DOCSLIB.ORG

Attribute Data Dictionary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Name Description ZONE 1 - Northern Cascades 2 - Oregon Coastal Range 3 - Northern California Coastal Range 4 - Southern California Coastal Range 5 - California Central Valley 6 - Sierra Nevada Mountain Range 7 - Cascade Mountain Range 8 - Grande Coulee Basin of the Columbia Plateau 9 - Blue Mountain Region of the Columbia Plateau 10 - Northwestern Rocky Mountains 12 - Western Great Basin 13 - Death Valley Basin 14 - Sonoran Desert 15 - Mogollon Rim 16 - Utah High Plateaus 17 - Eastern Great Basin 18 - Snake River Plain 19 - Northern Rocky Mountains 20 - Missouri River Plateau 21 - Middle Rocky Mountains 22 - Wyoming Basin 23 - Colorado Plateau 24 - Navajo Plateau 25 - Rio Grande Basin 26 - Chihuahuan Desert 27 - Great Plains Tablelands 28 - Southern Rocky Mountains 29 - Wyoming Highlands 30 - Northwestern Great Plains 31 - Sandhills 32 - Southeastern Great Plains 33 - Western Great Plains 34 - Southern Great Plains 35 - Edwards Plateau 36 - Western Gulf Plains 37 - Ouachita Hills 38 - Eastern Great Plains 39 - Prairie Coteau Lands 40 - Northern Great Plains 41 - Northern Lake Country 42 - Western Till Plains 43 - Till Plains 44 - Ozark Highlands 45 - Mississippi Alluvial Plains 46 - Gulf Plains 47 - Appalachia Bluegrass Hills 48 - Cumberland Highlands 49 - Central Till Plains 50 - Central Great Lakes Uplands 51 - Great Lakes Plains 52 - Eastern Till Plains 53 - Appalachia 54 - Southern Piedmont 55 - Southeastern Coastal Plain 56 - Floridian Coastal Plain 57 - Southern Appalachia 58 - Eastern Coastal Plain 59 - Northeastern Piedmont 60 - Chesapeake Bay 61 - Northern Appalachia 62 - Allegheny Plateau 63 - Finger Lakes 64 - Northeastern Highlands 65 - Connecticut River Basin and Highlands 66 - The North Woods 98 - Mississippi Delta 99 - Coastal Gulf Plains DIST_CAT Chemical, Fire, Mechanical Add and Mechanical Remove SEV_CAT Severity Category; Low, Moderate, High TSD_CAT Time Since Disturbance Category; 1 year, 2-5 years and 6-10 years LF_2001 2001 Lifeform; Agriculture, Developed, Herb, Shrub, Tree and Woodland EVT_2001 2001 Existing Vegetation Type Abies concolor Forest Alliance Abies grandis Forest Acadian Low-Elevation Hardwood Forest Acadian Low-Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest Acadian Low-Elevation Spruce-Fir-Hardwood Forest Acadian-Appalachian Montane Spruce-Fir Forest Acadian-Appalachian Subalpine Woodland Alabama Ketona Glade and Woodland Allegheny-Cumberland Dry Oak Forest and Woodland Appalachian Hemlock Forest Appalachian Hemlock-Northern Hardwood Forest Appalachian Northern Hardwood Forest Appalachian Shale Barrens Atlantic Coastal Plain Clay-Based Carolina Bay Wetland Atlantic Coastal Plain Fall-line Sandhills Longleaf Pine Woodland Atlantic Coastal Plain Peatland Pocosin and Canebrake Woodland Atlantic Coastal Plain Streamhead Seepage Swamp-Pocosin-Baygall Atlantic Coastal Plain Upland Longleaf Pine Woodland Boreal Acidic Peatland Forest Boreal Aspen-Birch Forest Boreal Hardwood Forest Boreal Jack Pine-Black Spruce Forest Boreal White Spruce-Fir Forest Boreal White Spruce-Fir-Hardwood Forest California Central Valley Mixed Oak Savanna California Central Valley Riparian Forest and Woodland California Coastal Closed-Cone Conifer Forest and Woodland California Coastal Live Oak Woodland and Savanna California Coastal Redwood Forest California Lower Montane Blue Oak Forest and Woodland California Lower Montane Blue Oak-Foothill Pine Forest and Woodland California Lower Montane Foothill Pine Woodland and Savanna California Montane Jeffrey Pine(-Ponderosa Pine) Woodland California Montane Riparian Systems Caribbean Coastal Wetland Systems Caribbean Forested Swamp Central and South Texas Coastal Fringe Forest and Woodland Central and Southern Appalachian Montane Oak Forest Central and Southern Appalachian Spruce-Fir Forest Central and Southern California Mixed Evergreen Woodland Central Appalachian Alkaline Glade and Woodland Central Appalachian Dry Oak Forest Central Appalachian Dry Oak-Pine Forest Central Appalachian Dry Pine Forest Central Appalachian Rocky Oak Woodland Central Appalachian Rocky Pine Woodland Central Appalachian Rocky Pine-Oak Woodland Central Atlantic Coastal Plain Maritime Forest Central Atlantic Coastal Plain Wet Longleaf Pine Savanna and Flatwoods Central Florida Pine Flatwoods Central Interior and Appalachian Floodplain Forest Central Interior and Appalachian Riparian Forest Central Interior and Appalachian Swamp Forest Central Interior Highlands Calcareous Glade and Barrens Woodland Central Interior Highlands Dry Acidic Glade and Barrens Coastal Douglas-fir Woodland Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Columbia Plateau Western Juniper Woodland and Savanna Crosstimbers Oak Forest and Woodland Crowley's Ridge Sand Forest Cumberland Sandstone Glade and Barrens Douglas-fir - Oregon White Oak Woodland Dry-mesic Montane Douglas-fir Forest Dry-mesic Montane Western Larch Forest East Cascades Mesic Montane Mixed-Conifer Forest and Woodland East Cascades Oak - Ponderosa Pine Forest and Woodland East Cascades Oak Forest and Woodland East Cascades Ponderosa Pine Forest and Woodland East Gulf Coastal Plain Interior Oak Forest East Gulf Coastal Plain Interior Shortleaf Pine Forest East Gulf Coastal Plain Interior Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest East Gulf Coastal Plain Interior Upland Longleaf Pine Woodland East Gulf Coastal Plain Jackson Prairie East Gulf Coastal Plain Maritime Forest East Gulf Coastal Plain Near-Coast Pine Flatwoods East Gulf Coastal Plain Northern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest East Gulf Coastal Plain Northern Loess Bluff Forest East Gulf Coastal Plain Northern Loess Plain Oak-Hickory Upland East Gulf Coastal Plain Northern Mesic Hardwood Slope Forest East Gulf Coastal Plain Southern Hardwood Flatwoods East Gulf Coastal Plain Southern Loblolly Flatwoods East Gulf Coastal Plain Southern Loblolly-Hardwood Flatwoods East Gulf Coastal Plain Southern Loess Bluff Forest East-Central Texas Plains Pine Forest and Woodland East-Central Texas Plains Post Oak Savanna and Woodland Eastern Boreal Floodplain Woodland Eastern Great Plains Floodplain Woodland Eastern Great Plains Tallgrass Aspen Forest and Woodland Eastern Serpentine Woodland Edwards Plateau Dry-Mesic Slope Forest and Woodland Edwards Plateau Limestone Woodland Edwards Plateau Mesic Canyon Edwards Plateau Riparian Woodland Florida Longleaf Pine Sandhill Florida Peninsula Inland Scrub Shrubland Floridian Highlands Freshwater Marsh Herbaceous Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Great Lakes Wooded Dune and Swale Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plain Floodplain Forest Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plain Small Stream Riparian Woodland Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plain Swamp Systems Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland Inter-Mountain Basins Curl-leaf Mountain Mahogany Woodland Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Riparian Forest and Woodland Inter-Mountain Basins Subalpine Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland Introduced Forest Wetland Introduced Riparian Forest and Woodland Introduced Upland Vegetation-Treed Introduced Wetland Vegetation-Tree Juniperus occidentalis Wooded Herbaceous Alliance Juniperus occidentalis Woodland Alliance Klamath-Siskiyou Lower Montane Serpentine Mixed Conifer Woodland Klamath-Siskiyou Upper Montane Serpentine Mixed Conifer Woodland Klamath-Siskiyou Xeromorphic Serpentine Savanna and Chaparral Laurentian Oak Barrens Laurentian Pine Barrens Laurentian Pine-Oak Barrens Laurentian-Acadian Alkaline Conifer-Hardwood Swamp Forest Laurentian-Acadian Floodplain Forest Laurentian-Acadian Forested Wetlands Laurentian-Acadian Hardwood Forest Laurentian-Acadian Northern Hardwoods Forest Laurentian-Acadian Northern Oak Forest Laurentian-Acadian Northern Pine Forest Laurentian-Acadian Northern Pine-Oak Forest Laurentian-Acadian Pine-Hemlock Forest Laurentian-Acadian Pine-Hemlock-Hardwood Forest Laurentian-Acadian Swamp Woodland Llano Uplift Acidic Forest and Woodland Lower Mississippi River Dune Woodland and Forest Lower Mississippi River Flatwoods Madrean Encinal Madrean Juniper Savanna Madrean Lower Montane Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Madrean Upper Montane Conifer-Oak Forest and Woodland Managed Tree Plantation-Northern and Central Hardwood and Conifer Plantation Group Managed Tree Plantation-Southeast Conifer and Hardwood Plantation Group Mediterranean California Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland Mediterranean California Lower Montane Black Oak - Conifer Forest and Woodland Mediterranean California Lower Montane Black Oak Forest and Woodland Mediterranean California Lower Montane Conifer Forest and Woodland Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland Mediterranean California Mesic Serpentine Woodland and Chaparral Mediterranean California Mixed Evergreen Forest Mediterranean California Mixed Oak Woodland Mediterranean California Red Fir Forest Mediterranean California Subalpine Woodland Mesic Montane Douglas-fir Forest Mesic Montane Western Larch Forest Middle Rocky Mountain Montane Douglas-fir Forest and Woodland Mississippi Delta Maritime Forest Mississippi River Alluvial Plain Dry-Mesic Loess Slope Forest Mixed Loblolly-Slash Pine Nashville Basin Limestone Glade and Woodland North American Warm Desert Riparian Forest and Woodland North Pacific Broadleaf Landslide Forest and Shrubland North Pacific Dry Douglas-fir(-Madrone) Forest and Woodland North Pacific Dry-Mesic Silver Fir-Western Hemlock-Douglas-fir Forest North Pacific Hyper-maritime Seasonal Sitka Spruce Forest North Pacific Hyper-maritime Western Red-cedar-Western Hemlock
Recommended publications
  • Strategy Habitat: Ponderosa Pine Woodlands

    Strategy Habitat: Ponderosa Pine Woodlands

    Habitat: Conservation Summaries for Strategy Habitats Strategy Habitat: Ponderosa Pine Woodlands Ecoregions: Conservation Overview: Ponderosa Pine Woodlands are a Strategy Habitat in the Blue Moun- Ponderosa pine habitats historically covered a large portion of the tains, East Cascades, and Klamath Mountains ecoregions. Blue Mountains ecoregion, as well as parts of the East Cascades and Klamath Mountains. Ponderosa pine is still widely distributed in eastern Characteristics: and southern Oregon. However, the structure and species composition The structure and composition of ponderosa pine woodlands varies of woodlands have changed dramatically. Historically, ponderosa pine across the state, depending on local climate, soil type and moisture, habitats had frequent low-intensity ground fires that maintained an elevation, aspect and fire history. In Blue Mountains, East Cascades open understory. Due to past selective logging and fire suppression, and Klamath Mountains ecoregions, ponderosa pine woodlands have dense patches of smaller conifers have grown in the understory of pon- open canopies, generally covering 10-40 percent of the sky. Their derosa pine forests. Depending on the area, these conifers may include understories are variable combinations of shrubs, herbaceous plants, shade-tolerant Douglas-fir, grand fir and white fir, or young ponderosa and grasses. Ponderosa woodlands are dominated by ponderosa pine, pine and lodgepole pine. These dense stands are vulnerable to drought but may also have lodgepole, western juniper, aspen, western larch, stress, insect outbreaks, and disease. The tree layers act as ladder fuels, grand fir, Douglas-fir, incense cedar, sugar pine, or white fir, depend- increasing the chances that a ground fire will become a forest-destroy- ing on ecoregion and site conditions.
  • North Cascades Contested Terrain

    North Cascades Contested Terrain

    North Cascades NP: Contested Terrain: North Cascades National Park Service Complex: An Administrative History NORTH CASCADES Contested Terrain North Cascades National Park Service Complex: An Administrative History CONTESTED TERRAIN: North Cascades National Park Service Complex, Washington An Administrative History By David Louter 1998 National Park Service Seattle, Washington TABLE OF CONTENTS adhi/index.htm Last Updated: 14-Apr-1999 http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/noca/adhi/[11/22/2013 1:57:33 PM] North Cascades NP: Contested Terrain: North Cascades National Park Service Complex: An Administrative History (Table of Contents) NORTH CASCADES Contested Terrain North Cascades National Park Service Complex: An Administrative History TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover Cover: The Southern Pickett Range, 1963. (Courtesy of North Cascades National Park) Introduction Part I A Wilderness Park (1890s to 1968) Chapter 1 Contested Terrain: The Establishment of North Cascades National Park Part II The Making of a New Park (1968 to 1978) Chapter 2 Administration Chapter 3 Visitor Use and Development Chapter 4 Concessions Chapter 5 Wilderness Proposals and Backcountry Management Chapter 6 Research and Resource Management Chapter 7 Dam Dilemma: North Cascades National Park and the High Ross Dam Controversy Chapter 8 Stehekin: Land of Freedom and Want Part III The Wilderness Park Ideal and the Challenge of Traditional Park Management (1978 to 1998) Chapter 9 Administration Chapter 10 http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/noca/adhi/contents.htm[11/22/2013
  • Ghosts of the Western Glades Just Northwest of Everglades National Park Lies Probably the Wildest, Least Disturbed Natural Area in All of Florida

    Ghosts of the Western Glades Just Northwest of Everglades National Park Lies Probably the Wildest, Least Disturbed Natural Area in All of Florida

    Discovering the Ghosts of the Western Glades Just Northwest of Everglades National Park lies probably the wildest, least disturbed natural area in all of Florida. Referred to as the Western Everglades (or Western Glades), it includes Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve and Big Cypress National Preserve. Environmentalists that pushed for the creation of Everglades National Park originally wanted this area included in it. But politics and lack of funds prevented this. Several decades passed before Big Cypress National Preserve was born in 1974. Preserves have slightly less restrictive rules than national parks. So how is the Big Cypress Swamp distinct from the Everglades? Even though both habitats have many similarities (sawgrass prairies & tree islands, for instance), the Big Cypress Swamp is generally 1-2 feet higher in elevation. Also, it has a mainly southwesterly flow of water, dumping into the “ten thousand islands” area on Florida’s Gulf of Mexico coast and serving as an important watershed for the River of Grass to the south. Then, of course, there are the cypress trees. Cypress Trees Not surprisingly, of course, is the fact that the Big Cypress Swamp has about 1/3 of its area covered in cypress trees. Mostly they are the small “dwarf pond cypress” trees. (“Big” refers to the large mass of land not the size of the trees.) A few locations, however, still do boast the impressive towering “bald cypress” trees but most of those were logged out between the years 1913 - 1948. Ridge & Slough Topography Topography simply means the relief (or elevation variances) of any particular area of land.
  • 1922 Elizabeth T

    1922 Elizabeth T

    co.rYRIG HT, 192' The Moootainetro !scot1oror,d The MOUNTAINEER VOLUME FIFTEEN Number One D EC E M BER 15, 1 9 2 2 ffiount Adams, ffiount St. Helens and the (!oat Rocks I ncoq)Ora,tecl 1913 Organized 190!i EDITORlAL ST AitF 1922 Elizabeth T. Kirk,vood, Eclttor Margaret W. Hazard, Associate Editor· Fairman B. L�e, Publication Manager Arthur L. Loveless Effie L. Chapman Subsc1·iption Price. $2.00 per year. Annual ·(onl�') Se,·ent�·-Five Cents. Published by The Mountaineers lncorJ,orated Seattle, Washington Enlerecl as second-class matter December 15, 19t0. at the Post Office . at . eattle, "\Yash., under the .-\0t of March 3. 1879. .... I MOUNT ADAMS lllobcl Furrs AND REFLEC'rION POOL .. <§rtttings from Aristibes (. Jhoutribes Author of "ll3ith the <6obs on lltount ®l!!mµus" �. • � J� �·,,. ., .. e,..:,L....._d.L.. F_,,,.... cL.. ��-_, _..__ f.. pt",- 1-� r�._ '-';a_ ..ll.-�· t'� 1- tt.. �ti.. ..._.._....L- -.L.--e-- a';. ��c..L. 41- �. C4v(, � � �·,,-- �JL.,�f w/U. J/,--«---fi:( -A- -tr·�� �, : 'JJ! -, Y .,..._, e� .,...,____,� � � t-..__., ,..._ -u..,·,- .,..,_, ;-:.. � --r J /-e,-i L,J i-.,( '"'; 1..........,.- e..r- ,';z__ /-t.-.--,r� ;.,-.,.....__ � � ..-...,.,-<. ,.,.f--· :tL. ��- ''F.....- ,',L � .,.__ � 'f- f-� --"- ��7 � �. � �;')'... f ><- -a.c__ c/ � r v-f'.fl,'7'71.. I /!,,-e..-,K-// ,l...,"4/YL... t:l,._ c.J.� J..,_-...A 'f ',y-r/� �- lL.. ��•-/IC,/ ,V l j I '/ ;· , CONTENTS i Page Greetings .......................................................................tlristicles }!}, Phoiitricles ........ r The Mount Adams, Mount St. Helens, and the Goat Rocks Outing .......................................... B1/.ith Page Bennett 9 1 Selected References from Preceding Mount Adams and Mount St.
  • Ecoregions of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain

    Ecoregions of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain

    92° 91° 90° 89° 88° Ecoregions of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain Cape Girardeau 73cc 72 io Ri Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of This level III and IV ecoregion map was compiled at a scale of 1:250,000 and depicts revisions and Literature Cited: PRINCIPAL AUTHORS: Shannen S. Chapman (Dynamac Corporation), Oh ver environmental resources; they are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, subdivisions of earlier level III ecoregions that were originally compiled at a smaller scale (USEPA Bailey, R.G., Avers, P.E., King, T., and McNab, W.H., eds., 1994, Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map Barbara A. Kleiss (USACE, ERDC -Waterways Experiment Station), James M. ILLINOIS assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. By recognizing 2003, Omernik, 1987). This poster is part of a collaborative effort primarily between USEPA Region Ecoregions and subregions of the United States (map) (supplementary supplement): Annals of the Association of American Geographers, v. 77, no. 1, Omernik, (USEPA, retired), Thomas L. Foti (Arkansas Natural Heritage p. 118-125, scale 1:7,500,000. 71 the spatial differences in the capacities and potentials of ecosystems, ecoregions stratify the VII, USEPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (Corvallis, Oregon), table of map unit descriptions compiled and edited by McNab, W.H., and Commission), and Elizabeth O. Murray (Arkansas Multi-Agency Wetland Bailey, R.G.): Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Planning Team). 37° environment by its probable response to disturbance (Bryce and others, 1999).
  • Limpkin Aramus Guarauna Taxa: Avian SE-GAP Spp Code: Blimp Order: Gruiformes ITIS Species Code: 176197 Family: Aramidae Natureserve Element Code: ABNMJ01010

    Limpkin Aramus Guarauna Taxa: Avian SE-GAP Spp Code: Blimp Order: Gruiformes ITIS Species Code: 176197 Family: Aramidae Natureserve Element Code: ABNMJ01010

    Limpkin Aramus guarauna Taxa: Avian SE-GAP Spp Code: bLIMP Order: Gruiformes ITIS Species Code: 176197 Family: Aramidae NatureServe Element Code: ABNMJ01010 KNOWN RANGE: PREDICTED HABITAT: P:\Proj1\SEGap P:\Proj1\SEGap Range Map Link: http://www.basic.ncsu.edu/segap/datazip/maps/SE_Range_bLIMP.pdf Predicted Habitat Map Link: http://www.basic.ncsu.edu/segap/datazip/maps/SE_Dist_bLIMP.pdf GAP Online Tool Link: http://www.gapserve.ncsu.edu/segap/segap/index2.php?species=bLIMP Data Download: http://www.basic.ncsu.edu/segap/datazip/region/vert/bLIMP_se00.zip PROTECTION STATUS: Reported on March 14, 2011 Federal Status: --- State Status: FL (SSC) NS Global Rank: G5 NS State Rank: AL (SNA), FL (S3), GA (S1S2), IL (SNA), MD (SNA), MS (SNA), NC (SNA), TX (SNA), VA (SNA), NS (SNA) bLIMP Page 1 of 4 SUMMARY OF PREDICTED HABITAT BY MANAGMENT AND GAP PROTECTION STATUS: US FWS US Forest Service Tenn. Valley Author. US DOD/ACOE ha % ha % ha % ha % Status 1 34,779.2 < 1 120.6 < 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 Status 2 18,984.4 < 1 26,563.7 < 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 Status 3 0.0 0 154,688.7 2 0.0 0 31,698.2 < 1 Status 4 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Total 53,763.7 < 1 181,373.0 3 0.0 0 31,698.2 < 1 US Dept. of Energy US Nat. Park Service NOAA Other Federal Lands ha % ha % ha % ha % Status 1 0.0 0 362,645.8 5 0.0 0 8,464.4 < 1 Status 2 0.0 0 3,173.0 < 1 12,062.5 < 1 77.1 < 1 Status 3 0.0 0 270,295.1 4 0.0 0 0.0 0 Status 4 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Total 0.0 0 636,113.9 9 12,062.5 < 1 8,541.5 < 1 Native Am.
  • Evaluating the Functional Response of Isolated Cypress Domes to Groundwater Alteration in West-Central Florida

    Evaluating the Functional Response of Isolated Cypress Domes to Groundwater Alteration in West-Central Florida

    Evaluating the functional response of isolated cypress domes to groundwater alteration in west-central Florida by Megan Kristine Bartholomew A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama May 6, 2017 Copyright 2017 by Megan Bartholomew Approved by Christopher Anderson, Chair, Professor of Wetland Ecology Robert Boyd, Professor of Plant Ecology Jacob Berkowitz, Research Soil Scientist Abstract The hydrology of a wetland is the single most important determinant of its function and slight alterations can lead to significant changes in plant communities and biogeochemistry within the wetland. Therefore, understanding the influence of hydrology on vegetative and soil processes is pivotal to restoration efforts. This study investigated how hydrologic alteration and recovery influenced wetland vegetation and soil processes in Starkey Wilderness Park (SWP), a well-field in west-central Florida. Vegetation responses to groundwater alterations were observed using long term species and hydrologic data collected from SWP. The results from the vegetation study suggest that hydrologic recovery has restored vegetative functions and measures, such as species richness and hydrophytic assemblages, in a relatively short (5-7 year) period. However, differences in species composition and community variation persist in wetlands of various degrees of hydrologic alterations. A field study was also conducted to determine how hydrologic alterations continue to affect wetland decomposition rates and other soil processes. After eight years of hydrologic recovery, altered wetlands experienced faster decomposition than reference wetlands and rates seemed to be linked to differences in both inundation and percent soil organic matter.
  • Structure, Composition, and Regeneration of Cross Timbers Forest Fragments in Different Land Use Contexts

    Structure, Composition, and Regeneration of Cross Timbers Forest Fragments in Different Land Use Contexts

    STRUCTURE, COMPOSITION, AND REGENERATION OF CROSS TIMBERS FOREST FRAGMENTS IN DIFFERENT LAND USE CONTEXTS Ingrid Dunn Thesis Prepared for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS May 2015 APPROVED: Alexandra Ponette-González, Major Professor Mathew Fry, Committee Member C. Reid Ferring, Committee Member Paul Hudak, Chair of the Department of Geography Mark Wardell, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School Dunn, Ingrid. Structure, Composition, and Regeneration of Cross Timbers Forest Fragments in Different Land Use Contexts. Master of Science (Applied Geography), May 2015, 85 pp., 17 tables, 12 figures, references, 120 titles. Throughout its current range, the Cross Timbers forest ecosystem is vulnerable to land- use change. In this study, we examined the surrounding land use matrix on the vegetation structure, composition and regeneration of six Cross Timbers forest fragments in Denton County, Texas (north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex). Two fragments adjacent to agricultural land, two to residential neighborhoods, and two formally protected forest sites were selected. In summer 2015, five 100 m2 plots were randomly established in each fragment at least 200 meters from the edge. In each plot, all live and dead trees ≥ 3 cm diameter were identified and their height and diameter at breast height (DBH at 1.3 m aboveground) measured. Evidence of dumping (presence of trash) was recorded as an index of human frequentation. Differences in vegetation structure among the forest fragments were found. Most notably, fragments adjacent to agriculture contained 25% to 50% fewer trees per hectare than all other sites (Kruskal-Wallis, p < 0.02), especially trees <10 cm DBH.
  • GEOLOGIC MAP of the MOUNT ADAMS VOLCANIC FIELD, CASCADE RANGE of SOUTHERN WASHINGTON by Wes Hildreth and Judy Fierstein

    GEOLOGIC MAP of the MOUNT ADAMS VOLCANIC FIELD, CASCADE RANGE of SOUTHERN WASHINGTON by Wes Hildreth and Judy Fierstein

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCOMPANY MAP 1-2460 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE MOUNT ADAMS VOLCANIC FIELD, CASCADE RANGE OF SOUTHERN WASHINGTON By Wes Hildreth and Judy Fierstein When I climbed Mount Adams {17-18 August 1945] about 1950 m (6400') most of the landscape is mantled I think I found the answer to the question of why men by dense forests and huckleberry thickets. Ten radial stake everything to reach these peaks, yet obtain no glaciers and the summit icecap today cover only about visible reward for their exhaustion... Man's greatest 2.5 percent (16 km2) of the cone, but in latest Pleis­ experience-the one that brings supreme exultation­ tocene time (25-11 ka) as much as 80 percent of Mount is spiritual, not physical. It is the catching of some Adams was under ice. The volcano is drained radially vision of the universe and translating it into a poem by numerous tributaries of the Klickitat, White Salmon, or work of art ... Lewis, and Cis pus Rivers (figs. 1, 2), all of which ulti­ William 0. Douglas mately flow into the Columbia. Most of Mount Adams and a vast area west of it are Of Men and Mountains administered by the U.S. Forest Service, which has long had the dual charge of protecting the Wilderness Area and of providing a network of logging roads almost INTRODUCTION everywhere else. The northeast quadrant of the moun­ One of the dominating peaks of the Pacific North­ tain, however, lies within a part of the Yakima Indian west, Mount Adams, stands astride the Cascade crest, Reservation that is open solely to enrolled members of towering 3 km above the surrounding valleys.
  • Eugene, Cascades & Coast | OREGON

    Eugene, Cascades & Coast | OREGON

    Eugene, Cascades & Coast | OREGON Welcome to Eugene, Cascades & Coast, sports mecca of the Pacific Northwest! Steeped in sports tradition and excellence, we offer multipurpose indoor and outdoor venues, turf and grass fields, and natural outdoor venues with enough flexibility to support most events. Ample, friendly and affordable hotel options, no sales tax and strong local support for all sports makes us the perfect sports destination! PK Park Eugene, Oregon Need Assistance? Once you have selected the Eugene, Cascades & Coast region as your sports event destination, our Sports Services Department will be ready to assist you in planning a successful event. Our experienced staff offers a comprehensive array of services, most of which are complimentary. Promotional materials available include visitor guides, maps, video presentations, high-resolution images, customer web pages and web links for participants. Courtesy of Matthew Knight Arena & UO • Assistance in arranging ground transportation, centralized accommodations and auxiliary space for team meetings, meals and expos. Utilize our knowledge of local vendors for the best referrals from food vendors to printing services. • Permit application guidance • Access to our extensive database of volunteers and local officials • Knowledge of local resources available for use including walkie-talkies, fencing, signs,etc. • Pre- and post-event activities, suggestions and referrals Willamalane Swim Club by Matt Nicholson For personalized assistance, contact Sue Harshbarger Director of Sports Sales & Development [email protected] 541.743.8755 Eugene 08 by Dave Thomas Eugene, Cascades & Coast Sports • 754 Olive St • Eugene OR 97401 • 541.743.8755 • 800.547.5445 • EugeneCascadesCoast.org/sports (US & Canada) Eugene, Cascades & Coast | OREGON Savor Eugene, Cascades & Coast! Soak up the Northwest’s Did you know? laid-back culture with stress-free transportation, affordable • Matthew Knight Arena opened in adventures, plentiful entertainment and authentic experiences.
  • Status of Private Cypress Wetland Forests in Georgia

    Status of Private Cypress Wetland Forests in Georgia

    STATUS OF PRIVATE CYPRESS WETLAND FORESTS IN GEORGIA Alternatives for Conservation and Restoration ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the United States Environmental Protection Agency for funding this project, and especially, Jennifer Derby and Tom Welborn for their dedication to conserving Georgia’s cypress resources. We are also grateful to Richard Harper, Jeffery Turner, and Tony Johnson of the U.S. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis, for their invaluable assistance and train- ing in the retrieval and analysis of the agency’s forest trend data. We thank the Riverkeepers of the Altamaha, Ogeechee, Satilla, and Savannah Rivers for their important contributions to this project. In addition, we wish to express our apprecia- tion to James Holland, the Altamaha Riverkeeper, for the many hours he spent arranging the Wilkinson County case study site visits and working with us in the field to document site conditions. We are grateful to the landowners of the Wilkinson County site for allowing us to evaluate their property and to Mr. Wyndell Berryhall for his assistance in the field. We also wish to thank all those who provided thoughtful review and comments on drafts of this report: Richard Harper, John Greis, Mark Brown, and Tony Johnson of the U.S. Forest Service; Rhett Jackson, Professor of Hydrology, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia; Frank Green and James Johnson, Georgia Forestry Commission; James Jeter, Ala- bama Forestry Commission; Hughes Simpson, Texas Forest Service; John Swords, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and Shaun Blocker, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Southern Environmental Law Center is a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the health and environment of the Southeast (Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia).
  • The Effects of Urbanization on the Structure, Quality, and Diversity of Cypress Plant Communities in Central Florida

    The Effects of Urbanization on the Structure, Quality, and Diversity of Cypress Plant Communities in Central Florida

    University of Central Florida STARS Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 2009 The Effects Of Urbanization On The Structure, Quality, And Diversity Of Cypress Plant Communities In Central Florida Courtney Knickerbocker University of Central Florida Part of the Biology Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Masters Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STARS Citation Knickerbocker, Courtney, "The Effects Of Urbanization On The Structure, Quality, And Diversity Of Cypress Plant Communities In Central Florida" (2009). Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019. 4044. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/4044 THE EFFECTS OF URBANIZATION ON THE STRUCTURE, QUALITY, AND DIVERSITY OF CYPRESS PLANT COMMUNITIES IN CENTRAL FLORIDA by COURTNEY M. KNICKERBOCKER B.A. University of Central Florida, 2002 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in the Department of Biology In the College of Sciences at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Spring Term 2009 © 2009 Courtney Knickerbocker ii ABSTRACT The integrity of wetland ecosystems is largely determined by hydrological functionality, degree of connectivity to like ecosystems, and permeability to external influence. Land use changes in upland areas adjacent to wetland ecosystems may influence hydrology and connectivity while introducing novel biotic and abiotic materials. There is an increasing trend toward the use of remote assessment techniques to determine the degree of impact of external influences on adjacent wetlands.