DOCSLIB.ORG

Protocol for Monitoring Forest Structure in National Parks of The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Protocol for Monitoring Forest Structure in National Parks of The National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Protocol for Ground-based Monitoring of Vegetation in the Southwest Alaska Network Natural Resource Report NPS/SWAN/NRR—2010/205 ON THE COVER Mid-elevation low shrub (Betula glandulosa) tundra, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve. Photograph by: Amy Miller Protocol for Ground-based Monitoring of Vegetation in the Southwest Alaska Network Natural Resource Report NPS/SWAN/NRR—2010/205 Amy E. Miller, William L. Thompson, Dorothy C. Mortenson, and Claudette Moore National Park Service Southwest Alaska Network 240 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 June 2010 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received formal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise put them on par technically and scientifically with the authors of the information. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. This report is available from the Southwest Alaska Inventory & Monitoring Network website (http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/swan/index.cfm?theme=reports_pub) and the Natural Resource Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM). Please cite this publication as: Miller, A. E., W. L. Thompson, D. C. Mortenson, and C. Moore. 2010. Protocol for ground- based monitoring of vegetation in the Southwest Alaska Network. Natural Resource Report NPS/SWAN/NRR—2010/205. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. NPS 95/100370, June 2010 ii Contents Figures............................................................................................................................................. v Tables............................................................................................................................................. vi Appendices.................................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................viii 1 Background and Objectives ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Rationale for Monitoring Vegetation in SWAN parks ......................................................... 2 1.2.1. Management Concerns ..................................................................................................... 2 1.2.2. Rationale for Ground-based Monitoring.......................................................................... 3 1.3 Measurable Objectives.......................................................................................................... 4 2 Sampling Design.......................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Rationale for Selecting this Sampling Design over Others .................................................. 5 2.1.1. Accessibility ...................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.2. Estimated Sample Size Required to Detect Change across all Vegetation Classes ......... 8 2.1.3. Constraining the Sample to Selected Vegetation Classes................................................. 9 2.2 Site Selection ...................................................................................................................... 13 2.3 Recommended Sample Size and Sampling Frequency....................................................... 13 2.4 Targeted Sampling in Sensitive Communities.................................................................... 18 2.5 Change Detection................................................................................................................ 19 3 Methods...................................................................................................................................... 19 3.1 Preparation for field season ................................................................................................ 20 3.1.1. Recruiting........................................................................................................................ 20 3.1.2. Logisitics, Data Uploads, and Preparation of Working Database................................. 21 3.1.3. Training........................................................................................................................... 21 3.2 Field methods...................................................................................................................... 21 3.2.1. Plot Layout...................................................................................................................... 21 3.2.2. Plot Descriptive Data ..................................................................................................... 22 3.2.3. Plot Photos...................................................................................................................... 22 3.2.4. Species Composition ....................................................................................................... 22 3.2.5. Tree Measurements......................................................................................................... 22 3.2.6. Coarse Woody Debris, Litter and Duff........................................................................... 24 3.3 End-of-season procedures................................................................................................... 25 3.3.1. Processing of Collections ............................................................................................... 25 3.3.2. Equipment Inventory....................................................................................................... 25 4 Data Processing, Analysis and Reporting.................................................................................. 25 4.1 Project Information Management Overview ...................................................................... 25 4.2 Database Design and Data Management ............................................................................ 25 4.2.1. Data Backups.................................................................................................................. 27 4.2.2. Data Verification ............................................................................................................ 27 4.2.3. Geospatial Data.............................................................................................................. 27 4.2.4. Metadata ......................................................................................................................... 27 4.3 Data Reduction and Analysis.............................................................................................. 27 4.3.1. Reporting and Product Development.............................................................................. 28 4.3.2. Records Management...................................................................................................... 28 iii 5 Operational Requirements ......................................................................................................... 28 5.1 Personnel Requirements and Qualifications ....................................................................... 28 5.2 Annual Workload and Field Schedule ................................................................................ 28 5.3 Facility and Equipment Needs............................................................................................ 28 5.4 Startup Costs and Budget Considerations........................................................................... 29 6 Literature Cited .......................................................................................................................... 30 iv Figures Figure 1. Parks of the Southwest Alaska Network ........................................................................ 1 Figure 2. Proposed plot locations in LACL ................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ursus Arctos): Assessing Future Climate Impacts with Open Access Online Software
    Predictive modeling of Alaskan brown bears (Ursus arctos): assessing future climate impacts with open access online software Item Type Thesis Authors Henkelmann, Antje Download date 24/09/2021 14:36:02 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/11122/5040 PREDICTIVE MODELING OF ALASKAN BROWN BEARS (URSUS ARCTOS): ASSESSING FUTURE CLIMATE IMPACTS WITH OPEN ACCESS ONLINE SOFTWARE Master thesis submitted by Antje Henkelmann to the Faculty of Biology, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the integrated bi- national degree MASTER OF SCIENCE / MASTER OF INTERNATIONAL NATURE CONSERVATION (M.SC. / M.I.N.C.) of Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Germany and Lincoln University, New Zealand 21 February 2011 1. Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Falk Huettmann 2. Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Christoph Kleinn Abstract As vital representative indicators of the state of the ecosystem, Alaskan brown bear (Ursus arctos) populations have been studied extensively. However, an updated statewide density estimate is still absent, as are models predicting future occurrence and abundance. This kind of information is crucial to ensure population viability by adapting conservation planning to future needs. In this study, a predictive model for brown bear densities in Alaska was developed based on brown bear estimates derived on the best publicly available data (Miller et al. 1997). Salford’s TreeNet data mining software was applied to determine the impact of different environmental variables on bear density and for the first state-wide GIS prediction map for Alaska. The results emphasize the importance of ecoregions, climatic factors in December, human influence and food availability such as salmon. In order to assess the influence of changing climate conditions on brown bear populations, two different IPCC scenarios (A1B and A2) were applied to establish different predictive climate models.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide Alaska Trees
    x5 Aá24ftL GUIDE TO ALASKA TREES %r\ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE Agriculture Handbook No. 472 GUIDE TO ALASKA TREES by Leslie A. Viereck, Principal Plant Ecologist Institute of Northern Forestry Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station ÜSDA Forest Service, Fairbanks, Alaska and Elbert L. Little, Jr., Chief Dendrologist Timber Management Research USD A Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Agriculture Handbook No. 472 Supersedes Agriculture Handbook No. 5 Pocket Guide to Alaska Trees United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Washington, D.C. December 1974 VIERECK, LESLIE A., and LITTLE, ELBERT L., JR. 1974. Guide to Alaska trees. U.S. Dep. Agrie., Agrie. Handb. 472, 98 p. Alaska's native trees, 32 species, are described in nontechnical terms and illustrated by drawings for identification. Six species of shrubs rarely reaching tree size are mentioned briefly. There are notes on occurrence and uses, also small maps showing distribution within the State. Keys are provided for both summer and winter, and the sum- mary of the vegetation has a map. This new Guide supersedes *Tocket Guide to Alaska Trees'' (1950) and is condensed and slightly revised from ''Alaska Trees and Shrubs" (1972) by the same authors. OXFORD: 174 (798). KEY WORDS: trees (Alaska) ; Alaska (trees). Library of Congress Catalog Card Number î 74—600104 Cover: Sitka Spruce (Picea sitchensis)., the State tree and largest in Alaska, also one of the most valuable. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402—Price $1.35 Stock Number 0100-03308 11 CONTENTS Page List of species iii Introduction 1 Studies of Alaska trees 2 Plan 2 Acknowledgments [ 3 Statistical summary .
    [Show full text]
  • The Alaska-Yukon Region of the Circumboreal Vegetation Map (CBVM)
    CAFF Strategy Series Report September 2015 The Alaska-Yukon Region of the Circumboreal Vegetation Map (CBVM) ARCTIC COUNCIL Acknowledgements CAFF Designated Agencies: • Norwegian Environment Agency, Trondheim, Norway • Environment Canada, Ottawa, Canada • Faroese Museum of Natural History, Tórshavn, Faroe Islands (Kingdom of Denmark) • Finnish Ministry of the Environment, Helsinki, Finland • Icelandic Institute of Natural History, Reykjavik, Iceland • Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Greenland • Russian Federation Ministry of Natural Resources, Moscow, Russia • Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden • United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska CAFF Permanent Participant Organizations: • Aleut International Association (AIA) • Arctic Athabaskan Council (AAC) • Gwich’in Council International (GCI) • Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) • Russian Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON) • Saami Council This publication should be cited as: Jorgensen, T. and D. Meidinger. 2015. The Alaska Yukon Region of the Circumboreal Vegetation map (CBVM). CAFF Strategies Series Report. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, Akureyri, Iceland. ISBN: 978- 9935-431-48-6 Cover photo: Photo: George Spade/Shutterstock.com Back cover: Photo: Doug Lemke/Shutterstock.com Design and layout: Courtney Price For more information please contact: CAFF International Secretariat Borgir, Nordurslod 600 Akureyri, Iceland Phone: +354 462-3350 Fax: +354 462-3390 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.caff.is CAFF Designated
    [Show full text]
  • Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, Version 2018-07-24
    Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, version 2018-07-24 Kenai National Wildlife Refuge biology staff July 24, 2018 2 Cover image: map of 16,213 georeferenced occurrence records included in the checklist. Contents Contents 3 Introduction 5 Purpose............................................................ 5 About the list......................................................... 5 Acknowledgments....................................................... 5 Native species 7 Vertebrates .......................................................... 7 Invertebrates ......................................................... 55 Vascular Plants........................................................ 91 Bryophytes ..........................................................164 Other Plants .........................................................171 Chromista...........................................................171 Fungi .............................................................173 Protozoans ..........................................................186 Non-native species 187 Vertebrates ..........................................................187 Invertebrates .........................................................187 Vascular Plants........................................................190 Extirpated species 207 Vertebrates ..........................................................207 Vascular Plants........................................................207 Change log 211 References 213 Index 215 3 Introduction Purpose to avoid implying
    [Show full text]
  • Spiked Saxifrage,Micranthes Spicata
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Spiked Saxifrage Micranthes spicata in Canada SPECIAL CONCERN 2015 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2015. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Spiked Saxifrage Micranthes spicata in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xii + 38 pp. (www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm). Previous report(s): COSEWIC. 2013. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Spiked Saxifrage Micranthes spicata in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. ix + 35 pp. (www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm). Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Rhonda Rosie for writing the status report on the Spiked Saxifrage (Micranthes spicata) in Canada. This report was prepared under contract with Environment Canada and was overseen and edited by Bruce Bennett, Co-chair of the COSEWIC Vascular Plant Species Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-938-4125 Fax: 819-938-3984 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le Saxifrage à épis (Micranthes spicata) au Canada. Cover illustration/photo: Spiked Saxifrage — Photo: Syd Cannings. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2015. Catalogue No. CW69-14/677-2015E-PDF ISBN 978-0-660-02623-7 COSEWIC Assessment Summary Assessment Summary – May 2015 Common name Spiked Saxifrage Scientific name Micranthes spicata Status Special Concern Reason for designation This perennial wildflower grows only in Yukon and Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • National Wetland Plant List: 2016 Wetland Ratings
    Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1–17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X THE NATIONAL WETLAND PLANT LIST: 2016 WETLAND RATINGS ROBERT W. LICHVAR U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory 72 Lyme Road Hanover, New Hampshire 03755-1290 DARIN L. BANKS U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 Watershed Support, Wetland and Stream Protection Section 11201 Renner Boulevard Lenexa, Kansas 66219 WILLIAM N. KIRCHNER U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1 911 NE 11 th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97232 NORMAN C. MELVIN USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Central National Technology Support Center 501 W. Felix Street, Bldg. 23 Fort Worth, Texas 76115-3404 ABSTRACT The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) administers the National Wetland Plant List (NWPL) for the United States (U.S.) and its territories. Responsibility for the NWPL was transferred to the Corps from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in 2006. From 2006 to 2012 the Corps led an interagency effort to update the list in conjunction with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the FWS, and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), culminating in the publication of the 2012 NWPL. In 2013 and 2014 geographic ranges and nomenclature were updated. This paper presents the fourth update of the list under Corps administration. During the current update, the indicator status of 1689 species was reviewed. A total of 306 ratings of 186 species were changed during the update.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change File
    High-resolution forest modeling in the cloud Leveraging the ASC to simulate individual tree growth across interior Alaska RCP 8.5 − Site 1103 75 Species ) 1 - a ALNUsinu h C ALNUtenu s e BETUkena n n o BETUneoa t ( 50 s LARIlari s a m PICEglau o i B PICEmari d n POPUbals u o r POPUtrem g e v 25 POPUtric o b A SALIscou 0 2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 Year Adrianna Foster, NASA Postdoctoral Fellow ABoVE Science Cloud Webinar Friday, April 20, 2018 Uncertainty in future vegetation trajectories in Alaska Greening vs. browning? Increasing fires frequency and severity? Changing permafrost? Insects? Uncertainty in future vegetation trajectories in Alaska Species- and tree-level interactions are important Fire Soils VS Ecological modeling Individual-based gap models fir spruce pine aspen Shugart 1998 Gap models use equations to simulate tree growth and response to external forces Precipitation Sunlight and temperature Disturbances Soil nutrients Soil moisture Individual tree growth annual diameter increment growth Individual tree growth annual diameter increment growth Individual tree growth Calculate optimal DBH increment growth given optimal conditions annual diameter increment growth Reduce growth based on resource availability and species tolerances Individual plots simulate gap dynamics Average of hundreds of plots produces landscape-scale output biomass (tonnes C ha-1) basal area (m2 ha-1) size structure (stems size class-1 ha-1) Application of UVAFME in interior AK Yukon River Basin – Interior AK Final products from project: 2km wall-to-wall gridded simulations across YRB ~131,000 sites Initial testing in Tanana Valley University of Virginia Forest Model Enhanced Fortran program that simulates forest growth at individual point locations 25 modules ~157,000 lines of code Initially – FAREAST (Yan & Shugart 2005) Developed for boreal Eurasia Out of similar gap-models: JABOWA, FORET, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Species Lists from Npspecies As of September 30, 2001 for Denali National Park and Preserve
    Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Species Lists From NPSpecies as of September 30, 2001 For Denali National Park and Preserve A Supplemental Report to the Final Report – Compilation of Existing Species Data In Alaska’s National Parks By Julia Lenz, Tracey Gotthardt, Mike Kelly, and Robert Lipkin Alaska Natural Heritage Program Environment and Natural Resources Institute University of Alaska Anchorage For National Park Service Inventory and Monitoring Program Alaska Region September 30, 2001 In Partial Completion of Cooperative Agreement #9910-00-013 University of Alaska Anchorage Environment and Natural Resources Institute 707 A St. Anchorage, Alaska 9950 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES LIST ........................................................................ 2 FISH SPECIES LIST ................................................................................................ 63 BIRD SPECIES LIST................................................................................................ 64 MAMMAL SPECIES LIST ...................................................................................... 72 AMPHIBIAN SPECIES LIST................................................................................... 75 i INTRODUCTION This report contains species lists for vascular plant and vertebrate species entered in the National Park Service’s NPSpecies database, by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP) for Denali
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the Chugach National Forest and the Kenai Peninsula
    Publication in Preparation – 10 December 2015 1 CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR THE CHUGACH NATIONAL FOREST AND THE KENAI PENINSULA Editors: Greg Hayward1, Steve Colt2, Monica L. McTeague2, Teresa Hollingsworth4 1 Alaska Region, US Forest Service 2 Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage 3 Alaska Natural Heritage Program, Alaska Center for Conservation Science, University of Alaska Anchorage 4 Pacific Northwest Research Station Suggested Citation: G. D. Hayward, S. Colt, M. McTeague, T. Hollingsworth. eds. (n.d.). Climate change vulnerability assessment for the Chugach National Forest and the Kenai Peninsula. Manuscript in preparation. Draft version at http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/chugach/landmanagement/planning December 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION Gregory D. Hayward, Monica L. McTeague, Steve Colt and Teresa Hollingsworth Focus of Assessment Constraints on the Assessment Characteristics of the Chugach National Forest and the Kenai Peninsula Assessment Area Literature Cited Chapter 2: CLIMATE CHANGE SCENARIOS Nancy Fresco and Angelica Floyd Summary Introduction Development of Climate Scenarios Publication in Preparation – 10 December 2015 2 Future Snow Response to Climate Change Literature Cited Chapter 3: SNOW AND ICE Jeremy Littell, Evan Burgess, Steve Colt, Paul Clark, Stephanie McAfee, Shad O’Neel, and Louis Sass Summary Introduction Future Snow Response to Climate Change Current and Future Ice and Glacier Response to Climate Change Case Study: Monitoring the Retreat of
    [Show full text]
  • The Distribution, Status & Conservation Needs of Canada's Endemic Species
    Ours to Save The distribution, status & conservation needs of Canada’s endemic species June 4, 2020 Version 1.0 Ours to Save: The distribution, status & conservation needs of Canada’s endemic species Additional information and updates to the report can be found at the project website: natureconservancy.ca/ourstosave Citation Enns, Amie, Dan Kraus and Andrea Hebb. 2020. Ours to save: the distribution, status and conservation needs of Canada’s endemic species. NatureServe Canada and Nature Conservancy of Canada. Report prepared by Amie Enns (NatureServe Canada) and Dan Kraus (Nature Conservancy of Canada). Mapping and analysis by Andrea Hebb (Nature Conservancy of Canada). Cover photo credits (l-r): Wood Bison, canadianosprey, iNaturalist; Yukon Draba, Sean Blaney, iNaturalist; Salt Marsh Copper, Colin Jones, iNaturalist About NatureServe Canada A registered Canadian charity, NatureServe Canada and its network of Canadian Conservation Data Centres (CDCs) work together and with other government and non-government organizations to develop, manage, and distribute authoritative knowledge regarding Canada’s plants, animals, and ecosystems. NatureServe Canada and the Canadian CDCs are members of the international NatureServe Network, spanning over 80 CDCs in the Americas. NatureServe Canada is the Canadian affiliate of NatureServe, based in Arlington, Virginia, which provides scientific and technical support to the international network. About the Nature Conservancy of Canada The Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) works to protect our country’s most precious natural places. Proudly Canadian, we empower people to safeguard the lands and waters that sustain life. Since 1962, NCC and its partners have helped to protect 14 million hectares (35 million acres), coast to coast to coast.
    [Show full text]
  • Tree Species List
    Canada’s National Forest Inventory Tree Species List September, 2014 Version 4.5 NATIVE CONIFERS Common Name Scientific Name Code English French Genus Species Var Form amabilis fir sapin gracieux Abies amabilis ABIE AMA balsam fir sapin baumier Abies balsamea ABIE BAL Rocky Mountain alpine sapin bifolié Abies bifolia ABIE BIF fir grand fir sapin grandissime Abies grandis ABIE GRA subalpine fir sapin subalpin Abies lasiocarpa ABIE LAS unidentified fir sapin non identifié Abies spp. ABIE SPP yellow-cedar chamaecyparis jaune Chamaecyparis CHAM NOO nootkatensis unidentified cypress chamaecyparis non Chamaecyparis spp. CHAM SPP identifié unidentified softwood conifères non identifié GENC SPP Rocky mountain juniper genévrier des Juniperus scopulorum JUNI SCO TS Rocheuses unidentified juniper genévrier non identifié Juniperus spp. JUNI SPP Eastern redcedar genévrier de Virginie Juniperus virginiana JUNI VIR TS Tamarack mélèze laricin Larix laricina LARI LAR subalpine larch mélèze subalpin Larix lyallii LARI LYA Western larch mélèze de l'Ouest Larix occidentalis LARI OCC unidentified larch mélèze non identifié Larix spp. LARI SPP Engelmann spruce épinette d'Engelmann Picea engelmannii PICE ENG Engelmann x white hybride épinette Picea engelmannii x glauca PICE ENG GLA d'Engelmann et épinette blanche white spruce épinette blanche Picea glauca PICE GLA Sitka x white hybride épinette de Sitka Picea xlutzii PICE LUT X et épinette blanche black spruce épinette noire Picea mariana PICE MAR red spruce épinette rouge Picea rubens PICE RUB Sitka spruce épinette de Sitka Picea sitchensis PICE SIT Sitka x unidentified hybride épinette de Sitka Picea sitchensis xunknown PICE SIT X et épinette non identifié unidentified spruce épinette non identifié Picea spp.
    [Show full text]
  • How Many Tree Species of Birch Are in Alaska? Implications for Wetland Designations
    fpls-11-00750 June 10, 2020 Time: 12:27 # 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 11 June 2020 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00750 How Many Tree Species of Birch Are in Alaska? Implications for Wetland Designations Carol A. Rowe1, Robert W. Lichvar2 and Paul G. Wolf1,3* 1 Department of Biology, Utah State University, Logan, UT, United States, 2 United States Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Region Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH, United States, 3 Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL, United States Wetland areas are critical habitats, especially in northern regions of North America. Wetland classifications are based on several factors, including the presence of certain plant species and assemblages of species, of which trees play a significant role. Here we examined wetland species of birch (Betula) in North America, with a focus on Alaska, and the use of birche tree species in wetland delineation. We sampled over 200 trees from sites, including Alaska, Alberta, Minnesota, and New Hampshire. We used genetic data from over 3000 loci detected by restriction site associated DNA analysis. We used an indirect estimate of ploidy based on allelic ratios and we also examined population genetic structure. We find that inferred ploidy is strongly associated with Edited by: Michael R. McKain, genetic groupings. We find two main distinct groups; one found throughout most of University of Alabama, United States Alaska, extending into Alberta. This group is probably attributable to Betula kenaica, Reviewed by: Betula neoalaskana, or both. This group has a diploid genetic pattern although this could Joshua Puzey, easily be a function of allopolyploidy.
    [Show full text]