Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F114XA103IN
Sloping Lacustrine Forest
Last updated: 9/26/2024
Accessed: 09/14/2026
-
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 114A 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 drainageways 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.
Bluegrass Natural Region of Indiana. Homoya's Natural Regions of Indiana.
The following NatureServe Explorer Ecological community has a high level of probability to match the ecological site reference community found on these soils. Field work is required for verification and conformation.
Quercus rubra - (Acer saccharum, Quercus alba) Forest
Translated Name: Northern Red Oak - (Sugar Maple, White Oak) Forest
Common Name: Red Oak - Sugar Maple - Elm Forest
Unique Identifier: CEGL005017Ecological site concept
Historically, Sloping Lacustrine Forest sites were mature, high-quality, upland deciduous forests. Soils in this groups area generally formed in lacustrine parent materials and are moderately well drain to well drained. Sites occur on glacial lake plains, moraines, or high stream terraces often with slope or on a convex surface.
High quality reference site species include northern red oak, white oak, American beech, sugar maple, tulip polar, shagbark hickory, bitternut hickory, white ash, American elm, black walnut, basswood, black gum, and sassafras. Mid-canopy species may include flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), and red maple (Acer rubrum). Shrubs include spicebush (Lindera benzoin) and mapleleaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium L.). Without disturbance, the understory community will be dense, with rich diversity, and numerous spring ephemerals.
On many sites, the dominant canopy trees are now American beech, sugar maple, and/or tulip poplar as oaks have historically been removed. Associate species may include basswood, white ash, yellow buckeye, hornbeam, and hop-hornbeam. On mature sites, a dense tree canopy will form a thick layer of ground-level humus and leaf litter. Understory plants will vary depending on available sunlight. Without post-harvest management, these sites will transition after large-scale disturbances from an oak-mixed hardwood forest to a post-disturbance maple-beech-poplar forest.Associated sites
F114XA102IN Lacustrine Terrace Forest
Lacustrine Terrace Forest. Soils in this group are predominately somewhat poorly drained and have lower slopes.
Similar sites
F114XA102IN Lacustrine Terrace Forest
Lacustrine Terrace Forest. These sites share some similar species but have lower slopes.
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Quercus
(2) Carya ovataShrub (1) Lindera benzoin
(2) Viburnum acerifoliumHerbaceous (1) Sanicula
(2) Botrychium virginianumPhysiographic features
These soils are located on lacustrine soil and are often located on terraces and low hillsides.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Hills > Hillside
(2) Lake plain > Hill
(3) Valley > Terrace
Runoff class Negligible to high Flooding duration Extremely brief (0.1 to 4 hours) to brief (2 to 7 days) Flooding frequency None to very rare Ponding frequency None Elevation 340 – 1200 ft Slope 5 – 30 % Water table depth 18 – 72 in Aspect W, NW, N, NE, E, SE, S, SW Table 3. Representative physiographic features (actual ranges)
Runoff class Not specified Flooding duration Not specified Flooding frequency Not specified Ponding frequency Not specified Elevation 0 ft Slope 0 – 40 % Water table depth 0 in Climatic features
About 60 percent of the precipitation falls during the freeze-free period. Most of the rainfall occurs as high-intensity, convective thunderstorms during summer. Snowfall is common in winter. The freeze-free period averages about 180 days.
Table 4 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) SEYMOUR 2 N [USC00127935], Seymour, IN
-
(2) NORTH VERNON 2 ESE [USC00126435], North Vernon, IN
-
(3) MILFORD [USC00335268], Milford, OH
">Influencing water features
This ecological site is not influenced by wetland or riparian water features. Sites may have a seasonally high water table.
Soil features
The soils on these sites are very deep, moderately well drained to well drained, and have slow to moderate permeability. Soil series currently included in this group are Glenford, Elkinsville, Markland, Mentor, Millstone, and Shircliff.
Table 5. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Lacustrine deposits
(2) Glaciolacustrine deposits
(3) Alluvium
(4) Loess
Surface texture (1) Silt loam
(2) Loam
(3) Silty clay loam
Drainage class Moderately well drained to well drained Permeability class 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 – 8 in Calcium carbonate equivalent
(Depth not specified)0 – 23 % Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(Depth not specified)5 – 7.5 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 3 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)Not specified Ecological dynamics
The reference community is a high-quality, mature, deciduous forest with a substantial oak component. Species include northern red oak, white oak, shagbark hickory, sugar maple, American beech, black walnut, black oak, tulip poplar, basswood, and American elm. Subcanopy trees may include black cherry, sassafras, red maple, sugar maple, and American hophornbeam. Shrub layers are often quite variable depending on topography and aspect. Typical forest understory plants include Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), rattlesnake fern (Botrychium virginianum), tick trefoils (Desmodium spp.), bedstraws (Gallium spp.), and snakeroot (Sanicula spp.).
According to USDA-USFS LANDFIRE, full stand replacing disturbance events on these sites were uncommon. Small gap disturbance was the most common disturbance event that allowed propagation of these species. Disturbances without timber stand improvement will result in a dominance of sugar maple and tulip poplar with a subcomponent of red maple, white ash, and sassafras.
Remaining wooded sites have few oaks due to cutting , fire suppression, and invasive shrubs. Few high quality forest sites remain due to disturbance such as logging, agricultural conversion, and urban 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 - Non-native species invade site; no control efforts T1B - Clearing of site; tillage; seeding; weed control; agricultural management R2A - Brush and weed control; timber stand improvement activities T2A - Clearing of trees and shrubs; site preparation; tillage; seeding; weed control T3A - Site abandoned. No management inputs. State 1 submodel, plant communities
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 3 submodel, plant communities
3.1A - Site preparation; seeding; weed control; grassland management 3.2A - Site preparation; tillage; seeding; weed control; row crop management State 1
Reference StateHistorically, these reference communities were mature, high-quality, upland hardwood forests. Tree species included northern red oak, sugar maple, white oak, American beech, tulip polar, shagbark hickory, bitternut hickory, white ash, American elm, black walnut, and basswood.. Mid-canopy species may include sassafras, flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), and red maple (Acer rubrum). Shrubs vary depending on topography and aspect but often include spicebush (Lindera benzoin) and maple-leaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium L.). Due to lack of disturbance, the understory communities are dense, with rich diversity, and numerous spring ephemerals.
Dominant plant species
-
white oak (Quercus alba), tree
-
northern red oak (Quercus rubra), tree
-
shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), tree
-
sugar maple (Acer saccharum), tree
-
northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin), shrub
-
mapleleaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium), shrub
-
sanicle (Sanicula), other herbaceous
-
rattlesnake fern (Botrychium virginianum), other herbaceous
-
bedstraw (Galium), other herbaceous
-
ticktrefoil (Desmodium), other herbaceous
Community 1.1
Oak - Hickory ForestMixed hardwood forest with an oak (white oak, northern red oak) and hickory ( mockernut, shagbark) component. Other canopy trees may include sugar maple, American beech, tulip poplar, white ash, American elm, basswood, and black walnut. Numerous native species may be found in the understory including spring ephemerals.
Dominant plant species
-
white oak (Quercus alba), tree
-
shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), tree
-
northern red oak (Quercus rubra), tree
-
sugar maple (Acer saccharum), tree
-
northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin), shrub
-
mapleleaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium), shrub
-
sanicle (Sanicula), other herbaceous
-
rattlesnake fern (Botrychium virginianum), other herbaceous
-
bedstraw (Galium), other herbaceous
-
ticktrefoil (Desmodium), other herbaceous
State 2
Disturbed -Invaded StateThis state is characterized by disturbances such as clearing, selective harvest, heavy grazing, or other soil disturbing activities. Often these disturbances result in the introduction, establishment and eventual dominance of invasive species, especially in the shrub layer and/or understory. This greatly reduces the tree, shrub and understory species richness and diversity of the site. Trees that are able to reproduce are the shade tolerant species such as maple and ash. Common invasives include, but are not limited to, Asian bush honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii), Callery pear (Pyrus calleryana Decne.), garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolate), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus), Japanese chaff flower (Achyranthes japonica), and wintercreeper (Euonymus fortune).
Dominant plant species
-
maple (Acer), tree
-
ash (Fraxinus), tree
-
Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii), shrub
-
autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), shrub
-
Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum), grass
-
garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), other herbaceous
-
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), other herbaceous
-
winter creeper (Euonymus fortunei), other herbaceous
Community 2.1
Disturbed -Invaded ForestThe native community structure has been altered by substantial disturbances which have introduced invasive plants. Numerous species may be present. Common on these forested sites are garlic mustard, bush honeysuckle, and Japanese stiltgrass. The density of the bush honeysuckle impacts the regeneration of native plants.
Dominant plant species
-
maple (Acer), tree
-
ash (Fraxinus), tree
-
Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii), shrub
-
autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), shrub
-
garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), other herbaceous
-
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), other herbaceous
-
winter creeper (Euonymus fortunei), other herbaceous
State 3
Agricultural StateThis state is characterized by the conversion of the site to agricultural use. Most common practice is a corn and soybean rotation. A small portion of the historic acres are used for forage and pasture. Some mapunits in this group have slopes that preclude cropland use. Often these sites are in rough pasture.
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
CroplandLower slope sites in this group are mostly utilized for crop production. This phase is characterized by row crop agriculture of small grains, primarily corn and soybeans; however, numerous species can be grown depending on the landowner's goals and objectives.
Community 3.2
PasturelandPlanting of warm or cool season pasture/forage species will depend upon management goals and operation priorities. Numerous forbs may be included in the seeding mix and often include white clover and/or red clover.
Dominant plant species
-
tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus), grass
-
brome (Bromus), grass
-
Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), grass
-
red clover (Trifolium pratense), other herbaceous
-
white clover (Trifolium repens), other herbaceous
Pathway 3.1A
Community 3.1 to 3.2Shift in agricultural use from row crop production to grassland management.
Pathway 3.2A
Community 3.2 to 3.1Transition from grassland management to cropland production.
Transition T1A
State 1 to 2Establishment of invasive understory species with no management to control their abundance or distribution.
Transition T1B
State 1 to 3Clearing of the site and management activities to prepare the site for planting of agricultural crops. Practices and species depend on management objectives.
Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1Management inputs will include long-term chemical and mechanical treatments to remove non-native plant species. Planting of desired species may be needed. Timber stand improvement activities will include brush control, weed control, and selective thinning.
Transition T2A
State 2 to 3Management inputs would include clearing of trees and brush and preparing the site for planting. Numerous crops can be grown on these sites. Currently, a crop rotation of corn-soybeans is most common with a smaller percentage of acres in pastureland.
Restoration pathway T3A
State 3 to 2Agricultural sites that are abandoned will naturally transition to a shrub dominated successional state followed by an increase in tree species. Eventually the site will be forested but the species composition will be composted of low quality trees and non-native, weedy species.
Additional community tables
Table 6. Community 1.1 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 (%) Interpretations
Supporting information
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
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 09/14/2026 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
