Print Report

CEGL002258 Carex stricta - Carex spp. Wet Meadow

Type Concept Sentence: No Data Available

Common (Translated Scientific) Name: Upright Sedge - Sedge species Wet Meadow

Colloquial Name: Upright Sedge Wet Meadow

Hierarchy Level:  Association

Type Concept: This wet sedge meadow community is found in the southern Great Lakes region and parts of the central midwestern United States. Sites occur in stream valleys, along lake margins, and in depressions and channels in glacial outwash. Soils include wet mineral soils, muck, or shallow peat (<0.5 m), with the water table below the surface for most of the growing season. The vegetation is dominated by sedges and grasses, but the shrub component can be high as 25%. Dominant plants include Calamagrostis canadensis and Carex stricta. Associated graminoids include Carex aquatilis, Carex pellita, Carex bebbii, Carex lacustris, Eleocharis spp., Juncus spp., Phalaris arundinacea (common in more degraded examples), and Typha latifolia. Typical forbs include Anemone canadensis, Asclepias incarnata, Symphyotrichum lanceolatum var. lanceolatum, Equisetum arvense, Eutrochium maculatum, Eupatorium perfoliatum, Iris versicolor, Lycopus americanus, and Solidago canadensis.

Diagnostic Characteristics: No Data Available

Rationale for Nominal Species or Physiognomic Features: No Data Available

Classification Comments: This type may have some fen characteristics, but stands dominated by Carex stricta with fen associates are better placed in ~Carex stricta - Valeriana edulis - Parnassia palustris Fen (CEGL005241)$$, whose concept is strongly based on northeastern Iowa stands (Leoschke and Pearson 1987). The northern limits of this type are not clear with respect to ~Carex utriculata - Carex lacustris - (Carex vesicaria, Carex stricta) Wet Meadow (CEGL002257)$$. Wet meadow stands in the northern parts of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are usually placed in CEGL002257, and, although they are more typically dominated by coarse sedges (Carex rostrata, Carex lacustris, Carex vesicaria), they can occasionally have dominance by Carex stricta) (Harris et al. 1996, W12). As a result ecoregion distribution of this type needs review. Ontario stands may have some Carex lasiocarpa in this type.

Similar NVC Types: No Data Available
note: No Data Available
Physiognomy and Structure: No Data Available

Floristics: The vegetation is dominated by sedges and grasses, but the shrub component can be high as 25%. Dominant plants include Calamagrostis canadensis and Carex stricta. Associated graminoids include Carex aquatilis, Carex pellita (= Carex lanuginosa), Carex bebbii, Carex lacustris, Eleocharis spp., Juncus spp., Phalaris arundinacea (common in more degraded examples), and Typha latifolia. Typical forbs include Anemone canadensis, Asclepias incarnata, Symphyotrichum lanceolatum var. lanceolatum (= Aster simplex), Equisetum arvense, Eutrochium maculatum (= Eupatorium maculatum), Eupatorium perfoliatum, Iris versicolor, Lycopus americanus, and Solidago canadensis (Curtis 1959, Chapman et al. 1989, MNNHP 1993).

Dynamics:  Wet meadows tend to succeed to shrub swamp communities in the absence of fire (MNNHP 1993). Lowering of the water table by ditching or drought may speed up succession to shrub swamp. Wet meadows on muck or peat recover very slowly, if at all, once altered by artificial flooding or ditching (MNNHP 1993).
Environmental Description:  Sites occur in stream valleys, along lake margins, and in depressions and channels in glacial outwash. Soils include wet mineral soils, muck, or shallow peat (<0.5 m), with the water table below the surface for most of the growing season (Chapman et al. 1989, MNNHP 1993).
Geographic Range: This wet sedge meadow community is found in the southern Great Lakes region of the United States and Canada, and parts of the central Midwest, ranging from Indiana and Ontario, west to Minnesota and Iowa.

Nations: CA,US

States/Provinces:  IA, IL, IN, MI, MN, ND, ON, WI


Confidence Level: Moderate

Confidence Level Comments: No Data Available
Grank: G4?

Greasons: No Data Available
Type Name Database Code Classification Code
Class 2 Shrub & Herb Vegetation Class C02 2
Subclass 2.C Shrub & Herb Wetland Subclass S44 2.C
Formation 2.C.4 Temperate to Polar Freshwater Marsh, Wet Meadow & Shrubland Formation F013 2.C.4
Division 2.C.4.Nd Eastern North American Temperate Freshwater Marsh, Wet Meadow & Shrubland Division D323 2.C.4.Nd
Macrogroup 2.C.4.Nd.2 Broadleaf Cattail - White Snakeroot - Rush species Marsh, Wet Meadow & Shrubland Macrogroup M069 2.C.4.Nd.2
Group 2.C.4.Nd.2.e Prairie Cordgrass - Bluejoint - Sedge species Midwest Wet Prairie, Wet Meadow & Shrub Swamp Group G770 2.C.4.Nd.2.e
Alliance A4105 Sedge species - Canada Bluejoint Midwest Wet Meadow Alliance A4105 2.C.4.Nd.2.e
Association CEGL002258 Upright Sedge - Sedge species Wet Meadow CEGL002258 2.C.4.Nd.2.e
Concept Lineage: No Data Available

Predecessors: No Data Available

Obsolete Names: No Data Available

Obsolete Parents: No Data Available
Synonomy: = Carex stricta - Carex spp. Herbaceous Vegetation (Faber-Langendoen 2001) [Sedge Meadow Tussock Sedge Subtype]
Concept Author(s): D. Faber-Langendoen (2001)

Author of Description: D. Faber-Langendoen

Acknowledgements: No Data Available

Version Date: 11-17-98
  • 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.
  • Curtis, J. T. 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin: An ordination of plant communities. Reprinted in 1987. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 657 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.).
  • Harris, A. G., S. C. McMurray, P. W. C. Uhlig, J. K. Jeglum, R. F. Foster, and G. D. Racey. 1996. Field guide to the wetland ecosystem classification for northwestern Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Northwest Science and Technology, Thunder Bay, Ontario. Field guide FG-01. 74 pp. plus appendix.
  • Hop, K., S. Lubinski, J. Dieck, J. Drake, and S. Menard. 2009. National Park Service Vegetation Inventory Program: Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Indiana. USDI U.S. Geological Survey, La Crosse, WI, and NatureServe, St. Paul, MN. 312 pp.
  • INAI [Iowa Natural Areas Inventory]. 2017. Vegetation classification of Iowa. Iowa Natural Areas Inventory, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Des Moines.
  • 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.
  • Leoschke, M. J., and J. A. Pearson. 1987. Inventory of fen communities and rare fen plant species in Iowa - 1987. Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources, Des Moines, Iowa.
  • 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.
  • NDNHI [North Dakota Natural Heritage Inventory]. 2018. Unpublished data. Vegetation classification of North Dakota. North Dakota Natural Heritage Inventory, North Dakota Parks & Recreation Department, Bismarck.
  • 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.