Print Report

A3293 Quercus rubra - Quercus alba - Carya spp. Piedmont Forest Alliance

Type Concept Sentence: These are dry-mesic to mesic upland oak forests dominated by Quercus alba and/or Quercus rubra, with or without Carya species, found in the southern Piedmont, the lower elevations of the Appalachian Mountains, the adjacent Ridge and Valley, and peripherally in the adjacent Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain of the southeastern United States.

Common (Translated Scientific) Name: Northern Red Oak - White Oak - Hickory species Piedmont Forest Alliance

Colloquial Name: Piedmont Dry-mesic Oak - Hickory Forest

Hierarchy Level:  Alliance

Type Concept: These are dry-mesic to mesic upland oak forests dominated by Quercus alba and/or Quercus rubra, with or without Carya species, found in the southern Piedmont, the lower elevations of the Appalachian Mountains, the adjacent Ridge and Valley, and peripherally in the adjacent Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain of the southeastern United States. Quercus alba usually dominates, either alone or in combination with Quercus falcata (especially on drier sites), Quercus rubra (especially on moister sites), and sometimes Quercus velutina. Carya species (particularly Carya tomentosa, Carya glabra, or Carya ovata) are typically common either in the canopy or subcanopy. Other associated species include Acer leucoderme, Acer rubrum, Calycanthus floridus, Cornus florida, Fraxinus americana, Kalmia latifolia, Nyssa sylvatica, Ostrya virginiana, Oxydendrum arboreum, Pyrularia pubera, and others. Stands are found on gentle to moderately steep slopes on uplands and on steep valley sides. The soils are moderately deep to deep and vary from silts to clays and loams. The parent material ranges from glaciated till to limestone, shale, sandstone and other bedrock types.

Diagnostic Characteristics: This alliance is at least partly defined on biogeographic criteria. It is by definition primarily found in the southern Piedmont ecoregion and adjacent areas of the southeastern United States. Stands are dominated by a combination of wide-ranging hardwood species (Quercus alba, Quercus rubra, Carya species), so these alone are not diagnostic.

Rationale for Nominal Species or Physiognomic Features: No Data Available

Classification Comments: This alliance is floristically similar to vegetation of other alliances in other groups in other regions of the eastern United States.

Similar NVC Types: No Data Available
note: No Data Available
Physiognomy and Structure: No Data Available

Floristics: Quercus alba usually dominates stands of this alliance, either alone or in combination with Quercus falcata (especially on drier sites), Quercus rubra (especially on moister sites), and sometimes Quercus velutina. Carya species (particularly Carya tomentosa (= Carya alba), Carya glabra, or Carya ovata) are typically common either in the canopy or subcanopy. Other associated species include Acer leucoderme, Acer rubrum, Calycanthus floridus, Cornus florida, Fraxinus americana, Kalmia latifolia, Nyssa sylvatica, Ostrya virginiana, Oxydendrum arboreum, Pyrularia pubera, and others.

Dynamics:  In the southeastern United States, Liriodendron tulipifera, Liquidambar styraciflua, Fraxinus americana, Acer rubrum, and other mesic associates often increase after disturbances, such as clearcutting or windstorms, especially in the absence of fire and in areas adjacent to creeks and rivers.
Environmental Description:  This alliance covers dry-mesic forests of the Piedmont. Stands are found on gentle to moderately steep slopes on uplands and on steep valley sides. The soils are moderately deep to deep and vary from silts to clays and loams. The parent material ranges from glaciated till to limestone, shale, sandstone and other bedrock types.
Geographic Range: Examples are found in the southern Piedmont, lower elevations of the Appalachian Mountains, the adjacent Ridge and Valley, and peripherally in the adjacent upper east Gulf coastal plain of the southeastern United States, from Virginia south to Georgia, with examples also known from Kentucky, Tennessee, Maryland, West Virginia, and possibly from Alabama.

Nations: US

States/Provinces:  AL, DC, GA, KY, MD, NC, SC, TN, VA


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.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 A3293 Northern Red Oak - White Oak - Hickory species Piedmont Forest Alliance A3293 1.B.2.Na.1.a
Association CEGL004232 Loblolly Pine - (White Oak, Southern Red Oak, Post Oak) Piedmont Forest CEGL004232 1.B.2.Na.1.a
Association CEGL004542 White Oak - Northern Red Oak - Chestnut Oak - Carolina Basswood / Hophornbeam Forest CEGL004542 1.B.2.Na.1.a
Association CEGL007232 White Oak - Northern Red Oak - (Shagbark Hickory, Southern Shagbark Hickory) / Eastern Redbud Forest CEGL007232 1.B.2.Na.1.a
Association CEGL007237 Northern Red Oak - White Oak - Pignut Hickory / Spotted Geranium Forest CEGL007237 1.B.2.Na.1.a
Association CEGL008475 White Oak - Northern Red Oak - Mockernut Hickory / Deerberry / Naked-flower Tick-trefoil Piedmont Forest CEGL008475 1.B.2.Na.1.a
Concept Lineage: The members of this alliance come from A.239 (10/30) and A.404 (1/8). Two of these associations were members of the proto alliance A2053, but that entity now lives in G650.

Predecessors: No Data Available

Obsolete Names: No Data Available

Obsolete Parents: No Data Available
Synonomy: >< IA6j. Interior Calcareous Oak - Hickory Forest (Allard 1990)
>< White Oak - Black Oak - Northern Red Oak: 52 (Eyre 1980)
>< White Oak: 53 (Eyre 1980)
Concept Author(s): M. Pyne, in Faber-Langendoen et al. (2013)

Author of Description: M. Pyne

Acknowledgements: We have incorporated significant descriptive information previously compiled by Dorothy Allard and Sally Landaal.

Version Date: 01-08-14
  • 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.
  • Andreu, M. G., and M. L. Tukman. 1995. Forest communities of the Tellico Lake Area, East Tennessee. M.F. project report, Duke University, School of the Environment. Durham, NC. 66 pp. plus appendices.
  • Evans, M., B. Yahn, and M. Hines. 2009. Natural communities of Kentucky 2009. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort, KY. 22 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.
  • Fountain, M. S., and J. M. Sweeney. 1985. Ecological assessment of the Roaring Branch Research Natural Area. Research Paper SO-213. USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA. 15 pp.
  • Golden, M. S. 1979. Forest vegetation of the lower Alabama Piedmont. Ecology 60:770-782.
  • Jones, S. M. 1988a. Old-growth forests within the Piedmont of South Carolina. Natural Areas Journal 8:31-37.
  • Jones, S. M. 1988b. Old-growth, steady state forests within the Piedmont of South Carolina. Ph.D. dissertation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC. 94 pp.
  • Monk, C. D., D. W. Imm, and R. L. Potter. 1990. Oak forests of eastern North America. Castanea 55(2):77-96.
  • 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.
  • Oakley, S. C., H. E. LeGrand, Jr., and M. P. Schafale. 1995. An inventory of mafic natural areas in the North Carolina Piedmont. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh. 252 pp.
  • Oosting, H. J. 1942. An ecological analysis of the plant communities of Piedmont, North Carolina. The American Midland Naturalist 28:1-127.
  • 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.
  • Wharton, C. H. 1978. The natural environments of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta. 227 pp.