DOCSLIB.ORG

Calcareous Glade Monitoring at Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park Final Report—Third Sampling of Baseline Transects Established in 1993

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Calcareous Glade Monitoring at Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park Final Report—Third Sampling of Baseline Transects Established in 1993 Natural Resource Report NPS/CUPN/NRR—2021/2239 The production of this document cost $53,732, including costs associated with data collection, processing, analysis, and subsequent authoring, editing, and publication. ON THE COVER Leavenworthia exigua var. exigua, an endemic special concern species characteristic of cedar glades at Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park. Photo by Tom Govus. Calcareous Glade Monitoring at Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park Final Report—Third Sampling of Baseline Transects Established in 1993 Natural Resource Report NPS/CUPN/NRR—2021/2239 Thomas E. Govus1 and Bill J. Moore2 1Independent Botanist/Vegetation Ecologist 3711 Big Creek Road Elijay, Georgia 30536 2National Park Service Ecologist/Data Manager Cumberland Piedmont Network P.O. Box 8 Mammoth Cave, Kentucky 42259 March 2021 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are 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 comprehensive information and analysis about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service. The series supports the advancement of science, informed decision-making, and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series also provides a forum for presenting more lengthy results that may not be accepted by publications with page limitations. 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 peer review by qualified subject-matter experts with the appropriate background and expertise needed to evaluate the technical and scientific aspects of this study. Peer review was overseen by a peer review manager. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report 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 U.S. Government. This report is available from the Cumberland Piedmont Network website and the Natural Resource Publications Management website. If you have difficulty accessing information in this publication, particularly if using assistive technology, please email [email protected]. Please cite this publication as: Govus, T. E., and B. J. Moore. 2021. Calcareous glade monitoring at Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park: Final report—third sampling of baseline transects established in 1993. Natural Resource Report NPS/CUPN/NRR—2021/2239. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. https://doi.org/10.36967/nrr-2284881. NPS 301/175135, March 2021 ii Contents Page Figures.................................................................................................................................................... v Tables ..................................................................................................................................................... v Appendices ........................................................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. ix Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................. xi Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Glade Species Lists......................................................................................................................... 3 Baseline Monitoring ....................................................................................................................... 3 Woody Cover............................................................................................................................. 4 Ground Cover ............................................................................................................................ 5 Herb Density .............................................................................................................................. 5 Follow up Taxonomic Issues Relating to the 1993 Data ................................................................ 6 Photomonitoring procedures .......................................................................................................... 7 Results of the Third Round of Sampling ............................................................................................... 9 Change in Large Woody Cover Greater Than or Equal to 1 meter (3.3 ft) .................................. 10 Change in Plant Density Summary Results .................................................................................. 16 Discussions and Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 21 Woody Cover................................................................................................................................ 21 Plant Density ................................................................................................................................ 22 Exotic Species .............................................................................................................................. 24 Management ................................................................................................................................. 25 Future Sampling ........................................................................................................................... 26 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................................... 29 iii Figures Page Figure 1. General location of glades sampled for woody cover; some were further divided by Sutter et al. (1994) into separate glades for monitoring purposes (i.e., glade 3A and 3B) ................................................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 2. Glade means for percent woody cover for eight of the highest cover species. Red line is mean across glades ............................................................................................................. 13 Figure 3. General location of glades sampled for plant density measurements. ................................. 17 Figure 4. Sum total change in characteristic glade species densities over three sampling intervals at Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park .................................................... 23 Figure 5. A baseline photograph of glade 24A showing degraded condition, particularly encroachment by Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). ........................................................................ 26 Tables Page Table 1. Baseline length, segment (i.e., interval in which monitoring transects were randomly placed), number of monitoring transects, and combined monitoring transect length...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Table 2. Percent change in total woody cover summed across species from 1993 to 2006- 2008 and 1993 to 2019 in monitored glades on Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park. ....................................................................................................................................... 12 Table 3. Glade minimum and maximum percent woody cover for eight of the highest cover species by sampling session. ...................................................................................................... 13 Table 4. 2019 Percent cover values for select high cover species greater than or equal to 1 meter (3.3 ft) showing the glade mean value for each sample glade. ............................................... 14 Table 5. Difference in percent woody cover, comparing 1993 and 2019 values ................................ 15 Table 6. Characteristic glade species 1993 density (individuals per square meter) and subsequent change in density based on 2019 survey results ................................................................ 19 Table 7. Plant density values (plants/m²) of characteristic glade species averaged across
Recommended publications
  • 2019 Domain Management Plan

    2019 Domain Management Plan

    Domain Management Plan 2019-2029 FINAL DRAFT 12/20/2019 Owner Contact: Amy Turner, Ph.D., CWB Director of Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability The University of the South Sewanee, Tennessee Office: 931-598-1447 Office: Cleveland Annex 110C Email: [email protected] Reviewed by: The Nature Conservancy Forest Stewards Guild ____________________________________________________________________________ Tract Location: Franklin and Marion Counties, Tennessee Centroid Latitude 35.982963 Longitude -85.344382 Tract Size: 13,036 acres | 5,275 hectares Land Manager: Office of Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability, The University of the South, Sewanee, Tennessee 2 Executive Summary The primary objective of this management plan is to provide a framework to outline future management and outline operations for the Office of Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability (OESS) over the next ten years. In this plan, we will briefly introduce the physical and biological setting, past land use, and current uses of the Domain. The remainder of the plan consists of an assessment of the forest, which has been divided into six conservation areas. These conservation areas contain multiple management compartments, and the six areas have similarities in topographical position and past land use. Finally, the desired future condition and project summary of each conservation area and compartment has been outlined. Background The University of the South consists of an academic campus (382 acres) with adjacent commercial and residential areas (783 acres) that are embedded within and surrounded by diverse natural lands (11,838 acres). The term “Domain” is used interchangeably to describe both the entire ~13,000 acres and the 11,800-acre natural land matrix (also referred to as the “Greater Domain”).
  • The Tennessee River Basin

    The Tennessee River Basin

    The Tennessee River Basin he Tennessee River winds its way for roughly geography and geology in the region help to explain 650 miles through Tennessee, Alabama, why the area harbors one of the most biologically TMississippi, and back into Tennessee, before diverse freshwater ecosystems in the world. reaching Kentucky where it empties into the The immense biodiversity of native and endangered Ohio River. In total the Basin encompasses over species in the Tennessee River Basin (TRB) has driven 40,000 square miles, covering five major regional efforts— engaging multiple agencies physiographic provinces: the Blue Ridge, and stakeholders to ensure the protection the Valley and Ridge, the Appalachian of this unique landscape for generations Plateau, the Interior Low Plateaus, to come. and the Coastal Plain. The extent of the Basin’s reach vast diversity of Eastern Hellbender - because of their preference for clean streams and rivers, hellbenders serve as indicators of stream health. The presence of young and adults is synonymous with good water quality. To learn more about the Tennessee River Basin Network and see how you or your organization can be involved please visit http://applcc.org/projects/trb. FACT SHEET: THE TENNESSEE RIVER BASIN NETWORK Tennessee River Basin Network Dedicated to the conservation of this unique region and The Network strives to E RIIV national treasure, the Tennessee River Basin Network conserve and restore aquatic SE ER S B EE A (hereafter Network) is a partnership of states, cities, counties, resources, particularly areas N A SS N N II federal agencies, academic organizations, business, and of high biologic diversity EE NN TT other non-governmental organizations dedicated to throughout the region, enhancing the health of the watersheds and biological improve water quality, resources within the Tennessee River Basin through foster increasing stewardship N increased regional collaboration.
  • Linking Conservation Priorities to Wetland and Stream Mitigation Decisions

    Linking Conservation Priorities to Wetland and Stream Mitigation Decisions

    A watershed planning approach for the Stones River, Tennessee Linking Conservation Priorities to Wetland and Stream Mitigation Decisions A watershed planning approach for the Stones River, Tennessee A watershed planning approach for the Stones River, Tennessee Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of several individuals and agencies that have contributed to the design and execution of this project. Kathleen Kuná with the regulatory branch of the Nashville District Corps of Engineers enthusiastically provided her leadership at the stakeholder workshop and her support through the plan’s development and review. Mike Lee with the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Pollution Control (TDEC-WPC) guided our methodological approach and shared knowledge from his years of experience with wetland permitting decisions. Members of the Tennessee Interagency Review Team for mitigation engaged with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) planning team during critical planning phases, advised us on available data, and critiqued our methodology and analysis results. These team members included Kim Pilarski - Tennessee Valley Authority, Rob Todd – Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Robbie Sykes – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Mike Zeman – U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. Dr. Ken Morgan from Tennessee Technological University shared his technical knowledge regarding wetland field determinations and the proper applications of spatial data. Dan Eagar with the TDEC-WPC’s Natural Resources section participated in technical review meetings provided advice on stream mitigation regulatory issues. The Environmental Law Institute (ELI) has conducted research on wetland mitigation for over two decades. This project benefitted greatly from ELI’s efforts and publications on many aspects of wetland laws and regulations.
  • Kimberly Norton Taylor1 and Dwayne Estes

    Kimberly Norton Taylor1 and Dwayne Estes

    The floristic and community ecology of seasonally wet limestone glade seeps of Tennessee and Kentucky Kimberly Norton Taylor1 and Dwayne Estes Austin Peay State University Department of Biology and Center of Excellence for Field Biology Clarksville, Tennessee 37044, U.S.A. [email protected], [email protected] ABSTRACT An open, seasonally wet seep community supporting herbaceous vegetation occurs within the limestone cedar glade complex of the southeastern United States. The purpose of this study is to describe the floristic composition of these limestone glade seeps. A floristic inventory of 9 season- ally wet sites in central Tennessee and south-central Kentucky was performed, documenting 114 species and infraspecific taxa in 91 genera and 43 families. Vegetation analysis identified the dominant taxa as Eleocharis bifida (% IV 20.3), Sporobolus vaginiflorus (% IV 11.94), Hypericum sphaerocarpum (% IV 5.97), Allium aff. stellatum (% IV 4.71), Clinopodium glabellum/arkansanum (% IV 4.15), Schoenolirion croceum (% IV 3.89), Juncus filipendulus (% IV 3.89), and Carex crawei (% IV 3.84). Gratiola quartermaniae and Isoëtes butleri are also important members of the community and may serve as indicator species. A wetland assessment of the seep community was performed according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and appropriate regional supplements. Wetland vegetation requirements are satisfied in 8 of the 9 seasonally wet sites sampled. The limestone glade seeps appear to represent a previously unclassified seasonal wetland type. RESUMEN Una comunidad abierta, húmeda estacionalmente por filtración, compuesta por vegetación herbácea se da en el complejo de pantanos cal- cáreos de cedro del sureste de los Estados Unidos.
  • A Geographic Study of the Tennessee Central Railway: an East-West Transport Route Across the Cumberland Plateau of Tennessee

    A Geographic Study of the Tennessee Central Railway: an East-West Transport Route Across the Cumberland Plateau of Tennessee

    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 8-1969 A Geographic Study of the Tennessee Central Railway: An East- West Transport Route Across the Cumberland Plateau of Tennessee Dennis E. Quillen University of Tennessee - Knoxville Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Geography Commons Recommended Citation Quillen, Dennis E., "A Geographic Study of the Tennessee Central Railway: An East-West Transport Route Across the Cumberland Plateau of Tennessee. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 1969. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/2782 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Dennis E. Quillen entitled "A Geographic Study of the Tennessee Central Railway: An East-West Transport Route Across the Cumberland Plateau of Tennessee." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Geography. Loyal Durand, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Robert G. Long, William N. Cherry Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) Au gust 1, 1969 To the Graduate Council : I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Dennis E.
  • Crawford County Indiana MASTER LIST Updated 11 January 2010 ..W.E

    Crawford County Indiana MASTER LIST Updated 11 January 2010 ..W.E

    All published species from Crawford County Indiana MASTER LIST updated 11 January 2010 ..W.E. Thomas Indiana University Southeast Herbarium JEF Includes: DNR ETR List,IAS proceedings, Annotated C.C. Deam, IAS Maxwell & Thomas I,II & III Indiana Status: SE=State Endangered ST=State Threatened SR=State Rare WL=Watch Listed Note:(Yellowbirch)=Yatskievych inventory of DNR Yellowbirch ravine published in IAS Proceedings Acalypha deamii (Weatherby) Ahles. [IAS Thomas & Maxwell 2009] Acalypha ostryaefolia Riddell Acalypha rhomboidea (Raf.) Cooperr. [=Acalypha virginica var. rhomboidea] Acalypha virginica L. [=Acalypha virginica var. virginica] Acer negundo L. Acer nigrum Michx. Acer rubrum L. [=Acer rubrum var. rubrum] Acer rubrum L. var. rubrum (Yellowbirch) [=Acer rubrum] Acer saccharinum L. Acer saccharum Marsh. Acer saccharum Marsh. f. walpolei (Rehd.) Deam Acer saccharum Marsh. var. schneckii Rehd. Achillea millefolium L. (Leavenworth barrens) Achillea millefolium L. subsp. lanulosum (Nutt.) Piper (Yellowbirch) Achyranthes japonica (Miq.) Nakai (IAS Maxwell & Thomas) Actaea alba Mills (Yellowbirch) [=Actaea pachypoda] Adiantum pedatum L. Aesculus flava Soland. Aesculus glabra Willd. Aesculus octandra Marsh Agalinis besseyana Britt. Agalinis gattingeri (Small) Small ex Britton WL (IAS Proceedings) [=Gerardia gattingeri] Agalinis tenuifolia (Vahl) Raf. var. macrophylla (Benth. ex Hook.) S.F. Blake Agalinis tenuifolia (Vahl) Raf. var. tenuifolia [=Agalinis tenuifolia] [=Gerardia tenuifolia] Agastache scrophulariifolia (Willd.) Kuntze Agave virginica L. WL [=Manfreda virginica] Agrimonia parviflora Ait. Agrimonia pubescens Wallr. Agrimonia rostellata Wallr. Agrostis elliottiana Schult. Agrostis hyemalis (Walt.) BSP Agrostis perennans (Walt.) Tuckerm. Agrostis stolonifera L. var. major (Gaud.)Farw. [=Agrostis alba] Allium canadense L. [=Allium canadense var. canadense] Allium cernuum Roth. [=Allium cernuum var. cernuum] Allium tricoccum Aiton Amaranthus hybridus L.
  • The Herbaceous Vascular Plants of Blackacre Preserve a Preliminary List

    The Herbaceous Vascular Plants of Blackacre Preserve a Preliminary List

    The Herbaceous Vascular Plants of Blackacre Preserve A Preliminary List December 3, 2010 Submitted to: Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission Submitted by: William E. Thomas Herbarium Indiana University Southeast Photo: Spiked Crested Coralroot by Richard Lyons 1 Scope The aim of this survey was to compile a rough list of herbaceous vascular plant species on the below described tract and was conducted from July 11, 2010 through the end of the growing season. In addition any extensive populations of invasive alien species were noted. Locale Description The Blackacre Preserve website states that the property consists of 170 acres in eastern Jefferson County Kentucky. It is the authors understanding that some additional acreage (size?) was appended to the southern border of the original 170 acre tract. The property is located at 3200 Tucker Station Rd. The tract is bordered on all sides by housing and urban areas; a railroad track runs along the north border. The terrain is of mostly gentle slopes with some wooded areas and open fields formerly used for pasture or crops. There are several ponds on the property; a limestone glade area constitutes the northeast corner of the tract. A small creek flows east to west across the tract north of the center. There are numerous foot trails, some designated and some rogue. An old section of Mann’s Lick road runs northward about midway in the tract. Map #1 from the Blackacre Preserve website provides a general layout of this tract. Map #2 is a topographic map with a NAD83 UTM 16 grid superimposed and the foot trails plotted in various colors.
  • Bird Conservation Planning in the Interior Low Plateaus

    Bird Conservation Planning in the Interior Low Plateaus

    Bird Conservation Planning in the Interior Low Plateaus Robert P. Ford Michael D. Roedel Abstract—The Interior Low Plateaus (ILP) is a 12,000,000 ha area has been dominated historically by oak-hickory forests, physiographic province that includes middle Kentucky, middle with areas of rock outcrops and glade habitats, prairies, and Tennessee, and northern Alabama. Spatial analysis of Breeding barrens (Martin and others 1993). All habitats now are highly Bird Atlas data has been used to determine relationships between fragmented. Currently, this project includes only Kentucky, the nature of high priority bird communities and broad features of Tennessee, and Alabama; the remainder of the ILP will be the habitat. A standardized vegetation classification using satellite incorporated later. Distinct subdivisions within the current imagery, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), GAP Analysis, scope of the project include the Bluegrass region and Shawnee and Breeding Bird Atlas data, were used to develop landscape-level Hills in Kentucky; the Western Highland Rim, Eastern High- habitat models for the ILP. The objectives of this effort were to: (1) land Rim, and Central Basin of Tennessee; and the Tennessee identify centers of abundance for species and/or species assem- River Valley of Alabama (fig. 1). These subdivisions serve as blages within the ILP, (2) identify and prioritize areas for potential distinct conservation planning units. About 95% of the land acquisition and/or public-private partnerships for conservation, (3) base consists of non-industrial forest lands, open lands for identify areas with the highest potential for restoration of degraded agriculture (pasture), and urban areas. Public lands and habitats, (4) identify specific lands managed by project cooperators lands managed by the forest products industry make up less where integration of nesting songbird management is a high prior- than 5% of the total area (Vissage and Duncan 1990).
  • Chapter 4 Native Plants for Landscape Use in Kentucky

    Chapter 4 Native Plants for Landscape Use in Kentucky

    Chapter 4 Native Plants for Landscape Use In Kentucky A publication of the Louisville Water Company Wellhead Protection Plan, Phase III Source Reduction Grant # X9-96479407-0 Chapter 4 Native Plants for Landscape Use in Kentucky Native Wildflowers and Ferns The U. S. Department of Transportation, (US DOT), has developed a listing of native plants, (ferns, annuals, perennials, shrubs, and trees), that may be used in landscaping in the State of Kentucky. Other agencies have also developed listings of native plants, which have been integrated into the list within this guidebook. While this list is, by no means, a complete report of the native species that may be found in Kentucky, it offers a starting point for additional research, should the homeowner wish to find additional KY native plants for use in a landscape design, or to check if a plant is native to the State. A reference book titled Wildflowers and Ferns of Kentucky, which was recommended by personnel at the Salato Wildlife Center as an excellent reference for native plants, was also used to develop the list. (A full bibliography is listed at the end of this chapter.) While many horticultural and botanical experts may dispute the inclusion of specific plants on the listing, or wish to add more plants, the list represents the latest information available for research, by the amateur, at the time. The information listed within the list was taken at face value, and no judgment calls were made about the suitability of plants for the list. The author makes no claims as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of this list.
  • Ecoregions of Kentucky

    Ecoregions of Kentucky

    Summary Table: Characteristics of the Ecoregions of Kentucky 6 8 . SOUTHWESTERN APPALACHIANS 7 1 . INTERIOR PLATEAU (continued) * * Level IV Ecoregion Physiography Geology Soil Climate Potential Natural Vegetation / Land Cover and Land Use Level IV Ecoregion Physiography Geology Soil Climate Potential Natural Vegetation / Land Cover and Land Use Present Vegetation Present Vegetation Area Elevation/ Surficial and Bedrock Order (Great Group) Common Soil Series Temperature/ Precipitation Frost Free Mean Temperature *Source: Küchler, 1964 Area Elevation/ Surficial and Bedrock Order (Great Group) Common Soil Series Temperature/ Precipitation Frost Free Mean Temperature * (square Local Relief Moisture Mean annual Mean annual January min/max; (square Local Relief Moisture Mean annual Mean annual January min/max; Source: Küchler, 1964 o miles) (feet) Regimes (inches) (days) July min/max ( F) miles) (feet) Regimes (inches) (days) July min/max (oF) 68a. Cumberland 607 Unglaciated. Open low hills, ridges, 980-1500/ Quaternary colluvium and alluvium. Ultisols (Hapludults). Shelocta, Gilpin, Latham, Mesic/ 47-51 170-185 23/46; Mixed mesophytic forest; American chestnut was a former dominant Mostly forest or reverting to forest. Also some 71d. Outer 4707 Glaciated in north. Rolling to hilly upland 382-1100/ Quaternary alluvium, loess, and in Mostly Alfisols Mostly Lowell, Cynthiana, Mesic/ 38-48. 160-210 20/45; Mostly oak–hickory forest. On Silurian dolomite: white oak stands Cropland, pastureland, woodland, military Plateau rolling uplands, and intervening valleys. 100-520 Mostly Pennsylvanian sandstone, shale, On floodplains: Entisols Muse, Clymer, Whitley, Udic. On 63/88 on drier sites/ On mesic sites: forests variously dominated by pastureland and limited cropland. Logging, Bluegrass containing small sinkholes, springs, 50-450 northernmost Kentucky, discontinuous (Hapludalfs, Fragiudalfs); Faywood, Beasley, Crider, Udic.
  • Vascular Plant Inventory and Plant Community Classification for Mammoth Cave National Park

    Vascular Plant Inventory and Plant Community Classification for Mammoth Cave National Park

    VASCULAR PLANT INVENTORY AND PLANT COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION FOR MAMMOTH CAVE NATIONAL PARK Report for the Vertebrate and Vascular Plant Inventories: Appalachian Highlands and Cumberland/Piedmont Network Prepared by NatureServe for the National Park Service Southeast Regional Office February 2010 NatureServe is a non-profit organization providing the scientific basis for effective conservation action. A NatureServe Technical Report Prepared for the National Park Service under Cooperative Agreement H 5028 01 0435. Citation: Milo Pyne, Erin Lunsford Jones, and Rickie White. 2010. Vascular Plant Inventory and Plant Community Classification for Mammoth Cave National Park. Durham, North Carolina: NatureServe. © 2010 NatureServe NatureServe Southern U. S. Regional Office 6114 Fayetteville Road, Suite 109 Durham, NC 27713 919-484-7857 International Headquarters 1101 Wilson Boulevard, 15th Floor Arlington, Virginia 22209 www.natureserve.org National Park Service Southeast Regional Office Atlanta Federal Center 1924 Building 100 Alabama Street, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30303 The view and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Government. This report consists of the main report along with a series of appendices with information about the plants and plant communities found at the site. Electronic files have been provided to the National Park Service in addition to hard copies. Current information on all communities described here can be found on NatureServe Explorer at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ Cover photo: Mature Interior Low Plateau mesophytic forest above the Green River, Mammoth Cave National Park - Photo by Milo Pyne ii Acknowledgments This report was compiled thanks to a team including staff from the National Park Service and NatureServe.
  • Vascular Plant Community Classification for Stones River National Battlefield

    Vascular Plant Community Classification for Stones River National Battlefield

    VASCULAR PLANT COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION FOR STONES RIVER NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD Report for the Vertebrate and Vascular Plant Inventories: Appalachian Highlands and Cumberland/Piedmont Network Prepared by NatureServe for the National Park Service Southeast Regional Office October 2004 NatureServe is a non-profit organization providing the scientific knowledge that forms the basis for effective conservation action. A NatureServe Technical Report Prepared for the National Park Service under Cooperative Agreement H 5028 01 0435. Citation: Nordman, Carl. 2004. Vascular Plant Community Classification for Stones River National Battlefield. Durham, North Carolina: NatureServe. © 2004 NatureServe NatureServe 6114 Fayetteville Road, Suite 109 Durham, NC 27713 919-484-7857 International Headquarters 1101 Wilson Boulevard, 15th Floor Arlington, Virginia 22209 www.natureserve.org National Park Service Southeast Regional Office Atlanta Federal Center 1924 Building 100 Alabama Street, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30303 The view and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Government. This report consists of the main report along with a series of appendices with information about the plants and plant communities found at the site. Electronic files have been provided to the National Park Service in addition to hard copies. Current information on all communities described here can be found on NatureServe Explorer at www.natureserve.org/explorer. Cover photo: STRI plot 13, the Slaughter Pen. Photo by Carl Nordman. ii Acknowledgments I wish to thank all park employees, co-workers, volunteers, and academics who helped with aspects of the preparation, fieldwork, specimen identification, and report writing for this project.