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 >>

Chamaecyparis thyoides / Chamaedaphne calyculata Swamp Woodland
Translated Name: Atlantic White-cedar / Leatherleaf Swamp Woodland
Common Name: Atlantic White-cedar Bog
Unique Identifier: CEGL006321
Classification Approach: International Vegetation Classification (IVC)
Summary: This Atlantic white-cedar bog of the northeastern coastal region is an oligotrophic basin peatland dominated by heath shrubs with an open canopy of stunted white-cedar. Chamaecyparis thyoides is the most abundant tree but generally grows in association with other trees such as Acer rubrum, Pinus rigida, Nyssa sylvatica, and Magnolia virginiana. Tall shrubs may be present and scattered, including Vaccinium corymbosum, Clethra alnifolia, or Rhododendron viscosum. Heath shrubs form a dense low-shrub layer dominated by Chamaedaphne calyculata and Kalmia angustifolia. Other dwarf-shrub associates may include Gaylussacia baccata, Rhododendron canadense, and Gaylussacia dumosa. Herbaceous species growing within the dwarf-shrub mat often include Eriophorum spp., Woodwardia virginica, Vaccinium macrocarpon, Drosera spp., and Sarracenia purpurea. Sphagnum mosses form a continuous layer. Key diagnostic characteristic is the sparse Chamaecyparis thyoides canopy over dense heath shrubs.



Classification

Classification Confidence: Moderate

Vegetation Hierarchy
Class 1 - Forest & Woodland
Subclass 1.B - Temperate & Boreal Forest & Woodland
Formation 1.B.3 - Temperate Flooded & Swamp Forest
Division 1.B.3.Na - Eastern North American-Great Plains Flooded & Swamp Forest
Macrogroup Laurentian-Acadian-North Atlantic Coastal Flooded & Swamp Forest
Group Northern Atlantic Coastal Hardwood - Conifer Swamp
Alliance Northern Atlantic White-cedar Peat Swamp Forest

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

Similar Associations
Unique Identifier Name
CEGL006189 Chamaecyparis thyoides - (Tsuga canadensis, Betula alleghaniensis) / Clethra alnifolia Swamp Forest
CEGL006355 Chamaecyparis thyoides / Rhododendron maximum Swamp Forest
CEGL006363 Chamaecyparis thyoides - Picea rubens / Gaylussacia baccata / Gaultheria hispidula Swamp 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
Connecticut Chamaecyparis thyoides / Chamaedaphne calyculata community Equivalent   Metzler and Barrett 2001
Maine Atlantic white cedar bog Equivalent   Gawler 2002
Massachusetts Atlantic White Cedar Bog Equivalent   Swain and Kearsley 2001
New Hampshire Atlantic white cedar - leatherleaf swamp Equivalent   Sperduto and Nichols 2004
New York Dwarf shrub bog Broader   Edinger et al. 2002
Rhode Island Atlantic White Cedar Swamp Broader   Enser 1999


Other Related Concepts
Related Concept Name: Chamaecyparis / Chamaedaphne (Type 5)
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Sperduto, D. A., and K. F. Crowley. 2002b. Atlantic white cedar in New England: Analysis and proposed classification. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory. DRED Division of Forests & Lands and The Nature Conservancy, Concord, NH.
Related Concept Name: Chamaecyparis thyoides/Chamaedaphne
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: Barrett, N. E. 1996. Chamaecyparis thyoides wetlands: An overview of the community-types. Submitted to the Connecticut Natural Diversity Database, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. The Nature Conservancy, Middletown, CT.
Related Concept Name: Atlantic White Cedar - Leatherleaf Bog (Cpw1)
Relationship: I - Intersecting
Reference: Windisch, A .G. 2014a. Pinelands ecological communities and higher level groups with crosswalk / proposed 2008 revisions to NVC. November 16, 2014 draft. New Jersey Natural Heritage Program, Trenton.
Related Concept Name: Cedar bog type
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Motzkin, G. 1991. Atlantic white cedar wetlands of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Massachusetts. Research Bulletin 731. 53 pp.

Ecological Systems Placement

Ecological Systems Placement
Ecological System Unique ID Ecological System Name
CES203.893 Atlantic Coastal Plain Northern Bog


NatureServe Conservation Status
Global Status: G3G4 (01Dec1997)
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable

Distribution
Color legend for Distribution Map
United States Distribution: CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, RI
Global Distribution: United States
Global Range: Occurs from Maine to Connecticut.

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: Fundy Coastal and Interior Section
Section Code: 212C Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Central Maine Coastal and Embayment Section
Section Code: 212D Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Division Name: Hot Continental Division
Province Name: Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Oceanic) Province
Province Code: 221 Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Lower New England Section
Section Code: 221A Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Division Name: Subtropical Division
Province Name: Outer Coastal Plain Mixed Forest Province
Province Code: 232 Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain Section
Section Code: 232A Occurrence Status: Confident or certain


Vegetation

Vegetation Summary: Chamaecyparis thyoides is the most abundant tree but generally grows in association with other trees such as Acer rubrum, Pinus rigida, Nyssa sylvatica, and Magnolia virginiana. Tall shrubs may be present and scattered, including Vaccinium corymbosum, Clethra alnifolia, or Rhododendron viscosum. Heath shrubs form a dense low-shrub layer dominated by Chamaedaphne calyculata and Kalmia angustifolia. Other dwarf-shrub associates may include Gaylussacia baccata, Rhododendron canadense, and Gaylussacia dumosa. Herbaceous species growing within the dwarf-shrub mat often include Eriophorum spp., Woodwardia virginica, Vaccinium macrocarpon, Drosera spp., and Sarracenia purpurea. Sphagnum mosses form a continuous layer. Key diagnostic characteristic is the sparse Chamaecyparis thyoides canopy over dense heath shrubs.

Vegetation Composition (incomplete)
Species Name Rounded Global Status Growth Form Stratum Charact-
eristic
Dominant Constant
Cover Class %
Con-
stancy
%
Chamaecyparis thyoides G3 Needle-leaved tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Clethra alnifolia G3 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Tall shrub/sapling    
 
 
Rhododendron viscosum G3 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Tall shrub/sapling    
 
 
Vaccinium corymbosum G3 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Tall shrub/sapling  
 
 
Gaylussacia baccata G3 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Short shrub/sapling    
 
 
Chamaedaphne calyculata G3 Broad-leaved evergreen shrub Short shrub/sapling  
 
 
Kalmia angustifolia G3 Broad-leaved evergreen shrub Short shrub/sapling    
 
 
Woodwardia virginica G3 Fern (Spore-bearing forb) Herb (field)    
 
 


Environmental Setting

Wetland Indicator: Y
Environmental Summary: This Atlantic white-cedar bog of the northeastern coastal region is an oligotrophic basin peatland dominated by heath shrubs with an open canopy of stunted cedar.


Dynamic Processes

Dynamics: Fire frequency is responsible for more open canopy on the Coastal Plain in New Jersey.


Plot Sampling & Classification Analysis

Plots stored in VegBank


Authors/Contributors
Concept Author(s): Eastern Ecology Group
Element Description Edition Date: 09May2007
Element Description Author(s): S.L. Neid

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


References
  • Barrett, N. E. 1996. Chamaecyparis thyoides wetlands: An overview of the community-types. Submitted to the Connecticut Natural Diversity Database, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. The Nature Conservancy, Middletown, CT.

  • 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.

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

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

  • Enser, R. W., and J. A. Lundgren. 2006. Natural communities of Rhode Island. A joint project of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Natural Heritage Program and The Nature Conservancy of Rhode Island. Rhode Island Natural History Survey, Kingston. 40 pp. [www.rinhs.org]

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

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

  • Metzler, K. J. 1997. Identification and protection of globally significant and imperiled wetland communities in Connecticut, Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) swamps. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, State Wetland Protection Development Grant.

  • Metzler, K., and J. Barrett. 2006. The vegetation of Connecticut: A preliminary classification. State Geological and Natural History Survey, Report of Investigations No. 12. Connecticut Natural Diversity Database, Hartford, CT.

  • Motzkin, G. 1991. Atlantic white cedar wetlands of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Massachusetts. Research Bulletin 731. 53 pp.

  • NatureServe. 2009. Vegetation of the E.B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge. International Ecological Classification Standard: Terrestrial Ecological Classifications. NatureServe Central Databases. Arlington, VA. U.S.A. Data current as of 1 December 2009.

  • Sneddon, L. A., Zaremba, R. E., and M. Adams. 2010. Vegetation classification and mapping at Cape Cod National Seashore, Massachusetts. Natural Resources Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2010/147. National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA. 481 pp. [http://biology.usgs.gov/npsveg/caco/cacorpt.pdf]

  • Sperduto, D. A., and K. F. Crowley. 2002b. Atlantic white cedar in New England: Analysis and proposed classification. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory. DRED Division of Forests & Lands and The Nature Conservancy, Concord, NH.

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

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

  • Windisch, A .G. 2014a. Pinelands ecological communities and higher level groups with crosswalk / proposed 2008 revisions to NVC. November 16, 2014 draft. New Jersey Natural Heritage Program, Trenton.


Use Guidelines and Citation

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

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2018.
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 © 2018 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. 2018. 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 2018
NatureServe
Version 7.1 (2 February 2009)
Data last updated: March 2018