Print Report

G031 Pinus taeda - Liquidambar styraciflua - Triadica sebifera Ruderal Forest Group

Type Concept Sentence: This native ruderal forest group is found on former agricultural or forest plantation sites, or arises from degraded native forest sites in the warmer temperate regions of the southeastern United States.


Common (Translated Scientific) Name: Loblolly Pine - Sweetgum - Chinese Tallow Ruderal Forest Group

Colloquial Name: Southeastern Native Ruderal Forest

Hierarchy Level:  Group

Type Concept: This ruderal native forest group occurs in old-field and other human-disturbed sites across the southeastern United States. The vegetation shows evidence of former and heavy human use, such as formerly cleared and/or planted sites, but which has been allowed to succeed more-or-less spontaneously, as determined by the vegetation being dominated (>80% cover) by ruderal native tree species. Understory shrub and herb species may be a mix of exotic species and native generalists. Some typical native ruderal species include conifer Pinus taeda, and hardwoods Catalpa bignonioides, Catalpa speciosa, Liquidambar styraciflua, Liriodendron tulipifera, Maclura pomifera, and Quercus nigra. Exotic associates may include Albizia julibrissin, Broussonetia papyrifera, Triadica sebifera, and Maclura pomifera. Maclura pomifera is a native species in a narrow region of the eastern U.S., but is so widely planted outside of its range that it is effectively exotic. Where both the ground layer and tree layer are native ruderals, the stand may overlap with degraded phases of other native forest types.

Diagnostic Characteristics: Stands are dominated by some combination of weedy or native generalist tree species, such as Pinus taeda, Catalpa bignonioides, Catalpa speciosa, Liquidambar styraciflua, Liriodendron tulipifera, or Quercus nigra. Minor associates may include the exotic tree species Albizia julibrissin, Broussonetia papyrifera, Triadica sebifera, and Maclura pomifera.

Rationale for Nominal Species or Physiognomic Features: No Data Available

Classification Comments: This group is somewhat separated from ~Eastern North American Native Ruderal Forest Group (G030)$$ by the absence of ruderal species of generally northern distribution, such as Populus tremuloides, Betula populifolia, Prunus pensylvanica, Juglans nigra, Gleditsia triacanthos, Robinia pseudoacacia, and even Liriodendron tulipifera. Native forest plantation stands (tracked in 7. ~Agricultural & Developed Vegetation Cultural Class (CCL01)$$)) could become this ruderal type if not intensively managed, as the planted trees begin to die out, and the ground layer is invaded by native ruderal species.

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

Physiognomy and Structure: Tree canopy varies from hardwood-dominated to conifer-dominated, with open to closed canopy cover. Stands have an irregular structure, though remnants of abandoned forest plantation structure, such as row plantings, may be evident in some cases.

Floristics: The vegetation is dominated (>80% cover) by ruderal native tree species. Understory shrub and herb species may be a mix of exotic species and native generalists. Some typical native ruderal species include conifer Pinus taeda, and hardwoods Catalpa bignonioides, Catalpa speciosa, Liquidambar styraciflua, Liriodendron tulipifera, Maclura pomifera, and Quercus nigra. Minor exotic associates may include Albizia julibrissin, Broussonetia papyrifera, Triadica sebifera (= Sapium sebiferum), and Maclura pomifera. Maclura pomifera is a native species in a narrow region of the eastern U.S., but is so widely planted outside of its range that it is effectively exotic. Where both the ground layer and tree layer are native ruderals, the stand may overlap with degraded phases of other native forest types.

Dynamics:  Native ruderal tree species may initiate establishment before exotics or outcompete exotics. Canopy cover may be as low as 10%, but eventually stands may have more-or-less continuous canopy, leading to a shift to a more shade-tolerant ground layer. The successional stages of this type have been described in many studies, particularly the early stages of tree invasion into old fields (e.g., Singleton et al. 2001). See also Wright and Fridley (2010) for the biogeographic variation among stands of this type. This type may also form in other ways. First, native forest plantation stands (tracked in 7. ~Agricultural & Developed Vegetation Cultural Class (CCL01)$$)) could become native ruderal stands if not intensively managed and the planted trees begin to die out. Second, native forest stands that have not been plowed or planted may be stressed to the point where the characteristic native combination of species is altered (Curtis 1959). These stands are probably best tracked as altered variants of native types until the overstory itself is substantially altered to the point where exotics tree species are the dominant.

Environmental Description:  Sites include uplands and marginally wet sites that have been altered by logging, clearing for agriculture or other activities. Sites are often on dry-mesic to wet-mesic sites, suitable for agriculture or forest plantations.

Geographic Range: This ruderal native forest group occurs in old-field and other human-disturbed sites across the southeastern United States.

Nations: US

States/Provinces:  AL, AR, DC, DE, FL, GA, KY, LA, MD, MO?, MS, NC, NJ, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA, WV?




Confidence Level: Low

Confidence Level Comments: No Data Available

Grank: GNA

Greasons: No Data Available


Concept Lineage: No Data Available

Predecessors: No Data Available

Obsolete Names: No Data Available

Obsolete Parents: No Data Available

Synonomy: No Data Available

Concept Author(s): D. Faber-Langendoen and S. Menard (2006)

Author of Description: D. Faber-Langendoen

Acknowledgements: No Data Available

Version Date: 05-12-15

  • Curtis, J. T. 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin: An ordination of plant communities. Reprinted in 1987. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 657 pp.
  • Faber-Langendoen, D., J. Drake, S. Gawler, M. Hall, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, C. Nordman, M. Pyne, M. Reid, L. Sneddon, K. Schulz, J. Teague, M. Russo, K. Snow, and P. Comer, editors. 2010-2019a. Divisions, Macrogroups and Groups for the Revised U.S. National Vegetation Classification. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. plus appendices. [in preparation]
  • Faber-Langendoen, D., and S. Menard. 2006. A key to eastern forests of the United States: Macrogroups, groups, and alliances. September 15, 2006. NatureServe, Arlington, VA.
  • Singleton, R., S. Gardescu, P. L. Marks, and M. A. Geber. 2001. Forest herb colonization of postagricultural forests in central New York State, USA. Journal of Ecology 89:325-338.
  • Wright, J. P., and J. D. Fridley. 2010. Biogeographic synthesis of secondary succession rates in eastern North America. Journal of Biogeography 37:1584-1596.