Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F108XA019IL
Silty Floodplain Forest
Last updated: 11/05/2024
Accessed: 08/15/2026
-
Search
Major Land Resource Area or ecological site by name and/or ID.
PreviousSectionsNextGeneral information
Provisional. A provisional ecological site description has undergone quality control and quality assurance review. It contains a working state and transition model and enough information to identify the ecological site.
MLRA notes
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 108X–Illinois and Iowa Deep Loess and Drift
The Illinois and Iowa Deep Loess and Drift, Eastern Part (MLRA 108A) encompasses the Grand Prairie physiographic division (Schewman et al. 1973). It spans two states – Illinois (97 percent) and Indiana (3 percent) – comprising about 11,145 square miles (Figure 1). The elevation ranges from 985 feet above sea level (ASL) in the northern part to 660 feet above sea level in the southern part. Local relief varies from 3 to 10 feet on most of the area which is on broad flat uplands. The maximum relief is about 160 feet along major streams. The northern part of this area is underlain by Ordovician and Silurian limestone and the southern part is underlain by Pennsylvanian shale, siltstone, and limestone. Except for some areas along streams where bedrock is exposed, glacial drift covers all the MLRA. The glacial drift consists of till and stratified outwash and is of Wisconsinan age. A moderately thin to thick layer of loess covers the entire area (USDA-NRCS 2006).
The vegetation in the MLRA has undergone drastic changes over time. At the end of the last glacial episode – the Wisconsinan glaciation – the evolution of vegetation began with the development of tundra habitats, followed by a phase of spruce and fir forests, and eventually spruce-pine forests. Not until approximately 9,000 years ago did the climate undergo a warming trend which prompted the development of deciduous forests dominated by oak and hickory. As the climate continued to warm and dry, prairies began to develop approximately 8,300 years ago. Another shift in climate that resulted in an increase in moisture prompted the emergence of savanna-like habitats from 8,000 to 5,000 years before present. Moisture continued to increase in the southernmost region 5,000 years ago, resulting in an increase of forested systems (Taft et al. 2009). Fire, droughts, and grazing by native mammals helped to maintain the prairies and savannas until the arrival of European settlers, and the forests were maintained by droughts, wind, lightning, and occasional fire (Taft et al. 2009; NatureServe 2018).Classification relationships
USFS Subregions: Central Till Plains and Grand Prairies (251D) and Central Till Plains-Beech-Maple Sections; Northern Grand Prairie (251Dc), Eastern Grand Prairie (251Dd), Southern Grand Prairie (251De), and Entrenched Valleys (222Hf) Subsections (Cleland et al. 2007)
U.S. EPA Level IV Ecoregion: Illinois/Indiana Prairies (54a) and Glaciated Wabash Lowlands (72b) (USEPA 2013)
National Vegetation Classification – Ecological Systems: North-Central Interior Floodplain (CES202.694) (NatureServe 2018)
National Vegetation Classification – Plant Associations: Fraxinus pennsylvanica – Ulmus spp. – Celtis occidentalis Floodplain Forest (CEGL002014) (Nature Serve 2018)
Biophysical Settings: Central Interior and Appalachian Floodplain (BpS 4914710) (LANDFIRE 2009)
Illinois Natural Areas Inventory: Wet-mesic floodplain forest (White and Madany 1978)Ecological site concept
Silty Floodplain Forests are located within the blue areas on the map (Figure 1). They occur on floodplains in river valleys. The soils are Mollisols and Inceptisols that are somewhat poorly to well-drained and deep, formed in silty alluvium. The site experiences flooding that can last up to seven days.
The historic pre-European settlement vegetation on this ecological site was dominated by a dense, closed canopy of deciduous trees and an understory of flood-tolerant, hydrophytic herbaceous plants. Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marshall) and common hackberry (Celtis occidentalis L.) are common tree species present on the site. Other co-dominant tree species include silver maple (Acer saccharinum L.), bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa Michx.), and American elm (Ulmus americana L.) (White and Madany 1978). The shrub layer supports woody shrubs, such as roughleaf dogwood (Cornus drummondii C.A. Mey.), and vines, such as riverbank grape (Vitis riparia Michx.) (NatureServe 2018). The understory is comprised of species tolerant of occasional flood disturbances such as Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus L.) and Canadian woodnettle (Laportea canadensis (L.) Weddell). Brief, seasonal flooding is the primary disturbance factor that maintains this site, while damage from storms and periodic pest outbreaks are secondary disturbances (LANDFIRE 2009).Associated sites
R108XA018IL Ponded Floodplain Marsh
Alluvial parent materials that are both ponded and flooded including Colo, Comfrey, Millington, Moundprairie, Otter, Sawmill, Titus, and Wabash
F108XA020IL Loamy Floodplain Forest
Loamy alluvial parent materials including Brouillet, DuPage, Landes, Medway, Ross, Rossburg, and Shaffton
Similar sites
F108XA020IL Loamy Floodplain Forest
Loamy Floodplain Forests are slightly lower on the landscape and are formed in loamy alluvial parent material
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Fraxinus pennsylvanica
(2) Celtis occidentalisShrub (1) Cornus drummondii
(2) Vitis ripariaHerbaceous (1) Elymus virginicus
(2) Laportea canadensisPhysiographic features
Silty Floodplain Forests occur on floodplains in river valleys (Figure 2). They are situated on elevations ranging from approximately 330 to 1050 feet. The site experiences occasional to frequent flooding that can last up to seven days (Table 2).
Figure 1. Figure 1. Location of Silty Floodplain Forest ecological site within MLRA 108A.
Figure 2. Figure 2. Representative block diagram of Silty Floodplain Forest and associated ecological sites.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Slope shape across (1) Linear
Slope shape up-down (1) Linear
Landforms (1) River valley > Flood plain
Runoff class Negligible to low Flooding duration Brief (2 to 7 days) Flooding frequency Occasional to frequent Ponding frequency None Elevation 330 – 1050 ft Slope 0 – 2 % Water table depth 12 – 24 in Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
The Illinois and Iowa Deep Loess and Drift, Eastern Part falls into the hot-summer humid continental climate (Dfa) and the humid subtropical continental climate (Cfa) Köppen-Geiger climate classifications (Peel et al. 2007). The two main factors that drive the climate of the MLRA are latitude and weather systems. Latitude, and the subsequent reflection of solar input, determines air temperatures and seasonal variations. Solar energy varies across the seasons, with summer receiving three to four times as much energy as opposed to winter. Weather systems (air masses and cyclonic storms) are responsible for daily fluctuations of weather conditions. High-pressure systems are responsible for settled weather patterns where sun and clear skies dominate. In fall, winter, and spring, the polar jet stream is responsible for the creation and movement of low-pressure systems. The clouds, winds, and precipitation associated with a low-pressure system regularly follow high-pressure systems every few days (Angel n.d.).
The soil temperature regime of MLRA 108A 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 169 days, while the frost-free period is about 141 days (Table 2). The majority of the precipitation occurs as rainfall in the form of convective thunderstorms during the growing season. Average annual precipitation is approximately 39 inches, which includes rainfall plus the water equivalent from snowfall (Table 3). The average annual low and high temperatures are 41 and 61°F, respectively.
Climate data and analyses are derived from 30-year averages gathered from four National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather stations contained within the range of this ecological site (Table 4).Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 140-150 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 150-190 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 40-40 in Frost-free period (actual range) 130-150 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 140-190 days Precipitation total (actual range) 40-40 in Frost-free period (average) 140 days Freeze-free period (average) 170 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) OTTAWA 5SW [USC00116526], Ottawa, IL
-
(2) CHARLESTON [USC00111436], Charleston, IL
-
(3) SULLIVAN 3S [USC00118389], Sullivan, IL
-
(4) CHICAGO AURORA MUNI AP [USW00004808], Sugar Grove, IL
">Influencing water features
Silty Floodplain Forests are classified as a RIVERINE: Occasionally Flooded; forested wetland under the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification system (Smith et al. 1995; USDA-NRCS 2008) and as a Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Temporarily Flooded wetland under the National Wetlands Inventory (FGDC 2013). Overbank flow from the channel and subsurface hydraulic connections are the main sources of water for this ecological site (Smith et al. 1995). Infiltration is moderate or very slow (Hydrologic Groups B and D) for undrained soils, and surface runoff is negligible to very high (Figure 5). <br />
<br />
Primary wetland hydrology indicators for an intact Silty Floodplain Forest may include: A1 Surface water, B1 Water marks, B2 Sediment deposits, B3 Drift deposits, and B9 Water-stained leaves. Secondary wetland hydrology indicators may include: D5 FAC-neutral test (USACE 2010).
Figure 9. Figure 5. Hydrologic cycling in Silty Floodplain Forest ecological site.
Soil features
Soils of Silty Floodplain Forests are in the Mollisols and Inceptisols orders, further classified as Aquic Cumulic Hapludolls, Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts, Fluvaquentic Hapludolls, Fluventic Hapludolls, and Typic Udifluvents with moderate or very slow infiltration and negligible to low runoff potential. The soil series associated with this site includes Aetna, Armiesburg, Dozaville, Lawson, Radford, and Tice (Figure 6). The parent material is silty alluvium, and the very deep soils are somewhat poorly to well-drained. Soil pH classes are moderately acid to moderately alkaline. No rooting restrictions are noted for the soils of this ecological site.
The soil map units in this ecological site are currently not populated as meeting the definition of hydric soils. However, fluvial soils within floodplains can often be problematic hydric soils in the Midwest as they can lack hydric soil indicators due to seasonal or annual deposition of new material, low iron or manganese content, or low or high organic matter content (USACE 2010; USDA-NRCS 2016).
Figure 10. Figure 6. Profile sketches of soil series associated with Silty Floodplain Forest.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Alluvium
Surface texture (1) Silt loam
(2) Silty clay loam
Family particle size (1) Fine
(2) Fine-silty
Drainage class Somewhat poorly drained Permeability class Moderately slow to moderate Soil depth 80 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(Depth not specified)6.5 – 8.5 in Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(Depth not specified)5.6 – 7.8 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 1 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)Not specified Ecological dynamics
The information in this Ecological Site Description, including the state-and-transition model (STM), was developed based on historical data, current field data, professional experience, and a review of the scientific literature. As a result, all possible scenarios or plant species may not be included. Key indicator plant species, disturbances, and ecological processes are described to inform land management decisions.
The MLRA lies within the tallgrass prairie ecosystem of the Midwest. The heterogeneous topography of the area results in variable microclimates and fuel matrices that in turn support prairies, savannas, and forests. Silty Floodplain Forests form an aspect of this vegetative continuum. This ecological site occurs on floodplains on somewhat poorly to well-drained, silty alluvial soils. Species characteristic of this ecological site consist of woody and herbaceous vegetation tolerant of periodic flooding.
Occasional to frequent flooding is the dominant disturbance factor in Silty Floodplain Forests, and storm damage and pests are secondary disturbances. Seasonal flooding occurs every two to twenty years, and flooding can persist for up to seven days at a time. Damage to trees from wind storms can vary from minor, patchy effects of individual trees to stand effects that temporarily affect community structure and species richness and diversity (Irland 2000; Peterson 2000). Trees are susceptible to a variety of pests (e.g., insects, fungi, cankers, wilts), therefore periodic insect and disease outbreaks play an important role in local canopy structure.
Today, many Silty Floodplain Forests have been reduced as a result of conversion to pasture. A few sites have been cleared and drained for agricultural production. Remnant sites have been degraded due to significant changes to the natural hydrologic regime and diminished water quality in the watershed. 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 2 and 5 (additional transitions)
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 floodplain forest community, dominated by woody and herbaceous vegetation tolerant of periodic flooding. The two community phases within the reference state are dependent on a regular flood regime. The amount and duration of flooding alters species composition, cover, and extent. Periodic pest outbreaks and wind storms have more localized impacts in the reference phases, but do contribute to overall species composition, diversity, cover, and productivity.
Community 1.1
Green Ash - Common Hackberry/Roughleaf Dogwood - Riverbank Grape/Virginia Wildrye - Canadian WoodnettleSites in this reference community phase are a closed canopy forest (80 to 100 percent cover), defined by a mixture of trees with no clear dominant species. Green ash, common hackberry, bur oak, and American elm are common trees on the site (White and Madany 1978). Trees are large (21 to 33-inch DBH) and range in height from 30 to over 80 feet tall (LANDFIRE 2009). Virginia wildrye and Canadian woodnettle are characteristic species of the herbaceous layer, but other species can include nodding fescue (Festuca subverticillata(Pers.) Alexeev), stickywilly (Galium aparine L.), and white avens (Geum canadense Jacq.) (NatureServe 2018). Rare to occasional flooding every 2 to 20 years will maintain this phase, but a major flood event can shift the community to an earlier successional floodplain forest, phase 1.2 (Myers and Buchanan 1984).
Dominant plant species
-
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tree
-
common hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), tree
-
roughleaf dogwood (Cornus drummondii), shrub
-
riverbank grape (Vitis riparia), shrub
-
Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus), grass
-
Canadian woodnettle (Laportea canadensis), other herbaceous
Community 1.2
Silver Maple - Green Ash/Riverbank Grape/JumpseedThis reference community phase represents a plant community in recovery from a major flood event. Mature trees are still present, but the more disturbance-tolerant species becomes important in the canopy, including silver maple and green ash. Shrubs can be greatly reduced from the scouring and deposition event, leaving just woody vines. Immediately following the flood event, the herbaceous layer is likely to be comprised of mostly annuals such as jumpseed (Polygonum virginianum L.). Frequent flooding will maintain this community phase, a but lack of disturbances will eventually allow the site to shift back to phase 1.1 (Myers and Buchman 1984).
Dominant plant species
-
silver maple (Acer saccharinum), tree
-
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tree
-
riverbank grape (Vitis riparia), shrub
-
jumpseed (Polygonum virginianum), other herbaceous
Pathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2Major flood event.
Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1Natural succession as a result of no disturbances.
State 2
Hydrologically-Altered StateAgricultural tile drainage, stream channelization, and levee construction in hydrologically-connected waters have drastically changed the natural hydrologic regime of Silty Floodplain Forests. In addition, increased amounts of precipitation and intensity have amplified flooding events (Pryor et al. 2014). This has resulted in a type conversion from the species-rich forest to a ruderal floodplain forest state. In addition, exotic species have encroached and continuously spread, reducing native diversity and ecosystem stability.
Community 2.1
Silver Maple - Green Ash/Common Hackberry/Canadian Woodnettle - Creeping JennyThis community phase represents a transition in plant community composition as a result of an altered hydrologic regime. Silver maple, green ash, American elm, and slippery elm become the dominant tree canopy species. Common hackberry, honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos L.), and boxelder (Acer negundo L.) are dominant subcanopy species, while roughleaf dogwood is a dominant shrub. The herbaceous layer is nearly continuous but lacking in diversity. Canadian woodnettle and Virginia wildrye are common native species, and creeping jenny (Lysimachia nummularia L.) can be a frequently encountered non-native species.
Dominant plant species
-
silver maple (Acer saccharinum), tree
-
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tree
-
common hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), shrub
-
Canadian woodnettle (Laportea canadensis), other herbaceous
-
creeping jenny (Lysimachia nummularia), other herbaceous
Community 2.2
Boxelder - Silver Maple/Roughleaf Dogwood/Creeping JennyThis community phase represents persisting changes to the natural hydrology of the watershed. The overstory canopy continues to shift, becoming dominated by boxelder due to frequent disturbances (Rosario 1988). Silver maple, green ash, and American elm can be co-dominant canopy species, and roughleaf dogwood remains in the shrub layer. The understory may continue to be invaded by more non-native species as a result of the frequent disturbances.
Dominant plant species
-
boxelder (Acer negundo), tree
-
silver maple (Acer saccharinum), tree
-
roughleaf dogwood (Cornus drummondii), shrub
-
creeping jenny (Lysimachia nummularia), other herbaceous
Pathway 2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.2Increasing frequency of disturbances.
Pathway 2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1Decreasing frequency of disturbances.
State 3
Forage StateThe forage state occurs when the reference state is converted to a farming system that emphasizes domestic livestock production known as grassland agriculture. Selective tree removal, 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. Over time, as lands were continuously harvested or grazed by herds of cattle, the non-native 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).
Community 3.2
Continuous Pastured Grazing SystemThis community phase is characterized by continuous grazing where domestic livestock 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, sometimes completely excluding the native vegetation.
Community 3.3
Rest-Rotation Pastured Grazing SystemThis community phase is characterized by rotational grazing where the pasture has been subdivided into several smaller paddocks. Through the development of a grazing plan, livestock 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). Rest-rotation pastured grazing systems include deferred rotation, rest rotation, 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 rotational 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 3.3Rotational 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 rotational grazing.
State 4
Cropland StateThe continuous use of tillage, row-crop planting, and chemicals (i.e., herbicides, fertilizers, etc.) has 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 sativaL.) 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 corn-soybean rotations. 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 rotational crop production that utilizes 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 systems. 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 systems 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 systems, 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 Field/Alternative 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 cropland system.
Pathway 4.1A
Community 4.1 to 4.2Tillage operations are greatly reduced, crop rotation 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, crop rotation 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 crop practices are abandoned, monoculture row-cropping is established, and crop rotation is reduced or eliminated.
Pathway 4.3A
Community 4.3 to 4.2Cover crop practices are abandoned.
State 5
Reconstructed Floodplain Forest StateThe combination of natural and anthropogenic disturbances occurring today has resulted in numerous ecosystem health issues, and restoration back to the historic reference state may not be possible. Many natural forest communities are being stressed by non-native diseases and pests, habitat fragmentation, permanent changes in hydrologic regimes, and overabundant deer populations on top of naturally-occurring disturbances (severe weather and native pests) (IFDC 2018). However, these habitats provide multiple ecosystem services including carbon sequestration; clean air and water; soil conservation; biodiversity support; wildlife habitat; as well as a variety of cultural activities (e.g., hiking, hunting) (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; IFDC 2018). Therefore, conservation of floodplain forests should still be pursued. Habitat reconstructions are an important tool for repairing natural ecological functioning and providing habitat protection for numerous species of Silty Floodplain Forests. Therefore, ecological restoration should aim to aid the recovery of degraded, damaged, or destroyed ecosystems. A successful restoration will have the ability to structurally and functionally sustain itself, demonstrate resilience to the ranges of stress and disturbance, and create and maintain positive biotic and abiotic interactions (SER 2002). The reconstructed forest state is the result of a long-term commitment involving a multi-step, adaptive management process.
Community 5.1
Early Successional Reconstructed ForestThis community phase represents the early community assembly from forest reconstruction. It is highly dependent on the current condition of the site based on past and current land management actions, invasive species, and proximity to land populated with non-native pests and diseases. Therefore, no two sites will have the same early successional composition. Technical forestry assistance should be sought to develop suitable conservation management plans.
Community 5.2
Late Successional Reconstructed ForestAppropriately timed management practices (e.g. forest stand improvement, continuing integrated pest management) applied to the early successional community phase can help increase the stand maturity, pushing the site into a late successional community phase over time. A late successional reconstructed forest will have an uneven-aged, closed canopy and a well-developed understory.
Pathway 5.1A
Community 5.1 to 5.2Application of stand improvement practices in line with a developed management plan.
Pathway 5.2A
Community 5.2 to 5.1Reconstruction experiences a setback from extreme weather event or improper timing of management actions.
Transition T1A
State 1 to 2Altered hydrology throughout the watershed transitions the site to the hydrologically-altered state (2).
Transition T1B
State 1 to 3Woody species removal and cultural treatments to enhance forage quality and yield transition the site to the forage state (3).
Transition T1C
State 1 to 4Woody species removal, tillage, seeding of agricultural crops, and non-selective herbicide transition the site to the cropland state (4).
Transition T2A
State 2 to 3Woody species removal and cultural treatments to enhance forage quality and yield transition the site to the forage state (3).
Transition T2B
State 2 to 4Woody species removal, tillage, seeding of agricultural crops, and non-selective herbicide transition the site to the cropland state (4).
Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 5Site preparation, tree planting, timber stand improvement, non-native species control, and water control structures installed to improve and regulate hydrology transition this site to the reconstructed floodplain forest state (5).
Transition T3A
State 3 to 2Land is abandoned and left fallow; natural succession by opportunistic species transition this site to the hydrologically-altered state (2).
Transition T3B
State 3 to 4Tillage, seeding of agricultural crops, and non-selective herbicide transition the site to the cropland state (4).
Restoration pathway R3A
State 3 to 5Site preparation, tree planting, timber stand improvement, non-native species control, and water control structures installed to improve and regulate hydrology transition this site to the reconstructed floodplain forest (5).
Transition T4A
State 4 to 2Land abandonment transitions the site to the hydrologically-altered state (2).
Transition T4B
State 4 to 3Cultural treatments to enhance forage quality and yield transition the site to the forage state (3).
Restoration pathway R4A
State 4 to 5Site preparation, tree planting, timber stand improvement, non-native species control, and water control structures installed to improve and regulate hydrology transition this site to the reconstructed floodplain forest state (5).
Transition T5A
State 5 to 2Removal of water control structures and unmanaged invasive species populations transition this site to the hydrologically-altered state (2).
Transition T5B
State 5 to 3Tree removal and cultural treatments to enhance forage quality and yield transition the site to the forage state (3).
Transition T5C
State 5 to 4Tree removal, tillage, seeding of agricultural crops, and non-selective herbicide transition this site to the cropland state (4).
Additional community tables
Table 5. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 6. Community 1.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 7. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 8. Community 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 10. Community 3.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 11. Community 3.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 12. Community 4.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 13. Community 4.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 14. Community 4.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 15. Community 5.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 16. Community 5.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Supporting information
Inventory data references
No field plots were available for this site. A review of the scientific literature and professional experience were used to approximate the plant communities for this provisional ecological site. Information for the state-and-transition model was obtained from the same sources. All community phases are considered provisional based on these plots and the sources identified in this ecological site description.
Other references
Angel, J. No date. Climate of Illinois Narrative. Illinois State Water Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Available at https://www.isws.illinois.edu/statecli/General/Illinois-climate-narrative.htm. Accessed 8 November 2018.
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.
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.
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.
Illinois Forestry Development Council (IFDC). 2018. Illinois Forest Action Plan: A Statewide Forest Resource Assessment and Strategy, Version 4.1. Illinois Forestry Development Council and Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 80 pps.
Irland, L.C. 2000. Ice storms and forest impacts. The Science of the Total Environment 262:231-242.
LANDFIRE. 2009. Biophysical Setting 4214710 Central Interior and Appalachian Floodplain 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.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current States and Trends. World Resources Institute. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 948 pages.
NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1 NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed 25 April 2019).
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.
Peterson, C.J. 2000. Catastrophic wind damage to North American forests and the potential impact of climate change. The Science of the Total Environment 262: 287-311.
Pryor, S.C., D. Scavia, C. Downer, M. Gaden, L. Iverson, R. Nordstrom, J. Patz, and G.P. Robertson. 2014. Chapter 18: Midwest. In: J.M. Melillo, T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe, eds. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 418-440. Doi:10.7930/J0J1012N.
Schwegman, J.E., G.B. Fell, M. Hutchinson, G. Paulson, W.M. Shepherd, and J. White. 1973. Comprehensive Plan for the Illinois Nature Preserves System, Part 2 The Natural Divisions of Illinois. Illinois Nature Preserves Commission, Rockford, IL. 32 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.
Society for Ecological Restoration [SER] Science & Policy Working Group. 2002. The SER Primer on Ecological Restoration. Available at: http://www.ser.org/. (Accessed 28 February 2017).
Taft, J.B., R.C. Anderson, L.R. Iverson, and W.C. Handel. 2009. Chapter 4: Vegetation ecology and change in terrestrial ecosystems. In: C.A. Taylor, J.B. Taft, and C.E. Warwick (eds.). Canaries in the Catbird Seat: The Past, Present, and Future of Biological Resources in a Changing Environment. Illinois Natural Heritage Survey Special Publication 30, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 306 pps.
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.
Tesky, J.L. 1992. Salix nigra. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Available at: https://www.crs-feis.org/feis. (Accessed 6 March 2018).
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 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.
United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2016. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.). USDA NRCS in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. 45 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).
White, J. and M.H. Madany. 1978. Classification of natural communities in Illinois. In: J. White. Illinois Natural Areas Inventory Technical Report. Illinois Natural Areas Inventory, Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign. 426 pps.Contributors
Lisa Kluesner
Kristine Ryan
Sarah Smith
Tiffany JustusApproval
Suzanne Mayne-Kinney, 11/05/2024
Acknowledgments
This project could not have been completed without the dedication and commitment from a variety of staff members (Table 6). 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. Table 6. List of primary contributors and reviewers. Organization Name Title Location Natural Resources Conservation Service: Scott Brady, Acting Regional Ecological Site Specialist, Havre, MT Stacey Clark, Regional Ecological Site Specialist, St. Paul, MN Tonie Endres, Senior Regional Soil Scientist, Indianapolis, IN Tiffany Justus, Soil Scientist, Aurora, IL Lisa Kluesner, Ecological Site Specialist, Waverly, IA Kevin Norwood, Soil Survey Regional Director, Indianapolis, IN Kristine Ryan, MLRA Soil Survey Leader, Aurora, IL Sarah Smith, Soil Scientist, Aurora, IL This site was originally approved by Chris Tecklenburg, 5/01/2020.
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 01/30/2023 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
