Natural Resources
Conservation Service
-
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): 101X–Ontario-Erie Plain and Finger Lakes Region
Most of the MLRA is a nearly level to rolling plain. Low remnant beach ridges are commonly interspersed with a relatively level lake plain in the northern part of the area. Drumlins (long, narrow, steep-sided, cigar shaped hills) are prominent in an east-west belt in the center of the area. The Finger Lakes Region consists of a gently sloping to rolling till plain. Elevation increases gradually from the shores of Lake Ontario and Lake Oneida to the Allegheny Plateau, the southern border of the area. The bedrock underlying this area consists of alternating beds of limestone, dolomite, sandstone, and shale of Ordovician to Devonian age. Most of the surface of the area is covered with glacial till or lake sediments. The texture of the lake sediments is silt, loam, or sand. Ancient beaches, formed at different lake levels, form ridges along the shoreline of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. Stratified drift (eskers and kames) and glacial outwash deposits are in many of the valleys. A large drumlin field occurs in the Finger Lakes Region.
Classification relationships
USDA-NRCS (USDA, 2006):
Land Resource Region (LRR): L — Lake States Fruit, Truck Crop, and Dairy Region
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 101— Ontario-Erie Plain and Finger Lakes Region
USDA-FS (Cleland et al., 2007)
Province: 211 — Northeastern Mixed Forest Province (in part)
Section: 211J — Mohawk Valley (in part)
Subsection: 211Jd — Mohawk Valley
Province: 222 — Midwest Broadleaf Forest Province (in part)
Section: 222I — Erie and Ontario Lake Plain
Subsection: 222Ia — Lake Erie Plain
222Ib — Erie-Ontario Lake Plain
222Ic — Eastern Ontario Till Plain
222Id — Cattaraugus Finger Lakes Moraine and Hills
222Ie — Eastern Ontario Lake PlainEcological site concept
Landform/Landscape Position:
The site occurs in depressions within outwash plains. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent.
Soils:
The site consists of very deep, poorly drained and very poorly drained soils formed in glacial outwash deposits. Soils are typically moderately coarse to coarse textured. Representative soils are Cheektowaga, Fredon, Halsey, Lamson, and Wareham mapped within MLRA 101.
Vegetation
The reference community coincides with NY natural heritage community: Red maple-hardwood swamp and/or NatureServe's Black Ash - Red Maple Swamp Forest (CEGL007441).Associated sites
F101XY014NY Wet Till Depression
F101XY006NY Moist Outwash
Moist Outwash sites are higher in the landscape profile.
Similar sites
F101XY010NY Wet Lake Plain Depression
Wet Lake Depression sites may be more enriched.
F101XY003NY Low Floodplain Depression
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Acer rubrum
(2) Fraxinus nigraShrub (1) Alnus incana
(2) Lindera benzoinHerbaceous (1) Symplocarpus foetidus
(2) Carex leptaleaPhysiographic features
The site occurs in depressions within outwash plains and terraces. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent.
Figure 1. Wet Outwash (Fredon soils)
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Outwash plain > Depression
(2) Delta
(3) Lake plain
(4) Outwash plain
(5) Terrace
(6) Valley train
Runoff class Negligible to very high Flooding frequency None Ponding frequency None to frequent Elevation 49 – 1968 ft Slope 0 – 2 % Water table depth 0 – 8 in Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
The Koppen-Geiger climate classification of the area in which this MLRA occurs is
Dfb, Warm-summer humid continental. Rainfall occurs as high-intensity, convective thunderstorms in the summer. However, snow comprises most of the precipitation in this area. The frost-free-free period in this area averages 165 days and ranges from 130 to 200 days, with the coldest temperatures and the shortest frost-free periods occurring in the high-elevation areas in the eastern part of the MLRA.Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 140-140 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 170-190 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 40-40 in Frost-free period (actual range) 140-140 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 170-190 days Precipitation total (actual range) 40-40 in Frost-free period (average) 140 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) SUNY ESF SYRACUSE [USC00308386], Syracuse, NY
-
(2) DELANSON 2NE [USC00302031], Delanson, NY
-
(3) ROCHESTER GTR INTL AP [USW00014768], Rochester, NY
-
(4) DUNKIRK CHAUTAUQUA AP [USW00014747], Dunkirk, NY
-
(5) LOCKPORT 3 S [USC00304844], Lockport, NY
">Influencing water features
Poorly drained<br />
Water is removed so slowly that the soil is wet at shallow depths periodically during the growing season or remains wet for long periods. Internal free water occurrence is shallow or very shallow and common or persistent. Free water is commonly at or near the surface long enough during the growing season that most mesophytic crops cannot be grown, unless the soil is artificially drained. The soil, however, is not continuously wet directly below plow depth. Free water at shallow depth is common. The water table is commonly the result of low or very low saturated hydraulic conductivity, nearly continuous rainfall, or a combination of these. <br />
<br />
Very poorly drained<br />
Water is removed from the soil so slowly that free water remains at or very near the surface during much of the growing season. Internal free water occurrence is very shallow and persistent or permanent. Unless the soil is artificially drained, most mesophytic crops cannot be grown. The soils are commonly level or depressed and frequently ponded. In areas where rainfall is high or nearly continuous, slope gradients may be greater.Wetland description
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Classification (Cowardin et al., 1979)<br />
<br />
Palustrine, Forested, Broad-Leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Saturated, Fresh, Circumneutral to Alkaline<br />
or<br />
Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Broad-Leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Saturated, Fresh, Circumneutral to AlkalineSoil features
The site consists of very deep, poorly drained and very poorly drained soils formed in glacial outwash deposits. Soils are typically moderately coarse to coarse textured. Representative soils are Cheektowaga, Fredon, Halsey, Lamson, Jebavy, Joliet, and Wareham mapped within MLRA 101.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Glaciofluvial deposits – limestone and shale
(2) Glaciolacustrine deposits
(3) Eolian deposits
(4) Till
Surface texture (1) Fine sandy loam
(2) Silt loam
(3) Very fine sandy loam
(4) Gravelly loam
(5) Loam
(6) Mucky loam
(7) Mucky fine sandy loam
(8) Mucky silt loam
(9) Mucky very fine sandy loam
Family particle size (1) Fine-loamy
(2) Coarse-loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal
(3) Sandy
(4) Sandy over clayey
(5) Coarse-loamy
(6) Loamy
Drainage class Very poorly drained to poorly drained Permeability class Very slow to moderately rapid Depth to restrictive layer 11 – 72 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(Depth not specified)2 – 7 in Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(Depth not specified)3.6 – 8.4 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 50 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 15 % Ecological dynamics
The reference community coincides with NY natural heritage community: Red maple-hardwood swamp and/or NatureServe's Black Ash - Red Maple Swamp Forest (CEGL007441).
Activities that impact hydrology (roads, dams, diversions, drainage) and introduction of invasive species are some of the primary drivers of ecological change.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
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Red Maple ForestReference state. Minimally managed.
Dominant plant species
-
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tree
-
sugar maple (Acer saccharum), tree
-
red maple (Acer rubrum), tree
-
Freeman maple (Acer ×freemanii), tree
-
sedge (Carex), other herbaceous
-
smallspike false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), other herbaceous
-
sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), other herbaceous
-
intermediate woodfern (Dryopteris intermedia), other herbaceous
-
New York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis), other herbaceous
-
cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), other herbaceous
Community 1.1
Red Maple Forest/SwampThe plant community is characterized as a Red maple-Hardwood Swamp (New York Natural Heritage Program) however, without plants typically found in acidic areas such as highbush blueberry. Another cross reference would be Black Ash - Red Maple / Alderleaf Buckthorn / Bristly-stalked Sedge Swamp Forest (CEGL007441) described by NatureServe.
Community 1.2
Young Forest/Swamp CommunityPathway P1.1
Community 1.1 to 1.2Natural disturbances such as flooding, wind, ice storm, insects.
Pathway P1.2
Community 1.2 to 1.1Time/succession
State 2
Disturbed (Invasive Species and/or Hydrology Change)Highly disturbed forest resulting from changes in hydrology and/or presence of invasive species.
Dominant plant species
-
American beech (Fagus grandifolia), tree
-
American beech (Fagus grandifolia), shrub
Community 2.1
Mature ForestInvasive species present
Community 2.2
Young ForestInvasive species present
Pathway P2.1
Community 2.1 to 2.2Disturbance: Flooding, wind, ice storms, insects.
Pathway P2.2
Community 2.2 to 2.1Time/succession
Transition T1A
State 1 to 2Establishment of invasive plants. Changes to hydrology (drainage, diversions, roads,) may also been a driver of change.
Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1Conservation practices
Invasive Plant Species Control Additional community tables
Table 5. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 6. Community 1.1 forest overstory composition
Common name Symbol Scientific name Nativity Height ft Canopy cover (%) Diameter in Basal area (square ft/acre) Table 7. Community 1.1 forest understory composition
Common name Symbol Scientific name Nativity Height (ft) Canopy cover (%) Table 8. Community 1.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 10. Community 2.1 forest overstory composition
Common name Symbol Scientific name Nativity Height ft Canopy cover (%) Diameter in Basal area (square ft/acre) Table 11. Community 2.1 forest understory composition
Common name Symbol Scientific name Nativity Height (ft) Canopy cover (%) Table 12. Community 2.2 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 to validate the vegetation information in this provisional ecological site description is needed. This will include field activities to collect low and medium intensity sampling and analysis of that data. Field reviews should be done by soil scientists and vegetation specialists. A final field review, peer review, quality control, and quality assurance reviews of the ESD will be needed to produce the final approved level document. Reviews of the project plan are to be conducted by the Ecological Site Technical Team.
Other references
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.
Cowardin L. M., Carter V., Golet F. C., and LaRoe E.T. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402.
Edinger, G.J., Evans, D.J., Gebauer, S., Howard, T.G., Hunt, D.M., and A.M. Olivero, A.M. (eds.). 2014. Ecological Communities of New York State, Second Edition, A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.
NatureServe 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: January 2019).
USDA-NRCS [United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service] 2006. Land Resource Regions and Major land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.
USDA-NRCS [United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service] 2016. National Soils Information System (NASIS) [Software] Version 7.x. USDA, Kansas City, MO.
USNVC [United States National Vegetation Classification]. 2017. United States National Vegetation Classification Database, V2.01. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee, Washington DC. http://usnvc.org/explore-classification/ (Accessed: 2018).Contributors
Joshua Hibit
Approval
Greg Schmidt, 10/03/2024
Rangeland health reference sheet
Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health is a qualitative assessment protocol used to determine ecosystem condition based on benchmark characteristics described in the Reference Sheet. A suite of 17 (or more) indicators are typically considered in an assessment. The ecological site(s) representative of an assessment location must be known prior to applying the protocol and must be verified based on soils and climate. Current plant community cannot be used to identify the ecological site.
Author(s)/participant(s) Contact for lead author Date 05/21/2020 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