Official Series Description


Lab Data Summary

Aggregate lab data for the BURNT FORK soil series. This aggregation is based on all pedons with a current taxon name of BURNT FORK, and applied along 1-cm thick depth slices. Solid lines are the slice-wise median, bounded on either side by the interval defined by the slice-wise 5th and 95th percentiles. The median is the value that splits the data in half. Five percent of the data are less than the 5th percentile, and five percent of the data are greater than the 95th percentile. Values along the right hand side y-axis describe the proportion of pedon data that contribute to aggregate values at this depth. For example, a value of "90%" at 25cm means that 90% of the pedons correlated to BURNT FORK were used in the calculation. Source: KSSL snapshot . Methods used to assemble the KSSL snapshot used by SoilWeb / SDE

Click the image to view it full size.

Pedons used in the lab summary:

MLRALab IDPedon IDTaxonnameCINSSL / NASIS ReportsLink To SoilWeb GMap
4407N079307MT081010Burnt Fork7Primary | Supplementary | Taxonomy | Pedon | Water Retention | Correlation | Andic Soil Properties46.2544444,-114.1058333

Water Balance

Monthly water balance estimated using a leaky-bucket style model for the BURNT FORK soil series. Monthly precipitation (PPT) and potential evapotranspiration (PET) have been estimated from the 50th percentile of gridded values (PRISM 1981-2010) overlapping with the extent of SSURGO map units containing each series as a major component. Monthly PET values were estimated using the method of Thornthwaite (1948). These (and other) climatic parameters are calculated with each SSURGO refresh and provided by the fetchOSD function of the soilDB package. Representative water storage values (“AWC” in the figures) were derived from SSURGO by taking the 50th percentile of profile-total water storage (sum[awc_r * horizon thickness]) for each soil series. Note that this representation of “water storage” is based on the average ability of most plants to extract soil water between 15 bar (“permanent wilting point”) and 1/3 bar (“field capacity”) matric potential. Soil moisture state can be roughly interpreted as “dry” when storage is depleted, “moist” when storage is between 0mm and AWC, and “wet” when there is a surplus. Clearly there are a lot of assumptions baked into this kind of monthly water balance. This is still a work in progress.

Click the image to view it full size.



Click the image to view it full size.

Sibling Summary

Siblings are those soil series that occur together in map units, in this case with the BURNT FORK series. Sketches are arranged according to their subgroup-level taxonomic structure. Source: SSURGO snapshot , parsed OSD records and snapshot of SC database .

Click the image to view it full size.

Select annual climate data summaries for the BURNT FORK series and siblings. Series are sorted according to hierarchical clustering of median values. Source: SSURGO map unit geometry and 1981-2010, 800m PRISM data .

Click the image to view it full size.

Geomorphic description summaries for the BURNT FORK series and siblings. Series are sorted according to hierarchical clustering of proportions and relative hydrologic position within an idealized landform (e.g. top to bottom). Most soil series (SSURGO components) are associated with a hillslope position and one or more landform-specific positions: hills, mountain slopes, terraces, and/or flats. Proportions can be interpreted as an aggregate representation of geomorphic membership. The values printed to the left (number of component records) and right (Shannon entropy) of stacked bars can be used to judge the reliability of trends. Small Shannon entropy values suggest relatively consistent geomorphic association, while larger values suggest lack thereof. Source: SSURGO component records .

Click the image to view it full size.

Click the image to view it full size.

Click the image to view it full size.

Click the image to view it full size.

There are insufficient data to create the 3D flats position figure.

Competing Series

Soil series competing with BURNT FORK share the same family level classification in Soil Taxonomy. Source: parsed OSD records and snapshot of the SC database .

Click the image to view it full size.

Select annual climate data summaries for the BURNT FORK series and competing. Series are sorted according to hierarchical clustering of median values. Source: SSURGO map unit geometry and 1981-2010, 800m PRISM data .

Click the image to view it full size.

Geomorphic description summaries for the BURNT FORK series and competing. Series are sorted according to hierarchical clustering of proportions and relative hydrologic position within an idealized landform (e.g. top to bottom). Proportions can be interpreted as an aggregate representation of geomorphic membership. Most soil series (SSURGO components) are associated with a hillslope position and one or more landform-specific positions: hills, mountain slopes, terraces, and/or flats. The values printed to the left (number of component records) and right (Shannon entropy) of stacked bars can be used to judge the reliability of trends. Shannon entropy values close to 0 represent soil series with relatively consistent geomorphic association, while values close to 1 suggest lack thereof. Source: SSURGO component records .

Click the image to view it full size.

Click the image to view it full size.

There are insufficient data to create the 3D mountains figure.

Click the image to view it full size.

There are insufficient data to create the 3D flats position figure.

Soil series sharing subgroup-level classification with BURNT FORK, arranged according to family differentiae. Hovering over a series name will print full classification and a small sketch from the OSD. Source: snapshot of SC database .

Block Diagrams

No block diagrams are available.

Map Units

Map units containing BURNT FORK as a major component. Limited to 250 records.

Map Unit Name Symbol Map Unit Area (ac) Map Unit Key National Map Unit Symbol Soil Survey Area Publication Date Map Scale
Burnt Fork-Subwell complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes201D4724226312m9ydmt63819851:24000
Subwell-Burnt Fork complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes100D1924226022m9xgmt63819851:24000
Subwell-Burnt Fork complex, 4 to 8 percent slopes100C1724226012m9xfmt63819851:24000
Burnt Fork loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes100B1224226002m9xdmt63819851:24000
Burnt Fork loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes100B3302633466p85dmt64520131:12000
Burnt Fork-Wimper-Fairway complex, 1 to 35 percent slopes201E310213895661hmyqmt64520131:12000
Wimper-Burnt Fork complex, 4 to 8 percent slopes100C187015851659yfmt64520131:12000
Burnt Fork cobbly loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes201C130415856159zwmt64520131:12000
Burnt Fork-Ravalli complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes109D1272804801w0gbmt64520131:12000
Riverside-Burnt Fork-Gash complex, 0 to 35 percent slopes50E1215633412p83nmt64520131:12000
Burnt Fork-Woodchuck complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes206D10161586375b2bmt64520131:12000
Burnt Fork-Woodchuck cobbly loams, 4 to 8 percent slopes206C7561586385b2cmt64520131:12000
Burnt Fork-Woodchuck cobbly loams, 1 to 4 percent slopes206B720633633p8bsmt64520131:12000
Burnt Fork-Woodchuck loams, 1 to 4 percent slopes207B604633634p8btmt64520131:12000
Burnt Fork-Wimper complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes201D6011586455b2lmt64520131:12000
Wimper-Burnt Fork complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes100D52515851559ydmt64520131:12000
Burnt Fork-Riverside-Fairway complex, 1 to 15 percent slopes51D465633413p83pmt64520131:12000
Burnt Fork-Bitterroot complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes52D269633414p83qmt64520131:12000
Burnt Fork-Woodchuck loams, 4 to 8 percent slopes207C2081586355b28mt64520131:12000

Map of Series Extent

Approximate geographic distribution of the BURNT FORK soil series. To learn more about how this distribution was mapped, or to compare this soil series extent to others, use the Series Extent Explorer (SEE) application. Source: generalization of SSURGO geometry .