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 alba - Quercus rubra - Carya (ovata, carolinae-septentrionalis) / Cercis canadensis Forest
Translated Name: White Oak - Northern Red Oak - (Shagbark Hickory, Southern Shagbark Hickory) / Eastern Redbud Forest
Common Name: Piedmont Dry-Mesic Basic Oak - Hickory Forest
Unique Identifier: CEGL007232
Classification Approach: International Vegetation Classification (IVC)
Summary: This dry-mesic forest occurs on base-rich, well-drained soils in the southern Piedmont. Stands are dominated by Quercus alba and often Quercus rubra, Carya ovata, or Carya carolinae-septentrionalis in combination with other species of Quercus and Carya (i.e., Quercus velutina, Carya alba, Carya glabra). Other overstory and understory species that may occur include Fraxinus americana, Liquidambar styraciflua, Carya ovalis, Liriodendron tulipifera, Juniperus virginiana var. virginiana, Cercis canadensis, Cornus florida, Viburnum rafinesquianum, Viburnum prunifolium, Ostrya virginiana, Chionanthus virginicus, Ulmus americana, Carpinus caroliniana, Pinus taeda, and Pinus echinata. Proportions of Liquidambar styraciflua, Liriodendron tulipifera, Acer rubrum, and Pinus spp. increase following disturbance. Herbaceous species and vines that may occur within this community include Desmodium nudiflorum, Galium circaezans, Maianthemum racemosum ssp. racemosum, Polygonatum biflorum var. biflorum, Uvularia perfoliata, Aristolochia serpentaria, Scleria oligantha, Botrychium virginianum, Agrimonia rostellata, Bromus pubescens, Carex albicans, Carex laxiflora var. laxiflora, Carex planispicata, Dichanthelium boscii, Elymus hystrix var. hystrix, Festuca subverticillata, Scutellaria elliptica, and Tiarella cordifolia var. collina. Other stands have high cover of scrambling vines, such Parthenocissus quinquefolia, Bignonia capreolata, and Vitis rotundifolia, that preclude a diversity of herbaceous species.



Classification

Classification Confidence: Moderate
Classification Comments: This association was renamed and merged with Quercus alba - Quercus rubra - Carya glabra - Carya ovata / Viburnum rafinesquianum / Viola tripartita Forest (CEGL007236) in February 2007. This association is differentiated from non-basic oak-hickory forests by lacking such species as Vaccinium pallidum, Vaccinium tenellum, Oxydendrum arboreum, and most other members of the Ericaceae. In addition, Quercus falcata, Nyssa sylvatica, and Ilex opaca tend to be much less abundant or absent. Fraxinus americana, Carya spp., Acer leucoderme, Cercis canadensis, and Viburnum spp. are much more abundant. This forest is not found in Kentucky or Tennessee. See Quercus alba - Carya alba - (Quercus velutina) / Desmodium nudiflorum - (Carex picta) Forest (CEGL007795) for related vegetation of these states in the Interior Low Plateau. Also compare to Quercus rubra - Quercus alba - Carya glabra / Geranium maculatum Forest (CEGL007237) and Quercus alba - Quercus rubra - Carya alba / Vaccinium stamineum / Desmodium nudiflorum Piedmont Forest (CEGL008475).

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 Southern & South-Central Oak - Pine Forest & Woodland
Group Piedmont-Central Atlantic Coastal Plain Oak Forest
Alliance Piedmont Oak - Hickory Forest

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

Similar Associations
Unique Identifier Name
CEGL003949 Quercus rubra / Magnolia tripetala - Cercis canadensis / Actaea racemosa - Tiarella cordifolia Forest
CEGL004542 Quercus alba - Quercus rubra - Quercus prinus - Tilia americana var. caroliniana / Ostrya virginiana Forest
CEGL006227 Quercus alba - Carya alba / Euonymus americanus / Hexastylis arifolia Forest
CEGL007237 Quercus rubra - Quercus alba - Carya glabra / Geranium maculatum Forest
CEGL007773 Quercus alba - Quercus stellata - Carya carolinae-septentrionalis / Acer leucoderme - Cercis canadensis Forest
CEGL007795 Quercus alba - Carya alba - (Quercus velutina) / Desmodium nudiflorum - (Carex picta) Forest
CEGL008475 Quercus alba - Quercus rubra - Carya alba / Vaccinium stamineum / Desmodium nudiflorum Piedmont Forest



Related Concepts from Other Classifications

Related Subnational Community Units
These data are subject to substantial ongoing revision and may be out of date for some states.
In the U.S., contact the state Heritage Program for the most complete and up-to-date information at: http://www.natureserve.org/natureserve-network.
Information from programs in other jurisdictions will be posted when they are made available.
Subnation Concept Name Relationship to Standard Confidence Reference
North Carolina Dry-Mesic Basic Oak--Hickory Forest (Piedmont Subtype) Equivalent Certain Schafale 2012
South Carolina Basic Forest Broader   Nelson 1986


Other Related Concepts
Related Concept Name: Quercus alba - Carya alba - Carya ovata / Cercis canadensis
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: 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.
Related Concept Name: Quercus alba - Carya alba - Carya ovata / Cercis canadensis Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: 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.
Related Concept Name: Quercus alba - Quercus rubra - Carya (alba, ovata) / Cercis canadensis Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Fleming, G. P., P. P. Coulling, K. D. Patterson, and K. Taverna. 2006. The natural communities of Virginia: Classification of ecological community groups. Second approximation. Version 2.2. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. [http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/ncTIV.shtml]
Related Concept Name: Quercus alba - Quercus rubra - Carya (ovata, cordiformis) / Cercis canadensis / Ruellia purshiana Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Fleming, G. P. 2002a. Ecological communities of the Bull Run Mountains, Virginia: Baseline vegetation and floristic data for conservation planning and natural area stewardship. Natural Heritage Technical Report 02-12. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 274 pp. plus appendices.
Related Concept Name: Quercus alba - Quercus rubra - Carya (ovata, cordiformis) / Cercis canadensis var. canadensis / Ruellia purshiana Forest
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: Fleming, Gary P. Personal communication. Ecologist, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA.
Related Concept Name: Quercus alba - Quercus rubra - Carya (ovata, glabra) Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Oberholster, C. 1993. Preliminary list of natural communities of Alabama. Unpublished document. Alabama Department Conservation and Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Section, Montgomery, AL. 6 pp.
Related Concept Name: Ulmus rubra - Liriodendron tulipifera - Carya cordiformis / Cercis canadensis - Cornus florida / Brachyelytrum erectum var. erectum - Dichanthelium boscii - Carex albicans Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Walton, D. P., P. P. Coulling, J. Weber, A. Belden, Jr., and A. C. Chazal. 2001. A plant community classification and natural heritage inventory of the Pamunkey River floodplain. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Natural Heritage Technical Report 01-19. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 200 pp. plus appendices.
Related Concept Name: Basic Oak - Hickory 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: Basic Oak--Hickory 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: IA6j. Interior Calcareous Oak - Hickory 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: Permesotrophic Forest
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Rawinski, T. J. 1992. A classification of Virginia's indigenous biotic communities: Vegetated terrestrial, palustrine, and estuarine community classes. Unpublished document. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. Natural Heritage Technical Report No. 92-21. Richmond, VA. 25 pp.
Related Concept Name: Submesic Broadleaf Deciduous Forest
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Ambrose, J. 1990a. Georgia's natural communities--A preliminary list. Unpublished document. Georgia Natural Heritage Inventory. 5 pp.
Related Concept Name: White Oak (54)
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: USFS [U.S. Forest Service]. 1988. Silvicultural examination and prescription field book. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region. Atlanta, GA. 35 pp.
Related Concept Name: White Oak - Black Oak - Northern Red Oak (53)
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: USFS [U.S. Forest Service]. 1988. Silvicultural examination and prescription field book. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region. Atlanta, GA. 35 pp.
Related Concept Name: White Oak - Black Oak - Northern Red Oak: 52
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
CES202.339 Southern Piedmont Dry Oak-(Pine) Forest and Woodland


NatureServe Conservation Status
Global Status: G3G4 (15Feb2007)
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: Although widely distributed in the Piedmont from Virginia to Alabama, this is an uncommon community type that is strongly restricted to mafic substrates and subject to ongoing threats from cutting and conversion of hardwood stands to pine silviculture.

Distribution
Color legend for Distribution Map
United States Distribution: AL, GA, NC, SC, VA
Global Distribution: United States
Global Range: This forest occurs in the Piedmont of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. In Virginia, there is a rare inner Coastal Plain occurrence (New Kent County) on a slope with outcrops of hard shell concretions.

U.S. Forest Service Ecoregions
Domain Name: Humid Temperate Domain
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
Province Name: Outer Coastal Plain Mixed Forest Province
Province Code: 232 Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Coastal Plains and Flatwoods, Lower Section
Section Code: 232B Occurrence Status: Confident or certain


Vegetation

Vegetation Summary: Stands of this forest are dominated by Quercus alba and often Quercus rubra, Carya ovata, and Carya carolinae-septentrionalis in combination with other species of Quercus and Carya (i.e., Quercus velutina, Carya alba, Carya glabra). Other overstory and understory species that may occur include Liquidambar styraciflua, Carya ovalis, Fraxinus americana, Liriodendron tulipifera, Juniperus virginiana var. virginiana, Cercis canadensis, Cornus florida, Viburnum rafinesquianum, Viburnum prunifolium, Ostrya virginiana, Chionanthus virginicus, Ulmus americana, Carpinus caroliniana, Pinus taeda, and Pinus echinata. Acer leucoderme is an important understory component in some Georgia Piedmont stands. Proportions of Liquidambar styraciflua, Liriodendron tulipifera, Acer rubrum, and Pinus spp. increase following disturbance. Occurrences usually have closed canopies and moderately well-developed subcanopy and shrub layers. Herbaceous cover in this association may vary considerably with site conditions, land-use history, and levels of deer herbivory. Some stands have rather sparse herb layers with <25% total cover and only scattered patches of dry-mesophytic forbs and graminoids such as Desmodium nudiflorum, Galium circaezans, Maianthemum racemosum ssp. racemosum, Polygonatum biflorum var. biflorum, Uvularia perfoliata, Aristolochia serpentaria, Scleria oligantha, Botrychium virginianum, Agrimonia rostellata, Bromus pubescens, Carex albicans, Carex laxiflora var. laxiflora, Carex planispicata, Dichanthelium boscii, Elymus hystrix var. hystrix, Festuca subverticillata, Scutellaria elliptica, and Tiarella cordifolia var. collina. Other stands have high cover of scrambling vines, such Parthenocissus quinquefolia, Bignonia capreolata, and Vitis rotundifolia, that preclude a diversity of herbaceous species. On the best sites, especially those not subject to heavy deer grazing, stands may have well-developed herb layers with >50% cover and impressive species richness (e.g., >80 taxa per 400 square meters). A number of species with Piedmont distributions restricted to calcium- or magnesium-rich soils have been documented in this association in both Virginia and North Carolina, including Blephilia ciliata, Clematis ochroleuca, Matelea decipiens, Matelea obliqua, Polygala senega, Ruellia purshiana, Salvia urticifolia, Scutellaria nervosa, Scutellaria ovata, Scutellaria serrata, and Triosteum angustifolium.

Vegetation Composition (incomplete)
Species Name Rounded Global Status Growth Form Stratum Charact-
eristic
Dominant Constant
Cover Class %
Con-
stancy
%
Carya alba G3 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy    
 
 
Carya ovata G3 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy    
 
 
Fraxinus americana G3 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy    
 
 
Quercus alba G3 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy    
 
 
Quercus stellata G3 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy    
 
 
Acer rubrum G3 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree subcanopy    
 
 
Cornus florida G3 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree subcanopy    
 
 
Ulmus alata G3 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree subcanopy    
 
 
Berberis canadensis G3 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)      
 
 
Nestronia umbellula G3 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)      
 
 
Ilex decidua G3 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tall shrub/sapling    
 
 
Asimina triloba G3 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Short shrub/sapling    
 
 
Viburnum prunifolium G3 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Short shrub/sapling    
 
 
Agastache nepetoides G3 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Buchnera americana G3 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Cirsium carolinianum G3 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Hexalectris spicata G3 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Lathyrus venosus G3 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Lotus unifoliolatus var. helleri G3 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Panax quinquefolius G3 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Polygala senega G3 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Porteranthus stipulatus G3 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Ruellia purshiana G3 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Silphium terebinthinaceum G3 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Sisyrinchium dichotomum G3 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Smilax biltmoreana G3 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Smilax lasioneura G3 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 


At-Risk Species Reported for this Association
Scientific Name
  (Common Name)
NatureServe Global Status U.S. Endangered Species Act Status
Berberis canadensis
  (American Barberry)
G3  
Lotus unifoliolatus var. helleri
  (Carolina Birdfoot-trefoil)
G5T3  
Panax quinquefolius
  (American Ginseng)
G3G4  
Ruellia purshiana
  (Pursh's Wild Petunia)
G3  
Sisyrinchium dichotomum
  (Reflexed Blue-eyed-grass)
G2 LE: Listed endangered


Environmental Setting

Wetland Indicator: N
Environmental Summary: This dry-mesic forest occurs on base-rich, well-drained soils in the southern Piedmont. It is typically associated with sites underlain by diabase, amphibolite, gabbro, basalt, and other mafic rocks. It commonly occurs on mid- to low slopes where conditions are somewhat ameliorated over upper slopes, i.e., in dry-mesic as opposed to dry conditions, but it can occur in most topographic positions with basic soils that are well-drained. Soils generally are in the order Alfisol and have moderately high to high levels of calcium, magnesium, manganese, iron, and aluminum. However, the abundant iron and aluminum tend to lower pH into the strongly acidic range; e.g., the mean pH of samples collected from 16 Virginia plots was 5.3.


Dynamic Processes

Dynamics: This community is not regarded as a fire-adapted type, but as in other oak-dominated forests, periodic light fire may be important for maintaining oak dominance over more shade-tolerant hardwoods. Periodic light fire would not alter the composition of the canopy but would reduce subcanopy and shrub cover and promote more herb growth. Natural tree replacement occurs on a tree-by-tree basis. This is a climax community and can be expected to maintain dominance on a site in the absence of catastrophic disturbance.


Plot Sampling & Classification Analysis

Plots stored in VegBank


Authors/Contributors
Concept Author(s): S. Landaal
Element Description Edition Date: 15Feb2007
Element Description Author(s): S. Landaal and G.P. Fleming
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 15Feb2007
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author(s): M. Pyne

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.

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

  • 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. 2002a. Ecological communities of the Bull Run Mountains, Virginia: Baseline vegetation and floristic data for conservation planning and natural area stewardship. Natural Heritage Technical Report 02-12. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 274 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., K. Taverna, and P. P. Coulling. 2007b. Vegetation classification for the National Capitol Region parks, eastern region. Regional (VA-MD-DC) analysis prepared for NatureServe and USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program, March 2007. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond.

  • Fleming, G. P., P. P. Coulling, D. P. Walton, K. M. McCoy, and M. R. Parrish. 2001. The natural communities of Virginia: Classification of ecological community groups. First approximation. Natural Heritage Technical Report 01-1. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. 76 pp.

  • Fleming, G. P., P. P. Coulling, K. D. Patterson, and K. Taverna. 2006. The natural communities of Virginia: Classification of ecological community groups. Second approximation. Version 2.2. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. [http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/ncTIV.shtml]

  • Fleming, G. P., and K. D. Patterson. 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. 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, Gary P. Personal communication. Ecologist, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA.

  • Golden, M. S. 1979. Forest vegetation of the lower Alabama Piedmont. Ecology 60:770-782.

  • 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.

  • Oberholster, C. 1993. Preliminary list of natural communities of Alabama. Unpublished document. Alabama Department Conservation and Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Section, Montgomery, AL. 6 pp.

  • Patterson, K. D. 2008a. Vegetation classification and mapping at Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, Virginia. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2008/125. National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA.

  • 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.

  • Peet, R. K., and N. L. Christensen. 1980. Hardwood forest vegetation of the North Carolina Piedmont. Veroffentlichungen des Geobotanischen Institutes der ETH, Stiftung Rubel 68:14-39.

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

  • 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.

  • Schotz, Al. Personal communication. Community Ecologist. Alabama Natural Heritage Program. Huntingdon College, Massey Hall, 1500 East Fairview Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36106-2148.

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

  • USFS [U.S. Forest Service]. 1988. Silvicultural examination and prescription field book. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region. Atlanta, GA. 35 pp.

  • 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.

  • Walton, D. P., P. P. Coulling, J. Weber, A. Belden, Jr., and A. C. Chazal. 2001. A plant community classification and natural heritage inventory of the Pamunkey River floodplain. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Natural Heritage Technical Report 01-19. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 200 pp. plus appendices.


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