extent: The Cumberland Plateau and mountains of
Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia, and possibly West Virginia
and Pennsylvania, and the Blue Ridge Mountains of Tennessee, North
Carolina, and Virginia. The series is of large extent, probably more
than 200,000 ha.
-------
-78-
WELLSTON SERIES
The Wellston series is a member of the fine-silty, mixed, mesic family
of Ultic Hapludalfs. Wellston soils have thin silt loam A horizons, well
developed yellowish-brown, and brown silty B horizons, a major part of
which formed in a mantle with a high silt content and has a low content
of sands and coarse fragments. The lower B and C horizons are derived
from siltstone, sandstone, or shale.
Taxonomic Class: Fine-silty, mixed, mesic Ultic Hapludalfs.
Typifying Pedon: Wellston silt loam—forested. (Colors are for moist
soil.)
Al -- 0 to 4 cm, very dark brown (10YR 2/2) silt loam; weak fine granular
structure; friable; many fine roots; strongly acid; abrupt wavy
boundary. (2 to 13 cm thick)
A2 -- 4 to 18 cm, pale brown (10YR 6/3) silt loam; weak coarse subangular
blocky structure breaking to weak fine granular; friable; many
fine roots; many fine to coarse pores; strongly acid; clear wavy
boundary. (5 to 23 cm thick)
Bit — 18 to 25 cm, yellowish-brown (10YR 5/6) silt loam; weak medium sub-
angular blocky structure; friable; many fine roots; many fine to
medium pores; thin very patchy dark yellowish-brown (10YR 4/4)
clay films; brown (10YR 5/3) silty coatings of variable thick-
ness, mostly less than 1 mm, on more than 50 percent of ver-
tical surfaces; strongly acid; clear smooth boundary. (5 to
20 cm thick)
B21t — 25 to 38 cm, brown (7.SYR 5/4) heavy silt loam; moderate films;
fine and medium subangular blocky structure; firm; common fine
roots; few coarse pores; thin continuous brown (7.SYR 4/4)
clay films; very strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary. (10
to 25 cm thick)
B22t — 38 to 53 cm, brown (7.SYR 5/4) light silty clay loam; moderate
fine and medium subangular blocky structure; firm; common fine
roots; few coarse pores; thin continuous brown (7.SYR 4/4) clay
films; very strongly acid; abrupt wavy boundary. (10 to 25 cm
thick)
B23t -- 53 to 64 cm, brown (7.SYR 5/4) silty clay loam; moderate fine and
medium subangular blocky structure; firm; common fine roots;
few fine pores; thin patchy brown (7.SYR 4/4) clay films 3
percent sandstone channers; very strongly acid; clear smooth
boundary. (5 to 15 cm thick)
-------
-79-
IIB3t- 64 to 91 cm, strong brown (7.SYR 5/6) silt loam; weak medium sub-
angular blocky structure; firm; sharp brittleness; few fine
roots; few fine pores; thin very patchy pale brown (10YR 6/3)
clay films and few thin gray (10YR 5/1) silty coatings in lower
part; 20 percent sandstone and siltstone channers; strongly
acid; abrupt wavy boundary. (13 to 38 cm thick)
IIC -- 91 to 115 cm, strong brown (7.SYR 5/6) loam; many medium light
brownish-gray (10YR 6/2) mottles or variegations; massive; firm;
occasional roots; few fine pores; 80 percent siltstone fragments
increasing to 90 percent in the lower part; strongly acid;
abrupt irregular boundary. (0 to 60 cm thick)
R -- 115 cm, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/6) acid fine-grained sandstone
or siltstone; fractured; strong brown (7.SYR 5/6) soil in cracks
2 mm thick that extend to about 132 in. ; rock layers grade to
hard and compact below 132 in.
Type Location: Washington County, Ohio, SE10 SE40 SW160 Sec. 8, 1.1 km
southeast of Watertown, 30 m north of junction of land with CO-2, Watertown
Township.
Range in Characteristics: Solum thickness ranges from 81 to 127 cm.
Depth to base of the argillic horizon is usually about 89 cm and ranges
from 76 to 114 cm. Depth to bedrock ranges from 102 to 183 cm. Content
of coarse fragments ranges from none in the upper part of the B horizon,
to as many as 60 percent in the lower few centimeters. The weighted
average content of coarse fragments in the B horizon is less than 10 per-
cent. Base saturation at 127 cm below the top of the argillic horizon,
or at the contact with rock, ranges from 35 to 60 percent. In unlimed
soils, the reaction ranges from strongly to extremely acid throughout the
solum. Ap horizons are dark grayish-brown (10YR 4/2), brown (10YR 5/3),
or dark brown (10YR 4/3). A2 horizons are pale brown (10YR 6/3), brown
(10YR 5/3), or yellowish-brown (10YR 5/4) in color. The Bl horizon is
degraded, with silty surfaces differing from the ped interiors in being
more porous and having less clay and lower chroma. Bt horizons are
yellowish-brown (10YR 5/4, or 5/6), brown (7.SYR 4/4), or strong brown
(7.SYR 5/6) in color, and 46 to 92 cm thick. Texture ranges from silt
loam to light silty clay loam, with silt content more than 60 percent
and clay content ranging 20 to 35 percent. Structure is mostly moderate
or strong, fine or medium subangular blocky. Consistence is friable or
firm. Clay films are "evident, typically dark yellowish-brown (10YR 4/4),
or brown (7.SYR 4/4) in color. The lower Bt horizon has 5 to 40 percent
coarse fragments in most pedons, with silt loam texture in the fine earth
fraction. The C horizon has 20 to 90 percent coarse fragments, with the
fine fraction having silt loam, clay loam, or loam texture.
Competing Series and Their Differentiae: Elk, Elkinsville, Fogelsville,
and Pike series are in the same family. Other competing series include
-------
-80-
Alford, Allegheny, Gilpin, Rayne, Shelocta, Westmore, Westmoreland, and
Whitley. Elk, Elkinsville, Pike, Alford, and Allegheny soils are very
low in coarse fragments, greater depth to bedrock, and generally have
thicker solums. Allegheny soils have base saturation below 35 percent
127 cm below the top of the argillic horizon. Fogelsville soils have
thicker argillic horizons and overlie limestone bedrock. Gilpin soils
have thinner argillic horizons and a shallower depth to skeletal material
and bedrock. Gilpin, Shelocta, and Ramne soils have base saturation below
35 percent at the lithic contact, or 127 cm below the top of the argillic
horizon, and are fine loamy. Westmore soils have more clay in their
lower solums and higher base saturation. Westmoreland soils are higher
in sand and coarse fragments in the upper solum and are fine loamy.
Whitley soils have base saturation below 35 percent in the lower solum,
just above the lithic contact.
Setting: Wellstone soils are on gently sloping to steep uplands in
areas of acid sandstone, siltstone, or shale bedrock. The soil is very
silty, derived from loess or siltstone, or a combination of these materials
to depths of up to 102 cm. The underlying bedrock is acid siltstone,
sandstone, or shale. Slopes range from 2 to 30 percent or more, and are
dominantly 4 to 18 percent. Mean annual air temperature ranges from 9
to 32°C, and mean annual precipitation ranges from 86 to 112 cm.
Principal Associated Soils: These are Berks, Dekalb, Gilpin, Muskingum,
Sadler, Shelocta, and Zanesville. Berks, Dekalb, and Muskingum soils
lack argillic horizons and generally have thinner solums. They gener-
ally occur on the steeper slopes near Wellston soils. On nearby more
level areas, Sadler and Zanesville soils occur. They have fragipans,
and Sadler soils have low chroma mottles high in their solum.
Drainage and Permeability: Well drained. Runoff is medium to rapid.
Permeability is moderate.
Distribution and Extent: Southern and eastern Ohio, southern Indiana,
southern Illinois, western Kentucky, and parts of Pennsylvania and West
Virginia. The soil is of large extent, with an area of about 100,000 ha.
-------
-81-
APPENDIX B
SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS FOR CAMP BRANCH MAPPING UNITS
-------
B.O.. SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, GILPIN, 5 TO 12% SLOPE UNIT, CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED3
Chemical content (Mg/g)
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Total-N
X SE
1166.5 73.4
666.1 35.4
470.5 18.7
355.2 17.7
329.7 33.9
Total-P
X
219.0
199.3
205.1
199.8
212.3
SE
8.5
7.5
8.5
12.2
27.3
Total-K
X SE
789.1 47.2
943.5 63.6
931.3 67.6
935.0 104.9
1045.0 179.4
Total-S
X
174.1
141.8
125.4
131.2
78.5
SE
7.4
5.0
4.7
8.1
3.8
Percent
organic
matter
X
3.40
1.30
0.67
0.37
0.31
SE
0.21
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.03
Chemical content (jJg/g)
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Exchangeable-Ca
X SE
93.3 6.4
97.6 3.7
109.6 4.6
114.9 6.2
137.5 26.6
Cation
exchange
capacity
X SE
13.50 1.20
9.74 0.45
9.28 0.45
9.27 0.91
11.40 1.50
Exchangeable-Mg
X
23.4
17.8
35.7
54.1
45.8
pH
X
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.8
4.8
SE
2.9
3.2
3.6
7.2
7.6
Exchangeable-K
X SE
60.4 2.6
52.3 2.0
56.1 3.0
51.3 3.1
47.0 5.4
Depth
to
bedrock (cm)
X SE
76.5 5.9
Exchangeable-S
X
0.3
36.8
48.8
44.8
37.6
SE
1.3
2.2
4.3
5.0
4.0
Exchangeable-P
X
12.3
6.0
4.7
3.1
1.8
SE
2.4
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.3
I
OO
U)
Values presented are means with one standard error.
-------
TABLE B.2. SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, GILPIN, 12 TO 25% SLOPE UNIT, CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED*
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Total-N
X
SE
1006.0 140.0
628.0
621.0
407.0
249.0
90.0
83.0
62,0
b
Exchangeable-Ca
X
93.5
105.5
96.0
101.0
103.0
Cation
exchange
capacity
X SE
14.40
9.85
11.30
8.85
9.70
SE
1.5
10.5
7.0
0.0
-
0.15
1.30
0.80
0.25
"~
X
198.
209.
176.
111.
172.
Chemical
Total-P
SE
0 6.0
0 22.0
0 4.0
0 20.0
0
Chemical
Exchangeable-Mg
X
15.
17.
50.
73.
43.
SE
5 0.5
0 7.0
0 28.0
5 22.5
0
PH
X
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.9
4.8
content (|Jg/g)
Total-K
X .SE
1260.0 40.0
1720.0 250.0
1745.0 535.0
1475.0 445.0
1020.0
content (|Jg/g)
Exchangeab le -K
X SE
58.0 1.0
48.5 6.5
51.0 8.0
57.0 11.0
43.0
Depth
to
bedrock (cm)
X SE
79.0 7.5
Total-S
X
129.0
136.5
136.0
124.5
101.0
SE
0.0
21.5
14.0
3.5
Exchangeable-S
X
34.3
32.9
32.2
51.0
25.6
SE
4.5
1.0
7.5
4.8
-
Percent
organic
matter
X
2.60
0.94
0.61
0.33
0.22
SE
0.25
0.05
0.05
0.05
Exchangeable-P
X
14.6
6.2
4.9
2.5
2.2
SE
*
1.3
2.4
0.1
-
CD
.Values presented are means with one standard error.
Indicates only one sample collected.
-------
TABLE B.3. SOU, CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, HARTSELLS, 5 TO 12% SLOPE UNIT, CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Chemical
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Total-N
X
1110.3
620.9
471.3
407.2
424.5
SE
121.8
48.0
31.9
43.8
45.4
Exchangeable-Ca
X
263.5
178.3
157.6
145.8
137.3
SE
152.5
73.9
33.0
23.3
32.8
X
240
231
242
226
272
Total-P
.3
.8
.4
.0
.8
SE
29.8
17.0
13.2
12.5
23.9
Exchangeable-Mg
X
24
17
37
55
73
.3
.6
.9
.7
.5
SE
3.8
4.2
6.5
11.4
25.6
content (Mg/g)
Total-K
X
1182.
1261.
1350.
1238.
1232.
Chemical
SE
5 34.1
3 76.2
0 55.7
3 106.0
5 194.7
Total-S
X
173.0
120.5
159.3
121.3
79.8
SE
13.7
11.1
19.4
14.0
3.1
Percent
organic
matter
X
2.60
1.00
0.60
0.42
0.32
SE
0.22
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.05
content (pg/g)
Exchangeable-K
X
66.
68.
68.
64.
65.
Cation
exchange
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
capacity
X
10.7
9.0
10.0
10.2
12.9
SE
1.1
0.8
0.6
1.2
1.5
PH
X
5.8
4.7
4.7
4.8
4.9
SE
5 11.0
8 15.5
9 11.5
3 9.0
0 6.9
Depth
to
Exchangeable-S
X
34.2
40.9
61.1
51.8
51.3
SE
2.7
2.1
10.8
8.1
6.6
\
Exchangeable-P
X
14.4
6.1
3.7
2.7
1.7
SE
5.5
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.4
bedrock (cm)
X
87.
SE
2 18.6
I
Co
Values presented are means with one standard error.
-------
TABLE B.4. SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, PHILO, 0 TO 3% SLOPE UNIT, CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Chemical
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Total-N
X SE
1488.2 227.8
745.4 86.5
499.6 62.0
413.0 21.3
373.0 83.0
Total-P
X
233.8
210.4
224.6
215.0
206.5
SE
21.0
27.0
17.7
30.9
51.5
content (|Jg/g)
Total-K
X SE
818.0 152.0
830.0 65.4
890.0 67.6
900.0 127.0
780.0 390.0
Total-S
X
177.9
150.8
149.9
138.0
88.7
SE
3.7
5.0
5.4
5.2
3.6
Percent
organic
matter
X
4.40
1.60
0.87
0.57
0.45
SE
0.45
0.18
0.10
0.09
0.05
Chemical content (|Jg/g)
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Exchangeable-Ca
X SE
123.0 11.4
110.2 11.2
163.8 52.4
105.3 5.8
98.5 7.5
Cation
exchange
capacity
X SE
12.7 1.9
10.2 1.4
8.9 1.1
9.6 1.3
10.8 2.0
Exchangeable-Mg
X
33.6
20.8
51.2
50.3
59.5
pH
X
4.2
4.5
4.6
4.8
4.9
SE
8.1
5.1
15.2
15.0
20.5
Exchangeable-K
X SE
61.6 10.4
49.0 8.4
59.4 12.0
52.0 10.4
55.5 22.5
Depth
to
bedrock (cm)
X SE
106.5 18.3
Exchangeable-S
X
28.8
35.9
33.8
37.2
24.2
SE
2.2
7.4
8.2
9.8
4.1
Exchangeable-P
X
9.9
6.6
4.3
3.1
1.7
SE
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.2
I
00
Values presented are means with one standard error.
-------
TABLE B.5. SOU, CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, RAMSEY, 25 TO 7O% SLOPE UNIT, CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Chemical
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
Total-N
X
1632.3
918.0
579.5
SE
759.4
129.4
83.5
Total-P
X
274.0
238.5
225.5
SE
43.1
20.4
25.5
content (|Jg/g)
Total-K
X SE
772.5 114.6
1012.5 150.1
1225.0 485.0
Percent
organic
Total-S
X
165.3
126.0
126.0
SE
9.0
13.7
24.0
matter
X
3.93
1.80
0.88
SE
0.56
0.10
0.01
Chemical content (jJg/g)
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
Exchangeable-Ca
X
122.3
154.8
84.0
SE
30.3
41.1
2.0
Exchangeable-Mg
X
25.0
19.5
21.5
SE
5.0
4.5
10.5
Cation
exchange
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
capacity
X
13.9
12.3
10.6
SE
2.5
2.2
3.1
PH
X
4.4
4.6
4.6
Exchangeable-K
X SE
69.8 7.3
60.5 7.5
44.0 9.0
Depth
to
bedrock (cm)
X SE
41.7 9.0
Exchangeable-S
X
32.8
41.8
71.7
SE
6.8
9.2
45.3
Exchangeable-P
X
16.9
5.5
4.8
SE
4.0
0.8
0.9
I
CD
£*
Values presented are means with one standard error.
-------
TABLE B.6. SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, WELLSTON, 2 TO 5% SLOPE UNIT, CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED'
Chemical
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Total-N
X
1192.8
567.8
452.2
366.9
328.5
Total-P
SE
73.7
25.6
19.7
18.1
17.4
Exchangeable-Ca
X
97.3
103.3
106.6
107.6
119.8
Cation
exchange
capacity
X
11.6
8.8
8.3
8.7
10.2
SE
4.9
5.3
4.9
5.7
11.1
SE
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.5
X
225
199
210
219
.8
.9
.'4
.2
276.4
SE
9.5
7.4
8.7
10.9
20.5
Exchangeable-Mg
X
21
18
31
48
49
.3
.6
.1
.3
.6
PH
X
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.8
4.9
SE
1.9
2.4
3.2
4.9
6.1
content
(Mg/g)
Total-K
X
783
864
938
966
991
Chemical
SE
.0 42.5
.4 40.3
.5 49.3
.9 78.8
.9 66.7
Percent
organic
Total-S
X
200.8
152.6
136.0
126.3
86.0
SE
22.7
10.8
10.6
8.5
23.0
matter
X
3.40
1.30
0.77
0.49
0.37
SE
0.15
0.08
0.05
0.01
0.05
content (pg/g)
Exchangeab le -K
X
57
47
52
50
54
SE
.5 2.8
.9 2.0
.8 2.6
.0 2.7
.0 5.7
Depth
to
Exchangeable-S
X
31.9
35.2
40.9
39.4
37.0
SE
1.7
1.9
2.5
3.1
3.5
Exchangeable-P
X
9.4
5.6
4.2
2.9
2.2
SE
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
bedrock (cm)
X
102
SE
.9 3.8
I
CO
CO
aValues presented are means with one standard error.
-------
-89-
APPENDIX C
SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS FOR CROSS CREEK MAPPING UNITS
-------
TABLE C.I. SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, COTACO, 0 TO 3% SLOPE UNIT, CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Chemical
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Total-N
X
1506.6
706.6
630.0
360.0
280.0
SE
89.8
18.5
150.1
10.0
50.0
X
293
240
280
145
125
Total-P
.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
SE
23.3
5.7
20.0
5.0
5.0
content (pg/g)
Total-K
X SE
4500.0 360.5
5800.0 264.5
5033.3 959.7
7100.0 400.0
7350.0 650.0
Total-S
X
193.
226.
190.
155.
205.
3
7
0
0
0
SE
12.0
8.8
11.6
5.0
5.0
Percent
organic
matter
X
3.16
1.56
1.10
0.70
0.60
SE
0.14
0.06
0.40
0.01
0.01
Chemical content (|Jg/g)
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Exchangeable-Ca
X
230.6
75.3
77.3
119.5
75.5
SE
66.2
19.6
7.3
0.5
13.5
Exchangeable-Mg
X
23
13
19
58
60
.3
.0
.3
.5
.5
SE
4.3
2.0
5.8
5.5
2.5
Cation
exchange
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
capacity
X
10.1
7.3
7.0
6.1
6.7
SE
0.2
0.4
0.5
1.0
0.3
PH
X
5.0
4.7
4.8
5.0
4.9
Exchangeable-K
X SE
66.3 7.6
41.6 2.6
47.3 3.7
60.5 2.5
60.0 0.1
Depth
to
bedrock (cm)
X SE
90.0 10.0
Exchangeable-S
X
16.
22.
26.
35.
34.
4
7
5
3
3
SE
1.2
6.1
6.0
0.4
3.2
Exchangeable-P
X
11.3
5.0
4.3
1.0
1.0
SE
1.4
1.5
2.8
0.1
0.1
I
VO
Values presented are means with one standard error.
-------
TABLE C.2. SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, HARTSELLS, 2 TO 5% SLOPE UNIT, CROSS CREEK WATERSHED'
Chemical
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Total-N
X SE
972.0 40.4
486.0 26.7
397.5 23.5
315.0 15.5
257.5 18.4
Total-P
X
174.0
138.0
210.0
122.5
137.5
SE
12.8
3.7
7.0
13.1
16.5
content (|Jg/g)
Total-K
X SE
4120.0 677.7
3960.0 227.1
3750.0 409.2
4175.0 154.7
4000.0 270.8
Percent
organic
Total-S
X
142.0
176.0
205.0
175.0
217.5
SE
13.6
20.6
35.2
33.3
48.7
matter
X
2.78
1.34
0.77
0.65
0.65
SE
0.14
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.02
Chemical content (|Jg/g)
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Exchangeable-Ca
X SE
98.8 12.1
54.2 9.6
72.2 14.6
102.2 22.6
76.7 14.2
Cation
exchange
capacity
X SE
7.4 '0.2
5.4 0.3
6.7 0.4
5.6 0.8
8.2 1.0
Exchangeable-Mg
X
11.6
10.0
18.5
44.2
56.0
pH
X
4.6
4.8
4.7
4.8
4.9
SE
1.2
1.7
4.2
13.8
10.0
Exchangeable-K
X SE
46 . 0 2.2
34.0 3.7
47.7 4.7
55.7 8.2
53.0 6.4
Depth
to
bedrock (cm)
X SE
^67. 8 12.5
Exchangeable-S
X
12.2
11.4
24.2
43.7
51.0
SE
0.9
0.9
6.0
13.9
13.0
Exchangeable-P
X
6.6
4.0
1.7
1.2
1.2
SE
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.2
0.2
V£>
ro
Values presented are means with one standard error.
-------
**,
TABLE C.3. SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, HARTSELLS, 5 TO 12% SLOPE UNIT, CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Chemical
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Total-N
X
1046.3
502.5
418.4
290.4
245.0
SE
54.1
16.4
10.1
12.3
13.3
X
181
159
177
164
143
Total-P
.4
.6
.2
.3
.5
SE
5.7
5.9
8.7
12.0
7.7
content (|Jg/g)
Total-K
X SE
3907.4 116.8
4662.9 98.7
5076.0 185.9
4500.0 151.9
4485.0 187.2
Total-S
X
373.
171.
203.
180.
158.
0
9
2
9
0
SE
103.2
7.2
9.2
10.6
8.6
Percent
organic
matter
X
2.82
1.40
0.76
0.62
0.87
SE
0.11
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.27
Chemical content (pg/g)
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Exchangeable-Ca
X
130.1
80.4
111.6
113.8
80.3
Cation
SE
13.9
11.9
13.0
8.9
6.6
Exchangeable-Mg
X
14
13
38
75
68
.2
.3
.3
.0
.0
SE
1.1
1.9
8.3
10.4
8.5
exchange
Depth
(cm)
0- 0
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
capacity
X
8.0
5.6
7.0
6.9
7.1
SE
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
pH
X
4.6
4.8
4.8
4.9
5.0
Exchangeable-K
X SE
48.1 2.1
35 . 8 1.7
46.3 2.7
69.3 8.5
48.5 2.5
Depth
to
bedrock (cm)
X SE
84.9 3.1
Exchangeable-S
X
12.
12.
21.
32.
32.
7
3
8
6
3
SE
0.6
0.7
3.0
4.3
2.0
Exchangeable-P
X
8.7
4.8
2.0
1.3
1.5
SE
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.1
0.1
VQ
CO
Values presented are means with one standard error.
-------
TABLE C.4. SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, HARTSELLS, 5 TO 12% SLOPE ERODED UNIT, CROSS CREEK WATERSHED*
Percent
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Total-N
X SE
800.0 -b
440 . 0
330.0
310.0
230.0
Chemical
Total-P
X SE
150.0
190.0
190.0
140.0
130.0
content (pg/g)
Total-K
X SE
3500.0
3500.0
3800.0
3400.0
5800.0
organic
Total-S
X SE
200.0
110.0
270.0
230.0
140.0
matter
X
2.50
0.80
0.40
0.60
0.70
SE
_
-
-
-
-
Chemical content (pg/g)
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Exchangeable-Ca
X SE
70.0
51.0
116.0
92.0
161.0
Cation
exchange
capacity
X SE
6.8
3.9
6.1
6.3
6.6
Exchangeable-Mg
X SE
7.0
9.0
13.0
47.0
24.0
PH
X
4.6
4.9
5.3
4.9
4.9
Exchangeable-K
X SE
38.0
21.0
39.0
57.0
30.0
Depth
to
bedrock (cm)
X SE
100.0
Exchangeable-S
X SE
9.9
7.4
2.9
53.0
4.0
Exchangeable-P
X
7.0
4.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
SE
„ ,
-
-
-
-
f Values
D-r 1 •
presented are means
with one standard error.
_ — T ~l *. -3
I
-------
TABLE C.5. SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, JEFFERSON, 5 TO 12% SLOPE UNIT, CROSS CREEK WATERSHED*
Percent
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
.Values
D-, , .
Total-N
X SE
900.0 90.0
500.0 60.0
265 . 0 145, 0
280.0 -
260.0
Exchangeable-Ca
X SE
52.5 6.5
60.0 0.0
64.0 15.0
96.0
80.0
Cation
exchange
capacity
X SE
8.5 1.5
8.2 0.1
8.4 2.2
6.7
12.7
presented are means
Chemical
Total-P
X SE
210.0 50.0
150.0 20.0
220.0 50.0
70.0
180.0
Exchangeable-Mg
X SE
11.0 0.1
6.0 0.1
27.0 19.0
30.0
43.0
PH
X
4.7
4.5
4.8
4.6
4.7
with one standard
content (|Jg/g)
Total-K
X SE
4150.0 250.0
5700.0 200.0
7650.0 1850.0
5000.0
6500.0
Chemical content
Exchangeable-K
X SE
44.0 5.0
43.5 3.5
41.0 9.0
43.0
48.0
Depth
to
bedrock (cm)
X SE
70.0 20.0
error.
organic
Total-S
X SE
220.0 20.0
205.0 55.0
215.0 5.0
120.0
170.0
(Mg/g)
Exchangeable-S
X SE
17.8 1.3
17.2 1.6
40 . 7 15 . 7
44.7
40.3
matter
X
2.60
1.20
0.80
0.50
0.50
SE
0.30
0.10
0.10
-
-
Exchangeable-P
X
8.0
3.0
2.5
1.0
1.0
SE
1.0
1.0
1.5
-
-
-------
TABLE C.6. SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, LINKER, 5 TO 12% SLOPE UNIT, CROSS CREEK WATERSHED0
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
Total-N
X SE
1000.0 -b
410.0
Exchangeable-Ca
X SE
141.0
86.0
Cation
exchange
capacity
X SE
6.1
3.9
Percent
Chemical content (|Jg/g) organic
Total-P Total-K Total-S matter
X SE X SE X SE X SE
150.0 - 2300.0 - 150.0 - 2.20
270.0 - 3100.0 - 180.0 - 1.00
Chemical content (Mg/g)
Exchangeable-Mg Exchangeable-K Exchangeable-S Exchangeable-P
X SE X SE X SE X SE
100.0 - 31.0 - 9.9 - 7.0 - \1
10.0 - 35.0 - 6.4 - 2.0 - ?
Depth
to
pH bedrock (cm)
X X SE
4.9 30.0
4.8
Values presented are means with one standard error.
Indicates only one sample collected.
-------
£
TABLE C.7. SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, MUSKINGUM, 12 TO 25% SLOPE UNIT, CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Chemical
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Total-N
X
1395.0
673.9
443.8
286.0
227.1
SE
116.5
59.8
21.0
25.7
34.2
X
241
202
197
185
234
Total-P
.1
.8
.6
.0
.2
SE
18.3
15.2
17.8
17.8
65.3
content (|Jg/g)
Total-K
X SE
4527.8 238.6
5400.0 295.3
5607.6 339.7
7430.0 1448.8
8285.7 2261.4
Total-S
X
211
208
186
160
188
.7
.9
.9
.0
.6
SE
12.7
10.4
10.4
14.8
32.6
Percent
organic
matter
X
3.61
1.82
0.79
0.60
0.58
SE
0.30
0.10
0.01
0.02
0.04
Chemical content (Mg/g)
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Exchangeable-Ca
X
153.4
108.7
109.8
107.6
101.4
SE
43.9
26.9
32.2
26.2
33.6
Exchangeable-Mg
X
17
12
24
48
53
.3
.2
.3
.3
.2
SE
1.0
1.4
5.4
10.2
10.6
Cation
exchange
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
capacity
X
10.3
6.2
6.4
5.7
6.6
SE
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.5
PH
X
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.2
5.2
Exchangeable-K
X SE
57.0 2.6
42.6 1.7
45.0 3.9
58.8 5.5
59.8 9.8
Depth
to
bedrock (cm)
X SE
69.8 7.7
Exchangeable-S
X
17
14
24
31
30
.5
.6
.7
.6
.4
SE
17.5
1.7
5.2
7.0
8.0
Exchangeable-P
X
9.1
5.0
2.1
1.1
1.8
SE
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.5
Values presented are means with one standard error.
-------
-99-
APPENDIX D
COVER, NUMBER, AND DENSITY VALUES BY SPECIES FOR
EACH COVER TYPE ON THE CAMP BRANCH AND
CROSS CREEK WATERSHEDS
-------
-101-
TABLE D.I. MEAN COVER, PERCENT COVER, NUMBER, PERCENT NUMBER DENSITY
AND FREQUENCY VALUES FOR THE UPLAND OAK-MIXED HARDWOOD
COVER TYPE ON CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Species
Scarlet oak
Post oak
Black oak
White oak
Sourwood
Hickory
Blackjack oak
Virginia pine
Chestnut oak
Southern red oak
Red maple
Dogwood
Black gum
Sassafras
Yellow poplar
Hawthorn
Blueberry
Red cedar
Persimmon
Cover Percent
(cm2 /ha) cover
43,784.4
40,833.0
29,710.1
16,006.9
15,763.4
12,602.8
8,168.6
7,053.0
6,161.9
4,170.6
3,739.9
3,137.0
3,052.1
2,469.3
198.9
69.1
55.1
34.0
16.0
22.2
20.7
15.0
8.1
8.0
6.4
4.1
3.5
3.1
2.1
1.9
1.6
1.5
1.2
0.1
0-03
0.02
0.01
F0.01
Number
155
120
322
199
206
41
41
26
32
95
114
121
106
165
2
2
3
1
1
Percent
number
8.8
6.9
18.4
12.3
12.7
2.3
2.3
1.4
1.8
5.4
6.5
6.9
6.0
8.6
0.17
0.05
0.05
Density Frequency
0.0155
0.0120
0.0322
0.0199
0.0206
0.0041
0.0041
0.0026
0.0032
0.0095
0.0114
0.0121
0.0106
0.0165
0.0002
0.0002
0.0003
0.00007
0.0001
68
68
86
59
59
58
25
19
13
41
40
43
52
61
1
1
2
1
5
Total
197,026.1
1752
-------
-102-
TABLE D.2. MEAN COVER, PERCENT COVER, NUMBER, PERCENT NUMBER, DENSITY,
AND FREQUENCY VALUES FOR THE UPLAND OAK-MIXED HARDWOOD
COVER TYPE ON CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Species
White oak
Hickory
Black oak
Dogwood
Black gum
Red maple
Sourwood
Scarlet oak
Yellow poplar
Chestnut oak
Sassafras
Wild cherry
Serviceberry
Total
Cover
(cm2/ha)
79,335.0
52,665.4
24,358.8
17,317.3
15,163.8
11,665.8
6,796.5
6,358.5
2,655.0
2,038.5
924.2
147.7
75.4
219,501.9
Percent
cover
36.2
24.1
11.1
7.9
6.9
5.3
3.1
2.9
1.2
0.9
0.4
0.1
0.3
Number
319
120
69
362
150
254
123
8
69
23
38
4
8
1547
Percent
number
20.6
7.7
4.5
23.4
9.7
16.4
7.9
0.5
4.5
1.5
2.5
0.2
0.5
Density
0.031
0.012
0.006
0.036
0.015
0.025
0.012
0.0008
0.007
0.002
0.004
0.0004
0.0008
Frequency
89
62
42
92
65
66
54
8
27
23
31
4
4
TABLE D.3. MEAN COVER, PERCENT COVER, NUMBER, PERCENT NUMBER, DENSITY,
AND FREQUENCY VALUES FOR THE UPLAND OAK-MIXED HARDWOOD
COVER TYPE ON CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Species
Loblolly pine
Sassafras
Sourwood
Black gum
Persimmon
Dogwood
Tulip poplar
Hackberry
Chokecherry
Red maple
Cedar
Box elder
Cover
(cm2 /ha)
1,078,080.0
110,310.0
7,535.0
5,350.0
5,100.0
4,500.0
1,815.0
1,145.0
980.0
900.0
76.5
40.0
Percent
cover
88.7
9.0
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.006
0.003
Number
1000
1300
100
350
450
350
50
50
50
450
50
50
Percent
number
24
31
2
8
11
8
1
1
1
11
1
1
Density
0.100
0.130
0.010
0.035
0.045
0.035
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.045
0.005
0.005
Frequency
100
100
100
100
100
100
-
-
-
-
MI
-
Total
1,215,831.5
4250
-------
-103-
TABLE D.4. MEAN COVER, PERCENT COVER, NUMBER, PERCENT NUMBER DENSITY
AND FREQUENCY VALUES FOR THE UPLAND OAK-MIXED HARDWOOD
COVER TYPE ON CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Species
White oak
Hickory
Chestnut oak
Black oak
Scarlet oak
Sourwood
Red maple
Black gum
Dogwood
Post oak
Sassafras
Yellow poplar
Mountain laurel
Shortleaf pine
American holly
Post x White oak
Witch hazel
Chestnut x White oak
American beech
Serviceberry
Persimmon
Black locust
Wild cherry
American chestnut
Red cedar
Virginia pine
White pine
C -*-"•*-
Sparkleberry
Stewartia
Azalea
Smooth sumac
Loblolly pine
Wild grape
Cover
(cm2/ha)
41,721.9
35,317.0
31,544.1
28,383.7
27,769.6
13,981.8
13,751.0
8,622.9
7,246.7
4,041.4
2,494.0
2,034.3
775.7
748.7
548.5
465.8
188.0
150.4
150.2
125.4
118.8
39.9
21.6
16.2
14.6
13.5
11.2
10.3
10.1
8.9
8.2
5.9
2.7
Percent
cover
18.9
16.0
14.3
12.9
12.6
6.4
6.2
3.9
3.3
1.8
1.1
0.9
0.4
0.3
0.03
0.2
0.09
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.001
Number
240
143
150
104
49
310
434
149
214
9
120
14
77
3
5
2
13
1
1
7
7
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• I.
Percent
number
11.6
6.9
7.3
5.0
2.4
15.0
21.0
7.2
10.4
0.4
5.8
0.7
3.7
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.05
0.05
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0-05
0.05
0.05
—
Density
0.0240
0.0143
0.0150
0.0104
0.0049
0.0310
0.0434
0.0149
0.0214
0.0009
0.0120
0.0014
0.0077
0.0003
0.0005
0.0002
0.0013
0.00004
0.0001
0.0007
0.0007
0.0002
0.0001
0.0001
0.0002
0.00002
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.00002
0.00002
Frequency
78.2
66.2
51.8
53.6
32.4
84.2
78.2
61.2
61.4
6.8
42.8
8.2
15-6
0.4
2.2
1.6
3.2
0.4
0.4
5.0
5.4
1.6
1.0
0.6
1.2
0.2
OS
.0
0.8
1.4
•A S
0.6
0-6
0.2
0.2
Total
220,343.0
2066
-------
TABLE D.5. MEAN COVER, PERCENT COVER, NUMBER, PERCENT NUMBER, DENSITY,
AND FREQUENCY VALUES FOR THE UPLAND OAK-MIXED HARDWOOD
COVER TYPE ON CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Species
Red maple
White oak
Black gum
Yellow poplar
Southern red oak
Post oak
Sourwood
Sweet gum
Hemlock
Dogwood
Hickory
Virginia pine
Black oak
Blueberry
Scarlet oak
Alder
Azalea
American holly
Sassafras
Total 107
Cover
(cm2 /ha)
47,889.3
23,937.9
17,837.3
5,378.4
3,898.9
3,625.4
2,913.2
1,140.4
180.3
144.3
121.0
68.2
64.9
28.9
20.0
14.4
7.2
7.2
7.2
,104.1
Percent
cover
44.7
22.4
16.7
5.0
3.6
3.4
2.7
1.1
0.02
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.006
0.006
0.006
1189
Number
376
199
272
122
21
20
113
36
1
9
7
2
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
Percent
number
31.5
16.7
22.9
10.3
1.8
1.7
9.5
3.0
0.08
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.08
0.3
0.08
0.20
0.08
0.08
0.08
Density
0.038
0.020
0.027
0.012
0.002
0.002
0.011
0.004
0.0001
0.0009
0.0007
0.0002
0.0001
0.0004
0.0001
0.0002
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
Frequency
95
69
76
49
13
13
46
12
1
9
5
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
TABLE D.6. MEAN COVER, PERCENT COVER, NUMBER, PERCENT NUMBER, DENSITY,
AND FREQUENCY VALUES FOR THE UPLAND OAK-MIXED HARDWOOD
COVER TYPE ON CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Species
Virginia pine
Dogwood
Red maple
Yellow poplar
Sourwood
Red cedar
Black gum
Cover
(cm2/ha)
327,535.0
38,870.0
23,733.0
18,034.0
7,736.0
2,270.0
212.0
Percent
cover
78.3
9.3
5.7
4.3
1.8
0.5
0.05
Number
1220
770
680
80
280
20
30
Percent
number
39-6
25.1
22.2
2.6
9.1
0.5
0.9
Density
0-122
0.077
0.068
0.008
0.028
0.002
0.003
Frequency
100
90
100
40
30
10
30
Total
418,390.0
3080
-------
-105-
APPENDIX E
BIOMASS AND ELEMENT CONCENTRATION BY SPECIES OF BRANCHES,
BOLE, HEARTWOOD, SAPWOOD, AND BARK FOR OVERSTORY
SPECIES FROM THE CAMP BRANCH AND CROSS CREEK WATERSHEDS
-------
TABLE E.I. BIOMASS AND ELEMENT CONCENTRATION BY SPECIES OF BRANCHES, BOLE,
HEARTWOOD, SAPWOOD, AND BARK FOR OVERSTORY SPECIES FROM THE CAMP BRANCH
WATERSHED AS DETERMINED BY WHOLE TREE HARVEST
DBH3
Species (cm)
Blackjack oak 6.8
11.4
20.9
Black oak 7.8
14.8
21.6
Concentration (|Jg/g)
Component
Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Weight
(kg)
3.9
3.8
0.9 ,
1.2
17.9
17.0
4.1
17.5
49.0
46.6
11.2
51.4
7.1
6.8
1.6
3.9
42.4
40.3
9.7
15.3
155.3
147.6
35.4
53.2
N
1,400
1,800
4,700
3,800
1,500
2,500
4,600
5,500
1,700
2,200
3,800
5,000
1,200
1,800
4,600
5,000
1,000
1,600
3,900
5,200
1,200
1,300
3,400
5,000
S
160
280
560
420
90
220
270
420
140
230
270
320
60
160
380
270
80
170
230
300
60
130
260
290
P
30
70
180
130
20
130
160
390
50
140
140
360
10
100
230
320
10
90
170
420
20
50
160
290
K
600
1,030
1,190
210
1,510
2,000
800
1,620
3,000
2,620
1,030
1,490
400
410
720
1,890
300
600
530
1,810
320
400
600
1,400
Mg
231
280
360
400
400
510
280
690
280
260
250
480
30
130
350
540
20
100
290
800
60
80
290
620
Ca
2,000
2,800
14,900
6,000
2,000
1,600
14,000
5,100
2,400
2,000
20,500
10,100
1,000
1,600
19,900
9,100
1,000
300
13,300
6,000
1,100
500
16,000
9,100
o
—J
-------
Table E.I (continued)
DBHa
Species (cm)
Chestnut oak 6.4
14.3
20.5
Hickory 6.6
8.5
10.9
Concentration (|Jg/g)
Component
Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Weight
(kg)
4.8
4.6
1.1
1.5
33.5
31.9
7.7
18.3
80.4
76.4
18.3
41.4
2.3
7.9
0.6
1.6
3.3
11.2
0.9
1.8
7.0
23.8
1.8
8.4
N
1,200
1,900
4,200
5,100
1,100
1,800
3,800
5,300
1,200
2,000
4,900
5,900
1,700
1,800
4,600
4,100
1,500
1,700
4,400
4,300
1,300
1,900
4,900
5,700
S
60
180
340
530
50
150
320
430
50
150
330
370
160
160
490
250
110
110
420
270
60
150
380
340
P
20
120
190
350
10
100
480
400
20
140
270
560
80
80
240
270
40
80
200
350
30
90
290
390
K
780
500
710
2,130
680
610
1,110
1,920
800
1,270
1,030
2,390
1,400
700
1,300
1,310
1,230
800
810
1,910
500
700
1,410
2,500
Mg
20
160
560
540
30
120
390
890
30
170
480
1,120
1,500
490
950
910
1,100
390
570
1,000
1,090
580
1,800
1,090
Ca
1,900
3,800
18,000
9,100
1,000
1,200
15,300
10,900
1,000
1,200
15,600
9,000
8,000
4,100
36,000
18,300
1,500
4,300
27,900
22,000
3,200
2,400
25,800
12,700
o
CO
I
-------
Table E.I (continued)
DBHa
Species (cm) Component
Post oak 6.8 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
9.8 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
24.5 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Red maple 8.9 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
13.2 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
19.7 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Concentration (|Jg/g)
Weight
(kg)
4.3
4.0
1.0
1.6
11.8
11.2
2.7
8.0
76.7
72.9
17.5
47.6
5.8
19.8
1.5
5.9
10.9
37.1
2.9
11.0
22.3
76.1
5.8
34.8
N
1,600
2,700
5,600
5,400
1,500
2,300
6,800
5,300
1,300
1,900
4,500
6,900
1,100
1,500
4,600
5,800
1,200
1,700
5,400
7,000
1,200
1,400
4,500
4,100
S
200
350
810
630
140
170
940
480
120
190
770
570
30
70
340
380
60
170
270
480
40
150
260
320
P
10
130
160
280
50
130
270
320
20
120
130
500
90
150
350
550
90
180
370
620
70
100
310
360
K
400
600
820
1,090
980
810
1,090
1,210
390
980
900
1,700
490
500
1,680
2,110
1,490
420
910
2,300
480
310
1,910
1,680
Mg
180
300
580
620
250
270
800
600
140
230
690
900
140
140
400
590
220
180
300
520
170
130
440
530
Ca
1,900
4,600
16,000
4,900
1,900
1,300
21,900
4,900
1,300
2,400
34,000
6,100
2,000
2,100
21,800
8,900
1,800
1,400
8,100
4,000
2,000
900
11,800
5,900
H1
O
MD
I
-------
Table E.I (continued)
DBHa
Species (cm) Component
Sourwood 5 . 1 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
9.1 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
20.9 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Southern 6.5 Heart
red oak Sap
Bark
Limbs
9.5 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
14.4 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Concentration (|Jg/g)
Weight
(kg)
2.6
0.2
1.4
4.6
15.8
1.2
5.7
26.5
90.4
7.0
27.6
4.5
4.3
1.0
2.2
12.7
12.1
2.9
3.9
28.5
27.1
6.5
9.3
N
1,600
5,600
3,200
1,300
1,500
4,900
4,500
1,500
1,100
4,600
4,000
1,400
3,400
4,700
4,800
1,300
1,900
4,500
5,800
1,300
1,800
3,300
5,600
S
_
130
520
170
160
150
460
380
50
130
460
350
90
320
610
410
80
180
330
320
60
320
180
410
P
_
120
270
240
70
100
210
330
70
70
170
300
20
140
190
390
10
100
220
440
10
133
150
430
K
_
510
790
690
500
490
570
1,200
570
400
430
1,000
1,810
1,300
900
1,530
350
1,190
1,300
6,800
590
90
830
1,310
Mg
—
150
410
970
190
110
320
410
230
150
330
460
160
240
260
440
120
190
330
630
130
1,060
300
610
Ca
_
1,400
13,700
4,200
1,800
800
7,200
4,900
1,200
400
6,300
6,900
2,100
2,400
16,000
6,000
1,700
2,000
15,100
8,000
1,100
230
13,000
7,200
H
O
-------
Table E.I (continued)
DBHa
Species (cm) Component
Tulip poplar 6.4 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
15 . 9 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
24.2 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
White oak 7.8 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
9.3 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
21.4 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Concentration (M8/g)
Weight
(kg)
^
10.1
1.4
1.7
16.1
54.8
4.2
20.2
51.2
174.6
13.4
36.5
7.1
6.8
1.6
3.8
8.5
8.1
1.9
4.2
67.7
64.4
15.4
41.4
N
_
1,700
5,300
4,400
1,400
1,100
5,500
3,800
1,000
1,300
3,900
4,500
1,200
2,300
4,600
5,200
1,500
1,900
4,700
5,000
1,200
2,200
4,500
5,300
S
^m
180
340
300
60
180
370
280
30
160
290
240
80
190
610
290
70
160
350
310
80
230
350
440
P
—
110
440
350
20
100
450
360
20
110
280
390
20
140
230
360
10
120
250
270
30
110
240
380
K
«-
390
390
2,430
330
510
2,450
1,800
330
390
1,900
2,310
590
580
710
800
400
910
1,090
9,800
990
1,090
920
1,510
Mg
_
320
320
900
160
190
1,100
680
160
160
1,100
800
100
210
330
420
170
190
520
370
80
170
280
390
Ca
—
2,900
15,200
6,000
2,000
1,700
12,600
4,800
2,000
1,300
11,700
5,000
2,000
7,200
48,000
10,000
2,000
3,500
33,000
6,000
1,100
1,200
38,900
10,000
Diameter at breast height.
-------
TABLE E.2. BIOMASS AND ELEMENT CONCENTRATION BY SPECIES OF BRANCHES, BOLE,
HEARTWOOD, SAPWOOD, AND BARK FOR OVERSTORY SPECIES FROM THE CROSS CREEK
WATERSHED AS DETERMINED BY WHOLE TREE HARVEST
DBHa
Species (cm) Component
Black gum 5.4 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Black oak 5.7 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
7.1 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
9.5 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
11.0 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
13.2 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Concentration (mg/g)
Weight
(kg)
1.5
5.2
0.4
1.2
3.0
2.9
0.7
0.6
6.5
6.2
1.5
1.9
15.5
14.7
3.5
18.5
25.9
24.6
5.9
11.2
26.9
25.6
6.1
10.9
N
1,400
1,700
5,400
3,900
1,400
1,800
4,500
4,000
1,100
1,700
3,300
3,900
1,300
1,900
3,800
4,400
1,800
1,700
4,300
5,500
1,000
1,700
4,400
5,000
S
120
240
900
400
70
240
360
410
110
380
300
490
100
400
230
340
210
200
300
410
100
270
260
360
P
70
150
310
330
50
100
190
260
10
120
200
250
10
140
190
290
185
110
250
410
10
90
200
300
K
1,190
670
1,100
1,900(
810
620
1,000
1,060
380
1,130
1,360
1,120
770
1,710
930
1,500
70
620
790
1,850
320
710
1,500
1,210
Mg
530
400
2,390
730
300
300
360
540
230
160
330
500
200
340
450
610
710
110
410
1,240
220
130
470
470
Ca
1,100
3,100
31,000
8,200
1,900
3,700
23,000
11,900
800
1,000
20,900
9,200
1,000
1,800
30,100
9,100
200
1,200
24,000
10,000
800
1,000
29,100
10,000
H
ro
-------
Table E.2 (continued)
DBH3
Species (cm) Component
Chestnut oak 4.0 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
7.2 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
10.3 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
16.9 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
20.4 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Hickory 2.9 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Concentration (mg/g)
Weight
(kg)
3.5
0.3
0.6
5.5
5.3
1.3
2.8
18.8
17.9
4.3
7.9
54.5
51.8
12.4
21.7
70.6
67.1
16.1
35.6
1.8
0.2
0.3
N
1,800
4,400
5,500
1,400
2,200
4,200
5,300
1,200
2,000
4,200
5,100
900
1,800
3,700
4,900
1,200
2,000
3,600
5,700
1,600
4,200
3,700
S
230
440
500
90
260
420
450
60
270
380
480
60
430
210
450
110
210
250
490
220
490
740
P
110
270
510
20
180
180
530
20
170
180
520
20
100
190
390
20
450
230
410
90
220
250
K
700
1,280
1,190
540
910
800
1,300
890
780
720
1,090
670
1,110
1,190
1,330
890
1,290
1,230
1,670
800
1,010
1,310
Mg
200
560
750
56
290
570
720
42
250
510
680
20
180
570
780
210
180
550
870
360
570
650
Ca
2,800
20,000
13,900
2,000
3,100
24,100
14,000
1,500
3,000
30,400
11,800
1,500
900
18,000
900
800
1,000
18,700
12,000
4,000
24,900
11,000
U)
-------
Table E.2 (continued)
DBHa
Species (cm) Component
4.2 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
6.0 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
6.5 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
15.0 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Red maple 6.8 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
9.3 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Concentration (mg/g)
Weight
(kg)
0.6
2.1
0.2
1.0
2.1
7.1
0.6
1.5
2.7
9.1
0.7
1.8
16.2
55.3
4.3
7.8
3.0
10.2
0.8
2.5
5.7
19.5
1.5
8.6
N
1,100
1,700
4,300
4,100
1,400
1,700
4,800
5,700
1,300
1,800
4,400
4,000
1,700
1,700
4,000
4,300
1,100
1,400
4,800
3,000
1,300
1,600
4,800
4,400
S
70
200
300
420
140
690
530
510
70
240
450
540
100
300
380
390
80
220
270
160
70
140
320
360
P
20
110
240
260
70
70
250
400
70
80
230
260
30
60
220
280
40
120
350
300
90
160
330
320
K
790
890
1,670
1,030
780
580
1,050
1,960
690
470
1,030
1,610
1,530
720
1,000
1,400
310
500
1,390
630
880
960
1,500
1,200
Mg
210
160
670
800
1,000
480
610
840
810
560
490
520
850
680
820
860
610
150
380
340
400
180
300
320
Ca
800
2,100
20,900
8,900
2,000
2,300
32,200
17,200
1,800
4,000
32,900
12,100
2,900
4,900
34,800
17,000
4,900
1,300
13,900
5,400
1,000
1,000
10,900
6,900
H
H
*"
I
-------
Table E.2 (continued)
DBHa
Species (cm) Component
13.8 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
17 . 1 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
19 . 3 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Sourwood 6 . 7 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
10.1 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
12.0 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Concentration (mg/g)
Weight
(kg)
14.8
50.5
3.9
15.7
17.6
60.1
4.6
23.4
23.2
79.0
6.1
24.8
2.3
8.0
0.6
1.6
5.0
17.0
1.3
4.2
5.4
18.4
1.4
8.2
N
1,400
1,400
4,600
4,300
1,000
1,100
4,100
5,200
1,100
1,400
4,500
6,200
1,200
1,400
3,800
3,500
1,400
1,800
5,700
4,200
1,100
1,600
5, 30
5,000
S
80
260
180
350
50
110
270
330
70
110
310
360
68
120
610
380
70
200
700
290
60
200
550
450
P
110
140
370
410
30
100
349
550
40
130
380
730
70
120
240
270
130
180
240
380
90
160
210
340
K
930
1,180
1,490
1,610
490
400
1,790
1,700
500
520
2,100
2,000
590
900
700
1,030
900
1,110
530
1,110
690
510
500
1,060
Mg
400
190
420
470
153
130
380
410
160
120
280
400
360
160
390
480
430
250
290
610
380
230
310
540
Ca
1,000
1,000
11,800
6,000
2,100
1,000
12,300
8,300
2,000
1,000
16,900
7,800
900
800
7,100
6,300
1,000
1,000
9,200
8,100
900
900
6,000
6,000
H
\J\
I
-------
Table E.2 (continued)
DBH3
Species (cm) Component
14.0 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
16.0 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
White oak 4.3 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
7.4 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
9.2 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
14.4 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Concentration (mg/g)
Weight
(kg)
13.4
45.6
3.5
10.4
15.5
52.8
4.1
11.2
1.7
1.6
0.4
0.5
5.1
4.9
1.2
1.9
10.1
9.6
2.3
2.4
22.0
20.9
5.0
9.0
N
1,200
1,200
4,700
4,600
1,200
1,700
4,700
3,700
1,300
1,800
6,800
4,100
1,200
2,300
5,000
5,000
1,200
1,600
4,600
3,900
1,300
2,000
4,100
5,000
S
100
80
500
350
60
130
430
300
70
160
570
460
80
530
490
360
80
220
420
400
100
240
250
530
P
70
90
210
360
100
150
210
260
20
100
330
250
10
130
280
330
10
110
210
240
10
140
210
360
K
700
390
610
1,030
560
590
580
910
200
510
1,020
790
300
540
1,100
1,330
200
800
1,290
700
680
1,490
1,090
1,600
Mg
120
110
360
490
181
170
330
430
300
220
390
1,150
200
90
200
230
200
140
340
300
370
310
560
550
Ca
1,600
800
7,400
7,900
1,600
600
6,900
3,300
1,900
6,000
38,000
10,200
1,200
5,100
36,200
12,300
1,000
1,300
33,100
6,800
800
1,700
40,000
8,900
H
ON
-------
Table E.2 (continued)
Species
DBH3
(cm) Component
21.9 Heart
Sap
Bark
Limbs
Concentration (mg/g)
Weight
(kg)
7.0
6.7
1.6
32.7
N
1,200
1,700
4,200
6,300
S
70
160
300
540
P
10
160
220
560
K
1,320
620
1,100
1,500
Mg
59
150
340
560
Ca
2,000
2,000
31,000
8,100
o
Diameter at breast height.
H
-------
-119-
APPENDIX F
BELOW-GROUND BIOMASS VALUES BY COVER TYPE AND DEPTH FOR
THE CAMP BRANCH AND CROSS CREEK WATERSHEDS
-------
-121-
TABLE F.I. BELOW-GROUND BIOMASS VALUES BY COVER TYPE AND DEPTH
FOR THE CAMP BRANCH AND CROSS CREEK WATERSHEDS
Biomass (kg/ha)
Upland oak -
mixed hardwoods
Component
Fibrous
roots
Root
crown
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Camp
Branch
15,464.1
14,711.5
6,253.8
3,626.9
3,801.5
2,840.1
Cross
Creek
18,445.2
15,022.1
10,646.3
10,272.0
9,868.0
2,574.9
Mesophytic
hardwoods
Camp
Branch
19,328.9
7,385.3
6,392.9
2,983.5
2,171.0
7,200.2
Cross
Creek
19,790.0
9,270.6
13,494.5
8,634.5
2,094.5
Pine
Camp
Branch
9,878.8
14,146.7
2,775.4
1,480.2
6,201.4
Cross
Creek
19,950.8
17,702.9
11,913.0
11,359.8
1,566.5
3,016.1
Total
46,697.9 66,828.5 45,461.8 53,284.1 34,482.5 65,509.1
-------
-123-
APPENDIX G
NUTRIENT WEIGHT IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS
-------
-125-
TABLE G.I. WEIGHT OF CALCIUM IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
UPLAND OAK-MIXED HARDWOOD COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF
SPECIES AND PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Calcium (kg/ha)
Species
Black gum
Blackjack oak
Black oak
Chestnut oak
Dogwood
Laurel
Mockernut hickory
Pignut hickory
Post oak
Prunus
Red maple
Sassafras
Scarlet oak
Sourwood
Southern red oak
Tulip poplar
Virginia pine
White oak
Heart
0.40
1.18
0.32
0.08
0.17
0.00
0.07
0.34
12.81
0.00
1.38
0.04
24.52
2.41
8.25
0.00
1.18
1.61
Sap
2.41
1.35
0.41
0.27
2.16
0.17
1.35
1.38
22.00
0.01
4.45
1.32
38.37
5.99
11.36
0.19
2.98
9.64
Bark
1.68
2.20
1.44
0.32
1.50
0.12
0.94
0.95
42.47
0.01
3.51
0.92
78.79
5.21
18.76
0.11
2.07
13.48
Branches
2.69
2.32
1.77
0.44
2.23
0.14
1.53
1.91
24.73
0.01
6.08
1.24
77.44
11.17
22.24
0.12
4.66
7.25
Total
7.18
7.05
3.94
1.11
6.06
0.43
3.89
4.58
102.01
0.03
15.42
3.52
219.12
24.78
60.81
0.42
10.89
31.98
-------
-126-
TABLE G.2. WEIGHT OF MAGNESIUM IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
UPLAND OAK-MIXED HARDWOOD COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF
SPECIES AND PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Magnesium (kg/ha)
Species
Black gum
Blackjack oak
Black oak
Chestnut oak
Dogwood
Laurel
Mockernut hickory
Pignut hickory
Post oak
Prunus
Red maple
Sassafras
Scarlet oak
Sourwood
Southern red oak
Tulip poplar
Virginia pine
White oak
Heart
0.08
0.17
0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.10
1.43
0.00
0.13
0.01
2.10
0.34
0.69
0.00
0.23
0.11
Sap
0.30
0.22
0.05
0.02
0.27
0.02
0.18
0.19
2.12
<0.01
0.46
0.17
3.63
0.95
1.41
0.02
0.38
0.46
Bark
0.07
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.02
1.22
<0.01
0.10
0.04
1.51
0.20
0.38
0.01
0.09
0.13
Branches
0.23
0.17
0.14
0.04
0.19
0.01
0.09
0-11
3.30
<0-01
0.53
0.11
6.22
1.28
1.76
0.02
0.40
0.33
Total
0.65
0.60
0.23
0.07
0.55
0.04
0.31
0.42
8.02
<0.01
1.22
0.33
13.46
- 2.77
4.24
0.05
1.10
1.03
-------
-127-
TABLE G.3. WEIGHT OF NITROGEN IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
UPLAND OAK-MIXED HARDWOOD COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF
SPECIES AND PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Nitrogen (kg/ha)
Species
Black gum
Blackjack oak
Black oak
Chestnut oak
Dogwood
Laurel
Mockernut hickory
Pignut hickory
Post oak
Prunus
Red maple
Sassafras
Scarlet oak
Sourwood
Southern red oak
Tulip poplar
Virginia pine
White oak
Heart
0.21
0.85
0.35
0.07
0.09
0.00
0.03
0.12
11.06
0.00
0.83
0.02
20.48
2.25
6.74
0.00
0.61
1.23
Sap
1.86
1.37
0.80
0.24
1.67
0.13
0.68
0.69
18.28
0.01
4.65
1.02
35.34
9.67
15.22
0.13
2.30
5.18
Bark
0.49
0.58
0.35
0.08
0.44
0.04
0.15
0.15
9.98
<0.01
1.22
0.27
16.67
2.89
5.32
0.04
0.61
1.55
Branches
1.44
1.57
1.11
0.25
1.19
0.08
0.41
0.51
27.37
<0.01
5.47
0.66
53.55
8.17
17.00
0.09
2.49
4.32
Total
4.00
4.37
2.61
0.64
3.39
0.25
1.27
1.47
66.69
0.01
12.17
1.97
126.04
22.98
44.28
0.26
6.01
12.28
-------
-128-
TABLE G.4. WEIGHT OF PHOSPHORUS IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
UPLAND OAK-MIXED HARDWOOD COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF
SPECIES AND PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Phosphorus (kg/ha)
Species
Black gum
Blackjack oak
Black oak
Chestnut oak
Dogwood
Laurel
Mockernut hickory
Pignut hickory
Post oak
Prunus
Red maple
Sassafras
Scarlet oak
Sourwood
Southern red oak
Tulip poplar
Virginia pine
White oak
Heart
0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.00
<0.01
<0.01
0.20
0.00
0.06
<0.01
0.33
0.11
0.07
0.00
0.03
0.02
Sap
0.13
0.07
0.04
0.02
0.12
0.01
0.03
0.03
1.01
<0.01
0.43
0.07
1.91
0.67
0.71
0.01
0.16
0.30
Bark
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.33
<0.01
0.09
0.02
0.78
0.12
0.24
<0.01
0.04
0.08
Branches
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.02
0.10
0.01
0.03
0.04
1.71
<0.01
0.49
0.05
3.71
0.61
1.32
0.01
0.20
0.28
Total
0.29
0.21
0.14
0.05
0.25
0.03
0.07
0.08
3.25
<0.01
1.07
0.14
6.73
1.51
2.34
0.02
0.43
0.68
-------
-129-
TABLE G.5. WEIGHT OF POTASSIUM IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
UPLAND OAK-MIXED HARDWOOD COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF
SPECIES AND PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Potassium (kg/ha)
Species
Black gum
Blackjack oak
Black oak
Chestnut oak
Dogwood
Laurel
Mockernut hickory
Pignut hickory
Post oak
Prunus
Red maple
Sassafras
Scarlet oak
Sourwood
Southern red oak
Tulip poplar
Virginia pine
White oak
Heart
0.11
0.94
0.11
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.02
0.08
4.45
0.00
0.50
0.01
12.81
0.86
4.63
0.00
0.33
0.63
Sap
0.62
1.19
0.24
0.10
0.56
0.04
0.28
0.28
6.34
<0.01
1.24
0.34
17.02
3.22
7-61
0.04
0.77
2.09
Bark
0.14
0.13
0.05
0.02
0.13
0.01
0.04
0.04
1.66
<0.01
0.38
0.08
3.34
0.34
1.29
0.02
0.17
0.31
Branches
0.55
0.36
0.37
0.10
0.46
0.03
0.17
0.21
6.22
<0.01
1.97
0.25
19.99
2.02
4.74
0.05
0.96
3.38
Total
1.42
2.62
0.77
0.27
1.20
0.08
0.51
0.61
18.67
<0.01
4.09
0.68
53.16
6.44
18.27
0.11
2.23
6.41
-------
-130-
TABLE G.6. WEIGHT OF SULFUR IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
UPLAND OAK-MIXED HARDWOOD COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF
SPECIES AND PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Sulfur (kg/ha)
Species
Black gum
Blackjack oak
Black oak
Chestnut oak
Dogwood
Laurel
Mocker nut hickory
Pignut hickory
Post oak
Prumis
Red maple
Sassafras
Scarlet oak
Sourwood
Southern red oak
Tulip poplar
Virginia pine
White oak
Heart
0.01
0.07
0.10
<0.01
0.01
0.00
<0.01
0.01
1.15
0.00
0.03
<0.01
1.52
0.17
0.39
0.00
0.04
0.10
Sap
0.18
0.15
0.08
0.02
0.16
0.01
0.05
0.05
1.88
<0-01
0.39
0.10
3.58
0-94
1.76
0-02
0.22
0.47
Bark
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.01
0.01
1.49
<0.01
0.07
0.02
1.62
0.28
0.48
<0.01
0.05
0.15
Branches
0.10
0.13
0.06
0.02
0.08
0.01
0-02
0.03
2.61
<0.01
0.38
0.05
4.07
0.63
1.20
0.01
0.17
0.29
Total
0.33
0.40
0.27
0.05
0.28
0.02
0.08
0.10
7.13
<0.01
0.87
0.17
10.79
2.02
3.83
0.03
0.48
1.01
TABLE G.7. WEIGHT OF SULFUR IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS
IN THE PINE COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF SPECIES AND
PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Sulfur (kg/ha)
Species
Black gum
Black oak
Dogwood
Holly
Pignut hickory
Red cedar
Red maple
Sourwood
Southern red oak
Tulip poplar
Virginia pine
White oak
Heart
0.00
0.14
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.29
0.24
1.11
0.44
Sap
0.11
0.25
1.77
<0.01
0.12
0.26
0.22
0.21
1.05
2.93
6.79
0.77
Bark
0.02
0.13
0.39
<0.01
0.03
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.33
0.47
1.49
0.40
Branches
0.05
0.25
0.99
<0.01
0.06
0-19
0-19
0.14
0.83
1.81
5.09
0.78
Total
0.18
0.77
3.27
<0.01
0.21
0.55
0.47
0.45
2.50
5.45
14.48
2.39
-------
-131-
TABLE G.8. WEIGHT OF CALCIUM IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
MESOPHYTIC HARDWOOD COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF SPECIES
AND PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Species
Ash
Azalea
Black gum
Black oak
Chestnut oak
Crataegus
Dogwood
Hickory
Red maple
Sassafras
Sourwood
Tulip poplar
White oak
Heart
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.93
1.14
0.00
0.00
5.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.57
— • .
Calcium (kg/hal
Sap
0.03
0.61
4.68
21.35
2.73
0.02
4.75
31.54
3.04
<0.01
1.17
0.02
30.15
Bark
0.02
0.47
3.90
70.01
4.88
0.01
3.71
22.10
3.15
<0.01
0.87
0.02
75.67
Branches
0.03
0.49
2.82
77.94
5.60
0.01
5.01
44.15
4.53
<0.01
2.14
0.02
54.81
Total
0.08
1.57
11.40
182.23
14.35
0.04
13.47
102.93
10.72
<0.01
4.18
0.06
173.20
TABLE G.9- WEIGHT OF MAGNESIUM IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
MESOPHYTIC HARDWOOD COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF SPECIES
AND PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Magnesium (kg/ha)
Species
Ash
Azalea
Black gum
Black oak
Chestnut oak
Crataegus
Dogwood
Hickory
Red maple
Sassafras
Sourwood
Tulip poplar
White oak
Heart
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.70
0.06
0.00
0.00
1.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.06
Sap
<0.01
0.09
0.60
2.55
0.28
<0.01
0.69
4.08
0.44
<0.01
0.26
<0.01
1.70
Bark
<0.01
0.02
0.30
1.11
0.12
<0.01
0.12
0.48
0.08
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
0.78
Branches
<0.01
0.03
0.25
5.22
0.40
<0.01
0.32
2.45
0.26
<0.01
0.17
<0.01
3.30
Total
<0.01
0.14
1.15
11.58
0.86
<0.01
1.13
8.98
0-78
<0.01
Oi ~t
.47
<0.01
7.84
-------
-132-
TABLE G.10. WEIGHT OF NITROGEN IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
MESOPHYTIC HARDWOOD COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF SPECIES
AND PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Nitrogen (kg/ha)
Species
Ash
Azalea
Black gum
Black oak
Chestnut oak
Crataegus
Dogwood
Hickory
Red maple
Sassafras
Sourwood
Tulip poplar
White oak
Heart
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.52
0.92
0.00
0.00
3.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.29
Sap
0.03
0.50
2.57
21.60
2.48
0.01
3.95
15.49
3.96
<0.01
2.20
0.02
17-60
Bark
0.01
0.13
0.68
11.18
0.88
<0.01
0.99
3.29
1.09
<0.01
0.58
<0.01
10.48
Branches
0.01
0.25
1.34
35.40
2.82
0.01
2.49
14.54
3.04
<0.01
1.42
0.01
28.76
Total
0.05
0.88
4.59
83.70
7.10
0.02
7.43
37.09
8.09
<0.01
4.20
0.03
68.13
TABLE G.ll. WEIGHT OF PHOSPHORUS IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
MESOPHYTIC HARDWOOD COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF SPECIES
AND PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Phosphorus (kg/ha)
Species
Ash
Azalea
Black gum
Black oak
Chestnut oak
Crataegus
Dogwood
Hickory
Red maple
Sassafras
Sourwood
Tulip poplar
White oak
Heart
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.35
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.11
Sap
<0.01
0.04
0.23
1.37
0.26
<0.01
0.30
0.75
0.37
<0.01
0.20
<0.01
1.20
Bark
<0.01
0.01
0.04
0.57
0.05
<0.01
0.06
0.18
0.08
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.53
Branches
<0.01
0.02
0.11
2.34
0.25
<0.01
0.20
0.97
0.30
<0.01
0.11
<0.01
2.06
Total
<0.01
0.07
0.38
4.63
0.58
<0.01
0.56
2.03
0.75
<0.01
0.34
<0.01
3.90
-------
-133-
TABLE G.12. WEIGHT OF POTASSIUM IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
MESOPHYTIC HARDWOOD COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF SPECIES
AND PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Species
Ash
Azalea
Black gum
Black oak
Chestnut oak
Crataegus
Dogwood
Hickory
Red maple
Sassafras
Sourwood
Tulip poplar
White oak
— — — — _____
Potassium (kg/ha)
Heart
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.03
0.59
0.00
0.00
2.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.92
Sap
0.01
0.24
1.01
11.75
1.21
0.01
1.85
6.31
2.04
<0.01
1.11
0.01
7.42
Bark
<0.01
0.03
0.14
3.07
0.23
<0.01
0.24
0.87
0.40
<0.01
0.07
<0.01
2.38
Branches
<0.01
0.08
0.65
10.53
0.70
<0.01
0.77
4.88
0.94
0.00
0.35
<0.01
7.01
Total
0.02
0.35
1.80
32.38
2.73
0.01
2.86
14.66
3.38
<0.01
1.53
0.01
21.73
TABLE G.13. WEIGHT OF SULFUR IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
MESOPHYTIC HARDWOOD COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF SPECIES
AND PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Sulfur (kg/ha)
Species
Ash
Azalea
Black gum
Black oak
Chestnut oak
Crataegus
Dogwood
Hickory
Red maple
Sassafras
Sourwood
Tulip poplar
White oak
Heart
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.39
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.26
0.00
0-00
0.00
0.00
0.73
Sap
<0.01
0.07
0.36
3.66
0.35
<0.01
0.55
3.01
0.48
<0.01
0.21
<0.01
2.45
Bark
<0.01
0.01
0.11
0.80
0.07
<0.01
0.10
0.33
0.06
<0.01
0.07
<0.01
0.86
Branches
<0.01
0.02
0.14
3.12
0.25
<0.01
0.23
1.73
0.21
<0.01
0.12
<0.01
2.71
Total
<0.01
0.10
0.61
8.97
0.73
<0.01
0.88
5.33
0.75
<0.01
.40
<0.01
6.75
-------
-13U-
TABLE G.14. WEIGHT OF CALCIUM IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
PINE COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF SPECIES AND PLANT
COMPONENT ON THE CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Species
Calcium (kg/ha)
Heart
Sap
Bark
Branches
Total
Black gum
Box elder
Cedar
Choke cherry
Dogwood
Hackberry
Persimmon
Red maple
Sassafras
Sourwood
Tulip poplar
Virginia pine
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.33
0.00
0.00
43.96
0.73
<0.01
0.01
0.10
0.30
0.11
0.47
0.04
10.63
0.43
0.19
152.34
0.61
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
0.23
0.09
0.37
0.04
8.30
0.32
0.15
118.77
0.36
<0.01
<0.01
0.09
0.28
0.10
0.41
0.04
13.81
0.79
0.19
266.42
1.70
<0.01
0.02
0.26
0.81
0.30
1.25
0.12
34.07
1.54
0.53
581.49
TABLE G.15. WEIGHT OF MAGNESIUM IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
PINE COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF SPECIES AND PLANT
COMPONENT ON THE CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Species
Magnesium (kg/ha)
Heart
Sap
Bark
Branches
Total
Black gum
Box elder
Cedar
Chokecherry
Dogwood
Hackberry
Persimmon
Red maple
Sassafras
Sourwood
Tulip poplar
Virginia pine
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0-00
0.34
0.00
0.00
-- 1L.J3
0.09
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.07
0.01
1.55
0.10
0.03
22.17
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.27
0.01
<0.01
3.83
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.87
0.06
0.01
16.88
0.17
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.07
0.03
0.11
0.01
3.03
0.17
0.04
54.21
-------
-135-
TABLE G.16. WEIGHT OF NITROGEN IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
PINE COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF SPECIES AND PLANT
COMPONENT ON THE CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Species
Black gum
Box elder
Cedar
Chokecherry
Dogwood
Hackberry
Persimmon
Red maple
Sassafras
Sourwood
Tulip poplar
Virginia pine
Nitrogen (kg/ha)
Heart
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.98
0.00
0.00
32.45
Sap
0.40
<0.01
<0.01
0.08
0.25
0.09
0.39
0.05
8.85
0.81
0.16
126.81
Bark
0.11
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.10
0.01
2.20
0.21
0.04
31.53
Branches
0.17
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
0.14
0.05
0.20
0.03
6.86
0.53
0.09
132.43
Total
0.68
<0.01
0.01
0.14
0.45
0.16
0.69
0.09
18.89
1.55
0.29
323.22
TABLE G.17. WEIGHT OF PHOSPHORUS IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
PINE COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF SPECIES AND PLANT
COMPONENT ON THE CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Phosphorus (kg/ha)
Species
Black gum
Box elder
Cedar
Chokecherry
Dogwood
Hackberry
Persimmon
Red maple
Sassafras
Sourwood
Tulip poplar
Virginia pine
Heart
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
1.78
Sap
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.68
0.07
0.01
9.74
Bark
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.13
0.01
<0.01
1.85
Branches
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.56
0.04
0.01
10.81
Total
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.01
1.42
0.12
0.02
24.18
-------
-136-
TABLE G.18. WEIGHT OF POTASSIUM IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
PINE COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF SPECIES AND PLANT
COMPONENT ON THE CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Potassium (kg/ha)
Species
Black gum
Box elder
Cedar
Chokecherry
Dogwood
Hackberry
Persimmon
Red maple
Sassafras
Sourwood
Tulip poplar
Virginia pine
Heart
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.60
0.00
0.00
19.80
Sap
0.16
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
0.12
0.04
0.18
0.03
4.14
0.41
0.07
59.23
Bark
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.54
0.03
0.01
7.68
Branches
0.08
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.06
0.01
2.11
0.13
0.03
40.74
Total
0.26
<0.01
<0.01
0.06
0.18
0.07
0.26
0.05
7.39
0.57
0.11
127.45
TABLE G.19. WEIGHT OF SULFUR IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
PINE COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF SPECIES AND PLANT
COMPONENT ON THE CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Sulfur (kg/ha)
Species
Black gum
Box elder
Cedar
Chokecherry
Dogwood
Hackberry
Persimmon
Red maple
Sassafras
Sourwood
Tulip poplar
Virginia pine
Heart
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
3.12
Sap
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.05
0.01
1.23
0.08
0.02
17.67
Bark
0.18
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.21
0.02
<0.01
3.06
Branches
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.62
0.04
0.01
12.02
Total
0.26
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.08
0.01
2.15
0.14
0.03
35.87
-------
-137-
TABLE G.20. WEIGHT OF CALCIUM IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
UPLAND OAK-MIXED HARDWOOD COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF
SPECIES AND PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Calcium (kg/ha)
Species
American chestnut
Ash
Azalea
Beech
Black gum
Black oak
Chestnut oak
Crab apple
Dogwood
Hickory
Laurel
Mockernut hickory
Persimmon
Pignut hickory
Post oak
Red cedar
Red maple
Sassafras
Sourwood
Sumac
Tulip poplar
Viburnum
Virginia pine
White ash
White oak
Heart
0.00
0.69
0-00
0.00
0.15
16.95
8.78
0.00
0.18
3.78
0.00
0.58
0.00
1.58
0.34
0.00
0.46
0.00
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.97
14.67
Sap
<0.01
2.37
0.23
<0.01
4.54
29-13
14.93
<0.01
2.75
22.92
0.02
3.58
0.11
9.25
0.63
<0.01
3.24
0.43
2.44
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
3.34
37.72
Bark
<0.01
1.84
0.18
<0.01
3.78
93.08
32.59
<0.01
2.15
16.07
0.02
2.51
0.09
6.48
1.68
<0.01
3.35
0.34
1.81
0.00
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
2.60
90.56
Branches
<0.01
4.48
0.18
<0.01
3.16
106.04
44.41
<0.01
3.30
33.40
0.02
5.18
0.11
14.49
1.59
0.00
5.24
0.43
4.99
0.00
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
6.47
67.47
Total
<0.01
9.38
0.59
<0.01
11.63
245 . 20
100.71
<0.01
8.38
76.17
0.06
11.85
0.31
31.80
4.24
<0.01
12.29
1.20
9.54
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
13.38
210.42
-------
-138-
TABLE G.21. WEIGHT OF MAGNESIUM IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
UPLAND OAK-MIXED HARDWOOD COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF
SPECIES AND PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Magnesium (kg/ha)
Species
American chestnut
Ash
Azalea
Beech
Black gum
Black oak
Chestnut oak
Crab apple
Dogwood
Hickory
Laurel
Mockernut hickory
Persimmon
Pignut hickory
Post oak
Red cedar
Red maple
Sassafras
Sourwood
Sumac
Tulip poplar
Viburnum
Virginia pine
White ash
White oak
Heart
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.07
3.54
0.50
0.00
0.05
1.45
0.00
0.22
0.00
0.60
0.05
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
2.40
Sap
<0.01
0.34
0.03
<0.01
0.59
3.48
1.52
<0.01
0.40
2.97
<0.01
0.46
0.02
1.20
0.05
<0.01
0.47
0.06
0.55
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.49
2.13
Bark
<0.01
0.06
0.01
<0.01
0.29
1.48
0.81
<0.01
0.07
0.35
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
0.14
0.03
<0.01
0.09
0.01
0.08
0.00
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.08
0.93
Branches
<0.01
0.28
0.01
<0.01
0.28
7.10
3.21
<0.01
0.21
1.85
<0.01
0.29
0.01
0.80
0.11
<0.01
0.30
0.03
0.40
0.00
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.41
4.07
Total
<0.01
0.86
0.05
<0.01
1.23
15.60
6.04
<0.01
0.73
6.62
<0.01
1.02
0.03
2.74
0.24
<0.01
0.93
0.10
1.10
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.28
9.53
-------
-139-
TABLE G.22. WEIGHT OF NITROGEN IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
UPLAND OAK-MIXED HARDWOOD COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF
SPECIES AND PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Nitrogen (kg/ha)
Species
American chestnut
Ash
Azalea
Beech
Black gum
Black oak
Chestnut oak
Crab apple
Dogwood
Hickory
Laurel
Mockernut hickory
Persimmon
Pignut hickory
Post oak
Red cedar
Red maple
Sassafras
Sourwood
Sumac
Tulip poplar
Viburnum
Virginia pine
White ash
White oak
Heart
0.00
0.51
0.00
0.00
0.20
20.34
7.11
0.00
0.13
2.77
0.00
0.42
0.00
1.16
0.33
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.72
13.18
Sap
<0.01
2.00
0.19
<0.01
2.49
29.47
13.54
<0.01
2.29
11.26
0.02
1.76
0.09
4.54
0.49
<0.01
4.22
0.36
4.57
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0 01
2.78
22.02
Bark
<0.01
0.49
0.05
<0.01
0.66
14.87
5.89
<0.01
0.57
2.39
<0.01
0.37
0.02
0.97
0.26
<0.01
1.16
0.09
1.20
0.00
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.69
12.55
Branches
<0.01
2.23
0.09
<0.01
1.50
48.16
22.37
<0.01
1.64
11.00
0.01
1.71
0.06
4.77
0.79
<0.01
3.52
0.21
3.31
0.00
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
3.22
35.4
Total
<0.01
5.23
0.33
<0.01
4.85
112.84
48.91
<0.01
4.63
27.42
0.03
4.26
0.17
11.44
1.87
<0.01
9.15
0.66
9.38
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
7.41
83.15
-------
TABLE G.23. WEIGHT OF PHOSPHORUS IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
UPLAND OAK-MIXED HARDWOOD COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF
SPECIES AND PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Phosphorus (kg/ha)
Species
American chestnut
Ash
Azalea
Beech
Black gum
Black oak
Chestnut oak
Crab apple
Dogwood
Hickory
Laurel
Mockernut hickory
Persimmon
Pignut hickory
Post oak
Red cedar
Red maple
Sassafras
Sourwood
Sumac
Tulip poplar
Viburnum
Virginia pine
White ash
White oak
Heart
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.46
0.12
0.00
0.01
0.10
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.13
Sap
<0.01
0.15
0.01
<0.01
0.22
1.88
1.40
<0.01
0.18
0.54
<0.01
0.08
0.01
0.22
0.04
<0.01
0.40
0.03
0.42
0.00
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.21
1.50
Bark
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
0.75
0.31
<0.01
0.03
0.13
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.05
0.01
<0.01
0.09
0.01
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
0.63
Branches
<0.01
0.18
0.01
<0.01
0.13
3.19
1.99
<0.01
0.13
0.73
<0.01
0.11
<0.01
0.32
0.06
<0.01
0.35
0.02
0.25
0.00
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.26
2.53
Total
<0.01
0.39
0.02
<0.01
0.39
6.28
3.82
<0.01
0.35
1.50
<0.01
0.22
0.02
0.63
0.12
<0.01
0.85
0.06
0.74
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.55
4.79
-------
-Ha-
TABLE G.24. WEIGHT OF POTASSIUM IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
UPLAND OAK-MIXED HARDWOOD COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF
SPECIES AND PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Potassium (kg/ha)
Species
American chestnut
Ash
Azalea
Beech
Black gum
Black oak
Chestnut oak
Crab apple
Dogwood
Hickory
Laurel
Mockernut hickory
Persimmon
Pignut hickory
Post oak
Red cedar
Red maple
Sassafras
Sourwood
Sumac
Tulip poplar
Viburnum
Virginia pine
White ash
White oak
Heart
0.00
0.31
0.00
0.00
0.17
9.21
4.52
0.00
0.08
1.91
0.00
0.29
0.00
0.80
0.16
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
5.74
Sap
<0.01
0.92
0.09
<0.01
0.98
16.04
6.62
<0.01
1.07
4.58
0.01
0.72
0.04
1.85
0.24
<0.01
2.17
0.17
2.31
0.00
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.30
9.28
Bark
<0.01
0.12
0.01
<0.01
0.13
4.09
1.53
<0.01
1.14
0.68
<0.01
0.10
0.01
0.26
0.07
<0.01
0.42
0.02
0.14
0.00
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.17
2.84
Branches
<0.01
0.68
0.03
<0.01
0.73
14.3
5.56
<0.01
0.50
3.69
<0.01
0.57
0.02
1.60
0.21
0.00
1.09
0.07
0.81
0.00
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.99
8.62
Total
<0.01
2.03
0.13
<0.01
2.01
43.64
18.23
<0.01
2.79
10.82
0.01
1.68
0.07
4.51
0.68
<0.01
3.81
0.26
3.43
0.00
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
2.90
26.48
-------
TABLE G.25. WEIGHT OF SULFUR IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
UPLAND OAK-MIXED HARDWOOD COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF
SPECIES AND PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CROSS CREEK WATERSHED
Sulfur (kg/ha)
Species
American chestnut
Ash
Azalea
Beech
Black gum
Black oak
Chestnut oak
Crab apple
Dogwood
Hickory
Laurel
Mockernut hickory
Persimmon
Pignut hickory
Post oak
Red cedar
Red maple
Sassafras
Sourwood
Sumac
Tulip poplar
Viburnum
Virginia pine
White ash
White oak
Heart
0.00
0.03
0.00
<0.01
0.02
1.82
0.48
0.00
0.01
0.19
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.08
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.85
Sap
<0.01
0.27
0.03
<0.01
0.35
4.99
1.93
<0.01
0.32
2.19
<0.01
0.34
0.01
0.88
0.07
<0.01
0.51
0.05
0.43
<0.01
<0.01
0.00
<0.01
0.39
3.07
Bark
<0.01
0.05
0.01
<0.01
0.11
1.06
0.50
<0.01
0.06
0.24
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
0.10
0.02
<0.01
0.07
0.01
0.14
0.00
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
1.03
Branches
<0.01
0.20
0.01
<0.01
0.15
4.25
2.00
<0.01
0.15
1.31
<0.01
0.20
0.01
0.57
0.07
<0.01
0.24
0.02
0.28
0.00
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.29
3.34
Total
<0.01
0.57
0.05
<0.01
0.63
12.12
4.91
<0.01
0.54
3.93
<0.01
0.61
0.02
1.63
0.18
<0.01
0.83
0.08
0.90
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.82
8.29
-------
-11*3-
TABLE G.26. WEIGHT OF CALCIUM IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
UPLAND OAK-MIXED HARDWOOD COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF
SPECIES AND PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Species
Black gum
Dogwood
Laurel
Post oak
Prunus
Red maple
Sourwood
Southern red oak
Tulip poplar
Virginia pine
White oak
Calcium fke/ha)
Heart
5.94
0.47
0.00
19-74
0.00
31.83
0.00
0.00
21.68
0.00
45.51
Sap
17.56
1.33
0.02
32.50
0.01
81.00
0.09
<0.01
69.36
0.01
108.41
Bark
12.22
0.93
0.02
64.47
0.01
63.88
0.08
<0.01
38.63
0.01
248.67
Branches
24.93
1.75
0.02
35.70
0-01
128.06
0.10
<0.01
74.17
0.01
146.24
Total
60.65
4.48
0.06
152.41
0.03
304.77
0.27
<0.01
203.84
0.03
548.83
TABLE G.27. WEIGHT OF MAGNESIUM IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
MESOPHYTIC HARDWOOD COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF SPECIES
AND PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Magnesium (kg/ha)
Species
Black gum
Dogwood
Laurel
Post oak
Prunus
Red maple
Sourwood
Southern red oak
Tulip poplar
Virginia pine
White oak
Heart
1.15
0.09
0.00
2.21
0.00
2.90
0.00
0.00
1.55
0.00
3.13
Sap
2.21
0.17
<0.01
3.14
<0.01
8.28
0.01
<0.01
7.86
<0.01
5.19
Bark
0.51
0.04
<0-01
1.86
<0.01
1.75
<0.01
<0.01
3.62
<0.01
2.35
Branches
2.13
0.15
<0.01
4.76
<0.01
11.16
0.01
<0.01
11.17
<0.01
6.63
Total
6.00
0.45
<0.01
11.97
<0.01
24.09
0.02
<0.01
24.20
<0.01
17.30
-------
-Ihk-
TABLE G.28. WEIGHT OF NITROGEN IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
MESOPHYTIC HARDWOOD COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF SPECIES
AND PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Nitrogen (kg/ha)
Species
Black gum
Dogwood
Laurel
Post oak
Prunus
Red maple
Sourwood
Southern red oak
Tulip poplar
Virginia pine
White oak
Heart
3.09
0.24
0.00
17-04
0.00
19.22
0.00
0.00
13.32
0.00
34.80
Sap
13.56
1.03
0.02
27.02
0.01
84.65
0.14
<0.01
48.20
0.01
58.29
Bark
3.59
0.27
<0.01
15.15
<0.01
22.21
0.04
<0.01
14.38
<0.01
28.62
Branches
13.33
0.93
0.01
39.52
0.01
115.13
0.07
<0.01
59-61
<0.01
87.19
Total
33.57
2.47
0.04
98.73
0.02
241.21
0.25
<0.01
135.51
0.02
208.90
TABLE G.29. WEIGHT OF PHOSPHORUS IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
MESOPHYTIC HARDWOOD COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF SPECIES
AND PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Phosphorus (kg/ha)
Species
Black gum
Dogwood
Laurel
Post oak
Prunus
Red maple
Sourwood
Southern red oak
Tulip poplar
Virginia pine
White oak
Heart
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.31
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.54
Sap
0.96
0.07
<0.01
1.49
<0.01
7.90
0.01
<0.01
3.78
<0.01
3.36
Bark
0.22
0.02
<0.01
0.50
<0.01
1.58
<0.01
<0.01
1.14
<0.01
14.9
Branches
0.11
0.08
<0.01
2.47
<0.01
10.42
0.01
<0.01
5.17
<0.01
5.69
Total
1.30
0.18
<0.01
4.77
<0.01
20.04
0.02
<0.01
10.26
<0.01
11.08
-------
-11*5-
TABLE G.30. WEIGHT OF POTASSIUM IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
MESOPHYTIC HARDWOOD COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF SPECIES
AND PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Species
Black gum
Dogwood
Laurel
Post oak
Prunus
Red maple
Sourwood
Southern red oak
Tulip poplar ..
Virginia pine
White oak
Heart
1.69
0.13
0.00
6.85
0.00
13.50
0.00
0.00
3.11
0.00
17-67
Sap
4.54
0.34
0.01
9.36
<0.01
22.64
0.05
<0.01
15.16
<0.01
23.50
•™ •
Potassium
Bark
1.02
0.08
<0.01
2.52
<0.01
6.89
0.01
<0.01
6.55
<0.01
5.64
'• '"
(kg/ha)
Branches
5.11
0.36
<0.01
8.98
<0.01
41.49
0.02
<0.01
30.70
<0.01
68.10
—"- —
Total
12.36
0.91
0.01
27.71
0.01
72.52
0.08
<0.01
55.52
<0.01
114.91
TABLE G.31. WEIGHT OF SULFUR IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN THE
MESOPHYTIC HARDWOOD COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF SPECIES
AND PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Species
Black gum
Dogwood
Laurel
Post oak
Prunus
Red maple
Sourwood
Southern red oak
Tulip poplar
Virginia pine
White oak
Heart
0.18
0.01
0.00
1.78
0.00
0.71
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
2.95
Sap
1.29
0.10
<0.01
2.78
<0.01
7.18
0.01
<0.01
6.10
<0.01
5.27
Sulfur
Bark
0.28
0.02
<0.01
2.26
<0.01
1.33
<0.01
<0.01
0.98
<0.01
2.72
(kg/ha)
Branches
0.90
0.06
<0.01
3.77
<0.01
8.03
0.01
<0.01
3.84
<0.01
5.86
Total
2.65
0.19
<0.01
10.59
<0.01
17.25
0.02
<0.01
11.42
<0.01
16.80
-------
-11+6-
TABLE G.32. WEIGHT OF CALCIUM IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS
IN THE PINE COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF SPECIES AND
PLANT COMPONENT ON CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Calcium (kg/ha)
Species
Black gum
Black oak
Dogwood
Holly
Pignut hickory
Red cedar
Red maple
Sourwood
Southern red oak
Tulip poplar
Virginia pine
White oak
Heart
0.00
2.17
3.90
0.00
0-00
1.46
0.76
0.64
6.19
10.52
37.25
6.74
Sap
1.50
5.12
24.16
<0.01
3.04
3.58
2.44
1.35
6.77
33.36
92.43
15.91
Bark
1.04
11.80
16.83
<0.01
2.11
2.49
1.92
1.18
12.91
18.58
64.30
36.72
Branches
1.45
6.19
27.23
<0.01
3.42
5.25
3.07
2.59
15.45
34.86
140.26
19.52
Total
3.99
25.28
72.12
<0.01
8.57
12.78
8.19
5.76
41.32
97.32
334.24
78.89
TABLE G.33. WEIGHT OF MAGNESIUM IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS
IN THE PINE COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF SPECIES AND
PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Magnesium (kg/ha)
Species
Black gum
Black oak
Dogwood
Holly
Pignut hickory
Red cedar
Red maple
Sourwood
Southern red oak
Tulip poplar
Virginia pine
White oak
Heart
0.00
0.15
0.76
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.07
0.09
0.52
0.75
7.21
0.46
Sap
0.19
0.25
3.05
<0.01
0.41
0.45
0.25
0.21
0.84
3.78
11.65
0.76
Bark
0.04
0.11
0.70
<0.01
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.26
1.74
2.67
0.35
Branches
0.12
0.28
2.33
<0.01
0.19
0.45
0.27
0.30
1.22
5.25
11.99
0.89
Total
0.35
0.79
6.84
<0.01
0.65
1.28
0.64
0.65
2.84
11.52
33.52
2.46
-------
-11*7-
TABLE G.34. WEIGHT OF NITROGEN IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS
IN THE PINE COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF SPECIES AND
PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Species
Black gum
Black oak
Dogwood
Holly
Pignut hickory
Red cedar
Red maple
Sourwood
Southern red oak
Tulip poplar
Virginia pine
White oak
Heart
0.00
1.66
2.03
0.00
0.00
0.76
0.46
0.59
5.05
6.46
19.36
5.16
• • .
Nitrogen Ckg/hal
Sap
1.16
2.75
18.66
<0.01
1.52
2.76
2.55
2.18
9-08
23.19
71.37
8.56
Bark
0.31
1.36
4.95
<0.01
0.33
0.73
0.67
0.65
3.66
6.92
18.89
4.23
Branches
0.77
3.69
14.56
<0.01
0.91
2.81
2.76
1.89
11.81
28.01
75.01
11.64
Total
2.24
9.46
40.20
0.01
2.76
7.06
6.44
5.31
29.60
64.58
184.63
29.59
TABLE G.35. WEIGHT OF PHOSPHORUS IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS
IN THE PINE COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF SPECIES AND
PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Phosphorus
Species
Black gum
Black oak
Dogwood
Holly
Pignut hickory
Red cedar
Red maple
Sourwood
Southern red oak
Tulip poplar
Virginia pine
White oak
Heart
0.00
0.03
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.05
0-08
0.84
0.08
Sap
0.08
0.16
1.32
<0.01
0.07
0.20
0.24
0.15
0.42
1.81
5.05
0.49
Bark
0.02
0.07
0.30
<0.01
0.12
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.16
0.55
1.16
0.22
(kg/ha)
Branches
0.06
0.24
1.19
<0.01
0.07
0.23
0.25
0.14
0.92
2.43
6.11
0.76
Total
0.16
0.50
2.90
<0.01
0.26
0.50
01- -7
.57
0.35
1.55
4.87
13.16
1.55
-------
-1U8-
TABLE G.36. WEIGHT OF POTASSIUM IN ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS
IN THE PINE COVER TYPE AS A FUNCTION OF SPECIES AND
PLANT COMPONENT ON THE CAMP BRANCH WATERSHED
Potassium (kg/ha)
Species Heart Sap Bark Branches Total
Black gum
Black oak
Dogwood
Holly
Pignut hickory
Red cedar
Red maple
Sourwood
Southern red oak
Tulip poplar
Virginia pine
White oak
0.00
0.84
1.11
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.32
0.23
3.48
1.51
10.59
2.62
0.39
1.11
6.24
<0.01
0.62
0.92
0.68
0.73
4.54
7.29
23.87
3.45
0.09
0.27
1.40
<0.01
0.08
0.21
0.21
0.08
0.89
3.15
5.36
0.83
0.30
2.89
5.58
<0.01
0.37
1.08
0.99
0.47
3.29
14.43
28.76
9.09
0.78
5.11
14.33
<0.01
1.07
2.63
2.20
1.51
12.20
26.38
68.58
15.99
-------
APPENDIX H
NUTRIENT WEIGHT IN BELOW-GROUND BIOMASS
-------
-151-
TABLE H.I. WEIGHT OF NITROGEN IN BELOW-GROUND BIOMASS AS A FUNCTION OF
DEPTH AND COVER TYPE FOR THE CAMP BRANCH AND CROSS CREEK WATERSHEDS
Upland
oak -
mixed hardwoods
Component
Fibrous
roots
Root
crown
Total
Depth
cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Camp
Branch
98.8
66.1
24.8
12.4
14.8
0.68
217.6
Cross
Creek
131.0
66.9
57.7
52.1
47.4
0.71
355.8
Mesophytic
hardwoods
Camp
Branch
120.7
40.5
26.5
19.4
18.5
2.04
227.6
Cross
Creek
128.5
53.9
69.2
81.2
0.65
333.5
Pine
Camp
Branch
67.1
68.7
15.3
7.3
1.73
160.1
Cross
Creek
132.7
70.4
56.5
62.3
9.1
1.0
332.0
TABLE H.2. WEIGHT OF NITROGEN IN BELOW-GROUND BIOMASS AS A FUNCTION OF
DEPTH AND COVER TYPE FOR THE CAMP BRANCH AND CROSS CREEK WATERSHEDS
Sulfur (kg/ha)
Upland
oak -
mixed hardwoods
Component
Fibrous
roots
Root
crown
Total
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Camp
Branch
11.4
9.4
3.6
1.6
1.8
0.09
27.9
Cross
Creek
15.4
9.1
6.5
5.3
5.6
0.08
42.0
Mesophytic
hardwoods
Camp
Branch
13.5
5.7
4.8
3.4
2.6
0.31
30.3
Cross
Creek
16.2
6.3
8.0
6.0
0.07
36.6
Pine
Camp
Branch
10.3
8.9
1.7
0.8
0.23
21.9
Cross
Creek
15.2
9.5
6.3
7.2
07
. 1
0.12
39.0
-------
-152-
TABLE H.3. WEIGHT OF NITROGEN IN BELOW-GROUND BIOMASS AS A FUNCTION OF
DEPTH AND COVER TYPE FOR THE CAMP BRANCH AND CROSS CREEK WATERSHEDS
Phosphorus
Upland
oak -
mixed hardwoods
Component
Fibrous
roots
Root
crown
Total
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Camp
Branch
13.0
8.4
3.4
1.5
1.7
0.89
28.9
Cross
Creek
16.9
11.1
9.0
7.7
6.9
0.11
51.7
(kg/ha)
Mesophytic
hardwoods
Camp
Branch
19.6
4.4
6.1
2.4
2.4
0.32
35.2
Cross
Creek
16.6
8.5
9.4
12.7
0.09
47.3
Pine
Camp
Branch
11.8
12.7
2.4
1.1
0.30
28.3
Cross
Creek
18.0
13.3
9.1
10.4
1.6
0.19
52.6
TABLE H.4. WEIGHT OF NITROGEN IN BELOW-GROUND BIOMASS AS A FUNCTION OF
DEPTH AND COVER TYPE FOR THE CAMP BRANCH AND CROSS CREEK WATERSHEDS
Potassium (kg/ha)
Upland
oak -
mixed hardwoods
Component
Fibrous
roots
Root
crown
Total
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Camp
Branch
9.1
17.9
7.0
4.0
5.8
0.14
43.9
Cross
Creek
16.3
12.0
8.8
8.9
7.9
0.11
54.0
Mesophytic
hardwoods
Camp
Branch
16.4
6.8
5.6
2.7
2.6
0.32
34.4
Cross
Creek
15.0
8.9
20.0
8.6
0.10
52.6
Pine
Camp
Branch
11.8
21.9
6.3
1.9
0.52
42.4
Cross
Creek
12.9
18.8
9.0
11.0
5.5
0.12
57.3
-------
-153-
TABLE E.5. WEIGHT OF NITROGEN IN BELOW-GROUND BIOMASS AS A FUNCTION OF
DEPTH AND COVER TYPE FOR THE CAMP BRANCH AND CROSS CREEK WATERSHEDS
Magnesium (kg/ha)
Upland oak -
mixed hardwoods
Component
Fibrous
roots
Root
crown
Total
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Camp
Branch
7.4
8.6
3.6
2.0
1.8
0.08
23.5
Cross
Creek
12.4
9.8
7.0
8.1
5.4
0.09
42.8
Mesophytic
hardwoods
Camp
Branch
15.7
5.8
4.1
2.1
1.1
0.28
29.1
Cross
Creek
14.3
6.2
10.5
6.3
0.07
37.4
Pine
Camp
Branch
7.5
10.3
2.3
0.8
0.23
21.1
Cross
Creek
12.7
12.4
8.0
10.5
0.9
0.11
44.6
TABLE H.6. WEIGHT OF NITROGEN IN BELOW-GROUND BIOMASS AS A FUNCTION OF
DEPTH AND COVER TYPE FOR THE CAMP BRANCH AND CROSS CREEK WATERSHEDS
Calcium (kg/ha)
Upland
oak -
mixed hardwoods
Component
Fibrous
root
Root
crown
Tota 1
Depth
(cm)
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-100
Camp
Branch
29.0
52.6
16.6
5.4
4.8
0.35
108.8
Cross
Creek
79.1
52.4
38.6
37.4
19.7
0.49
227.7
Mesophytic
hardwoods
Camp
Branch
39.5
36.9
14.9
4.0
4.1
0.94
100.3
Cross
Creek
79-1
34.4
61.6
25.0
0.07
200.2
Pine
Camp
Branch
25.1
32.8
10.2
2.6
0.80
71.5
Cross
Creek
105.0
80.4
60.9
41.7
2.8
1.91
292.7
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.,
EPA-600/7-79-053
2,
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
CAMP BRANCH AND CAMP CROSS EXPERIMENTAL WATERSHED
PROJECTS: OBJECTIVES, FACILITIES, AND ECOLOGICAL
CHARACTERISTICS
5. REPORT DATE
1979
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
J. M. Kelly
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
TVA/ONR-79/04
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Natural Resources
Tennessee Valley Authority
Chattanooga, TN 37401
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
INE 625 A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
80 EDO
12. SPONSO
3NSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research & Development
Office of Energy, Minerals & Industry
Washington, P.O. 20460
13. TX5EOF REPORT-&ND_R£RIOD COVERED
Milestone Fy /ff
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-600/7
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
This project is part of the EPA-planned and coordinated Federal Interagency
Energy/Environment R&D Program.
16. ABSTRACT
Small experimental watersheds in the eastern United States, which define practical
ecosystems, are used to study and evaluate (1) the impact of anthropogenic emissions
on individual ecosystem processes and (2) the integrated response of the total
system. The watershed approach to evaluating biochemical processes integrates
several long- and short-term studies. This study evaluates chronic rather than
acute effects. Therefore, two study areas were prepared so that an impacted area
could be compared with a background area. The Cross Creek watershed has been sub-
jected to about 30 years of sulfur and nitrogen input from the Widows Creek coal-
fired power plant. The Camp Branch watershed, located in a relatively remote area,
away from the influence of any major anthropogenic sulfur or nitrogen source, is
being used to represent background conditions. A comparative study of these two
sites will (1) contribute needed information on the cycling of chemical elements in
natural systems and (2) enable construction of empirical models with which to pre-
dict the ecological effects of man's activities. This information can then be used
in the legislative process to determine and promulgate atmospheric emission standards
The objectives of the project, the facilities that have been developed, and the eco-
logical characteristics of each watershed are described.
7.
(Circle One or More)
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
Ecology
Environments
Earth Atmosphere
Environmental Engineering
Geography
Other:
Hydrology, Limnology
Biochemistry
Earth Hydrosphere
Combustion
Refining
Energy Conversion
Physical Chemistry
Materials Handling
Inorganic Chemistry
Organic Chemistry
Chemical Engineering
Control Technology.
Energy Extraction
COB! Cleaning
rlue Gas Cleanmq
Direct Combustion
Synthetic Fuels
Nuclear
Thermal
Improyeo Efficiency
Advanced Systems
Pfoc ses & Elf.
•t Processes
Cool ical Effects
Cha c., Meas 6 Mon
Oil/Gas
Oil Shale
Nuclear
Geothelmal
6F 8A 8F
8H 10A 10B
7B 7C 13Bi
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
153
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |