Print Report

CEGL002494 Betula pumila / Chamaedaphne calyculata / Carex lasiocarpa Fen

Type Concept Sentence: No Data Available

Common (Translated Scientific) Name: Bog Birch / Leatherleaf / Woolly-fruit Sedge Fen

Colloquial Name: Bog Birch / Leatherleaf Rich Fen

Hierarchy Level:  Association

Type Concept: This bog birch / leatherleaf shrub, moderately rich to poor fen is found in the northern Great Lakes region of the United States and Canada, and probably elsewhere. Stands are found on the margins of water tracks of large peatlands, or in the interior of small basins that are relatively isolated from runoff. The shrub cover is at least 25%, dominated by a combination of Betula pumila and ericaceous shrubs, including Andromeda polifolia, Chamaedaphne calyculata, Ledum groenlandicum, and Vaccinium oxycoccos. Other minerotrophic shrubs include Lonicera villosa, Rhamnus alnifolia, Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis, Rubus pubescens, and Salix pedicellaris. Scattered, small (2-10 m) tree stems of Larix laricina, Picea mariana, and Thuja occidentalis are present at low cover. There is a diverse forb, graminoid, and moss cover, at least in the richer examples of this type. The graminoids include Carex chordorrhiza, Carex lasiocarpa, Carex leptalea, and Eriophorum viridicarinatum. Forbs include Drosera rotundifolia, Equisetum fluviatile, Maianthemum trifolium, Menyanthes trifoliata, Comarum palustre, Sarracenia purpurea, and Solidago uliginosa. The moss layer contains Aulacomnium palustre, Pleurozium schreberi, Sphagnum angustifolium, and Sphagnum capillifolium. Less frequent are Campylium stellatum, Sphagnum fuscum, and Tomentypnum nitens. Diagnostic features include the combination of Betula pumila and ericaceous shrubs in the shrub layer, and both minerotrophic and oligotrophic graminoid and forb species.

Diagnostic Characteristics: No Data Available

Rationale for Nominal Species or Physiognomic Features: No Data Available

Classification Comments: This "moderately rich" to somewhat poor (or medium) fen is intermediate between the rich bog birch - shrubby-cinquefoil fen, ~Betula pumila - Dasiphora fruticosa / Carex lasiocarpa - Trichophorum alpinum Fen (CEGL002495)$$ and both the Tamarack Scrub Poor Fen, ~Larix laricina / Chamaedaphne calyculata / Carex lasiocarpa Acidic Peatland (CEGL005226)$$, and the Leatherleaf Shrub Poor Fen, ~Chamaedaphne calyculata / Carex oligosperma / Sphagnum spp. Poor Fen (CEGL005277)$$. This parallels the work in northern Ontario (Harris et al. 1996), but field-based survey is needed to assist in establishing the practicality of these splits. In Wisconsin, this type is known from extensive areas in the Bad River - Kakogan Sloughs along Lake Superior. Otherwise, it is usually a minimal zone or inclusion. Note that some Heritage program names refer to this type as a poor fen.

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

Floristics: The shrub cover is at least 25%, dominated by a combination of Betula pumila and ericaceous shrubs, including Andromeda polifolia, Chamaedaphne calyculata, Ledum groenlandicum, and Vaccinium oxycoccos. Other minerotrophic shrubs include Lonicera villosa, Rhamnus alnifolia, Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis (= Rubus acaulis), Rubus pubescens, and Salix pedicellaris. Scattered, small (2-10 m) tree stems of Larix laricina, Picea mariana, and Thuja occidentalis are present at low cover. There is a diverse forb, graminoid, and moss cover, at least in the richer examples of this type. The graminoids include Carex chordorrhiza, Carex lasiocarpa, Carex leptalea, and Eriophorum viridicarinatum. Forbs include Drosera rotundifolia, Equisetum fluviatile, Maianthemum trifolium, Menyanthes trifoliata, Comarum palustre (= Potentilla palustris), Sarracenia purpurea, and Solidago uliginosa. The moss layer contains Aulacomnium palustre, Pleurozium schreberi, Sphagnum angustifolium, and Sphagnum capillifolium. Less frequent are Campylium stellatum, Sphagnum fuscum, and Tomentypnum nitens (Harris et al. 1996).

Dynamics:  No Data Available
Environmental Description:  Stands are found on the margins of water tracks of large peatlands, or in the interior of small basins that are relatively isolated from run-off (Harris et al. 1996).
Geographic Range: This bog birch - leatherleaf shrub fen is found in the northern Great Lakes region of the United States and Canada, and probably elsewhere, ranging from Minnesota east to possibly Maine and Quebec.

Nations: CA,US

States/Provinces:  ME, MI, MN, ON, QC?, WI


Confidence Level: Low

Confidence Level Comments: No Data Available
Grank: G4G5

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.2 Temperate to Polar Bog & Fen Formation F016 2.C.2
Division 2.C.2.Na North American Bog & Fen Division D029 2.C.2.Na
Macrogroup 2.C.2.Na.2 Shrubby cinquefoil - Woolly-fruit Sedge / Star Campylium Moss Alkaline Fen Macrogroup M877 2.C.2.Na.2
Group 2.C.2.Na.2.e Shrubby-cinquefoil - Woolly-fruit Sedge Eastern Boreal Alkaline Fen Group G804 2.C.2.Na.2.e
Alliance A4441 Bog Birch / <i>Carex lasiocarpa - Carex flava</i> Alkaline Fen Alliance A4441 2.C.2.Na.2.e
Association CEGL002494 Bog Birch / Leatherleaf / Woolly-fruit Sedge Fen CEGL002494 2.C.2.Na.2.e
Concept Lineage: No Data Available

Predecessors: No Data Available

Obsolete Names: No Data Available

Obsolete Parents: No Data Available
Synonomy: = Betula pumila / Chamaedaphne calyculata / Carex lasiocarpa Shrubland (Faber-Langendoen 2001) [Rich Fen Bog Birch-Leatherleaf Subtype]
= Poor Fen Shrub Subtype (MNNHP 1993)
Concept Author(s): D. Faber-Langendoen (2001)

Author of Description: D. Faber-Langendoen

Acknowledgements: No Data Available

Version Date: 11-20-98
  • CDPNQ [Centre de données sur le patrimoine naturel du Québec]. No date. Unpublished data. Centre de données sur le patrimoine naturel du Québec, Québec.
  • 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.).
  • Gawler, S. C. 2002. Natural landscapes of Maine: A guide to vegetated natural communities and ecosystems. Maine Natural Areas Program, Department of Conservation, Augusta, ME.
  • Gawler, S. C., and A. Cutko. 2010. Natural landscapes of Maine: A classification of vegetated natural communities and ecosystems. Maine Natural Areas Program, Department of Conservation, Augusta.
  • Greenall, J. A. 1996. Manitoba''s terrestrial plant communities. MS Report 96-02. Manitoba Conservation Data Centre, Winnipeg.
  • 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., D. Faber-Langendoen, M. Lew-Smith, N. Aaseng, and S. Lubinski. [1999]. USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program: Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota. USDI U.S. Geological Survey, La Crosse, WI. 210 pp.
  • 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.
  • 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]