Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F108XC514IA
Till Backslope Seep Forest
Last updated: 11/04/2024
Accessed: 08/17/2026
-
Search
Major Land Resource Area or ecological site by name and/or ID.
PreviousSectionsNextGeneral information
Provisional. A provisional ecological site description has undergone quality control and quality assurance review. It contains a working state and transition model and enough information to identify the ecological site.
Click to explore map
Figure 1. Mapped extent
Areas shown in blue indicate the maximum mapped extent of this ecological site. Other ecological sites likely occur within the highlighted areas. It is also possible for this ecological site to occur outside of highlighted areas if detailed soil survey has not been completed or recently updated.
MLRA notes
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 108X–Illinois and Iowa Deep Loess and Drift
The Illinois and Iowa Deep Loess and Drift, West-Central Part (MLRA 108C) encompasses the eastern portion of the Southern Iowa Drift Plain and the Lake Calvin basin of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain landforms (Prior 1991). It lies entirely in one state (Iowa), containing approximately 9,805 square miles (Figure 1). The elevation ranges from approximately 1,110 feet above sea level (ASL) on the highest ridges to about 505 feet ASL in the lowest valleys. Local elevation difference is mainly 10 to 20 feet. However, some valley floors can range from 80 to 200 feet, while some upland flats and valley floors only range between 3 and 6 feet. The MLRA is underlain by Pre-Illinoian glacial till, deposited more than 500,000 years ago and since undergone extensive erosion and dissection. In the northern half of the area the till thickness ranges from 150 to 350 feet and grades to less than 150 feet thick in the southern half. The till is covered by a mantle of Peoria Loess on the hillslopes and Holocene alluvium in the drainageways. Paleozoic bedrock, comprised of limestone, shale, and mudstones, lies beneath the glacial material (USDA-NRCS 2006).
The vegetation in the MLRA has undergone drastic changes over time. Spruce forests dominated the landscape 30,000 to 21,500 years ago. As the last glacial maximum peaked 21,500 to 16,000 years ago, they were replaced with open tundras and parklands. The end of the Pleistocene Epoch saw a warming climate that initially prompted the return of spruce forests, but as the warming continued, spruce trees were replaced by deciduous trees (Baker et al. 1990). Not until approximately 9,000 years ago did the vegetation transition to prairies as climatic conditions continued to warm and subsequently dry. Between 4,000 and 3,000 years ago, oak savannas began intermingling within the prairie landscape, while the more wooded and forested areas maintained a foothold in sheltered areas. This prairie-forest transition ecosystem formed the dominant landscapes until the arrival of European settlers (Baker et al. 1992).Classification relationships
USFS Subregions: Central Dissected Till Plains (251C) Section, Central Dissected Till and Loess Plain (251Cc), Mississippi River and Illinois Alluvial Plains (51Cf), Southeast Iowa Rolling Loess Hills (251Ch) Subsections (Cleland et al. 2007)
U.S. EPA Level IV Ecoregion: Rolling Loess Prairies (47f), Upper Mississippi Alluvial Plain (72d) (USEPA 2013)
National Vegetation Classification – Ecological Systems: North-Central Interior Wet Flatwoods (CES202.700) (NatureServe 2015)
National Vegetation Classification - Plant Associations: None (Nature Serve 2015)
Biophysical Settings: North-Central Interior Wet Flatwoods (BpS 4315180) (LANDFIRE 2009)
Natural Resources Conservation Service – Iowa Plant Community Species List: None (USDA-NRCS 2007)
Iowa Department of Natural Resources: Seeps (INAI 1984)
Iowa Wetland Types: Southern Iowa Drift Plain Seeps (Runkel and Roosa 2014)Ecological site concept
Till Backslope Seep Forests are located within the blue areas on the map (Figure 1). They occur on upland hillslopes. The soils are Alfisols that are poorly-drained and deep, formed in a gray paleosol that formed in glacial till. A shallow perched water table results in saturated soil conditions throughout most of the year.
The historic pre-European settlement vegetation on this ecological site was dominated by upland and hydrophytic woody and herbaceous vegetation. Swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor Willd.) and river birch (Betula nigra L.) are the dominant trees of Till Backslope Seep Forests, but other species present can include white oak (Quercus alba L.), northern red oak (Quercus rubra L. var. ambigua (A. Gray) Fernald), American elm (Ulmus americana L.), and black maple (Acer nigrum Michx. f.). Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata (Mill.) K. Koch) is a common subcanopy species. Clustered blacksnakeroot (Sanicula odorata (Raf.) K.M. Pryer & L.R. Phillippe) and calico aster (Symphyotrichum lateriflorum (L.) Á. Löve * D. Löve) are the dominant and characteristic species of the site, respectively. Consistent groundwater saturation, periodic fire, drought, and wind storms are important natural disturbances that maintain this site (LANDFIRE 2009).Associated sites
F108XC513IA Till Backslope Forest
Glacial till parent material on backslopes including Bertrand, Douds, Galland, Inton, Lindley, and Russell
F108XC505IA Loess Upland Woodland
Loess parent material on upland summits, shoulders, and upper to mid backslopes including Clinton, Exette, Hayette, Mula, Rozetta, Seaton, and Timula
Similar sites
F108XC518IA Wet Loess Upland Flatwood
Wet Loess Upland Flatwoods occur on broad upland flats and are MINERAL SOIL FLAT wetlands
F108XC520IA Upland Drainageway Woodland
Upland Drainageway Woodlands occur on upland drainageways, are deeper to the watertable, experience flooding, and are SLOPE:topographic flow-through wetlands
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Quercus bicolor
(2) Betula nigraShrub (1) Carya ovata
Herbaceous (1) Sanicula odorata
(2) Symphyotrichum lateriflorumPhysiographic features
Till Backslope Seep Forests occur on upland hillslopes (Figure 2). They are situated on elevations ranging from approximately 531 to 1348 feet ASL. The site does not experience flooding, but rather is continuously saturated due to groundwater discharge moving laterally throughout the soil and discharging as sidehill seeps.
Figure 2. Figure 1. Location of Till Backslope Seep Forest ecological site within MLRA 108C.
Figure 3. Figure 2. Representative block diagram of Till Backslope Seep Forest and associated ecological sites.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Slope shape across (1) Linear
(2) Concave
Slope shape up-down (1) Linear
(2) Concave
Landforms (1) Upland > Hillslope
Runoff class Very high Flooding frequency None Ponding frequency None Elevation 531 – 1348 ft Slope 5 – 14 % Aspect W, NW, N, NE, E, SE, S, SW Climatic features
The Illinois and Iowa Deep Loess and Drift, West-Central Part falls into the hot humid continental climate (Dfa) Köppen-Geiger climate classification (Peel et al. 2007). In winter, dry, cold air masses periodically shift south from Canada. As these air masses collide with humid air, snowfall and rainfall result. In summer, moist, warm air masses from the Gulf of Mexico migrate north, producing significant frontal or convective rains. Occasionally, hot, dry winds originating from the Desert Southwest will stagnate over the region, creating extended droughty periods in the summer from unusually high temperatures. Air masses from the Pacific Ocean can also spread into the region and dominate producing mild, dry weather in the autumn known as Indian Summers (NCDC 2006).
The soil temperature regime of MLRA 108C 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 188 days, while the frost-free period is about 162 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 39 and 60°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) 170-180 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 40-40 in Frost-free period (actual range) 140-150 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 170-180 days Precipitation total (actual range) 40-40 in Frost-free period (average) 150 days Freeze-free period (average) 180 days Precipitation total (average) 40 in Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 4. Monthly precipitation range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 5. Monthly minimum temperature range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 6. Monthly maximum temperature range
BarLineFigure 7. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Figure 8. Annual precipitation pattern
Figure 9 Annual average temperature pattern
Climate stations used
-
(1) SIGOURNEY [USC00137678], Sigourney, IA
-
(2) IOWA CITY [USC00134101], Iowa City, IA
-
(3) WASHINGTON [USC00138688], Washington, IA
-
(4) COLUMBUS JUNCT 1 N [USC00131731], Columbus Junction, IA
">Influencing water features
Till Backslope Seep Forests are classified as a SLOPE: stratigraphic, groundwater influenced, discharge, forested wetland under the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification system (Smith et al. 1995; USDA-NRCS 2008) and as a Palustrine, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Continuously Saturated wetland under the National Wetlands Inventory (FGDC 2013). Groundwater discharge from a perched water table is the main source of water for this ecological site (Smith et al. 1995). Infiltration is very slow (Hydrologic Group D) for undrained soils, and surface runoff is very high (Figure 5). <br />
<br />
Primary wetland hydrology indicators for an intact Till Backslope Seep Forests may include: A2 High water table and A3 Saturation. Secondary wetland hydrology indicators may include: C2 Dry-season water table and D5 FAC-neutral test (USACE 2010).
Figure 10. Figure 5. Hydrologic cycling in Till Backslope Seep Forest ecological site.
Soil features
Soils of Till Backslope Seep Forests are in the Alfisols order, further classified as Aeric Chromic Vertic Epiaqualfs with very slow infiltration and very high runoff potential. The soil series associated with this site includes Ashgrove (Figure 6). The parent material is a gray paleosol that formed in glacial till, and the soils are poorly-drained and deep. A shallow perched water table results in saturated soil conditions throughout most of the year. Soil pH classes are very strongly acid to neutral (Table 5).
Soil map units in the MLRA, if not drained, may meet the definition of hydric soils and are listed as meeting criteria 2 of the hydric soils list (77 FR 12234).
Figure 11. Figure 6. Profile sketches of soil series associated with Till Backslope Seep Forest
Table 4. Representative soil features
Surface texture (1) Silt loam
(2) Silty clay loam
Family particle size (1) Fine
Drainage class Poorly drained Permeability class Very slow Soil depth 80 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(Depth not specified)2 – 3 in Calcium carbonate equivalent
(Depth not specified)Not specified Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(Depth not specified)4.5 – 7.3 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 3 % 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 transition zone between the eastern deciduous forests and the tallgrass prairies. The heterogeneous topography of the area results in variable microclimates and fuel matrices that in turn are able to support prairies, savannas, woodlands, and forests. Till Backslope Seep Forests form an aspect of this vegetative continuum. This ecological site occurs on upland hillslopes on somewhat poorly to poorly-drained soils. A shallow perched water table results in saturated soil conditions throughout most of the year. Species characteristic of this ecological site consist of upland and hydrophytic woody and herbaceous vegetation.
Till Backslope Seep Forests are dependent on consistent groundwater discharge. These conditions are present where surface slopes intersect a perched water table, allowing the groundwater to slowly seep from the hillside (Richardson and Brinson 2001; Dixon 2014). While water levels may fluctuate throughout the year, they generally remain at or near the soil surface.
Drought, windthrow, and periodic fire have also played a role in shaping this ecological site. The periodic episodes of reduced soil moisture in conjunction with the poorly-drained soils have favored the proliferation of plant species tolerant of such conditions. Drought can also slow the growth of plants and result in dieback of certain species. Damage to trees from 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). High-intensity, low-frequency fires most likely occurred following extreme drought or a major wind event and resulted in structural and compositional changes (LANDFIRE 2009).
Today, Till Backslope Seep Forests have been greatly reduced as sites have been converted to agricultural production lands or converted to ponds. Sites that have not been directly altered show evidence of indirect anthropogenic influences from hydrologic alterations, fire suppression, and non-native species invasion (Pearson and Leoschke 1992). These land conversions and alterations to the natural groundwater flow are considered to be irreversible, making restoration an improbability. The state-and-transition model that follows provides a detailed description of each state, community phase, pathway, and transition. This model is based on available experimental research, field observations, literature reviews, professional consensus, and interpretations.State and transition model
Custom diagramStandard diagram
More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
Click on state and transition labels to scroll to the respective textStates 1 and 5 (additional transitions)
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 3 submodel, plant communities
State 4 submodel, plant communities
State 5 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference StateThe reference plant community is categorized as a seep forest community, dominated by upland and hydrophytic woody and herbaceous vegetation. The two community phases within the reference state are dependent on consistent groundwater seepage and major climatic events. Groundwater seepage creates local conditions suitable to hydrophytic vegetation, and periodic fires following drought or a windstorm alter species composition, cover, and extent.
Community 1.1
Swamp White Oak – River Birch/Shagbark Hickory/Clustered Blacksnakeroot – Calico AsterSites in this reference community phase are an open forest with a medium size class (9 to 21-inch DBH) and heights ranging 30 to 80 feet tall (LANDFIRE 2009). Swamp white oak and river birch are the dominant trees, but white oak, northern red oak, American elm, and black maple may also be present. Shagbark hickory is the dominant subcanopy component during this phase, and the ground layer contains both upland and hydrophytic species. Clustered blacksnakeroot and calico aster can be the dominant and characteristic species. Groundwater seepage maintains the seep forest community, but lack of fire in excess of 80 years will shift the community to phase 1.2.
Community 1.2
Swamp White Oak – Shagbark Hickory/Clustered Blacksnakeroot – Calico AsterThis community phase represents natural succession when the fire-free interval exceeds 80 years. River birch is not tolerant of shading and reduces in the tree canopy, while the fire-intolerant shagbark hickory matures (Sullivan 1993). The canopy cover increases up to 100 percent, tree size class is very large (+33-inch DBH), and tree heights can reach as high as 160 feet tall (LANDFIRE 2009). A recent fire event will shift the community back to phase 1.1
Pathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2Natural succession from lack of fire for 80+ years.
Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1Recent disturbance event – drought/wind/fire.
State 2
Degraded StateThe degraded state can arise from a complex interaction of fire suppression, hydrological alterations, and edge effects. Subsurface water reduction from agricultural tiling, ditching, or off-site development can reduce and even eliminate the groundwater seepage of Till Backslope Seep Forests. Non-native species, especially shrubs, can invade the forest and alter site conditions such as nutrient availability and cycling.
Community 2.1
Swamp White Oak – River Birch/Multiflora Rosa – Amur Honeysuckle/Garlic MustardThis community phase represents a seep forest degraded by the invasion of non-native shrubs and herbs. Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora Thunb.), Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Herder), and Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii DC.) are common exotic shrubs encountered, while garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata (M. Bieb.) Cavara & Grande) invades the ground layer. These non-native species not only reduce the native species diversity and alter plant community composition, they can also change site characteristics (e.g., increasing soil pH, soil organic carbon, and soil nitrogen), alter soil microbial composition, and disrupt beneficial mychorrhizal fungi relationships. These changes create conditions conducive to the perpetuation of these exotic species and the exclusion of native species (Stinson et al. 2006; Zouhar 2008; Kolbe et al. 2015). The oak trees present in the reference state may not be present in this degraded state if previous land clearing has occurred.
State 3
Forage StateThe forage state arises when the site is converted to a farming system that emphasizes domestic livestock production, known as grassland agriculture. Tree removal, fire suppression, periodic cultural treatments (e.g., clipping, drainage, soil amendment applications, planting new species and/or cultivars, mechanical harvesting) and grazing by domesticated livestock transition and maintain this state (USDA-NRCS 2003). Early settlers seeded non-native species, such as smooth brome (Bromus inermis Leyss.) and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.), to help extend the grazing season (Smith 1998). Over time, as lands were continuously harvested or grazed by herds of cattle, these species were able to spread and expand across the landscape, reducing the native species diversity and ecological function.
Community 3.1
HayfieldSites in this community phase consist of forage plants that are planted and mechanically harvested. Mechanical harvesting removes much of the aboveground biomass and nutrients that feed the soil microorganisms (Franzluebbers et al. 2000; USDA-NRCS 2003). As a result, soil biology is reduced leading to decreases in nutrient uptake by plants, soil organic matter, and soil aggregation. Frequent biomass removal can also reduce the site’s carbon sequestration capacity (Skinner 2008). This phase may not be prevalent on this ecological site due to the high soil moisture making it difficult to run large equipment across it.
Community 3.2
Continuous Pastured GrazingThis community phase is characterized by continuous grazing where domestic livestock graze a pasture for the entire season. Depending on stocking density, this can result in lower forage quality and productivity, weed invasions, and uneven pasture use. Continuous grazing can also increase the amount of bare ground and erosion and reduce soil organic matter, cation exchange capacity, water-holding capacity, and nutrient availability and retention (Bharati et al. 2002; Leake et al. 2004; Teague et al. 2011). Smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, and white clover (Trifolium repens L.) are common pasture species used in this phase. Their tolerance to continuous grazing has allowed these species to dominate, greatly reducing the native species diversity to only low palatability, disturbance-tolerant species.
Community 3.3
Periodic-rest Pastured GrazingThis community phase is characterized by periodic-rest grazing where the pasture has been subdivided into several smaller paddocks. Subdividing the pasture in this way allows livestock to utilize one or a few paddocks, while the remaining area is rested allowing plants to restore vigor and energy reserves, deepen root systems, develop seeds, as well as allow seedling establishment (Undersander et al. 2002; USDA-NRCS 2003). Periodic-rest pastured grazing includes deferred periods, rest periods, and periods of high intensity – low frequency, and short duration methods. Vegetation is generally more diverse and can include orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.), timothy (Phleum pretense L.), red clover (Trifolium pratense L.), and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). The addition of native prairie species can further bolster plant diversity and, in turn, soil function. This community phase promotes numerous ecosystem benefits including increasing biodiversity, preventing soil erosion, maintaining and enhancing soil quality, sequestering atmospheric carbon, and improving water yield and quality (USDA-NRCS 2003).
Pathway 3.1A
Community 3.1 to 3.2Mechanical harvesting is replaced with domestic livestock utilizing continuous grazing.
Pathway 3.1B
Community 3.1 to 3.3Mechanical harvesting is replaced with domestic livestock utilizing periodic-rest grazing.
Pathway 3.2A
Community 3.2 to 3.1Domestic livestock are removed, and mechanical harvesting is implemented.
Pathway 3.2B
Community 3.2 to 3.3Periodic-rest grazing replaces continuous grazing.
Pathway 3.3B
Community 3.3 to 3.1Domestic livestock are removed, and mechanical harvesting is implemented.
Pathway 3.3A
Community 3.3 to 3.2Continuous grazing replaces periodic-rest grazing.
State 4
Cropland StateThe cropland state is the dominant land condition throughout the MLRA today. Agricultural tile drains used to lower the water table and the continuous use of tillage, row-crop planting, and chemicals (i.e., herbicides, fertilizers, etc.) have effectively eliminated the reference community and many of its natural ecological functions in favor of crop production. Corn and soybeans are the dominant crops for the site, and oats (Avena L.) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) may be rotated periodically. These areas are likely to remain in crop production for the foreseeable future.
Community 4.1
Conventional Tillage FieldSites in this community phase typically consist of monoculture row-cropping maintained by conventional tillage practices. They are cropped in either continuous corn or 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 periodically alternating crops and utilizing various conservation tillage methods to promote soil health and reduce erosion. Conservation tillage methods include strip-till, ridge-till, vertical-till, or no-till planting operations. Strip-till keeps seedbed preparation to narrow bands less than one-third the width of the row where crop residue and soil consolidation are left undisturbed in-between seedbed areas. Strip-till planting may be completed in the fall and nutrient application either occurs simultaneously or at the time of planting. Ridge-till uses specialized equipment to create ridges in the seedbed and vegetative residue is left on the surface in between the ridges. Weeds are controlled with herbicides and/or cultivation, seedbed ridges are rebuilt during cultivation, and soils are left undisturbed from harvest to planting. Vertical-till operations employ machinery that lightly tills the soil and cuts up crop residue, mixing some of the residue into the top few inches of the soil while leaving a large portion on the surface. No-till management is the most conservative, disturbing soils only at the time of planting and fertilizer application. Compared to conventional tillage operations, conservation tillage methods can improve soil ecosystem function by reducing soil erosion, increasing organic matter and water availability, improving water quality, and reducing soil compaction.
Community 4.3
Conservation Tillage with Cover Crop FieldThis community phase applies conservation tillage methods as described above as well as adds cover crop practices. Cover crops typically include nitrogen-fixing species (e.g., legumes), small grains (e.g., rye, wheat, oats), or forage covers (e.g., turnips, radishes, rapeseed). The addition of cover crops not only adds plant diversity but also promotes soil health by reducing soil erosion, limiting nitrogen leaching, suppressing weeds, increasing soil organic matter, and improving the overall soil ecosystem. In the case of small grain cover crops, surface cover and water infiltration are increased, while forage covers can be used to graze livestock or support local wildlife. Of the three community phases for this state, this phase promotes the greatest soil sustainability and improves ecological functioning within a row crop operation.
Pathway 4.1A
Community 4.1 to 4.2Tillage operations are greatly reduced, 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, alternating crops occurs on a regular interval, crop residue remains on the soil surface, and cover crops are planted following crop harvest.
Pathway 4.2A
Community 4.2 to 4.1Intensive tillage is utilized, and monoculture row-cropping is established.
Pathway 4.2B
Community 4.2 to 4.3Cover crops are implemented to minimize soil erosion.
Pathway 4.3B
Community 4.3 to 4.1Intensive tillage is utilized, cover crops practices are abandoned, monoculture row-cropping is established, and crop rotation is reduced or eliminated.
Pathway 4.3A
Community 4.3 to 4.2Cover crop practices are abandoned.
State 5
Pond StatePonds may be regularly encountered throughout the MLRA, having been impounded or excavated for a variety of reasons including watering livestock, creating waterfowl habitat, and establishing fisheries (Pearson and Leoschke 1992). Through excavation, the native vegetation is removed, and groundwater seepage can rapidly fill the exposed area and transition the diverse seep forest into an open water habitat. Over time, sediments may accumulate along the edges of the pond where emergent vegetation, introduced by wind or wildlife, can germinate and establish.
Community 5.1
Cattail – open waterThis community phase is characterized mostly by open water. Along the shallow edges of the water, emergent vegetation may establish in a limited diversity. Cattails (Typha L.) and bulrushes (Scirpus L., Bolboschoenus (Asch.) Palla) are the most commonly encountered species. Other emergent and aquatic species reported from the MLRA include American water plantain (Alisma subcordatum Raf.)), pondweed (Potamogeton L.), and winged loosestrife (Lythrum alatum Pursh) (Runkel and Roosa 2014).
Transition T1A
State 1 to 2Changes to the natural hydroperiod and edge effects from adjacent land uses transition this site to the degraded state (2).
Transition T1B
State 1 to 3Tree removal and cultural treatments to enhance forage quality and yield transition the site to the forage state (3).
Transition T1C
State 1 to 4Tree removal, installation of drain tiles, seeding of agricultural crops, and non-selective herbicide transition the site to the cropland state (4).
Transition T1D
State 1 to 5Removal of natural vegetation and excavation transition the site to the pond state (5).
Transition T2A
State 2 to 3Tree removal and cultural treatments to enhance forage quality and yield transition the site to the forage state (3).
Transition T2B
State 2 to 4Installation of drain tiles, seeding of agricultural crops, and non-selective herbicide transition the site to the cropland state (4).
Transition T3A
State 3 to 2Land is abandoned and left fallow; natural succession by opportunistic and non-native species transition this site the disturbed state (2).
Transition T3B
State 3 to 4Installation of drain tiles, tillage, seeding of agricultural crops, and non-selective herbicide transition the site to the cropland state (4).
Transition T3C
State 3 to 5Removal of natural vegetation and excavation transition the site to the pond state (5).
Transition T4A
State 4 to 2Agricultural production abandoned and left fallow; natural succession by opportunistic and non-native species transition this site to the degraded state (2).
Transition T4B
State 4 to 3Cultural treatments to enhance forage quality and yield transition the site to the forage state (3).
Additional community tables
Table 5. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 6. Community 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 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 3.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 10. Community 3.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 11. Community 4.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 12. Community 4.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 13. Community 4.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 14. Community 5.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Supporting information
Inventory data references
Tier 3 Sampling Plot used to develop the reference state, community phase 1.1 and 1.2 and alternative state 2.1: State County Ownership Legal Description Easting Northing Iowa Jefferson Whitham Woods – Jefferson County Conservation Board T72N R10W S28 583413 4540242
Other references
Baker, R.G., C.A. Chumbley, P.M. Witinok, and H.K. Kim. 1990. Holocene vegetational changes in eastern Iowa. Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science 97: 167-177.
Baker, R.G., L.J. Maher, C.A. Chumbley, and K.L. Van Zant. 1992. Patterns of Holocene environmental changes in the midwestern United States. Quaternary Research 37: 379-389.
Bharati, L., K.-H. Lee, T.M. Isenhart, and R.C. Schultz. 2002. Soil-water infiltration under crops, pasture, and established riparian buffer in Midwestern USA. Agroforestry Systems 56: 249-257.
Changes in Hydric Soils Database Selection Criteria. 77 Federal Register 12234 (29 February 2012), pp. 12234-12235.
Cleland, D.T., J.A. Freeouf, J.E. Keys, G.J. Nowacki, C. Carpenter, and W.H. McNab. 2007. Ecological Subregions: Sections and Subsections of the Coterminous United States. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report WO-76. Washington, DC. 92 pps.
Dixon, J.W. 2014. Geomorphic characteristics of small seeps and fens in a glaciated landscape. Landform Analysis 27: 15-25.
Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 90 pps.
Franzluebbers, A.J., J.A. Stuedemann, H.H. Schomberg, and S.R. Wilkinson. 2000. Soil organic C and N pools under long-term pasture management in the Southern Piedmont USA. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 32:469-478.
Iowa Natural Areas Inventory [INAI]. 1984. An Inventory of Significant Natural Areas in Iowa: Two Year Progress Report of the Iowa Natural Areas Inventory. Iowa Natural Areas Inventory, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Des Moines, IA.
Kolbe, S.E., A. Townsend-Small, A.I. Miller, T.M. Culley, and G.N. Cameron. 2015. Effects of Lonicera maackii on soil carbon and nitrogen in southwestern Ohio forests. Invasive Plant Science and Management 8: 375-384.
LANDFIRE. 2009. Biophysical Setting 4315180 North-Central Interior Wet Flatwoods. 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.
National Climate Data Center [NCDC]. 2006. Climate of Iowa. Central Region Headquarters, Climate Services Branch, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC.
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1 NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed 13 February 2017).
Pearson, J.A. and M.J. Leoschke. 1992. Floristic composition and conservation status of fens in Iowa. Journal of the Iowa Academy of Sciences 99: 41-52.
Peel, M.C., B.L. Finlayson, and T.A. McMahon. 2007. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 11: 1633-1644.
Prior, J.C. 1991. Landforms of Iowa. University of Iowa Press for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Iowa City, IA. 153 pps.
Richardson, J.L. and M.M. Brinson. 2001. Wetland soils and the hydrogeomorphic classification of wetlands. In: Richardson, J.L., and M.J. Vepraskas (eds.). Wetland Soils: Genesis, Hydrology, Landscapes, and Classification. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 417 pps.
Runkel, S.T. and D.M. Roosa. 2014. Wildflowers and Other Plants of Iowa Wetlands, Second Edition. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, IA. 373 pps.
Skinner, R.H. 2008. High biomass removal limits carbon sequestration potential of mature temperate pastures. Journal for Environmental Quality 37: 1319-1326.
Smith, R.D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M.M. Brinson. 1995. An Approach for Assessing Wetland Functions Using Hydrogeomorphic Classification, Reference Wetlands, and Functional Indices. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-9. 78 pps.
Smith, D.D. 1998. Iowa prairie: original extent and loss, preservation, and recovery attempts. The Journal of the Iowa Academy of Sciences 105: 94-108.
Stinson, K.A., S.A. Campbell, J.R. Powell, B.E. Wolfe, R.M. Callaway, G.C. Thelen, S.G. Hallett, D. Prati, and J.N. Klironomos. 2006. Invasive plant suppresses the growth of native tree seedlings by disrupting belowground mutualisms. PLOS Biology 4: 0727-0731.
Sullivan, J. 1993. Betula 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 5 April 2018).
Teague, W.R., S.L. Dowhower, S.A. Baker, N. Haile, P.B. DeLaune, and D.M. Conover. 2011. Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 141: 310-322.
Tomer, M.D., D.W. Meek, and L.A. Kramer. 2005. Agricultural practices influence flow regimes of headwater streams in western Iowa. Journal of Environmental Quality 34:1547-1558.
Undersander, D., B. Albert, D. Cosgrove, D. Johnson, and P. Peterson. 2002. Pastures for Profit: A Guide to Rotational Grazing (A3529). University of Wisconsin-Extension and University of Minnesota Extension Service. 43 pps.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. 141 pps.
United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2003. National Range and Pasture Handbook, Revision 1. Grazing Lands Technology Institute. 214 pps.
United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2006. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. 682 pps.
United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2007. Iowa NRCS Plant Community Species Lists. Des Moines, IA. Available at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/detail/ia/technical/ecoscience/bio/?cid=nrcs142p2_008160. (Accessed 19 January 2018).
United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2008. Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Classification: An Overview and Modification to Better Meet the Needs of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Technical Note No. 190-8-76. Washington, D.C. 8 pps.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. 2013. Level III and Level IV Ecoregions of the Continental United States. Corvallis, OR, U.S. EPA, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, map scale 1: 3,000,000. Available at http://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-andiv-ecoregions-continental-united-states. (Accessed 1 March 2017).
Zouhar, K. 2008. Berberis thunbergii. 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 5 April 2018).Contributors
Lisa Kluesner
Ryan DermodyApproval
Suzanne Mayne-Kinney, 11/04/2024
Acknowledgments
This project could not have been completed without the dedication and commitment from a variety of partners and staff (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. Organization Name Title Location Drake University: Dr. Tom Rosburg Professor of Ecology and Botany Des Moines, IA Iowa Department of Natural Resources: Kevin Andersen Private Lands Biologist Fairfield, IA John Pearson Ecologist Des Moines, IA LANDFIRE (The Nature Conservancy): Randy Swaty Ecologist Evanston, IL Natural Resources Conservation Service: Rick Bednarek Iowa State Soil Scientist Des Moines, IA Leland Camp Soil Scientist Waverly, IA Stacey Clark Regional Ecological Site Specialist St. Paul, MN Ryan Dermody Soil Survey Leader Waverly, IA Tonie Endres Senior Regional Soil Scientist Indianapolis, IN John Hammerly Soil Data Quality Specialist Indianapolis, IN Lisa Kluesner Ecological Site Specialist Waverly, IA Sean Kluesner Earth Team Volunteer Waverly, IA Jeff Matthias State Grassland Specialist Des Moines, IA Kevin Norwood Soil Survey Regional Director Indianapolis, IN Doug Oelmann Soil Scientist Des Moines, IA James Phillips GIS Specialist Des Moines, IA Jason Steele Area Resource Soil Scientist Fairfield, IA Doug Wallace Ecologist ACES Program Columbia, MO This site was originally published by Lisa Kluesner on 7/1/2019.
Rangeland health reference sheet
Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health is a qualitative assessment protocol used to determine ecosystem condition based on benchmark characteristics described in the Reference Sheet. A suite of 17 (or more) indicators are typically considered in an assessment. The ecological site(s) representative of an assessment location must be known prior to applying the protocol and must be verified based on soils and climate. Current plant community cannot be used to identify the ecological site.
Author(s)/participant(s) Contact for lead author Date 08/17/2026 Approved by Approval date Composition (Indicators 10 and 12) based on Annual Production Indicators
-
Number and extent of rills:
-
Presence of water flow patterns:
-
Number and height of erosional pedestals or terracettes:
-
Bare ground from Ecological Site Description or other studies (rock, litter, lichen, moss, plant canopy are not bare ground):
-
Number of gullies and erosion associated with gullies:
-
Extent of wind scoured, blowouts and/or depositional areas:
-
Amount of litter movement (describe size and distance expected to travel):
-
Soil surface (top few mm) resistance to erosion (stability values are averages - most sites will show a range of values):
-
Soil surface structure and SOM content (include type of structure and A-horizon color and thickness):
-
Effect of community phase composition (relative proportion of different functional groups) and spatial distribution on infiltration and runoff:
-
Presence and thickness of compaction layer (usually none; describe soil profile features which may be mistaken for compaction on this site):
-
Functional/Structural Groups (list in order of descending dominance by above-ground annual-production or live foliar cover using symbols: >>, >, = to indicate much greater than, greater than, and equal to):
Dominant:
Sub-dominant:
Other:
Additional:
-
Amount of plant mortality and decadence (include which functional groups are expected to show mortality or decadence):
-
Average percent litter cover (%) and depth ( in):
-
Expected annual annual-production (this is TOTAL above-ground annual-production, not just forage annual-production):
-
Potential invasive (including noxious) species (native and non-native). List species which BOTH characterize degraded states and have the potential to become a dominant or co-dominant species on the ecological site if their future establishment and growth is not actively controlled by management interventions. Species that become dominant for only one to several years (e.g., short-term response to drought or wildfire) are not invasive plants. Note that unlike other indicators, we are describing what is NOT expected in the reference state for the ecological site:
-
Perennial plant reproductive capability:
Print Options
Sections
Font
AAAAOther
PrintThe Ecosystem Dynamics Interpretive Tool is an information system framework developed by the USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, and New Mexico State University.
Accessibility statement
