Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F088XY011MN
Moist Sandy Mixed Forest
Last updated: 8/12/2024
Accessed: 08/18/2026
-
Search
Major Land Resource Area or ecological site by name and/or ID.
PreviousSectionsNextGeneral information
Provisional. A provisional ecological site description has undergone quality control and quality assurance review. It contains a working state and transition model and enough information to identify the ecological site.
MLRA notes
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 088X–Northern Minnesota Glacial Lake Basins
MLRA 88 consists of the lake beds of glacial Lakes Agassiz, Upham, and Aitkin. These vast glacial lake beds were formed by meltwaters associated with the last glaciation of the Wisconsin age. The large, flat, wet landscapes are filled with lacustrine lake sediments, wave-washed glacial till, and vast expanses of organic soils. This area is entirely in Minnesota and makes up about 11,590 square miles (30,019 square kilometers).
The western boundary of MLRA 88 with MLRA 56B is gradual. MLRA 56B is a portion of the Red River Valley that was formed by glacial Lake Agassiz and is dominantly prairie. The southern boundary of MLRA 88 with MLRA 57 consists of distinct moraines that formed from the glacial drift sediments of Late Wisconsin age. The eastern and southeastern boundaries are with portions of MLRAs 90A and 93A. These MLRAs are in a distinct glaciated region of sediments of the Rainy and Superior Lobes, and much of MLRA 93A is bedrock controlled (USDA-Ag Handbook 296, 2022).Ecological site concept
This site is a conifer-dominated woodland of jack pine, black spruce, and red pine with a mix of hardwoods including paper birch and quaking aspen. Soils are coarse textured, very deep, and somewhat poorly drained.
Associated sites
F088XY013MN Dry Sandy Upland Coniferous Forest
The Dry Sandy Upland Coniferous Forest ecological site is located on uplands with soils that are course textured and moderately well drained to somewhat excessively drained. Available water capacity ranges from 2-5 inches.
Similar sites
F088XY013MN Dry Sandy Upland Coniferous Forest
The Dry Sandy Upland Coniferous Forest ecological site is located on uplands with soils that are course textured and moderately well drained to somewhat excessively drained. Available water capacity ranges from 2-5 inches.
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Pinus banksiana
(2) Picea marianaShrub (1) Amelanchier
(2) Vaccinium angustifoliumHerbaceous (1) Maianthemum canadense
(2) Cornus canadensisPhysiographic features
This site is often situated on flats, dunes, and pitted outwash plains. No ponding or flooding occurs, but the site does have a seasonal high water table. Runoff class is low to medium and slopes are less than 3%.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Slope shape across (1) Linear
Slope shape up-down (1) Linear
Landforms (1) Flat
(2) Dune
(3) Pitted outwash terrace
Runoff class Negligible to very low Flooding frequency None Ponding frequency None Elevation 590 – 2030 ft Slope 0 – 3 % Ponding depth 0 in Water table depth 12 – 28 in Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
The average annual precipitation is 25 to 28 inches (635 to 711 millimeters). Most of the rainfall comes from convective thunderstorms during the growing season. Snowfall generally occurs from October through April. The average annual temperature is 43 to 46 degrees F (6 to 8 degrees C). The mean frost free period ranges from 83 to 110 days, with the mean freeze-free period ranging from 117 to 135 days.
Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 80-110 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 120-140 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 30-30 in Frost-free period (actual range) 80-110 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 110-140 days Precipitation total (actual range) 20-30 in Frost-free period (average) 100 days Freeze-free period (average) 130 days Precipitation total (average) 30 in Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 1. Monthly precipitation range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 2. Monthly minimum temperature range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 3. Monthly maximum temperature range
BarLineFigure 4. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Figure 5. Annual precipitation pattern
Figure 6 Annual average temperature pattern
Climate stations used
-
(1) INTL FALLS INTL AP [USW00014918], International Falls, MN
-
(2) LITTLEFORK 10 SW [USC00214809], Big Falls, MN
-
(3) BIG FALLS [USC00210746], Big Falls, MN
-
(4) WASKISH 4NE [USC00218700], Big Falls, MN
-
(5) BAUDETTE INTL AP [USW00094961], Baudette, MN
-
(6) CAMP NORRIS DNR [USC00211250], Beltrami Isl State for, MN
-
(7) WARROAD [USC00218679], Warroad, MN
-
(8) EVELETH WWTP [USC00212645], Eveleth, MN
-
(9) HIBBING CHISHOLM HIBBING AP [USW00094931], Hibbing, MN
-
(10) FLOODWOOD 3 NE [USC00212842], Floodwood, MN
-
(11) SANDY LAKE DAM LIBBY [USC00217460], McGregor, MN
-
(12) GRAND RPDS FOREST LAB [USC00213303], Grand Rapids, MN
-
(13) POKEGAMA DAM [USC00216612], Cohasset, MN
-
(14) LEECH LAKE [USC00214652], Bena, MN
">Influencing water features
This site does not flood or pond but does have a seasonal high water table of 12 - 28 inches (30-71 centimeters).
Soil features
Soils in this site are coarse textured, ranging from loamy find sands to very fine sandy loams. These soils developed from glaciolacustrine, outwash, and eolian sand parent material.
Soils in the Moist Sandy Mixed Forest fall within the Alfisol, Entisol, Inceptisol, and Mollisol orders. These soils can be further classified as Oxyaquic Hapludalfs, Aquic Udipsamments, Aeric Endoaquepts, and Aeric Calciaquolls. Soil series within this site include: Meehan, Redby, Barber, Cowhorn, Soderville, and Ulen.Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Glaciolacustrine deposits
(2) Outwash
(3) Eolian sands
Surface texture (1) Loamy fine sand
(2) Loamy sand
(3) Very fine sandy loam
(4) Fine sandy loam
Drainage class Somewhat poorly drained Permeability class Rapid Depth to restrictive layer 80 – 0 in Soil depth 80 – 0 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(0-40in)1.9 – 4 in Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-10in)4.5 – 7.3 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(0-80in)0 – 2 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(0-80in)Not specified Ecological dynamics
This site is a mixed woodland composed of jack pine, black spruce, and red pine with a mix of paper birch and quaking aspen. Historically, fire was a disturbance factor and served to promote pine regeneration.
State and transition model
More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
Click on state and transition labels to scroll to the respective textEcosystem states
T1A - Disturbance of site R2A - Management activities ; restore to the reference site State 1 submodel, plant communities
1.1A - Disturbances; partial canopy removal 1.2A - Natural succession 1.3A - Natural succession absent severe disturbances 1.3B - Site disturbance State 2 submodel, plant communities
2.1A - Introduction of invasive plant species 2.2A - Non-native plant eradication State 1
Reference StateThe reference state is a coniferous woodland composed of pine and spruce with a mix of hardwood species such as aspen and paper birch. Canopy cover is variable and ranges from patchy to continuous. Dominant canopy species include jack pine, black spruce, red pine, and in some cases, white pine.
Dominant plant species
-
jack pine (Pinus banksiana), tree
-
black spruce (Picea mariana), tree
-
red pine (Pinus resinosa), tree
-
serviceberry (Amelanchier), shrub
-
lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium), shrub
-
northern bush honeysuckle (Diervilla lonicera), shrub
-
Canada mayflower (Maianthemum canadense), other herbaceous
-
bunchberry dogwood (Cornus canadensis), other herbaceous
-
twinflower (Linnaea borealis), other herbaceous
Community 1.1
Mature Mixed Forest CommunityThis is a mature (95+ years) mixed-canopy woodland. Black spruce is dominant mixed with jack pine, paper birch, white pine, and balsam fir. (MN DNR, 2005).
Dominant plant species
-
jack pine (Pinus banksiana), tree
-
paper birch (Betula papyrifera var. papyrifera), tree
-
eastern white pine (Pinus strobus), tree
-
balsam fir (Abies balsamea var. balsamea), tree
Community 1.2
Early Successional ForestThis community (0-55 years) is characterized by a young woodland dominated by jack pine. Hardwoods, such as quaking aspen and paper birch, are common. (MN DNR, 2005).
Dominant plant species
-
jack pine (Pinus banksiana), tree
-
quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), tree
-
paper birch (Betula papyrifera), tree
Community 1.3
Mid Successional ForestThis mixed canopy transitional community (55-95 years) is noted for an increase in red pine and paper birch and a decline in jack pine and quaking aspen. (MN DNR, 2005)
Dominant plant species
-
red pine (Pinus resinosa), tree
-
paper birch (Betula papyrifera var. papyrifera), tree
Pathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2Disturbance from fire, windthrow, or other factors that removes the canopy layer.
Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.3Time and natural succession will transition the 1.2 community to the 1.3 community in the absence of any large disturbances.
Pathway 1.3A
Community 1.3 to 1.1In the absence of large disturbances, time and natural succession will transition the community to a mature woodland.
Pathway 1.3B
Community 1.3 to 1.2A large disturbance will transition the community back to an earlier successional stage.
State 2
Disturbed StateThis is a woodland state characterized by anthropogenic disturbances such as logging. Human activities are often a conduit for the introduction and spread of invasive species.
The type, severity, and duration of the disturbance will perpetuate variability in the early successional plant community. Seed sources and management activities will also influence plant regeneration. Future field study is needed to develop a more detailed and diagnostic list of plant species for this state.Dominant plant species
-
quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), tree
-
paper birch (Betula papyrifera), tree
-
jack pine (Pinus banksiana), tree
-
serviceberry (Amelanchier), shrub
Community 2.1
Logged CommunityRemoval of canopy trees for timber harvest results a highly disturbed understory. Shrubs often initially dominate post-logging. The type and severity of disturbance, available seed sources, and any associated management inputs will determine the plant community on site.
Dominant plant species
-
serviceberry (Amelanchier), shrub
Community 2.2
Invaded CommunityThis community is characterized by the presence of non-native plant species. Numerous tree, shrub and ground layer invasive species are possible. Human activities (logging, development, recreation) can introduce seeds to a site. Without management intervention, these species can alter the natural composition of the plant community.
Dominant plant species
-
common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), shrub
-
Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), other herbaceous
Pathway 2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.2Activities such as logging may introduce invasive plant species.
Pathway 2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1Management inputs to successfully eradicate invasive plants on site.
Transition T1A
State 1 to 2Disturbance of site through anthropogenic activities such as road building, dam construction, and logging.
Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1Restoration of each site will require a plan unique to the current site conditions. Timber stand improvement activities and/or invasive species eradication may be needed.
Additional community tables
Table 5. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 6. Community 1.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 7. Community 1.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 8. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Supporting information
Inventory data references
This is a provisional ecological site, and as such no field plots were inventoried for this project. A review of the scientific literature and expert opinion was used to develop the plant communities and ecological dynamics contained within the state and transition model. Future field verification is needed to refine the plant communities and ecological dynamics described in this ecological site description.
Other references
Cleland, D.T.; Avers, P.E.; McNab, W.H.; Jensen, M.E.; Bailey, R.G., King, T.; Russell, W.E. 1997. National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units. Published in, Boyce, M. S.; Haney, A., ed. 1997. Ecosystem Management Applications for Sustainable Forest and Wildlife Resources. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. pp. 181-200.
Eggers, S.D. and Reed, D.M. 2013. Wetland plants and plant communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin. Version 3.1.
Faber-Langendoen, D., editor. 2001. Plant communities of the Midwest: Classification in an ecological context. Association for Biodiversity Information, Arlington, VA. 61 pp. + appendix
(705 pp.).
Flaccus, E. and L.F. Ohmann. 1964. Old-growth Northern Hardwood Forests in Northeastern Minnesota. Ecology 45:3, 448-459.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province. Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. St. Paul, Minnesota.
Mitsch, WJ. and J.G. Gosselink. 2007. Wetlands, fourth ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY.
Ojakangas, R.W. and C.L. Matsch. 1982. Minnesota’s Geology. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, MN.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2022. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the
Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.Contributors
Anita Arends, ESI Specialist, Springfield IL
Mike Rokus, SSOL, Duluth, MN
Kade Anderson, NRCS Ecologist, Duluth, MN
Landon Wolter, Rangeland Management Specialist for North Central RegionApproval
Suzanne Mayne-Kinney, 8/12/2024
Rangeland health reference sheet
Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health is a qualitative assessment protocol used to determine ecosystem condition based on benchmark characteristics described in the Reference Sheet. A suite of 17 (or more) indicators are typically considered in an assessment. The ecological site(s) representative of an assessment location must be known prior to applying the protocol and must be verified based on soils and climate. Current plant community cannot be used to identify the ecological site.
Author(s)/participant(s) Contact for lead author Date 08/18/2026 Approved by Approval date Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on Annual Production Indicators
-
Number and extent of rills:
-
Presence of water flow patterns:
-
Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes:
-
Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, lichen, moss, plant canopy are not bare ground):
-
Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies:
-
Extent of wind scoured, blowouts and/or depositional areas:
-
Amount of litter movement (describe size and distance expected to travel):
-
Soil surface (top few mm) resistance to erosion (stability values are averages - most sites will show a range of values):
-
Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type of structure and A-horizon color and thickness):
-
Effect of community phase composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration and runoff:
-
Presence and thickness of compaction layer (usually none; describe soil profile features which may be mistaken for compaction on this site):
-
Functional/Structural Groups (list in order of descending dominance by above-ground annual-production or live foliar cover using symbols: >>, >, = to indicate much greater than, greater than, and equal to):
Dominant:
Sub-dominant:
Other:
Additional:
-
Amount of plant mortality and decadence (include which functional groups are expected to show mortality or decadence):
-
Average percent litter cover (%) and depth ( in):
-
Expected annual annual-production (this is TOTAL above-ground annual-production, not just forage annual-production):
-
Potential invasive (including noxious) species (native and non-native). List species which BOTH characterize degraded states and have the potential to become a dominant or co-dominant species on the ecological site if their future establishment and growth is not actively controlled by management interventions. Species that become dominant for only one to several years (e.g., short-term response to drought or wildfire) are not invasive plants. Note that unlike other indicators, we are describing what is NOT expected in the reference state for the ecological site:
-
Perennial plant reproductive capability:
Print Options
Sections
Font
AAAAOther
PrintThe Ecosystem Dynamics Interpretive Tool is an information system framework developed by the USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, and New Mexico State University.
Accessibility statement
