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 >>

Pinus strobus - Tsuga canadensis - Picea rubens Forest
Translated Name: Eastern White Pine - Eastern Hemlock - Red Spruce Forest
Common Name: White Pine - Hemlock - Red Spruce Forest
Unique Identifier: CEGL006324
Classification Approach: International Vegetation Classification (IVC)
Summary: This dry-mesic pine - hemlock forest occurs on lower-elevation slopes and flats in northern New England. The typical setting is sheltered slopes with sandy or stony, acidic, moderately well-drained soils overlying bedrock, talus, or till. The closed coniferous canopy admits little light, and lower layers are patchy and sparse. Dense needle accumulation and dry conditions appear to further limit the growth of herbs and bryoids. The canopy is composed of substantial Pinus strobus, with variable components of Picea rubens and Tsuga canadensis. Near the coast, Thuja occidentalis may be a canopy component. Picea rubens is characteristic, although it may not be abundant, and its presence indicates a cool climatic regime. Occasionally Abies balsamea will be present in the canopy or subcanopy. Minor deciduous associates may include Quercus rubra, Acer rubrum, Betula alleghaniensis, Betula papyrifera, or Betula populifolia. In the shrub layer, characteristic species include Gaylussacia baccata, Kalmia angustifolia, Viburnum nudum var. cassinoides, Vaccinium angustifolium, Vaccinium myrtilloides, or, less commonly, Comptonia peregrina, Diervilla lonicera, Ilex mucronata, or Rubus hispidus. Characteristic herb species include Pteridium aquilinum, Polypodium virginianum, Aralia nudicaulis, Maianthemum canadense, Gaultheria procumbens, Oclemena acuminata, Eurybia macrophylla, Cornus canadensis, Trientalis borealis, and Clintonia borealis. The bryophyte layer often includes Dicranum undulatum and Leucobryum glaucum, and may include species of Cladonia.



Classification

Classification Confidence: Moderate
Classification Comments: This community is less xeric than Pinus strobus - Pinus resinosa / Cornus canadensis Forest (CEGL006253) and less mesic than Tsuga canadensis - (Betula alleghaniensis) - Picea rubens / Cornus canadensis Forest (CEGL006129). It is similar to Pinus strobus - Tsuga canadensis Lower New England-Northern Piedmont Forest (CEGL006328), but is distinguished by the presence of red spruce.

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 Laurentian-Acadian Mesic Hardwood - Conifer Forest
Group Laurentian-Acadian Hemlock - White Pine - Hardwood Forest
Alliance White Pine - Hemlock Forest

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

Similar Associations
Unique Identifier Name
CEGL002590 Pinus strobus - Tsuga canadensis Great Lakes Forest
CEGL006129 Tsuga canadensis - (Betula alleghaniensis) - Picea rubens / Cornus canadensis Forest
CEGL006253 Pinus strobus - Pinus resinosa / Cornus canadensis Forest
CEGL006328 Pinus strobus - Tsuga canadensis Lower New England-Northern Piedmont 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
Maine White pine - mixed conifer forest Equivalent   Gawler 2002
Massachusetts Spruce - Fir - Northern Hardwoods Forest Broader   Swain and Kearsley 2001
New Hampshire Hemlock - spruce - northern hardwood forest Broader   Sperduto 2000
New York Hemlock-northern hardwood forest Broader   Edinger et al. 2002
Vermont Hemlock Forest Broader   Thompson and Sorenson 2000


Other Related Concepts
Related Concept Name: CNE dry conifer forest on acidic bedrock or till
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.
Related Concept Name: CNE mesic conifer forest on acidic bedrock/till
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.
Related Concept Name: Pine - hemlock / spruce forest community
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: MNAP [Maine Natural Areas Program]. 1991. Natural landscapes of Maine: Classification of ecosystems and natural communities. Maine Natural Areas Program, Maine Department of Conservation, Natural Resources Information and Mapping Center, Augusta, ME. 77 pp.
Related Concept Name: White Pine - Hemlock: 22
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.

Ecological Systems Placement

Ecological Systems Placement
Ecological System Unique ID Ecological System Name
CES201.563 Laurentian-Acadian Pine-Hemlock-Hardwood Forest


NatureServe Conservation Status
Global Status: GNR (01Dec1997)
Rounded Global Status: GNR - Not Yet Ranked

Distribution
Color legend for Distribution Map
United States Distribution: MA, ME, NH, NY, VT
Canadian Province Distribution: NB, QCpotentially occurs
Global Distribution: Canada, United States
Global Range: This forest occurs in northern New England.

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: Confident or certain
Section Name: Aroostook Hills and Lowlands Section
Section Code: 212A Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Maine-New Brunswick Foothills and Lowlands Section
Section Code: 212B Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Fundy Coastal and Interior Section
Section Code: 212C Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Central Maine Coastal and Embayment Section
Section Code: 212D Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Division Name: Hot Continental Division
Province Name: Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Continental) Province
Province Code: 222 Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Mohawk and Black River Valley Section
Section Code: 222O Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Division Name: Warm Continental Regime Mountains
Province Name: Adirondack-New England Mixed Forest - Coniferous Forest - Alpine Meadow Province
Province Code: M212 Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: White Mountain Section
Section Code: M212A Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Vermont-New Hampshire Upland Section
Section Code: M212B Occurrence Status: Predicted or probable
Section Name: Green, Taconic, Berkshire Mountain Section
Section Code: M212C Occurrence Status: Predicted or probable
Section Name: Adirondack Mountain Section
Section Code: M212D Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Catskill Mountain Section
Section Code: M212E Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Tug Hill Plateau Section
Section Code: M212F Occurrence Status: Predicted or probable


Vegetation

Vegetation Summary: The closed coniferous canopy admits little light, and lower layers are patchy and sparse. Dense needle accumulation and dry conditions appear to further limit the growth of herbs and bryoids. The canopy is composed of substantial Pinus strobus, with variable components of Picea rubens and Tsuga canadensis. Near the coast, Thuja occidentalis may be a canopy component. Picea rubens is characteristic, although it may not be abundant, and its presence indicates a cool climatic regime. Occasionally Abies balsamea will be present in the canopy or subcanopy. Minor deciduous associates may include Quercus rubra, Acer rubrum, Betula alleghaniensis, Betula papyrifera, or Betula populifolia. In the shrub layer, characteristic species include Gaylussacia baccata, Kalmia angustifolia, Viburnum nudum var. cassinoides (= Viburnum cassinoides), Vaccinium angustifolium, Vaccinium myrtilloides, or, less commonly, Comptonia peregrina, Diervilla lonicera, Ilex mucronata (= Nemopanthus mucronatus), or Rubus hispidus. Characteristic herb species include Pteridium aquilinum, Polypodium virginianum, Aralia nudicaulis, Maianthemum canadense, Gaultheria procumbens, Oclemena acuminata (= Aster acuminatus), Eurybia macrophylla (= Aster macrophyllus), Cornus canadensis, Trientalis borealis, and Clintonia borealis. The bryophyte layer often includes Dicranum undulatum and Leucobryum glaucum, and may include species of Cladonia (= Cladina).

Vegetation Composition (incomplete)
Species Name Rounded Global Status Growth Form Stratum Charact-
eristic
Dominant Constant
Cover Class %
Con-
stancy
%
Picea rubens GNR Needle-leaved tree Tree canopy    
 
 
Pinus strobus GNR Needle-leaved tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Tsuga canadensis GNR Needle-leaved tree Tree canopy  
 
 


Environmental Setting

Wetland Indicator: N
Environmental Summary: This dry-mesic pine - hemlock forest occurs on lower-elevation slopes and flats in northern New England. The typical setting is sheltered slopes with sandy or stony, acidic, moderately well-drained soils overlying bedrock, talus, or till.


Dynamic Processes


Plot Sampling & Classification Analysis

Plots stored in VegBank


Authors/Contributors
Concept Author(s): M. Anderson and Northern Appalachian Planning Team
Element Description Edition Date: 24Jan2003
Element Description Author(s): S.C. Gawler

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


References
  • CDPNQ [Centre de données sur le patrimoine naturel du Québec]. No date. Unpublished data. Centre de données sur le patrimoine naturel du Québec, Québec.

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

  • Edinger, G. J., D. J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T. G. Howard, D. M. Hunt, and A. M. Olivero, editors. 2014a. Ecological communities of New York state. Second edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's ecological communities of New York state. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.

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

  • Fincher, J. M. 1991. The relationship of soil-site factors to forest plant communities in the Green Mountain and White Mountain national forests. M.S. thesis, University of New Hampshire, Concord. 163 pp.

  • Gawler, S. C. 2002. Natural landscapes of Maine: A guide to vegetated natural communities and ecosystems. Maine Natural Areas Program, Department of Conservation, Augusta, ME.

  • Gawler, S. C., and A. Cutko. 2010. Natural landscapes of Maine: A classification of vegetated natural communities and ecosystems. Maine Natural Areas Program, Department of Conservation, Augusta.

  • Küchler, A. W. 1956. Notes on the vegetation of southeastern Mount Desert Island, Maine. University of Kansas Science Bulletin 38:335-392.

  • Lubinski, S., K. Hop, and S. Gawler. 2003. Vegetation Mapping Program: Acadia National Park, Maine. Report produced by U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, and Maine Natural Areas Program in conjunction with M. Story (NPS Vegetation Mapping Coordinator) NPS, Natural Resources Information Division, Inventory and Monitoring Program, and K. Brown (USGS Vegetation Mapping Coordinator), USGS, Center for Biological Informatics and NatureServe. [http://biology.usgs.gov/npsveg/ftp/vegmapping/acad/reports/acadrpt.pdf]

  • Lundgren, J. 1999a. Lower New England - Northern Piedmont Ecoregion Forest Classification. December 1999 Draft. 63 pp.

  • MNAP [Maine Natural Areas Program]. 1991. Natural landscapes of Maine: Classification of ecosystems and natural communities. Maine Natural Areas Program, Maine Department of Conservation, Natural Resources Information and Mapping Center, Augusta, ME. 77 pp.

  • Moore, B., and N. Taylor. 1927. An ecological study of the vegetation of Mount Desert Island, Maine. Brooklyn Botanical Garden Memoirs 3:1-151.

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

  • Reschke, C. 1990. Ecological communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Latham, NY. 96 pp.

  • Sperduto, D. D., and W. F. Nichols. 2004. Natural communities of New Hampshire: A guide and classification. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau, DRED Division of Forests and Lands, Concord. 242 pp.

  • Swain, P. C., and J. B. Kearsley. 2014. Classification of the natural communities of Massachusetts. Version 2.0. Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Westborough, MA. [http://www.mass.gov/nhesp/http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dfg/dfw/natural-heritage/natural-communities/classification-of-natural-communities.html]

  • Thompson, E. H., and E. R. Sorenson. 2005. Wetland, woodland, wildland: A guide to the natural communities of Vermont. The Nature Conservancy and the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH. 456 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 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