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 >>

Fagus grandifolia - Quercus (alba, rubra) - Liriodendron tulipifera / (Ilex opaca var. opaca) Forest
Translated Name: American Beech - (White Oak, Northern Red Oak) - Tuliptree / (American Holly) Forest
Common Name: Mid-Atlantic Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
Unique Identifier: CEGL006075
Classification Approach: International Vegetation Classification (IVC)
Summary: This forest of mesic to submesic, well-drained soils occurs in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain of Virginia and Maryland, extending north to southern New England on the Coastal Plain. It also occurs occasionally at low elevations of the Blue Ridge and adjacent Ridge and Valley in Virginia and Maryland. It is characteristically a mixed forest dominated by Fagus grandifolia, Quercus alba, Quercus rubra, and Liriodendron tulipifera in various proportions. Overstory associates over the range include Quercus velutina, Quercus falcata, Quercus coccinea, Liquidambar styraciflua, Acer rubrum, Nyssa sylvatica, Carya alba, Carya glabra, and Fraxinus americana. The subcanopy is characterized by young Fagus grandifolia, Acer rubrum, Carpinus caroliniana, Cornus florida, and Sassafras albidum. Ilex opaca is particularly characteristic and abundant on the Coastal Plain. The shrub layer varies from very sparse to well-developed and can include Asimina triloba, Viburnum acerifolium, Viburnum dentatum, and Euonymus americanus. Heath shrubs, such as Vaccinium corymbosum and Vaccinium pallidum, may be common but not abundant. Vines are common, including Parthenocissus quinquefolia, Smilax glauca, and Toxicodendron radicans. In the southern part of the range, Oxydendrum arboreum and Vitis rotundifolia may be conspicuous members of the understory. The herb layer is composed of Polystichum acrostichoides, Thelypteris noveboracensis, Uvularia perfoliata, Cypripedium acaule, Mitchella repens, Tipularia discolor, Goodyera pubescens, Eurybia divaricata (= Aster divaricatus), Chimaphila maculata, Carex swanii, Medeola virginiana, Athyrium filix-femina, Carex digitalis, Carex willdenowii, Epifagus virginiana, Maianthemum canadense, Desmodium nudiflorum, Polygonatum biflorum, Podophyllum peltatum, Arisaema triphyllum, and Maianthemum racemosum (= Smilacina racemosa).



Classification

Classification Confidence: Moderate
Classification Comments: The regional circumscription of this type is very robust and supported by 170 plots from Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. These were analyzed by VDNH with a 1300-plot regional dataset compiled for the NCR and Mid-Atlantic national parks vegetation mapping projects.

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 Appalachian-Northeastern Oak - Hardwood - Pine Forest & Woodland
Group Northeastern Oak - Hickory Forest & Woodland
Alliance Northeastern Mesic Beech - Oak Forest

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

Similar Associations
Unique Identifier Name
CEGL006377 Fagus grandifolia - Quercus alba - Quercus rubra Forest
CEGL006921 Fagus grandifolia - Betula lenta - Quercus (alba, rubra) / Carpinus caroliniana Forest
CEGL007206 Fagus grandifolia - Quercus alba - (Acer barbatum) / Mixed Herbs Forest
CEGL007226 Quercus alba - Carya glabra / Mixed Herbs Coastal Plain Forest
CEGL008465 Fagus grandifolia - Quercus rubra / Cornus florida / Polystichum acrostichoides - Hexastylis virginica 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
Delaware Mid-Atlantic Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest Equivalent Certain Coxe 2009
Maryland Fagus grandifolia - Quercus alba - Liriodendron tulipifera - Carya spp. Forest Equivalent Certain Harrison 2011
New Jersey Fagus grandifolia - Quercus alba - Liriodendron tulipifera - Carya spp. Forest Equivalent Certain Breden et al. 2001
New York Oak-tulip tree forest Broader   Edinger et al. 2002


Other Related Concepts
Related Concept Name: Fagus grandifolia - Carya alba / Symplocos tinctoria - Cornus florida / Euonymus americana - Botrychium virginianum 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: Fagus grandifolia - Liriodendron tulipifera - Quercus (alba, rubra) / Polystichum acrostichoides - Aster divaricatus 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.
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: Fleming, G. P. 2001a. Community types of Coastal Plain calcareous ravines in Virginia. Preliminary analysis and classification. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. 4 pp.
Related Concept Name: Fagus grandifolia - Liriodendron tulipifera - Quercus rubra / Polystichum acrostichoides - Carex laxiculmis 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: Fagus grandifolia - Liriodendron tulipifera - Quercus rubra / Polystichum acrostichoides 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: Fagus grandifolia - Liriodendron tulipifera / Asimina triloba / Botrychium virginianum 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: Fagus grandifolia - Liriodendron tulipifera / Carpinus caroliniana 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: Fagus grandifolia - Liriodendron tulipifera / Polystichum acrostichoides Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Young, J., G. Fleming, P. Townsend, and J. Foster. 2007a. Vegetation of Shenandoah National Park in relation to environmental gradients. Final Report, volume 1.1. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 103 pp. plus appendices and GIS products.
Related Concept Name: Fagus grandifolia - Quercus (alba, rubra) - Liriodendron tulipifera / (Ilex opaca var. opaca) / Polystichum acrostichoides Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: 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.
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: 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.
Related Concept Name: Fagus grandifolia - Quercus (alba, rubra) - Liriodendron tulipifera / Ilex opaca var. opaca - (Asimina triloba) 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.
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: Patterson, Karen D. Personal communication. Ecologist, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA.
Related Concept Name: Fagus grandifolia - Quercus alba - Liriodendron tulipifera - Carya spp. 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.
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: Fagus grandifolia - Quercus alba - Liriodendron tulipifera - Liquidambar styraciflua Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Clancy, K. 1996. Natural communities of Delaware. Unpublished review draft. Delaware Natural Heritage Program, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Delaware Division of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Smyrna, DE. 52 pp.
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: Bartgis, R. 1986. Natural community descriptions. Unpublished draft. Maryland Natural Heritage Program, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis.
Related Concept Name: Fagus grandifolia - Quercus alba - Liriodendron tulipifera / Cornus florida 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: Fagus grandifolia - Quercus alba / Ilex opaca - (Oxydendrum arboreum) / Vitis rotundifolia 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 spp. - Carya spp. / Cornus florida - Ilex opaca Mesic Forest
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: Clancy, K. 1993b. A preliminary classification of the natural communities of Delaware. Unpublished draft. Delaware Natural Heritage Inventory, Division of Parks and Recreation, Dover. 30 pp.
Related Concept Name: Coastal Plain Forest
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Smith, T. L. 1983. Natural ecological communities of Pennsylvania. Draft, revised 1991. Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory, Middletown, PA.
Related Concept Name: Mesic Coastal Plain mixed oak forest, mixed oak - beech forest subtype
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: Breden, T. F. 1989. A preliminary natural community classification for New Jersey. Pages 157-191 in: E. F. Karlin, editor. New Jersey's rare and endangered plants and animals. Institute for Environmental Studies, Ramapo College, Mahwah, NJ. 280 pp.
Related Concept Name: Mesic Mixed Hardwood 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: Mixed oak forest of the south Jersey mesic uplands
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: Robichaud, B., and M. F. Buell. 1973. Vegetation of New Jersey. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. 340 pp.
Related Concept Name: Oak - Hardwood Mesic Inner Coastal Plain Forest (OH1)
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Windisch, A .G. 2014a. Pinelands ecological communities and higher level groups with crosswalk / proposed 2008 revisions to NVC. November 16, 2014 draft. New Jersey Natural Heritage Program, Trenton.
Related Concept Name: Southern New England oak / pine forest on sandy / gravelly soils
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: Rawinski, T. 1984a. Natural community description abstract - southern New England calcareous seepage swamp. Unpublished report. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA. 6 pp.

Ecological Systems Placement

Ecological Systems Placement
Ecological System Unique ID Ecological System Name
CES202.342 Southern Piedmont Mesic Forest
CES203.242 Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Mesic Hardwood Forest
CES203.475 Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain Hardwood Forest


NatureServe Conservation Status
Global Status: G5 (31Jan2007)
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: This association is common and widespread on the northeastern Coastal Plain and the Piedmont in Virginia and Maryland.

Distribution
Color legend for Distribution Map
United States Distribution: DC, DE, MD, NJ, NY, PA, VA
Global Distribution: United States
Global Range: This association is currently described from Virginia northward to Long Island, New York. The type is characteristic of the Coastal Plain throughout its range and of the Piedmont from south-central Virginia through much of Maryland. Small outliers of this vegetation occur at low elevations on both flanks of the Blue Ridge in Virginia and Maryland.

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: Rangewide, this vegetation type is characteristically a mixed mesophytic forest dominated by Fagus grandifolia, Quercus alba, Quercus rubra, and Liriodendron tulipifera in various proportions. Overstory associates over the range include Carya alba, Carya glabra, Quercus velutina, Quercus falcata, Quercus coccinea, Liquidambar styraciflua, Acer rubrum, Nyssa sylvatica, and Fraxinus americana. The subcanopy is characterized by young Fagus grandifolia, Acer rubrum, Carpinus caroliniana, Cornus florida, Ilex opaca, and Sassafras albidum. The shrub layer varies from very sparse to well-developed and can include Asimina triloba, Viburnum acerifolium, Viburnum dentatum, and Euonymus americanus. Heath shrubs, such as Vaccinium corymbosum and Vaccinium pallidum, may be common but not abundant. Vines are common, including Parthenocissus quinquefolia, Smilax glauca, and Toxicodendron radicans. The herb layer is composed of Polystichum acrostichoides, Uvularia perfoliata, Cypripedium acaule, Mitchella repens, Tipularia discolor, Goodyera pubescens, Eurybia divaricata (= Aster divaricatus), Chimaphila maculata, Carex swanii, Medeola virginiana, Athyrium filix-femina, Carex digitalis, Carex willdenowii, Epifagus virginiana, Maianthemum canadense, Desmodium nudiflorum, Polygonatum biflorum. Podophyllum peltatum, Arisaema triphyllum, and Maianthemum racemosum (= Smilacina racemosa).

Several intergrading compositional variants have been noted in regional and local landscape analyses. On more submesic, convex slopes, Fagus grandifolia, Quercus alba, Cornus florida, and Vaccinium pallidum tend to be prominent, while pronounced mesophytes such as Carpinus caroliniana and herbaceous species in general are usually sparse. Coastal Plain stands tend to have understories heavily dominated by Ilex opaca, while Piedmont stands generally have only scattered Ilex opaca as well as slightly higher herbaceous richness.


Vegetation Composition (incomplete)
Species Name Rounded Global Status Growth Form Stratum Charact-
eristic
Dominant Constant
Cover Class %
Con-
stancy
%
Fagus grandifolia G5 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Liriodendron tulipifera G5 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy    
 
 
Quercus alba G5 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Cornus florida G5 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree subcanopy    
 
 
Ilex opaca G5 Broad-leaved evergreen tree Tree subcanopy  
 
 
Viburnum acerifolium G5 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)  
 
 
Parthenocissus quinquefolia G5 Liana Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Isotria medeoloides G5 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Panax quinquefolius G5 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Podophyllum peltatum G5 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Polygonatum biflorum G5 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Polystichum acrostichoides G5 Fern (Spore-bearing forb) Herb (field)    
 
 
Carex laxiculmis var. laxiculmis G5 Graminoid Herb (field)    
 
 


At-Risk Species Reported for this Association
Scientific Name
  (Common Name)
NatureServe Global Status U.S. Endangered Species Act Status
Isotria medeoloides
  (Small Whorled Pogonia)
G2? LT: Listed threatened
Panax quinquefolius
  (American Ginseng)
G3G4  


Environmental Setting

Wetland Indicator: N
Environmental Summary: This forest association occurs on mesic to submesic slopes or gentle gradients. Ravines in dissected topography are particularly typical sites in the Piedmont and parts of the Inner Coastal Plain. The type also occupies rolling uplands with deep soils. Soils are typically well-drained, acidic sandy and silt loams derived from parent material of low to moderate fertility. This association is found throughout the Piedmont from south-central Virginia to New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and on the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain from southeastern Virginia northward.


Dynamic Processes


Plot Sampling & Classification Analysis

Plots stored in VegBank


Authors/Contributors
Concept Author(s): L.A. Sneddon, mod. S.L. Neid, mod. G.P. Fleming
Element Description Edition Date: 14Feb2007
Element Description Author(s): S.L. Neid, G. Fleming and L.A. Sneddon
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 14Feb2007
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author(s): L.A. Sneddon and G.P. Fleming

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


References
  • Bartgis, R. 1986. Natural community descriptions. Unpublished draft. Maryland Natural Heritage Program, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis.

  • Berdine, M. A. 1998. Maryland vegetation classification. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD.

  • Bernard, J. M., and F. A. Bernard. 1971. Mature upland forests of Cape May County, New Jersey. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 98:167-171.

  • Bowman, P. 2000. Draft classification for Delaware. Unpublished draft. Delaware Natural Heritage Program.

  • Breden, T. F. 1989. A preliminary natural community classification for New Jersey. Pages 157-191 in: E. F. Karlin, editor. New Jersey's rare and endangered plants and animals. Institute for Environmental Studies, Ramapo College, Mahwah, NJ. 280 pp.

  • Breden, T. F., Y. R. Alger, K. S. Walz, and A. G. Windisch. 2001. Classification of vegetation communities of New Jersey: Second iteration. Association for Biodiversity Information and New Jersey Natural Heritage Program, Office of Natural Lands Management, Division of Parks and Forestry, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton.

  • Clancy, K. 1993b. A preliminary classification of the natural communities of Delaware. Unpublished draft. Delaware Natural Heritage Inventory, Division of Parks and Recreation, Dover. 30 pp.

  • Clancy, K. 1996. Natural communities of Delaware. Unpublished review draft. Delaware Natural Heritage Program, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Delaware Division of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Smyrna, DE. 52 pp.

  • 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.

  • Coxe, R. 2009. Guide to Delaware vegetation communities. Spring 2009 edition. State of Delaware, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Delaware Natural Heritage Program, Smyrna.

  • Davis, A. F., S. B. Andersen, J. A. Lundgren, A. M. Wilkinson, J. R. Belfonti, J. R. Kunsman, and J. C. Stanosz. 1992. A natural areas inventory of Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Science Office of The Nature Conservancy, Middletown, PA. 110 pp.

  • Eastern Ecology Working Group of NatureServe. No date. International Ecological Classification Standard: International Vegetation Classification. Terrestrial Vegetation. NatureServe, Boston, MA.

  • Edinger, G. J., A. L. Feldmann, T. G. Howard, J. J. Schmid, E. Eastman, E. Largay, and L. A. Sneddon. 2008b. Vegetation classification and mapping at Sagamore Hill National Historic Site, New York. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2008/124. National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA. 126 pp.

  • Edinger, G. J., D. J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T. G. Howard, D. M. Hunt, and A. M. Olivero, editors. 2002. Ecological communities of New York state. Second edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's ecological communities of New York state. (Draft for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.

  • Fleming, G. P. 2001a. Community types of Coastal Plain calcareous ravines in Virginia. Preliminary analysis and classification. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. 4 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., 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, G. P., and P. P. Coulling. 2001. Ecological communities of the George Washington and Jefferson national forests, Virginia. Preliminary classification and description of vegetation types. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. 317 pp.

  • 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.

  • Lea, C. 2003. Vegetation types in the National Capital Region Parks. Draft for review by NatureServe, Virginia Natural Heritage, West Virginia Natural Heritage, Maryland Natural Heritage, and National Park Service. March 2003. 140 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.

  • Metzler, K. J., and J. P. Barrett. 2001. Vegetation classification for Connecticut. Draft 5/21/2001. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Center, Natural Diversity Database, Hartford.

  • 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. 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.

  • Rawinski, T. 1984a. Natural community description abstract - southern New England calcareous seepage swamp. Unpublished report. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA. 6 pp.

  • Robichaud, B., and M. F. Buell. 1973. Vegetation of New Jersey. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. 340 pp.

  • Rossell, C. R., Jr., S. Patch and S. Salmons. 2007. Effects of deer browsing on native and non-native vegetation in a mixed oak-beech forest on the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Northeastern Naturalist 14(1):61-72. [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3845/is_200701/ai_n19198307] (accessed March 3, 2009).

  • Smith, T. L. 1983. Natural ecological communities of Pennsylvania. Draft, revised 1991. Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory, Middletown, PA.

  • Soil Conservation Service. 1987. Soil survey of Nassau County, New York. USDA Soil Conservation Service. 156 pp.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Windisch, A .G. 2014a. Pinelands ecological communities and higher level groups with crosswalk / proposed 2008 revisions to NVC. November 16, 2014 draft. New Jersey Natural Heritage Program, Trenton.

  • Young, J., G. Fleming, P. Townsend, and J. Foster. 2007a. Vegetation of Shenandoah National Park in relation to environmental gradients. Final Report, volume 1.1. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 103 pp. plus appendices and GIS products.


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