IDFxh1/111 SxwFd - Dogwood - Douglas maple

Moist toe slopes and gullies, drepressions and level areas where subirrigation or seepage is present. Sx and Cw are at the margins of their limit in terms of available moisture. The model seems to assume that moisture availability is going to decline in the future. But these sites are often in riparian areas or sites with seepage in the soil profile rather than sites which rely strictly on precipitation (climate) to maintain the suitability of the site for these tree species. So if the available moisture does not decline in the future because the moisture on the site is being maintained by subirrigation or seepage then I would not expect the suitability of these tree species to decline so significantly over time. Can the CCISS model account for these water sources that are not strictly tied to precipitation levels?

Similarly, is this why Fd is declining over time on this site series? I suspect it would maintain itself quite well if the available moisture does not decline on this type of site.

I don't understand why Ep is considered more suitable than At on this site series. I am not even sure Ep occurs in the IDFxh1 whereas I know At does and would be far more common than Ep.

Given the site conditions - depressions, level areas etc. I do not think Py would be present on this type of site.

Start by reviewing the CCISS model assumptions for IDFxh1/111 SxwFd, especially how moisture from subirrigation and seepage is represented. Compare the predicted suitability trends for Sx, Cw, Fd, Ep, At, and Py with the described site conditions; done means the model behavior and species rankings are explained or a specific correction is identified.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.