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 >>

Liquidambar styraciflua - Liriodendron tulipifera / Lindera benzoin / Arisaema triphyllum Floodplain Forest
Translated Name: Sweetgum - Tuliptree / Northern Spicebush / Jack-in-the-Pulpit Floodplain Forest
Common Name: Upper Southeast Sweetgum - Tuliptree Small Stream Forest
Unique Identifier: CEGL004418
Classification Approach: International Vegetation Classification (IVC)
Summary: These low-elevation forests develop along relatively acidic soils on small streams in the Coastal Plain of Maryland and Virginia, extending west across the Virginia and North Carolina Piedmont to the Cumberland Plateau and Ridge and Valley. The topographic features of floodplains can heavily influence the makeup of individual examples of this association. The canopy, subcanopy, shrub, and herbaceous layers often are well-developed. Dominant canopy species always include Liquidambar styraciflua and Liriodendron tulipifera, while Acer barbatum (in the eastern part of the range), Platanus occidentalis, and Acer rubrum var. rubrum may also make up significant amounts of the canopy. This community type exists as a continuum between two subtypes, i.e., the tuliptree subtype and the sweetgum subtype. In some examples, only one or the other dominates the canopy, but in many examples, both are equally dominant. Common species in the canopy and understory include Ilex opaca var. opaca, Aesculus sylvatica, Betula nigra, Carpinus caroliniana ssp. caroliniana, Cornus florida, Carya cordiformis, Fagus grandifolia, Fraxinus americana, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Halesia tetraptera var. tetraptera, Juglans nigra, Juniperus virginiana var. virginiana, Morus rubra var. rubra, Nyssa sylvatica, Ostrya virginiana var. virginiana, Oxydendrum arboreum, Pinus echinata, Prunus serotina var. serotina, Quercus alba, Quercus rubra var. rubra, Ulmus rubra, Ulmus americana, and Ulmus alata. Euonymus americanus, Asimina triloba, Lindera benzoin var. benzoin, and Corylus americana are common in the shrub layer. The herbaceous layer is species-rich and often has good sedge development. The exotics Microstegium vimineum, Glechoma hederacea, Rosa multiflora, Ligustrum sinense, and Lonicera japonica are common in this community.



Classification

Classification Confidence: Low
Classification Comments: Low-quality occurrences of this type may look very similar to some occurrences of Liquidambar styraciflua - (Liriodendron tulipifera) Ruderal Wet Forest (CEGL007330). The presence of higher quality patches of native herbs and stands of native shrubs such as Lindera benzoin is the best way to distinguish these two types. In addition, stands of CEGL007330 will generally be more even-aged and single species-dominated than this association (CEGL004418).

Vegetation Hierarchy
Class 1 - Forest & Woodland
Subclass 1.B - Temperate & Boreal Forest & Woodland
Formation 1.B.3 - Temperate Flooded & Swamp Forest
Division 1.B.3.Nb - Southeastern North American Flooded & Swamp Forest
Macrogroup Southern Coastal Plain Floodplain Forest
Group Oak - Sweetgum Floodplain Forest
Alliance Piedmont Tuliptree - Oak - Sweetgum Floodplain Forest

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

Similar Associations
Unique Identifier Name
CEGL004900 Liriodendron tulipifera - Quercus alba - (Liquidambar styraciflua) / Ilex opaca / Polystichum acrostichoides Piedmont Floodplain Forest
CEGL006492 Liriodendron tulipifera - Acer negundo - (Platanus occidentalis) / Carpinus caroliniana / Polygonum virginianum Floodplain Forest
CEGL006976 Betula nigra - Acer rubrum - (Liquidambar styraciflua) / Microstegium vimineum Ruderal Floodplain Forest
CEGL007006 Liquidambar styraciflua - Quercus (phellos, nigra, alba) / Carpinus caroliniana Floodplain Forest
CEGL007013 Fraxinus pennsylvanica - Platanus occidentalis - Celtis laevigata / Chasmanthium latifolium Piedmont Floodplain Forest
CEGL007216 Liquidambar styraciflua Ruderal Forest
CEGL007330 Liquidambar styraciflua - (Liriodendron tulipifera) Ruderal Wet 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
North Carolina Piedmont Alluvial Forest Equivalent Certain Schafale 2012


Other Related Concepts
Related Concept Name: Liquidambar styraciflua - Liriodendron tulipifera / Lindera benzoin / Arisaema triphyllum Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Fleming, G. P., P. P. Coulling, K. D. Patterson, and K. Taverna. 2006. The natural communities of Virginia: Classification of ecological community groups. Second approximation. Version 2.2. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. [http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/ncTIV.shtml]
Related Concept Name: Liquidambar styraciflua - Liriodendron tulipifera / Lindera benzoin Temporarily Flooded Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: McCoy, K. M., and G. P. Fleming. 2000. Ecological communities of U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Belvoir, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Army. Natural Heritage Technical Report 00-08. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 156 pp. plus appendices.
Related Concept Name: Liquidambar styraciflua - Quercus palustris / Carpinus caroliniana / Carex intumescens Forest
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: Meininger, J., and K. McCarthy. 1998. Forest communities of Zekiah Swamp nontidal wetland of special state concern. Unpublished report. Maryland Department of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Division, Annapolis.
Related Concept Name: Liquidambar styraciflua / Lindera benzoin / Arisaema triphyllum ssp. triphyllum Temporarily Flooded Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Coulling, P. P. 1999. Eastern hemlock inventory and assessment for Prince William Forest Park, Virginia. Natural Heritage Technical Report 99-08. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 68 pp. plus appendices.
Related Concept Name: Liriodendron tulipifera - Fagus grandifolia / Thelypteris noveboracensis Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Fleming, G. P., and K. D. Patterson. 2003. Preliminary vegetation classification for the National Capitol Region parks. Regional (VA-WVA-MD-DC) analysis prepared for NatureServe and USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program, March 2003. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond.
Related Concept Name: Coastal Plain - Piedmont Bottomland Forest
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Harrison, J. W., compiler. 2004. Classification of vegetation communities of Maryland: First iteration. A subset of the International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the United States, NatureServe. Maryland Natural Heritage Program, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis. 243 pp.
Related Concept Name: Coastal Plain / Piedmont Floodplain Forest
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Fleming, G. P., P. P. Coulling, K. D. Patterson, and K. Taverna. 2006. The natural communities of Virginia: Classification of ecological community groups. Second approximation. Version 2.2. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. [http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/ncTIV.shtml]
Related Concept Name: Maple-Gum Association of the Western Shore District
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Shreve, F., M. A. Chrysler, F. H. Blodgett, and F. W. Besley. 1910. The plant life of Maryland. Maryland Weather Service. Special Publication, Volume III. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD. 533 pp.
Related Concept Name: Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
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.

Ecological Systems Placement

Ecological Systems Placement
Ecological System Unique ID Ecological System Name
CES202.323 Southern Piedmont Small Floodplain and Riparian Forest
CES202.706 South-Central Interior Small Stream and Riparian
CES203.070 Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain Riparian and Floodplain


NatureServe Conservation Status
Global Status: G4 (14Feb2011)
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: GReasons: This community is widespread from the Coastal Plain of Maryland and Virginia through the Piedmont of Virginia and North Carolina to the Cumberland Plateau. Very few streams supporting this type have impoundments or diversions, and most are protected by wetland regulations. However, few, if any, pristine examples remain, and all are highly threatened by invasive exotic species that have colonized most of the remaining examples of this association. Most of these communities, at least in the Piedmont, would probably not be treated as jurisdictional wetlands and would not be protected by wetland regulations. They aren't flooded or saturated for that long. They are still somewhat protected by the probability of flooding, and might be subject to riparian or floodplain restrictions in some places. Some are too small to have been attractive for cultivation but others were cleared long ago. Most probably are too small to be attractive for major impoundments or diversions, though smaller impoundments are common. Many of them were impounded to power mills in the past several centuries. Gary Fleming (pers. comm.) noted that in the Virginia Piedmont it is hard to find good examples that aren't heavily altered. Fairly decent examples do not seem that hard to find in the North Carolina Piedmont.

Distribution
Color legend for Distribution Map
United States Distribution: DC, GA, MD, NC, SCpotentially occurs, TN, VA, WV
Global Distribution: United States
Global Range: This association is found in the Chesapeake Bay Lowlands, the Piedmont, and other low-elevation interior ecoregions (e.g., parts of the Cumberland Plateau and Ridge and Valley). It is defined as being absent from the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain of southeastern Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia. Its status in the Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain is unknown.

U.S. Forest Service Ecoregions
Domain Name: Humid Temperate Domain
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: Southern Cumberland Plateau Section
Section Code: 231C Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Province Name: Outer Coastal Plain Mixed Forest Province
Province Code: 232 Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain Section
Section Code: 232A Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Coastal Plains and Flatwoods, Lower Section
Section Code: 232B Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Division Name: Hot Continental Regime Mountains
Province Name: Central Appalachian Broadleaf Forest - Coniferous Forest - Meadow Province
Province Code: M221 Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Cumberland Mountains Section
Section Code: M221C Occurrence Status: Confident or certain


Vegetation

Vegetation Summary: The canopy, subcanopy, shrub, and herbaceous layers of stands of this association are often well-developed. Dominant canopy species always include Liquidambar styraciflua and Liriodendron tulipifera, while Acer barbatum (in the southern part of the range), Platanus occidentalis, and Acer rubrum var. rubrum may also make up significant amounts of the canopy. This community type exists as a continuum between two subtypes, i.e., the tuliptree subtype and the sweetgum subtype. In some examples, only one or the other dominates the canopy. However, in many examples, both are equally dominant. Other common species in the canopy and understory include Ilex opaca var. opaca, Aesculus sylvatica, Carpinus caroliniana ssp. caroliniana, Carya cordiformis, Cornus florida, Fagus grandifolia, Juglans nigra, Betula nigra, Morus rubra var. rubra, Ostrya virginiana var. virginiana, Oxydendrum arboreum, Pinus echinata, Prunus serotina var. serotina, Quercus alba, Quercus rubra var. rubra, Ulmus rubra, Ulmus americana, Ulmus alata, Juniperus virginiana var. virginiana, Nyssa sylvatica, Fraxinus americana, Halesia tetraptera var. tetraptera, Arundinaria gigantea ssp. gigantea, and Fraxinus pennsylvanica. Euonymus americanus, Lindera benzoin var. benzoin, and Corylus americana are common and dominant in the shrub layer. Other shrub species that may be present include Viburnum acerifolium, Viburnum nudum var. nudum, Viburnum prunifolium, Viburnum rufidulum, Hamamelis virginiana, Asimina triloba, and Ilex decidua, among others. On the most acidic sites of the Maryland Coastal Plain, Clethra alnifolia, Vaccinium corymbosum, and Magnolia virginiana may be present. Vines are prominent and include Vitis rotundifolia, Apios americana, Campsis radicans, Aristolochia macrophylla, Bignonia capreolata, Dioscorea quaternata, Gelsemium sempervirens, Parthenocissus quinquefolia (= var. quinquefolia), Passiflora lutea, Smilax bona-nox, Smilax glauca, Smilax hugeri, Smilax rotundifolia, and Toxicodendron radicans ssp. radicans. The herbaceous layer is species-rich and often has good sedge development. Common species in this layer include Thalictrum thalictroides, Trillium cuneatum, Arisaema triphyllum, Asplenium platyneuron var. platyneuron, Botrychium virginianum, Carex spp., Carex impressinervia, Carex striatula, Cinna arundinacea, Collinsonia canadensis, Deparia acrostichoides, Dichanthelium clandestinum, Elymus virginicus, Eurybia divaricata, Galium circaezans, Geum canadense, Medeola virginiana, Packera aurea, Poa alsodes, Polygonatum pubescens, Polystichum acrostichoides, Rudbeckia laciniata, Scutellaria integrifolia, Symphyotrichum prenanthoides, and Viola striata. Thelypteris noveboracensis is a common patch-dominant in the northern part of the range and the Uwharrie Mountains of North Carolina. Carex kraliana, which is evidently near the northern limit of its (primarily southeastern United States) range and is presently known from only two Maryland sites, has been found in this vegetation type at Thomas Stone NHS. A specimen collected at Thomas Stone NHS was cited as a paratype in the description of the species (Naczi et al. 2002). The exotics Microstegium vimineum, Glechoma hederacea, Rosa multiflora, Ligustrum sinense, and Lonicera japonica are common in this community. Other exotics that colonize quickly in disturbed and fragmented versions of this association include Wisteria sinensis, Clematis terniflora, Hedera helix, and Elaeagnus sp.

Vegetation Composition (incomplete)
Species Name Rounded Global Status Growth Form Stratum Charact-
eristic
Dominant Constant
Cover Class %
Con-
stancy
%
Liquidambar styraciflua G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy
 
 
Liriodendron tulipifera G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Corylus americana G4 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Lindera benzoin G4 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Rosa multiflora G4 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)      
 
 
Ligustrum sinense G4 Broad-leaved evergreen shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)      
 
 
Campsis radicans G4 Liana Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Smilax rotundifolia G4 Liana Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Toxicodendron radicans G4 Liana Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Euonymus americanus G4 Dwarf-shrub Short shrub/sapling    
 
 
Arisaema triphyllum G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Collinsonia tuberosa G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Galium circaezans G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Geum canadense G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Glechoma hederacea G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Medeola virginiana G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Scutellaria integrifolia G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Thalictrum thalictroides G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Trillium cuneatum G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Asplenium platyneuron G4 Fern (Spore-bearing forb) Herb (field)    
 
 
Botrychium virginianum G4 Fern (Spore-bearing forb) Herb (field)    
 
 
Polystichum acrostichoides G4 Fern (Spore-bearing forb) Herb (field)    
 
 
Carex impressinervia G4 Graminoid Herb (field)      
 
 
Carex kraliana G4 Graminoid Herb (field)      
 
 
Carex striatula G4 Graminoid Herb (field)    
 
 
Cinna arundinacea G4 Graminoid Herb (field)    
 
 
Elymus virginicus G4 Graminoid Herb (field)    
 
 
Microstegium vimineum G4 Graminoid Herb (field)      
 
 
Clematis terniflora G4 Liana Herb (field)      
 
 
Hedera helix G4 Liana Herb (field)      
 
 
Lonicera japonica G4 Liana Herb (field)      
 
 
Wisteria sinensis G4 Liana Herb (field)      
 
 


At-Risk Species Reported for this Association
Scientific Name
  (Common Name)
NatureServe Global Status U.S. Endangered Species Act Status
Carex impressinervia
  (Impressed-nerved Sedge)
G2  
Collinsonia tuberosa
  (Deepwoods Horsebalm)
G3G4  


Environmental Setting

Wetland Indicator: Y
Environmental Summary: These forests develop along small streams or in small patches on river floodplains. Soils are relatively acidic and relatively well-drained. Topographic differences from one floodplain to another, such as gradient and height above the creek, as well as floodplain microtopography (i.e., depositional landforms such as natural levees and sloughs) may influence the variation of vegetation within this association. However, in most floodplains supporting this type, the distinct alluvial landforms are poorly developed or occur at very small scales. At some sites, evidence of infrequent flooding includes fluvial topography, mixed exposed sand, light flotsam and leaf litter accumulations, and lack of soil horizon development.


Dynamic Processes

Dynamics: The topographic features characteristic of larger-stream floodplains are poorly differentiated in the small-stream habitats of this type, and vegetation zonation is absent to poorly defined. It is unclear what processes create pure sweetgum versus pure tuliptree forests, but dominance is most likely a factor of seed source and amount of flooding (sweetgum may be able to tolerate higher water levels than tuliptree). Liquidambar styraciflua - (Liriodendron tulipifera) Ruderal Wet Forest (CEGL007330) is very similar to this community but is usually less than 40 years old and very even-aged with a heavy infestation of invasive exotics and fewer native species in the shrub and herb layer.


Plot Sampling & Classification Analysis

Plots stored in VegBank


Authors/Contributors
Concept Author(s): R.K. Peet
Element Description Edition Date: 02Apr2010
Element Description Author(s): R.K. Peet, R. White, M. Pyne, G.P. Fleming, S.C. Gawler
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 14Feb2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author(s): M. Pyne, mod. M.P. Schafale

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


References
  • Coulling, P. P. 1999. Eastern hemlock inventory and assessment for Prince William Forest Park, Virginia. Natural Heritage Technical Report 99-08. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 68 pp. plus appendices.

  • Fleming, G. P. 2002b. Preliminary classification of Piedmont & Inner Coastal Plain vegetation types in Virginia. Natural Heritage Technical Report 02-14. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 29 pp.

  • Fleming, G. P., K. Taverna, and P. P. Coulling. 2007b. Vegetation classification for the National Capitol Region parks, eastern region. Regional (VA-MD-DC) analysis prepared for NatureServe and USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program, March 2007. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond.

  • Fleming, G. P., P. P. Coulling, D. P. Walton, K. M. McCoy, and M. R. Parrish. 2001. The natural communities of Virginia: Classification of ecological community groups. First approximation. Natural Heritage Technical Report 01-1. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. 76 pp.

  • Fleming, G. P., P. P. Coulling, K. D. Patterson, and K. Taverna. 2006. The natural communities of Virginia: Classification of ecological community groups. Second approximation. Version 2.2. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. [http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/ncTIV.shtml]

  • Fleming, G. P., and K. D. Patterson. 2003. Preliminary vegetation classification for the National Capitol Region parks. Regional (VA-WVA-MD-DC) analysis prepared for NatureServe and USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program, March 2003. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond.

  • Fleming, G. P., and K. D. Patterson. 2011a. Natural communities of Virginia: Ecological groups and community types. Natural Heritage Technical Report 11-07. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 34 pp.

  • Fleming, Gary P. Personal communication. Ecologist, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA.

  • Harrison, J. W., compiler. 2004. Classification of vegetation communities of Maryland: First iteration. A subset of the International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the United States, NatureServe. Maryland Natural Heritage Program, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis. 243 pp.

  • Lea, C., L. A. Sneddon, and E. Eastman. 2012. Vegetation classification and mapping at Thomas Stone National Historic Site, Maryland. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2012/550. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.

  • McCoy, K. M., and G. P. Fleming. 2000. Ecological communities of U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Belvoir, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Army. Natural Heritage Technical Report 00-08. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 156 pp. plus appendices.

  • Meininger, J., and K. McCarthy. 1998. Forest communities of Zekiah Swamp nontidal wetland of special state concern. Unpublished report. Maryland Department of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Division, Annapolis.

  • Naczi, R. F. C., C. T. Bryson, and T. S. Cochrane. 2002. Seven new species and one new combination in Carex (Cyperaceae) from North America. Novon 12:508-532.

  • Patterson, K. D. 2008c. Vegetation classification and mapping at Colonial National Historical Park, Virginia. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2008/129. National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA. 369 pp.

  • Patterson, K. D. 2008e. Vegetation classification and mapping at Petersburg National Battlefield, Virginia. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2008/127. National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA. 235 pp.

  • Patterson, K. D. 2008f. Vegetation classification and mapping at Richmond National Battlefield Park, Virginia. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2008/128. National Park Service. Philadelphia, PA. 244 pp.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Shreve, F., M. A. Chrysler, F. H. Blodgett, and F. W. Besley. 1910. The plant life of Maryland. Maryland Weather Service. Special Publication, Volume III. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD. 533 pp.

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

  • Taverna, K. and K. D. Patterson. 2008. Vegetation classification and mapping at Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park, Virginia. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR-2008/126. National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA. 277 pp.

  • Vanderhorst, J. P., B. P. Streets, Z. Arcaro, and S. C. Gawler. 2010. Vegetation classification and mapping at Gauley River National Recreation Area. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2010/148. National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA.

  • 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.


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