Print Report
CEGL002590 Pinus strobus - Tsuga canadensis Great Lakes Forest
Type Concept Sentence: No Data Available
Common (Translated Scientific) Name: Eastern White Pine - Eastern Hemlock Great Lakes Forest
Colloquial Name: Great Lakes White Pine - Hemlock Forest
Hierarchy Level: Association
Type Concept: This white pine - hemlock forest type is found in the Great Lakes region of the United States and Canada. Stands occur on acidic, nutrient-poor, usually moderately well-drained soils such as sandy loams. Generally, Tsuga canadensis and Pinus strobus are codominant, but other common associates include Fagus grandifolia, Acer rubrum, Betula lenta, Betula alleghaniensis, and Quercus rubra. Quercus rubra becomes more prevalent in the south. Typical shrubs include Acer spicatum, Hamamelis virginiana, and Acer pensylvanicum. The herbaceous layer may be sparse and generally depauperate, including Trientalis borealis, Cypripedium acaule, Maianthemum canadense, Gaultheria procumbens, Clintonia borealis, and Lycopodium spp. Diagnostic features include the dominance of both Pinus strobus and Tsuga canadensis, with a sparse, subboreal ground layer.
Diagnostic Characteristics: No Data Available
Rationale for Nominal Species or Physiognomic Features: No Data Available
Classification Comments: This description is based on the Great Lakes portion of the SAF cover type 22 (Eyre 1980). The type is currently not recognized in recent Ontario publications of forest types (Chambers et al. 1997, Bakowsky and Lee 1996, Lee et al. 1998), which seems surprising. In Wisconsin and Michigan, white pine is often a supercanopy relict only and has been logged out of most stands (E. Epstein, D. Albert pers. comm. 1996). Presence of Picea rubens may be a good indicator of the separate type, ~Pinus strobus - Tsuga canadensis - Picea rubens Forest (CEGL006324)$$, in northern New England (and Quebec).
Similar NVC Types: No Data Available
note: No Data Available
Physiognomy and Structure: No Data Available
Floristics: Generally, Tsuga canadensis and Pinus strobus are codominant, but other common associates include Fagus grandifolia, Acer rubrum, Betula lenta, Betula alleghaniensis, and Quercus rubra. Quercus rubra becomes more prevalent in the south. Typical shrubs include Acer spicatum, Hamamelis virginiana, and Acer pensylvanicum. The herbaceous layer may be sparse and generally depauperate, including Trientalis borealis, Cypripedium acaule, Maianthemum canadense, Gaultheria procumbens, Clintonia borealis, and Lycopodium spp. (Eyre 1980).
Dynamics: Communities are commonly established following disturbance, either natural (fire, windthrow) or anthropogenic (logging). Old-growth examples are known, and these forests were likely to have been widespread prior to European settlement, but without periodic disturbance will eventually succeed to other types (Barnes 1991). Although both species are long-lived, Pinus strobus will eventually drop out and a hemlock or hemlock-hardwoods association will tend to replace it.
Environmental Description: This community is found on acidic, nutrient-poor, usually moderately well-drained soils such as sandy loams. In the north, it may occur on ridges with a fragipan, and to the south the more prevalent habitat is higher elevations and north-facing slopes (Eyre 1980). In northern Michigan and northeastern Wisconsin, this community is commonly found on beach ridges and dunes within glacial lakebeds on poorly drained lakeplains.
Geographic Range: This white pine - hemlock forest type is found in the Great Lakes region of the United States and Canada, ranging from northern Wisconsin and Michigan to central Ontario.
Nations: CA,US
States/Provinces: MI, ON, WI
Plot Analysis Summary:
http://vegbank.org/natureserve/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.687681
Confidence Level: Moderate
Confidence Level Comments: No Data Available
Grank: G3
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.f Eastern Hemlock - Eastern White Pine - Yellow Birch Forest Group | G919 | 1.B.2.Na.7.f |
| Alliance | A4452 Eastern Hemlock - Yellow Birch - Sugar Maple Laurentian Forest Alliance | A4452 | 1.B.2.Na.7.f |
| Association | CEGL002590 Eastern White Pine - Eastern Hemlock Great Lakes Forest | CEGL002590 | 1.B.2.Na.7.f |
Concept Lineage: No Data Available
Predecessors: No Data Available
Obsolete Names: No Data Available
Obsolete Parents: No Data Available
Synonomy: = Pinus strobus - Tsuga canadensis Great Lakes Forest (Faber-Langendoen 2001) [Northern Mesic Forest White Pine-Hemlock Subtype]
= Mesic Northern Forest - Hemlock-White Pine (Chapman et al. 1989)
< White Pine - Hemlock: 22 (Eyre 1980) [Great Lakes portion]
= Mesic Northern Forest - Hemlock-White Pine (Chapman et al. 1989)
< White Pine - Hemlock: 22 (Eyre 1980) [Great Lakes portion]
- Bakowsky, W. D., and H. T. Lee. 1996. Vegetation communities of southern Ontario (draft). Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre and Southern Region STTU, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. 87 pp.
- Barnes, B. V. 1991. Deciduous forests of North America. Pages 219-344 in: E. Röhrig and B. Ulrich, editors. Ecosystems of the World 7: Temperate deciduous forests. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, New York.
- Chambers, B. A., B. J. Naylor, J. Nieppola, B. Merchant, and P. Uhlig. 1997. Field guide to forest ecosystems of central Ontario. Southcentral Science Section (SCSS) Field Guide FG-01, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, North Bay, Ontario, Canada. 200 pp.
- 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.
- 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.).
- Hop, K., S. Menard, J. Drake, S. Lubinski, and J. Dieck. 2010a. National Park Service Vegetation Inventory Program: Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Wisconsin. Natural Resource Report NPS/GLKN/NRR-2010/199. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO. 310 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.
- Midwestern Ecology Working Group of NatureServe. No date. International Ecological Classification Standard: International Vegetation Classification. Terrestrial Vegetation. NatureServe, Minneapolis, MN.
- 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]