Print Report
G165 Quercus alba - Quercus falcata - Quercus nigra Forest Group
Type Concept Sentence: This vegetation encompasses both the prevailing upland oak and oak-hickory forests of the southern Piedmont as well as the more open vegetation of more limited areas where a particularly dense clay hardpan has developed over a range of typically mafic rocks, sometimes with interspersed areas of prairie- or glade-like herbaceous vegetation. Stands of these forests are dominated by combinations of upland Quercus spp., particularly Quercus alba, Quercus coccinea, Quercus falcata, Quercus rubra, Quercus stellata, and Quercus velutina, along with Carya tomentosa, Carya glabra, and other Carya spp.
Common (Translated Scientific) Name: White Oak - Southern Red Oak - Water Oak Forest Group
Colloquial Name: Piedmont-Coastal Plain Oak Forest & Woodland
Hierarchy Level: Group
Type Concept: Vegetation of this group encompasses both the prevailing upland oak and oak-hickory forests of the southern Piedmont, as well as the more open vegetation of more limited areas in the Piedmont where a particularly dense clay hardpan has developed over a range of typically mafic rocks, sometimes with interspersed areas of prairie- or glade-like herbaceous vegetation. In addition, it encompasses related oak-dominated forests of somewhat fire-sheltered dry to dry-mesic sites in the adjacent Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic coastal plains from southeastern Virginia to Georgia. In general, high-quality and historic examples are typically dominated by combinations of upland Quercus spp., sometimes with Pinus spp. as a significant component, especially in the southern portions of the region. These forests occur in a variety of habitats and, under natural conditions, were the matrix vegetation type covering most of the landscape. Much of this group is currently composed of successional forests that have arisen after repeated cutting, clearing, and cultivation of original oak-hickory forests. Stands of these forests are dominated by combinations of upland Quercus spp., particularly Quercus alba, Quercus coccinea, Quercus falcata, Quercus rubra, Quercus stellata, and Quercus velutina, along with Carya tomentosa, Carya glabra, and other Carya spp. Other common tree species include Acer rubrum, Liquidambar styraciflua, Liriodendron tulipifera, Pinus echinata, Pinus taeda, and Pinus virginiana.
Diagnostic Characteristics: This group includes the Quercus-dominated upland matrix forests of the Piedmont, as well as the less extensive dry and dry-mesic forests of similar oak species of the adjacent Atlantic Coastal Plain, which tend to be on more topographically complex or fire-sheltered parts of the landscape. They are dominated by various combinations of upland broad-leaved deciduous Quercus spp., sometimes with Pinus spp. or Carya spp. as a significant component.
Rationale for Nominal Species or Physiognomic Features: No Data Available
Classification Comments: Although these forests have often been called "oak-hickory" (Braun 1950) or "oak-pine-hickory" (Kuchler 1964, Greller 1989, Skeen et al. 1993), Monk et al. (1990) concluded there was insufficient abundance of Carya spp. to justify including this genus in the name of such forests. There are fairly dramatic differences in the amount of pine present across the modern day Piedmont landscape, with it being especially prevalent in South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama (USGS 1992). To some extent, the prevalence of pine in these southern portions of the region may represent natural conditions (Nelson 1957). It is possible that the more heavily mixed or pine-dominated forests of the southern Piedmont should be recognized as a different group, but distinguishing natural examples is difficult given a long history of land-use impacts and resulting vegetational changes in the region (Brender 1974). In addition, Skeen et al. (1993) assert that "the oak-hickory-pine designation may be reflective of past land use and disturbance history and that the steady-state typal forest of the southeastern Piedmont is in reality oak-hickory-yellow poplar." There is some clear variation among associations within this group, between dry and dry-mesic forests and also between those on acidic or basic soils. These will inform the composition of the different alliances, but the similar canopy composition and similar dynamics tie them together, and those distinctions may best be made at the alliance and association level. Large areas once dominated by oak-hickory forests now have successional pine forest, and this will be found in other groups. In the coastal plain, there is a broad gradient in climate and species composition from north to south and west. Differences between coastal plain and Piedmont stands are sometimes fairly subtle, and species that differentiate them in one part of the range many not work in other parts. In particular, some species that are excluded from the coastal plain farther south are common components farther north, including Quercus rubra. These distinctions will also be worked out at the alliance and association levels.
Similar NVC Types: No Data Available
note: No Data Available
Physiognomy and Structure: Stands are typically closed-canopy broad-leaved deciduous forests under current conditions, but prior to the mid-twentieth century, many examples exhibited somewhat open canopies and grassy ground layers.
Floristics: Stands of this forest group are generally dominated by combinations of upland oaks, particularly Quercus alba, Quercus coccinea, Quercus falcata, Quercus rubra, Quercus stellata, and Quercus velutina, along with Carya tomentosa (= Carya alba), Carya glabra, and other Carya spp. In the northern and non-coastal part of its range, Quercus rubra and/or Quercus montana (= Quercus prinus) may be components, while in the southern part, evergreen species such as Quercus hemisphaerica or Quercus nigra may become more prominent. Other common tree species include Acer rubrum, Liquidambar styraciflua, Liriodendron tulipifera, Pinus echinata, Pinus taeda, and Pinus virginiana. In some mafic Piedmont examples on distinctly drier hardpan soils, stands may be open forests or woodlands of Quercus stellata, with Quercus marilandica as a characteristic associate. In addition, Quercus alba, Carya tomentosa, Carya glabra, Carya pallida, and Fraxinus americana may be canopy components. In particular, Piedmont mafic examples exhibit a pronounced abundance of hickory relative to other Piedmont forests (Farrell and Ware 1991, Ware 1992). If the canopy of drier examples is more open, this can, under certain conditions, lead to a more diverse and grassy herb layer than in most Piedmont forests. Some of these sites may have once supported open prairies or prairie savannas under a more frequent fire regime. In recent years, more shade-tolerant species appear to be increasing in many of these forests. In the northern part of the range, Fagus grandifolia, Ilex opaca, and Nyssa sylvatica are abundantly invading the understories of older oak forests on dry-mesic, acidic sites. On basic sites, Carya spp. and Fraxinus americana often dominate the understory. The invasion of oak forests by more mesophytic and/or fire-intolerant potential oak-replacement species is just one part of the story. In addition, oak recruitment is decreasing or virtually absent in many of these forests, particularly the dry-mesic ones. This may be a result of the lengthening of fire-return times during the latter part of the twentieth century. There is some variation in composition with aspect and degree of exposure to fire. Pinus echinata may be present in some stands, particularly on drier south- and west-facing slopes but is typically not dominant. Pinus taeda is sometimes present, but it is unclear if it is a natural component or has entered only as a result of past cutting.
Dynamics: Much of the Piedmont landscape is currently composed of successional forests that have arisen after repeated cutting, clearing, and cultivation of original oak-hickory forests. In successional forests, recovering from clearcutting or cultivation, Pinus spp. (e.g., Pinus echinata, Pinus taeda) dominate for a number of decades, with Quercus spp. and Carya spp. gradually invading the understory and then entering the canopy. A well-developed understory and shrub layer is generally present, with species varying with soil chemistry. The herb layer is variable in density and diversity, being sparse to, at most, moderate in density in drier, acidic examples, to rather dense in basic examples as well as more mesic ones. When natural fires were more frequent, the forests presumably had less understory and shrub density and probably a grassy herb layer. Fire was probably once the most important natural dynamic process, but the almost universal elimination of fire in the Piedmont makes this difficult to tell. The xeric nature of sites with clay hardpans may have allowed fire to create open vegetation there while allowing forests to develop on more typical soils. Fire would have kept canopies open by limiting or slowing tree regeneration and would have promoted a more diverse, grass-dominated herb layer. Bison may have once been a significant influence in the pre-settlement and historic landscape as well.
Environmental Description: These forests occur in a variety of habitats and, under natural conditions, were the matrix vegetation type covering most of the landscape. Much of this group is currently composed of successional forests that have arisen after repeated cutting, clearing, and cultivation of original oak-hickory forests. If the canopy of drier examples is more open, this can, under certain conditions, lead to a more diverse and grassy herb layer than in most Piedmont forests. Some of these sites may have once supported open prairies or prairie savannas under a more frequent fire regime. In recent years, more shade-tolerant species appear to be increasing in many of these forests.
Geographic Range: Vegetation of this group occurs primarily in the Piedmont from Maryland to Alabama. Some associations may extend into the adjacent Atlantic Coastal Plain.
Nations: US
States/Provinces: AL, FL?, GA, MD, NC, SC, VA
Plot Analysis Summary:
http://vegbank.org/natureserve/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.833282
Confidence Level: High
Confidence Level Comments: No Data Available
Grank: GNR
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.1 White Oak - Southern Red Oak - Shortleaf Pine Forest & Woodland Macrogroup | M016 | 1.B.2.Na.1 |
| Group | 1.B.2.Na.1.a White Oak - Southern Red Oak - Water Oak Forest Group | G165 | 1.B.2.Na.1.a |
| Alliance | A3274 White Ash - Pignut Hickory - Eastern Red-cedar Piedmont-Appalachian Woodland Alliance | A3274 | 1.B.2.Na.1.a |
| Alliance | A3293 Northern Red Oak - White Oak - Hickory species Piedmont Forest Alliance | A3293 | 1.B.2.Na.1.a |
| Alliance | A3294 Post Oak - Hickory species - Shortleaf Pine Piedmont Woodland Alliance | A3294 | 1.B.2.Na.1.a |
| Alliance | A4434 Post Oak Hardpan Woodland Alliance | A4434 | 1.B.2.Na.1.a |
| Alliance | A4438 Chestnut Oak - White Oak Piedmont Dry Forest Alliance | A4438 | 1.B.2.Na.1.a |
Concept Lineage: No Data Available
Predecessors: No Data Available
Obsolete Names: No Data Available
Obsolete Parents: No Data Available
Synonomy: = Dry Oak--Hickory Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990) [includes both their Coastal Plain and Piedmont manifestations.]
= Dry-Mesic Oak--Hickory Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990) [includes both their Coastal Plain and Piedmont manifestations.]
= Oak-Hickory Forest (Bennett and Nelson 1991)
? Piedmont Flatwoods (Wharton 1978)
= Dry-Mesic Oak--Hickory Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990) [includes both their Coastal Plain and Piedmont manifestations.]
= Oak-Hickory Forest (Bennett and Nelson 1991)
? Piedmont Flatwoods (Wharton 1978)
- Bennett, S. H., and J. B. Nelson. 1991. Distribution and status of Carolina bays in South Carolina. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Nongame and Heritage Trust Section, Columbia. 88 pp.
- Braun, E. L. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. Hafner Press, New York. 596 pp.
- Brender, E. V. 1974. Impact of past land use on the lower Piedmont forest. Journal of Forestry 72:34-36.
- Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, C. Nordman, M. Pyne, M. Reid, M. Russo, K. Schulz, K. Snow, J. Teague, and R. White. 2003-present. Ecological systems of the United States: A working classification of U.S. terrestrial systems. NatureServe, Arlington, VA.
- EPA [Environmental Protection Agency]. 2004. Level III and IV Ecoregions of EPA Region 4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, OR. Scale 1:2,000,000.
- 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]
- Farrell, J. D., and S. Ware. 1991. Edaphic factors and forest vegetation in the Piedmont of Virginia. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 118:161-169.
- Greller, A. M. 1989. Correlation of warmth and temperateness with the distributional limits of zonal forests in eastern North America. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 116:145-163.
- Küchler, A. W. 1964. Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States. American Geographic Society Special Publication 36. New York, NY. 116 pp.
- Monk, C. D., D. W. Imm, and R. L. Potter. 1990. Oak forests of eastern North America. Castanea 55(2):77-96.
- Nelson, T. C. 1957. The original forests of the Georgia Piedmont. Ecology 38:390-397.
- 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.
- Skeen, J. N., P. D. Doerr, and D. H. Van Lear. 1993. Oak-hickory-pine forests. Pages 1-33 in: W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, editors. Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Upland Terrestrial Communities. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 373 pp.
- USGS [U.S. Geological Survey]. 1992. National land cover dataset. U.S. Geological Survey, EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, SD.
- Ware, S. 1992. Where are all the hickories in the Piedmont oak-hickory forest? Castanea 57:4-12.
- Wharton, C. H. 1978. The natural environments of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta. 227 pp.