SLOPE AND EXPOSURE EFFECTS ON RANGE SITE INTERPRETATIONS (ARIZONA). Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic) Authors MEYER, WILLIAM WALTER. Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 04/10/2021 05:41:26 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/187181 INFORMATION TO USERS This rcproduction was madc from a copy of a documcnt scnt to us for microfilming. Whilc thc most advanccd tcchnology has bccn used to photograph and rcproduce this docLlmcnt, thc quality of the rcproduction is heavily dependcnt upon the quality of thc matcrial submittcd. Thc following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. I. The sign or "target" for pagcs apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or scction, thcy arc spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may havc ncccssitatcd cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assurc complete continuity. 2. When an image on thc film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of cither blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrigh ted matcrials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target notc will appear listing the pages in thc adjacen t framc. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of thc material being photographed, a dcfinite method of "sectioning" thc material has been followed. It is customary to bcgin filming at the uppcr left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If neceSSaIY, sectioning is continucd again-bcginning bclow the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot bc satisfactorily reproducr-(\ by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xcrographic copy. Thcse prints arc available upon request from the Disscrta tions Customcr Scrviccs Dcpartmcn 1. 5. Somc pagcs in any docLlmcnt may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has bccn filmcd. University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI481 06 8324458 Meyer, William Walter SLOPE AND EXPOSURE EFFECTS ON RANGE SITE INTERPRETATIONS The University of Arizona PH.D. 1983 University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI48106 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check marl<_..,I_. 1. Glossy photographs or pages ~ 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print __ 3. Photographs with darl< background __ 4. Illustrations are poor copy __ 5. Pages with black marks, not original copy ___ 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page __ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages __ 8. Print exceeds margin requirements __ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine __ 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print __ 11. Page(s) lacl<ing when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page(s) seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. Two pages numbered . Text follows. 14. Curling and wrinkled pages __ 15. Other______________________________________________________ _ University Microfilms International SLOPE AND EXPOSURE EFFECTS ON RANGE SITE INTERPRETATIONS by William Walter Meyer A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the SCHOOL OF RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY WITH A MAJOR IN RANGE MANAGEMENT In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1 9 8 3 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Final Examination Committe~, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared qy William Walter Meyer entitled Slope and Exposure Effects on Range Site Interpretations and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Date ,. /1"'j 3 4 !lhV;, 4V.v/ - 7 Date Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate's submission of the final copy of the diss~rtation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation reqUire~ry. ) ;;jf/c. (J,,'/Cs- Dissertation Direc20r Date ( STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfill­ ment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledge­ ment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of "this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED: ;Jj ~, DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my dad, Walter F. Meyer, and all the other "brush poppin! old codgers who put the old cow down the hill. TT iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of this dissertation is a tribute to the continued support and guidance of a dear friend, my advisor, Dr. Phil R. Ogden. To Phil, I graciously express my deepest appreciation. May our friendship be everlasting. I give my loving thanks to my wife, Francie, and my four range management girls, Lilah, Jenny, Katie, and Nickie. With­ out their love and support, this degree would be meaningless. Thanks is not adequate in expressing my appreciation for the friendships that I have gained through the years with the members of my guidance committee, Dr. E. Lamar Smith, Dr. Gilbert L. Jordan, Dr. Jack L. Stroehlein, and Dr. David M. Hendricks. To these men, thank you for your friendship and support. Special thanks go to Dr. Donald (Dee) Post. His support and proddings throughout the years are immensely appreciated. Grateful appreciation is expressed to Dr. Milo L. Cox and Dr. Jon J. Norris for their review and support on my gradu­ ate committee. Special expressions of love are due to my mother, Anna Meyer, for all the hard work she has done so that I could go to school. iv v Special thanks go to Rita Mikula for her efforts in typ­ ing the final draft of this manuscript. Thanks to Raymundo Aguirre, a good friend who provided his expertise in the use of the "complicator." To all these people and more, I am deeply indebted. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS viii LIST OF TABLES xi ABSTRACT xiii 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA 3 3. LITERATURE REVIEW . 6 4. METHODS AND PROCEDURES 15 Sampling Design • •• .•.•. 15 General Range Site and Soil Series Selection . • • • • • • • • • . • . 17 Climatological Zones . • . • 18 Vegetational Communities Samples . • . 19 Selection of Aspect Subsamples 22 Reflectance and Soil Temperature 22 Soil Descriptions . 25 Vegetational Sampling • . • • . • 26 Statistical Analysis •. • . • . 28 Analysis of Variance . 29 Cluster and Ordination Analyses 30 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 31 Climate and Soil Climate 31 Potential Insolation . • . 32 Precipitation . • 34 Reflectance . • . 37 Soil Temperatures . 40 Soil Moisture . • . 55 Environments • • . 55 Soils and Soil Factors 58 Vegetational Composition and Species Relationships • . • • • • • . • . 64 Sample Location Vegetation 64 Subsample Communities • . 68 vi vii TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued Page Vegetational Associations . 83 Biotopes ... 0 • • • • • • • • • • 95 Individual Species • . • • . • . 98 Climate, Soils, and Plant Relationships. 107 6. CONCLUSIONS III APPENDIX A: SOIL CLIMATE DATA 114 APPENDIX B: SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS 119 APPENDIX C: CHI-SQUARE MATRICES 125 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . • • 130 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. A general map of Arizona showing approximate sample locations • • • . • • 4 2. Sample design showing the terminology and relationships among sample units 16 3. Typical view of a northern exposure on the Schrap 1 sample location . 20 4. Typical view of a north-northeastern exposure on the Chiricahua 4 sample location . • . 20 5. Typical view of an east-southeastern exposure on the Schrap 2 sample location • . • • • 21 6. Typical view of an eastern exposure on the Schrap 3 sample location 21 7. Total annual incident radiation for all subs ample sites within the four sample locations • • • . • . • 33 8. Total midfall through midspring potential insolations on all exposures with 25% slope in the study area . • • . 35 9. Annual rainfall pattern analysis of the two rainfall stations located near the sample sites with analysis based on the 'past 35 year record for both stations . • 36 10. Mean percent soil surface reflectance for the study sample locations 38 11. Mean annual and seasonal soil temperatures at 5 cm depth for the four sample locations 41 12. Mean winter soil temperatures for all exposures within the four sample locations 42 viii ix LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS--Continued Figure Page 13. Mean spring soil temperatures on all exposures within the four sample locations . • . 44 14. Mean summer soil temperatures on all exposures within the four sample locations ••• • • 46 15. Mean fall soil temperatures on all exposures within the four sample locations •• • • 47 16. Mean annual soil temperatures for all exposures within the four sample locations •• • • • 52 17. Dendrograph of the 64 subs ample sites within the four sample locations .