Aggregate lab data for the HAGERSTOWN soil series. This aggregation is based on all pedons with a current taxon name of HAGERSTOWN, 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 HAGERSTOWN 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 HAGERSTOWN 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 HAGERSTOWN 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 HAGERSTOWN 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 HAGERSTOWN 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 HAGERSTOWN 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 HAGERSTOWN 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 HAGERSTOWN 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.
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 HAGERSTOWN, 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.
Relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the Baxter-Pembroke-Fredonia association (Soil Survey of Butler and Edmonson Counties, Kentucky).
Typical landscape showing the topography and the relative position of the principal soils in association 6 and the parent rocks from which the soils formed (Soil Survey of Bath County, Kentucky; September 1963).
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).
The relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the Garmon-Crider general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Bullitt and Spencer Counties, Kentucky; September 1986).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying material in the Bledsoe-Wallen-Wellston general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Hart County, Kentucky; May 1993).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying material in the Caneyville-Fredonia-Hagerstown general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Hart County, Kentucky; May 1993).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying material in the Hagerstown-Fredonia general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Mammoth Cave National Park, Kentucky; 2010).
Relationship of soils, topography, and underlying material in the Duffield-Hagerstown-Ryder general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Frederick County, Maryland; 2002).
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 Hagerstown-Duffield-Ryder and the Ryder-Nollville general soil map units (Soil Survey of Washington County, Maryland; 2003).
Relationship of soils, topography, and underlying material in the Duffield-Hagerstown-Ryder general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Frederick County, Maryland; 2002).
Relationship of soils to topography and underlying material in the Hagerstown-Duffield-Ryder and the Ryder-Nollville general soil map units (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).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material throughout the karst regions (Soil Survey of Clinton County, Pennsylvania; 2007).
Relationship of soils to topography and the underlying material in the Hagerstown general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Fulton County, Pennsylvania; 2004).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying material in the Hagerstown-Clarksburg-Opequon general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Bedford County, PA; 1998).
Major soils in association 5, in limestone valleys, and their relationship to one another (Soil Survey of berks County, PA; 1970).
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 underlying material in association 5 (Soil Survey of Centre County, PA; 1981).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying material in the Hagerstown-Duffield association (Soil Survey of Cumberland and Perry Counties, PA; 1986).
Relationship of underlying material and topography in association 2 (Soil Survey of Franklin County, PA; 1975).
Relationship of soils to topography and the underlying material in the Hagerstown general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Fulton County, PA; 2004).
Diagram showing pattern of soils and their parent material on a mountain slope and in an adjacent valley in eastern Fulton County (Soil Survey of Fulton County, PA; 2004).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying material of the Hagerstown-Opequon-Murrill association (Soil Survey of Juniata and Mifflin Counties, PA; 1981).
Pattern of soils in the Hagerstown-Duffield-Clarksburg general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Lebanon County, PA; 1981).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying material in the Edom-Elliber-Hagerstown association (Soil Survey of Northumberland County, PA; 1985).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying material in the Edom association (Soil Survey of Union County, PA; 1985).
Sketch showing relative positions of soils in the Rockland-Talbott-Hagerstown (rocky) and Talbott-Hagerstown-Rockland assciations (Soil Survey of Maury County, TN; 1959).
Major and minor soils and underlying parent materials in the Rockland-Talbott-Egam association (Soil Survey of Williamson County, TN; 1964).
A sequence of landforms in areas underlain by limestone in Washington County. 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 Washington County and the City of Bristol, Virginia; 2006).
A sequence of landforms in areas underlain by limestone in Washington County. 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 Washington County Area and the City of Bristol, Virginia; 2006).
Schematic cross section of the major geologic strata and dominant soils in Washington County (A-A´). Route of cross section is shown in figure 9 (Soil Survey of Washington County Area and the City of Bristol, Virginia; 2006).
Schematic cross section of the major geologic strata and dominant soils in Washington County (A´-A´´). Route of cross section is shown in figure 9 (Soil Survey of Washington County Area and the City of Bristol, Virginia; 2006).
Map units containing HAGERSTOWN as a major component. Limited to 250 records.
Approximate geographic distribution of the HAGERSTOWN 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).