Print Report
CEGL005017 Quercus rubra - (Acer saccharum, Quercus alba) Forest
Type Concept Sentence: No Data Available
Common (Translated Scientific) Name: Northern Red Oak - (Sugar Maple, White Oak) Forest
Colloquial Name: Red Oak - Sugar Maple - Elm Forest
Hierarchy Level: Association
Type Concept: This community is found in the northern prairie-forest border region of the United States and farther east to Ohio. Tree canopy dominance is variable, but Quercus rubra is always present with at least moderate (20%) cover. Other associates may include Acer saccharum, Acer rubrum, Quercus alba, Tilia americana, and Ulmus americana. The subcanopy and sapling layers often contain Prunus virginiana or Prunus serotina. This type is poorly understood, but may represent a successional type in the prairie-forest border region shifting from oak dominance to maple, basswood and elm dominance. The type is restricted to the central midwestern region and extreme southern Ontario, and is not found in northern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, northern Michigan, or central Ontario.
Diagnostic Characteristics: No Data Available
Rationale for Nominal Species or Physiognomic Features: No Data Available
Classification Comments: This type is only moderately well understood; current stands represent both mesic stands protected from fire and somewhat more dry-mesic stands as a successional type shifting from oak dominance to maple, basswood, and elm dominance. The type concept is restricted to south of Province 212 (Bailey et al. 1994), and north of the limits of glaciation. Stands in Ohio may differ from those further west. See also Kline and Cottam (1979) where a white oak - maple forest type is described in the prairie - forest border. Stands in southern Indiana need to be compared with other red oak - maple types. This association is included in the Maple - Basswood forest (type 99) by Kuchler (1964), along with CEGL002062.
Similar NVC Types: No Data Available
note: No Data Available
Physiognomy and Structure: No Data Available
Floristics: The vegetation is composed of a closed-canopy tree layer. The major tree dominant is Quercus rubra. Other common associates include Acer saccharum, Acer rubrum, Quercus alba, Tilia americana, and Ulmus americana. The subcanopy and sapling layers often contain Ostrya virginiana, Prunus virginiana or Prunus serotina and, in the eastern part of the association''s range, Cornus florida and Lindera benzoin. The understory can contain many common herbs of dry-mesic to mesic deciduous forests such as Actaea pachypoda, Allium tricoccum, Aralia nudicaulis, Arisaema triphyllum, Desmodium spp., and Maianthemum canadense.
Dynamics: This type may occur where, historically, fires were more prevalent; current stands may represent both mesic stands protected from fire, and somewhat more dry-mesic stands protected from fire that are shifting from oak dominance to maple, basswood and elm dominance.
Environmental Description: The oak stands generally are found on either mesic sites protected from fire or on drier slopes, where, historically, fires could sweep through, but where fire protection is creating more mesic conditions.
Geographic Range: This community is found in the northern prairie-forest border and central midwestern region of the United States, ranging from western Ohio and southern Michigan, west to southern Minnesota and Iowa.
Nations: CA,US
States/Provinces: IA, IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, ON, WI
Plot Analysis Summary:
http://vegbank.org/natureserve/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.687931
Confidence Level: Moderate
Confidence Level Comments: No Data Available
Grank: G4?
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.5 Central Midwest Mesic Forest Macrogroup | M882 | 1.B.2.Na.5 |
| Group | 1.B.2.Na.5.b American Beech - Sugar Maple - Oak species Forest Group | G021 | 1.B.2.Na.5.b |
| Alliance | A0220 Sugar Maple - American Basswood - Northern Red Oak Forest Alliance | A0220 | 1.B.2.Na.5.b |
| Association | CEGL005017 Northern Red Oak - (Sugar Maple, White Oak) Forest | CEGL005017 | 1.B.2.Na.5.b |
Concept Lineage: No Data Available
Predecessors: No Data Available
Obsolete Names: No Data Available
Obsolete Parents: No Data Available
Synonomy: = Quercus rubra - (Acer saccharum, Quercus alba) Forest (Faber-Langendoen 2001) [Southern Dry-Mesic Forest Mesic Red Oak Subtype]
< Maple - Basswood Forest (Küchler 1964) [Type 99]
< Maple - Basswood Forest (Küchler 1964) [Type 99]
- Bailey, R. G., P. E. Avers, T. King, and W. H. McNab, editors. 1994. Ecoregions and subregions of the United States (map). U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC. Scale 1:7,500,000 colored. Accompanied by a supplementary table of map unit descriptions compiled and edited by W. H. McNab and R. G. Bailey. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service.
- 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.
- Hop, K., S. Lubinski, J. Dieck, J. Drake, and S. Menard. 2009. National Park Service Vegetation Inventory Program: Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Indiana. USDI U.S. Geological Survey, La Crosse, WI, and NatureServe, St. Paul, MN. 312 pp.
- INAI [Iowa Natural Areas Inventory]. 2017. Vegetation classification of Iowa. Iowa Natural Areas Inventory, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Des Moines.
- Kline, V. M., and G. Cottam. 1979. Vegetation response to climate and fire in the Driftless Area of Wisconsin. Ecology 60(5):861-868.
- 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]
- Küchler, A. W. 1964. Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States. American Geographic Society Special Publication 36. New York, NY. 116 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.
- 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.
- 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]
- White, J., and M. Madany. 1978. Classification of natural communities in Illinois. Pages 311-405 in: Natural Areas Inventory technical report: Volume I, survey methods and results. Illinois Natural Areas Inventory, Urbana, IL.