Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Ecological site F144AY018NY
Moist Lake Plain
Last updated: 10/04/2024
Accessed: 09/19/2026
-
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): 144A–New England and Eastern New York Upland, Southern Part
MLRA 144A: New England and Eastern New York Upland, Southern Part
The eastern half of the eastern part of this MLRA is in the Seaboard Lowland Section of the New England Province of the Appalachian Highlands. The western half of the eastern part and the southeastern half of the western part are in the New England Upland Section of the same province and division. The northwestern half of the western part is in the Hudson Valley Section of the Valley and Ridge Province of the Appalachian Highlands. This MLRA is a very scenic area of rolling to hilly uplands that are broken by many gently sloping to level valleys that terminate in coastal lowlands. Elevation ranges from sea level to 1,000 feet (0 to 305 meters) in much of the area, but it is 2,000 feet (610 meters) on some hills. Relief is mostly about 6 to 65 feet (2 to 20 meters) in the valleys and about 80 to 330 feet (25 to 100 meters) in the uplands.
This area has been glaciated and consists almost entirely of till hills, drumlins, and bedrock-controlled uplands with a mantle of till. It is dissected by narrow glacio-fluvial valleys. The southernmost boundary of the area marks the farthest southward extent of Wisconsinian glaciation on the eastern seaboard. The river valleys and coastal plains are filled with glacial lake sediments, marine sediments, and glacial outwash. The bedrock in the eastern half of the area consists primarily of igneous and metamorphic rocks of early Paleozoic age. Granite is the most common igneous rock, and gneiss, schist, and slate are the most common metamorphic rocks. In the parts of the MLRA in eastern and southeastern New York, Devonian- to Pennsylvanian-age sandstone, shale, and limestone are dominant. Carbonate rocks, primarily dolomite and limestone, are the dominant kinds of bedrock in the part of this MLRA in northwestern Connecticut.Classification relationships
USDA-NRCS (USDA 2006):
Land Resource Region (LRR): N—East and Central Farming and Forest Region
Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 144A— New England and Eastern New York Upland, Southern Part.
USDA-FS (Cleland et al. 2007)
Province: 221 - Eastern Broadleaf Province
Section: 221A - Lower New England
Subsection: 221Aa – Boston Basin
221Ac – Narragansett-Bristol Lowland and Islands
221Ad – Southern New England Coastal Lowland
221Ae – Hudson Highlands
221Ag - Southeast New England Coastal Hills and Plains
221Ah - Worcester-Monadnock Plateau
221Ai – Gulf of Maine Coastal Plain
221Ak - Gulf of Maine Coastal Lowland
Section: 221B – Hudson Valley
Subsection: 221Ba – Hudson Limestone Valley
221Bb - Miami – Taconic Foothills
221Bc – Hudson Glacial Lake PlainsEcological site concept
This site consists of deep, moderately well-drained to somewhat poorly drained soils to moderately well drained soils formed in clayey glacio-lacustrine sediments. Soils include Belgrade, Cayuga, Elmridge, Elmwood, Hudson, Kingsbury, Rhinebeck, Wallington, Whippany, and Williamson. The reference community is an oak-tulip tree forest. This forest is somewhat of a mixed mesophytic forest, the canopy dominants are red oak (Quercus rubra) and tuliptree (liriodendron tulipfera) mixed among red maple (Acer rubrum), American Beech (Fagus grandicolia), and sweet birch (Betula lenta). Less commonly, eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) may occur. Shrubs include witchhazel (Hamamelis virginiana), mapleleaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifloium), and northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin). Characteristic ground layer includes wild geranium (Geranium maculatum), red trillium (Trillium erectum), Jack-n-the-puplit (Arisaema triphyllum), New York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis) and Canada wild ginger (Asarum canadensis). This ecological site is not well described.
Associated sites
F144AY019NH Wet Lake Plain
F144AY020MA Very Wet Coastal Lake Plain
Similar sites
F144AY007CT Well Drained Dense Till Uplands
F144AY012CT Sandy Low Floodplain
Table 1. Dominant plant species
Tree (1) Acer saccharum
(2) Liriodendron tulipiferaShrub (1) Hamamelis virginiana
Herbaceous (1) Geranium maculatum
Physiographic features
The site occurs on a variety of landforms, more typically as glaciolacustrine flats and lowlands.
Table 2. Representative physiographic features
Landforms (1) Coastal plain
(2) Lake plain > Terrace
(3) Delta plain > Coastal plain
(4) Lowland > Valley
(5) Hill
(6) Lake plain
(7) Lake terrace
(8) Lakebed (relict)
Runoff class Low to very high Flooding frequency None to occasional Ponding frequency None Elevation 0 – 2460 ft Slope 0 – 50 % Water table depth 8 – 30 in Aspect Aspect is not a significant factor Climatic features
The Koppen-Geiger climate classification of the area in which this MLRA occurs varies between Dfb (Warm-summer humid continental) in the North, and Dfa (Hot-summer humid continental) in the southern portion of the MLRA. Precipitation is usually uniformly distributed throughout the year. Near the coast, however, it is slightly lower in summer. Precipitation is slightly higher in spring and fall in inland areas. Rainfall occurs as high-intensity, convective thunderstorms during the summer. During the winter, most of the precipitation occurs as moderate-intensity storms (northeasters) that produce large amounts of rain or snow. The freeze-free period increases in length to the south.
Table 3 Representative climatic features
Frost-free period (characteristic range) 120-130 days Freeze-free period (characteristic range) 150-170 days Precipitation total (characteristic range) 40-50 in Frost-free period (actual range) 100-140 days Freeze-free period (actual range) 130-170 days Precipitation total (actual range) 40-50 in Frost-free period (average) 120 days Freeze-free period (average) 150 days Precipitation total (average) 40 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) GLOVERSVILLE [USC00303319], Gloversville, NY
-
(2) HUDSON COR.FACILITY [USC00304025], Athens, NY
-
(3) SARATOGA SPRINGS 4 SW [USC00307484], Saratoga Springs, NY
-
(4) ALBANY AP [USW00014735], Latham, NY
-
(5) RHINEBECK 4SE [USC00307035], Rhinebeck, NY
">Influencing water features
NONE
Wetland description
NONE
Soil features
The site consists of shallow to very deep, somewhat poorly to moderately well drained soils formed in water, wind, and glacially deposited parent materials. Representative soils are Belgrade, Cayuga, Elmridge, Elmwood, Hudson, Kingsbury, Rhinebeck, Wallington, Whippany, and Williamson.
Table 4. Representative soil features
Parent material (1) Glaciolacustrine deposits – limestone, sandstone, and shale
(2) Eolian deposits – granite and gneiss
(3) Till – schist
(4) Lacustrine deposits – metamorphic rock
(5) Marine deposits – basalt
(6) Glaciofluvial deposits
Surface texture (1) Silt loam
(2) Fine sandy loam
(3) Very fine sandy loam
(4) Silty clay loam
Family particle size (1) Coarse-loamy over clayey
(2) Coarse-silty
(3) Fine
(4) Very-fine
Drainage class Somewhat poorly drained to well drained Permeability class Very slow to slow Depth to restrictive layer 14 – 72 in Surface fragment cover <=3" Not specified Surface fragment cover >3" Not specified Available water capacity
(0-40in)3 – 7 in Electrical conductivity
(0-40in)Not specified Sodium adsorption ratio
(0-40in)Not specified Soil reaction (1:1 water)
(0-40in)3.5 – 8.4 Subsurface fragment volume <=3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 15 % Subsurface fragment volume >3"
(Depth not specified)0 – 18 % Ecological dynamics
[Caveat: The vegetation information contained in this section and is only provisional, based on concepts, not yet validated with field work.*]
The vegetation groupings described in this section are based on the terrestrial ecological system classification and vegetation associations developed by NatureServe (Comer 2003). Terrestrial ecological SYSTEMS are specifically defined as a group of plant community-types called ASSOCIATIONS that tend to [co-]occur within landscapes with similar ecological processes, substrates, and/or environmental gradients. Any given system will typically manifest itself in a landscape at intermediate geographic scales of tens-to-thousands of hectares and will persist for 50 or more years. A vegetation association is a plant community that is much more specific to a given soil, geology, landform, climate, hydrology, and disturbance history. It is the basic unit for vegetation classification and recognized by the US National Vegetation Classification (US FDGC 2008). Each association will be named by the diagnostic and often dominant species that occupy the different height strata (tree, sapling, shrub, and herb). Within the NatureServe Explorer database (NatureServe, 2015), ecological systems are numbered by a Community Ecological System Code (CES) and individual vegetation associations are assigned an identification number called a Community Element Global Code (CEGL).
Additional and more localized vegetation information is provided by the State Natural Heritage Programs of Connecticut (Metzler and Barrett 2001), Massachusetts (Swain and Kearsley 2001), New Hampshire (Sperduto and Nichols, 2011), New York (Edinger et al., 2014), and Rhode Island (Enser and Lungren, 2006).
The Moist Lake Plain ecological site is characteristic of the Northeastern Interior Dry-Mesic Oak Forest system (CES202.592) and/or the Appalachian (Hemlock)-Northern Hardwood Forest system (CES202.593). The reference community is an oak-tulip tree forest. This forest occurs in uneven-aged stands with canopy gaps formed by storm extremes ranging from windthrows to downbursts to ice-storms. Fires are typically suppressed, and otherwise less common in these mesic lake plain environments compared to drier upland environments. Logging is a widespread management activity. These sites have one or more of the following invasive plants: garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), Asiatic bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii), Morrow’s honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii),Tartarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica) multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Norway maple (Acer platanoides). Excessive deer browse is a threat.
[*Caveat] The information presented is representative of very complex vegetation communities. Key indicator plants and ecological processes are described to help inform land management decisions. Plant communities will differ across the MLRA because of the naturally occurring variability in weather, soils, and geography. The reference plant community is not necessarily the management goal. The drafts of species lists are merely representative and are not botanical descriptions of all species occurring, or potentially occurring, on this site. They are not intended to cover every situation or the full range of conditions, species, and responses for the site.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 textState 1 submodel, plant communities
State 2 submodel, plant communities
State 3 submodel, plant communities
State 1
Reference State (minimally-managed)• Lower New England Oak – Tulip Tree Forest (CEGL008573, formerly CEGL006125(?))
Quercus rubra - Liriodendron tulipifera - Betula lenta Forest
(Translated) Northern Red Oak - Tuliptree - Sweet Birch Forest
Northern reaches may include:
• Red Oak - Hemlock - Mixed Hardwood Forest (CEGL006566)
Quercus rubra - Tsuga canadensis - Liriodendron tulipifera / Hamamelis virginiana Forest
(Translated) Northern Red Oak - Eastern Hemlock - Tuliptree / American Witch-hazel ForestCommunity 1.1
Northern Red Oak - Sugar Maple - Tuliptree Forest (CEGL006125)Lower New England Oak – Tulip Tree Forest (CEGL008573, formerly CEGL006125(?))
Quercus rubra - Liriodendron tulipifera - Betula lenta Forest
(Translated) Northern Red Oak - Tuliptree - Sweet Birch Forest
This forest is somewhat of a mixed mesophytic forest, the canopy dominants are red oak (Quercus rubra) and tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipfera) mixed among red maple (Acer rubrum), American Beech (Fagus grandicolia), and sweet birch (Betula lenta). Less commonly, eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) may occur. Shrubs include witchhazel (Hamamelis virginiana), mapleleaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifloium), and northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin). Characteristic ground layer includes wild geranium(Geranium maculatum), red trillium (Trillium erectum), Jack-n-the-puplit (Arisaema triphyllum), New York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis) and Canada wild ginger (Asarum canadensis). (Source: Edinger et al, 2014).
Cross-referenced plant community concepts (typically by political state):
CT: American beech -white oak – tulip tree Forest (Metzler and Barret, 2006)
MA: Oak-tuliptree Forest (Swain and Kearsley, 2001)
NH: Oak – tuliptree Forest (Sperduto and Nichols, 2011)Community 1.2
Ruderal Forest/WoodlandCommunity 1.3
Abandoned Field/MeadowPathway P1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2Disturbance
Pathway P1.1B
Community 1.1 to 1.3Disturbance
Pathway P1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1Abandonment, Sucession
Pathway P1.2B
Community 1.2 to 1.3Disturbance
Pathway P1.3A
Community 1.3 to 1.2Abandonment, Succession
State 2
Semi-natural StateThe Semi-natural State would expect plant communities where ecological processes are primarily operating with some land conditioning in the past or present, e.g., managed forests, or plant communities that are an artifact of land management e.g., predominately invasive plants.
Community 2.1
Managed Trees/Shrubs/Herbs(?)Community 2.2
Invasive PlantsThese sites have one or more of the following invasive plants: garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), Asiatic bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii), Morrow’s honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii), Tartarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica) multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Norway maple (Acer platanoides).
Pathway P2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.2Disturbance, Invasive species establishment
Pathway P2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1Invasive spp. Control, Forest mgmt.
State 3
Cultural StateDifferent phase of intense land use - may be cultivated crops, pasture/hay, or plantations (including nursery crops)
Community 3.1
CultivatedCommunity 3.2
PastureCommunity 3.3
PlantationPathway P3.1A
Community 3.1 to 3.2Changing agricultural phases
Pathway P3.1B
Community 3.1 to 3.3Changing agricultural phases
Pathway P3.2A
Community 3.2 to 3.1Changing agricultural phases
Pathway P3.2B
Community 3.2 to 3.3Changing agricultural phases
Pathway P3.3A
Community 3.3 to 3.1Changing agricultural phases
Pathway P3.3B
Community 3.3 to 3.2Changing agricultural phases
Transition T1A
State 1 to 2altered by human- induced Disturbance or Management
Conservation practices
Tree/Shrub Establishment Forest Land Management Forest stand improvement for habitat and soil quality Key drivers
-
Timber management
-
Nonnative plant species presence and/or establishment
Transition T1B
State 1 to 3Disturbance, clearing, cutting
Conservation practices
Brush Management Land Clearing Herbaceous Weed Control Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1Plant removals, plantings, Invasive plant control, successional mgmt., forestry practices Restoration & Mgmt, Forest Stand Improvement, Early Successional Habitat Development, Upland Wildlife Mgmt, Invasive spp. Control, Plant establishment
Conservation practices
Brush Management Tree/Shrub Establishment Early Successional Habitat Development/Management Forest Stand Improvement Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems Native Plant Community Restoration and Management Forest Land Management Invasive Plant Species Control Transition T2A
State 2 to 3Land clearing, cutting
Conservation practices
Brush Management Land Clearing Herbaceous Weed Control Restoration pathway R3A
State 3 to 1Plant removals, plantings, Invasive plant control, successional mgmt., forestry practices Restoration & Mgmt, Forest Stand Improvement, Early Successional Habitat Development, Upland Wildlife Mgmt, Invasive spp. Control, Plant establishment
Conservation practices
Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems Native Plant Community Restoration and Management Transition T3A
State 3 to 2Abandonment. Plant establishment, Forest mgmt.
Conservation practices
Tree/Shrub Establishment Forest Stand Improvement Forest Land Management Key drivers
-
Timber management
-
Nonnative plant species presence and/or establishment
Additional community tables
Table 5. Community 1.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 6. Community 1.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 7. Community 1.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 8. Community 2.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 9. Community 2.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 10. Community 3.1 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 11. Community 3.2 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Table 12. Community 3.3 plant community composition
Group Common name Symbol Scientific name Annual production () Foliar cover (%) Interpretations
Supporting information
Inventory data references
Future work is needed, as described in a future project plan, to validate the information presented in this provisional ecological site description. Future work includes field sampling, data collection and analysis by qualified vegetation ecologists and soil scientists. As warranted, annual reviews of the project plan can be conducted by the Ecological Site Technical Team. A final field review, peer review, quality control, and quality assurance reviews of the ESD are necessary to approve a final document.
Other references
REFERENCES
Cleland, D.T., J.A. Freeouf, J.E. Keys, G.J. Nowacki, C.A. Carpenter, and W.H.McNab. 2007. Ecological Subregions: Sections and Subsections for the conterminous United States. [Map. presentation scale 1:3,500,000, colored; A.M. Sloan, cartographer] Gen. Tech. Report WO-76D. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. (https://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/misc/73326-wo-gtr-76d-cleland2007.pdf)
Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, M. Pyne, M. Reid, K. Schulz, K., Snow, and J.Teague. 2003. Ecological Systems of the United States: A Working Classification of U.S. Terrestrial Systems. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
Edinger, G.J., Evans, D.J., Gebauer, S., Howard, T.G., Hunt, D.M., and A.M. Olivero, A.M. (eds.). 2014. Ecological Communities of New York State, Second Edition: A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.
Enser, R.W. and Lundgren, J.A. 2006. Natural Communities of Rhode Island. A joint project of the Rhode Island Dept. of Environmental Management Natural Heritage Program and The Nature Conservancy of Rhode Island. Web published by R.I. Natural History Survey, Kingston, RI. www.rinhs.org.
FGDC [Federal Geographic Data Committee]. 2008. National Vegetation Classification Standard, Version 2. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee, Washington DC..
Metzler, K.J. and Barrett, J.P., 2006. The Vegetation of Connecticut, a Preliminary Classification. Department of Environmental Protection, State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut. Rpt of Investigations No. 12.
NatureServe 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: December 2015).
PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University. Available http://prism.oregonstate.edu, (created February 26, 2013).
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 2006. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. Agricultural Handbook 296. (https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051845.pdf).
Sperduto, D.D., & Nichols, W.F. 2011. Natural Communities of New Hampshire, Second Ed. NH Natural Heritage Bureau, Concord, NH. Publ. UNH Cooperative Extension.
Swain, P.C. and Kearsley, J.B., 2001. Classification of the natural communities of Massachusetts. Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.
USNVC [United States National Vegetation Classification]. 2017 (Date accessed). United States National Vegetation Classification Database V2.01. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcomittee, Washington DC.Contributors
Nels Barrett, Ph.D. (vegetation)
Approval
Greg Schmidt, 10/04/2024
Acknowledgments
Michael Margo and tech team provided earlier drafts. Josh Hibit made compliance updates w/ 2021 Checklist V.2
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 09/19/2026 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
