Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Ecological site R098XA002MI

Inland Salt Marshes

Last updated: 1/12/2024
Accessed: 04/20/2024

Home / Esd catalog / MLRA 098X / Ecological site R098XA002MI

USC

Metric

General 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): 098X–Southern Michigan and Northern Indiana Drift Plains

This area is in the Eastern Lake Section of the Central Lowland Province of the Interior Plains. It is a broad glaciated plain that is deeply mantled by till in the north and outwash to the south. Much of the area is nearly level to gently rolling. Elevation ranges from 183 to 391 m (600 to 1285 ft). Local topographic relief averages 9 m and ranges up to 74 m (30 to 245 ft). Highest relief occurs adjacent to river valleys eroded through moraines. Topography is more subdued south of the Atlantic/Gulf drainage divide near the Michigan/Indiana state line, elevations ranging from 185 to 280 m (605 to 920 ft). Local topographic relief in the south averages 4 m and ranges up to 49 m (10 to 160 ft).

The surface of this area is covered by 30 to 150 m (100 to 500 ft) of glacial drift in most areas. At the northern edge of the area, the drift is more than 100 meters (300 ft) thick. From the Grand River basin northward, most of the drift consists of till from the Saginaw Lobe of the Wisconsin Ice Sheet. From the Kalamazoo River basin southward, there are significant deposits of unconsolidated sand and gravel outwash formed between major lobes of the receding Wisconsin Ice Sheet. The outwash deposits are reworked as sand dunes in the Kankakee River basin.

The bedrock beneath the glacial deposits in this area is deformed in the shape of a basin. The center of this basin is in the north-central part of the area. Pennsylvanian-age sandstone are in the center of the basin, and Mississippian-age sandstone and shale beds form the outer rings of the basin. In a few areas the drift deposits are less than 2 m (6 ft) thick, where glacial outwash channels have eroded to limestone bedrock in Grand Rapids, and where sandstone bedrock cuestas peak in elevation in near Hillsdale, Michigan. A sandstone cliff < 15 m high (<50 ft) occurs along a short stretch of the Grand River in Grand Ledge, Michigan.

Most of the rivers in this area are short because of their proximity to the Great Lakes east and west of the area. The largest watersheds, the St. Joseph River, Grand River, and Kalamazoo River drain into Lake Michigan. The southern extent of the MLRA is drained by the Kankakee River of the Mississippi River watershed.

Classification relationships

Among the USFS ecoregional framework (Cleland et al., 2007), most of MLRA 98 is represented by the Humid Temperate Domain (200), Hot Continental Division (220), Midwest Broadleaf Forest Province (222), South Central Great Lakes Section (222J), subsections 222Jc, 222Jg, 222Jh, and 222Jf. Similar sites within the portion of MLRA 98 that overlap the Prairie Division (250) and Prairie Parkland Province
(251) are treated as separate ecological sites. MLRA 98 recently was adjusted to exclude portions of Warm Continental Division (210), Laurentian Mixed Forest Province (212) to the north, and subsections 222Ja and 222Jb to the northwest.

Among the EPA ecoregional framework (Omernik and Griffith, 2014), most of MLRA 98 falls within Eastern Temperate Forests (Level I: 8), Mixed Wood Plains (Level II: 8.1), Southern Michigan/Northern Indiana Drift Plains (Level III: 56), and Level IV: 56b, 56g, and 56h. Similar sites within the portion of MLRA 98 that overlap the Central USA Plains (Level II: 8.2) and Central Corn Belt Plains (Level III: 54) are treated as separate ecological sites. MLRA 98 recently was adjusted to exclude portions of Northern Forests (Level I: 5), Mixed Wood Shield (Level II: 5.2), Northern Lakes and Forests (Level III: 50) to the north, and level IV: 56d and 56f to the northwest.

Ecological site concept

The central concept of the Inland Salt Marshes is a range of organic (or mineral) soils with high electrical conductivity, indicating a high amount of dissolved salts, particularly sodium chloride.

Associated sites

F098XA006MI	Mucky Depressions

F098XA006MI

Mucky Depressions

Similar sites

F098XA006MI	Mucky Depressions

F098XA006MI

Mucky Depressions

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Tree	Not specified
Shrub	Not specified
Herbaceous	(1) Schoenoplectus americanus (2) Eleocharis parvula

Download full description

Physiographic features

Extant occurrences are in floodplains, presumably below the elevation of Paleozoic salt deposits.

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Landforms	(1) Valley floor
Runoff class	Low
Elevation	531 – 919 ft
Water table depth	Not specified
Aspect	Aspect is not a significant factor

Climatic features

This ecological site experiences a humid continental climate with mild summers and cold winters. Precipitation is moderately well distributed through the year with higher amounts during the growing season than the winter. Temperature extremes are moderated by the Great Lakes compared to other inland continental locations, though not as much as MLRAs directly bordering the Great Lakes. Mean annual extreme minimum temperatures range from -26.6 to -20.8°C (-16 to -5°F), which falls within hardiness zones 5a to 6a. Annual snowfall is enhanced by the Great Lakes, mainly on the western half of the MLRA.

Table 3. Representative climatic features

Frost-free period (average)	140 days
Freeze-free period (average)	167 days
Precipitation total (average)	35 in

Bar

Line

Figure 1. Monthly precipitation range

Bar

Line

Figure 2. Monthly average minimum and maximum temperature

Figure 3. Annual precipitation pattern

Figure 4. Annual average temperature pattern

Climate stations used

(1) IONIA 2SSW [USC00204078], Ionia, MI
(2) ALMA [USC00200146], Alma, MI
(3) SAINT JOHNS [USC00207280], Saint Johns, MI

Soil features

Soils are very poorly drained mucks or mineral soils. Extant occurrences are included in mollic floodplain mapunits (Ceresco and Sloan) and a Houghton muck map unit. A provisional classification of these sites is Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts and Typic Sulfisaprists. If the sulfur content proves to be too low to make Sulfisaprists, classification it is likely to be the catch-all Typic Haplosaprists. The only soil taxonomic grouping available to recognize the higher salinity is Halic Haplosaprists. However, documented electrical conductivity readings failed reach the necessary 30 dS/m to be identified as a Halic subgroup, despite a unique response in floristic composition to the otherwise elevated salinity. Recent field data across one saltmarsh shows pHs ranging from 5.4 to 7, and electrical conductivity ranging from 2.05 to 13.55 dS/m. Vegetation composition turnover from Typha angustifolia to saltmarsh specialist Schoenoplectus americanus occurred at 3 dS/m. The relatively low Typha cover present in this higher salinity zone was 1.8 m tall compared to 3 m outside this zone. An area of exclusively the very short Eleocharis parvula had readings greater than 10 dS/m. The site was probably overlooked by Clinton County surveys due to its extremely limited occurrences (3 sites < 5 ha total) restricted to the Maple River floodplain.

Table 4. Representative soil features

Parent material	(1) Organic material
Surface texture	(1) Muck
Drainage class	Very poorly drained
Permeability class	Moderately slow to moderately rapid
Soil depth	79 in
Surface fragment cover <=3"	Not specified
Surface fragment cover >3"	Not specified
Available water capacity (0-39.4in)	13.78 – 21.65 in
Electrical conductivity (0-19.7in)	2 – 15 mmhos/cm
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-19.7in)	5.5 – 8
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (0-59.1in)	Not specified
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (0-59.1in)	Not specified

Ecological dynamics

Site remains saturated year round with saline groundwater, though the salinity may vary spatially and seasonally. Relatively few species of halophytes (salt tolerant plants) dominate the vegetation. Site remains relatively clear of woody species due a lack of salt tolerant native trees and shrubs. The reference community is dominated by obligate halophytic (salt tolerant) sedges like Schoenoplectus americanus and Eleocharis parvula.

State and transition model

More interactive model formats are also available. View Interactive Models
Click on state and transition labels to scroll to the respective text

State 1
Reference State

The Reference State consists of a spontaneous wild condition wherein non-native species are of low abundance and all native species retain viable populations. Structure and function of communities vary according to natural processes and disturbance regimes, with human influences limited to drivers that have the similar outcomes as natural processes. Communities range from marshes to shrub swamps. Dominant natural processes and disturbance regimes include fire, wind, and beaver activities.

Dominant plant species

chairmaker's bulrush (Schoenoplectus americanus), grass
dwarf spikerush (Eleocharis parvula), grass

Community 1.1
Marsh: Schoenoplectus maritimus - Atriplex patula - Eleocharis parvula Saline Marsh Association

Community 1.2
Aquatic: Nuphar advena - Nymphaea odorata Aquatic Vegetation

Community 1.3
Inundated Shrub Swamp: Cephalanthus occidentalis / Carex spp. Northern Shrub Swamp

This phase represents the shrubby phase with shallow standing water. This shrubby often occurs on the nutrient rich edges of a wetland where the muck is more decomposed, and the substrate becomes submerged (no hummocks to stand on).

Forest overstory. Less than 5 percent tree cover associated with this phase, related to transitions from adjacent vegetation phases or is shaded from adjacent upland vegetation. Trees rooted within this zone most likely are willows (Salix spp.) that can tolerate longer hydroperiods.

Pathway 1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2

Inundation

Pathway 1.1B
Community 1.1 to 1.3

Temporary exposure and reduced salinity; shrub establishment

Conservation practices

Tree/Shrub Site Preparation
Tree/Shrub Establishment

Pathway 1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1

Lower water table, seasonal exposure; emergent vegetation established

Pathway 1.2B
Community 1.2 to 1.3

Temporary exposure and lower salinity; shrub establishment

Pathway 1.3A
Community 1.3 to 1.1

Disturbance (fire, deep inundation) or higher salinities leading to shrub mortality

Conservation practices

Brush Management
Prescribed Burning

Pathway 1.3B
Community 1.3 to 1.2

Disturbance (fire, deep inundation) or higher salinities leading to shrub mortality

State 2
Cultural State

The cultural state is actively managed. The structure and composition of cultural vegetation is not self-sustaining without human inputs.

Community 2.1
Sustainable Crop, Pasture, or Plantation

The community phase is an undifferentiated placeholder representing any of a number of possible crops or other intensive land uses in which best available management practices are employed to ensure that a minimum amount of soil erosion and water pollution occurs.

Community 2.2
Unsustainable Cultural Phase

The community phase is an undifferentiated placeholder representing any of a number of possible crops or other intensive land uses in which poor management practices are employed, resulting in an unacceptable amount of soil erosion and water pollution.

Community 2.3
Conservation Feature

The community phase represents non-crop vegetation that is managed in association with cropland or other intensive land uses to reduce environmental impacts of the land use. The managed vegetation can be a grassed waterway, conservation reserve, a small patch pollinator garden, or other land taken out of crop production. The small size and adjacency to an intensive land uses limits the degree to which native biological community and associated ecosystem services can be restored, but in a landscape context it may provide buffers or connectivity with nearby wild ecosystems.

Pathway 2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.2

Revert to unsustainable cultural practices

Pathway 2.1B
Community 2.1 to 2.3

Establish conservation feature

Conservation practices

Conservation Cover
Grassed Waterway

Pathway 2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1

Implement sustainable cultural practices

Conservation practices

Conservation Crop Rotation
Cover Crop
Nutrient Management
Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

Pathway 2.2B
Community 2.2 to 2.3

Establish conservation feature

Conservation practices

Conservation Cover
Grassed Waterway

Pathway 2.3A
Community 2.3 to 2.1

Implement sustainable cultural practices

Conservation practices

Conservation Crop Rotation
Cover Crop
Nutrient Management
Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

Pathway 2.3B
Community 2.3 to 2.2

Revert to unsustainable cultural practices

State 3
Seminatural Drained State

The Seminatural Drained State is modified from reference conditions by draining the site, often followed by temporary cultivation of the site. The vegetation is spontaneously self-generated or self-sustaining in response to both human and natural drivers. However, species composition may no longer indicate wetland definitions, and may consist of a mix of native and introduced species. The degree of isolation from intact habitat and the degree of disturbance will dictate the species composition as vegetation recovers.

Community 3.1
Ruderal Drained Meadow & Shrub

This phase represents an undifferentiated open community with few trees, with a variable native and non-native species composition.

Dominant plant species

multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), shrub
reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), grass
eastern woodland sedge (Carex blanda), grass
rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), grass

Community 3.2
Semi-Natural Drained Swamp Forest

This phase represents an undifferentiated forested community, with a variable native and non-native species composition.

Dominant plant species

American elm (Ulmus americana), tree
red maple (Acer rubrum), tree
American basswood (Tilia americana), tree
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), shrub
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), shrub
northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin), shrub
eastern bottlebrush grass (Elymus hystrix), grass
Canadian clearweed (Pilea pumila), other herbaceous
great ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), other herbaceous
jumpseed (Polygonum virginianum), other herbaceous

Table 5. Ground cover

Tree foliar cover	55-95%
Shrub/vine/liana foliar cover	10-55%
Grass/grasslike foliar cover	2-25%
Forb foliar cover	10-80%
Non-vascular plants	0-2%
Biological crusts	0%
Litter	25-50%
Surface fragments >0.25" and <=3"	0%
Surface fragments >3"	0%
Bedrock	0%
Water	0%
Bare ground	0%

Table 6. Canopy structure (% cover)

Height Above Ground (ft)	Tree	Shrub/Vine	Grass/ Grasslike	Forb
<0.5	0-3%	1-25%	0-15%	5-75%
>0.5 <= 1	0-3%	1-25%	0-15%	5-75%
>1 <= 2	0-3%	10-50%	0-15%	10-90%
>2 <= 4.5	0-5%	5-30%	0-3%	1-40%
>4.5 <= 13	20-75%	5-35%	–	0-20%
>13 <= 40	55-95%	0-5%	–	–
>40 <= 80	20-80%	0-1%	–	–
>80 <= 120	–	–	–	–
>120	–	–	–	–

Pathway 3.1A
Community 3.1 to 3.2

Succession

Pathway 3.2A
Community 3.2 to 3.1

Blowdown or clearcut

Conservation practices

Early Successional Habitat Development/Management
Forest Stand Improvement

State 4
Seminatural State

The Seminatural State is modified from reference conditions mainly in species composition due to some type of disturbance, but retains a wetland hydrology. The state might have been drained and under cultivation for a time, but subsequently, hydrology is at least partially restored. The vegetation is spontaneously self-generated or self-sustaining in response to both human and natural drivers. However, species composition consists of a mix of native and introduced species. The degree of isolation from intact habitat and the degree of disturbance will dictate the species composition as vegetation recovers.

Community 4.1
Ruderal Wet Meadow & Shrub Swamp: Phalaris arundinacea Eastern Ruderal Marsh

Transition T1A
State 1 to 2

Drained, cleared vegetation, then cultivated domesticated species

Transition T1B
State 1 to 3

Drained, cleared vegetation, then invasive species introduced

Transition T1C
State 1 to 4

Cleared vegetation, then invasive species introduced

Restoration pathway R2
State 2 to 1

Restored hydrology, removed domesticated species, and restored native species

Conservation practices

Brush Management
Restoration and Management of Rare and Declining Habitats
Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management
Wetland Restoration
Herbaceous Weed Control

Transition T2A
State 2 to 3

Abandoned, then succession

Transition T2B
State 2 to 4

Restored hydrology, controlled invasive species, then restored native species

Conservation practices

Wetland Restoration

Restoration pathway R3
State 3 to 1

Restored hydrology, controlled invasive species, then restored native species

Conservation practices

Brush Management
Restoration and Management of Rare and Declining Habitats
Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management
Wetland Restoration
Herbaceous Weed Control

Transition T3A
State 3 to 2

Cleared vegetation, then cultivated domesticated species

Transition T3B
State 3 to 4

Restored hydrology

Conservation practices

Wetland Restoration

Restoration pathway R4
State 4 to 1

Controlled invasive species, then restored native species

Conservation practices

Brush Management
Restoration and Management of Rare and Declining Habitats
Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management
Herbaceous Weed Control

Transition T4A
State 4 to 2

Drained, cleared vegetation, then cultivated domesticated species

Transition T4B
State 4 to 3

Drained

Additional community tables

Table 7. Community 3.2 forest overstory composition

Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Nativity	Height (ft)	Canopy cover (%)	Diameter (in)	Basal area (square ft/acre)
Tree
American elm	ULAM	Ulmus americana	Native	16.4–49.2	5–50	–	–
common hackberry	CEOC	Celtis occidentalis	Native	16.4–49.2	1.5–40	–	–
red maple	ACRU	Acer rubrum	Native	32.8–82	0–30	–	–
pin oak	QUPA2	Quercus palustris	Native	32.8–82	3–30	–	–
silver maple	ACSA2	Acer saccharinum	Native	32.8–82	1–25	–	–
boxelder	ACNE2	Acer negundo	Native	16.4–49.2	1.5–15	–	–
American basswood	TIAM	Tilia americana	Native	32.8–82	0–15	–	–
American basswood	TIAM	Tilia americana	Native	16.4–49.2	0–10	–	–
swamp white oak	QUBI	Quercus bicolor	Native	32.8–82	0–10	–	–
swamp white oak	QUBI	Quercus bicolor	Native	16.4–49.2	1.5–10	–	–
red maple	ACRU	Acer rubrum	Native	16.4–49.2	0–10	–	–
American elm	ULAM	Ulmus americana	Native	32.8–82	0–10	–	–
eastern cottonwood	PODE3	Populus deltoides	Native	32.8–82	0–5	–	–
white mulberry	MOAL	Morus alba	Introduced	16.4–49.2	0–5	–	–
black cherry	PRSE2	Prunus serotina	Native	32.8–82	0–4	–	–
tuliptree	LITU	Liriodendron tulipifera	Native	32.8–82	0–3	–	–
sassafras	SAAL5	Sassafras albidum	Native	32.8–82	0–3	–	–
black cherry	PRSE2	Prunus serotina	Native	16.4–49.2	0–2	–	–
silver maple	ACSA2	Acer saccharinum	Native	16.4–49.2	0–2	–	–
bigtooth aspen	POGR4	Populus grandidentata	Native	32.8–82	0–1.5	–	–
black oak	QUVE	Quercus velutina	Native	32.8–82	0–1.5	–	–
Vine/Liana
riverbank grape	VIRI	Vitis riparia	Native	6.6–49.2	0.1–2	–	–
summer grape	VIAE	Vitis aestivalis	Native	16.4–65.6	0–1.5	–	–
Virginia creeper	PAQU2	Parthenocissus quinquefolia	Native	6.6–49.2	0–0.2	–	–

Table 8. Community 3.2 forest understory composition

Common name	Symbol	Scientific name	Nativity	Height (ft)	Canopy cover (%)
Grass/grass-like (Graminoids)
eastern bottlebrush grass	ELHY	Elymus hystrix	Native	0.3–1.6	0.2–10
rosy sedge	CARO22	Carex rosea	Native	0.3–1.6	0–5
awlfruit sedge	CAST5	Carex stipata	Native	1.6–3.3	0–1
sweet woodreed	CIAR2	Cinna arundinacea	Native	3.3–4.9	0–1
broadleaf rosette grass	DILA8	Dichanthelium latifolium	Native	1.6–3.3	0–0.4
whitegrass	LEVI2	Leersia virginica	Native	1.6–3.3	0–0.4
Forb/Herb
Canadian clearweed	PIPU2	Pilea pumila	Native	0.3–1.6	25–65
great ragweed	AMTR	Ambrosia trifida	Native	0.3–1.6	0–35
American pokeweed	PHAM4	Phytolacca americana	Native	3.3–6.6	2–20
threelobe beggarticks	BITR	Bidens tripartita	Native	1.6–3.3	0–15
white snakeroot	AGAL5	Ageratina altissima	Native	0.3–1.6	0–5
stinging nettle	URDI	Urtica dioica	Native	0.3–1.6	0.4–5
white avens	GECA7	Geum canadense	Native	1.6–3.3	0.5–5
lesser burdock	ARMI2	Arctium minus	Introduced	0.3–1.6	0.1–5
devil's beggartick	BIFR	Bidens frondosa	Native	1.6–3.3	0–4
clustered blacksnakeroot	SAOD	Sanicula odorata	Native	0.3–1.6	0–4
Canadian woodnettle	LACA3	Laportea canadensis	Native	0.3–1.6	0–4
American hogpeanut	AMBR2	Amphicarpaea bracteata	Native	0.3–1.6	0–2
stickywilly	GAAP2	Galium aparine	Native	0.3–1	0–1
American bellflower	CAAM18	Campanulastrum americanum	Native	3.3–6.6	0–1
beggarslice	HAVI2	Hackelia virginiana	Native	0.3–1.6	0–0.5
bristly buttercup	RAHI	Ranunculus hispidus	Native	1.3–3.3	0–0.5
garlic mustard	ALPE4	Alliaria petiolata	Introduced	0.3–1.6	0–0.5
Asiatic dayflower	COCO3	Commelina communis	Introduced	0.3–1.6	0–0.4
Canadian honewort	CRCA9	Cryptotaenia canadensis	Native	0.3–1.6	0–0.4
common yellow oxalis	OXST	Oxalis stricta	Native	0.3–1.6	0–0.2
feathery false lily of the valley	MARA7	Maianthemum racemosum	Native	0.3–1.6	0–0.1
mayapple	POPE	Podophyllum peltatum	Native	0.3–1.6	0–0.1
common cinquefoil	POSI2	Potentilla simplex	Native	0.3–1.6	0–0.1
calico aster	SYLA4	Symphyotrichum lateriflorum	Native	0.3–1.6	0–0.1
Canadian white violet	VICA4	Viola canadensis	Native	0.3–1.6	0–0.1
Fern/fern ally
spinulose woodfern	DRCA11	Dryopteris carthusiana	Native	0.3–1.6	0–0.3
western brackenfern	PTAQ	Pteridium aquilinum	Native	3.3–6.6	0–0.1
Shrub/Subshrub
multiflora rose	ROMU	Rosa multiflora	Introduced	1.6–6.6	0.5–20
northern spicebush	LIBE3	Lindera benzoin	Native	1.6–6.6	1–15
Morrow's honeysuckle	LOMO2	Lonicera morrowii	Introduced	1.6–6.6	0–5
black raspberry	RUOC	Rubus occidentalis	Native	1.6–6.6	0–4
Amur honeysuckle	LOMA6	Lonicera maackii	Introduced	1.6–6.6	0–2
autumn olive	ELUM	Elaeagnus umbellata	Introduced	1.6–6.6	0–0.4
eastern prickly gooseberry	RICY	Ribes cynosbati	Native	1.6–6.6	0–0.1
Allegheny blackberry	RUAL	Rubus allegheniensis	Native	1.6–6.6	0–0.1
European cranberrybush	VIOP	Viburnum opulus	Native	0–1	0–0.1
multiflora rose	ROMU	Rosa multiflora	Introduced	0–1	0–0.1
Tree
green ash	FRPE	Fraxinus pennsylvanica	Native	3.3–16.4	0–3
green ash	FRPE	Fraxinus pennsylvanica	Native	0.3–1.6	0–2
sassafras	SAAL5	Sassafras albidum	Native	3.3–16.4	0–2
common hackberry	CEOC	Celtis occidentalis	Native	3.3–16.4	0.1–1.5
black cherry	PRSE2	Prunus serotina	Native	0.3–1.6	0–1
swamp white oak	QUBI	Quercus bicolor	Native	3.3–16.4	0–1
swamp white oak	QUBI	Quercus bicolor	Native	0.3–1.6	0–1
bitternut hickory	CACO15	Carya cordiformis	Native	0.3–1.6	0–0.1
hawthorn	CRATA	Crataegus	Native	3.3–16.4	0–0.1
Vine/Liana
Virginia creeper	PAQU2	Parthenocissus quinquefolia	Native	0.3–1.6	3–25
eastern poison ivy	TORA2	Toxicodendron radicans	Native	0.3–1.6	0.2–1.5
eastern poison ivy	TORA2	Toxicodendron radicans	Native	3.3–16.4	0–1

Supporting information

Inventory data references

Site Development and Testing Plan
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

Albert, D. A. et al., 1995. Vegetation circa 1800 of Michigan. Michigan's native landscape as interpreted from the General Land Office Surveys 1816-1856 (digital map), Lansing: Michigan Natural Features Inventory.

Barnes, B. V. and Wagner, W. H., 2004. Michigan trees: a guide to the trees of the Great Lakes region. Ann Arbor (Michigan): University of Michigan Press.

Burger, T. L. and Kotar, J., 2003. A Guide to Forest Communities and Habitat Types of Michigan. Madison, Wisconsin: Department of Forest Ecology and Management, University of Wisconsin.

Cleland, D. T. et al., 1994. Field guide: Ecological classification and inventory system of the Huron-Manistee National Forests, s.l.: USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.

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. 1–92.

Jacquart, E., Homoya, M. and Casebere, L., 2002. Natural Communities of Indiana (Working Draft), Indianapolis: Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Nature Preserves.

Kost, M. A. et al., 2010. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description, Lansing, MI: Michigan Natural Features Inventory.

Moran, R. C., 1981. Prairie fens in northeastern Illinois: floristic composition and disturbance. Ohio Biol Surv Biol Notes, 15, 164-168.

Omernik, J.M. and G.E. Griffith. 2014. Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States: Evolution of a Hierarchical Spatial Framework. Environmental Management 54:1249–1266.

Swink, F. and Wilhelm, G., 1994. Plants of the Chicago Region. Indianapolis(Indiana): Indiana Academy of Science.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 2008. LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE 1.1.0 Vegetation Dynamics Models. Accessed August 28, 2012 http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 2011. LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE 1.1.0 Existing Vegetation Type layer. http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/

Contributors

Greg Schmidt

Approval

Nels Barrett, 1/12/2024

Acknowledgments

Matt Bromley and Andy Henriksen reviewed the narratives. Matt Bromley reviewed associated soil map units.

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	01/12/2024
Approved by	Nels Barrett
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:

Download reference sheet

Search

Natural ResourcesConservation Service

Ecological site R098XA002MI

Inland Salt Marshes

Last updated: 1/12/2024 Accessed: 04/20/2024

General information

MLRA notes

Classification relationships

Ecological site concept

Associated sites

Similar sites

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Ecosystem states

State 1 submodel, plant communities

State 2 submodel, plant communities

State 3 submodel, plant communities

State 4 submodel, plant communities

Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Last updated: 1/12/2024
Accessed: 04/20/2024