DOCSLIB.ORG

Existing Vegetation Classification and Mapping

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Existing Vegetation Classification and Mapping Existing Vegetation Classification and Mapping Technical Guide Version 1.0 Guide Version Classification and Mapping Technical Existing Vegetation United States Department of Agriculture Existing Vegetation Forest Service Classification and Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff Mapping Technical Guide Gen. Tech. Report WO-67 Version 1.0 April 2005 United States Department of Agriculture Existing Vegetation Forest Service Classification and Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff Mapping Technical Guide Gen. Tech. Report WO-67 Version 1.0 April 2005 Ronald J. Brohman and Larry D. Bryant Technical Editors and Coordinators Authored by: Section 1: Existing Vegetation Classification and Mapping Framework David Tart, Clinton K. Williams, C. Kenneth Brewer, Jeff P. DiBenedetto, and Brian Schwind Section 2: Existing Vegetation Classification Protocol David Tart, Clinton K. Williams, Jeff P. DiBenedetto, Elizabeth Crowe, Michele M. Girard, Hazel Gordon, Kathy Sleavin, Mary E. Manning, John Haglund, Bruce Short, and David L. Wheeler Section 3: Existing Vegetation Mapping Protocol C. Kenneth Brewer, Brian Schwind, Ralph J. Warbington, William Clerke, Patricia C. Krosse, Lowell H. Suring, and Michael Schanta Team Members Technical Editors Ronald J. Brohman National Resource Information Requirements Coordinator, Washington Office Larry D. Bryant Assistant Director, Forest and Range Management Staff, Washington Office Authors David Tart Regional Vegetation Ecologist, Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT C. Kenneth Brewer Landscape Ecologist/Remote Sensing Specialist, Northern Region, Missoula, MT Brian Schwind Remote Sensing Specialist, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, CA Clinton K. Williams Plant Ecologist, Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT Ralph J. Warbington Remote Sensing Lab Manager, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, CA Jeff P. DiBenedetto Ecologist, Custer National Forest, Billings, MT Elizabeth Crowe Riparian/Wetland Ecologist, Deschutes National Forest, Bend, OR William Clerke Remote Sensing Program Manager, Southern Region, Atlanta GA Michele M. Girard Forest Hydrologist/Ecologist, Prescott National Forest, Camp Verde, AZ Hazel Gordon Vegetation Ecologist, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, CA Kathy Sleavin Technical Support Group Leader, Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) Field- Sampled Vegetation (FSVeg), Fort Collins, CO Patricia C. Krosse Ecology & Botany Program Manager, Tongass National Forest, Ketchikan, AK Mary E. Manning Regional Vegetation Ecologist, Northern Region, Missoula, MT Lowell H. Suring Wildlife Ecologist, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Boise ID Michael Schanta Resource Information Manager, Mark Twain National Forest, Rollins, MO John Haglund Ecologist, NRIS Terra, Sandy, OR Bruce Short Timber Sales/Silviculture Program Leader, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO David L. Wheeler Rangeland Vegetation Group Leader, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO Editor Judy Tripp Geospatial Services Group, Engineering, Northern Region, Missoula, MT This document should be cited as follows: Brohman, R.; Bryant, L. eds. 2005. Existing Vegetation Classification and Mapping Technical Guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO–67. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff. 305 p. Sections 1 through 3 should be cited individually as follows: Tart, D.; Williams, C.; Brewer, C.; DiBenedetto, J.; and Schwind, B. 2005. Section 1: Existing Vegetation Classification and Mapping Framework. In: Brohman, R; Bryant, L. eds. Existing Vegetation Classification and Mapping Technical Guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO–67. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff. Tart, D.; Williams, C.; DiBenedetto, J.; Crowe, E.; Girard, M.; Gordon, H.; Sleavin, K.; Manning, M.; Haglund, J.; Short, B.; and Wheeler, D. 2005. Section 2: Existing Vegetation Classification Protocol. In: Brohman, R; Bryant, L. eds. Existing Vegetation Classification and Mapping Technical Guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO–67. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff. Brewer, C.; Schwind, B.; Warbington, R.; Clerke, W.; Krosse, P.; Suring, L.; and Schanta, M. 2005. Section 3: Existing Vegetation Mapping Protocol. In: Brohman; R. Bryant, L. eds. Existing Vegetation Classification and Mapping Technical Guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO–67. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202–720–2600 (voice and TDD). To f ile a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call 202–720–5964 (voice or TDD). iv Existing Vegetation Classification & Mapping Technical Guide Acknowledgments The following individuals provided information, advice, and/or assistance that con- tributed to the completion of this document: Robert Pfister Professor Emeritus, University of Montana, Missoula, MT Alison Hill Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO Patrice Janiga Assistant Director, USDA Forest Service, Design and Quality Assurance, IMI, Fort Collins, CO David Meriwether Ecosystem Management Coordinator, USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA Douglas S. Powell National Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator, USDA Forest Service, Washington Office Betsy Banas Staff Cartographer, Geospatial Services Group, Washington Office James D. Ellen Regional Inventory Specialist, USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, Juneau, AK James White Forester, USDA Forest Service, NRIS Terra, Sandy, OR Cathy Askren Liaison Officer, USDA Forest Service, NRIS Interagency Regional Group (IRM), Sandy, OR Robert L. White Forest Silviculturist, USDA Forest Service, Allegheny National Forest, Warren, PA The ongoing work of the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), Vegetation Subcommittee, and the Ecological Society of America (ESA) Vegetation Classification Panel provided a valuable foundation for the development of this protocol. We thank the members of each group for their willingness to communicate openly and share information. Existing Vegetation Classification & Mapping Technical Guide v vi Existing Vegetation Classification & Mapping Technical Guide Table of Contents Section 1. Existing Vegetation Classification and Mapping Framework 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................1-1 1.1.1 Organization of Technical Guide .....................................................................1-1 1.1.2 Vegetation Classification Standards.................................................................1-1 1.1.3 Vegetation Mapping Standards ........................................................................1-2 1.2 Background and Objectives ....................................................................................1-2 1.2.1 Existing Vegetation Information Uses .............................................................1-2 1.2.2 Relationship of Existing and Potential Natural Vegetation..............................1-4 1.2.3 Vegetation Classification Business Requirements...........................................1-4 1.2.4 Vegetation Mapping Business Requirements...................................................1-5 1.2.5 Protocol Objectives ..........................................................................................1-6 1.3 Protocol Overview....................................................................................................1-7 1.3.1 Vegetation Classification Concepts and Definitions .......................................1-7 1.3.2 Vegetation Mapping Concepts and Definitions .............................................1-10 1.4 Roles and Responsibilities.....................................................................................1-14 1.5 Relationship to Other Federal Programs and Standards ..................................1-15 1.5.1 Relationship to the FGDC National Vegetation Classification Standard ......1-16 1.5.2 Relationship to Other Forest Service Inventory and Monitoring Protocols ..1-20 1.5.3 Relationship to Other Federal Programs and Standards ................................1-24 1.5.4 Relationship to Non-Federal Programs and Standards..................................1-24 1.6 Change Management .............................................................................................1-24 Section 2. Existing Vegetation Classification Protocol 2.1 Purpose......................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Planning and Design ................................................................................................2-1 2.2.1 Vegetation Classification Process ....................................................................2-1 2.2.2 Classification Approaches and Concepts.........................................................2-7
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Grassland & Shrubland Vegetation
    Grassland & Shrubland Vegetation Missoula Draft Resource Management Plan Handout May 2019 Key Points Approximately 3% of BLM-managed lands in the planning area are non-forested (less than 10% canopy cover); the other 97% are dominated by a forested canopy with limited mountain meadows, shrublands, and grasslands. See table 1 on the following page for a break-down of BLM-managed grassland and shrubland in the planning area classified under the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS). The overall management goal of grassland and shrubland resources is to maintain diverse upland ecological conditions while providing for a variety of multiple uses that are economically and biologically feasible. Alternatives Alternative A (1986 Garnet RMP, as Amended) Maintain, or where practical enhance, site productivity on all public land available for livestock grazing: (a) maintain current vegetative condition in “maintain” and “custodial” category allotments; (b) improve unsatisfactory vegetative conditions by one condition class in certain “improvement” category allotments; (c) prevent noxious weeds from invading new areas; and, (d) limit utilization levels to provide for plant maintenance. Alternatives B & C (common to all) Proposed objectives: Manage uplands to meet health standards and meet or exceed proper functioning condition within site or ecological capability. Where appropriate, fire would be used as a management agent to achieve/maintain disturbance regimes supporting healthy functioning vegetative conditions. Manage surface-disturbing activities in a manner to minimize degradation to rangelands and soil quality. Mange areas to conserve BLM special status species plants. Ensure consistency with achieving or maintaining Standards of Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Causes of Bush Encroachment in Africa: the Key to Effective Management of Savanna Grasslands
    Tropical Grasslands – Forrajes Tropicales (2013) Volume 1, 215−219 Understanding the causes of bush encroachment in Africa: The key to effective management of savanna grasslands OLAOTSWE E. KGOSIKOMA1 AND KABO MOGOTSI2 1Department of Agricultural Research, Ministry of Agriculture, Gaborone, Botswana. www.moa.gov.bw 2Department of Agricultural Research, Ministry of Agriculture, Francistown, Botswana. www.moa.gov.bw Keywords: Rangeland degradation, fire, indigenous ecological knowledge, livestock grazing, rainfall variability. Abstract The increase in biomass and abundance of woody plant species, often thorny or unpalatable, coupled with the suppres- sion of herbaceous plant cover, is a widely recognized form of rangeland degradation. Bush encroachment therefore has the potential to compromise rural livelihoods in Africa, as many depend on the natural resource base. The causes of bush encroachment are not without debate, but fire, herbivory, nutrient availability and rainfall patterns have been shown to be the key determinants of savanna vegetation structure and composition. In this paper, these determinants are discussed, with particular reference to arid and semi-arid environments of Africa. To improve our current under- standing of causes of bush encroachment, an integrated approach, involving ecological and indigenous knowledge systems, is proposed. Only through our knowledge of causes of bush encroachment, both direct and indirect, can better livelihood adjustments be made, or control measures and restoration of savanna ecosystem functioning be realized. Resumen Una forma ampliamente reconocida de degradación de pasturas es el incremento de la abundancia de especies de plan- tas leñosas, a menudo espinosas y no palatables, y de su biomasa, conjuntamente con la pérdida de plantas herbáceas. En África, la invasión por arbustos puede comprometer el sistema de vida rural ya que muchas personas dependen de los recursos naturales básicos.
    [Show full text]
  • Edition 2 from Forest to Fjaeldmark the Vegetation Communities Highland Treeless Vegetation
    Edition 2 From Forest to Fjaeldmark The Vegetation Communities Highland treeless vegetation Richea scoparia Edition 2 From Forest to Fjaeldmark 1 Highland treeless vegetation Community (Code) Page Alpine coniferous heathland (HCH) 4 Cushion moorland (HCM) 6 Eastern alpine heathland (HHE) 8 Eastern alpine sedgeland (HSE) 10 Eastern alpine vegetation (undifferentiated) (HUE) 12 Western alpine heathland (HHW) 13 Western alpine sedgeland/herbland (HSW) 15 General description Rainforest and related scrub, Dry eucalypt forest and woodland, Scrub, heathland and coastal complexes. Highland treeless vegetation communities occur Likewise, some non-forest communities with wide within the alpine zone where the growth of trees is environmental amplitudes, such as wetlands, may be impeded by climatic factors. The altitude above found in alpine areas. which trees cannot survive varies between approximately 700 m in the south-west to over The boundaries between alpine vegetation communities are usually well defined, but 1 400 m in the north-east highlands; its exact location depends on a number of factors. In many communities may occur in a tight mosaic. In these parts of Tasmania the boundary is not well defined. situations, mapping community boundaries at Sometimes tree lines are inverted due to exposure 1:25 000 may not be feasible. This is particularly the or frost hollows. problem in the eastern highlands; the class Eastern alpine vegetation (undifferentiated) (HUE) is used in There are seven specific highland heathland, those areas where remote sensing does not provide sedgeland and moorland mapping communities, sufficient resolution. including one undifferentiated class. Other highland treeless vegetation such as grasslands, herbfields, A minor revision in 2017 added information on the grassy sedgelands and wetlands are described in occurrence of peatland pool complexes, and other sections.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 Vegetation Diversity 3
    Chapter 3 Vegetation Diversity Vegetation Diversity INTRODUCTION Biodiversity has been defined as the variety of living organisms; the genetic differences among them; and the communities, ecosystems and landscapes in which they occur (Noss 1990, West 1995). Biodiversity has leapt to the forefront of issues due to a variety of reasons; changing societal values, accelerated species extinctions, global environmental change, aesthetic values, and the value of goods and services supplied (West 1995). Maintenance of ecological functions, processes, and disturbance regimes is as important as preserving species, their populations, genetic structure, biotic communities, and landscapes. Hence ecosystem-level processes, services, and disturbances must be considered within the arena of biodiversity concerns (West and Whitford 1995). The biological diversity that is supported by a particular area is generally a positive function of the degree of environmental heterogeneity occurring over space and time within that area (Longland and Young 1995). Vegetation is a cornerstone of biological diversity. Vegetation exerts its influence into almost every facet of the biophysical world. Many biophysical processes and functions depend on or are connected to vegetative conditions. Vegetation is an integral part of ecosystem composition, function, and structure. Vegetation shapes and in turn, is shaped by the ecosystems in which it occurs. It provides plant and animal habitat, and determines wildfire and insect hazards. Leaves, branches, and roots contribute to soil productivity and stability. Large wood in streams increases physical complexity, providing more habitat diversity. Vegetation shades streams, helping to maintain desirable water temperature, and also acts as a physical and biological barrier or filter for sediment and debris flowing from adjacent hillsides toward streams.
    [Show full text]
  • 7. Shrubland and Young Forest Habitat Management
    7. SHRUBLAND AND YOUNG FOREST HABITAT MANAGEMENT hrublands” and “Young Forest” are terms that apply to areas Shrubland habitat and that are transitioning to mature forest and are dominated by young forest differ in “Sseedlings, saplings, and shrubs with interspersed grasses and forbs (herbaceous plants). While some sites such as wetlands, sandy sites vegetation types and and ledge areas can support a relatively stable shrub cover, most shrub communities in the northeast are successional and change rapidly to food and cover they mature forest if left unmanaged. Shrub and young forest habitats in Vermont provide important habitat provide, as well as functions for a variety of wildlife including shrubland birds, butterflies and bees, black bear, deer, moose, snowshoe hare, bobcat, as well as a where and how they variety of reptiles and amphibians. Many shrubland species are in decline due to loss of habitat. Shrubland bird species in Vermont include common are maintained on the species such as chestnut-sided warbler, white-throated sparrow, ruffed grouse, Eastern towhee, American woodcock, brown thrasher, Nashville landscape. warbler, and rarer species such as prairie warbler and golden-winged warbler. These habitat types are used by 29 Vermont Species of Greatest Conservation Need. While small areas of shrub and young forest habitat can be important to some wildlife, managing large patches of 5 acres or more provides much greater benefit to the wildlife that rely on the associated habitat conditions to meet their life requirements. Birds such as the chestnut- sided warbler will use smaller areas of young forest, but less common species such as golden-winged warbler require areas of 25 acres or more.
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping Vegetation Types in a Savanna Ecosystem in Namibia: Concepts for Integrated Land Cover Assessments
    Mapping Vegetation Types in a Savanna Ecosystem in Namibia: Concepts for Integrated Land Cover Assessments Christian H ttich Dissertation zur Erlangung des naturwissenschaftlichen Doktorgrades der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena Mapping Vegetation Types in a Savanna Ecosystem in Namibia: Concepts for Integrated Land Cover Assessments Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades doctor rerum naturalium (Dr. rer. nat.) vorgelegt dem Rat der Chemisch-Geowissenschaftlichen Fakult t der Friedrich-Schiller-Universit t Jena von Dipl.-Geogr. Christian H&ttich geboren am 12. Mai 19,9 in Jena 1 2 Gutachter- 1. .rof. Dr. Christiane Schmullius 2. .rof. Dr. Stefan Dech (Universit t /&rzburg) 0ag der 1ffentlichen 2erteidigung- 29.04.2011 3 Acknowledgements I _____________________________________________________________________________________ Ackno ledgements 0his dissertation would not have been possible without the help of a large number of people. First of all I want to thank the scientific committee of this work- .rof. Dr. Christiane Schmullius and .rof. Dr. Stefan Dech for their always present motivation and fruitful discussions. I am e9tremely grateful to my scientific mentor .rof. Dr. Martin Herold, for his never-ending receptiveness to numerous questions from my side, for his clear guidance for the definition of the main research issues, the frequent feedback regarding the structure and content of my research, and for his contagious enthusiasm for remote sensing of the environment. Acknowledgements are given to the former remote sensing team of “BIO0A S&d?- Dr. Ursula Gessner (DFD-DLR), Dr. Rene Colditz (COAABIO, Me9ico), Manfred Beil (DFD-DLR), and Dr. Michael Schmidt (COAABIO, Me9ico) for e9tremely fruitful discussions, criticism, and technical support during all phases of the dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecoveg: a New Approach to Vegetation Description and Classification
    REVIEWS Ecological Monographs, 84(4), 2014, pp. 533–561 Ó 2014 by the Ecological Society of America EcoVeg: a new approach to vegetation description and classification 1,11 2 3,12 4 5 DON FABER-LANGENDOEN, TODD KEELER-WOLF, DEL MEIDINGER, DAVE TART, BRUCE HOAGLAND, CARMEN 1 6 7 8 9 10 JOSSE, GONZALO NAVARRO, SERGUEI PONOMARENKO, JEAN-PIERRE SAUCIER, ALAN WEAKLEY, AND PATRICK COMER 1NatureServe, Conservation Science Division, 4600 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203 USA 2Biogeographic Data Branch, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California 95814 USA 3British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range, Research Branch, Victoria, British Columbia V8W 9C2 Canada 4USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Natural Resources, Ogden, Utah 84401 USA 5Oklahoma Biological Survey and Department of Geography, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019 USA 6Universidad Cato´lica Boliviana San Pablo, Unidad Acade´mica Regional Cochabamba Departamento de Ciencias Exactas e Ingenierı´as, Carrera de Ingenierı´a Ambiental, Cochabamba, Bolivia 7Ecological Integrity Branch, Parks Canada, Rue Eddy, Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0M5 Canada 8Ministe`re des Ressources Naturelles 2700, Rue Einstein, Bureau B-1-185, Quebec City, Quebec G1P 3W8 Canada 9North Carolina Botanic Garden, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599 USA 10NatureServe, 2108 55th Street, Boulder, Colorado 80301 USA Abstract. A vegetation classification approach is needed that can describe the diversity of terrestrial ecosystems and their transformations over large time frames, span the full range of spatial and geographic scales across the globe, and provide knowledge of reference conditions and current states of ecosystems required to make decisions about conservation and resource management.
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary and Acronyms Glossary Glossary
    Glossary andChapter Acronyms 1 ©Kevin Fleming ©Kevin Horseshoe crab eggs Glossary and Acronyms Glossary Glossary 40% Migratory Bird “If a refuge, or portion thereof, has been designated, acquired, reserved, or set Hunting Rule: apart as an inviolate sanctuary, we may only allow hunting of migratory game birds on no more than 40 percent of that refuge, or portion, at any one time unless we find that taking of any such species in more than 40 percent of such area would be beneficial to the species (16 U.S.C. 668dd(d)(1)(A), National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act; 16 U.S.C. 703-712, Migratory Bird Treaty Act; and 16 U.S.C. 715a-715r, Migratory Bird Conservation Act). Abiotic: Not biotic; often referring to the nonliving components of the ecosystem such as water, rocks, and mineral soil. Access: Reasonable availability of and opportunity to participate in quality wildlife- dependent recreation. Accessibility: The state or quality of being easily approached or entered, particularly as it relates to complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accessible facilities: Structures accessible for most people with disabilities without assistance; facilities that meet Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards; Americans with Disabilities Act-accessible. [E.g., parking lots, trails, pathways, ramps, picnic and camping areas, restrooms, boating facilities (docks, piers, gangways), fishing facilities, playgrounds, amphitheaters, exhibits, audiovisual programs, and wayside sites.] Acetylcholinesterase: An enzyme that breaks down the neurotransmitter acetycholine to choline and acetate. Acetylcholinesterase is secreted by nerve cells at synapses and by muscle cells at neuromuscular junctions. Organophosphorus insecticides act as anti- acetyl cholinesterases by inhibiting the action of cholinesterase thereby causing neurological damage in organisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary of Landscape and Vegetation Ecology for Alaska
    U. S. Department of the Interior BLM-Alaska Technical Report to Bureau of Land Management BLM/AK/TR-84/1 O December' 1984 reprinted October.·2001 Alaska State Office 222 West 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Glossary of Landscape and Vegetation Ecology for Alaska Herman W. Gabriel and Stephen S. Talbot The Authors HERMAN w. GABRIEL is an ecologist with the USDI Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office in Anchorage, Alaskao He holds a B.S. degree from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and a Ph.D from the University of Montanao From 1956 to 1961 he was a forest inventory specialist with the USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Regiono In 1966-67 he served as an inventory expert with UN-FAO in Ecuador. Dra Gabriel moved to Alaska in 1971 where his interest in the description and classification of vegetation has continued. STEPHEN Sa TALBOT was, when work began on this glossary, an ecologist with the USDI Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office. He holds a B.A. degree from Bates College, an M.Ao from the University of Massachusetts, and a Ph.D from the University of Alberta. His experience with northern vegetation includes three years as a research scientist with the Canadian Forestry Service in the Northwest Territories before moving to Alaska in 1978 as a botanist with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. or. Talbot is now a general biologist with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Refuge Division, Anchorage, where he is conducting baseline studies of the vegetation of national wildlife refuges. ' . Glossary of Landscape and Vegetation Ecology for Alaska Herman W.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildfires in Grasslands and Shrublands: a Review of Impacts
    water Review Wildfires in Grasslands and Shrublands: A Review of Impacts on Vegetation, Soil, Hydrology, and Geomorphology Ilan Stavi Dead Sea and Arava Science Center, Yotvata 88820, Israel; [email protected] Received: 2 April 2019; Accepted: 16 May 2019; Published: 20 May 2019 Abstract: Wildfires are prevalent in grasslands and shrublands. The objective of this study is to provide land managers with a general overview, by assessing the main impacts of wildfire, including those on plant communities (e.g., secondary succession and species invasion), soil characteristics (e.g., water repellency (hydrophobicity), aggregation and structure stability, and contents of organic carbon and nutrients), and surface processes (e.g., ash deposition, ground surface clogging, water runoff, soil erosion, hillslope debris flow, and dry ravel). Additionally, the study discusses the effects of livestock grazing on the functioning of post-fire grasslands and shrublands. Although mesic regions are mentioned, this review focuses on drylands. The comparatively low-to-moderate fuel loads that characterize grasslands and shrublands generate wildfires of relatively moderate intensity, resulting in moderate burn severity. Yet, it seems that because of decreased soil aggregate stability following burning, the hoof action of livestock that access burnt lands shortly after the fire increases the shearing and detachment of mineral material from the ground surface; this increases soil erodibility, with the possible risk of accelerated land degradation. The review ends with an assessment of general implications for environmental sustainability and health, and provides recommendations on wildfire control in rangelands, and on restoration of burnt lands. Keywords: climatic change; drought episodes; ecosystem services; herbaceous and woody vegetation community; hillslope processes; invasive species; organic matter; prescribed burning; shrub encroachment; water and wind erosion 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Temperate Coniferous Forests
    Temperate Coniferous Forests Richard H Waring Volume 2, The Earth system: biological and ecological dimensions of global environmental change, pp 560–565 Edited by Professor Harold A Mooney and Dr Josep G Canadell in Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change (ISBN 0-471-97796-9) Editor-in-Chief Ted Munn John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, 2002 and sunken stomata and a large proportion of their stems Temperate Coniferous consists of sapwood that serves as a storage reservoir, as Forests well as a conduit for transport of water from roots to leaves. Richard H Waring GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION Oregon State University, Eugene, OR, USA Today, temperate evergreen coniferous forests cover app- roximately 2.4 ð 106 km2 (Melillo et al., 1993; Landsberg Temperate coniferous forests include representatives of the and Gower, 1997). Conifers dominate the montane forests most massive forms of terrestrial life on Earth. In the in North America, Europe, and China. Smaller areas of tem- coastal redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) forests of northern perate conifers are located in montane regions of Korea, California, trees may reach heights >100 m and accumu- Japan, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Guatemala. In Europe, the late biomass in excess of 3000 t ha1 . In the more extensive distribution of native and introduced conifers has been Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forests of the Pacific expanded into areas more climatically favorable to hard- Northwest, USA and Canada, biomass in older stands fre- woods. Pines (Pinus), represented by more than 90 species, quently reaches 1000 t ha1 , with an additional 500 t ha1 are the most widely distributed conifer and their range has of standing dead and fallen trees.
    [Show full text]
  • Essential FVS: a User's Guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator
    United States Department of Agriculture Essential FVS: Forest Service Forest Management A User’s Guide to the Service Center Fort Collins, CO Forest Vegetation Simulator 2002 Revised: June, 2021 Gary E. Dixon i ABSTRACT Dixon, Gary E. comp. 2002. Essential FVS: A user’s guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Internal Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center. 226p. (Revised: June 4, 2021) This document synthesizes information in various users’ guides relating to the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS), and updates that information to be consistent with current model capabilities. This guide explains FVS data input requirements, the keyword system, model output interpretation, timing of management options, simulating management scenarios, regeneration, event monitor use, conditionally scheduling activities, creating custom output variables, model calibration to local stand conditions, model multipliers, policy labeling, basic component model theory, available extensions, and lists common problems and their solution. This document is meant to serve as an initial reference for people of all skill levels with the FVS model. Keywords: Forest Vegetation Simulator, forest management, simulation models, resource management. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Gary E. Dixon (retired) is a biometrician and served as the Forest Vegetation Simulator Group leader at the Washington Office’s Forest Management Service Center in Fort Collins, Colorado. Dr. Dixon received his B.S. (1973), M.S. (1974), and Ph.D. (1977) in forest biometrics at Colorado State University. He has worked on the development of tree growth models throughout most of his career. He joined the Forest Management Staff in 1982 and has worked with the model now known as the Forest Vegetation Simulator since that time.
    [Show full text]