PLANT COMMUNITIES MIDWEST OF THE CLASSIFICATION IN AN ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT A : P C PPENDIX LANT OMMUNITY (A ) D SSOCIATION ESCRIPTIONS Don Faber-Langendoen, Editor A contribution to the U.S. National Vegetation Classification and International Classification of Ecological Communities PLANT COMMUNITIES OF THE MIDWEST CLASSIFICATION IN AN ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT APPENDIX: PLANT COMMUNITY (ASSOCIATION) DESCRIPTIONS Editor: Don Faber-Langendoen Association for Biodiversity Information Contributors: Norman Aaseng Minnesota County Biological Survey Dennis Albert Michigan Natural Features Inventory Pat Comer1 Michigan Natural Features Inventory Robert Dana Minnesota Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Jim Drake Association for Biodiversity Information Hannah Dunevitz Minnesota Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Eric Epstein Wisconsin Natural Heritage Program Mike Homoya Indiana Natural Heritage Program Max Hutchison The Nature Conservancy, Illinois Field Office Kelly Kindscher Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory Chris Lauver Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory Mike Leahy Missouri Department of Conservation Darla Lenz 2 North Dakota Natural Heritage Inventory Bill McClain Illinois Natural Heritage Division Shannon Menard Association for Biodiversity Information Tim Nigh Missouri Department of Conservation Dave Ode South Dakota Natural Heritage Database John Pearson Iowa Natural Areas Inventory Kurt Rusterholz Minnesota Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Greg Schneider Ohio Department of Natural Resources Rick Schneider Nebraska Natural Heritage Program Kristin Snow Association for Biodiversity Information Gerry Steinauer Nebraska Natural Heritage Program 1Currently with The Nature Conservancy, Western Conservation Science Center 2Currently with the USDA Forest Service, Region 1, Dakota National Grasslands A contribution to the U.S. NATIONAL VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION and INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES Association for Biodiversity Information in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy ISBN 0-9711053-0-8  2001 Association for Biodiversity Information Cover Photos: The larger inset photo shows a summer view of Central Mesic Tallgrass Prairie grading into Central Bur Oak Openings. The site is along a railroad right-of-way at Carlinville Prairie in Macoupin County, Illinois. The smaller inset photo is of a winter burn of the same prairie type at Sac Prairie, Cuivre River State Park, Lincoln County, Missouri. The background photo shows greater prairie chickens (Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus) mating in early spring at the Bluestem Prairie Preserve of The Nature Conservancy, western Minnesota. All photos by D. Faber-Langendoen. Citation: Faber-Langendoen, D., editor. 2001. Plant communities of the Midwest: Classification in an ecological context. Association for Biodiversity Information, Arlington, VA. 61 pp. + appendix (705 pp.). Plant Communities of the Midwest: Classification in an Ecological Context consists of a main report and this 705-page appendix. The appendix is available both as an Adobe Acrobat file and as a bound volume. The Adobe Acrobat file is provided on a CD insert on the back cover of the main report and on the internet at http://www.abi.org/publications/midwest/. The bound volume is available at cost; send requests to Heritage Data Services, Database Project Specialist, Association for Biodiversity Information, 1101 Wilson Blvd, 15th floor, Arlington, VA 22209. The CD and website also contain individual state subsets of the appendix and a copy of the main report. State subsets have the name of the state "stamped" on the title page, and do not include a cover, addendums, or bibliography (although the latter 2 items are available separately). Pagination on state subsets mirrors that of the complete appendix; thus, page numbers are not sequential. CONTENTS APPENDIX: PLANT COMMUNITY (ASSOCIATION) DESCRIPTIONS OVERVIEW.....................................................................................................................................................................1 ASSOCIATION NOMENCLATURE......................................................................................................................................6 INDEX TO ASSOCIATIONS BY ECOLOGICAL GROUP.........................................................................................................7 PLANT COMMUNITY (ASSOCIATION) DESCRIPTIONS 1.1. ACID PEATLANDS.........................................................................................................................................19 1.2. RICH PEAT FENS..........................................................................................................................................39 1.3. SEEPS...........................................................................................................................................................65 1.4. OPEN AND EMERGENT MARSHES.................................................................................................................73 1.5. WET PRAIRIES AND WET MEADOWS..........................................................................................................111 1.6. WOODED SWAMPS AND FLOODPLAINS.......................................................................................................157 2.1. SHORELINE SAND/MUD STRANDS, BEACHES AND DUNES.........................................................................241 2.2. ROCKY SHORES..........................................................................................................................................259 2.3. ROCKY UPLANDS (GLADES, ROCK BARRENS, OUTCROPS AND ALVARS)..................................................277 2.4. CLIFFS, TALUS, BUTTES AND BADLANDS..................................................................................................317 2.5. FORESTS AND WOODLANDS.......................................................................................................................363 2.6. SHRUBLANDS/DWARF-SHRUBLANDS.........................................................................................................511 2.7. SHRUB GRASSLANDS..................................................................................................................................541 2.8. SAVANNAS AND NON-ROCK BARRENS......................................................................................................551 2.9. PRAIRIES/GRASSLANDS..............................................................................................................................573 ADDENDUM I: ADDITIONAL TYPES OF UNCERTAIN STATUS IN THE MIDWEST...........................................................641 ADDENDUM II: A LIST OF ASSOCIATIONS FOR THE MIDWEST IN ORDER OF GLOBAL ELCODE...................................655 BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR DESCRIPTIONS............................................................................................................................665 PLANT COMMUNITIES OF THE MIDWEST – 2001. APPENDIX: ASSOCIATION DESCRIPTIONS i PLANT COMMUNITIES OF THE MIDWEST – 2001. APPENDIX: ASSOCIATION DESCRIPTIONS APPENDIX: PLANT COMMUNITY (ASSOCIATION) DESCRIPTIONS OVERVIEW This appendix includes all natural and semi-natural associations currently described for the Midwest.1 The concepts and development of the classification are described in the main report. The 588 associations (including 21 of uncertain status described in Addendum I) and 7 complexes are organized by ecological groups. Ecological groups are defined based on habitat, ecological processes, vegetation, and biogeography (see Chapter IV in the main report for a detailed description). The list of all associations by ecological group on page 7 provides an organizational overview, as well as page numbers for individual association descriptions. In addition, the sections for each of the 15 “Level 2” ecological groups (e.g., Acid Peatlands, Wet Prairies and Wet Meadows, Forests and Woodlands, Prairies/Grasslands) begin with a list of all the associations encompassed within them, along with page numbers for the association descriptions. Each association is then presented with its own description. The format for each description is as follows (see Box 1 for a summary of the fields): • The ecological group name is given on the top right corner of the page, in the form Level 2:Level 4. (See Chapter IV in the main report for a description of ecological groups.) • Within and directly below the lines, the various names of the association are given: first, the global scientific name; second, the translated scientific name; and third, a common name. To the right of the common name is the database code used to track the type (see Addendum II). • The Description field provides information on the vegetation characteristics of the association, followed by a paragraph on its environmental setting. Where available, information is also provided on the dynamic features of the association, including natural disturbance regimes. Vascular plant nomenclature follows the nationally standardized list of Kartesz (1999). • The Comments field first gives the level of confidence in the association, ranked from 1 (highest confidence) to 3 (lowest). The definition for each level is as follows: 1 = STRONG. Classification based on recent field data. Information is based on Element Occurrences or other data based on occurrences that can be relocated. Classification considers information collected across the entire range or potential range of the Element. Classification may be based on quantitative or qualitative data. 2 = MODERATE. Classification is based on data that is of questionable quality, limited numbers of sample points, or data from a limited range. 3 = WEAK. Classification is based on secondary or anecdotal information or a new type for which data has only been collected at a very small number of sites. The confidence level is followed by the code for the region that has responsibility for the association record in the database: MCS = Midwest ECS = East SCS = Southeast WCS = West These are the four regional centers responsible for maintaining the classification of the association and the associated database records (see Figure 3 in the main report). Thus, some associations found in the 1 State-specific subsets are also available in electronic format. See the copyright page for more information. PLANT COMMUNITIES OF THE MIDWEST – 2001. APPENDIX: ASSOCIATION DESCRIPTIONS 1 PLANT COMMUNITIES OF THE MIDWEST – 2001. APPENDIX: ASSOCIATION DESCRIPTIONS 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. 2 PLANT COMMUNITIES OF THE MIDWEST – 2001. APPENDIX: ASSOCIATION DESCRIPTIONS − 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. 3 • 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. Ecological Group Level 2: Ecological Group Level 4 Global Community Name (scientific): scientific name for a community Global Community Name (translated) : common species names 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