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 >>

Betula lenta - Quercus prinus / Parthenocissus quinquefolia Woodland
Translated Name: Sweet Birch - Chestnut Oak / Virginia Creeper Woodland
Common Name: Sweet Birch - Chestnut Oak Talus Woodland
Unique Identifier: CEGL006565
Classification Approach: International Vegetation Classification (IVC)
Summary: This talus or rocky slope woodland community occurs in the central Appalachian Mountains and extends west to the Western Allegheny Plateau in Pennsylvania. The substrate is generally quartzite or sandstone talus. Sites are usually steeply sloping, but the type also sometimes occurs on gentler benches and ridge crests. Soils, where present, are shallow, organic, acidic and infertile. The canopy is of variable cover but generally open with gnarled, widely spaced trees. Characteristic trees are birches, primarily Betula lenta but less frequently including Betula papyrifera, Betula populifolia, or Betula alleghaniensis, as well as Nyssa sylvatica. Other tree associates may include Tsuga canadensis, Acer rubrum, Carya glabra, Quercus prinus, Quercus alba, Quercus rubra, Quercus velutina, or Quercus coccinea. Typical shrubs include Acer spicatum, Acer pensylvanicum, Amelanchier arborea, Castanea dentata, Kalmia latifolia, Hamamelis virginiana, Menziesia pilosa, Ribes rotundifolium, Vaccinium angustifolium, Vitis spp., Toxicodendron radicans, Smilax rotundifolia, and Parthenocissus quinquefolia. Ferns characterize the herb layer and may include Dryopteris marginalis, Polypodium virginianum, Woodsia obtusa, or Asplenium platyneuron. The forbs Aralia nudicaulis, Heuchera spp., and Scutellaria saxatilis are also well-adapted to the bouldery habitats. Lichens, especially the rock-tripes Lasallia papulosa and Umbilicaria mammulata and the foliose species Flavoparmelia baltimorensis, characterize the nonvascular layer.



Classification

Classification Confidence: Moderate
Classification Comments: This vegetation type is broadly defined and exhibits considerable geographic and elevational variation. It is also poorly represented by plot data, and additional sampling is needed, particularly of lower elevation and south-slope stands. Even with limited data, potential variants of the type in Virginia were proposed by Fleming and Moorhead (2000). A variant of sheltered north slopes in which Tsuga canadensis is codominant with Betula lenta and/or Quercus spp. has been reported from Virginia by Hupp (1983) and from Pennsylvania by Fike (1999), but may be referable to bouldery variants of Tsuga canadensis - Quercus prinus - Betula lenta Forest (CEGL006923). Many Virginia populations of the state-rare, northern tree Betula papyrifera var. cordifolia are associated with this community type.

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 Appalachian Oak / Chestnut Forest
Alliance Northern Red Oak - Chestnut Oak Woodland

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

Similar Associations
Unique Identifier Name
CEGL006057 Quercus prinus - Quercus rubra / Hamamelis virginiana Forest
CEGL006584 Betula alleghaniensis - Quercus rubra / Polypodium virginianum Woodland
CEGL006585 Quercus rubra - Betula lenta / Polypodium virginianum Woodland



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 prinus - Betula lenta / Parthenocissus quinquefolia Talus Woodland Equivalent Certain Harrison 2011
Pennsylvania Birch (Black-gum) Rocky Slope Woodland Broader   Fike 1999


Other Related Concepts
Related Concept Name: Betula lenta - Quercus montana - Quercus rubra / Menziesia pilosa / Dryopteris marginalis 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: Betula lenta - Quercus montana / Parthenocissus quinquefolia Woodland
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: Betula lenta - Quercus prinus / Parthenocissus quinquefolia Woodland
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Fleming, G. P., and K. D. Patterson. 2009a. A vegetation classification for the Appalachian Trail: Virginia south to Georgia. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. In-house analysis, March 2009.
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.
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: 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.
Related Concept Name: Betula lenta - Quercus rubra - Quercus prinus / Menziesia pilosa Forest
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.
Related Concept Name: Betula lenta / Parthenocissus quinquefolia Association
Relationship: F - Finer
Reference: Rawinski, T. J., K. N. Hickman, J. Waller-Eling, G. P. Fleming, C. S. Austin, S. D. Helmick, C. Huber, G. Kappesser, F. C. Huber, Jr., T. Bailey, and T. K. Collins. 1996. Plant communities and ecological land units of the Glenwood Ranger District, George Washington and Jefferson national forests, Virginia. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. Natural Heritage Technical Report 96-20. Richmond. 65 pp. plus appendices.
Related Concept Name: Betula lenta / Ribes rotundifolium - Menziesia pilosa / Parthenocissus quinquefolia - Polypodium appalachianum Woodland
Relationship: F - Finer
Reference: 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.
Related Concept Name: Quercus prinus - Betula lenta / Parthenocissus quinquefolia Talus Woodland
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 rubra - Quercus montana - Betula lenta / Ilex montana / Menziesia pilosa Forest
Relationship: F - Finer
Reference: Fleming, G. P., and W. H. Moorhead, III. 2000. Plant communities and ecological land units of the Peter's Mountain area, James River Ranger District, George Washington and Jefferson national forests, Virginia. Natural Heritage Technical Report 00-07. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. Unpublished report submitted to the USDA Forest Service. 195 pp. plus appendices.
Related Concept Name: Quercus rubra - Quercus montana - Betula lenta / Parthenocissus quinquefolia Forest
Relationship: F - Finer
Reference: Fleming, G. P., and W. H. Moorhead, III. 2000. Plant communities and ecological land units of the Peter's Mountain area, James River Ranger District, George Washington and Jefferson national forests, Virginia. Natural Heritage Technical Report 00-07. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. Unpublished report submitted to the USDA Forest Service. 195 pp. plus appendices.
Related Concept Name: Low-Elevation Boulderfield Forest / Woodland
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.
Related Concept Name: Talus Slope Community
Relationship: F - Finer
Reference: Walz, K. S. 1996. Final report: Ecological community inventory of High Mountain Park, Wayne Township, Passaic County, New Jersey. The Nature Conservancy, New Jersey Field Office, Chester. 120 pp.

Ecological Systems Placement

Ecological Systems Placement
Ecological System Unique ID Ecological System Name
CES202.601 North-Central Appalachian Acidic Cliff and Talus


NatureServe Conservation Status
Global Status: G4 (23May2011)
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: Although this community type occurs in small patches over a limited geographic range, there are probably more than 200 sites (if not many hundreds of sites) in Virginia and West Virginia alone. Moreover, stands occupy rugged habitats that are not prone to anthropogenic disturbances.

Distribution
Color legend for Distribution Map
United States Distribution: MD, NJ, NY, PA, VA, WV
Global Distribution: United States
Global Range: This community occurs locally throughout the Blue Ridge and Ridge and Valley sections of Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland, extending northeast to the Pennsylvania-New Jersey border and New York.

U.S. Forest Service Ecoregions
Domain Name: Humid Temperate Domain
Division Name: Warm Continental Division
Province Name: Laurentian Mixed Forest Province
Province Code: 212 Occurrence Status: Predicted or probable
Section Name: Northern Glaciated Allegheny Plateau Section
Section Code: 212F Occurrence Status: Predicted or probable
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: Northern Appalachian Piedmont Section
Section Code: 221D Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Southern Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau Section
Section Code: 221E 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: Northern Ridge and Valley Section
Section Code: M221A Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Allegheny Mountains Section
Section Code: M221B Occurrence Status: Confident or certain


Vegetation

Vegetation Summary: Physiognomy varies from nearly closed forest to open woodland with widely spaced trees. The canopy is dominated by more-or-less gnarled specimens of Betula lenta and Quercus prinus generally <20 m tall. Betula lenta is usually the sole dominant of less weathered, steeper, more unstable boulderfield habitats, while a greater variety of trees is often codominant with Betula lenta on more weathered and stable habitats. Other overstory associates that may be important on some sites are Quercus rubra, Nyssa sylvatica, Betula populifolia, Betula papyrifera var. cordifolia, Carya glabra, Tsuga canadensis, and Betula alleghaniensis. The presence of well-preserved, fallen boles indicates that Castanea dentata was important on some boulderfields prior to the arrival of chestnut blight (Fleming and Moorhead 2000). Acer rubrum and Nyssa sylvatica are scattered canopy associates and frequent understory species. The typically open shrub layer contains Acer pensylvanicum, Acer spicatum, Amelanchier arborea, Castanea dentata sprouts, Hamamelis virginiana, Ilex montana, Kalmia latifolia, Menziesia pilosa (at the southern end of the range), and Ribes rotundifolium. The ground layer consists almost entirely of low-statured shrubs, particularly Menziesia pilosa and Vaccinium angustifolium, and/or scattered to abundant vines of Parthenocissus quinquefolia, Vitis spp., Toxicodendron radicans, and Smilax rotundifolia. True herbs are very sparse and restricted to mossy pockets or flat boulders; typical species are Dryopteris marginalis, Polypodium appalachianum, Deschampsia flexuosa, and Danthonia spicata. In the southern portion of the range, Heuchera spp. and Scutellaria saxatilis are characteristic herbs. Bryophyte cover ranges up to 65% in some microhabitats. The rock-tripes Lasallia papulosa and Umbilicaria mammulata, and the foliose species Flavoparmelia baltimorensis, are generally the most conspicuous lichens. The combination of surficial boulder cover and nutrient-poor substrate results in a notably low mean species richness (n = 24 taxa per 400 square meters) in Virginia and Maryland plot samples of this type.

Vegetation Composition (incomplete)
Species Name Rounded Global Status Growth Form Stratum Charact-
eristic
Dominant Constant
Cover Class %
Con-
stancy
%
Betula lenta G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Betula papyrifera var. cordifolia G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy    
 
 
Quercus prinus G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Acer spicatum G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Menziesia pilosa G4 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Ribes rotundifolium G4 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Vaccinium angustifolium G4 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Hamamelis virginiana G4 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Tall shrub/sapling      
 
 
Aralia nudicaulis G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Heuchera americana var. hispida G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Scutellaria saxatilis G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Dryopteris marginalis G4 Fern (Spore-bearing forb) Herb (field)    
 
 
Gymnocarpium appalachianum G4 Fern (Spore-bearing forb) Herb (field)      
 
 
Polypodium appalachianum G4 Fern (Spore-bearing forb) Herb (field)    
 
 
Parthenocissus quinquefolia G4 Liana Herb (field)  
 
 


At-Risk Species Reported for this Association
Scientific Name
  (Common Name)
NatureServe Global Status U.S. Endangered Species Act Status
Gymnocarpium appalachianum
  (Appalachian Oak Fern)
G3  
Heuchera americana var. hispida
  (American Alumroot)
G5T3?  
Scutellaria saxatilis
  (Rock Skullcap)
G3  


Environmental Setting

Wetland Indicator: N
Environmental Summary: Sites include the edges of very large, unvegetated (except for lichens), scarcely weathered block fields, as well as a variety of more weathered boulderfields and slopes covered by coarse to fine, bouldery colluvium. Much of the bouldery rubble is weathered from resistant quartzite or sandstone caprock. The elevation range of plot-sampled stands in Virginia is 100 to 1025 m (300-3360 feet). Slope position and aspect are variable, while associated landforms include landslide scarps, slide masses, concave hollow heads, and incised hollow bottoms. Mean cover of exposed boulders at Virginia sampling sites is 72%. In this very rocky environment, soil is limited to local, interstitial, root-rich duff deposits, or to "pads" of moss and underlying, thin, organic / sandy material that have developed on wide, flat boulder surfaces. Interstitial air spaces between boulders may be prevalent for 1.0 m or more below the surface. Soils are largely organic and usually extremely acidic and infertile. There is often some heterogeneity of boulder depth and weathering, as well as of microclimate and soil moisture, within boulderfields. In general, sites are somewhat xeric and show little evidence of subsurface drainage. However, this regime is ameliorated by higher elevations and north aspects, which probably slow evaporation and increase the moisture-holding capacity of the bouldery substrate.


Dynamic Processes

Dynamics: This boulderfield woodland represents a long-term sere in the geomorphic and vegetational progression from exposed, lichen-dominated block fields to fully forested mountain slopes with well-developed mineral soils. In addition to edaphic stresses, trees of these habitats are subject to frequent damage from wind and ice storms. This community often occurs in patch-mosaics with open, lichen-covered boulderfields that lack vascular plants. Boundaries between the boulderfield woodlands and adjacent forests are often obscure, with composition gradually changing along with substrate conditions and soil depth. This type frequently intergrades with several communities of the Mixed Oak / Heath Forests group, especially Quercus prinus - Quercus rubra / Hamamelis virginiana Forest (CEGL006057) of somewhat sheltered, often very rocky slopes. In Virginia, this association reaches optimal development on sideslopes of linear sandstone and quartzite strike ridges in the Ridge and Valley, and on the western, metasedimentary flank of the northern Blue Ridge. Landsliding and debris avalanches, which generate and regenerate boulderfield environments, are dominant erosional processes in these landscapes (Hack and Goodlett 1960).


Plot Sampling & Classification Analysis

Plots stored in VegBank


Authors/Contributors
Concept Author(s): Anderson et al. (1998)
Element Description Edition Date: 04Oct2006
Element Description Author(s): G. Fleming, P. Coulling, S.C. Gawler
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 23May2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author(s): G. Fleming, mod. L.A. Sneddon

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


References
  • Anderson, M., F. Biasi, and S. Buttrick. 1998. Conservation site selection: Ecoregional planning for biodiversity. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Regional Office, Boston, MA. 18 pp.

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

  • Fike, J. 1999. Terrestrial and palustrine plant communities of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Recreation, Bureau of Forestry, Harrisburg, PA. 86 pp.

  • Fleming, G. P., A. Belden, Jr., K. E. Heffernan, A. C. Chazal, N. E. Van Alstine, and E. M. Butler. 2007a. A natural heritage inventory of the rock outcrops of Shenandoah National Park. Unpublished report submitted to the National Park Service. Natural Heritage Technical Report 07-01. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 433 pp. plus appendixes.

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

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

  • Fleming, G. P., and K. D. Patterson. 2009a. A vegetation classification for the Appalachian Trail: Virginia south to Georgia. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. In-house analysis, March 2009.

  • Fleming, G. P., and K. D. Patterson. 2009b. Classification of selected Virginia montane wetland groups. In-house analysis, December 2009. 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, G. P., and W. H. Moorhead, III. 2000. Plant communities and ecological land units of the Peter's Mountain area, James River Ranger District, George Washington and Jefferson national forests, Virginia. Natural Heritage Technical Report 00-07. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. Unpublished report submitted to the USDA Forest Service. 195 pp. plus appendices.

  • Hack, J. T., and J. C. Goodlett. 1960. Geomorphology and forest ecology of a mountain region in the Central Appalachians. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 347. 66 pp.

  • 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.

  • Hupp, C. R. 1983. Vegetation pattern on channel features in the Passage Creek Gorge, Virginia. Castanea 48:62-72.

  • 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. 2004. Draft vegetation types in National Capital Region Parks. Edited by S.C. Gawler and J. Teague. Working draft for review by NatureServe, Virginia Natural Heritage, West Virginia Natural Heritage, Maryland Natural Heritage, and National Park Service. July 2004. 157 pp.

  • Perles, S. J., G. S. Podniesinski, E. Eastman, L. A. Sneddon, and S. C. Gawler. 2007. Classification and mapping of vegetation and fire fuel models at Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2007/076. National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA. 2 volumes.

  • Podniesinski, G. S., L. A. Sneddon, J. Lundgren, H. Devine, B. Slocumb, and F. Koch. 2005b. Vegetation classification and mapping of Valley Forge National Historical Park. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2005/028. National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA. 129 pp.

  • Rawinski, T. J., K. N. Hickman, J. Waller-Eling, G. P. Fleming, C. S. Austin, S. D. Helmick, C. Huber, G. Kappesser, F. C. Huber, Jr., T. Bailey, and T. K. Collins. 1996. Plant communities and ecological land units of the Glenwood Ranger District, George Washington and Jefferson national forests, Virginia. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. Natural Heritage Technical Report 96-20. Richmond. 65 pp. plus appendices.

  • Russell, E. W. B., and A. E. Schuyler. 1988. Vegetation and flora of Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, eastern Pennsylvania. Bartonia 54:124-143.

  • 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.

  • Walz, K. S. 1996. Final report: Ecological community inventory of High Mountain Park, Wayne Township, Passaic County, New Jersey. The Nature Conservancy, New Jersey Field Office, Chester. 120 pp.

  • Young, J., G. Fleming, P. Townsend, and J. Foster. 2006. Vegetation of Shenandoah National Park in relation to environmental gradients. Final Report (v.1.1). Research technical report prepared for USDI, National Park Service. USGS/NPS Vegetation Mapping Program. 92 pp. plus appendices.

  • 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.

  • Young, J., G. Fleming, W. Cass, and C. Lea. 2009. Vegetation of Shenandoah National Park in relation to environmental gradients, Version 2.0. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2009/142. National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA. 389 pp.


Use Guidelines and Citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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