Invalid Unit Specified
Association Detail Report: CEGL005043
Tsuga canadensis - Fagus grandifolia - Acer saccharum / (Hamamelis virginiana, Kalmia latifolia) Forest

The U.S. National
Vegetation Classification
Collapse All::Expand All
Translated Name:Eastern Hemlock - American Beech - Sugar Maple / (American Witch-hazel, Mountain Laurel) Forest
Colloquial Name:East-Central Hemlock - Hardwood Forest
This community is found in parts of the Interior Low Plateau, the Western Allegheny Plateau, and possibly the Central Appalachians of Virginia in the northeastern and east-central United States. Stands occur on dry-mesic to mesic slopes, sometimes in steep-sloped valleys. Soils are typically acidic silty to sandy loams, with a sandstone or shale parent material. The overstory is dominated by Tsuga canadensis, Acer saccharum, Acer rubrum, and Fagus grandifolia. Rarely does any one of these comprise more than 50% of the mature trees in a stand. Other trees are common in the canopy, among them Betula alleghaniensis, Betula lenta, Carya spp., Liriodendron tulipifera, Nyssa sylvatica, Pinus strobus, Prunus serotina, Quercus alba, Quercus rubra, and Tilia americana. The shrub layer, occasionally sparse, contains Hamamelis virginiana, Lindera benzoin, and Viburnum acerifolium, as well as ericaceous shrubs, including Kalmia latifolia (except in the northern portion of the Western Allegheny Plateau) and Rhododendron maximum. The ground layer contains the ferns Botrychium virginianum, Dryopteris intermedia, Dryopteris marginalis, Polystichum acrostichoides, and the herbs Arisaema triphyllum, Maianthemum canadense, Mitchella repens, Podophyllum peltatum, Viola blanda, and Viola rotundifolia, among others. Three subtypes are possible: (1) steep-walled sandstone gorges and talus, where Hydrangea arborescens, Kalmia latifolia, and Dryopteris marginalis may be indicative; (2) more gently sloped valleys, with shrubs such as Hamamelis virginiana, Viburnum acerifolium; and (3) rolling lakeplain ridges. The Kentucky examples, which are mesic rather than dry-mesic, may lack Acer saccharum, Maianthemum canadense, and several other species, and may contain Magnolia spp. (e.g., Magnolia tripetala, Magnolia acuminata, and Magnolia macrophylla) (J. Campbell pers. comm. 2000). In addition, Betula lenta (widespread on Appalachian plateaus) is replaced by Betula alleghaniensis (var. macrolepis?) in western Kentucky and southern Indiana.
No Data Available
Vegetation Hierarchy
Name:Database Code:Classification Code:
Class 1 Forest & Woodland C01 1
Subclass 1.B Temperate & Boreal Forest & Woodland S15 1.B
Formation 1.B.2 Cool Temperate Forest & Woodland F008 1.B.2
Division 1.B.2.Na Eastern North American Forest & Woodland D008 1.B.2.Na
Macrogroup M883 Appalachian-Interior-Northeastern Mesic Forest M883 1.B.2.Na.3
Group G020 Appalachian-Central Interior Mesic Forest G020 1.B.2.Na.3.a
Alliance A3304 Southern Hemlock - Tuliptree Forest A3304
Association CEGL005043 East-Central Hemlock - Hardwood Forest CEGL005043
This type appears to vary from pure evergreen to mixed evergreen-deciduous. Black and Mack (1976) suggest that this type contains more temperate species, such as several Dryopteris spp. (Dryopteris intermedia, Dryopteris marginalis) and Viburnum acerifolium when compared to more northern/boreal types, such as Tsuga canadensis - Fagus grandifolia - (Acer saccharum) Great Lakes Forest (CEGL005042), which contains Clintonia borealis, Coptis trifolia, and Cornus canadensis. One of their subtypes, the steep-walled sandstone gorges and talus, where Hydrangea arborescens, Kalmia latifolia, and Dryopteris marginalis may be indicative, has some conceptual and environmental overlap with Tsuga canadensis - (Fagus grandifolia, Tilia americana var. heterophylla) / Magnolia tripetala Forest (CEGL008407) of the southern Cumberland Plateau and Central Appalachians. Related vegetation in Virginia is covered by various other associations.
Synonomy: = CT VIII Tsuga canadensis, Fagus grandifolia, Liriodendron tulipifera, Acer saccharum (Badger et al. 1997)

Related Type Name:

Short Citation:
  • Anderson 1982
  • Badger et al. 1997
  • Black and Mack 1976
  • Campbell pers. comm.
  • Eastern Ecology Working Group n.d.
  • Fike 1999
  • Fleming pers. comm.
  • Harrison 2004
  • Harrison 2011
  • Homoya et al. 1988
  • Homoya pers. comm.
  • Hop et al. 2013
  • ONHD unpubl. data
  • Pyne et al. 2010
States/Provinces:IN, KY, MD, OH, PA, WV
Nations:US
Range:This community is found in parts of the Interior Low Plateau and the Western Allegheny Plateau of the northeastern and east-central United States, ranging from Pennsylvania and Ohio, south to Maryland and West Virginia, and westward to a few stands in Indiana and Kentucky. Stands in Indiana and ones in western Kentucky are not part of the continuous range of Tsuga canadensis.
US Forest Service Ecoregions
Domain Name:
Division Name:
Province Name:Laurentian Mixed Forest Province
Province Code:212   Occurrence Status:Confident or certain
Section Name:Western Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau Section
Section Code:221F     Occurrence Status:Confident or certain
No Data Available
The overstory is dominated by Tsuga canadensis, Acer saccharum, Acer rubrum, and Fagus grandifolia. Rarely does any one of these comprise more than 50% of the mature trees in a stand. Other trees are common in the canopy, among them Betula alleghaniensis, Betula lenta, Carya spp., Liriodendron tulipifera, Nyssa sylvatica, Pinus strobus, Prunus serotina, Quercus alba, Quercus rubra, and Tilia americana. The shrub layer, occasionally sparse, contains Hamamelis virginiana, Lindera benzoin, and Viburnum acerifolium, as well as ericaceous shrubs, including Kalmia latifolia and Rhododendron maximum. The ground layer contains the ferns Botrychium virginianum, Dryopteris intermedia, Dryopteris marginalis, Polystichum acrostichoides, and the herbs Arisaema triphyllum, Maianthemum canadense, Mitchella repens, Podophyllum peltatum, Viola blanda, and Viola rotundifolia, among others. Three subtypes are possible: (1) steep-walled sandstone gorges and talus, where Hydrangea arborescens, Kalmia latifolia, and Dryopteris marginalis may be indicative; (2) more gently sloped valleys, with shrubs such as Hamamelis virginiana, Viburnum acerifolium; and (3) rolling lakeplain ridges (Black and Mack 1976, Anderson 1982). In Virginia, this type would be expected north of the range of Rhododendron maximum (G. Fleming pers. comm. 2000). The Kentucky examples, which are mesic rather than dry-mesic, may lack Acer saccharum, Maianthemum canadense, and several other species, and may contain Magnolia spp., (e.g., Magnolia tripetala, Magnolia acuminata, and Magnolia macrophylla) (J. Campbell pers. comm. 2000). In addition, Betula lenta (widespread on Appalachian Plateaus) is replaced by Betula alleghaniensis (var. macrolepis?) in western Kentucky and southern Indiana.
Stands occur on dry-mesic to mesic slopes, sometimes in steep-sloped valleys, but also in more gently sloped valleys and rolling lakeplain ridges. Soils are typically acidic, silty to sandy loams, with a sandstone or shale parent material (Anderson 1982). Some Indiana stands occur on limestone (M. Homoya pers. comm. 1999).
Low
No Data Available
Authors:
D. Faber-Langendoen      Version Date: 01Jan1998


References:
  • Anderson, D. M. 1982. Plant communities of Ohio: A preliminary classification and description. Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus, OH. 182 pp.
  • Badger, K. S., J. Taylor, B. Jones, and M. Shell. 1997. Mammoth Cave National Park forest vegetation study. Cooperative Agreement No. CA-5530-3-9001, Subagreement No. CA-5530-3-9003. Ball State University, Muncie, IN.
  • Black, R. A., and R. N. Mack. 1976. Tsuga canadensis in Ohio: Synecological and phytogeographical relationships. Vegetatio 32(1):11-19.
  • Campbell, Julian J. N. Personal communication. Kentucky Field Office, The Nature Conservancy.
  • Eastern Ecology Working Group of NatureServe. No date. International Ecological Classification Standard: International Vegetation Classification. Terrestrial Vegetation. NatureServe, Boston, MA.
  • Fike, J. 1999. Terrestrial and palustrine plant communities of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Recreation, Bureau of Forestry, Harrisburg, PA. 86 pp.
  • Fleming, Gary P. Personal communication. Ecologist, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA.
  • Harrison, J. W. 2011. The natural communities of Maryland: 2011 working list of ecological community groups and community types. Unpublished report. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Heritage Service, Natural Heritage Program, Annapolis. 33 pp.
  • Harrison, J. W., compiler. 2004. Classification of vegetation communities of Maryland: First iteration. A subset of the International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the United States, NatureServe. Maryland Natural Heritage Program, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis. 243 pp.
  • Homoya, M. A., J. Aldrich, J. Bacone, L. Casebere, and T. Post. 1988. Indiana natural community classification. Indiana Natural Heritage Program, Indianapolis, IN. Unpublished manuscript.
  • Homoya, Michael. Personal communication. Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center. Division of Nature Preserves, Department of Natural Resources, 402 West Washington Street, Room W267, Indianapolis, IN 46204. 317/232-4052. Personal communication with S. L. Neid, MRO, March/April, 1997.
  • Hop, K., J. Drake, A. Strassman, E. Hoy, J. Jakusz, S. Menard, and J. Dieck. 2013. National Park Service Vegetation Inventory Program: Cuyahoga Valley National Park, Ohio. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRT--2013/792. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO. 302 pp.
  • 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.
  • Pyne, M., E. Lunsford Jones, and R. White. 2010. Vascular plant inventory and plant community classification for Mammoth Cave National Park. NatureServe, Durham, NC. 334 pp.


USNVC Credits: Detailed Description of the National Vegetation Classification Types

Date Accessed:

To cite a description:
Author(s). publicationYear. Description Title [last revised revisionDate]. United States National Vegetation Classification. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Washington, D.C.

About spatial standards:
The United States Federal Geographic Data Committee (hereafter called the FGDC) is tasked to develop geospatial data standards that will enable sharing of spatial data among producers and users and support the growing National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), acting under the Office of Management Budget (OMB) Circular A-16 (OMB 1990, 2000) and Executive Order #12906 (Clinton 1994) as amended by Executive Order #13286 (Bush 2003). FGDC subcommittees and working groups, in consultation and cooperation with state, local, tribal, private, academic, and international communities, develop standards for the content, quality, and transferability of geospatial data. FGDC standards are developed through a structured process, integrated with one another to the extent possible, supportable by the current vendor community (but are independent of specific technologies), and publicly available.

About this document
This document contains type descriptions at the Association level of the U.S. National Vegetation Classification. These descriptions were primarily written by NatureServe ecologists in collaboration with Federal Geographic Data Committee Vegetation Subcommittee and a wide variety of state, federal and private partners as a part of the implementation of the National Vegetation Classification. Formation descriptions were written by the Hierarchy Revisions Working Group. The descriptions are based on consultation with natural resource professionals, published literature, and other vegetation classification systems. The Ecological Society of America's Panel on Vegetation Classification is responsible for managing the review and formal adoption of these types into the National Vegetation Classification. Partners involved in the implementation of the USNVC include:

U.S. Government
  • Department of Agriculture (USDA)
  • Department of Commerce (DOC)
  • Department of Defense (DOD)
  • Department of the Interior (USDI)
  • Forest Service (FS) - Chair
  • National Agriculture Statistical Service (NASS)
  • Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
  • National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
  • U.S. Navy (NAVY)
  • Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
  • Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
  • National Park Service (NPS)
  • U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Non U.S. Government
  • NatureServe (NS)
  • Ecological Society of America (ESA)

Disclaimer:
Given the dynamic nature of the standard, it is possible a type description is incomplete or in revision at the time of download; therefore, users of the data should track the date of access and read the revisions section of the USNVC.org website to understand the current status of the classification. While USNVC data have undergone substantial review prior to posting, it is possible that some errors or inaccuracies have remained undetected.

For information on the process used to develop these descriptions see:

Faber-Langendoen, D., T. Keeler-Wolf, D. Meidinger, D. Tart, B. Hoagland, C. Josse, G. Navarro, S. Ponomarenko, J.-P. Saucier, A. Weakley, P. Comer. 2014. EcoVeg: A new approach to vegetation description and classification. Ecological Monographs 84:533-561 (erratum 85:473).

Franklin, S., D. Faber-Langendoen, M. Jennings, T. Keeler-Wolf, O. Loucks, A. McKerrow, R.K. Peet, and D. Roberts. 2012. Building the United States National Vegetation Classification. Annali di Botanica 2: 1-9.

Jennings, M. D., D. Faber-Langendoen, O. L. Louckes, R. K. Peet, and D. Roberts. 2009. Standards for associations and alliances of the U.S. National Vegetation Classification. Ecological Monographs 79(2):173-199.

FGDC [Federal Geographic Data Committee]. 2008. Vegetation Classification Standard, FGDC-STD-005, Version 2. Washington, DC., USA. [http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/FGDC-standards-projects/vegetation/NVCS_V2_FINAL_2008-02.pdf]

For additional information contact:

  • Implementation of the U.S. National Vegetation Classification Standard - Alexa McKerrow (amckerrow@usgs.gov)
  • NatureServe's Development of NVC Type Descriptions - Don Faber-Langendoen (don_faber- langendoen@natureserve.org)
  • Ecological Society of America's Review of the Type Descriptions Scott.Franklin@unco.edu
  • Federal Geographic Data Committee - Vegetation Subcommittee's Activities - Marianne Burke (mburke@fs.fed.us)