Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site R104XY001IA
Organic Sedge Meadow
Last updated: 5/18/2020
Accessed: 08/29/2026
-
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): 104X–Eastern Iowa and Minnesota Till Prairies
The Eastern Iowa and Minnesota Till Prairies (MLRA 104) includes the Iowan Surface, Oak Savanna, and Western Coulee and Ridges landforms (Prior 1991; MDNR 2005; WDNR 2015). It spans three states (Iowa, 74 percent; Minnesota, 22 percent; Wisconsin, 4 percent), encompassing approximately 9,660 square miles (Figure 1). The elevation ranges from approximately 1,310 feet above sea level (ASL) on the highest ridges to about 985 feet ASL in the lowest valleys. Local relief is mainly 10 to 20 feet. Glacial till and outwash deposits cover the uplands of the MLRA with recent alluvium located in the major river valleys. Paleozoic bedrock sediments, comprised primarily of shale and limestone, lies beneath the glacial material. The depth to limestone is shallow, resulting in karst topography across much of the area (USDA-NRCS 2006).
The vegetation in the MLRA has undergone drastic changes over time. Spruce forests dominated the landscape 30,000 to 21,500 years ago. As the last glacial maximum peaked 21,500 to 16,000 years ago, they were replaced with open tundras and parklands. The end of the Pleistocene Epoch saw a warming climate that initially prompted the return of spruce forests, but as the warming continued, spruce trees were replaced by deciduous trees (Baker et al. 1990). Not until approximately 9,000 years ago did the vegetation transition to prairies as climatic conditions continued to warm and subsequently dry. Between 4,000 and 3,000 years ago, oak savannas began intermingling within the prairie landscape, while the more wooded and forested areas maintained a foothold in sheltered areas. This prairie-forest transition ecosystem formed the dominant landscapes until the arrival of European settlers (Baker et al. 1992).Classification relationships
USFS Subregions: North Central U.S. Driftless and Escarpment (222L), Minnesota and Northeast Iowa Morainal-Oak Savannah (222M), Central Dissected Till Plains (251C) Sections; Menominee Eroded Pre-Wisconsin Till (222La), Oak Savannah Till and Loess Plains (222Me), Southeast Iowa Rolling Loess Hills (251Ch) Subsections (Cleland et al. 2007)
U.S. EPA Level IV Ecoregion: Eastern Iowa and Minnesota Drift Plains (47c), Rolling Loess Prairies (47f), Lower St. Croix and Vermillion Valleys (47g), Rochester/Paleozoic Plateau Upland (52c) (USEPA 2013)
National Vegetation Classification - Plant Associations: Carex stricta – Valeriana edulis – Parnassia palustris Fen (CEGL005241) (Nature Serve 2015)
Biophysical Settings: Central Interior and Appalachian Shrub-Herbaceous Wetland Systems (BpS 4314930) (LANDFIRE 2009)
Natural Resources Conservation Service – Iowa Plant Community Species List: Fen, Tussock Sedge (USDA-NRCS 2007)
Iowa Department of Natural Resources: Sedge Fen (INAI 1984)
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources: OPp93c Calcareous Fen (Southeastern) (MDNR 2005)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Calcareous Fens (Eggers and Reed 2015)Ecological site concept
Organic Sedge Meadows are located within the green areas on the map (Figure 1). They occur on upland backslopes. The soils are Histosols that are very poorly-drained and deep, formed in organic material. A shallow depth to the water table results in saturated soil conditions throughout the year.
The historic pre-European settlement vegetation on this ecological site was dominated by highly-diverse hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation. Upright sedge (Carex stricta Lam.) and eastern marsh fern (Thelypteris palustris Schott) are the dominant species of Organic Sedge Meadows. Other monocots likely to be present include bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis (Michx.) P. Beauv), spiked muhly (Muhlenbergia glomerata (Willd.) Trin.), and numerous sedges. Other vascular plants typical of an undisturbed plant community associated with this ecological site include yellow marsh marigold (Caltha palustris L.), fen grass of Parnassus (Parnassia glauca Raf.), and tobacco root (Valeriana edulis Nutt. ex Torr. & A. Gray) (Drobney et al. 2001). Constant groundwater discharge is the primary disturbance factor that maintains this site, while occasional fire and drought are secondary disturbances (LANDFIRE 2009).Associated sites
R104XY006IA Wet Loamy Upland Prairie
Wet Loamy Upland Prairie
Similar sites
R104XY012IA Wet Upland Drainageway Sedge Meadow
Wet Upland Drainageway Sedge Meadow
R104XY013IA Ponded Upland Depression Sedge Meadow
Ponded Upland Depression Sedge Meadow
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree Not specified
Shrub Not specified
Herbaceous (1) Carex stricta
(2) Thelypteris palustrisPhysiographic features
Organic Sedge Meadows occur on upland backslopes. They are situated on elevations ranging from approximately 249 to 1499 feet ASL. The site does not experience flooding, but rather is continuously saturated due to groundwater discharge moving laterally throughout the soil and discharging along hillsides.
Figure 2. Figure 1. Location of Organic Sedge Meadow ecological site within MLRA 104.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Slope shape across (1) Concave
(2) Convex
Slope shape up-down (1) Concave
(2) Convex
Hillslope profile (1) Backslope
Landforms (1) Upland
Runoff class Negligible to very low Ponding frequency Rare to occasional Elevation 249 – 1499 ft Slope 0 – 6 % Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
The Eastern Iowa and Minnesota Till Prairies falls into the hot-summer humid continental climate (Dfa) and warm-summer humid continental climate (Dfb) Köppen-Geiger climate classifications (Peel et al. 2007). In winter, dry, cold air masses periodically shift south from Canada. As these air masses collide with humid air, snowfall and rainfall result. In summer, moist, warm air masses from the Gulf of Mexico migrate north, producing significant frontal or convective rains. Occasionally, hot, dry winds originating from the Desert Southwest will stagnate over the region, creating extended droughty periods in the summer from unusually high temperatures. Air masses from the Pacific Ocean can also spread into the region and dominate producing mild, dry weather in the autumn known as Indian Summers (NCDC 2006).
The soil temperature regime of MLRA 104 is classified as mesic, where the mean annual soil temperature is between 46 and 59°F (USDA-NRCS 2006). Temperature and precipitation occur along a north-south gradient, where temperature and precipitation increase the further south one travels. The average freeze-free period of this ecological site is about 153 days, while the frost-free period is about 129 days. The majority of the precipitation occurs as rainfall in the form of convective thunderstorms during the growing season. Average annual precipitation is approximately 36 inches, which includes rainfall plus the water equivalent from snowfall. The average annual low and high temperatures are 35 and 55°F, respectively.
Climate data and analyses are derived from 30-year averages gathered from five National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather stations contained within the range of this ecological site.Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 130-130 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 140-160 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 40-40 in Frost-free period (actual range) 120-140 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 140-170 days Precipitation total (actual range) 30-40 in Frost-free period (average) 130 days Freeze-free period (average) 150 days Precipitation total (average) 40 in Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 3. Monthly precipitation range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 4. Monthly minimum temperature range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 5. Monthly maximum temperature range
BarLineFigure 6. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Figure 7. Annual precipitation pattern
Figure 8 Annual average temperature pattern
Climate stations used
-
(1) GRAND MEADOW [USC00213290], Grand Meadow, MN
-
(2) AUSTIN WWT FAC [USC00210355], Austin, MN
-
(3) NEW HAMPTON [USC00135952], New Hampton, IA
-
(4) ALLISON [USC00130157], Allison, IA
-
(5) FAYETTE [USC00132864], Fayette, IA
">Influencing water features
Organic Sedge Meadows are classified as a SLOPE: groundwater influenced, discharge, herbaceous wetland under the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification system (Smith et al. 1995; USDA-NRCS 2008) and as a Palustrine, Persistent, Emergent, Continuously Saturated wetland under the National Wetlands Inventory (FGDC 2013). Groundwater discharge from a perched water table is the main source of water for this ecological site (Smith et al. 1995). Infiltration is very slow (Hydrologic Group D) for undrained soils, and surface runoff is negligible to very low (Figure 4). <br />
<br />
Primary wetland hydrology indicators for an intact Organic Sedge Meadow may include: A2 High water table and A3 Saturation. Secondary wetland hydrology indicators may include: C2 Dry-season water table and D5 FAC-neutral test (USACE 2010).
Figure 9. Figure 4. Hydrologic cycling in Organic Sedge Meadow ecological site.
Soil features
Soils of Organic Sedge Meadows are in the Histosols order, further classified as Terric Haplosaprists and Typic Haplosaprists with very slow infiltration and negligible to very low runoff potential. The soil series associated with this site includes Houghton, Klossner, Medo, and Palms and muck soils. The parent material is organic material, and the soils are very poorly-drained and deep. A shallow water table results in saturated soils conditions throughout the year. Soil pH classes are strongly acid to moderately alkaline. No rooting restrictions are noted for the soils of this ecological site (Table 5).
Some soil map units in this ecological site, if not drained, may meet the definition of hydric soils and are listed as meeting criteria 1 of the hydric soils list (77 FR 12234).
Figure 10. Figure 5. Profile sketches of soil series associated with Organic Sedge Meadow.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Organic material
Drainage class Very poorly drained Permeability class Slow Depth to restrictive layer 80 in Soil depth 80 in Ecological dynamics
The MLRA lies within the transition zone between the eastern deciduous forests and the tallgrass prairies. The heterogeneous topography of the area results in variable microclimates and fuel matrices that in turn support prairies, savannas, woodlands, and forests. Organic Sedge Meadow form an aspect of this vegetative continuum. This ecological site occurs on upland backslopes on very poorly-drained organic soils. A shallow water table results in saturated soil conditions throughout the year. Species characteristic of this ecological site consist of hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation.
Organic Sedge Meadows are dependent on consistent groundwater discharge. These conditions are present where surface slopes intersect a perched water table, allowing the groundwater to slowly seep from the hillside (Richardson and Brinson 2001; Dixon 2014). While water levels may fluctuate throughout the year, they generally remain at or near the soil surface (LANDFIRE 2009). The near-constant anaerobic conditions maintain the herbaceous wetland plant community and prevent woody species from encroaching.
Drought and fire have also played a role in shaping this ecological site. The periodic episodes of reduced soil moisture in conjunction with the very poorly-drained soils have favored the proliferation of plant species tolerant of such conditions. Drought can also slow the growth of plants and result in dieback of certain species. Occasional fires reduced plant litter and aided in preventing declines in species richness. Drought coupled with fire would keep woody plants from encroaching (LANDFIRE 2009).
Today, Organic Sedge Meadows have been greatly reduced as sites have been converted to agricultural production lands or converted to ponds. Sites that have not been directly altered show evidence of indirect anthropogenic influences from hydrologic alterations, fire suppression, and non-native species invasion (Pearson and Leoschke 1992). These land conversions and alterations to the natural groundwater flow are considered irreversible, making restoration an improbability. The state-and-transition model that follows provides a detailed description of each state, community phase, pathway, and transition. This model is based on available experimental research, field observations, literature reviews, professional consensus, and interpretations.State and transition model
Custom diagramStandard diagram
More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
Click on state and transition labels to scroll to the respective textEcosystem states
States 1 and 5 (additional transitions)
State 1 submodel, plant communities
State 3 submodel, plant communities
State 4 submodel, plant communities
State 5 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference StateThe reference plant community is categorized as a groundwater-fed slope wetland community, dominated by hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation. The one community phase within the reference state is dependent on consistent groundwater seepage to maintain the plant community. Drought and occasional fires have more localized impacts in the reference state, but do contribute to overall species composition, diversity, cover, and productivity.
Community 1.1
Upright Sedge – Eastern Marsh FernSites in this reference community phase are dominated by hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation. Upright sedge and eastern marsh fern are dominant species on the site, but other frequently encountered ones include bluejoint, spiked muhly, and sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis L.). Forb species richness is often very high in these unique communities and typically includes many species with high conservative values, e.g. yellow marsh marigold, fen grass of Parnassus, tobacco root, and marsh bellflower (Campanula aparinoides Pursh).
State 2
Degraded Woody-invaded StateThe expansion of ruderal woody and herbaceous species into Organic Sedge Meadows can arise due to a complex interaction of fire suppression, hydrological alterations, and edge effects. Subsurface water reduction from agricultural tiling, ditching, or off-site development in conjunction with the removal of periodic fires allows woody species to encroach, casting shade on the native plant community and altering the natural light regime. In addition, edge effects can arise from indirect land management practices (e.g., cropping, herbicide drift) on directly adjacent sites that lead to a transition in the herbaceous species composition to taller, ruderal species (Pearson and Leoschke 1992; NatureServe 2015).
Community 2.1
Slippery Elm – Silky Dogwood/Great Ragweed – Stinging NettleThis community phase represents the initial changes to the natural community following hydroperiod alterations and adjacent land management actions. Reduction in the water table allows woody species, such as slippery elm (Ulmus rubra Muhl.), silky dogwood (Cornus obliqua Raf.), and pussy willow (Salix discolor Muhl.), to establish a significant shrub cover. The herbaceous layer shifts to disturbance-tolerant, opportunistic species including great ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica L.), Canada lettuce (Lactuca canadensis L.), common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca L.), and common evening primrose (Oenothera biennis L.). Non-native invasive species, including reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.), redtop (Agrostis gigantea Roth), and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.), begin to encroach as well (Pearson and Leoschke 1992).
Community 2.2
Slippery Elm/Silky Dogwood – Pussy Willow/Great Ragweed – Stinging NettleSites falling into this community phase represent the natural succession as a result of continuing changes to the hydroperiod and adjacent lands. Slippery elm can mature into a tree canopy, and silky dogwood and pussy willow continue to form the dominant shrubs. The herbaceous layer continues to be simplified and inhabited by ruderal and non-native species.
Pathway 2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.2Natural succession as a result of continuing landscape changes.
Pathway 2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1Limited woody species removal.
State 3
Forage StateThe forage state arises when the site is converted to a farming operation that emphasizes domestic livestock production, known as grassland agriculture. Fire suppression, periodic cultural treatments (e.g., clipping, drainage, soil amendment applications, planting new species and/or cultivars, mechanical harvesting) and grazing by domesticated livestock transition and maintain this state (USDA-NRCS 2003). Early settlers seeded non-native species, such as smooth brome (Bromus inermis Leyss.) and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.), to help extend the grazing season (Smith 1998). Over time, as lands were continuously harvested or grazed by herds of cattle, these species were able to spread and expand across the landscape, reducing the native species diversity and ecological function.
Community 3.1
HayfieldSites in this community phase consist of forage plants that are planted and mechanically harvested. Mechanical harvesting removes much of the aboveground biomass and nutrients that feed the soil microorganisms (Franzluebbers et al. 2000; USDA-NRCS 2003). As a result, soil biology is reduced leading to decreases in nutrient uptake by plants, soil organic matter, and soil aggregation. Frequent biomass removal can also reduce the site’s carbon sequestration capacity (Skinner 2008). This phase may not be prevalent on this ecological site due to the high soil moisture making it difficult to run large equipment across it.
Community 3.2
Continuous Pastured GrazingThis community phase is characterized by continuous grazing where domestic livestock are allowed to graze a pasture for the entire season. Depending on stocking density, this can result in lower forage quality and productivity, weed invasions, and uneven pasture use. Continuous grazing can also increase the amount of bare ground and erosion and reduce soil organic matter, cation exchange capacity, water-holding capacity, and nutrient availability and retention (Bharati et al. 2002; Leake et al. 2004; Teague et al. 2011). Smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, and white clover (Trifolium repens L.) are common pasture species used in this phase. Their tolerance to continuous grazing has allowed these species to dominate, greatly reducing the native species diversity to only low palatability species such as woolly sedge and sawtooth sunflower (Helianthus grosseserratus M. Martens) (Pearson and Leoschke 1992).
Community 3.3
Periodic-rest Pastured GrazingThis community phase is characterized by periodic-rest grazing where the pasture has been subdivided into several smaller paddocks. Subdividing the pasture in this way allows livestock to utilize one or a few paddocks, while the remaining area is rested allowing plants to restore vigor and energy reserves, deepen root systems, develop seeds, as well as allow seedling establishment (Undersander et al. 2002; USDA-NRCS 2003). Periodic-rest pastured grazing includes deferred periods, rest periods, and periods of high intensity – low frequency, and short duration methods. Vegetation is generally more diverse and can include orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.), timothy (Phleum pretense L.), red clover (Trifolium pratense L.), and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). The addition of native prairie species can further bolster plant diversity and, in turn, soil function. This community phase promotes numerous ecosystem benefits including increasing biodiversity, preventing soil erosion, maintaining and enhancing soil quality, sequestering atmospheric carbon, and improving water yield and quality (USDA-NRCS 2003).
Pathway 3.1A
Community 3.1 to 3.2Mechanical harvesting is replaced with domestic livestock utilizing continuous grazing.
Pathway 3.1B
Community 3.1 to 3.3Mechanical harvesting is replaced with domestic livestock utilizing periodic-rest grazing.
Pathway 3.2A
Community 3.2 to 3.1Domestic livestock are removed, and mechanical harvesting is implemented.
Pathway 3.2B
Community 3.2 to 3.3Periodic-rest grazing replaces continuous grazing.
Pathway 3.3B
Community 3.3 to 3.1Domestic livestock are removed, and mechanical harvesting is implemented.
Pathway 3.3A
Community 3.3 to 3.2Continuous grazing replaces periodic-rest grazing.
State 4
Cropland StateThe cropland state is the dominant land condition throughout the MLRA today. Agricultural tile drains used to lower the water table and the continuous use of tillage, row-crop planting, and chemicals (i.e., herbicides, fertilizers, etc.) have effectively eliminated the reference community and many of its natural ecological functions in favor of crop production. Corn and soybeans are the dominant crops for the site, and oats (Avena L.) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) may be rotated periodically. These areas are likely to remain in crop production for the foreseeable future.
Community 4.1
Conventional Tillage FieldSites in this community phase typically consist of monoculture row-cropping maintained by conventional tillage practices. They are cropped in either continuous corn or alternating periods of corn and soybean crops. The frequent use of deep tillage, low crop diversity, and bare soil conditions during the non-growing season negatively impacts soil health. Under these practices, soil aggregation is reduced or destroyed, soil organic matter is reduced, erosion and runoff are increased, and infiltration is decreased, which can ultimately lead to undesirable changes in the hydrology of the watershed (Tomer et al. 2005).
Community 4.2
Conservation Tillage FieldThis community phase is characterized by periodically alternating crops and utilizing various conservation tillage methods to promote soil health and reduce erosion. Conservation tillage methods include strip-till, ridge-till, vertical-till, or no-till planting operations. Strip-till keeps seedbed preparation to narrow bands less than one-third the width of the row where crop residue and soil consolidation are left undisturbed in-between seedbed areas. Strip-till planting may be completed in the fall and nutrient application either occurs simultaneously or at the time of planting. Ridge-till uses specialized equipment to create ridges in the seedbed and vegetative residue is left on the surface in between the ridges. Weeds are controlled with herbicides and/or cultivation, seedbed ridges are rebuilt during cultivation, and soils are left undisturbed from harvest to planting. Vertical-till operations employ machinery that lightly tills the soil and cuts up crop residue, mixing some of the residue into the top few inches of the soil while leaving a large portion on the surface. No-till management is the most conservative, disturbing soils only at the time of planting and fertilizer application. Compared to conventional tillage operations, conservation tillage methods can improve soil ecosystem function by reducing soil erosion, increasing organic matter and water availability, improving water quality, and reducing soil compaction.
Community 4.3
Conservation Tillage with Cover Crop FieldThis community phase applies conservation tillage methods as described above as well as adds cover crop practices. Cover crops typically include nitrogen-fixing species (e.g., legumes), small grains (e.g., rye, wheat, oats), or forage covers (e.g., turnips, radishes, rapeseed). The addition of cover crops not only adds plant diversity but also promotes soil health by reducing soil erosion, limiting nitrogen leaching, suppressing weeds, increasing soil organic matter, and improving the overall soil ecosystem. In the case of small grain cover crops, surface cover and water infiltration are increased, while forage covers can be used to graze livestock or support local wildlife. Of the three community phases for this state, this phase promotes the greatest soil sustainability and improves ecological functioning within a row crop operation.
Pathway 4.1A
Community 4.1 to 4.2Tillage operations are greatly reduced, alternating crops occurs on a regular interval, and crop residue remains on the soil surface.
Pathway 4.1B
Community 4.1 to 4.3Tillage operations are greatly reduced or eliminated, alternating crops occurs on a regular interval, crop residue remains on the soil surface, and cover crops are planted following crop harvest.
Pathway 4.2A
Community 4.2 to 4.1Intensive tillage is utilized, and monoculture row-cropping is established.
Pathway 4.2B
Community 4.2 to 4.3Cover crops are implemented to minimize soil erosion.
Pathway 4.3B
Community 4.3 to 4.1Intensive tillage is utilized, cover crops practices are abandoned, monoculture row-cropping is established on a more-or-less continuous basis.
Pathway 4.3A
Community 4.3 to 4.2Cover crop practices are abandoned.
State 5
Pond StateA small percentage of historic Organic Sedge Meadows in the MLRA have been impounded or excavated for ponds in order to support watering livestock, creating waterfowl habitat, and establishing fisheries (Pearson and Leoschke 1992). Through excavation, the native vegetation is removed, and groundwater seepage can rapidly fill the exposed area and transition the diverse organic sedge meadow into an open water habitat. Over time, sediments may accumulate along the edges of the pond where emergent vegetation, introduced by wind or wildlife, can germinate and establish.
Community 5.1
Cattail – open waterThis community phase is characterized mostly by open water. Along the shallow edges of the water, a limited diversity of emergent vegetation may establish. Cattails (Typha L.) and bulrushes (Scirpus L., Bolboschoenus (Asch.) Palla) are the most commonly encountered species.
Transition T1A
State 1 to 2Changes to the natural hydroperiod and edge effects from adjacent land uses transition this site the degraded woody-invaded state (2).
Transition T1B
State 1 to 3Cultural treatments to enhance forage quality and yield transition the site to the forage state (3).
Transition T1C
State 1 to 4Installation of drain tiles, seeding of agricultural crops, and non-selective herbicide transition the site to the cropland state (4).
Transition T1D
State 1 to 5Removal of natural vegetation and excavation transition the site to the pond state (5).
Transition T2A
State 2 to 3Cultural treatments to enhance forage quality and yield transition the site to the forage state (3).
Transition T2B
State 2 to 4Installation of drain tiles, seeding of agricultural crops, and non-selective herbicide transition the site to the cropland state (4).
Transition T3A
State 3 to 2Land is abandoned and left fallow; natural succession by opportunistic species transition this site the degraded woody-invaded state (2).
Transition T3B
State 3 to 4Installation of drain tiles, seeding of agricultural crops, and non-selective herbicide transition the site to the cropland state (4).
Transition T3C
State 3 to 5Removal of natural vegetation and excavation transition the site to the pond state (5).
Transition T4A
State 4 to 2Agricultural production abandoned and left fallow; natural succession by opportunistic species transition this site to the degraded woody-invaded state (2).
Transition T4B
State 4 to 3Cultural treatments to enhance forage quality and yield transition the site to the forage state (3).
Additional community tables
Table 5. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 6. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 7. Community 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 8. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 3.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 10. Community 3.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 11. Community 4.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 12. Community 4.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 13. Community 4.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 14. Community 5.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Supporting information
Inventory data references
Tier 3 Sampling Plots used to develop the reference state, community phase 1.1: State County Ownership Easting Northing Iowa Buchanan Rowley Fen – Buchanan County Conservation Board 594031 4559424 Iowa Marshall Marietta Sand Prairie Preserve – Marshall County Conservation Board 497148 4660971 Iowa Black Hawk Cedar Hills Sand Prairie – The Nature Conservancy 536713 4715854 Iowa Fayette Kauten Fen – The Kauten Family 599089 4737395 Iowa Butler Leeper Prairie Preserve – Butler County Conservation Board 525123 4731466
Other references
Baker, R.G., C.A. Chumbley, P.M. Witinok, and H.K. Kim. 1990. Holocene vegetational changes in eastern Iowa. Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science 97: 167-177.
Baker, R.G., L.J. Maher, C.A. Chumbley, and K.L. Van Zant. 1992. Patterns of Holocene environmental changes in the midwestern United States. Quarternary Research 37: 379-389.
Bharati, L., K.-H. Lee, T.M. Isenhart, and R.C. Schultz. 2002. Soil-water infiltration under crops, pasture, and established riparian buffer in Midwestern USA. Agroforestry Systems 56: 249-257.
Changes in Hydric Soils Database Selection Criteria. 77 Federal Register 12234 (29 February 2012), pp. 12234-12235.
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. 92 pps.
Dixon, J.W. 2014. Geomorphic characteristics of small seeps and fens in a glaciated landscape. Landform Analysis 27: 15-25.
Drobney, P.D., G.S. Wilhelm, D. Horton, M. Leoschke, D. Lewis, J. Pearson, D. Roosa, and D. Smith. 2001. Floristic Quality Assessment for the State of Iowa. Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge and Ada Hayden Herbarium, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. 123 pps.
Eggers, S.D. and D.M. Reed. 2015. Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin, Version 3.2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, St. Paul District. St. Paul, MN. 478 pps.
Eilers, L. and D. Roosa. 1994. The Vascular Plants of Iowa: An Annotated Checklist and Natural History. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, IA. 319 pps.
Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 90 pps.
Franzluebbers, A.J., J.A. Stuedemann, H.H. Schomberg, and S.R. Wilkinson. 2000. Soil organic C and N pools under long-term pasture management in the Southern Piedmont USA. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 32:469-478.
Iowa Natural Areas Inventory [INAI]. 1984. An Inventory of Significant Natural Areas in Iowa: Two year Progress Report of the Iowa natural Areas Inventory. Iowa Natural Areas Inventory, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Des Moines, IA.
LANDFIRE. 2009. Biophysical Setting 4314930 Central Interior and Appalachian Shrub-Herbaceous Wetland Systems. In: LANDFIRE National Vegetation Dynamics Models. USDA Forest Service and US Department of Interior. Washington, DC.
Leake, J., D. Johnson, D. Donnelly, G. Muckle, L. Boddy, and D. Read. 2004. Networks of power and influence: the role of mycorrhizal mycelium in controlling plant communities and agroecosystem functioning. Canadian Journal of Botany 82: 1016-1045.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources [MDNR]. 2005. Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province. Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey, Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN.
National Climate Data Center [NCDC]. 2006. Climate of Iowa. Central Region Headquarters, Climate Services Branch, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC.
NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1 NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed 3 February 2019).
Pearson, J.A. and M.J. Leoschke. 1992. Floristic composition and conservation status of fens in Iowa. Journal of the Iowa Academy of Sciences 99: 41-52.
Peel, M.C., B.L. Finlayson, and T.A. McMahon. 2007. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 11: 1633-1644.
Prior, J.C. 1991. Landforms of Iowa. University of Iowa Press for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Iowa City, IA. 153 pps.
Pyne, S.J., P.L. Andrews, and R.D. Laven. 1996. Introduction to Wildland Fire, Second Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, New York. 808 pps.
Richardson, J.L. and M.M. Brinson. 2001. Wetland soils and the hydrogeomorphic classification of wetlands. In: Richardson, J.L., and M.J. Vepraskas (eds.). Wetland Soils: Genesis, Hydrology, Landscapes, and Classification. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 417 pps.
Skinner, R.H. 2008. High biomass removal limits carbon sequestration potential of mature temperate pastures. Journal for Environmental Quality 37: 1319-1326.
Smith, R.D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M.M. Brinson. 1995. An Approach for Assessing Wetland Functions Using Hydrogeomorphic Classification, Reference Wetlands, and Functional Indices. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-9. 78 pps.
Smith, D.D. 1998. Iowa prairie: original extent and loss, preservation, and recovery attempts. The Journal of the Iowa Academy of Sciences 105: 94-108.
Teague, W.R., S.L. Dowhower, S.A. Baker, N. Haile, P.B. DeLaune, and D.M. Conover. 2011. Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 141: 310-322.
Tomer, M.D., D.W. Meek, and L.A. Kramer. 2005. Agricultural practices influence flow regimes of headwater streams in western Iowa. Journal of Environmental Quality 34:1547-1558.
Undersander, D., B. Albert, D. Cosgrove, D. Johnson, and P. Peterson. 2002. Pastures for Profit: A Guide to Rotational Grazing (A3529). University of Wisconsin-Extension and University of Minnesota Extension Service. 43 pps.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. 141 pps.
United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2003. National Range and Pasture Handbook, Revision 1. Grazing Lands Technology Institute. 214 pps.
United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 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. 682 pps.
United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2007. Iowa NRCS Plant Community Species Lists. Des Moines, IA. Available at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/detail/ia/technical/ecoscience/bio/?cid=nrcs142p2_008160. (Accessed 19 January 2018).
United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2008. Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Classification: An Overview and Modification to Better Meet the Needs of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Technical Note No. 190-8-76. Washington, D.C. 8 pps.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. 2013. Level III and Level IV Ecoregions of the Continental United States. Corvallis, OR, U.S. EPA, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, map scale 1:3,000,000. Available at http://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-andiv-ecoregions-continental-united-states. (Accessed 1 March 2017).Contributors
Lisa Kluesner
Ryan DermodyApproval
Chris Tecklenburg, 5/18/2020
Acknowledgments
This project could not have been completed without the dedication and commitment from a variety of partners and staff. Team members supported the project by serving on the technical team, assisting with the development of state and community phases of the state-and-transition model, providing peer review and technical editing, and conducting quality control and quality assurance reviews. Drake University: Dr. Tom Rosburg, Professor of Ecology and Botany, Des Moines, IA Iowa Department of Natural Resources: John Pearson, Ecologist, Des Moines, IA Greg Schmitt, Private Lands Biologist, West Union, IA Conservation Districts of Iowa: Sean Kluesner, Private Lands Wetland Easement Team Specialist, New Hampton, IA LANDFIRE (The Nature Conservancy): Randy Swaty, Ecologist, Evanston, IL Natural Resources Conservation Service : Rick Bednarek, Iowa State Soil Scientist, Des Moines, IA Scott Brady, Acting Regional Ecological Site Specialist, Havre, MT Leland Camp, Soil Scientist, Waverly, IA Patrick Chase, Area Resource Soil Scientist, Fort Dodge, IA Stacey Clark, Regional Ecological Site Specialist, St. Paul, MN James Cronin, State Biologist, Des Moines, IA Ryan Dermody, Soil Survey Leader, Waverly, IA Tonie Endres, Senior Regional Soil Scientist, Indianapolis, IN Gregg Hadish, GIS Specialist, Des Moines, IA John Hammerly, Soil Data Quality Specialist, Indianapolis, IN Lisa Kluesner, Ecological Site Specialist, Waverly, IA Jeff Matthias, State Grassland Specialist, Des Moines, IA Louis Moran, Area Resource Soil Scientist, Sioux City, IA Kevin Norwood, Soil Survey Regional Director, Indianapolis, IN James Phillips, GIS Specialist, Des Moines, IA Neil Sass, Area Resource Soil Scientist, West Union, IA Jason Steele, Area Resource Soil Scientist, Fairfield, IA
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 08/29/2026 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
