Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site R108XC524IA
Ponded Organic Floodplain Shrub Swamp
Last updated: 11/04/2024
Accessed: 08/30/2026
-
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 Meadow-Shrub Swamp (CES202.701) (NatureServe 2015)
National Vegetation Classification - Plant Associations: Cephalanthus occidentalis/Carex spp. Northern Shrub Swamp (CEGL002190) (Nature Serve 2015)
Biophysical Settings: Central Interior and Appalachian Swamp Systems (BpS 4214790) (LANDFIRE 2009)
Natural Resources Conservation Service – Iowa Plant Community Species List: Swamp, Northern Buttonbush (USDA-NRCS 2007)
Iowa Department of Natural Resources: Shrub Wetland (INAI 1984)Ecological site concept
Ponded Organic Floodplain Shrub Swamps are located within the blue areas on the map (Figure 1). They occur on floodplains in river valleys. The soils are Histosols that are very poorly-drained and deep, formed in herbaceous organic materials. The site is frequently ponded for long durations throughout the year.
The historic pre-European settlement vegetation on this ecological site was dominated by hydrophytic shrubs. Common buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis L.) is the dominant and diagnostic species of Ponded Organic Floodplain Shrub Swamps, and hairy sedge (Carex lacustris Willd.) is the dominant monocot. (Runkel and Roosa 2014; NatureServe 2015). Common duckweed (Lemna minor L.) is a commonly encountered aquatic species. Other shrubs that may commonly be encountered include silky dogwood (Cornus obliqua Raf.) and black willow (Salix nigra Marshall) (NatureServe 2015). Species characteristic of an undisturbed plant community associated with this ecological site can include meadow willow (Salix petiolaris Sm.), sweetflag (Acorus americanus (Raf.) Raf.), and tufted loosestrife (Lysimachia thyrsiflora L.) (Drobney et al. 2001). Depth and duration of ponding are the primary disturbance factors that maintain this ecological site, while drought and infrequent fire are secondary disturbances (LANDFIRE 2009).Associated sites
R108XC526IA Floodplain Prairie
Alluvial parent materials that are moderately well to well-drained and experience occasional flooding including Ankeny, Hanlon, Huntsville, and Kennebec soils
R108XC527IA Wet Floodplain Sedge Meadow
Alluvial parent materials that are poorly-drained and experience occasional flooding including Ambraw, Chequest, Coland, Colo, Dolbee, Elvira, Humeston, Ossian, Radford, Shaffton, Vesser, and Zook soils
Similar sites
R108XC525IA Ponded Floodplain Marsh
Ponded Floodplain Marshes are similar in landscape position but are a RIVERINE wetland with mineral soils
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree Not specified
Shrub (1) Cephalanthus occidentalis
Herbaceous (1) Carex lacustris
(2) Lemna minorPhysiographic features
Ponded Organic Floodplain Shrub Swamps occur on floodplains in river valleys (Figure 2). They are situated on elevations ranging from approximately 499 to 1699 feet ASL. The site experiences frequent ponding that can last up to 30 days at a time during any month.
Figure 2. Figure 1. Location of Ponded Organic Floodplain Shrub Swamp ecological site within MLRA 108C.
Figure 3. Figure 2. Representative block diagram of Ponded Organic Floodplain Shrub Swamp and associated ecological sites.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Slope shape across (1) Concave
Slope shape up-down (1) Concave
Landforms (1) River valley > Flood plain
Runoff class Negligible to very low Flooding frequency None Ponding duration Brief (2 to 7 days) to long (7 to 30 days) Ponding frequency Occasional to frequent Elevation 499 – 1699 ft Slope 0 – 1 % Ponding depth 0 – 12 in Water table depth 0 in Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor 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 197 days, while the frost-free period is about 173 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 two 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) 150-170 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 180-180 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 40-40 in Frost-free period (actual range) 150-170 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 180-190 days Precipitation total (actual range) 40-40 in Frost-free period (average) 160 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) IOWA CITY [USC00134101], Iowa City, IA
-
(2) MUSCATINE 2N [USC00135844], Muscatine, IA
">Influencing water features
Ponded Organic Floodplain Shrub Swamps are classified as an ORGANIC SOIL FLATS: bottomland, ponded, scrub/shrub wetland under the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification system (Smith et al. 1995; USDA-NRCS 2008) and as a Palustrine, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Semipermanently Flooded Scrub-Shrub Wetland under the National Wetlands Inventory (FGDC 2013). Precipitation is the main source of water for this ecological site (Smith et al. 1995). Infiltration is very slow (Hydrologic Groups D) for undrained soils, and surface runoff is negligible to very low (Figure 5). <br />
<br />
Primary wetland hydrology indicators for an intact Ponded Organic Floodplain Shrub Swamp may include: A1 Surface water, A2 High water table, A3 Saturation, and C7 Thin muck surface. Secondary wetland hydrology indicators may include: C2 Dry-season water table, D2 Geomorphic position, and D5 FAC-neutral test (USACE 2010).
Figure 10. Figure 5. Hydrologic cycling in Ponded Organic Floodplain Shrub Swamp ecological site.
Soil features
Soils of Ponded Organic Floodplain Shrub Swamps are in the Histosols orders, further classified as Terric Haplosaprists and Typic Haplosaprists with very slow infiltration and negligible to very low runoff potential. The soil series associated with this site includes Aquolls, Houghton, and Palms (Figure 6). The parent material is herbaceous organic material, and the soils are very poorly-drained and deep with seasonal high-water tables. Soil pH classes are very strongly acid to moderately alkaline. No rooting restrictions are noted for the soils of this ecological site (Table 5).
Soil map units in this ecological site, if not drained, may meet the definition of hydric soils and are listed as meeting criteria 1 and 3 of the hydric soils list (77 FR 12234).
Figure 11. Figure 6. Profile sketches of soil series associated with Ponded Organic Floodplain Shrub Swamp
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Organic material
Surface texture (1) Muck
Drainage class Very poorly drained Permeability class Slow Soil depth 80 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(Depth not specified)12 – 16 in Calcium carbonate equivalent
(Depth not specified)0 – 20 % Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(Depth not specified)4.5 – 8.4 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 12 % 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. Ponded Organic Floodplain Shrub Swamps form an aspect of this vegetative continuum. This ecological site occurs on floodplains on very poorly-drained organic soils. Species characteristic of this ecological site consist of hydrophytic shrubs and herbaceous vegetation.
Ponding is the dominant disturbance factor in Ponded Organic Floodplain Shrub Swamps. The depth and duration of ponded water affects species diversity, composition, and productivity. Shallow ponding allows more of a sedge meadow community to dominate while deeper water depths create a shrub swamp structure, often dominated by common buttonbush.
Drought and infrequent fire also play a role in shaping this ecological site. The periodic episodes of reduced soil moisture in conjunction with the very poorly-drained soils have favored the proliferation of plant species tolerant of such conditions. Drought can slow the growth of plants and result in dieback of certain species. When coupled with fire, periods of drought can eliminate or greatly reduce the occurrence of woody vegetation, substantially altering the extent of shrubs and trees (Pyne et al. 1996).
Today, Ponded Organic Floodplain Shrub Swamps have been reduced from their historic extent. Some sites have been drained and converted to cropland or have been mined for their peat. Remnants that do exist show evidence of indirect anthropogenic influences from hydrological alterations as non-native species have replaced the natural vegetation. A return to the historic plant community may not be possible due to significant hydrologic and water quality changes in the watershed, but long-term conservation agriculture or habitat reconstruction efforts can help to restore some natural diversity and ecological function. 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 1 submodel, plant communities
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 shrub swamp community, dominated by hydrophytic woody and herbaceous vegetation. The two community phases within the reference state are dependent on ponding. The depth and duration of ponded water alters species composition, cover, and extent. Drought and infrequent fire have more localized impacts in the reference phases, but do contribute to overall species composition, diversity, cover, and productivity.
Community 1.1
Common Buttonbush/Hairy Sedge – Common DuckweedSites in this reference community phase are dominated by hydrophytic woody vegetation and ponded water up to 6 feet deep. Common buttonbush is the dominant shrub, comprising nearly 90 percent of the shrub layer. Shrub cover range from 20 to 80 percent cover. Hairy sedge can be found in the shallower ponded areas, while common duckweed occupies deeper areas (NatureServe 2015). Characteristic forbs can include halberdleaf rosemallow (Hibiscus laevis All.), broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia L.), and smallspike false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica (L.) Sw.) (Eilers and Roosa 2014; NatureServe 2015). A highly scattered tree canopy may be present including silver maple (Acer saccharinum L.), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marshall), and American elm (Ulmus americana L.) (NatureServe 2015). Prolonged, deep ponding will maintain this phase, but a reduced water level (below 1 foot) will shift the community to phase 1.2.
Community 1.2
False Wild Indigo – Meadow Willow/Hairy Sedge – Blue SkullcapThis reference community phase can occur when the frequency and depth of ponding are reduced to less than 1 foot. Hairy sedge becomes more prominent, and herbaceous species diversity increases to include such forbs and grasses as blue skullcap (Scutellaria lateriflora L.), swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata L.), bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis (Michx.) P. Beauv.), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides (L.) Sw.), and sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis L.). Common buttonbush may still be present, but other shrubs less tolerant of prolonged inundation dominate including false wild indigo (Amorpha fruticosa L.), silky dogwood, black willow, and meadow willow. Shallow ponded water depths (less than 1 foot) will maintain this phase, but an increase can shift the community back to phase 1.1.
Pathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2Ponded water depths decrease to <12 inches.
Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1Ponded water depths increase to >12 inches.
State 2
Degraded Shrub SwampHydrology is the most important determinant of wetlands and wetland processes. Hydrology modifies and determines the physiochemical environment (i.e., sediments, soil chemistry, water chemistry) which in turn directly affects the vegetation, animals, and microbes (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). Human activities on landscape hydrology have greatly altered Ponded Organic Floodplain Shrub Swamps. Alterations such as agricultural tile draining and conversion to cropland on adjacent lands in addition to stream channelization and damming have changed the natural hydroperiod and rate of sedimentation as well as increased nutrient pollution (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). Long-term fire suppression has also allowed unnatural succession and dominance by floodplain trees.
Community 2.1
Silver Maple – Green Ash/Common Buttonbush/Reed CanarygrassThis community phase represents the changes to the natural wetland hydroperiod, increasing sedimentation, unabated nutrient runoff, and long-term fire suppression. The tree canopy cover increases from scattered individuals to dominance by species such as silver maple and green ash. Common buttonbush is still present in the shrub canopy, but the landscape alterations provide suitable conditions for invasion by non-native species such as reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.).
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
Hayfield –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). 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
Reconstructed Shrub Swamp StateShrub swamp habitats provide multiple ecosystem services including flood abatement, water quality improvement, and biodiversity support (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). However, many swamp communities have been eliminated as a result of type conversions to agricultural production, changes to the natural hydrologic regime, and invasion of non-native species, thereby significantly reducing these services (Annen et al. 2008). The extensive alterations of lands adjacent to Ponded Organic Floodplain Shrub Swamps or the depletion of the historic organic soils may not allow for restoration back to the historic reference condition. But ecological reconstruction can aim to aid the recovery of degraded, damaged, or destroyed functions. A successful reconstruction will have the ability to structurally and functionally sustain itself, demonstrate resilience to the natural ranges of stress and disturbance, and create and maintain positive biotic and abiotic interactions (SER 2002; Mitsch and Jørgensen 2004).
Community 5.1
Early Successional Reconstructed Shrub SwampThis community phase represents the early community assembly from shrub swamp habitat reconstruction and is highly dependent on invasive species control, hydroperiod repair, and planting (Adams and Galatowitsch 2006). In addition, adaptive restoration tactics that incorporate multiple restoration methods should be implemented in order to more clearly identify cause-effect relationships of vegetative development (Zedler 2005).
Community 5.2
Late Successional Reconstructed Shrub SwampAppropriately timed disturbance regimes (e.g. hydroperiod, invasive species control) and nutrient management applied to the early successional community phase can help increase the species richness and improve ecosystem function, pushing the site into a late successional community phase over time (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007).
Pathway 5.1A
Community 5.1 to 5.2Maintenance of proper hydrology and nutrient balances in line with a developed wetland management plant.
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 2Hydrological alterations and long-term fire suppression transition the site to the degraded shrub swamp state (2).
Transition T1B
State 1 to 3Cultural treatments to enhance forage quality and yield transitions this site to the forage state (3).
Transition T1C
State 1 to 4Installation of drain tiles, tillage, seeding of agricultural crops, and non-selective herbicide transition the site to the cropland state (4).
Transition T2A
State 2 to 3Cultural treatments to enhance forage quality and yield transition the site to the forage state (3).
Transition T2B
State 2 to 4Installation of drain tiles, tillage, seeding of agricultural crops, and non-selective herbicide transition the site to the cropland state (4).
Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 5Hydroperiod restoration, site preparation, non-native species control, and seeding native species transition the site to the reconstructed shrub swamp state (5).
Transition T3A
State 3 to 2Land abandonment transitions the site to the degraded shrub swamp (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).
Restoration pathway R3A
State 3 to 5Site preparation, tree planting, invasive species control, and seeding native species transition this site to the reconstructed shrub swamp state (5).
Transition T4A
State 4 to 2Land abandonment transitions the site to the degraded shrub swamp 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, invasive species control, and seeding native species transition this site to the reconstructed shrub swamp state (5).
Transition T5A
State 5 to 2Fire suppression and removal of active management transitions this site to the degraded shrub swamp state (2).
Transition T5B
State 5 to 3Cultural treatments to enhance forage quality and yield transition the site to the forage state (3).
Transition T5C
State 5 to 4Tillage, 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 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 (%) Table 15. Community 5.2 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 1.2: State County Ownership Legal Description Easting Northing Iowa Muscatine Red Cedar Wildlife Area – Iowa Department of Natural Resources T77N R4W S23 643708 4591202
Other references
Adams, C.R. and S.M. Galatowitsch. 2006. Increasing the effectiveness of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) control in wet meadow restorations. Restoration Ecology 14: 441-451.
Annen, C.A., E.M. Kirsch, and R.W. Tyser. 2008. Reed canarygrass invasions alter succession patterns and may reduce habitat quality in wet meadows. Ecological Restoration 26: 190-193.
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.
Drobney, P.D., G.S. Wilhelm, D. Horton, M. Leoschke, D. Lewis, J. Pearson, D. Roosa, and D. Smith. 2001. Floristic Quality Assessment for the State of Iowa. Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge and Ada Hayden Herbarium, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. 123 pps.
Eilers, L. and D. Roosa. 1994. The Vascular Plants of Iowa: An Annotated Checklist and Natural History. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, IA. 319 pps.
Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 90 pps.
Franzluebbers, A.J., J.A. Stuedemann, H.H. Schomberg, and S.R. Wilkinson. 2000. Soil organic C and N pools under long-term pasture management in the Southern Piedmont USA. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 32:469-478.
Iowa Natural Areas Inventory [INAI]. 1984. An Inventory of Significant Natural Areas in Iowa: Two Year Progress Report of the Iowa Natural Areas Inventory. Iowa Natural Areas Inventory, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Des Moines, IA.
LANDFIRE. 2009. Biophysical Setting 4214790 Central Interior and Appalachian Swamp 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.
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 2007. Wetlands, Fourth Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, NJ. 582 pps.
Mitsch, W.J. and S.E. Jørgensen. 2004. Ecological Engineering and Ecosystem Restoration. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, NJ. 428 pps.
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).
Peel, M.C., B.L. Finlayson, and T.A. McMahon. 2007. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 11: 1633-1644.
Prior, J.C. 1991. Landforms of Iowa. University of Iowa Press for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Iowa City, IA. 153 pps.
Pyne, S.J., P.L. Andrews, and R.D. Laven. 1996. Introduction to Wildland Fire, Second Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, New York. 808 pps.
Runkel, S.T. and D.M. Roosa. 2014. Wildflowers and Other Plants of Iowa Wetlands, 2nd 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.
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 Resources 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).
Zedler, J.B. 2005. Restoring wetland plant diversity: a comparison of existing and adaptive approaches. Wetlands Ecology and Management 13: 5-14.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 11/04/2024 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
