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 - Fraxinus americana - Tilia americana - Liriodendron tulipifera / Actaea racemosa Forest
Translated Name: Sugar Maple - White Ash - American Basswood - Tuliptree / Black Baneberry Forest
Common Name: Central Appalachian Rich Cove Forest
Unique Identifier: CEGL006237
Classification Approach: International Vegetation Classification (IVC)
Summary: This is a rich mesic, deciduous forest of the High Alleghenies, Western Allegheny Plateau, and Central Appalachians south to the Cumberlands of eastern Kentucky. Stands occur in coves, on slope bases, lower slopes, in middle- to upper-slope coves. Soils are typically deep, fertile, moderately to well-drained and are often derived from calcareous parent materials, with textures including sands, loams, and silt loams. The canopy is dominated by Acer saccharum with Fraxinus americana, Liriodendron tulipifera, and Tilia americana being very characteristic. Associated canopy trees include Quercus rubra, Ostrya virginiana, Ulmus rubra, Acer rubrum, Betula alleghaniensis, Betula lenta, Fagus grandifolia, Juglans nigra, Carya cordiformis, and Prunus serotina. The shrub layer is of variable composition, characterized by Cornus alternifolia, Hamamelis virginiana, Asimina triloba, Lonicera canadensis, Rhododendron periclymenoides (= Rhododendron nudiflorum), and Viburnum acerifolium. Lindera benzoin is sparse to absent. The herb layer is diverse and made up of Adiantum pedatum, Asarum canadense, Actaea racemosa (= Cimicifuga racemosa), Cardamine spp. (= Dentaria spp.), Hepatica nobilis var. obtusa (= Hepatica americana), Hydrophyllum virginianum, Elymus hystrix (= Hystrix patula), Osmorhiza spp., Trillium grandiflorum, Viola spp., Dryopteris marginalis, Botrychium virginianum, Anemone quinquefolia, Geranium maculatum, Caulophyllum thalictroides, Sanguinaria canadensis, Claytonia virginica, Allium tricoccum, Cardamine concatenata, Arisaema triphyllum, and Laportea canadensis.



Classification

Classification Confidence: Moderate
Classification Comments: Despite considerable compositional variation, this unit appears to be a widespread and robust vegetation type. Damman and Kershner (1977) describe similar vegetation from gneissic areas of western Connecticut, with key species including Acer saccharum, Tilia americana, Fraxinus americana, Liriodendron tulipifera, Lindera benzoin, Carpinus caroliniana, Ulmus rubra, Carya cordiformis, Osmorhiza claytonii, Asarum canadense, Caulophyllum thalictroides, Hepatica nobilis var. obtusa (= Hepatica americana), Galearis spectabilis, Viola pubescens, and Deparia acrostichoides. The Sugar Maple - Basswood - Tulip Poplar Community described by Martin (1975) from southeastern Kentucky, and the Acer saccharum - Liriodendron tulipifera - Fraxinus americana Community described by Andreu and Tukman (1995) from the Tellico Lake area of eastern Tennessee are similar, but not fully comparable because only woody vegetation was analyzed in these studies.

In extreme southwestern Virginia, this community type is gradational to Aesculus flava - Acer saccharum - (Fraxinus americana, Tilia americana var. heterophylla) / Hydrophyllum canadense - Solidago flexicaulis Forest (CEGL007695) of high-elevation coves in the Southern Appalachians. However, CEGL006237 may be distinguished by generally occurring at much lower elevations, having lower species richness, and lacking (or nearly lacking) a number of primarily southern species prominent in CEGL007695, including Actaea podocarpa, Aesculus flava, Hydrophyllum canadense, Phacelia fimbriata, Phlox stolonifera, Sanicula odorata, Stachys nuttallii (= Stachys cordata), and Trillium sulcatum. A few occurring frequently in CEGL006237 (especially its high-elevation subtype), including Aconitum reclinatum, Betula alleghaniensis, Piptatherum racemosum, and Sanicula trifoliata, are absent or uncommon in CEGL007695.

The exotic weed Alliaria petiolata is a rampant invader of some stands of this vegetation on the Northern Blue Ridge.


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
CEGL006201 Acer saccharum - Liriodendron tulipifera - Fraxinus americana / Staphylea trifolia Forest
CEGL007695 Aesculus flava - Acer saccharum - (Tilia americana var. heterophylla) / Hydrophyllum canadense - Solidago flexicaulis Forest
CEGL007710 Liriodendron tulipifera - Fraxinus americana - (Aesculus flava) / Actaea racemosa - Laportea canadensis 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
New Jersey Acer saccharum - Fraxinus americana - Tilia americana - Magnolia acuminata / Actaea racemosa Forest Equivalent Certain Breden et al. 2001
New York Rich Mesophytic Forest Broader   Edinger et al. 2002
Ohio Mixed Mesophytic Forest Undetermined   ONHD unpubl. data
Pennsylvania Sugar Maple - Basswood Forest Broader   Fike 1999


Other Related Concepts
Related Concept Name: Acer saccharum - Betula alleghaniensis / Acer pensylvanicum / Laportea canadensis - Angelica triquinata Forest
Relationship: F - Finer
Reference: Fleming, G. P., and P. P. Coulling. 2001. Ecological communities of the George Washington and Jefferson national forests, Virginia. Preliminary classification and description of vegetation types. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. 317 pp.
Related Concept Name: Acer saccharum - Betula alleghaniensis / Caulophyllum thalictroides - Impatiens pallida - Laportea canadensis Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Young, J., G. Fleming, P. Townsend, and J. Foster. 2007a. Vegetation of Shenandoah National Park in relation to environmental gradients. Final Report, volume 1.1. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 103 pp. plus appendices and GIS products.
Related Concept Name: Acer saccharum - Fraxinus americana - Tilia americana - Liriodendron tulipifera / Actaea racemosa Forest
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: Acer saccharum - Tilia americana / Caulophyllum thalictroides - Laportea canadensis - Osmorhiza claytonii Forest
Relationship: F - Finer
Reference: Fleming, G. P., and P. P. Coulling. 2001. Ecological communities of the George Washington and Jefferson national forests, Virginia. Preliminary classification and description of vegetation types. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. 317 pp.
Related Concept Name: Acer saccharum - Tilia americana / Laportea canadensis - Caulophyllum thalictroides - Deparia acrostichoides Forest
Relationship: F - Finer
Reference: Coulling, P. P., and T. J. Rawinski. 1999. Classification of vegetation and ecological land units of the Piney River and Mt. Pleasant area, Pedlar Ranger District, George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, Virginia. Natural Heritage Technical Report 99-03, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond.
Related Concept Name: Acer saccharum var. saccharum - Tilia americana / Laportea canadensis - Caulophyllum thalictroides - Trillium grandiflorum Forest (type 1.3)
Relationship: F - Finer
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: Liriodendron tulipifera - Acer saccharum - Tilia americana / Laportea canadensis - Impatiens pallida Association, pro parte
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: Rich Cove / Slope 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.
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.
Related Concept Name: Sugar maple-white ash-basswood cove forest (matrix/large patch)
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
CES202.373 Southern and Central Appalachian Cove Forest
CES202.887 South-Central Interior Mesophytic Forest


NatureServe Conservation Status
Global Status: G4? (28Sep2001)
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: This unit has a fairly wide geographic range, within which it is regularly distributed as a small- to large-patch vegetation type in suitably fertile habitats. Because of excellent site conditions for tree growth, stands are very vulnerable to logging and are further threatened by shade-tolerant exotic weeds.

Distribution
Color legend for Distribution Map
United States Distribution: KY, MD, NJ, NY, OHpotentially occurs, PA, VA, WVpotentially occurs
Global Distribution: United States
Global Range: This forest is found in the High Alleghenies, Western Allegheny Plateau, Central Appalachians, and Cumberlands from New York and New Jersey south to West Virginia, Virginia, and eastern Kentucky.

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: Northern Glaciated Allegheny Plateau Section
Section Code: 212F Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Northern Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau Section
Section Code: 212G Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
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: Southern Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau Section
Section Code: 221E Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Western Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau Section
Section Code: 221F 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: The canopy is dominated by Acer saccharum with Fraxinus americana and Tilia americana being very characteristic. Associated canopy trees include Quercus rubra, Ostrya virginiana, Ulmus rubra, Acer rubrum, Betula alleghaniensis, Betula lenta, Fagus grandifolia, Juglans nigra, Liriodendron tulipifera, Magnolia acuminata, Carya cordiformis, and Prunus serotina. The shrub layer is of variable composition, characterized by Cornus alternifolia, Hamamelis virginiana, Lindera benzoin, Asimina triloba, Lonicera canadensis, Rhododendron periclymenoides, and Viburnum acerifolium. The herb layer is diverse and made up of Adiantum pedatum, Asarum canadense, Actaea racemosa, Cardamine spp., Hepatica nobilis var. obtusa, Hydrophyllum virginianum, Elymus hystrix, Osmorhiza spp., Trillium grandiflorum, Viola spp., Dryopteris marginalis, Botrychium virginianum, Anemone quinquefolia, Geranium maculatum, Caulophyllum thalictroides, Sanguinaria canadensis, Claytonia virginica, Allium tricoccum, Cardamine concatenata, Arisaema triphyllum, and Laportea canadensis. More eastern stands in Kentucky contain Aesculus flava, Aesculus glabra, or Tilia americana var. heterophylla (Campbell 2001). In 15 plot-sampled Virginia stands, Acer saccharum and Tilia americana (including both var. americana and var. heterophylla) are consistently the most important canopy trees in mixed stands with Fraxinus americana, Carya cordiformis, Quercus rubra, and Liriodendron tulipifera (lower elevations only). Minor canopy associates vary with site conditions and geography. South of the James River, Aesculus flava is an occasional canopy tree. On higher and cooler sites, Betula lenta, Fagus grandifolia, and Tsuga canadensis may be present. Juglans nigra and Ulmus rubra occur occasionally at lower elevations. Understory layers usually contain a good representation of the canopy species, particularly Acer saccharum. The shrub layer is typically sparse to absent and no shrub species attained a constancy >47% or mean cover >5% in plots. The herb layer is lush and often exhibits patch dominance by a small number of species, particularly the spring-flowering forbs Caulophyllum thalictroides and Osmorhiza claytonii. Other characteristic aestival herbs include Arisaema triphyllum, Asarum canadense, Dicentra spp., Galearis spectabilis, Hydrophyllum virginianum, Maianthemum racemosum, Podophyllum peltatum, Prosartes lanuginosa (= Disporum lanuginosum), Sanguinaria canadensis, Trillium grandiflorum, Uvularia grandiflora, and Viola canadensis. The summer aspect is often dominated by large colonies of Actaea racemosa, Impatiens pallida, and/or Laportea canadensis.

Vegetation Composition (incomplete)
Species Name Rounded Global Status Growth Form Stratum Charact-
eristic
Dominant Constant
Cover Class %
Con-
stancy
%
Acer saccharum G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree (canopy & subcanopy)  
 
 
Carya cordiformis G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy    
 
 
Fraxinus americana G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Liriodendron tulipifera G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy    
 
 
Tilia americana G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy    
 
 
Cornus alternifolia G4 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)  
 
 
Hamamelis virginiana G4 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)  
 
 
Lindera benzoin G4 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Aconitum reclinatum G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Actaea racemosa G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Asarum canadense G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Caulophyllum thalictroides G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Dicentra cucullaria G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Hydrophyllum virginianum G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Impatiens pallida G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Laportea canadensis G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Osmorhiza claytonii G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Panax quinquefolius G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Sanicula trifoliata G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Uvularia grandiflora G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Viola canadensis G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Adiantum pedatum G4 Fern (Spore-bearing forb) Herb (field)    
 
 


At-Risk Species Reported for this Association
Scientific Name
  (Common Name)
NatureServe Global Status U.S. Endangered Species Act Status
Aconitum reclinatum
  (White Monkshood)
G3  
Panax quinquefolius
  (American Ginseng)
G3G4  


Environmental Setting

Wetland Indicator: N
Environmental Summary: This community type occupies cool (northwest- to east-facing), mesic, lower to middle slopes, ravines, and coves at elevations from 425 to about 1050 m (1400-3450 feet). Sites may be underlain by a number of bedrock types, including limestone, dolomite, metabasalt (greenstone), granitic rocks, and sandstone. Slopes are typically steep (mean in plots = 23) and concave in at least one direction. Soils are deep, dark, and fertile, although frequently stony or bouldery. Samples collected from plots range from very strongly acidic to circumneutral (pH range = 4.2-6.8, mean pH = 5.3) but consistently have high calcium levels (mean = 1978 ppm) and moderately high magnesium and manganese levels.


Dynamic Processes


Plot Sampling & Classification Analysis

Plots stored in VegBank


Authors/Contributors
Concept Author(s): G. Fleming and P. Coulling (2001)
Element Description Edition Date: 28Sep2001
Element Description Author(s): G. Fleming and P. Coulling
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
  • Anderson, M., F. Biasi, and S. Buttrick. 1998. Conservation site selection: Ecoregional planning for biodiversity. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Regional Office, Boston, MA. 18 pp.

  • Breden, T. F., Y. R. Alger, K. S. Walz, and A. G. Windisch. 2001. Classification of vegetation communities of New Jersey: Second iteration. Association for Biodiversity Information and New Jersey Natural Heritage Program, Office of Natural Lands Management, Division of Parks and Forestry, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton.

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

  • Campbell, J. 2001. Native vegetation types of Appalachian Kentucky. Unpublished report. The Nature Conservancy, Lexington, KY. 210 pp.

  • Coulling, P. P., and T. J. Rawinski. 1999. Classification of vegetation and ecological land units of the Piney River and Mt. Pleasant area, Pedlar Ranger District, George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, Virginia. Natural Heritage Technical Report 99-03, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond.

  • 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. 2002. Ecological communities of New York state. Second edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's ecological communities of New York state. (Draft for review). 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.

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

  • Fleming, G. P. 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., 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. 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.

  • Lundgren, J. 2000. Lower New England - Northern Piedmont Ecoregion Forest Classification. The Nature Conservancy, Conservation Science, Boston, MA. 72 pp.

  • Martin, W. H. 1975. The Lilley Cornett Woods: A stable mixed mesophytic forest in Kentucky. Botanical Gazette 136:171-183.

  • ONHD [Ohio Natural Heritage Database]. No date. Vegetation classification of Ohio and unpublished data. Ohio Natural Heritage Database, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus.

  • Perles, S. J., G. S. Podniesinski, E. A. Zimmerman, W. A. Millinor, L. A. Sneddon. 2006a. Vegetation classification and mapping at Fort Necessity National Battlefield. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2006/038. National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA.

  • 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.

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

  • Young, J., G. Fleming, P. Townsend, and J. Foster. 2007a. Vegetation of Shenandoah National Park in relation to environmental gradients. Final Report, volume 1.1. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 103 pp. plus appendices and GIS products.

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


Use Guidelines and Citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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