Print Report

CEGL002482 Pinus strobus - (Acer rubrum) / Osmunda spp. Swamp Forest

Type Concept Sentence: No Data Available


Common (Translated Scientific) Name: Eastern White Pine - (Red Maple) / Royal Fern species Swamp Forest

Colloquial Name: White Pine - Red Maple Swamp

Hierarchy Level:  Association

Type Concept: This white pine - red maple swamp forest is found in the southern Great Lakes region of the United States and Canada, ranging east in scattered locations. Stands occur on sites with at least a thin layer of organic material on the surface. Glacially deposited sand usually lies beneath the organic layer. The overstory is dominated by Pinus strobus and may contain Acer rubrum, Betula alleghaniensis, Tsuga canadensis, and Ulmus americana. Shrubs can be sparse but include Alnus incana and Ilex verticillata. Understory species include Carex spp., Osmunda cinnamomea, Osmunda regalis, and Symplocarpus foetidus. Sphagnum spp. may occur as a ground cover. In Wisconsin, common species include Carex folliculata and Thelypteris simulata, which are more common in the eastern United States.

Diagnostic Characteristics: No Data Available

Rationale for Nominal Species or Physiognomic Features: No Data Available

Classification Comments: See Golet et al. (1993 [p. 51]) for a description of this type in the northeastern United States. In Wisconsin, Ilex verticillata and Osmunda cinnamomea are typical. Elsewhere, Osmunda regalis may be more typical. In Michigan this type may be in Montcalm County. Status in Indiana is not clear.

Similar NVC Types: No Data Available
note: No Data Available

Physiognomy and Structure: No Data Available

Floristics: The overstory is dominated by Pinus strobus and may contain Acer rubrum, Betula alleghaniensis, Tsuga canadensis, and Ulmus americana. Shrubs can be sparse, but include Alnus incana and Ilex verticillata. Understory species include Carex spp., Osmunda cinnamomea, Osmunda regalis, and Symplocarpus foetidus. Sphagnum spp. may occur as a ground cover. In Wisconsin, common species include Carex folliculata and Thelypteris simulata, which are more common in the eastern United States (E. Epstein pers. comm. 1999).

Dynamics:  No Data Available

Environmental Description:  This community is flooded or saturated for at least part of the year. The soils have at least a thin layer of organic material on the surface, which may be thick enough to qualify as a soil layer itself. Glacially deposited sand usually lies beneath the organic layer, and these, in turn, are underlain, or interrupted by, impermeable silts and clays (E. Epstein pers. comm. 1999).

Geographic Range: This white pine - red maple swamp forest type is found in the southern Great Lakes region of the United States and Canada, ranging locally from central Wisconsin east to Ohio. It also occurs in scattered locations in the Northeast; it has been reported from two locations in Rhode Island and one potential occurrence in Pennsylvania. More data are needed to determine whether this type occurs more broadly in the Northeast.

Nations: CA,US

States/Provinces:  MI, OH, ON, WI




Confidence Level: Low

Confidence Level Comments: No Data Available

Grank: G3G4

Greasons: No Data Available


Concept Lineage: Types are identical or 5001 is a more northern version of 2482.

Predecessors: No Data Available

Obsolete Names: No Data Available

Obsolete Parents: No Data Available

Synonomy: = Pinus strobus - (Acer rubrum) / Osmunda spp. Forest (Faber-Langendoen 2001) [Northern Wet-Mesic Forest White Pine-Red Maple Swamp Subtype]
? Successional mixed forest (NAP pers. comm. 1998) [?]

Concept Author(s): D. Faber-Langendoen (2001)

Author of Description: J. Drake

Acknowledgements: No Data Available

Version Date: 03-27-96

  • CDPNQ [Centre de données sur le patrimoine naturel du Québec]. No date. Unpublished data. Centre de données sur le patrimoine naturel du Québec, Québec.
  • Epstein, Eric. Personal communication. Community Ecologist, Wisconsin Natural Heritage Program, Madison, WI.
  • 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.).
  • Golet, F. C., A. J. K. Calhoun, W. R. DeRagon, D. J. Lowry, and A. J. Gold. 1993. Ecology of red maple swamps in the glaciated Northeast: A community profile. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 151 pp.
  • Hop, K., S. Menard, J. Drake, S. Lubinski, and J. Dieck. 2010c. National Park Service Vegetation Inventory Program: Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Michigan. Natural Resource Report NPS/GLKN/NRR-2010/201. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 358 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.
  • NAP [Northern Appalachian-Boreal Forest Working Group]. 1998. Northern Appalachian-Boreal Working group discussions. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA.
  • 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.
  • 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]