Print Report

CEGL002411 Fagus grandifolia - Acer saccharum - Liriodendron tulipifera Unglaciated Forest

Type Concept Sentence: No Data Available

Common (Translated Scientific) Name: American Beech - Sugar Maple - Tuliptree Unglaciated Forest

Colloquial Name: Interior Low Plateau Beech - Maple Forest

Hierarchy Level:  Association

Type Concept: This beech - maple forest is found in unglaciated areas of the east-central United States. Stands occur on unglaciated alluvial terraces and mesic (northern to eastern aspect) slopes of maturely dissected plateaus and submontane regions. Soils are moderately well-drained, moist, rich and deep (100+ cm). The vegetation is dominated by a closed-canopy forest with a well-developed tall-shrub layer. The forest canopy is dominated by Fagus grandifolia and Acer saccharum. Other canopy species include Liriodendron tulipifera, Liquidambar styraciflua, Fraxinus americana, Quercus rubra, Carya glabra, and Carya cordiformis. Shrubs commonly found in this community are Asimina triloba and Lindera benzoin. Herbaceous species are diverse, forming a dense cover. They include Adiantum pedatum, Arisaema triphyllum, Asarum canadense, Carex blanda, Dicentra canadensis, Dioscorea quaternata, Galium circaezans, Menispermum canadense, Phegopteris hexagonoptera, Polystichum acrostichoides, and Sanguinaria canadensis. The large size of dominant canopy species (over 30 m tall), herbaceous diversity, and accumulated litter emphasize the high degree of mesophytism. Community occurrences have been extensively logged, and the canopy openings favor regeneration of Acer saccharum. In the Appalachians of eastern Kentucky, other typical trees include Aesculus flava (locally abundant), Juglans cinerea, Juglans nigra, Magnolia acuminata, Quercus muehlenbergii, and Ulmus rubra.

Diagnostic Characteristics: Stands are dominated by Fagus grandifolia and Acer saccharum, with codominants of Liriodendron tulipifera, Liquidambar styraciflua, Fraxinus americana, Quercus rubra, Carya glabra, and Carya cordiformis. Diagnostic shrubs include Asimina triloba and Lindera benzoin. Diagnostic herbs include Adiantum pedatum, Arisaema triphyllum, Asarum canadense, Carex blanda, Dicentra canadensis, Menispermum canadense, Phegopteris hexagonoptera, and Sanguinaria canadensis. Notably absent are Tsuga canadensis and Appalachian hardwoods (e.g., Betula lenta). Stands are found on mesic or moist, deep soils.

Rationale for Nominal Species or Physiognomic Features: No Data Available

Classification Comments: Braun (1950, pp. 141-150) describes these beech - maple forests in the Hill Section of her Western Mesophytic Forest Region. Dry-mesic forests, in which Quercus alba, Quercus rubra, and Carya ovata dominate, often have American beech and sugar maple regeneration due to an increased availability of moisture when mature oaks are removed. Where logging is heavy in these oak - hickory stands, second-growth regeneration is often dominated by sugar maple and, to a lesser extent, American beech. Classification under these circumstances can be difficult. Conversely, where sugar maple is selectively removed by logging, American beech can occur in pure stands. Forests from the southern part of Crowley''s Ridge (Arkansas) are placed in ~Fagus grandifolia - Quercus (alba, rubra) / Acer floridanum / Asimina triloba Forest (CEGL004072)$$, where Acer saccharum is not a big component and Quercus alba is more common. This type may apply to other parts of Crowley''s Ridge, but more information is needed. This type is closely related to the Appalachian expression ~Fagus grandifolia - Betula lenta - Liriodendron tulipifera - Acer saccharum Forest (CEGL006296)$$.

Similar NVC Types: No Data Available
note: No Data Available
Physiognomy and Structure: The vegetation is dominated by a closed-canopy forest with a well-developed tall-shrub layer.

Floristics: The forest canopy is dominated by Fagus grandifolia and Acer saccharum. Light, well-drained, and aerated soils favor Acer saccharum, whereas heavy, poorly aerated soils favor Fagus grandifolia. Tree subcanopy is 15-35 m tall and herbaceous 0-2 m. Other canopy species include Liriodendron tulipifera, Liquidambar styraciflua, Fraxinus americana, Quercus rubra, Carya glabra, and Carya cordiformis. Shrubs commonly found in this community are Asimina triloba and Lindera benzoin. Herbaceous species are diverse, forming a dense cover. They include Adiantum pedatum, Arisaema triphyllum, Asarum canadense, Carex blanda, Dicentra canadensis, Dioscorea quaternata, Galium circaezans, Menispermum canadense, Phegopteris hexagonoptera, Polystichum acrostichoides, and Sanguinaria canadensis. The large size of dominant canopy species (over 30 m tall), herbaceous diversity, and accumulated litter emphasize the high degree of mesophytism (TNC 1995a). In the Appalachians of eastern Kentucky, other typical trees include Aesculus flava (locally abundant), Juglans cinerea, Juglans nigra, Magnolia acuminata, Quercus muehlenbergii, and Ulmus rubra. Shrub cover may be low to moderate, and includes Cornus alternifolia and Cornus florida Ground cover is moderate with frequent (or locally abundant) Asarum canadense, Eurybia divaricata (= Aster divaricatus), Diplazium pycnocarpon (= Athyrium pycnocarpon), Hepatica nobilis var. acuta (= Hepatica acutiloba), Osmorhiza claytonii, Poa sylvestris, Ranunculus recurvatus, Sedum ternatum, and Uvularia grandiflora, among others (Campbell 2001).

Dynamics:  This community is a late-successional mature community. Canopy closure is 100%, favoring a subcanopy dominated by Fagus grandifolia. Canopy openings are created by windthrows, insect and disease damage, and tree senescence. Acer saccharum regeneration is prominent where these openings occur. Forest openings are rapidly colonized by dense stands of herbaceous vegetation. Succession is rapid due to ideal nutrient availability and soil moisture. Seed dispersal is accomplished by wind and seed-eating birds and mammals.
Environmental Description:  Stands occur on unglaciated terraces and mesic (northern to eastern aspect) slopes of maturely dissected plateaus and submontane regions. Soils are moist, rich and deep (100+ cm). Soils that favor Fagus grandifolia are heavy and poorly aerated. Lighter, well-drained, and aerated soils favor Acer saccharum. Bedrock is primarily non-calcareous Pennsylvanian-aged sandstone and shale. Fralish (1988) found that this community occurs where available water capacity and effective soil depth are high. In Crowley''s Ridge of Missouri, stands occur on moderate slopes of hills and valleys and on knolls or ridges of large alluvial terraces.
Geographic Range: This beech - maple forest is found in unglaciated areas of the east-central United States, ranging from southeastern Ohio, to Kentucky, Tennessee, southeastern Missouri, and possibly West Virginia and Arkansas.

Nations: US

States/Provinces:  AL, AR?, IL, IN, KY, MO, OH, TN, WV?


Confidence Level: Low

Confidence Level Comments: No Data Available
Grank: G4?

Greasons: No Data Available
Type Name Database Code Classification Code
Class 1 Forest & Woodland Class C01 1
Subclass 1.B Temperate & Boreal Forest & Woodland Subclass S15 1.B
Formation 1.B.2 Cool Temperate Forest & Woodland Formation F008 1.B.2
Division 1.B.2.Na Eastern North American Forest & Woodland Division D008 1.B.2.Na
Macrogroup 1.B.2.Na.3 Appalachian-Interior-Northeastern Mesic Forest Macrogroup M883 1.B.2.Na.3
Group 1.B.2.Na.3.a American Beech - Tuliptree - Yellow Buckeye Forest Group G020 1.B.2.Na.3.a
Alliance A2033 American Beech - Tuliptree - Bitternut Hickory Forest Alliance A2033 1.B.2.Na.3.a
Association CEGL002411 American Beech - Sugar Maple - Tuliptree Unglaciated Forest CEGL002411 1.B.2.Na.3.a
Concept Lineage: Crowley''s Ridge type merged in

Predecessors: No Data Available

Obsolete Names: No Data Available

Obsolete Parents: No Data Available
Synonomy: = Fagus - Acer saccharum - Liriodendron / Rhus radicans community (Voigt and Mohlenbrock 1964)
= Fagus grandifolia - Acer saccharum - Liriodendron tulipifera Unglaciated Forest (Faber-Langendoen 2001)
? Fagus grandifolia - Acer saccharum type (Franklin et al. 1993)
>< Beech - Maple Forest (Braun 1950) [The "Beech - Maple Forest" community also includes a significant forest community type of the glaciated mesic forests of the northeastern United States.]
< Beech - Sugar Maple: 60 (Eyre 1980) [Beech - Maple Unglaciated Subtype.]
= Beech - Tulip Poplar Type (Schmalzer and DeSelm 1982)
? Beech-maple-tuliptree forest (matrix, large patch) (CAP pers. comm. 1998)
= CT II Acer saccharum, Fagus grandifolia, Quercus alba, Fraxinus americana (Badger et al. 1997)
< Eastern Broadleaf Forests: 102: Beech-Maple Forest (Fagus-Acer) (Küchler 1964)
>< Western Mesophytic Forest (Braun 1950) [The terms "western mesophytic" and "mesic upland" rely upon moisture and topographic position to establish community boundaries.]
Concept Author(s): D. Faber-Langendoen (2001)

Author of Description: M. Guetersloh and D. Faber-Langendoen

Acknowledgements: No Data Available

Version Date: 10-26-18
  • 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.
  • Behler, J. L. 1988. Familiar reptiles and amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 191 pp.
  • Braun, E. L. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. Hafner Press, New York. 596 pp.
  • Bull, J., and J. Farrand, Jr. 1977. The Audubon Society field guide to North American birds: Eastern region. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 784 pp.
  • CAP [Central Appalachian Forest Working Group]. 1998. Central Appalachian Working group discussions. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA.
  • Campbell, J. 2001. Native vegetation types of Appalachian Kentucky. Unpublished report. The Nature Conservancy, Lexington, KY. 210 pp.
  • Clark, B. F., and J. G. Hutchinson, editors. 1994. Central hardwood notes. USDA Forest Service: Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Southern Forest Experiment Station.
  • Craighead, F. C. 1949. Insect enemies of eastern forests. USDA Miscellaneous Publication No. 657, United States Printing Office, Washington, DC. 679 pp.
  • Duncan, W. H., and M. B. Duncan. 1988. Trees of the southeastern United States. The University of Georgia Press. 322 pp.
  • Evans, M., B. Yahn, and M. Hines. 2009. Natural communities of Kentucky 2009. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort, KY. 22 pp.
  • Eyre, F. H., editor. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 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.).
  • Faircloth, W. 1971. The vascular flora of central south Georgia. University microfilms. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
  • Fralish, J. S. 1987. Forest stand basal area and its relationship to individual soil and topographic factors in the Shawnee Hills. Transactions of the Illinois Academy of Science 80(3 and 4):183-194.
  • Fralish, J. S. 1988b. Predicting potential stand composition from site characteristics in the Shawnee Hills Forest of Illinois. The American Midland Naturalist 120(1):79-101.
  • Franklin, S. B., P. A. Robertson, J. S. Fralish, and S. M. Kettler. 1993. Overstory vegetation and successional trends of Land Between the Lakes, USA. Journal of Vegetation Science 4:509-520.
  • 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.
  • Illinois Nature Preserve Commission. 1973. Comprehensive plan for the Illinois nature preserves system, part 2: The natural divisions of Illinois, J. E. Schwegman, principal author. 32 pp.
  • Jenkins, M. A., and S. G. Pallardy. 1993. A comparison of forest dynamics at two sites in the southeastern Ozark mountains of Missouri. Pages 327-341 in: Proceedings of the 9th Central Hardwood Forest Conference. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
  • Küchler, A. W. 1964. Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States. American Geographic Society Special Publication 36. New York, NY. 116 pp.
  • Little, E. L. 1980a. The Audubon Society field guide to North American trees: Eastern region. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 714 pp.
  • Midwestern Ecology Working Group of NatureServe. No date. International Ecological Classification Standard: International Vegetation Classification. Terrestrial Vegetation. NatureServe, Minneapolis, MN.
  • Mohlenbrock, R. H. 1986. Guide to the vascular flora of Illinois. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. 507 pp.
  • Nelson, P. 2010. The terrestrial natural communities of Missouri. Revised edition. Missouri Natural Areas Committee, Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Conservation, Jefferson City.
  • Nelson, P. W. 1985. The terrestrial natural communities of Missouri. Missouri Natural Areas Committee, Jefferson City. 197 pp. Revised edition, 1987.
  • Niering, W. A. 1979. The Audubon Society field guide to North American wildflowers: Eastern region. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 887 pp.
  • Nordman, C., M. Russo, and L. Smart. 2011. Vegetation types of the Natchez Trace Parkway, based on the U.S. National Vegetation Classification. NatureServe Central Databases (International Ecological Classification Standard: Terrestrial Ecological Classifications). Arlington, VA. Data current as of 11 April 2011. 548 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.
  • SAF [Society of American Foresters]. 1967. Forest cover types of North America. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 67 pp.
  • Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1985. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina: Second approximation. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh. 202 pp.
  • Schmalzer, P. A., and H. R. DeSelm. 1982. Vegetation, endangered and threatened plants, critical plant habitats and vascular flora of the Obed Wild and Scenic River. Unpublished report. USDI National Park Service, Obed Wild and Scenic River. 2 volumes. 369 pp.
  • Schwartz, C. W., and E. R. Schwartz. 1959. The wild mammals of Missouri. University of Missouri Press and Missouri Conservation Commission. 341 pp.
  • TDNH [Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage]. 2018. Unpublished data. Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage, Nashville, TN.
  • TNC [The Nature Conservancy]. 1995a. A classification and description of plant communities in southern Illinois. Report by the Southern Illinois Field Office, Ullin, IL, and the Midwest Regional Office, Minneapolis, MN.
  • Voigt, J. W., and R. H. Mohlenbrock. 1964. Plant communities of southern Illinois. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. 202 pp.
  • WVNHP [West Virginia Natural Heritage Program]. No date. Unpublished data. West Virginia Natural Heritage Program, Elkins.
  • 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.