Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site R098XA002MI
Inland Salt Marshes
Last updated: 1/12/2024
Accessed: 08/30/2026
-
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): 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.
Among the EPA ecoregional framework (Omernik and Griffith, 2014), most of MLRA 98 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: 56b, 56g, and 56h. Similar sites within the portion of MLRA 98 that overlap the Central USA Plains (Level II: 8.2) and Central Corn Belt Plains (Level III: 54) are treated as separate ecological sites. MLRA 98 recently was adjusted to exclude portions of Northern Forests (Level I: 5), Mixed Wood Shield (Level II: 5.2), Northern Lakes and Forests (Level III: 50) to the north, and level IV: 56d and 56f to the northwest.Ecological site concept
The central concept of the Inland Salt Marshes is a range of organic (or mineral) soils with high electrical conductivity, indicating a high amount of dissolved salts, particularly sodium chloride.
Associated sites
F098XA006MI Mucky Depressions
Similar sites
F098XA006MI Mucky Depressions
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree Not specified
Shrub Not specified
Herbaceous (1) Schoenoplectus americanus
(2) Eleocharis parvulaPhysiographic features
Extant occurrences are in floodplains, presumably below the elevation of Paleozoic salt deposits.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Valley floor
Runoff class Low Elevation 531 – 919 ft Water table depth 0 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 (average) 140 days Freeze-free period (average) 170 days Precipitation total (average) 40 in BarLineFigure 1. Monthly precipitation range
BarLineFigure 2. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Figure 3. Annual precipitation pattern
Figure 4 Annual average temperature pattern
Climate stations used
-
(1) IONIA 2SSW [USC00204078], Ionia, MI
-
(2) ALMA [USC00200146], Alma, MI
-
(3) SAINT JOHNS [USC00207280], Saint Johns, MI
">Influencing water features
Site remains saturated from groundwater flow.<br />
Soil features
Soils are very poorly drained mucks or mineral soils. Extant occurrences are included in mollic floodplain mapunits (Ceresco and Sloan) and a Houghton muck map unit. A provisional classification of these sites is Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts and Typic Sulfisaprists. If the sulfur content proves to be too low to make Sulfisaprists, classification it is likely to be the catch-all Typic Haplosaprists. The only soil taxonomic grouping available to recognize the higher salinity is Halic Haplosaprists. However, documented electrical conductivity readings failed reach the necessary 30 dS/m to be identified as a Halic subgroup, despite a unique response in floristic composition to the otherwise elevated salinity. Recent field data across one saltmarsh shows pHs ranging from 5.4 to 7, and electrical conductivity ranging from 2.05 to 13.55 dS/m. Vegetation composition turnover from Typha angustifolia to saltmarsh specialist Schoenoplectus americanus occurred at 3 dS/m. The relatively low Typha cover present in this higher salinity zone was 1.8 m tall compared to 3 m outside this zone. An area of exclusively the very short Eleocharis parvula had readings greater than 10 dS/m. The site was probably overlooked by Clinton County surveys due to its extremely limited occurrences (3 sites < 5 ha total) restricted to the Maple River floodplain.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Organic material
Surface texture (1) Muck
Drainage class Very poorly drained Permeability class Moderately slow to moderately rapid Soil depth 79 – 0 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(0-39.4in)13.78 – 21.65 in Electrical conductivity
(0-19.7in)2 – 15 mmhos/cm Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-19.7in)5.5 – 8 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(0-59.1in)Not specified Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(0-59.1in)Not specified Ecological dynamics
Site remains saturated year round with saline groundwater, though the salinity may vary spatially and seasonally. Relatively few species of halophytes (salt tolerant plants) dominate the vegetation. Site remains relatively clear of woody species due a lack of salt tolerant native trees and shrubs. The reference community is dominated by obligate halophytic (salt tolerant) sedges like Schoenoplectus americanus and Eleocharis parvula.
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 2 submodel, plant communities
State 3 submodel, plant communities
State 4 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference StateThe Reference State consists of a spontaneous wild condition wherein non-native species are of low abundance and all native species retain viable populations. Structure and function of communities vary according to natural processes and disturbance regimes, with human influences limited to drivers that have the similar outcomes as natural processes. Communities range from marshes to shrub swamps. Dominant natural processes and disturbance regimes include fire, wind, and beaver activities.
Dominant plant species
-
chairmaker's bulrush (Schoenoplectus americanus), grass
-
dwarf spikerush (Eleocharis parvula), grass
Community 1.1
Marsh: Schoenoplectus maritimus - Atriplex patula - Eleocharis parvula Saline Marsh AssociationCommunity 1.2
Aquatic: Nuphar advena - Nymphaea odorata Aquatic VegetationCommunity 1.3
Inundated Shrub Swamp: Cephalanthus occidentalis / Carex spp. Northern Shrub SwampThis phase represents the shrubby phase with shallow standing water. This shrubby often occurs on the nutrient rich edges of a wetland where the muck is more decomposed, and the substrate becomes submerged (no hummocks to stand on).
Forest overstory.Less than 5 percent tree cover associated with this phase, related to transitions from adjacent vegetation phases or is shaded from adjacent upland vegetation. Trees rooted within this zone most likely are willows (Salix spp.) that can tolerate longer hydroperiods.
Pathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2Inundation
Pathway 1.1B
Community 1.1 to 1.3Temporary exposure and reduced salinity; shrub establishment
Conservation practices
Tree/Shrub Site Preparation Tree/Shrub Establishment Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1Lower water table, seasonal exposure; emergent vegetation established
Pathway 1.2B
Community 1.2 to 1.3Temporary exposure and lower salinity; shrub establishment
Pathway 1.3A
Community 1.3 to 1.1Disturbance (fire, deep inundation) or higher salinities leading to shrub mortality
Conservation practices
Brush Management Prescribed Burning Pathway 1.3B
Community 1.3 to 1.2Disturbance (fire, deep inundation) or higher salinities leading to shrub mortality
State 2
Cultural StateThe cultural state is actively managed. The structure and composition of cultural vegetation is not self-sustaining without human inputs.
Community 2.1
Sustainable Crop, Pasture, or PlantationThe community phase is an undifferentiated placeholder representing any of a number of possible crops or other intensive land uses in which best available management practices are employed to ensure that a minimum amount of soil erosion and water pollution occurs.
Community 2.2
Unsustainable Cultural PhaseThe community phase is an undifferentiated placeholder representing any of a number of possible crops or other intensive land uses in which poor management practices are employed, resulting in an unacceptable amount of soil erosion and water pollution.
Community 2.3
Conservation FeatureThe community phase represents non-crop vegetation that is managed in association with cropland or other intensive land uses to reduce environmental impacts of the land use. The managed vegetation can be a grassed waterway, conservation reserve, a small patch pollinator garden, or other land taken out of crop production. The small size and adjacency to an intensive land uses limits the degree to which native biological community and associated ecosystem services can be restored, but in a landscape context it may provide buffers or connectivity with nearby wild ecosystems.
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 StateThe Seminatural Drained State is modified from reference conditions by draining the site, often followed by temporary cultivation of the site. The vegetation is spontaneously self-generated or self-sustaining in response to both human and natural drivers. However, species composition may no longer indicate wetland definitions, and may consist of a mix of native and introduced species. The degree of isolation from intact habitat and the degree of disturbance will dictate the species composition as vegetation recovers.
Community 3.1
Ruderal Drained Meadow & ShrubThis phase represents an undifferentiated open community with few trees, with a variable native and non-native species composition.
Dominant plant species
-
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), shrub
-
reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), grass
-
eastern woodland sedge (Carex blanda), grass
-
rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), grass
Community 3.2
Semi-Natural Drained Swamp ForestThis phase represents an undifferentiated forested community, with a variable native and non-native species composition.
Dominant plant species
-
American elm (Ulmus americana), tree
-
red maple (Acer rubrum), tree
-
American basswood (Tilia americana), tree
-
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), shrub
-
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), shrub
-
northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin), shrub
-
eastern bottlebrush grass (Elymus hystrix), grass
-
Canadian clearweed (Pilea pumila), other herbaceous
-
great ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), other herbaceous
-
jumpseed (Polygonum virginianum), other herbaceous
Table 5. Ground cover
Tree foliar cover 60-100% Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover 10-60% Grass/grasslike foliar cover 0-30% Forb foliar cover 10-80% Non-vascular plants 0-0% Biological crusts 0% Litter 30-50% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 0% Surface fragments >3" 0% Bedrock 0% Water 0% Bare ground 0% Table 6. Canopy structure (% cover)
Height Above Ground (ft) Tree Shrub/Vine Grass/
GrasslikeForb <0.5 0-3% 1-25% 0-15% 5-75% >0.5 <= 1 0-3% 1-25% 0-15% 5-75% >1 <= 2 0-3% 10-50% 0-15% 10-90% >2 <= 4.5 0-5% 5-30% 0-3% 1-40% >4.5 <= 13 20-75% 5-35% – 0-20% >13 <= 40 55-95% 0-5% – – >40 <= 80 20-80% 0-1% – – >80 <= 120 – – – – >120 – – – – Pathway 3.1A
Community 3.1 to 3.2Succession
Pathway 3.2A
Community 3.2 to 3.1Blowdown or clearcut
Conservation practices
Early Successional Habitat Development/Management Forest Stand Improvement State 4
Seminatural StateThe Seminatural State is modified from reference conditions mainly in species composition due to some type of disturbance, but retains a wetland hydrology. The state might have been drained and under cultivation for a time, but subsequently, hydrology is at least partially restored. The vegetation is spontaneously self-generated or self-sustaining in response to both human and natural drivers. However, species composition consists of a mix of native and introduced species. The degree of isolation from intact habitat and the degree of disturbance will dictate the species composition as vegetation recovers.
Community 4.1
Ruderal Wet Meadow & Shrub Swamp: Phalaris arundinacea Eastern Ruderal MarshTransition T1A
State 1 to 2Drained, cleared vegetation, then cultivated domesticated species
Transition T1B
State 1 to 3Drained, cleared vegetation, then invasive species introduced
Transition T1C
State 1 to 4Cleared vegetation, then invasive species introduced
Restoration pathway R2
State 2 to 1Restored hydrology, removed domesticated species, and restored 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 3Abandoned, then succession
Transition T2B
State 2 to 4Restored hydrology, controlled invasive species, then restored native species
Conservation practices
Wetland Restoration Restoration pathway R3
State 3 to 1Restored hydrology, controlled invasive species, then restored 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 2Cleared vegetation, then cultivated domesticated species
Transition T3B
State 3 to 4Restored hydrology
Conservation practices
Wetland Restoration Restoration pathway R4
State 4 to 1Controlled invasive species, then restored 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 2Drained, cleared vegetation, then cultivated domesticated species
Transition T4B
State 4 to 3Drained
Additional community tables
Table 7. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 8. Community 1.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 1.3 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 3.2 forest overstory composition
Common name Symbol Scientific name Nativity Height ft Canopy cover (%) Diameter in Basal area (square ft/acre) TreeAmerican elm ULAM Ulmus americana Native 16.4-49.2 5-50 – 0 common hackberry CEOC Celtis occidentalis Native 16.4-49.2 1.5-40 – 0 red maple ACRU Acer rubrum Native 32.8-82 0-30 – 0 pin oak QUPA2 Quercus palustris Native 32.8-82 3-30 – 0 silver maple ACSA2 Acer saccharinum Native 32.8-82 1-25 – 0 boxelder ACNE2 Acer negundo Native 16.4-49.2 1.5-15 – 0 American basswood TIAM Tilia americana Native 32.8-82 0-15 – 0 American basswood TIAM Tilia americana Native 16.4-49.2 0-10 – 0 swamp white oak QUBI Quercus bicolor Native 32.8-82 0-10 – 0 swamp white oak QUBI Quercus bicolor Native 16.4-49.2 1.5-10 – 0 red maple ACRU Acer rubrum Native 16.4-49.2 0-10 – 0 American elm ULAM Ulmus americana Native 32.8-82 0-10 – 0 eastern cottonwood PODE3 Populus deltoides Native 32.8-82 0-5 – 0 white mulberry MOAL Morus alba Introduced 16.4-49.2 0-5 – 0 black cherry PRSE2 Prunus serotina Native 32.8-82 0-4 – 0 tuliptree LITU Liriodendron tulipifera Native 32.8-82 0-3 – 0 sassafras SAAL5 Sassafras albidum Native 32.8-82 0-3 – 0 black cherry PRSE2 Prunus serotina Native 16.4-49.2 0-2 – 0 silver maple ACSA2 Acer saccharinum Native 16.4-49.2 0-2 – 0 bigtooth aspen POGR4 Populus grandidentata Native 32.8-82 0-1.5 – 0 black oak QUVE Quercus velutina Native 32.8-82 0-1.5 – 0 Vine/Lianariverbank grape VIRI Vitis riparia Native 6.6-49.2 0.1-2 – 0 summer grape VIAE Vitis aestivalis Native 16.4-65.6 0-1.5 – 0 Virginia creeper PAQU2 Parthenocissus quinquefolia Native 6.6-49.2 0-0.2 – 0 Table 16. Community 3.2 forest understory composition
Common name Symbol Scientific name Nativity Height (ft) Canopy cover (%) Grass/grass-like (Graminoids)eastern bottlebrush grass ELHY Elymus hystrix Native 0.3–1.6 0.2–10 rosy sedge CARO22 Carex rosea Native 0.3–1.6 0–5 awlfruit sedge CAST5 Carex stipata Native 1.6–3.3 0–1 sweet woodreed CIAR2 Cinna arundinacea Native 3.3–4.9 0–1 broadleaf rosette grass DILA8 Dichanthelium latifolium Native 1.6–3.3 0–0.4 whitegrass LEVI2 Leersia virginica Native 1.6–3.3 0–0.4 Forb/HerbCanadian clearweed PIPU2 Pilea pumila Native 0.3–1.6 25–65 great ragweed AMTR Ambrosia trifida Native 0.3–1.6 0–35 American pokeweed PHAM4 Phytolacca americana Native 3.3–6.6 2–20 threelobe beggarticks BITR Bidens tripartita Native 1.6–3.3 0–15 white snakeroot AGAL5 Ageratina altissima Native 0.3–1.6 0–5 stinging nettle URDI Urtica dioica Native 0.3–1.6 0.4–5 white avens GECA7 Geum canadense Native 1.6–3.3 0.5–5 lesser burdock ARMI2 Arctium minus Introduced 0.3–1.6 0.1–5 devil's beggartick BIFR Bidens frondosa Native 1.6–3.3 0–4 clustered blacksnakeroot SAOD Sanicula odorata Native 0.3–1.6 0–4 Canadian woodnettle LACA3 Laportea canadensis Native 0.3–1.6 0–4 American hogpeanut AMBR2 Amphicarpaea bracteata Native 0.3–1.6 0–2 stickywilly GAAP2 Galium aparine Native 0.3–1 0–1 American bellflower CAAM18 Campanulastrum americanum Native 3.3–6.6 0–1 beggarslice HAVI2 Hackelia virginiana Native 0.3–1.6 0–0.5 bristly buttercup RAHI Ranunculus hispidus Native 1.3–3.3 0–0.5 garlic mustard ALPE4 Alliaria petiolata Introduced 0.3–1.6 0–0.5 Asiatic dayflower COCO3 Commelina communis Introduced 0.3–1.6 0–0.4 Canadian honewort CRCA9 Cryptotaenia canadensis Native 0.3–1.6 0–0.4 common yellow oxalis OXST Oxalis stricta Native 0.3–1.6 0–0.2 feathery false lily of the valley MARA7 Maianthemum racemosum Native 0.3–1.6 0–0.1 mayapple POPE Podophyllum peltatum Native 0.3–1.6 0–0.1 common cinquefoil POSI2 Potentilla simplex Native 0.3–1.6 0–0.1 calico aster SYLA4 Symphyotrichum lateriflorum Native 0.3–1.6 0–0.1 Canadian white violet VICA4 Viola canadensis Native 0.3–1.6 0–0.1 Fern/fern allyspinulose woodfern DRCA11 Dryopteris carthusiana Native 0.3–1.6 0–0.3 western brackenfern PTAQ Pteridium aquilinum Native 3.3–6.6 0–0.1 Shrub/Subshrubmultiflora rose ROMU Rosa multiflora Introduced 1.6–6.6 0.5–20 northern spicebush LIBE3 Lindera benzoin Native 1.6–6.6 1–15 Morrow's honeysuckle LOMO2 Lonicera morrowii Introduced 1.6–6.6 0–5 black raspberry RUOC Rubus occidentalis Native 1.6–6.6 0–4 Amur honeysuckle LOMA6 Lonicera maackii Introduced 1.6–6.6 0–2 autumn olive ELUM Elaeagnus umbellata Introduced 1.6–6.6 0–0.4 eastern prickly gooseberry RICY Ribes cynosbati Native 1.6–6.6 0–0.1 Allegheny blackberry RUAL Rubus allegheniensis Native 1.6–6.6 0–0.1 European cranberrybush VIOP Viburnum opulus Native 0–1 0–0.1 multiflora rose ROMU Rosa multiflora Introduced 0–1 0–0.1 Treegreen ash FRPE Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 3.3–16.4 0–3 green ash FRPE Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 0.3–1.6 0–2 sassafras SAAL5 Sassafras albidum Native 3.3–16.4 0–2 common hackberry CEOC Celtis occidentalis Native 3.3–16.4 0.1–1.5 black cherry PRSE2 Prunus serotina Native 0.3–1.6 0–1 swamp white oak QUBI Quercus bicolor Native 3.3–16.4 0–1 swamp white oak QUBI Quercus bicolor Native 0.3–1.6 0–1 bitternut hickory CACO15 Carya cordiformis Native 0.3–1.6 0–0.1 hawthorn CRATA Crataegus Native 3.3–16.4 0–0.1 Vine/LianaVirginia creeper PAQU2 Parthenocissus quinquefolia Native 0.3–1.6 3–25 eastern poison ivy TORA2 Toxicodendron radicans Native 0.3–1.6 0.2–1.5 eastern poison ivy TORA2 Toxicodendron radicans Native 3.3–16.4 0–1 Table 17. 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 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 08/30/2026 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
