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 alba - Quercus rubra - Carya alba / Cornus florida / Vaccinium stamineum / Desmodium nudiflorum Piedmont Forest
Translated Name: White Oak - Northern Red Oak - Mockernut Hickory / Flowering Dogwood / Deerberry / Naked-flower Tick-trefoil Piedmont Forest
Common Name: Piedmont Dry-Mesic Acidic Oak-Hickory Forest
Unique Identifier: CEGL008475
Classification Approach: International Vegetation Classification (IVC)
Summary: This forest is found on submesic to subxeric upland sites throughout the Piedmont of Georgia, the Carolinas, Virginia, and south-central Maryland. It favors mid- to upper-slope positions with northerly or easterly aspects, or mid- to lower slopes with more southerly aspects. In drier landscapes, this type occupies habitats considered relatively mesic (e.g., concave slopes, lower slopes, shallow ravines). These sites are described as dry to intermediate in soil moisture. The soils are moderately to strongly acidic and nutrient-poor, being weathered primarily from felsic metamorphic, metasedimentary, and sedimentary rocks, or composed of unconsolidated sediments. At some sites, soils are weathered from interbedded metasedimentary and mafic rocks, resulting in soil chemistry that is intermediate or slightly basic. Stands of this forest are closed to somewhat open and are dominated by mixtures of oaks and hickories, with Quercus alba being most prevalent, along with Quercus rubra, Quercus coccinea, Quercus velutina, Quercus falcata, Carya alba, Carya ovalis, and Carya glabra. Carya spp. are common in this type but often most abundant in the understory. In forests with a history of disturbance, such as selective logging or windstorms, early-successional species such as Liriodendron tulipifera or Pinus sp. may codominate. In Virginia examples, Quercus prinus is inconstant but sometimes important. In addition, Pinus spp., Liriodendron tulipifera, Liquidambar styraciflua, and Acer rubrum may be common. Understory species include Acer rubrum, Cornus florida, Oxydendrum arboreum, Ilex opaca, and Nyssa sylvatica. Shrubs include Vaccinium stamineum, Vaccinium pallidum, Viburnum acerifolium, Viburnum rafinesquianum, and Euonymus americanus. The woody vines Vitis rotundifolia and Toxicodendron radicans often are present. Herbs vary from sparse to moderately dense, with dry-mesophytic, acid-tolerant species such as Hexastylis spp., Goodyera pubescens, Chimaphila maculata, Desmodium nudiflorum, Maianthemum racemosum, Polygonatum biflorum, Viola hastata, Tipularia discolor, and Hieracium venosum prevalent. This association occupies less nutrient-rich habitats than Quercus rubra - Quercus alba - Carya glabra / Geranium maculatum Forest (CEGL007237).



Classification

Classification Confidence: Moderate
Classification Comments: At the northern end of the range, the classification is supported by analysis of a 1250-plot regional dataset assembled for the National Capital Region and Mid-Atlantic national parks vegetation mapping project. In that analysis, this association was represented by 116 Virginia plots and several from Montgomery County, Maryland.

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 & Great Plains Cool Temperate Forest & Woodland
Macrogroup Southern & South-Central Oak - Hickory - Pine Forest
Group Piedmont & Central Atlantic Coastal Plain Oak Forest
Alliance Piedmont Oak - Hickory Forest

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

Similar Associations
Unique Identifier Name
CEGL003949 Quercus rubra / Magnolia tripetala - Cercis canadensis / Actaea racemosa - Tiarella cordifolia Forest
CEGL004321 Quercus alba - Carya alba / Oxydendrum arboreum - Ilex opaca / Gaylussacia frondosa - Symplocos tinctoria - Vaccinium stamineum Coastal Plain Forest
CEGL006227 Quercus alba - Carya alba / Euonymus americanus / Hexastylis arifolia Forest
CEGL006336 Quercus (alba, rubra, velutina) - Carya spp. / Viburnum acerifolium Forest
CEGL007226 Quercus alba - Carya glabra / Mixed Herbs Coastal Plain Forest
CEGL007232 Quercus alba - Quercus rubra - Carya (ovata, carolinae-septentrionalis) / Cercis canadensis Forest
CEGL007237 Quercus rubra - Quercus alba - Carya glabra / Geranium maculatum Forest
CEGL007244 Quercus falcata - Quercus alba - Carya alba / Oxydendrum arboreum / Vaccinium stamineum Forest
CEGL007862 Quercus alba - Quercus nigra - Quercus falcata / Ilex opaca / Clethra alnifolia - Arundinaria gigantea ssp. tecta Forest
CEGL008515 Quercus alba - Quercus prinus - Carya glabra / Cornus florida / Vaccinium 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
Maryland Quercus alba - Quercus (rubra, coccinea) - Carya (alba, glabra) / Vaccinium pallidum Piedmont Dry-Mesic Forest Equivalent Certain Harrison 2011
North Carolina Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest (Piedmont Subtype) Equivalent Certain Schafale 2012
South Carolina Oak - Hickory Forest Broader   Nelson 1986


Other Related Concepts
Related Concept Name: Quercus (velutina, alba) - Fagus grandifolia / Cornus florida Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Walton, D. P., P. P. Coulling, J. Weber, A. Belden, Jr., and A. C. Chazal. 2001. A plant community classification and natural heritage inventory of the Pamunkey River floodplain. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Natural Heritage Technical Report 01-19. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 200 pp. plus appendices.
Related Concept Name: Quercus alba - Carya (alba, glabra) / Cornus florida / Vaccinium pallidum 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: Quercus alba - Quercus (rubra, coccinea) - Carya (alba, glabra) / Vaccinium pallidum Piedmont Dry-Mesic Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
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: Quercus alba - Quercus coccinea - Carya (glabra, alba) / Vaccinium pallidum Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Fleming, G. P. 2002a. Ecological communities of the Bull Run Mountains, Virginia: Baseline vegetation and floristic data for conservation planning and natural area stewardship. Natural Heritage Technical Report 02-12. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 274 pp. plus appendices.
Related Concept Name: Quercus alba - Quercus coccinea - Carya glabra / Cornus florida / Viburnum acerifolium 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: Quercus alba - Quercus rubra - Carya (alba, glabra) / Cornus florida / Vaccinium stamineum 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.
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: VDNH [Virginia Division of Natural Heritage]. 2003. The natural communities of Virginia: Hierarchical classification of community types. Unpublished document, working list of November 2003. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Ecology Group, Richmond.
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: Fleming, Gary P. Personal communication. Ecologist, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA.
Related Concept Name: Quercus alba - Quercus rubra - Carya (alba, ovalis) / Carpinus caroliniana / Desmodium nudiflorum Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Fleming, G. P. 2002a. Ecological communities of the Bull Run Mountains, Virginia: Baseline vegetation and floristic data for conservation planning and natural area stewardship. Natural Heritage Technical Report 02-12. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 274 pp. plus appendices.
Related Concept Name: Quercus alba - Quercus rubra - Carya alba / Carpinus caroliniana / Desmodium nudiflorum - Maianthemum racemosum 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: Quercus alba - Quercus rubra - Carya alba / Cornus florida / Vaccinium stamineum / Desmodium nudiflorum 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: Quercus alba - Quercus velutina - Carya (alba, glabra) / Cornus florida / Vaccinium stamineum Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Fleming, G. P. 2002a. Ecological communities of the Bull Run Mountains, Virginia: Baseline vegetation and floristic data for conservation planning and natural area stewardship. Natural Heritage Technical Report 02-12. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 274 pp. plus appendices.
Related Concept Name: Quercus alba - Quercus velutina - Carya alba / Cornus florida / Vaccinium stamineum Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Fleming, G. P., and J. T. Weber. 2003. Inventory, classification, and map of forested ecological communities at Manassas National Battlefield Park, Virginia. Unpublished report submitted to the National Park Service. Natural Heritage Technical Report 03-07. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 101 pp. plus appendix.
Related Concept Name: Quercus montana - Quercus alba - Carya glabra / Cornus florida Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: 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.
Related Concept Name: Quercus prinus - Quercus rubra - Carya (ovalis, glabra) / Viburnum acerifolium Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Fleming, G. P. 2002a. Ecological communities of the Bull Run Mountains, Virginia: Baseline vegetation and floristic data for conservation planning and natural area stewardship. Natural Heritage Technical Report 02-12. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 274 pp. plus appendices.
Related Concept Name: Acidic Oak - Hickory Forest
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: 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.
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: Dry-Mesic Oak--Hickory 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.
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: Oak - Chestnut - Hickory 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: Piedmont Acidic Oak-Hickory Forest
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: Fleming, G. P., P. P. Coulling, K. D. Patterson, and K. M. McCoy. 2004. The natural communities of Virginia: Classification of ecological community groups. Second approximation. Natural Heritage Technical Report 04-01. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. [http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/dnh/ncintro.htm]
Related Concept Name: White oak - northern red oak - false Solomon's seal (Quercus alba - Quercus rubra - Smilacina racemosa) community type
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: Jones, S. M. 1988a. Old-growth forests within the Piedmont of South Carolina. Natural Areas Journal 8:31-37.
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: Jones, S. M. 1988b. Old-growth, steady state forests within the Piedmont of South Carolina. Ph.D. dissertation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC. 94 pp.

Ecological Systems Placement

Ecological Systems Placement
Ecological System Unique ID Ecological System Name
CES202.268 Piedmont Hardpan Woodland and Forest
CES202.339 Southern Piedmont Dry Oak-(Pine) Forest and Woodland
CES202.592 Northeastern Interior Dry-Mesic Oak Forest
CES203.475 Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain Hardwood Forest


NatureServe Conservation Status
Global Status: G4G5 (15Feb2007)
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: This is not a rare community type, although stands older than about 80 years old are probably rare. Most of the rolling upland landscape of the Piedmont and other regions where this occurs have been logged more than once since European settlement. This is a large-patch or matrix type in some regions of Virginia (G. Fleming pers. comm. 2001). In North Carolina, this is a matrix type, probably the most common forest type remaining in the Piedmont.

Distribution
Color legend for Distribution Map
United States Distribution: DC, GA, MD, NC, SC, VA
Global Distribution: United States
Global Range: This association occurs throughout the Piedmont of the Carolinas, Virginia, and south-central Maryland. Two plots attributable to this type were sampled from the Piedmont of Georgia. In northern Virginia and Maryland, it also occurs occasionally in the Coastal Plain.

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 Appalachian Piedmont Section
Section Code: 221D 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
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
Section Name: Atlantic Coastal Flatwoods Section
Section Code: 232C 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: Blue Ridge Mountains Section
Section Code: M221D Occurrence Status: Confident or certain


Vegetation

Vegetation Summary: Stands of this forest are closed to somewhat open, and are dominated by mixtures of oaks and hickories, with Quercus alba being most prevalent, along with Quercus rubra, Quercus coccinea, Quercus velutina, Carya alba, Carya ovalis, and Carya glabra. Carya spp. are common in this type but often most abundant in the understory. In Virginia examples, Quercus prinus and Quercus falcata are inconstant but sometimes important. In addition, Pinus spp., Liriodendron tulipifera, Liquidambar styraciflua, and Acer rubrum may be common, especially in disturbed stands. Understory species include Acer rubrum, Cornus florida, Oxydendrum arboreum, Ilex opaca, and Nyssa sylvatica. Shrubs include Vaccinium stamineum, Vaccinium pallidum, Viburnum acerifolium, Viburnum rafinesquianum, and Euonymus americanus. In Virginia, Vaccinium pallidum and Vaccinium stamineum are the principal ericads of patchy low-shrub layers (G. Fleming pers. comm. 2004). The woody vines Vitis rotundifolia and Toxicodendron radicans often are present. Herbs vary from sparse to moderately dense, with dry-mesophytic species such as Hexastylis spp., Goodyera pubescens, Chimaphila maculata, Desmodium nudiflorum, Maianthemum racemosum, Polygonatum biflorum, Viola hastata, Tipularia discolor, Carex albicans, and Hieracium venosum prevalent (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Although not lush, these forests can be impressively species-rich, with high woody diversity and many low-cover herbaceous species occurring. Species richness of 116 Virginia plots averages 53 taxa per 400 square meters, varying from a low of 17 to a high of 114. Low species richness in this type is most often the result of long-term overgrazing by large deer populations. At least some of the stands with high species richness are located on sites where deer populations are effectively controlled.

Vegetation Composition (incomplete)
Species Name Rounded Global Status Growth Form Stratum Charact-
eristic
Dominant Constant
Cover Class %
Con-
stancy
%
Acer rubrum   Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree (canopy & subcanopy)    
 
 
Carya alba   Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Carya glabra   Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Carya ovalis   Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Liquidambar styraciflua   Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy    
 
 
Liriodendron tulipifera   Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy    
 
 
Quercus alba   Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Quercus coccinea   Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Quercus rubra   Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Quercus velutina   Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Cornus florida   Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree subcanopy  
 
 
Nyssa sylvatica   Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree subcanopy  
 
 
Oxydendrum arboreum   Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree subcanopy  
 
 
Ilex opaca   Broad-leaved evergreen tree Tree subcanopy  
 
 
Viburnum acerifolium   Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Viburnum rafinesquianum   Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Toxicodendron radicans   Liana Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Vitis rotundifolia   Liana Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Chimaphila maculata   Dwarf-shrub Short shrub/sapling    
 
 
Euonymus americanus   Dwarf-shrub Short shrub/sapling    
 
 
Vaccinium pallidum   Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Short shrub/sapling    
 
 
Vaccinium stamineum   Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Short shrub/sapling    
 
 
Desmodium nudiflorum   Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Goodyera pubescens   Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Hieracium venosum   Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Maianthemum racemosum   Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Polygonatum biflorum   Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Tipularia discolor   Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Viola hastata   Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 


Environmental Setting

Wetland Indicator: N
Environmental Summary: The sites on which this vegetation is found are described as "intermediate" in soil moisture (Jones 1988a, 1988b). Soils are less nutrient-rich than Quercus alba - Quercus rubra - Carya (ovata, carolinae-septentrionalis) / Cercis canadensis Forest (CEGL007232). Virginia stands occur on submesic to subxeric uplands with acidic, moderately nutrient-poor soils weathered from felsic metamorphic, metasedimentary, and sedimentary rocks (especially Triassic siltstones), and unconsolidated sediments. However, Virginia soils supporting this type are demonstrably more fertile than those supporting very species-poor mixed oak forests with dense ericaceous shrub layers. At some sites, soils are weathered from interbedded metasedimentary and mafic rocks, resulting in soil chemistry that is intermediate or slightly basic. This type frequently occupies somewhat mesic habitats (e.g., concave slopes, lower slopes, shallow ravines) in dry landscapes where mixed oak/heath types are prevalent. It is a large-patch or matrix type in some parts of Virginia but is not as abundant in the Piedmont as mixed oak/heath forests (G. Fleming pers. comm. 2001). In North Carolina, this is a matrix type, probably the most common forest type remaining in the Piedmont.


Dynamic Processes

Dynamics: Disturbed areas have increased amounts of pines and weedy hardwoods such as Acer rubrum, Liriodendron tulipifera, and Liquidambar styraciflua, with the amounts depending on the degree of canopy opening. Areas that were cultivated are generally dominated by even-aged pine stands which are replaced by the climax oaks and hickories only as the pines die. Logged areas may have a mixture of hardwoods and pines (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Under natural conditions, these forests are uneven-aged, with old trees present. Reproduction occurs primarily in canopy gaps. Rare, severe natural disturbances such as wind storms may allow pulses of increased regeneration and allow the less shade-tolerant species to remain in the community. However, Skeen et al. (1980) argued that even the shade-intolerant Liriodendron could reproduce enough in gaps to persist in the climax Piedmont forests. The natural fire regime of the Piedmont is not known, but fires certainly occurred periodically. Most of the component trees are able to tolerate light surface fires with little effect. In addition, the recruitment of oaks and hickories generally benefits from periodic fires. However, Acer rubrum is fairly intolerant of fire (especially when young) and often appears to be out-competing the regeneration of oaks in long-unburned stands. In Virginia, Fagus grandifolia and Ilex opaca var. opaca are additional thin-barked, fire-intolerant species that have invaded many fire-suppressed oak-hickory forests. Regular fire may have created a more open forest, with gaps persisting longer than at present and perhaps forming more frequently (Schafale and Weakley 1990).


Plot Sampling & Classification Analysis

Plots stored in VegBank


Authors/Contributors
Concept Author(s): M.P. Schafale and G.P. Fleming
Element Description Edition Date: 15Feb2007
Element Description Author(s): M.P. Schafale and G.P. Fleming
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 15Feb2007
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
  • 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.

  • Fleming, G. P. 2002a. Ecological communities of the Bull Run Mountains, Virginia: Baseline vegetation and floristic data for conservation planning and natural area stewardship. Natural Heritage Technical Report 02-12. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 274 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. 2007. Ecological communities of the Potomac Gorge in Virginia: Composition, floristics, and environmental dynamics. Natural Heritage Technical Report 07-12. Unpublished report submitted to the National Park Service. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 341 pp. plus appendices.

  • 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. M. McCoy. 2004. The natural communities of Virginia: Classification of ecological community groups. Second approximation. Natural Heritage Technical Report 04-01. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. [http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/dnh/ncintro.htm]

  • 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 J. T. Weber. 2003. Inventory, classification, and map of forested ecological communities at Manassas National Battlefield Park, Virginia. Unpublished report submitted to the National Park Service. Natural Heritage Technical Report 03-07. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 101 pp. plus appendix.

  • 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, G. P., and K. Taverna. 2006. Vegetation classification for the National Capitol Region parks, western region. Regional (VA-WVA-MD-DC) analysis prepared for NatureServe and USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program, March 2006. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond.

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

  • Harrison, J. W. 2011. The natural communities of Maryland: 2011 working list of ecological community groups and community types. Unpublished report. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Heritage Service, Natural Heritage Program, Annapolis. 33 pp.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • NRCS [Natural Resources Conservation Service]. 2006b. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Franklin County, Virginia. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Fort Worth, TX. [http://SoilDataMart.nrc.usda.gov/]

  • 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.

  • Patterson, K. D. 2008a. Vegetation classification and mapping at Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, Virginia. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2008/125. National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA.

  • Patterson, K. D. 2008b. Vegetation classification and mapping at Booker T. Washington National Monument, Virginia. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2008/100. National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA. 173 pp.

  • 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.

  • Patterson, Karen D. Personal communication. Ecologist, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA.

  • 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.

  • Skeen, J. N., M. E. B. Carter, and H. L. Ragsdale. 1980. Yellow-poplar: The Piedmont case. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 107:1-6.

  • 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.

  • VDNH [Virginia Division of Natural Heritage]. 2003. The natural communities of Virginia: Hierarchical classification of community types. Unpublished document, working list of November 2003. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Ecology Group, Richmond.

  • Walton, D. P., P. P. Coulling, J. Weber, A. Belden, Jr., and A. C. Chazal. 2001. A plant community classification and natural heritage inventory of the Pamunkey River floodplain. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Natural Heritage Technical Report 01-19. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 200 pp. plus appendices.

  • 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 October 2015.
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 © 2015 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. 2015. 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 2015
NatureServe
-->
Version 7.1 (2 February 2009)
Data last updated: October 2015