Aggregate lab data for the LINDSIDE soil series. This aggregation is based on all pedons with a current taxon name of LINDSIDE, 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 LINDSIDE were used in the calculation. Source: KSSL snapshot (updated 2020-03-18). Methods used to assemble the KSSL snapshot used by SoilWeb / SDE
Pedons used in the lab summary:
Monthly water balance estimated using a leaky-bucket style model for the LINDSIDE 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.
Siblings are those soil series that occur together in map units, in this case with the LINDSIDE series. Sketches are arranged according to their subgroup-level taxonomic structure. Source: SSURGO snapshot (updated 2024-10-24), parsed OSD records (updated 2025-02-20) and snapshot of SC database (updated 2025-02-20).
Select annual climate data summaries for the LINDSIDE series and siblings. Series are sorted according to hierarchical clustering of median values. Source: SSURGO map unit geometry and 1981-2010, 800m PRISM data (updated 2024-10-23).
Geomorphic description summaries for the LINDSIDE 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 (updated 2024-10-23).
Soil series competing with LINDSIDE share the same family level classification in Soil Taxonomy. Source: parsed OSD records (updated 2025-02-20) and snapshot of the SC database (updated 2025-02-20).
Select annual climate data summaries for the LINDSIDE series and competing. Series are sorted according to hierarchical clustering of median values. Source: SSURGO map unit geometry and 1981-2010, 800m PRISM data (updated 2024-10-23).
Geomorphic description summaries for the LINDSIDE 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 (updated 2024-10-23).
There are insufficient data to create the 3D mountains figure.
Soil series sharing subgroup-level classification with LINDSIDE, 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 (updated 2025-02-20).
Click a link below to display the diagram. Note that these diagrams may be from multiple survey areas.
Typical cross section of Franklin County showing some of the soils in relation to topographic position and main geological formations (Soil Survey of Franklin County, Alabama; March 1965).
Diagram of the Westmoreland-Caneyville-Baxter association in Adair County (Soil Survey of Adair County, Kentucky; April 1964).
Diagram of the Staser-Taft-Landisburg association on flood plains, terraces, and foot slopes (Soil Survey of Adair County (Soil Survey of Adair County, Kentucky; April 1964).
Geological cross section of Adair County showing the relationship of the soils to the underlying rocks (Soil Survey of Adair County (Soil Survey of Adair County, Kentucky; April 1964).
Typical landscape showing the relative position of the principal soils in a limestone valley in association 9 (Soil Survey of Bath County, Kentucky; September 1963).
Typical relationship of soils to topography and the underlying material in the Crider-Fredonia general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Breckinridge and Meade Counties, Kentucky; 2001).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying materials in association 1 (Soil Survey of Caldwell County, Kentucky; September 1966).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying materials in association 2 (Soil Survey of Caldwell County, Kentucky; September 1966).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying materials in association 4 (Soil Survey of Caldwell County, Kentucky; September 1966).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying materials in association 5 (Soil Survey of Caldwell County, Kentucky; September 1966).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying materials in association 6 (Soil Survey of Caldwell County, Kentucky; September 1966).
Major soil series in soil association 1, their relationship to the landscape, and the parent rocks from which the soils formed (Soil Survey of Clark County, Kentucky; 1964).
Major soil series in soil association 4, their relationship to the landscape, and the parent rocks from which the soils formed (Soil Survey of Clark County, Kentucky; 1964).
Major soil series in soil association 5, their relationship to the landscape, and the parent rocks from which the soils formed (Soil Survey of Clark County, Kentucky; 1964).
Major soil series in soil association 8, their relationship to the landscape, and the parent rocks from which the soils formed (Soil Survey of Clark County, Kentucky; 1964).
Major soil series in soil association 9, their relationship to the landscape, and the parent rocks from which the soils formed (Soil Survey of Clark County, Kentucky; 1964).
Relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the Baxter-Hammack-Nicholson map unit (Soil Survey of Crittenden County, Kentucky; September 1988).
Relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the Huntington-Robinsonville-Nolin map unit (Soil Survey of Crittenden County, Kentucky; September 1988).
Major and minor soils in association 1, their relationship to the landscape, and the parent material from which the soils formed (Soil Survey of Harrison County, Kentucky; April 1968).
Major soils in association 2, their relationship to the landscape, and the parent material from which the soils formed (Soil Survey of Harrison County, Kentucky; April 1968).
Relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the Huntington-Otwell-Lindside-Wheeling general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Livingston County, Kentucky; September 1993).
Relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the Zanesville-Loring-Frondorf general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Livingston County, Kentucky; September 1993).
Relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the Loring-Memphis-Nicholson general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Livingston County, Kentucky; September 1993).
Relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the Baxter-Hammack-Loring general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Livingston County, Kentucky; September 1993).
Relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the Fredonia-Pembroke-Caneyville map unit (Soil Survey of Todd County, Kentucky; September 1987).
Relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the Pembroke-Nicholson-Crider map unit (Soil Survey of Todd County, Kentucky; September 1987).
Relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the Pembroke-Vertrees map unit (Soil Survey of Todd County, Kentucky; September 1987).
Relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the Hagerstown-Opequon general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Washington County, Maryland; 2003).
Relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the Murrill-Dryrun general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Washington County, Maryland; 2003).
Relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the Hagerstown-Opequon general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Washington County, Maryland; 2003).
Relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the Murrill-Dryrun general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Washington County, Maryland; 2003).
Relationships of soils in associations 2 and 7 to topography and underlying materials (Soil Survey of Monroe County, Ohio; March 1974).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying material in the Hagerstown-Duffield association (Soil Survey of Cumberland and Perry Counties, PA; 1986).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying material in the Bedington unit (Soil Survey of Lancaster County, PA; 1985).
Pattern of soils in the Hagerstown-Duffield-Clarksburg general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Lebanon County, PA; 1981).
The relatiohship between soils and landscape in the Armour-Holston-Lindside general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Clay County, Tennessee; 2004)
Diagram showing distribution and pattern of soils in area 3 (Soil Survey of Loudon County, TN; 1961).
Sketch showing relative positions of soils in the Etowah-Huntington (local allvuium phosphatic phase)-Emory and Huntington-Lindside-Armour (terrace phases)-Egam assciations (Soil Survey of Maury County, TN; 1959).
Major and minor soils and underlying parent material in the Dickson-Mountview association (Soil Survey of Warren County, TN; 1967).
Major and minor soils and underlying parent materials in the Mountview-Baxter-Bodine association (Soil Survey of Williamson County, TN; 1964).
Major and minor soils and underlying parent materials in the Sulphura-Dellrose-Bodine association (Soil Survey of Williamson County, TN; 1964).
Major and minor soils and underlying parent materials in the Rockland-Talbott-Egam association (Soil Survey of Williamson County, TN; 1964).
Typical relationship of soils, landscapes, and underlying parent materials in Chagrin-Wheeling-Urban land general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Pleasants and Tyler Counties, WV; 1989).
Typical relationship of soils, landscapes, and underlying parent materials in Otwell-Gallia-Hackers general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Pleasants and Tyler Counties, WV; 1989).
Map units containing LINDSIDE as a major component. Limited to 250 records.
Approximate geographic distribution of the LINDSIDE 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 (updated 2024-10-30).