Aggregate lab data for the WHARTON soil series. This aggregation is based on all pedons with a current taxon name of WHARTON, 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 WHARTON 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 WHARTON 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 WHARTON 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 WHARTON 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 WHARTON 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 WHARTON 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 WHARTON 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 WHARTON 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).
Soil series sharing subgroup-level classification with WHARTON, 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 relationship of soils to parent material in the Allegheny River Valley (Soil Survey of Seneca Nation of Indians, New York; August 1984).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Shelocta-Brownsville-Germano general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Vinton County, Ohio; 2004).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Omulga-Philo general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Vinton County, Ohio; 2004).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Latham-Wharton-Shelocta association (Soil Survey of Scioto County, Ohio; January 1989).
The pattern of soils and underlying material in the Gilpin--Wharton-Upshur soil association (Soil Survey of Allegheny County, PA; 1981).
Pattern of soils and parent material in Gilpin-Wharton-Weikert association (Soil Survey of Beaver and Lawrence Counties, PA; 1982).
Pattern of soils and parent material in Gilpin-Upshur-Weikert association (Soil Survey of Beaver and Lawrence Counties, PA; 1982).
Pattern of soils and parent material in Gilpin-Weikert association (Soil Survey of Beaver and Lawrence Counties, PA; 1982).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying material in the Hublersburg-Murrill-Opequon association (Soil Survey of Blair County, PA; 1981).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Cookport-Hazleton-Laidig association (Soil Survey of Cambria County, PA; 1985).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Gilpin-Ernest-Wharton association (Soil Survey of Cambria County, PA; 1985).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Brinkerton-Wharton-Cavode association (Soil Survey of Cambria County, PA; 1985).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying material in association 2 (Soil Survey of Centre County, PA; 1981).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying material in association 3 (Soil Survey of Centre County, PA; 1981).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying material in the Rayne-Gilpin-Ernest association (Soil Survey of Clearfield County, PA; 1988).
Parent material, position, and pattern of soils in the Gilpin-Wharton-Ernest soil association (Soil Survey of Fayette County, PA; 1973).
Parent material, position, and pattern of soils in the Monongahela-Philo-Atkins soil association (Soil Survey of Fayette County, PA; 1973).
Parent material, position, and pattern of soils in the Gilpin-Wharton-Cavode association (Soil Survey of Indiana County, PA; 1968).
Parent material, position, and pattern of soils in the Gilpin-Wharton-Upshur association (Soil Survey of Indiana County, PA; 1968).
Parent material, position, and pattern of soils in the Monongahela-Allegheny-Pope-Philo association (Soil Survey of Indiana County, PA; 1968).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying material in area of Rayne-Gilpin-Wharton-Cavode soils (Soil Survey of Somerset County, PA; 1983).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying material in area of Ernest-Rayne-Gilpin soils (Soil Survey of Somerset County, PA; 1983).
Pattern of soils and underlying material in Cavode-Wharton association (Soil Survey of Venango County, PA; 1975).
Typical landscape and underlying material of the Hazleton-Cookport-Cavode map unit (Soil Survey of Warren and Forest Counties, PA; 1985).
Diagram of a sequence of residual, colluvial, and alluvial soils. The soils named on the land surface are shown in their natural relationship to each other and in their relationship to landform position (Soil Survey of Buchanan County, Virginia).
Diagram of a sequence of residual, colluvial, and alluvial soils. The soils named on the land surface are shown in their natural relationship to each other and in their relationship to landform position (Soil Survey of Buchanan County, Virginia; 2009).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Berks-Shelocta general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Boone County, WV; 1994).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Kaymine-Cedarcreek-Dekalb general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Boone County, WV; 1994).
Map units containing WHARTON as a major component. Limited to 250 records.
Approximate geographic distribution of the WHARTON 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).