Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site R098XB028IN
Kankakee Mucky Depressions
Last updated: 1/12/2024
Accessed: 09/08/2026
-
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): 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 Kankakee Mucky Depressions is organic soils (typically muck) of intermediate pHs (5-7). Small delineations occur as base slope seeps. May occur on former lake beds as organic flats with minerotrophic ground water influence, but without marl. A variety of higher or lower fertility marshes and shrub swamps may form, but wetness and fire frequency limits the degree to which swamp forest can form.
Associated sites
R098XB034IN Kankakee Wet Drift Flats
Similar sites
F098XA006MI Mucky Depressions
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree Not specified
Shrub (1) Cephalanthus occidentalis
Herbaceous (1) Carex stricta
Physiographic features
Site most frequently occupies old lake beds or base slope seeps.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Depression
Runoff class Negligible to low Ponding duration Brief (2 to 7 days) to very long (more than 30 days) Ponding frequency Occasional to frequent 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 warm summers and cold winters. Precipitation is moderately well distributed through the year with higher amounts during the growing season than the winter. This ecological site is distributed only along the southern portion of the MLRA, and consequently is outside the moderating envelope of the Great Lakes. This area does have slightly greater annual rainfall due to being slightly closer to the main source of moisture (the Gulf of Mexico) than the rest of the MLRA, but this trend is canceled out by higher potential evapotranspiration rates. More significantly, this area has lower snowfall, warmer summer temperatures, and more frequent lightning, all of which contribute to higher fire frequencies than northern portions of the MLRA.
Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 140-150 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 180-180 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 40-40 in Frost-free period (actual range) 140-150 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 180-180 days Precipitation total (actual range) 40-40 in Frost-free period (average) 150 days Freeze-free period (average) 180 days Precipitation total (average) 40 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) ROCHESTER [USC00127482], Rochester, IN
-
(2) SOUTH BEND MICHIANA RGNL AP [USW00014848], South Bend, IN
-
(3) WHEATFIELD [USC00129511], Wheatfield, IN
-
(4) FRANCESVILLE [USC00123078], Francesville, IN
-
(5) KANKAKEE WASTEWATER [USC00114603], Kankakee, IL
-
(6) KNOX WWTP [USC00124657], Knox, IN
">Influencing water features
Site remains saturated for most of the year, and may be seasonally ponded to shallow depths.<br />
Soil features
Soils are very poorly drained organics with moderate pH. They are commonly classified as Typic Haplosaprists and Terric Haplosaprists and commonly mapped as Houghton, Adrian, and Palms series.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Organic material
(2) Marl
(3) Coprogenic material
Surface texture (1) Muck
(2) Marl
(3) Coprogenous earth
Drainage class Very poorly drained Permeability class 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 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
Fire was frequent in context with adjacent prairie and oak savanna, and supported a wet meadow community. Wetter sites supported buttonbush swamps. Wet anoxic soils favor facultative and obligate wetland species. The reference community is dominated by buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) and uptight sedge (Carex stricta).
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, 5, 6 and 7 (additional pathways)
Communities 3 and 7 (additional pathways)
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 3 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 and fens to hardwood swamps. Dominant natural processes and disturbance regimes include fire, wind, and beaver activities.
Dominant plant species
-
common buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), shrub
-
upright sedge (Carex stricta), grass
Community 1.1
Hardwood Swamp: Acer (rubrum, saccharinum) - Fraxinus spp. - Ulmus americana Swamp ForestThis phase can be relatively fertile, sometimes occurring on sites with a more variable hydrology.
Forest overstory.The overstory is dominated by silver maple (Acer saccharinum) and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) with a broad assortment of other hardwoods.
Forest understory. Understory vegetation ranges from sparse in ponded areas to dense where the overstory canopy opens up. The species composition is variable, yet in some cases can form monocultures.
Dominant plant species
-
silver maple (Acer saccharinum), tree
-
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tree
-
common buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), shrub
-
smallspike false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), other herbaceous
-
lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), other herbaceous
-
jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), other herbaceous
Table 5. Ground cover
Tree foliar cover 40-100% Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover 1.5-60.0% Grass/grasslike foliar cover 0-80% Forb foliar cover 10-50% Non-vascular plants 0-10% Biological crusts 0% Litter 0.2-90.0% 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 0-15% 0-5% 0-1% 1-30% >0.5 <= 1 0-15% 0-5% 0-1% 1-30% >1 <= 2 0-15% 1-60% 0-2% 4-45% >2 <= 4.5 0-5% 1-55% 0-70% 1-20% >4.5 <= 13 2-15% 1-55% 0-65% 0% >13 <= 40 40-95% – – – >40 <= 80 30-95% – – – >80 <= 120 – – – – >120 – – – – Community 1.2
Wet Meadow: Carex stricta - Carex spp. Wet MeadowThis phase represents open vegetation that is moderately fertile and has a high diversity of species. It is created through tree and shrub mortality due to beaver activity and is maintained by fire. Fire every ten years or so is required to maintain this phase without tree and shrub encroachment. Larger patches with interiors more distant from potential tree seed sources may persist for greater periods. After about 60 years after disturbance, vegetation succeeds to shrub swamp.
Forest overstory.The overstory has less than 5 percent tree cover.
Forest understory. Understory vegetation is dense and graminoid dominated with various species of grasses, sedges, and forbs.
Dominant plant species
-
upright sedge (Carex stricta), grass
-
bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis), grass
-
sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), other herbaceous
-
spotted joe pye weed (Eutrochium maculatum), other herbaceous
Table 7. Ground cover
Tree foliar cover 0-10% Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover 0-20% Grass/grasslike foliar cover 70-90% Forb foliar cover 10-20% Non-vascular plants 0% Biological crusts 0% Litter 0% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 0% Surface fragments >3" 0% Bedrock 0% Water 0% Bare ground 0% Table 8. Canopy structure (% cover)
Height Above Ground (ft) Tree Shrub/Vine Grass/
GrasslikeForb <0.5 0-1% 0-5% 0-3% 4-25% >0.5 <= 1 0-1% 0-5% 0-3% 4-30% >1 <= 2 0-1% 5-45% 3-20% 4-45% >2 <= 4.5 0% 5-55% 70-90% 1-30% >4.5 <= 13 0% 5-55% 0-1% 0-15% >13 <= 40 0-5% – – – >40 <= 80 0-5% – – – >80 <= 120 – – – – >120 – – – – Community 1.3
Shrub-carr: Cornus sericea - Salix spp. - (Rosa palustris) Shrub SwampThis phase is dominated by a range of large shrub species that tolerate saturated conditions, but is not frequently inundated. This phase may be intermediate in succession between swamp forest and wet meadow.
Forest overstory.The overstory has less than 5 percent tree cover. Occasionally, speckled alder (Alnus rugosa) may approach tree size, forming thick groves.
Forest understory. Understory vegetation is dense and dominated by shrubs of several species, including redosier dogwood (Cornus sericea), winterberry (Ilex verticellata), and swamp rose (Rosa palustris).
Dominant plant species
-
redosier dogwood (Cornus sericea), shrub
-
swamp rose (Rosa palustris), shrub
-
common winterberry (Ilex verticillata), shrub
-
speckled alder (Alnus incana ssp. rugosa), shrub
Table 9. Canopy structure (% cover)
Height Above Ground (ft) Tree Shrub/Vine Grass/
GrasslikeForb <0.5 – – – – >0.5 <= 1 – – – – >1 <= 2 – – 0-50% 0-50% >2 <= 4.5 – 10-95% – – >4.5 <= 13 – 10-95% – – >13 <= 40 0-5% – – – >40 <= 80 0-5% – – – >80 <= 120 0-5% – – – >120 – – – – Community 1.4
Tamarack Swamp: Larix laricina - Acer rubrum / (Rhamnus alnifolia, Vaccinium corymbosum) Swamp ForestThis phase represents a later successional (forested) outcome of a stable saturated hydrology and low fertility.
Forest overstory.The overstory cover can vary from open tamarack (Larix laricina) woodland to red maple (Acer rubrum) forest. Areas to the north may have large patches dominated by relict northern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis).
Forest understory. Understory vegetation is variable and can consist of shade-tolerant species like skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus) similar to the hardwood swamp phase or some species components of the shrub-carr (e.g., winterberry) and fen phases.
Dominant plant species
-
red maple (Acer rubrum), tree
-
tamarack (Larix laricina), tree
-
common winterberry (Ilex verticillata), shrub
-
highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), shrub
-
poison sumac (Toxicodendron vernix), shrub
-
skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus), other herbaceous
-
cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), other herbaceous
Table 10. Ground cover
Tree foliar cover 20-60% Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover 10-50% Grass/grasslike foliar cover 0-30% Forb foliar cover 30-60% Non-vascular plants 10-40% Biological crusts 0% Litter 0-30% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 0% Surface fragments >3" 0% Bedrock 0% Water 0-60% Bare ground 0% Table 11. Woody ground cover
Downed wood, fine-small (<0.40" diameter; 1-hour fuels) – Downed wood, fine-medium (0.40-0.99" diameter; 10-hour fuels) – Downed wood, fine-large (1.00-2.99" diameter; 100-hour fuels) 0-1% Downed wood, coarse-small (3.00-8.99" diameter; 1,000-hour fuels) 0-0% Downed wood, coarse-large (>9.00" diameter; 10,000-hour fuels) 0-1% Tree snags** (hard***) – Tree snags** (soft***) – Tree snag count** (hard***) 0 per acre Tree snag count** (hard***) 0 per acre * Decomposition Classes: N - no or little integration with the soil surface; I - partial to nearly full integration with the soil surface.
** >10.16cm diameter at 1.3716m above ground and >1.8288m height--if less diameter OR height use applicable down wood type; for pinyon and juniper, use 0.3048m above ground.
*** Hard - tree is dead with most or all of bark intact; Soft - most of bark has sloughed off.
Table 12. Canopy structure (% cover)
Height Above Ground (ft) Tree Shrub/Vine Grass/
GrasslikeForb <0.5 0-2% 2-5% 0-2% 15-45% >0.5 <= 1 0-2% 1-4% 0-2% 15-45% >1 <= 2 0-2% 10-45% 2-5% 25-50% >2 <= 4.5 2-20% 10-45% 1-30% 4-10% >4.5 <= 13 20-45% 10-40% 0-4% – >13 <= 40 15-60% – – – >40 <= 80 1-20% – – – >80 <= 120 – – – – >120 – – – – Community 1.5
Fen: Dasiphora fruticosa ssp. floribunda / Carex sterilis - Andropogon gerardi - Arnoglossum plantagineum FenThis phase represents open conditions with a stable calcareous hydrology or exposed marl. Species composition and low stature strongly reflect the low nutrient availability.
Forest overstory.Overstory is mostly treeless, but scattered tamarack (Larix laricina) may approach 5 percent cover. Poison sumac (Toxicodendron vernix) occasionally approaches tree size.
Forest understory. Understory consists of dwarf shrubs like shrubby cinquefoil (Dasiphora fruticosa) and Kalm’s St. Johnswort (Hypericum kalmianum), and graminoids like twigrush (Cladium mariscoides), wooly sedge (Carex pellita), and yellow sedge (Carex flava). Many of the species are calciphiles (calcium indicators). The wax-myrtle (Morella pensylvanica) is a locally rare nitrogen-fixing shrub found in the margins of large fens.
Dominant plant species
-
shrubby cinquefoil (Dasiphora fruticosa), shrub
-
woollyfruit sedge (Carex lasiocarpa), grass
-
smooth sawgrass (Cladium mariscoides), grass
Table 13. Ground cover
Tree foliar cover 0% Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover 10-60% Grass/grasslike foliar cover 30-80% Forb foliar cover 10-50% Non-vascular plants 40-50% Biological crusts 0% Litter 0% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 0% Surface fragments >3" 0% Bedrock 0% Water 0-20% Bare ground 0% Table 14. Canopy structure (% cover)
Height Above Ground (ft) Tree Shrub/Vine Grass/
GrasslikeForb <0.5 0-1% 2-40% 4-10% 0-35% >0.5 <= 1 0-1% 2-40% 5-30% 1-3% >1 <= 2 0-1% 5-55% 25-80% 2-10% >2 <= 4.5 0-2% 1-3% 5-80% 3-45% >4.5 <= 13 0-2% 1-3% 0-3% 0-2% >13 <= 40 – – – – >40 <= 80 – – – – >80 <= 120 – – – – >120 – – – – Community 1.6
Emergent Marsh: Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani - Typha spp. - (Sparganium spp., Juncus spp.) MarshThis phase represents the open condition with shallow (approximately 15 cm) standing water.
Forest overstory.There is no tree cover in this phase.
Forest understory. Understory consists of emergent graminoids like cattails (Typha latifolia) and bulrushes (Schoenoplectus spp.), and a mix of marsh forbs. There is often a submergent substratum of aquatic plants and algae (e.g., Chara sp.).
Dominant plant species
-
broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), grass
-
softstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani), grass
-
swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata), other herbaceous
-
eastern marsh fern (Thelypteris palustris), other herbaceous
Table 15. Ground cover
Tree foliar cover 0-10% Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover 0-30% Grass/grasslike foliar cover 50-100% Forb foliar cover 1.5-15.0% Non-vascular plants 0-0% Biological crusts 0% Litter 0% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 0% Surface fragments >3" 0% Bedrock 0% Water 50-100% Bare ground 0% Table 16. Canopy structure (% cover)
Height Above Ground (ft) Tree Shrub/Vine Grass/
GrasslikeForb <0.5 0% 0-5% 1-45% 2-15% >0.5 <= 1 0% 0-5% 1-45% 2-15% >1 <= 2 0% 0-20% 1-45% 2-15% >2 <= 4.5 0-1% 0-15% 4-95% 0% >4.5 <= 13 0-1% 0-15% 1-2% – >13 <= 40 0-5% – – – >40 <= 80 0-5% – – – >80 <= 120 – – – – >120 – – – – Community 1.7
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.
Forest understory. Understory consists of emergent shrubs, mainly buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis).
Dominant plant species
-
common buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), shrub
Table 17. Canopy structure (% cover)
Height Above Ground (ft) Tree Shrub/Vine Grass/
GrasslikeForb <0.5 – – – – >0.5 <= 1 – – – – >1 <= 2 – – – – >2 <= 4.5 – 10-80% – – >4.5 <= 13 – 10-80% – – >13 <= 40 – – – – >40 <= 80 – – – – >80 <= 120 – – – – >120 – – – – Pathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2Temporary prolonged inundation or fire
Conservation practices
Prescribed Burning Pathway 1.1B
Community 1.1 to 1.3Clearcut, blowdown, or fire
Conservation practices
Prescribed Burning Early Successional Habitat Development/Management Forest Stand Improvement Pathway 1.1C
Community 1.1 to 1.4Increased peat or marl thickness, and decreased nitrogen or phosphorus availability
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 1.2C
Community 1.2 to 1.5Increased peat or marl thickness, and decreased nitrogen or phosphorus availability
Pathway 1.2D
Community 1.2 to 1.6Permanent inundation
Pathway 1.2E
Community 1.2 to 1.7Permanent inundation
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 or fire
Conservation practices
Prescribed Burning Pathway 1.3C
Community 1.3 to 1.6Permanent inundation
Pathway 1.3D
Community 1.3 to 1.7Permanent inundation
Pathway 1.4A
Community 1.4 to 1.1Decreased peat or marl thickness, and increased nitrogen or phosphorus availability
Pathway 1.4B
Community 1.4 to 1.5Clearcut, blowdown, or fire
Conservation practices
Prescribed Burning Early Successional Habitat Development/Management Forest Stand Improvement Pathway 1.5A
Community 1.5 to 1.2Decreased peat or marl thickness, and increased nitrogen or phosphorus availability
Pathway 1.5B
Community 1.5 to 1.4Succession
Conservation practices
Tree/Shrub Site Preparation Tree/Shrub Establishment Pathway 1.5C
Community 1.5 to 1.6Permanent inundation
Pathway 1.6A
Community 1.6 to 1.2Lower water table
Pathway 1.6B
Community 1.6 to 1.5Lower water table
Pathway 1.6C
Community 1.6 to 1.7Temporary drop in water table with shrub establishment
Conservation practices
Tree/Shrub Site Preparation Tree/Shrub Establishment Pathway 1.7A
Community 1.7 to 1.2Lower water table, and fire
Conservation practices
Prescribed Burning Pathway 1.7B
Community 1.7 to 1.3Lower water table
Pathway 1.7C
Community 1.7 to 1.6Temporary drought and fire with shrub mortality
Conservation practices
Brush Management Prescribed Burning 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 18. 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 19. 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 MarshThis phase represents an undifferentiated open community with few trees, with a variable native and non-native species composition.
Dominant plant species
-
reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), grass
-
rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), grass
Table 20. Ground cover
Tree foliar cover 0-0% Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover 0.1-10.0% Grass/grasslike foliar cover 40-100% Forb foliar cover 0-50% Non-vascular plants 0% Biological crusts 0% Litter 40-50% Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3" 0% Surface fragments >3" 0% Bedrock 0% Water 0-10% Bare ground 0% Table 21. Canopy structure (% cover)
Height Above Ground (ft) Tree Shrub/Vine Grass/
GrasslikeForb <0.5 0% 0% 0% 0-40% >0.5 <= 1 0% 0% 0-1% 0-35% >1 <= 2 0% 0-5% 0-4% 1-40% >2 <= 4.5 0% 0-5% 40-100% 0-10% >4.5 <= 13 0-1% 0-5% 5-100% 0-4% >13 <= 40 – 0-5% – – >40 <= 80 – – – – >80 <= 120 – – – – >120 – – – – Community 4.2
Exotic Ruderal Swamp Forest: Acer negundo Ruderal Floodplain ForestThis phase represents an undifferentiated forested community, with a variable native and non-native species composition.
Dominant plant species
-
boxelder (Acer negundo), tree
-
eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), tree
Pathway 4.1A
Community 4.1 to 4.2Succession
Pathway 4.2A
Community 4.2 to 4.1Blowdown or clearcut
Conservation practices
Early Successional Habitat Development/Management Forest Stand Improvement Transition 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 22. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 23. Community 1.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 24. Community 1.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 25. Community 1.4 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 26. Community 1.5 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 27. Community 1.6 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 28. Community 1.7 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 29. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 30. Community 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 31. Community 2.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 32. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 33. Community 3.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 34. 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 35. 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 36. Community 4.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 37. Community 4.1 forest overstory composition
Common name Symbol Scientific name Nativity Height ft Canopy cover (%) Diameter in Basal area (square ft/acre) Treegreen ash FRPE Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 16.4-49.2 0-0.5 – 0 Table 38. Community 4.1 forest understory composition
Common name Symbol Scientific name Nativity Height (ft) Canopy cover (%) Grass/grass-like (Graminoids)reed canarygrass PHAR3 Phalaris arundinacea Unknown 3.3–6.6 5–100 rice cutgrass LEOR Leersia oryzoides Native 3.3–4.9 2–45 narrowleaf cattail TYAN Typha angustifolia Introduced 3.3–4.9 0–15 broadleaf cattail TYLA Typha latifolia Native 3.3–4.9 0.1–5 upright sedge CAST8 Carex stricta Native 3.3–4.9 0–4 hairy sedge CALA16 Carex lacustris Native 3.3–4.9 0–2 common spikerush ELPA3 Eleocharis palustris Native 0.7–1.3 0–2 fowl bluegrass POPA2 Poa palustris Native 1.6–3.3 0–1 woolgrass SCCY Scirpus cyperinus Native 3.3–4.9 0–0.5 crested sedge CACR7 Carex cristatella Native 1.6–3.3 0–0.4 prairie cordgrass SPPE Spartina pectinata Native 4.9–9.8 0–0.3 Bebb's sedge CABE2 Carex bebbii Native 1.6–3.3 0–0.2 green bulrush SCAT2 Scirpus atrovirens Native 3.3–4.9 0–0.2 bluejoint CACA4 Calamagrostis canadensis Native 3.3–4.9 0–0.2 Virginia wildrye ELVI3 Elymus virginicus Native 1.6–3.3 0–0.1 cockspur grass ECHIN4 Echinochloa Unknown 0.3–1.6 0–0.1 Forb/Herbpurplestem aster SYPU Symphyotrichum puniceum Native 0.3–1.6 0.5–45 flat-top goldentop EUGR5 Euthamia graminifolia Native 0.3–1.6 0–5 white panicle aster SYLA6 Symphyotrichum lanceolatum Native 0.3–1.6 0–4 marsh seedbox LUPA Ludwigia palustris Native 0–0.3 0–4 spotted joe pye weed EUMA9 Eutrochium maculatum Native 3.3–6.6 0.1–3 swamp verbena VEHA2 Verbena hastata Native 0.3–1.6 0.3–2 common boneset EUPE3 Eupatorium perfoliatum Native 0.3–1.6 0.2–2 ditch stonecrop PESE6 Penthorum sedoides Native 1.3–3.3 0–1.5 devil's beggartick BIFR Bidens frondosa Native 1.6–3.3 0–1 giant goldenrod SOGI Solidago gigantea Native 4.9–9.8 0.1–1 stinging nettle URDI Urtica dioica Native 0.3–1.6 0–1 Canada thistle CIAR4 Cirsium arvense Introduced 0.3–1.6 0–1 giant sunflower HEGI Helianthus giganteus Native 0.3–1.6 0–0.5 jewelweed IMCA Impatiens capensis Native 3.3–4.9 0–0.5 purpleleaf willowherb EPCO Epilobium coloratum Native 1.6–3.3 0–0.5 swamp milkweed ASIN Asclepias incarnata Native 3.3–4.9 0–0.5 wild mint MEAR4 Mentha arvensis Native 1.3–3.3 0–0.4 smallspike false nettle BOCY Boehmeria cylindrica Native 1–1.6 0–0.4 American water horehound LYAM Lycopus americanus Native 1–1.6 0–0.4 Allegheny monkeyflower MIRI Mimulus ringens Native 0.3–1.6 0–0.3 Virginia iris IRVI Iris virginica Native 1.6–3.3 0–0.2 yellow avens GEAL3 Geum aleppicum Native 1.3–3.3 0–0.2 Canada goldenrod SOAL6 Solidago altissima Native 1.6–3.3 0–0.2 great ragweed AMTR Ambrosia trifida Native 0.3–1.6 0–0.1 sweet white violet VIBL Viola blanda Native 0.3–1 0–0.1 clearweed PILEA Pilea Native 0.3–1 0–0.1 Virginia mountainmint PYVI Pycnanthemum virginianum Native 0.3–1.6 0–0.1 stiff marsh bedstraw GATI Galium tinctorium Native 1–1.6 0–0.1 blue skullcap SCLA2 Scutellaria lateriflora Native 0.3–1.6 0–0.1 Fern/fern allysensitive fern ONSE Onoclea sensibilis Native 0.3–1.6 0–2 Shrub/Subshrubblack elderberry SANI4 Sambucus nigra Native 1.6–6.6 0–4 American red raspberry RUID Rubus idaeus Native 3.3–6.6 0–2 sandbar willow SAIN3 Salix interior Native 1.6–6.6 0–1.5 black elderberry SANI4 Sambucus nigra Native 0–1 0–0.2 Treesilver maple ACSA2 Acer saccharinum Native 0.3–1.6 0–3 peachleaf willow SAAM2 Salix amygdaloides Native 3.3–16.4 0–0.2 eastern cottonwood PODE3 Populus deltoides Native 0.3–1.6 0–0.1 Vine/Lianadevil's darning needles CLVI5 Clematis virginiana Native 3.3–9.8 0–0.5 climbing nightshade SODU Solanum dulcamara Introduced 0.3–1.6 0–0.1 riverbank grape VIRI Vitis riparia Native 3.3–4.9 0–0.1 Table 39. 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 09/08/2026 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
