Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F094AB020MI
Acidic Sandy Depression
Last updated: 2/25/2025
Accessed: 07/17/2026
-
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.
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): 094A–Northern Michigan Sandy Highlands
This area is dominated by outwash plains and moraines. The terrain can be steep on the moraines and flat in the areas of outwash. Elevation ranges from 177 to 520 m (580 to 1705 ft). Local topographic relief averages 14 m and ranges up to 188 m (45 to 615 ft). This area is covered entirely by drift. Bedrock consisting of Devonian limestone and dolomite with interbedded shale, chert, and anhydrite stringers is at various depths below the surface because of the curvature of the Michigan basin. However, bedrock exposures completely absent, as the depth of glacial drift ranges from 60 to 300 m (200-1000 ft). The Au Sable, Manistee, Au Gres, and Pine Rivers are the major streams draining this MLRA, in both the Lake Michigan and Lake Huron watersheds. The Muskegon River has its headwaters in this area.
About 70 percent of this area is forested, and about 15 percent is cropland or hayland. About one-third of the area is in small, privately owned holdings, and another one-third consists of national and State forests. The forests are used mainly for timber production and recreation. Dairy and beef operations are very important enterprises in the area. Forage and feed grains for dairy cattle and other livestock are the principal crops. Wheat, oats, corn, potatoes, and hay also are grown in the area. The Huron and Manistee National Forests, Hartwick Pines State Park, Camp Grayling (Department of Defense), Pigeon River Country State Forest are among the most notable conservation lands in the area. Reaches of the Au Sable and Pine Rivers are National Wild and Scenic Rivers.
Summary of existing land use:
Upland Forest (58%)
Hardwood (41%)
Conifer (15%)
Swamps and Marshes (14%)
Developed (11%)
Agricultural (10%)
Grassland (5%)Classification relationships
According to the USFS (Bailey) system of ecoregions, the site is located mostly within 212Hg (Kirtland's Warbler High Sand Plains) and 212Hh (Gladwin Silty Lake Plain) subsections. According to the EPA (Omernik) system of ecoregions, the site is located in 50ae (Mio Plateau), 50ah (Tawas Lake Plain) and eastern 50ad (Vanderbilt Moraines) level IV ecoregions. This site roughly corresponds to PArVCo, in the Kotar system. This site corresponds to the Lowland, ecological land type phase, 62, in the USFS Ecological Land Type system.
Ecological site concept
The central concept of Acidic Sandy Depression is lowlands with a seasonal high watertable 25 to 100 cm deep (moderately well drained or somewhat poorly drained) and a soil pH of the upper 50 cm less than 5.5, and a low base saturation, including Spodosols, Ultic subgroups, and dysic great groups and families. Site occurs on sandy drift (outwash, ice contact, or lake plains) where soil textures are sand or loamy sand (upper 50 cm >70% sand). Site is outside the heavy snowfall belt, mostly east of Houghton Lake where fire was frequent. Vegetation trending towards mesophytic forest with an acidophilic species composition.
Associated sites
F094AB021MI Wet Acidic Sandy Depression
Wet Acidic Sandy Depression has a higher water table, and is hydric. Consequently, the vegetation is wetland, such as hardwood-conifer swamp.
F094AB019MI Dry Sandy Plains
Dry Sandy Plains has a lower amount of spodic development reflecting higher productivity or has lower pH, which drives lower productivity. Vegetation tends to be more open with more jack pine and higher fire frequencies.
Similar sites
F094AA007MI Snowy Acidic Sandy Depression
Snowy Acidic Sandy Depression has a greater amount of annual snowfall, and a lower fire frequency. Consequently, the species composition is less pine and more hemlock.
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Pinus strobus
Shrub Not specified
Herbaceous (1) Cornus canadensis
Physiographic features
Site occurs on coarse textured ice contact, glacial till, outwash, and lake plain deposits. Landforms are gently sloping lower slope positions and depressions.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Outwash plain
(2) Kame
(3) Lake plain
Runoff class Negligible to low Elevation 581 – 1572 ft Water table depth 10 – 39 in Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
Mean annual temperatures are 5.7 to 7.6 °C (42 to 46 °F). The warmest six months average 14.3 to 16.1 °C (58 to 61 °F). Mean July temperatures range from 19.1 to 20.8 °C (66 to 69 °F). Mean January temperatures range from -8.2 to -6.0 °C (17 to 21 °F). The maximum monthly average daily highs are 25.9 to 27.7 °C (79 to 82 °F). The minimum monthly average daily lows are -13.2 to -10.7 °C (8 to 13 °F).Temperatures generally decrease with elevation and latitude. Mean annual precipitation ranges from 700 to 870 mm (28 to 34 in). Precipitation decreases from west to east. Average 0 °C (32 °F) frost-free season ranges from 73 to 144 days. Average -2 °C (28 °F) freeze-free season is 106 to 172 days. Mean annual snowfall ranges from 1.1 to 2.9 m (40 to 120 in). Snowfall decreases from northwest to southeast. Mean annual extreme minimum temperatures range from -33.3 to -23.1 °C (-28 to -10 °F), or hardiness zones 4a to 6a.
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) 50-110 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 110-150 days Precipitation total (actual range) 30-30 in Frost-free period (average) 90 days Freeze-free period (average) 130 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) MIO HYDRO PLT [USC00205531], Mio, MI
-
(2) WEST BRANCH 3SE [USC00208800], West Branch, MI
-
(3) HOUGHTON LK ROSCOMMON AP [USW00094814], Houghton Lake, MI
-
(4) EAST TAWAS [USC00202423], Tawas City, MI
-
(5) VANDERBILT 11ENE [USC00208417], Vanderbilt, MI
-
(6) HALE LOUD DAM [USC00203529], Glennie, MI
-
(7) GRAYLING [USC00203391], Grayling, MI
">Influencing water features
Site is moderately well to somewhat poorly drained with seasonally high water table within 25-100 cm of the surface.
Soil features
Soils are somewhat poorly drained to moderately well drained sands. They are commonly classified Oxyaquic Haplorthods, Typic Endoaquods, and Alfic Oxyaquic Haplorthods, and commonly mapped as Croswell, Au Gres, and Morganlake series or components. The top 50 cm has a typical pH of 5.4 and is 90% sand and 1.3% organic matter. At depth, pH ranges up to 6.4, and texture averages 90% sand and 5% clay. Depth to impeded hydraulic conductivity or root restrictive layers averages >200 cm. Depth to carbonates averages >200 cm.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Outwash
Surface texture (1) Sand
Drainage class Somewhat poorly drained to moderately well drained Permeability class Moderately rapid to rapid Soil depth 79 – 0 in Surface fragment cover <=3" 0 – 1 % Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(0-39.4in)1.57 – 3.94 in Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-19.7in)3.5 – 5.5 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(0-59.1in)0 – 10 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(0-59.1in)0 – 5 % Ecological dynamics
Acidic Sandy Depression tends to share the same ecological dynamics as Natureserve/Landfire system, Laurentian-Acadian Pine-Hemlock-Hardwood Forest. Stand replacing fires occurred every 150-600 years, with light surface fires every 30-115 years. Overstory was dominated by fire dependent, early successional pine (Pinus spp.) or oak (Quercus spp.). The moist low nutrient status of the soil tends to support Ericaceae, and species with boreal affinities like dwarf dogwood (Cornus canadensis). Kotar community, PArVCo (Pinus spp.-Acer rubrum/Vaccinium spp.-Cornus canadensis), understory indicator species include: Aralia nudicaulis, Clintonia borealis, Coptis trifolia, Cornus canadensis, Eurybia macrophylla, Gaultheria procumbens, Lysimachia borealis, Maianthemum canadense, Medeola virginiana, Mitchella repens, Osmundastrum cinnamomeum, Pteridium aquilinum, Vaccinium angustifolium, and Viburnum lentago (Wild Sarsaparilla, Yellow Bluebead-Lily, Goldthread, Bunchberry, Big-leaved Aster, Teaberry, Star-flower, Canada Mayflower, Indian Cucumber-root, Partridge-berry, Cinnamon Fern, Bracken Fern, Northern Lowbush Blueberry, and Nannyberry).
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 - Clear vegetation; cultivate crop species. T1B - Clear vegetation, invasive species introduced. R2 - Remove crop species; restore native species. T2A - Abandoned, succession. R3 - Control invasive species; restore native species. T3A - Clear vegetation; cultivate crop species. State 1 submodel, plant communities
1.1A - Blowdown/clearcut/fire. 1.2A - Succession State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference StateCommunity 1.1
Mesophytic Forest: Tsuga canadensis - Fagus grandifolia - (Acer saccharum) Great Lakes ForestDominant plant species
-
eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), tree
-
American beech (Fagus grandifolia), tree
-
sugar maple (Acer saccharum), tree
Community 1.2
Disturbed Forest: Pinus strobus - Populus tremuloides - (Acer rubrum) / Pteridium aquilinum Ruderal ForestDominant plant species
-
eastern white pine (Pinus strobus), tree
-
quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), tree
-
red maple (Acer rubrum), tree
-
western brackenfern (Pteridium aquilinum), other herbaceous
Community 1.3
Jack Pine Woodland: Pinus banksiana / Vaccinium spp. / Pleurozium schreberi Woodland
Figure 8. Jack pine intermixed with black spruce.
Dominant plant species
-
jack pine (Pinus banksiana), tree
-
velvetleaf huckleberry (Vaccinium myrtilloides), shrub
Pathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2Blowdown/clearcut/fire.
Conservation practices
Prescribed Burning Forest Stand Improvement Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1Succession
State 2
Cultivated StateSite can be used for Christmas tree farms or pasture, but otherwise growing season too short and soils too infertile for most food crops.
Community 2.1
Conservation AgricultureCommunity 2.2
Conventional AgricultureCommunity 2.3
Conservation Feature.Can be a grassed waterway, conservation reserve, a small patch pollinator garden, or other land taken out of its primary cultural production to mitigate or reduce impacts of adjacent land use, and is not by itself a permanent restoration of a complete native biological community and associated ecosystem services.
Pathway 2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.2Apply unsustainable farming techniques.
Pathway 2.1B
Community 2.1 to 2.3Establish conservation feature.
Conservation practices
Conservation Cover Grassed Waterway Pathway 2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1Apply sustainable farming techniques.
Conservation practices
Conservation Crop Rotation Cover Crop Nutrient Management Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Pathway 2.2B
Community 2.2 to 2.3Establish conservation feature.
Conservation practices
Conservation Cover Grassed Waterway Pathway 2.3A
Community 2.3 to 2.1Revert to sustainable agriculture.
Conservation practices
Conservation Crop Rotation Cover Crop Nutrient Management Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Pathway 2.3B
Community 2.3 to 2.2Revert to unsustainable agriculture.
State 3
Seminatural StateCommunity 3.1
Ruderal Meadow & Shrubland: Dactylis glomerata - Festuca spp. - Solidago canadensis Ruderal Mesic Meadow AllianceCommunity 3.2
Exotic Ruderal Forest: Acer platanoides - Ailanthus altissima - Pinus spp. Exotic Ruderal Forest AlliancePathway 3.1A
Community 3.1 to 3.2Succession
Pathway 3.2A
Community 3.2 to 3.1Blowdown/clearcut
Transition T1A
State 1 to 2Clear vegetation; cultivate crop species.
Transition T1B
State 1 to 3Clear vegetation, invasive species introduced.
Restoration pathway R2
State 2 to 1Remove crop species; restore native species.
Conservation practices
Brush Management Tree/Shrub Site Preparation Tree/Shrub Establishment Restoration and Management of Rare and Declining Habitats Upland Wildlife Habitat Management Herbaceous Weed Control Transition T2A
State 2 to 3Abandoned, succession.
Restoration pathway R3
State 3 to 1Control invasive species; restore native species.
Conservation practices
Brush Management Tree/Shrub Site Preparation Tree/Shrub Establishment Restoration and Management of Rare and Declining Habitats Upland Wildlife Habitat Management Herbaceous Weed Control Transition T3A
State 3 to 2Clear vegetation; cultivate crop species.
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 1.3 forest overstory composition
Common name Symbol Scientific name Nativity Height ft Canopy cover (%) Diameter in Basal area (square ft/acre) Treejack pine PIBA2 Pinus banksiana Native 23.6-51.2 45.5-54.5 5.9-11.8 0 black spruce PIMA Picea mariana Native 16.4-32.8 3.6-9.4 5.9 0 jack pine PIBA2 Pinus banksiana Native 19.7-39.4 1.9-5.1 – 0 black cherry PRSE2 Prunus serotina Native 13.1-26.2 0.3-0.7 – 0 Table 9. Community 1.3 forest understory composition
Common name Symbol Scientific name Nativity Height (ft) Canopy cover (%) Grass/grass-like (Graminoids)Pennsylvania sedge CAPE6 Carex pensylvanica Native 0.3–0.7 2.9–7.3 Forb/Herbstarflower TRBO2 Trientalis borealis Native 0–0.3 0.1–0.3 rattlesnakeweed HIVE Hieracium venosum Native 0–0.3 0.1 Canada mayflower MACA4 Maianthemum canadense Native 0–0.3 0.1 narrowleaf cowwheat MELI2 Melampyrum lineare Native 0–0.3 0.1 Fern/fern allywestern brackenfern PTAQ Pteridium aquilinum Native 1–2.3 32.4–47.6 Shrub/Subshrublowbush blueberry VAAN Vaccinium angustifolium Native 0.7–1.6 8.5–22.5 eastern teaberry GAPR2 Gaultheria procumbens Native 0.3–0.7 20.1–21.9 velvetleaf huckleberry VAMY Vaccinium myrtilloides Native 0.3–1 5.2–13.8 sheep laurel KAAN Kalmia angustifolia Native 0.7–1.6 3.3–7.5 bristly dewberry RUHI Rubus hispidus Native 0.3–1 2.9–7.3 sweet fern COPE80 Comptonia peregrina Native 0.7–1.6 0.1–0.3 trailing arbutus EPRE2 Epigaea repens Native 0.3–1 0.1–0.3 Treeblack spruce PIMA Picea mariana Native 8.2–16.4 2.2–5.8 black spruce PIMA Picea mariana Native 0.7–1.6 0.6–1.4 balsam fir ABBA Abies balsamea Native 8.2–16.4 0.6–1.4 black cherry PRSE2 Prunus serotina Native 0.7–1.6 0.1–0.3 red maple ACRU Acer rubrum Native 0.7–1.6 0.1–0.3 eastern white pine PIST Pinus strobus Native 8.2–16.4 0.1–0.2 eastern white pine PIST Pinus strobus Native 0.7–1.6 0.1 Biological Crustsgreygreen reindeer lichen CLRA60 Cladina rangiferina Native – 0.6–10.9 Nonvasculardicranum moss DIPO70 Dicranum polysetum Native – 32.8–37.2 Schreber's big red stem moss PLSC70 Pleurozium schreberi Native – 5.5–14.5 polytrichum moss POLYT5 Polytrichum Native – 1.4–3.6 leucobryum moss LEUCO9 Leucobryum Native – 0.3–0.7 Table 10. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 11. Community 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 12. Community 2.3 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
Medium intensity field data was collected in 2024 from 2 sites representing community phase 1.3. More data are needed from other community phases to verify this provisional ecological site.
Other references
A PROVISIONAL ECOLOGICAL SITE is a conceptual grouping of soil map unit components within a major land resource area (MLRA) based on the similarities in response to management. A provisional ecological site is a first approximation based on a cursory literature review, personal experience, and limited field reconnaissance. As more adequate literature review, expert opinion, and intensive plot data are collected, the site concept is subject to shifting, broadening, narrowing, subdivision, or re-aggregation in definition. Likewise, the community dynamics will be more elaborate in content, and may also change in structure, upon reaching approved status.
Future work, as described in a project plan, to validate the information in this provisional ecological site description is needed. This will include field activities to collect low and medium intensity sampling, soil correlations, and analysis of that data. Annual field reviews should be done by soil scientists and vegetation specialists. A final field review, peer review, quality control, and quality assurance reviews of the ESD will be needed to produce the final document. Annual reviews of the project plan are to be conducted by the Ecological Site Technical Team.
Albert, D. A. et al., 1995. Vegetation circa 1800 of Michigan. Michigan's native landscape as interpreted from the General Land Office Surveys 1816-1856 (digital map), Lansing: Michigan Natural Features Inventory.
Baker, M.E. and Barnes, B.V., 1998. Landscape ecosystem diversity of river floodplains in northwestern Lower Michigan, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 28(9), pp.1405-1418.
Barnes, B. V. and Wagner, W. H., 2004. Michigan trees: a guide to the trees of the Great Lakes region. Ann Arbor (Michigan): University of Michigan Press.
Burger, T. L. and Kotar, J., 2003. A Guide to Forest Communities and Habitat Types of Michigan. Madison, Wisconsin: Department of Forest Ecology and Management, University of Wisconsin.
Cleland, D. T. et al., 1994. Field guide: Ecological classification and inventory system of the Huron-Manistee National Forests, s.l.: USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.
Eichenlaub, V.L., 1979. Weather and climate of the Great Lakes region. University of Notre Dame Press, Indiana. 335 pages.
GHCN, 2016. Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly Versions 2 and 3 (temperature and precipitation data). NOAA. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/
Kost, M. A. et al., 2010. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description, Lansing, MI: Michigan Natural Features Inventory.
Landfire, 2017. Landfire Biophysical Settings Review Site. Accessed May, 2017 http://www.landfirereview.org/descriptions.html.
National Ocean Service, 2017. Tides and Currents (historic water level data for US coastal waters). https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/stations.html?type=Water+Levels
NDBC, 2017. National Data Buoy Center (wave height and period data for US coastal waters). NOAA. http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/
PRISM Climate Group. 2013. Gridded 30 Year Normals, 1981-2010. Oregon State University, http://prism.oregonstate.edu
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 2011. LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE 1.1.0 Existing Vegetation Type layer. http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/
USFS, Witness Tree data for northern Lower Michigan.Contributors
Gregory J. Schmidt
Approval
Greg Schmidt, 2/25/2025
Acknowledgments
The following individuals made substantive comments regarding the development of the Provisional Ecological Sites: Randy Swaty, The Nature Conservancy; Trevor Hobbs, USFS; Richard A. Corner, USFS; Andy Henriksen, NRCS; Dan Zay, NRCS.
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 11/25/2024 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
