The Soils of The Regional Municipality of Ottawa=Carleton

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Meadow Winter Wheat Grain Corn -P- Canola -P. Corn Silage Soybeans O H C? Q W 0 z Q SLOPE FACTOR (LS) 3.02.0 1 .0 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.25 SOIL ERODIBILITY 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0 .1 (K) Figure 37 . Nomograph for the prediction of cropland erosion potential in the Ottawa-Carleton Region . 0.0 O --~ m ôz MODERATELY SEVERE ?ô O N
C . LAND SUITABILITY CLASSIFICATION FORCOMMON FORESTTREE SPECIES by R.K . Keane, Senior Program Technician, Fast Growing Forests, Technology Development Group, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Brockville, Ontario (1) Introduction The purpose of this section of the soil survey report is to provide a general assessment of the suitability of mapped land areas forcommonly planted forest tree species. It is intended to beused only as a guide for broad scale planning purposes, with some potential users being resource managers, urban and regional land use planners and specialists, and private landowners . For individual site suitability an on-site verification of conditions must be carried out to insure the proper identification of soil types and thus the most suitable species . The for estry staff at your local Ontario Ministry ofNatural Resources field office will assist this on-site inspection, and will outline the proper management techniques for successful plantation establishmentand future tending . (2) Methods Suitability assessments of land areas portrayed on the soil maps were made for eight commonly planted forest tree species . These were based on the consideration of soil characteris tics which affect tree growth and survival . Soil characteristics evaluated were : texture, internal drainage, pH, depth to free carbonates, and available rooting volume . Experienced forestry personnel used their knowledge of species soil requirements and responses to particular soil conditions to assess the soil characteristics pertaining to each land area and arrive at potential limiting factors for the growth and survival of each tree species . Based on the combined effect ofthese limiting factors, an appropriate suitability rating for each tree species was determined . These are given in Table 19 . Assessments weremade ona general basis for each type of land area defined in the map legends and in the report . These types of land areas are portrayed on the soil maps as a compo nent or components of the mapunit symbol in each map delineation . Types of land areas assessed included : (1) those represented by a soil landscape unit ; (2) those represented by a soil landscape unit and applicable soil phase or phases ; (3) those represented by a landtype unit ; and (4) those represented by a miscellaneous land unit . (3) Explanation of Suitability Ratings Four suitability classes were established to describespecies suitability for each type ofland areamapped . These classes are general indicators of suitability since a numberof different lim iting factors for tree growth and survival may be present in a land area, and these must be evaluated collectively to arrive at an appropriate suitability class . The classes are : Good(G)- optimum potential for growth and survival Fair(F)- acceptable potential for growth and survival Poor(P) - limited potential for growth and survival Unsuitable(U)- severe limitations for growth and survival One or a combination of these classes have been used to determinethe suitability ratings given in Table 19 . A single rating consisting of one suitability class is given when either the land area has only one main drainage condition, or when two drainage conditions are present which affect species performance inasimilarmanner. Thus the suitability rating for an individual species may be good, fair, poor, or unsuitable . A compound rating consisting of two suitability classes is given 105 when the land area, usually represented by a soil landscape unit, has two drainage conditions for which different suitability classes apply. An example is arating of FP (Fair to Poor) for White Pine on soil landscape unit C3, which is dominantly imperfectly drained with a significant area also being poorly drained . In this instance, the land area is dominantly Fair (F) forWhite Pine with a significant portion also being Poor (P) . Suitability classes which compose the ratings are based on identified soil conditions within land areas as defined in the map legend and report . These, in turn, were evaluated for their limiting effects on tree growth and survival . Various soil management techniques could, however, overcome some ofthe limiting effects of soil conditions identified for some land areas . These were not considered when the appropriate classes and ratings were determined . Thus, an area rated as Poor (P) due to poor drainage could be improved byat least one class ifa drainage system were installed, and the appropriate rating would be Fair (F) rather than Poor (P) . In Table 19 suitability ratings applicable to each type of land area mapped are given for the eight most commonly planted forest tree species in eastern Ontario. These are : Pu-Eastern White Pine ; Pinus strobus Pr-Red Pine; Pinus resinosa Sn-Norway Spruce ; Picea abies Sw - White Spruce; Piceaglauca Ce-Eastern White Cedar ; Thujaoccidentalis Ta-Tamarack ; Larix laricina Le-European Larch ; Larix decidua HPo-Hybrid Poplar ; Populus ssp. For information on the suitability and management of other forest tree species, contact your localOntario Ministry of Natural Resources field office. (4) Limitations to the Rating System Other landscape features, in addition to the soil features associated with the type of land area, may be present in map delineations which can affect tree growth and survival as well as operations associated with plantation establishment and tending . These features are shown along with the type of land area in the map unit symbol and include : surface stoniness (shown as a stoniness class), surface slope (shown as a slope class), and the presence of rock outcrops (shown as a rockiness class) . Surface stoniness and slope, when severe, may pose an operational limitation for plantation establishment and tending . Rock outcrops, which may occur in some areas regardless of soil type, are unsuitable for all forest tree species . The suitability ratings which are given in Table 19 have been determined without taking these local, landscape-specific features into consideration . The presence of such features, however, will influence suitability and they must be considered . In most instances, lower suitability ratings than those given in Table 19 for each type of land area mapped will apply. To illustrate this, consider the following example : If an area of land has been mapped as G1, the rating for White Pine (Pw) is given as G (Good) . However, if the area was also found to be excessively stony in that particular map delineation (indicated by a stoniness class of S5 in the map symbol), this would pose an additional limitation for plantation establishment and tending . Thus, a more appropriate rating for the area in that map delineation would in fact be P (Poor) . Within map delineations, other soils or land types maybe present which are not indicated in the map unit symbol . This is a limitation of the map scale (1 :50,000), which required large areas of land to be delineated . An on-site verification of the types ofland areas mapped is, therefore, important in order to identify potential variations and thus operational limitations .
Page 1 and 2:
i The Soils of The III Regional Mun
Page 3 and 4:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . .
Page 5 and 6:
1 . Soil map index for the Regional
Page 7 and 8:
0 t W. CARLETO 10 L 20 km KANATA GO
Page 9 and 10:
Otta!~? Figure 3. Main towns, trans
Page 11 and 12:
Arnprior Chats Falls Almonte " Carp
Page 13 and 14:
may also contain shaly layers . Out
Page 15 and 16:
Till plains (undrumlinized) _ Esker
Page 17 and 18:
Surficial Geology and Relationship
Page 19 and 20:
HUN nnnnoioion miammoo nonmmnon nou
Page 21 and 22:
GEOLOGICAL MATERIALS SOIL ASSOCIATI
Page 23 and 24:
GEOLOGICAL MATERIALS SOIL ASSOCIATI
Page 25 and 26:
In this survey, boundaries were per
Page 27 and 28:
BASIC LAND AREAS SOIL ASSOCIATION -
Page 29 and 30:
their agricultural use . The domina
Page 31 and 32:
OTTAWA- CARLETON SOILS t TYPE DEPTH
Page 33 and 34:
B3 : Dominantlyvery Rego Gleysols p
Page 35 and 36:
cant component, approximately 600 h
Page 37 and 38:
In some soils, significant layers o
Page 39 and 40:
Taxonomic Components The well-drain
Page 41 and 42:
Taxonomic Components Four component
Page 43 and 44:
Correlation to Ottawa Urban Fringe
Page 45 and 46:
The well-drained Orthic Melanic Bru
Page 47 and 48:
ial which extends in a northwest-so
Page 51 and 52:
all Leitrim soils classified as suc
Page 53 and 54: The imperfectly drained St . Damase
Page 55 and 56: Recognized Recognized Subgroups Ser
Page 57 and 58: Soil Materials North Gower soils co
Page 59 and 60: Figure 17 . A poorly drained Orthic
Page 61 and 62: Figure 25 . Manotick association so
Page 63 and 64: Soil Landscape Units Four units wer
Page 67 and 68: sloping areas, groundwater flow, an
Page 69 and 70: from clay to silty clay loam . In s
Page 73 and 74: scapes occurring inclose proximity
Page 75 and 76: Within Rockland units, significant
Page 77 and 78: A . AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY CLASSIF
Page 79 and 80: Table 7 . (cont'd) R' : T' : V' : W
Page 81 and 82: adequate moisture or a wetness limi
Page 83 and 84: In order to apply the tables, one m
Page 85 and 86: (e) The Capability Rating Tables Ta
Page 87 and 88: 00 Table 9. (continued) Slope Class
Page 89 and 90: Table 9 . (continued) AGRICULTURAL
Page 91 and 92: Table 9 . (continued) AGRICULTURAL
Page 93 and 94: Soil Landscape Unit Table 10 . Agri
Page 95 and 96: The water erosion formula, A= RKLSC
Page 97 and 98: soil Association Table 13 . K-value
Page 99 and 100: graphic regions . Therefore, the C
Page 101 and 102: Table 17 . continued Crop Rotation
Page 103: SOIL SOIL MATERIAL DESCRIPTION MAIN
Page 107 and 108: Table 19 . Land suitability ratings
Page 109 and 110: Table 19 . continued Soil associati
Page 111 and 112: 1 . Marshall, I.B., J. Dumanski, E.
Page 113 and 114: Class Description Sl Slightly stony
Page 115 and 116: Soil Association GRENVILLE Series a
Page 117 and 118: Soil Association Series and (Subgro
show all

The Soils of The Regional Municipality of Ottawa=Carleton

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?