Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F098XA018MI
Wet Acidic Drift Depressions
Last updated: 1/12/2024
Accessed: 08/23/2026
-
Search
Major Land Resource Area or ecological site by name and/or ID.
PreviousSectionsNextGeneral information
Draft. A draft ecological site description is either incomplete or has not undergone quality control and quality assurance review.
MLRA notes
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 098X–Southern Michigan and Northern Indiana Drift Plains
"This area is in the Eastern Lake Section of the Central Lowland Province of the Interior Plains. It is a broad glaciated plain that is deeply mantled by till in the north and outwash to the south. Much of the area is nearly level to gently rolling. Elevation ranges from 183 to 391 m (600 to 1285 ft). Local topographic relief averages 9 m and ranges up to 74 m (30 to 245 ft). Highest relief occurs adjacent to river valleys eroded through moraines. Topography is more subdued south of the Atlantic/Gulf drainage divide near the Michigan/Indiana state line, elevations ranging from 185 to 280 m (605 to 920 ft). Local topographic relief in the south averages 4 m and ranges up to 49 m (10 to 160 ft).
The surface of this area is covered by 30 to 150 m (100 to 500 ft) of glacial drift in most areas. At the northern edge of the area, the drift is more than 100 meters (300 ft) thick. From the Grand River basin northward, most of the drift consists of till from the Saginaw Lobe of the Wisconsin Ice Sheet. From the Kalamazoo River basin southward, there are significant deposits of unconsolidated sand and gravel outwash formed between major lobes of the receding Wisconsin Ice Sheet. The outwash deposits are reworked as sand dunes in the Kankakee River basin.
The bedrock beneath the glacial deposits in this area is deformed in the shape of a basin. The center of this basin is in the north-central part of the area. Pennsylvanian-age sandstone are in the center of the basin, and Mississippian-age sandstone and shale beds form the outer rings of the basin. In a few areas the drift deposits are less than 2 m (6 ft) thick, where glacial outwash channels have eroded to limestone bedrock in Grand Rapids, and where sandstone bedrock cuestas peak in elevation in near Hillsdale, Michigan. A sandstone cliff < 15 m high (<50 ft) occurs along a short stretch of the Grand River in Grand Ledge, Michigan.
Most of the rivers in this area are short because of their proximity to the Great Lakes east and west of the area. The largest watersheds, the St. Joseph River, Grand River, and Kalamazoo River drain into Lake Michigan. The southern extent of the MLRA is drained by the Kankakee River of the Mississippi River watershed."Classification relationships
Among the USFS ecoregional framework (Cleland et al., 2007), most of MLRA 98 is represented by the Humid Temperate Domain (200), Hot Continental Division (220), Midwest Broadleaf Forest Province (222), South Central Great Lakes Section (222J), subsections 222Jc, 222Jg, 222Jh, and 222Jf. Similar sites within the portion of MLRA 98 that overlap the Prairie Division (250) and Prairie Parkland Province
(251) are treated as separate ecological sites. MLRA 98 recently was adjusted to exclude portions of Warm Continental Division (210), Laurentian Mixed Forest Province (212) to the north, and subsections 222Ja and 222Jb to the northwest.Ecological site concept
The central concept of the Wet Acidic Drift Depressions is deep sands (>70 percent sands >100 cm deep) with low base saturation (pHs <5.5 or Spodosols) and seasonal ponding (poorly drained and very poorly drained). Such sites support vegetation composed of mostly wetland species of which tolerate low nutrient conditions. Characteristic species include red maple, pin oak, and black gum in forested sites with ferns, heaths, and peat moss in the understory. Open sites tend to have various grasses, sedges, and rushes and buttonbush.
Associated sites
F098XA017MI Moist Acidic Drift Flats
Similar sites
F097XA007MI Wet Acidic Sandy Flatwoods
May be similar enough to merge site concepts across MLRA boundaries. Limited in extent within MLRA 98, but widespread in MLRA 97. Most occurrences near enough to MLRA 97 such that floristic differences are unlikely to be significant.
F098XB032IN Kankakee Wet Acidic Interdunes
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Acer rubrum
Shrub (1) Vaccinium corymbosum
Herbaceous (1) Osmundastrum cinnamomeum
Physiographic features
Site is most commonly found in depressions on outwash plains.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Depression
(2) Outwash plain
Runoff class Negligible to low Ponding duration Brief (2 to 7 days) to very long (more than 30 days) Ponding frequency Rare to frequent Elevation 604 – 1276 ft Water table depth 0 – 10 in Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
This ecological site experiences a humid continental climate with mild summers and cold winters. Precipitation is moderately well distributed through the year with higher amounts during the growing season than the winter. Temperature extremes are moderated by the Great Lakes compared to other inland continental locations, though not as much as MLRAs directly bordering the Great Lakes. Mean annual extreme minimum temperatures range from -26.6 to -20.8°C (-16 to -5°F), which falls within hardiness zones 5a to 6a. Annual snowfall is enhanced by the Great Lakes, mainly on the western half of the MLRA.
Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 120-130 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 150-170 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 30-40 in Frost-free period (actual range) 120-140 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 150-180 days Precipitation total (actual range) 30-40 in Frost-free period (average) 130 days Freeze-free period (average) 160 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) ALMA [USC00200146], Alma, MI
-
(2) EAST LANSING 4 S [USC00202395], Holt, MI
-
(3) IONIA 2SSW [USC00204078], Ionia, MI
-
(4) JACKSON REYNOLDS FLD [USW00014833], Jackson, MI
-
(5) LANSING CAPITAL CITY AP [USW00014836], Lansing, MI
-
(6) GRAND RAPIDS [USW00094860], Grand Rapids, MI
-
(7) PRAIRIE HEIGHTS [USC00127102], LaGrange, IN
-
(8) WANATAH 2 WNW [USC00129222], Valparaiso, IN
-
(9) CHARLOTTE [USC00201476], Roscommon, MI
-
(10) DOWAGIAC 1 W [USC00202250], Dowagiac, MI
-
(11) FLINT 7 W [USC00202851], Flushing, MI
-
(12) GREENVILLE 2 NNE [USC00203429], Greenville, MI
-
(13) HILLSDALE [USC00203823], Hillsdale, MI
-
(14) SAINT JOHNS [USC00207280], Saint Johns, MI
-
(15) THREE RIVERS [USC00208184], Three Rivers, MI
-
(16) FLINT BISHOP INTL AP [USW00014826], Flint, MI
-
(17) LAPORTE [USC00124837], La Porte, IN
-
(18) COLDWATER ST SCHOOL [USC00201675], Coldwater, MI
-
(19) HASTINGS [USC00203661], Hastings, MI
-
(20) OWOSSO WWTP [USC00206300], Owosso, MI
">Influencing water features
Perched water table is within 0 - 25 cm.<br />
Soil features
Soils are poorly drained to very poorly drained sands with low pH. They are commonly classified as Typic Endoaqualfs and Aquic Humic Dystrudepts, and commonly mapped as Quinn and Newton series.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Glaciofluvial deposits
Surface texture (1) Sand
Drainage class Very poorly drained to poorly drained Permeability class Slow to moderately 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 – 5 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(0-59.1in)0 – 1 % Ecological dynamics
Fire was infrequent, allowing succession to fire sensitive species. Windthrow is a frequent disturbance due to shallow rooting in wet soils. Wet anoxic soils favor facultative and obligate wetland species. The moderate nutrient status and moderately stable water table supports swamp white oak, royal fern, and an moderate diversity of other swamp species. The reference community is dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum) with an understory of highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) and cinnamon fern (Osmundastrum cinnamomeum).
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 textState 1 submodel, plant communities
Communities 2 and 5 (additional pathways)
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 3 submodel, plant communities
State 4 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference StateThe Reference State consists of a mosaic of swamp forest, shrub swamp, wet meadows, and marshes.
Dominant plant species
-
red maple (Acer rubrum), tree
-
highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), shrub
-
cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), other herbaceous
Community 1.1
Swamp ForestCommunity 1.2
Wet MeadowCommunity 1.3
Shrub-ThicketCommunity 1.4
Emergent MarshCommunity 1.5
Inundated Shrub SwampPathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2Temporary prolonged inundation.
Pathway 1.1B
Community 1.1 to 1.3Clearcut/Blowdown.
Conservation practices
Early Successional Habitat Development/Management Forest Stand Improvement Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1Succession.
Conservation practices
Tree/Shrub Site Preparation Tree/Shrub Establishment Pathway 1.2B
Community 1.2 to 1.3Succession.
Conservation practices
Tree/Shrub Site Preparation Tree/Shrub Establishment Pathway 1.2D
Community 1.2 to 1.4Permanent inundation.
Pathway 1.2E
Community 1.2 to 1.5Shrub establishment; permanent inundation.
Conservation practices
Tree/Shrub Establishment Pathway 1.3A
Community 1.3 to 1.1Succession.
Conservation practices
Tree/Shrub Site Preparation Tree/Shrub Establishment Pathway 1.3B
Community 1.3 to 1.2Temporary prolonged inundation.
Pathway 1.3C
Community 1.3 to 1.4Permanent inundation.
Pathway 1.3C
Community 1.3 to 1.5Permanent inundation.
Pathway 1.4A
Community 1.4 to 1.2Drop water table.
Pathway 1.4C
Community 1.4 to 1.5Temporary drop water table; shrub establishment.
Pathway 1.5A
Community 1.5 to 1.2Drop water table; shrub mortality.
Conservation practices
Brush Management Pathway 1.5C
Community 1.5 to 1.4Temporary drought; shrub mortality.
State 2
Cultural State[Alternative States to be developed; refer to component communities.]
Community 2.1
Sustainable Crop, Pasture, or PlantationCommunity 2.2
Unsustainable Cultural PhaseCommunity 2.3
Conservation FeatureCan 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 2.2Revert to unsustainable cultural practices.
Pathway 2.1B
Community 2.1 to 2.3Establish conservation feature.
Conservation practices
Conservation Cover Grassed Waterway Pathway 2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1Implement sustainable cultural practices.
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 2.1Implement sustainable cultural practices.
Conservation practices
Conservation Crop Rotation Cover Crop Nutrient Management Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Pathway 2.3B
Community 2.3 to 2.2Revert to unsustainable cultural practices.
State 3
Seminatural Drained State[Alternative States to be developed; refer to component communities.]
Community 3.1
Ruderal Drained Meadow & ShrubCommunity 3.2
Exotic Ruderal Drained ForestPathway 3.1A
Community 3.1 to 3.2Succession
Pathway 3.2A
Community 3.2 to 3.1Blowdown/clearcut.
Conservation practices
Early Successional Habitat Development/Management Forest Stand Improvement State 4
Seminatural State[Alternative States to be developed; refer to component communities.]
Community 4.1
Ruderal Wet Meadow & Shrub SwampCommunity 4.2
Exotic Ruderal Swamp ForestPathway 4.1A
Community 4.1 to 4.2Succession.
Pathway 4.2A
Community 4.2 to 4.1Blowdown/clearcut.
Conservation practices
Early Successional Habitat Development/Management Forest Stand Improvement Transition T1A
State 1 to 2Drain; clear vegetation; cultivate domesticated species.
Transition T1B
State 1 to 3Drain; clear vegetation, invasive species introduced.
Transition T1C
State 1 to 4Clear vegetation, invasive species introduced.
Restoration pathway R2
State 2 to 1Restore hydrology; remove domesticated species; restore native species.
Conservation practices
Brush Management Restoration and Management of Rare and Declining Habitats Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management Wetland Restoration Herbaceous Weed Control Transition T2A
State 2 to 3Abandon, succession.
Transition T2B
State 2 to 4Restore hydrology; abandon; succession.
Conservation practices
Wetland Restoration Restoration pathway R3
State 3 to 1Restore hydrology; control invasive species; restore native species
Conservation practices
Brush Management Restoration and Management of Rare and Declining Habitats Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management Wetland Restoration Herbaceous Weed Control Transition T3A
State 3 to 2Clear vegetation; cultivate domesticated species.
Transition T3B
State 3 to 4Restore hydrology.
Conservation practices
Wetland Restoration Restoration pathway R4
State 4 to 1Control invasive species; restore native species.
Conservation practices
Brush Management Restoration and Management of Rare and Declining Habitats Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management Herbaceous Weed Control Transition T4A
State 4 to 2Drain; clear vegetation; cultivate domesticated species.
Transition T4B
State 4 to 3Drain.
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 1.5 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) 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 (%) Table 15. Community 4.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 16. Community 4.2 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 Schmidt
Approval
Nels Barrett, 1/12/2024
Acknowledgments
Matt Bromley and Andy Henriksen reviewed the narratives. Matt Bromley reviewed associated soil map units.
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 08/23/2026 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
