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 >>

Pinus strobus - Tsuga canadensis Lower New England-Northern Piedmont Forest
Translated Name: Eastern White Pine - Eastern Hemlock Lower New England-Northern Piedmont Forest
Common Name: Lower New England-Northern Piedmont White Pine - Hemlock Dry-Mesic Forest
Unique Identifier: CEGL006328
Classification Approach: International Vegetation Classification (IVC)
Summary: This dry-mesic coniferous forest of usually sloping (moderately to steeply) sites is dominated by Pinus strobus and/or Tsuga canadensis. It can occur in somewhat sheltered ravines where Tsuga canadensis is nearly monotypic in all layers. Other frequent tree species depend on geography and can include Betula papyrifera, Quercus rubra, and Acer rubrum, with Pinus rigida, Prunus serotina, Quercus velutina, Carya tomentosa, Betula lenta, Acer saccharum, Fraxinus americana, Betula alleghaniensis, and Betula populifolia occurring less frequently. Although frequent, deciduous tree species generally occur with low abundance. Canopy cover is typically 80-90%. The subcanopy is often sparse but may extend up to 40% cover. Acer pensylvanicum is a common, though rarely abundant, small tree. Shrubs are absent or sparse but when present may include Hamamelis virginiana, Kalmia latifolia, Rhododendron maximum, Vaccinium angustifolium, and Viburnum acerifolium. The herbaceous layer is generally not well-developed nor diverse and is generally characterized by Gaultheria procumbens, Medeola virginiana, Polystichum acrostichoides, and Thelypteris noveboracensis. Other herbaceous associates often include Aralia nudicaulis, Uvularia sessilifolia, Mitchella repens, Trientalis borealis, Monotropa uniflora, Dryopteris intermedia, Dryopteris marginalis, Dryopteris carthusiana, Polypodium virginianum, and Maianthemum canadense. Deschampsia flexuosa and other grasses may be present in small openings and gaps. Nonvascular plants tend to be sparse but can include Leucobryum albidum and Polytrichum and Dicranum species. Soils are moderately to extremely well-drained (dry-mesic to mesic) loamy sands and sandy loams, often sandy, stony or bouldery. The major natural disturbance in this forest type is generally single-tree blowdowns.



Classification

Classification Confidence: Moderate
Classification Comments: This association is differentiated from Pinus strobus - Tsuga canadensis - Picea rubens Forest (CEGL006324) by its lack of Picea rubens.

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-Allegheny Northern Hardwood - Conifer Forest
Alliance Central & Southern Appalachian Hemlock - Northern Hardwood Forest

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

Similar Associations
Unique Identifier Name
CEGL002590 Pinus strobus - Tsuga canadensis Great Lakes Forest
CEGL006019 Pinus strobus - Tsuga canadensis / Acer pensylvanicum / Polystichum acrostichoides Forest
CEGL006324 Pinus strobus - Tsuga canadensis - Picea rubens 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 Tsuga canadensis forests Broader   Metzler and Barrett 2006
Maine White pine - mixed conifer forest Broader   Gawler 2002
Massachusetts Northern Hardwoods - Hemlock - White Pine Forest Broader   Swain and Kearsley 2001
Massachusetts Oak - Hemlock - White Pine Forest Intersects   Swain and Kearsley 2001
New Hampshire Hemlock - white pine forest Equivalent   Sperduto and Nichols 2004
New Hampshire Hemlock forest Finer   Sperduto 2000
New York Hemlock-northern hardwood forest Broader Certain Edinger et al. 2002
Pennsylvania Hemlock (white pine) forest Broader   Fike 1999
Rhode Island Hemlock - Hardwood Forest Broader   Enser 1999
Vermont Hemlock Forest Broader   Thompson and Sorenson 2000


Other Related Concepts
Related Concept Name: CNE dry transitional forest on sandy / gravelly soils
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: Rawinski, T. 1984a. Natural community description abstract - southern New England calcareous seepage swamp. Unpublished report. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA. 6 pp.
Related Concept Name: CNE mesic conifer [transition] forest on acidic bedrock/till
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Rawinski, T. 1984a. Natural community description abstract - southern New England calcareous seepage swamp. Unpublished report. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA. 6 pp.
Related Concept Name: Eastern Hemlock: 23
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: White Pine - Hemlock: 22
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
CES202.593 Appalachian (Hemlock)-Northern Hardwood Forest


NatureServe Conservation Status
Global Status: G5 (22Mar1999)
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure

Distribution
Color legend for Distribution Map
United States Distribution: CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT
Canadian Province Distribution: QCpotentially occurs
Global Distribution: Canadapotentially occurs, United States
Global Range: This association occurs in the northeastern United States and possibly adjacent Canada.

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: Central Maine Coastal and Embayment Section
Section Code: 212D Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: St. Lawrence and Champlain Valley Section
Section Code: 212E Occurrence Status: Possible
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: Lower New England Section
Section Code: 221A Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Hudson Valley Section
Section Code: 221B Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Province Name: Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Continental) Province
Province Code: 222 Occurrence Status: Possible
Section Name: Erie and Ontario Lake Plain Section
Section Code: 222I Occurrence Status: Possible
Division Name: Warm Continental Regime Mountains
Province Name: Adirondack-New England Mixed Forest - Coniferous Forest - Alpine Meadow Province
Province Code: M212 Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Vermont-New Hampshire Upland Section
Section Code: M212B Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Green, Taconic, Berkshire Mountain Section
Section Code: M212C Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Catskill Mountain Section
Section Code: M212E Occurrence Status: Confident or certain


Vegetation

Vegetation Summary: This coniferous forest type is dominated by Pinus strobus and/or Tsuga canadensis. Other frequent tree species depend on geography and can include Betula papyrifera, Quercus rubra, and Acer rubrum, with Pinus rigida, Prunus serotina, Quercus velutina, Carya tomentosa (= Carya alba), Betula lenta, Acer saccharum, Fraxinus americana, Betula alleghaniensis, and Betula populifolia occurring less frequently. Although frequent, deciduous tree species generally occur with low abundance. Canopy cover is typically 80-90%. The subcanopy is often sparse but may extend up to 40% cover. Acer pensylvanicum is a common, though rarely abundant, small tree. Shrubs are absent or sparse but when present may include Hamamelis virginiana, Kalmia latifolia, Rhododendron maximum, Vaccinium angustifolium, and Viburnum acerifolium. The herbaceous layer is generally not well-developed nor diverse and is generally characterized by Gaultheria procumbens, Medeola virginiana, Polystichum acrostichoides, and Thelypteris noveboracensis. Other herbaceous associates often include Aralia nudicaulis, Uvularia sessilifolia, Mitchella repens, Trientalis borealis, Monotropa uniflora, Dryopteris intermedia, Dryopteris marginalis, Dryopteris carthusiana, Polypodium virginianum, and Maianthemum canadense. Deschampsia flexuosa and other grasses may be present in small openings and gaps. Nonvascular plants tend to be sparse but can include Leucobryum albidum and Polytrichum and Dicranum species.

Vegetation Composition (incomplete)
Species Name Rounded Global Status Growth Form Stratum Charact-
eristic
Dominant Constant
Cover Class %
Con-
stancy
%
Pinus strobus G5 Needle-leaved tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Tsuga canadensis G5 Needle-leaved tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Acer pensylvanicum G5 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree subcanopy    
 
 
Hamamelis virginiana G5 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Tall shrub/sapling    
 
 
Gaultheria procumbens G5 Dwarf-shrub Short shrub/sapling    
 
 
Medeola virginiana G5 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Polystichum acrostichoides G5 Fern (Spore-bearing forb) Herb (field)  
 
 
Thelypteris noveboracensis G5 Fern (Spore-bearing forb) Herb (field)  
 
 


Environmental Setting

Wetland Indicator: N
Environmental Summary: This dry-mesic coniferous forest is usually found on sloping (moderately to steeply) sites or in sheltered ravines. Soils are moderately to extremely well-drained (dry-mesic to mesic), loamy sands and sandy loams, often sandy, stony, or bouldery.


Dynamic Processes

Dynamics: The major natural disturbance in this forest type is generally single-tree blowdowns. Fire is not a particularly important feature of this forest type.


Plot Sampling & Classification Analysis

Plots stored in VegBank


Authors/Contributors
Concept Author(s): L.A. Sneddon, K. Metzler, and M. Anderson
Element Description Edition Date: 19Jun2006
Element Description Author(s): S.L. Neid and S.C. Gawler

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


References
  • Brown, J. H. Jr., C. A. Castaneda, and R. J. Hindle. 1982a. Floristic relationships and dynamics of hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) communities in Rhode Island. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 109:385-391.

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

  • Edinger, G. J., A. L. Feldmann, T. G. Howard, J. J. Schmid, F. C. Sechler, E. Eastman, E. Largay, L. A. Sneddon, C. Lea, and J. Von Loh. 2014b. Vegetation inventory: Saratoga National Historical Park, New York. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NETN/NRTR--2014/869, National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.

  • 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]

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Gawler, S. C., and P. S. Bowman. 2012. Vegetation classification and mapping at Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site, New Hampshire. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2012/584.1. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.

  • Gordon, R. B. 1937a. The botanical survey of the Allegheny State Park. New York State Museum Handbook 17:23-88. State University of New York, Albany.

  • Hough, A. F. 1943. Soil factors and stand history in a virgin forest valley on the northern Allegheny Plateau. Soil Science 56:19-28.

  • Hough, A. F., and R. D. Forbes. 1943. The ecology and silvics of forests in the high Plateaus of Pennsylvania. Ecological Monographs 13:300-320.

  • 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.

  • NAP [Northern Appalachian-Boreal Forest Working Group]. 1998. Northern Appalachian-Boreal Working group discussions. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA.

  • NRCS [Natural Resources Conservation Service]. 2004a. Soil survey of Saratoga County, New York. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 590 pp.

  • Perles, S. J., G. S. Podniesinski, E. Eastman, L. A. Sneddon, and S. C. Gawler. 2007. Classification and mapping of vegetation and fire fuel models at Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2007/076. National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA. 2 volumes.

  • Rawinski, T. 1984a. Natural community description abstract - southern New England calcareous seepage swamp. Unpublished report. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA. 6 pp.

  • Sechler, F. C., G. J. Edinger, T. G. Howard, J. J. Schmid, E. Eastman, E. Largay, L. A. Sneddon, C. Lea, and J. Von Loh. 2014. Vegetation classification and mapping at Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National Historic Sites, New York. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NETN/NRTR--2014/873, National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO. 392 pp.

  • 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]

  • Thompson, E. H., and E. R. Sorenson. 2005. Wetland, woodland, wildland: A guide to the natural communities of Vermont. The Nature Conservancy and the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH. 456 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 March 2019.
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 © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, 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. 2019. 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 2019
NatureServe
Version 7.1 (2 February 2009)
Data last updated: March 2019