Official Series Description


Lab Data Summary

Aggregate lab data for the FOARD soil series. This aggregation is based on all pedons with a current taxon name of FOARD, 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 FOARD 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
80A40A470459OK031001Foard7Primary | Supplementary | Taxonomy | Pedon | Water Retention | Correlation | Andic Soil Properties34.4519463,-98.6269455
80A40A470559OK033002Foard7Primary | Supplementary | Taxonomy | Pedon | Water Retention | Correlation | Andic Soil Properties34.3955574,-98.539444

Water Balance

Monthly water balance estimated using a leaky-bucket style model for the FOARD 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 FOARD 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 FOARD 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 FOARD 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.

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

Click the image to view it full size.

Click the image to view it full size.

Competing Series

Soil series competing with FOARD 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 FOARD series and competing. Series are sorted according to hierarchical clustering of median values. Source: SSURGO map unit geometry and 1981-2010, 800m PRISM data .

There are insufficient data to create the annual climate figure.

Geomorphic description summaries for the FOARD 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 .

There are insufficient data to create the 2D hillslope position figure.

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

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

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

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

Soil series sharing subgroup-level classification with FOARD, 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

Click a link below to display the diagram. Note that these diagrams may be from multiple survey areas.

  1. OK-2012-02-16-14 | Comanche County - August 1967

    Topography and underlying material of major soils in associations 1 and 7 (Soil Survey of Comanche County, Oklahoma; August 1967).

  2. OK-2012-02-16-16 | Comanche County - August 1967

    Topography and underlying material of Lawton soils and other extensive soils in northwestern part of county (Soil Survey of Comanche County, Oklahoma; August 1967).

  3. OK-2012-02-16-17 | Comanche County - August 1967

    Topography and underlying material of Waurika soils and other extensive soils in southeastern part of county (Soil Survey of Comanche County, Oklahoma; August 1967).

  4. OK-2012-02-16-18 | Comanche County - August 1967

    Topography and underlying material of Windthorst soils and other extensive soils in southwestern part of county (Soil Survey of Comanche County, Oklahoma; August 1967).

  5. OK-2012-02-16-19 | Cotton County - December 1963

    Typical pattern of Foard and Tillmans soils on gently undulating uplands in association 1 (Soil Survey of Cotton County, Oklahoma; December 1963).

  6. OK-2012-02-16-20 | Cotton County - December 1963

    Typical pattern of Zaneis, Lucien, and associated soils in the northeastern part of Cotton County (Soil Survey of Cotton County, Oklahoma; December 1963).

  7. OK-2012-02-16-21 | Cotton County - December 1963

    Typical pattern of Pratt, Tivoli, and associated soils (Soil Survey of Cotton County, Oklahoma; December 1963).

  8. OK-2012-02-16-23 | Cotton County - December 1963

    Schematic diagram showing the location of the Chickasha and other extensive soils in the east-central part of Cotton County (Soil Survey of Cotton County, Oklahoma; December 1963).

  9. TX-2012-03-21-09 | Haskell County - March 1961

    Soils developed in red-bed clay and shale (Soil Survey of Haskell County, TX; 1961).

Map Units

Map units containing FOARD 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
Foard silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopesFoA69833818862w5qgok01519671:24000
Foard and Tillman soils, 1 to 3 percent slopesFtB84919382177dtp9ok03119651:24000
Foard-Hinkle complex, 1 to 3 percent slopesFsB32867382176dtp8ok03119651:24000
Foard silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopesFaA153483821742w5qgok03119651:24000
Foard-Hinkle complex, 0 to 1 percent slopesFsA44043821752w5qhok03119651:24000
Lawton-Foard complex, 3 to 5 percent slopesLfC1704382189dtppok03119651:24000
Tillman-Foard complex, 1 to 3 percent slopesFtB60065382231dtr1ok03319611:24000
Foard silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopesFoA517143822282w5qgok03319611:24000
Foard-Hinkle complex, 1 to 3 percent slopesFsB14222382230dtr0ok03319611:24000
Foard-Hinkle complex, 0 to 1 percent slopesFsA58923822292w5qhok03319611:24000
Foard silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopesFdA129183834472w5qgok07519731:24000
Tillman and Foard soils, 1 to 3 percent slopesTfB44866384976dxllok14119681:24000
Foard-Hinkle complex, 0 to 1 percent slopesFhA279063849452w5qhok14119681:24000
Foard silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopesFdA233883849442w5qgok14119681:24000

Map of Series Extent

Approximate geographic distribution of the FOARD 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 .