Print Report
CEGL006088 Tsuga canadensis - Fagus grandifolia - Quercus rubra Forest
Type Concept Sentence: No Data Available
Common (Translated Scientific) Name: Eastern Hemlock - American Beech - Northern Red Oak Forest
Colloquial Name: Hemlock - Beech - Red Oak Forest
Hierarchy Level: Association
Type Concept: This association comprises dry-mesic hemlock-mixed hardwood forests of the northeastern United States. It occurs on dry to dry-mesic, nutrient-poor, well-drained, often stony sandy loams or loamy sands over acidic bedrock. The canopy is a mixture of Tsuga canadensis, with Fagus grandifolia and/or Quercus rubra in variable proportions depending on soil (site) and disturbance characteristics. The overstory can range from mostly coniferous to mostly deciduous; drier sites tend to have more abundant beech or oak, and cooler sites tend to have more abundant hemlock. Associated tree species include Betula lenta (sometimes replaced by Betula papyrifera at the northern end of this type''s range), Pinus strobus, and Acer rubrum. Shrubs are often sparse but locally abundant and, in addition to saplings of canopy species, include Hamamelis virginiana, Acer pensylvanicum, Viburnum acerifolium, Kalmia latifolia, and in the south Ilex montana. Though heaths may be present, they are rarely prominent. The herb layer is generally sparse but usually includes several of the following: Mitchella repens, Lycopodium digitatum, Lycopodium obscurum, Lycopodium annotinum, Epifagus virginiana, Gaultheria procumbens, Maianthemum canadense, Trientalis borealis, Medeola virginiana, Aralia nudicaulis, Uvularia sessilifolia, Pteridium aquilinum, Dryopteris intermedia, Monotropa uniflora, and occasionally Lycopodium dendroideum, Coptis trifolia, and Dennstaedtia punctilobula.
Diagnostic Characteristics: No Data Available
Rationale for Nominal Species or Physiognomic Features: No Data Available
Classification Comments: At least in the southern portion of this type''s range, the Tsuga canadensis component of this community type appears to have been heavily reduced by past disturbances because of this species'' commercial timber value and its vulnerability to fire.
Similar NVC Types: No Data Available
note: No Data Available
Physiognomy and Structure: No Data Available
Floristics: The canopy is a mixture of Tsuga canadensis with Fagus grandifolia and/or Quercus rubra in variable proportions depending on soil (site) and disturbance characteristics; drier sites tend to have more abundant beech or oak and cooler sites tend to have more abundant hemlock. Associated tree species include Betula lenta (sometimes replaced by Betula papyrifera at the northern end of this type''s range), Pinus strobus, and Acer rubrum. Shrubs are often sparse but locally abundant and, in addition to saplings of canopy species, include Hamamelis virginiana, Acer pensylvanicum, Viburnum acerifolium, Kalmia latifolia, and in the south Ilex montana. Though heaths may be present, they are rarely prominent. The herb layer is generally sparse but usually includes several of the following: Mitchella repens, Lycopodium digitatum (= Diphasiastrum digitatum), Lycopodium obscurum, Lycopodium annotinum, Epifagus virginiana, Gaultheria procumbens, Maianthemum canadense, Trientalis borealis, Medeola virginiana, Aralia nudicaulis, Uvularia sessilifolia, Dryopteris intermedia, Monotropa uniflora, and occasionally Lycopodium dendroideum, Coptis trifolia, and Dennstaedtia punctilobula.
Dynamics: Composition of stands of this forest association vary with soil (site) and disturbance characteristics. At the drier end, Fagus grandifolia and/or Quercus rubra tend to be more prevalent. Cooler sites, where soils may freeze for longer durations, have especially abundant Tsuga canadensis. Disturbance affects composition as Fagus grandifolia can regenerate profusely through root-suckering. Stands of this vegetation on Allegheny Mountain in Virginia have low species richness (mean = 15 taxa per 400-square-meter plot samples) and were heavily impacted by logging and subsequent fires during the late 1920s and early 1930s. Fagus grandifolia is the most abundant tree in contemporary stands, sometimes forming nearly pure, even-aged forests that originated from root-suckers. Tsuga canadensis is present in the understories of most stands, and large Tsuga codominates the canopies of a few older stands that escaped fire damage. Small pieces of charred wood and thin charcoal horizons deposited in historical fires were present in the duff layers at most sites examined (Fleming and Moorhead 1996). Insect pests and pathogens, such as the hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae) and beech bark disease (also called beech scale / Nectria complex) are serious threats to the dominant canopy trees in this association. Betula lenta is the most common successional invader of stands decimated by hemlock woolly adelgid.
Environmental Description: This forest occurs on dry to dry-mesic, nutrient-poor, well-drained, often stony sandy loams or loamy sands. Underlying bedrock is acidic. In Virginia, it occupies extremely acidic (mean pH = 3.8), infertile silt loams on mesic to submesic valley sideslopes and broad, convex ridges at elevations from 1000-1200 m. In New England, it is a common forest type found on dry-mesic acidic soils on various landscape settings.
Geographic Range: This association is widespread in southern New England and ranges south locally in the northern Piedmont and High Allegheny Mountains to Pennsylvania.
Nations: US
States/Provinces: CT, MA, ME, NH, NY, PA, VA, VT
Plot Analysis Summary:
http://vegbank.org/natureserve/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.686026
Confidence Level: Moderate
Confidence Level Comments: No Data Available
Grank: G4G5
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.7 Sugar Maple - Yellow Birch - Eastern Hemlock Forest Macrogroup | M014 | 1.B.2.Na.7 |
Group | 1.B.2.Na.7.g <i>Tsuga canadensis - Picea rubens - Betula alleghaniensis</i> Forest Group | G920 | 1.B.2.Na.7.g |
Alliance | A4453 <i>Tsuga canadensis - Betula alleghaniensis - Picea rubens</i> Forest Alliance | A4453 | 1.B.2.Na.7.g |
Association | CEGL006088 Eastern Hemlock - American Beech - Northern Red Oak Forest | CEGL006088 | 1.B.2.Na.7.g |
Concept Lineage: No Data Available
Predecessors: No Data Available
Obsolete Names: No Data Available
Obsolete Parents: No Data Available
Synonomy: ? CNE dry transitional forest on sandy / gravelly soils (Rawinski 1984a)
< CNE mesic conifer [transition] forest on acidic bedrock/till (Rawinski 1984a)
< CNE mesic hardwood forest on acidic bedrock/till (Rawinski 1984a)
< Central New England mesic conifer forest on acidic bedrock / till (Rawinski 1984a)
< Eastern Hemlock: 23 (Eyre 1980)
< CNE mesic conifer [transition] forest on acidic bedrock/till (Rawinski 1984a)
< CNE mesic hardwood forest on acidic bedrock/till (Rawinski 1984a)
< Central New England mesic conifer forest on acidic bedrock / till (Rawinski 1984a)
< Eastern Hemlock: 23 (Eyre 1980)
- Eastern Ecology Working Group of NatureServe. No date. International Ecological Classification Standard: International Vegetation Classification. Terrestrial Vegetation. NatureServe, Boston, MA.
- Edinger, G. J., A. L. Feldmann, T. G. Howard, J. J. Schmid, F. C. Sechler, E. Eastman, E. Largay, L. A. Sneddon, C. Lea, and J. Von Loh. 2014b. Vegetation inventory: Saratoga National Historical Park, New York. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NETN/NRTR--2014/869, National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.
- Edinger, G. J., D. J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T. G. Howard, D. M. Hunt, and A. M. Olivero, editors. 2014a. Ecological communities of New York state. Second edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke''s ecological communities of New York state. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.
- Eyre, F. H., editor. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 pp.
- 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, G. P., K. D. Patterson, and K. Taverna. 2017. The natural communities of Virginia: A classification of ecological community groups and community types. Third approximation. Version 3.0. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. [http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/natural-communities/]
- 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.
- Gawler, S. C., and P. S. Bowman. 2012. Vegetation classification and mapping at Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site, New Hampshire. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2012/584.1. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.
- Metzler, K., and J. Barrett. 2006. The vegetation of Connecticut: A preliminary classification. State Geological and Natural History Survey, Report of Investigations No. 12. Connecticut Natural Diversity Database, Hartford, CT.
- NRCS [Natural Resources Conservation Service]. 2004a. Soil survey of Saratoga County, New York. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 590 pp.
- Perles, S. J., G. S. Podniesinski, M. Furedi, B. A. Eichelberger, A. Feldmann, G. Edinger, E. Eastman, and L. A. Sneddon. 2008. Vegetation classification and mapping at Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2008/133. National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA. 370 pp.
- Rawinski, T. 1984a. Natural community description abstract - southern New England calcareous seepage swamp. Unpublished report. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA. 6 pp.
- Reschke, C. 1990. Ecological communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Latham, NY. 96 pp.
- Sechler, F. C., G. J. Edinger, T. G. Howard, J. J. Schmid, E. Eastman, E. Largay, L. A. Sneddon, C. Lea, and J. Von Loh. 2014. Vegetation classification and mapping at Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National Historic Sites, New York. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NETN/NRTR--2014/873, National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO. 392 pp.
- Sperduto, D. D., and W. F. Nichols. 2004. Natural communities of New Hampshire: A guide and classification. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau, DRED Division of Forests and Lands, Concord. 242 pp.
- Swain, P. C., and J. B. Kearsley. 2014. Classification of the natural communities of Massachusetts. Version 2.0. Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Westborough, MA. [http://www.mass.gov/nhesp/http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dfg/dfw/natural-heritage/natural-communities/classification-of-natural-communities.html]
- Thompson, E. H., and E. R. Sorenson. 2005. Wetland, woodland, wildland: A guide to the natural communities of Vermont. The Nature Conservancy and the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH. 456 pp.
- Zimmerman, E. A., T. Davis, M. A. Furedi, B. Eichelberger, J. McPherson, S. Seymour, G. Podniesinski, N. Dewar, and J. Wagner, editors. 2012. Terrestrial and palustrine plant communities of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Harrisburg. [http://www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us/Communities.aspx]