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 - Acer saccharum Glaciated Midwest Forest
Translated Name: American Beech - Sugar Maple Glaciated Midwest Forest
Common Name: Glaciated Midwest Beech - Sugar Maple Forest
Unique Identifier: CEGL005013
Classification Approach: International Vegetation Classification (IVC)
Summary: This upland forest is found in the southern Great Lakes area of the United States and possibly Canada. Stands occur on flat to rolling topography. In the southern parts of its range, it is more likely to be found on steeper slopes than in the northern portion. The soils are predominantly silt loam, loam, or sandy loam and develop over glacial till of Wisconsin age. The community is characterized by a dense to moderately dense canopy of deciduous trees, an absent to sparse shrub layer, and a moderately to well-developed herbaceous layer. The canopy is composed primarily of Acer saccharum and Fagus grandifolia. Liriodendron tulipifera is sometimes codominant, and Carpinus caroliniana, Fraxinus americana, Ostrya virginiana, Quercus rubra, Tilia americana, and Ulmus americana are often present in the canopy or subcanopy. Diervilla lonicera, Euonymus obovatus, Lonicera canadensis, Sambucus racemosa var. racemosa, and Viburnum spp. are typical shrubs. The herbaceous layer is often diverse, typically including spring ephemerals. Common species include Arisaema triphyllum, Dryopteris intermedia, Maianthemum canadense (in northern stands), Maianthemum racemosum, Osmorhiza claytonii, Podophyllum peltatum, Polygonatum biflorum, Trillium grandiflorum, and Viola spp.



Classification

Classification Confidence: Moderate
Classification Comments: Wisconsin glaciation history is used to define the southern limits of this type, and further work is needed to determine how floristically distinct these glaciated stands are from southern unglaciated stands, which are placed in Fagus grandifolia - Acer saccharum - Liriodendron tulipifera Unglaciated Forest (CEGL002411). Liriodendron tulipifera and other southern hardwoods, such as Liquidambar styraciflua, are much less constant in this type compared to the unglaciated stands, as is, perhaps, Asimina triloba. Northward Betula alleghaniensis and Betula papyrifera are very infrequent compared to Acer saccharum - Fagus grandifolia - Betula spp. / Maianthemum canadense Forest (CEGL005004). This type only extends as far east as north-central Ohio and possibly in the glaciated lake tillplain and glaciated Allegheny Plateau (ecosection 221F and ecosubsection 222Ia) in Ohio and in southern Ontario. Distribution in New York and Pennsylvania is at this time excluded, as those stands may contain Betula lenta, Betula alleghaniensis, and Tsuga canadensis, which are more typical of mesic hardwood stands in the Appalachian-Allegheny Acer saccharum - Fagus grandifolia - Tilia americana Forest Alliance (A3301), such as Acer saccharum - Betula alleghaniensis - Prunus serotina Forest (CEGL006045) or Acer saccharum - Fagus grandifolia - Fraxinus americana / Arisaema triphyllum Forest (CEGL006632). Furthermore, the study by Seischab (1990) identified no distinctive tree species between maple-beech forests on the Allegheny Plateau and the lakeplain of western New York. This type may be in east-central Illinois (Vermillion County, near Danville), but is largely extirpated (B. McClain pers. comm. 1999). Stands still occur across the stateline in Indiana.

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 Central Midwest Mesic Forest
Group North-Central Beech - Maple - Basswood Forest
Alliance Sugar Maple - American Beech Forest

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

Similar Associations
Unique Identifier Name
CEGL002411 Fagus grandifolia - Acer saccharum - Liriodendron tulipifera Unglaciated Forest
CEGL005004 Acer saccharum - Fagus grandifolia - Betula spp. / Maianthemum canadense Forest
CEGL006045 Acer saccharum - Betula alleghaniensis - Prunus serotina Forest
CEGL006144 Quercus alba - Fagus grandifolia Western Allegheny Forest
CEGL006632 Acer saccharum - Fagus grandifolia - Fraxinus americana / Arisaema triphyllum 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
Illinois Mesic upland forest Broader   White and Madany 1978
Indiana Forest - upland mesic Broader   Homoya et al. 1988
Michigan Mesic Southern Forest Broader   Kost et al. 2007
Ohio Beech-oak-red maple forest Broader   ONHD unpubl. data
Ohio Beech-sugar maple forest Intersects   ONHD unpubl. data
Wisconsin Southern mesic forest Broader   WNHI 2011


Other Related Concepts
Related Concept Name: Fagus grandifolia - Acer saccharum - Podophyllum peltatum association
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Pell, W. F., and R. N. Mack. 1977. The Fagus grandifolia - Acer saccharum - Podophyllum peltatum association in northeastern Ohio. Botanical Gazette 138(1):64-70.
Related Concept Name: Fagus grandifolia - Acer saccharum Glaciated Midwest Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Faber-Langendoen, D., editor. 2001. Plant communities of the Midwest: Classification in an ecological context. Association for Biodiversity Information, Arlington, VA. 61 pp. plus appendix (705 pp.).
Related Concept Name: Beech - Maple Forest Region
Relationship: I - Intersecting
Reference: Braun, E. L. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. Hafner Press, New York. 596 pp.
Related Concept Name: Warren's Woods
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Cain, S. A. 1935. Studies on virgin hardwood forest: III. Warren's Woods, a beech-maple climax forest in Berrien County, Michigan. Ecology 16(3):500-513.

Ecological Systems Placement

Ecological Systems Placement
Ecological System Unique ID Ecological System Name
CES202.693 North-Central Interior Beech-Maple Forest


NatureServe Conservation Status
Global Status: G2G3 (13Nov2006)
Rounded Global Status: G2 - Imperiled
Reasons: There have been 155 occurrences documented: 3 in Illinois (where the community is ranked S4) (but beech-maple is only a small part of the Illinois type to which this global type is crosswalked), 86 in Indiana (S3), 36 in Michigan (S3), and 30 in Ohio (S3). Sizes of 129 occurrences total 8895 acres. This type was once a widespread matrix forest that now occupies small remnants, often less than 500 acres in size.

Distribution
Color legend for Distribution Map
United States Distribution: IL, IN, MI, OH, WI
Canadian Province Distribution: ON
Global Distribution: Canada, United States
Global Range: This upland forest is found in the southern Great Lakes area of the United States and possibly Canada, ranging from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan, east to north-central Ohio?s glaciated lakeplain and Allegheny Plateau and possibly Ontario. Range extent is minimally estimated at 70,000 square km and may extend over 200,000 square km.

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: Hudson Valley Section
Section Code: 221B Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Southern Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau Section
Section Code: 221E Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Western Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau Section
Section Code: 221F Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Province Name: Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Continental) Province
Province Code: 222 Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Interior Low Plateau, Shawnee Hills Section
Section Code: 222D Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Central Till Plains, Oak-Hickory Section
Section Code: 222G Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Central Till Plains, Beech-Maple Section
Section Code: 222H Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Erie and Ontario Lake Plain Section
Section Code: 222I Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Southeastern Great Lakes Section
Section Code: 222J Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Southwestern Great Lakes Morainal Section
Section Code: 222K Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Division Name: Prairie Division
Province Name: Prairie Parkland (Temperate) Province
Province Code: 251 Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Central Till Plains Section
Section Code: 251D Occurrence Status: Confident or certain


Vegetation

Vegetation Summary: The tree canopy is composed primarily of Acer saccharum and Fagus grandifolia. Liriodendron tulipifera is sometimes codominant and Carpinus caroliniana, Fraxinus americana, Ostrya virginiana, Quercus rubra, Tilia americana, and Ulmus americana are often present in the canopy or subcanopy. Diervilla lonicera, Euonymus obovatus, Lonicera canadensis, Sambucus racemosa var. racemosa (= Sambucus pubens), and Viburnum spp. are typical shrubs. The herbaceous layer is often diverse, typically including spring ephemerals. Common species include Arisaema triphyllum (= Arisaema atrorubens), Dryopteris intermedia, Maianthemum canadense (in northern stands), Maianthemum racemosum, Osmorhiza claytonii, Podophyllum peltatum, Polygonatum biflorum, Trillium grandiflorum, and Viola spp.

Vegetation Composition (incomplete)
Species Name Rounded Global Status Growth Form Stratum Charact-
eristic
Dominant Constant
Cover Class %
Con-
stancy
%
Acer saccharum G2 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Fagus grandifolia G2 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy  
 
 

Vegetation Structure Summary: This community is characterized by a dense to moderately dense canopy of deciduous trees, an absent to sparse shrub layer, and a moderately to well-developed herbaceous layer. The canopy formed by the overstory trees and smaller saplings greatly reduces the amount of light that reaches lower vegetation strata.


Environmental Setting

Wetland Indicator: N
Environmental Summary: This community is found on flat to rolling topography (Braun 1950, Pell and Mack 1977). In the southern parts of its range, it is more likely to be found on steeper slopes than in the northern portion (Braun 1950). The soils are predominantly silt loam, loam, or sandy loam and develop over glacial till of Wisconsin age (Braun 1950, Dodge and Harman 1985). This community was found to develop on sites with till 0.4-4.0 m thick in southern Michigan (Dodge and Harman 1985).


Dynamic Processes


Plot Sampling & Classification Analysis

Plots stored in VegBank


Authors/Contributors
Concept Author(s): D. Faber-Langendoen (2001)
Element Description Edition Date: 20Jul2017
Element Description Author(s): J. Drake and D. Faber-Langendoen
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 13Nov2006
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author(s): D. Faber-Langendoen

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


References
  • Braun, E. L. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. Hafner Press, New York. 596 pp.

  • Cain, S. A. 1935. Studies on virgin hardwood forest: III. Warren's Woods, a beech-maple climax forest in Berrien County, Michigan. Ecology 16(3):500-513.

  • Crumpacker, D. W., S. W. Hodge, D. Friedly, and W. P. Gregg, Jr. 1988. A preliminary assignment of the status of major terrestrial and wetland ecosystems on federal and Indian lands in the United States. Conservation Biology 2(1):103-115.

  • Dodge, S. L., and J. R. Harman. 1985. Soil, subsoil, and forest composition in south-central Michigan, USA. Physical Geography 6(1):85-101.

  • Faber-Langendoen, D., editor. 2001. Plant communities of the Midwest: Classification in an ecological context. Association for Biodiversity Information, Arlington, VA. 61 pp. plus appendix (705 pp.).

  • Homoya, M. A., J. Aldrich, J. Bacone, L. Casebere, and T. Post. 1988. Indiana natural community classification. Indiana Natural Heritage Program, Indianapolis, IN. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Hop, K., J. Drake, A. Strassman, E. Hoy, J. Jakusz, S. Menard, and J. Dieck. 2013. National Park Service Vegetation Inventory Program: Cuyahoga Valley National Park, Ohio. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRT--2013/792. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO. 302 pp.

  • Hop, K., S. Lubinski, J. Dieck, J. Drake, and S. Menard. 2009. National Park Service Vegetation Inventory Program: Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Indiana. USDI U.S. Geological Survey, La Crosse, WI, and NatureServe, St. Paul, MN. 312 pp.

  • Kost, M. A., D. A. Albert, J. G. Cohen, B. S. Slaughter, R. K. Schillo, C. R. Weber, and K. A. Chapman. 2007. Natural communities of Michigan: Classification and description. Report No. 2007-21, Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing. 314 pp. [http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/reports/2007-21_Natural_Communites_of_Michigan_Classification_and_Description.pdf]

  • Küchler, A. W. 1964. Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States. American Geographic Society Special Publication 36. New York, NY. 116 pp.

  • Lee, H., W. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig, and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological land classification for southern Ontario: First approximation and its application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.

  • Midwestern Ecology Working Group of NatureServe. No date. International Ecological Classification Standard: International Vegetation Classification. Terrestrial Vegetation. NatureServe, Minneapolis, MN.

  • ONHD [Ohio Natural Heritage Database]. No date. Vegetation classification of Ohio and unpublished data. Ohio Natural Heritage Database, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus.

  • ONHIC [Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre]. 2018. Unpublished data. Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario, Canada.

  • Pell, W. F., and R. N. Mack. 1977. The Fagus grandifolia - Acer saccharum - Podophyllum peltatum association in northeastern Ohio. Botanical Gazette 138(1):64-70.

  • Seischab, F. K. 1990. Presettlement forests of the Phelps and Gorham Purchase in western New York. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 117:27-38.

  • WDNR [Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources]. 2015. The ecological landscapes of Wisconsin: An assessment of ecological resources and a guide to planning sustainable management. PUB-SS-1131 2015. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison. [http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/landscapes/Book.html]

  • White, J., and M. Madany. 1978. Classification of natural communities in Illinois. Pages 311-405 in: Natural Areas Inventory technical report: Volume I, survey methods and results. Illinois Natural Areas Inventory, Urbana, IL.


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 March 2019.
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 © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, 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. 2019. 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 2019
NatureServe
Version 7.1 (2 February 2009)
Data last updated: March 2019