|
|
Title: Classification of Vegetation Communities of Maryland
Classification of Vegetation
Communities of Maryland: First Iteration
A Subset of the International Classification of Ecological
Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the United States
March 2004
Introduction
Background of the National Vegetation Classification
The
purpose of the classification system is to provide a complete standardized
listing and description of all vegetation types that represent the variation in
biological diversity at the community level, and to identify those communities
that require protection (Grossman et al. 1994). The classification system
focuses on existing vegetation rather than potential natural vegetation, “climax
vegetation” or physical habitats. The vegetation types described in the
classification range from the ephemeral to the stable and persistent.
Recognizing and accommodating this variation is fundamental in protecting
biological diversity. A classification that is not restricted to static
vegetation types ensures that the units are useful both for inventory/site
description, and as the basis for building dynamic ecological models. The
classification will be consistent throughout the United States and elsewhere at
appropriate scales for conservation planning, the management and long-term
monitoring of ecological communities and ecosystems, and will have applications
as a vegetation data layer in landscape and ecosystem characterization.
The national vegetation classification includes all existing
vegetation, whether natural or cultural, but the Maryland Natural Heritage
Program has emphasized vegetation types that are considered "natural" since they
are the focus of biodiversity conservation. Therefore, this document is limited
to types classified as natural and semi-natural vegetation. All natural
vegetation types occur spontaneously without regular human management,
maintenance, or planting, and generally have a strong component of native
species. Natural types include a range of naturalness, namely, "natural
(narrowly defined)," "semi-natural" and "modified" vegetation, which together
reflect differences in the natural and anthropogenic disturbance regimes, but
all types have a strong component of native species (see below). Natural
vegetation, narrowly defined, includes plant communities that appear not to have
been modified by human activities. The term semi-natural can include "plant
communities where the structure of vegetation has been changed through human
activities, but where the species composition is natural" (van der Maarel and
Klötzli 1996), though some authors would restrict it to "vegetation in which the
dominant or constant species are undoubtedly native species and the structure of
the vegetation conforms to the structure of presumed natural vegetation" (Birks
1996). The first definition allows for more deviation from a strictly natural
condition. Regardless, the use of the term "natural" in this classification is
broadly inclusive. Apart from this broad distinction, issues of naturalness are
dealt with through a quality ranking process of actual community occurrences
rather than through classification concepts.
The National Vegetation Classification is a combination of
physiognomic and florisitic systems. It has been developed for terrestrial
vegetation; that is, all upland terrestrial vegetation and all wetland
vegetation with rooted vascular plants. In relation to Cowardin
et al. (1979),
terrestrial as defined here includes those portions of the palustrine,
lacustrine, riverine, estuarine, and marine systems that have rooted vegetation.
Classification of this vegetation (i.e.
the Terrestrial System) is distinct from that of
unvegetated deep-water habitats (Freshwater and Marine Systems) and unvegetated
subterranean habitats (Subterranean System), all of which will have their own
classification systems (e.g.
Lammert et al.
1997). The rationale for coupling physiognomic and
floristic systems has developed over many years (e.g., Rubel 1930, Whitaker
1962, Ellenberg 1963, Webb et al.
1970, Westhoff 1967, Beard 1973, Werger and Spangers
1982, Borhidi 1991). These studies have found a good correlation between
floristics and physiognomic classifications of the same vegetation. In the
United States, Driscoll et al.
(1984) recommended the development of a joint system using
the physiognomic units of UNESCO (1973) and the floristic units of habitat
types, of which an example has been provided by Dick-Peddie (1993) for New
Mexico. Vankat (1990) developed a physiognomic-dominance type classification for
forest types in North America. Strong
et al. (1990) in Canada also proposed a combined
physiognomic-floristic approach.
The combined physiognomic/floristic system used here allows
identification of units from both a "top-down" (divisive) and "bottom-up"
(agglomerative) approach. The top-down approach allows the use of physiographic
distinctions to help map vegetation, to stratify sampling, and to delimit
vegetation units where floristic information is lacking. A bottom-up approach
employs plot sampling and floristic analysis as the primary means for defining
associations. Where physiognomy is variable, the bottom-up approach can also be
used to help to determine the important physiognomic distinctions. The
relationships between physiognomy and floristics are not always simple; when
they do not correspond, precedent may be given to the floristic relationships
over the physiognomic structure. The basic unit of inventory, the plant
association or community element, is uniform in structure, composition, and
habitat. The uniformity of the plant community makes the comparison and
identification of protection priorities more objective than would be possible at
more heterogeneous scales. The plant association is a suitable unit for
conservation planning because it encompasses all the layers of vegetation in a
stand, reflects ecological and human-caused processes including management
activities, and is a repeating unit in different landscapes. From a site-based
perspective, there may be many different community types at a given location. In
fact, it is relatively rare that a site contains only a single community type.
However, community elements tend to combine in predictable ways to create
repeatable landscape mosaics. Thus, the particular mosaic of community elements
present at a site and their distribution across the landscape provide
information that is fundamental to any type of ecological land management.
THE VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (THE HIERARCHY)
SYSTEM LEVEL
The top division of the classification hierarchy separates
vegetated communities (Terrestrial System) from those of unvegetated deepwater
habitats (Aquatic System) and unvegetated subterranean habitats (Subterranean
System). The Terrestrial System of the national hierarchy is broadly defined and
includes vegetation of uplands as well as emergent and rooted submerged
vegetation of lakes, ponds, rivers, and marine shorelines. It includes, then,
the portions of the Cowardin et al.
(1979) palustrine, lacustrine, riverine, estuarine, and marine systems that have
rooted vegetation. Communities of the Aquatic System lack rooted vegetation and
are generally dominated by fish or invertebrates or floating vegetation. The
Aquatic System includes non-vegetated (faunal) and vegetated communities and the
Cowardin et al.
(1979) marine, estuarine, riverine, and lacustrine systems beyond the limits of
rooted vegetation. The Subterranean System includes terrestrial cave communities
which are generally dominated by fauna. There are different hierarchical
divisions below each of the three Systems. The hierarchy for the Terrestrial
System is now complete (Grossman et
al. 1998). It has seven levels: the five highest
levels are physiognomic (physiognomic class, physiognomic subclass, formation
group, formation subgroup, and formation) and the two lowest levels are
floristic (alliance and community association). The hierarchical levels of the
Aquatic and Subterranean Systems are in development. The levels of the
classification system below the System level are listed in Figure 1 below, and
described in the following sections (see also Table 1).
FIGURE 1. Vegetation Classification System
|
|
|
SYSTEM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
CLASS |
|
|
| |
|
|
SUBCLASS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GROUP |
|
|
Physiognomic levels |
|
|
FORMATION |
|
|
|
Floristic levels |
|
|
ALLIANCE |
|
|
PLANT ASSOCIATION |
PHYSIOGNOMIC LEVELS
The
physiognomic portion of the Conservancy’s classification hierarchy is a
modification of the UNESCO world physiognomic classification of vegetation
(1973) and incorporates some of the revisions made by Driscoll et al.
(1984) for the United States. The UNESCO vegetation classification system used
physiognomy (outward appearance) and structure of the vegetation to define the
units. It was intended to provide a comprehensive framework for the preparation
of vegetation maps at a scale of 1:1,000,000 or smaller. The system was designed
to include all natural and semi-natural vegetation, and excluded modified or
“cultural” vegetation (wheat fields, vineyards, etc.). The UNESCO hierarchy is
fairly complex, and little information is provided that explains the criteria
used to define each of the four hierarchical levels. The same criteria are
sometimes used at different levels to define the units. The Conservancy modified
the UNESCO system to improve the consistency and clarity of the classification
hierarchy while maintaining its ecological meaning, and to make it applicable
for classification and mapping at scales of 1:24,000 or larger. To improve the
classification of wetland formations, the Conservancy further modified the
UNESCO system by including more explicit hydrologic modifiers at the formation
level. The hydrologic modifiers introduced by Cowardin
et al.
(1979) were chosen since these have been used extensively to map wetlands across
the United States. However, these also were modified before inclusion into the
hierarchy.
Physiognomic
class
The physiognomic class is based
on the structure (see Figure 2) of the vegetation. This is determined by the
height and relative percentage of cover of the dominant life-forms: tree, shrub,
dwarf-shrub, herbaceous and nonvascular. This level has seven mutually exclusive
classes: forest, woodland, shrubland, dwarf-shrubland, herbaceous vegetation,
nonvascular vegetation, and sparse vegetation.
Figure 2. Physiognomic Class Structure
|
Forest |
Trees with their crowns overlapping (generally forming 60
percent to 100 percent cover) |
|
Woodland |
Open stands of trees with crowns not usually touching
(generally forming 25 percent to 60 percent cover) |
|
Shrubland |
Shrubs generally greater than 0.5 meters tall with
individuals or clumps overlapping to not touching (generally forming greater
than 25 percent cover). Vegetation dominated by woody vines is generally
treated in this class. |
|
Dwarf-shrubland |
Low-growing shrubs, usually less than 0.5 meters tall, with
individuals or clumps to not touching (generally forming greater than 25
percent cover, with trees and tall shrubs generally forming less than 25
percent cover) |
|
Herbaceous |
Herbaceous plants dominant (generally forming at least 25
percent cover, with trees, shrubs, and dwarf-shrubs generally forming less
than 25 percent cover) |
|
Nonvascular |
Nonvascular cover (bryophytes, non-crustose lichens, and
algae) dominant (generally forming at least 25 percent cover) |
|
Sparse Vegetation |
Abiotic substrate features dominant. Vegetation is scattered
to nearly absent and generally restricted to areas of concentrated resources
(total vegetation typically forming less than 25 percent cover) |
Physiognomic subclass
The physiognomic subclass is
determined by the predominant leaf phenology of classes defined by a tree, shrub
or dwarf-shrub stratum (evergreen, deciduous, mixed evergreen-deciduous), the
persistence and growth form of herbaceous and nonvascular vegetation, and
particle size of the substrate for sparse vegetation (e.g., consolidated rocks,
gravel/cobble). Examples include: Evergreen forest, Deciduous forest, Deciduous
shrubland, Perennial graminoid vegetation, Consolidated rock sparse vegetation.
Group
The group (or formation group) generally represents a grouping
of vegetation units based on leaf characters, such as broad-leaf, needle-leaf,
microphyllous, and xeromorphic. These units are identified and named with
broadly defined macroclimatic types to provide a structural-geographic
orientation, but the ecological climate terms do not define the groups per se. Examples include: Temperate or
subpolar needle-leaved evergreen forest, Cold-deciduous forest, Cold-deciduous
shrubland, Temperate or subpolar grassland, Sparsely vegetated cliffs.
Subgroup
The subgroup (or formation subgroup) represents a distinction
between natural vegetation, including natural, semi-natural and some modified
vegetation, and cultural vegetation (planted/cultivated). Each formation is
divided into either a natural subformation group or a cultural subformation
group. The classification presented here only includes planted/cultivated
subgroups in some (forested) classes. Examples include: Natural temperate and
subpolar needle-leaved evergreen forest; Cultural temperate and subpolar
needle-leaved evergreen forest (e.g.,
pine and spruce plantations)
Formation
The formation represents a grouping of community types that
share a definite physiognomy or structure and broadly defined environmental
factors, such as elevation and hydrologic regime. Structural factors such as
crown shape and lifeform of the dominant lower stratum are used in addition to
the physiognomic characters already specified at the higher levels. The
hydrologic regime modifiers were adapted from Cowardin et al. (1979; see Appendix IV), and are
somewhat more explicit in defining vegetation units. With or without an
organized hierarchy as presented here, the formation is a widely used vegetation
concept (Whittaker 1962, Schrader-Frechette and McCoy 1993). Examples include:
Rounded-crowned temperate or subpolar needle-leaved evergreen forest, Seasonally
flooded cold-deciduous forest, Semipermanently flooded cold-deciduous shrubland,
Tall sod temperate grassland, Cliffs with sparse vascular vegetation.
FLORISTIC LEVELS
Alliance
The alliance is a physiognomically uniform group of plant
associations (see below) sharing one or more diagnostic species (dominant,
differential, indicator or character), which, as a rule, are found in the
dominant and/or uppermost strata of the vegetation (see Mueller-Dombois and
Ellenberg 1974). The alliance level includes existing (not just "climax" or
potential) vegetation types.
The concept of an alliance is similar to a "cover type." An
alliance is equivalent to a cover type when the dominant species also have
diagnostic value. The alliance may be finer than a cover type when the dominant
species extend over large geographic areas and varied environmental conditions
especially when a diagnostic species occurs in different climate zones or in
both upland and wetland situation. The concept for the alliance is also similar
to the concept of the "series." Alliances, however, are described by the
diagnostic species for all existing vegetation types, whereas series are
restricted to climax types and are described by the primary dominant species
(see Pfister and Arno 1980). Examples include:
- PICEA RUBENS SATURATED FOREST ALLIANCE
- FAGUS GRANDIFOLIA - QUERCUS RUBRA -
QUERCUS ALBA FOREST ALLIANCE
- ACER NEGUNDO TEMPORARILY FLOODED FOREST
ALLIANCE
- CHAMAECYPARIS THYOIDES SEASONALLY
FLOODED WOODLAND ALLIANCE
- MORELLA CERIFERA SATURATED SHRUBLAND
ALLIANCE
- HUDSONIA TOMENTOSA DWARF-SHRUBLAND
ALLIANCE
- CAREX HYALINOLEPIS TIDAL HERBACEOUS
ALLIANCE
- JUSTICIA AMERICANA TEMPORARILY FLOODED
HERBACEOUS ALLIANCE
Association
The association (or plant association) is the finest level of
the classification system. For the terrestrial system, plant association is
defined as "a plant community of definite floristic composition, presenting a
uniform physiognomy, and growing in uniform habitat conditions" (Flahault and
Schroter 1910). This basic concept has been used by most schools of vegetation
classification (Whittaker 1962, Braun-Blanquet 1965, Westhoff and van der Maarel
1978). In this traditional sense, the plant association concept applies to
existing vegetation regardless of successional status. The concept of an
association is also used in habitat type methodology developed by Daubenmire
(1952), but in that system it is restricted to climax or late seral vegetation (Pfister
and Arno 1980).
The plant association is differentiated from the alliance level
by additional plant species, found in any stratum, which indicate finer scale
environmental patterns and disturbance regimes. This level is derived from
analyzing complete floristic composition of the vegetation unit when plot data
are available. In the absence of a complete data set, approximation of this
level is reached by using available information on the dominant species or
environmental modifiers, and their hypothesized indicator species. The
Conservancy will primarily use the plant association as the level at which
community inventory and conservation action are aimed.
While this definition of a plant association is still generally
accepted as an international standard, a few clarifications of the use of the
definition for the classification system may be helpful:
- "Habitat" refers to the combination of
environmental conditions and ecological processes influencing the community.
- Uniformity of physiognomy and habitat
conditions may include patterned heterogeneity (e.g., hummock/hollow).
- As a rule, community elements occur
repeatedly over the natural landscape.
- The scale of the community element
varies. Among other factors, the variation is determined by the size and
apparent homogeneity of the occurrences across the landscape, the amount of
data that has been collected and the interpretation of these data by the field
experts.
- The community element may be composed of
a complex of plant associations that constitutes a functioning ecological unit
if the plant associations always occur together (e.g., prairie pothole, wooded
dune and swale complex).
A few examples include:
- Picea rubens - (Tsuga canadensis) /
Rhododendron maximum Saturated Forest
- Acer saccharum - Betula alleghaniensis -
Prunus serotina Forest
- Quercus (falcata, alba, velutina) /
Gaylussacia baccata - Vaccinium pallidum Forest
- Morella cerifera - Rosa palustris /
Thelypteris palustris var. pubescens Shrubland
- Hudsonia tomentosa / Panicum amarum var.
amarulum Dwarf-shrubland
- Calamagrostis canadensis - Phalaris
arundinacea Herbaceous Vegetation
- Cakile edentula ssp. edentula -
Chamaesyce polygonifolia Sparse Vegetation
TABLE 1. Illustration of the Classification System Hierarchy.
|
Class |
Forest |
Woodland |
Shrubland |
|
Subclass |
Deciduous Forest |
Evergreen Woodland |
Evergreen Shrubland |
|
Group |
Cold-deciduous Forest |
Temperate or Subpolar Needle-leaved Evergreen Woodland
|
Temperate Broad-leaved Evergreen Shrubland |
|
Subgroup |
Natural/Semi-natural |
Natural/Semi-natural |
Natural/Semi-natural |
|
Formation |
Lowland or Submontane Cold-deciduous Forest |
Rounded-crowned temperate or Subpolar Needle-leaved
Evergreen Woodland |
Tidal Broad-leaved Evergreen Temperate Shrubland
|
|
Alliance |
Fagus grandifolia – Quercus rubra – Quercus alba Forest
Alliance |
Pinus pungens – (Pinus rigida) Woodland Alliance
|
Morella cerifera – Rosa palustris Tidal Shrubland
Alliance |
|
Association |
Fagus grandifolia – Quercus alba – Liriodendron tulipifera –
Carya spp. Forest |
Pinus (pungens, rigida) / Quercus ilicifolia / Gaylussacia
baccata Woodland |
Morella cerifera – Rosa palustris / Thelypteris palustris
var. pubescens tidal shrubland |
|