United States Department of Agriculture Classification and Description of World Formation Types Don Faber-Langendoen, Todd Keeler-Wolf, Del Meidinger, Carmen Josse, Alan Weakley, David Tart, Gonzalo Navarro, Bruce Hoagland, Serguei Ponomarenko, Gene Fults, Eileen Helmer Forest Rocky Mountain General Technical Service Research Station Report RMRS-GTR-346 August 2016 Faber-Langendoen, D.; Keeler, T.; Meidinger, D.; Josse, C.; Weakley, A.; Tart, D.; Navarro, G.; Hoagland, B.; Ponomarenko, S.; Fults, G.; Helmer, E. 2016. Classification and description of world formation types. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-346. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 222 p. Abstract An ecological vegetation classification approach has been developed in which a combi- nation of vegetation attributes (physiognomy, structure, and floristics) and their response to ecological and biogeographic factors are used as the basis for classifying vegetation types. This approach can help support international, national, and subnational classifica- tion efforts. The classification structure was largely developed by the Hierarchy Revisions Working Group (HRWG), which contained members from across the Americas. The HRWG was authorized by the U.S. Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) to devel- op a revised global vegetation classification to replace the earlier versions of the structure that guided the U.S. National Vegetation Classification and International Vegetation Classification, which formerly relied on the UNESCO (1973) global classification (see FGDC 1997; Grossman and others 1998). This document summarizes the develop- ment of the upper formation levels. We first describe the history of the Hierarchy Revisions Working Group and discuss the three main parameters that guide the clas- sification—it focuses on vegetated parts of the globe, on existing vegetation, and includes (but distinguishes) both cultural and natural vegetation for which parallel hierarchies are provided. Part I of the report provides an introduction to the overall classification, focus- ing on the upper formation levels. Part II provides a description for each type, following a standardized template format. These descriptions are a first preliminary effort at global descriptions for formation types, and are provided to give some guidance to our concepts. Cover photos of Cool Temperate Forests from around the world. Clockwise from top left: 1. Western Eurasian Forest & Woodland division: European beech (Fagus sylvatica) forest in Czech Republic (by Scott Franklin) 2. Eastern North American Forest & Woodland division: Eastern Hemlock-Sugar Maple (Tsuga canadensis-Acer saccharum) forest in central Wisconsin, United States (by Don Faber-Langendoen). 3. Eastern Asian Forest & Woodland division: Oak-pine / bamboo forest in Foping National Nature Reserve, Shaanxi Province, China (by Scott Franklin) 4. Valdivian Forest division: Southern beech (Nothofagus spp.) forest in Altos de Lircay National Reserve, Chile (by Bruce Young) 5. Southeast Australian Cool Temperate Forest & Woodland division: Australian Alps - mainly Mountain Ash (Eucalyptus regnans) (by Andy Gillison) United States Department of Agriculture Classification and Description of World Formation Types Don Faber-Langendoen, Todd Keeler-Wolf, Del Meidinger, Carmen Josse, Alan Weakley, David Tart, Gonzalo Navarro, Bruce Hoagland, Serguei Ponomarenko, Gene Fults, Eileen Helmer Hierarchy Revisions Working Group FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Forest Rocky Mountain General Technical Service Research Station Report RMRS-GTR-346 August 2016 i Authors (in order of authorship) Don Faber-Langendoen: NatureServe, Conservation Science Division, Arlington, VA Todd Keeler-Wolf: Biogeographic Data Branch, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA Del Meidinger: Meidinger Ecological Consultants Ltd., Victoria BC Carmen Josse: NatureServe, Conservation Science Division, Arlington, VA Alan Weakley: North Carolina Botanic Garden, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC David Tart: USDA Forest Service - Intermountain Region, Natural Resources, Ogden, UT Gonzalo Navarro: Universidad Católica Boliviana “San Pablo, Cochabamba, Bolivia Bruce Hoagland: Oklahoma Biological Survey and Department of Geography, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK Serguei Ponomarenko: Ecological Integrity Branch, Parks Canada, Gatineau, Québec Gene Fults: Natural Resources Conservation Service - West National Technology Support Center, Portland, OR Eileen Helmer: USDA Forest Service - International Institute of Tropical Forestry, Fort Collins, CO ii Acknowledgments The work produced here was supported by the U.S. National Vegetation Classification partnership between U.S. Federal agencies, the Ecological Society of America, and NatureServe staff, working through the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Vegetation Subcommittee. FGDC sponsored the mandate of the Hierarchy Revisions Working Group, which included international expertise into the process. For that reason, this product represents a collaboration of national and inter- national vegetation ecologists. We thank Ralph Crawford, chair of the FGDC vegetation subcommittee. We grate- fully acknowledge the support of the U.S. Federal agencies that helped fund the work of the Hierarchy Revisions Working Group from 2003 to 2012. We appreciate their pa- tience with our slow progress on this effort. Most recently, the U.S. Geological Survey, and in particular Alexa McKerrow, has supported the development of the formation descriptions that are provided in this document. We appreciate the support of the Ecological Society of America Vegetation Classification Panel for their peer review of this document. In particular, we thank the Panel’s chair, Scott Franklin, for facilitating review among the panel and internation- ally. Through his efforts, we benefited from international reviewers, including Ken Baldwin, John Benson, Sara del Río González, Jesus Izco, David Keith, Ángel Penas Merino, Salvador Rivas-Martínez, Michael Rutherford, and Daniel Sánchez-Mata, and we thank them for their input. A special thanks to Ángel Penas Merino for creating the North American and European macrobioclimate maps for this report. Over the years, various members of the HRWG have participated for a period of time. We thank Sherm Karl, Otto Huber, Jean-Pierre Saucier, and Andy Gray for their input at critical stages early on in the development of the formations. We thank Mary Russo and Kristin Snow, of NatureServe, for maintaining and editing the classification database and producing the Level 1–Level 3 description documents for Part II. iii iv Executive Summary An ecological vegetation (EcoVeg) classification approach has been developed in which a combination of vegetation attributes (physiognomy, structure, and floristics) and their response to ecological and biogeographic factors are used as the basis for classifying vegetation types (Faber-Langendoen and others 2014). This approach can help support international, national, and subnational classification efforts. Support for many aspects of the development of classification was provided by the U.S. National Vegetation Classification (USNVC) partnership, in conjunction with development of the International Vegetation Classification (IVC) (FGDC 2008; Faber-Langendoen and others 2009; Jennings and others 2009). The classification structure was largely developed by the Hierarchy Revisions Working Group (HRWG), which contained members from across the Americas. The group was authorized by the U.S. Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Vegetation Subcommittee (chaired by the U.S. Forest Service), to develop a revised global vegetation classification to replace the earlier versions of the structure that guided the USNVC and IVC, which relied on the UNESCO (1973) global classification (see FGDC 1997; Grossman and others 1998). This document summarizes the development of the upper formation levels. We first describe the history of the Hierarchy Revisions Working Group and discuss the three main parameters that guide the classification—it focuses on vegetated parts of the globe, on existing vegetation, and includes (but distinguishes) both cultural and natural vegetation for which parallel hierarchies are provided. For natural vegetation, we define three main physiognomic levels: Formation Class, Formation Subclass, and Formation; each of the types for all three levels is also described. For cultural vegetation, we define and describe four main physiog- nomic levels: Cultural Class, Cultural Subclass, Cultural Formation, and Cultural Subformation. We use a fourth physiognomic level for cultural vegetation because the floristic/biogeographic patterns used for natural vegetation at the fourth level are not nearly as relevant for cultural vegetation. We provide guidance for developing forma- tion type description and nomenclature. The upper levels were not developed in a strictly top down manner. Rather, mem- bers of the HRWG had access to draft mid and lower level units (from Division to Association) for the United States and parts of Canada and Latin America. A compre- hensive master spreadsheet of these draft units was organized under the upper levels and was used to critique the overall “naturalness” of the formation units. The HRWG reevaluated formation concepts where formations introduced undesirable splits in lower units that were otherwise ecologically and floristically similar. Our goal was to make splits