Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F097XB003IN
Chicago Backdune
Last updated: 1/16/2024
Accessed: 06/28/2026
-
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): 097X–Southwestern Michigan Fruit and Vegetable Crop Belt
Physiography consists of sandy lake plains and dunes along the western side adjacent to Lake Michigan, and moderately sloping fine-loamy moraine from the Lake Michigan lobe of the Wisconsin Ice Sheet.
Vegetation is mostly mesophytic forests of central and northern hardwood and conifer species with prairie and oak savanna to the south. Compared to inland locations, cold sensitive hardwood species extend further north due to milder winters, and conifers extend further south due to cooler summers, heavier snowfall, and sandier soils. Lake effect snow and delayed spring warm up dampen the fire frequency relative to similar inland sites, except along the south side of Lake Michigan. The northern extent is defined by a major floristic boundary where several central hardwoods species drop out. The southern boundary is defined by fine-loamy moraines with predominantly prairie vegetation.
The ecological site inference area for MLRA 97 is subdivided along a floristic/climatic break roughly from New Buffalo, Michigan to Portage, Indiana. This corresponds to the heaviest lake effect snow belt (>160 cm) south and east of this line and is associated lower historic fire frequencies. The snow belt portion “A”, has more frequent conifer and beech, while the less snowy portion “B” has more prairie and savanna elements. Although differing in precise boundary location, both USFS and EPA ecoregions support a climatic/floristic break at the next higher rank in their respective hierarchies.Classification relationships
Among the USFS ecoregional framework (Cleland et al., 2007), most of MLRA 97 is represented by the Humid Temperate Domain (200), Hot Continental Division (220), Midwest Broadleaf Forest Province (222), South Central Great Lakes Section (222J), subsections 222Ja and 222Jb. MLRA 97 was recently extended northward to be more consistent with the limits of the USFS ecoregions subsections 222Ja and 222Jb, because it is more consistent with vegetation patterns and species distributions. A former portion of MLRA 97 that extended westward from the southern end of Lake Michigan (including most of the city of Chicago) was recently removed from the MLRA due to its predominantly non-sandy deposits and reduced lake effect climate, and would have overlapped USFS ecoregion 222K.
Among the EPA ecoregional framework (Omernik and Griffith, 2014), most of MLRA 97 falls within Eastern Temperate Forests (Level I: 8), Mixed Wood Plains (Level II: 8.1), Southern Michigan/Northern Indiana Drift Plains (Level III: 56), and Level IV: 56d and 56f. Ecoregion 56f continues north beyond MLRA 97. Former portions of MLRA 97 that encompassed the city of Chicago included Level III ecoregion 54, Central Corn Belt Plains, before the last revision of MRLA boundaries.Ecological site concept
The central concept of the Backdune is old parabolic dunes that formed during higher lake levels thousands of years ago and have since become stabilized with forest vegetation. The vegetation tends to have a xerophytic species mix of pine and oak species due to higher fire frequency and less lake amelioration of summer high temperatures southwest of the Galien River. "Mesophytic pocket" forests occur in the most sheltered interdune locations.
Associated sites
R097XA001MI Beach And Foredune
Similar sites
F097XA002MI Backdune
F097XB040IN Chicago Sandy Slopes
R097XA001MI Beach And Foredune
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Quercus velutina
(2) Tilia americanaShrub Not specified
Herbaceous (1) Hepatica americana
Physiographic features
Old stabilized dunes along a Great Lake.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Dune
Runoff class Negligible to medium Elevation 581 – 755 ft Slope 0 – 100 % Water table depth 39 – 0 in Aspect W, NW, N, NE, E, SE, S, SW Climatic features
The southern Lake Michigan lake plain has a humid warm continental climate with cold winters and warm summers. Almost two thirds of the precipitation is distributed during the warmer half of the year with a significant portion of the precipitation occurring as heavy downpours during thunderstorms. Thunderstorm activity is enhanced inland by lake breeze fronts, while it is diminished near the lakeshore by the stabilizing effect of the cooler lake waters. Occasionally, thunderstorm microbursts cause localized high winds which open single tree gaps in forest canopies, or more rarely, tornados and derechos (severe straight-line winds) open larger gaps. Fall storms bring more frequent strong winds, but with impacts moderated by the lack of leaves (wind resistance) in the canopy. During July, average precipitation lags potential evapotranspiration, resulting in droughty conditions in the upper soil horizons of upland sites. During dry years, this droughty period is extended into August and September, resulting in dry fuels and potential for wildfire over oak and pine dominated areas.
Winter precipitation light with annual snowfall of 0.7 to 1.0 m (28-40 inches), which is only occasionally enhanced by lake effect during instances of cold north or northeast winds. The combination of lower snowfall, and more limited lake amelioration of warm southwesterly winds, contribute to higher fire frequencies relative to similar sites to the north and east.
The area falls within USDA Hardiness zones (-22 to -24 C) 5b and 6a (slightly colder than areas to the north and east) and has limited lake protection from premature spring warm up prior to the last killing frosts, limiting the potential for fruit crops relative to other portions of MLRA 97.Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 160-180 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 200-200 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 40-40 in Frost-free period (actual range) 150-180 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 200-200 days Precipitation total (actual range) 40-40 in Frost-free period (average) 170 days Freeze-free period (average) 200 days Precipitation total (average) 40 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) CHICAGO UNIV [USW00014892], Chicago, IL
-
(2) INDIANA DUNES NATL LKS [USC00124244], Chesterton, IN
">Influencing water features
Not wet, but adjacent to Great Lakes.<br />
Soil features
Soils are excessively drained to moderately well drained sands on >15% slopes. They are commonly classified as Typic Udipsamments, and commonly mapped as Oakville series.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Eolian sands
Surface texture (1) Sand
Drainage class Somewhat poorly drained to excessively drained Permeability class Moderately rapid to rapid Soil depth 79 – 0 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified 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)4.5 – 6 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(0-59.1in)Not specified Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(0-59.1in)Not specified Ecological dynamics
Fire was locally important adjacent to other fire prone ecological sites. Low fertility and periodic favors oaks and pine, with mesophytic pocket forests restricted to occasional steep interdunal areas where fire failed to fully penetrate due to discontinuous ground fuels.
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
State 1 submodel, plant communities
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 3 submodel, plant communities
State 4 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference StateThe Reference State consists of forest and open shrubland.
Dominant plant species
-
black oak (Quercus velutina), tree
-
American basswood (Tilia americana), tree
-
roundlobe hepatica (Hepatica nobilis var. obtusa), other herbaceous
Community 1.1
Mesophytic ForestCommunity 1.2
Xerophytic ForestCommunity 1.3
Open Dune ShrublandCommunity 1.4
Open Dune MeadowPathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.4Blowout or severe fire.
Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1Succession.
Pathway 1.2B
Community 1.2 to 1.4Blowout or severe fire.
Pathway 1.3A
Community 1.3 to 1.2Succession.
Pathway 1.4A
Community 1.4 to 1.3Succession.
State 2
Urbanland Cultural State[Alternative States to be developed; refer to component communities.]
Community 2.1
Sustainable Urban LandscapingCommunity 2.2
Unsustainable Urban LandscapingCommunity 2.3
Conservation FeatureCan be a 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 2.2Revert to unsustainable cultural practices (i.e. maintain non-native lawn, apply fertilizers, grow invasive ornamentals).
Pathway 2.1B
Community 2.1 to 2.3Establish conservation feature (i.g. native pollinator garden).
Conservation practices
Brush Management Tree/Shrub Establishment Restoration and Management of Rare and Declining Habitats Herbaceous Weed Control Pathway 2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1Implement sustainable cultural practices (i.e. establish native dunegrass, stop applying fertilizer, eliminate invasive ornamentals).
Conservation practices
Brush Management Conservation Cover Tree/Shrub Establishment Herbaceous Weed Control Pathway 2.2B
Community 2.2 to 2.3Establish conservation feature (i.g. native pollinator garden).
Conservation practices
Brush Management Tree/Shrub Establishment Restoration and Management of Rare and Declining Habitats Herbaceous Weed Control Pathway 2.3A
Community 2.3 to 2.1Implement sustainable cultural practices (i.e. establish native dunegrass, stop applying fertilizer, eliminate invasive ornamentals).
Conservation practices
Brush Management Conservation Cover Tree/Shrub Establishment Herbaceous Weed Control Pathway 2.3B
Community 2.3 to 2.2Revert to unsustainable cultural practices (i.e. maintain non-native lawn, apply fertilizers, grow invasive ornamentals).
State 3
Seminatural State[Alternative States to be developed; refer to component communities.]
Community 3.1
Ruderal Meadow & ShrublandCommunity 3.2
Exotic Ruderal ForestPathway 3.1A
Community 3.1 to 3.2Succession.
Pathway 3.2A
Community 3.2 to 3.1Blowdown/clearcut.
State 4
Tree Farm Cultural State[Alternative States to be developed; refer to component communities.]
Community 4.1
Pine PlantationTransition T1A
State 1 to 2Clear vegetation; cultivate domesticated species
Transition T1B
State 1 to 3Clear vegetation, invasive species introduced
Transition T1C
State 1 to 4Clearcut natural forest if present; recontour landscape; plant tree monoculture in rows.
Restoration pathway R2
State 2 to 1Remove domesticated 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 Restoration pathway T3A
State 3 to 2Clear vegetation; cultivate domesticated species
Restoration pathway R4
State 4 to 1Clearcut or thin plantation if native trees; remove non-native 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 Forest Stand Improvement Herbaceous Weed Control Restoration pathway T4A
State 4 to 3Clearcut without restoration.
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 1.4 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 10. Community 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 11. Community 2.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 12. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 13. Community 3.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 14. Community 4.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Supporting information
Inventory data references
Site Development and Testing Plan Future work is needed, as described in a future project plan, to validate the information presented in this provisional ecological site description. Future work includes field sampling, data collection and analysis by qualified vegetation ecologists and soil scientists. As warranted, annual reviews of the project plan can be conducted by the Ecological Site Technical Team. A final field review, peer review, quality control, and quality assurance reviews of the ESD are necessary to approve a final document.
Other references
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.
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.
Cleland, D.T., J.A. Freeouf, J.E. Keys, G.J. Nowacki, C. Carpenter, and W.H. McNab. 2007. Ecological Subregions: Sections and Subsections of the Coterminous United States. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report WO-76. Washington, DC. 1–92.
Jacquart, E., Homoya, M. and Casebere, L., 2002. Natural Communities of Indiana (Working Draft), Indianapolis: Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Nature Preserves.
Kost, M. A. et al., 2010. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description, Lansing, MI: Michigan Natural Features Inventory.
Moran, R. C., 1981. Prairie fens in northeastern Illinois: floristic composition and disturbance. Ohio Biol Surv Biol Notes, 15, 164-168.
Omernik, J.M. and G.E. Griffith. 2014. Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States: Evolution of a Hierarchical Spatial Framework. Environmental Management 54:1249–1266.
Swink, F. and Wilhelm, G., 1994. Plants of the Chicago Region. Indianapolis(Indiana): Indiana Academy of Science.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 2008. LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE 1.1.0 Vegetation Dynamics Models. Accessed August 28, 2012 http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 2011. LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE 1.1.0 Existing Vegetation Type layer. http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/Contributors
Greg J. Schmidt
Approval
Nels Barrett, 1/16/2024
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 06/28/2026 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
