NatureServe Explorer logo.An Online Encyclopedia of Life
Search
Ecological Association Comprehensive Report: Record 1 of 1 selected.
See All Search Results    View Glossary
<< Previous | Next >>

Quercus falcata - Quercus alba - Carya alba / Oxydendrum arboreum / Vaccinium stamineum Forest
Translated Name: Southern Red Oak - White Oak - Mockernut Hickory / Sourwood / Deerberry Forest
Common Name: Interior Southern Red Oak - White Oak Forest
Unique Identifier: CEGL007244
Classification Approach: International Vegetation Classification (IVC)
Summary: This southern red oak - white oak dry forest is found in the Piedmont of Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, and in the interior uplands and Cumberland Plateau of Kentucky and Tennessee. It has also been reported from the Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain of Mississippi, Tennessee and Georgia. It generally is a second-growth forest on low-fertility Ultisols. The vegetation is dominated by Quercus spp. and lesser amounts of Carya spp. The canopy is continuous, and several species of Quercus may be present or codominant (e.g., Quercus falcata, Quercus alba, Quercus velutina, Quercus coccinea, and Quercus stellata). The subcanopy closure is variable, ranging from less than 25% to more than 40% cover, and the shrub and herb layers generally are sparse. Subcanopy species include canopy species and Acer rubrum, Liriodendron tulipifera, Oxydendrum arboreum, Liquidambar styraciflua, Ulmus alata, Cornus florida, Nyssa sylvatica, Juniperus virginiana var. virginiana, and Vaccinium arboreum. The tall-shrub stratum may contain Rhododendron canescens and Vaccinium arboreum. The low-shrub stratum can be sparse to moderate and may be dominated by various ericaceous shrubs such as Vaccinium pallidum, Vaccinium stamineum, Vaccinium fuscatum, and Gaylussacia baccata. Smilax glauca and Vitis rotundifolia are common vines. Herbaceous species that may be present include Aristolochia serpentaria, Symphyotrichum dumosum (= Aster dumosus), Clitoria mariana, Desmodium nudiflorum, Euphorbia corollata, Galium circaezans, Chimaphila maculata, Polystichum acrostichoides, Asplenium platyneuron, Hexastylis arifolia, Coreopsis major, Solidago odora, Tephrosia virginiana, Potentilla simplex, Porteranthus stipulatus, Pteridium aquilinum, Lespedeza spp., Dichanthelium spp., and Hieracium venosum.



Classification

Classification Confidence: Low
Classification Comments: The limits of the range of this type needs to be clarified in Kentucky. The alliance placement may need to be revisited.

Vegetation Hierarchy
Class 1 - Forest & Woodland
Subclass 1.B - Temperate & Boreal Forest & Woodland
Formation 1.B.2 - Cool Temperate Forest & Woodland
Division 1.B.2.Na - Eastern North American Forest & Woodland
Macrogroup Southern & South-Central Oak - Pine Forest & Woodland
Group South-Central Interior Oak Forest & Woodland
Alliance Interior Low Plateau Mixed Oak Woodland

This is the revised vegetation hierarchy. For more information see Classification Sources and usnvc.org.

Similar Associations
Unique Identifier Name
CEGL002075 Quercus stellata - Quercus marilandica - Carya (glabra, texana) / Vaccinium arboreum Forest
CEGL005018 Quercus falcata - Quercus alba - Quercus stellata - Quercus velutina Forest
CEGL006227 Quercus alba - Carya alba / Euonymus americanus / Hexastylis arifolia Forest
CEGL008427 Pinus echinata - Quercus alba / Vaccinium pallidum / Hexastylis arifolia - Chimaphila maculata Forest
CEGL008475 Quercus alba - Quercus rubra - Carya alba / Vaccinium stamineum / Desmodium nudiflorum Piedmont Forest
CEGL008567 Quercus alba - Quercus falcata / Vaccinium (arboreum, hirsutum, pallidum) Forest



Related Concepts from Other Classifications

Related Subnational Community Units
These data are subject to substantial ongoing revision and may be out of date for some states.
In the U.S., contact the state Heritage Program for the most complete and up-to-date information at: http://www.natureserve.org/natureserve-network.
Information from programs in other jurisdictions will be posted when they are made available.
Subnation Concept Name Relationship to Standard Confidence Reference
Kentucky Acidic Sub-xeric Forest Broader   Evans 1991
North Carolina Dry Oak--Hickory Forest (Piedmont Subtype) Equivalent Certain Schafale 2012


Other Related Concepts
Related Concept Name: Acidic Sub-xeric Forest
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Evans, M. 1991. Kentucky ecological communities. Draft report to the Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission. 19 pp.
Related Concept Name: Black Oak: 110
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Eyre, F. H., editor. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 pp.
Related Concept Name: Dry Oak--Hickory Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype)
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: 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.
Related Concept Name: IA6i. Interior Upland Dry-Mesic Oak - Hickory Forest
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: 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.
Related Concept Name: Mesotrophic Forest
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: Rawinski, T. J. 1992. A classification of Virginia's indigenous biotic communities: Vegetated terrestrial, palustrine, and estuarine community classes. Unpublished document. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. Natural Heritage Technical Report No. 92-21. Richmond, VA. 25 pp.
Related Concept Name: Southern Red Oak, HR
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Pyne, M. 1994. Tennessee natural communities. Unpublished document. Tennessee Department of Conservation, Ecology Service Division, Nashville. 7 pp.
Related Concept Name: Submesic Broadleaf Deciduous Forest
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Ambrose, J. 1990a. Georgia's natural communities--A preliminary list. Unpublished document. Georgia Natural Heritage Inventory. 5 pp.
Related Concept Name: White Oak - Black Oak - Northern Red Oak: 52
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Eyre, F. H., editor. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 pp.
Related Concept Name: White Oak - Mixed Hardwoods, HR
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Pyne, M. 1994. Tennessee natural communities. Unpublished document. Tennessee Department of Conservation, Ecology Service Division, Nashville. 7 pp.
Related Concept Name: White Oak - Mixed Oak - Hickory, HR
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Pyne, M. 1994. Tennessee natural communities. Unpublished document. Tennessee Department of Conservation, Ecology Service Division, Nashville. 7 pp.
Related Concept Name: White Oak: 53
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Eyre, F. H., editor. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 pp.

Ecological Systems Placement

Ecological Systems Placement
Ecological System Unique ID Ecological System Name
CES202.339 Southern Piedmont Dry Oak-(Pine) Forest and Woodland
CES202.359 Allegheny-Cumberland Dry Oak Forest and Woodland
CES202.898 Southern Interior Low Plateau Dry-Mesic Oak Forest
CES203.482 East Gulf Coastal Plain Northern Loess Plain Oak-Hickory Upland
CES203.483 East Gulf Coastal Plain Northern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest


NatureServe Conservation Status
Global Status: G4G5 (13Feb2009)
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: This is not a rare forest type, although most examples have been impacted by removal of the more valuable timber species (e.g., Quercus alba), and remaining ones on private land are highly vulnerable to canopy removal and conversion to other forest types or other land uses. This is one of the most common dry to dry-mesic oak forest communities found at Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (L. Echols pers. comm. 2009).

Distribution
Color legend for Distribution Map
United States Distribution: AL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN
Global Distribution: United States
Global Range: This southern red oak - white oak dry forest is found in the Piedmont of Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, and in the interior uplands and Cumberland Plateau of Kentucky and Tennessee. It has also been reported from the Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain of Mississippi, Tennessee and Georgia.

U.S. Forest Service Ecoregions
Domain Name: Humid Temperate Domain
Division Name: Hot Continental Division
Province Name: Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Oceanic) Province
Province Code: 221 Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Northern Cumberland Plateau Section
Section Code: 221H Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Province Name: Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Continental) Province
Province Code: 222 Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Upper Gulf Coastal Plain Section
Section Code: 222C Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Interior Low Plateau, Highland Rim Section
Section Code: 222E Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Division Name: Subtropical Division
Province Name: Southeastern Mixed Forest Province
Province Code: 231 Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Southern Appalachian Piedmont Section
Section Code: 231A Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Coastal Plain Middle Section
Section Code: 231B Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Southern Cumberland Plateau Section
Section Code: 231C Occurrence Status: Confident or certain


Vegetation

Vegetation Summary: The vegetation is dominated by Quercus spp. and lesser amounts of Carya spp. The canopy is continuous and may include Quercus falcata, Quercus alba, Quercus velutina, Quercus coccinea, and Quercus stellata. The subcanopy closure is variable, ranging from less than 25% to more than 40% cover, and the shrub and herb layers generally are sparse. Subcanopy species include canopy species and Acer rubrum, Liriodendron tulipifera, Oxydendrum arboreum, Liquidambar styraciflua, Ulmus alata, Cornus florida, Nyssa sylvatica, Juniperus virginiana var. virginiana, and Vaccinium arboreum. The tall-shrub stratum may contain Rhododendron canescens and Vaccinium arboreum. The low-shrub stratum is dominated by various ericaceous shrubs such as Vaccinium pallidum, Vaccinium stamineum, Vaccinium fuscatum, and Gaylussacia baccata. Smilax glauca and Vitis rotundifolia are common vines. Herbaceous species that may be present include Aristolochia serpentaria, Symphyotrichum dumosum (= Aster dumosus), Clitoria mariana, Desmodium nudiflorum, Euphorbia corollata, Galium circaezans, Chimaphila maculata, Polystichum acrostichoides, Asplenium platyneuron, Hexastylis arifolia, Coreopsis major, Solidago odora, Tephrosia virginiana, Potentilla simplex, Porteranthus stipulatus, Pteridium aquilinum, Lespedeza spp., Dichanthelium spp., and Hieracium venosum. Lonicera japonica is also known.

At Shiloh (western Tennessee) this association is documented from 3 plots; the canopy is dominated by Quercus alba, Quercus falcata, Quercus stellata, Ulmus alata, and Carya alba. Quercus muehlenbergii is also present as a canopy species in one of the plots. Subcanopy dominants are Liquidambar styraciflua, Ulmus alata, Nyssa sylvatica, Fraxinus americana, and Carya glabra. Other subcanopy trees are Quercus rubra, Quercus alba, Carya alba, Juniperus virginiana var. virginiana, Carya ovalis, Diospyros virginiana, and Fagus grandifolia. The most abundant tall shrubs are Carya alba, Quercus falcata, Ulmus alata, and Liquidambar styraciflua. Other tall shrubs are Carya ovalis, Sassafras albidum, Quercus alba, Nyssa sylvatica, Vaccinium arboreum, Vaccinium stamineum, and less abundant Quercus velutina, Quercus rubra, Fagus grandifolia, Fraxinus americana, Acer rubrum, Smilax rotundifolia, and Ilex opaca. Short shrubs are diverse; Quercus falcata, Vitis rotundifolia, Vaccinium stamineum, and Carya alba are the most abundant. Other short shrubs are Quercus velutina, Ulmus alata, Quercus alba, Nyssa sylvatica, Parthenocissus quinquefolia, Prunus serotina, and Sassafras albidum. Short shrubs which are sparse include Amelanchier arborea, Vaccinium arboreum, Juniperus virginiana var. virginiana, Diospyros virginiana, Hypericum hypericoides, Fraxinus americana, Smilax rotundifolia, Ilex opaca, Acer rubrum, Quercus phellos, Celtis occidentalis, Rubus argutus, Morus rubra, Smilax bona-nox, Ilex decidua, Toxicodendron radicans, and Carya ovalis. In one of the plots Chasmanthium sessiliflorum is the dominant herb, in the other plots there is no single dominant and herbs are all sparse. Other herbs include Dichanthelium boscii, Carex complanata, Dichanthelium laxiflorum, Danthonia spicata, Lespedeza repens, Lespedeza procumbens, Carex leavenworthii, Schizachyrium scoparium and present a in trace amounts Carex swanii, Dichanthelium dichotomum var. dichotomum, Sericocarpus linifolius, Galium circaezans, Panicum anceps, Tridens flavus, Aristolochia serpentaria, Dichanthelium acuminatum var. acuminatum, Galium pilosum, Solidago rugosa, Erechtites hieraciifolia, Sanicula canadensis, Asplenium platyneuron, Acalypha rhomboidea, Mimosa microphylla, Conyza canadensis, and Penstemon calycosus.


Vegetation Composition (incomplete)
Species Name Rounded Global Status Growth Form Stratum Charact-
eristic
Dominant Constant
Cover Class %
Con-
stancy
%
Carya alba G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy    
 
 
Prunus umbellata G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy      
 
 
Quercus alba G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy    
 
 
Quercus coccinea G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy    
 
 
Quercus falcata G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy    
 
 
Quercus velutina G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy    
 
 
Cornus florida G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree subcanopy    
 
 
Oxydendrum arboreum G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree subcanopy    
 
 
Amorpha schwerinii G4 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)      
 
 
Nestronia umbellula G4 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)      
 
 
Yucca filamentosa G4 Succulent shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)      
 
 
Rhus michauxii G4 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Short shrub/sapling      
 
 
Vaccinium pallidum G4 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Short shrub/sapling    
 
 
Vaccinium stamineum G4 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Short shrub/sapling    
 
 
Brickellia cordifolia G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Corallorhiza wisteriana G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Hexastylis lewisii G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Hexastylis naniflora G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Monotropsis odorata G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Onosmodium virginianum G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Porteranthus stipulatus G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Thermopsis mollis G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Lonicera japonica G4 Liana Herb (field)      
 
 


At-Risk Species Reported for this Association
Scientific Name
  (Common Name)
NatureServe Global Status U.S. Endangered Species Act Status
Amorpha schwerinii
  (Schwerin Indigobush)
G3G4  
Brickellia cordifolia
  (Flyr's Brickell-bush)
G3  
Hexastylis lewisii
  (Lewis' Heartleaf)
G3  
Hexastylis naniflora
  (Dwarf-flower Heartleaf)
G3 LT: Listed threatened
Monotropsis odorata
  (Sweet Pinesap)
G3  
Rhus michauxii
  (Michaux's Sumac)
G2G3 LE: Listed endangered
Thermopsis mollis
  (Allegheny Mountain Golden-banner)
G3G4  


Environmental Setting

Wetland Indicator: N
Environmental Summary: Stands are typically found on low fertility Ultisols in the Piedmont, the interior uplands, and the Cumberland Plateau. This community occurs on soils of relatively low fertility; suborders on which this community occurs include Hapludults and Paleudults. Stands are uneven-aged and tree replacement occurs in gaps; severe fires most likely destroy community occurrences although light fires probably are tolerated. In western Tennessee (Shiloh National Military Park) it occurs on silt loam and loam soils on moderate to gentle slopes and ridgetops.


Dynamic Processes

Dynamics: There is no known natural disturbance regime responsible for development or maintenance of this community type, although at Kings Mountain National Military Park there is historic evidence that supports the idea that this community type was much more open prior to human settlement and the suppression of fire. Tree replacement occurs most frequently in single tree-sized gaps. Occasional catastrophic windstorms and fires occur, and in some cases fire is being reintroduced into this community to encourage oak reproduction and a more open canopy.


Plot Sampling & Classification Analysis

Plots stored in VegBank


Authors/Contributors
Concept Author(s): S. Landaal and J.E. Mohan
Element Description Edition Date: 31Aug2004
Element Description Author(s): S. Landaal and R.E. Evans
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 13Feb2009
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author(s): M. Pyne

Ecological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).


References
  • ALNHP [Alabama Natural Heritage Program]. 2002. Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge: Natural community and rare plant survey. Alabama Natural Heritage Program, The Nature Conservancy, Montgomery.

  • 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.

  • Ambrose, J. 1990a. Georgia's natural communities--A preliminary list. Unpublished document. Georgia Natural Heritage Inventory. 5 pp.

  • Echols, Lee. Personal communication. Conservation Biologist, North American Land Trust, Georgia Field Office, Athens, GA.

  • Evans, M. 1991. Kentucky ecological communities. Draft report to the Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission. 19 pp.

  • Evans, M., B. Yahn, and M. Hines. Kentucky ecological communities. 2009. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort, KY.

  • Eyre, F. H., editor. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 pp.

  • Golden, M. S. 1979. Forest vegetation of the lower Alabama Piedmont. Ecology 60:770-782.

  • NatureServe Ecology - Southeastern United States. No date. Unpublished data. NatureServe, Durham, NC.

  • Nordman, C., M. Russo, and L. Smart. 2011. Vegetation types of the Natchez Trace Parkway, based on the U.S. National Vegetation Classification. NatureServe Central Databases (International Ecological Classification Standard: Terrestrial Ecological Classifications). Arlington, VA. Data current as of 11 April 2011. 548 pp.

  • Oberholster, C. 1993. Preliminary list of natural communities of Alabama. Unpublished document. Alabama Department Conservation and Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Section, Montgomery, AL. 6 pp.

  • Oosting, H. J. 1942. An ecological analysis of the plant communities of Piedmont, North Carolina. The American Midland Naturalist 28:1-127.

  • Peet, R. K., T. R. Wentworth, M. P. Schafale, and A.S. Weakley. No date. Unpublished data of the North Carolina Vegetation Survey. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

  • Peet, R. K., and N. L. Christensen. 1980. Hardwood forest vegetation of the North Carolina Piedmont. Veroffentlichungen des Geobotanischen Institutes der ETH, Stiftung Rubel 68:14-39.

  • Pyne, M. 1994. Tennessee natural communities. Unpublished document. Tennessee Department of Conservation, Ecology Service Division, Nashville. 7 pp.

  • Rawinski, T. J. 1992. A classification of Virginia's indigenous biotic communities: Vegetated terrestrial, palustrine, and estuarine community classes. Unpublished document. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. Natural Heritage Technical Report No. 92-21. Richmond, VA. 25 pp.

  • Schafale, M. P. 2012. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, 4th Approximation. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh.

  • 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.

  • Schotz, A., H. Summer, and R. White, Jr. 2008. Vascular plant inventory and ecological community classification for Little River Canyon National Preserve. NatureServe, Durham, NC. 244 pp.

  • Schotz, Al. Personal communication. Community Ecologist. Alabama Natural Heritage Program. Huntingdon College, Massey Hall, 1500 East Fairview Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36106-2148.

  • Southeastern Ecology Working Group of NatureServe. No date. International Ecological Classification Standard: International Vegetation Classification. Terrestrial Vegetation. NatureServe, Durham, NC.

  • TDNH [Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage]. No date. Unpublished data. Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage, Nashville, TN.

  • White, Jr., R. D. 2004. Vascular plant inventory and plant community classification for Cowpens National Battlefield. NatureServe, Durham, NC. 126 pp.

  • White, Jr., R. D., and T. Govus. 2005. Vascular plant inventory and plant community classification for Kings Mountain National Military Park. NatureServe, Durham, NC. 178 pp.

  • White, R. D., Jr., and M. Pyne. 2003. Vascular plant inventory and plant community classification for Guilford Courthouse National Military Park. Prepared for the National Park Service. NatureServe, Southeast Regional Office, Durham, NC. 124 pp.

  • White, R. D., Jr., and T. Govus. 2003. Vascular plant inventory and plant community classification for Ninety Six National Historic Site. Prepared for the National Park Service. NatureServe, Durham, NC. 146 pp.


Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of November 2016.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2017 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.

Copyright 2017
NatureServe
Version 7.1 (2 February 2009)
Data last updated: November 2016