DOCSLIB.ORG

Ecoregions of Texas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ecoregions of Texas ECOREGIONS OF TEXAS Glenn Griffith, Sandy Bryce, James Omernik, and Anne Rogers ECOREGIONS OF TEXAS Glenn Griffith1, Sandy Bryce2, James Omernik3, and Anne Rogers4 December 27, 2007 1Dynamac Corporation 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333 (541) 754-4465; email: [email protected] 2Dynamac Corporation 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333 (541) 754-4788; email: [email protected] 3U.S. Geological Survey c/o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333 (541) 754-4458; email: [email protected] 4Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building B, Austin, TX 78753 (512) 239-4597; email [email protected] Project report to Texas Commission on Environmental Quality The preparation of this report and map was financed in part by funds from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VI, Regional Applied Research Effort (RARE) and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) programs. ABSTRACT Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources. Ecoregion frameworks are valuable tools for environmental research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. They have been used for setting resource management goals, developing biological criteria and establishing water quality standards. In a cooperative project with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and other interested state and federal agencies, we have defined ecological regions of Texas at two hierarchical levels that are consistent and compatible with the U.S. EPA ecoregion framework. Twelve level III ecoregions and 56 level IV ecoregions have been mapped for Texas. These general purpose regions are useful to help structure and implement ecosystem management strategies across federal agencies, state agencies, and nongovernmental organizations that are responsible for different types of resources within the same geographical areas. Aquatic biologists in Texas have a long history of analyzing streams and potential reference conditions within a variety of Texas regional frameworks. This ecoregion framework was the result of input from a variety of disciplines, both terrestrial and aquatic based, and takes a broader ecological perspective than just water quality or aquatic macroinvertebrates. We believe that this new ecoregion framework still provides a valuable tool for the State’s water quality assessments. Streams that are representative of an ecoregion and are minimally disturbed and least impacted from point and nonpoint source pollution can serve as suitable reference streams. Ecoregions and reference watersheds can be used together to better understand regional variations in stream quality, assess attainable conditions, develop biological criteria, and augment the watershed management approach. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people contributed to the organization of this project and to the development of the Texas ecoregion framework. For their collaboration and contributions, special thanks are given to Anne Rogers (TCEQ), Bill Harrison (TCEQ), Stephen Hatch (Texas A&M University), David Bezanson (Natural Area Preservation Association), Jeffrey Comstock (Indus Corporation), Philip Crocker (USEPA), Art Crowe (TCEQ), Michael Golden (NRCS), Susan Casby-Horton (NRCS), James Greenwade (NRCS), Conrad Neitsch (NRCS), Shannen Chapman (Dynamac Corporation), Augie De La Cruz (TCEQ), Kevin Wagner (Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board [TSSWCB]), Richard Egg (TSSWCB), Alan Woods (Oregon State University), Clark Hubbs (University of Texas), David Certain (The Nature Conservancy) and Thomas Loveland (USGS). These people were authors or collaborators of the multi-agency Texas ecoregion poster published by the USGS (Griffith et al., 2004). Thanks are also given to the reviewers of the ecoregion poster, including Charles Hallmark (Texas A&M University), Gordon Linam (TPWD), Milo Pyne (NatureServe), and Raymond Telfair, II (TPWD). To obtain larger, color maps of the Level III and IV ecoregions of Texas or for an ARC/INFO export file of the ecoregion boundaries, contact the authors or see www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/tx_eco.htm. ii Ecoregions of Texas TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT................................................................................................……………………...…... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………………....….. ii LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................... iv LEVEL III ECOREGIONS OF TEXAS MAP...................................................................................... v LEVEL III AND IV ECOREGIONS OF TEXAS MAP....................................................................... vi INTRODUCTION........................................................................................……………………...….. 1 METHODS...............................................................................................………….…………….…... 2 RESULTS AND REGIONAL DESCRIPTIONS......................................………………………….... 4 23. Arizona/New Mexico Mountains.................................................................................................... 4 23a. Chihuahuan Desert Slopes.………................................................................................... 4 23b. Montane Woodlands..........……………..................................….…................................ 6 24. Chihuahuan Deserts...........................................……………………….…..................................... 8 24a. Chihuahuan Basins and Playas....................................………………...………..…….... 8 24b. Chihuahuan Desert Grasslands....................................………………...……………..... 10 24c. Low Mountains and Bajadas........................................………………...………….….... 12 24d. Chihuahuan Montane Woodlands.................................................................................... 14 24e. Stockton Plateau............................................................................................................... 16 25. High Plains...................................................................................................................................... 18 25b. Rolling Sand Plains.......................................................................................................... 18 25e. Canadian/Cimarron High Plains....................................................................................... 19 25i. Llano Estacado.................................................................................................................. 20 25j. Shinnery Sands.................................................................................................................. 22 25k. Arid Llano Estacado......................................................................................................... 24 26. Southwestern Tablelands................................................................................................................. 25 26a. Canadian/Cimarron Breaks.............................................................................................. 25 26b. Flat Tablelands and Valleys.............................................................................................. 28 26c. Caprock Canyons, Badlands, and Breaks......................................................................... 29 26d. Semiarid Canadian Breaks............................................................................................... 31 27. Central Great Plains........................................................................................................................ 32 27h. Red Prairie........................................................................................................................ 32 27i. Broken Red Plains............................................................................................................. 34 27j. Limestone Plains............................................................................................................... 36 29. Cross Timbers.................................................................................................................................. 37 29b. Eastern Cross Timbers...................................................................................................... 37 29c. Western Cross Timbers..................................................................................................... 39 29d. Grand Prairie.................................................................................................................... 40 29e. Limestone Cut Plain......................................................................................................... 41 29f. Carbonate Cross Timbers.................................................................................................. 43 30. Edwards Plateau.............................................................................................................................. 44 30a. Edwards Plateau Woodland.............................................................................................. 45 30b. Llano Uplift...................................................................................................................... 47
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 4-Year Work Plan by District for Fys 2015-2018
    4 Year Work Plan by District for FYs 2015 - 2018 Overview Section §201.998 of the Transportation code requires that a Department Work Program report be provided to the Legislature. Under this law, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) provides the following information within this report. Consistently-formatted work program for each of TxDOT's 25 districts based on Unified Transportation Program. Covers four-year period and contains all projects that the district proposes to implement during that period. Includes progress report on major transportation projects and other district projects. Per 43 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 16 Subchapter C rule §16.106, a major transportation project is the planning, engineering, right of way acquisition, expansion, improvement, addition, or contract maintenance, other than the routine or contracted routine maintenance, of a bridge, highway, toll road, or toll road system on the state highway system that fulfills or satisfies a particular need, concern, or strategy of the department in meeting the transportation goals established under §16.105 of this subchapter (relating to Unified Transportation Program (UTP)). A project may be designated by the department as a major transportation project if it meets one or more of the criteria specified below: 1) The project has a total estimated cost of $500 million or more. All costs associated with the project from the environmental phase through final construction, including adequate contingencies and reserves for all cost elements, will be included in computing the total estimated cost regardless of the source of funding. The costs will be expressed in year of expenditure dollars. 2) There is a high level of public or legislative interest in the project.
    [Show full text]
  • LONE STAR STATE Stargazing
    LONE STAR STATE Stargazing IndependenceTitle.com Keep Your Eyes to the Sky! These are some of the best places to stargaze in Texas Big Bend National Park Big Bend National Park is not only Texas’s most famous park— it is also known as one of the most outstanding places in North America for star gazing. Thanks to the sparse human occupation of this region, it has the least light pollution of any other National Park unit in the lower 48 states. This can be a real surprise to visitors when they are outside in Big Bend at night and see the Milky Way in its full glory for perhaps the first time in their life. Needless to say, you can stargaze just about anywhere in Big Bend, but there are a few spots you might want to consider. If you’re an admirer of astronomy, bring your telescope to the Marathon Sky Park. You can also see the stars from the stargazing platform atop Eve’s Garden Bed and Breakfast in Marathon. Brazos Bend State Park Located an hour outside of Houston, Brazos Bend State Park is a great place for any astronomical enthusiast. Not only is it far removed from the light pollution of the Lone Star State’s biggest city, it’s home to the George Observatory, where visitors can view planetary objects up close and personal. LONE STAR STATE Caprock Canyons State Park Home to the only wild bison herd in the state of Texas, Caprock Canyon State Park in the Texas panhandle has stunning views of constellations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Water Monitor the WATER MONITOR Fall 2009/Winter 2010 Volume 2, Issue 2
    Page 1 The Water Monitor THE WATER MONITOR Fall 2009/Winter 2010 Volume 2, Issue 2 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality-Water Quality Planning Division TCEQ’s New Office of Water INSIDE THIS ISSUE By TCEQ Media Relations TCEQ’s New Office of Water 1 The TCEQ recently announced the formation of a new Updates from the SWQM Program 1 Office of Water, effective December 1st, 2009. The new USIBWC CRP Photo Gallery 2 office encompasses the three existing major water Annual SWQM Workshop Wrap-up 2 divisions in the agency: Water Planning, Water Supply, Oso Bay Cleanup 3 and Water Quality. Oso Bay Water Quality 3 The Circle of Life 5 L’Oreal Stepney will serve as deputy director of the new Master Plan for the Oso Bay Watershed 5 Office of Water. She has served with the TCEQ and Should You Measure Chlorine Residual in the Field 6 predecessor agencies since 1992 in air permitting and Addressing Bacteria Issues on the Rio Grande 7 wastewater permitting, as Water Quality Division director, Critter of the Quarter 8 and most recently as assistant deputy director for the EPA Releases First-Ever Baseline Study of US Lakes 9 Office of Permitting and Registration. She holds a Photo Gallery 10 master’s degree in Environmental Engineering from the University of Texas. former Rio Grande Watermaster Carlos Rubinstein. “Our agency’s response to the people and communities that “The new office is in recognition of the fact that the suffered from this event was extraordinary, and this new state’s population is expected to double in the next 30 Office of Water will ensure that we provide an even years, so the agency must put even more focus on water higher and more focused level of response.” “Water issues to ensure that there will be adequate water quality planning, water supply, and water quality are all issues and quantity for future demand,” said Chairman Bryan W.
    [Show full text]
  • Consumer Plannlng Section Comprehensive Plannlng Branch
    Consumer Plannlng Section Comprehensive Plannlng Branch, Parks Division Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas Texans Outdoors: An Analysis of 1985 Participation in Outdoor Recreation Activities By Kathryn N. Nichols and Andrew P. Goldbloom Under the Direction of James A. Deloney November, 1989 Comprehensive Planning Branch, Parks Division Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744 (512) 389-4900 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Conducting a mail survey requires accuracy and timeliness in every single task. Each individualized survey had to be accounted for, both going out and coming back. Each mailing had to meet a strict deadline. The authors are indebted to all the people who worked on this project. The staff of the Comprehensive Planning Branch, Parks Division, deserve special thanks. This dedicated crew signed letters, mailed, remailed, coded, and entered the data of a twenty-page questionnaire that was sent to over twenty-five thousand Texans with over twelve thousand returned completed. Many other Parks Division staff outside the branch volunteered to assist with stuffing and labeling thousands of envelopes as deadlines drew near. We thank the staff of the Information Services Section for their cooperation in providing individualized letters and labels for survey mailings. We also appreciate the dedication of the staff in the mailroom for processing up­ wards of seventy-five thousand pieces of mail. Lastly, we thank the staff in the print shop for their courteous assistance in reproducing the various documents. Although the above are gratefully acknowledged, they are absolved from any responsibility for any errors or omissions that may have occurred. ii TEXANS OUTDOORS: AN ANALYSIS OF 1985 PARTICIPATION IN OUTDOOR RECREATION ACTIVITIES TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Chiricahua National Monument
    In Cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Chiricahua National Monument Open-File Report 2008-1023 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey National Park Service This page left intentionally blank. In cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Chiricahua National Monument By Brian F. Powell, Cecilia A. Schmidt, William L. Halvorson, and Pamela Anning Open-File Report 2008-1023 U.S. Geological Survey Southwest Biological Science Center Sonoran Desert Research Station University of Arizona U.S. Department of the Interior School of Natural Resources U.S. Geological Survey 125 Biological Sciences East National Park Service Tucson, Arizona 85721 U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2008 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS-the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web:http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Suggested Citation Powell, B.F., Schmidt, C.A., Halvorson, W.L., and Anning, Pamela, 2008, Vascular plant and vertebrate inventory of Chiricahua National Monument: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1023, 104 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1023/]. Cover photo: Chiricahua National Monument. Photograph by National Park Service. Note: This report supersedes Schmidt et al. (2005). Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Mixedgrass Prairie Ecological System (Central Shortgrass Prairie Ecoregion Version)
    CENTRAL MIXEDGRASS PRAIRIE ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM (CENTRAL SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE ECOREGION VERSION) ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT Draft of June 29, 2007 Prepared by: Karin Decker Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University 254 General Services Building Fort Collins, CO 80523 Table of Contents A. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 3 A.1 Classification Summary ........................................................................................... 3 A.2 Ecological System Description ................................................................................ 5 A.2.1 Environment....................................................................................................... 5 A.2.2 Vegetation & Ecosystem.................................................................................... 6 A.2.3 Dynamics ........................................................................................................... 8 A.2.4 Landscape......................................................................................................... 10 A.2.5 Size................................................................................................................... 11 A.3 Ecological Integrity................................................................................................ 12 A.3.1 Threats.............................................................................................................. 12 A.3.2 Justification of Metrics....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Pellets from Three Forest Species: from Raw Material to End Use
    Article Assessment of Pellets from Three Forest Species: From Raw Material to End Use Miguel Alfonso Quiñones-Reveles 1,Víctor Manuel Ruiz-García 2,* , Sarai Ramos-Vargas 2 , Benedicto Vargas-Larreta 1 , Omar Masera-Cerutti 2 , Maginot Ngangyo-Heya 3 and Artemio Carrillo-Parra 4,* 1 Sustainable Forest Development Master of Science Program, Tecnológico Nacional de México/Instituto Tecnológico de El Salto, El Salto, Pueblo Nuevo 34942, Mexico; [email protected] (M.A.Q.-R.); [email protected] (B.V.-L.) 2 Bioenergy Laboratory and Bioenergy Innovation and Assessment Laboratory (LINEB), Ecosystems Research Institute and Sustainability (IIES), Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Morelia 58190, Mexico; [email protected] (S.R.-V.); [email protected] (O.M.-C.) 3 Faculty of Agronomy (FA), Autonomous University of Nuevo León (UANL), Francisco Villa s/n, Col. Ex-Hacienda “El Canadá”, Escobedo 66050, Mexico; [email protected] 4 Institute of Silviculture and Wood Industry (ISIMA), Juarez University of the State of Durango (UJED), Boulevard del Guadiana 501, Ciudad Universitaria, Torre de Investigación, Durango 34120, Mexico * Correspondence: [email protected] (V.M.R.-G.); [email protected] (A.C.-P.) Abstract: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the relationship between chemical properties, energy efficiency, and emissions of wood and pellets from madroño Arbutus xalapensis Kunth, tázcate Juniperus deppeana Steud, and encino colorado Quercus sideroxyla Humb. & Bonpl. in two gasifiers (top-lit-up-draft (T-LUD) and electricity
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Land
    United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Land & Water Conservation Fund --- Detailed Listing of Grants Grouped by County --- Today's Date: 11/20/2008 Page: 1 Texas - 48 Grant ID & Type Grant Element Title Grant Sponsor Amount Status Date Exp. Date Cong. Element Approved District ANDERSON 396 - XXX D PALESTINE PICNIC AND CAMPING PARK CITY OF PALESTINE $136,086.77 C 8/23/1976 3/1/1979 2 719 - XXX D COMMUNITY FOREST PARK CITY OF PALESTINE $275,500.00 C 8/23/1979 8/31/1985 2 ANDERSON County Total: $411,586.77 County Count: 2 ANDREWS 931 - XXX D ANDREWS MUNICIPAL POOL CITY OF ANDREWS $237,711.00 C 12/6/1984 12/1/1989 19 ANDREWS County Total: $237,711.00 County Count: 1 ANGELINA 19 - XXX C DIBOLL CITY PARK CITY OF DIBOLL $174,500.00 C 10/7/1967 10/1/1971 2 215 - XXX A COUSINS LAND PARK CITY OF LUFKIN $113,406.73 C 8/4/1972 6/1/1973 2 297 - XXX D LUFKIN PARKS IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF LUFKIN $49,945.00 C 11/29/1973 1/1/1977 2 512 - XXX D MORRIS FRANK PARK CITY OF LUFKIN $236,249.00 C 5/20/1977 1/1/1980 2 669 - XXX D OLD ORCHARD PARK CITY OF DIBOLL $235,066.00 C 12/5/1978 12/15/1983 2 770 - XXX D LUFKIN TENNIS IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF LUFKIN $51,211.42 C 6/30/1980 6/1/1985 2 879 - XXX D HUNTINGTON CITY PARK CITY OF HUNTINGTON $35,313.56 C 9/26/1983 9/1/1988 2 ANGELINA County Total: $895,691.71 County Count: 7 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Land & Water Conservation Fund --- Detailed Listing of Grants Grouped by County --- Today's Date: 11/20/2008 Page: 2 Texas - 48 Grant ID & Type Grant Element Title Grant Sponsor Amount Status Date Exp.
    [Show full text]
  • Valley Native Plants for Birds
    Quinta Mazatlan WBC 1/19/17 SB 1 TOP VALLEY NATIVE FRUITING PLANTS FOR BIRDS TALL TREES, 30 FT OR GREATER: Common Name Botanical Name Height Width Full Shade/ Full Evergreen Bloom Bloom Fruit Notes (ft) (ft) Sun Sun Shade Color Period Color Anacua, Ehretia anacua 20-50 40-60 X X X White Summer- Yellow- Leaves feel like sandpaper; Sandpaper Tree, Fall Orange fragrant flowers. Mature trunk has Sugarberry characteristic outgrowth which resembles cylinders put together to form it. Edible fruit. Butterfly nectar plant. Sugar Hackberry, Celtis laevigata 30-50 50 X X X Greenish, Spring Red Fast-growing, short-lived tree, with Palo Blanco tiny an ornamental grey, warty bark. Shallow rooted and prone to fungus; should be planted away from structures. Caterpillar host plant. SMALL TREES (LESS THAN 30 FT): Common Name Botanical Name Height Width Full Shade/ Full Evergreen Bloom Bloom Fruit Notes (ft) (ft) Sun Sun Shade Color Period Color Brasil, Condalia hookeri 12-15 15 X X X Greenish- Spring- Black Branches end in thorns; shiny Capul Negro, yellow, Summer leaves. Capulín, Bluewood small Condalia Coma, Sideroxylon 15-30 15 X X X White Summer- Blue- Very fragrant flowers; sticky, edible Chicle, celastrinum Fall, after black fruit; thorny; glossy leaves. Saffron Plum rain Granjeno, Celtis pallida 10-20 12 X X X X Greenish, Spring Orange Edible fruit; spiny; bark is mottled Spiny tiny grey. Can be small tree or shrub. Hackberry Texas Diospyros 15-30 15 X X X X White Spring Black Mottled, peeling ornamental bark; Persimmon, texana great native choice instead of the Chapote Crape Myrtle.
    [Show full text]
  • F.3 References for Appendix F
    F-1 APPENDIX F: ECOREGIONS OF THE 11 WESTERN STATES AND DISTRIBUTION BY ECOREGION OF WIND ENERGY RESOURCES ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS WITHIN EACH STATE F-2 F-3 APPENDIX F: ECOREGIONS OF THE 11 WESTERN STATES AND DISTRIBUTION BY ECOREGION OF WIND ENERGY RESOURCES ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS WITHIN EACH STATE F.1 DESCRIPTIONS OF THE ECOREGIONS Ecoregions delineate areas that have a general similarity in their ecosystems and in the types, qualities, and quantities of their environmental resources. They are based on unique combinations of geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology (EPA 2004). Ecoregions are defined as areas having relative homogeneity in their ecological systems and their components. Factors associated with spatial differences in the quality and quantity of ecosystem components (including soils, vegetation, climate, geology, and physiography) are relatively homogeneous within an ecoregion. A number of individuals and organizations have characterized North America on the basis of ecoregions (e.g., Omernik 1987; CEC 1997; Bailey 1997). The intent of such ecoregion classifications has been to provide a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. The ecoregion discussions presented in this programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) follow the Level III ecoregion classification based on Omernik (1987) and refined through collaborations among U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional offices, state resource management agencies, and other federal agencies (EPA 2004). The following sections provide brief descriptions of each of the Level III ecoregions that have been identified for the 11 western states in which potential wind energy development may occur on BLM-administered lands.
    [Show full text]
  • The Spoonbill, September 2020
    The Spoonbill A Publication of the Ornithology Group Of the Houston Outdoor Nature Club September 2020 Welcome to the beginning of our Fall activities! Although Bayland Community Center has reopened, in an abundance of caution, we will once again use the Zoom online platform for our Sept 14 meeting. A Zoom account is not required if you are only joining Zoom Meetings as a participant. You can participate using a computer, tablet, or cell phone. Join Zoom Meeting: https://utexas.zoom.us/j/93965127303 Meeting ID: 93965127303 The Zoom lobby will open at 6:45pm for check-in, and the meeting will begin at 7:00pm. The program, “The Pandemic Birding Boom: Opportunities in the Time of Covid-19," will be given by Megan Ahlgren, Harris County Naturalist at Kleb Woods/John Paul Landing The pandemic brought a surge of interest in birds and nature as people spent more time at home and in their local parks. Birding has proven to be a great social distancing activity (see photo), although restrictions have caused many of us to change how and where we bird. But between spending more time with your local area birds and an ever-growing number of virtual offerings, there are still plenty of opportunities to grow as a birder during this time. September Trivia Q: What is the most common wild bird in the world? (Answer is at the very end) 2020 Membership If you have not yet renewed your 2020 membership, please do so. The ONC/OG has continuing expenses for our website, Zoom, speakers, yearbook printing, and maintenance of the Little Thicket Nature Sanctuary.
    [Show full text]
  • Responses of Plant Communities to Grazing in the Southwestern United States Department of Agriculture United States Forest Service
    Responses of Plant Communities to Grazing in the Southwestern United States Department of Agriculture United States Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Daniel G. Milchunas General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-169 April 2006 Milchunas, Daniel G. 2006. Responses of plant communities to grazing in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-169. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 126 p. Abstract Grazing by wild and domestic mammals can have small to large effects on plant communities, depend- ing on characteristics of the particular community and of the type and intensity of grazing. The broad objective of this report was to extensively review literature on the effects of grazing on 25 plant commu- nities of the southwestern U.S. in terms of plant species composition, aboveground primary productiv- ity, and root and soil attributes. Livestock grazing management and grazing systems are assessed, as are effects of small and large native mammals and feral species, when data are available. Emphasis is placed on the evolutionary history of grazing and productivity of the particular communities as deter- minants of response. After reviewing available studies for each community type, we compare changes in species composition with grazing among community types. Comparisons are also made between southwestern communities with a relatively short history of grazing and communities of the adjacent Great Plains with a long evolutionary history of grazing. Evidence for grazing as a factor in shifts from grasslands to shrublands is considered. An appendix outlines a new community classification system, which is followed in describing grazing impacts in prior sections.
    [Show full text]