Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway
Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway
Quercus rubra / Polypodium virginianum Woodland (CEGL006320 ECS) — G3G5LNP SUGGESTED NAME: Quercus rubra – Betula alleghaniensis / Polypodium virginianumWoodlandRed Oak / Eastern Rockcap Fern Woodland[Red Oak Talus Slope Woodland]Description: Open, bouldery, acidic talus slope woodlands in the Northern Appalachian and Lower New England /Northern Piedmont ecoregions. Habitat (large talus and boulders) rather than geography differentiates this associationfrom Quercus rubra / Vaccinium spp. / Deschampsia flexuosa Woodland (CEGL006134). Ericads generally lacking, vinesand ferns more characteristic. Common associates are species of Corydalis, Woodsia, Dryopteris as well asParthenocissus quinquefolia, Polypodium virginianum, Tsuga canadensis, Pinus strobus. 6/98 NAP Very open tomoderately closed canopy, heterogeneous composition of Quercus rubra, Acer saccharum, Betula nigra, Betulaalleghaniensis, Betula papyrifera, Betula populifolia, Fagus grandifolia, Acer rubrum. Scattered and clumped tallshrubs/small trees include Acer spicatum, Acer pensylvanicum, Rubus spp., Viburnum acerifolium (occasional), Ribesspp. Prevalent component of vines are Parthenocissus quinquefolia, Parthenocissus vitacea, Toxicodendron radicans,Celastrus scandens, Polygonum cilinode. Scattered ferns and herbs are Dryopteris marginalis, Polypodium virginianum,Pteridium aquilinum, Carex pensylvanica, Corydalis sempervirens (localized), Solidago bicolor, Solidago caesia, andothers. Acidic talus slopes of low-elevation valleys. Substrate is bouldery talus derived form acidic bedrock. Elevationrange is roughly 500-2000 feet. Groundcover is exposed talus, moss-covered boulders and deciduous litter.LNP Scale: Small to large patch Distribution: LimitedTNC Ecoregions: 61:C, 62:C, 63:CReferences:State SRank State NameCT S?MA S4 Acidic Talus Forest / Woodland+ME S3 Acidic Talus+NH S? Red oak-black birch/marginal woodfern talus forest/woodlandNJ? SPNY S? Acidic talus slope woodlandVT S3 Transition Hardwood Talus Woodland+Quercus rubra / Vaccinium spp. / Deschampsia flexuosa Woodland (CEGL006134 ECS) — G3G5LNP SUGGESTED NAME: Quercus rubra – Quercus prinus / Vaccinium spp. / Deschampsia flexuosaWoodlandRed Oak / Blueberry species / Wavy Hairgrass Woodland[Central Appalachian High Elevation Red Oak Woodland]Description: Dry, open, rocky slope or summit woodlands in the Northern Appalachian, Lower New England / NorthernPiedmont and Central Appalachians ecoregions. Open, stunted to somewhat closed canopy of Quercus rubra. Quercusprinus may be codominant. Common associates are Quercus alba, Betula lenta and Acer rubrum with minor componentof Quercus velutina, Betula populifolia, Betula papyrifera and Pinus rigida. Tall-shrub layer is often lacking but may includeAcer spicatum, Sambucus racemosa, Rhus typhina, Kalmia latifolia, Hamamelis virginiana, Viburnum nudum var.cassinoides, Rhododendron spp. Ericaceous shrubs and graminoids are characteristic. Well-developed low-shrub cover ofVaccinium angustifolium, Vaccinium pallidum, Gaylussacia baccata, Kalmia angustifolia. Scattered grasses includeDeschampsia flexuosa, Danthonia spicata, Carex pensylvanica, and herbs include Gaultheria procumbens, Aralianudicaulis. Herbs: Pteridium aquilinum, Aralia nudicaulis, Maianthemum canadense, Aster acuminatus, Corydalissempervirens, Deschampsia flexuosa, Carex pensylvanica, Polypodium virginianum. Environmental setting: Talus slopes,rocky slopes and summits of low, moderate or high elevations. Soils are shallow, well-drained, nutrient-poor acidic gravelsand coarse sands. Exposed bedrock prominent. Grades into Quercus prinus Forest, Pinus rigida woodlands or sparselyvegetated rocky summits (Pinus strobus, Quercus rubra) / Danthonia spicata Sparsely Wooded Herbaceous VegetationCEGL005101.LNP Scale: Small patch or large patch?Distribution: WidespreadTNC Ecoregions: 59:C, 61:?, 62:C, 63:CReferences: Thompson and Sorenson 2000State SRank State NameCT S?DE S?MA S4 Ridgetop Chestnut oak Forest / WoodlandME S1 chestnut oak woodland=NH S? Appalachian oak – pine Forest+ and Red oak – pine / heath rocky ridge woodland+NY S? pitch pine oak heath rocky summit+PA S? Dry oak-heath woodlandVA? SPVT S2 Dry oak woodlandWV S?REVISED 7/2003COMM-16
Results for Terrestrial Communities and Systems *Modification to Standard MethodThe selection and exact spatial arrangement of the target element occurrences was left tothe understanding and judgment of the state Heritage Programs, TNC Field Offices, andother partners with guidance offered by the community working group. However, it isnoteworthy that this has also allowed states to select for the portfolio occurrences that donot appear to meet established size, condition, or landscape context criteria. Theconsequence has been that the portfolio contains an excess number of occurrences forsome community types, some of which do not meet their minimum viability criteria.Occurrences with questionable viability were also selected for community associationsthat did not meet their goals, with the understanding that 1) the database records be editedto reflect the new and improved viability information, and 2) certain portfolio sites mayneed to be removed in the future if the portfolio goal can be met with better, more viable,occurrences. In short, there is a mixed degree of confidence that all the community sitesselected should or will remain in the portfolio. An improved process is required tomaintain suitably conservative viability standards and a scientifically rigorous portfoliowhile still allowing states the opportunity to select which occurrences should become apart of the portfolio.Community classificationIn developing the Lower New England – Northern Piedmont Classification (Lundgren etal, 2000) an initial list of approximately 200 vegetation associations was selected aspotentially occurring in the ecoregion based on known or suspected ranges of eachassociation. Following review, a number of types were determined not to occur in theecoregion or were not deemed as recognizable or distinct associations. One addition wasdescribed and several new types were proposed for further study. The result was a total of153 NVC (National Vegetation Classification) associations currently described withinthis ecoregion with an additional 7 more to be defined with additional classification andinventory in the future. A total of 107 NVC Alliances (broader than association level)were represented: 40% Forests (>60% cover of trees), 14% Woodlands (30-60% treecover), 12% Shrublands, and 34% Herbaceous types.The revised National Vegetation Classification associations were not available for theanalysis of documented community occurrences in LNE-NP during this stage of theassessment process. Therefore, to coordinate community occurrences across state lines,conduct an assessment of occurrence viability, and set goals, all community occurrencesin the database were assigned to one of seventeen ecological groups which are listed inTable 4.* Anderson, M.G. and S.L. Bernstein (editors). 2003. Results for terrestrial communities and systems .Based on Barbour, H. 2001. Lower New England – Northern Piedmont Ecoregional Conservation Plan;First Iteration. The Nature Conservancy, Conservation Science Support, Northeast & Caribbean Division,Boston, MA.COMM-RESULTS-1
- Page 1 and 2: Lower New England - Northern Piedmo
- Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTSCOVERINTRODUCTIONA
- Page 5 and 6: IntroductionEcoregional Planning in
- Page 7 and 8: AcknowledgementsEdited Version and
- Page 9 and 10: combinations based on surficial geo
- Page 11 and 12: Priorities and Leadership Assignmen
- Page 13 and 14: Portfolio SummaryA total of 1,028 s
- Page 15 and 16: each local population with respect
- Page 17 and 18: potential target list for future co
- Page 19 and 20: iteration ecoregional plans, specie
- Page 21 and 22: RESULTS FOR SPECIES *Modification t
- Page 23 and 24: documented in BCD making analysis v
- Page 25 and 26: PLANNING METHODS FOR ECOREGIONAL TA
- Page 27 and 28: sandy outwash and forested swamps a
- Page 29 and 30: and distribution pattern for each e
- Page 31 and 32: disproportionately large percentage
- Page 33 and 34: to that ecoregion alone. Those syst
- Page 35 and 36: Locating examples of patch-forming
- Page 37 and 38: systems. Conversely, high elevation
- Page 39: The minimum goals based on generic
- Page 43 and 44: Table 6. Minimum conservation bench
- Page 45 and 46: • The National Vegetation Classif
- Page 47 and 48: of ecoregions, from the Northern Ap
- Page 49 and 50: How much larger than the severe dam
- Page 51 and 52: Scaling factors for Matrix Forest S
- Page 53 and 54: Roads are also source areas for noi
- Page 55 and 56: ungulates. We simply discussed thes
- Page 57 and 58: conservation plan must be done to r
- Page 59 and 60: position, its geology and its eleva
- Page 61 and 62: this block, miles of streams, dams
- Page 63 and 64: Connecting Area or Ecological Backd
- Page 65 and 66: MATRIX SITE:NAME:STATE/S:SIZE:Total
- Page 67 and 68: Block developmentTwo sets of ecoblo
- Page 69 and 70: Table 12. A description of the elev
- Page 71 and 72: There are 27 ELU types entirely mis
- Page 73 and 74: Freshwater Ecoregions and Ecologica
- Page 75 and 76: classes: size 1) headwaters to smal
- Page 77 and 78: Figure 2: Watershed Aquatic System
- Page 79 and 80: targets should also include conside
- Page 81 and 82: have also not been extensively rese
- Page 83 and 84: Table 5: Confidence Code1 High Conf
- Page 85 and 86: TYPECHARACTERISTICSELU signatureSIZ
- Page 87 and 88: Midreach streamentering large lakes
- Page 89 and 90: Major stresses: Using the following
Results for Terrestrial Communities and Systems *Modification to Standard MethodThe selection and exact spatial arrangement of the target element occurrences was left tothe understanding and judgment of the state Heritage Programs, TNC Field Offices, andother partners with guidance offered by the community working group. However, it isnoteworthy that this has also allowed states to select for the portfolio occurrences that donot appear to meet established size, condition, or landscape context criteria. Theconsequence has been that the portfolio contains an excess number of occurrences forsome community types, some of which do not meet their minimum viability criteria.Occurrences with questionable viability were also selected for community associationsthat did not meet their goals, with the understanding that 1) the database records be editedto reflect the new and improved viability information, and 2) certain portfolio sites mayneed to be removed in the future if the portfolio goal can be met with better, more viable,occurrences. In short, there is a mixed degree of confidence that all the community sitesselected should or will remain in the portfolio. An improved process is required tomaintain suitably conservative viability standards and a scientifically rigorous portfoliowhile still allowing states the opportunity to select which occurrences should become apart of the portfolio.Community classificationIn developing the Lower New England – Northern Piedmont Classification (Lundgren etal, 2000) an initial list of approximately 200 vegetation associations was selected aspotentially occurring in the ecoregion based on known or suspected ranges of eachassociation. Following review, a number of types were determined not to occur in theecoregion or were not deemed as recognizable or distinct associations. One addition wasdescribed and several new types were proposed for further study. The result was a total of153 NVC (National Vegetation Classification) associations currently described withinthis ecoregion with an additional 7 more to be defined with additional classification andinventory in the future. A total of 107 NVC Alliances (broader than association level)were represented: 40% Forests (>60% cover of trees), 14% Woodlands (30-60% treecover), 12% Shrublands, and 34% Herbaceous types.The revised National Vegetation Classification associations were not available for theanalysis of documented community occurrences in LNE-NP during this stage of theassessment process. Therefore, to coordinate community occurrences across state lines,conduct an assessment of occurrence viability, and set goals, all community occurrencesin the database were assigned to one of seventeen ecological groups which are listed inTable 4.* Anderson, M.G. and S.L. Bernstein (editors). 2003. Results for terrestrial communities and systems .Based on Barbour, H. 2001. Lower New England – Northern Piedmont Ecoregional <strong>Conservation</strong> Plan;First Iteration. The Nature Conservancy, <strong>Conservation</strong> Science Support, Northeast & Caribbean Division,Boston, MA.COMM-RESULTS-1
Change language