U.S. Department of Agriculture/Forest Service 

General Technical Report SO-26 

A PRACTICAL FIELD METHOD OF 

SITE EVALUATIOH 

FOR - -- - COMMBRCIALLY 

IMPORTANT 

SOUTHBBN 

HARDWOODS 
SUMMARY

 This paper provides a method of site evaluation for cottonwood, 

green ash, hackberry, sugarberry, pecan, sweetgum, sycamore, 

yellow-poplar, and cherrybark, Nuttall, Shumard, swamp chestnut, 

water and willow oaks. The method incorporates an evaluation of 

the physical, moisture, nutrient, and aeration properties of a soil into 

a site quality rating. Field tests have demonstrated the accuracy of 

the technique. The site evaluation technique also provides a basis for 

possible soil improvement treatments for the 14 hardwood species 

and estimates of potential productivity for cottonwood, sweetgum, 

and sycamore plantations.

1979

Reprinted July 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

page 

PREFACE .............................................. ii 

BACKGROUND .......................................... 1 

BASIS FOR AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE TECHNIQUE ..... 2 

FIELD USE OF THE EVALUATION TECHNIQUE ............ 3 

ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY ............... 5 

LITERATURE CITED .................................... 7 

SITE EVALUATION TABLES .............................. 9 

Table 1 -Cottonwood .................................... 9 

Table 2 -Green ash ..................................... 12 

Table 3 -Hackberry and Sugarberry ........................ 15 

Table 4 ................................ --Oak. Cherrybark 19 

Table 5 ................................... -Oak. Nuttall 22 

Table 6 .................................. -Oak. Shumard 25 

Table 7 ............................ -Oak. Swamp chestnut 29 

Table 8 ........................... -Oak. Water and Willow 33 

Table 9 -Pecan ........................................ 36 

Table 10-Sweetgum ..................................... 39 

Table 11 -Sycamore ..................................... 42 

Table 12 -Yellow .................................. -poplar 45 

PRODUCTIVITY TABLES ................................. 48 

Table 13-Cottonwood .................................... 48 

Table 14- Sweetgum and Sycamore ......................... 49 

APPENDIX (Explanation of Terms) .......................... 50 
PREFACE 

In 1977, we published "A Practical Field Method of Site Evaluation 

for Eight Important Southern Hardwoods" (Baker and Broadfoot 1977). 

Demand for the guide was great and many requested us to expand it 

to include other commercially important southern hardwoods. This publication is intended to satisfy those requests. 

The site evaluation tables for the original eight species are included 

here but have been slightly modified to make them clearer and more 

useful. In addition, site evaluation tables are now provided for six more 

southern hardwoods (hackberry, sugarberry, yellow-poplar, pecan, and 

Shumard and swamp chestnut oaks). To make finding a table for a particular species easier, we have added a TABLE OF CONTENTS, and put 

the evaluation tables in alphabetical order for easy reference. Estimated 

stand and production data for sweetgum and sycamore are now included 

(the earlier guide had these data for cottonwood only ), and the Explanation of Terms in the APPENDIX has been expanded. 
A Practical Field Method of Site Evaluation 

For Commercially Important Southern Hardwoods 

JAMES B. BAKER 

AND 

W M. BROADFOOT 

This field guide is for use in estimating the suitability of sites for 

the following southern hardwood species: cottonwood (Populus deltoides), 

green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), pecan (Carya illinoensis), sycamore 

(Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), yellowpoplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), sugarberry (C. laevigata), cherrybark oak (Quercus falcata var. pagodaefolia), 

Nuttall oak (Q. nuttallii), Shumard oak (Q. shumardii), water oak (Q. 

nigra), willow oak (Q. phellos), and swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii). 

In establishing hardwood plantations, the forest manager must know 

whether a site is suitable for a particular species, and for investment 

planning he should have some idea of the potential productivity of the 

site. Tables 1-12 are the guides for applying the site-evaluation method; 

instructions on their use are given beginning on page 2. For cottonwood, 

sweetgum, and sycamore, tables 13 and 14 give estimated ranges in 

tree growth and volume production. A glossary of terms that may be 

unfamiliar to many readers is included as an appendix. 

BACKGROUND 

Many acres of hardwood plantations are established each year 

throughout the eastern United States. Johnson and Kerr (1976) reported 

that by 1981 cottonwood plantations alone could total about 70,000 acres, 

a 30,000-acre increase in 5 years. Other species, such as sycamore, 

sweetgum, and green ash, are also being planted at accelerated rates 

throughout the South. 

Until recently the techniques available to aid in site selection and 

evaluation for hardwoods involved either objective or subjective 

James B. Baker is Principal Silviculturist at the Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 

Monticello, AR. At the time this work was done, Baker was Principal Soil Scientist 

and Broadfoot, now retired, was Principal Soil Scientist at the Southern Hardwoods 

Laboratory, maintained at Stoneville, Miss., by the Southern Forest Experiment 

Station, Forest Service-USDA, in cooperation with the Mississippi Agricultural and 

Forestry Experiment Station and the Southern Hardwood Forest Research Group. 
approaches which had inherent shortcomings that limit their usefulness. 

The problems of objectively selecting and quantifying measurable soil 

variables that consistently reflect the growth potential of hardwoods 

over wide geographic areas appear to be insurmountable ( Broadfoot 1969). 

On the other hand, subjective approaches provide only broad classes of 

soil suitability or productivity for hardwoods (Broadfoot 1964, Broadfoot 

et al. 1972), Maisenhelder 1960, McKnight 1970, and Smith 1957). 

Our technique of site evaluation combines the best features of 

objective and subjective approaches. The technique is based on our 

experience and is not the result of formal experimentation, but it provides foresters with an accurate way of evaluating a site's suitability 

for any of 14 hardwood species. The method can also be used to obtain 

estimates of potential volume production of sweetgum, sycamore and 

cottonwood at various ages. 

The advantages of the technique are: (1) it provides accurate 

estimates of site index under any soil or site condition; (2) it can be 

applied throughout the southern hardwood region except in those mountainous areas where aspect is important; (3) it does not require identification of soil series; and (4) it provides guidelines for soil ameliorative 

treatments. In the future, the method could possibly be modified to 

include species of trees from throughout the world if allowance is made 

for differences in climate, soils, and topography. 

With field-plot data for hardwoods (Broadfoot 1976), the technique 

was tested for each species for a variety of soils and physiographic 

areas. Site index values estimated for a particular site by the new 

method were compared to measured site index values obtained by 

Broadfoot. These comparisons were subjected to correlation analysis and 

to the chi-square test of accuracy (Freese 1960). On the average, 20 sites 

were tested for each species; correlation coefficients ranged from 0.93 

for sweetgum to 0.99 for cottonwood. The chi-square test for accuracy 

indicated that the new evaluation technique should provide estimates 

of site index that are within 5 feet of measured site index values 95 

percent of the time, if all soil-site factors are correctly evaluated. 

BASIS FOR AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE TECHNIQUE 

Growth of hardwoods is dependent primarily on four major soil 

factors (Broadfoot 1969; Broadfoot et al. 1972, Kaszkurewicz 1973, 

Schreiner 1959, Waring 1961 ). These factors are: 

( 1 ) Soil physical condition. 

(2) Moisture availability during the growing season. 

(3) Nutrient availability. 

(4) Aeration. 

Each major factor consists of many soil and site properties that affect 

tree growth. The interaction of these properties within and among the 

major soil factors makes evaluation of a site a complex task. 

The basis of our approach is the assumption that each of the major 
soil factors is responsible for a certain percentage of tree growth. The 

proportion of growth accounted for by each major factor is composed 

of the contributions made by each of its soil-site properties. 

We will use cottonwood to illustrate how the approach and the site 

evaluation guides were developed. We assumed maximum height growth 

of 130 feet in 30 years for cottonwood on an ideal site and assigned 

a site quality rating (SQR) to each of three possible conditions (best, 

medium, and poor) of each soil-site property for the four major soil 

factors (see numbers in brackets, table 1). We derived these ratings by 

determining what percentage of the 130 feet was contributed by each of 

the four major soil factors (fig. 1). For example, physical condition is 

responsible for about 35 percent (46 of 130 feet) of cottonwood growth, 

moisture availability also explains about 35 percent, nutrient availability 

accounts for about 20 percent (26 of 130 feet) and aeration explains 

about 10 percent (12 of 130 feet). Next, we assessed the influence of 

soil-site properties on each of the four major soil factors. For example, 

of the five soil-site properties that influence soil physical conditions, 

soil depth is responsible for about 35 percent (16 of 46 feet) of the total 

effect of these properties on soil physical condition (fig. 1). Texture, 

compaction, structure, and past use contribute 25 percent (11 of 46 feet), 

20 percent (9 of 46 feet), 10 percent (5 of 46 feet), and 10 percent. 

Similar appraisals were made of soil-site properties for each of the other 

three major soil factors. Therefore, on an ideal site the sum of the SQR's 

for each major soil factor corresponds to a site index of 130 feet a€ 

30 years. After SQR values were established for the best site condition, 

they were assigned to medium and poor sites by estimating height reductions caused by less than optimal conditions. The site evaluation guides 

for the other species (tables 2-12) were developed in like manner. 

Tables 1-12 list the major soil factors and soil-site properties for the 

14 species. The tables also present a range of soil-site conditions, from 

best to poor, that are likely to occur for each soil property. The soil-site 

conditions for each property are assigned numerical site-quality ratings 

(SQR), which are given in brackets. 

FIELD USE OF THE EVALUATION TECHNIQUE 

To obtain an SQR value for a particular species, match the soil-site 

conditions of your area as closely as possible to the range of conditions 

listed for each soil-site property in the appropriate table. A 30-year site 

index for cottonwood and a 50-year site index for the other species is 

obtained by adding the SQR's for each soil-site property. If a total SQR 

for any site does not exceed 80 feet for cottonwood; 75 feet for sweetgum 

and Nuttall oak; 70 feet for sycamore, pecan, yellow-poplar, and water, 

willow, cherrybark, and Shumard oaks; 65 feet for green ash and swamp 

chestnut oak; and 55 feet for hackberry and sugarberry, the area should 

be considered unsuitable for that species unless amelioration is used 

to improve soil conditions. 
If an exact match is not possible, interpolate between conditions 

listed in the tables. If you are unable to determine a specific soil-site condition, do not hesitate to make an educated guess; a few poor estimations 

probably will not cause serious errors in the final site quality rating. A few 

hours of instruction from a soil scientist should enable people who are 

unfamiliar with various soil-site conditions to make accurate estimates. 

MAJOR SOIL FACTORS 

PHYSICAL I NUTRIENT 

CONDITION AVAILABLE MOISTURE AVAILABILITY AERATION 

I 

46' (35 4L OF 130') 46' (35 K OF 130') 26' (20 9b OF 130') 12' (I0 X OF 130') 

t t 4 4 

+ I PRESENCE OF PANS I 9' (20 7.1 [el / TOPOGRAPJC POSITION 1 7' (15 Ye) 

mi 

+ + + + MICROSITE 

7' (15 *a) 

+ + + STRUCTURE 

- 5' (I0 X) 

+ + 

1 TEXTURE I 1 P H I 

I PAST USE 1 

4' (10%) 

Figure 1.-Contribution of various soil-site properties to the four major soil factors 

and to cottonwood growth (maximum growth expected on an ideal site at 

age 30). 

3' (10 X) I 

As an example of how the technique is applied, let us assume that 

the location to be evaluated is a recently abandoned old field in the 

Mississippi River floodplain that had been under intensive agronomic 

cropping for 25 years. The area is level and not subject to flooding. 

The soil is a loam with no profile development; it is granular in structure 

but is moderately compacted and has a plowpan at 10 inches. It is brown 

and mottled at 36 inches. A water table occurs at 5 feet during the 

growing season, pH is 6.5, and there is less than 1 percent organic 

matter in the A-horizon. 

The SQR's for each soil-site characteristic of the hypothetical area, 

taken from table 1, are summed up and produce the following site 

evaluation for cottonwood: 

+ FLOODING 

2' (5 7-1 
MAJOR SOIL FACTORS 

Physical ,2) Moisture Nutrient 

( condition availability (3) availability (4) Aeration 

Water table . . 10 Geologic 

Pans.. ..... 6 source ..... 8 

Soil depth Position ..... 7 Past use ..... -3 

and pans .. 11 Microsite .... 5 '5, organic 

Texture ..... 11 Structure .... 5 matter.. .. -3 Structure.. .. 3 

Compaction .. 6 Texture ..... 4 Topsoil. ..... 3 Swampiness .. 3 

Structure .... 5 Flooding .... -1 Soil age ..... 3 Mottling. ... 3 

Past use.. ... -2 Past use.. ... -1 pH ......... 3 Color.. ..... 3 

Total 31 ft 35 ft 11 ft 12 ft 

(Total 

possible) (46 ft) (46 ft) (26 ft) (12 ft) 

TOTAL SQR OR SITE INDEX = 89 ft 

This evaluation indicates that the site index for cottonwood on this 

particular area is 89 feet at 30 years. 

By comparing the value obtained for each major factor with the 

maximum values possible for an ideal site, we can determine which major 

factor limits growth. In the example, physical condition received 31 of 

the 46 (67 percent) points possible; moisture availability and aeration 

received 76 and 100 percent, respectively, of the total possible points. 

Nutrient availability, however, received only 42 percent of its total possible points. Thus, a lack of sufficient nutrients would probably limit 

growth on this site, and fertilization might be used to improve the growth 

of cottonwood. 

ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY FOR 

COTTONWOOD, SWEETGUM, AND SYCAMORE BY SITE CLASSES 

Once a forest manager has calculated the SQR for cottonwood, 

sweetgum, or sycamore for an area, he can obtain from tables 13 or 

14 an estimate of productivity for various stages of development. These 

production estimates were measured from yields in cottonwood plantations through age 15 and from natural stand data for ages 20 through 

30 years. Sweetgum and sycamore yields were estimated as a proportion 

of cottonwood yields. At present, plantation data are not adequate to 

prepare productivity tables for the other species. Derivation of the estimates for cottonwood was based on the following assumptions: 

( 1 ) Site preparation and plantation culture through the first growing 

season as described by McKnight (1970). 

(2) Planting density of approximately 430 trees per acre; 20 percent 

planting mortality and 1 percent natural mortality per year after 

establishment. 

(3) Proper thinning to maintain adequate growing space for crop 

trees. These thinnings included: 
6
LITERATURE CITED 

Baker, James B., and W. M. Broadfoot. 

1977. A practical field method of site evaluation for eight important 

southern hardwoods. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

SO-14, 31 p., South. For. Exp. Stn., New Orleans, La. 

Broadfoot, W. M. 

1964. Soil suitability for hardwoods in the Midsouth, U.S. Dep. Agric. 

For. Serv. Res. Note SO-10, 10 p., South. For. Exp. Stn., New 

Orleans, La. 

Broadfoot, W. M. 

1969. Problems in relating soil to site index for southern hardwoods. 

For. Sci. 15: 354-364. 

Broadfoot, W. M. 

1976. Hardwood suitability for and properties of important Midsouth 

soils. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Res. Pap. SO-127, 84 p., South. 

For. Exp. Stn., New Orleans, La. 

Broadfoot, W. M., B. G. Blackmon, and J. B. Baker. 

1972. Soil management for hardwood production. In Proc. Symp. 

Southeast. Hardwoods 1971: 17-29. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. 

Southeast. Area, State and Priv, For., Atlanta, Ga. 

Freese, Frank. 

1960. Testing accuracy. For. Sci. 6: 139-145. 

Grosenbaugh, L. R. 

1954. New tree-measurement concepts: Height accumulation, giant 

tree, taper and shape. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Occas. Pap. 134, 

32 p., South. For. Exp. Stn., New Orleans, La. 

Johnson, R. L., and Ed Kerr: 

1976. The cottonwood success story. South. Lumberman 233: 78-79. 

Kaszkurewicz, Anatol. 

1973. Establishment and early growth of Populus deltoides Bartr. Ph.D. 

diss., La. State Univ., Baton Rouge, 312 p. 

McKnight, J.S. 

1970. Planting cottonwood cuttings for timber production in the South. 

U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Res. Pap. SO-60, 17 p., South. For. 

Exp. Stn., New Orleans, La. 

Maisenhelder, L. C. 

1960. Cottonwood plantations for southern bottomlands. U.S. Dep. 

Agric. For. Serv. Occas. Pap. 179, 24 p., South. For. Exp. Stn., 

New Orleans, La. 

Mohn, C. A., and R. M. Krinard. 

1971. Volume tables for small cottonwoods in plantations. U.S. Dep. 

Agric. For. Serv. Res. Note SO-113, 4 p., South. For. Exp. Stn., 

New Orleans, La. 
Mueller, C. W. 

1976. The accumulation of dry matter in plantations of eastern cottonwood on alluvial sites of the Mississippi River Valley, Unpubl. M.S. 

thesis, Miss. State Univ., Mississippi State, 88 p. 

Putnam, J. A., G. M. Furnival, and J. S. McKnight. 

1960. Management and inventory of southern hardwoods. U.S. Dep. 

Agric. For. Serv., Agric. Handb. 181., 102 p. 

Schreiner, E. J. 

1959. Production of poplar timber in Europe and its significance and 

application in the United States. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv., Agric. 

Handb. 150, 124 p. 

Smith, J. H. G. 

1957. Some factors indicative of site quality for black cottonwood 

(Populus trichocarpa Torr. & Gray). J. For. 55: 578-580. 

Soil Science Society of America. 

1975. Glossary of soil science terms. Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, 

Wisc. 34 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

1951. Soil survey manual. U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Handb. 18, 503 p. 

Waring H. D. 

1961. The soil requirements of poplars. Aust. For. 25: 89-91. 
Table 1. - Site Evaluation Guide for COTTONWOOD1 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 1. Physical condition 

Soil depth and Deep soil ( > 4 Medium depth Shallow soil 

presence of feet); without (2-4 feet), or (< 2feet),ora 

artificial or Pan a soil with a soil with an 

inherent pan plowpan inherent pan 

11612 [Ill [-I11 

Texture Medium-textured; Coarse-textured; Fine-textured; 

(in rooting silty or loamy sandy clayey 

zone) 

[Ill [81 [-41 

Compaction No compaction; Moderately com- Strongly com- 

(in surface loose, porous, pacted; firm, pacted; tight, 

foot) friable, bulk moderately tight, bulk density 

density < 1.4 bulk density > 1.7 g/cc 

~/CC 1.4-1.7 g/cc 

191 161 [-31 

Structure Granular; Prismatic; Massive (if 

(in rooting structureless, blocky clayey); platy 

zone) single-grained if 

sandy, massive 

if loamy or silty 

[51 [31 [-31 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin vation; cultiva- vation; cultivaforest cover ted < 20 years, ted > 20 years, 

or open with or open and bare 

grass cover 

151 [21 [-21 

Continued 
Table 1. - Site Evaluation Guide for COTTONWOOD (con't) -- -

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 2. Moisture availability during growing season 

Water table 2-6' 1-2'; 7-10' <1' [unsuitable]; 

depth [lo] 171 >lo' 1013 

Artificial or No pans Plowpan Inherent pan 

inherent pans 

191 [61 1-61 

Topographic Floodplain or Stream terraces Upland 

position stream bottom or lower slopes 

171 [51 1-51 

Microsite Concave; depres- Level; flat Convex; ridge, 

sion, pocket, mound 

trough 

171 151 1-21 -- 

Structure Granular; Prismatic; Structureless, 

(in rooting structureless, blocky single-grained 

zone) massive (if silty, (if sandy 1; platy 

loamy, or clayey); 

stratified 

[51 131 1-31 

Texture Silty or loamy Clayey Sandy 

(in rooting (or stratified) 

zone) 141 121 1-21 

Flooding 

- -- 

Winter through Winter only None [-I]; 

spring continuous 

[ 21 [I1 [unsuitable] 

Past use and Undisturbed ; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin vation; culti- vation; cultiforest cover vated < 10 years vated > 10 

or open with years or open 

grass cover and bare 

1 21 111 1-11 

Continued 
Table 1. - Site Evaluation Guide for COTTONWOOD (con't) 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 3. Nutrient availability 

Geologic Mississippi River, Mixed Coastal Coastal Plain 

source Loess, Blackland Plain and other 

181 151 I-51 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate cultipresent cover near-virgin, vation; cultiforest cover, vated 5-10 years, 

cultivated or open with 

< 5 years grass 

[51 13 14 

Organic matter > 2% 1-2% 

( A-horizon) 141 [31 

Intensive cultivation; cultivated > 10 

years, or open 

and bare 

[-314 

< 1% 

[-31 

Depth of > 6" or no profile 3-6" < 3" 

topsoil development 

(A-horizon) [31 [21 [-21 

Soil age Young, no profile Medium, moderate Old, welldevelopment profile developed profile, 

(Entisols) development leached ( Alfisols, 

( Inceptisols) Ultisols) 

[31 [21 1-21 

pH (in rooting 5.5-7.5 4.5-5.5 or < 4.5 or 

zone 7.6-8.5 > 8.5 

[31 [21 [-21 

Factor 4. Aeration 

Soil structure 

(in rooting 

zone) 

Granular, porous; Prismatic; Massive (if 

structureless, blocky clayey); platy 

single-grained 

if sandy, massive 

if loamy or silty 

[31 [21 

Swampiness Wet in winter Wet January-July Waterlogged all 

only year 

[3] [ 21 [Unsuitable] 

Mottling None to 18" depth None to 8" depth Mottled to 

surface or gray 

mineral soil 

I31 [21 I-21 

Soil color Black, brown, red Yellow, Gray 

(in rooting zone) brownish-gray 

f31 121 [-21 

1130 feet at 30 years maximum S.I.; 80 feet minimum acceptable S.I. 

ZEach bracketed number indicates the site quality rating (SQR) of a particular soil-site 

condition. 

3If the soil is a sand or loamy sand, then 1-20]. 

4If cultural practices included annual fertilization, then 141. 
Table 2. - Site Evaluation Guide for GREEN ASH1 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 1. Physical condition 

Soil depth and Deep soil (> 4 Medium depth Shallow soil 

presence of feet); without (2-4 feet), or (< 2 feet), or a 

artificial or Pan a soil with a soil with an 

inherent pan plowpan inherent pan 

1812 [51 [-31 --- 

Texture 

(in rooting silty or loamy sandy clayey 

zone) 

[21 [ll [-I1 

Compaction No compaction; Moderately com- Strongly com- 

(in surface loose, porous, pacted; firm, pacted; tight, 

foot) friable, bulk moderately tight, bulk density 

density < 1.4 bulk density > 1.7 g/cc 

~/CC 1.4-1.7 ~/CC 

151 I31 101 

Structure Granular; 

(in rooting structureless, 

zone) single-grained if 

sandy, massive 

if loamy or silty 

[21 

Past use and Undisturbed; 

present cover near-virgin 

forest cover 

Prismatic; Massive (if 

blocky clayey); platy 

111 [Ol 

Moderate culti- Intensive cultivation; cultiva- vation; cultivated < 20 years, ted > 20 years, 

or open with or open and bare 

grass cover 

Continued 
Table 2. - Site Evaluation Guide for GREEN ASH (con't) 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 2. Moisture availability during growing season 

Water table 2-6' 1-2' [71; <I' [Ol; 

depth [ 101 7-10' [51 >lo'[-513 

Artificial or No pans Plowpan Inherent pan 

inherent pans 

[91 [51 1-21 

Topographic Floodplain or Stream terraces Upland 

position stream bottom or lower slopes 

[ 101 t71 101 

Microsite Concave; depres- Level; flat Convex; ridge, 

sion, pocket, mound 

trough 

[51 131 [Ol 

Structure Granular; Prismatic; Structureless, 

(in rooting structureless, blocky single-grained 

zone) massive (if silty, if sandy; platy 

loamy, or clayey ); 

stratified 

Texture Silty or loamy, Clayey Sandy 

(in rooting (or stratified) 

zone) [21 [ll [-I1 

Flooding Winter through Winter only None 1-31; 

spring continuous 

[71 (41 [unsuitable] 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin vation; culti- vation; cultiforest cover vated < 10 years vated > 10 

or open with years or open 

grass cover and bare 

[21 111 [Ol 

Continued 
Table 2. - Site Evaluation Guide for GREEN ASH (con't) 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

Property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 3. Nutrient availability 

Geologic Mississippi River, Mixed Coastal Coastal Plain 

source Loess, Blackland Plain and other 

Past use and Undisturbed ; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin vation; culti- vation; cultiforest cover, vated 5-10 years, vated > 10 

cultivated or open with years, or open 

< 5 years grass and bare 

161 I314 1-114 

Organic matter > 2% 1-2% < 1% 

( A-horizon) 141 I21 1-11 

Depth of > 6" or no profile 3-6" < 3" 

topsoil development. 

( A-horizon) I41 121 1-11 

Soil age Young, no profile Medium, moderate Old, welldevelopment profile developed profile, 

(Entisols) development leached ( Alfisols, 

(Inceptisols) Ultisols ) 

131 121 I0 I 

pH (in rooting 5.5-7.5 4.5-5.5 or < 4.5 or 

zone) 7.6-8.5 > 8.5 

131 121 1-21 

Factor 4. Aeration 

Soil structure Granular, porous; Prismatic; Massive (if 

(in rooting structureless, blocky clayey); platy 

zone) single-grained 

if sandy, massive 

if loamy or silty 

131 121 101 

Swampiness Wet in winter Wet January-July Waterlogged all 

only year 

I31 I21 I01 

Mottling None to 18" depth None to 8" depth Mottled to 

surface or gray 

mineral soil 

i 11 I01 

Soil color Black, brown, red Yellow, Gray 

(in rooting zone) brownish-gray 

I21 I11 101 

1105 feet at 50 years maximum S.I.; 65 feet minimum acceptable S.I. 

2Each bracketed number indicates the site quality rating (SQR) of a particular soil-site 

condition. 

3If the soil is a sand or loamy sand, then 1-10]. 

41f cultural practices included annual fertilization, then 141. 
Table 3. - Site Evaluation Guide for HACKBERRY and SUGARBERRY1 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 1. Physical condition 

Soil depth and Deep soil ( > 4 Medium depth Shallow soil 

presence of feet); without ( 2-4 feet ), or a (< 2 feet), or a 

artificial or Pan soil with a soil with an 

inherent pan plowpan inherent pan 

1612 141 1-21 

Texture (in rooting Medium-textured; Coarse-textured; 

zone ) silty or loamy sandy 

I51 I3 I 

Compaction No compaction; Moderately com- 

(in surface foot) loose, porous, pacted; firm, 

friable, bulk moderately tight, 

density ( 1.4 bulk density 

g/cc 1.4-1.7 g/cc 

[5l [3 1 

Fine-textured; 

clayey 

[ 11 

Strongly compacted; tight, 

bulk density 

> 1.7 g/cc 

Structure Granular; Prismatic; Massive (if 

(in rooting structureless, blocky clayey ); platy 

zone) single-grained if 

sandy, massive if 

loamy or silty 

I41 [3l [ 1 I 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin, vation; cultiva- vation; cultivaforest cover ted < 20 years, ted > 20 years, 

or open with or open and bare 

grass cover 

Continued 
Table 3. - Site Evaluation Guide for HACKBERRY and SUGARBERRY (con't) 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 2. Moisture availability during growing season 

Water table 2-6' 1-2'; 7-10' < 1' [unsuitable]; 

depth 15 1 13 1 > 10' (013 

Artificial or No pans Plowpan Inherent pan 

inherent pans I51 121 1-21 

Topographic Floodplain or Stream terraces Upland 

position stream bottom or lower slopes 

141 121 1-41 

Microsite Concave; depres- Level; flat Convex; ridge, 

sion, pocket, mound 

trough 

121 111 1-21 

Structure Granular; Prismatic; Structureless; 

(in rooting zone) blocky; struc- platy single-grained 

tureless; mass- if sandy 

ive (if silty, 

loamy, or clayey ); 

stratified 

131 121 11 1 

Texture Silty or loamy, Clayey Sandy 

(in rooting zone) (or stratified ) 

Flooding Winter through Winter only None I01 

spring Continuous 

121 11 1 [Unsuitable1 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin. vation; culti- vation: cultiforest cover vated < 10 years vated > 10 years 

or open with or open and 

grass cover bare 

121 111 lo I 

Continued 
Table 3. - Site Evaluation Guide for HACKBERRY and SUGARBERRY (con't) 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 3. Nutrient availability 

Geologic Mississippi River, Mixed Coastal Coastal Plain 

source Loess, Blackland Plain and other 

16 I I41 101 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin vation; culti- vation; cultiforest cover, vated 5-10 years, vated > 10 

cultivated or open with years, or open 

< 5 years grass and bare 

141 1214 101~ 

Organic matter > 2% 1-2% < 1% 

( A-horizon) I41 (21 1-21 

Depth of >6" or no profile 3-6m <3" 

topsoil development 

( A-horizon) I41 121 I0 1 

Soil age Young, no profile Medium, moderate Old, welldevelopment profile developed pro- 

( Entisols) development file, leached 

(Inceptisols) ( Alfisols; Ultisols) 

141 121 111 

pH (in rooting 4.0-8.5 4.0-8.5 4.0 -8.5 

zone) I31 13 1 13 1 

Continued 
Table 3. - Site Evaluation Guide for HACKBERRY and SUGARBERRY (con'tl 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 4. Aeration 

Soil structure Granular, porous; Prismatic; 

(in rooting structureless, blocky 

zone) single-grained if 

sandy, massive if 

loamy or silty 

171 151 

Swampiness Wet in winter Wet January-July 

only 

161 [41 

Mottling None to 18" depth None to 8" depth 

Massive (if 

clayey ); platy 

Waterlogged all 

year 

IUnsuitablel 

Mottled to 

surface or gray 

mineral soil 

Soil color Black, brown, red Yellow, Gray 

(in rooting zone) brownish-gray 

151 I4 I [3 I 

1100 feet at 50 years maximum S.I.; 55 feet minimum acceptable S.I. 

2Each bracketed number indicates the site quality rating (SQR) of a particular soil-site 

condition. 

3 If the soil is sand or loamy sand, then [-51. 

41f cultural practices included annual fertilization, then [31. 
Table 4. - Site Evaluation Guide for CHERRYBARK OAK1 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

Property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 1. Physical condition 

Soil depth and Deep soil ( > 4 Medium depth Shallow soil 

presence of feet); without (2-4 feet), or (< 2 feet), or a 

artificial or pan a soil with a soil with an 

inherent pan plowpan inherent pan 

1612 141 1-21 

Texture Medium-textured; 

(in rooting silty or loamy 

zone) 

151 

Compaction No compaction; 

(in surface loose, porous, 

foot) friable, bulk 

density < 1.4 

g/cc 

161 

Coarse-textured; Fine-textured; 

sandy clayey 

131 111 

Moderately com- Strongly compacted; firm, pacted; tight, 

moderately tight, bulk density 

bulk density > 1.7 g/cc 

1.4-1.7 g/cc 

141 1-21 

Structure Granular; Prismatic; Massive (if 

(in rooting structureless, blocky clayey ); platy 

zone) single-grained if 

sandy, massive 

if loamy or silty. 

161 141 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin vation; cultiva- vation; cultivaforest cover ted < 20 years, ted > 20 years, 

or open with or open and bare 

grass cover 

181 141 111 

Continued 
Table 4. - Site Evaluation Guide for CHERRYBARK OAK (con't) 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

~ro~ertv Best Medium Poor 

Factor 2. Moisture availability during growing season 

Water table 2-6' 1-2'; 7-10' <I' [unsuitablel: 

depth 161 [31 >lo' I-313 

Artificial or No pans Plowpan Inherent pan 

inherent pans 

[61 131 1-21 

Topographic Floodplain or Stream terraces Upland 

position stream bottom or lower slopes 

I61 141 I01 

Microsite Concave; depres- Level; flat Convex; ridge, 

sion, pocket, mound 

trough 

121 111 101 

Structure Granular; Prismatic; Structureless, 

(in rooting structureless, blocky single-grained 

zone) massive (if silty, if sandy; platy 

loamy, or clayey ); 

stratified 

I51 I31 [-I1 

Texture Silty or loamy, Clayey Sandy 

(in rooting (or stratified) 

zone) [51 131 [Ol 

Flooding Winter through Winter only None 101; 

spring continuous 

161 131 lunsuitablel 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive culti. 

present cover near-virgin, vation; culti- vation; cultiforest cover vated < 10 years vated > 10 

or open with years or open 

grass cover and bare 

I21 I11 I01 

Continued 
Table 4. - Site Evaluation Guide for CHERRYBARK OAK (con'tl 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 3. Nutrient availability 

Geologic Mississippi River, 

source Loess, Blackland 

[31 

Past use and Undisturbed; 

present cover near-virgin 

forest cover, 

cultivated 

< 5 years 

1.51 

Mixed Coastal 

Plain and other 

[ 11 

Moderate cultivation; cultivated 5-10 years, 

or open with 

grass 

1314 

Coastal Plain 

lo1 

Intensive cultivation; cultivated > 10 

years, or open 

and bare 

11 14 

Organic matter > 2% 1-2% < 1% 

(A-horizon) [51 [31 [Ol 

Depth of > 6" or no profile 

topsoil development 

(A-horizon) I51 

Soil age Young, no profile 

development 

( Entisols) 

pH (in rooting 4.5-5.5 

zone) 

I51 

I21 (-31 

Medium, moderate Old, wellprofile developed profile, 

development leached (Alfisols, 

(Inceptisols) Ultisols) 

[I1 (0 I 

5.6-7.5 or 4.0-4.4 < 4.0 [-21 

> 7.5 [Unsuitablel 

[3 I 

Factor 4. Aeration 

Soil structure 

(in rooting 

zone) 

Granular, porous; Prismatic; Massive (if 

structureless, blocky clayey); platy 

single-grained 

if sandy, massive 

if loamy or silty 

[SI [41 

Swampiness Wet in winter Wet January-July Waterlogged all 

only year 

[81 [41 [Unsuitable] 

Mottling None to 18" depth None to 8" depth Mottled to 

surface or gray 

mineral soil 

[Sl 141 [-21 

Soil color Black, brown, red Yellow, Gray 

(in rooting zone) brownish-gray 

[71 [41 [-21 

1125 feet at 50 years maximum S.I.; 70 feet minimum acceptable S.I. 

ZEach bracketed number indicates the site quality rating (SQR) of a particular soil-site 

condition. 

3If the soil is a sand or loamy sand, then 1-10]. 

4If cultural practices included annual fertilization, then [41. 
Table 5. - Site Evaluation Guide for NUTTALL OAK1 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

Property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 1. Physical condition 

Soil depth and Deep soil ( > 4 Medium depth Shallow soil 

presence of feet); without (2-4 feet), or (< 2 feet), or a 

artificial or Pan a soil with a soil with an 

inherent pan plowpan inherent pan 

[BIZ [51 1-31 

Texture Medium-textured; Coarse-textured; Fine-textured; 

(in rooting silty or loamy sandy clayey 

zone) 

Compaction No compaction; Moderately com- Strongly com- 

(in surface loose, porous, pacted; firm, pacted; tight, 

foot) friable, bulk moderately tight, bulk density 

density < 1.4 bulk density > 1.7 g/cc 

~/CC 1.4-1.7 g/cc 

[6l [31 [OI 

Structure Granular Prismatic; Massive (if 

(in rooting structureless, blocky clayey); platy 

zone) single-grained if 

sandy, massive 

if loamy or silty 

Past use and Undisturbed ; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin vation; cultiva- vation; cultivaforest cover ted < 20 years, ted > 20 years, 

or open with or open and bare 

grass cover 

[51 131 111 

Continued 
Table 5. - Site Evaluation Guide for NUTTALL OAK (con't) 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 2. Moisture availability during growing season 

Water table 2-6' 1-2'; 7-10' <1' [unsuitable]; 

depth 191 161 >lo' [0]3 

Artificial or No pans Plowpan Inherent pan 

inherent pans 

[91 141 [-21 

Topographic Floodplain or Stream terraces Upland 

position stream bottom or lower slopes 

181 I51 [Ol 

Microsite Concave; depres- Level; flat Convex; ridge, 

sion, pocket, mound 

trough 

[41 

Structure Granular; Prismatic; Structureless, 

(in rooting structureless, blocky single-grained 

zone) massive (if silty, if sandy; platy 

loamy, or clayey 1; 

stratified 

121 I11 101 

Texture Silty or loamy, Clayey Sandy 

(in rooting (or stratified) 

zone) (21 (11 lo1 

Flooding Winter through Winter only 

spring 

161 131 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate cultipresent cover near-virgin, vation; cultiforest cover vated < 10 years 

or open with 

grass cover 

121 Ill 

None 101 

continuous 

[unsuitable] 

Intensive cultivation; cultivated > 10 

years or open 

and bare 

[Ol 

Continued 
Table 5. - Site Evaluation Guide for NUTTALL OAK (con't) 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 3. Nutrient availability 

Geologic Mississippi River, 

source Loess, Blackland 

131 

Past use and Undisturbed; 

present cover near-virgin 

forest cover, 

cultivated 

< 5 years 

[61 

Mixed Coastal 

Plain and other 

[ll 

Moderate cultivation; cultivated 5-10 years, 

or open with 

grass 

1314 

Coastal Plain 

1-11 

Intensive cultivation; cultivated > 10 

years, or open 

and bare 

1014 

Organic matter > 2% 1-2% < 1% 

( A-horizon) [61 131 [Ol 

Depth of > 6" or no profile 3-6" < 3" 

topsoil development 

( A-horizon) [61 [31 1-31 

Soil age Young, no profile Medium, moderate Old, welldevelopment profile developed profile, 

(Entisols) development leached ( Alfisols; 

(Inceptisols) Ultisols) 

131 111 I- 11 

pH (in rooting 4.5-5.5 5.6-7.5 or 4.0-4.4 < 4.0 [-21 

zone) > 7.5 [Unsuitable] 

161 I41 

Factor 4. Aeration 

Soil structure Granular, porous; Prismatic; Massive (if 

(in rooting structureless, blocky clayey); platy 

zone) single-grained 

if sandy, massive 

if loamy or silty 

[71 [51 [Ol 

Swampiness Wet in winter Wet January-July Waterlogged all 

on1 y year 

171 [51 [Unsuitable] 

Mottling None to 18" depth None to 8" depth Mottled to 

surface or gray 

mineral soil 

I51 131 111 - 

Soil color Black, brown, red Yellow, Gray 

(in rooting zone brownish-gray 

151 121 lo1 

1120 feet at 50 years maximum S.I.; 75 feet minimum acceptable S.I. 

2Each bracketed number indicates the site quality rating (SQR) of a particular soil-site 

condition. 

3If the soil is a sand or loamy sand, then 1-10]. 

41f cultural practices included annual fertilization, then [41. 
Table 6. - Site Evaluation Guide for SHUMARD OAK1 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 1. Physical condition 

Soil depth and Deep soil ( > 4 Medium depth 

presence of feet); without (2-4 feet ), or a 

artificial or Pan soil with a 

inherent pan plowpan 

16 12 14 1 

Texture (in rooting Medium-textured; Coarse-textured; 

zone) silty or loamy sandy 

I51 13 1 

Shallow soil 

(< 2 feet ), or a 

soil with an 

inherent pan 

[-21 

Fine-textured; 

clayey 

11 1 

Compaction No compaction; 

(in surface foot) loose, porous, 

friable, bulk 

density < 1.4 

a/cc - 

16 1 

Structure Granular; 

(in rooting structureless, 

zone ) single-grained if 

sandy, massive if 

loamy or silty 

I61 

Moderately com- Strongly compacted; firm, pacted, tight. 

moderately tight, bulk density 

bulk density > 1.7 g/cc 

1.4-1.7 ~/CC 

14 I 1-21 

Prismatic; Massive (if 

blocky clayey ); platy 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin, vation; cultiva- vation; cultivaforest cover ted < 20 years, ted > 20 years, 

or open with or open and bare 

grass cover 

ISI 14 I 11 I

Continued 
Table 6. - Site Evaluation Guide for SHUMARD OAK (con't) 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

uronertv Best Medium Poor 

Factor 2. Moisture availability during growing season -- - 

Water table 2-6' 1-2'; 7-10' < 1' [unsuitable]; 

depth 151 I21 > 10' [013 

Artificial or No pans Plowpan Inherent pan 

inherent pans 15 1 I21 [-I1 

Topographic Floodplain or Stream terraces Upland 

position stream bottom or lower slopes 

[51 I3 1 101 

Microsite Concave; depres- Level; flat Convex; ridge, 

sion, pocket, mound 

trough 

121 111 101 

Structure Granular; Prismatic; Structureless; 

(in rooting zone) blocky; struc- platy single-grained 

tureless; mass- if sandy 

ive (if silty, 

loamy, or clayey 1; 

stratified 

-- 141 121 [Ol 

Texture Silty or loamy, Clayey Sandy 

(in rooting zone) (or stratified) 

-- -- - -- 141 121 [Ol 

Flooding Winter through Winter only None [I] 

spring Continuous 

151 I21 [Unsuitablel 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive culti. 

present cover near-virgin, vation; culti- vation; cultiforest cover vated < 10 years vated > 10 years 

or open with or open and 

grass cover bare 

I21 [I1 [Ol 

Continued 
Table 6. - Site Evaluation Guide for SHUMARD OAK (con'tl 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 3. Nutrient availability 

Geologic Mississippi River, Mixed Coastal Coastal Plain 

source Loess, Blackland Plain and other 

[41 121 111 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin vation; culti- vation; cultiforest cover, vated 5-10 years, vated > 10 

cultivated or open with years, or open 

< 5 years grass and bare 

16 I 14 l4 [214 

Organic matter > 2% 1-2% < 1% 

( A-horizon) I5 1 [3 I 101 

Depth of >6" or no profile 3-6" <3" 

topsoil development 

( A-horizon) [GI I3 I 1-41 

Soil age Young, no profile Medium, moderate Old, welldevelopment profile developed pro- 

(Entisols) development file, leached 

(Inceptisols) (Alfisols; Ultisols) 

[3l 121 111 

pH (in rooting 4.5-5.5 5.6-7.5 or < 4.0 [-21 

zone ) 4.0 -4.4 > 7.5 [Unsuitable] 

Continued 
Table 6. - Site Evaluation Guide for SHUMARD OAK (con't) 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 4. Aeration 

Soil structure Granular, porous; Prismatic; Massive (if 

(in rooting structureless, blocky clayey ); platy 

zone) single-grained if 

sandy, massive if 

loamy or silty 

Swampiness Wet in winter Wet January-July Waterlogged all 

only year 

[71 [31 [Unsuitable] 

Mottling None to 18" depth None to 8" depth Mottled to 

surface or gray 

mineral soil 

I [dl [-I1 

Soil color Black, brown, red Yellow, Gray 

(in rooting zone) brownish-gray 

- - 

I81 [41 I-11 

1120 feet at 50 years maximum S.I.; 70 feet minimum acceptable S.I. 

2Each bracketed number indicates the site quality rating (SQR) of a particular soil-site 

condition. 

3If the soil is sand or loamy sand, then [-51. 

4 If cultural practices included annual fertilization, then [5]. 
Table 7. - Site Evaluation Guide for SWAMP CHESTNUT OAK1 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 1. Physical condition 

Soil depth and Deep soil ( > 4 Medium depth Shallow soil 

presence of feet); without (2-4 feet), or a (< 2 feet), or a 

artificial or pan soil with a soil with an 

inherent pan plowpan inherent pan 

I812 I51 I-11 

Texture (in rooting Medium-textured; Coarse-textured; Fine-textured; 

zone) silty or loamy sandy clayey 

I41 I21 11 1 

Compaction No compaction; Moderately com- Strongly com- 

(in surface foot) loose, porous, pacted; firm, pacted, tight, 

friable, bulk moderately tight, bulk density 

density < 1.4 bulk density > 1.7 g/cc 

g/cc 1.4-1.7 g/cc 

I51 I3 1 I-11 

Structure Granular; Prismatic; Massive (if 

(in rooting structureless, blocky clayey ); platy 

zone) single-grained if 

sandy, massive if 

loamy or silty 

151 I3 1 lo l 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin, vation; cultiva- vation; cultivaforest cover ted < 20 years, ted > 20 years, 

or open with or open and bare 

grass cover 

I61 [3 I I01 

Continued 
Table 7. - Site Evaluation Guide for SWAMP CHESTNUT OAK (con't) 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality -. - 

oro~ertv Best Medium Poor 

Factor 2. Moisture availability during growing season 

Water table 2-6' 1-2'; 7-10' < 1' [unsuitablel; 

depth 141 13 1 > 10' 1-113 

Artificial or No pans Plowpan Inherent pan 

inherent pans I61 13 I 1-21 

Topographic Floodplain or Stream terraces Upland 

position stream bottom or lower slopes 

161 14 I 1-11 

Microsite Concave; depres- Level; flat Convex; ridge, 

sion, pocket. mound 

trough 

121 111 101 

Structure Granular; Prismatic; Structureless; 

(in rooting zone) blocky; struc- platy single-grained 

tureless; mass- if sandy 

ive (if silty, 

loamy, or clayey ); 

stratified 

141 12 I lo l 

Texture Silty or loamy, Clayey Sandy 

(in rooting zone) (or stratified) 

13 1 111 1-11 

Flooding Winter through Winter only None [O] 

spring Continuous 

13 1 12 I [Unsuitable I 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin, vation; culti- vation; cultiforest cover vated < 10 years vated > 10 years 

or open with or open and 

grass cover bare 

Continued 
Table 7. - Site Evaluation Guide for SWAMP CHESTNUT OAK (con't) 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 3. Nutrient availability 

Geologic 

source 

Mississippi River, Mixed Coastal Coastal Plain 

Loess, Blackland Plain and other 

131 111 101 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin vation; culti- vation; cultiforest cover, vated 5-10 years, vated > 10 

cultivated or open with years, or open 

< 5 years grass and bare 

[51 [3 l4 1114 

Organic matter > 2% 1-2% < 1% 

( A-horizon ) [dl [2 1 [ol 

Depth of >6" or no profile 3-6" <3" 

topsoil development 

( A-horizon) [51 [21 [-31 

Soil age Young, no profile Medium, moderate Old, welldevelopment profile developed pro- 

(Entisols) development file, leached 

(Inceptisols) ( Alfisols; Ultisols) 

I21 111 10 1 

pH (in rooting 4.5-5.5 5.5-7.5 or < 4.0 1-21 

zone ) 4.0-4.4 > 7.5 IUnsuitable] 

IS1 [3 I 

Continued 
Table 7. - Site Evaluation Guide for SWAMP CHESTNUT OAK (con't) 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 4. Aeration 

Soil structure Granular, porous; Prismatic; Massive (if 

(in rooting structureless, blocky clayey); platy 

zone) single-grained if 

sandy, massive if 

loamy or silty 

Swampiness Wet in winter Wet January-July Waterlogged all 

only year 

I61 [4 I [Unsuitable] 

Mottling None to 18" depth None to 8" depth Mottled to 

surface or gray 

mineral soil 

[71 [4 I 10 I 

Soil color Black, brown, red Yellow, Gray 

(in rooting zone) brownish-gray 

[7 I [31 [-I1 

1110 feet at 50 years maximum S.I.; 65 feet minimum acceptable S.I. 

ZEach bracketed number indicates the site quality rating (SQR) of a particular soil-site 

condition. 

3If the soil is sand or loamy sand, then [-51. 

41f cultural practices included annual fertilization, then [5]. 
Table 8. - Site Evaluation Guide for WATER OAK and WILLOW OAK1 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 1. Physical condition 

Soil depth and Deep soil ( > 4 Medium depth Shallow soil 

presence of feet); without (2-4 feet), or a (< 2 feet), or a 

artificial or Pan soil with a soil with an 

inherent pan plowpan inherent pan 

I6 12 14 1 [-21 

Texture (in rooting Medium-textured; Coarse-textured; Fine-textured; 

zone ) silty or loamy sandy clayey 

14 I I21 111 

Compaction No compaction; Moderately com- Strongly com- 

(in surface foot) loose, porous, pacted; firm, pacted, tight, 

friable, bulk moderately tight, bulk density 

density < 1.4 bulk density > 1.7 g/cc 

~/CC 1.4-1.7 ~/CC 

I6 l 14 1 1-21 

Structure Granular; Prismatic; Massive (if 

(in rooting structureless, blocky clayey ); platy 

zone ) single-grained if 

sandy, massive if 

loamy or silty 

161 [41 [Ol 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin, vation; cultiva- vation; cultivaforest cover ted < 20 years, ted > 20 years, 

or open with or open and bare 

grass cover 

171 14 1 111 

Continued 
Table 8. - Site Evaluation Guide for WATER OAK and WILLOW OAK (con't) - 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 2. Moisture availability during growing season 

Water table 2-6' 1-2'; 7-10' < 1' (unsuitable); 

depth > 10' 

[51 [2 I [-a i3 

Artificial or No pans Plowpan Inherent pan 

inherent pans 151 [21 [-2 I 

Topographic Floodplain or Stream terraces Upland 

position stream bottom or lower slopes 

151 [31 [O I 

Microsite Concave; depres- Level; flat Convex; ridge, 

sion, pocket, mound 

trough 

I21 111 I-31 

Structure Granular; Prismatic; Structureless; 

(in rooting zone) structureless, platy single-grained 

massive (if silty, if sandy; platy 

loamy, or clayey ); 

stratified 

I51 I5 I [3 1 

Texture Silty or loamy, Clayey Sandy 

(in rooting zone) (or stratified) 

[51 I31 101 

Flooding Winter through Winter only None [-11; 

spring Continuous 

[51 I3 I [unsuitable] 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin, vation; culti- vation; cultiforest cover vated < 10 years vated > 10 years 

or open with or open and 

grass cover bare 

[21 [I1 [Ol 

Continued 
Table 8. - Site Evaluation Guide for WATER OAK and WILLOW OAK (con'tl 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 3. Nutrient availability 

Geologic Mississippi River, Mixed Coastal Coastal Plain 

source Loess, Blackland Plain and other 

121 11 1 101 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin vation; culti- vation; cultiforest cover, vated 5-10 years. vated > 10 

cultivated or open with years. or open 

< 5 years grass and bare 

151 13 l4 1 114 

Orgariic matter > 2% 1-2% < 1% 

( A-horizon) 14 1 121 [O 1 

Depth of >6" or no profile 3-6" <3" 

topsoil development 

( A-horizon ) 151 121 1-31 

Soil age Young, no profile Medium, moderate Old. welldevelopment profile developed pro- 

( Entisols) development file. leached 

I Inceptisols (Alfisols; Ultisols) 

121 111 lo l 

pH (in rooting 4.5-5.5 5.6-7.5 or < 4.0 1-21 

zone) 4.0-4.4 > 7.5 [Unsuitable] 

I51 131 

Factor 4. Aeration 

Soil structure Granular. porous: 

(in rooting structureless. 

zone l single-grained if 

sandy. massive if 

loamy or silty 

17 1 

Swampiness Wet in winter 

only 

181 

Mottling None to 18" depth 

Prismatic: Massive (if 

blocky clayey 1; platy 

15 1 101 

Wet January-July Waterlogged all 

year 

14 1 I Unsuitable1 

None to 8" depth Mottled to 

surface or gray 

mineral soil 

171 151 1-21 

Soil color Black. brown, red Yellow, Gray 

(in rooting zone) brownish-gray 

1115 feet at 50 years maximum S.I.: 70 feet minimum acceptable S.I. 

ZEach bracketed number indicates the site quality rating (SQRI of a particular soil-site 

condition. 

:'If the soil is sand or loamy sand. then 1-101. 

J If cultural practices included annual fertilization. then 141. 
Table 9. - Site Evaluation Guide for PECAN' * 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

- Factor 1. Physical condition - 

Soil depth and Deep soil ( > 4 Medium depth Shallow soil 

presence of feet); without (2-4 feet), or a (< 2 feet), or a 

artificial or Pan soil with a soil with an 

inherent pan plowpan inherent pan 

[GlZ [41 [-2 I 

Texture (in rooting Medium-textured; Coarse-textured; Fine-textured; 

zone) silty or loamy 

[51 

Compaction No compaction; 

(in surface foot) loose, porous, 

friable, bulk 

density < 1.4 

Structure Granular; 

(in rooting structureless, 

zone) single-grained if 

sandy, massive if 

loamy or silty 

sandy 

[4 I 

Moderately compacted; firm, 

moderately tight, 

bulk density 

1.4-1.7 ~/CC 

14 1 

Prismatic; 

blocky 

clayey 

111 

Strongly compacted; tight, 

bulk density 

> 1.7 g/cc 

Massive (if 

clayey ); platy 

[41 [31 [I1 

Past use and Undisturbed; Mndcaratr culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin, vation; cultiva- vation; cultivaforest cover ted < 20 years, ted > 20 years, 

or open with or open and bare 

grass cover 

161 [3 I [O I 

Continued 
Table 9. - Site Evaluation Guide for PECAN (con't) 

Soil-site condition and relative quality 

Best Medium Poor 

Factor 2. Moisture availability during growing season 

Water table 2-6' 1-2'; 7-10 < 1 ' [unsuitable]; 

depth [4 1 I21 > 10' [013 

Artificial or No pans Plowpan Inherent pan 

inherent ~ans 151 121 1-21 

Topographic Floodplain or Stream terraces 

position stream bottom or lower slopes 

[5 I 13 1 

Microsite Concave; depres- Level; flat 

sion, pocket, 

trough 

121 [ll 

Structure Granular; Prismatic; 

(in rooting zone) blocky; struc- platy 

tureless; massive (if silty, 

loamy, or clayey ); 

stratified 

141 12 1 

Upland 

I0 I 

Convex; ridge, 

mound 

I01 

Structureless; 

single-grained 

if sandy 

Texture Silty or loamy, Clayey Sandy 

(in rooting zone) (or stratified) 

I41 I21 LO1 

Flooding Winter through Winter only None 101 

spring Continuous 

I41 I21 [Unsuitable] 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin, vation; culti- vation; cultiforest cover vated < 10 years vated > 10 years 

or open with or open and 

grass cover bare 

I21 [ll lo I 

Continued 
Table 9. - Site Evaluation Guide for PECAN (con't) 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 3. Nutrient availability 

Geologic Mississippi River, Mixed Coastal Coastal Plain 

source Loess, Blackland Plain and other 

(51 [31 [21 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin vation; culti- vation; cultiforest cover, vated 5-10 years, vated > 10 

cultivated or open with years, or open 

< 5 years grass and bare 

16 I [414 ~214 

Organic matter > 2% 1-2% < 1% 

( A-horizon ) [5l I3 1 [O 1 

Depth of >6" or no prqfile 3-6" <3" 

topsoil development 

( A-horizon ) [GI I3 1 [-41 

Soil age Young, no profile Medium, moderate Old, welldevelopment profile developed pro- 

(Entisols) development file, leached 

(Inceptisols) ( Alfisols; Ultisols) 

[3 1 [2l [ll 

pH (in rooting 5.5-7.5 4.5-5.5 or < 4.5 or 

zone) 7.6-8.5 > 8.5 

15 I 15 I 131 

Factor 4. Aeration 

Soil structure Granular, porous; Prismatic; Massive (if 

(in rooting structureless, blocky clayey ); platy 

zone ) single-grained if 

sandy. massive if 

loamy or silty 

[5l 12 1 [OI 

Swampiness Wet in winter Wet January-July Waterlogged all 

only year 

171 I3 1 [Unsuitable] 

Mottling None to 18" depth None to 8" depth Mottled to 

surface or gray 

mineral soil 

Isl [4l -- 1-11 

Soil color Black, brown, red Yellow, Gray 

(in rooting zone) brownish-gray 

'115 feet at 50 years maximum S.1 ; 70 feet minimum acceptable S.I. 

2Each bracketed number indicates thc site quality rating (SQR) of a particular soil-site 

condition. 

Uf the soil is sand or loamy sand. then [-4 1. 

4 If cultural practices included annual fertilization, then 151. 
Table 10. - Site Evaluation Guide for SWEETGUM1 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

- property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 1. Physical condition 

Soil depth and Deep soil ( > 4 Medium depth Shallow soil 

presence of feet); without (2-4 feet), or a (< 2 feet), or a 

artificial or Pan soil with a soil with an 

inherent pan plowpan inherent pan 

1612 141 I-21 

Texture (in rooting Medium-textured; Coarse-textured; Fine-textured; 

zone) silty or loamy sandy clayey 

141 121 111 

Compaction No compaction; Moderately com- Strongly com- 

(in surface foot) loose, porous, pacted; firm, pacted, tight, 

friable, bulk moderately tight, bulk density 

density < 1.4 bulk density > 1.7 g/cc 

g/cc 1.4-1.7 g/cc 

161 14 I 1-21 

Structure Granular; blocky; Prismatic; Massive (if 

(in rooting structureless, platy clayey ); 

zone) single-grained if 

sandy, massive if 

loamy or silty 

161 14 1 101 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin, vation; cultiva- vation; cultivaforest cover ted < 20 years, ted > 20 years, 

or open with or open and bare 

grass cover 

18 I [51 121 

Continued 
Table 10. - Site Evaluation Guide for SWEETGUM Icon't) 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 2. Moisture availability during growing season 

Water table 2-6' 1-2'; 7-10' < 1' lunsuitablel; 

devth 161 13 1 > 10' 1-313 

Artificial or No pans Plowpan Inherent pan 

inherent pans 161 13 I I-31 - 

Topographic Floodplain or Stream terraces Upland 

position stream bottom or lower slopes 

I51 13 I 

Microsite Concave; depres- Level; flat Convex; ridge, 

sion, pocket, 

trough 

mound 

Structure Granular; blocky; Prismatic; Structureless, 

(in rooting zone) structureless, platy single-grained 

massive (if silty, if sandy 

loamy, or clayey ); 

stratified 

151 I3 1 I-11 

Texture Silty or loamy, Clayey Sandy 

(in rooting zone) (or stratified I 

151 12 I 101 - 

Flooding Winter through Winter only None 101 

spring Continuous 

151 131 IUnsuitableI 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin, vation; culti- vation; cultiforest cover vated < 10 years vated > 10 years 

or open with or open and 

grass cover bare 

121 111 10 l 

Continued 
Table 10. - Site Evaluation Guide for SWEETGUM (con't) 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 3. Nutrient availability 

Geologic Mississippi River, Mixed Coastal Coastal Plain 

source Loess, Blackland Plain and other 

151 14 1 121 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin vation; culti- vation; cultiforest cover, vated 5-10 years, vated > 10 

cultivated or open with years, or open 

< 5 years grass and bare 

151 13 14 1114 

Organic matter > 2% 1-2% < 1% 

( A-horizon) I41 121 1-21 

Depth of >6" or no profile 3-6" <3" 

topsoil development 

( A-horizon) 151 121 I-31 

Soil age Young, no profile Medium, moderate Old, welldevelopment profile developed pro- 

(Entisols) development file, leached 

(Inceptisols) (Alfisols; Ultisols) 

141 I21 I0 I 

pH (in rooting 5.5-7.5 4.5-5.5 or > 4.5 or 

zone) 7.6-8.5 < 8.5 

[I1 I0 I 1-11 

Factor 4. Aeration 

Soil structure Granular, porous; Prismatic; Massive (if 

(in rooting blocky ; structure- platy clayey ) 

zone) less, singlegrained if sandy, 

massive if loamy 

or silty 

18 1 14 1 1-21 

Swampiness Wet in winter Wet January-July Waterlogged all 

only year 

[81 14 1 [Unsuitable] 

Mottling None to 18" depth None to 8" depth Mottled to 

surface or gray 

mineral soil 

171 151 1-21 

Soil color Black, brown, red Yellow, Gray 

(in rooting zone) brownish-gray 

171 141 1-21 

1120 feet at 50 years maximum S.I.; 75 feet minimum acceptable S.I. 

2 Each bracketed number indicates the site quality rating (SQR) of a particular soil-site 

condition. 

3If the soil is sand or loamy sand, then 1-10]. 

41f cultural practices included annual fertilization, then 141. 
Table 11. - Site Evaluation Guide for SYCAMORE' 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 1. Physical condition 

Soil depth and Deep soil ( > 4 Medium depth Shallow soil 

presence of feet); without (2-4 feet), or a (< 2 feet), or a 

artificial or Pan soil with a soil with an 

inherent pan plowpan inherent pan 

IlOIz [51 I-51 

Texture (in rooting Medium-textured; Coarse-textured; Fine-textured; 

zone ) silty or loamy sandy clayey 

I81 I41 I01 

Compaction No compaction; Moderately com- Strongly com- 

(in surface foot) loose, porous, pacted; firm, pacted; tight, 

friable, bulk moderately tight, bulk density 

density c1.4 bulk density > 1.7 g/cc 

~/CC 1.4-1.7 ~/CC 

I81 [dl [-21 

Structure Granular; Prismatic; Massive (if 

(in rooting structureless, blocky clayey ); platy 

zone) single-grained if 

sandy, massive if 

loamy or silty 

[3 1 I11 [-31 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin, vation; cultiva- vation; cultiva. 

forest cover ted < 20 years, ted > 20 years, 

or open with or open and bare 

grass - cover 

I31 111 101 - 

Continued 
Table 11. - Site Evaluation Guide for SYCAMORE (con't) 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 2. Moisture availability during growing season 

Water table 2-6' 1-2'; 7-10' < 1' [unsuitable]; 

depth 151 121 > 10' 1-513 

Artificial or No pans Plowpan Inherent pan 

inherent vans 151 121 1-51 

Topographic Floodplain or Stream terraces Upland 

position stream bottom or lower slopes 

121 111 1-21 

Microsite Concave; depres- Level; flat Convex; ridge, 

sion, pocket, mound 

trough 

Structure Granular; Prismatic; Structureless, 

(in rooting zone) structureless; blocky single-grained 

massive (if silty, if sandy; platy 

loamy, or clayey ); 

stratified 

111 I0 1 I-1 1 

Texture Silty or loamy, Clayey Sandy 

(in rooting zone) (or stratified) 

111 10 1 1-11 

Flooding Winter through Winter only None 1-51; 

spring Continuous 

[3 1 [11 [unsuitable] 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin, vation; culti- vation; cultiforest cover vated < 10 years vated- > 10 years 

or open with or open and 

grass cover bare 

111 I0 I [-I 1 

Continued 
Table 11. - Site Evaluation Guide for SYCAMORE (con't) 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 3. Nutrient availability 

Geologic Mississippi River, Mixed Coastal Coastal Plain 

source Loess, Blackland Plain and other 

[I21 [8 1 13 I 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin vation; culti- vation; cultiforest cover, vated 5-10 years, vated > 10 

cultivated or open with years, or open 

< 5 years grass and bare 

I101 1614 [214 

Organic matter > 2% 1-290 < 190 

( A-horizon ) (61 I3 1 10 1 

Depth of >6" or no profile 3-6" <3" 

topsoil development 

( A-horizon ) I61 121 I-41 

Soil age Young, no profile Medium, moderate Old, welldevelopment profile developed pro- 

(Entisols) development file, leached 

(Inceptisols) (Alfisols; Ultisols) 

141 121 1-1 1 

pH (in rooting 5.5-7.5 4.5-5.5 or < 4.5 or 

zone ) 7.6-8.5 > 8.5 

111 10 I 111 

Factor 4. Aeration 

Soil structure Granular, porous; Prismatic; Massive (if 

(in rooting structureless, blocky clayey 1; platy 

zone) single-grained if 

sandy, massive if 

loamy or silty) 

17 I I41 I-41 

Swampiness Wet in winter Wet January-July Waterlogged all 

only year 

110i 18 1 [Unsuitable 1 

Mottling None to 18" depth None to 8" depth Mottled to 

surface or gray 

mineral soil 

I121 I101 I-51 

Soil color Black, brown, red Yellow, Gray 

(in rooting zone) brownish-gray 

I101 I8 I 1-51 

1130 feet at 50 years maximum S.I.; 70 feet minimum acceptable S.I. 

ZEach bracketed number indicates the site quality rating (SQR) of a particular soil-site 

condition. 

31f the soil is sand or loamy sand, then [-lo]. 

4 If cultural practices included annual fertilization, then [81. 
Table 12. - Site Evaluation Guide for YELLOW POPLAR] 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 1. Physical condition 

Soil depth and Deep soil ( > 4 Medium depth Shallow soil 

presence of feet); without (2-4 feet), or a (< 2 feet), or a 

artificial or Pan soil with a soil with an 

inherent pan plowpan inherent pan 

110 I2 14 I 1-51 

Texture (in rooting Medium-textured; Coarse-textured; Fine-textured; 

zone) silty or loamy sandy clayey 

1121 151 1-21 

Compaction No compaction: Moderately com- Strongly com- 

(in surface foot) loose, porous. pacted; firm, pacted; tight, 

friable, bulk moderately tight, bulk density 

density 1.4 bulk density 1.7 g/cc 

g/cc 1.4-1.7 g/cc 

181 14 1 1-21 -- 

Structure Granular; Prismatic: Massive (if 

(in rooting structureless, blocky clayey 1; platy 

zone ) single-grained if 

sandy, massive if 

loamy or silty 

151 13 I 10 l 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin, vation; cultiva- vation; cultivaforest cover ted < 20 years, ted > 20 years, 

or open with or open and bare 

grass cover 

151 12 l 111 

Continued 
Table 12. - Site Evaluation Guide for YELLOW POPLAR (con't) 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

~ro~ertv Best Medium Poor 

Factor 2. Moisture availability during growing season 

Water table 2-6' 1-2'; 7-10' < 1' [unsuitable]; 

depth 151 I3 1 > 10' [-313 

Artificial or No pans Plowpan Inherent pan 

inherent pans I6 I 13 I1-51 

Topographic Floodplain or Stream terraces Upland 

position stream bottom or lower slopes 

161 (4 I lo1 

Microsite Concave; depres- Level; flat Convex; ridge. 

sion, pocket, mound 

trough 

[31 [2 I [1 I 

Structure Granular; blocky; Prismatic; Structureless; 

(in rooting zone) structureless;- platy single-grained 

massive (if silty, if sandy 

loamy, or clayey ); 

stratified 

[21 11 1 101 

Texture Silty or loamy, Clayey Sandy 

(in rooting zone) (or stratified) 

[2 I 11 I [OI 

Flooding Winter through Winter only None [-I1 

spring Continuous 

(3 1 (2 1 [Unsuitable] 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin, vation; culti- vation; cultiforest cover vated < 10 years vated > 10 years 

or open with or open and 

grass cover bare 

131 I21 I0 I 

Continued 
Table 12. - Site Evaluation Guide for YELLOW POPLAR (con't) 

Soil-site Soil-site condition and relative quality 

property Best Medium Poor 

Factor 3. Nutrient availability 

Geologic Mississippi River. Mixed Coastal Coastal Plain 

source Loess, Blackland Plain and other 

141 f31 121 

Past use and Undisturbed; Moderate culti- Intensive cultipresent cover near-virgin vation; culti- vation; cultiforest cover, vated 5-10 years, vated > 10 

cultivated or open with years, or open 

< 5 years grass and bare 

141 121~ 1014 

Organic matter > 2% 1-2% < 1% 

(~Ihorizon) I51 I3 1 I01 

Depth of >6" or no profile 3-6" <3" 

topsoil development 

( A-horizon) [el I3 1 I-21 

Soil age Young, no profile Medium, moderate Old, welldevelopment profile developed pro- 

(Entisols) development file, leached 

(Inceptisols) ( Alfisols; Ultisols) 

I3 1 I2 I I11 

pH (in rooting 4.5-7.5 7.6-8.5 < 4.5 or 

zone) > 8.5 

[3 I I0 I I-3 1 

Factor 4. Aeration 

Soil structure Granular, porous; Prismatic; Massive (if 

(in rooting structureless blocky clayey ); platy 

zone) single-grained if 

sandy, massive if 

loamy or silty) 

I8 I [2 1 I-41 

Swampiness Wet in winter Wet January-July Waterlogged all 

only year 

[61 [31 [Unsuitable] 

Mottling None to 18" depth None to 8" depth Mottled to 

surface or gray 

mineral soil 

I81 I4 I [-I I 

Soil color Black, brown, red Yellow, Gray 

(in rooting zone) brownish-gray 

181 I4 1 I- 11 

1125 feet at 50 years maximum S.I.; 70 feet minimum acceptable S.I. 

ZEach bracketed number indicates the site quality rating (SQR) of a particular soil-site 

condition. 

3If the soil is sand or loamy sand, then [-51. 

4If cultural practices included annual fertilization, then [3]. 
M bmd

Table 13. — Expected stand and production data for cottonwood at various ages by site class

a Dominants and codominants.b From Mohn and Krinardʼs (1971) volume equations for merchantable volume outside bark to a 31/2-inch top.c Cords = ft3 volume ÷ 90.d From giant-tree volume tables (F.C. = 78) for gross tree volume outside bark to a 10-inch top (Grosenbaugh 1954, Putnam et al. 1960). Remaining tops left on site and not included in ft3 or cord production. e From Muellerʼs (1976) dry matter equations.
Table 

- 

14. - Estimated stand and production data for sweetgum and sycamore at age 30 by site class 

STAND DATA ESTIMATED PRODUCTION PER ACRE^ 

Site index range No. trees Mean Mean Basal M bm 

(ft. B 50 ym) per acre ht (ftp dia (in) area (ft2j ft Cord& Doyle Int. $4 

SWEETGUM 

75 - 85 145 * 15 55 * 5 8t2 50 a 5 1965 t 320 20 a 3 - - 95 - 105 loo * 10 70 2 5 11 * 2 65 t 10 3095 a 470 34 * 5 - - 115 - 125 60 * 5 90 * 5 15 t 2 75 k 15 5585 * 650 62 k 7 6+_2 9 * 2 

rP 

w SYCAMORE 

80 - 90 loo t 10 60 a 5 10 t 2 55 t 5 2633 c 430 29 t 5 - - 100 - 110 65 a 5 80 * 5 14 * 2 70 * 10 4147 t 625 46 * 7 4*1 7t2 

120 - 130 40 * 5 100 a 5 19 * 2 80 a 15 7485 t 875 83 2 10 10 +_ 3 14+3 

a Dominants and codominants 

b Production estimated as a proportion of cottonwood production based on early growth and development on various sites. 

C Cords = ft3 volume + 90 
APPENDIX 

Explanation of Terms 

The explanation of terms is for use with tables 1-12. For terms not 

defined, see Glossary of Soil Science Terms (1975) or Soil Survey Manual 

(1951). 

Compaction: Any process by which the soil grains are rearranged to 

decrease void or air spaces and bring them into closer contact with 

one another. In most cases, the process is caused by traffic or 

other artificial means. Some clayey, non-montimorillionitic soils are 

described as being firm or tight in regard to compaction. This 

compaction, resulting from a natural alinement of fine particles, 

occurs because of a lack of shrinking and swelling. 

Depth of Topsoil or A-Horizon: Depth of surface soil or depth to Bhorizon. Topsoil depth can be distinguished by a rather abrupt 

change in soil color or texture. Topsoil is ordinarily darker in color 

and coarser in texture than subsoil. 

Geologic Source: Geologic origin of the soil or the physiographic area 

in which the soil occurs. Soils in the Mississippi River, Loess, and 

Blackland areas are generally high in native fertility. Coastal Plain 

soils are relatively low in native fertility and have low pH (< 5.5); 

when mixed with other geologic sources that are more fertile, they 

usually have a pH higher than 5.5. 

Mottling: Spots or blotches of different color (normally gray, yellow, or 

light brown) interspersed within the dominant color of the soil. Mottling is usually caused by poor internal drainage and poor aeration. 

Organic Matter The organic fraction of the soil: includes plant and 

animal residues at various stages of decomposition. Soils with high 

organic matter content are generally dark in color and have visible 

humus particles, while soils with low organic matter content are 

light colored. 

Pans: Layers in the soil that are strongly compacted, hardened, or very 

high in clay content. Pans often restrict root penetration and vertical 

movement of soil water. 

Artificial Pans (Plowpans or Pressure Pans) A subsurface soil layer 

that is compacted as a result of normal tillage operations or 

other artificial means. These pans can normally be detected as 

resistance to downward movement of a soil auger and by the 

tightly compacted, dense, and often dry soil condition. 

Inherent or Genetic Pans A natural subsurface soil layer that is 

harder or more cemented or brittle than the soil above and 

below it. Often called claypan or fragipan. 

Soil Depth: The depth or thickness of soil that can be easily permeated 

by tree roots and water. Soil depth is commonly controlled by artificial or inherent pans, rock, or stagnate water tables. 
Soil Structure: The combination or arrangement of primary soil particles 

in units or aggregations. These units are often arranged in the profile 

so that they give a distinctive characteristic pattern. Some common 

classes of soil structure are: granular, blocky, platy, prismatic, and 

structureless (single-grained or massive). Detailed descriptions of 

these structural classes and how to recognize them are given in most 

Soils textbooks. 

Soil Texture: The relative proportions of various size groups of individual 

soil particles in a mass of soil. Specifically, it refers to the proportions 

of clay, silt, and sand below 2 mm in diameter. 

Water Table Depth: The average depth to a non-stagnant "true" water 

table during the growing season. Water table depth can often be determined by soil boring to free water or by observing free water 

elevations in nearby streams, lakes, ponds, etc., in relation to the 

elevation of the site. For impervious (clayey) soils or soils with pans, 

the presence of a perched water table during the growing season will 

tend to improve available moisture. Therefore for these conditions, 

select the medium category for moisture availability even though a 

"true" water table occurs at depths > 10 feet. 
BAKER, JAMES B. and W. M. BROADFOOT. 

1979. A practical field method of site evaluation for commercially important southern hardwoods. U.S. Dep. Agric. 

For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-26, 51 p. South For. Exp. 

Stn., New Orleans, La. 

A new method of evaluating sites for planted cottonwood, 

sweetgum, sycamore, green ash, hackberry, sugarberry, pecan, 

yellow poplar and Nuttall, water, willow, swamp chestnut, 

Shumard and cherrybark oaks is presented. 

Additional keywords: Site index, soil properties, Populus deltoides, Liquidambar styraciflua, Platanus occidentalis, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Celtis occidentalis, C. laevigata, Carya 

illinoensis, Liriodendron tulipifera, Q. nuttallii, Q. nigm, Q. phellos, 

Q. michauxii, Q. shumardii, Quercus falcata var. pagodaefolia.