* limited to sites with higher soil calcium
Vascular plant nomenclature follows Rhoads and Block (2007). Bryophyte nomenclature follows Crum and Anderson (1981).

International Vegetation Classification Associations:

USNVC Crosswalk:

None

Representative Community Types:

Red Spruce / Heath / Peatmoss Woodland Swamp (CEGL006588)

NatureServe Ecological Systems:

High Allegheny Wetland (CES202.069)
North-Central Appalachian Acidic Swamp (CES202.604)

NatureServe Group Level:

None

Origin of Concept

Pennsylvania Community Code*

WS : Red Spruce Palustrine Woodland

*(DCNR 1999, Stone 2006)

Similar Ecological Communities

Red Spruce – Mixed Hardwood Palustrine Woodland and Red Spruce – Mixed Hardwood Palustrine Forest are similar in species composition and occur adjacent to each other. The main distinguishing feature is that Red Spruce – Mixed Hardwood Palustrine Forest has a canopy cover greater than 60% and Red Spruce Palustrine – Mixed Hardwood Woodland has a canopy cover less than 60%.

Fike Crosswalk

Red Spruce Palustrine Woodland

Conservation Value

This community serves as nesting habitat for songbirds such as blackburnian and black-throated green warblers and wintering habitat for many other songbirds. Rare species that may occur within Red Spruce – Mixed Hardwood Palustrine Woodland include creeping snowberry (Gaultheria hispidula), rough-leaved aster (Eurybia radula), and snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus)

Threats

Red Spruce – Mixed Hardwood Palustrine Woodlands are threatened by habitat alteration in the watersheds they occupy, nutrient input from surrounding uplands, and alterations to the hydrologic regime (beaver dams, road crossings that impede water movement, lowering or raising of water tables). Clearing and development of adjacent land can lead to an accumulation of run-off, pollution, and sedimentation. Clearing adjacent lands can also lead to vulnerability to wind damage since the trees have shallow root systems. As global climate change progresses, this community type may recede north. Invasive exotic plant species are not likely to be a threat unless there is nutrient input from surrounding uplands. Spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana) and exotic invasive insects that feed on conifers may be a threat.

In Pennsylvania, this community type is found in small watersheds on glacial deposits derived from sandstone and conglomerate. These wetland communities depend on low to moderate availability of nutrients, moderate surface water and ground water inputs, and probably cold temperatures. Development should be restricted to prevent alterations to the hydrologic and nutrient processes that drive this community.

Management

A natural buffer around the wetland should be maintained in order to minimize nutrient runoff, pollution, and sedimentation. Since these communities are impacted by nutrient inputs and wind-throw, a buffer between any logging operations or development and the wetland is suggested. The potential for soil erosion based on soil texture, condition of the adjacent vegetation (mature forests vs. clearcuts), and the topography of the surrounding area (i.e., degree of slope) should be considered when establishing buffers. The buffer size should be increased if soils are erodible, adjacent vegetation has been logged, and the topography is steep as such factors could contribute to increased sedimentation and nutrient pollution. Direct impacts and habitat alteration in the wetland should be avoided (e.g., roads, trails, filling of wetlands). Low-impact alternatives (e.g., elevated footpaths, boardwalks, bridges that do not impede flow) are encouraged if impacts are neccessary. Where disturbances are unavoidable, the wetland should be monitored for changes in vegetation, especially invasive species. Indirect impacts such as isolation of the wetland by development from other similar wetlands may be a threat to the persistence of the type.

Range Map

Pennsylvania Range

Glaciated Northeast, Pocono Plateau, Ridge and Valley and Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau

Global Distribution

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and West Virginia. It also extends into New Brunswick and Quebec in Canada,

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. La Roe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 131 pp.

Edinger, G. J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T. G. Howard, D. M. Hunt, and A. M. Olivero. 2002. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY. 136 pp.

Fike, J. 1999. Terrestrial and palustrine plant communities of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory. Harrisburg, PA. 79 pp.

Merritt, J.F. 1987. Guide to the Mammals of Pennsylvania. University of Pittsburgh Press.

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Central Databases. Arlington, Virginia. USA.

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR). 1999. Inventory Manual of Procedure. For the Fourth State Forest Management Plan. Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry, Division of Forest Advisory Service.  Harrisburg, PA. 51 ppg.

Rhoads, A.F. and T.A. Block. 2007. The Plants of Pennsylvania, 2nd ed. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Stone, B., D. Gustafson, and B. Jones. 2006 (revised). Manual of Procedure for State Game Land Cover Typing.  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Game Commission, Bureau of Wildlife Habitat Management, Forest Inventory and Analysis Section, Forestry Division.  Harrisburg, PA. 79 ppg.

Thompson, E. 1996. Natural communities of Vermont uplands and wetland. Nongame and Natural Heritage Program, Department of Fish and Wildlife in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy, Vermont chapter.

Wenger, S. 1999. A Review of the Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Width, Extent and Vegetation. Office of Public Outreach, Institute of Ecology, Univ. of Georgia, Athens.