DOCSLIB.ORG

Wetlands Across Alaska: Statewide Wetland Map and Assessment of Rare Wetland Ecosystems

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wetlands Across Alaska: Statewide Wetland Map and Assessment of Rare Wetland Ecosystems Wetlands across Alaska: Statewide wetland map and Assessment of rare wetland ecosystems Lindsey Flagstad, Anjanette Steer, Tina Boucher, Megumi Aisu, and Priscilla Lema December 11, 2018 1 Table of Contents Figures ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Tables ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 6 Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... 8 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 10 Land cover classification and mapping ............................................................................................... 10 Wetland classification and mapping ................................................................................................... 12 Wetlands of conservation concern ...................................................................................................... 16 Accuracy Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 18 Results .................................................................................................................................................... 21 Wetland types and distribution ........................................................................................................... 21 Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 25 Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 30 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................................... 31 Appendix 1: Wetland Type Descriptions ................................................................................................ 36 Estuarine and Marine Deepwater ....................................................................................................... 36 Estuarine and Marine Wetland ........................................................................................................... 37 Freshwater Bryophyte ......................................................................................................................... 38 Freshwater Emergent .......................................................................................................................... 38 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland .................................................................................................. 39 Freshwater Pond ................................................................................................................................. 40 Lake ..................................................................................................................................................... 41 Riverine ............................................................................................................................................... 42 Upland................................................................................................................................................. 43 Appendix 2: Coarse Land Cover Types for each Alaska Wetland Map System Classification ............ 45 Appendix 3: Descriptions for Wetlands of Conservation Concern in Alaska ....................................... 48 Arctic Barrier Island and Spit Biophysical Setting ............................................................................. 48 Arctic Tidal Marsh Biophysical Setting .............................................................................................. 59 Beringian Tidal Marsh Biophysical Setting ........................................................................................ 69 Callitropsis nootkatensis Wetland Biophysical Setting ...................................................................... 79 2 Geothermal Spring Biophysical Setting .............................................................................................. 87 Larix laricina Wetland Biophysical Setting ....................................................................................... 95 Mud Volcano Biophysical Setting .................................................................................................... 101 Pacific Barrier Island and Spit Biophysical Setting .......................................................................... 108 Pacific Tidal Marsh Biophysical Setting .......................................................................................... 115 Pacific Uplifted Tidal Marsh Biophysical Setting ............................................................................ 127 Picea glauca Floodplain Old-growth Forest Biophysical Setting .................................................... 135 Picea sitchensis Floodplain Old-growth Forest Biophysical Setting ................................................ 142 3 Figures Figure 1. The Alaska Land Cover Map symbolized coarse land cover types. ............................................................. 11 Figure 2. Classification hierarchy of wetlands and deepwater habitats, showing Lacustrine and Palustrine systems, subsystems, and classes (FGDC 2013). ...................................................................................... 13 Figure 3. Classification hierarchy of wetlands and deepwater habitats, showing Marine, Estuarine and Riverine, systems, subsystems, and classes (FGDC 2013). ....................................................................................... 13 Figure 4. Decision Tree Model for determining wetland condition for the Alaska Wetlands Map. ........................... 15 Figure 5. Decision Tree Model for determining wetland condition following separation of saltwater and freshwater for the Alaska Wetlands Map..................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 6. Regional designations based on Moore et al. (2004). ................................................................................... 18 Figure 7. Alaska Wetlands Map depicting eight wetland/deepwater classes and one upland class. ............................ 22 Figure 8. Example of two adjacent watersheds illustrating an appropriate scale for use of the Alaska wetland map. 27 Figure 9. Alaska Wetlands Map classification (left) compared to National Wetlands Inventory (right). .................... 28 Figure 10. Figure illustrating an inappropriate scale for use of the Alaska wetland map.. .......................................... 29 Figure 11. Floating kelp forest in the Aleutian Islands (photo by Angela Dorhoff). ................................................... 36 Figure 12. Tidal mudflats at Hartney Bay near Cordova, Alaska, an example of an estuarine wetland. ..................... 37 Figure 13. Marine wetland area at low tide near Sitka, Alaska. .................................................................................. 37 Figure 14. Sphagnum-dominated peatland in Southeast Alaska. ................................................................................. 38 Figure 15. Freshwater emergent wetland in the Cook Inlet Basin, Southcentral Alaska. ............................................ 39 Figure 16. Mixed conifer forested wetland including Callitropsis nootkatensis and with Lysichiton americanus in the understory in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Alaska. ........................................................................ 40 Figure 17. Pond lily (Nuphar lutea) dominated pond in Kenai Fjords, Alaska. .......................................................... 41 Figure 18. Lake habitat in Southcentral, Alaska (Stormy Lake – photo source ACCS). ............................................. 42 Figure 19. Small patches of white spruce (Picea glauca) forests on floodplains of the Yukon River in Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve, Alaska. ...................................................................................................... 43 Figure 20. Paper birch-quaking aspen forest found in the Interior region of Alaska. .................................................. 43 Figure 21. Aerial view of a barrier island (Flaxman Island), and inset of a spit along the Arctic Ocean. ................... 48 Figure 22. Distribution of the Arctic Barrier Island and Spit Biophysical Setting. .................................................. 49 Figure 23. Aerial view of a barrier island northwest of Kotzebue (source: Google Earth, accessed September 2, 2015). ..................................................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 24. Sheshalik Spit northwest of Kotzebue, Alaska
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BMP #: Constructed Wetlands
    Structural BMP Criteria BMP #: Constructed Wetlands Constructed Wetlands are shallow marsh sys- tems planted with emergent vegetation that are designed to treat stormwater runoff. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001 Key Design Elements Potential Applications z Adequate drainage area (usually 5 to 10 acres Residential Subdivision: YES minimum) Commercial: YES Ultra Urban: LIMITED Industrial: YES z Maintenance of permanent water surface Retrofit: YES Highway/Road: YES z Multiple vegetative growth zones through vary- ing depths Stormwater Functions z Robust and diverse vegetation Volume Reduction: Low z Relatively impermeable soils or engineered liner Recharge: Low Peak Rate Control: High z Sediment collection and removal Water Quality: High z Adjustable permanent pool and dewatering Pollutant Removal mechanism Total Suspended Solids: x Nutrients: x Metals: x Pathogens: x Pennsylvania Stormwater Management Manual 1 Section 5 - Structural BMPs Figure 1. Demonstration Constructed Wetlands in Arizona (http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER/arroyo/094wet.html) Description Constructed Wetlands are shallow marsh systems planted with emergent vegetation that are designed to treat stormwater runoff. While they are one of the best BMPs for pollutant removal, Constructed Wetlands (CWs) can also mitigate peak rates and even reduce runoff volume to a certain degree. They also can provide considerable aesthetic and wildlife benefits. CWs use a relatively large amount of space and require an adequate source of inflow to maintain the perma- nent water surface. Variations Constructed Wetlands can be designed as either an online or offline facilities. They can also be used effectively in series with other flow/sediment reducing BMPs that reduce the sediment load and equalize incoming flows to the CW.
    [Show full text]
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Meadow Pond Final Report 1-28-10
    Comparison of Restoration Techniques to Reduce Dominance of Phragmites australis at Meadow Pond, Hampton New Hampshire FINAL REPORT January 28, 2010 David M. Burdick1,2 Christopher R. Peter1 Gregg E. Moore1,3 Geoff Wilson4 1 - Jackson Estuarine Laboratory, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824 2 – Natural Resources and the Environment, UNH 3 – Department of Biological Sciences, UNH 4 – Northeast Wetland Restoration, Berwick ME 03901 Submitted to: New Hampshire Coastal Program New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services 50 International Drive Pease Tradeport Portsmouth, NH 03801 UNH Burdick et al. 2010 Executive Summary The northern portion of Meadow Pond Marsh remained choked with an invasive exotic variety of Phragmites australis (common reed) in 2002, despite tidal restoration in 1995. Our project goal was to implement several construction techniques to reduce the dominance of Phragmites and then examine the ecological responses of the system (as a whole as well as each experimental treatment) to inform future restoration actions at Meadow Pond. The construction treatments were: creeks, creeks and pools, sediment excavation with a large pool including native marsh plantings. Creek construction increased tides at all treatments so that more tides flooded the marsh and the highest spring tides increased to 30 cm. Soil salinity increased at all treatment areas following restoration, but also increased at control areas, so greater soil salinity could not be attributed to the treatments. Decreases in Phragmites cover were not statistically significant, but treatment areas did show significant increases in native vegetation following restoration. Fish habitat was also increased by creek and pool construction and excavation, so that pool fish density increased from 1 to 40 m-2.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description
    Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description Prepared by: Michael A. Kost, Dennis A. Albert, Joshua G. Cohen, Bradford S. Slaughter, Rebecca K. Schillo, Christopher R. Weber, and Kim A. Chapman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division September 30, 2007 Report Number 2007-21 Version 1.2 Last Updated: July 9, 2010 Suggested Citation: Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Copyright 2007 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photos: Top left, Dry Sand Prairie at Indian Lake, Newaygo County (M. Kost); top right, Limestone Bedrock Lakeshore, Summer Island, Delta County (J. Cohen); lower left, Muskeg, Luce County (J. Cohen); and lower right, Mesic Northern Forest as a matrix natural community, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon County (M. Kost). Acknowledgements We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division for funding this effort to classify and describe the natural communities of Michigan. This work relied heavily on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists and collaborators, including members of the Michigan Natural Areas Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 Darkness
    Chapter 2 Darkness f all the disconcerting statements in Veniaminov’s great work on the eastern Aleutians—and there are several—few are O more arresting than his assertion that elderly Unanga{ told of famous shamans who, long before the first Russians appeared, said white people would arrive from the sea and afterwards all Unanga{ would come to resemble them and would adopt their customs. These elders also reported that at the time of the Russian arrival the shamans began prophesizing that “in the east, over their islands,” they saw “a brilliant dawn or a great light” inhabited by “many people resembling the newcomers, while in the lower world, of the people whom they had seen there before, very few remained” and “impenetrable darkness set in.”1 This darkness surrounds the earliest history of Biorka, Kashega, and Makushin. Nick Galaktionoff joked that when people asked him where Aleuts came from, he would tell them, “Tomorrow I come from Makushin!” By “tomorrow” he meant “yesterday” or “that time before.” “I was right,” he laughed, “‘cause I was born there.”2 And yet Nick had an older origin story that began when Unanga{ lived on the mainland, a time when ice covered much of the coastline.3 Food became scarce and animals began preying on villages, taking food and attacking people. The chiefs spoke with their people and explained that they would have to go across the ice. They covered the bottoms of their open skin boats with seal skin that still had the fur on it, and this smooth surface allowed the heavily laden boats to be towed.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Maps of the Eastern Alaska Range, Alaska, (44 Quadrangles, 1:63360 Scale)
    Report of Investigations 2015-6 GEOLOGIC MAPS OF THE EASTERN ALASKA RANGE, ALASKA, (44 quadrangles, 1:63,360 scale) descriptions and interpretations of map units by Warren J. Nokleberg, John N. Aleinikoff, Gerard C. Bond, Oscar J. Ferrians, Jr., Paige L. Herzon, Ian M. Lange, Ronny T. Miyaoka, Donald H. Richter, Carl E. Schwab, Steven R. Silva, Thomas E. Smith, and Richard E. Zehner Southeastern Tanana Basin Southern Yukon–Tanana Upland and Terrane Delta River Granite Jarvis Mountain Aurora Peak Creek Terrane Hines Creek Fault Black Rapids Glacier Jarvis Creek Glacier Subterrane - Southern Yukon–Tanana Terrane Windy Terrane Denali Denali Fault Fault East Susitna Canwell Batholith Glacier Maclaren Glacier McCallum Creek- Metamorhic Belt Meteor Peak Slate Creek Thrust Broxson Gulch Fault Thrust Rainbow Mountain Slana River Subterrane, Wrangellia Terrane Phelan Delta Creek River Highway Slana River Subterrane, Wrangellia Terrane Published by STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL & GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS 2015 GEOLOGIC MAPS OF THE EASTERN ALASKA RANGE, ALASKA, (44 quadrangles, 1:63,360 scale) descriptions and interpretations of map units Warren J. Nokleberg, John N. Aleinikoff, Gerard C. Bond, Oscar J. Ferrians, Jr., Paige L. Herzon, Ian M. Lange, Ronny T. Miyaoka, Donald H. Richter, Carl E. Schwab, Steven R. Silva, Thomas E. Smith, and Richard E. Zehner COVER: View toward the north across the eastern Alaska Range and into the southern Yukon–Tanana Upland highlighting geologic, structural, and geomorphic features. View is across the central Mount Hayes Quadrangle and is centered on the Delta River, Richardson Highway, and Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). Major geologic features, from south to north, are: (1) the Slana River Subterrane, Wrangellia Terrane; (2) the Maclaren Terrane containing the Maclaren Glacier Metamorphic Belt to the south and the East Susitna Batholith to the north; (3) the Windy Terrane; (4) the Aurora Peak Terrane; and (5) the Jarvis Creek Glacier Subterrane of the Yukon–Tanana Terrane.
    [Show full text]
  • Contribution of Plant-Induced Pressurized Flow to CH4 Emission
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Contribution of plant‑induced pressurized fow to ­CH4 emission from a Phragmites fen Merit van den Berg2*, Eva van den Elzen2, Joachim Ingwersen1, Sarian Kosten 2, Leon P. M. Lamers 2 & Thilo Streck1 The widespread wetland species Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud. has the ability to transport gases through its stems via a pressurized fow. This results in a high oxygen (O2) transport to the rhizosphere, suppressing methane (CH4) production and stimulating CH4 oxidation. Simultaneously CH4 is transported in the opposite direction to the atmosphere, bypassing the oxic surface layer. This raises the question how this plant-mediated gas transport in Phragmites afects the net CH4 emission. A feld experiment was set-up in a Phragmites‑dominated fen in Germany, to determine the contribution of all three gas transport pathways (plant-mediated, difusive and ebullition) during the growth stage of Phragmites from intact vegetation (control), from clipped stems (CR) to exclude the pressurized fow, and from clipped and sealed stems (CSR) to exclude any plant-transport. Clipping resulted in a 60% reduced difusive + plant-mediated fux (control: 517, CR: 217, CSR: −2 −1 279 mg CH4 m day ). Simultaneously, ebullition strongly increased by a factor of 7–13 (control: −2 −1 10, CR: 71, CSR: 126 mg CH4 m day ). This increase of ebullition did, however, not compensate for the exclusion of pressurized fow. Total CH4 emission from the control was 2.3 and 1.3 times higher than from CR and CSR respectively, demonstrating the signifcant role of pressurized gas transport in Phragmites‑stands.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Protection Guidelines for Alaska
    Wildlife Protection Guidelines for Alaska Alaska Regional Response Team, Wildlife Protection Committee Revision 5 – August 2012 2018 Administrative Update Revision 5 – August 2012 Administrative Update: March 2018 1 Table of Contents I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... G-5 A. Background G-5 B. Objectives ........................................................................................................................... G-5 C. Scope of Wildlife Protection Guidelines for Alaska ............................................................... G-6 1. Geographic Area ............................................................................................................. G-6 2. Wildlife Resources .......................................................................................................... G-8 3. Wildlife Resource Agencies ............................................................................................. G-8 D. Committee Organization and Development of Guidelines ................................................... G-8 1. Committee Organization ................................................................................................. G-8 2. Development of Guidelines ............................................................................................ G-9 E. Relationship to National Planning Requirements and Guidance .......................................... G-9 F. Procedures for Revisions and
    [Show full text]
  • Wetlands of Saratoga County New York
    Acknowledgments THIS BOOKLET I S THE PRODUCT Of THE work of many individuals. Although it is based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), tlus booklet would not have been produced without the support and cooperation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Patrick Pergola served as project coordinator for the wetlands inventory and Dan Montella was project coordinator for the preparation of this booklet. Ralph Tiner coordi­ nated the effort for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Data compiled from the NWI serve as the foun­ dation for much of this report. Information on the wetland status for this area is the result of hard work by photointerpreters, mainly Irene Huber (University of Massachusetts) with assistance from D avid Foulis and Todd Nuerminger. Glenn Smith (FWS) provided quality control of the interpreted aerial photographs and draft maps and collected field data on wetland communities. Tim Post (N.Y. State D epartment of Environmental Conservation), John Swords (FWS), James Schaberl and Chris Martin (National Park Ser­ vice) assisted in the field and the review of draft maps. Among other FWS staff contributing to this effort were Kurt Snider, Greg Pipkin, Kevin Bon, Becky Stanley, and Matt Starr. The booklet was reviewed by several people including Kathleen Drake (EPA), G eorge H odgson (Saratoga County Environmental Management Council), John Hamilton (Soil and W ater Conserva­ tion District), Dan Spada (Adirondack Park Agency), Pat Riexinger (N.Y. State Department of Environ­ mental Conservation), Susan Essig (FWS), and Jen­ nifer Brady-Connor (Association of State Wetland Nlanagers).
    [Show full text]
  • Moose Hunters in - Southwest Alaska a Better Opportunity to Evaluate Antlers
    280 AN EVALUATION OF TROPHY MOOSE MANAGEMENT ON THE ALASKA PENINSULA Christian A. Smith, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, King Salmon, Alaska James B. Faro, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska Nicholas C. Steen, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, King Salmon, Alaska '" Abstract: an experimental trophy management program was initiated on the Alaska Peninsula in 1976 with the imple­ mentation of a regulation requiring that all harvested bull moose (AZaes aZaes gigas) have antlers with at least a 50 inch spread. The regulation was designed to protect bulls under 5 years of age, to test the capability of hunters to comply with minimum size requirements, and to determine the potential for maintaining trophy class bulls in the population through this approach. The first two objectives have been accomplished. Nearly 70 - percent of the harvested bulls have been 5 or more years old and only 4 percent of the bulls taken were illegal. Adequate survey data are not available to determine current proportions of trophy bulls in the herd. In view of the declining nature of the population and increasing frequency - of 5 year olds in the kill, however, it seems likely that current harvests may be curtailing recruitment beyond age 5. Although this may not further affect average trophy size, availability of trophy class animals could eventually be - limited to the size of the 5 year old cohort. The moose population of the central Alaska Peninsula, Game Management - Unit 9E, appears to have established via i11111igration southwest from the Naknek River drainage in the early 1930's (Faro 1969).
    [Show full text]
  • Southcentral Alaska Stock
    Revised: April 2014 NORTHERN SEA OTTER (Enhydra lutris kenyoni): Southcentral Alaska Stock STOCK DEFINITION AND GEOGRAPHIC RANGE Sea otters occur in nearshore coastal waters of the U.S. along the North Pacific Rim from the Aleutian Islands to California. The species is most commonly observed within the 40-meter (approximately 12.2 feet [ft]) depth contour because the animals require frequent access to benthic foraging habitat in subtidal and intertidal zones (Reidman and Estes 1990). Sea otters are not migratory and generally do not disperse over long distances, although movements of tens of kilometers (km) (tens of miles [mi]) are common (Garshelis and Garshelis 1984). Annual home range sizes of adult sea otters are relatively small, with male territories ranging from 4 to 11 square kilometers (km2) (approximately 10.5 to 28.5 square miles[mi2]) and adult female home ranges from a few to 24 km2 (approximately 62 mi2) (Garshelis and Garshelis 1984; Ralls et al. 1988; Jameson 1989). Due to their benthic foraging, sea otter distribution is largely limited by their ability to dive to the sea floor (Bodkin et al. 2004). 1 Figure 1. Approximate distribution and stock boundaries of northern sea otters in Alaska waters (shaded area). The spatial scale at which sea otter populations are managed remains an important, although largely unexplored issue (Bodkin and Ballachey 2010) deserving further study. Bodkin and Ballachey (2010) used models of sea otter mortality to show that range-wide reductions and extirpations during the commercial fur trade of the 18th and 19th centuries occurred not simply because of excessive harvest, but because the harvest was not allocated proportional to the abundance and distribution of sea otters.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Fire Variability in Siberian Alder in Interior Alaska: Distribution Patterns, Nitrogen Fixation Rates, and Ecosystem Consequences
    Post-fire variability in Siberian alder in Interior Alaska: distribution patterns, nitrogen fixation rates, and ecosystem consequences Item Type Thesis Authors Houseman, Brian Richard Download date 24/09/2021 00:34:34 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/11122/8128 POST-FIRE VARIABILITY IN SIBERIAN ALDER IN INTERIOR ALASKA: DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS, NITROGEN FIXATION RATES, AND ECOSYSTEM CONSEQUENCES By Brian Richard Houseman, B.A. A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Biological Sciences University of Alaska Fairbanks December 2017 APPROVED: Dr. Roger Ruess, Committee Chair Dr. Teresa Hollingsworth, Committee Co-Chair Dr. Dave Verbyla, Committee Member Dr. Kris Hundertmark, Chair Department of Biology and Wildlife Dr. Paul Layer, Dean College of Natural Science and Mathematics Dr. Michael Castellini, Dean of the Graduate School i ProQuest Number:10642427 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ProQuest 10642427 Published by ProQuest LLC ( 2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 ABSTRACT The circumpolar boreal forest is responsible for a considerable proportion of global carbon sequestration and is an ecosystem with limited nitrogen (N) pools.
    [Show full text]