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 >>

Tsuga canadensis - Acer saccharum - Fagus grandifolia / Dryopteris intermedia Forest
Translated Name: Eastern Hemlock - Sugar Maple - American Beech / Intermediate Woodfern Forest
Common Name: Hemlock - Transitional Northern Hardwood Forest
Unique Identifier: CEGL006639
Classification Approach: International Vegetation Classification (IVC)
Summary: This association comprises hemlock - northern hardwood forests of the Allegheny Plateau, Lake Ontario and Lake Erie plains, Lower New England, and south to higher elevations of the Central Appalachian region. This forest is associated with cool, dry-mesic to mesic sites and acidic soils, often on rocky, north-facing slopes. Soils can have a thick, poorly decomposed duff layer over sandy loams. Tsuga canadensis is characteristic and usually dominant in the coniferous to mixed canopy. While hemlock generally forms at least 50% of the canopy, in some cases it may be as low as 25% relative dominance. Hardwood codominants include Acer saccharum and Fagus grandifolia (common), Betula alleghaniensis (uncommon), and Betula lenta, which may replace Betula alleghaniensis in some areas. Ostrya virginiana may be present as a small tree. Quercus spp. and Pinus strobus tend to be absent or, if present, only occur with low abundance. The shrub layer may be dense to fairly open and often includes Viburnum acerifolium and Acer pensylvanicum in addition to Tsuga canadensis regeneration. Herbs may be sparse, particularly in dense shade, but include Dryopteris intermedia, Medeola virginiana, Oxalis montana, Mitchella repens, Maianthemum canadense, Uvularia sessilifolia, Polystichum acrostichoides, Trientalis borealis, Huperzia lucidula (= Lycopodium lucidulum), Eurybia divaricata (= Aster divaricatus), Oclemena acuminata (= Aster acuminatus), Dennstaedtia punctilobula, and Thelypteris noveboracensis. Nonvascular plants may be well-developed, often characterized by the liverwort Bazzania trilobata. Diagnostic characteristics of this forest are the dominance of Tsuga canadensis, presence of Acer saccharum and Fagus grandifolia, low abundance of either Betula alleghaniensis or Betula lenta, and a lack of abundant Quercus spp. or Pinus strobus. In Virginia stands, the most abundant trees are Tsuga canadensis, Betula alleghaniensis, Acer rubrum, and Quercus rubra; Fagus grandifolia and Acer saccharum are both inconstant and only occasionally important.



Classification

Classification Confidence: Moderate
Classification Comments: This type was formerly included in CEGL006109, which was split into CEGL006638 and CEGL006639. It was separated from Tsuga canadensis - Betula alleghaniensis - Acer saccharum / Dryopteris intermedia Forest (CEGL006638) to better characterize the Allegheny Plateau - Lower New England and Central Appalachian characteristics. Many stands of this vegetation type in the national forests and Shenandoah National Park have been devastated during the past decade by adelgid-caused tree mortality. In some cases, 100% of the canopy hemlocks have been killed, littering the forest floor with downed wood and stimulating massive increases in understory growth, particularly of Betula spp. and Acer pensylvanicum. Since there is no practical treatment for the adelgid on a landscape level, one can only hope that natural pathogens will emerge to keep the adelgid in check before all of our examples of this community are severely degraded or lost. This type is nearly extinct in Virginia due to the almost complete loss of hemlock from adelgid outbreaks. Most of Virginia stands are now better classified as northern hardwoods of one type or another.

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
CEGL005043 Tsuga canadensis - Fagus grandifolia - Acer saccharum / (Hamamelis virginiana, Kalmia latifolia) Forest
CEGL006088 Tsuga canadensis - Fagus grandifolia - Quercus rubra Forest
CEGL006129 Tsuga canadensis - (Betula alleghaniensis) - Picea rubens / Cornus canadensis Forest
CEGL006474 Tsuga canadensis - Fagus grandifolia - Quercus (prinus, alba) Forest
CEGL006638 Tsuga canadensis - Betula alleghaniensis - Acer saccharum / Dryopteris intermedia Forest
CEGL007861 Betula alleghaniensis - (Tsuga canadensis) / Rhododendron maximum / (Leucothoe fontanesiana) Forest
CEGL008513 Tsuga canadensis - (Betula alleghaniensis, Quercus rubra) / Ilex montana / Rhododendron catawbiense 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 Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) forests Broader   Metzler and Barrett 2006
Maryland Tsuga canadensis - Betula alleghaniensis Lower New England / Northern Piedmont Forest Equivalent Certain Harrison 2011
Massachusetts Hemlock Forest Broader   Swain and Kearsley 2001
Massachusetts Northern Hardwoods - Hemlock - White Pine Forest Broader   Swain and Kearsley 2001
New Jersey Tsuga canadensis - Betula alleghaniensis Lower New England / Northern Piedmont Forest Equivalent Certain Breden et al. 2001
New York Hemlock-northern hardwood forest Broader   Edinger et al. 2002
Pennsylvania Hemlock (White Pine) - Northern Hardwood Forest Broader   Fike 1999
Rhode Island Hemlock-Hardwood Forest Broader   Enser 1999


Other Related Concepts
Related Concept Name: Acer saccharum - Fagus grandifolia / Viburnum lantanoides community
Relationship: I - Intersecting
Reference: Metzler, K. J., and J. P. Barrett. 2001. Vegetation classification for Connecticut. Draft 5/21/2001. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Center, Natural Diversity Database, Hartford.
Related Concept Name: Betula alleghaniensis - Tsuga canadensis / Dryopteris intermedia - Huperzia lucidula Forest
Relationship: F - Finer
Reference: Coulling, P. P., and T. J. Rawinski. 1999. Classification of vegetation and ecological land units of the Piney River and Mt. Pleasant area, Pedlar Ranger District, George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, Virginia. Natural Heritage Technical Report 99-03, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond.
Related Concept Name: Tsuga canadensis - Betula (alleghaniensis, lenta) / Dryopteris intermedia Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Fleming, G. P., and P. P. Coulling. 2001. Ecological communities of the George Washington and Jefferson national forests, Virginia. Preliminary classification and description of vegetation types. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. 317 pp.
Related Concept Name: Tsuga canadensis - Betula alleghaniensis - Acer saccharum / Dryopteris intermedia Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Fleming, G. P., and K. Taverna. 2006. Vegetation classification for the National Capitol Region parks, western region. Regional (VA-WVA-MD-DC) analysis prepared for NatureServe and USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program, March 2006. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond.
Related Concept Name: Tsuga canadensis - Betula alleghaniensis / Maianthemum canadense 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: Tsuga canadensis - Betula alleghaniensis Lower New England / Northern Piedmont Forest
Relationship: = - Equivalent
Reference: Harrison, J. W., compiler. 2004. Classification of vegetation communities of Maryland: First iteration. A subset of the International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the United States, NatureServe. Maryland Natural Heritage Program, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis. 243 pp.
Related Concept Name: Tsuga canadensis - Betula lenta - Betula alleghaniensis Association
Relationship: F - Finer
Reference: Fleming, G. P., and W. H. Moorhead, III. 1996. Ecological land units of the Laurel Fork Area, Highland County, Virginia. Natural Heritage Technical Report 96-08. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 114 pp. plus appendices.
Related Concept Name: Tsuga canadensis / Dryopteris intermedia / Bazzania trilobata Association
Relationship: F - Finer
Reference: Rawinski, T. J., G. P. Fleming, and F. V. Judge. 1994. Forest vegetation of the Ramsey's Draft and Little Laurel Run Research Natural Areas, Virginia: Baseline ecological monitoring and classification. Natural Heritage Technical Report 94-14. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 45 pp. plus appendices.
Related Concept Name: Tsuga canadensis forests
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Metzler, K. J., and J. P. Barrett. 2001. Vegetation classification for Connecticut. Draft 5/21/2001. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Center, Natural Diversity Database, Hartford.
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: CNE mesic hardwood 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 - Hardwood 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.
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Harrison, J. W., compiler. 2004. Classification of vegetation communities of Maryland: First iteration. A subset of the International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the United States, NatureServe. Maryland Natural Heritage Program, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis. 243 pp.
Related Concept Name: 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: Hemlock - Yellow Birch: 24
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: Mesic Hemlock-Hardwood Forest
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Breden, T. F. 1989. A preliminary natural community classification for New Jersey. Pages 157-191 in: E. F. Karlin, editor. New Jersey's rare and endangered plants and animals. Institute for Environmental Studies, Ramapo College, Mahwah, NJ. 280 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: G3G4 (03Dec2014)
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: This association has a fairly extensive geographic distribution and occurs in large patches in the Allegheny Plateau part of its range. All stands of this community are now highly threatened by the exotic insect pest hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae), which causes decline and eventual mortality in Tsuga canadensis.

Distribution
Color legend for Distribution Map
United States Distribution: CT, MA, MD, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VA, WVpotentially occurs
Canadian Province Distribution: ON
Global Distribution: Canada, United States
Global Range: This community is generally distributed in large patches from the Allegheny Plateau, Lake Ontario and Lake Erie plains, Lower New England and south to higher elevations of the Central Appalachian region in Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia. In Virginia, it is restricted to the northwestern part of the state, where occurrences are rather local but sometimes extensive.

U.S. Forest Service Ecoregions
Domain Name: Humid Temperate Domain
Division Name: Warm Continental Division
Province Name: Laurentian Mixed Forest Province
Province Code: 212 Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Northern Glaciated Allegheny Plateau Section
Section Code: 212F Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Northern Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau Section
Section Code: 212G Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Division Name: Hot Continental Division
Province Name: Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Oceanic) Province
Province Code: 221 Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: 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
Section Name: Northern Appalachian Piedmont Section
Section Code: 221D Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Division Name: Subtropical Division
Province Name: Outer Coastal Plain Mixed Forest Province
Province Code: 232 Occurrence Status: Possible
Section Name: Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain Section
Section Code: 232A Occurrence Status: Possible
Division Name: Hot Continental Regime Mountains
Province Name: Central Appalachian Broadleaf Forest - Coniferous Forest - Meadow Province
Province Code: M221 Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Northern Ridge and Valley Section
Section Code: M221A Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Allegheny Mountains Section
Section Code: M221B Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Blue Ridge Mountains Section
Section Code: M221D Occurrence Status: Confident or certain


Vegetation

Vegetation Summary: Tsuga canadensis is dominant and forms at least 50% of the canopy, at least prior to impacts from the exotic insect pest hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae). Fagus grandifolia and Acer saccharum are common and sometimes Betula alleghaniensis is uncommon or replaced by Betula lenta, and at the southern end of the range (in Virginia and Maryland), Liriodendron tulipifera may be an important overstory associate. The shrub layer may be dense to fairly open and often includes Viburnum acerifolium and Acer pensylvanicum in addition to Tsuga canadensis regeneration. Herbs may be sparse, particularly in dense shade, but often include Dryopteris intermedia, Medeola virginiana, Oxalis montana, Mitchella repens, Maianthemum canadense, Trientalis borealis, Huperzia lucidula (= Lycopodium lucidulum), Eurybia divaricata (= Aster divaricatus), and Thelypteris noveboracensis. Nonvascular plants may be well-developed, often characterized by the liverwort Bazzania trilobata. Diagnostic characteristics of this forest are the dominance of Tsuga canadensis, presence of Acer saccharum and Fagus grandifolia, low abundance of either Betula alleghaniensis or Betula lenta and a lack of abundant Quercus spp. or Pinus strobus. In Virginia stands, the most abundant trees are Tsuga canadensis, Betula alleghaniensis, Acer rubrum, and Quercus rubra; Fagus grandifolia and Acer saccharum are both inconstant and only occasionally important (G. P. Fleming, pers. comm.).

Vegetation Composition (incomplete)
Species Name Rounded Global Status Growth Form Stratum Charact-
eristic
Dominant Constant
Cover Class %
Con-
stancy
%
Betula alleghaniensis G3 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy    
 
 
Tsuga canadensis G3 Needle-leaved tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Acer pensylvanicum G3 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Viburnum acerifolium G3 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Shrub/sapling (tall & short)    
 
 
Maianthemum canadense G3 Flowering forb Herb (field)  
 
 
Medeola virginiana G3 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Mitchella repens G3 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Oclemena acuminata G3 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Dryopteris intermedia G3 Fern (Spore-bearing forb) Herb (field)    
 
 
Huperzia lucidula G3 Fern (Spore-bearing forb) Herb (field)    
 
 
Thelypteris noveboracensis G3 Fern (Spore-bearing forb) Herb (field)    
 
 
Carex albicans G3 Graminoid Herb (field)    
 
 


Environmental Setting

Wetland Indicator: N
Environmental Summary: This forest is associated with cool, dry-mesic to mesic sites and acidic soils, often on rocky, north-facing slopes. Soils can have a thick, poorly decomposed duff layer over sandy loams. In the southern part of the range, stands often occur in deep, sheltered ravines and along high-gradient mountain streams.


Dynamic Processes

Dynamics: Hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae) is decimating hemlock stands in the eastern United States. Betula lenta is a common colonizer following the death of hemlocks.


Plot Sampling & Classification Analysis

Plots stored in VegBank


Authors/Contributors
Concept Author(s): Lower New England Planning Team, mod. G. Fleming and P. Coulling
Element Description Edition Date: 30Dec2015
Element Description Author(s): S.L. Neid, S.C. Gawler, G.P. Fleming and D. Faber-Langendoen
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 03Dec2014
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author(s): G. Fleming, mod. S.L. Neid and D. Faber-Langendoen

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


References
  • Breden, T. F. 1989. A preliminary natural community classification for New Jersey. Pages 157-191 in: E. F. Karlin, editor. New Jersey's rare and endangered plants and animals. Institute for Environmental Studies, Ramapo College, Mahwah, NJ. 280 pp.

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

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

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

  • Edinger, G. J., A. L. Feldmann, T. G. Howard, J. J. Schmid, F. C. Sechler, E. Eastman, E. Largay, and L. A. Sneddon. 2007. Vegetation classification and mapping of vegetation at Saratoga National Historical Park. Draft Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--XXXX/XXX. National Park Service, Northeast Region, Coastal Institute in Kingston, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.

  • Edinger, G. J., D. J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T. G. Howard, D. M. Hunt, and A. M. Olivero, editors. 2002. Ecological communities of New York state. Second edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's ecological communities of New York state. (Draft for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.

  • Enser, R. 1993. Natural community classification for Rhode Island (draft). Rhode Island Natural Heritage Program. Providence, RI.

  • 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.

  • 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. 2011a. Natural communities of Virginia: Ecological groups and community types. Natural Heritage Technical Report 11-07. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 34 pp.

  • Fleming, G. P., and K. Taverna. 2006. Vegetation classification for the National Capitol Region parks, western region. Regional (VA-WVA-MD-DC) analysis prepared for NatureServe and USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program, March 2006. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond.

  • Fleming, G. P., and P. P. Coulling. 2001. Ecological communities of the George Washington and Jefferson national forests, Virginia. Preliminary classification and description of vegetation types. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. 317 pp.

  • Fleming, G. P., and W. H. Moorhead, III. 1996. Ecological land units of the Laurel Fork Area, Highland County, Virginia. Natural Heritage Technical Report 96-08. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 114 pp. plus appendices.

  • Harrison, J. W. 2011. The natural communities of Maryland: 2011 working list of ecological community groups and community types. Unpublished report. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Heritage Service, Natural Heritage Program, Annapolis. 33 pp.

  • Harrison, J. W., compiler. 2004. Classification of vegetation communities of Maryland: First iteration. A subset of the International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the United States, NatureServe. Maryland Natural Heritage Program, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis. 243 pp.

  • Metzler, K. J., and J. P. Barrett. 2001. Vegetation classification for Connecticut. Draft 5/21/2001. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Center, Natural Diversity Database, Hartford.

  • 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.

  • 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. A. Zimmerman, W. A. Millinor, and L. A. Sneddon. 2006e. Vegetation classification and mapping at Johnstown Flood National Memorial. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2006/034. National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA. 144 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.

  • Perles, S. J., G. S. Podniesinski, M. Furedi, B. A. Eichelberger, A. Feldmann, G. Edinger, E. Eastman, and L. A. Sneddon. 2008. Vegetation classification and mapping at Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2008/133. National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA. 370 pp.

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

  • Rawinski, T. J., G. P. Fleming, and F. V. Judge. 1994. Forest vegetation of the Ramsey's Draft and Little Laurel Run Research Natural Areas, Virginia: Baseline ecological monitoring and classification. Natural Heritage Technical Report 94-14. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 45 pp. plus appendices.

  • Smith, T. L. 1983. Natural ecological communities of Pennsylvania. Draft, revised 1991. Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory, Middletown, PA.

  • Swain, P. C., and J. B. Kearsley. 2001. Classification of natural communities of Massachusetts. September 2001 draft. Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, MA.

  • 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.

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

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


Use Guidelines and Citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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