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 >>

Picea rubens - (Abies fraseri) / (Rhododendron catawbiense, Rhododendron maximum) Forest
Translated Name: Red Spruce - (Fraser Fir) / (Catawba Rosebay, Great Laurel) Forest
Common Name: Red Spruce - Fraser Fir Forest (Evergreen Shrub Type)
Unique Identifier: CEGL007130
Classification Approach: International Vegetation Classification (IVC)
Summary: This community is restricted to the highest mountain systems of the Southern Appalachians in eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, and southwestern Virginia. These forests are typically found on moderately steep to steep, convex slopes at elevations between 1550 and 1830 m (5100-6000 feet). This association includes forests of the Southern Appalachians, within the range of Abies fraseri, currently dominated by Picea rubens but showing some evidence of the historical presence of Abies fraseri (either standing dead individuals or ample regeneration), over a shrub stratum dominated by evergreen species, typically Rhododendron catawbiense and Rhododendron maximum. Herb coverage is characteristically low, but on moist north-facing sites, mosses, ferns and forbs may be dense beneath the shrub stratum.



Classification

Classification Confidence: Moderate
Classification Comments: This community includes forest vegetation where Picea rubens and Abies fraseri make up 75% of the canopy cover, each contributing 25-75% to the total canopy cover and occurring over a shrub stratum dominated by evergreen species. Other species total less than 25% of the canopy.

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 Laurentian-Acadian Mesic Hardwood - Conifer Forest
Group Central & Southern Appalachian Red Spruce - Fir - Hardwood Forest
Alliance Southern Appalachian Spruce-Fir Forest

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

Similar Associations
Unique Identifier Name
CEGL006049 Abies fraseri / Viburnum lantanoides / Dryopteris campyloptera - Oxalis montana / Hylocomium splendens Forest
CEGL006152 Picea rubens - (Tsuga canadensis) / Rhododendron maximum Forest
CEGL006308 Abies fraseri / (Rhododendron catawbiense, Rhododendron carolinianum) Forest
CEGL007131 Picea rubens - (Abies fraseri) / Vaccinium erythrocarpum / Dryopteris campyloptera / Hylocomium splendens 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 Red Spruce--Fraser Fir Forest (Rhododendron Subtype) Equivalent Certain Schafale 2012


Other Related Concepts
Related Concept Name: Picea rubens - (Abies fraseri) / (Rhododendron catawbiense, Rhododendron maximum) Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Fleming, G. P., and K. D. Patterson. 2009a. A vegetation classification for the Appalachian Trail: Virginia south to Georgia. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. In-house analysis, March 2009.
Related Concept Name: IA4a. Red Spruce - Fraser Fir 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: Red Spruce - Fraser Fir (7)
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: Red Spruce - Fraser Fir: 34
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: Red Spruce--Fraser Fir 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: Red Spruce--Fraser Fir Forest (Rhododendron Subtype)
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Schafale, M. 1998b. Fourth approximation guide. High mountain communities. March 1998 draft. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh.
Related Concept Name: Spruce - Fir, BR
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Pyne, M. 1994. Tennessee natural communities. Unpublished document. Tennessee Department of Conservation, Ecology Service Division, Nashville. 7 pp.
Related Concept Name: Spruce / Fir 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.

Ecological Systems Placement

Ecological Systems Placement
Ecological System Unique ID Ecological System Name
CES202.028 Central and Southern Appalachian Spruce-Fir Forest


NatureServe Conservation Status
Global Status: G1 (23Feb1999)
Rounded Global Status: G1 - Critically Imperiled
Reasons: This community has a naturally restricted distribution and has been subject to major acreage reduction during the early part of the 20th century and rapid condition decline in the past 30 years. Modern threats include atmospheric pollution deposition and damage by the exotic balsam woolly adelgid (Adelges piceae). Well-developed, undisturbed examples of this community are extremely rare.

Distribution
Color legend for Distribution Map
United States Distribution: NC, TN, VA
Global Distribution: United States
Global Range: This community is restricted to the highest mountain systems of the Southern Appalachians in eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, and southwestern Virginia.

U.S. Forest Service Ecoregions
Domain Name: Humid Temperate Domain
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: Blue Ridge Mountains Section
Section Code: M221D Occurrence Status: Confident or certain


Vegetation

Vegetation Summary: This association includes forests of the Southern Appalachians, within the range of Abies fraseri, currently dominated by Picea rubens but showing some evidence of the historical presence of Abies fraseri. Other species may occur in the canopy/subcanopy but with low coverage. The shrub stratum is moderate to dense and dominated by evergreen species such as Rhododendron catawbiense, Rhododendron maximum, and Rhododendron carolinianum. Shrub coverage is most dense on drier, convex slopes. Other shrub species with minor coverage may include Vaccinium simulatum, Vaccinium erythrocarpum, Viburnum nudum var. cassinoides, Diervilla sessilifolia, and Viburnum lantanoides. Extensive patches of Abies fraseri seedlings and standing dead stems of Abies fraseri may be common. Herb coverage is typically low, but moist, north-facing sites may have Oxalis montana, Athyrium filix-femina ssp. asplenioides, Dryopteris campyloptera, and mosses (including Dicranum scoparium and Hypnum curvifolium) dominating beneath the shrub stratum.

Vegetation Composition (incomplete)
Species Name Rounded Global Status Growth Form Stratum Charact-
eristic
Dominant Constant
Cover Class %
Con-
stancy
%
Betula papyrifera var. cordifolia G1 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy      
 
 
Abies fraseri G1 Needle-leaved tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Picea rubens G1 Needle-leaved tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Rhododendron vaseyi G1 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)      
 
 
Rhododendron catawbiense G1 Broad-leaved evergreen tree Tall shrub/sapling  
 
 
Rhododendron maximum G1 Broad-leaved evergreen tree Tall shrub/sapling    
 
 
Rhododendron carolinianum G1 Broad-leaved evergreen shrub Tall shrub/sapling    
 
 
Ageratina altissima var. roanensis G1 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Cardamine clematitis G1 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Chelone lyonii G1 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Geum geniculatum G1 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Hypericum graveolens G1 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Krigia montana G1 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Penstemon smallii G1 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Prenanthes roanensis G1 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Rugelia nudicaulis G1 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Solidago glomerata G1 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Stachys clingmanii G1 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Stellaria corei G1 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Streptopus amplexifolius G1 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Streptopus lanceolatus var. roseus G1 Flowering forb Herb (field)      
 
 
Botrychium oneidense G1 Fern (Spore-bearing forb) Herb (field)      
 
 
Phegopteris connectilis G1 Fern (Spore-bearing forb) Herb (field)      
 
 
Calamagrostis canadensis G1 Graminoid Herb (field)      
 
 
Carex projecta G1 Graminoid Herb (field)      
 
 
Carex ruthii G1 Graminoid Herb (field)      
 
 
Glyceria nubigena G1 Graminoid Herb (field)      
 
 
Poa palustris G1 Graminoid Herb (field)      
 
 
Bazzania nudicaulis G1 Liverwort/hornwort Nonvascular      
 
 
Metzgeria temperata G1 Liverwort/hornwort Nonvascular      
 
 
Nardia scalaris G1 Liverwort/hornwort Nonvascular      
 
 
Plagiochila corniculata G1 Liverwort/hornwort Nonvascular      
 
 
Sphenolobopsis pearsonii G1 Liverwort/hornwort Nonvascular      
 
 
Brachydontium trichodes G1 Moss Nonvascular      
 
 
Hylocomium splendens G1 Moss Nonvascular    
 
 
Leptodontium excelsum G1 Moss Nonvascular      
 
 
Polytrichum ohioense G1 Moss Nonvascular    
 
 
Gymnoderma lineare G1 Lichen Nonvascular      
 
 
Pseudevernia cladonia G1 Lichen Nonvascular      
 
 


At-Risk Species Reported for this Association
Scientific Name
  (Common Name)
NatureServe Global Status U.S. Endangered Species Act Status
Abies fraseri
  (Fraser Fir)
G2  
Ageratina altissima var. roanensis
  (Appalachian White Snakeroot)
G5T3T4  
Bazzania nudicaulis
  (a liverwort)
G2G3  
Brachydontium trichodes
  (Peak Moss)
G2G4  
Cardamine clematitis
  (Small Mountain Bittercress)
G3  
Carex ruthii
  (Ruth's Sedge)
G3  
Geum geniculatum
  (Bent Avens)
G2  
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus
  (Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel)
G5T2 LE: Listed endangered
Glyceria nubigena
  (Smoky Mountains Mannagrass)
G2G3  
Gymnoderma lineare
  (Rock Gnome Lichen)
G3 LE: Listed endangered
Hypericum graveolens
  (Mountain St. John's-wort)
G3  
Krigia montana
  (False Dandelion)
G3  
Leptodontium excelsum
  (Grandfather Mountain Leptodontium)
G2  
Microhexura montivaga
  (Spruce-fir Moss Spider)
G1 LE: Listed endangered
Penstemon smallii
  (Small's Beardtongue)
G3  
Plethodon welleri
  (Weller's Salamander)
G3  
Prenanthes roanensis
  (Roan Mountain Rattlesnake-root)
G3  
Pseudevernia cladonia
  (Light-and-dark Lichen)
G2G4  
Rhododendron vaseyi
  (Pink-shell Azalea)
G3  
Rugelia nudicaulis
  (Rugel's Ragwort)
G3  
Solidago glomerata
  (Skunk Goldenrod)
G3  
Sphenolobopsis pearsonii
  (Horsehair Threadwort)
G2?  
Stachys clingmanii
  (Clingman's Hedge-nettle)
G2  

Vegetation Structure
Stratum Growth Form
Height of Stratum (m)
Cover
Class
%
Min
Cover %
Max
Cover %
Tree canopy Other/unknown
 
 
 
 
Tall shrub/sapling Shrub
 
 
 
 
Nonvascular Other/unknown
 
 
 
 


Environmental Setting

Wetland Indicator: N
Environmental Summary: This forest is best developed between 1550 and 1830 m (5100-6000 feet) elevation but may occur at lower elevations and is typically found on moderately steep to steep, convex slopes. Soils are highly variable, from deep mineral soils to well-developed boulderfields, where a thin organic layer and moss mat overlie the rocks and there are pockets of mineral soil in deep crevices between boulders. The dominant soils are Inceptisols with scattered occurrences of Spodosols at the highest elevations (White et al. 1993). Generally, soils can be described as rocky, with well-developed organic and A horizons. All soils in these high-elevation forests are low in base saturation, high in organic matter, and are acidic in reaction (pH 3-5), with a high aluminum content. The moisture regimes of these areas are mesic to wet due to high rainfall, abundant cloud cover, fog deposition, and low temperatures. The climate has been classified as perhumid, with the temperature varying elevationally from mesothermal to microthermal. The regional geology is dominated by complexly folded metamorphic, sedimentary, and igneous rocks of the Precambrian and early Paleozoic age, including phyllites, slates, schists, sandstones, quartzites, granites, and gneisses.


Dynamic Processes

Dynamics: Natural disturbances in this community include lightning fire, debris avalanches, wind disturbance, and ice storms (White and Pickett 1985, Nicholas and Zedaker 1989). The natural fire regime is estimated at longer than 500-1000 years. Human-initiated disturbances have included logging, slash fires, livestock grazing, and damage by atmospheric pollutants. An exotic insect, the balsam woolly adelgid (Adelges piceae), invaded the Southern Appalachians in the late 1950s and has drastically altered the last undisturbed remnants of this community. This exotic pest kills mature Abies fraseri within seven years of infestation. In areas where mature Abies fraseri has been lost to woolly adelgid infestation, thickets of Rubus spp., Abies fraseri seedlings and saplings, Betula alleghaniensis, and Sorbus americana are dominant. Over time, Picea rubens, Betula alleghaniensis, Abies fraseri, Acer spicatum, and Sorbus americana increase in the tree layer, while Abies fraseri, Menziesia pilosa, Rubus idaeus ssp. strigosus, and Sambucus racemosa var. pubens increase in the shrub layer (White et al. 1993). Succession is especially slow after severe disturbance such as logging and slash fires. The most severely disturbed sites are predominately Prunus pensylvanica and Rubus spp. and may remain in a non-forested stage of succession for 60 years or more.


Plot Sampling & Classification Analysis

Plots stored in VegBank


Authors/Contributors
Concept Author(s): K.D. Patterson
Element Description Edition Date: 19Feb2010
Element Description Author(s): K.D. Patterson and T. Govus
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 23Feb1999
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author(s): K.D. Patterson

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.

  • Anderson, L. E., H. A. Crum, and W. R. Buck. 1990. List of mosses of North America north of Mexico. The Bryologist 93:448-499.

  • Brown, D. M. 1941. Vegetation of Roan Mountain: A phytosociological and successional study. Ecological Monographs 11:61-97.

  • Bruck, R. I. 1988. Interactions of spruce-fir pathogens, insects, and ectomychorrhizae on the etiology and epidemiology of boreal montane forest decline in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Pages 133-143 in: Proceedings of the US/FRG research symposium: Effects of atmospheric pollutants on the spruce-fir forests of the eastern U.S. and the Federal Republic of Germany. General Technical Report NE-120. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.

  • Busing, R. T., E. E. C. Clebsch, C. C. Eagar, and E. F. Pauley. 1988. Two decades of change in a Great Smoky Mountains spruce-fir forest. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 115:25-31.

  • Cogbill, C. V., and P. S. White. 1991. The latitude-elevation relationship for spruce-fir forest and treeline along the Appalachian mountain chain. Vegetatio 94:153-175.

  • Crandall, D. L. 1958. Ground vegetation patterns of the spruce-fir area of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Ecological Monographs 28:337-360.

  • Crandall, D. L. 1960. Ground vegetation patterns of the spruce-fir area of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Virginia Journal of Science January 1960:9-18.

  • Davis, J. H., Jr. 1930. Vegetation of the Black Mountains of North Carolina: An ecological study. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 45:291-318.

  • Dull, C. W., J. D. Ward, H. D. Brown, and G. W. Ryan. 1988b. Evaluation of tree mortality in the spruce-fir forest of the southeastern United States. Pages 107-110 in: Proceedings of the US/FRG research symposium: Effects of atmospheric pollutants on the spruce-fir forests of the eastern U.S. and the Federal Republic of Germany. General Technical Report NE-120. USDA Forest Service, Washington DC.

  • Eagar, C., and M. B. Adams, editors. 1992. Ecology and decline of red spruce in the eastern United States. Springer-Verlag, New York. 417 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., 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. 2009a. A vegetation classification for the Appalachian Trail: Virginia south to Georgia. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. In-house analysis, March 2009.

  • 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.

  • Korstian, C. F. 1937. Perpetuation of spruce on cut-over and burned lands in the higher southern Appalachian Mountains. Ecological Monographs 7:125-167.

  • McLeod, D. E. 1988. Vegetation patterns, floristics, and environmental relationships in the Black and Craggy mountains of North Carolina. Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 222 pp.

  • NCNHP [North Carolina Natural Heritage Program]. 1993. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program biennial protection plan. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh. 120 pp.

  • NatureServe Ecology - Southeastern United States. No date. Unpublished data. NatureServe, Durham, NC.

  • Nicholas, N. S., S. M. Zedaker, C. Eagar, and F. T. Bonner. 1992. Seedling recruitment and stand regeneration in spruce-fir forests of the Great Smoky Mountains. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 119:289-299.

  • Nicholas, N. S., and S. M. Zedaker. 1989. Ice damage in spruce-fir forests of the Black Mountains, North Carolina. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 19:1487-1491.

  • Oosting, H. J., and W. D. Billings. 1951. A comparison of virgin spruce-fir forest in the Northern and Southern Appalachian system. Ecology 32:84-103.

  • 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.

  • Pyne, M. 1994. Tennessee natural communities. Unpublished document. Tennessee Department of Conservation, Ecology Service Division, Nashville. 7 pp.

  • Ramseur, G. S. 1960. The vascular flora of high mountain communities of the Southern Appalachians. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 76:82-112.

  • 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. 1998b. Fourth approximation guide. High mountain communities. March 1998 draft. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh.

  • 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.

  • Schofield, W. B. 1960. The ecotone between spruce-fir and deciduous forest in the Great Smoky Mountains. Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, Durham, NC. 176 pp.

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

  • Stephenson, S. L., and H. S. Adams. 1984. The spruce-fir forest on the summit of Mount Rogers in southwestern Virginia. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 111:69-75.

  • Stephenson, S. L., and J. F. Clovis. 1983. Spruce forests of the Allegheny Mountains in central West Virginia. Castanea 48:1-12.

  • Stotler, R., and B. Crandall-Stotler. 1977. A checklist of liverworts and hornworts of North America. The Bryologist 80:405-428.

  • TDNH [Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage]. No date. Unpublished data. Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage, Nashville, TN.

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

  • Wentworth, T. R., P. S. White, C. Pyle, and M. P. Schafale. 1988a. Compilation and interpretation of the vegetation database and disturbance history of Southern Appalachian spruce-fir. Pages 145-149 in: Proceedings of the US/FRG research symposium: Effects of atmospheric pollutants on the spruce-fir forests of the eastern U.S. and the Federal Republic of Germany. General Technical Report NE-120. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.

  • White, P. 1984a. Impacts of cultural and historic resources on natural diversity: Lessons from Great Smoky Mountains National Park, North Carolina and Tennessee. Pages 119-132 in: J. L. Cooley and J. H. Cooley, editors. 1984. Natural diversity in forest ecosystems. Proceedings of a workshop. University of Georgia, Institute of Ecology, Athens. 282 pp.

  • White, P. S., E. R. Buckner, J. D. Pittillo, and C. V. Cogbill. 1993. High-elevation forests: Spruce-fir forests, northern hardwoods forests, and associated communities. Pages 305-337 in: W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, editors. Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: Upland terrestrial communities. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

  • White, P. S., and C. V. Cogbill. 1992. Spruce-fir forests in eastern North America. Page 3-39 in: C. Eagar and M. B. Adams, editors. Ecology and decline of red spruce in the eastern United States. Springer-Verlag, New York.

  • White, P. S., and S. T. A. Pickett. 1985. Natural disturbance and patch dynamics: An introduction. Pages 3-13 in: P. S. White and S. T. A. Pickett, editors. The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. Academic Press, Orlando, FL.

  • White, P. S., editor. 1984b. The Southern Appalachian spruce-fir ecosystem: Its biology and threats. Research/Resource Management Report SER-71. USDI National Park Service. 268 pp.

  • Whittaker, R. H. 1956. Vegetation of the Great Smoky Mountains. Ecological Monographs 26:1-80.

  • Zedaker, S. M., N. S. Nicholas, C. Eagar, P. S. White, and T. Burk. 1988. Stand characteristics associated with potential decline of spruce-fir forests in the Southern Appalachians. Pages 123-131 in: Proceedings of the US/FRG research symposium: Effects of atmospheric pollutants on the spruce-fir forests of the eastern U.S. and the Federal Republic of Germany. General Technical Report NE-120. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.


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