Aggregate lab data for the TAMA soil series. This aggregation is based on all pedons with a current taxon name of TAMA, 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 TAMA were used in the calculation. Source: KSSL snapshot 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 TAMA 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 TAMA series. Sketches are arranged according to their subgroup-level taxonomic structure. Source: SSURGO snapshot
, parsed OSD records and snapshot of SC database .Select annual climate data summaries for the TAMA series and siblings. Series are sorted according to hierarchical clustering of median values. Source: SSURGO map unit geometry and 1981-2010, 800m PRISM data
.Geomorphic description summaries for the TAMA 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 .
Soil series competing with TAMA share the same family level classification in Soil Taxonomy. Source: parsed OSD records
and snapshot of the SC database .Select annual climate data summaries for the TAMA series and competing. Series are sorted according to hierarchical clustering of median values. Source: SSURGO map unit geometry and 1981-2010, 800m PRISM data
.Geomorphic description summaries for the TAMA 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 .
Click a link below to display the diagram. Note that these diagrams may be from multiple survey areas.
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Downs-Fayette association (Soil Survey of Allamakee County, Iowa; 1998).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Downs-Fayette association (Soil Survey of Polk County, Iowa; 2000).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Tama-Downs-Muscatine association (Soil Survey of Cedar County, Iowa; 2009).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Atterberry-Tama-Muscatine association (Soil Survey of Cedar County, Iowa; 2009).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Downs-Fayette association (Soil Survey of Allamakee County, Iowa; 1958).
Pattern of soils and parent material in the Downs-Fayette association (Soil Survey of Delaware County, Iowa; 1986).
Pattern of soils and parent material in the Dinsdae-Sawmill-Tama association (Soil Survey of Delaware County, Iowa; 1986).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying material in the Downs-Tama association (Soil Survey of Dubuque County, Iowa; 1986).
Pattern of soils and parent material in the Tama-Colo association (Soil Survey of Hardin County, Iowa; 1985).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Walford-Atterberry-Downs association (Soil Survey of Jackson County, Iowa; 1992).
Pattern of soils and parent material in the Downs-Fayette association (Soil Survey of Louisa County, Iowa; 1980).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Garwin-Muscatine-Tama association (Soil Survey of Muscatine County, Iowa; 1989).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the the Downs-Tama association (Soil Survey of Muscatine County, Iowa; 1989).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Downs-Fayette association (Soil Survey of Polk County, Iowa; 2000).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Muscatine-Tama-Garwin association (Soil Survey of Tama County, Iowa; 1995).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Dinsdale-Tama association (Soil Survey of Tama County, Iowa; 1995).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Ipava-Virden-Herrick association (Soil Survey of Hancock County, Illinois; 2001).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Tama-Muscatine association (Soil Survey of Jo Daviess County, Illinois; 1996).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Tama-Ipava association (Soil Survey of Mason County, Illinois; 1995).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Sawmill-Wakeland-Tice association (Soil Survey of McDonough County, Illinois; 1997).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Sable-Ipava association (Soil Survey of McDonough County, Illinois; 1997).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Ipava-Tama association (Soil Survey of McDonough County, Illinois; 1997).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying material in the Ipava-Virden association (Soil Survey of Schuyler County, Illinois; 2003).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Tama-Muscatine association (Soil Survey of Stark County, Illinois; 1996).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Ipava-Sable association (Soil Survey of Stark County, Illinois; 1996).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Saybrook-Catlin-Tama association (Soil Survey of Woodford County, Illinois; 1999).
Typical pattern of soils and underlying material in the Ipava-Virden-Tama association (Soil Survey of Christian County, Illinois).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Tama-Muskatine-Sable association (Soil Survey of Bureau County, Illinois; 1992).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Ipava-Tama general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Cass County, Illinois; 1989).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Hartsburg-Sable-Ipava general soil map unit (Soil Survey of Cass County, Illinois; 1989).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Ipava-Sable-Tama association (Soil Survey of Christian County, Illinois; 1994).
Typical pattern of soil and parent material in the Ipava-Virden-Tama association (Soil Survey of Christian County, Illinois; 1994).
Pattern of soils and parent material in the Tama-Muscatine association (Soil Survey of Henry County, Illinois; 1984).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Tama-Muscatine association (Soil Survey of Jo Daviess County, Illinois; 1996).
Typical pattern of soils in the Ipava-Sable association (Soil Survey of Knox County, Illinois; 1986).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Tama-Ipava association (Soil Survey of Knox County, Illinois; 1986).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Lenzburg-Rapatee association (Soil Survey of Knox County, Illinois; 1986).
Pattern of soils and underlying material in the Tama-Muscatine-Sable association (Soil Survey of Lee County, Illinois; 1985).
Typical landscape pattern of soils and parent materials in the Sable-Ipava association (Soil Survey of Macon County, Illinois; 1990).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Tama-Ipava association (Soil Survey of Mason County, Illinois; 1995).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Muscatine-Tama association (Soil Survey of Mercer County, Illinois; 1991).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Sable-Ipava association (Soil Survey of Peoria County, Illinois; 1992).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Ipava-Tama-Elkhart association (Soil Survey of Peoria County, Illinois; 1992).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Lenzburg-Rapatee association (Soil Survey of Peoria County, Illinois; 1992).
Typical pattern of soils and parent material in the Tama-Muscatine-Sable association (Soil Survey of Putnam County, Illinois; 1992).
Two landscapes of upland soils showing the relationship of the major soils. The upper illustration shows soils formed under prairie, and the lower one, soils formed under forest. By Soil Survey Division, University of Wisconsin (Soil Survey of Iowa County, WI; 1962).
Map units containing TAMA as a major component. Limited to 250 records.
Approximate geographic distribution of the TAMA 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 .