Print Report

CEGL006152 Picea rubens - (Tsuga canadensis) / Rhododendron maximum Forest

Type Concept Sentence: No Data Available

Common (Translated Scientific) Name: Red Spruce - (Eastern Hemlock) / Great Laurel Forest

Colloquial Name: Red Spruce Forest (Protected Slope Type)

Hierarchy Level:  Association

Type Concept: This association includes moist slope forests of the Central and Southern Appalachians. Abies fraseri is a minor component or entirely absent. These communities can occur on high-elevation boulderfields, ridges and steep slopes, as well as sheltered lower slopes above 945 m (3100 feet). This association occurs in the lower elevations of the range of Picea rubens, primarily on protected landforms such as steep to gentle slopes but also on ridges at least in parts of its range. In the Southern and Central Appalachians these are closed-canopy conifer forests dominated by Picea rubens, with associates Tsuga canadensis, Acer pensylvanicum, Amelanchier spp., Betula alleghaniensis, and Sorbus americana. This concept includes protected slope forests in the Great Smoky Mountains, as well as in West Virginia in which Tsuga canadensis is codominant. The shrub layer is dominated by Rhododendron maximum, with associates of Ilex montana, Kalmia latifolia, Viburnum lantanoides, and Viburnum nudum var. cassinoides. In some examples, the shrub layer can include a mixture of Rhododendron catawbiense and Rhododendron maximum. Other minor shrub components can include Vaccinium simulatum, Vaccinium erythrocarpum, and Aronia melanocarpa. Herbaceous cover is typically sparse, but where the shrub stratum is more open, a moderate herb stratum may be developed. This can include Clintonia borealis, Dryopteris campyloptera, Huperzia lucidula, Lycopodium spp., Medeola virginiana, Mitchella repens, Oxalis montana, and Rugelia nudicaulis (in the Great Smoky Mountains).

Diagnostic Characteristics: No Data Available

Rationale for Nominal Species or Physiognomic Features: No Data Available

Classification Comments: Classification of this unit is supported by 17 plots in Pocahontas, Randolph, and Tucker counties in West Virginia. This association was determined not to be distinct from former Picea rubens - Tsuga canadensis / Rhododendron maximum Forest (CEGL006272) which was merged into this concept. Likewise, former Picea rubens / Rhododendron catawbiense Forest (CEGL006163) of West Virginia also was considered floristically indistinct and is now also included in the concept of this association (CEGL006152).

In Virginia, forests with Picea rubens and Tsuga canadensis have been classified as ~Picea rubens - Acer rubrum / Ilex verticillata Swamp Forest (CEGL006556)$$, or as variants of ~Betula alleghaniensis - (Tsuga canadensis) / Rhododendron maximum / (Leucothoe fontanesiana) Forest (CEGL007861)$$, or as examples of ~Tsuga canadensis - Acer rubrum - (Nyssa sylvatica) / Rhododendron maximum / Sphagnum spp. Seep Forest (CEGL007565)$$ that contain red spruce as an associate. This concept includes stands found in the Great Smoky Mountains in the vicinity of Mount LeConte on steep, middle to high slopes between 1372 and 1524 m (4500-5000 feet) elevation. These sites may be relatively exposed and rocky and subject to disturbance by wind and ice. These Mount LeConte stands were the source of CEGL006272, now merged into CEGL006152.

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

Floristics: In the Southern and Central Appalachians these are closed to partially open conifer forests dominated by Picea rubens, with associates Tsuga canadensis, Acer pensylvanicum, Acer rubrum, Amelanchier spp., Betula alleghaniensis, and Sorbus americana. In stands of this type Abies fraseri is a minor component or entirely absent. In the vicinity of Mount LeConte in the Great Smoky Mountains, this association occurs on long protected slopes that extend from low to very high elevations. In these sheltered situations Tsuga canadensis may be a codominant, and the evergreen shrub layer (primarily Rhododendron maximum) is nearly closed, producing stands whose understory is dominated by ericaceous shrubs with few to no herbaceous species (a so-called "ericad desert"). On more-exposed sites the variable shrub layer is dominated by Rhododendron maximum, with associates of Ilex montana, Kalmia latifolia, Viburnum lantanoides, and Viburnum nudum var. cassinoides. In some examples, the shrub layer can include a mixture of Rhododendron catawbiense and Rhododendron maximum. Other minor shrub components can include Vaccinium simulatum, Vaccinium erythrocarpum, and Aronia melanocarpa. The sparse herbaceous layer for more open situations can include Clintonia borealis, Dennstaedtia punctilobula, Dryopteris campyloptera, Dryopteris intermedia, Huperzia lucidula, Lycopodium clavatum, Lycopodium obscurum, Lycopodium dendroideum, Lycopodium hickeyi (= Lycopodium obscurum var. isophyllum), Medeola virginiana, Mitchella repens, Oxalis montana, Trillium undulatum, and Rugelia nudicaulis (in the Great Smoky Mountains). Nonvascular plants are common, especially on moister sites, where they grow on branches and rocks and around the bases of trees and shrubs. Bryophyte species include Bazzania trilobata, Hylocomium splendens, Polytrichum sp., Brotherella recurvans, and Dicranum sp.

Dynamics:  No Data Available
Environmental Description:  This association occurs on steep to gentle, middle to high slopes between 945 and 1524 m (3100-5000 feet) elevation. Sites range from those that are relatively exposed, rocky and subjected to disturbance by wind and ice, to more sheltered lower slopes. Some stands also occur on nearly flat ridgetops (J. Vanderhorst pers. comm.) Soils are well-drained and high in organic matter. In the vicinity of Mount LeConte in the Great Smoky Mountains, this association occurs on long protected slopes that extend from low to very high elevations. In these sheltered situations Tsuga canadensis is a codominant, and the evergreen shrub layer is nearly closed, producing low cover and diversity of herbaceous species. On more-exposed sites the shrub layer may be more open, and a sparse to moderate herb layer may be present. It descends to 945 m (3100 feet) in the Central Appalachians. In local landscapes of the Southern Blue Ridge and Central Appalachians, this association tends to occur bimodally, on high ridges and summits and steep, rocky upper slopes, and at lower elevations in sheltered frost-pocket situations, where Picea rubens apparently has a competitive advantage because of moist, acidic, organic soils and/or cold-air drainage.
Geographic Range: This association ranges sporadically at appropriate elevations from the Great Smoky Mountains in the Southern Blue Ridge of North Carolina and Tennessee, north to the Central Appalachians in West Virginia. It is not known from Pennsylvania.

Nations: US

States/Provinces:  NC, TN, VA?, WV


Confidence Level: Moderate

Confidence Level Comments: No Data Available
Grank: G2G3

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.e Red Spruce - Fraser Fir - Yellow Birch Forest Group G632 1.B.2.Na.7.e
Alliance A0138 Red Spruce - Yellow Birch - Yellow Buckeye Forest Alliance A0138 1.B.2.Na.7.e
Association CEGL006152 Red Spruce - (Eastern Hemlock) / Great Laurel Forest CEGL006152 1.B.2.Na.7.e
Concept Lineage: CEGL006272, CEGL006163 (subsequently merged into CEGL006152) were merged into a revised and expanded CEGL006152. Apparent differences in environment and composition did not hold up in an expanded analysis of new data and additional scrutiny of the origin of these two merged types in the USNVC.

Predecessors: No Data Available

Obsolete Names: No Data Available

Obsolete Parents: No Data Available
Synonomy: = Picea rubens - (Tsuga canadensis) / Rhododendron maximum Forest [Red Spruce - Rhododendron Forest] (Vanderhorst 2015)
< IA4a. Red Spruce - Fraser Fir Forest (Allard 1990)
< Red Spruce - Fraser Fir: 34 (Eyre 1980)
? Red spruce-great laurel forest (CAP pers. comm. 1998)
Concept Author(s): Eastern Ecology Group

Author of Description: M. Pyne

Acknowledgements: No Data Available

Version Date: 12-31-12
  • Adams, H. S., and S. L. Stephenson. 1989. Old growth red spruce communities in the mid-Appalachians. Vegetatio 85:45-56.
  • Allard, D. J. 1990. Southeastern United States ecological community classification. Interim report, Version 1.2. The Nature Conservancy, Southeast Regional Office, Chapel Hill, NC. 96 pp.
  • Allard, H. A., and E. C. Leonard. 1952. The Canaan and the Stony River valleys of West Virginia, their former magnificent spruce forests, their vegetation and floristics today. Castanea 17:1-60.
  • Byers, E. A., J. P. Vanderhorst, and B. P. Streets. 2010. Classification and conservation assessment of upland red spruce communities in West Virginia. West Virginia Natural Heritage Program, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Elkins.
  • CAP [Central Appalachian Forest Working Group]. 1998. Central Appalachian Working group discussions. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA.
  • Clarkson, R. B. 1964. Tumult on the mountains: Lumbering in West Virginia - 1770-1920. McClain Printing Co., Parsons, WV. 410 pp.
  • Cogbill, C. V., and P. S. White. 1991. The latitude-elevation relationship for spruce-fir forest and treeline along the Appalachian mountain chain. Vegetatio 94:153-175.
  • Crandall, D. L. 1958. Ground vegetation patterns of the spruce-fir area of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Ecological Monographs 28:337-360.
  • Eyre, F. H., editor. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 pp.
  • Golden, M. S. 1974. Forest vegetation and site relationships in the central portion of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 275 pp.
  • Nicholas, N. S., S. M. Zedaker, C. Eagar, and F. T. Bonner. 1992. Seedling recruitment and stand regeneration in spruce-fir forests of the Great Smoky Mountains. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 119:289-299.
  • Peet, R. K., T. R. Wentworth, M. P. Schafale, and A.S. Weakley. No date. Unpublished data of the North Carolina Vegetation Survey. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
  • Pielke, R. A. 1981. The distribution of spruce in west-central Virginia before lumbering. Castanea 46:201-216.
  • Schafale, M. P. 2012. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, 4th Approximation. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh.
  • Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina. Third approximation. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh. 325 pp.
  • Southeastern Ecology Working Group of NatureServe. No date. International Ecological Classification Standard: International Vegetation Classification. Terrestrial Vegetation. NatureServe, Durham, NC.
  • Stephenson, S. L., and H. S. Adams. 1984. The spruce-fir forest on the summit of Mount Rogers in southwestern Virginia. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 111:69-75.
  • Stephenson, S. L., and J. F. Clovis. 1983. Spruce forests of the Allegheny Mountains in central West Virginia. Castanea 48:1-12.
  • TDNH [Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage]. 2018. Unpublished data. Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage, Nashville, TN.
  • Vanderhorst, J. 2015. Wild vegetation of West Virginia: Upland red spruce forests and woodlands. West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program. [http://wvdnr.gov/Wildlife/Factsheets/UplandRedSpruce.shtm]
  • WVNHP [West Virginia Natural Heritage Program]. No date. Unpublished data. West Virginia Natural Heritage Program, Elkins.
  • White, P. S., M. D. MacKenzie, and R. T. Busing. 1985. Natural disturbance and gap phase dynamics in Southern Appalachian spruce-fir forests. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 15:233-240.
  • White, P. S., and S. T. A. Pickett. 1985. Natural disturbance and patch dynamics: An introduction. Pages 3-13 in: P. S. White and S. T. A. Pickett, editors. The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
  • Whittaker, R. H. 1956. Vegetation of the Great Smoky Mountains. Ecological Monographs 26:1-80.