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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• The Other Synonymy field provides names and references from the literature that were used to help describe the association. These are typically references describing a type that is quite similar to the USNVC association. Codes are used to show the relationship of each synonym to the USNVC type: B the type is more broadly defined than the USNVC type F 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 • Finally, the USNVC Hierarchy field provides the alliance name and the alliance code for the level above the association in the USNVC hierarchy. Box 1. Summary of information used in the association descriptions. Global Community Name (scientific): scientific name for a community Global Community Name (translated) : common species names Ecological Group Level 2: Ecological Group Level 4 Global Common Name: A commonly used, more colloquial, name for a type. Code (CEGL00xxxx) for the USNVC DESCRIPTION: This is a summary of three key components of the community type description (each in its own paragraph): a vegetation summary, an environmental summary, and, where available, a summary of the dynamics and natural disturbances of the community. COMMENTS: #, ABI Region Code. Classification Comments. The number gives the classification confidence, on a scale of 1 (strong confidence) to 3 (weak confidence). The ABI Region code is the regional team that has responsibility for maintaining the classification of the type. The classification comments discuss issues relating to the classification of the type. CONSERVATION RANK: Global Rank: Reasons. The global rank assesses the relative rarity of the association across its entire range on a scale of 1 to 5: G1 (critically imperiled); G2 (imperiled); G3 (vulnerable); G4 (apparently secure); G5 (secure). G and GU indicate that the association is not yet ranked or is considered unrankable, respectively. A ”” indicates the rank is somewhat uncertain and a range rank (e.g., G2G3) indicates an even higher degree of uncertainty. A ”Q” indicates that the taxonomy of the type is in question, and, if resolved, may result in a less imperiled rank. DISTRIBUTION: Distribution of the type is briefly summarized across its entire range. USFS ECOREGIONS: Distribution of the type across its entire range is summarized using the U.S. Forest Service ECOMAP Ecological Land Classification, giving province, section, and subsection codes, and the confidence of assignment to that region (C = 95% confidence, P = 80-95% confident, = 10-80% confident). (See Plate 11.) Example: 212He:CP indicates that the type is confidently believed to occur in province 212, probably occurs in section 212H , and might occur in subsection 212He. CONSERVATION REGIONS: Distribution of the type across its entire range is given for The Nature Conservancy ecoregional planning units, which are numbered from 1-64, followed by a confidence code (see details above under USFS Ecoregions). (See Plate 12.) STATES, PROVINCES: Distribution of each type is given for states and provinces in the United States and Canada. MIDWEST HERITAGE SYNONYMY: The name used by the state classification is provided for the eight states in the Midwest using an independent state classification (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin). A symbol (+, -, =, I) indicates whether the state type is broader than, finer than, equivalent to, or intersects in a complex manner, respectively. OTHER SYNONYMY: A selected cross-walk to names used in other classifications that have helped described this type. USNVC HIERARCHY: The alliance name and the alliance code are provided for the level above the association in the USNVC hierarchy. PLANT COMMUNITIES OF THE MIDWEST – 2001. APPENDIX: ASSOCIATION DESCRIPTIONS 4
Box 2. State Natural Heritage program classifications in the Midwest The citations listed below are the primary sources of information for the individual state classifications in the Midwest. For those states that maintain an independent state classification, the state community names are reported in the Midwest Heritage Synonymy field in the association description. ILLINOIS: White, J. and M. Madany. 1978. Classification of natural communities in Illinois. Pages 311-405 in: Natural areas inventory technical report. Volume I. Survey methods and results. Illinois Natural Areas Inventory, Urbana. [Some revisions have been made to this classification, and those changes are reported here.] INDIANA: Homoya, M. A., J. Aldrich, J. Bacone, L. Casebere, and T. Post. 1988. Indiana natural community classification. Indiana Natural Heritage Program, Indianapolis. Unpublished manuscript. [This classification is in draft form. The names used in our association descriptions are sometimes based on possible or proposed changes still under review by the Natural Heritage program.] IOWA: [No published version of the Iowa state classification exists, but the state Natural Heritage Program is using the USNVC classification directly.] KANSAS: Lauver, C.L., K. Kindscher, D. Faber-Langendoen, and R. Schneider. 1999. A classification of the natural vegetation of Kansas. Southwestern Naturalist 44:421-443. [This state classification is directly compatible with the USNVC, using the same hierarchy and association units.] MICHIGAN: Chapman, K. A., D. A. Albert, and G. A. Reese. 1989. Draft descriptions of Michigan's natural community types. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing. [The state classification is under review. Some types have been added or changed based on a 1997 draft by Pat Comer and Dennis Albert, and the changes are reflected in our association descriptions. Further revisions are under review.] MINNESOTA: Minnesota Natural Heritage Program. 1993. Minnesota’s native vegetation: A key to natural communities. Version 1.5. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Biological Report No. 20. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul. [The names reported in our association descriptions are taken directly from this publication, with only a few proposed modifications that are still under review. The state expects to complete a major revision of the state classification in 2001.] MISSOURI: Nelson, P. 1985. The terrestrial natural communities of Missouri. Missouri Natural Areas Committee, Jefferson City. (Reprinted in 1987). [The names used in our association description are taken directly from this publication, with only a few modifications.] NEBRASKA: Steinauer, G. and S. Rolfsmeier. 2000. Terrestrial natural communities of Nebraska. Unpublished Report of the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Lincoln. [This draft is still undergoing revision, but all natural community types are linked to USNVC associations. In almost all cases the natural community type and the association unit are directly equivalent. The state is using its own hierarchy to organize the types.] NORTH DAKOTA: [At this time the North Dakota Natural Heritage Program is using the USNVC directly. Once a review has been completed, state-specific revisions will be made.] OHIO: Anderson, D.M. 1982. Plant communities of Ohio: A preliminary classification and description. Ohio Natural Heritage Program, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus. Unpublished manuscript. [Substantial revisions to this classification have been made by both Anderson and by G. Schneider of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, and these are partly reflected in the names reported here.] SOUTH DAKOTA: [At this time the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program is using the USNVC directly. Once a review has been completed, state specific revisions will be made.] WISCONSIN: Curtis, J.T. 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin: An ordination of plant communities. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. [Substantial revisions to this classification have been made by Eric Epstein of the Wisconsin Natural Heritage Program, and these are partly reflected in the names reported here.] PLANT COMMUNITIES OF THE MIDWEST – 2001. APPENDIX: ASSOCIATION DESCRIPTIONS 5
Page 1 and 2: PLANT COMMUNITIES OF THE MIDWEST CL
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS APPENDIX: PLANT COMMUNITY
Page 5 and 6: OVERVIEW APPENDIX: PLANT COMMUNITY
Page 7: − The USFS (U.S. Forest Service)
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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?