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 alleghaniensis / Ribes glandulosum / Polypodium appalachianum Forest
Translated Name: Yellow Birch / Skunk Currant / Appalachian Polypody Forest
Common Name: Southern Appalachian Boulderfield Forest (Currant & Rockcap Fern Type)
Unique Identifier: CEGL006124
Classification Approach: International Vegetation Classification (IVC)
Summary: This association includes high-elevation boulderfield forests of the Southern Appalachians, strongly dominated by Betula alleghaniensis, with few or no other species in the canopy, and with other species indicative of high elevations. This community occurs in a cool, humid climate, on steep, rocky, northwest- to northeast-facing, middle to upper concave slopes, or in saddles between ridges, at elevations of 1370-1615 m (4500-5300 feet). It is known from the high elevations of the Blue Ridge from West Virginia south to eastern Tennessee and western North Carolina. This forest is distinguished by a closed to somewhat open canopy dominated by Betula alleghaniensis, occurring over angular rocks (0.25-1 m diameter) covered by thin soil, lichens, mosses or vines. The rocks may be almost totally covered by moss. Betula alleghaniensis in the canopy are often stunted and gnarled, with roots that may have grown to encircle the boulders. Tree density is typically less than that of the surrounding forests. Other species that may form a minor canopy component include Aesculus flava, Prunus pensylvanica, Sorbus americana, Acer spicatum, Picea rubens, Tilia americana var. heterophylla, Sambucus racemosa var. racemosa (= Sambucus racemosa var. pubens), or Quercus rubra. Tree windthrow is common, leaving patches of exposed mineral soil and gaps in the canopy. The shrub density is typically high but may vary between occurrences. Herbaceous cover is generally sparse because of thin, rocky soil, but herbs and mosses may cover the rocks and boulders. Characteristic species include, in the herb stratum, Oclemena acuminata (= Aster acuminatus), Eurybia chlorolepis (= Aster chlorolepis), Aconitum reclinatum, Cardamine clematitis, Carex aestivalis, Actaea podocarpa (= Cimicifuga americana), Claytonia caroliniana, Clintonia borealis, Dryopteris campyloptera, Dryopteris marginalis, Huperzia lucidula, Oxalis montana, Polypodium appalachianum, Streptopus amplexifolius, and in the shrub stratum, Acer pensylvanicum, Acer spicatum, Amelanchier arborea var. austromontana, Diervilla sessilifolia, Hydrangea arborescens, Ilex montana, Lonicera canadensis, Ribes glandulosum, Ribes rotundifolium, Rubus canadensis, Sambucus racemosa var. racemosa, Vaccinium erythrocarpum, and Viburnum lantanoides. Seepage areas are common, producing wet microhabitats with unique species assemblages (Chelone lyonii, Chrysosplenium americanum, Circaea alpina, Rudbeckia laciniata, Impatiens pallida, and Monarda didyma). This association is distinguished by being strongly dominated by Betula alleghaniensis, with few or no other species in the canopy, and with other species indicative of high elevations (e.g., Abies fraseri, Dryopteris campyloptera, Ribes glandulosum, Rugelia nudicaulis, Streptopus amplexifolius, Prunus pensylvanica, and Sorbus americana. On less extreme sites, generally at lower elevations in the Blue Ridge and adjacent montane ecoregions, a similar boulderfield forest is Betula alleghaniensis - Tilia americana var. heterophylla / Acer spicatum / Ribes cynosbati / Dryopteris marginalis Forest (CEGL004982). Similar Betula alleghaniensis-dominated forests occur on glaciated rocky slopes in the upper mid-Atlantic and in the northeastern United States. The Betula alleghaniensis-dominated periglacial boulderfields of the southern Appalachian Mountains are distinguished from the northern forests by the occurrence of Southern Appalachian endemic species, better developed shrub layers and slightly less species diversity.



Classification

Classification Confidence: Moderate
Classification Comments: Unlike many other forest types in the Southern Appalachians, this community has not been threatened by logging because of the stunted nature of the trees and the inaccessibility of boulderfields to loggers.

This association is similar to Betula alleghaniensis / Sorbus americana - Acer spicatum / Polypodium appalachianum Forest (CEGL008504) of the Central Appalachians, but appears to occupy more mesic boulderfields and contains a number of Southern Appalachian species (e.g., Ribes glandulosum, Eurybia chlorolepis, Heuchera villosa, Abies fraseri, Prenanthes roanensis, Vaccinium erythrocarpum, Aesculus flava, etc.) that are generally absent from CEGL008504.


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-Interior-Northeastern Mesic Forest
Group Appalachian-Allegheny Northern Hardwood - Conifer Forest
Alliance Central & Southern Appalachian Buckeye - Northern Hardwood Forest

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

Similar Associations
Unique Identifier Name
CEGL004982 Betula alleghaniensis - Tilia americana var. heterophylla / Acer spicatum / Ribes cynosbati / Dryopteris marginalis Forest
CEGL008504 Betula alleghaniensis / Sorbus americana - Acer spicatum / Polypodium appalachianum Forest



Related Concepts from Other Classifications

Related Subnational Community Units
These data are subject to substantial ongoing revision and may be out of date for some states.
In the U.S., contact the state Heritage Program for the most complete and up-to-date information at: http://www.natureserve.org/natureserve-network.
Information from programs in other jurisdictions will be posted when they are made available.
Subnation Concept Name Relationship to Standard Confidence Reference
North Carolina High Elevation Birch Boulderfield Forest Equivalent Certain Schafale 2012


Other Related Concepts
Related Concept Name: Betula alleghaniensis / Acer spicatum / Viburnum lantanoides - Ribes glandulosum Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Fleming, G. P., P. P. Coulling, K. D. Patterson, and K. Taverna. 2006. The natural communities of Virginia: Classification of ecological community groups. Second approximation. Version 2.2. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. [http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/ncTIV.shtml]
Relationship: = - Equivalent
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: BR Boulderfield Forest
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: Ambrose, J. 1990a. Georgia's natural communities--A preliminary list. Unpublished document. Georgia Natural Heritage Inventory. 5 pp.
Related Concept Name: Boulderfield Forest
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina. Third approximation. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh. 325 pp.
Related Concept Name: Hemlock - Yellow Birch: 24
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Eyre, F. H., editor. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 pp.
Related Concept Name: High Elevation Birch Boulderfield Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Schafale, M. 1998b. Fourth approximation guide. High mountain communities. March 1998 draft. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh.
Related Concept Name: High-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: IA4c. Yellow Birch Boulderfield Forest
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Allard, D. J. 1990. Southeastern United States ecological community classification. Interim report, Version 1.2. The Nature Conservancy, Southeast Regional Office, Chapel Hill, NC. 96 pp.
Related Concept Name: Oligotrophic Forest
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Rawinski, T. J. 1992. A classification of Virginia's indigenous biotic communities: Vegetated terrestrial, palustrine, and estuarine community classes. Unpublished document. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. Natural Heritage Technical Report No. 92-21. Richmond, VA. 25 pp.
Related Concept Name: Red Spruce - Yellow Birch: 30
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Eyre, F. H., editor. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 pp.
Related Concept Name: Sugar Maple - Beech - Yellow Birch: 25
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Eyre, F. H., editor. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 pp.
Related Concept Name: Yellow Birch Community: Boulder Field Subtype
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: Rheinhardt, R. D., and S. A. Ware. 1984. The vegetation of the Balsam Mountains of southwestern Virginia: A phytosociological study. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 111:287-300.
Related Concept Name: Yellow Birch, BR
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Pyne, M. 1994. Tennessee natural communities. Unpublished document. Tennessee Department of Conservation, Ecology Service Division, Nashville. 7 pp.
Related Concept Name: Yellow birch-skunk current/polypody forest
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: CAP [Central Appalachian Forest Working Group]. 1998. Central Appalachian Working group discussions. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA.

Ecological Systems Placement

Ecological Systems Placement
Ecological System Unique ID Ecological System Name
CES202.029 Southern Appalachian Northern Hardwood Forest


NatureServe Conservation Status
Global Status: G2G3 (27Oct2003)
Rounded Global Status: G2 - Imperiled
Reasons: This community is scattered throughout the high elevations of the Southern Blue Ridge with highly localized outliers also found at the highest elevations of Clinch Mountain in the adjacent Ridge and Valley province. Examples are further confined to boulder strewn substrates which are relatively uncommon. Unlike many other forest types in the Southern Appalachians, this community has been less impacted by logging due to the stunted nature of the trees and the relative inaccessibility of these boulderfield sites. As of 2003, North Carolina has 12 (principal) Element Occurrences, and given their proportion of the total occurrences and their protection status, a rank of G2G3 is probably justified (M. Schafale pers. comm.).

Distribution
Color legend for Distribution Map
United States Distribution: GApotentially occurs, NC, TN, VA, WVpotentially occurs
Global Distribution: United States
Global Range: This community type ranges at high elevations of the Blue Ridge from eastern Tennessee and western North Carolina north to southwestern Virginia. In the southern Virginia Blue Ridge, it occurs frequently on steep, north-facing slopes of Mount Rogers, Whitetop, and Pine Mountain. Small, highly localized outliers also occur at the highest elevations of Clinch Mountain in the adjacent Ridge and Valley province.

U.S. Forest Service Ecoregions
Domain Name: Humid Temperate Domain
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: Possible
Section Name: Cumberland Mountains Section
Section Code: M221C Occurrence Status: Possible
Section Name: Blue Ridge Mountains Section
Section Code: M221D Occurrence Status: Confident or certain


Vegetation

Vegetation Summary: Stands of this association are distinguished by a closed to somewhat open canopy overwhelmingly dominated by Betula alleghaniensis. Canopy trees are often stunted and gnarled, with roots that have grown to encircle the boulders. Tree density is typically less than that of the surrounding forests. Minor canopy associates include Aesculus flava, Prunus pensylvanica, Sorbus americana, Acer spicatum, Picea rubens, Tilia americana var. heterophylla, and Quercus rubra. Tree windthrow is common, creating canopy gaps and patches of exposed mineral soil. Shrub density is typically high but varies between occurrences. Characteristic shrubs are Acer pensylvanicum, Acer spicatum, Amelanchier arborea var. austromontana, Diervilla sessilifolia, Hydrangea arborescens, Ilex montana, Lonicera canadensis, Ribes glandulosum, Ribes rotundifolium, Rubus canadensis, Sambucus racemosa var. racemosa (= var. pubens), Vaccinium erythrocarpum, and Viburnum lantanoides. Herbaceous cover is generally sparse because of the rocky substrate, but specially adapted herbs and mosses may cover the rocks and boulders. Characteristic herbs over the range of this community include Oclemena acuminata (= Aster acuminatus), Eurybia chlorolepis (= Aster chlorolepis), Aconitum reclinatum, Cardamine clematitis, Carex aestivalis, Actaea podocarpa (= Cimicifuga americana), Claytonia caroliniana, Clintonia borealis, Dryopteris campyloptera, Dryopteris marginalis, Huperzia lucidula, Oxalis montana, Polypodium appalachianum, and Streptopus amplexifolius. Local seepage areas may support Chelone lyonii, Chrysosplenium americanum, Circaea alpina, Rudbeckia laciniata, Impatiens pallida, and Monarda didyma. Six plots from North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia were classified as this association in the Appalachian Trail classification project (Fleming and Patterson 2009a). In those plots, Acer spicatum, Ribes glandulosum, Rubus canadensis, and Viburnum lantanoides are the most constant lower woody species, while Ageratina altissima var. roanensis, Arisaema triphyllum, Carex aestivalis, Dryopteris intermedia, Eurybia chlorolepis, Huperzia lucidula, Oclemena acuminata, and Polypodium appalachianum are the most constant herbs. Mean species richness in these samples is 28 taxa per plot.

Vegetation Composition (incomplete)
Species Name Rounded Global Status Growth Form Stratum Charact-
eristic
Dominant Constant
Cover Class %
Con-
stancy
%
Betula alleghaniensis G2 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Abies fraseri G2 Needle-leaved tree Tree canopy      
 
 
Aesculus flava G2 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Amelanchier arborea var. austromontana G2 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Ilex montana G2 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Lonicera canadensis G2 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Ribes rotundifolium G2 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Rubus canadensis G2 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Vaccinium erythrocarpum G2 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Viburnum lantanoides G2 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Aristolochia macrophylla G2 Liana Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Acer pensylvanicum G2 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tall shrub/sapling    
 
 
Acer spicatum G2 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tall shrub/sapling  
 
 
Ribes glandulosum G2 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Short shrub/sapling  
 
 
Ribes rotundifolium G2 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Short shrub/sapling    
 
 
Aconitum reclinatum G2 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Ageratina altissima var. roanensis G2 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Cardamine clematitis G2 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Chelone lyonii G2 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Circaea alpina G2 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Conioselinum chinense G2 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Cuscuta rostrata G2 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Eurybia chlorolepis G2 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Geum geniculatum G2 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Lilium grayi G2 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Meehania cordata G2 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Oclemena acuminata G2 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Oxalis montana G2 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Prenanthes roanensis G2 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Prosartes maculata G2 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Rugelia nudicaulis G2 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Solidago glomerata G2 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Stachys clingmanii G2 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Stellaria corei G2 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Streptopus lanceolatus var. roseus G2 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Dryopteris campyloptera G2 Fern (Spore-bearing forb) Herb (field)    
 
 
Dryopteris intermedia G2 Fern (Spore-bearing forb) Herb (field)    
 
 
Dryopteris marginalis G2 Fern (Spore-bearing forb) Herb (field)    
 
 
Polypodium appalachianum G2 Fern (Spore-bearing forb) Herb (field)  
 
 
Carex aestivalis G2 Graminoid Herb (field)    
 
 
Glyceria nubigena G2 Graminoid Herb (field)      
 
 
Hylocomium splendens G2 Moss Nonvascular    
 
 


At-Risk Species Reported for this Association
Scientific Name
  (Common Name)
NatureServe Global Status U.S. Endangered Species Act Status
Abies fraseri
  (Fraser Fir)
G2  
Aconitum reclinatum
  (White Monkshood)
G3  
Ageratina altissima var. roanensis
  (Appalachian White Snakeroot)
G5T3T4  
Cardamine clematitis
  (Small Mountain Bittercress)
G3  
Geum geniculatum
  (Bent Avens)
G2  
Glyceria nubigena
  (Smoky Mountains Mannagrass)
G2G3  
Lilium grayi
  (Gray's Lily)
G3  
Prenanthes roanensis
  (Roan Mountain Rattlesnake-root)
G3  
Prosartes maculata
  (Nodding Mandarin)
G3G4  
Rugelia nudicaulis
  (Rugel's Ragwort)
G3  
Solidago glomerata
  (Skunk Goldenrod)
G3  
Stachys clingmanii
  (Clingman's Hedge-nettle)
G2  

Vegetation Structure
Stratum Growth Form
Height of Stratum (m)
Cover
Class
%
Min
Cover %
Max
Cover %
Tree canopy Broad-leaved deciduous tree
 
 
 
 
Shrub/sapling (tall & short) Liana
 
 
 
 
Tall shrub/sapling Broad-leaved deciduous shrub
 
 
 
 
Short shrub/sapling Broad-leaved deciduous shrub
 
 
 
 
Herb (field) Flowering forb
 
 
 
 
Nonvascular Moss
 
 
 
 


Environmental Setting

Wetland Indicator: N
Environmental Summary: This community occurs in rocky habitats with cool, humid microclimates. Typical sites are steep, boulder-strewn slopes; northwest- to northeast-facing, middle to upper concave slopes; or in saddles between ridges. Elevations typically range from 1370-1615 m (4500-5300 feet), but may vary somewhat. Surface substrate is characterized by angular boulders (0.25-1 m diameter) derived from various bedrock types and covered by thin soil, lichens, mosses or vines. The rocks may be almost totally covered by moss. Seepage areas are frequent, producing wet microhabitats with unique species assemblages. Extreme winter temperatures, high winds, and ice storms periodically affect these forests. Mean elevation of plot-sampled Virginia sites is 1450 m (4760 feet) and aspect ranges from northwest to north. Mean surface cover of exposed bedrock and boulders is 42% and mean cover of bryophytes and lichens is 37%. Soil samples collected from these sites are extremely acidic (mean pH = 3.5), with high organic matter content (mean = 40%) and low base saturation (mean = 10%).


Dynamic Processes

Dynamics: Windthrow of trees and damage to the canopy caused by lightning strikes and ice storms are common phenomena in boulderfields. The ice-fractured boulderfields that characterize this community in the upper elevations of the Southern Appalachians are believed to be remnants of Pleistocene periglacial activity. During this time, the high elevations (1120-1525 m [4000-5000 feet]) of the Southern Appalachians were covered by treeless snow fields and exposed rock. Frost and ice action resulted in the accumulation of boulders that persist on the upper slopes (King and Stupka 1950). Farther north, such as in Pennsylvania, boulderfields are on flat surfaces and are the result of glacial deposition (Allard 1984).

Betula alleghaniensis is well-adapted to the environmental dynamics of boulderfields and can perpetuate because it takes advantage of canopy gaps formed during periodic natural disturbances. This species produces a large number of seeds and is able to germinate on logs and rocks in a minimum amount of soil. The roots of trees develop to form false trunks that encircle the rocks. It is possible that over time, due to soil formation and weathering, these forests may succeed to forests dominated by a mixture of northern hardwood species (Betula alleghaniensis, Fagus grandifolia, Acer saccharum, Aesculus flava). However, many Betula alleghaniensis forests and the boulderfields on which they occur appear fairly stable. Chafin and Jones (1989) found that despite large trees growing on top of boulders, there is no evidence of rock shattering.


Plot Sampling & Classification Analysis

Plots stored in VegBank


Authors/Contributors
Concept Author(s): K.D. Patterson, mod. G. Fleming and P. Coulling
Element Description Edition Date: 23Feb2010
Element Description Author(s): K.D. Patterson, G. Fleming and P. Coulling
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 23Feb2004
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author(s): R.E. Evans

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


References
  • Allard, D. J. 1984. Natural community characterization abstracts. Unpublished manuscripts. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond.

  • Allard, D. J. 1990. Southeastern United States ecological community classification. Interim report, Version 1.2. The Nature Conservancy, Southeast Regional Office, Chapel Hill, NC. 96 pp.

  • Ambrose, J. 1990a. Georgia's natural communities--A preliminary list. Unpublished document. Georgia Natural Heritage Inventory. 5 pp.

  • CAP [Central Appalachian Forest Working Group]. 1998. Central Appalachian Working group discussions. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA.

  • Chafin, L. G., and S. B. Jones, Jr. 1989. Community structure of two Southern Appalachian boulderfields. Castanea 54:230-237.

  • Dellinger, B. 1992. Natural areas survey, Nantahala National Forest, Highlands Ranger District: Site survey reports. Unpublished data. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh.

  • Eyre, F. H., editor. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 pp.

  • 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 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.

  • Golden, M. S. 1981. An integrated multivariate analysis of forest communities of the central Great Smoky Mountains. The American Midland Naturalist 106:37-53.

  • King, P. B., and A. Stupka. 1950. The Great Smoky Mountains - their geology and natural history. Scientific Monthly 71:31-43.

  • NatureServe Ecology - Southeastern United States. No date. Unpublished data. NatureServe, Durham, NC.

  • Peet, R. K., T. R. Wentworth, M. P. Schafale, and A.S. Weakley. No date. Unpublished data of the North Carolina Vegetation Survey. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

  • Pittillo, J. D., and G. A. Smathers. 1979. Phytogeography of the Balsam Mountains and Pisgah Ridge, southern Appalachian Mountains. Pages 206-245 in: H. Lieth and E. Landolt, editors. Proceedings of the 16th International phytogeographic excursion. Veroff. Geobot. Inst., Stiftung Rubel, Zurich.

  • Pyne, M. 1994. Tennessee natural communities. Unpublished document. Tennessee Department of Conservation, Ecology Service Division, Nashville. 7 pp.

  • Rawinski, T. J. 1992. A classification of Virginia's indigenous biotic communities: Vegetated terrestrial, palustrine, and estuarine community classes. Unpublished document. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. Natural Heritage Technical Report No. 92-21. Richmond, VA. 25 pp.

  • Rheinhardt, R. D., and S. A. Ware. 1984. The vegetation of the Balsam Mountains of southwestern Virginia: A phytosociological study. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 111:287-300.

  • Schafale, M. 1998b. Fourth approximation guide. High mountain communities. March 1998 draft. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh.

  • Schafale, M. P. 2012. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, 4th Approximation. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh.

  • Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina. Third approximation. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh. 325 pp.

  • Schafale, Mike P. Personal communication. Ecologist, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh.

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

  • Stamper. 1976. Vegetation of Beech Mountain, North Carolina. M.S. thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 185 pp.

  • TDNH [Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage]. No date. Unpublished data. Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage, Nashville, TN.

  • 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.

  • Wharton, C. H. 1978. The natural environments of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta. 227 pp.

  • Wood, E. W. 1975. A comparison of mature, yellow birch-dominated forests in Northern and Southern Appalachian regions. Unpublished document. University of Georgia Herbarium Library, Athens. 67 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