Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Ecological site F144AY019NH

Wet Lake Plain

Last updated: 10/04/2024
Accessed: 11/21/2024

Home / Esd catalog / MLRA 144A / Ecological site F144AY019NH

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): 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 Plains

Ecological site concept

The Wet Lake Plain ecological site consists of very deep, poorly drained soils formed in clayey, silty and loamy over clayey sediments. They are nearly level to gently sloping soils in low-lying positions on glaciolacustrine and marine terraces. There may be two geographically distinct areas: inland sites along the Hudson Valley,NY with representative soils Madalin, Parsippany, and Passaic; and coastal sites in Northeast MA and Southeast NH with representative soils Scitico (coastal), Shaker, Raynham (coastal) and Squamscott. The reference community is typified by a red maple – hardwoods swamp forest. These communities may be perched or show seepage and maybe considered minerotrophic (slightly enriched). Canopy dominants include red maple (Acer rubrum) with green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) or white ash (Fraxinus americana). Other trees include pin oak (Quercus palustris) and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica). Shrubs include northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin) and winterberry holly (Ilex verticillate), and northern arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum var lucidum). Groundcover is variable w/ skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus)and and/or ferns: cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), marsh fern (Thelypteris palustrius); and sedges: Gray’s sedge (Carex grayi) , fringed sedge (Carex crinata), hop sedge (Carex lupulina). Depending on the water table fluctuations, the “perched” wetlands may contain a more diverse shrub layer.

Associated sites

F144AY018NY	Moist Lake Plain

F144AY018NY

Moist Lake Plain

Similar sites

F144AY008CT	Moist Till Uplands
F144AY012CT	Sandy Low Floodplain

F144AY008CT

Moist Till Uplands

F144AY012CT

Sandy Low Floodplain

Table 1. Dominant plant species

Tree	(1) Acer rubrum
Shrub	(1) Lindera benzoin
Herbaceous	(1) Osmunda regalis

Download full description

Physiographic features

The site occurs nearly level to gently sloping soils in low-lying positions on glaciolacustrine and marine terraces. Water table depth ranges from 0 to 12 inches.

Table 2. Representative physiographic features

Landforms	(1) Lake plain > Lake plain (2) Outwash plain > Depression (3) Lowland > Marine terrace (4) Fluviomarine terrace > Drainageway (5) Terrace (6) Lake terrace (7) Flood plain (8) Outwash plain
Runoff class	Negligible to very high
Flooding frequency	None to frequent
Ponding frequency	None to frequent
Elevation	0 – 750 m
Slope	0 – 8%
Water table depth	0 – 183 cm
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)	121-143 days
Freeze-free period (characteristic range)	146-187 days
Precipitation total (characteristic range)	1,092-1,219 mm
Frost-free period (actual range)	114-169 days
Freeze-free period (actual range)	145-206 days
Precipitation total (actual range)	1,041-1,245 mm
Frost-free period (average)	137 days
Freeze-free period (average)	169 days
Precipitation total (average)	1,168 mm

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 1. Monthly precipitation range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 2. Monthly minimum temperature range

Characteristic range

Actual range

Bar

Line

Figure 3. Monthly maximum temperature range

Bar

Line

Figure 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) RUTLAND [USC00436995], Rutland, VT
(3) COPAKE [USC00301761], Copake, NY
(4) BELVIDERE BRG [USC00280734], Bangor, NJ
(5) BRIDGEPORT SIKORSKY MEM AP [USW00094702], Stratford, CT
(6) NEW BEDFORD MUNI AP [USW00094726], New Bedford, MA
(7) ROCHESTER SKYHAVEN AP [USW00054791], Rochester, NH
(8) BELCHERTOWN [USC00190562], Belchertown, MA
(9) WEST MEDWAY [USC00199316], Medway, MA

Influencing water features

Poorly drained
Water is removed so slowly that the soil is wet at shallow depths periodically during the growing season or remains wet for long periods. Internal free water occurrence is shallow or very shallow and common or persistent. Free water is commonly at or near the surface long enough during the growing season that most mesophytic crops cannot be grown, unless the soil is artificially drained. The soil, however, is not continuously wet directly below plow depth. Free water at shallow depth is common. The water table is commonly the result of low or very low saturated hydraulic conductivity, nearly continuous rainfall, or a combination of these.

Very poorly drained
Water is removed from the soil so slowly that free water remains at or very near the surface during much of the growing season. Internal free water occurrence is very shallow and persistent or permanent. Unless the soil is artificially drained, most mesophytic crops cannot be grown. The soils are commonly level or depressed and frequently ponded. In areas where rainfall is high or nearly continuous, slope gradients may be greater.

Wetland description

National Wetland Classification (Cowardin et al., 1979):

Palustrine, class variable, leaf morphology variable, water regime variable, chemistry modifier variable.

Soil features

The site consists of very deep, poorly drained soils formed in clayey, silty and loamy over clayey sediments. They are nearly level to gently sloping soils in low-lying positions on glaciolacustrine and marine terraces. There may be two geographically distinct areas: inland sites along the Hudson Valley, NY with representative soils Madalin, Parsippany, and Passaic; and coastal sites in Northeast MA and Southeast NH with representative soils Scitico (coastal), Shaker, Raynham (coastal) and Squamscott.

Table 4. Representative soil features

Parent material	(1) Glaciolacustrine deposits – basalt (2) Lacustrine deposits – sandstone and shale (3) Eolian deposits (4) Glaciomarine deposits (5) Marine deposits
Surface texture	(1) Silt loam (2) Loam (3) Mucky silt loam (4) Mucky silty clay loam (5) Silty clay loam (6) Fine sandy loam (7) Very fine sandy loam
Family particle size	(1) Clayey over sandy or sandy-skeletal (2) Coarse-loamy over clayey (3) Coarse-silty (4) Fine (5) Fine-loamy (6) Sandy (7) Sandy over loamy
Drainage class	Very poorly drained to somewhat poorly drained
Permeability class	Very slow to slow
Depth to restrictive layer	51 – 183 cm
Surface fragment cover <=3"	0%
Surface fragment cover >3"	0%
Available water capacity (Depth not specified)	10.16 – 20.32 cm
Soil reaction (1:1 water) (0-101.6cm)	3.5 – 8.4
Subsurface fragment volume <=3" (Depth not specified)	0 – 19%
Subsurface fragment volume >3" (Depth not specified)	0%

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 Wet Lake Plain ecological site is characteristic of the North-Central Appalachian Acidic Swamp system (CES202.604). The reference community is typified by a red maple -hardwoods swamp. Windthrows are common. Alteration of the natural hydrological regime (diversions, culverts, impoundments) can be a threat. Fires are typically suppressed, and otherwise less common in these mesic lake plain environments compared to drier upland environments. Invasive species, such as common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus), shrubby honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and barberry (Berberis thunbergii) may produce a state change. . The most significant threat is the emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis), an Asian beetle that infests and kills North American ash trees.

[*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 diagram

Standard 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 text

State 1
Reference State (minimally-managed)

The reference plant community-type is: • Southern New England-Northern Piedmont Red Maple Seepage Swamp Forest (CEGL006406) Acer rubrum - Fraxinus (pennsylvanica, americana) / Lindera benzoin / Symplocarpus foetidus Swamp Forest (Translated) Red Maple - (Green Ash, White Ash) / Northern Spicebush / Skunk-cabbage Swamp Forest Other less common plant communities are: • Northeastern Pin Oak - Swamp White Oak Wet Forest (CEGL 006240) Quercus palustris - (Quercus bicolor) - Acer rubrum / Vaccinium corymbosum / Osmunda cinnamomea Wet Forest (Translated) Pin Oak - (Swamp White Oak ) - Red Maple / Highbush Blueberry / Cinnamon Fern Wet Forest • Northeastern Pin Oak - Swamp White Oak Wet Forest (CEGL 006240) Quercus palustris - (Quercus bicolor) - Acer rubrum / Vaccinium corymbosum / Osmunda cinnamomea Wet Forest (Translated) Pin Oak - (Swamp White Oak ) - Red Maple / Highbush Blueberry / Cinnamon Fern Wet Forest

Community 1.1
Red Maple – Ash (Green, White) / Northern Spicebush / Skunk-cabbage Swamp Forest (CEGL006406)

Southern New England-Northern Piedmont Red Maple Seepage Swamp Forest (CEGL006406) Acer rubrum - Fraxinus (pennsylvanica, americana) / Lindera benzoin / Symplocarpus foetidus Swamp Forest (Translated) Red Maple - (Green Ash, White Ash) / Northern Spicebush / Skunk-cabbage Swamp Forest The reference community is typified by a red maple – hardwoods swamp forest. These communities may be perched or show seepage and maybe considered minerotrophic (slightly enriched). Canopy dominants include red maple (Acer rubrum) with green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) or white ash (Fraxinus americana). Other trees include pin oak (Quercus palustris), swamp white oak (Quercus bicolo)r and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica). Shrubs density varies with openness and hydrology. Shrubs include northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin) and winterberry holly (Ilex verticillate), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) and northern arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum var lucidum). Groundcover is variable w/ skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus)and and/or ferns: cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), marsh fern (Thelypteris palustrius); and sedges: Gray’s sedge (Carex grayi) , fringed sedge (Carex crinata), hop sedge (Carex lupulina). Depending on the water table fluctuations, the “perched” wetlands may contain a more diverse shrub layer. Invasive shrubs and herbs, includingJapanese barberry (Berberis thunbergia), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Morrow’s honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii), garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolate), and Japanses stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), may be abundant. (Source: NatureServe 2018 [accessed 2019], USNVC 2017 [accessed 2019]). CT: Red maple / northern spicebush Forest (Metzler and Barrett, 2006) MA: Red maple swamp (Swain and Kearsley, 2001) NH: Red maple / skunk cabbage Swamp (Sperduto and Nichols, 2011) NY: Red maple – hardwood Swamp(Edinger et al., 2014)

Dominant plant species

red maple (Acer rubrum), tree
northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin), shrub
skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus), other herbaceous

Community 1.2
Ruderal Forest/Woodland

Community 1.3
Abandoned Field/Meadow

Pathway P1.1A
Community 1.1 to 1.2

Disturbance

Pathway P1.1B
Community 1.1 to 1.3

Disturbance

Pathway P1.2A
Community 1.2 to 1.1

Abandonment, Sucession

Pathway P1.2B
Community 1.2 to 1.3

Disturbance

Pathway P1.3A
Community 1.3 to 1.2

Abandonment, Succession

State 2
Semi-natural State

The 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 Plants

Invasive species include common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus), shrubby honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and barberry (Berberis thunbergii).

Pathway P2.1A
Community 2.1 to 2.2

Disturbance, Invasive species establishment

Pathway P2.2A
Community 2.2 to 2.1

Invasive spp. Control, Forest mgmt.

State 3
Cultural State

Different phase of intense land use - may be cultivated crops, pasture/hay, or plantations (including nursery crops)

Community 3.1
Cultivated

Community 3.2
Pasture

Community 3.3
Plantation

Pathway P3.1A
Community 3.1 to 3.2

Changing agricultural phases

Pathway P3.1B
Community 3.1 to 3.3

Changing agricultural phases

Pathway P3.2A
Community 3.2 to 3.1

Changing agricultural phases

Pathway P3.2B
Community 3.2 to 3.3

Changing agricultural phases

Pathway P3.3A
Community 3.3 to 3.1

Changing agricultural phases

Pathway P3.3B
Community 3.3 to 3.2

Changing agricultural phases

Transition T1A
State 1 to 2

altered by human- induced Disturbance or Management

Conservation practices

Tree/Shrub Establishment
Forest Land Management
Forest stand improvement for habitat and soil quality

Transition T1B
State 1 to 3

Disturbance, clearing, cutting

Conservation practices

Brush Management
Land Clearing
Herbaceous Weed Control

Restoration pathway R2A
State 2 to 1

Plant 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 3

Land clearing, cutting

Conservation practices

Brush Management
Land Clearing
Herbaceous Weed Control

Restoration pathway R3A
State 3 to 1

Conservation practices

Restoration and Management of Natural Ecosystems
Native Plant Community Restoration and Management

Transition T3A
State 3 to 2

Abandonment. Plant establishment, Forest mgmt.

Conservation practices

Tree/Shrub Establishment
Forest Stand Improvement
Forest Land Management

Additional community tables

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.

Cowardin, L.M. et. al. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

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., Gregg, D., Sparks, C., August, P., Jordan, P., Coit, J., Raithel, C., Tefft, B., Payton, B., Brown, C. and LaBash, C., 2011. Rhode Island ecological communities classification. Rhode Island Natural History Survey, Kingston, RI.

Enser, R. and Lundgren, J.A., 2006. Natural communities of Rhode Island. Rhode Island Natural History Survey, Kingston (RI).

FGDC [Federal Geographic Data Committee]. 2008. National Vegetation Classification Standard, Version 2. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee, Washington DC..

Gawler, S.C. and Cutko, A., 2010. Natural landscapes of Maine: a guide to natural communities and ecosystems. Maine Natural Areas Program, Department of Conservation.

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.

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.

Thompson, E.H. and Sorenson, E.R., 2000. Wetland, woodland, wildland. Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife and The Nature Conservancy. Publ. University Press of New England.

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 assisted w/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	11/21/2024
Approved by	Greg Schmidt
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 F144AY019NH

Wet Lake Plain

Last updated: 10/04/2024 Accessed: 11/21/2024

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

Natural Resources
Conservation Service

Last updated: 10/04/2024
Accessed: 11/21/2024