Print Report

CEGL005139 Dasiphora fruticosa / Carex sterilis - Andropogon gerardii - Arnoglossum plantagineum Fen

Type Concept Sentence: No Data Available


Common (Translated Scientific) Name: Shrubby-cinquefoil / Dioecious Sedge - Big Bluestem - Groove-stem Indian-plantain Fen

Colloquial Name: Shrubby-cinquefoil / Sedge Prairie Fen

Hierarchy Level:  Association

Type Concept: This rich fen community is found in the upper midwestern United States and adjacent Canada on level to sloping seepage areas. Sites are minerotrophic and alkaline, with groundwater flowing through shallow peats and marls on glacial deposits. Graminoids dominate, though forbs and dwarf-shrubs can be prominent. Shrub swamps or tall-shrub fens often surround the core fen area. Diagnostic species include the prairie grasses Andropogon gerardii and Spartina pectinata, prairie forbs, such as Arnoglossum plantagineum, Filipendula rubra, Liatris spicata, Silphium terebinthinaceum (more eastern), Oligoneuron ohioense, and the sedges Carex aquatilis, Carex haydenii, Carex hystericina, Carex leptalea, Carex sterilis, and Carex stricta. Other characteristic species include Doellingeria umbellata, Eutrochium maculatum, Gentianopsis virgata, Lobelia kalmii, Lysimachia quadriflora, Muhlenbergia glomerata, Oxypolis rigidior, Pedicularis lanceolata, Pycnanthemum virginianum, Thalictrum dasycarpum, and Thelypteris palustris. The most characteristic shrubs of this type are Dasiphora fruticosa ssp. floribunda and Salix candida, but Cornus foemina, Cornus sericea, and Salix discolor can also be found. Open areas around spring discharges are often sparsely vegetated, and contain Cladium mariscoides, Eleocharis elliptica, Eleocharis rostellata, Schoenoplectus acutus, Lobelia kalmii, Parnassia glauca, and Rhynchospora capillacea.

Diagnostic Characteristics: No Data Available

Rationale for Nominal Species or Physiognomic Features: No Data Available

Classification Comments: In Minnesota this is a calcareous seepage fen. Classification of rich prairie fens in the Midwest has generally allowed for considerable variability in the shrub or dwarf-shrub component, allowing for as much as 50% or more of shrubs. White and Madany (1978) recognized a graminoid fen and a low-shrub fen type in Illinois. The noted that they were floristically identical, but the latter was probably more protected from fires. Note: In western Ohio, see Stuckey article, where type contains Sorghastrum nutans, Andropogon gerardii, Oligoneuron riddellii, Oligoneuron ohioense, Arnoglossum plantagineum, Silphium terebinthinaceum, Carex suberecta. In Ontario, there is one stand at Brantford.

Similar NVC Types: No Data Available
note: No Data Available

Physiognomy and Structure: No Data Available

Floristics: Graminoids dominate, though forbs and dwarf-shrubs can be prominent. Shrub swamps or tall-shrub fens often surround the core fen area. Diagnostic species include the prairie grasses Andropogon gerardii and Spartina pectinata, prairie forbs such as Arnoglossum plantagineum (= Cacalia plantaginea), Filipendula rubra, Liatris spicata, Silphium terebinthinaceum (more eastern), Oligoneuron ohioense (= Solidago ohioensis), and the sedges Carex aquatilis, Carex haydenii, Carex hystericina, Carex leptalea, Carex sterilis, and Carex stricta. Other characteristic species include Doellingeria umbellata (= Aster umbellatus), Eutrochium maculatum (= Eupatorium maculatum), Gentianopsis virgata (= Gentianopsis procera), Lobelia kalmii, Lysimachia quadriflora, Muhlenbergia glomerata, Oxypolis rigidior, Pedicularis lanceolata, Pycnanthemum virginianum, Thalictrum dasycarpum, and Thelypteris palustris. The most characteristic shrubs of this type are Dasiphora fruticosa ssp. floribunda (= Pentaphylloides floribunda) and Salix candida, but Cornus foemina, Cornus sericea, and Salix discolor can also be found. Open areas around spring discharges are often sparsely vegetated, and contain Cladium mariscoides, Eleocharis elliptica, Eleocharis rostellata, Lobelia kalmii, Parnassia glauca, Rhynchospora capillacea, Schoenoplectus acutus (= Scirpus acutus), and Triantha glutinosa (= Tofieldia glutinosa) (White and Madany 1978, Chapman et al. 1989, MNNHP 1993, Anderson 1996).

Dynamics:  No Data Available

Environmental Description:  This community is found on muck (peaty muck), through which flows groundwater rich in calcium and magnesium carbonates. Soils are saturated mucks, with neutral to slightly alkaline pH. Sites typically lie next to lakes, less commonly along streams and rivers, all of which occur in glacial outwash, ice contact topography or coarse-textured end moraines (Chapman et al. 1989).

Geographic Range: This prairie fen is found in the central midwestern United States, ranging from western Ohio west to southeastern Minnesota. Its total range is between 200,000 to 400,000 square km.

Nations: CA,US

States/Provinces:  IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, ON, WI




Confidence Level: Low - Poorly Documented

Confidence Level Comments: No Data Available

Grank: G3G4

Greasons: No Data Available


Concept Lineage: The type is best treated as as the seepage zone of CEGL005139, as is typical of state classifications of other seepage fens

Predecessors: No Data Available

Obsolete Names: No Data Available

Obsolete Parents: No Data Available

Synonomy: = Dasiphora fruticosa ssp. floribunda / Carex sterilis - Andropogon gerardii - Arnoglossum plantagineum Shrub Herbaceous Vegetation (Faber-Langendoen 2001) [Calcareous Fen Prairie Subtype]
= Calcareous Seepage Fen (Southeast Section) Prairie Subtype (MNNHP 1993)

Concept Author(s): D. Faber-Langendoen (2001)

Author of Description: D. Faber-Langendoen

Acknowledgements: No Data Available

Version Date: 07-16-98

  • Anderson, D. M. 1996. The vegetation of Ohio: Two centuries of change. Draft. Ohio Biological Survey.
  • Chapman, K. A., D. A. Albert, and G. A. Reese. 1989. Draft descriptions of Michigan''s natural community types. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI. 35 pp.
  • Faber-Langendoen, D., editor. 2001. Plant communities of the Midwest: Classification in an ecological context. Association for Biodiversity Information, Arlington, VA. 61 pp. plus appendix (705 pp.).
  • INHDC [Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center]. No date. Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center, Division of Nature Preserves, Department of Natural Resources, Indianapolis.
  • Kost, M. A., D. A. Albert, J. G. Cohen, B. S. Slaughter, R. K. Schillo, C. R. Weber, and K. A. Chapman. 2007. Natural communities of Michigan: Classification and description. Report No. 2007-21, Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing. 314 pp. [http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/reports/2007-21_Natural_Communites_of_Michigan_Classification_and_Description.pdf]
  • Lee, H., W. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig, and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological land classification for southern Ontario: First approximation and its application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.
  • MNNHP [Minnesota Natural Heritage Program]. 1993. Minnesota''s native vegetation: A key to natural communities. Version 1.5. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, St. Paul, MN. 110 pp.
  • Midwestern Ecology Working Group of NatureServe. No date. International Ecological Classification Standard: International Vegetation Classification. Terrestrial Vegetation. NatureServe, Minneapolis, MN.
  • Minnesota DNR [Minnesota Department of Natural Resources]. 2003-2005a. Field guide to the native plant communities of Minnesota. Three volumes: The Laurentian Mixed Forest Province (2003), The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province (2005c), The Prairie Parkland and Tallgrass Aspen Parklands provinces (2005b). Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul.
  • Minnesota DNR [Minnesota Department of Natural Resources]. 2005b. Field guide to the native plant communities of Minnesota: The Prairie Parkland and Tallgrass Aspen Parklands provinces. Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul.
  • ONHD [Ohio Natural Heritage Database]. No date. Vegetation classification of Ohio and unpublished data. Ohio Natural Heritage Database, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus.
  • ONHIC [Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre]. 2018. Unpublished data. Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario, Canada.
  • WDNR [Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources]. 2015. The ecological landscapes of Wisconsin: An assessment of ecological resources and a guide to planning sustainable management. PUB-SS-1131 2015. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison. [http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/landscapes/Book.html]
  • White, J., and M. Madany. 1978. Classification of natural communities in Illinois. Pages 311-405 in: Natural Areas Inventory technical report: Volume I, survey methods and results. Illinois Natural Areas Inventory, Urbana, IL.