Print Report

CEGL005218 Picea mariana / Chamaedaphne calyculata / Sphagnum spp. Open Bog Woodland

Type Concept Sentence: No Data Available

Common (Translated Scientific) Name: Black Spruce / Leatherleaf / Peatmoss species Open Bog Woodland

Colloquial Name: Black Spruce / Leatherleaf Semi-treed Bog

Hierarchy Level:  Association

Type Concept: This muskeg community is found in the subboreal regions of the Great Lakes in the United States and is widespread in Canada. Sites are on the crests of raised bogs in large peatland complexes, in basin bogs, and occasionally on shores isolated from groundwater influence. Vegetation structure is complex with a dominant layer of dwarf-shrubs, stunted trees and hummock-hollow microtopography. Ericaceous dwarf-shrubs dominate the stand, with over 40% cover. Dominant species include Andromeda polifolia var. glaucophylla, Chamaedaphne calyculata, Kalmia polifolia, and Ledum groenlandicum. Creeping dwarf-shrubs include Gaultheria hispidula and Vaccinium oxycoccos. Trees average about 10-25% cover, may be stunted (3 m tall) and are often clumped on higher hummocks with intervening, weakly-developed hollows. Typical species include Picea mariana and Larix laricina. The herbaceous layer contains graminoids such as Carex oligosperma, Carex pauciflora, and Eriophorum vaginatum, and forbs such as Maianthemum stellatum and Sarracenia purpurea. The nonvascular layer contains a carpet of Sphagnum (including Sphagnum fuscum and Sphagnum magellanicum), with patches of Pleurozium schreberi.

Diagnostic Characteristics: No Data Available

Rationale for Nominal Species or Physiognomic Features: No Data Available

Classification Comments: This type is intermediate in tree cover between treed bogs with >25% tree cover, ~Picea mariana / Ledum groenlandicum / Carex trisperma / Sphagnum spp. Open Bog Woodland (CEGL002485)$$, and low-shrub bogs with less than 10% tree cover, ~Chamaedaphne calyculata - Ledum groenlandicum - Kalmia polifolia Bog (CEGL005278)$$. Minerotrophic indicators, especially Betula pumila, Carex stricta, or Carex aquatilis, are occasionally present at low cover when rooted in minerotrophic peat beneath the bog. It is reported in Michigan and Wisconsin as their "muskeg" types, but those stands may not be true ombrotrophic bogs - rather they may belong to the tamarack scrub poor fen, ~Larix laricina / Chamaedaphne calyculata / Carex lasiocarpa Acidic Peatland (CEGL005226)$$, which contains a tamarack and black spruce scrub layer.

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

Floristics: Vegetation structure is complex with a dominant layer of dwarf-shrubs, stunted trees and hummock-hollow microtopography, sometimes referred to as muskeg. Ericaceous dwarf-shrubs dominate the stand, with over 40% cover. Dominant species include Andromeda polifolia var. glaucophylla, Chamaedaphne calyculata, Kalmia polifolia, and Ledum groenlandicum. Creeping dwarf-shrubs include Gaultheria hispidula and Vaccinium oxycoccos. Trees average about 10-25% cover, may be stunted (3 m tall), and are often clumped on higher hummocks with intervening, weakly developed hollows. Typical species include Picea mariana and Larix laricina. The herbaceous layer contains graminoids such as Carex oligosperma, Carex pauciflora, and Eriophorum vaginatum, and forbs such as Maianthemum stellatum and Sarracenia purpurea. The nonvascular layer contains a carpet of Sphagnum (including Sphagnum fuscum and Sphagnum magellanicum), with patches of Pleurozium schreberi (Sims et al. 1989, Harris et al. 1996).

Dynamics:  No Data Available
Environmental Description:  Sites are on the crests of raised bogs in large peatland complexes, in basin bogs, and occasionally on shores isolated from groundwater influence (Sims et al. 1989, Harris et al. 1996).
Geographic Range: This muskeg community is found in the sub-boreal regions of the Great Lakes in the United States and is widespread in central Canada.

Nations: CA,US

States/Provinces:  MI, MN, ON, QC, WI


Confidence Level: Moderate

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.1 Leatherleaf - Small Cranberry - Few-seed Sedge Bog & Acidic Fen Macrogroup M876 2.C.2.Na.1
Group 2.C.2.Na.1.a Leatherleaf - Few-seed Sedge - Bog Laurel Boreal Bog & Acidic Fen Group G748 2.C.2.Na.1.a
Alliance A3836 Black Spruce / Peatmoss species Eastern Boreal Treed Bog Alliance A3836 2.C.2.Na.1.a
Association CEGL005218 Black Spruce / Leatherleaf / Peatmoss species Open Bog Woodland CEGL005218 2.C.2.Na.1.a
Concept Lineage: No Data Available

Predecessors: No Data Available

Obsolete Names: No Data Available

Obsolete Parents: No Data Available
Synonomy: = Picea mariana / Chamaedaphne calyculata / Sphagnum spp. Dwarf-shrubland (Faber-Langendoen 2001) [Muskeg Black Spruce Semi-treed Bog Subtype]
= Muskeg (Chapman et al. 1989)
Concept Author(s): D. Faber-Langendoen (2001)

Author of Description: D. Faber-Langendoen

Acknowledgements: No Data Available

Version Date: 10-30-98
  • CDPNQ [Centre de données sur le patrimoine naturel du Québec]. No date. Unpublished data. Centre de données sur le patrimoine naturel du Québec, Québec.
  • Chapman, K. A., D. A. Albert, and G. A. Reese. 1989. Draft descriptions of Michigan''s natural community types. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI. 35 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.).
  • 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]
  • 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.
  • Minnesota DNR [Minnesota Department of Natural Resources]. 2003. Field guide to the native plant communities of Minnesota: The Laurentian Mixed Forest Province. 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.
  • Sims, R. A., W. D. Towill, K. A. Baldwin, and G. M. Wickware. 1989. Field guide to the forest ecosystem classification for northwestern Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto. 191 pp.
  • 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]