Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F108XB021IL
Wet Loamy Floodplain Forest
Last updated: 11/05/2024
Accessed: 07/15/2026
-
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, East-Central Part (MLRA 108B) includes the Rock River Hill Country, Grand Prairie, and Western Forest-Prairie physiographic divisions (Schewman et al. 1973). It falls entirely in one state (Illinois), encompassing approximately 7,450 square miles (Figure 1). The elevation ranges from approximately 985 feet above sea level (ASL) in the northern and western parts to 660 feet ASL in south and west. Local relief is mainly 3 to 10 feet on the broad, upland flats and about 160 feet along the major streams and dissected drainageways. Wisconsin-aged loess forms a moderately thin to thick layer across the entire area with Illinoisan glacial drift below. Bedrock lies beneath the glacial material with Pennsylvania shales, siltstones, and limestones in the south and west and Ordovician and Silurian limestone in the extreme north. This bedrock can be exposed on bluffs along the major rivers (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: Southwestern Great Lakes Morainal (222K), Central Till Plains-Oak Hickory Section (223G), Central Dissected Till Plains (251C), and Central Till Plains and Grand Prairies (251D) Sections; Rock River Old Drift Country (222Kh), Effingham Plain (222Ga), Mississippi River and Illinois Alluvial Plains (251 Cf), East Mississippi River Hills (251Ci), Galesburg Dissected Till Plain (251Cj), Carlinville Dissected Till Plain (251Ck), Green River Lowland (251Da), Western Grand Prairie (251Db), Northern Grand Prairie (251Dc), Southern Grand Prairie (251De), and Springfield Plains (251Df) Subsections (Cleland et al. 2007)
U.S. EPA Level IV Ecoregion: Illinois/Indiana Prairies (54a), Sand Area (54d), Rock River Hills (54g), and Western Dissected Illinoian Till Plain (72i) (USEPA 2013)
National Vegetation Classification – Ecological Systems: North-Central Interior Floodplain (CES202.694) (NatureServe 2018)
National Vegetation Classification – Plant Associations: Acer saccharinum – Fraxinus pennsylvanica – Ulmus americana Floodplain Forest (CEGL002586) (Nature Serve 2018)
Biophysical Settings: Central Interior and Appalachian Floodplain (BpS 4914710) (LANDFIRE 2009)
Illinois Natural Areas Inventory: Wet floodplain forest (White and Madany 1978)Ecological site concept
Wet Loamy Floodplain Forests are located within the blue areas on the map (Figure 1). They occur on floodplains in river valleys. The soils are Mollisols that are very poorly to poorly-drained and deep, formed in alluvium. The site experiences seasonal flooding and subsequent ponding that can last up to 30 days.
The historic pre-European settlement vegetation on this ecological site was dominated by a dense, closed canopy of deciduous trees and a sparse understory of shade and flood-tolerant herbaceous plants. The tree canopy is comprised of silver maple (Acer saccharinum L.) and eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides W. Bartram ex Marshall). Other tree species that may occur can include American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis L.) and boxelder (Acer negundo L.) (White and Madany 1978). Vines are a common component and often include riverbank grape (Vitis riparia Michx.) and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch.). The understory is populated with species tolerant of repeated flood disturbances, such as Canadian clearweed (Pilea pumila (L.) A. Gray) and Canadian woodnettle (Laportea canadensis (L.) Weddell). Seasonal flooding every one to two years is the primary disturbance factor that maintains this site (LANDFIRE 2009).Associated sites
F108XB020IL Loamy Floodplain Forest
Somewhat poorly-drained alluvial parent materials that experience rare to occasional flooding including Radford soils
Similar sites
F108XB020IL Loamy Floodplain Forest
Loamy Floodplain Forests are in slightly higher on the landscape and are somewhat poorly-drained
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Acer saccharinum
(2) Populus deltoidesShrub (1) Vitis riparia
(2) Parthenocissus quinquefoliaHerbaceous (1) Pilea pumila
(2) Laportea canadensisPhysiographic features
Wet Loamy Floodplain Forests occur on floodplains (Figure 2). They are situated on elevations ranging from approximately 340 to 1500 feet. The site can experience brief flooding and subsequent ponding that can last up to 30 days (Table 1).
Figure 1. Figure 1. Location of Wet Loamy Floodplain Forest ecological site within MLRA 108B.
Figure 2. Figure 2. Representative block diagram of Wet Loamy Floodplain Forest and associated ecological sites.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) River valley > Flood plain
Runoff class Negligible to low Flooding duration Brief (2 to 7 days) Flooding frequency None to frequent Ponding duration Brief (2 to 7 days) Ponding frequency None to frequent Elevation 340 – 1500 ft Slope 0 – 2 % Ponding depth 0 – 6 in Water table depth 3 – 12 in Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
The Illinois and Iowa Deep Loess and Drift, East-Central 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 108B 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 140 days, while the frost-free period is about 176 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 38 inches, which includes rainfall plus the water equivalent from snowfall (Table 3). The average annual low and high temperatures are 40 and 60°F, respectively.
Climate data and analyses are derived from 30-year averages gathered from six 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) 130-150 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 170-180 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 40-40 in Frost-free period (actual range) 130-150 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 170-180 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 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) FREEPORT WASTE WTP [USC00113262], Freeport, IL
-
(2) DIXON 1 NW [USC00112348], Dixon, IL
-
(3) GENESEO [USC00113384], Geneseo, IL
-
(4) MONMOUTH 4NW [USC00115772], Monmouth, IL
-
(5) MASON CITY 2N [USC00115413], Mason City, IL
-
(6) MOWEAQUA 2S [USC00115950], Moweaqua, IL
">Influencing water features
Wet Loamy Floodplain Forests are classified as a RIVERINE: Occasionally to Frequently 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 very slow (Hydrologic Group D) for undrained soils, and surface runoff is negligible to very high (Figure 5). <br />
<br />
Primary wetland hydrology indicators for an intact Wet Loamy Floodplain Forests 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 Wet Loamy Floodplain Forest ecological site.
Soil features
Soils of Wet Loamy Floodplain Forests are in the Mollisol order, further classified as Cumulic Endoaquolls and Fluvaquentic Endoaquolls with very slow infiltration and negligible to very high runoff potential. While these soils are classified as Mollisols, their dark surfaces and increased thickness of the epipedon are not the result of prairie vegetation but rather alluvial deposition and slope wash. The soil series associated with this site includes Calco, Cohoctah, Fella, Normandy, and Sawmill. The parent material is alluvium, and the soils are very poorly to poorly-drained and deep with seasonal high-water tables. Soil pH classes are moderately 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 2, 3, or 4 of the hydric soils list (77 FR 12234).
Figure 10. FIgure 6. Profile sketch of soil series associated with Wet Loamy Floodplain Forest.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Alluvium
Surface texture (1) Loam
(2) Silt loam
(3) Silty clay loam
Family particle size (1) Fine-silty
(2) Fine-loamy
(3) Coarse-loamy
Drainage class Somewhat excessively drained to very poorly drained Permeability class Moderate to moderately rapid Soil depth 80 in Surface fragment cover <=3" 0 – 2 % Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(Depth not specified)5.4 – 9.2 in Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(Depth not specified)5.8 – 8.4 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 7 % 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 support prairies, savannas, and forests. Wet Loamy Floodplain Forests form an aspect of this vegetative continuum. This ecological site occurs on floodplains on very poorly to poorly-drained soils. Species characteristic of this ecological site consist of hydrophytic woody and herbaceous vegetation.
Flooding is the dominant disturbance factor in Wet Loamy Floodplain Forests. Seasonal flooding and subsequent ponding occur every one to two years, and flooding can persist up to 30 days. Floodwaters are fast, and the receding water deposits sediments and debris along the forest floor. Less frequent major and extreme floods result in shifts in the plant community, from early-successional communities with small trees and saplings forming open canopies to late-successional communities with large trees and closed canopies.
Today, many Wet Loamy 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 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 hydrophytic woody and herbaceous vegetation. The three 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.
Dominant plant species
-
silver maple (Acer saccharinum), tree
-
eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), tree
-
riverbank grape (Vitis riparia), shrub
-
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), shrub
-
black willow (Salix nigra), shrub
-
river birch (Betula nigra), shrub
-
Canadian clearweed (Pilea pumila), other herbaceous
-
Canadian woodnettle (Laportea canadensis), other herbaceous
Community 1.1
Silver Maple – Eastern Cottonwood/Riverbank Grape – Virginia Creeper/Canadian Clearweed – Canadian WoodnettleSilver Maple – Eastern Cottonwood/Riverbank Grape – Virginia Creeper/Canadian Clearweed – Canadian Woodnettle – Sites in this reference community phase are a closed canopy forest (80 to 100 percent cover) dominated by silver maple and eastern cottonwood, with sub-dominants including American sycamore boxelder. Trees are large (21 to 33-inch DBH) and range in height from 30 to over 80 feet tall (LANDFIRE 2009). Climbing vines, especially riverbank grape and Virginia creeper, can be common. Nettles are the dominant herbaceous species including Canadian clearweed (Pilea pumila (L.) A. Gray), Canadian woodnettle, and smallspike false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica (L.) Sw.). Average flood events will likely maintain this phase, but a major or extreme scouring event that removes some to all of the overstory will shift the community to phase 1.3 or 1.2.
Dominant plant species
-
silver maple (Acer saccharinum), tree
-
eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), tree
-
riverbank grape (Vitis riparia), shrub
-
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), shrub
-
Canadian clearweed (Pilea pumila), other herbaceous
-
Canadian woodnettle (Laportea canadensis), other herbaceous
Community 1.2
Black Willow – River Birch/Canadian ClearweedThis reference community phase represents a plant community in recovery from an extreme flood event that reduces the overstory canopy. Black willow (Salix nigra L.) and river birch (Betula nigra L.) becomes an important, early-successional woody species to establish on the recently cleared sites (White and Madany 1978; Tesky 1992). Silver maple and eastern cottonwood saplings can be present. The ground layer is generally sparse with mostly disturbance-tolerant species present. This community phase occurs from the time of disturbance to approximately 20 years (LANDFIRE 2009). Average flood events will slowly shift this community to phase 1.3.
Dominant plant species
-
black willow (Salix nigra), shrub
-
river birch (Betula nigra), shrub
-
Canadian clearweed (Pilea pumila), other herbaceous
Community 1.3
Silver Maple/Black Willow – River Birch/Canadian ClearweedSilver Maple/Black Willow – River Birch/Canadian Clearweed – This reference community phase represents a mid-successional plant community phase. The tree canopy matures out of the sapling phase, with tree size class increasing to medium (9 to 21-inch DBH), cover increasing up to 80 percent, and heights reaching up to 30 feet. Black willow and river birch can still be present in the shrub layer, and the herbaceous layer remains sparse. Average flood events will slowly shift this community to phase 1.1 after approximately 60 years (LANDFIRE 2009)
Dominant plant species
-
silver maple (Acer saccharinum), tree
-
black willow (Salix nigra), shrub
-
river birch (Betula nigra), shrub
-
Canadian clearweed (Pilea pumila), other herbaceous
Pathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2Extreme flood event that removes the overstory
Pathway 1.1B
Community 1.1 to 1.3Major flood event that reduces the overstory
Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.3Natural succession as a result of sediment accumulation from regular flooding
Pathway 1.3A
Community 1.3 to 1.1Natural succession as a result of sediment accumulation from regular flooding
Pathway 1.3B
Community 1.3 to 1.2Major flood event that reduces the overstory
State 2
Hydrologically Altered StateAgricultural tile drainage, stream channelization, and levee construction in hydrologically-connected waters have drastically changed the natural hydrologic regime of Wet Loamy 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.
Dominant plant species
-
silver maple (Acer saccharinum), tree
-
boxelder (Acer negundo), tree
-
common hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), tree
-
black walnut (Juglans nigra), tree
-
roughleaf dogwood (Cornus drummondii), shrub
-
creeping jenny (Lysimachia nummularia), shrub
Community 2.1
Silver Maple – Boxelder/Common Hackberry – Black Walnut/Creeping JennyThis community phase represents a shift in plant community composition as a result of an altered hydrologic regime. Silver maple is still dominant, but the ruderal boxelder can begin to co-dominate. A reduced flooding frequency from stream channelization and water control structures allows other species to become prominent in the canopy composition including common hackberry, black walnut (Juglans nigra L.), and honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos L.). The bare soil conditions that result from flooding allow non-native species – such as Creeping jenny (Lysimachia nummularia L.) – to rapidly colonize and expand in the understory.
Dominant plant species
-
silver maple (Acer saccharinum), tree
-
boxelder (Acer negundo), tree
-
common hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), tree
-
black walnut (Juglans nigra), tree
-
creeping jenny (Lysimachia nummularia), other herbaceous
Community 2.2
Common Hackberry – Box Elder/ Roughleaf Dogwood/Creeping JennyCommon Hackberry – Box Elder/ Roughleaf Dogwood/Creeping Jenny – This community phase represents persisting changes to the natural hydrology of the watershed. The overstory canopy continues to shift its dominance. Roughleaf dogwood (Cornus drummondii C.A. Mey) may be common in the shrub layer.
Dominant plant species
-
common hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), tree
-
boxelder (Acer negundo), tree
-
roughleaf dogwood (Cornus drummondii), shrub
-
creeping jenny (Lysimachia nummularia), other herbaceous
Pathway 2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.2Increasing changes to hydrology, increasing sedimentation and non-native species invasion
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. 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. 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
HayfieldHayfield – Sites 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 SystemContinuous Pastured Grazing System – This 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 and continuous grazing
Pathway 3.1B
Community 3.1 to 3.3Mechanical harvesting is replaced with domestic livestock and rest-rotational grazing
Pathway 3.2A
Community 3.2 to 3.1Tillage, forage crop planting and mechanical harvesting replace grazing
Pathway 3.2B
Community 3.2 to 3.3Implementation of rest-rotational grazing
Pathway 3.3B
Community 3.3 to 3.1Tillage, forage crop planting and mechanical harvesting replace grazing
Pathway 3.3A
Community 3.3 to 3.2Implementation of continuous 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 sativa L.) may be rotated periodically. These areas are likely to remain in crop production for the foreseeable future.
Community 4.1
Conventional Tillage FieldConventional Tillage Field – Sites 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 FieldConservation Tillage Field – This 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 FieldConservation Tillage Field/Alternative Crop Field – This 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 4.2Less tillage, residue management
Pathway 4.1B
Community 4.1 to 4.3Less tillage, residue management and implementation of cover cropping
Pathway 4.2A
Community 4.2 to 4.1Intensive tillage, remove residue and reinitialize monoculture row cropping
Pathway 4.2B
Community 4.2 to 4.3Implementation of cover cropping
Pathway 4.3B
Community 4.3 to 4.1Intensive tillage, remove residue and reinitialize monoculture row cropping
Pathway 4.3A
Community 4.3 to 4.2Remove cover cropping
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 Wet Loamy 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 ForestLate Successional Reconstructed Forest – Appropriately 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 5.2Timber stand improvement practices implemented
Pathway 5.2A
Community 5.2 to 5.1Setback from extreme weather event or improper timing of management actions
Transition T1A
State 1 to 2Changes to natural hydroperiod and/or land abandonment
Transition T1B
State 1 to 3Cultural treatments are implemented to increase forage quality and yield
Transition T1C
State 1 to 4Agricultural conversion via tillage, seeding and non-selective herbicide
Transition T2A
State 2 to 3Cultural treatments are implemented to increase forage quality and yield
Transition T2B
State 2 to 4Agricultural conversion via tillage, seeding and non-selective herbicide
Transition R2A
State 2 to 5Site preparation, tree planting, repair hydrology and non-native species control
Restoration pathway T3A
State 3 to 2Changes to natural hydroperiod and/or land abandonment
Transition T3B
State 3 to 4Agricultural conversion via tillage, seeding and non-selective herbicide
Transition R3A
State 3 to 5Site preparation, tree planting, repair hydrology and non-native species control
Restoration pathway T4A
State 4 to 2Changes to natural hydroperiod and/or land abandonment
Restoration pathway T4B
State 4 to 3Cultural treatments are implemented to increase forage quality and yield
Transition R4A
State 4 to 5Site preparation, tree planting, repair hydrology and non-native species control
Restoration pathway T5A
State 5 to 2Changes to natural hydrology, increasing sedimentation and non-native species invasion
Restoration pathway T5B
State 5 to 3Cultural treatments are implemented to increase forage quality and yield
Restoration pathway T5C
State 5 to 4Agricultural conversion via tillage, seeding and non-selective herbicide
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 1.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 8. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 10. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 11. Community 3.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 12. Community 3.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 13. Community 4.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 14. Community 4.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 15. Community 4.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 16. Community 5.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 17. 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 have been developed 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.
Myers, C.C. and R.G. Buchman. 1984. Manger’s Handbook for Elm-Ash-Cottonwood in the North Central States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experimental Station, General Technical Report NC-98. St. Paul, MN. 16 pps.
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 February 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.
Rosario, L.C. 1988. Acer negundo. 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 3 April 2018).
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).
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 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).
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
Rick FrancenApproval
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. 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 Rick Francen, Soil Scientist, Springfield, IL John Hammerly, Soil Data Quality Specialist, Indianapolis, IN Frank Heisner, Resource Soil Scientist, Morrison, IL Lisa Kluesner, Ecological Site Specialist, Waverly, IA Kevin Norwood, Soil Survey Regional Director, Indianapolis, IN Bob Tegeler, MLRA Soil Survey Leader, Springfield, IL This site was originally approved by Chris Tecklenburg, 5/27/2020.
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
