Print Report

A0053 Quercus hemisphaerica - Quercus nigra Forest Alliance

Type Concept Sentence: This alliance includes dry-mesic to mesic forests dominated or codominated by the evergreen oak Quercus hemisphaerica, typically with Pinus taeda and Quercus nigra, of lower and adjacent upper coastal plains from North Carolina south to Florida and Alabama, typically in fire-sheltered topographic situations.

Common (Translated Scientific) Name: Darlington Oak - Water Oak Forest Alliance

Colloquial Name: Coastal Plain Sand Laurel Oak - Water Oak Forest

Hierarchy Level:  Alliance

Type Concept: These are dry-mesic to mesic forests of the lower and adjacent upper coastal plains from North Carolina south to Florida and Alabama. This vegetation is characteristically dominated or codominated by the evergreen oak Quercus hemisphaerica, typically with Pinus taeda and Quercus nigra. Other typical tree species in stands of this alliance include Ilex opaca var. opaca, Quercus falcata, Quercus geminata, and Quercus virginiana. Other characteristic species may include Lyonia lucida, Osmanthus americanus var. americanus, Persea borbonia, Persea palustris, and Vitis rotundifolia. One association (CEGL004408) represents an inland hammock or oak dome characterized by an overstory that includes Quercus hemisphaerica and Quercus nigra, with Serenoa repens as a typical, and possibly dominant, shrub-layer species. It is believed that this community develops on sites that would have been occupied by Pinus palustris given sufficiently short fire-return intervals. Representative examples occur in fire-sheltered topographic situations, or in more fire-prone topographic situations as the result of fire suppression. These environments include submesic to xeric upland sands of slopes and bluffs, topographically isolated ridges and other sandy uplands, and swamp islands. Some of these sites are called high hammocks or pioneer hammocks. Soils are typically sandy and nutrient-poor. Examples also occur on nutrient-poor sandy and gravelly sites where the topsoil has been lost due to heavy erosion. These more successional forests on highly eroded nutrient-poor sites may be related to and possibly represent depauperate examples of ~Quercus hemisphaerica - Carya glabra - Magnolia grandiflora Forest Alliance (A0372)$$. The critical environmental parameters of this alliance include longer fire-return times than are found in adjacent pine-dominated vegetation. In natural types, this absence of fire naturally results from topographic position. In early-successional ruderal types, this relative absence of fire is the result of fragmentation of the landscape and loss of fine fuels in remaining fragments.

Diagnostic Characteristics: No Data Available

Rationale for Nominal Species or Physiognomic Features: No Data Available

Classification Comments: This alliance (A0053) contains successional forests on highly eroded nutrient-poor sites, which may be related to, and possibly represent depauperate examples of, ~Quercus hemisphaerica - Carya glabra - Magnolia grandiflora Forest Alliance (A0372)$$. In many references (e.g., Sharitz 1975, Rayner and Batson 1976, Sandifer et al. 1980), the evergreen Quercus hemisphaerica of dry, sandy habitats has been mistakenly referred to as Quercus laurifolia, a (tardily) deciduous tree of floodplain forests (Weakley 2012).

Similar NVC Types: No Data Available
note: No Data Available
Physiognomy and Structure: These are generally closed-canopy forests dominated by evergreen or tardily deciduous trees (Quercus hemisphaerica, Quercus nigra) and evergreen needle-leaved trees (e.g., Pinus taeda).

Floristics: This vegetation is characteristically dominated or codominated by the evergreen oak Quercus hemisphaerica, typically with Pinus taeda and Quercus nigra. Other typical tree species in stands of this alliance include Ilex opaca var. opaca, Quercus falcata, Quercus geminata, and Quercus virginiana. Other characteristic species may include Lyonia lucida, Osmanthus americanus var. americanus, Persea borbonia, Persea palustris, Vaccinium arboreum, and Vitis rotundifolia. Early-successional communities in this alliance are likely to be strongly dominated by Quercus hemisphaerica, to be less diverse, and to lack (or only have minor amounts of) later successional species.

Dynamics:  The absence of fire is a critical part of the environmental parameters of this alliance; in natural types, this absence of fire results from topographic position. In early-successional ruderal types, absence of fire is the result of fragmentation of the landscape and fire suppression in remaining fragments. The extent of this vegetation is increasing in areal extent as fire-return times increase and old fields succeed to this type of vegetation. Dominance by Quercus hemisphaerica indicates that fire has been excluded from these forests for a period of many years; stands of this species are probably more common and widespread than in presettlement times.
Environmental Description:  Stands in this alliance are dry-mesic to mesic forests of lower and adjacent upper coastal plains, especially in fire-sheltered topographic situations, or the result of fire exclusion in fire-prone topographic situations. Examples of this alliance typically occur on submesic to xeric, upland, nutrient-poor sandy soils. Examples may occur on nutrient-poor sandy and gravelly sites where the topsoil has been lost due to heavy erosion. Vegetation of this alliance is presumably transitional between forests or woodlands of ridges and upper slopes (dominated by Pinus palustris and/or dry-site oaks) and mesic forests of lower slopes dominated by Fagus grandifolia and more mesic oaks.
Geographic Range: This alliance is found in the Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains from North Carolina south to Florida and Alabama.

Nations: US

States/Provinces:  AL, FL, GA, NC, SC


Confidence Level: Moderate

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.1 Warm Temperate Forest & Woodland Formation F018 1.B.1
Division 1.B.1.Na Southeastern North American Forest & Woodland Division D006 1.B.1.Na
Macrogroup 1.B.1.Na.2 Live Oak - Texas Live Oak - Darlington Oak Forest Macrogroup M885 1.B.1.Na.2
Group 1.B.1.Na.2.b Sand Laurel Oak - Sand Live Oak - Water Oak Coastal Plain Forest Group G790 1.B.1.Na.2.b
Alliance A0053 Darlington Oak - Water Oak Forest Alliance A0053 1.B.1.Na.2.b
Association CEGL003619 Loblolly Pine - Darlington Oak / Devilwood / Inkberry Woodland CEGL003619 1.B.1.Na.2.b
Association CEGL004408 Live Oak - (Darlington Oak, Water Oak) / Saw Palmetto Forest CEGL004408 1.B.1.Na.2.b
Association CEGL004787 Darlington Oak - Sand Live Oak / Redbay - Devilwood Forest CEGL004787 1.B.1.Na.2.b
Association CEGL007022 Darlington Oak - Loblolly Pine - (Water Oak) / Devilwood / Inkberry Forest CEGL007022 1.B.1.Na.2.b
Association CEGL007751 Darlington Oak - (Southern Red Oak, Water Oak) / Farkleberry / Tread-softly Forest CEGL007751 1.B.1.Na.2.b
Concept Lineage: This alliance contains all the members of the old Quercus hemisphaerica Forest Alliance (A.53; 4/4), plus one association (CEGL004408) from A.55 (1/11) and one (CEGL003619) from A.526 (1/5).

Predecessors: No Data Available

Obsolete Names: No Data Available

Obsolete Parents: No Data Available
Synonomy: >< Cabbage Palmetto: 74 (Eyre 1980)
? High hammock (Platt and Schwartz 1990)
>< IA9a. Mid-Atlantic Barrier Island Forest (Allard 1990)
>< IA9b. South Atlantic Inland Maritime Forest (Allard 1990)
>< IA9c. Mid-Atlantic Inland Maritime Forest (Allard 1990)
? IA9d. South Atlantic Barrier Island Forest (Allard 1990)
>< Live Oak: 89 (Eyre 1980)
>< Maritime Evergreen Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990)
>< Maritime Hammock (FNAI 1992a)
>< Maritime Hammock (FNAI 1990)
? Oak-bay forest (Sharitz 1975)
? Pioneer Hammock (Wolfe 1990)
? Upland Hardwood Forest (FNAI 1992a)
? Xeric Hammock (FNAI 1992a)
? Xeric Hammock, Sandhill Hammock subtype (FNAI 1992b)
Concept Author(s): M.P. Schafale and A.S. Weakley (1990)

Author of Description: M. Pyne

Acknowledgements: We have incorporated significant descriptive information previously compiled by M.P. Schafale and A.S. Weakley.

Version Date: 11-25-14
  • Abrahamson, W. G., A. F. Johnson, J. N. Layne, and P. A. Peroni. 1984. Vegetation of the Archbold Biological Station, Florida: An example of the southern Lake Wales Ridge. Florida Scientist 47:209-250.
  • 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.
  • Chafin, L. 2011. Georgia''s natural communities and associated rare plant and animal species: Thumbnail accounts. Based on "Guide to the Natural Communities of Georgia," by Edwards et al. 2013. University of Georgia Press. Georgia Nongame Conservation Section, Wildlife Resources Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 125 pp.
  • Clewell, A. F. 1971. The vegetation of the Apalachicola National Forest: An ecological perspective. Unpublished document. USDA Forest Service, Tallahassee, FL. 152 pp.
  • Duever, L. C., and S. Brinson. 1984b. Florida natural communities. Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Nongame Wildlife Program, Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee. 8 pp.
  • Eyre, F. H., editor. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 pp.
  • FNAI [Florida Natural Areas Inventory]. 1990. Guide to the natural communities of Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Florida Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee. 111 pp.
  • FNAI [Florida Natural Areas Inventory]. 1992a. Natural communities. Unpublished document. The Nature Conservancy, Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee. 6 pp.
  • FNAI [Florida Natural Areas Inventory]. 1992b. Natural community classification. Unpublished document. The Nature Conservancy, Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee. 16 pp.
  • Faber-Langendoen, D., J. Drake, M. Hall, G. Kittel, S. Menard, C. Nordman, M. Pyne, M. Reid, M. Russo, K. Schulz, L. Sneddon, K. Snow, and J. Teague. 2013-2019b. Screening alliances for induction into the U.S. National Vegetation Classification: Part 1 - Alliance concept review. NatureServe, Arlington, VA.
  • Hillestad, H. O., J. R. Bozeman, A. S. Johnson, C. W. Berisford, and J. I. Richardson. 1975. The ecology of the Cumberland Island National Seashore, Camden County, Georgia. Technical Report Series No. 75-5. Georgia Marine Sciences Center, Skidway Island, GA.
  • Johnson, A. F., J. W. Muller, and K. A. Bettinger. 1990b. An assessment of Florida''s remaining coastal upland natural communities: Southeast Florida. The Nature Conservancy, Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee. 10 pp. plus appendices.
  • Johnson, A. S., H. O. Hillestad, S. F. Shanholtzer, and G. F. Shanholtzer. 1974. An ecological survey of the coastal region of Georgia. USDI National Park Service. Science Monograph Series, No. 3. 233 pp. plus maps.
  • Nelson, J. B. 1986. The natural communities of South Carolina: Initial classification and description. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, Columbia, SC. 55 pp.
  • Platt, W. J., and M. W. Schwartz. 1990. Temperate hardwood forests. Pages 194-229 in: R. L. Myers and J. J. Ewel, editors. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando.
  • Rayner, D. A. 1984. Inventory of natural areas in Colleton County, South Carolina. Pages 61-93 in: Inventory of botanical natural areas in Colleton, Dorchester, Horry, and Hasper counties, South Carolina. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Columbia.
  • Rayner, D. A., and W. T. Batson. 1976. Maritime closed dunes vegetation in South Carolina. Castanea 41:58-70.
  • SCWMRD [South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department]. 1984. Inventory of botanical natural areas in Colleton, Dorchester, Horry, and Jasper counties, South Carolina. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Columbia. 144 pp.
  • Sandifer, P. A., J. V. Miglarese, D. R. Calder, J. J. Manzi, and L. A. Barclay, editors. 1980. Ecological characterization of the Sea Island coastal region of South Carolina and Georgia. Volume III. Biological features of the characterization area. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Service. FWS/OBS-79/42. Washington, DC. 620 pp.
  • 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.
  • Sharitz, R. R. 1975. Forest communities of Kiawah Island. Pages F1-F39 in: W. M. Campbell, J. M. Dean, and W. D. Chamberlain, editors. Environmental inventory of Kiawah Island. Environmental Research Center, Inc., Columbia, SC.
  • Weakley, A. S. 2012. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. Unpublished working draft. University of North Carolina Herbarium (NCU), North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. [http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm]
  • Wharton, C. H. 1978. The natural environments of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta. 227 pp.
  • Wolfe, S. H., editor. 1990. An ecological characterization of the Florida Springs Coast: Pithlachascotee to Waccasassa rivers. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service, Biological Report 90(21). Slidell, LA. 323 pp.