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 >>

Acer saccharum - Tilia americana / Asimina triloba / Jeffersonia diphylla - Caulophyllum thalictroides Forest
Translated Name: Sugar Maple - American Basswood / Pawpaw / Twinleaf - Blue Cohosh Forest
Common Name: Central Appalachian-Piedmont Rich Cove / Mesic Slope Forest (Twinleaf - Blue Cohosh Type)
Unique Identifier: CEGL008412
Classification Approach: International Vegetation Classification (IVC)
Summary: This community type occurs on mesic lower slopes at low elevations, over nutrient-rich substrates in the Ridge and Valley, Cumberlands, Central Appalachians, and Piedmont. Soils may be derived from limestone, dolomite, shale, siltstone, and various metamorphic and igneous rocks. Rock outcrops and bouldery colluvium are often prominent, but the soils supporting this unit are apparently deep, dark, and very fertile, with high mean pH and Ca levels. Canopy composition is mixed and variable, but either Acer saccharum var. saccharum or Acer nigrum, or both, are consistently important and characteristic. Carya cordiformis, Celtis occidentalis, Fraxinus americana, Liriodendron tulipifera, Quercus muehlenbergii, Quercus rubra, Tilia americana, and Ulmus rubra are frequent canopy associates. From the James River south, Aesculus flava is a frequent canopy associate. The most typical and abundant shrub layer species are Asimina triloba and Lindera benzoin, with shrub layers usually somewhat to very open (mean stratum cover = 35%). The herb layer is dense (>80% cover) and contains a number of leafy early-flowering species, among the most abundant of which are Jeffersonia diphylla, Hydrophyllum canadense, and Caulophyllum thalictroides. Somewhat more delicate spring ephemerals that are frequent to locally abundant include Chaerophyllum procumbens var. procumbens, Delphinium tricorne, Dicentra canadensis, Dicentra cucullaria, Erigenia bulbosa, Erythronium americanum ssp. americanum, Floerkea proserpinacoides, Mertensia virginica, Phlox divaricata, Sanguinaria canadensis, and Trillium sessile. Additional characteristic herbs are Asarum canadense, Carex albursina, Carex jamesii, Cystopteris protrusa, Hydrophyllum virginianum, Impatiens pallida, Osmorhiza claytonii, Osmorhiza longistylis, and Viola pubescens var. scabriuscula (= Viola pubescens var. leiocarpon).



Classification

Classification Confidence: Moderate
Classification Comments: Although its canopy composition is similar to that of other rich forests, this type may be distinguished by the prevalence of Asimina triloba and herbaceous species that are confined to low elevations and are absent (or mostly so) from rich forest communities of mountain coves and ravines. Likewise, mountain species characteristic of medium to high elevations are generally absent. This community may be further distinguished by its relatively low-elevation habitats bordering major streams and alluvial floodplains. Because of the proximity to floodplains, species perhaps most often associated with alluvial habitats, e.g., Acer negundo, Celtis occidentalis, Juglans nigra, Ulmus americana, Mertensia virginica, etc., are occasionally important.

Since many characteristic plants of this unit (e.g., Acer nigrum, Carex jamesii, Erigenia bulbosa, Floerkea proserpinacoides, Hydrophyllum canadense, Jeffersonia diphylla, Phlox divaricata, and Trillium sessile) have ranges centered west or northwest of Virginia, it seems likely that the geographic distribution of this type lies primarily west of the Appalachians. Bowen et al. (1995) describe similar vegetation in the Tennessee River Gorge as a "north slope mixed mesophytic community." In a study of Jessamine Gorge, Kentucky, Campbell and Meijer (1989) detail another similar community, among the characteristic species of which are Acer saccharum, Quercus rubra, Fraxinus americana, Tilia spp., Carex albursina, Carex jamesii, Erythronium spp., Trillium sessile, Jeffersonia diphylla, and Dicentra spp. Forests of well-drained floodplain terraces in this gorge have a similar composition, but with Fagus grandifolia, Erigenia bulbosa, Phlox divaricata, and Polemonium reptans more prominent. Additional species with more western affinities that have been recorded in stands of this type include, in the Potomac River drainage, Arabis shortii, Enemion biternatum, Erythronium albidum, Phacelia ranunculacea, and Valeriana pauciflora; in southwestern Virginia, Actaea rubifolia (= Cimicifuga rubifolia), Phacelia purshii, Stellaria corei, Stylophorum diphyllum, and Synandra hispidula; and scattered throughout, Allium tricoccum, Carex careyana, Ellisia nyctelea, Panax trifolius, and Polemonium reptans (Fleming 1999).


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-Central Interior Mesic Forest
Alliance Southern Appalachian Mesophytic Forest

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

Similar Associations
Unique Identifier Name
CEGL006459 Acer saccharum - Fraxinus americana / Carpinus caroliniana / Podophyllum peltatum Forest
CEGL006471 Acer saccharum - Tilia americana / Staphylea trifolia / Dryopteris marginalis - (Impatiens pallida) 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
Maryland Acer (nigrum, saccharum) - Tilia americana / Asimina triloba / Jeffersonia diphylla - Hydrophyllum canadense Forest Equivalent Certain Harrison 2011
Tennessee Acer (nigrum, saccharum) - Tilia americana / Asimina triloba / Jeffersonia diphylla - Caulophyllum thalictroides Forest Equivalent Certain TDNH unpubl. data


Other Related Concepts
Related Concept Name: Acer (nigrum, saccharum var. saccharum) / Asimina triloba / Jeffersonia diphylla - Hydrophyllum canadense Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Fleming, G. P. 1999. Plant communities of limestone, dolomite, and other calcareous substrates in the George Washington and Jefferson national forests, Virginia. Natural Heritage Technical Report 99-4. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. Unpublished report submitted to the USDA Forest Service. 218 pp. plus appendices.
Related Concept Name: Acer (nigrum, saccharum) - Tilia americana / Asimina triloba / Jeffersonia diphylla - Hydrophyllum canadense Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Fleming, G. P. 2007. Ecological communities of the Potomac Gorge in Virginia: Composition, floristics, and environmental dynamics. Natural Heritage Technical Report 07-12. Unpublished report submitted to the National Park Service. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 341 pp. plus appendices.
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.
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Harrison, J. W., compiler. 2004. Classification of vegetation communities of Maryland: First iteration. A subset of the International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the United States, NatureServe. Maryland Natural Heritage Program, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis. 243 pp.
Related Concept Name: Aesculus flava - Acer saccharum / Dicentra cucullaria - Jeffersonia diphylla Association
Relationship: F - Finer
Reference: Rawinski, T. J., K. N. Hickman, J. Waller-Eling, G. P. Fleming, C. S. Austin, S. D. Helmick, C. Huber, G. Kappesser, F. C. Huber, Jr., T. Bailey, and T. K. Collins. 1996. Plant communities and ecological land units of the Glenwood Ranger District, George Washington and Jefferson national forests, Virginia. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. Natural Heritage Technical Report 96-20. Richmond. 65 pp. plus appendices.
Related Concept Name: Basic Mesic 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.
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Harrison, J. W., compiler. 2004. Classification of vegetation communities of Maryland: First iteration. A subset of the International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the United States, NatureServe. Maryland Natural Heritage Program, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis. 243 pp.
Related Concept Name: Sugar Maple - Basswood: 26
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
CES202.373 Southern and Central Appalachian Cove Forest


NatureServe Conservation Status
Global Status: G4G5 (14Apr2000)
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: This community type is widely distributed and reasonably secure over its global range. Patches, however, tend to be small and invasive exotic weeds degrade the compositional integrity of most occurrences.

Distribution
Color legend for Distribution Map
United States Distribution: KY, MD, TN, VA, WV
Global Distribution: United States
Global Range: This community probably occurs at low elevations throughout the central Appalachian region, Cumberlands, and Piedmont in Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, and probably Tennessee. Its full geographic range, however, has not been determined. In Virginia, most occurrences are along major waterways of the Piedmont and mountains, including the Potomac River, the Shenandoah River and its two forks, the James River and its major tributaries, the Roanoke (Staunton) River and its major tributaries, and the New River and its major tributaries. The status of the type in the Clinch River, Powell River, and Holston River drainages of southwestern Virginia is less certain.

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: Northern Appalachian Piedmont Section
Section Code: 221D Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Northern Cumberland Plateau Section
Section Code: 221H 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: Possible
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: Relatively undisturbed second-growth stands generally have a closed (80-100% cover) canopy of tall (>28 m), well-formed trees, the largest with dbh >50 cm and occasionally >80 cm. Canopy composition is mixed and variable, but either Acer saccharum var. saccharum or Acer nigrum, or both, are consistently important and characteristic. Carya cordiformis, Celtis occidentalis, Fraxinus americana, Liriodendron tulipifera, Quercus muehlenbergii, Quercus rubra, Tilia americana, and Ulmus rubra are frequent canopy associates. From the James River south, Aesculus flava is a frequent canopy associate. A sparse (30-40% cover) understory layer of trees 15-20 m tall contains smaller representatives of the canopy trees, especially the two Acer species. Cover in the vertical strata below 15 m is usually very sparse. The most typical and abundant shrub layer species are Asimina triloba and Lindera benzoin, with shrub layers usually somewhat to very open (mean stratum cover = 35%). The herb layer is dense (>80% cover) and contains a number of leafy early-flowering species, among the most abundant of which are Jeffersonia diphylla, Hydrophyllum canadense, and Caulophyllum thalictroides. Somewhat more delicate spring ephemerals that are frequent to locally abundant include Chaerophyllum procumbens var. procumbens, Delphinium tricorne, Dicentra canadensis, Dicentra cucullaria, Erigenia bulbosa, Erythronium americanum ssp. americanum, Floerkea proserpinacoides, Mertensia virginica, Phlox divaricata, Sanguinaria canadensis, and Trillium sessile. Additional characteristic herbs are Asarum canadense, Carex albursina, Carex jamesii, Cystopteris protrusa, Hydrophyllum virginianum, Impatiens pallida, Osmorhiza claytonii, Osmorhiza longistylis, and Viola pubescens var. scabriuscula (= Viola pubescens var. leiocarpon). The exotics Alliaria petiolata, Veronica hederifolia, and Stellaria media, along with the weedy native Galium aparine, are aggressive and problematic invaders of this vegetation type, even in undisturbed stands. Herbaceous layers of this community typically exhibit strong patch dominance and pronounced seasonal aspects. Although the constancies of dominants in sampled stands are very high, observations indicate that Jeffersonia diphylla, Hydrophyllum canadense, and other species may be abundant in some stands and absent from others. Herbaceous growth and flowering begins early and reaches maximal diversity in mid to late spring, after which many species begin to die back with the onset of summer temperatures and full canopy closure. As a result the late-summer aspect of these herbaceous layers is one of low cover and depauperate floristics, a stark contrast to the lush and vibrant aspect of spring (Fleming 1999).

Vegetation Composition (incomplete)
Species Name Rounded Global Status Growth Form Stratum Charact-
eristic
Dominant Constant
Cover Class %
Con-
stancy
%
Acer negundo G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy    
 
 
Acer nigrum G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Acer saccharum var. saccharum G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy    
 
 
Fraxinus americana G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy    
 
 
Tilia americana G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy    
 
 
Asimina triloba G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tall shrub/sapling  
 
 
Lindera benzoin G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tall shrub/sapling    
 
 
Morus rubra G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tall shrub/sapling    
 
 
Staphylea trifolia G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tall shrub/sapling    
 
 
Actaea rubifolia G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Alliaria petiolata G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Arabis shortii G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Arisaema triphyllum G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Asarum canadense G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Blephilia hirsuta G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Caulophyllum thalictroides G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Chaerophyllum procumbens var. procumbens G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Claytonia virginica G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Dicentra cucullaria G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Enemion biternatum G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Erigenia bulbosa G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Erythronium albidum G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Erythronium americanum G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Floerkea proserpinacoides G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)  
 
 
Galium aparine G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Hydrophyllum canadense G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)  
 
 
Jeffersonia diphylla G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)  
 
 
Mertensia virginica G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Panax quinquefolius G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Phacelia covillei G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Phlox divaricata G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Sanguinaria canadensis G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Stellaria media G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Stylophorum diphyllum G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Synandra hispidula G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Trillium sessile G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Valeriana pauciflora G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Veronica hederifolia G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Cystopteris protrusa G4 Fern (Spore-bearing forb) Herb (field)    
 
 
Carex jamesii G4 Graminoid Herb (field)    
 
 
Carex sparganioides G4 Graminoid Herb (field)    
 
 


At-Risk Species Reported for this Association
Scientific Name
  (Common Name)
NatureServe Global Status U.S. Endangered Species Act Status
Actaea rubifolia
  (Appalachian Bugbane)
G3  
Panax quinquefolius
  (American Ginseng)
G3G4  
Phacelia covillei
  (Buttercup Scorpionweed)
G3  


Environmental Setting

Wetland Indicator: N
Environmental Summary: This community type occurs on mesic lower slopes at low elevations (40-567 m, 130-1860 feet). In Virginia, most occurrences are associated with north- to east-facing slopes along major waterways in the mountains and Piedmont, including the Potomac River, the Shenandoah River and its two forks, the James River and its major tributaries, the Roanoke (Staunton) River and its major tributaries, the New River and its major tributaries, the Clinch River and its major tributaries, the Powell River, and forks of the Holston River. Soils may be derived from limestone, dolomite, shale, siltstone, and various metamorphic and igneous rocks. Rock outcrops and bouldery colluvium are often prominent, but the soils supporting this unit are apparently deep, dark, and very fertile, with high mean pH and Ca levels. The type is widely but somewhat locally distributed in valleys of the central Appalachian Mountains, generally in small to medium-sized patches. East of the Blue Ridge, it becomes more local and confined to sheltered slopes and bluffs along western Piedmont rivers. In Virginia and Maryland, the most extensive occurrences are probably in carbonate rock districts of the Ridge and Valley province (Fleming 1999).


Dynamic Processes

Dynamics: All of the sampled stands have largely recovered from logging in the distant past. Recent and current disturbances documented in plot sampling included excessive deer browse and invasive exotic weeds. Because of its locations adjacent to frequently flooded stream and river bottoms, which serve as migration corridors for many weedy plants, this association is particularly prone to degradation by nutrient-demanding, shade-tolerant exotics. Observations indicate that Dicentra spp. and Trillium sessile are particularly favored by grazing deer, while Caulophyllum thalictroides, Delphinium tricorne, Hydrophyllum spp., Jeffersonia diphylla are rarely, if ever, grazed. Reduction of native herb cover by deer probably promotes the establishment and abundance of the unpalatable, noxious weed Alliaria petiolata, perhaps the most serious exotic threat to native vegetation in these habitats (Fleming 1999).


Plot Sampling & Classification Analysis

Plots stored in VegBank


Authors/Contributors
Concept Author(s): G.P. Fleming
Element Description Edition Date: 01Oct2006
Element Description Author(s): G.P. Fleming
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 28Sep2001
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author(s): G. Fleming

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


References
  • Bowen, B., M. Pyne, and D. Withers. 1995. An ecological survey of selected tracts in the Tennessee River Gorge: A report to the Tennessee River Gorge Trust. Tennessee Natural Heritage Program, Department of Environment and Conservation, Nashville. 100 pp.

  • Campbell, J. J. N., and W. Meijer. 1989. The flora and vegetation of Jessamine Gorge, Jessamine County, Kentucky: A remarkable concentration of rare species in the Bluegrass region. Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science 50:27-45.

  • 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. 1999. Plant communities of limestone, dolomite, and other calcareous substrates in the George Washington and Jefferson national forests, Virginia. Natural Heritage Technical Report 99-4. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. Unpublished report submitted to the USDA Forest Service. 218 pp. plus appendices.

  • Fleming, G. P. 2002b. Preliminary classification of Piedmont & Inner Coastal Plain vegetation types in Virginia. Natural Heritage Technical Report 02-14. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 29 pp.

  • Fleming, G. P. 2007. Ecological communities of the Potomac Gorge in Virginia: Composition, floristics, and environmental dynamics. Natural Heritage Technical Report 07-12. Unpublished report submitted to the National Park Service. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 341 pp. plus appendices.

  • 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. M. McCoy. 2004. The natural communities of Virginia: Classification of ecological community groups. Second approximation. Natural Heritage Technical Report 04-01. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. [http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/dnh/ncintro.htm]

  • Fleming, G. P., and K. D. Patterson. 2003. Preliminary vegetation classification for the National Capitol Region parks. Regional (VA-WVA-MD-DC) analysis prepared for NatureServe and USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program, March 2003. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond.

  • Fleming, G. P., and K. D. Patterson. 2009b. Classification of selected Virginia montane wetland groups. In-house analysis, December 2009. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond.

  • Fleming, G. P., and K. D. Patterson. 2011a. Natural communities of Virginia: Ecological groups and community types. Natural Heritage Technical Report 11-07. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 34 pp.

  • Fleming, G. P., and K. Taverna. 2006. Vegetation classification for the National Capitol Region parks, western region. Regional (VA-WVA-MD-DC) analysis prepared for NatureServe and USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program, March 2006. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond.

  • Fleming, G. P., and P. P. Coulling. 2001. Ecological communities of the George Washington and Jefferson national forests, Virginia. Preliminary classification and description of vegetation types. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. 317 pp.

  • Harrison, J. W. 2011. The natural communities of Maryland: 2011 working list of ecological community groups and community types. Unpublished report. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Heritage Service, Natural Heritage Program, Annapolis. 33 pp.

  • Harrison, J. W., compiler. 2004. Classification of vegetation communities of Maryland: First iteration. A subset of the International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the United States, NatureServe. Maryland Natural Heritage Program, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis. 243 pp.

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

  • Muller, R. N. 2003. Nutrient relations of the herbaceous layer in deciduous forest ecosystems. Pages 15-37 in: F. S. Gilliam and M. R. Roberts, editors. The herbaceous layer in forests of eastern North America. Oxford University Press, New York.

  • 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.

  • 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.


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