Print Report

CEGL007130 Picea rubens - (Abies fraseri) / (Rhododendron catawbiense, Rhododendron maximum) Forest

Type Concept Sentence: No Data Available

Common (Translated Scientific) Name: Red Spruce - (Fraser Fir) / (Catawba Rosebay, Great Laurel) Forest

Colloquial Name: Red Spruce - Fraser Fir Forest (Evergreen Shrub Type)

Hierarchy Level:  Association

Type Concept: This community is restricted to the highest mountain systems of the Southern Appalachians in eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, and southwestern Virginia. These forests are typically found on moderately steep to steep, convex slopes at elevations between 1550 and 1830 m (5100-6000 feet). This association includes forests of the Southern Appalachians, within the range of Abies fraseri, currently dominated by Picea rubens but showing some evidence of the historical presence of Abies fraseri (either standing dead individuals or ample regeneration), over a shrub stratum dominated by evergreen species, typically Rhododendron catawbiense and Rhododendron maximum. Herb coverage is characteristically low, but on moist north-facing sites, mosses, ferns and forbs may be dense beneath the shrub stratum.

Diagnostic Characteristics: No Data Available

Rationale for Nominal Species or Physiognomic Features: No Data Available

Classification Comments: This community includes forest vegetation where Picea rubens and Abies fraseri make up 75% of the canopy cover, each contributing 25-75% to the total canopy cover and occurring over a shrub stratum dominated by evergreen species. Other species total less than 25% of the canopy.

Similar NVC Types: No Data Available
note: No Data Available
Physiognomy and Structure: No Data Available

Floristics: This association includes forests of the Southern Appalachians, within the range of Abies fraseri, currently dominated by Picea rubens but showing some evidence of the historical presence of Abies fraseri. Other species may occur in the canopy/subcanopy but with low coverage. The shrub stratum is moderate to dense and dominated by evergreen species such as Rhododendron catawbiense, Rhododendron maximum, and Rhododendron carolinianum. Shrub coverage is most dense on drier, convex slopes. Other shrub species with minor coverage may include Vaccinium simulatum, Vaccinium erythrocarpum, Viburnum nudum var. cassinoides, Diervilla sessilifolia, and Viburnum lantanoides. Extensive patches of Abies fraseri seedlings and standing dead stems of Abies fraseri may be common. Herb coverage is typically low, but moist, north-facing sites may have Oxalis montana, Athyrium filix-femina ssp. asplenioides, Dryopteris campyloptera, and mosses (including Dicranum scoparium and Hypnum curvifolium) dominating beneath the shrub stratum.

Dynamics:  Natural disturbances in this community include lightning fire, debris avalanches, wind disturbance, and ice storms (White and Pickett 1985, Nicholas and Zedaker 1989). The natural fire regime is estimated at longer than 500-1000 years. Human-initiated disturbances have included logging, slash fires, livestock grazing, and damage by atmospheric pollutants. An exotic insect, the balsam woolly adelgid (Adelges piceae), invaded the Southern Appalachians in the late 1950s and has drastically altered the last undisturbed remnants of this community. This exotic pest kills mature Abies fraseri within seven years of infestation. In areas where mature Abies fraseri has been lost to woolly adelgid infestation, thickets of Rubus spp., Abies fraseri seedlings and saplings, Betula alleghaniensis, and Sorbus americana are dominant. Over time, Picea rubens, Betula alleghaniensis, Abies fraseri, Acer spicatum, and Sorbus americana increase in the tree layer, while Abies fraseri, Menziesia pilosa, Rubus idaeus ssp. strigosus, and Sambucus racemosa var. pubens increase in the shrub layer (White et al. 1993). Succession is especially slow after severe disturbance such as logging and slash fires. The most severely disturbed sites are predominately Prunus pensylvanica and Rubus spp. and may remain in a non-forested stage of succession for 60 years or more.
Environmental Description:  This forest is best developed between 1550 and 1830 m (5100-6000 feet) elevation but may occur at lower elevations and is typically found on moderately steep to steep, convex slopes. Soils are highly variable, from deep mineral soils to well-developed boulderfields, where a thin organic layer and moss mat overlie the rocks and there are pockets of mineral soil in deep crevices between boulders. The dominant soils are Inceptisols with scattered occurrences of Spodosols at the highest elevations (White et al. 1993). Generally, soils can be described as rocky, with well-developed organic and A horizons. All soils in these high-elevation forests are low in base saturation, high in organic matter, and are acidic in reaction (pH 3-5), with a high aluminum content. The moisture regimes of these areas are mesic to wet due to high rainfall, abundant cloud cover, fog deposition, and low temperatures. The climate has been classified as perhumid, with the temperature varying elevationally from mesothermal to microthermal. The regional geology is dominated by complexly folded metamorphic, sedimentary, and igneous rocks of the Precambrian and early Paleozoic age, including phyllites, slates, schists, sandstones, quartzites, granites, and gneisses.
Geographic Range: This community is restricted to the highest mountain systems of the Southern Appalachians in eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, and southwestern Virginia.

Nations: US

States/Provinces:  NC, TN, VA


Confidence Level: Moderate

Confidence Level Comments: No Data Available
Grank: G1

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.e Red Spruce - Fraser Fir - Yellow Birch Forest Group G632 1.B.2.Na.7.e
Alliance A0136 Red Spruce - Fraser Fir Forest Alliance A0136 1.B.2.Na.7.e
Association CEGL007130 Red Spruce - (Fraser Fir) / (Catawba Rosebay, Great Laurel) Forest CEGL007130 1.B.2.Na.7.e
Concept Lineage: merged

Predecessors: No Data Available

Obsolete Names: No Data Available

Obsolete Parents: No Data Available
Synonomy: = Picea rubens - (Abies fraseri) / (Rhododendron catawbiense, Rhododendron maximum) Forest (Fleming and Patterson 2009a)
< IA4a. Red Spruce - Fraser Fir Forest (Allard 1990)
? Red Spruce - Fraser Fir (7) (USFS 1988)
< Red Spruce - Fraser Fir: 34 (Eyre 1980)
Concept Author(s): K.D. Patterson

Author of Description: K.D. Patterson and T. Govus

Acknowledgements: No Data Available

Version Date: 02-19-10
  • Allard, D. J. 1990. Southeastern United States ecological community classification. Interim report, Version 1.2. The Nature Conservancy, Southeast Regional Office, Chapel Hill, NC. 96 pp.
  • Anderson, L. E., H. A. Crum, and W. R. Buck. 1990. List of mosses of North America north of Mexico. The Bryologist 93:448-499.
  • Brown, D. M. 1941. Vegetation of Roan Mountain: A phytosociological and successional study. Ecological Monographs 11:61-97.
  • Bruck, R. I. 1988. Interactions of spruce-fir pathogens, insects, and ectomychorrhizae on the etiology and epidemiology of boreal montane forest decline in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Pages 133-143 in: Proceedings of the US/FRG research symposium: Effects of atmospheric pollutants on the spruce-fir forests of the eastern U.S. and the Federal Republic of Germany. General Technical Report NE-120. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.
  • Busing, R. T., E. E. C. Clebsch, C. C. Eagar, and E. F. Pauley. 1988. Two decades of change in a Great Smoky Mountains spruce-fir forest. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 115:25-31.
  • Cogbill, C. V., and P. S. White. 1991. The latitude-elevation relationship for spruce-fir forest and treeline along the Appalachian mountain chain. Vegetatio 94:153-175.
  • Crandall, D. L. 1958. Ground vegetation patterns of the spruce-fir area of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Ecological Monographs 28:337-360.
  • Crandall, D. L. 1960. Ground vegetation patterns of the spruce-fir area of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Virginia Journal of Science January 1960:9-18.
  • Davis, J. H., Jr. 1930. Vegetation of the Black Mountains of North Carolina: An ecological study. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 45:291-318.
  • Dull, C. W., J. D. Ward, H. D. Brown, and G. W. Ryan. 1988b. Evaluation of tree mortality in the spruce-fir forest of the southeastern United States. Pages 107-110 in: Proceedings of the US/FRG research symposium: Effects of atmospheric pollutants on the spruce-fir forests of the eastern U.S. and the Federal Republic of Germany. General Technical Report NE-120. USDA Forest Service, Washington DC.
  • Eagar, C., and M. B. Adams, editors. 1992. Ecology and decline of red spruce in the eastern United States. Springer-Verlag, New York. 417 pp.
  • Eyre, F. H., editor. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 pp.
  • Fleming, G. P., K. D. Patterson, and K. Taverna. 2017. The natural communities of Virginia: A classification of ecological community groups and community types. Third approximation. Version 3.0. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. [http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/natural-communities/]
  • Fleming, G. P., and K. D. Patterson. 2009a. A vegetation classification for the Appalachian Trail: Virginia south to Georgia. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. In-house analysis, March 2009.
  • Korstian, C. F. 1937. Perpetuation of spruce on cut-over and burned lands in the higher southern Appalachian Mountains. Ecological Monographs 7:125-167.
  • McLeod, D. E. 1988. Vegetation patterns, floristics, and environmental relationships in the Black and Craggy mountains of North Carolina. Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 222 pp.
  • NCNHP [North Carolina Natural Heritage Program]. 1993. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program biennial protection plan. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh. 120 pp.
  • NatureServe Ecology - Southeastern United States. No date. Unpublished data. NatureServe, Durham, NC.
  • Nicholas, N. S., S. M. Zedaker, C. Eagar, and F. T. Bonner. 1992. Seedling recruitment and stand regeneration in spruce-fir forests of the Great Smoky Mountains. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 119:289-299.
  • Nicholas, N. S., and S. M. Zedaker. 1989. Ice damage in spruce-fir forests of the Black Mountains, North Carolina. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 19:1487-1491.
  • Oosting, H. J., and W. D. Billings. 1951. A comparison of virgin spruce-fir forest in the Northern and Southern Appalachian system. Ecology 32:84-103.
  • Peet, R. K., T. R. Wentworth, M. P. Schafale, and A.S. Weakley. No date. Unpublished data of the North Carolina Vegetation Survey. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
  • Ramseur, G. S. 1960. The vascular flora of high mountain communities of the Southern Appalachians. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 76:82-112.
  • Rawinski, T. J. 1992. A classification of Virginia''s indigenous biotic communities: Vegetated terrestrial, palustrine, and estuarine community classes. Unpublished document. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. Natural Heritage Technical Report No. 92-21. Richmond, VA. 25 pp.
  • Schafale, M. P. 2012. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, 4th Approximation. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh.
  • Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina. Third approximation. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh. 325 pp.
  • Schofield, W. B. 1960. The ecotone between spruce-fir and deciduous forest in the Great Smoky Mountains. Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, Durham, NC. 176 pp.
  • Southeastern Ecology Working Group of NatureServe. No date. International Ecological Classification Standard: International Vegetation Classification. Terrestrial Vegetation. NatureServe, Durham, NC.
  • Stephenson, S. L., and H. S. Adams. 1984. The spruce-fir forest on the summit of Mount Rogers in southwestern Virginia. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 111:69-75.
  • Stephenson, S. L., and J. F. Clovis. 1983. Spruce forests of the Allegheny Mountains in central West Virginia. Castanea 48:1-12.
  • Stotler, R., and B. Crandall-Stotler. 1977. A checklist of liverworts and hornworts of North America. The Bryologist 80:405-428.
  • TDNH [Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage]. 2018. Unpublished data. Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage, Nashville, TN.
  • USFS [U.S. Forest Service]. 1988. Silvicultural examination and prescription field book. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region. Atlanta, GA. 35 pp.
  • Wentworth, T. R., P. S. White, C. Pyle, and M. P. Schafale. 1988a. Compilation and interpretation of the vegetation database and disturbance history of Southern Appalachian spruce-fir. Pages 145-149 in: Proceedings of the US/FRG research symposium: Effects of atmospheric pollutants on the spruce-fir forests of the eastern U.S. and the Federal Republic of Germany. General Technical Report NE-120. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.
  • White, P. 1984a. Impacts of cultural and historic resources on natural diversity: Lessons from Great Smoky Mountains National Park, North Carolina and Tennessee. Pages 119-132 in: J. L. Cooley and J. H. Cooley, editors. 1984. Natural diversity in forest ecosystems. Proceedings of a workshop. University of Georgia, Institute of Ecology, Athens. 282 pp.
  • White, P. S., E. R. Buckner, J. D. Pittillo, and C. V. Cogbill. 1993. High-elevation forests: Spruce-fir forests, northern hardwoods forests, and associated communities. Pages 305-337 in: W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, editors. Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: Upland terrestrial communities. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
  • White, P. S., and C. V. Cogbill. 1992. Spruce-fir forests in eastern North America. Page 3-39 in: C. Eagar and M. B. Adams, editors. Ecology and decline of red spruce in the eastern United States. Springer-Verlag, New York.
  • White, P. S., and S. T. A. Pickett. 1985. Natural disturbance and patch dynamics: An introduction. Pages 3-13 in: P. S. White and S. T. A. Pickett, editors. The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
  • White, P. S., editor. 1984b. The Southern Appalachian spruce-fir ecosystem: Its biology and threats. Research/Resource Management Report SER-71. USDI National Park Service. 268 pp.
  • Whittaker, R. H. 1956. Vegetation of the Great Smoky Mountains. Ecological Monographs 26:1-80.
  • Zedaker, S. M., N. S. Nicholas, C. Eagar, P. S. White, and T. Burk. 1988. Stand characteristics associated with potential decline of spruce-fir forests in the Southern Appalachians. Pages 123-131 in: Proceedings of the US/FRG research symposium: Effects of atmospheric pollutants on the spruce-fir forests of the eastern U.S. and the Federal Republic of Germany. General Technical Report NE-120. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.