Print Report
CEGL006328 Pinus strobus - Tsuga canadensis Lower New England-Northern Piedmont Forest
Type Concept Sentence: No Data Available
Common (Translated Scientific) Name: Eastern White Pine - Eastern Hemlock Lower New England-Northern Piedmont Forest
Colloquial Name: Lower New England-Northern Piedmont White Pine - Hemlock Dry-Mesic Forest
Hierarchy Level: Association
Type Concept: This dry-mesic coniferous forest of usually sloping (moderately to steeply) sites is dominated by Pinus strobus and/or Tsuga canadensis. It can occur in somewhat sheltered ravines where Tsuga canadensis is nearly monotypic in all layers. Other frequent tree species depend on geography and can include Betula papyrifera, Quercus rubra, and Acer rubrum, with Pinus rigida, Prunus serotina, Quercus velutina, Carya tomentosa, Betula lenta, Acer saccharum, Fraxinus americana, Betula alleghaniensis, and Betula populifolia occurring less frequently. Although frequent, deciduous tree species generally occur with low abundance. Canopy cover is typically 80-90%. The subcanopy is often sparse but may extend up to 40% cover. Acer pensylvanicum is a common, though rarely abundant, small tree. Shrubs are absent or sparse but when present may include Hamamelis virginiana, Kalmia latifolia, Rhododendron maximum, Vaccinium angustifolium, and Viburnum acerifolium. The herbaceous layer is generally not well-developed nor diverse and is generally characterized by Gaultheria procumbens, Medeola virginiana, Polystichum acrostichoides, and Thelypteris noveboracensis. Other herbaceous associates often include Aralia nudicaulis, Uvularia sessilifolia, Mitchella repens, Trientalis borealis, Monotropa uniflora, Dryopteris intermedia, Dryopteris marginalis, Dryopteris carthusiana, Polypodium virginianum, and Maianthemum canadense. Deschampsia flexuosa and other grasses may be present in small openings and gaps. Nonvascular plants tend to be sparse but can include Leucobryum albidum and Polytrichum and Dicranum species. Soils are moderately to extremely well-drained (dry-mesic to mesic) loamy sands and sandy loams, often sandy, stony or bouldery. The major natural disturbance in this forest type is generally single-tree blowdowns.
Diagnostic Characteristics: No Data Available
Rationale for Nominal Species or Physiognomic Features: No Data Available
Classification Comments: This association is differentiated from ~Pinus strobus - Tsuga canadensis - Picea rubens Forest (CEGL006324)$$ by its lack of Picea rubens.
Similar NVC Types: No Data Available
note: No Data Available
Physiognomy and Structure: No Data Available
Floristics: This coniferous forest type is dominated by Pinus strobus and/or Tsuga canadensis. Other frequent tree species depend on geography and can include Betula papyrifera, Quercus rubra, and Acer rubrum, with Pinus rigida, Prunus serotina, Quercus velutina, Carya tomentosa (= Carya alba), Betula lenta, Acer saccharum, Fraxinus americana, Betula alleghaniensis, and Betula populifolia occurring less frequently. Although frequent, deciduous tree species generally occur with low abundance. Canopy cover is typically 80-90%. The subcanopy is often sparse but may extend up to 40% cover. Acer pensylvanicum is a common, though rarely abundant, small tree. Shrubs are absent or sparse but when present may include Hamamelis virginiana, Kalmia latifolia, Rhododendron maximum, Vaccinium angustifolium, and Viburnum acerifolium. The herbaceous layer is generally not well-developed nor diverse and is generally characterized by Gaultheria procumbens, Medeola virginiana, Polystichum acrostichoides, and Thelypteris noveboracensis. Other herbaceous associates often include Aralia nudicaulis, Uvularia sessilifolia, Mitchella repens, Trientalis borealis, Monotropa uniflora, Dryopteris intermedia, Dryopteris marginalis, Dryopteris carthusiana, Polypodium virginianum, and Maianthemum canadense. Deschampsia flexuosa and other grasses may be present in small openings and gaps. Nonvascular plants tend to be sparse but can include Leucobryum albidum and Polytrichum and Dicranum species.
Dynamics: The major natural disturbance in this forest type is generally single-tree blowdowns. Fire is not a particularly important feature of this forest type.
Environmental Description: This dry-mesic coniferous forest is usually found on sloping (moderately to steeply) sites or in sheltered ravines. Soils are moderately to extremely well-drained (dry-mesic to mesic), loamy sands and sandy loams, often sandy, stony, or bouldery.
Geographic Range: This association occurs in the northeastern United States and possibly adjacent Canada.
Nations: CA?,US
States/Provinces: CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, QC?, RI, VT
Plot Analysis Summary:
http://vegbank.org/natureserve/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.689294
Confidence Level: Moderate
Confidence Level Comments: No Data Available
Grank: G5
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.3 Appalachian-Interior-Northeastern Mesic Forest Macrogroup | M883 | 1.B.2.Na.3 |
| Group | 1.B.2.Na.3.b Appalachian-Allegheny Northern Hardwood Forest | G742 | 1.B.2.Na.3.b |
| Alliance | A3302 Eastern Hemlock - Sweet Birch - Yellow Birch Forest Alliance | A3302 | 1.B.2.Na.3.b |
| Association | CEGL006328 Eastern White Pine - Eastern Hemlock Lower New England-Northern Piedmont Forest | CEGL006328 | 1.B.2.Na.3.b |
Concept Lineage: No Data Available
Predecessors: No Data Available
Obsolete Names: No Data Available
Obsolete Parents: No Data Available
Synonomy: ? CNE dry transitional forest on sandy / gravelly soils (Rawinski 1984a)
< CNE mesic conifer [transition] forest on acidic bedrock/till (Rawinski 1984a)
< Eastern Hemlock: 23 (Eyre 1980)
< White Pine - Hemlock: 22 (Eyre 1980)
< CNE mesic conifer [transition] forest on acidic bedrock/till (Rawinski 1984a)
< Eastern Hemlock: 23 (Eyre 1980)
< White Pine - Hemlock: 22 (Eyre 1980)
- Brown, J. H. Jr., C. A. Castaneda, and R. J. Hindle. 1982a. Floristic relationships and dynamics of hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) communities in Rhode Island. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 109:385-391.
- Eastern Ecology Working Group of NatureServe. No date. International Ecological Classification Standard: International Vegetation Classification. Terrestrial Vegetation. NatureServe, Boston, MA.
- Edinger, G. J., A. L. Feldmann, T. G. Howard, J. J. Schmid, F. C. Sechler, E. Eastman, E. Largay, L. A. Sneddon, C. Lea, and J. Von Loh. 2014b. Vegetation inventory: Saratoga National Historical Park, New York. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NETN/NRTR--2014/869, National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.
- Edinger, G. J., D. J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T. G. Howard, D. M. Hunt, and A. M. Olivero, editors. 2014a. Ecological communities of New York state. Second edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke''s ecological communities of New York state. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.
- Enser, R. W., and J. A. Lundgren. 2006. Natural communities of Rhode Island. A joint project of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Natural Heritage Program and The Nature Conservancy of Rhode Island. Rhode Island Natural History Survey, Kingston. 40 pp. [www.rinhs.org]
- Eyre, F. H., editor. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 pp.
- Fike, J. 1999. Terrestrial and palustrine plant communities of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Recreation, Bureau of Forestry, Harrisburg, PA. 86 pp.
- Gawler, S. C. 2002. Natural landscapes of Maine: A guide to vegetated natural communities and ecosystems. Maine Natural Areas Program, Department of Conservation, Augusta, ME.
- Gawler, S. C., and A. Cutko. 2010. Natural landscapes of Maine: A classification of vegetated natural communities and ecosystems. Maine Natural Areas Program, Department of Conservation, Augusta.
- Gawler, S. C., and P. S. Bowman. 2012. Vegetation classification and mapping at Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site, New Hampshire. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2012/584.1. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.
- Gordon, R. B. 1937a. The botanical survey of the Allegheny State Park. New York State Museum Handbook 17:23-88. State University of New York, Albany.
- Hough, A. F. 1943. Soil factors and stand history in a virgin forest valley on the northern Allegheny Plateau. Soil Science 56:19-28.
- Hough, A. F., and R. D. Forbes. 1943. The ecology and silvics of forests in the high Plateaus of Pennsylvania. Ecological Monographs 13:300-320.
- Metzler, K., and J. Barrett. 2006. The vegetation of Connecticut: A preliminary classification. State Geological and Natural History Survey, Report of Investigations No. 12. Connecticut Natural Diversity Database, Hartford, CT.
- NAP [Northern Appalachian-Boreal Forest Working Group]. 1998. Northern Appalachian-Boreal Working group discussions. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA.
- NRCS [Natural Resources Conservation Service]. 2004a. Soil survey of Saratoga County, New York. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 590 pp.
- Perles, S. J., G. S. Podniesinski, E. Eastman, L. A. Sneddon, and S. C. Gawler. 2007. Classification and mapping of vegetation and fire fuel models at Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2007/076. National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA. 2 volumes.
- Rawinski, T. 1984a. Natural community description abstract - southern New England calcareous seepage swamp. Unpublished report. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA. 6 pp.
- Sechler, F. C., G. J. Edinger, T. G. Howard, J. J. Schmid, E. Eastman, E. Largay, L. A. Sneddon, C. Lea, and J. Von Loh. 2014. Vegetation classification and mapping at Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National Historic Sites, New York. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NETN/NRTR--2014/873, National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO. 392 pp.
- Sperduto, D. D., and W. F. Nichols. 2004. Natural communities of New Hampshire: A guide and classification. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau, DRED Division of Forests and Lands, Concord. 242 pp.
- Swain, P. C., and J. B. Kearsley. 2014. Classification of the natural communities of Massachusetts. Version 2.0. Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Westborough, MA. [http://www.mass.gov/nhesp/http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dfg/dfw/natural-heritage/natural-communities/classification-of-natural-communities.html]
- Thompson, E. H., and E. R. Sorenson. 2005. Wetland, woodland, wildland: A guide to the natural communities of Vermont. The Nature Conservancy and the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH. 456 pp.