Print Report

CEGL005169 Limestone Cobble - Gravel Great Lakes Shore Sparse Vegetation

Type Concept Sentence: No Data Available


Common (Translated Scientific) Name: Limestone Cobble - Gravel Great Lakes Shore Sparse Vegetation

Colloquial Name: Great Lakes Limestone Cobble - Gravel Shore

Hierarchy Level:  Association

Type Concept: The limestone cobble - gravel Great Lakes shore type is commonly found along the shorelines of the northern Great Lakes in the United States and Canada. Stands occur between bedrock exposures. Cobble lakeshore is interspersed with pavement lakeshore or low cliff. These cobble - gravel lakeshores support a sparse vegetation. Deep accumulations of large cobbles tend to quite dry and are nearly unvegetated, while shallow accumulations of small gravel and cobbles, especially when mixed with a moist sandy substrate, tend to support denser and more diverse plant cover. The most frequently encountered species include Clinopodium arkansanum, Campanula rotundifolia, Carex viridula, Juncus arcticus ssp. littoralis, Juncus dudleyi, Populus balsamifera, Argentina anserina, and Oligoneuron ohioense.

Diagnostic Characteristics: No Data Available

Rationale for Nominal Species or Physiognomic Features: No Data Available

Classification Comments: The alkaline cobble - gravel shorelines are split into two types, limestone (this type) and basalt/diabase conglomerates, ~Basalt - Diabase Cobble - Gravel Great Lakes Shore Sparse Vegetation (CEGL005250)$$. See also the Graminoid Rich Shore Fen type, ~Calamagrostis canadensis - Carex viridula - Cladium mariscoides - Lobelia kalmii Fen (CEGL005115)$$, which can be found in limestone cobble areas.

Similar NVC Types: No Data Available
note: No Data Available

Physiognomy and Structure: No Data Available

Floristics: Vegetation is typically sparse. Deep accumulations of large cobbles tend to be quite dry and nearly unvegetated. Shallow accumulations, especially when occurring over a moist, sandy substrate, tend to support denser, more diverse assemblages. The most frequently encountered species include Clinopodium arkansanum (= Calamintha arkansana), Campanula rotundifolia, Carex viridula, Juncus arcticus ssp. littoralis (= Juncus balticus), Juncus dudleyi, Populus balsamifera, Argentina anserina (= Potentilla anserina), and Oligoneuron ohioense (= Solidago ohioensis) (Albert et al. 1995).

Dynamics:  No Data Available

Environmental Description:  Stands are most extensive in Lake Huron and Georgian Bay, including island shorelines. They often occur as an alternating pattern of limestone pavement interspersed with cobble-gravel. Deep accumulations of large cobbles tend to be quite dry and are nearly unvegetated, while shallow accumulations of small gravel and cobbles, especially when mixed with a moist sandy substrate, tend to support denser and more diverse plant cover (Albert et al. 1995).

Geographic Range: The limestone cobble-gravel Great Lakes shore type is commonly found along the northern Great Lakes shores in the United States and Canada, ranging from Michigan and Wisconsin to Ontario.

Nations: CA,US

States/Provinces:  MI, ON, VT, WI




Confidence Level: Low

Confidence Level Comments: No Data Available

Grank: G2G3

Greasons: No Data Available


Concept Lineage: Split into 2 Michigan types, limestone (remains CEGL005169) and basalt/diabase conglomerate (CEGL005250).

Predecessors: No Data Available

Obsolete Names: No Data Available

Obsolete Parents: No Data Available

Synonomy: = Limestone Cobble - Gravel Great Lakes Shore Sparse Vegetation (Faber-Langendoen 2001) [Great Lakes Cobble Beach Alkaline Subtype]

Concept Author(s): D. Faber-Langendoen (2001)

Author of Description: D. Faber-Langendoen

Acknowledgements: No Data Available

Version Date: 11-04-98

  • Albert, D. A., P. J. Comer, R. A. Corner, D. Cuthrell, M. Penskar, and M. Rabe. 1995. Bedrock shoreline survey of the Niagaran Escarpment in Michigan''s Upper Peninsula: Mackinac County to Delta County. Michigan Natural Features Inventory for Land and Water Management Division (grant # CD-0.02).
  • 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.).
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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]