Print Report
CEGL002598 Tsuga canadensis - (Betula alleghaniensis) Forest
Type Concept Sentence: No Data Available
Common (Translated Scientific) Name: Eastern Hemlock - (Yellow Birch) Forest
Colloquial Name: Hemlock Mesic Forest
Hierarchy Level: Association
Type Concept: This mesic hemlock evergreen forest is found in the Great Lakes region of the United States and Canada. Stands occur on deep, acidic soils that may be poorly drained. The overstory of this community is strongly dominated by Tsuga canadensis, typically around 25 m tall. Betula alleghaniensis is often present in the canopy and subcanopy, but at less than 25% cover. Other species that are a minor component of the canopy include Abies balsamea, Acer rubrum, Acer saccharum, Pinus strobus, Tilia americana, and Thuja occidentalis. The sapling layer may also contain Abies balsamea and Thuja occidentalis, especially in canopy gaps. Shrubs are rare and herbaceous species only moderately abundant under the dense evergreen canopy; however, where gaps occur, Acer pensylvanicum, Acer spicatum, Amelanchier spp., Gaultheria procumbens, Lonicera canadensis, and Rubus idaeus may be moderately abundant. The herbaceous layer is poor under drier, more evergreen stands, and richer under more moist and somewhat deciduous stands. Herbaceous species found in this community include Aralia nudicaulis, Clintonia borealis, Coptis trifolia, Cornus canadensis, Dryopteris carthusiana, Huperzia lucidula, Maianthemum canadense, Oxalis montana, Pteridium aquilinum, Streptopus lanceolatus var. longipes, and Trientalis borealis. A sparse to dense moss layer includes Brachythecium reflexum, Callicladium haldanianum, Dicranum flagellare, Dicranum montanum, Mnium marginatum, Plagiothecium laetum, Polytrichum commune, Ptilidium pulcherrimum, and Tetraphis pellucida.
Diagnostic Characteristics: No Data Available
Rationale for Nominal Species or Physiognomic Features: No Data Available
Classification Comments: This type varies from almost pure Tsuga canadensis to more of a mix with Betula alleghaniensis, but the deciduous component is generally less than 25% cover (see e.g., Chambers et al. 1997, Ecosites 30.1 and 30.2). If hardwoods exceed 25%, the type is placed in ~Tsuga canadensis - Acer saccharum - Betula alleghaniensis Forest (CEGL005044)$$, but logged stands, or remnants that occur in a matrix of secondary growth hardwoods, can be difficult to assign. Chambers et al. (1997) recognize a moist and a dry type in central Ontario. Those are treated as variants of the one type here. In Michigan this type is on the clay lakeplain in the western Upper Peninsula and in the Saginaw Bay Lakeplain. The data by Rogers (1980), who examined pure hemlock stands (many of them less than 2 ha in size) from Wisconsin to Nova Scotia, make clear that there are few species strictly associated with a pure hemlock versus a mixed hemlock-hardwood type, and also indicate that some distinction between a Great Lakes versus northeastern United States/eastern Canada has some merit, as done for the mixed hemlock-hardwood type (CEGL005044 versus ~Tsuga canadensis - (Betula alleghaniensis) - Picea rubens / Cornus canadensis Forest (CEGL006129)$$). No pure evergreen hemlock type is currently recognized in the northeast because of its small patch size.
Similar NVC Types: No Data Available
note: No Data Available
Physiognomy and Structure: No Data Available
Floristics: The overstory of this community is strongly dominated by Tsuga canadensis, typically around 25 m tall (Martin 1959a). Betula alleghaniensis is often present in the canopy and subcanopy, but at less than 25% cover. Other species that are a minor component of the canopy include Abies balsamea, Acer rubrum, Acer saccharum, Pinus strobus, Tilia americana, and Thuja occidentalis. The sapling layer may also contain Abies balsamea and Thuja occidentalis, especially in canopy gaps (Martin 1959a). Shrubs are rare and herbaceous species only moderately abundant under the dense evergreen canopy; however, where gaps occur, Acer pensylvanicum, Acer spicatum, Amelanchier spp., Gaultheria procumbens, Lonicera canadensis, and Rubus idaeus may be moderately abundant. The herbaceous layer is poor under drier, more evergreen stands, and richer under more moist and somewhat deciduous stands. Herbaceous species found in this community include Aralia nudicaulis, Clintonia borealis, Coptis trifolia, Cornus canadensis, Dryopteris carthusiana, Huperzia lucidula (= Lycopodium lucidulum), Maianthemum canadense, Oxalis montana (= Oxalis acetosella), Pteridium aquilinum, Streptopus lanceolatus var. longipes (= Streptopus roseus), and Trientalis borealis. A sparse to dense moss layer includes Brachythecium reflexum, Callicladium haldanianum, Dicranum flagellare, Dicranum montanum, Mnium marginatum, Plagiothecium laetum, Polytrichum commune, Ptilidium pulcherrimum, and Tetraphis pellucida. Liverworts may include Bazzania trilobata and Syzygiella autumnalis (= Jamesoniella autumnalis) (Chambers et al. 1997).
Dynamics: Frelich and Lorimer (1991a) studied forests dominated by Tsuga canadensis and Acer saccharum in Upper Michigan. They found that the predominant disturbances were light windthrow events and surface fires. Serious windthrows occur during tornadoes and thunderstorm downbursts. Old-growth characteristics are summarized by Tyrrell and Crow (1994). Deer browse leads to generally poor reproduction.
Environmental Description: This community is found on acidic soils that may be poorly drained. Coffman and Willis (1977) found this community on sandy loam and loams that averaged 115 cm deep and had a fragipan at 45-70 cm. This community may be found on shallow soils in the Huron Mountains of upper Michigan (P. Comer pers. comm. 1996).
Geographic Range: This mesic hemlock evergreen forest is found in the Great Lakes region of the United States and Canada, ranging from Wisconsin and Michigan to Ontario. Range extent is about 300,000 square km.
Nations: CA,US
States/Provinces: MI, ON, WI
Plot Analysis Summary:
http://vegbank.org/natureserve/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.688522
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 | CEGL002598 Eastern Hemlock - (Yellow Birch) Forest | CEGL002598 | 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: = Tsuga canadensis - (Betula alleghaniensis) Forest (Faber-Langendoen 2001) [Northern Mesic Forest Hemlock Subtype]
= Tsuga-Coptis Association (Coffman and Willis 1977)
= Tsuga Forest, Stands He1 and He2 (Martin 1959a)
< CNE mesic conifer [transition] forest on acidic bedrock/till (Rawinski 1984a)
< Eastern Hemlock: 23 (Eyre 1980)
< Hemlock - Yellow Birch: 24 (Eyre 1980)
= Mesic Northern Forest - Hemlock-Yellow Birch (Chapman et al. 1989)
= Tsuga-Coptis Association (Coffman and Willis 1977)
= Tsuga Forest, Stands He1 and He2 (Martin 1959a)
< CNE mesic conifer [transition] forest on acidic bedrock/till (Rawinski 1984a)
< Eastern Hemlock: 23 (Eyre 1980)
< Hemlock - Yellow Birch: 24 (Eyre 1980)
= Mesic Northern Forest - Hemlock-Yellow Birch (Chapman et al. 1989)
- 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.
- Coffman, M. S., and G. L. Willis. 1977. The use of indicator species to classify climax sugar maple and eastern hemlock forests in upper Michigan. Forestry and Ecology Management 1:149-168.
- Comer, Pat. Personal communication. Chief Terrestrial Ecologist. NatureServe, Western Regional Office, Boulder, CO.
- 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.).
- Frelich, L. E. 1995. Old forest in the Lake States today and before European settlement. Natural Areas Journal 15(2):157-167.
- Frelich, L. E., and C. G. Lorimer. 1991a. Natural disturbance regimes in hemlock-hardwood forests of the upper Great Lakes region. Ecological Monographs 61(2):145-164.
- 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.
- Martin, N. D. 1959a. An analysis of forest succession in Algonquin Park, Ontario. Ecological Monographs 29(3):187-218.
- 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.
- Rawinski, T. 1984a. Natural community description abstract - southern New England calcareous seepage swamp. Unpublished report. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA. 6 pp.
- Rogers, R. S. 1980. Hemlock stands from Wisconsin to Nova Scotia: Transitions in understory composition along a floristic gradient. Ecology 61(1):178-193.
- Tyrrell, L. E., and T. R. Crow. 1994a. Structural characteristics of old-growth hemlock-hardwood forests in relation to age. Ecology 75(2):370-386.
- 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]