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 >>

Quercus (prinus, coccinea) / Kalmia latifolia / (Galax urceolata, Gaultheria procumbens) Forest
Translated Name: (Chestnut Oak, Scarlet Oak) / Mountain Laurel / (Beetleweed, Eastern Teaberry) Forest
Common Name: Chestnut Oak Forest (Subxeric Ridge Type)
Unique Identifier: CEGL006271
Classification Approach: International Vegetation Classification (IVC)
Summary: This community includes subxeric ridgetop and exposed slope forests in the Southern Appalachians, ranging south and east into the upper Piedmont, north into the Central Appalachians, and north and west into the Ridge and Valley. This community occurs over shallow soils, primarily on south- to west-facing slopes and ridgetops where solar exposure is high. Soils are rocky, infertile, dry, acidic sandy loams typically derived from sandstone. The community includes forests with canopies strongly dominated by Quercus prinus and/or Quercus coccinea, with lesser amounts of Quercus velutina, Quercus rubra, Quercus falcata, Oxydendrum arboreum, Nyssa sylvatica, Pinus virginiana, and Acer rubrum, occurring over a typically dense shrub stratum dominated by ericaceous species. The shrub layer may vary between evergreen and deciduous dominance. Typical shrub species include Kalmia latifolia, Rhododendron maximum, Vaccinium stamineum, Vaccinium pallidum, Gaylussacia ursina, Gaylussacia baccata, and (in the more southern portions of the range) Leucothoe recurva. In addition, Castanea dentata may occur abundantly as root sprouts. The herb layer is typically sparse and includes subshrubs such as Epigaea repens and Gaultheria procumbens. Other common species include Chamaelirium luteum, Chimaphila maculata, Galax urceolata, Magnolia fraseri, Sassafras albidum, Symplocos tinctoria, Smilax rotundifolia, and Smilax glauca. This community is distinguished by its overall floristic composition, with a high abundance of acid-loving ericaceous species, which are indicative of this community's extremely infertile, acidic soils.



Classification

Classification Confidence: High
Classification Comments: Like the other matrix oak/heath forests in Virginia, this type can occur on a wide variety of topographic positions, as long as soil conditions are favorable. A similar association defined for the southern Cumberland Plateau, Quercus prinus - (Quercus coccinea) / Carya pallida / Vaccinium arboreum - Vaccinium pallidum Forest (CEGL008431), occurs over sandstone or other geologies not as acidic as the Blue Ridge type and lacks species indicative of the Blue Ridge association, such as Kalmia latifolia, Gaylussacia ursina, Gaylussacia baccata, and Gaultheria procumbens.

In the Great Smoky Mountains, Acer rubrum is often dominant or codominant in these forests, presumably on former American chestnut (Castanea dentata) sites. In the Blue Ridge-Piedmont transition, below 853 m (2800 feet) elevation, where this community is often associated with Pinus rigida forests and woodlands, Quercus falcata may be a component of the canopy, and the shrub stratum is strongly dominated by Vaccinium pallidum. A similar association defined for the southern Cumberland Plateau, Quercus prinus - (Quercus coccinea) / Carya pallida / Vaccinium arboreum - Vaccinium pallidum Forest (CEGL008431), occurs over sandstone or other geologies not as acid as the Blue Ridge type and lacks species indicative of the Blue Ridge association, such as Kalmia latifolia, Gaylussacia ursina, Gaylussacia baccata, and Gaultheria procumbens.

In 55 plots classified as this association (homoteneity = 0.60) in the Appalachian Trail analysis (Fleming and Patterson 2009a), the most constant species, in order of descending constancy are Acer rubrum, Kalmia latifolia, Quercus prinus, Quercus coccinea, Nyssa sylvatica, Vaccinium pallidum, Oxydendrum arboreum, Galax urceolata, Smilax rotundifolia, Castanea dentata, Sassafras albidum, and Smilax glauca. Species richness ranges from 13-52 species and averages 30 species per 400-m2 plot sample. In this same analysis, a group of 11 plots from the Great Smoky and Nantahala mountains segregated as a distinct group in cluster analysis. While the composition of this group fits within the broad concept of this association (CEGL006271), this "southern variant" is distinguished by the dominance of Gaylussacia ursina and the greater importance of Quercus rubra, Pyrularia pubera, Tsuga canadensis, and Magnolia fraseri than in the "typic" expression of CEGL006271. Further, species that are common in the "typic" expression of CEGL006271, Quercus coccinea, Nyssa sylvatica, Vaccinium pallidum, Gaylussacia baccata, and Leucothoe recurva, are absent or inconstant in the "southern variant." Based on available plot data, environmental and geographic distinctions could not be made between the two groups, but further study may be warranted.


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 Chestnut Oak - Scarlet Oak Forest

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

Similar Associations
Unique Identifier Name
CEGL005023 Quercus prinus - Quercus (alba, coccinea) / Viburnum acerifolium - (Kalmia latifolia) Forest
CEGL006281 Quercus prinus - Quercus alba / Oxydendrum arboreum / Vitis rotundifolia Forest
CEGL006282 Quercus prinus - Quercus (rubra, velutina) / Vaccinium (angustifolium, pallidum) Forest
CEGL006286 Quercus prinus - Quercus rubra / Rhododendron maximum / Galax urceolata Forest
CEGL006299 Quercus prinus - (Quercus coccinea, Quercus rubra) / Kalmia latifolia / Vaccinium pallidum Forest
CEGL007119 Pinus virginiana - Pinus (rigida, echinata) - (Quercus prinus) / Vaccinium pallidum Forest
CEGL007261 Quercus prinus - Carya spp. - Quercus velutina / Vaccinium arboreum / Iris verna var. smalliana Forest
CEGL007267 Quercus prinus - (Quercus rubra) - Carya spp. / Oxydendrum arboreum - Cornus florida Forest
CEGL008431 Quercus prinus - (Quercus coccinea) / Carya pallida / Vaccinium arboreum - Vaccinium pallidum Forest
CEGL008521 Quercus alba - Quercus (coccinea, velutina, prinus) / Gaylussacia baccata Forest
CEGL008558 Acer rubrum var. rubrum - Betula lenta - Magnolia fraseri / (Rhododendron maximum, Kalmia latifolia) Ruderal 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
Kentucky Appalachian Sub-xeric Forest Broader   Evans 1991
North Carolina Chestnut Oak Forest (Dry Heath Subtype) Equivalent Certain Schafale 2012
South Carolina Chestnut oak forest Broader   Nelson 1986


Other Related Concepts
Related Concept Name: Quercus alba - Quercus velutina - (Quercus prinus) / Vaccinium pallidum - (Kalmia latifolia) forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Vanderhorst, J. 2001b. Plant communities of the New River Gorge National River, West Virginia: Northern and southern thirds. Non-game Wildlife and Natural Heritage Program, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. Elkins. 146 pp.
Related Concept Name: Quercus montana - Quercus coccinea / Vaccinium pallidum Forest
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
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 montana / Kalmia latifolia / Gaylussacia ursina Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Patterson, K. D. 1994. Classification of vegetation in Ellicott Rock Wilderness, Southeastern Blue Ridge Escarpment. M.S. thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh. 91 pp.
Related Concept Name: Quercus montana / Kalmia latifolia / Vaccinium pallidum Association, pro parte
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
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: Quercus prinus - Quercus coccinea / Kalmia latifolia / Vaccinium pallidum Forest
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: Appalachian Sub-xeric Forest
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Evans, M. 1991. Kentucky ecological communities. Draft report to the Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission. 19 pp.
Related Concept Name: Chestnut Oak - Chestnut Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Whittaker, R. H. 1956. Vegetation of the Great Smoky Mountains. Ecological Monographs 26:1-80.
Related Concept Name: Chestnut Oak 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: Chestnut Oak Forest (Dry Heath Subtype)
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Schafale, M. 1998b. Fourth approximation guide. High mountain communities. March 1998 draft. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh.
Related Concept Name: Chestnut Oak Forests
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: McLeod, D. E. 1988. Vegetation patterns, floristics, and environmental relationships in the Black and Craggy mountains of North Carolina. Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 222 pp.
Related Concept Name: Chestnut Oak type
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: Golden, M. S. 1974. Forest vegetation and site relationships in the central portion of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 275 pp.
Related Concept Name: Chestnut Oak, BR, CUPL
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: Pyne, M. 1994. Tennessee natural communities. Unpublished document. Tennessee Department of Conservation, Ecology Service Division, Nashville. 7 pp.
Related Concept Name: Chestnut Oak: 44
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: Chestnut oak-scarlet oak/ericad forest: (matrix) xeric, S- & SW-facing slopes
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: CAP [Central Appalachian Forest Working Group]. 1998. Central Appalachian Working group discussions. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA.
Related Concept Name: IA6d. Chestnut Oak Slope and Ridge 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: Oak / Heath Forest
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Fleming, G. P., P. P. Coulling, D. P. Walton, K. M. McCoy, and M. R. Parrish. 2001. The natural communities of Virginia: Classification of ecological community groups. First approximation. Natural Heritage Technical Report 01-1. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. 76 pp.

Ecological Systems Placement

Ecological Systems Placement
Ecological System Unique ID Ecological System Name
CES202.886 Southern Appalachian Oak Forest


NatureServe Conservation Status
Global Status: G5 (31Dec1997)
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure

Distribution
Color legend for Distribution Map
United States Distribution: GA, KY, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV
Global Distribution: United States
Global Range: The center of distribution for this community is the Southern Blue Ridge of southwestern Virginia, western North Carolina, eastern Tennessee, northeastern Georgia, and northwestern South Carolina. It ranges south and east into the upper Piedmont and north into the Central Appalachians. This type is common in the Southern Ridge and Valley and Cumberland Mountains of southwestern Virginia and presumably Kentucky.

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: Central Ridge and Valley Section
Section Code: 221J Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Division Name: Subtropical Division
Province Name: Southeastern Mixed Forest Province
Province Code: 231 Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Southern Appalachian Piedmont Section
Section Code: 231A Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
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
Section Name: Cumberland Mountains Section
Section Code: M221C Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Blue Ridge Mountains Section
Section Code: M221D Occurrence Status: Confident or certain


Vegetation

Vegetation Summary: Stands of this association are forests with canopies strongly dominated by Quercus prinus and Quercus coccinea alone or in mixture. Quercus velutina is an important associate in some stands. Other trees, usually in lesser amounts, include Quercus rubra, Quercus alba, Quercus falcata, Oxydendrum arboreum, Nyssa sylvatica, Pinus virginiana, Pinus rigida, Betula lenta, and Acer rubrum. In addition, Carya alba, Carya glabra, Magnolia acuminata, and Magnolia fraseri are present in some areas. The canopy trees grow over a typically dense shrub stratum dominated by ericaceous species, which may display either evergreen or deciduous dominance. Typical shrub species include Kalmia latifolia, Vaccinium stamineum, Vaccinium pallidum, Gaylussacia ursina, and Gaylussacia baccata. Some areas may feature Rhododendron maximum, Rhododendron calendulaceum, Rhododendron catawbiense, and Leucothoe recurva. In addition, Castanea dentata may occur abundantly as root sprouts. The herb layer is typically sparse and includes subshrubs such as Epigaea repens and Gaultheria procumbens. Other common species include Carex digitalis var. digitalis, Chamaelirium luteum, Chimaphila maculata, Coreopsis major, Galax urceolata, Danthonia spicata, Dichanthelium dichotomum var. dichotomum, Dioscorea quaternata, Hieracium venosum, Houstonia longifolia, Lysimachia quadrifolia, Solidago caesia, Symplocos tinctoria, and Potentilla simplex. Mosses include Dicranum fulvum, Dicranum scoparium, Thuidium delicatulum, and Leucobryum glaucum. Macrolichens include Flavoparmelia baltimorensis, Cladonia furcata, Lasallia papulosa, and Umbilicaria mammulata. This community is distinguished by its overall floristic composition, with a high abundance of acid-loving ericaceous species, which are indicative of this community's extremely infertile, acid soils. In the Great Smoky Mountains Acer rubrum is often dominant or codominant in these forests, presumably on former American chestnut (Castanea dentata) sites. In the Blue Ridge-Piedmont transition, below 853 m (2800 feet) elevation, where this community is often associated with Pinus rigida forests and woodlands, Quercus falcata may be a component of the canopy, and the shrub stratum is strongly dominated by Vaccinium pallidum.

Vegetation Composition (incomplete)
Species Name Rounded Global Status Growth Form Stratum Charact-
eristic
Dominant Constant
Cover Class %
Con-
stancy
%
Quercus alba G5 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Quercus coccinea G5 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Quercus prinus G5 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Quercus velutina G5 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Tsuga caroliniana G5 Needle-leaved tree Tree canopy      
 
 
Acer rubrum G5 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree subcanopy  
 
 
Nyssa sylvatica G5 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree subcanopy  
 
 
Oxydendrum arboreum G5 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree subcanopy  
 
 
Sassafras albidum G5 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree subcanopy    
 
 
Castanea dentata G5 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Buckleya distichophylla G5 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)      
 
 
Gaylussacia baccata G5 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Rhododendron periclymenoides G5 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Robinia hispida var. rosea G5 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)      
 
 
Vaccinium hirsutum G5 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)      
 
 
Vaccinium stamineum G5 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Tall shrub/sapling  
 
 
Kalmia latifolia G5 Broad-leaved evergreen shrub Tall shrub/sapling
 
 
Chimaphila maculata G5 Dwarf-shrub Short shrub/sapling    
 
 
Epigaea repens G5 Dwarf-shrub Short shrub/sapling    
 
 
Gaultheria procumbens G5 Dwarf-shrub Short shrub/sapling    
 
 
Vaccinium pallidum G5 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Short shrub/sapling  
 
 
Coreopsis major G5 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Galax urceolata G5 Flowering forb Herb (field)  
 
 
Hexastylis contracta G5 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Hieracium venosum G5 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Lysimachia quadrifolia G5 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Monotropsis odorata G5 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Smilax biltmoreana G5 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Solidago caesia G5 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Stachys clingmanii G5 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Thermopsis fraxinifolia G5 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Thermopsis mollis G5 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Carex digitalis var. digitalis G5 Graminoid Herb (field)    
 
 
Danthonia spicata G5 Graminoid Herb (field)    
 
 
Dichanthelium dichotomum var. dichotomum G5 Graminoid Herb (field)    
 
 
Canoparmelia amabilis G5 Lichen Nonvascular      
 
 


At-Risk Species Reported for this Association
Scientific Name
  (Common Name)
NatureServe Global Status U.S. Endangered Species Act Status
Buckleya distichophylla
  (Piratebush)
G3  
Canoparmelia amabilis
  (Canoparmelia Lichen)
G1  
Hexastylis contracta
  (Southern Heartleaf)
G3  
Monotropsis odorata
  (Sweet Pinesap)
G3  
Robinia hispida var. rosea
  (Purple Locust)
G4T3?  
Stachys clingmanii
  (Clingman's Hedge-nettle)
G2  
Thermopsis fraxinifolia
  (Ashleaf Bush-pea)
G3?  
Thermopsis mollis
  (Allegheny Mountain Golden-banner)
G3G4  
Tsuga caroliniana
  (Carolina Hemlock)
G3  
Vaccinium hirsutum
  (Hairy Blueberry)
G3  


Environmental Setting

Wetland Indicator: N
Environmental Summary: This community occurs on upper slopes, ridges and spurs, usually convex, primarily on south- to west-facing slopes and ridgetops where solar exposure is high. This community includes subxeric ridgetop forests in the Southern Blue Ridge, ranging south and east into the upper Piedmont and north into the Central Appalachians, and west into the Ridge and Valley. Soils are rocky, infertile, dry to very dry, acidic sandy loams to clay loams often derived from sandstone. These forests occur on moderate to very steep slopes or on flat to gently sloping interfluves. Sites supporting this association are typically below 1067 m elevation (3500 feet), but range up to 1280 m (4200 feet). The average elevation of 55 plots classified as this association in the Appalachian Trail project (Fleming and Patterson 2009a) is 845 m (2771 feet), ranging from 262 m (860 feet) to 1305 m (4281 feet).


Dynamic Processes

Dynamics: There is abundant evidence of past fires in this community, and the vegetation may be fire-adapted, although information on natural fire regimes is lacking. Most sites have a history of logging.


Plot Sampling & Classification Analysis

Plots stored in VegBank


Authors/Contributors
Concept Author(s): K.D. Patterson
Element Description Edition Date: 01Apr2010
Element Description Author(s): K.D. Patterson, R. White and S.C. Gawler
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 31Dec1997

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

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

  • Evans, M. 1991. Kentucky ecological communities. Draft report to the Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission. 19 pp.

  • Evans, M., B. Yahn, and M. Hines. Kentucky ecological communities. 2009. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort, KY.

  • 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., 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.

  • 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.

  • Golden, M. S. 1974. Forest vegetation and site relationships in the central portion of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 275 pp.

  • Major, C. S., C. Bailey, J. Donaldson, R. McCoy, C. Nordman, M. Williams, and D. Withers. 1999. An ecological inventory of selected sites in the Cherokee National Forest. Cost Share Agreement #99-CCS-0804-001. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage, Nashville, TN.

  • McLeod, D. E. 1988. Vegetation patterns, floristics, and environmental relationships in the Black and Craggy mountains of North Carolina. Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 222 pp.

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

  • Nelson, J. B. 1986. The natural communities of South Carolina: Initial classification and description. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, Columbia, SC. 55 pp.

  • Patterson, K. D. 1994. Classification of vegetation in Ellicott Rock Wilderness, Southeastern Blue Ridge Escarpment. M.S. thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh. 91 pp.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • Vanderhorst, J. 2001b. Plant communities of the New River Gorge National River, West Virginia: Northern and southern thirds. Non-game Wildlife and Natural Heritage Program, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. Elkins. 146 pp.

  • Vanderhorst, J. P., B. P. Streets, Z. Arcaro, and S. C. Gawler. 2010. Vegetation classification and mapping at Gauley River National Recreation Area. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2010/148. National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA.

  • Vanderhorst, J. P., J. Jeuck, and S. C. Gawler. 2007. Vegetation classification and mapping of New River Gorge National River, West Virginia. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR-2007/092. National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA. 396 pp.

  • White, Jr., R. D. 2003. Vascular plant inventory and plant community classification for Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site. NatureServe, Durham, NC. 160 pp.

  • White, R. D., Jr. 2006. Vascular plant inventory and ecological community classification for Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. NatureServe, Durham, NC. 246 pp.

  • Whittaker, R. H. 1956. Vegetation of the Great Smoky Mountains. Ecological Monographs 26:1-80.


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