Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F114XA101IN
Wet Lacustrine Forest
Last updated: 9/26/2024
Accessed: 09/15/2026
-
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): 114X–Southern Illinois and Indiana Thin Loess and Till Plain
MLRA 114 makes up about 4,550 square miles (11,795 square kilometers. The three parts of this MRLA are mostly in the Till Plains Section of the Central Lowland Province of the Interior Plains. The western third of the western part is in the Highland Rim Section of the Interior Low Plateaus Province of the Interior Plains. The eastern half of the eastern part is in the Kanawha Section of the Appalachian Plateaus Province of the Appalachian Highlands. Both large and small tributaries of the Ohio River dissect the nearly level to very steep glaciated uplands in this area. The major streams and rivers have well defined valleys with broad flood plains and numerous stream terraces. The flood plains along the smaller streams are narrow. Broad summits are nearly level to gently sloping. Elevation ranges from 320 feet (100 meters) on the southernmost flood plain along the Ohio River to 1,250 feet (380 meters) on the highest ridges. Local relief is mainly 10 to 50 feet (3 to 15 meters), but it can be 50 to 100 feet (15 to 30 meters) along drainage ways and streams. Also, the Ohio River bluffs are as much as 300 feet (90 meters) above the river valley floor.
Classification relationships
222 Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Continental) Province.
The following NatureServe Explorer Ecological System has a high level of probability to match the ecological site found on these soils. Field verification and ESD development is needed prior to using this information for conservation planning and/or restoration initiatives: Scientific Name: North-Central Interior Wet Flatwoods/ Unique Identifier: CES202.700.Ecological site concept
The Wet Lacustrine Forest ecological site is on lake plains, terraces, outwash plains or local areas on till plains and formed in lacustrine parent materials. The soils in this group somewhat poorly drained to poorly drained. Sites generally occur on nearly level to depressional areas of stream terraces, till plains, and glacial lake plains. Sites may incur frequent flooding and/or ponding.
The characteristic vegetation of the site is that of a flatwoods type dominated by pin oak and swamp white oak. Silver maple, red maple, sweetgum and green ash are common on these sites. Topography and seasonal fluctuation of water (ponding) on these sites may create a diverse vegetative community that gradients from wet-mesic upland tree species to zones of flood-tolerant lowland tree species. Inundation of the site generally occurs in the spring and depending on the length of inundation, may leads to a sparse understory.Associated sites
F114XA102IN Lacustrine Terrace Forest
Lacustrine Terrace Forest. These sites are located on terraces in MLRA 114A and include soils that are somewhat poorly drained to moderately well drained. Sites will exhibit more upland tree, shrub and understory species than F114AY101IN.
Similar sites
F114XA501IN Wet Till Flatwoods
The Wet Till Flatwoods will exhibit similar species, such as pin oak, sweetgum, swamp white oak, etc.
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Quercus palustris
(2) Quercus bicolorShrub (1) Cornus
(2) SalixHerbaceous (1) Carex
Physiographic features
These soils are found on lake plains, terrace, and flood-plain steps. Sites may be influenced by flooding and/or ponding.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Lake plain > Lake plain
(2) Valley > Terrace
(3) Flood-plain step
Runoff class Negligible to high Flooding duration Very brief (4 to 48 hours) to long (7 to 30 days) Flooding frequency None to frequent Ponding duration Very brief (4 to 48 hours) to long (7 to 30 days) Ponding frequency None to frequent Elevation 340 – 1100 ft Slope 0 – 5 % Ponding depth 0 – 15 in Water table depth 0 – 66 in Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
Most of the rainfall occurs as high-intensity, convective thunderstorms during summer. Snowfall is common in winter. The freeze-free period averages about 179 days.
Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 150-160 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 180-180 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 50-50 in Frost-free period (actual range) 150-160 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 180-180 days Precipitation total (actual range) 50-50 in Frost-free period (average) 160 days Freeze-free period (average) 180 days Precipitation total (average) 50 in Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 1. Monthly precipitation range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 2. Monthly minimum temperature range
Characteristic rangeActual rangeBarLineFigure 3. Monthly maximum temperature range
BarLineFigure 4. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature
Figure 5. Annual precipitation pattern
Figure 6 Annual average temperature pattern
Climate stations used
-
(1) NORTH VERNON 2 ESE [USC00126435], North Vernon, IN
-
(2) SEYMOUR 2 N [USC00127935], Seymour, IN
-
(3) MILFORD [USC00335268], Milford, OH
-
(4) SCOTTSBURG [USC00127875], Scottsburg, IN
">Influencing water features
This site receives water mostly from precipitation, though some water is contributed to the site from adjacent, higher elevation sites or on terraces, stream flooding. Flooding and ponding frequencies and length on inundation varies depending on soil series and topography.<br />
<br />
The hydro-geographic model classification for this site is Riverine: alluvial plain, backswamp, floodplain, forested. This site has a Cowardin classification of PFO6An: it is a forested system that is temporarily flooded/ponded on mineral soil.Soil features
Soil in this group are very deep, somewhat poorly drained to poorly drained, and very slow to moderate permeable soils, with acidic to neutral soil reaction and formed in lacustrine materials. Series currently include Luray, McGary, Montgomery, Peoga, Sebring, and Zipp.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Lacustrine deposits
(2) Glaciolacustrine deposits
(3) Loess
Surface texture (1) Silt loam
(2) Silty clay loam
(3) Silty clay
Drainage class Very poorly drained to somewhat poorly drained Permeability class Very slow to moderate Depth to restrictive layer 80 in Soil depth 80 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(Depth not specified)5.4 – 8.1 in Calcium carbonate equivalent
(Depth not specified)0 – 23 % Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(Depth not specified)4.7 – 7.9 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 2 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)Not specified Ecological dynamics
The historic plant community of this ecological site is a wet mixed hardwood forest with a substantial oak component. The dominant species in the canopy for undisturbed sites are pin oak and swamp white oak. Silver maple and green ash are common as well. The soils of this site are very poorly or poorly drained and characterized by seasonal ponding in the spring and much drier in the summer. This seasonal change in water presence may limited seed germination in some areas thereby reducing the diversity of shrubs and herbaceous species.
Most sites today have been disturbed via oak removal, clearing, grazing, and/or hydrological modifications. Few wooded sites remain that are dominated by oaks. Successional sites will be dominated by maples, ashes, willows, and various shrubs. Non-native, invasive species may be problematic on sites and require management control to insure oak regeneration and native understory development.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 textT1A - Clearing; selective harvest; large scale natural disturbance T1B - Tree and brush removal; tillage; seeding; cropping system maintained R2A - timber stand improvement activities; brush and weed control T2A - Tree/brush removal; tillage; cropping system maintained T3A - Abandonment of site. Successional ruderal vegetation. State 1 submodel, plant communities
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 3 submodel, plant communities
3.1.A - Seeding of grass species; weed control 3.2.A - Tillage; seeding State 1
Reference StateHistoric reference communities on these sites exhibited a complex and diverse mosaic of wetland and wet-mesic species based on microtopography, soils, flooding regime, and natural disturbances. Canopy species often included pin oak (Quercus palustris) and/ or swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor) in the wetter portions of these sites. Other hardwood trees include silver maple (Acer saccharinum), green ash (Fagus pennsylvanica), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum). Areas of slightly high topography would exhibit more mesic forest species such as white oak (Quercus alba), northern red oak (Q. rubra), white ash (Fraxinus americana), sugar maple (Acer saccharum) and blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica). Depending on microtopography and flooding/ponding regimes, the understory composition of these communities would vary. . Common species for the wetter sites include dogwoods, willows (Salix spp.), Osmunda, buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), alders (Alnus spp.) and hollies (Ilex spp.). A more wet-mesic understory community would be found on the higher portions of these sites. Natural influences to these communities include flooding, windthrow, drought, and fire which would cause temporary changes to the community structure.
Today, most sites have been disturbed (farmed, grazed, cleared, drained) and show a variety of ruderal/successional forest communities which often include maples, boxelder, hackberry, poplar,s willows and ashes. Mature, high-quality trees have usually been removed over the years and shade-tolerant, fast-growing species such as maple, and ash have become common on these sites. Diverse understory communities of native plants are rare due to the repeated disturbances which has spread invasive species.Dominant plant species
-
swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor), tree
-
pin oak (Quercus palustris), tree
-
maple (Acer), tree
-
willow (Salix), shrub
-
dogwood (Cornus), shrub
-
sedge (Carex), grass
-
osmunda (Osmunda), other herbaceous
Community 1.1
ForestlandThe distinguishing reference community is a water-tolerant oak forest. Dominant species on mature forested reference sites include pin oak (Quercus palustris)-swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor). Other species on site may include green ash, silver maple, red maple, and green ash. The seasonal change in water presence may limited density and diversity of shrubs and ground layer species in low areas. Vegetation communities are highly variable based on the microtopography.
Dominant plant species
-
swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor), tree
-
pin oak (Quercus palustris), tree
-
red maple (Acer rubrum), tree
-
silver maple (Acer saccharinum), tree
-
dogwood (Cornus), shrub
-
willow (Salix), shrub
-
sedge (Carex), grass
-
osmunda (Osmunda), other herbaceous
State 2
Disturbed/Invaded Woodland StateThis state reflects areas that have had anthropogenic disturbances such as clearing, selective harvest, unmanaged grazing, with no timber stand improvement management implemented. Quick growing trees such as maples and ashes quickly dominant these sites. Invasive non-native plant species are often found on these sites.
Management activities such as weed control, brush control, and planting of desired tree species will improve the quality of these sites;; however, restoration to the reference condition would require long-term management inputs.Dominant plant species
-
maple (Acer), tree
-
ash (Fraxinus), tree
-
honeysuckle (Lonicera), shrub
-
Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum), grass
-
knotweed (Polygonum), other herbaceous
-
garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), other herbaceous
Community 2.1
Disturbed-invaded woodlandOak removal without timber stand improvement activities often allows these sites to be dominated by fast growing, shade tolerant species such as maples and ashes. Multiple hardwood species may be present depending on nearby seed sources. Invasive, non-native vegetation is often found on disturbed areas.
State 3
Agricultural StateThese sites are subject to clearing, draining, and utilization for agricultural uses.
Sites can be managed as cropland or pastureland.
Numerous species may be planted depending on the landowners objectives.
The most common agricultural uses are cool season grass production (managed or unmanaged grazing regimes), hay production, or row crop production (corn - soybean rotation). The natural hydrology of these sites are often modified through ditching and tiling.Dominant plant species
-
tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus), grass
-
brome (Bromus), grass
-
Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), grass
-
corn (Zea), other herbaceous
-
soybean (Glycine), other herbaceous
Community 3.1
CroplandMany of these sites are no longer forested and are utilized as cropland. Hydrological modifications such as ditching and tiling are common.
Community 3.2
PasturelandSome sites are in pasture - generally cool season pasture with forbs. Pasture species and composition will vary depending on management goals and seeding.
Dominant plant species
-
tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus), grass
-
brome (Bromus), grass
-
Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), grass
-
red clover (Trifolium pratense), other herbaceous
Pathway 3.1.A
Community 3.1 to 3.2Establishment of pastureland. Cool season grasses such as tall fescue are usually grown.
Pathway 3.2.A
Community 3.2 to 3.1Establishment of row crops would include management activities such as tillage, seeding, and weed control. Hydrology modifications may be utilized including ditching and tiling.
Transition T1A
State 1 to 2The mechanism of this transition is a large scale disturbance of the reference community. Often the transitional disturbance is forest clearing or selective timber harvest that removed the mature, high-value trees with no post-harvest management inputs.
Transition T1B
State 1 to 3The site is converted to agriculture via clearing, tillage, weed control, seeding, and continual intensive management. Natural hydrology is often modified through ditching and tiling.
Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1Timber stand improvement activities include long-term management activities including planting of desired tree species , brush control, selective thinning, weed control, etc.
Transition T2A
State 2 to 3Clearing of trees and shrubs and planting of desired agricultural cropland or pastureland species. Natural hydrology may be modified through installation of ditches and/or tiling.
Restoration pathway T3A
State 3 to 2A site that is abandoned will transition through various successional communities with numerous tree, shrub and herbaceous species possible depending on seed sources and the severity of disturbance.
Additional community tables
Table 5. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 6. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 7. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 8. Community 3.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Supporting information
Inventory data references
No field monitoring was conducted as part of this PES development. Future ESD development may result in plant community edits, soil mapunits being added or removed from this grouping, and/or additions or modifications to the narratives, tables, vegetation descriptions and state and transition model.
Other references
Braun, E. Lucy. 2001. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. Caldwell, N.J.: Blackburn Press.
Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, C. Nordman, M. Pyne, M. Reid, M. Russo, K. Schulz, K. Snow, J. Teague, and R. White. 2003-present. Ecological systems of the United States: A working classification of U.S. terrestrial systems. NatureServe, Arlington, VA.
Eyre, F. H., editor. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 pp.
Faber-Langendoen, D., C. Hedge, M. Kost, S. Thomas, L. Smart, R. Smyth, J. Drake, and S. Menard. 2011. Assessment of wetland ecosystem condition across landscape regions: A multi-metric approach. NatureServe, Arlington VA. plus appendices.
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, DC
Homoya, M. A., Abrell, D. B., Aldrich, J. R., & Post, T. W. (1985). The Natural Regions of Indiana. Indiana Academy of Science , 94, 245-269.
Kartesz, J. T. (2011). Density Gradient Map Samples Produced From BONAP's Floristic Synthesis. Retrieved 12 12, 2011, from Biota of North America Program: http://bonap.org/diversity/diversity/diversity.html
Lindsey, A.A., W.B. Crankshaw, and S.A. Qadir. 1965. Soil relationships and distribution map of the vegetation of presettlement Indiana. Botanical Monographs 31: 105-156.
Maxwell, R.H., and W.E. Thomas. 2033. Distribution records of southern Indiana vascular plants. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 112:22-28.
NatureServe. (2011). An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. NatureServe, Arlington, VA, USA [Online: www. NatureServe. org/explorer] .
Jackson, Marion T. 1997. The Natural heritage of Indiana. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, published in association with the Indiana Department of Natural Resources and the Indiana Academy of Science.
USDA. (2007). Ecological Subregions: Sections and Subsections for the Conterminous United States. Washington, DC: USDA - Forest Service.
USDA. (2006). Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. U. S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.
USDA-NRCS. 2008. Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Classification System: An Overview and Modification to Better Meet the Needs of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Technical Note No. 190–8–76. Washington D.C.
USGS. (2010). LANDFIRE Biophysical Settings. Retrieved from http://www.landfire.gov
Whitaker, John O., Charles J. Amlaner, Marion T. Jackson, George R. Parker, and Peter Evans Scott. 2012. Habitats and ecological communities of Indiana presettlement to present. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Approval
Greg Schmidt, 9/26/2024
Acknowledgments
PES documents developed for adjacent MLRAs in Indiana and Ohio served as a source of information as these regions often shared similar soil series with MLRA 114A. NRCS county soil surveys where a valuable reference including tree species observed on site by NRCS staff. Soil Survey and NRCS Indiana resource soil scientists contributed field observation, field notes, and extensive soil mapping expertise. In accordance with Federal Civil Rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Civil Rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior credible activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
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) A. Arends, ESI Specialist. Contact for lead author Date 09/15/2026 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
