Print Report
A3267 Abies balsamea - Betula alleghaniensis - Populus tremuloides Subboreal Forest Alliance
Type Concept Sentence: Stands are dominated by Picea glauca and Abies balsamea with an abundance of northern hardwoods, such as Acer rubrum, Acer saccharum, Betula alleghaniensis, Populus grandidentata, Prunus serotina, and Tilia americana, along with the boreal hardwoods Populus tremuloides and Betula papyrifera. These subboreal conifer - northern hardwood forests are found in the eastern cool temperate forest region, ranging from north-central Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan through central Ontario to eastern Canada.
Common (Translated Scientific) Name: Balsam Fir - Yellow Birch - Quaking Aspen Subboreal Forest Alliance
Colloquial Name: Subboreal Mesic Fir - Yellow Birch - Hardwood Forest
Hierarchy Level: Alliance
Type Concept: Stands are dominated by Picea glauca and Abies balsamea with an abundance of northern hardwoods, such as Acer rubrum, Acer saccharum, Betula alleghaniensis, Populus grandidentata, Prunus serotina, and Tilia americana, along with the boreal hardwoods Populus tremuloides and Betula papyrifera. Other conifers include Pinus strobus, Thuja occidentalis and, less commonly, Tsuga canadensis. The shrub and herb layers are variable, decreasing as the percent conifer cover increases. Common shrub species include Acer spicatum, Amelanchier spp., Corylus cornuta, Diervilla lonicera, Lonicera canadensis, and Prunus virginiana. The herbaceous layer is often quite poor and includes species such as Anemone quinquefolia, Aralia nudicaulis, Cornus canadensis, Clintonia borealis, Eurybia macrophylla, Maianthemum canadense, Mitella nuda, and Trientalis borealis. The moss layer ranges from discontinuous to continuous. These subboreal conifer - northern hardwood forests are found in the eastern cool temperate forest region, ranging from north-central Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan through central Ontario to eastern Canada. These upland forests typically occur on mesic to wet-mesic (moist) sites, most commonly level, clayey sites, and sites with high local water tables on glacial lake deposits, stagnation moraines and till plains. Wetter sites may contain Alnus incana ssp. rugosa, Calamagrostis canadensis, and Equisetum spp.
Diagnostic Characteristics: Conifers form at least 50% cover (?). Abies balsamea and/or Picea glauca (rather than Picea rubens) are the dominant conifers, mixed with temperate northern hardwoods, including Betula alleghaniensis, Acer rubrum, and Acer saccharum, and early-successional hardwoods such as Populus tremuloides and Betula papyrifera. If present, Acer saccharum is a minor component.
Rationale for Nominal Species or Physiognomic Features: No Data Available
Classification Comments: The transition zone from the hemi- or southern boreal region to the cool temperate forest (where Acer saccharum is the dominant tree species) is diffuse, and relates to the increasing abundance of northern hardwood tree species and more cool temperate shrubs and herbs. Where the boreal conifers occur with a strong representation of northern hardwood species, as with this type, they are placed in 1.B.2 ~Cool Temperate Forest & Woodland Formation (F008)$$, rather than with boreal forests. In Minnesota, this type is best crosswalked to MHn44: Northern Wet-Mesic Boreal Hardwood-Conifer Forest, especially MHn44b: White Pine-White Spruce - Paper Birch, MHn44c: Aspen-Fir Forest, and MHn44d: Aspen-Birch - Fir Forest (Minnesota DNR 2003, 2005a). A stand summary table is available for Minnesota in Minnesota DNR (2005a). In Quebec, this type may most strongly be found in the "Balsam Fir-Yellow Birch domain," which also includes red spruce. Review across eastern Canada is needed to resolve hierarchy level issues.
Similar NVC Types: No Data Available
note: No Data Available
Physiognomy and Structure: These forests are mostly closed-canopy but may have patchy openings due to gap dynamics. Herbs are well-distributed but variable in the amount of cover depending on latitude and soil moisture. Moss cover is patchy to continuous.
Floristics: Stands are dominated by Picea glauca and Abies balsamea with an abundance of northern hardwoods, such as Acer rubrum, Acer saccharum, Betula alleghaniensis, Populus grandidentata, and Prunus serotina, along with the boreal hardwoods Populus tremuloides and Betula papyrifera. Fraxinus nigra may also be present. Other conifers include Pinus strobus and Thuja occidentalis. Much less common tree species include Tilia americana and Tsuga canadensis. The shrub and herb layers are variable, decreasing as the percent of conifer cover increases. Common shrub species include Acer pensylvanicum, Acer spicatum, Amelanchier spp., Corylus cornuta, Diervilla lonicera, Lonicera canadensis, and Prunus virginiana. The herbaceous layer is often quite poor and includes species such as Anemone quinquefolia, Aralia nudicaulis, Cornus canadensis, Clintonia borealis, Eurybia macrophylla (= Aster macrophyllus), Maianthemum canadense, Mitella nuda, and Trientalis borealis. The moss layer ranges from discontinuous to continuous (Kurmis et al. 1986, Sims et al. 1989, Minnesota DNR 2003, 2005a).
Dynamics: These forests are affected by windthrow, insect defoliation, and infrequent fires. Mammalian herbivory also can impact forest stands. Selective herbivory by white-tailed deer can alter the composition and structure and favor browse-tolerant species such as Picea glauca. These forests typically regenerate from gap-phase dynamics.
Environmental Description: Climate: Climate is characterized by cool, even temperatures, shorter growing season than other temperate types, and deep and sometimes severe winter snowfall. In the southern part of their range in the Great Lakes states, these forests occur along northern Great Lakes shorelines and on islands in Lake Superior. Soil/substrate/hydrology: These upland forests typically occur on mesic to wet-mesic (moist) sites, most commonly level, clayey sites, and sites with high local water tables on glacial lake deposits, stagnation moraines and tillplains (Minnesota DNR 2003).
Geographic Range: This alliance represents the sub-boreal conifer - northern hardwoods of the eastern cool temperate forests ranging from north-central Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan through central Ontario to eastern Canada. It does not occur in northern New England, where red spruce types predominate. Distribution in the Canadian Maritimes needs to be more fully explored.
Nations: CA,US
States/Provinces: MB, MI, MN, NB?, NS?, ON, QC, WI
Plot Analysis Summary:
http://vegbank.org/natureserve/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.899391
Confidence Level: Low
Confidence Level Comments: No Data Available
Grank: GNR
Greasons: No Data Available
Concept Lineage: No Data Available
Predecessors: No Data Available
Obsolete Names: No Data Available
Obsolete Parents: No Data Available
Synonomy: ? Balsam Fir: 2 (Eyre 1980) [Balsam Fir - Paper Birch subtype]
= Boreal Forest (Curtis 1959) [The bulk of Curtis''s concept probably fits best here, as he includes stands that often contain a large abundance of northern hardwoods.]
= Boreal Forest (Kost et al. 2007) [The bulk of Kost et al.''s concept probably fits best here as it includes stands that contain a large abundance of northern hardwoods. But stands on Isle Royale and areas near the Lake Superior shoreline may be boreal enough to fit with ~Eastern Boreal Balsam Fir - White Spruce - Paper Birch Forest Group (G638)$$.]
? Dry-mesic and Mesic Spruce-Fir Forests (Maycock 1961) [Maycock included both boreal forests and these sub-boreal spruce-fir northern hardwoods in his concept.]
> Fir-Birch (Heinselman 1996)
> Northern Wet-Mesic Boreal Hardwood-Conifer Forest Class [MHn44] (Minnesota DNR 2003) [This state type represents the core concept of this group in Minnesota. Despite the name, the type is described in Minnesota as "wet-mesic or mesic hardwood and hardwood-conifer forests." MHn44b, c and d are included. MHn44a is treated separately. Some stands in northern Minnesota may be boreal enough to fit with ~Eastern Boreal Balsam Fir - White Spruce - Paper Birch Forest Group (G638)$$.]
= Spruce-Fir-Cedar Forest (Albert and Comer 2008) [The bulk of this state type fits this alliance apart from stands on Isle Royale and areas near the Lake Superior shoreline, which may be boreal enough to fit with ~Eastern Boreal Balsam Fir - White Spruce - Paper Birch Forest Group (G638)$$.]
= Boreal Forest (Curtis 1959) [The bulk of Curtis''s concept probably fits best here, as he includes stands that often contain a large abundance of northern hardwoods.]
= Boreal Forest (Kost et al. 2007) [The bulk of Kost et al.''s concept probably fits best here as it includes stands that contain a large abundance of northern hardwoods. But stands on Isle Royale and areas near the Lake Superior shoreline may be boreal enough to fit with ~Eastern Boreal Balsam Fir - White Spruce - Paper Birch Forest Group (G638)$$.]
? Dry-mesic and Mesic Spruce-Fir Forests (Maycock 1961) [Maycock included both boreal forests and these sub-boreal spruce-fir northern hardwoods in his concept.]
> Fir-Birch (Heinselman 1996)
> Northern Wet-Mesic Boreal Hardwood-Conifer Forest Class [MHn44] (Minnesota DNR 2003) [This state type represents the core concept of this group in Minnesota. Despite the name, the type is described in Minnesota as "wet-mesic or mesic hardwood and hardwood-conifer forests." MHn44b, c and d are included. MHn44a is treated separately. Some stands in northern Minnesota may be boreal enough to fit with ~Eastern Boreal Balsam Fir - White Spruce - Paper Birch Forest Group (G638)$$.]
= Spruce-Fir-Cedar Forest (Albert and Comer 2008) [The bulk of this state type fits this alliance apart from stands on Isle Royale and areas near the Lake Superior shoreline, which may be boreal enough to fit with ~Eastern Boreal Balsam Fir - White Spruce - Paper Birch Forest Group (G638)$$.]
- Albert, D. A., and P. J. Comer. 2008. Atlas of early Michigan''s forests, grasslands, and wetlands, an interpretation of the 1810-1856 General Land Office surveys. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing.
- Curtis, J. T. 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin: An ordination of plant communities. Reprinted in 1987. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 657 pp.
- Eyre, F. H., editor. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 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.
- Faber-Langendoen, D., and Midwest State Natural Heritage Program Ecologists. 1996. Terrestrial vegetation of the midwest United States. International classification of ecological communities: Terrestrial vegetation of the United States. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.
- Girard, M. M., H. Goetz, and A. J. Bjugstad. 1989. Native woodland habitat types of southwestern North Dakota. Research Paper RM-281. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 36 pp.
- Heinselman, M. 1996. The Boundary Waters Wilderness Ecosystem. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. 334 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]
- Kurmis, V., S. L. Webb, and L. C. Merriam. 1986. Plant communities of Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Botany 64:531-540.
- Maycock, P. F. 1961. The spruce-fir forest of the Keweenaw Peninsula, northern Michigan. Ecology 42(2):357-365.
- Minnesota DNR [Minnesota Department of Natural Resources]. 2003-2005a. Field guide to the native plant communities of Minnesota. Three volumes: The Laurentian Mixed Forest Province (2003), The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province (2005c), The Prairie Parkland and Tallgrass Aspen Parklands provinces (2005b). Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul.
- Minnesota DNR [Minnesota Department of Natural Resources]. 2003. Field guide to the native plant communities of Minnesota: The Laurentian Mixed Forest Province. Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul.
- Sims, R. A., W. D. Towill, K. A. Baldwin, and G. M. Wickware. 1989. Field guide to the forest ecosystem classification for northwestern Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto. 191 pp.