Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F093AY006MN
Depressional Wet Hardwood Forest
Last updated: 9/06/2024
Accessed: 07/14/2026
-
Search
Major Land Resource Area or ecological site by name and/or ID.
PreviousSectionsNextGeneral information
Approved. An approved ecological site description has undergone quality control and quality assurance review. It contains a working state and transition model, enough information to identify the ecological site, and full documentation for all ecosystem states contained in the state and transition model.
Click to explore map
Figure 1. Mapped extent
Areas shown in blue indicate the maximum mapped extent of this ecological site. Other ecological sites likely occur within the highlighted areas. It is also possible for this ecological site to occur outside of highlighted areas if detailed soil survey has not been completed or recently updated.
MLRA notes
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 093A–Superior and Rainy Stony and Rocky Till Plains and Moraines
The Superior Stony and Rocky Loamy Plains and Hills, Western Part is located and completely contained in northeastern Minnesota. This area has both the highest and lowest elevations in the state, as well as some of the state’s most rugged topography (Ojakangas and Matsch, 1982). The MLRA was glaciated by numerous advances of the Superior, Rainy, and Des Moines glacial lobes during the Wisconsin glaciation as well as pre-Wisconsin glacial periods. The geomorphic surfaces in this MLRA are geologically very young (i.e., 10,000 to 20,000 years) and dominated by drumlin fields, moraines, small lake plains, outwash plains, and bedrock-controlled uplands (USDA-NRCS, 2022).
There are thousands of lakes scattered throughout the region that were created by these glacial events. Most of these lakes are bedrock-controlled in comparison to adjacent glaciated regions where glacial drift deposits are much thicker and the lakes occur in depressions atop the glacial drift (Ojakangas and Matsch, 1982). In contrast to adjacent MLRAs, the depth to the predominantly crystalline or sandstone bedrock in MLRA 93A is relatively shallow because the most recent glacial events were more erosional than depositional (Ojakangas and Matsch, 1982).Classification relationships
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): Superior Stony and Rocky Loamy Plains and Hills, Western Part (93A)
USFS Subregions: Northern Superior Uplands Section (212L); North Shore Highlands Subsection (212Lb)Ecological site concept
Depressional Wet Hardwood Forests are widespread throughout the distribution of the Superior Lobe glacial advance within MLRA 93A. These sites are developed primarily from low lying mineral soils, but can have up to sixteen inches (41 centimeters) of organic surface. They occur on small to moderate sized closed depressions and shallow, low gradient drainage networks, surrounded by an upland forest matrix. Later in the growing season ponded usually recedes, but they will again pond during moderate to heavy rainfall events. Hummocks from fallen trees create unique micro-topography, with micro-depressions that may hold water all year and adjacent root wads that shed water.
Relative to other forested wetland communities in the MLRA, Depressional Wet Hardwood Forests are comparatively richer, and have a diverse assemblage of ground flora. Wetland species are almost always present. Interestingly, the drier conditions on hummocks allow a number of common upland species to persist. In contrast, the adjacent wet micro-depressions often host obligate wetland species that are characteristic of more permanent wetlands.Associated sites
F093AY013MN Loamy Upland
This ecological site is surrounded by upland soils and landforms. There are often rims of somewhat poorly and poorly drained soils of the same parent material adjacent to this site. In some cases, these are isolated depressions that are completely surrounded by a till upland mesic hardwood forest matrix. In other cases, shallow drainageways meander back-and-forth through many adjacent ecological sites.
Similar sites
F093AY005MN Wet Floodplain
Soils wet layer depth is 0 - 15 inches (0 - 38 centimeters) and frequent flooding can occur in many areas. Dominant tree species include silver maple, black ash, green ash, and American elm.
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Fraxinus nigra
(2) Thuja occidentalisShrub (1) Alnus incana
(2) Acer spicatumHerbaceous (1) Glyceria striata
(2) Caltha palustrisPhysiographic features
Wet Depressional Hardwood Forests are located on depressions, end moraines, ground moraines, outwash plains and inter-drumlins associated with the Automba and Nickerson phases of the Superior Lobe glacial advance (Table 2). The most common landforms are depressions (ponded or closed) and subtle, concave areas. They can also occur in shallow, low gradient drainageways that may receive concentrated flow (e.g., incipient drainage ways). Slope shape can be either linear or concave up slope, and is always concave across slope. Individual sites can be quite small in size, ranging from less than one acre, to ten acres.
These sites are ponded throughout the spring and early summer months, and generally dry out by August, and pond again in low to moderate rain events. During dry times the water table is generally within 10 inches, but can be as low as 24 inches. These sites receive very low to low runoff and lateral subsurface flow from adjacent, upslope ecological sites. They also produce very low to low runoff and lateral subsurface flow downslope, to streams, rivers, and large peatland basins. Elevation is mainly above 1,000 feet and below 1,600 feet.Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Depression
(2) Drainageway
(3) Moraine
(4) Closed depression
(5) Outwash plain
(6) Interdrumlin
(7) Depression
Runoff class Very low to low Flooding frequency None Ponding duration Brief (2 to 7 days) to very long (more than 30 days) Ponding frequency Occasional to frequent Elevation 1000 – 1600 ft Slope 0 – 1 % Ponding depth 0 – 6 in Water table depth 0 – 24 in Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
The average annual precipitation is 26-32 inches (66 to 81 centimeters). Measurable climatic variation (due to the lake effect) near some of Lake Superior may alter temperature and precipitation (Hillman & Nielsen, 2023). About 65 percent of the precipitation falls as rain during the growing season (May through September) and about 21 percent falls as snow. The freeze-free period averages about 130 days and ranges from 97 to 150 days (USDA-NRCS, 2022).
Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 90-110 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 120-140 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 30-30 in Frost-free period (actual range) 30-110 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 70-150 days Precipitation total (actual range) 30-30 in Frost-free period (average) 90 days Freeze-free period (average) 120 days Precipitation total (average) 30 in Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 2. Monthly precipitation range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 3. Monthly minimum temperature range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 4. Monthly maximum temperature range
BarLineFigure 5. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Figure 6. Annual precipitation pattern
Figure 7 Annual average temperature pattern
Climate stations used
-
(1) GRAND PORTAGE [USC00213296], Grand Portage, MN
-
(2) WOLF RIDGE ELC [USC00219134], Finland, MN
-
(3) DULUTH [USW00014913], Duluth, MN
-
(4) ELY 25E [USC00212555], Ely, MN
-
(5) KETTLE FALLS [USC00214306], Voyageurs Natl Park, MN
-
(6) KABETOGAMA [USC00214191], Orr, MN
-
(7) BRIMSON 2S [USC00210989], Brimson, MN
">Influencing water features
These sites can be incipient drainage networks, with small perennial streams, or they can be in closed, isolated depressions. Seasonal ponding is most prominent during March through June and October through November. Water tables and water table recharge closely mimics annual rainfall graphs. They are either at or above the surface much of the year and may drop to a low of low of 12 inches (30 centimeters) during the dry months. In addition to precipitation inputs, these sites receive surface and subsurface water from surrounding sites. They also discharge water to lower elevation ecological sites, and ultimately to rivers, lakes, or large peatland basins. <br />
<br />
In these relatively young morainic landscapes, well established dendritic drainage networks have not yet been developed. Instead, these sites exhibit water flow though after significant rainfall events. Landforms behave like closed depressions until an overflow threshold is achieved, wherein they begin to behave like drainageways. It is a complex interaction that is dependent upon factors like relative elevation and degree of incision. Stream orders associated with these sites are first, second, third, and fourth (SNF, unpublished report b). These sites also provide deep percolation for water table recharge.<br />
<br />
Depressional Wet Hardwood Forests are classified as a Palustrine System, Forested Wetland Class, and depending on the State of vegetation, either a Broadleaf Deciduous or Dead Subclass, as described by Cowardin et al. (1979).Wetland description
N/A
Soil features
The parent material for these soils includes loamy till, as well as outwash, from the Superior lobe glacial advance (Table 4). Although these are primarily mineral soils, up to 16 inches (41 centimeters) of organic parent material may be on the surface. On a given site, organic deposits (if existing) will be thickest near the center of the landform. In some cases there may be deeper organic surfaces that classify as true Histosols, but this is not typical condition of these landforms, and may be a relic of a past climatic or hydrologic time period. These soils are ponded, and as a result, are very poorly drained. However, wetness varies seasonally on these soils, which is a primary site factor defining this ecological site. Due to concave landforms and very poorly drained and ponded soils, soil textural classes are not a significant site factor for vegetation.
Surface texture is loam or sandy loam, and subsurface textures range from loam to very gravelly coarse sand. Soil pH on contributes to the rich nature of these plant communities, and ranges from 5.5 (moderately acid) to 6.5 (slightly acid), which is relatively high when compared to other wetland ecological sites in the MLRA. Soil orders are Inceptisols, and taxonomic classes are either Typic or Histic Humaquepts. Giese, Twig, Wahbegon, and Hulligan are all representative soil series for this ecological site.Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Ablation till – gabbro
(2) Outwash – sandstone
(3) Lodgment till – basalt
Surface texture (1) Very gravelly loam
(2) Sandy loam
Family particle size (1) Loamy
Drainage class Very poorly drained Permeability class Slow to rapid Soil depth 80 in Surface fragment cover <=3" 0 – 1 % Surface fragment cover >3" 0 – 1 % Available water capacity
(0-60in)0.75 – 5 in Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-40in)5.5 – 6.5 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)8 – 65 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 12 % Ecological dynamics
Seasonal variation in water table is the most important site factor defining Depressional Wet Hardwood Forests. Water tables limit the amount of oxygen available to plant roots; and oxygen levels determine the extent to which root respiration can take place, the level of organic litter decomposition, and the release of important nutrients for uptake by plants (MN DNR, 2011). Fires are not a significant disturbance factor in Depressional Wet Hardwood Forests in MLRA 93A. Instead, historic variability in vegetation structure was primarily related to small and moderate sized canopy openings produced from either dead/dying trees or mature and over mature windthrown trees (MN DNR, 2014; Landfire, 2007; Gucker, 2005). Currently, the dynamics of plant communities in this ecological site are similar to what they were historically. Although these sites are broadly distributed, they are generally small in size, and are part of a broader matrix of various upland forest types.
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 textT1A - Site becomes flooded T1B - Tree canopy removed T2A - Reduced water level R3A - Forest succession T3A - Increase in water levels State 1 submodel, plant communities
1.1.A - Disturbance; partial canopy removal 1.2.A - 75 plus years without large-scale disturbance State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 3 submodel, plant communities
3.1.A - Increase in ponding 3.2.A - Decreased ponding State 1
Reference State - Mature ForestCommunity phases within the Reference State are related to scattered small and moderate sized canopy openings from dead and/or windthrown trees. Windthrown trees are primarily dominant, above the canopy, and more exposed to wind events. These trees, with shallow root systems, were likely previously weakened by either excessive drought or ponding, leaving them open to attack by forest pests (MN DNR, 2014). Standing dead trees from excessive ponding or drought may also provide these canopy openings. An estimated rotation of such events is 110 years (MN DNR, 2014; MN DNR, 2005). This produced a patchwork of young and mature forests, all dominated by black ash. Black ash is fairly shade tolerant as a seedling, and is often the only advanced regeneration present in the understory, and thus it tends to replace itself in many situations (Gucker, 2005; Erdmann et al., 1987). Black ash is also a long-lived species and can live to over 250 years old (Gucker, 2005). Without larger openings, structure and composition of mature stands can be nearly perpetual, and gradually regenerate new trees via small, one to many tree sized openings. As a result of rather frequent, small scale openings, stands do not often become old growth (i.e., greater than 135 years; MN DNR, 2014). But in cases where they do, canopy structure is complex, and generally includes a component of long-lived and more shade tolerant white spruce and balsam fir.
Northern white cedar and yellow birch often find their primary rooting substrate on downed woody debris associated with these openings. Both species regenerate well on mossy, rotting wood (i.e., nurse logs) that have consistent moisture (Smith, 2008 Erdmann, 1990; Johnston, 1990). Eventually, initial rooting media from downed woody debris can leave roots exposed to air and result in poorly formed trees. Northern white cedar can also regenerate by vegetation reproduction. These stems usually are developed from fallen trees and root from branches that come in contact with moist rooting media and are extremely shade tolerant (Erdmann, 1990). Hummocks and micro depressions resulting from windthrown trees are an important component of the Reference State. This variability in microsites provides opportunity for obligate wetland species in ponded micro depressions and upland species on the drier hummocks.
Today, much of the distribution of this ecological site is in community phases very similar those in the Reference State.Dominant plant species
-
black ash (Fraxinus nigra), tree
-
speckled alder (Alnus incana ssp. rugosa), shrub
-
mountain maple (Acer spicatum), shrub
-
bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis), grass
-
yellow marsh marigold (Caltha palustris), other herbaceous
Community 1.1
Mature Forest
Figure 8. Reference State (Community Phase 1.1 Mature Forest
Figure 9. Photo of a yellow birch with aerial roots, rooted
By stand age 75, a more characteristic, closed canopy and multi-tiered forest structure begins to develop (Table 8). Stands are initially dominated by black ash, but regeneration opportunities for northern white cedar, yellow birch, and white spruce begin to increase as the forest ages (Table 9). Also during this time, a build-up of down woody debris accumulates, as well as the characteristic hummocks and adjacent micro-depressions begin to increase micro-topography, and provide more sites for a diversity of ground flora species. Many sites will be essentially self-sustaining at this point, with periodic canopy openings keeping stands from attaining old growth status.
Dominant plant species
-
black ash (Fraxinus nigra), tree
-
speckled alder (Alnus incana ssp. rugosa), shrub
-
mountain maple (Acer spicatum), shrub
-
bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis), grass
-
yellow marsh marigold (Caltha palustris), other herbaceous
Table 5. Soil surface cover
Tree basal cover 0-10% Shrub/vine/liana basal cover 0-10% Grass/grasslike basal cover 10-20% Forb basal cover 20-40% Non-vascular plants 10-20% Biological crusts 0% Litter 10-30% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 0-0% Surface fragments >3" 0-0% Bedrock 0% Water 0-0% Bare ground 10-10% Table 6. Woody ground cover
Downed wood, fine-small (<0.40" diameter; 1-hour fuels) 1-10% Downed wood, fine-medium (0.40-0.99" diameter; 10-hour fuels) 1-8% Downed wood, fine-large (1.00-2.99" diameter; 100-hour fuels) 1-5% Downed wood, coarse-small (3.00-8.99" diameter; 1,000-hour fuels) 0-2% Downed wood, coarse-large (>9.00" diameter; 10,000-hour fuels) 1-4% Tree snags** (hard***) – Tree snags** (soft***) – Tree snag count** (hard***) 20-80 per acre Tree snag count** (hard***) 10-30 per acre * Decomposition Classes: N - no or little integration with the soil surface; I - partial to nearly full integration with the soil surface.
** >10.16cm diameter at 1.3716m above ground and >1.8288m height--if less diameter OR height use applicable down wood type; for pinyon and juniper, use 0.3048m above ground.
*** Hard - tree is dead with most or all of bark intact; Soft - most of bark has sloughed off.
Table 7. Canopy structure (% cover)
Height Above Ground (ft) Tree Shrub/Vine Grass/
GrasslikeForb <0.5 0-1% 0-1% 1-5% 1-5% >0.5 <= 1 1-5% 1-5% 5-25% 5-25% >1 <= 2 5-10% 5-10% 25-50% 25-50% >2 <= 4.5 5-40% 10-50% 5-15% 5-15% >4.5 <= 13 10-40% 25-50% – – >13 <= 40 25-50% 1-10% – – >40 <= 80 35-65% – – – >80 <= 120 – – – – >120 – – – – Community 1.2
Young Forest
Figure 10. Reference State (Community Phase 1.2 Young Forest)
The initiation of stand development follows partial canopy loss by windthrow or canopy openings developed from pocket of dead trees. Black ash advanced regeneration is the dominant regenerating tree, but is accompanied by other hardwoods, such as paper birch, balsam poplar (Populus balsamea), or quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). Increased light also favors some wetland shrubs and ground flora, particularly speckled alder and bluejoint. Co-dominant canopy trees generally reach a diameter of around eight inches before transitioning to a mature forest.
Dominant plant species
-
black ash (Fraxinus nigra), tree
-
paper birch (Betula papyrifera), tree
-
balsam fir (Abies balsamea), shrub
-
speckled alder (Alnus incana ssp. rugosa), shrub
-
Graminoid (grass or grass-like) (Graminoid (grass or grass-like)), grass
Pathway 1.1.A
Community 1.1 to 1.2
Mature Forest
Young ForestStand-levelling disturbance or small areas of partial canopy openings from wind or dead trees.
Pathway 1.2.A
Community 1.2 to 1.1
Young Forest
Mature ForestSuccession (75+ years without disturbance).
State 2
Flooded StateThe Flooded State develops as a result of dammed or blocked waterways. Flooding is caused primarily by either beaver activity or development associated with road building. Only drainageway landforms are affected, and isolated depressions do not go through this state. Sites that have blocked water drainage from roads may become perpetual open water wetlands. In natural settings, the Flooded State can last for many years, but it ultimately depends on maintenance of high quality habitat conditions for beaver to proliferate. Once a site is abandoned, dams will gradually decline and ultimately drain, thereby beginning the transition to the Non-Forested State.
Beaver populations in North America were drastically reduced by broad scale fur trapping during the Colonial time period, into the 1800s (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2007). As a result, natural conversion of these sites to the Flooded State may be less common today than it was prior to European settlement.Dominant plant species
-
black ash (Fraxinus nigra), tree
-
speckled alder (Alnus incana ssp. rugosa), shrub
-
bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis), grass
Community 2.1
Open Water Wetland
Figure 11. Flooded State of a black ash depression, similar t
The only community phase in this state is characterized as having dead or dying overstory trees, flooded by up to several feet of essentially permanent water. Depending on depth of water, there will be areas with emergent aquatic vegetation, as well as scattered areas of marsh-like conditions.
Dominant plant species
-
black ash (Fraxinus nigra), tree
-
speckled alder (Alnus incana ssp. rugosa), shrub
-
bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis), grass
State 3
Non-Forested StateSites can transition to this state by relatively sudden and complete loss of the tree canopy, thereby losing the transpiration of water from trees needed to keep water tables at bay and allow tree species to continually proliferate. This can happen as a result of intensive logging, forest pests, or general forest decline. This state will likely become common in the MLRA if the invasion of the exotic emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) beetle is not halted (Slesak et al., 2014; Palik et al., 2012).
Sites can also transition to this state from the Flooded State, following drainage of backed up water from beaver activity or road building. Initially, sites are wet meadows dominated by graminoids (e.g., bluejoint and sedges), eventually becoming invaded by wetland shrubs depending on level of ponding and soil saturation. These sites may have different soil characteristics depending on the extent and depth of sedimentation, which is largely dependent on how long the site was dammed (Naiman et al., 2005)and is also related to nearby land use and landscape-level soil geomorphology. More research is needed on how soil properties change following long term flooding from blocked hydrology.
Other than a few scattered trees, these sites do not seem to regenerate trees well. Transition to the Reference State is relatively unknown, and will require long term ecological succession over the course of many decades. There is limited evidence that these communities succeed to a forested structure within a reasonable time frame (SNF, unpublished report b). Non-forested wetland conditions may persist for decades, and even centuries (Naiman et al., 2005; Terwilliger and Pastor, 1999). Viability of black ash seeds is only 8 years (Wright and Rauscher, 1990), so seeds are probably at least initially extirpated from the site. And since most sites are small and isolated, there may not be a reliable seed source nearby. The loss of important mycorrhizal relationships may also impede succession of forest trees. It has been shown that long-term flooding kills mycorrhizae that form essential relationships with tree species in other types of forested wetlands in the region, and recolonization following draining may be inhibited (Anderson and Fischer, 2015; Terwilliger and Pastor, 1999), which may be the case in this ecological site as well. All of this, in combination with extreme competition with resident vegetation, make succession to a forested state difficult.Dominant plant species
-
speckled alder (Alnus incana ssp. rugosa), shrub
-
bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis), grass
-
sedge (Carex), grass
Community 3.1
Shrub Swamp
Figure 12. Non-Forested State similar to Community Phase 3.1 (MN DNR, 2005)
In this phase, shrubs are greater than 25% cover. Dominant species are speckled alder, redosier dogwood, and willows (Salix spp.). Bluejoint and a variety of sedges are also dominant, along with a myriad of sun-loving wetland forb species. There may be scattered trees as well, but they comprise low cover and are not significant to the overall structure of the plant community. With a continued lowering of the water table, it is possible for this phase to succeed to the Reference State if black ash and other trees can successfully establish.
Dominant plant species
-
speckled alder (Alnus incana ssp. rugosa), shrub
-
bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis), grass
-
sedge (Carex), grass
Community 3.2
Wet Meadow
Figure 13. Non-Forested State similar to community Phase 3.2 (MN DNR, 2005)
In this phase, shrubs are less than 25% cover. Bluejoint, sedges, and a variety of sun-loving wetland forbs dominate this phase. Lake sedge (Carex lacustris), the hummock-forming tussock sedge (C. stricta), and beaked sedge (C. utriculata) are the most common sedges, and can be dominant (MN DNR, 2005). The most common shrubs are speckled alder, redosier dogwood, and willows. There may be scattered trees as well, but they comprise low cover and are not significant to the overall structure of the plant community.
Dominant plant species
-
bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis), grass
-
sedge (Carex), grass
Pathway 3.1.A
Community 3.1 to 3.2
Shrub Swamp
Wet MeadowIncreased ponding, soil saturation.
Pathway 3.2.A
Community 3.2 to 3.1
Wet Meadow
Shrub SwampDecreased ponding, soil saturation.
Transition T1A
State 1 to 2Flooding, backed up water from beaver dam or road bed.
Transition T1B
State 1 to 3Removal of tree canopy resulting in loss of transpiration and elevated water levels.
Transition T2A
State 2 to 3Drainage of open water.
Restoration pathway R3A
State 3 to 1Long term forest succession.
Transition T3A
State 3 to 2Flooding, backed up water from beaver dam or road bed.
Additional community tables
Table 8. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 1.1 forest overstory composition
Common name Symbol Scientific name Nativity Height ft Canopy cover (%) Diameter in Basal area (square ft/acre) Treeblack ash FRNI Fraxinus nigra Native 16-80 50-75 8-15 0 arborvitae THOC2 Thuja occidentalis Native 16-50 5-25 12-20 0 yellow birch BEAL2 Betula alleghaniensis Native 16-40 5-25 5-10 0 balsam fir ABBA Abies balsamea Native 16-40 1-5 3-8 0 white spruce PIGL Picea glauca Native 16-40 1-5 3-8 0 Table 10. Community 1.1 forest understory composition
Common name Symbol Scientific name Nativity Height (ft) Canopy cover (%) Grass/grass-like (Graminoids)fowl mannagrass GLST Glyceria striata Native 0.1–3 10–50 bluejoint CACA4 Calamagrostis canadensis Native 0.1–3 10–50 bluejoint CACA4 Calamagrostis canadensis Native 0.1–3 10–50 bristlystalked sedge CALE10 Carex leptalea Native 0.1–2 5–15 greater bladder sedge CAIN12 Carex intumescens Native 0.1–2 1–10 awlfruit sedge CAST5 Carex stipata Native 0.1–1 1–10 graceful sedge CAGR2 Carex gracillima Native 0.1–1 1–10 softleaf sedge CADI6 Carex disperma Native 0.1–1 1–10 fringed brome BRCI2 Bromus ciliatus Native 0.1–2 1–5 Forb/Herbyellow marsh marigold CAPA5 Caltha palustris Native 0.1–1 10–50 northern bugleweed LYUN Lycopus uniflorus Native 0.1–1 5–25 dwarf red blackberry RUPU Rubus pubescens Native 0.1–1 5–15 blue skullcap SCLA2 Scutellaria lateriflora Native 0.1–1 5–15 touch-me-not IMPAT Impatiens Native 0.1–3 5–15 purplestem aster SYPUP Symphyotrichum puniceum var. puniceum Native 0.1–3 5–15 parasol whitetop DOUMU Doellingeria umbellata var. umbellata Native 0.1–3 1–10 wild sarsaparilla ARNU2 Aralia nudicaulis Native 0.1–2 1–5 starflower TRBO2 Trientalis borealis Native 0.1–1 1–5 arctic sweet coltsfoot PEFR5 Petasites frigidus Native 0.1–1 1–5 spotted joe pye weed EUMA9 Eutrochium maculatum Native 0.1–3 1–5 naked miterwort MINU3 Mitella nuda Native 0.1–1 1–5 harlequin blueflag IRVE2 Iris versicolor Native 0.1–2 1–5 tall bluebells MEPA Mertensia paniculata Native 0.1–1 1–5 woodland horsetail EQSY Equisetum sylvaticum Native 0.1–1 1–5 threeleaf goldthread COTR2 Coptis trifolia Native 0.1–1 1–5 Jack in the pulpit ARTR Arisaema triphyllum Native 0.1–2 1–5 small enchanter's nightshade CIAL Circaea alpina Native 0.1–1 1–5 giant goldenrod SOGI Solidago gigantea Native 0.1–3 1–5 eastern swamp saxifrage SAPE8 Saxifraga pensylvanica Native 0.1–2 1–5 wood anemone ANQU Anemone quinquefolia Native 0.1–1 1–5 Canada mayflower MACA4 Maianthemum canadense Native 0.1–1 1–5 bunchberry dogwood COCA13 Cornus canadensis Native 0.1–1 1–5 purple meadow-rue THDA Thalictrum dasycarpum Native 0.1–3 1–2 Fern/fern allycommon ladyfern ATFI Athyrium filix-femina Native 0.1–2 5–25 intermediate woodfern DRIN5 Dryopteris intermedia Native 0.1–1 5–15 sensitive fern ONSE Onoclea sensibilis Native 0.1–2 5–15 western oakfern GYDR Gymnocarpium dryopteris Native 0.1–1 1–5 ostrich fern MAST Matteuccia struthiopteris Native 0.1–3 1–5 long beechfern PHCO24 Phegopteris connectilis Native 0.1–1 1–5 Shrub/Subshrubspeckled alder ALINR Alnus incana ssp. rugosa Native 1–16 25–75 redosier dogwood COSE16 Cornus sericea Native 1–10 1–15 beaked hazelnut COCO6 Corylus cornuta Native 1–10 1–15 American fly honeysuckle LOCA7 Lonicera canadensis Native 1–5 1–5 American cranberrybush VIOPA2 Viburnum opulus var. americanum Native 1–5 1–5 red currant RITR Ribes triste Native 1–5 1–5 Treemountain maple ACSP2 Acer spicatum Native 1–16 5–25 American red raspberry RUID Rubus idaeus Native 1–10 1–15 black ash FRNI Fraxinus nigra Native 1–10 1–15 chokecherry PRVI Prunus virginiana Native 1–10 1–5 Table 11. Community 1.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 12. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 13. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 14. Community 3.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Supporting information
Inventory data references
A total of 12 integrated plots, ranging from Tier 2 to Tier 3 intensity, were used as a basis for this ecological site. Three of these were Type Locations representing the data-supported Community Phase 1.1 in the state-and-transition model, and included all necessary data elements for a Tier 3 dataset. No other community phases were supported with quantitative data analysis. All 12 plots had soil pedon and site data collected by a professional soil scientist using a form equivalent to SF-232. Pits were hand-dug using spade shovels, sharpshooters, and/or bucket augers. Of the 12 plots, two were located at established MN DNR relevé points, obtained and used with permission from the MN DNR County Biological Survey. List of MN DNR relevé plots used with verified soils data: 3475 and 8301.
Other references
Anderson, C.E. and Adelheid Fischer 2015. North Shore: A Natural History of Minnesota’s Superior Coast. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, MN.
Carmean, W.H. 1978. Site Index Curves for Northern Hardwoods in Northern Wisconsin and Upper Michigan. USDA For. Serv. Research Paper NC-160. St. Paul, MN.
Carmean, W.H., J.T. Hahn, and R.D. Jacobs. 1989. Site Index Curves for Forest Tree Species in the Eastern United States. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-128. St. Paul, MN.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31, U.S. Department of Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Erdmann, G.G. 1990. Yellow Birch. In: Silvics of North America, Vol 2, Burns, R.M., and B.H. Honkala (tech cords). USDA For. Serv. Handb. 654, Washington, DC.
Erdmann, G.G., T.R. Crow, R.M. Peterson, Jr., and C.D. Wilson. 1987. Managing Black Ash in the Lake States. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep., NC-115.
Flaccus, E. and L.F. Ohmann. 1964. Old-growth Northern Hardwood Forests in Northeastern Minnesota. Ecology 45:3, 448-459.
Gucker, C.L. 2005. Fraxinus nigra. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. USDA For. Serv. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/; last accessed January 3, 2014.
Hillman, A., & Nielsen, S. E. (2023). Lake Superior’s summer cooling of shorelines and adjacent inland forests: Implications for refugia of boreal forests and disjunct Arctic–Alpine plants. Ecology and Evolution, 13(12). doi:10.1002/ece3.10833
Johnston, W.F. 1990. Northern White Cedar. In: Silvics of North America, Vol 2, Burns, R.M., and B.H. Honkala (tech cords). USDA For. Serv. Handb. 654, Washington, DC.
Landfire. 2007. Biophysical Setting 4114810 Laurentian-Acadian Alkaline Conifer-Hardwood Swamp. In: Landfire National Vegetation Dynamics Models. USDA For. Serv. and U.S. Department of Interior. Washington, DC.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2014. WFn64 – Northern Very Wet Ash Swamp: Natural Disturbance Regime, Stand Dynamics, and Tree Behavior. Available online at http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/ecssilviculture/plantcommunities/WFn64.pdf; last accessed November 11, 2014.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2013a. Climate – Frequently Asked Questions. Available online at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/faqs.html; last accessed December 11, 2013.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2011. Ash Management Guidelines for Private Forest Landowners. University of Minnesota Extension. St. Paul, MN.
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.
Minnesota Division of Forestry. 2013. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Tamarack Assessment Project. Available online at http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/ecssilviculture/policies/tamarackAssessmentProject2013.pdf; last accessed November 11, 2014.
Mitsch, WJ. and J.G. Gosselink. 2007. Wetlands, fourth ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY.
Naiman, R.J., H. Dècamps, and M.E. McClain. 2005. Riparia: Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Streamside Communities. Elsevier Academic Press. San Diego, CA.
NatureServe. 2013a. Associations and Alliances of USFS Section 212L in Minnesota. NatureServe, St. Paul, Minnesota.
NatureServe. 2013b. Ecological Systems of USFS Section 212L in Minnesota. NatureServe, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Ojakangas, R.W. and C.L. Matsch. 1982. Minnesota’s Geology. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, MN.
Palik, B.J., M.E. Ostry, R.C. Venette, and E. Abdela. 2012. Tree Regeneration in Black Ash (Fraxinus nigra) Stands Exhibiting Crown Dieback in Minnesota. Forest Ecol. Mgmt. 269: 26-30.
Slesak, R.A., C.F. Lenhart, K.N. Brooks, D.W. D'Amato, and B.J. Palik. 2014. Water Table Response to Harvesting and Simulated Emerald Ash Borer Mortality in Black Ash Wetlands in Minnesota, USA. Can. J. Forest Res. 44:961-968.
Smith, W.R. 2008. Trees and Shrubs of Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, MN.
Superior National Forest. Unpublished report(a).
Superior National Forest Ecological Landtype Descriptions. USDA For. Serv. Duluth, Minnesota.
Superior National Forest. Unpublished report(b). Superior National Forest Ecological Landtype Phase Descriptions. USDA For. Serv. Duluth, Minnesota.
Terwilliger, J. and J. Pastor. 1999. Small Mammals, Ectomycorrhizae, and Conifer Succession in Beaver Meadows. Oikos 85: 83–94.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA),
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. USDA Handbook 296. Washington, DC.
Wright, J.W. and H.M. Rauscher. 1990. Black Ash. In: Silvics of North America, Vol 2, Burns, R.M., and B.H. Honkala (tech cords). USDA For. Serv. Handb. 654, Washington, DC.Contributors
Kyle Steele, Former NRCS Ecologist, Albert Lea, MN
Roger Risely, Former SSOL, Duluth, MN
Kade Anderson, NRCS Ecologist, Duluth, MNApproval
Suzanne Mayne-Kinney, 9/06/2024
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 07/14/2026 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
