DOCSLIB.ORG

Soil Survey of Fulton County, Georgia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Soil Survey of Fulton County, Georgia United States In cooperation with Department of University of Georgia, Agriculture College of Agricultural and Soil Survey of Environmental Sciences, Agricultural Experiment Fulton County, Stations Natural Georgia Resources Conservation Service i How To Use This Soil Survey Detailed Soil Maps The detailed soil maps can be useful in planning the use and management of small areas. To find information about your area of interest, locate that area on the Index to Map Sheets. Note the number of the map sheet and turn to that sheet. Locate your area of interest on the map sheet. Note the map unit symbols that are in that area. Turn to the Contents, which lists the map units by symbol and name and shows the page where each map unit is described. The Contents shows which table has data on a specific land use for each detailed soil map unit. Also see the Contents for sections of this publication that may address your specific needs. ii National Cooperative Soil Survey This soil survey is a publication of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. This survey was made cooperatively by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the University of Georgia, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Agricultural Experiment Stations. The survey is part of the technical assistance furnished to the Fulton County Soil and Water Conservation District. Major fieldwork for this soil survey was completed in 2003. Soil names and descriptions were approved in 2003. Unless otherwise indicated, statements in this publication refer to conditions in the survey area in 2003. The most current official data are available on the Internet at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Soil maps in this survey may be copied without permission. Enlargement of these maps, however, could cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping. If enlarged, maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a larger scale. Nondiscrimination Statement The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Cover Caption Aerial view of Atlanta, Georgia, the county seat of Fulton County (Photo courtesy of Aerial Innovations of Georgia, Inc.). Additional information about the Nation’s natural resources is available online from the Natural Resources Conservation Service at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov. iii Contents How To Use This Soil Survey.......................................................................................i Foreword .................................................................................................................... vii General Nature of the Survey Area ............................................................................. 1 Settlement and Population....................................................................................... 1 Physiography, Relief, and Drainage......................................................................... 2 Transportation and Communication ......................................................................... 3 Water Resources ..................................................................................................... 3 Vegetation ................................................................................................................ 3 Industry .................................................................................................................... 4 Agriculture................................................................................................................ 4 Land use .................................................................................................................. 5 Climate ..................................................................................................................... 5 How This Survey Was Made ........................................................................................ 6 Detailed Soil Map Units ............................................................................................. 9 AaA—Altavista sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rarely flooded ........................ 10 AaB—Altavista sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes ................................................ 11 AaC—Altavista sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes ............................................. 12 AgB—Appling-Hard Labor complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes ................................... 12 AgC—Appling-Hard Labor complex, 6 to 10 percent slopes ................................. 14 ArE—Ashlar-Rion complex, 6 to 25 percent slopes, stony .................................... 15 BaA—Buncombe loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded ......... 17 CaA—Cartecay-Toccoa complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded .... 17 CeB2—Cecil sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, moderately eroded ................... 19 CeC2—Cecil sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded................. 20 CpA—Congaree sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded........... 21 CrA—Congaree-Cartecay complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded............................................................................................................. 22 DAM—Dam ............................................................................................................ 23 EnC—Enon-Wynott complex, 6 to 10 percent slopes, bouldery ........................... 23 GaC—Grover-Mountain Park complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes, stony .................. 25 GaE—Grover-Mountain Park complex, 10 to 20 percent slopes, stony ................ 26 GaF—Grover-Mountain Park complex, 20 to 60 percent slopes, stony ................ 28 HbB—Hiwassee sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes ............................................. 30 HbC—Hiwassee sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes ........................................... 30 LaD2—Lloyd-Gwinnett complex, 6 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded ...... 31 MdB2—Madison-Bethlehem complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes, moderately eroded ............................................................................................................. 32 MdC2—Madison-Bethlehem complex, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded ............................................................................................................. 34 PaB2—Pacolet sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, moderately eroded ............... 35 PaD2—Pacolet sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded ........... 36 PaE2—Pacolet sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, moderately eroded ........... 37 PgC2—Pacolet-Saw complex, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded, bouldery .......................................................................................................... 38 Pt—Pits, quarry...................................................................................................... 39 iv ReD—Rion sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes ................................................. 39 ReE—Rion sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes.................................................. 40 RoE—Rion-Louisburg complex, 10 to 20 percent slopes, bouldery ...................... 41 RoF—Rion-Louisburg complex, 20 to 35 percent slopes, bouldery ...................... 42 Ua—Udorthents, 0 to 10 percent slopes ............................................................... 44 Ub—Urban land ..................................................................................................... 44 UcC—Urban land-Altavista complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes................................ 44 UdC—Urban land-Appling-Hard Labor complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes.............. 45 UeE—Urban land-Ashlar-Rion complex, 10 to 25 percent slopes, stony .............. 47 UfC2—Urban land-Cecil complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded .... 48 UgC—Urban land-Grover-Mountain Park complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes, stony ................................................................................................................ 49 UgE—Urban land-Grover-Mountain Park complex, 10 to 25 percent slopes, stony ................................................................................................................ 50 UmC2—Urban land-Madison-Bethlehem complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded .......................................................................................... 52 UpC2—Urban land-Pacolet-Saw complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded, bouldery ............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Characterization of Soils A,\?) Saprolites from the Piedmont Region for M7aste Disposal Purposes
    CHARACTERIZATION OF SOILS A,\?) SAPROLITES FROM THE PIEDMONT REGION FOR M7ASTE DISPOSAL PURPOSES Aziz Amoozegar, Philip J. Schoeneberger , and Michael J. Vepraskas Soil Science Department Agricultural Research Service College of Agriculture and Life Sciences North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7619 The activities on which this report is based were financed in part by the United States Department of the Interior, U. S. Geological Survey, through the Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina. Contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the United States Department of the Interior, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute their endorsement by the United States Government. Also, the use of trade names does not imply endorsement by the North Carolina Agricultural Research Service of the products named nor criticism of similar ones not mentioned. Agreement No. 14-08-0001-G1580 UWProject Number 70091 USGS Project No. 02(FY88) ACKNOWLEDGMENT Special recognition should be given to Ms. Barbara Pitman, former Agricultural Research Technician, Soil Science Department, who devoted long hours conducting the laboratory solute flow experiments and assisted with other field and laboratory investigations in this project. Thanks to Mr. Stewart J. Starr, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, for providing land on Unit 1 Research Farm and for his patience with our research program. Appreciation is extended to Mr. Kevin Martin, president of Soil and Environmental Consultants, for his assistance in locating research sites, and to Mr. J. B. Hunt (Oak City Realty) and Mr. S. Dorsett (Dorsett and Associates) for allowing our research team to collect soil samples and conduct research on properties located in Franklin and Orange Counties, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Sheet Erosion Studies on Cecil Clay
    BULLETIN 245 NOVEMBER 1936 Sheet Erosion Studies on Cecil Clay By E. G. DISEKER and R. E. YODER AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION OF THE ALABAMA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE M. J. FUNCHESS, Director AUBURN, ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION STAFFt President Luther Noble Duncan, M.S., LL.D. M. J. Funches, M.S., Director of Extieriment Station W. I. Weidenbach, B.S., Executive Secretary P. 0. Davis. B.S., Agricultural Editor Mary E. Martin, Librarian Sara Willeford, B.S., Agricultural Librarian Agronomy and Soils: J. W. Tidmore, Ph.D.- Head, Agronomy and Soils Anna I. Sommer, Ph.D. Associate Sail Chenist G. D. Scarseth, Ph.D.__ Associtate Soil Chemtist N. J. Volk, Ph.D. Associate Soil Cheniust J. A. Naftel, Ph.D. _-Assistant Soil Chemist H. 13. Tisdale, M.S. __Associate Plant Bretler j. T. Willianson, .IlS. Associate Agroiomist H. R. Albrecht. 'h.D Assistant Agrinomist J. B. Dick, B.S. ------------- Associate Agronomist (Coop. U. S. B. A.) . U. Siurkie, l'h.D. Associate Agronomist E. L. Mayton, M.S. Assistant Agronomist J. W. Richardson, B1.S. (Brewton) _. Assistant in Agrotiomy -J. R. Taylor, M.S. .. Assistant in Agronony T. H. Ro"ers. 11.8. Gratuate Assistant Animal Husbandry, Dairying, and Poultry: J. C. (rims, M.S. Head, Animal Husbandry, Dairying, and Poultry W. D. salinon, 11. Animal Nutrititnist C. J. [Koehn, Jr., Ph.D. Xssociate Animal Nutritionist C. 0. Prickett, B.. \.__ _ -- _ Associate Animal Nutrititnist G. A. Schrader, Ih.). Associate Animal Nutrittorist W. C. Sherman. I'h . Associate Animal Nutritionist W. E. Sewell, M.S. Assistant Animal Husbailttin D.
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Agricultural Soil Maps in Making Soil Surveys
    108 USE OF AGRICULTURAL SOIL MAPS IN MAKING SOIL SURVEYS L. D HICKS, Chief Soils Engineer North Oil 'lina State Highway and Pubi Works Commission SYNOPSIS Soil surveys are made to obtain information relative to the type, extent of occurrence, and characteristics of the soils in a given area. The use of the pedological system of classification permits easy identification of the soils as to type, and knowledge of the characteristics of various soil types and previous experience with them can be utilized in planning and design. A large portion of many states has been surveyed by the Department of Agri• culture and maps are available showing the location of the various soil types. These maps may be used as guides in making soil surveys, and in many instances they contain all of the information desired. When agricultural soil maps are not available or when extreme accuracy is necessary, a soil survey must be made. The pedological system of classification can be used in making the survey by anyone with some knowledge of the system, assisted by a soil identification "key". This paper describes the use of agricultural soil maps by the North Carolina State Highway Department and a soil identification key used in making soil sur• veys IS included. The use of the key is described. The first soil surveys in the United suitability for various crops given. In• States were made m 1899 by the Depart• cluded in each report is a map of the ment of Agriculture for agricultural pur• area surveyed, usually a county, showing poses.
    [Show full text]
  • Chemical and Physical Properties of Certain Soils Developed from Granitic Materials in New England and the Piedmont, and of Their Colloids
    1.0 i;~ ""'2.8 11111 2.5 ~;.; 111[/3~ 2.2 it I~~~ :: ~i.i.10 1- .~,a:'P . I t ... :: 111111.8 II' - 111111.8 1I1I/!·25 IIIIP .4 11111 1.6 1111/1.25 111111.4 '"" 1.6 MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART MICROCOPY RlSOLUTION TEST CHART u.. ~ ~ ~\ 5ta.l,dr:s i!ii5~~~~~: ti §ii~!§~!!ii!ii••••u • •,~ ••••••_.......-IU'.................,. TECHNICAL BULLETIN No. 609 June 1938 CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF CERTAIN SOILS DEVELOPED FROM GRANITIC MATERIALS IN NEW ENGLAND AND THE PIEDMONT, AND OF THEIR COLLOIDS By IRVIN C. BROWN Associate CIWl1list nnd HORACE G. BYERS Principal Chemist Soil C/zc'lI;stry a"tl P/ly.des Rc.f'!Orcll Di.,;s;on Durellu oj C1H!tnistrY arId Sails UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, \VASHlNGTON, D. C. For Bale by the Superintenuent of Document', Wnahington, D. C. - - - - - - - • - - - - - • Price 10 cents Technical Bulletin No. 609 June 1938 UNITED STATES DEPARTNlliNT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON, D. C. CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF CER­ TAIN SOILS DEVELOPED FROM GRANITIC 11ATERIALS 1 IN NEW ENGLAND AND THE PIEDMONT, AND OF THEIR COLLOIDS 1 By IRVlN O. Bll.OWN, as.~ociatc cit(;{nist, und HOltACE G. BYERS,principal chemist, Soil Chemistry and Physics Uesearch Division, B!treau oj Chemistry and Soils CONTENTS Pnge l'll~o I Introduction._•..•. I Aualytical results-Continued. Descrlptiouofthosoii'<. .................. a UIDuco,tcr sandy hmlll ___ .. Brossu:L ::o:rie:;. ~ ~_ :)1 (·I.W~lUrlonUl~ __ ~._ -~ llermun sorh\~ . .j I Milnor loam...... G ~OUl'cster scrie:-,_ fi I ('(wi! sandy clay loum_ .. Chesler sorie' t1 ' AfJpli[)~ suudy l ...
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality in Cecil County
    Land Conservation, Restoration, and Management For Water Quality Benefits in Cecil County, Maryland Technical Report for the Cecil County Green Infrastructure Plan December 2007 Ted Weber The Conservation Fund 410 Severn Ave., Suite 204 Annapolis, Maryland 21403 410-990-0175 [email protected] ABSTRACT Streams in Cecil County, Maryland provide the majority of the county’s drinking water, drain into the nationally significant Chesapeake Bay, and support fish and other aquatic life. Yet many of the county’s streams are impaired. The Conservation Fund examined biological and chemical stream data collected statewide and countywide, and compared these to watershed and site conditions to search for possible relationships. These analyses were consistent with previous studies that indicated that forest cover and impervious surfaces had a significant impact on water quality. As indicated by the benthic macroinvertebrate community, nitrate levels, and phosphorus levels, water quality in Cecil County was generally highest in watersheds with <7% imperviousness and >50% forest and wetland cover. We used these thresholds to develop goals and models for land conservation and restoration for water quality benefits. To meet water quality goals, Cecil County should minimize conversion of forest to development, limit house lot size, complete upgrades of the county’s wastewater treatment plants, install denitrifying septic systems, construct tertiary treatment wetlands, restore riparian forest and wetlands in targeted watersheds, use low impact site design techniques, treat existing sources of stormwater and point source runoff, reduce nutrient and sediment runoff from agriculture, and implement other best management practices. KEYWORDS: Cecil County, Maryland, Green Infrastructure, water quality, conservation, reforestation, watersheds, TMDL, best management practices, MBSS INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Water quality in Cecil County Water quality is a major issue throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Scientists Are Tracking Down Rare and Endangered
    NEWS | FEATURES on November 7, 2014 www.sciencemag.org researchers would have talked up the idea. But in recent years, efforts to identify the world’s rare and endangered soils have been gaining momentum. Aided by increasingly powerful geographic information systems RARE EARTH and Earth-observing sensors, researchers have begun mapping “pedodiversity”—the Downloaded from distribution and extent of different soils. Soil scientists are tracking down rare and This past summer, for example, Chinese researchers released the first-ever pedo- endangered soils in a quest to document—and diversity survey of that huge nation, iden- Michael Tennesen tifying nearly 90 endangered soils—as well preserve — “pedodiversity” By as at least two dozen that have already gone extinct. Similar surveys suggest unique dirt is also in danger in the United States, Eu- n a verdant woodland on the Calhoun versity in Durham, North Carolina. “We are rope, and Russia, the victim of agriculture Experimental Forest in South Caro- looking at a natural soilscape that 150 years and development. lina, soil scientist Daniel Richter peers of cotton, corn, wheat, and tobacco farming Soil extinction carries potentially weighty into a gash in the ground. It’s a kind have all but destroyed.” implications, researchers say. Healthy, of earthen operating room, where re- The Calhoun isn’t the only place where diverse soils are not only key to food pro- searchers have sliced open the soil to the Cecil’s head has gone missing. The soil duction, but they also sustain a diversity of examine its subterranean profile. In covers some 40,000 square kilometers of the species and ecosystems—and can serve as I the layers of sand and clay, Richter sees southeastern United States and is a regional helpful guides to restoring ravaged soils- telltale signs of past ecological trauma.
    [Show full text]
  • Century of Soil Science
    Papers Commemorating a Century of Soil Science Soil Science Society of North Carolina 2003 Blank page Contents Soil Survey from Raleigh to Newbern, N. C. William G. Smith .......................................................................................................1 1979-1999: Two Decades of Progress in Western North Carolina Soil Surveys Michael Sherrill ........................................................................................................25 Formation of Soils in North Carolina S. W. Buol ...............................................................................................................31 History of Soil Survey in North Carolina S. W. Buol, R. J. McCracken, H. Byrd and H. Smith ...............................................57 Licensing of Soil Scientists in North Carolina H. J. Byrd and H. J. Kleiss .......................................................................................65 Hugh Hammond Bennett: the Father of Soil Conservation Maurice G. Cook .................................................................................................... 69 Micronutrient Research in North Carolina F. R. Cox ..................................................................................................................81 Soils and Forests in North Carolina C. B. Davey ..............................................................................................................95 Nutrients in North Carolina Soils and Waters Wendell Gilliam .......................................................................................................97
    [Show full text]
  • 52Nd Annual Meeting of the Soil Science Society of NC
    Sixty-Third Annual Meeting of the Tuesday Afternoon, January 21, 2020 Tuesday Afternoon, January 21, 2020 Soil Science Society of North Carolina Session 1: AGRONOMIC SCIENCE Session 2: CURRENT TRENDS, EMERGING Room TBD ISSUES, MODERN SOIL SCIENCE “To increase and disseminate knowledge of soils of the Room TBD state and their uses” 1:15 Extension Programming to Interpret a Rapidly Increasing Number of Soil Fertility Amendment 1:15 Soil Properties and Microbial Processes in Tuesday Morning, January 21, 2020 Products. Carl R. Crozier, Crop and Soil Stormwater Bioretention Facilities. Erin Rivers, Sciences, NCSU Crop and Soil Sciences, NCSU 7:30 Room TBD: Poster and Exhibit Setup 1:40 Forest Soil Classification for Intensive Pine 1:40 Examination of Potential Radionuclide Detection 8:00 Meeting Registration Opens in Lobby Plantation Management. Rachel Cook, in Private Wells Located in Wake County NC. Department of Forestry and Environmental Evan Kane, Wake County Environmental 8:00 Room TBD: Soil Texture Contest Resources, NCSU Services Conducted by Nick Howell 2:05 Current Status of Soil Fertility and Field Corn 2:05 Examination of Potential Radionuclide Detection 8:00 - 9:00 Room TBD Yields of North Carolina High Yielding Growers. in Private Wells Located in Wake County NC. Consulting Soil Scientists of the Carolinas Janel Ohletz, Crop and Soil Sciences, NCSU Evan Kane, Wake County Environmental Annual Meeting Services CSSC President, Presiding 2:30 Soil Health Metrics in Cecil Soils Under Tillage and Hay Systems. 2:30 Soil Science and the Burial of Animal Mass OPENING SESSION Caitlin Caudle, Crop and Soil Sciences, NCSU Mortality. Allen Hayes, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, NCDA&CS 8:30 - 9:40 Room TBD: Exhibits, Vendors and 3:00 BREAK AND POSTER REVIEW Posters 3:00 BREAK AND POSTER REVIEW 3:15 Transitions to Sustainable Management of DIVISIONAL MEETINGS Phosphorus in Brazilian Agriculture.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Download
    Sept. -0ct. 19a GEOLOG l C NOTES CONTENTS A F~~EcIMIN~~YREPORT ON THE GABBROS OF NEIBERRY COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. BY J. F. MCCAULEY.. 41-43 : PSEUDOMORPHS OF KYAN lTE NEAR W I NNSBORO, FA IRF l ELD COUNTY, Y i SOUTH CAROL I NAI/ 1 1 ! t TWO MINOR BUT GEOLOGICALLY INTERESTING AND PREVIOUSLY f ! i UNDESCRIBED OCCURRENCES OF PSEUDOMDRPHS OF KYANITE IN SOUTH- i i ERN FAIRFIELDCOUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA, WERE OBSERVED BY THE WRITERS IN SEPTEMBER 1959. BOTH OCCURRENCES ARE SPATIALLY r ASSOCIATED WITH THE GRANITE PLUTON SOUTHWEST OF ~INNSBORO, i j BUT THE ORIGINAL KYANITE IS EVIDENTLY OLDER THAN THE GRANITE. 1 I i THE GRANITE PLUTON SOUTHWEST OF WINNSBORO HAS BEEN i 1 OPENED AT SEVERAL QUARRIES. THE CHARACTER OF THE QUARRIED i f ROCK IS MENTIONED IN THE LITERATURE (TUOMEY, 1848, P. 110- I : 111; DERBY 1891, P. 205-206; SLOAN 1908, P. 209-213; AND i 1 i U'ATSON, 1910, P. 185-189), BUT THE OUTLINE OF THE PLUTON IS I i NOT SHOWN ON OLD GEOLOGIC MAPS. HOWEVER, THE CHARACTERISTIC i J t SOIL DEVELOPED ON THE GRANITE, THE CECIL CO4RSE SANDY LOAM, b IS READILY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE GEORGEVILLE s ILT LOAM, $ , IREDELL CLAY LOAM, AND CECIL CLAY LOAM FORMED ON THE SCHIST- j OSE WALL ROCKS. THE SHAPE OF THE GRANITE MASS IN SOUTHERN 1 / FAIRFIELDCOUNTY IS PLAINLY INDICATED BY A DISTINCTIVE CIR- I I CULAR AREA OF CECIL COARSE SANDY LOAM SOUTHWEST OF #INNS- i ? h 1 BORO ON A MAP OF THE SOILS OF THE COUNTY BY M.
    [Show full text]
  • Runoff and Erosion Control Studies on Cecil Soil in the Southern Piedmont
    111111.1 1.1 I 1111,1.25 ""11.4 111111.6 111111.25 ""'1.4 111111.6 MICROGOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-1963-A NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-19b3-A {, F '.".~ _ f LO~1tIQ "::.IRUNOFF AND EROS:f8#oAN CONTROL STUDIES on Cecil Soil in the Southern Piedmont Technical Bulletin No. 1281 Agricultural Research Service UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE In Cooperation With The Georgia Agricultural Experiment Stations CONTENTS 1'... Introduction____________________________________________ 1 The problem area_ _ __________________________ ___________ 1 The Southern Piedmont Station________________________ ___ 3 Rainfall_____________________'___ __ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ 5 Temperatures________________ ._____ _ _ __ _ _ _____ __ __ ___ 7 Soil moisture_____ _ _ __ __ ____ __ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _____ ___ _ 7 Plots, equipment, and procedure_ _ __ __ ___ ___ ___ ___________ 8 Results and discussion _______________________.___ __ _______ 14 Continuous cotton_____ ___ _ _ __ __ __ _____ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ 14 Annual runoff and soil erosion___ _________________ 14 Seasonal runoff and soil erosion____________ _______ 16 Losses produced by excessive-rate storms___________ 16 Differences in losses according to land slope_________ 17 Rotations_ ____ __ ___ _____ __ ___ ___ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ____ ____ 20 Row crops with cover crops_______________________ 20 Row crop with small grain and leguDies____________ 20 Small grain-Iespedeza-row crop _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 21 Continuous crop cover on ll-percent-slope Iand_____ 25 Effect of slope length on losses under various cropping practices_ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _____ ___ __ ___ __ _ _ __ __ ____ _ _ __ _ 26 Rate of runoff from severe storms on rotation plots______ 28 Effect of past erosion on yields of crops in a rotation_____ 30 Tillage methods_,____ _______ _____ ____ ___________ _____ 30 Summary______________________________________________ 32 Literature cited ___ ___ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ __ _ _ _ __ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ 33 Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Cecil North Carolina State Soil
    CECIL North Carolina State Soil SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA Introduction Many states have a designated state bird, flower, fish, tree, rock, and more. And, many states also have a state soil – one that has significance or is important to the state. The “Cecil” is the official state soil of North Carolina. Let’s explore how the Cecil is impor- tant to North Carolina. History The Cecil was first identified and mapped in Cecil County, Maryland in 1899, and derives its name from that location. Today more than 4 million hectares (10 million acres) or 40,000 km² of Cecil soil are mapped in the Piedmont region of the southeastern United States from Vir- ginia through North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Alabama (Figure 1). The typical location of Cecil Soil is in Franklin County, NC. The Cecil Soil was first selected as the possible State Soil by the Soil Science Society of North Carolina in 1996. A proposal was sent to the NC legislature and the Cecil was officially designated as the State Soil in 1997. Unofficially, the Cecil is one of several related soils that are common to the southeast Piedmont often referred to as “Georgia Red Clay”. The Cecil may also have been partially responsible for the name of the popular bluegrass group The Red Clay Ramblers! What is Cecil Soil? Cecil soils are one of the most extensive and important soils in North Carolina. They occur on over 1.6 million acres or 5% of the State. They are also extensive on the Piedmont in the Southeastern United States occupying nearly one-third of it (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Presettlement Fire Regimes in Southeastern Marshes, Peatlands, and Swamps
    Presettlement Fire Regimes in Southeastern Marshes, Peatlands, and Swamps Cecil C. Frost Plant Conservation Program, N.C. Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611 ABSTRACT Presettlement fire regimes in wetland vegetation can be deduced or reconstructed by synthesizing knowledge of fire behavior on adjaCent uplands with information about soils, salinity, landscape factors, remnant vegetation, and historical records. Presettlement fire-return intervals in different parts of the southeastern wetland landscape ranged from nearly annual, up to 300 years, and vegetation was distributed accordingly along this fire frequency gradient. Prediction of vegetation stature and species composition in relation to fire can be made with some confidence in marshes, in the wettest swamps, and on uplands. In large peatlands, however, stochastic factors created a shifting mosaic before European settlement, in which anyone of several competing communities could exist for a time on the same soil series, depending upon environmental conditions at time of burn. Before modern fire suppression, peatland vegetation was controlled primarily by master gradients of fire frequency and organic matter depth. There was a third; minor fertility gradient. Distribution of peatland vegetation types along these gradients is complex but is summarized here using a table of 32 cells defined by 8 fire frequency classes and 4 organic soil depths. While many marshes and swamps in the southeast differ little from their presettlement species composition, few peatlands, even those considered natural areas, have escaped major alteration in species dominants. A large percentage of modern pocosins can be shown to be successional from canebrake and other frequent-fire types in the absence of fire.
    [Show full text]