Ohio subset of Plant Communities of the Midwest ... - NatureServe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Midwest are actually the responsibility of an adjacent region. (As a result, there are occasional stylistic and other differences in the descriptions.) Following the region code is a discussion of the classification issues related to the association. In many cases, other similar or related associations are referred to in this field; these are referenced by global name or a common name followed by the global code (elcode). Addendum II can be used to locate these associations in this appendix. • The Conservation Rank field gives the global conservation status rank of the association. The global rank is a numerical assessment of the rarity and imperilment of the association across its entire range of distribution. Ranks are primarily based on the number of occurrences, state conservation status rank(s), the geographic range of the type, and its long-term decline in abundance (e.g., pre-European settlement abundance versus current abundance). Other factors include permanence, intrinsic fragility and vulnerability, threats, and the number of occurrences that are protected (see Appendix D in Grossman et al. 1998). The regional ecologists, working with the Natural Heritage Network of ecologists, assign these ranks. The ranks are defined as follows: GH PRESUMED ELIMINATED (HISTORIC) throughout its range, with no or virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered, but with the potential for restoration (e.g., Castanea dentata Forest). G1 CRITICALLY IMPERILED. Generally 5 or fewer occurrences and/or very few remaining acres or very vulnerable to elimination throughout its range due to other factor(s). G2 IMPERILED. Generally 6-20 occurrences and/or few remaining acres or very vulnerable to elimination throughout its range due to other factor(s). G3 VULNERABLE. Generally 21-100 occurrences. Either very rare and local throughout its range or found locally, even abundantly, within a restricted range or vulnerable to elimination throughout its range due to specific factors. G4 APPARENTLY SECURE. Uncommon, but not rare (although it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery). Apparently not vulnerable in most of its range. G5 SECURE. Common, widespread, and abundant (though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery). Not vulnerable in most of its range. GU UNRANKABLE. Status cannot be determined at this time. G UNRANKED. Status has not yet been assessed. Modifiers and Rank Ranges A question mark added to a rank expresses an uncertainty about the rank in the range of 1 either way on the 1-5 scale. For example, a G2 rank indicates that the rank is thought to be a G2, but could be a G1 or a G3. G#G# Greater uncertainty about a rank is expressed by indicating the full range of ranks which may be appropriate. For example, a G1G3 rank indicates the rank could be a G1, G2, or a G3. Q A “Q” added to a rank denotes questionable taxonomy. It modifies the degree of imperilment and is only used in cases where the type would have a less imperiled rank if it were not recognized as a valid type (i.e., if it were combined with a more common type). A GUQ rank often indicates that the type is unrankable because of daunting taxonomic/definitional questions. The reasons for the rank assignment follow the actual rank. This information is available primarily for highly ranked communities, i.e., G1-G3. • The Distribution fields present a variety of information on distribution: − A general statement is provided on the global distribution of the type. PLANT COMMUNITIES OF THE MIDWEST – 2001. APPENDIX: ASSOCIATION DESCRIPTIONS 2
− The USFS (U.S. Forest Service) Ecoregions field gives information on the presumed pre-European settlement distribution of the type using the province, section, and subsection levels of the U.S. Forest Service ECOMAP (Bailey et al. 1994, Keys et al. 1995). A map showing the province and section level units is provided in Plate 11 of the main report. − The Conservation Regions field provides the presumed pre-European settlement distribution using codes for the ecoregional units used by The Nature Conservancy’s ecoregional conservation planning teams (TNC 1997). These units are based on the U.S. Forest Service map but are grouped to facilitate conservation planning across the country. A map showing the Conservancy’s ecoregions and codes is provided in Plate 12 of the main report. In the above two fields, each ecoregion is followed by a colon and a confidence level code. Confidence levels are as follows: C = Confident: > 95% certain that the type occurs in the specified ecoregion. P = Probable: 80-95% certain that the type occurs in the specified ecoregion. = Questionable: 10-80% certain that the type occurs in the specified ecoregion. X = Extirpated/presumed extirpated from the specified ecoregion. For example, 47:C in the Conservation Regions field means that the association confidently occurs in the Conservancy’s ecoregion 47. For USFS Ecoregions, the first character after the colon goes with the Forest Service province, the second with the Forest Service section within that province, and the third with the subsection within that section. Thus, “212He:CC” means that the association confidently occurs in province 212, confidently occurs in section 212H, and questionably occurs in subsection 212He. − The States and Provinces fields give information on the distribution of the association in the United States and Canada. The standard U.S. Postal Code abbreviation is given for each state or province. Uncertainty about the occurrence of a type in a state or province is shown as a question mark after the abbreviation. • The Midwest Heritage Synonymy field provides the cross-walk between the U.S. National Vegetation Classification (USNVC) association and the Midwest state name used by a state Natural Heritage program only for states with a classification that differs from the USNVC. Currently Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin have such independent state-level classifications, and their types are reported in this field. Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, and South Dakota use the USNVC associations as their state types, so their type names are identical to the USNVC name and there is no need to report them here. This field, then, illustrates how, for those states retaining an independent state-level classification, the state types are linked to the USNVC through the cross-walk. Uncertainty about the occurrence of a type in a state or province is shown as a question mark after the state abbreviation. The following codes are used to show the relationship of the state type to the USNVC type: + the type is more broadly defined than the USNVC type - the type is more finely or narrowly defined than the USNVC type = the type is equivalent or identical to the USNVC type I the types intersect, but the relationship is not simple A reference for each state classification used by the Natural Heritage programs is given in Box 2. It should be noted that some states are actively revising their classifications, and the names used here may be more current than those listed in the referenced classifications. It is possible to generate reports using a state or provincial classification as the starting point, and to show the relation of the state or provincial types to the USNVC associations. Such reports are available upon request from ABI or individual programs. PLANT COMMUNITIES OF THE MIDWEST – 2001. APPENDIX: ASSOCIATION DESCRIPTIONS 3
Page 1 and 2: PLANT COMMUNITIES OF THE MIDWEST CL
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS APPENDIX: PLANT COMMUNITY
Page 5: OVERVIEW APPENDIX: PLANT COMMUNITY
Page 9 and 10: Box 2. State Natural Heritage progr
Page 11 and 12: INDEX TO ASSOCIATIONS BY ECOLOGICAL
Page 13: 2.3.4.4. Interior Highlands Shale G
Page 16 and 17: Acid Peatlands: Northern Shrub/Gram
Page 18 and 19: Rich Peat Fens: Northeastern Rich F
Page 20 and 21: Rich Peat Fens: Midwestern Prairie
Page 22 and 23: Seeps: Midwestern Seepage Meadows S
Page 24 and 25: Open and Emergent Marshes: Eastern
Page 30 and 31: * Nonstandard type (needs review) G
Page 32 and 33: Open and Emergent Marshes: Great La
Page 34 and 35: Wet Prairies and Wet Meadows: Great
Page 36 and 37: Wet Prairies and Wet Meadows: Midwe
Page 38 and 39: Wet Prairies and Wet Meadows: Midwe
Page 40 and 41: Wooded Swamps and Floodplains: Nort
Page 46 and 47: Wooded Swamps and Floodplains: Midw
Page 56 and 57:
Wooded Swamps and Floodplains: Midw
Page 58 and 59:
Wooded Swamps and Floodplains: Midw
Page 60 and 61:
Wooded Swamps and Floodplains: Appa
Page 62 and 63:
Wooded Swamps and Floodplains: Sout
Page 64 and 65:
Wooded Swamps and Floodplains: Sout
Page 66 and 67:
Shoreline Sand/Mud Strands, Beaches
Page 68 and 69:
Sphagnum wulfianum, Sphagnum warnst
Page 70 and 71:
Shoreline Sand/Mud Strands, Beaches
Page 72 and 73:
Rocky Shores: Great Lakes Alkaline
Page 74 and 75:
Rocky Shores: Appalachian Highlands
Page 76 and 77:
Rocky Uplands (Glades, Rock Barrens
Page 78 and 79:
DISTRIBUTION: This limestone glade
Page 80 and 81:
DISTRIBUTION: This graminoid shale
Page 82 and 83:
Cliffs, Talus, Buttes and Badlands:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Forests and Woodlands: Midwestern D
Page 90 and 91:
Forests and Woodlands: Midwestern D
Page 92 and 93:
Forests and Woodlands: Midwestern M
Page 94 and 95:
Forests and Woodlands: Appalachian
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Forests and Woodlands: Interior Hig
Page 104 and 105:
Savannas and Non-Rock Barrens: Midw
Page 106 and 107:
Savannas and Non-Rock Barrens: Midw
Page 108 and 109:
Prairies/Grasslands: Midwestern San
Page 110 and 111:
Prairies/Grasslands: Midwestern Thi
Page 112 and 113:
Prairies/Grasslands: Midwestern Dee
show all

Ohio subset of Plant Communities of the Midwest ... - NatureServe

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?