Print Report
CEGL005173 Fagus grandifolia - Acer saccharum - Quercus bicolor - Acer rubrum Flatwoods Forest
Type Concept Sentence: No Data Available
Common (Translated Scientific) Name: American Beech - Sugar Maple - Swamp White Oak - Red Maple Flatwoods Forest
Colloquial Name: Beech - Hardwoods Till Plain Flatwoods
Hierarchy Level: Association
Type Concept: This community is found in the central midwestern United States and possibly adjacent Canada. Stands occur on flat to undulating till or clay plains with imperfectly to poorly drained and aerated soils. This community is dominated by trees that can be found in both upland and lowland sites. Among the most common are Acer rubrum, Acer saccharum, Fagus grandifolia, Quercus bicolor, Quercus macrocarpa, and Ulmus rubra. Associates include Carya ovata, Carya cordiformis, Celtis occidentalis, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Liriodendron tulipifera, Quercus rubra, Quercus shumardii, and Ulmus americana. Typical shrub species include Asimina triloba, Euonymus obovatus, and Lindera benzoin. The herbaceous layer includes Arisaema triphyllum, Actaea pachypoda, Circaea x intermedia, Galium spp., and Pilea pumila, among others.
Diagnostic Characteristics: No Data Available
Rationale for Nominal Species or Physiognomic Features: No Data Available
Classification Comments: The type is based on the concept of the Indiana state type Central Till Plain Flatwoods (Homoya et al. 1988). This type occurs as a mosaic of upland rises with Fagus grandifolia and other hardwoods and wetland areas with Quercus palustris, Quercus bicolor, Acer rubrum, and other wetland hardwoods. It is possible that the mosaic may become extensive enough in some areas that the two parts could be treated separately, but this needs field checking. In any case, no other states or provinces report this kind of patterning. To help define the type, stands may require at least 25% beech basal area or cover to fit this type (Anderson 1996). In Ontario the type may occur above the escarpment in the Niagara Peninsula, but these may have been treated as part of the Great Lakes lakeplain type, ~Quercus palustris - Quercus bicolor - Acer rubrum Flatwoods Forest (CEGL005037)$$.
Similar NVC Types: No Data Available
note: No Data Available
Physiognomy and Structure: No Data Available
Floristics: This community is dominated by trees that can be found in both upland and lowland sites. Among the most common are Acer rubrum, Acer saccharum, Fagus grandifolia, Quercus bicolor, Quercus macrocarpa, and Ulmus rubra. Associates include Carya ovata, Carya cordiformis, Celtis occidentalis, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Liriodendron tulipifera, Quercus rubra, Quercus shumardii, and Ulmus americana. Typical shrub species include Asimina triloba, Euonymus obovatus, and Lindera benzoin. The herbaceous layer includes Arisaema triphyllum (= Arisaema atrorubens), Actaea pachypoda, Circaea x intermedia (= Circaea canadensis), Galium spp., and Pilea pumila, among others (Homoya et al. 1988, Anderson 1996). Heavy beech dominance may lead to a sparse representation of other associates. However, logging of the oaks may open up the canopy and favor mesic, shade-intolerant species such as Liriodendron tulipifera and Prunus serotina (Anderson 1996). Ulmus americana has decreased in this type because of Dutch elm disease. In response, Acer rubrum and Fraxinus pennsylvanica may have increased (Anderson 1996).
Dynamics: No Data Available
Environmental Description: This community is found on flat to gently sloping sites on till plains. Soils are imperfectly to poorly drained and aerated. Soil types include Crosby, Blount, Fincastle, Brookston, and Pewamo (Homoya et al. 1988).
Geographic Range: This community is found in the central midwestern United States and adjacent Canada, ranging from central Indiana, western Ohio, and southeastern Michigan to possibly adjacent Ontario.
Nations: CA,US
States/Provinces: IN, MI, OH, ON?, QC?
Plot Analysis Summary:
http://vegbank.org/natureserve/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.687841
Confidence Level: Low - Poorly Documented
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.3 Temperate Flooded & Swamp Forest Formation | F026 | 1.B.3 |
| Division | 1.B.3.Na Eastern North American-Great Plains Flooded & Swamp Forest Division | D011 | 1.B.3.Na |
| Macrogroup | 1.B.3.Na.2 Pin Oak - Green Ash - Blackgum Swamp Forest Macrogroup | M503 | 1.B.3.Na.2 |
| Group | 1.B.3.Na.2.g <i>Quercus palustris - Quercus bicolor - Fagus grandifolia</i> Flatwoods & Swamp Forest Group | G917 | 1.B.3.Na.2.g |
| Alliance | A0230 White Oak - American Beech Flatwoods & Swamp Forest Alliance | A0230 | 1.B.3.Na.2.g |
| Association | CEGL005173 American Beech - Sugar Maple - Swamp White Oak - Red Maple Flatwoods Forest | CEGL005173 | 1.B.3.Na.2.g |
Concept Lineage: No Data Available
Predecessors: No Data Available
Obsolete Names: No Data Available
Obsolete Parents: No Data Available
Synonomy: = Fagus grandifolia - Acer saccharum - Quercus bicolor - Acer rubrum Flatwoods Forest (Faber-Langendoen 2001)
= Central Till Plain Flatwoods (Homoya et al. 1988)
= South LaPorte Woods (Lindsey et al. 1969)
< Wet Beech Forests (Anderson 1996) [Anderson describes the differences between Wet Beech Forest stands in southwestern Ohio from those in the west/northwest part of Ohio. Some of Anderson''s mixed swamp type may also fall here, depending on percentage of beech used to separate his wet beech forest type from this type.]
= Central Till Plain Flatwoods (Homoya et al. 1988)
= South LaPorte Woods (Lindsey et al. 1969)
< Wet Beech Forests (Anderson 1996) [Anderson describes the differences between Wet Beech Forest stands in southwestern Ohio from those in the west/northwest part of Ohio. Some of Anderson''s mixed swamp type may also fall here, depending on percentage of beech used to separate his wet beech forest type from this type.]
- Anderson, D. M. 1996. The vegetation of Ohio: Two centuries of change. Draft. Ohio Biological Survey.
- CDPNQ [Centre de données sur le patrimoine naturel du Québec]. No date. Unpublished data. Centre de données sur le patrimoine naturel du Québec, Québec.
- 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.).
- Homoya, M. A., J. Aldrich, J. Bacone, L. Casebere, and T. Post. 1988. Indiana natural community classification. Indiana Natural Heritage Program, Indianapolis, IN. Unpublished manuscript.
- 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]
- Lindsey, A. A., D. V. Schmelz, and S. A. Nichols. 1969. Natural areas in Indiana and their preservation. Indiana Natural Areas Survey. Purdue University, Lafayette, IN. 594 pp.
- Midwestern Ecology Working Group of NatureServe. No date. International Ecological Classification Standard: International Vegetation Classification. Terrestrial Vegetation. NatureServe, Minneapolis, MN.
- 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.