Aggregate lab data for the ELK soil series. This aggregation is based on all pedons with a current taxon name of ELK, 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 ELK were used in the calculation. Source: KSSL snapshot (updated 2020-03-13). 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 ELK 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 ELK 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 ELK 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 ELK 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 ELK 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 ELK 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 ELK 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 ELK, 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 pattern of soils and underlying material in the Newark-Nolin-Yosemite general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Garrard and Lincoln Counties, Kentucky; 2006).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Skidmore-Shelocta-Haymond general soil map unit.
Typical pattern of the soils in the Huntington-Elk-Nelse-Grigsby and Holston-Monongahela-Waynesboro general soil map units and the underlying material (Soil Survey of Cumberland County, Kentucky; 1998).
Typical pattern of soils and their relationship to geology and topography in the Grigsby-Nolin-Elk-Morehead general soil map unit in Estill County (Soil Survey of Estill and Lee Counties, Kentucky; 2007).
Relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the Faywood-Lowell unit (Soil Survey of Anderson and Franklin Counties, Kentucky; May 1985).
Relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the Elk-McAfee-Otwell unit (Soil Survey of Anderson and Franklin Counties, Kentucky; May 1985).
Relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the Ashton-Huntington-Elk unit (Soil Survey of Anderson and Franklin Counties, Kentucky; May 1985).
Relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the McAfee-Faywood-Fairmount unit (Soil Survey of Anderson and Franklin Counties, Kentucky; May 1985).
Cross section of Bath County showing the major soils and their relationship to the rock formations and to relief (Soil Survey of Bath County, Kentucky; September 1963).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying material in the Lowell-Faywood-Eden map unit (Soil Survey of Boyle and Mercer Counties, Kentucky; April 1983).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying material in the Eden-Lowell map unit (Soil Survey of Boyle and Mercer Counties, Kentucky; April 1983).
Typical relationship of soils to topography and the underlying material in the Elk-Huntington-Wheeling general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Breckinridge and Meade Counties, Kentucky; 2001).
The relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the Trappist-Lenberg-Carpenter general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Bullitt and Spencer Counties, Kentucky; September 1986).
The relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the Nolin-Elk-Newark general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Bullitt and Spencer Counties, Kentucky; September 1986).
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 the Nolin-Melvin-Newark general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Casey County, Kentucky; August 1994).
Pattern of soils and parent material in the Waynesboro-Nolin-Grigsby general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Clinton County, Kentucky; May 1994).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Eden-Lowell soil map unit (Soil Survey of Fleming County, Kentucky; October 1993).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Lowell-Faywood-Cynthiana soil map unit (Soil Survey of Fleming County, Kentucky; October 1993).
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).
Pattern of soils and underlying material in Fairmount-Rock outcrop unit (Soil Survey of Jessamine and Woodford Counties, Kentucky; December 1983).
Pattern of soils and underlying material in Eden-Culleoka unit (Soil Survey of Jessamine and Woodford Counties, Kentucky; December 1983).
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).
General location of the Atkins, Pope, and Tate soils on flood plains and stream terraces in association 1 (Soil Survey of McCreary-Whitley Area, Kentucky; 1970).
Relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the Pembroke-Bewleyville general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Simpson County, Kentucky; May 1985).
Relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the Nicholson-Lawrence-Robertsville general soil map unit (Soil Survey of asdSimpson County, Kentucky; May 1985).f
Relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the Hammack-Baxter-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).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Doniphan-Captina association (Soil Survey of Butler County and Part of Ripley County, Missouri; November 1983).
Map units containing ELK as a major component. Limited to 250 records.
Approximate geographic distribution of the ELK 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).