Prior to settlement, was Indiana dominated by semi arid grassland or was Indiana dominated by woodland or forests? (Fort Wayne: 2015, to buy)

[Isleofpalms85]

Prior to settlement of the state of Indiana, especially Central Indiana was the original native vegetation more like the semi arid Great Plains or was it more wooded like Ohio? Discuss

[rrah]

Vegetation and topography varied going from north to south and west to east. Much of the state was forested. A place like the Hoosier National Forest doesn't just suddenly appear. Prairies could be found in the northwestern part of the state and a few western parts of the state.

https://www.washtimesherald.com/comm...ce5c0d494.html

[popcorn247]

Originally Posted by rrah

Vegetation and topography varied going from north to south and west to east. Much of the state was forested. A place like the Hoosier National Forest doesn't just suddenly appear. Prairies could be found in the northwestern part of the state and a few western parts of the state.

https://www.washtimesherald.com/comm...ce5c0d494.html

Informative article. Thanks for the link!

[Bluefox]

Some parts of western Indiana were oak savanna, basically a transition area between woodland and prairie. You can visit the Indiana Dunes which has some well preserved oak savanna habitats to see what much of western Indiana used to look like.

https://www.nps.gov/indu/learn/natur...k-savannas.htm

[Always Needmore]

One aspect of Indiana topography that should not be overlooked is the role that wetlands played. In the North Eastern part of the state and into Ohio was the Black Swamp. In the North Western part of the state was the Grand Kankakee Marsh. You can google both of those, and gain a wealth of information.

As both pertain to your question, after the Northwest Territory was "liberated" from the Native Americans.....much land was either wooded, or inundated with water....call it Marsh, call it Swamp whatever. hosted lots of wildlife, but for humans mostly a good place to catch malaria, so the asking price for land was cheap.

A path to success was to buy the land cheap, dig a network of drainage ditches connected to a nearby river, and farm the fertile swamp bed that was thusly drained. It was a big get rich quick scheme that made a lot of people prosperous, but decimated what once was an abundance of wild life. That's why you'll find so many man made, straight as an arrow, ditches bisecting the countryside.

Particularly interesting in the "continental divide" areas around Fort Wayne where the natural flow of drainage into either the Great Lakes or Mississippi basins was frequently diverted or reversed altogether to accomplish the deed.

Of course this topographical ambiguity is what ultimately made the Wabash and Erie Canal a possibility, which made control of the area a priority.

[Phil P]

I was interested in this question a little while back, what the tree cover of the eastern US used to be like and stumbled on this interesting article. https://slate.com/human-interest/201...84-census.html Down on bottom they have the link to the maps where you can zoom in and get a lot better detail.

Now, this was from 1887 so it's not pre-columbian so to speak, it has accounted for the amount of forest that had been removed from american settlement, but it gives a good idea.

For Indiana, you can see that it's much closer to Ohio, and was by and large pretty much forested and very little prairie. Once one jumps over the line to Illinois, the story changes where it was a lot more prairie.

I would think today, with todays climate, if Indiana was to be rewilded and unfarmed, it would be pretty much solid pretty thick forest, similar to eastern KY.

My own $.02, cornfields are a big blight on Indiana, corn should be grown in Nebraska, not somewhere that has a lot more scenic potential. IN could be a lot more sexy if the northern half had more undeveloped land. Corn makes a ton of money, but is a big damper on QOL for non farming people looking where to locate too. IMO Indiana is the state that is the furthest below its scenic potential of all 50 states in the US due to such aggressive ag development.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by Phil P

I was interested in this question a little while back, what the tree cover of the eastern US used to be like and stumbled on this interesting article. https://slate.com/human-interest/201...84-census.html Down on bottom they have the link to the maps where you can zoom in and get a lot better detail.

Now, this was from 1887 so it's not pre-columbian so to speak, it has accounted for the amount of forest that had been removed from american settlement, but it gives a good idea.

For Indiana, you can see that it's much closer to Ohio, and was by and large pretty much forested and very little prairie. Once one jumps over the line to Illinois, the story changes where it was a lot more prairie.

I would think today, with todays climate, if Indiana was to be rewilded and unfarmed, it would be pretty much solid pretty thick forest, similar to eastern KY.

My own $.02, cornfields are a big blight on Indiana, corn should be grown in Nebraska, not somewhere that has a lot more scenic potential. IN could be a lot more sexy if the northern half had more undeveloped land. Corn makes a ton of money, but is a big damper on QOL for non farming people looking where to locate too. IMO Indiana is the state that is the furthest below its scenic potential of all 50 states in the US due to such aggressive ag development.

Trees grow far better naturally in southern Indiana, mostly south of I-70. The northern half of Indiana is well suited for growing corn due to the favorable glaciated soils that are a mixture of loam and sandy loam that are well drained- along with the relatively high water table. Corn should NOT be grown in many areas of Nebraska because the climate is far drier compared to most of Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana. Corn that has to be irrigated from mined Ogallala Aquifer water is not sustainable. A large percentage of corn growth in the western 1/2 to 2/3 of Nebraska is irrigated. The only caveat being the Nebraska portion of the aquifer is not being depleted at as quickly a rate as areas to the south (for now). The areas further south in the Great Plains where corn was grown for feeder cattle are now entering the death spiral phase (SW Kansas, and Texas panhandles). The aquifer has fallen so much that it now costs nearly $100K to drill one new well, and the quality of the water is poor. Dryland agriculture (wheat, milo, alfalfa, and ranching), are far more adapted to the semi-arid climate of the Great Plains that has zero in common with the humid areas of the Midwest.

[Phil P]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

Trees grow far better naturally in southern Indiana, mostly south of I-70. The northern half of Indiana is well suited for growing corn due to the favorable glaciated soils that are a mixture of loam and sandy loam that are well drained- along with the relatively high water table. Corn should NOT be grown in many areas of Nebraska because the climate is far drier compared to most of Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana. Corn that has to be irrigated from mined Ogallala Aquifer water is not sustainable. A large percentage of corn growth in the western 1/2 to 2/3 of Nebraska is irrigated. The only caveat being the Nebraska portion of the aquifer is not being depleted at as quickly a rate as areas to the south (for now). The areas further south in the Great Plains where corn was grown for feeder cattle are now entering the death spiral phase (SW Kansas, and Texas panhandles). The aquifer has fallen so much that it now costs nearly $100K to drill one new well, and the quality of the water is poor. Dryland agriculture (wheat, milo, alfalfa, and ranching), are far more adapted to the semi-arid climate of the Great Plains that has zero in common with the humid areas of the Midwest.

Well drained loam with water sounds like a great tree growing opportunity! http://ecologicalregions.info/data/in/ohin_front.pdf According to this source as well it looks like it was heavily treed.

Yes the Ogallala has problems, I guess it's just a question of whether dealing with water supply is a bigger hurdle or dealing with lack of habitat... IMO it's easier to get water moved around, there's lots of it, they just have to get it to the fields in the plains from rivers and other sources.

[Mathguy]

A challenge with reforestation is that at current farmland prices you'd be looking at over 5mil per square mile to purchase it.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by Phil P

Well drained loam with water sounds like a great tree growing opportunity! http://ecologicalregions.info/data/in/ohin_front.pdf According to this source as well it looks like it was heavily treed.

Yes the Ogallala has problems, I guess it's just a question of whether dealing with water supply is a bigger hurdle or dealing with lack of habitat... IMO it's easier to get water moved around, there's lots of it, they just have to get it to the fields in the plains from rivers and other sources.

No, it is a lot more than just "problems," and diverting and moving water around to marginal semi-arid agricultural areas is a poor business decision- just like center pivot irrigation was a long-term abject failure in many areas. Farmers saw the quick short-term profits and cashed in as fast as possible, and the aquifer and other residential properties experienced an increase in wells becoming dry over time. Oh, there was also a nearly 50,000 acre fire in Nebraska just a week and a half ago. That just doesn't happen in areas of the actual humid Midwest east of the Mississippi River...